Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer
Idaho Supreme Court
97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (1976)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The State of Idaho passed a statute that authorized joint ventures between private utilities and a state agency, the Idaho Water Resource Board (the board) (plaintiff) to effectuate the construction of a dam and hydroelectric power plant in an area of Snake River, Idaho. Under the statute, the board was authorized to sell revenue bonds to finance the facility’s construction, lease the facility to a private utility, and use revenues from the lease to retire the bonds. Additional lease revenue would be held by the board for development of future water and related resources. The Idaho legislature found that the joint ventures were in the public interest and for a public purpose because the board was, for example, maximizing the use of Idaho’s water resources, facilitating irrigation of arid lands, or developing electrical-energy sources. Following the provisions of the statute, a privately owned utility, Idaho Power Company, proposed a joint venture with the board to reconstruct a dam and power plant. Although the joint venture was approved by the board, the secretary of the board, Donald Kramer (defendant) refused to execute necessary documents. Kramer asserted his belief that the joint venture was illegal. The board sued Kramer to compel action, and the Idaho Power Company intervened. The trial court ruled in favor of the board and Idaho Power Company. Kramer appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the joint venture.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McQuade, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.