December 9, 2014. WHY? 1 st Call: September 2003 2 nd Call: January 13, 2011 Hearing: May 1, 2013 29 MONTHS.

December 9, 2014

1 st Call: September 2003 2 nd Call: January 13, 2011 Hearing: May 1, 2013 29 MONTHS

Call: Spring 2005 Hearing: November 28, 2007 32 MONTHS

Call: January 14, 2005 Hearing: January 18, 2008 36 MONTHS

Disposition of Claims State Law Based Claims Federal Reserved Water Rights TOTAL STATE AND FEDERAL Total Active Water Rights Decreed 131,6875,583136,687 Total Claims Decreed Disallowed 13,7707,43921,209 TOTAL DECREED CLAIMS 144,87413,022157,896

Sustainability of aquifers Aquifer Recharge Water use optimization projects Water storage Water measurement and monitoring Water distribution through water districts

11,000 claims expected to be filled First, preliminary Directors Report issued Only two significant federal reserved water right claim filings are expected St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Claims Coeur dAlene Reservation Claims Expected Completion in FY2018 Palouse Basin Adjudication expected commenced in FY2016

PROSCONS Timeliness Transfer of IDWR Authority to Court System What Authority? Administrative v. Judicial Conflict Management Due Process

PROSCONS Lack of IDWR Resources IDWR has not said this

PROSCONS Hearing officer independence Cannot abandon IDWR expertise

Added Expense Forum Shopping Exactly Proposal was allowed a choice Unintended Consequences Idahos Water court has been carefully crafted over many decades... ???? Upset the Apple Cart

Supreme Courts Current Prespective

While recognizing the Directors authority to evaluate the issue of beneficial use in the administration context, we stated: While there is no question that some information is relevant and necessary to the Directors determination of how best to respond to a delivery call, the burden is not on the senior water rights holder to re-prove an adjudicated right. The presumption under Idaho law is that the senior is entitled to his decreed water right, but there certainly may be some port-adjudication factors which are relevant to determination of how much water is actually needed. The Rules may not be applied in such a way as to force the senior to demonstrate an entitlement to the water in the first place; that is presumed by the filing of a petition containing information about the decreed right. The Rules do give the Director the tools by which to determine how the various ground and surface water sources are interconnected, and how, when, where and to what extend the diversion and use of water from one source impacts [others]. Once the initial determination is made that material injury is occurring or will occur, the junior then bears the burden of proving that the call would be futile[,] or to challenge, in some other constitutionally permissible way, the seniors call.

Id. at 878, 154 P.3d at 449. Thus any application of a delivery call requires application of established evidentiary standards, legal presumptions, and burdens of proof.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude as follows: 1. The Director may develop and implement a pre-season management plan for allocation of water resources that employs a baseline methodology, which methodology must comport in all respects with the requirements of Idahos prior appropriation doctrine, be made available in advance of the applicable irrigation season, and be promptly updated to take into account changing conditions. Idaho Supreme Court Opinion No. 134 (2013)

2. A senior right holder may initiate a delivery call based on allegations that specified provisions of the management plan will cause it material injury. The baseline serves as the focal point of such delivery call. The party making the call shall specify the respects in which the management plan results in injury to the party. While factual evidence supporting the plan may be considered along with other evidence in making a determination with regard to the call, the plan by itself shall have no determinative role. Idaho Supreme Court Opinion No. 134 (2013)

3. Junior right holders affected by the delivery call may respond thereto, and shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the call would be futile or is otherwise unfounded. A determination of the call shall be made by the Director in a timely and expeditious manner, based on the evidence in the record and the applicable presumptions and burdens of proof. Idaho Supreme Court Opinion No. 134 (2013)

Continue as we are Taking? Water Court Hearing Officer Corps Statewide solution Spread expense Leadership

(3) Unless the right to a hearing before the director or the water resource board is otherwise provided by statute, any person aggrieved by any action or failure to act of the director, including, but not limited to, any decision, determination, order or other action, including action upon any application for a permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or similar form of permission required by law to be issued by the director, and any action or failure to act by the director or a water master in the distribution of water rights within an organized water district, Proposed legislation

(Continued) who is aggrieved thereby the action of the director, and who has not previously been afforded an opportunity for hearing on the matter shall be entitled to a hearing before either the director or the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) district court of the fifth judicial district of the state of Idaho to contest the action. The person shall file with the director, and the SRBA district court if the person seeks a hearing before the court, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice of the action issued by the director, or receipt of actual notice, a written petition stating the grounds for contesting the action by the director and requesting a hearing. Proposed legislation

(Continued) The director shall give notice of the petition as is necessary to provide other affected persons an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The hearing shall be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section. Judicial review of any final order of the director issued following the hearing shall be had pursuant to subsection (4) of this section. Appeal of any final decision or order of the SRBA district court shall be had pursuant to subsection (6) of this section. Proposed legislation

December 9, 2014. WHY? 1 st Call: September 2003 2 nd Call: January 13, 2011 Hearing: May 1, 2013 29 MONTHS.

Documents

decreed water

process slide

fy2016 slide

water districts

idwr expertise slide

apple cart slide

allocation of water

monitoring water distribution