Court Opinion

ID: 9791380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:10:04.433898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.825691
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the result reached by Chief Justice Shepard in his plurality opinion, although not necessarily everything stated therein. Additionally, I wish to address in a different manner the question of whether or not the preservation of the waters of Malad Canyon in a natural state is a beneficial use that may be appropriated without the means of a diversion. (Parts II and III of that opinion).
The first question to be considered is whether any uses other than the uses referred to in Article 15, § 3, of the Idaho Constitution — domestic, mining, agricultural and manufacturing — can be beneficial uses of water under the Idaho Constitution. This section has remained unchanged since the adoption of the Idaho Constitution except for an amendment late in the 1920’s which added language that granted the state the right to regulate water use for power purposes. This amendment was of narrow scope and did not affect the structure of the section. For that reason, I do not believe that the amendment was intended to change any restrictions there may have been in the original section regarding the beneficial uses mentioned therein. Given this, the question becomes, did the draftsmen of the Idaho Constitution intend the priority scheme for *446the use of water under Article 15, § 3, for domestic, mining, agricultural and manufacturing purposes to be an exclusive listing of all beneficial uses ?
The Idaho Constitution does not explicitly answer this question. The debates preceding the adoption of Article 15, § 3, show that uses were listed so that definite priorities between uses would be elevated to constitutional status. Idaho Constitutional Convention, Proceedings and Debates, Vol. II, pp. 1115-48, 1154-66, 1330, 1331-33, 1340-43, 1350-65 (1889). The debates upon the section do not deal with the matter of whether or not these are the only possible beneficial uses; rather, they simply address themselves to the political question of which uses shall be preferred over the others. Neither the language of the section nor the debates concerning adoption of the section show an intent to limit the uses which may be beneficial uses to those the priorities of which are listed in the section. If the question posed is to be answered, the answer must be based upon considerations not found expressly within the language of the Constitution itself or the constitutional debates.
Article 15 of the Idaho Constitution does not concern itself with abstract notions such as the relationship between the citizenry and their government, but instead concerns itself with the very practical question of water rights. I think we should look to very practical considerations in attempting to construe it. Prior to the time that the Constitution was adopted there were a number of common uses of water which were neither domestic, mining, agricultural nor manufacturing. A community would store water in a tank for use in fighting fires. The operator of a livery stable or a stockyard would water the stock kept there. Logging operations used water both to transport logs and for storage in mill ponds. Communities would use water wagons to settle dust on their dirt streets.1 The railroad used water for its steam engines and other uses related to the operation of the railroad.2 All of *447these uses were undoubtedly considered beneficial, but none of them were domestic, mining, agricultural or manufacturing. I do not believe that by adopting Article 15, § 3, of the Idaho Constitution that it was intended that uses such as these could no longer be considered beneficial uses. On the contrary, the universal expectation must have been that such uses could continue and could be the subject of an appropriation. Many of those uses still continue today, and the changing needs of our society are generating new uses for water which are neither domestic, agricultural, mining nor manufacturing. As an example, many privately owned public swimming pools or health facilities have applied for and received licenses to drill their own wells to supply their water needs. Natural hot water springs have been extensively developed into health resorts, e. g., Lava Hot Springs, upon the assumption that they have obtained a valid right to the use of the water in their facilities. Such uses could not be considered as domestic, mining, agricultural or manufacturing as used in Article 15, § 3, without unduly broadening the definitions of the terms, yet such uses are no doubt beneficial from a societal point of view in that they contribute to the general welfare of the citizenry; and unless a valid water right could be obtained for such a use, not only would society suffer by the loss of such uses, but a great deal of capital which has been invested in reliance upon the validity of a right to such a use for water would be in jeopardy. I therefore conclude that uses other than those enumerated in Article 15, § 3, can be beneficial uses.
The next question is whether the use at issue in this case is beneficial. The uses enumerated by Article 15, § 3, have been raised to the status of beneficial uses by the Constitution, and they will remain beneficial uses so long as the Constitution is unchanged. But we have before us a use for scenic and recreational purposes. Even though the legislature has declared the use to be beneficial, this Court is the final arbiter of the construction of the Idaho Constitution, and therefore we must determine whether or not the scenic and recreational uses in this case are a “beneficial use” within the meaning of Article 15, § 3, of the Constitution. See Village of Moyie Springs, Idaho v. Aurora Manufacturing Co., 82 Idaho 337, 353 P.2d 767 (1960).
With the exception of those uses elevated to beneficial status by Article 15, § 3, of the Constitution, the concept of what is or is not a beneficial use must necessarily change with changing conditions. For example, if we were now presented with a question of whether or not using water to operate a public swimming pool, a fountain, or to flood a tract to provide ice for a skating rink were beneficial uses, a good argument could be presented that such uses, although not domestic, mining, agricultural or manufacturing uses, were nevertheless beneficial. But we cannot say that such uses will alwáys be beneficial because conditions might so change that these uses would be an unjustifiable use of water needed for other purposes. The notion of beneficiality of use must include a requirement of reasonableness. With the exception of the uses implicitly declared to be beneficial by Article 15, § 3, there is al*448ways a possibility that other uses beneficial in one era will not be in another and vice versa. As stated in Tulare Irrig. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrig. Dist., 3 Cal.2d 489, 45 P.2d 972, 1007 (1935):
“What is a beneficial use, of course, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. What may be a reasonable beneficial use, where water is present in excess of all needs, would not be a reasonable beneficial use in an area of great scarcity and great need. What is a beneficial use at one time may, because of changed conditions, become a waste of water at a later time.”
What we have decided in this case is that the use now before us, although not specifically listed in Article 15, § 3, of the Constitution, is beneficial because, considering today’s circumstances, the legislative classification is reasonable based on the record. I would restrict today’s holding to the narrow proposition that the use before us is beneficial so long as, and only so long as, the circumstances of water use in the state have not changed to the extent that it is no longer reasonable to continue this use at the expense of more desirable uses for more urgent needs. It should receive the same treatment as all other non-constitutional beneficial uses. The use before us is beneficial when considered in the abstract because a non-consumptive use of water at Malad Canyon to preserve a scenic attraction, both for aesthetic and recreational purposes, is desirable and beneficial, and because the demands upon the water resources of this state are not so severe that this use, which is beneficial when considered alone, becomes unreasonable and not beneficial when considered in conjunction with all of the water resource development needs in the state. This supports the legislative determination that non-consumptive appropriations of water in natural waterways for scenic and recreational purposes, among others, can, under proper circumstances, be a beneficial use; this follows precedents such as similar appropriations by the legislature in 1927 of the waters of Big Payette Lake, I.C. §§ 67-4301 to 67-4303, and of Priest, Pend Orielle and Coeur d’Alene Lakes, I.C. §§ 67-4304 to 67-4306. Our sister states of Oregon, Texas and California have also provided by statute that water used for recreational purposes is beneficially applied, while New Mexico has reached this result under case law. ORS §§ 536.300(1), 537.170(3) (a), 543.225(3) (a) ; Tex.Civ.Code Annot,, art. 7471 (1970 Supp.); Cal.Water Code § 1243; State ex rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co., 51 N.Mex. 207, 182 P.2d 421 (N.Mex.1945). The Oregon statutes further provide that use of water to maintain scenic attractions is a beneficial purpose. On this issue I am in agreement with the plurality in this case and with the other states named.
 However, in addition to determining whether this is a beneficial use, we must also decide whether or not the Constitution requires that all appropriations be made through the means of a diversion or whether the legislature may, as was done here, provide that an appropriation may be made without a diversion when the beneficial use provided for can be achieved without a diversion. As the plurality opinion points out, there has been no authoritative construction of Article 15, § 3, holding that that section requires a diversion for there to be a valid appropriation; neither does that section of the Constitution explicitly require a diversion for there to be an appropriation. We must again look to other sources for guidance in answering the question.
The common law doctrine of water rights was based upon the riparian system which limited the use of water to the stream, or to lands adjacent to the stream bed and required the water to be returned to the stream’s natural drainage, thus preventing any use which effectively diminished or removed the water from the stream channel on a permanent basis. While the riparian system of water use had some support in the early history of *449the west,3 it was soon apparent that the most productive use of water in these arid areas could not be accomplished by limiting the use of water to lands adjoining the stream and in the stream’s drainage, and requiring return of the water to the stream from which it was taken at a point on the riparian land upon which it was used, and thus a different system of water rights was necessary. Idaho was one of several western states which by adopting the common law of England in 1864 (1864 Idaho Session Laws, p. 527, § 1), had an early history of riparianism which, first by custom and later in 1881 by territorial legislation (1881 Idaho Session Laws, p. 267, §§ 1-20), was supplanted by the appropriation doctrine. See Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho 750, 23 P. 541 (1890), note particularly dissent of Berry, J.; Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 101 P. 1059 (1909). However, riparian rights were not totally rejected (R.S. §§ 3180— 3190 (1887)), but only to the extent that the riparian doctrine conflicted with the doctrine of appropriation. Thus, as recently as 1963, this court, in Weeks v. McKay, 85 Idaho 617, 382 P.2d 788 (1963), held that where both the riparian doctrine and the appropriation doctrine could co-exist, that the riparian doctrine was still in force in Idaho. In that case, a downstream appropriator sued to enjoin the maintenance of a dam by an upstream riparian owner. The Court held that while the riparian upstream owner could not interfere with the natural flow of the stream to which the downstream appropriator was entitled under his appropriative water right, nevertheless the downstream appropriator could not require the riparian owner to release water impounded in his dam so long as the natural flow was not interfered with.
As I view Article 15, § 3, of the Constitution, which guarantees “[t]he right to divert and appropriate the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial use . . . ” the use of the word “divert” in that section by the Constitutional Convention In 1890 was a constitutional recogntion of the supremacy of the prior appropriation doctrine with its concomitant right to remove waters from the stream bed and not return them, over the riparian system which would in effect require water to remain in the stream. In my view the use of the word “divert” was not used with the intention by the framers of the Constitution that no appropriative water right could be obtained without a diversion, but was inserted to guarantee the right of an appropriator to remove the water from the stream and consume it in a beneficial use and not return it. In summary, the word “divert” in Article 15, § 3, was used to mandate the supremacy of the prior appropriation doctrine over the riparian system and not to constitutionally limit the manner in which a prior appropriator could obtain his water right.
Where an appropriative water right does not require a diversion to make it effective and beneficial, in the absence of a statute requiring a diversion there appears to be no practical reason why a diversion should be required. As an example, in a case in which a scenic waterfall had produced a mist which caused unusual growth of attractive vegetation, it was said, “If nature accomplishes a result which is recognized and utilized, a change of process by man would seem unnecessary,” and, “Undoubtedly a landowner may rely upon an efficient application by nature, and need do no more than affirmatively to avail himself of it; . . . ” Empire Water & Power Co. v. Cascade Town Co., 205 F. 123 (8 Cir. 1913). In Steptoe Livestock Co. v. Gulley, 295 P. 772 (Nev.1931), in a case in which cattle were watered in a natural stream, it was said that “we are not with*450out authority to support the view that to constitute an appropriation where the statutes require no use of artificial means of diverting water, or where no diversion was required, that such appropriation might be made independent of both or either diversion or the use of artificial means in perfecting such appropriation.” 295 P. at 775. See also Stevenson v. Steele, 93 Idaho 4, 453 P.2d 819 (1969). I find these decisions to be persuasive for the contention that a diversion is not constitutionally necessary for an appropriation. If a beneficial use can be made of the water in its natural channel, Article 15, § 3, should not require the superfluous effort of construction of a diversion as a precondition for obtaining an appropriation. However, in an appropriation without a diversion, the right acquired is not to the stream flow as was the case under the riparian system, but to the use of a specific amount of water which is the subject of the right.4 That amount must be a reasonable and efficient use of the water. Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd., 44 Idaho 583, 258 P. 532 (1927); Union Grain & Elevator Co. v. McCammon Ditch Co., 41 Idaho 216, 240 P. 443 (1925).
Appellant Water Users argue that even if the constitution does not require a diversion, nevertheless the statutes relating to appropriations of water do. Regardless of the requirements of the general appropriations statutes, I concur with Chief Justice Shepard’s conclusion that the dear import of I.C. § 67-407 is to dispense with any physical diversion requirement.
The district court order granting a summary judgment reversing the decision of the Department of Water Administration in denying permit application # 37-7108, should be affirmed.
DONALDSON, J„ concurs.

. Research has not uncovered a case in which the precise point has been presented of whether or not a use other than one explicitly mentioned in Article 15, § 3, may be a beneficial use, but there are eases in which it has apparently been assumed that such uses are beneficial. In City of Pocatello v. Murray, 206 F. 72 (D.C.Idaho 1913), affirmed 214 F. 214 (C.A.9, 1914), a case interpreting the contract between the City of Pocatello and the operators of its waterworks franchise, the question of the quantity of water which the franchisees were obligated to deliver was at issue. It was said in that case that the uses to which the water was to be put by the municipality included street sprinkling and protection against fire. The franchisees in the case were claiming that they were not obligated to deliver as much water as the City of Pocatello demanded. If it had been in the general contemplation of the law at that time that a city could not appropriate water for settling the dust on its streets or for storage for fighting fires, the franchisees probably would have argued that the city had no right to put the water to all the uses for which it was putting it, and thus the franchisees were under no obligation to deliver as much water as the city demanded. But the opinion reveals no challenge to the city’s right to i)ut water to these uses. Thus, it would seem that street sprinkling and firefighting were recognized as beneficial uses of water by the parties to that 1913 case, even though they were not mentioned in the Constitution.

. A review of the transcript in the case of Beus v. City of Soda Springs, 62 Idaho 1, 107 P.2d 151 (1940), reveals that as early as 1902 a district court in Idaho had adjudicated a water right, with a i>riority date of 1885 (before the adoption of the Idaho Constitution), which was in part to be used for purposes other than those listed in Article 15, § 3. In the Be ns case a number of parties were litigating their rights to remove water from Ledge Creek, a small stream near Soda Springs. The Oregon Short Line Railroad Company was made a party to a suit, but all the parties to the suit agreed to the following stipulation with regard to the railroad’s rights, as set out in the trial court’s Finding of Fact IV:
“ ‘It is hereby stipulated [by all the parties] that no controversy exists between the parties with respect to the water right of the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, and it may be decreed that said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company is the owner and entitled to the use of % of a cubic foot per second of waters of Ledge Creek . . . with priority date of April 1, 1885, as decreed to it by Decree of Fifth *447•Tudicial District Court in and for Bannock County, dated April 6, 1902, [in the ease of Wetzel v. Nichols]’ and which stipulation is hereby approved and adopted by the court ; and which water is for use of said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company for the operation of its trains and for the supply of the depot and stockyards of said railroad company . . . .” (Clk.Tr. pp. 729-730).
All the parties stipulated to the validity of the railroad’s appropriation for water for the operation of its trains, i. e., water for the steam engines’ boilers, and for use in watering stock in transit in its stockyard. At least one, and perhaps both of these uses are non-Article 15, § 3, uses. It must have been assumed by the parties to the suit that these appropriations were unassailable, or such a stipulation would not have been entered into, This is further evidence that non-Article 15, § 3, uses were recognized from the territorial times in Idaho and in the early days of statehood and into the 1930’s.

. 1 Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States, pp. 130-225; see Union Mill & Mining Co. v. Dangberg, 81 F. 73 (C.C.D.Nev.1897); Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho 750, 23 P. 541 (Berry, J., dissenting) (1890); Smith v. Denniff, 24 Mont. 20, 60 P. 398 (1900); Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249 (1872).

. With regard to the Malad Canyon appropriation, I.C. § 67-4312 provides:
“67-4312. Permits for appropriation under sections 67-4307 — 67-4311.—The permits for the waters described in this act shall be issued upon the determination by the director of water administration of the historical water flow and he shall issue a permit for only that amount. Any future appropriation of the waters specifically described in this act that are granted above the flow limits set by the director shall not involve any diversion that shall detract from or interfere with the geological interpretive value, historical significance, or the scenic attraction for public use under the administration of the state park board [park and recreation board] of the stream from the natural high water mark on one (1) bank to the natural high water mark on the opposite bank, or of the springs specifically described as they arise upon the lands listed in this act.
“The state park board [park and recreation board] shall apply first for those permits for water arising upon land which, at the time of enactment, the board administers, controls, or owns.”