## Facts

- Idaho’s Constitution created a water resource agency empowered to implement a state water plan, construct and operate water projects, generate and wholesale hydroelectric power at the site of production, and issue revenue bonds “without state obligation” payable from project revenues, as authorized by implementing legislation.
- The Idaho Water Resource Board, acting under implementing statutes, approved a cooperative hydroelectric project on the Snake River with Idaho Power Company as part of a broader state water-development program.
- The project structure contemplated that the Board would finance construction through revenue bonds, lease the completed facilities to Idaho Power for operation, and use lease revenues to retire bonds and fund additional water and related-resource development.
- The Board voted to submit a joint federal power-licensing application and directed its secretary, Donald R. Kramer, to sign the application on the Board’s behalf.
- Kramer refused, contending that the authorizing constitutional and statutory provisions were invalid and that the joint venture and financing scheme created unconstitutional state debt, lent state credit, and served an impermissible private purpose.
- The Board sought a writ of mandate in district court to compel Kramer to execute the joint application; Idaho Power intervened in support of the Board.
- The district court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling Kramer and his successor to sign; Kramer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s participation in a cooperative hydroelectric project with a private utility, financed by revenue bonds and implemented through a lease arrangement, exceeded constitutional and statutory authority or violated constitutional limits on state debt, lending of credit, or public-purpose requirements.
2. Whether the Board’s secretary could refuse to execute the Board-authorized license application on constitutional objections, or whether signing was a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and upheld issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus.
- The Court held the Board’s participation in the joint project and the implementing statutory scheme were within the authority conferred by the Idaho Constitution and legislation.
- The Court concluded the revenue-bond and lease structure did not create unconstitutional state debt or an unlawful lending of state credit because the bonds were payable solely from project revenues and did not pledge the state’s faith, credit, or taxing power.
- The Court held the project served a valid public purpose despite incidental private benefit to Idaho Power.
- The Court held the secretary’s duty to sign the application, after lawful Board approval, was ministerial; mandamus properly compelled performance.

## Legal Principles

- When a state constitution expressly authorizes an agency to construct water projects, generate hydroelectric power, and issue nonrecourse revenue bonds “under such laws as may be prescribed by the Legislature,” implementing legislation is construed broadly to permit practical project structures, including cooperation with private entities.
- A public-purpose requirement is satisfied when the primary objective of the governmental program is public (e.g., development of water resources and power generation), even if a private participant receives consequential benefits.
- Revenue bonds payable exclusively from project revenues, and expressly not backed by the state’s full faith and credit or taxing power, are not “state debt” and do not constitute an unconstitutional lending of credit.
- Mandamus lies to compel a public officer to perform a clear, nondiscretionary act required to implement a lawful decision of the officer’s governing body; the officer may not block implementation by refusing to perform a ministerial duty based on unsuccessful legal objections.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Board’s authority to pursue a cooperative hydroelectric development financed by nonrecourse revenue bonds and implemented through a lease to a private utility, finding no unconstitutional debt, lending of credit, or private-purpose use, and it compelled the Board’s secretary by mandamus to sign the federal power-licensing application as a ministerial act.


Idaho Water Res. Bd. v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (Idaho 1976)