Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 42-106 (2026)

Priority. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Priority. 

As between appropriators, the first in time is first in right.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “” Idaho Code § 42-106 . 22. “[Wjhile the doctrine of ‘first in time is first in right’ [applies to ground water rights] a reasonable exercise of this right shall not block full economic development of underground water resources.”
Musser v. Higginson, 871 P.2d 809 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 2× “The director must execute the laws relative to the distribution of water in accordance with rights of prior appropriation as provided in section 42-106, Idaho Code. The director of the department of water resources shall, in the distribution of water from the streams, rivers,…”
Crow v. Carlson, 690 P.2d 916 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 2× “15, § 3 provides, in pertinent part, “The right to divert and appropriate the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses, shall never be denied, except that the state may regulate and limit the use thereof for power purposes.”
Follett v. Taylor Bros., 294 P.2d 1088 (Idaho 1956). · cites it 4× “The application of the rule prohibits a party from establishing a right or title in himself under one provision or implication of an instrument while ignoring or contradicting another provision or implication which is destructive or fatally repugnant to such right or title.”
South Valley Ground Water v. ID Dept of Water Resources, 548 P.3d 734 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 2× “as it existed during the administrative proceedings. C. The district court erred in concluding that the Director’s Final Order did not comply with the prior appropriation doctrine.”
R.T. Nahas Co. v. Hulet, 752 P.2d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “] Hulet urges that the language emphasized above gives his claim superiority over rights that are unadjudicated.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.