Ninth Circuit: Strikes Idaho Stock Water Rules as Unconstitutional

• A Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled Idaho's "stock water amendments" unconstitutional.
• The court found these rules were designed to divest the federal government of its water rights by requiring beneficial use for livestock.
• The amendments violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
• The ruling reversed a lower court decision and reaffirmed federal water rights in Idaho.
• Idaho had enacted these rules after a state court confirmed extensive federal water holdings in the state.

This outcome clarifies that state laws attempting to indirectly divest the federal government of its water rights through specific 'beneficial use' requirements, such as for livestock, are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

A federal appeals court has sided with the U.S. government in a significant dispute over water rights in Idaho, overturning a lower court's decision. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled on Friday that Idaho's specific regulations, known as the "stock water amendments," were unconstitutional. These amendments were found to be an indirect attempt to strip the federal government of its water rights within the state.

The court determined that Idaho's rules violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause because they effectively mandated that water rights holders, including the federal government, demonstrate "beneficial use" for livestock or establish a connection with an "agent" such as a rancher. Since the federal government does not engage in livestock farming, these provisions would have compelled it to either forfeit its water rights or transfer them to private ranchers. This ruling reverses a previous finding by a district court that had deemed Idaho's forfeiture proceedings constitutional.

Idaho enacted these particular stock water rules following a state court's determination that the federal government possessed extensive water right holdings across the state. The federal government is a major landowner in Idaho, controlling over 60% of the state's total land area. The challenged amendments were designed to create new forfeiture procedures for these water rights, specifically targeting the federal government's unique position.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, writing for the court, clarified that despite their seemingly neutral language, the rules constituted "part of a statutory scheme that is designed to divest" the federal government of its water rights. This strategic intent was evident in the context of prior legal battles, such as the Snake River Basin Adjudication, which had previously affirmed the federal government's water rights in Idaho. In addition to striking down the stock water rules, the panel also upheld a lower court's decision that a separate statute concerning the transfer of grazing permits and stock water rights was unconstitutional. The panel included Judges John Owens and Holly Thomas alongside Judge Sung.

The Ninth Circuit's decision directly addressed arguments previously made by the federal government. In 2022, the Department of Justice initiated a lawsuit to prevent the forfeiture of its water rights in Idaho, emphasizing that the federal government did not own livestock for which its water could be put to beneficial use. U.S. District Judge David Nye had initially rejected these arguments in 2024, granting the federal government a five-year period to demonstrate productive use of its water rights before they became subject to forfeiture.

However, Friday's appellate ruling reversed these key aspects of Judge Nye's decision, thereby reaffirming the federal government's water rights in Idaho. This outcome clarifies that state laws attempting to indirectly divest the federal government of its water rights through specific 'beneficial use' requirements, such as for livestock, are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The ruling underscores the limitations on state authority when it comes to federal government water rights Idaho, particularly when such regulations are perceived as a strategic maneuver to undermine established federal holdings.

This ruling clarifies that state laws attempting to indirectly divest the federal government of its water rights through specific 'beneficial use' requirements, such as for livestock, are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Lawyers should advise clients with federal land or water interests in Idaho, or other states considering similar legislative schemes, that such state actions are vulnerable to legal challenge.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service