Legislative purpose — Minimum stream flow declared beneficial use.
The legislature of the state of Idaho hereby declares that the public health, safety and welfare require that the streams of this state and their environments be protected against loss of water supply to preserve the minimum stream flows required for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty, transportation and navigation values, and water quality. The preservation of the water of the streams of this state for such purposes when made pursuant to this act is necessary and desirable for all the inhabitants of this state, is in the public interest and is hereby declared to be a beneficial use of such water. The legislature further declares that minimum stream flow is a beneficial use of water of the streams of this state for the purpose of protecting such waters from interstate diversion to other states or by the federal government for use outside the boundaries of the state of Idaho. Minimum stream flows as established hereunder shall be prior in right to any claims asserted by any other state, government agency, or person for out of state diversion. It is, therefore, necessary that authority be granted to receive, consider, approve or reject applications for permits to appropriate water of the streams of this state to such beneficial uses to preserve such water from subsequent appropriation to other beneficial uses under the provisions of chapter 2, title 42, Idaho Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1981–2019 · leading case:
Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).
Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 10× “Fortunately, however, the legislature did provide guidance in a related statute, I.C. § 42-1501. We also derive assistance from our sister states and from the academic community.”
Matter of Hidden Springs Trout Ranch, Inc., 636 P.2d 745 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 12× “XV, § 7, has developed a state water plan, and in 1978, the same year that minimum flow legislation was adopted, the legislature moved to insure that the state water plan included safeguards for certain specified waters of the state.”
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 252 P.3d 71 (Idaho 2011).
· cites it 2× “icial uses “drinking water,” Idaho Code § 39-102 (2), “the watering of domestic livestock,” Idaho Code § 42-114 , using low temperature geothermal resources “primarily for heat value,” Idaho Code § 42-233 , using instream water “for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat,…”
Hardy v. Higginson, 849 P.2d 946 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 2× “In Shokal , this Court found that the legislature intended the public interest on the local scale to include the public interest elements listed in I.C. § 42-1501 which includes the protection of fish and wildlife habitat.”
State v. United States, 996 P.2d 806 (Idaho 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d 924, 928 (1974); I.C. §§ 42-1501 to -1505. *812 Neither of these exceptions covers the United States' claim.”
State v. United States, 996 P.2d 806 (Idaho 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d 924, 928 (1974); I.C. §§ 42-1501 to -1505. *112 Neither of these exceptions covers the United States’ claim.”
USA & Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. State of Idaho (Idaho 2019).
· cites it 2× “, I.C. § 42-1501. 26 “This quantity of water” refers to the water sufficient to establish a fishery to satisfy the fishing purposes of the tribe.”
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.