11 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Distribution of Water to Various Water Rightsgreen2 sentences2024XV, § 3; I.C. § 42-106; Clear Springs v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 , 801–04, 252 P.3d 71 , 82–85 (2011). 21 The prior appropriation doctrine consists of two core principles, “that the first appropriator in time is the first in right and that water must be placed to a beneficial use.” A&B v. Spackman, 155 Idaho 640, 650 , 315 P.3d 828, 838 (2013). 2024XV, § 3; I.C. § 42-106; Clear Springs v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 , 801–04, 252 P.3d 71 , 82–85 (2011). 21 The prior appropriation doctrine consists of two core principles, “that the first appropriator in time is the first in right and that water must be placed to a beneficial use.” A&B v. Spackman, 155 Idaho 640, 650 , 315 P.3d 828, 838 (2013). | 1 | 2 |
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackmangreen2 sentences2024XV, § 3; I.C. § 42-106; Clear Springs v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 , 801–04, 252 P.3d 71 , 82–85 (2011). 21 The prior appropriation doctrine consists of two core principles, “that the first appropriator in time is the first in right and that water must be placed to a beneficial use.” A&B v. Spackman, 155 Idaho 640, 650 , 315 P.3d 828, 838 (2013). 2024XV, § 3; I.C. § 42-106; Clear Springs v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 , 801–04, 252 P.3d 71 , 82–85 (2011). 21 The prior appropriation doctrine consists of two core principles, “that the first appropriator in time is the first in right and that water must be placed to a beneficial use.” A&B v. Spackman, 155 Idaho 640, 650 , 315 P.3d 828, 838 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Sylte v. Idaho Dep't of Water Res.green2 sentences2024Sylte v. IDWR, 165 Idaho 238, 245 , 443 P.3d 252, 259 (2019) (quoting Gilbert v. Smith, 97 Idaho 735, 739 , 552 P.2d 1220, 1224 (1976)). 40 At its core, the prior appropriation doctrine “contemplates a balance between the ‘bedrock principles’ of priority of right and beneficial use.” IGWA, 160 Idaho at 132, 369 P.3d at 910 (quoting In re A&B, 155 Idaho at 650 , 315 P.3d at 838 ). 2024Sylte v. IDWR, 165 Idaho 238, 245 , 443 P.3d 252, 259 (2019) (quoting Gilbert v. Smith, 97 Idaho 735, 739 , 552 P.2d 1220, 1224 (1976)). 40 At its core, the prior appropriation doctrine “contemplates a balance between the ‘bedrock principles’ of priority of right and beneficial use.” IGWA, 160 Idaho at 132, 369 P.3d at 910 (quoting In re A&B, 155 Idaho at 650 , 315 P.3d at 838 ). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024Sylte v. IDWR, 165 Idaho 238, 245 , 443 P.3d 252, 259 (2019) (quoting Gilbert v. Smith, 97 Idaho 735, 739 , 552 P.2d 1220, 1224 (1976)). 40 At its core, the prior appropriation doctrine “contemplates a balance between the ‘bedrock principles’ of priority of right and beneficial use.” IGWA, 160 Idaho at 132, 369 P.3d at 910 (quoting In re A&B, 155 Idaho at 650 , 315 P.3d at 838 ). 2024Sylte v. IDWR, 165 Idaho 238, 245 , 443 P.3d 252, 259 (2019) (quoting Gilbert v. Smith, 97 Idaho 735, 739 , 552 P.2d 1220, 1224 (1976)). 40 At its core, the prior appropriation doctrine “contemplates a balance between the ‘bedrock principles’ of priority of right and beneficial use.” IGWA, 160 Idaho at 132, 369 P.3d at 910 (quoting In re A&B, 155 Idaho at 650 , 315 P.3d at 838 ). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Ground Water Appropriators v. Dept of Water Resources (42775) and City of Pocatello v. Rangen, Inc. (42836)green2 sentences2024See, e.g., IGWA. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 119, 130 , 369 P.3d 897, 908 (2016) (the Conjunctive Management Rules integrate all elements of the prior appropriation doctrine as established by Idaho law); AFRD#2, 143 Idaho 862 , 154 P.3d 433 (the SRBA court’s issuance of partial decrees did not prevent the Director from considering the material injury factors in the Conjunctive Management Rules during a delivery call). 2024See, e.g., IGWA. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 119, 130 , 369 P.3d 897, 908 (2016) (the Conjunctive Management Rules integrate all elements of the prior appropriation doctrine as established by Idaho law); AFRD#2, 143 Idaho 862 , 154 P.3d 433 (the SRBA court’s issuance of partial decrees did not prevent the Director from considering the material injury factors in the Conjunctive Management Rules during a delivery call). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ben Adairgreen1 sentence2019Adair, 723 F.2d at 1418 (“The hunting and fishing rights themselves belong to the Tribe and may not be transferred to a third party” and thus “no subsequent transferee may acquire that right of use or the reserved water necessary to fulfill that use.”). 24 The prior appropriation doctrine is loosely embodied in the phrase “first in time, first in right,” which means the first appropriator of water to put it to beneficial use has the first claim to the water being put to use. 51 of a newly created federal reservation and find that the purposes for which Winters rights are implied arise at the t | 1 | 1 |
Bower v. Moormangreen2 sentences2011Bower v. Moorman, 27 Idaho 162, 181 , 147 P. 496, 502 (1915). 2011Bower v. Moorman, 27 Idaho 162, 181 , 147 P. 496, 502 (1915). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2011Compare “Noh was inconsistent with the full economic development of our ground water resources,” Baker at 581-82 , 513 P.2d at 633-34 , with “We hold Noh to be inconsistent with the constitutionally enunciated policy of optimum development of water resources in the public interest,” id. at 583, 513 P.2d at 635 . 2011Compare “Noh was inconsistent with the full economic development of our ground water resources,” Baker at 581-82 , 513 P.2d at 633-34 , with “We hold Noh to be inconsistent with the constitutionally enunciated policy of optimum development of water resources in the public interest,” id. at 583, 513 P.2d at 635 . | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Leekgreen2 sentences2007The prior appropriation doctrine recognizes that two or more parties can obtain a right to use water from the same source. “[T]wo parties may at the same time be in possession of water from a creek and neither hold adverse to the other; each may justly claim the right to use the water he is using, without affecting the rights of the other.” Graham v. Leek, 65 Idaho 279 , 144 P.2d 475, 480-81 (1943) (quoting from St. 2007The prior appropriation doctrine recognizes that two or more parties can obtain a right to use water from the same source. “[T]wo parties may at the same time be in possession of water from a creek and neither hold adverse to the other; each may justly claim the right to use the water he is using, without affecting the rights of the other.” Graham v. Leek, 65 Idaho 279 , 144 P.2d 475, 480-81 (1943) (quoting from St. | 1 | 1 |
Sarret v. Huntergreen2 sentences2007“The rights of appropriators were regulated in the first instance by local customs, and out of these initial sources grew our present laws and rules with respect to irrigation.” Sarret v. Hunter, 32 Idaho 536, 542 , 185 P. 1072, 1074 (1919). 2007“The rights of appropriators were regulated in the first instance by local customs, and out of these initial sources grew our present laws and rules with respect to irrigation.” Sarret v. Hunter, 32 Idaho 536, 542 , 185 P. 1072, 1074 (1919). | 1 | 1 |
St. Onge v. Blakelygreen2 sentences2007Onge v. Blakely, 76 Mont. 1 , 245 P. 532, 536 (1926)). 2007Onge v. Blakely, 76 Mont. 1 , 245 P. 532, 536 (1926)). | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Earhartgreen2 sentences1974See 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). 1974See 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). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., IGWA. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 119, 130 , 369 P.3d 897, 908 (2016) (the Conjunctive Management Rules integrate all elements of the prior appropriation doctrine as established by Idaho law); AFRD#2, 143 Idaho 862 , 154 P.3d 433 (the SRBA court’s issuance of partial decrees did not prevent the Director from considering the material injury factors in the Conjunctive Management Rules during a delivery call). 2024See, e.g., IGWA. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 119, 130 , 369 P.3d 897, 908 (2016) (the Conjunctive Management Rules integrate all elements of the prior appropriation doctrine as established by Idaho law); AFRD#2, 143 Idaho 862 , 154 P.3d 433 (the SRBA court’s issuance of partial decrees did not prevent the Director from considering the material injury factors in the Conjunctive Management Rules during a delivery call). | 5 | 2013–2024 |
Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co.
green
2 sentences2014In Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co., 48 Idaho 383 , 283 P. 522 (1929), downstream natural flow water users sued to enjoin upstream users with junior storage water rights from interfering with the downstream users’ rights. 2014In Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co., 48 Idaho 383 , 283 P. 522 (1929), downstream natural flow water users sued to enjoin upstream users with junior storage water rights from interfering with the downstream users’ rights. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Wd170
green
1 sentence2024“A water user has no property interest in being free from the State’s regulation of water distribution in accordance with the prior appropriation doctrine. . . .” Thompson Creek, 148 Idaho at 213–14, 220 P.3d at 331–32. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Thompson Creek Mining Co. v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
green
1 sentence2024“A water user has no property interest in being free from the State’s regulation of water distribution in accordance with the prior appropriation doctrine. . . .” Thompson Creek, 148 Idaho at 213–14, 220 P.3d at 331–32. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Joyce Livestock Co., 144 Idaho at 7 -8 , 156 P.3d at 508 -09 . 2019Joyce Livestock Co., 144 Idaho at 7 -8 , 156 P.3d at 508 -09 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Noh v. Stoner
green
2 sentences2011In Noh v. Stoner, 53 Idaho 651 , 26 P.2d 1112 (1933), we held, with respect to ground water rights, that the prior appropriation doctrine protected the senior appropriator’s means of diversion. 2011In Noh v. Stoner, 53 Idaho 651 , 26 P.2d 1112 (1933), we held, with respect to ground water rights, that the prior appropriation doctrine protected the senior appropriator’s means of diversion. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Parker v. Wallentine
green
2 sentences2011For example, in Parker v. Wallentine, 103 Idaho 506 , 650 P.2d 648 (1982), the Department of Water Resources granted a permit for an irrigation well, but when a pump test was performed on the well, it lowered the water table to the extent that an existing domestic well ceased to produce water. 2011For example, in Parker v. Wallentine, 103 Idaho 506 , 650 P.2d 648 (1982), the Department of Water Resources granted a permit for an irrigation well, but when a pump test was performed on the well, it lowered the water table to the extent that an existing domestic well ceased to produce water. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McGuire v. Lamb
neutral
1 sentence2007Malad Valley Irrigation Co. v. Campbell, 2 Idaho 378 , 18 P. 52 (1888). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Malad Valley Irrigating Co. v. Campbell
neutral
1 sentence2007Malad Valley Irrigation Co. v. Campbell, 2 Idaho 378 , 18 P. 52 (1888). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Idaho Dept. of Water Resources v. United States
green
1 sentence2007Congress understood this fact and that is why the laws concerning appropriation were left up to each individual state.” Idaho Dept. of Water Resources v. U.S., 122 Idaho 116, 124 , 882 P.2d 289 , 297 (1992). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co.
green
2 sentences1974See 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). 1974See 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). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Weeks v. McKay
neutral
2 sentences1974Thus, 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. 1974Thus, 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. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.