Ninth Circuit strikes down Idaho stock water rules

Idaho rules around water rights were effectively designed to strip the feds of them, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit found.(CN) — A federal appeals court has delivered a victory to the federal government in a dispute over Idaho water rights.A lower court previously found that Idaho rules creating new forfeiture proceedings for water rights were constitutional. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed in part on Friday, finding Idaho’s so-called stock water amendments were effectively designed to divest the government of its water rights and violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.Idaho adopted its rules on stock water — that is, water used for livestock — after a state court determined the federal government had vast water-right holdings in Idaho. The federal government is a significant landowner in the Gem State, owning more than 60% of the state’s total land.Under the challenged Idaho rules, a water-rights owner (for example, the federal government) could lose water rights unless they could show the water was going to the “beneficial use” of livestock or that there was some relationship with an “agent” like a rancher who could use it.Since the federal government does not raise livestock, the rules effectively meant the U.S. government would lose water rights unless they agreed to give them to ranchers.Although the rules appeared to be neutral, they were in fact “part of a statutory scheme that is designed to divest” the government of its water rights, U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote for the court. She cited the Snake River Basin Adjudication, a major legal battle which ultimately affirmed the feds’ water rights in the state.Besides ruling on the water issues, the panel also affirmed a lower court ruling that a statute relating to the transfer of grazing permits and stock water rights was unconstitutional.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Along with Sung, U.S. Circuit Judge John Owens, a Barack Obama appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Holly Thomas, a Joe Biden appointee, rounded out the panel.Friday’s ruling echoed legal arguments previously made by the federal government. In 2022, the DOJ sued to block forfeiture of its water rights in the state, noting the federal government did not own any livestock for which its water could have beneficial use.U.S. District Judge David Nye, a Donald Trump appointee, rejected those arguments in 2024, giving the feds five years to productively use their water rights before they were subject to forfeiture. But Friday’s decision reversed key parts of that ruling, reaffirming those water rights.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads