Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon
77 L. Ed. 2d 387, 462 U.S. 1017, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 81 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state seeking an equitable apportionment of a shared, migratory natural resource, such as anadromous fish, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is suffering a real and substantial injury under present conditions.
Facts:
- Anadromous fish, specifically chinook salmon and steelhead trout, hatch in the upstream gravel bars of the Snake River in Idaho.
- The young fish (smolts) migrate downstream through the Snake and Columbia Rivers, passing through Washington and Oregon to reach the Pacific Ocean.
- After maturing in the ocean for several years, the adult fish return upriver to their original hatching grounds in Idaho to spawn and then die.
- This migration is obstructed by eight hydroelectric dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers in Washington and Oregon, which cause high mortality rates for both downstream-migrating smolts and upstream-migrating adults.
- Oregon and Washington, through the Columbia River Fish Compact, regulate commercial and sport fishing on the lower Columbia River, harvesting the fish before they can reach Idaho.
- Idaho has been denied entry into the Oregon-Washington Columbia River Fish Compact.
- Several Native American Tribes also hold treaty rights to fish in the river system, which are managed through agreements with Oregon and Washington.
- Since 1973, runs of all relevant fish species have been significantly lower, leading to severe restrictions or prohibitions on commercial harvesting.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Idaho filed a complaint directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, invoking the court's original jurisdiction to seek an equitable apportionment of anadromous fish against the States of Oregon and Washington.
- The Court referred the case to a Special Master, a senior federal judge, to conduct proceedings.
- The Special Master initially recommended that the suit be dismissed for failure to join the United States as an indispensable party.
- The Supreme Court rejected the Special Master's recommendation and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.
- Following trial, the Special Master issued a final report recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice, finding that Idaho had not proven a sufficient injury.
- Idaho filed exceptions to the Special Master’s final report, bringing the case before the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state entitled to an equitable apportionment of anadromous fish runs that migrate through other states where it has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that it has suffered a real and substantial injury under present conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A state is not entitled to an equitable apportionment of anadromous fish when it fails to prove by clear and convincing evidence a real and substantial injury under present conditions. While the doctrine of equitable apportionment is applicable to a migratory natural resource like fish, the complaining state bears a heavy burden of proof. The Court affirmed the Special Master's focus on present conditions (1975-1980), noting that equitable apportionment is a prospective remedy to ameliorate current harm, not to compensate for past injuries. During this recent period, Idaho harvested a majority (58.72%) of the total catch, which contradicts its claim of present injury. Furthermore, Idaho failed to demonstrate that Oregon and Washington were currently mismanaging the fishery or were likely to do so in the future. Although a workable decree could theoretically be fashioned, there is no justification for one without proof of a cognizable injury.
Dissenting - Justice O’Connor
Yes. A state should be entitled to have its right to an equitable share determined, even if present harvests are low, because its rights include the preservation and maintenance of the resource, and the inquiry should not be unfairly limited to present conditions. The Special Master erred by concluding there was no injury without first quantifying Idaho's 'fair share' of the fish runs. Focusing solely on the 1975-1980 period, when harvests were negligible for all parties, ignores the possibility that the low numbers were caused by the defendants' past mismanagement. This approach places Idaho in an untenable position, as it cannot demonstrate injury while the resource is depleted but may be harmed again if the runs recover. The case should have been remanded to the Special Master to determine Idaho's equitable share based on a broad range of factors and then to assess whether that share had been infringed upon.
Analysis:
This case formally extends the doctrine of equitable apportionment from its traditional context of water rights to other migratory natural resources like fish. However, the Court establishes a high evidentiary standard, requiring 'clear and convincing evidence' of a 'real and substantial injury' under 'present conditions.' This focus on present harm makes the doctrine a tool for prospective relief rather than a remedy for historical grievances, significantly impacting how states must frame their claims in future interstate resource disputes. The decision makes it more difficult for upstream states to secure apportionment for resources that have already been severely depleted, as the lack of a currently harvestable surplus can be used to argue there is no present injury to apportion.
