Does adding a new component to the Idaho State Water Plan (the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches) count as a 'change' under article 15, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution, and may the Legislature act on it during its current session?

Plain-English summary

The Idaho Water Resource Board adopted the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches on February 1, 1991, designating several reaches of the Payette as protected and prohibiting hydropower development on them. Gem Irrigation District, which held a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission preliminary permit for a hydroelectric project on the North Fork of the Payette, argued that the Plan was a "change" to the State Water Plan under art. 15, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution and could not be considered by the Legislature during its current session because it had not been submitted on the first legislative day. The Senate President Pro Tempore and the House Speaker asked the AG.

The AG concluded that the Payette River Plan was not a "change" under art. 15, § 7. The constitutional term "change" refers only to deletions or revisions of an existing State Water Plan. The Payette River Plan is a new geographic component being added to the State Water Plan, and addition is reviewed under the third sentence of art. 15, § 7 (under "the manner provided by law"), not under the fourth sentence (the 60-day-amend-or-reject procedure for changes).

The reasoning hinged on three textual moves. First, art. 15, § 7's fourth sentence begins with "thereafter," which the AG read as sequential: a component must first be added to the State Water Plan (third sentence) before it can "thereafter" be changed (fourth sentence). Second, Idaho Code § 42-1734A(2), enacted in 1988, expressly provides that the comprehensive state water plan "may [be] develop[ed] . . . in stages based upon waterways, river basins, drainage areas, river reaches, groundwater aquifers, or other geographic considerations." That confirms the planning structure as one of progressive addition rather than periodic wholesale revision. Third, treating the Payette River Plan as a "change" would render Idaho Code § 42-1734B(8) ("[a] protected river shall not become a final part of the comprehensive state water plan until approved by law") unconstitutional, because the fourth sentence of § 7 lets changes take effect without affirmative legislative action. Reading "change" narrowly avoids that conflict.

The Legislature had jurisdiction to act on the Payette River Plan during the 1991 session. Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) provides for legislative review at the regular session "immediately following" the Board's adoption. Although the Board adopted the plan after the 1991 session began (so review at the 1992 session would also be timely), the Board's submission of the plan to the 1991 legislature did not deprive the legislature of the power to act on it. The legislature retains its general legislative power except as restrained by constitution, and Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) does not restrain that power: a subsequent statute approving the Payette River Plan would simply implement the third sentence of art. 15, § 7 directly, taking precedence over the procedure in § 42-1734B(6).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The State Water Plan and the protected rivers component have continued to evolve since 1991, and Idaho Code chapter 17, title 42 has been amended multiple times.

Background and statutory framework

Idaho's State Water Plan has a layered constitutional and statutory architecture. Article 15, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution (added in 1964 and amended later) authorizes a Water Resource Agency with the power to "formulate and implement a state water plan for optimum development of water resources in the public interest." The third sentence gives the Legislature "the authority to amend or reject the state water plan in a manner provided by law." The fourth sentence then gives the Legislature an additional, more limited review power: "thereafter any change in the state water plan shall be submitted to the Legislature . . . upon the first day of a regular session following the change and the change shall become effective unless amended or rejected by law within sixty days of its admission to the Legislature."

The constitutional language is awkward and the practical question for 1991 was: is a brand-new river-protection plan a "change" subject to the 60-day automatic-effective rule, or an addition subject to ordinary legislative review?

The legislative implementation of art. 15, § 7 has been progressive. The Idaho Water Resource Board (created 1965) released an Interim State Water Plan in 1972, then The Objectives, Part I in 1974, and Part Two in 1976. The Board's own Foreword in 1974 stated that basin reports for the Panhandle, Snake River, and Bear River basins, "to be completed by 1977, and The Objectives, will constitute the Idaho State Water Plan." The Idaho Supreme Court endorsed this stage-by-stage construction in Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 (1976). The 1988 amendments (ch. 370) codified the staged approach in Idaho Code § 42-1734A and added the protected-rivers framework in § 42-1734B.

The Payette River Plan was the first comprehensive river plan adopted under the 1988 statutory framework. The federal angle (FERC licensing under 16 U.S.C. § 803) gave the Plan teeth: FERC must consider state comprehensive water plans when issuing hydroelectric licenses, so a state-level prohibition on hydropower would substantially affect Gem's pending North Fork project, whose preliminary permit was set to expire May 1, 1991.

Common questions

What was the practical effect of the AG's reading on Gem Irrigation District?
If the Legislature approved the Payette River Plan in 1991, the prohibition on hydropower on the protected reaches would be part of the State Water Plan, and FERC would have to consider that prohibition in licensing. Gem's North Fork project would face a steeper road to a FERC license. The AG opinion did not decide that question; it just confirmed the Legislature could act in 1991.

Does the AG's distinction between "addition" and "change" mean the Legislature can never just sit on a plan?
No. Under the third sentence of art. 15, § 7, the Legislature can "amend or reject" the State Water Plan. The opinion's structural point was that an addition gets full legislative review (in "a manner provided by law"), while a change is subject to the 60-day automatic-effective rule.

Why did the AG worry about constitutional construction principles?
Because reading "change" broadly would have made Idaho Code § 42-1734B(8) unconstitutional. That statute requires affirmative legislative approval before a protected river is "final" in the State Water Plan. If the protected river were a "change" under sentence four of art. 15, § 7, it would become effective automatically after 60 days unless amended or rejected. The two cannot coexist. The AG used the canon that a statute should be interpreted to avoid constitutional conflict (Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 (1972)) to support the narrow reading of "change."

Could the Board have submitted the plan in 1992 instead?
Yes. Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) requires submission at the regular session "immediately following" Board adoption. Since the Board adopted on February 1, 1991, after the 1991 session began, the Board's submission obligation would have been satisfied by submitting at the 1992 session. The Board chose to submit immediately, so the question was whether the 1991 Legislature could act, not whether it had to. The AG concluded the 1991 Legislature could.

Citations

Idaho Constitution: art. 3, § 1 (legislative power); art. 15, § 7 (Water Resource Agency, State Water Plan, legislative review).

Idaho statutes: § 42-1734 (predecessor; codified the 1965 Act); § 42-1734A (comprehensive state water plan; staged development; permitted designations); § 42-1734B (protected rivers; legislative review); § 42-1734B(6) (review at regular session immediately following adoption); § 42-1734B(8) (protected river becomes final only after legislative approval).

Federal: 16 U.S.C. § 803 (1988) (FERC consideration of state comprehensive water plans).

Session laws: Act of March 30, 1965, ch. 320, 1965 Idaho Sess. Laws 901 (creation of Water Resource Board); Act of April 6, 1988, ch. 370, 1988 Idaho Sess. Laws 1090 (comprehensive water-plan amendments and protected rivers).

Cases: Engelking v. Investment Board, 93 Idaho 217, 458 P.2d 213 (Idaho 1969) (Idaho Supreme Court; constitutional construction); Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (Idaho 1976) (Idaho Supreme Court; progressive formulation of plan); Koelsch v. Girard, 54 Idaho 452, 33 P.2d 816 (Idaho 1934) (Idaho Supreme Court; legislative power); Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 548 P.2d 861 (Idaho 1976); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726, 497 P.2d 47 (Idaho 1972) (avoid-constitutional-conflict canon); Ottesen v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Madison County, 107 Idaho 1099, 695 P.2d 1238 (Idaho 1985); Reynolds v. Continental Mortgage Co., 85 Idaho 172, 377 P.2d 134 (Idaho 1962); St. Benedict's Hosp. v. County of Twin Falls, 107 Idaho 143, 686 P.2d 88 (Idaho App. 1984).

Other authorities: Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971); Comprehensive State Water Plan: Payette River Reaches (Idaho Water Resource Board, Feb. 1, 1991); FERC Project No. 10396, 43 FERC ¶ 62,185 (preliminary permit to Gem Irrigation District).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/OP91-05.pdf

Original opinion text

c
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

LARRY ECHOHAWK

BOISE 83720·1000

ATTORNEY GENERAL

TELEPHONE
(208) 334-2400

TELECOPIER

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 91-5

(208) 334-2530

NATURAL RESOURCES
TELECOPIER
(208) 334-2600

TO:

Michael D. Crapo
President Pro Tempore
Statehouse Mail

Tom Boyd
Speaker
Statehouse Mail

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

1) Are the additions to the State Water Plan developed pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-1734 et seq., such as the Comprehensive State Water Plan: Payette River Reaches, "changes" to the State Water Plan as contemplated by Article XV, Section 7 of the Idaho Constitution?

2) If the answer to question one above is yes, does the Legislature, during its current regular session have jurisdiction to review and approve, reject or amend the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches?

3) If your answer to question one above is no, does the Legislature, during its current regular session, have jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-1734B(6) to review and approve, reject or amend the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches?

CONCLUSION:

1. No. The term "change" in section 7, art. 15 of the Idaho Constitution only refers to deletions or revisions to the existing State Water Plan. Since the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches by the Idaho Water Resource Board is an addition of a new component to the existing State Water Plan, it is not a change under section 7, art. 15 of the Idaho Constitution.

2. Not applicable.

3. Section 7, art. 15 of the Idaho Constitution does not prohibit legislative action on the Payette River Plan during the current legislative session. While Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) provides for one method of legislative review of such river plans, it does not preclude the Legislature from enacting a specific law approving, amending or rejecting the Comprehensive State Plan: Payette River Reaches.

INTRODUCTION

The Idaho Water Resource Board (Water Board) adopted the Comprehensive State Water Plan: Payette River Reaches, (Payette River Plan), on February 1, 1991 and submitted it to the Legislature on the same day. The Payette River Plan, among other things, prohibits hydropower development within certain reaches of the Payette River. This provision has proven controversial because Gem Irrigation District (District) seeks to build a hydroelectric facility on the North Fork of the Payette River. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued to the District a preliminary permit for the North Fork Project, FERC Project No. 10396, 43 FERC ¶ 62,185. A preliminary permit preserves an applicant's priority to develop a project while the applicant investigates the feasibility of the project. The District's permit will expire no later than May 1, 1991. Thus, the District must submit an application for a license to the FERC by that date to preserve the right to develop the project. If the Payette River Plan is approved by the legislature, however, the state prohibition against construction of hydroelectric facilities on the Payette River will affect the District's ability to obtain a FERC license for the project because the Federal Power Act requires the FERC to consider state comprehensive water plans when issuing licenses. 16 U.S.C. § 803 (1988).

Gem Irrigation District contends on constitutional and statutory grounds that the Legislature does not have jurisdiction to act on the Payette River Plan during this session of the legislature. This opinion was requested to provide the Legislature guidance on these legal issues.

ANALYSIS:

Question No. 1

The first question raised turns upon the interpretation of section 7 of article 15 of the Idaho Constitution (section 7). This provision was added to the Idaho Constitution in 1964 and authorized the creation of a "Water Resource Agency . . . which shall have power to formulate and implement a state water plan for optimum development of water resources in the public interest . . . ." Id. Subsequently, section 7 was amended to provide as follows:

[2] Additionally, the State Water Resource Agency shall have power to formulate and implement a state water plan for optimum development of water resources in the public interest. [3] The Legislature of the State of Idaho shall have the authority to amend or reject the state water plan in a manner provided by law. [4] Thereafter any change in the state water plan shall be submitted to the Legislature of the state of Idaho upon the first day of a regular session following the change and the change shall become effective unless amended or rejected by law within sixty days of its admission to the Legislature.[^1]

(Emphasis added.)

[^1]: For ease of reference, the quotation adds a numeric designation to the sentences in section 7. Since the quotation begins with the second sentence, the numeric designation begins with the numeral two.

Your first question concerns the meaning of this amendment. The District argues that the Payette River Plan constitutes a "change" to the State Water Plan within the meaning of the fourth sentence of section 7. Since the Payette River Plan was not submitted on the first legislative day, the District asserts that the constitution precludes legislative consideration of the Payette River Plan during this session of the legislature.

Whether the Payette River Plan is a change to the State Water Plan depends upon what is meant by the term "state water plan." In order to understand what this term means it is necessary to retrace the implementation of article 15, section 7.

Article 15, section 7 was added to the Idaho Constitution in 1964. The following year the Idaho Legislature implemented the new section of the Idaho Constitution by creating the Water Board and by designating it as the "Water Resource Agency" contemplated by section 7. Act of March 30, 1965, ch. 320, 1965 Idaho Sess. L. 901. The Legislature directed the Water Board in section 4(c) of this act to "progressively formulate an integrated, coordinated program for conservation, development and use of all unappropriated water resources of this state . . . ." (Emphasis added.)[^2]

[^2]: Section 4 of the Act of March 30, 1965 was codified at Idaho Code § 42-1734.

The Water Board in 1972 released the Interim State Water Plan, Preliminary Report ("Interim Plan") for review. This review process of public information meetings and formal hearings provided a forum for citizens to voice their opinions on what policies and goals the Water Board should include in the State Water Plan. The Water Board then adopted a report entitled The Objectives, Part I of the State Water Plan ("The Objectives") on March 8, 1974 and The State Water Plan--Part Two ("Part Two") on December 29, 1976.

The Objectives stated, in part, as follows:

The projects and programs necessary to implement the objectives will be identified and evaluated for each major river basin and presented in separate basin reports. Basin Reports will be prepared for the Panhandle basins, Snake River basins, and Bear River basins. These three major reports, to be completed by 1977, and The Objectives, will constitute the Idaho State Water Plan.

Id. at Foreword.

Thus, from the outset the Legislature and the Water Board interpreted the term "state water plan" to be a series of documents that would be developed over time containing state wide policies and specific water basin plans. Moreover, in Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (1976), the Idaho Supreme Court adopted this interpretation of the language regarding "formulation" of the State Water Plan in section 7 and Idaho Code § 42-1734(b), now codified at Idaho Code § 42-1734A(1). The Court stated:

I.C. § 42-1734(b) requires that respondent "progressively formulate an integrated, coordinated program for conservation, development and use of all unappropriated water resources of this state . . . ." [Emphasis supplied.] To progressively formulate a plan implies that the plan is to be adopted over a period of time, in stages, in a continuous step by step manner, and not in one complete act.

Id., 97 Idaho at 549, 548 P.2d at 49 (emphasis added). When the electorate approved the amended section 7, they approved of this prior interpretation of this language. See Reynolds v. Continental Mortgage Co., 85 Idaho 172, 183, 377 P.2d 134, 141 (1962).

Since the State Water Plan is progressively formulated over time, the contents or required components of a State Water Plan will also change over time, as circumstances and experience may dictate. In other words, we view the process as a dynamic one. Thus, the fact that the Water Board and Legislature define the requisite components of a complete State Water Plan at one time does not prevent either body from redefining what the components of a State Water Plan should be in the future. Indeed, in 1988 the Idaho Legislature enacted substantial amendments to the statutory authority of the Water Board. Act of April 6, 1988, ch. 370, 1988 Idaho Sess. L. 1090. This act added a detailed procedure for the preparation of a comprehensive state water plan and for the protection of rivers as natural or recreational rivers and redefined, in part, the components of the State Water Plan.[^3] Specifically, Idaho Code § 42-1734A provided, in part, as follows:

[^3]: The procedures for protection of rivers as natural or recreational rivers implemented Policy 2B of the amended Idaho State Water Plan dated December 12, 1986.

(2) The board may develop a comprehensive state water plan in stages based upon waterways, river basins, drainage areas, river reaches, groundwater aquifers, or other geographic considerations. The component of the comprehensive state water plan prepared for particular water resources and waterways shall contain, among other things, the following:

(4) The comprehensive state water plan may designate protected rivers. Designations shall be based upon a determination by the board that the value of preserving a waterway for particular uses outweighs that of developing the waterway for other beneficial uses and shall specify whether a protected river is designated as a natural or recreational river.

Id. (emphasis added). Based upon this expanded definition of what constitutes the State Water Plan, we now turn to the question of whether the Payette River Plan adopted by the Water Board constitutes a "change" to the State Water Plan.

What actions constitute "changes" to the State Water Plan within the meaning of the fourth sentence of section 7?

The fundamental goal in construing a constitutional provision is ascertaining the intent of the framers. Engelking v. Investment Board, 93 Idaho 217, 221, 458 P.2d 213, 217 (1969). The Idaho Supreme Court has applied ordinary rules of statutory construction to ascertain the intent of the framers of constitutional provisions. Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 596, 548 P.2d 861, 862 (1976). If a statutory provision is clear, the statute must be read literally without any construction. Ottesen v. Board of Comm'rs of Madison County, 107 Idaho 1099, 1100, 695 P.2d 1238, 1239 (1985). If a statute is ambiguous, then we may go outside the statute to determine the legislative intent. St. Benedict's Hospital v. County of Twin Falls, 107 Idaho 143, 148, 686 P.2d 88, 93 (App. 1984). These rules of statutory construction apply to the present case.

The critical inquiry is determining the meaning of the term "change" in the fourth sentence. The ordinary meaning of the term "change" is that it refers to "the action of making something different in form, quality, or state: the fact of becoming different . . . ." Webster's Third New International Dictionary at 374 (1971). Under this broad definition, a deletion of language in the State Water Plan, a revision of language, or the addition of new language would all be a "change." However, such a broad interpretation of the term "change" is not consistent with the language of section 7 or with the legislative implementation of section 7.

The third and fourth sentences of section 7 provide for two different methods of legislative review. One method, stated in the third sentence, applies to the State Water Plan; the second method, stated in the fourth sentence, applies to "changes" to the State Water Plan. The first method gives the Legislature discretion to prescribe the method of review "in the manner provided by law." Art. 15, § 7. The second method provides a more limited degree of legislative review.

The two methods of legislative review apparently apply seriatim. The word "thereafter" at the beginning of the fourth sentence suggests that the review embodied in the third sentence will occur first. Thus, before the State Water Plan or a component thereof undergoes review under the fourth sentence, it must undergo review under the third sentence. In other words, it is not until a component is added to and becomes part of the State Water Plan that it can "thereafter" be changed.

The question then becomes whether the Payette River Plan is an addition of a new component to the State Water Plan or a revision (a "change") to the State Water Plan as presently constituted. In 1988 the Legislature described the step by step development that the State Water Plan was to take. Specifically, Idaho Code § 42-1734A(2) provides that the comprehensive plan would be developed in stages, based upon geographical considerations. Because the Payette River Plan is a new plan for a specific geographical area, we consider it to be the addition of a new component of the State Water Plan and therefore, to be reviewed by the Legislature in accordance with sentence three of section 7. Any future revisions to the State Water Plan that affect this geographical component would be reviewed pursuant to sentence four.

Common sense supports this analysis of section 7. The need for legislative review is greater when the Legislature reviews a new component of the State Water Plan. The third sentence of section 7 provides that greater review by giving the Legislature discretion to prescribe the method of review "in the manner provided by law." Once a component has received comprehensive legislative review, there is a much lesser need for detailed legislative review when a "change" is made because of the prior comprehensive review of the plan or component of the plan by the legislature. The only question regarding changes to the plan is whether the legislature believes it to be an acceptable addition to the balance struck under the original plan. The fourth sentence provides that more limited degree of legislative review. Therefore, we interpret the term "change" in the fourth sentence of section 7 as including only deletions or revisions to the existing State Water Plan. The term "change" does not include the addition of new geographic components to the State Water Plan, such as the Payette River Plan, that are developed as a part of the progressive formulation of the State Water Plan.

This interpretation is consistent with the review provided by the Legislature in Idaho Code § 42-1734B(8), which states in part as follows: "A protected river shall not become a final part of the comprehensive state water plan until approved by law." Another well known rule of statutory construction requires a statutory provision be interpreted in a manner that makes it constitutional. Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726, 730, 497 P.2d 47, 51 (1972). If the Payette River Plan were a "change" within the meaning of the fourth sentence of section 7, then Idaho Code § 42-1734B(8) would be unconstitutional, because the fourth sentence of section 7 provides that "changes" may be approved in the absence of any affirmative action of the Legislature. In contrast, our interpretation results in the Legislative review under the third sentence of section 7, and this sentence provides the Legislature discretion to determine the manner of review in accordance with laws it enacts.

Question No. 2

Your second question asks, if the answer to question one is yes, whether the Legislature has jurisdiction, during its current regular session, to review and approve, reject or amend the Payette River Plan? Because the answer to question one is no, it is unnecessary to respond to question No. 2.

Question No. 3

Your third question asks whether the Legislature, during its current regular session, has jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) to review and approve, reject or amend the Payette River Plan? Subsection 6 of Idaho Code § 42-1734B provides, in part, as follows with respect to legislative review of a newly adopted plan or component thereof:

(6) The comprehensive state water plan and any component thereof developed for a particular waterway or waterways is subject to review and amendment by the legislature of the state of Idaho by law at the regular session immediately following the board's adoption of the comprehensive state water plan or component thereof.

(Emphasis added.) This provision of Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) is the current implementation by the Legislature of the following third sentence of section 7: "The Legislature of the State of Idaho shall have the authority to amend or reject the state water plan in a manner provided by law." (Emphasis added.)

The Water Board adopted the Payette River Plan on February 1, 1991. The Payette River Plan designated several reaches of the Payette River as a recreational river and included a prohibition on the construction of hydropower projects for those reaches. The prohibition on hydropower construction is effective from its date of adoption by the Water Board, subject to being amended or rejected by the Legislature. Idaho Code § 42-1734A(7).

In accordance with the relevant provisions of Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6), the Water Board is required to submit the newly adopted plan to the Legislature for its review at the next regular session. Because the Water Board's adoption of the Payette River Plan occurred after the start of the 1991 legislative session, the Water Board was not required to submit the plan to the Legislature for its review until the 1992 legislative session. However, since the Water Board submitted the Payette River Plan to the Legislature immediately upon its adoption on February 1, 1991, the question arises as to the authority of the Legislature to take action on the plan during the current session. In other words, does Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) preclude the Legislature from acting on the Payette River Plan?

The Legislature possesses all legislative power and authority except as restrained by the constitutions of the state or of the United States. Idaho Const., Art. 3, § 1; Koelsch v. Girard, 54 Idaho 452, 33 P.2d 816 (1934). Since the subject of your question is the limitation in another statute, Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6), the Legislature has the discretion to change the manner of review by enactment of a subsequent statute. Here, enactment of a law approving the Payette River Plan would be a specific implementation of the third sentence of section 7, and this subsequent enactment would take precedence over the provisions of Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6). Thus, Idaho Code § 42-1734B(6) does not preclude legislative action on the Payette River Plan during the current session.

AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED:

Idaho Constitutional Provisions
Article 3, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution.
Article 15, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution.

Idaho Statutes
Act of March 30, 1965, ch. 320, 1965 Idaho Sess. L. 901.
Act of April 6, 1988, ch. 370, 1988 Idaho Sess. L. 1090.
Idaho Code § 42-1734 (later amended by Act of April 6, 1988, ch. 370, 1988 Idaho Sess. L. 1090, 1093).
Idaho Code § 42-1734A
Idaho Code § 42-1734B

Idaho Cases
Engelking v. Investment Board, 93 Idaho 217, 458 P.2d 213 (1969).
Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (1976).
Koelsch v. Girard, 54 Idaho 452, 33 P.2d 816 (1934).
Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 548 P.2d 861 (1976).
Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726, 497 P.2d 47 (1972).
Ottesen v. Board of Comm'rs of Madison County, 107 Idaho 1099, 695 P.2d 1238 (1985).
Reynolds v. Continental Mortgage Co., 85 Idaho 172, 377 P.2d 134 (1962).
St. Benedict's Hospital v. County of Twin Falls, 107 Idaho 143, 686 P.2d 88 (App. 1984).

Other Statutes
16 U.S.C. § 803 (1988).

Other Authorities
Webster's Third International Dictionary (1971).

DATED this 8th day of March, 1991.

LARRY ECHOHAWK
Attorney General
State of Idaho

Analysis By:
David J. Barber
Deputy Attorney General
Natural Resources Division

Phillip J. Rassier
Deputy Attorney General
Natural Resources Division

Clive J. Strong
Deputy Attorney General
Chief, Natural Resources Division

cc: Idaho Supreme Court
Supreme Court Library
Idaho State Library