Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 42-1701A (2026)

Hearings before director — Appeals.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Hearings before director — Appeals.

(1) All hearings required by law to be held before the director of the department of water resources shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, and rules of procedure promulgated by the director.

(2) The director, in his discretion, may direct that a hearing be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the director. In such event, the hearing officer shall have the duty to make a complete record of the evidence presented and duly received at the hearing and to prepare a recommended or preliminary order in accordance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, and rules of procedure promulgated by the director.

(3) Unless the right to a hearing before the director or the water resource board is otherwise provided by statute, any person aggrieved by any action of the director, including any decision, determination, order or other action, including action upon any application for a permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or similar form of permission required by law to be issued by the director, who is aggrieved by the action of the director, and who has not previously been afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the matter shall be entitled to a hearing before the director to contest the action. The person shall file with the director, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice of the action issued by the director, or receipt of actual notice, a written petition stating the grounds for contesting the action by the director and requesting a hearing. The director shall give such notice of the petition as is necessary to provide other affected persons an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The hearing shall be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section. Judicial review of any final order of the director issued following the hearing shall be had pursuant to subsection (4) of this section.

(4) Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision or order of the director is entitled to judicial review. The judicial review shall be had in accordance with the provisions and standards set forth in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.

(5) The director shall not issue an order establishing a new or revised methodology for determining material injury under the rules for conjunctive management of surface and ground water resources without first giving affected persons notice and an opportunity to request a hearing in accordance with section 67-5242, Idaho Code, prior to issuance of such order, except in emergency proceedings under section 67-5247, Idaho Code, or informal disposition under section 67-5241, Idaho Code. Any final order issued pursuant to this subsection shall be issued no later than December 1 prior to the year such order takes effect. If a hearing is held pursuant to this subsection, any person aggrieved by the final order shall not be entitled to a hearing as provided in subsection (3) of this section. This subsection shall not apply to any orders that implement or apply the methodology steps for purposes of conjunctive water right administration.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Musser v. Higginson, 871 P.2d 809 (Idaho 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Musser v. Higginson, 871 P.2d 809 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 8× “By its terms, I.C. § 42-1701A(3) applies only to “any applicant for any permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or similar form of permission required by law to be issued by the director.”

Matter of Hidden Springs Trout Ranch, Inc., 636 P.2d 745 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 8× “In addition, the legislature in 1980 made it abundantly clear that judicial review of Department of Water Resources actions is for "final" decisions or orders, and that such review is subject to the provisions and standards of I.”

Thompson Creek Mining Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 220 P.3d 318 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “The director’s order is subject to judicial review as provided in section 42-1701A, Idaho Code. Before entering an order creating, modifying, or abolishing a district, the director shall, by regular mail, send notice of the proposed action to each water user in the district or…”

Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to I.C. § 42-1701A(3), the Relief Order provided that aggrieved parties were entitled to an administrative hearing on the Relief Order if requested within fifteen days, but that otherwise the Relief Order would become final.”

Dovel v. Dobson, 831 P.2d 527 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 4× “The district judge concluded that the director's decision was neither clearly erroneous nor characterized by abuse of discretion. Dovel appealed to this Court.”

Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 371 P.3d 305 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 2× “4 I.C. § 42-1701A(4) (“Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision or order of the director is entitled to judicial review.”

A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 284 P.3d 225 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “Whether the district court erred in imposing the “clear and convincing” evidence standard on the Director’s determination of material injury in a delivery call. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Judicial review of a final decision or order of the Director is governed by the Idaho…”

3g Ag LLC v. Idwr, 509 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 2× “Thus, the district court concluded 5 that Duffin’s application for transfer under Idaho Code section 42-222(1) was appropriately denied by IDWR.”

Collins Bros. v. Dunn, 759 P.2d 891 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 16× “The proposed decision and order gave notice to all who took part in the hearing that, pursuant to I.C. §§ 42-1701A and 67-5211, they had the opportunity to file exceptions to the proposed order and to present briefs and request a hearing and present oral arguments in response to…”

Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 255 P.3d 1152 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 42-1701A(4). In an appeal from a decision of the district court acting in its appellate capacity under the APA, this Court reviews the agency reeord independently of the district court’s decision.”

A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 301 P.3d 1270 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 4× “IDWR contends that it was entrusted with the responsibility to administer the IAPA by Idaho Code section 42-1701A(1) which states, “All hearings required by law to be held before the director of the department of water resources shall be conducted in accordance with the…”

McInturff v. Shippy (In Re Csrba Case No. 49576, Subcase No. 91-7094. ), 447 P.3d 937 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 4× “See I.C. §§ 42-1701A, 67-5271. Therefore, Shippy and Cedar Creek have not exhausted their administrative remedies and may not raise the issue for the first time in the CSRBA.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 42-1701A(1) — 4 cases

Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).

A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 301 P.3d 1270 (Idaho 2012). “IDWR contends that it was entrusted with the responsibility to administer the IAPA by Idaho Code section 42-1701A(1) which states, “All hearings required by law to be held before the director of the department of water resources shall be conducted in accordance with the…”

Collins Bros. v. Dunn, 759 P.2d 891 (Idaho 1988). “The proposed decision and order gave notice to all who took part in the hearing that, pursuant to I.C. §§ 42-1701A and 67-5211, they had the opportunity to file exceptions to the proposed order and to present briefs and request a hearing and present oral arguments in response to…”

Whittaker v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources (Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 42-1701A(3) — 4 cases

Musser v. Higginson, 871 P.2d 809 (Idaho 1994). “By its terms, I.C. § 42-1701A(3) applies only to “any applicant for any permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or similar form of permission required by law to be issued by the director.”

Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007). “Pursuant to I.C. § 42-1701A(3), the Relief Order provided that aggrieved parties were entitled to an administrative hearing on the Relief Order if requested within fifteen days, but that otherwise the Relief Order would become final.”

Clear Lakes Trout Co., Inc. v. Clear Springs Foods, Inc., 106 P.3d 443 (Idaho 2005).

— Idaho Code § 42-1701A(4) — 15 cases

Dovel v. Dobson, 831 P.2d 527 (Idaho 1992). “The district judge concluded that the director's decision was neither clearly erroneous nor characterized by abuse of discretion. Dovel appealed to this Court.”

Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 371 P.3d 305 (Idaho 2016). “4 I.C. § 42-1701A(4) (“Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision or order of the director is entitled to judicial review.”

A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 284 P.3d 225 (Idaho 2012). “Whether the district court erred in imposing the “clear and convincing” evidence standard on the Director’s determination of material injury in a delivery call. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Judicial review of a final decision or order of the Director is governed by the Idaho…”

3g Ag LLC v. Idwr, 509 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2022). “Thus, the district court concluded 5 that Duffin’s application for transfer under Idaho Code section 42-222(1) was appropriately denied by IDWR.”

Matter of Hidden Springs Trout Ranch, Inc., 636 P.2d 745 (Idaho 1981). “In addition, the legislature in 1980 made it abundantly clear that judicial review of Department of Water Resources actions is for "final" decisions or orders, and that such review is subject to the provisions and standards of I.”

— Idaho Code § 42-1701A(l) — 1 case

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.