Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Board of Land Commissioners
Idaho Supreme Court
982 P.2d 367 (1999)

- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
When Idaho was admitted to the Union in 1890, the federal government granted the state certain lands (school lands) and provided that proceeds from their lease or sale were to be used “for school purposes only.” Article IX, § 8 of the Idaho Constitution subsequently acknowledged that state school lands must be leased to secure the “maximum long term financial return” to the state school system. More than 100 years later, an environmental organization called the Idaho Watersheds Project (IWP) (plaintiff) placed public bids on grazing leases for certain school lands. Even though the IWP placed the highest bids, the Idaho Land Board (board) (defendant), which oversaw the leasing, disqualified the IWP and instead granted the leases to several local ranchers. In doing so, the board relied on a state statute, I.C. § 58-310B, which required the board to consider not only bid prices, but also the effect the leases would have on the livestock industry and on the state economy. Because the IWP did not intend to use the land for livestock grazing, the board concluded that I.C. § 58-310B compelled disqualification of the IWP. The IWP sued the board in state district court, arguing that I.C. § 58-310B violated Article IX, § 8 of the Idaho Constitution by considering factors other than revenue to state schools. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, and the IWP appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.