Court Opinion

ID: 9529930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:55:34.456006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:57.430619
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Justice,
Specially Concurring.
On its face it might appear that this case is inconsistent with the decision in Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, 128 Idaho 371, 913 P.2d 1141 (1996), in which this Court found standing to adjudicate an issue when *43only one plaintiff stated a conclusory and speculative potential injury. It is obvious in this ease that a very large body of water users have a clear interest in the events that have taken place and that rights which they have may be adversely impacted by those events. It appears incongruous that this Court has opened its doors to a vaguely defined possible injury that almost certainly will not occur in Boundary Backpackers and closed its doors to water users in this ease whose contract rights are well-defined and whose futures are clearly threatened. The apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that in this ease standing is determined by statute, I.C. § 42-1401A(l), not the policy of this Court. I concur in this case because the water users are precluded by statute from being heard, though their interests are clearly at stake. No similar statute limited the plaintiff in Boundary Backpackers.