Background
The Snake River Basin Adjudication’s 2014 final decree confirmed thousands of federal stockwater rights on federal land. Idaho later enacted a series of “stockwater amendments” that altered the rules governing such rights and created a procedure for determining whether stockwater rights had been forfeited. The United States sued Idaho, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, and its director, contending that several provisions unconstitutionally targeted federal rights. The Idaho Legislature and ranching interests intervened as defendants.
At summary judgment, the district court rejected jurisdictional objections and held that Idaho Code §§ 42-113(2)(b), 42-502, and 42-504 were facially unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, but upheld § 42-224 as applied to the United States. The United States appealed the § 42-224 ruling, while Idaho, legislative intervenors, and ranching intervenors cross-appealed the jurisdictional rulings and the invalidation of § 42-113(2)(b).
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine did not apply because the federal action challenged the constitutionality of Idaho statutes rather than asking the court to determine interests in particular water rights. Burford abstention was also unavailable because the case presented separable federal constitutional questions, did not challenge an Idaho agency determination, and would not improperly disrupt a coherent state regulatory policy.
On the merits, the court held that § 42-224 was unconstitutional as applied to the United States. Read in the context of the entire statutory scheme and its stated legislative purpose, the provision subjected the United States’ decreed stockwater rights to discriminatory forfeiture proceedings and burdensome collateral attacks. The court also affirmed that § 42-113(2)(b) was facially unconstitutional because it applied only to stockwater rights associated with federally owned or managed land and created a mechanism through which permittees could divest the United States of its rights. Both provisions therefore violated the Supremacy Clause.
Key Takeaways
- A constitutional challenge to state water legislation is not an in rem proceeding merely because the challenged laws affect water rights, so the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine did not bar the suit.
- A provision that appears largely neutral in isolation may unlawfully discriminate against the federal government when its statutory context, declared purpose, and practical operation show that it targets federal rights.
- Idaho Code § 42-224 is invalid as applied to the United States, while § 42-113(2)(b) is facially invalid.
Why It Matters
The decision protects federal stockwater rights confirmed in the Snake River Basin Adjudication from an Idaho statutory scheme designed to expose those rights to forfeiture and transfer them toward private permittees. It also illustrates that states may regulate water rights generally but cannot single out the federal government or federally associated property for unfavorable treatment.
The ruling further confirms that federal courts may adjudicate federal constitutional challenges involving state water regimes when doing so does not require them to assume control over particular water rights or resolve specialized questions of state water law.