WSP03203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ;'8.;,A) Water lion Board recycled paper I consqrves water I C:-.-"':':'_~~' THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201 /942 East 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 / (801) 561-5300 / FAX (801) 255-9642 Chairman - Larry Anderson; Executive DirectOr - Craig Bell; Editor - Craig Bell; Typist - Alona Banks LITIGATION Snake River Basin Adjudication . On June 23, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its ruling in an appeal involving the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA). The case centered on 1994 amendments to Idaho's water code for administering the SRBA. Idaho's Fifth District Court had ruled that most of these laws violated the state constitution, and concluded that the remaining statutes could not exist independently from the stricken provisions (WSW #1075). In an opinion by Chief Justice McDevitt, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, but concluded that the remaining provisions could be severed from the stricken provisions and allowed to stand. . The Idaho Supreme Court held valid the provision establishing the report of the Director of the Department of Water Resources as prima 'facie evidence of some water rights. However, it found invalid the legislation designating the Director's status as an expert witness in the SRBA, ruling that it conflicts with the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The court also held invalid the 1994 provision requiring that the portions of the Director's report to which no objections were filed be "decreed as reported." This provision, the opinion stated, "removes the authority of the courts to apply the facts to the law and render a conclusion" and thus "contradicts the rules established by this Court for entry of default judgment and divests the court of the power to correct even an egregious error that might eliminate or impair constitutionally recognized water rights." In general terms, the court rejected the contention that prior case law vested the Legislature with power to prescribe procedural rules for district courts. The opinion noted that the 1904 case cited as precedent depended on the rationale of a single justice, thus lacking future precedential value. It also noted factors limiting the scope of the justice's rationale, making it unpersuasive in this case. The court concluded the constitutional rule-making power of the courts "has never been, and can never be, delegated ...." On the separation of powers issue, the court ruled that the political question doctrine does not prohibit state agencies from appearing separately and asserting separate water rights claims in the SRBA. The opinion cited United States Supreme Court precedent adopted by Idaho courts on this point. The court noted that judicial standards applied to various state agencies' claims do not differ from those applied to other parties, and found that their resolution "will not create multiple, inconsistent pronouncements from various departments." Further, the court found no violation of due process rights of other claimants in the state's assertion of proprietary water rights claims, noting that all claimants are given a reasonable opportunity to !it1gete in the adjudication. The court also held that the 1994 requirement that the district court provide for the administration of water rights is not an impermissible delegation of executive authority. The district court had ruled that the statute improperly delegates executive administrative powers to the judicial branch. The Idaho Supreme Court found the provision does not require the judiciary to "actively administer the delivery of water in conformance with the decree." Instead, it merely requires the court to inciude general provisions for efficient water rights administration. The court declined to pass on the question of whether the 1994 legislation removes the adjudication from the terms of a "suif' under the McCarran Amendment. In the words of the opinion: "The question of whether the 1994 amendments remove the SRBA from the terms of the McCarran Amendment does not bring into question the authority of the Legislature to enact such statutes."