City of Blackfoot v. Gary Spackman

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the City of Blackfoot’s application for a groundwater permit because the City could not use water right 01-181C for recharge or mitigation without first obtaining an approved transfer. The court held that recharge was not included in the judicially decreed purpose-of-use element and that a private settlement agreement could not alter the decree’s defining elements. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the intervening irrigation districts and costs to the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

Holdings

1. Water Right No. 01-181C did not authorize groundwater recharge because recharge was not listed in its clear and unambiguous purpose-of-use element. The City therefore had to obtain an approved transfer before using the right for recharge or mitigation based on continued use of the right.
2. The private settlement agreement could not define, add, or subtract from the elements of the judicially adjudicated water right. It could only impose additional conditions and limitations on the exercise of the right between the private parties.
3. The seepage from Water Right No. 01-181C was incidental groundwater recharge and could not be used as the basis for a separate or expanded water right or as mitigation while the City continued using 181C without an approved transfer adding recharge.
4. The Coalition was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-117(1) because the City continued to pursue arguments that lacked a reasonable basis in law after the agency and district court had clearly rejected them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City could use Water Right No. 01-181C for groundwater recharge or as mitigation for Application for Permit No. 27-12261 without first obtaining an approved transfer.
2. Whether the private settlement agreement incorporated into the other-provisions element of Water Right No. 01-181C added recharge as an authorized purpose of use.
3. Whether the actual seepage from Water Right No. 01-181C could serve as mitigation notwithstanding the absence of recharge from the decreed purpose-of-use element.
4. Whether the Coalition was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed