Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State, Dept. of Parks v. IDAHO DEPT, WATER ADMIN.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1974No. 11455Published

1ConcurrenceBakes, Justice

(concurring specially) :

I concur in the result reached by Chief Justice Shepard in his plurality opinion, although not necessarily everything stated therein. Additionally, I wish to address in a different manner the question of whether or not the preservation of the waters of Malad Canyon in a natural state is a beneficial use that may be appropriated without the means of a diversion. (Parts II and III of that opinion).

The first question to be considered is whether any uses other than the uses referred to in Article 15, § 3, of the Idaho Constitution — domestic, mining, agricultural and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Smith v. DenniffMontana Supreme Court · 1900
  3. State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
  5. Village of Moyie Springs v. Aurora Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1960

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API