Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman
Citations: 252 P.3d 71; 150 Idaho 790; 2011 Ida. LEXIS 44Docket: 37308-2010
Court: Idaho Supreme Court; March 17, 2011; Idaho; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed a district court judgment regarding curtailment orders affecting junior groundwater users whose water withdrawals were injuring senior appropriators' surface water rights. The appeal involved Clear Springs Foods, Inc. and Blue Lakes Trout Farm, Inc. (the "Spring Users"), who hold rights to springs fed by the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, and the Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. along with associated groundwater districts (the "Groundwater Users"), who possess rights to pump from the Aquifer. The court's decision upheld that the groundwater withdrawals from the Aquifer, which is hydraulically connected to the Snake River, lead to adverse effects on the surface water supply. The ruling also addressed a cross-appeal from senior appropriators seeking further groundwater curtailments, which was denied. The district court's action was based on the interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water in the region, emphasizing that groundwater extraction impacts river water levels. Groundwater appropriations from the Aquifer have significantly increased since the 1950s, with an average annual recharge and discharge of approximately 7.5 million acre-feet, of which about 2.0 million acre-feet is depleted through withdrawals, primarily for irrigation (95%). Following two decades of increased pumping, diminished river flow led the Idaho Power Company to initiate litigation against the State and other water users to affirm its water rights at Swan Falls Dam, the first hydroelectric dam on the Snake River. The case, Idaho Power Co. v. State, stemmed from a ratepayer's complaint about overcharging due to Idaho Power's failure to protect its water rights, prompting the company to assert its rights in court. Key issues included a subordination clause in a federal license from 1955 for the Hells Canyon project, which Idaho Power had accepted to secure political backing. This clause was interpreted by a district court as applying to all of Idaho Power's water rights across the Snake River watershed, including Swan Falls. However, on appeal, this ruling was reversed, leading Idaho Power to file a second lawsuit against the State and around 7,500 water rights claimants. Idaho Power held a federal court decree granting it water rights of 9,450 c.f.s. at Swan Falls, with a plant capacity of 8,400 c.f.s. To resolve the ongoing disputes, the Swan Falls Agreement was executed on October 25, 1984, wherein Idaho Power was granted an unsubordinated right to flow rates of 3,900 c.f.s. from April 1 to October 31, and 5,600 c.f.s. from November 1 to March 31, measured at the Murphy U.S.G.S. gauging station, with these flows protected from depletion. The State committed to advancing legislation for the general adjudication of the Snake River Basin's water rights, leading to the legislature's enactment of a statute aimed at determining the rights of all groundwater and surface water users in the basin. On June 17, 1987, R. Keith Higginson, as Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, initiated the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA), which the court officially commenced on November 19, 1987. A 1994 legislative committee report highlighted the lack of conjunctive management between the Snake River Plain Aquifer and the Snake River, emphasizing the need for a thorough understanding of the legal relationship between groundwater and surface water rights. The SRBA primarily aimed to clarify the rights of groundwater pumpers compared to Idaho Power at Swan Falls Dam. In 1994, the Department implemented rules for conjunctive management statewide and developed a calibrated groundwater model to assess the impacts of various water use scenarios. On March 22, 2005, Blue Lakes demanded the Department enforce water rights under Idaho law for its senior rights, followed by a similar demand from Clear Springs on May 2, 2005. The Director responded to these demands without a hearing, issuing curtailment orders for specific junior groundwater users on May 19 and July 8, 2005. Groundwater Users sought to intervene, and both they and Spring Users requested a hearing. A hearing officer was appointed on August 1, 2007, with hearings beginning November 28, 2007, lasting twelve days. The hearing officer issued findings on January 11, 2008, which were largely adopted by the Director in a final order on July 11, 2008. Clear Springs petitioned for judicial review, while Blue Lakes and Groundwater Users filed cross petitions. The district court upheld most of the final order, leading to a reconsideration request that resulted in one modification before issuing a final decision. The Groundwater Users appealed, and the Spring Users cross-appealed. Groundwater Users raised several issues on appeal regarding the district court's rulings on curtailment orders related to groundwater use. They questioned whether the court erred in determining that the orders did not breach the Swan Falls Agreement or the full economic development provision of Idaho Code § 42-226. Additionally, they challenged the court's affirmation of the Director’s findings that groundwater depletions caused significant injury to Spring Users' water rights and that the Spring Users’ delivery calls were valid. They also contested the reliance on the groundwater model and the absence of a hearing before the issuance of curtailment orders. Spring Users, conversely, argued that the district court failed to compel the Director to implement further curtailments of groundwater pumping. The legal framework for the review of agency actions states that the court must uphold the agency's findings unless they violate legal provisions, exceed authority, arise from unlawful procedures, lack substantial evidence, or are arbitrary or capricious. Appeals are limited to issues raised before the administrative tribunal, and the district court cannot reassess the evidence's weight. An exception exists for issues the tribunal could not decide. The Swan Falls Agreement, established in 1984 between Idaho and Idaho Power, aimed to manage water rights for hydropower while ensuring sufficient water availability for future uses. The Groundwater Users argued that Spring Users could not make delivery calls against groundwater users as long as minimum flow requirements were met, a claim rejected by the hearing officer and subsequently by the Director. The district court found that the Agreement did not set minimum flows for the Snake River's specific sub-reaches or spring complexes. The court affirmed its ruling based on the correct legal theory, as established in Nampa Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Mussell. The Swan Falls Agreement involved Idaho Power Company subordinating part of its water rights to allow for beneficial upstream uses, contingent upon state approval and without violating unsubordinated rights. The Agreement does not indicate that the State subordinated third-party surface water rights to junior groundwater rights, which would require just compensation due to the nature of water rights as real property under Idaho law. Priority in water rights is critical, and favoring junior appropriators over senior ones without compensation constitutes a taking, as articulated in several cases. The Swan Falls Agreement could not subordinate the Spring Users’ rights without providing just compensation. Groundwater Users incorrectly asserted that the Agreement protected water rights with priority dates prior to October 1, 1984; instead, Idaho Power subordinated its rights only to individuals who beneficially used water before that date and filed applications by June 30, 1985. Additionally, the Agreement does not prevent senior appropriators from enforcing their rights against those with earlier priority dates. The Groundwater Users claimed that the Agreement required an increase in minimum flow at the Murphy Gauge, but this was inaccurate. The constitutional amendment of 1964 established the Idaho Water Resource Board, which later adopted a State Water Plan setting minimum flows, including the established flow of 3300 cfs at the Murphy gauging station in 1976. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the State Water Plan did not diminish Idaho Power's vested water rights at Swan Falls to 3,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) and clarified that the plan does not affect those rights. Consequently, the Swan Falls Agreement did not enhance Idaho Power's rights to 3,900 cfs but rather subordinated some of its claimed rights to those of later upstream users. The Groundwater Users' interpretation of the Swan Falls Agreement as initiating the Snake River Basin Adjudication and establishing a comprehensive management plan for the Snake River watershed was deemed incomplete. The agreement's true intent was to address Idaho Power's water rights in compliance with federal hydropower licensing requirements under section 10 of the Federal Water Power Act. This comprehensive plan aimed solely at fulfilling federal licensing obligations and did not pertain to the allocation of water among upstream appropriators or the prioritization of their rights. The Idaho State Water Plan indicated that minimum stream flows at the Murphy Gauging Station would support aquaculture, while a zero minimum flow was established at Milner Dam to maximize water availability for development, including groundwater extraction in the Aquifer. A statute implementing the Swan Falls Agreement aimed to delineate water administration above and below Milner Dam. The 1996 State Water Plan acknowledged that water rights exercised upstream could potentially reduce flow at the dam to zero. During low-water periods, river flows downstream mainly consist of groundwater discharge from the Thousand Springs reach. The Plan posited that sufficient spring discharge downstream at Swan Falls Dam would satisfy the Spring Users' water rights but noted that such assumptions lack legal effect and may not hold true. It warned that future management of the Snake River aquifer might diminish spring flows, necessitating new diversion facilities for aquaculture interests. The Plan highlighted a decline in spring flow since the late 1950s and emphasized the importance of maintaining these discharges for the economy and aquaculture facilities. An amendment to Idaho Code § 40-203B(2) stated that for determining water rights downstream from Milner Dam, waters upstream would not be considered. The principle of priority of appropriation was affirmed, meaning senior appropriators retain better rights. A case example demonstrated that expectations regarding the impact of junior appropriators on senior rights do not alter the prior appropriation doctrine. In this context, the focus is on whether junior groundwater users are materially injuring the rights of senior Spring Users, rather than the potential benefits from Idaho Power partially subordinating its rights at Swan Falls Dam. The Swan Falls Agreement acknowledged the need for improved understanding of the Aquifer's hydrology in relation to the Snake River and its tributaries. The Agreement included a commitment to support legislation for a $200,000 appropriation aimed at hydrologic and economic studies of the Snake River Basin. Since the Agreement, knowledge has advanced significantly, and a calibrated groundwater model has been utilized since 2004. The district court upheld that curtailment orders complied with the Swan Falls Agreement. Regarding Idaho Code § 42-226, which aims to prevent prior groundwater appropriators from hindering the full economic development of groundwater resources, Groundwater Users claimed that any economic benefits from the curtailment orders for Spring Users were outweighed by economic harm to others. The district court ruled that the statute pertains to diversion methods and that the Director acted within discretion by not requiring Spring Users to alter their diversion methods. On appeal, Groundwater Users argued that substantial economic harm from curtailment should negate a senior water delivery call. This interpretation was deemed incorrect. The Idaho Constitution recognizes prior appropriation for surface waters but does not address groundwater rights directly. The 1899 legislation established a framework for appropriating subterranean waters, and subsequent rulings confirmed that the prior appropriation doctrine applies to groundwater. Historical case law asserts that senior appropriators retain the right to divert water as they have traditionally done, without incurring additional costs to accommodate later appropriators. The 1951 Ground Water Act reiterates the state's policy of ensuring water resources are used beneficially through appropriation, affirming this principle for groundwater resources. All groundwater in the state is owned by the state, which is responsible for overseeing its appropriation and allocation for beneficial use. Rights to groundwater usage established prior to this act's effective date are validated. The 1953 amendment to section 42-226 introduced a limitation on the traditional "first in time is first in right" doctrine, allowing for reasonable groundwater pumping levels to promote full economic development of underground water resources. This amendment ensures that senior appropriators cannot hinder later appropriators from accessing groundwater, specifically addressing concerns from the Noh v. Stoner case, which previously protected senior appropriators' historic pumping levels indefinitely. The amendment clarifies that the protection for senior appropriators is limited to maintaining reasonable pumping levels, as determined by the state reclamation engineer, rather than allowing them to monopolize groundwater use based on potential economic benefits. The overall intent of the amendment is to balance the rights of senior and junior appropriators while promoting optimal development of water resources for the public good. A senior appropriator's rights concerning historic water levels and means of diversion are not absolute, as established by Idaho law (I.C. 42-226). While senior rights are protected, modifications may be necessary to support full economic development of groundwater resources. Specifically, a prior appropriator's pumping level is safeguarded only to a reasonable extent, not their historical levels. The legislation aims to balance the protection of historic water rights with the promotion of groundwater development, emphasizing that unreasonable pumping levels cannot be defended by senior appropriators. Delivery calls for water rights cannot be dismissed due to potential economic harm to junior appropriators, which would contradict Idaho Code 42-233a. This code mandates that water right holders in critical groundwater areas must reduce their withdrawals when supply is insufficient. Further, Article XV, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution affirms that priority of appropriation grants better rights to those with earlier usage. The arguments presented by Groundwater Users conflict with the definition of “Full Economic Development of Underground Water Resources” as outlined in the Conjunctive Management Rules, which dictate that water diversion must not harm senior rights and should align with reasonable use principles. Additionally, the State Water Plan, directed by Idaho Code 42-1734A, emphasizes the protection of existing rights and promotes comprehensive management of unappropriated water resources. Groundwater Users believe they are shielded from delivery calls if maintaining reasonable pumping levels; however, this protection applies solely to senior appropriators. The statute does not allow junior appropriators to inflict material injury on senior rights by merely adhering to reasonable pumping levels. Idaho Code § 42-237a stipulates that water from a well cannot be considered available to fulfill a water right if such withdrawal would negatively impact prior surface or groundwater rights or exceed the average rate of future natural recharge. Groundwater Users argue that the Act allows for groundwater development as long as withdrawals do not surpass natural recharge rates, claiming that if hydraulic conditions permit existing diversions, curtailment is not necessary. However, this interpretation misreads the statute, which explicitly states that well water cannot be used if it would cause harm to prior rights or exceed recharge rates. The statute does not exempt groundwater users from prior appropriation principles nor does it address surface water rights management. The director has the authority to supervise groundwater use and may initiate actions to limit withdrawals if water is not available for the rights in question. Groundwater Users also assert that curtailment orders infringe on Idaho Code § 42-226 because they fail to consider reasonable aquifer levels. However, the statute pertains only to groundwater appropriators, while Spring Users, who have rights to surface water from springs, are not classified as such. The district court correctly upheld that the curtailment orders do not violate Idaho Code §§ 42-226 and 42-237a. Analysis under section 42-226 emphasizes the need for full economic development of groundwater; however, the court upheld the curtailment orders. Groundwater users claim that full economic development allows them to withdraw necessary water from the Aquifer, provided total withdrawals do not exceed annual recharge, even if it impacts senior surface water users. Former Director Ken Dunn indicated that the Department would not have allowed spring users to curtail groundwater pumping in the Eastern Snake River Plain, based on the Act's emphasis on full economic development of groundwater resources. The users argue that groundwater administration should focus on optimal annual supply use without over-drafting the aquifer, while priority rights remain relevant to prevent over-drafting. They insist that as long as the Aquifer is not overdrawn, the priority of water rights between surface and groundwater users should be disregarded. They contend that the director must determine a reasonable aquifer level and manage accordingly. The Ground Water Act's central premise is to achieve full economic development while maintaining sustainable aquifer levels. The groundwater users criticize the curtailment orders for failing to consider reasonable aquifer levels and argue that such orders were made without a proper analysis of statutory criteria. In reference to Conjunctive Management Rule 20.03, they assert it integrates surface and groundwater administration based on reasonable use policies, which include priority rights. The rule does not indicate that priority rights between senior surface water users and junior groundwater users can be ignored if the Aquifer is not overdrawn, nor do the cited authorities support this position. Idaho Constitution Section 5 establishes that when multiple individuals settle on or improve land to receive water for agricultural use under sale, rental, or distribution, the order of priority for water rights is determined by the sequence of their settlement or improvement. In cases where water supply is insufficient to meet all demands, the legislature can impose reasonable limits on the quantity and timing of water use, considering both the priority rights and the needs of later settlers. Section 4 complements this by stating that once water has been appropriated for agricultural purposes through sale, rental, or distribution, it is exclusively dedicated to that use. A person benefiting from this dedicated water cannot be deprived of its use for domestic or irrigation needs, provided they comply with lawful terms regarding quantity and timing. The case Mellen v. Great Western Beet Sugar Co. clarifies that these sections are to be read together, emphasizing that they do not apply to water users who directly appropriate water from its source. Instead, they specifically pertain to those who acquire water rights through sale, rental, or distribution. The framers of the Constitution intended to differentiate between these two classes of water users. Section 4 and Section 5 were designed to ensure that water rights held by canal companies remain under state regulation and are available for agricultural users. Regulation of water use is mandated by statute, with the constitution outlining principles for legislative action, including respect for the priority of water rights based on the order of settlement. Legislatures must adjust regulations annually to balance the rights of prior users with the needs of later ones, aiming for the greatest good. Sections of Idaho's constitution declare the public use of appropriated water, subject to state regulations, specifically for sale, rental, or distribution, but these do not apply to the Spring Users, who have directly appropriated water. The relevant sections pertain only to water meant for agricultural purposes, highlighting that once water is appropriated for such use, it cannot be diverted for other purposes unless there is no demand for it. The sections are intended to clarify the responsibilities of ditch and canal owners who distribute water for agricultural use and to delineate the rights of users receiving water through such systems. In this case, the Spring Users' water rights do not involve agricultural appropriations, and the sections do not apply since they are not related to the distribution by a ditch or canal owner, nor do they govern conjunctive management, which pertains only to surface water distribution. A Water Resource Agency will be established under the Constitution, with powers to construct and operate water projects, issue bonds repayable from project revenues, generate and distribute hydroelectric power, manage public waters, and oversee state lands for water projects, as determined by the Legislature. The Agency is tasked with formulating and implementing a state water plan aimed at optimal water resource development in the public interest. The Idaho Legislature has the authority to amend or reject this plan, and any changes must be submitted for legislative approval within sixty days of a regular session. A 1984 amendment clarified legislative authority over the water plan following a 1983 court ruling that initially denied such power. However, the current wording of Article XV. 7 does not grant the Legislature or the Idaho Water Resource Board the authority to alter Article XV. 3, which establishes priority of appropriation rights for water users. The existing State Water Plan aims to protect prior water rights while promoting optimal resource development. The term "full economic development" is defined within Idaho law and is discussed in various case rulings. The argument by groundwater users that priority rights should only be considered to prevent aquifer over-drafting contradicts the State Water Plan's provisions, which emphasize the importance of managing conflicts between senior surface water users and junior groundwater users. Idaho's policy mandates the conjunctive management of ground and surface waters where hydrologic connections exist, reflecting the recognition of their interdependence. This principle was established in Musser v. Higginson, emphasizing that hydrologically connected waters must be managed together. Historical rulings, such as in Stickney v. Hanrahan, underscore the constitutional and public policy against water waste, advocating for the efficient use of water resources essential for the state's development. Idaho Code § 42-101 highlights the state's control over water resources to ensure just allocation and economic use, protecting various interests. Further case law, including Niday v. Barker and Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irrigation District, reinforces the notion that public waters should serve the highest duty and that economic efficiency in water use is paramount. The Idaho Water Resource Board and legislature are entrusted with developing a state water plan for optimal resource development in the public interest, which aligns with constitutional mandates. The overarching goal is to maximize water use and minimize waste, applicable to both surface and groundwater, as reiterated in the Ground Water Act. Historical judgments, like Van Camp v. Emery, indicate that senior water rights do not protect unreasonable appropriation methods, highlighting the need for responsible water management practices. The court ruled that while a water rights holder may redirect water from a stream to fulfill their water rights, they cannot obstruct or impede the stream's flow to achieve subirrigation, as this would result in a significant loss of water that could otherwise be used for surface irrigation. The ruling emphasizes the necessity of maximizing water use for agriculture and home building in arid regions. Conjunctive Management Rule 20.03 prohibits an appropriator from demanding excessive water volumes contrary to the public policy of reasonable water use. This aligns with the court's decision in Van Camp, where the senior appropriator was entitled to their water right but was required to adopt reasonable diversion methods. The Groundwater Users argued that curtailment orders violated the precedent set in Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Co., where the senior appropriator's water wheels were rendered ineffective by a downstream dam built by a junior appropriator. The federal district court dismissed the senior appropriator's complaint, stating that appropriating river current to operate water wheels was unreasonable and lacked the essential attributes of appropriation. The appeals court affirmed this, highlighting that allowing one appropriator to monopolize river current would undermine the public interest in maintaining flowing streams for beneficial use. The core issue in Schodde was the protection of reasonable means of diversion rather than prioritizing water rights. This is further supported by the ruling in American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Evaluation of diversion reasonableness in water rights should not be viewed as re-adjudication of those rights. The Groundwater Users must challenge the Spring Users' diversion methods, considering factors such as whether senior-priority surface water rights can be met through alternative means, including well construction. A field investigation by a civil engineer determined that the Spring Users generally employed reasonable diversion and conservation practices, except for one leaking pipeline. The Director found no alternate reasonable means of diversion for the Spring Users. In a judicial review, the Groundwater Users questioned whether the Director erred in not compelling the Spring Users to switch to groundwater sources under the Conjunctive Management Rules. The district court supported the Director's findings on reasonable practices and ruled that requiring horizontal wells would be unreasonable. Despite disagreements over the reasonableness of the Director's determinations, the court found no evidence of viable alternatives and upheld the Director's discretion. The Groundwater Users did not appeal this ruling, so the issue of changing the Spring Users' diversion methods to underground sources is not subject to appeal. Additionally, during administrative hearings, the Groundwater Users requested fish production records from the Spring Users. The hearing officer ruled that this information was not discoverable but stated that if the Spring Users did not provide it, neither could Blue Lakes nor Clear Springs use it to support their claims regarding water production and fish health. Groundwater Users filed objections to the hearing officer's findings, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Spring Users could increase fish production or market profits with additional water, thereby claiming no material injury to the Spring Users' water rights. The Director rejected this argument. The Groundwater Users further contended in district court that the finding of material injury lacked evidentiary support, insisting that proof of increased fish production due to additional water was necessary, and that a mere decrease in water supply did not constitute material injury. They emphasized that the first appropriator of water has a prior right that is protected unless abandoned, citing relevant case law. Beneficial use of water, as defined in the Idaho Constitution, encompasses various purposes beyond profitability, including domestic use and firefighting. Material injury, according to the Conjunctive Management Rules, refers to the hindrance of exercising a water right due to another's water usage, not to the profitability of the senior appropriator’s business. The rules require demonstrating an impact on the exercise of a water right, aligning with the constitutional principle of prioritizing appropriation rights without necessitating a profitability assessment. The determination of which appropriator could profit more from water usage is central to the case. The Spring Users have established water rights based on their diversion and beneficial use for fish propagation, which are protected against interference from junior appropriators. Any infringement on these vested rights allows the injured party to seek damages and obtain a permanent injunction against such interference. The district court found substantial evidence of material injury to the Spring Users’ rights. The Groundwater Users contended that the Spring Users' delivery calls were futile, arguing there was little expectation of restoring the shortages they experienced. However, the hearing officer recognized the complications in applying the futile call rule to groundwater withdrawals, noting that groundwater does not have the same immediacy of delivery as surface water, which can be easily routed to a specific point. The effects of groundwater curtailment may not become apparent for years, as the flow is influenced by geological conditions. The hearing officer concluded that the lack of immediate results from curtailment does not render the calls futile, allowing for reasonable timeframes for potential benefits. The Groundwater Users objected to the Director’s findings, asserting that the time required to realize benefits from curtailment was excessive, and that changing conditions could affect the Spring Users' needs or ability to utilize the additional water. The Director dismissed these objections, leading the Groundwater Users to argue in district court that the anticipated benefits from curtailment would take too long to materialize, potentially undermining the Spring Users' claims. The district court affirmed the Director’s decision regarding water management, emphasizing that the conjunctive management rules recognize that relief from water curtailment is not instantaneous. The Groundwater Users argued on appeal that the delivery calls were ineffective, claiming insufficient evidence that the anticipated increases in water flow for Blue Lakes and Clear Springs would lead to improved fish production. They initially presented this argument in the district court to demonstrate a lack of material injury but did not claim it as evidence of futility related to the delivery calls, which the appellate court noted would not consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal. The court also addressed whether the district court erred in supporting the Director’s findings based on a groundwater model used for curtailment orders. Former-Director Dreher acknowledged a 10% uncertainty margin in the model due to stream gauge errors but still deemed it reliable. The hearing officer concurred, stating there is no superior scientific alternative available. The Groundwater Users requested the Director to account for greater uncertainties (20-30%) and adjust the model accordingly, but the Director maintained that the groundwater model represented the best available science for assessing the impacts of groundwater diversions on the Aquifer and connected waterways. The Director affirmed the model's reliability despite the acknowledged uncertainty level. The district court recognized these points in its consideration of the objections raised by the Groundwater Users. Testimony indicated that the margin of error in the model used for groundwater regulation may exceed 10%, though this has not been scientifically quantified. The court upheld the 10% margin as a minimum standard, asserting that no evidence was presented to suggest a higher error margin or to dispute that it is under 10%. On appeal, the Groundwater Users argued that the district court erred by not considering all known limitations of the Aquifer Model, which led to an excessive curtailment zone. They highlighted potential errors related to stream gauge data, model uncertainties due to non-uniform geology, isotropic assumptions regarding well impacts, and unaccounted factors like surface water diversions and precipitation recharge. They requested the court to annul the curtailment orders and direct the Director to reassess the model's uncertainties and redefine the curtailment area. The Groundwater Users did not specify the Idaho Code subsection allowing their challenge to the Director's use of the model but implied a claim of abuse of discretion. The court's review of whether the agency abused its discretion involves assessing whether the agency recognized the issue as discretionary, acted within its discretion, and made a reasoned decision. Numerous studies of the Aquifer's geology have been conducted from 1902 to 1982, but none sufficiently support conjunctive management of water rights. Consequently, the Department collaborated with the University of Idaho to develop a model calibrated to data from 1980 to 2002. The hearing officer acknowledged the model’s limitations but deemed it reliable based on peer-reviewed science. The Director endorsed these findings, asserting that the model represents the best available science for evaluating the impacts of groundwater diversions and surface water usage on the Aquifer and connected reaches of the Snake River. The Groundwater Users did not contest these findings on appeal, affirming that the model is the best scientific resource for managing interconnected surface and groundwater rights. The Director's reliance on the model in decision-making was deemed appropriate, as he acted within his discretion and followed applicable legal standards. The district court upheld this reliance and did not find an error in the Director's actions. Regarding the curtailment orders issued by Former-Director Dreher without a hearing for the affected Groundwater Users, the district court acknowledged the lack of a timely hearing but concluded there was no practical remedy at that stage. The Groundwater Users argued that due process requires a hearing before significant property interests, such as water rights, can be affected. They referenced case law establishing that water rights are considered real property under Idaho law, necessitating due process protections. However, it was noted that due process does not always mandate a pre-deprivation hearing, as some circumstances allow for postponing such procedures if certain criteria are met: a necessity for urgent action, assurance of governmental interest, and strict control over the process by officials. The Groundwater Users included relevant briefs in the appellate record, which were necessary for their claims to be considered on appeal. The excerpt also emphasizes that water rights do not equate to ownership of the physical water, as all water within Idaho is considered state property. The state has a duty to supervise the appropriation and allocation of water for beneficial use, adhering to the doctrine of prior appropriation, which grants rights based on the order of use—first in time, first in right. This principle, rooted in the historical context of western mining, is now recognized legally to facilitate the agricultural utilization of arid lands. The aim is to ensure just apportionment and economic use of Idaho's limited water resources, as outlined in Title 42 of the Idaho Code. In situations of water shortage, prompt action is essential to prevent junior appropriators from wrongfully taking water meant for senior appropriators, as such actions can harm the rights of the latter. The urgency for intervention without a hearing is justified under three conditions: (1) the need for immediate action, (2) the potential for economic harm to senior appropriators, and (3) that a government official determines the necessity of the seizure under strict standards. The state employs the Department and watermasters to manage water rights and enforce curtailment when junior appropriators infringe on senior rights. However, in this particular case, the court determined that the criteria for urgent action were not met, as the groundwater pumping did not lead to an immediate loss in spring discharge, which had been declining gradually over years. Therefore, the anticipated benefits of curtailment would not manifest quickly, undermining the justification for bypassing a prior hearing. The Director acted with abuse of discretion by issuing curtailment orders without prior notice or a hearing for affected parties; however, this does not invalidate the final curtailment order issued in July 2008 after a hearing, which is the focus of the appeal. The Groundwater Users had notice and a hearing prior to this final order, despite initial due process violations regarding earlier curtailment orders from May and July 2005. In the appeal, the Groundwater Users contested the 10% margin of error used by the Director, arguing it was flawed due to the water gauge's 37% margin of error. They insisted that water administration should prioritize users of hydraulically connected sources. The Director rejected this argument, supporting decisions made by former-Director Dreher, which were based on the "full economic development" language in Idaho Code § 42-226, and upheld by the hearing officer citing "public interest" under Conjunctive Management Rule 020.03. Director Dreher highlighted that while the doctrine of "first in time is first in right" applies to groundwater rights, it must not impede the full economic development of groundwater resources. The statute's reference to "full economic development" is intended to protect senior groundwater appropriators without allowing them to obstruct new appropriations. Since Spring Users are surface water appropriators, they do not fall under this groundwater protection statute. The hearing officer's endorsement of the previous Director’s decision and the final order by Director Tuthill reflects adherence to the principles outlined in the Idaho Constitution regarding reasonable use and public interest, which the district court did not affirm based on the provisions of Idaho Code § 42-226 and Conjunctive Management Rule 020.03. The district court upheld the Director's decision to apply a 10% margin of error in assessing junior ground water appropriators' impact on spring supplies, determining that using a trim-line to exclude juniors within this margin is appropriate due to the inherent uncertainties in modeling. The court emphasized that models, being simulations of reality, must account for uncertainty, and it is unreasonable to apply their results without considering margins of error. The Director exercised discretion in not curtailing water rights for appropriators within this margin, aligning with legal standards and the best available technology for gauging impacts on water rights. The Spring Users contended that the Director abused his discretion, citing the unpredictability of stream gauge errors and the lack of statutory requirements for 100% accuracy in measurements. However, the court found no evidence that the accuracy required could be realistically achieved. Furthermore, it noted that the Spring Users did not raise the argument concerning shifting the burden of proof from juniors to seniors in the district court, rendering it unconsidered on appeal. The court concluded that it did not err in affirming the Director's decision, and no costs were awarded on appeal as all parties prevailed in part. Justices Burdick, J. Jones, Horton, and Pro Tem Kidwell concurred.