The U.S. District Court for Idaho partially struck down a series of statutes that regulate water rights on federal lands.
The Idaho state flag hangs in the State Capitol in Boise, Idaho, on Jan. 9, 2023. Kyle Green/AP Photo
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho partially struck down several Idaho laws regulating water rights on federal lands. The court found some provisions unconstitutional but upheld a law concerning the forfeiture of water rights if they remain unused.
The case arose from a 2022 lawsuit by the federal government against the state and the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) that challenged the constitutionality of water rights statutes passed between 2017 and 2022.
The lawsuit focused on regulations affecting stockwater rights on federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) after the IDWR issued orders to the BLM requiring it to explain why 68 federal stockwater rights should not be forfeited, according to court documents.
Water rights in the western United States follow the “prior appropriation” doctrine, which prioritizes water allocation based on who used it first, the ruling stated.
These types of disputes intensified after a 2007 Idaho Supreme Court decision granted ranchers the right to water on federal lands if they had historically used it for livestock, the court order stated.
Idaho lawmakers enacted new statutes in the years since the state high court’s ruling, which the federal government argued violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal water rights.
The court’s Aug. 28 ruling found that two of the state’s procedural statutes were constitutional. These statutes address the forfeiture of unused water rights after five years and the procedures for initiating divestment proceedings.
Other statutes imposed new restrictions specifically on federally owned stock water rights, including limits on changes to their use and ownership requirements. The court found these restrictions unconstitutional for unfairly targeting the federal government.
“We were pleased to prevail on the most important issue in the case, by far: the question of whether stockwater rights of the federal government are subject to the same rules of forfeiture as those belonging to private landowners–an equal application of the Idaho law without special consideration for the federal government,” Dan Estes, a public information officer for Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, said in an email to The Epoch Times.
“The court thus upheld the constitutionality of Idaho’s forfeiture statutes as they apply to stockwater rights the United States acquires under Idaho law. Our office is reviewing the balance of the court decision to determine the best course of action forward.”
The federal government argued that it was immune from Idaho’s forfeiture proceedings, but the court rejected this claim, stating that sovereign immunity is a defense from lawsuits rather than a separate cause of action.
The state of Idaho and other defendants may appeal the decision.
The Bureau of Land Management declined The Epoch Times’ request for comment on the ruling.
