## Facts

- Charles L. Barron applied to transfer an existing surface-water right (No. 37-02801B; 1905 priority; 6 cfs) by changing points of diversion and places of use for irrigation acreage in Camas County, Idaho.
- The right’s historical paperwork contained inconsistencies about the source stream (Camas Creek versus Threemile Creek) following prior diversion changes in 1948 and 1968.
- The same acreage was also served by a supplemental groundwater right (No. 37-07295), intended to supply water when the surface right was deficient.
- In 1997, Barron sought to split the surface right into two components with diversion points far upstream and far downstream of the licensed place of use.
- The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) repeatedly requested information establishing historic beneficial use (e.g., period and quantities of diversion and how surface and groundwater supplies were used together).
- Barron provided two affidavits asserting irrigation use but offering little quantitative detail about dates, diversion amounts, consumptive use, or the extent of groundwater substitution.
- IDWR denied the transfer, concluding Barron failed to demonstrate the extent of historic beneficial use and failed to show the proposed change would not injure other water users; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether IDWR’s denial of the transfer application was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under Idaho administrative-review standards.
2. Whether IDWR properly required proof of historic beneficial use and non-injury, including consideration of the relationship between a primary surface right and a supplemental groundwater right.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court and IDWR.
- The Court held that the transfer applicant bears the burden to prove the extent of historic beneficial use and that the proposed transfer will not injure other water rights.
- The Court concluded substantial evidence supported IDWR’s determination that Barron’s affidavits were too general and non-quantitative to establish historic surface-water use in the amount claimed.
- The Court agreed IDWR could consider evidence that groundwater had been used in a manner suggesting substitution rather than supplementation, creating doubt about ongoing surface-right use.
- The Court upheld IDWR’s assessment that, without reliable historic-use proof, IDWR could not determine the proposed changes would be non-injurious, and could resolve uncertainties against the applicant.

## Legal Principles

- In Idaho water-right transfer proceedings, the applicant must prove (1) the extent and character of historic beneficial use and (2) no injury to other water rights from the proposed change.
- Conclusory statements lacking dates, quantities, and a clear accounting of surface versus groundwater use may be treated as insufficient to establish historic beneficial use.
- Where a supplemental groundwater right appears to have replaced the primary surface supply, the agency may require clear proof that the surface right continued to be exercised in the claimed amount.
- On judicial review of an agency action, courts uphold agency fact-finding and technical determinations if supported by substantial evidence and reached through lawful procedure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld IDWR’s denial of the transfer because the applicant failed to provide specific, reliable evidence of historic beneficial use of the surface right and therefore failed to carry the burden of showing the proposed split transfer would not injure other water users.


Barron v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 135 Idaho 414, 18 P.3d 219 (Idaho 2001)