Staying Afloat: States Look to Integrate Water Planning to Combat Predicted Water Shortages
Liz Trower • July 4, 2018

The number of people living in the water-scarce West has skyrocketed in recent decades. Colorado, for example, was home to 2.2 million people in 1970. By 2015, the state had grown to 5.5 million people, more than doubling the population. Current estimates suggest Colorado will reach 8.5 million people by 2050. Cities throughout the region continue to rank among the fastest-growing in the country. To accommodate the surge of new people, local governments have approved scores of new developments. This rapid population growth, however, poses a particularly poignant problem: ensuring water supplies can keep up with increased demand.


Currently, many states—including those with limited water supplies—use a build-first-find-water-second approach to supplying water for new developments. Land-use planners approve and regulate new development projects absent any water planning. Water managers and utilities then react to the increased demand by procuring additional water supplies or implementing new systems to ensure supplies for new communities. For a long period of time, reactive water planning worked. States addressed the increasing demand for water through a combination of conservation efforts, water diversions, and market-based reallocations of water from agriculture to cities.


For Colorado and other arid states, however, extending the status quo is no longer an option—reactive planning is no longer sufficient. Colorado is anticipating a significant water supply shortfall in the next few decades with limited options for procuring additional water supplies to meet the projected demands. To save off this shortfall, Colorado and other states must integrate water and land-use planning for new developments. This change, however, is easier said than done and will require rectifying the historical disconnect between water and land-use planning processes.


The Governance Gap 

Often water planning and land-use planning for new developments are isolated, occurring within entirely separate legal frameworks. This so-called “governance gap” exists for two reasons. First, strategic water availability planning is traditionally a state function, while land-use planning for new development falls within the purview of local governments. Second, state water managers and local municipalities are often driven by different goals. Local officials are often under pressure to increase new development as a means of creating job growth or an increased tax base but have little reason to consider state-wide water availability (or the expertise to do so).


States typically take the lead in water management. State water administrators govern complex water regimes, often with the participation of federal agencies and tribes. States focus on ensuring long-term water supplies for their residents and are less involved in navigating competing demands like the “drying” of agricultural land or the need to engage the public.


Local governments, in contrast, oversee much of the land-use planning process. When local governments seek to grow and allow for new development, local planers typically create policy documents that set out the community’s long-term plans. Though these development plans can have a significant impact on water planning because they often include population estimates and details about the water infrastructure necessary to serve the community, they do not typically contemplate water supply planning.


To complicate matters, local governments may also participate in water planning through water companies and utilities. Municipalities own water rights and are generally responsible for determining the supply and demand for their service area and procuring the necessary water rights. This water planning can take place within the municipal government or, commonly, through a local water utility. Local utilities are frequently quasi-independent, and both physically and functionally separate from the municipal government. While development planners may need the approval of a local water utility after the plan is created, the utilities are seldom part of the initial plan, and development plans are often approved even where supplies are uncertain.


Now What?

While it is widely recognized that local governments should be given significant deference in controlling land-use planning, there is an increased focus on the role of the state in fostering sustainable growth through a more integrated planning process. Monica Green and Anne Castle at the University of Colorado suggest, “A starting point for this integration is the consideration of the availability of water to serve new development in the process of land-use approval by a local government.”


Similarly, Sarah Bates Van de Wetering at the University of Montana envisions an ideal system in which “water planning and development decisions . . . would incorporate deliberative public dialogue about long-term land-use priorities.” Specifically, in this system, “[l]and use planning would be mindful of water supply constraints, and would prioritize development that is most consistent with maintaining water quality and ensuring sustainable supplies.” At the same time, she says that “[w]ater suppliers would place a premium on making the best use of limited resources, minimizing demands, and ensuring that the impacts of water development on highly valued landscapes are acknowledged and taken into account before final decisions are made.”


Progress

Realizing the importance of incorporating water availability, supply management, and demand management into land-use planning, states and organizations have started to take action. Many states now require that new developments only be built where adequate supplies are available. While the extent of the water sufficiency review process varies, a few states have taken important steps to ensure decisions to approve developments accurately reflect the needs of the proposed communities, including helping to develop systems for realistic growth projections. For example, in Arizona and Nevada, state agencies provide expert review of water supply plans based on statutorily specified criteria. But, many state laws do not cover new development within current municipalities because municipalities are assumed to be able to handle the demands of new development. While this is sometimes true, significant new development within a municipality can strain or overwhelm a district’s resources.


A few states have also recognized that truly effective planning requires more than just legitimate water adequacy determinations. For example, Washington requires that each application for a building permit demonstrates adequate water supply; whereas, California only requires assured water supplies for subdivisions greater than five hundred homes. Additionally, states throughout the West have taken steps to improve conservation.


While no state has fully overcome the obstacles to integrated planning, and more work is needed, many states are beginning to take the critical steps necessary to better integrate their water and land-use planning processes and thus are helping to mitigate some of the potential water shortfalls expected in the West. Colorado, for example, created its first state water planin 2015, which outlined objectives, goals, and actions for addressing the state’s future water needs. The plan incorporated input from water providers, local governments, the general public, and other stakeholders.


Many of these stakeholders are also the ones helping to implement Colorado’s water plan. For example, one proposed project was to create a Colorado Water and Growth Dialogue to develop recommendations for communities to create water savings in new developments and create a plan to disseminate the recommendations to local planners. Over two years—with funding from a variety of sources—a group of planners and other stakeholders met and achieved significant successes, including developing a residential land-use and water demand tool, which allows planners to understand differences in water demand for new developments.


Looking Forward

Many states are beginning to take steps to combat the governance gap and help mitigate potential water supply shortfalls over the next several decades, yet there is significant work left to be done. In Assured Water Supply Laws in the Western States, Monica Green and Anne Castle have cataloged the steps numerous states are taking to insure water sufficiency in the future. Their work illustrates that some states have made progress, but no state has fully solved the challenges of separate water governance systems.


Local and state officials will continue to have disparate priorities, and local control of land development remains a jealously guarded right. States with help from outside organizations, however, have succeeded in starting the process and educating communities. Whether or not states will take sufficient action has yet to be seen, but the importance of improvement cannot be overstated: the ability to live in the arid West hangs in the balance.

Sources

Anne Castle, John Sherman, & Larry MacDonnell, Integrated Land and Water Planning in Colorado, (2016), http://www.waterpolicy.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Integrated-Land-and-Water-Planning-in-Colorado.pdf.


Drew Beckwith, New House New Paradigm: A Model for How to Plan, Build, and Live Water-Smart (2009), http://westernresourceadvocates.org/download/2381/.


John Murray, Denver’s population has swelled in the last 7 years, Denv. Post, Sept. 28, 2017, http://theknow.denverpost.com/2017/09/28/denver-neighborhoods-growth-2017/160032/.


Kevin Hamm, Colorado’s population could increase by nearly 3 million people by 2050, Denv. Post, Jul. 18, 2017, http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/28/colorado-population-forecast/.


Kevin Reidy, Water Conservation Technical Specialist, Colo. Water Conservation, Presentation at 2015 Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Conference, Land Use and Colorado’s Water Plan, (Mar. 15, 2017) (presentation slides), http://www.law.du.edu/documents/rmlui/conference/powerpoints/2015/REIDYLandUse-CWP.pdf.


Monica Green and Anne Castle, Assured Water Supply Laws in the Western States: The Current State of Play, 28 Colo. Nat. Resources Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. 67 (2017), https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/castle_final.pdf.


Nelson Harvey, Show Us the Water, Headwaters, (Jul. 7, 2017), https://issuu.com/cfwe/docs/hw_sum_2015_final_opt.


Sarah Bates Van de Wetering, Bridging the Governance Gap: Strategies to Integrate Water and Land Use Planning, U. Mont. Pub. Policy Res. Inst. 6-10, (2008), http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=water-resources-and-transformation-of-American-West.


Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado’s Water Plan Executive Summary, (2015), http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/200996/Electronic.aspx?searchid=ab75ea87-7dbe-4fea-98dc-b924c94c17f0.


Western Resource Advocates, Hardest Working River in the West: Common-Sense Solutions for a Reliable Water Future for the Colorado River Basin (2014), https://westernresourceadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CO_River_Solutions_Hardest-Working-River-in-the-West_Whitepaper.pdf#page=36.

A Century in the Making: The Colorado River Compact Meets Record-Low Snowpack

By Weston Paul Rasmussen • April 15, 2026
Colorado currently faces its lowest snowpack ever recorded. Following an unseasonably warm winter and hardly any snowfall, the Natural Resources Conservation Service reports snowpack at twenty-two percent of a normal year. At the same time, the Colorado River Basin states—Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California—are approaching their third year of renegotiating the most important water apportionment agreement in the American West: the Colorado River Compact. Originally negotiated in 1922 by delegates from all seven basin states and then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, the Compact has governed the Colorado River’s use for over a century. In 1922, as now, the delegates understood the stakes. The river bound the region together, and the inhabitants of the basin states—both human and otherwise—built their lives around the river’s resources. Against this backdrop, the delegates waded through maps and then-available hydraulic data to equitably distribute a river that had already been allocated beyond its natural supply. They ultimately agreed to split the river’s flow roughly even between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin, measuring that split at Lees Ferry, Arizona. This required the upper states to allow seventy-five million acre-feet of water to flow down through Lees Ferry over a ten-year rolling average period. After setting that number, the delegates ratified the Compact and ended the states’ perpetual bickering over the river’s use, for the time being. Unfortunately for the century that followed, however, the Compact allocated water based on data from an unusually wet period in the West’s history. In other words, the Compact—at its inception—presumed a higher supply of water than the river typically carries. Compounding the problem, the basin’s current population—forty million people—is nearly twenty times what the delegates predicted back in 1922. These key misestimations show that the basin states’ current water use is already unsustainable. Now add this year’s record-low snowpack to the equation. Rocky Mountain snowpack typically accounts for approximately eighty percent of Upper Colorado River flow. When spring and summer hit, low snowpack in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah will result in less water melting into streams and rivers. Notably, Colorado’s streamflow forecasts for 2026 predict below average snowmelt across all major river basins, which will cause significant water-level drops in the nation’s largest reservoirs—Lake Powell and Lake Mead. These conditions create untimely challenges for Compact renegotiations. Today, as in 1922, the renegotiation battle is split between the three Lower Basin states of California, Arizona, and Nevada and the four Upper Basin states of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. But the process is deadlocked, and Arizona delegates already anticipate complete failure. With the current conditions of the basin’s water supply, the upper states will fall below their obligatory seventy-five million acre-feet allotment to the lower states within the next two years. Failing to deliver that allotment will trigger a legal tripwire, allowing the lower states to sue for a violation of the Compact. But a lawsuit would spark a complex legal battle that could drag on for years, and interstate litigation would place the Compact in the federal courts’ hands, which is an outcome none of the states want. To avoid hitting that tripwire and hailing seven states into contentious litigation, the lower states are pushing for mandatory cuts on Upper Basin water use during these particularly dry years. Top Upper Basin negotiators countered, however, that mandatory cuts are not on the table. This places the Compact on a dangerously short timeline. Without substantial intervention, water levels will continue their downward trend, and reduced runoff from the Upper Basin’s snowpack may trigger the legal tripwire as early as this summer. The race is on to renegotiate the Compact before that happens. But with litigation looming and snowpack at historic lows, one thing is clear: the Colorado River is running low on both time and water. Sources: Alan Gionet, New Report Paints Grim Picture of Water Use Problems with Colorado River , CBS News (Dec. 26, 2025, 10:10 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/new-report-colorado-river-water-use-dire-problems/ . Colo. River Compact (1922), https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf . Colorado Snowpack Products , Nat. Res. Conservation Serv., https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/states/CO/products/#state=co&element=wteq (last visited April 1, 2026). How Much Snow for Colorado River Flow? , Geosciences and Env’t Change Sci. Ctr., https://www.usgs.gov/centers/geosciences-and-environmental-change-science-center/science/how-much-snow-colorado-river#overview (last visited March 15, 2026). Ian James, How Failing Negotiations Could Spiral into a Bitter Fight over the Colorado River , L.A. Times (Feb. 5, 2026, 10:29 AM), https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-02-05/colorado-river-negotiations-failing . Jake Bolster and Wyatt Myskow, Colorado River Negotiators Are Nearly Out of Time and Snowpack , Inside Climate News (Feb. 4, 2026), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04022026/colorado-river-record-low-snow-litigation/ . Maddie Rhodes, This Winter has the Lowest Snowpack so far in Colorado History , Fox31 Denver: Weather Headlines (Feb. 5, 2026, 11:44 AM), https://kdvr.com/weather/wx-news/this-winter-has-the-lowest-snowpack-so-far-in-colorado-history/ . Margaret Osborne, A Century Ago, this Water Agreement Changes the West. Now, the Region is in Crisis , Smithsonian Magazine (Nov. 28, 2022), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-century-ago-this-water-agreement-changed-the-west-now-the-region-is-in-crisis-180981169/ . Mike Lee and Martin Heinrich, Colorado River Talks: Securing Water for the West , The Hill (Dec. 19, 2025, 10:30 AM), https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5654255-future-colorado-river-agreement/ . Record Low Snowpack Observed Across Much of Colorado Heading into 2026 , Nat. Res. Conservation Serv., https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/state-offices/colorado/news/record-low-snowpack-observed-across-much-of-colorado-heading-into-2026 (last visited March 15, 2026). Shannon Mullane, Colorado River Negotiations in Murky Waters after Historic Gathering of Governors in DC , The Colorado Sun (Feb. 3, 2026, 3:51 AM), https://coloradosun.com/2026/02/03/colorado-river-governor-negotiations-dc-water-congress/ . Steve Harris, How Did Compact Negotiators Split the Colorado River’s Flow in 1922? , The Rocky Mountain Voice (Oct. 9, 2025), https://rockymountainvoice.com/2025/10/09/how-did-compact-negotiators-split-the-colorado-rivers-flow-in-1922/ .

Up the Creek Without a Paddle: An Evolution of the Public Trust Doctrine and How It Influences Idaho’s and Montana’s Different Approaches to Public Recreational Access to Waters

By Frances Ducey Warden • April 14, 2026
Introduction The public trust doctrine (the “Doctrine”) evolved from a form of governmental authority over specific natural resources—primarily waterways—to compelling the state to manage certain common natural resources in trust for the public. Nowadays, the public trust doctrine is a method of environmental advocacy in the United States. The Doctrine spanned both an unsuccessful attempt to compel a state to limit fossil fuel use and a successful effort to restore waters in a depleting lake. Additionally, there is continued interest in using the Doctrine to increase recreational access. This post first explores the public trust doctrine’s evolution, from its origins in Roman law to its incorporation into English common law, and then to its transformation into the modern American public trust doctrine. It then explores how the public trust doctrine influenced water law in Idaho and Montana, and the two states’ different approaches to public recreational access to waters despite laws originating from the same doctrine. Overall, Idaho is more restrictive with public recreational access to waters. In contrast, Montana allows for broader public recreational access to waters. I. History of the Public Trust Doctrine Modern historians credit the origin of public trust doctrine to the Justinian Codex, which stated running water, the shores, and the sea are common property to the public. This jus publicum concept from Roman law survived, eventually taking root in English law. A similar concept is first found in the Magna Carta, which declared the Thames and Medway Rivers navigable waters and public commons for fishing or navigation. The Doctrine then formally took hold in English common law in the 17 th century when the King’s Bench held “sovereign ownership” applied to tidelands, and navigable waters were for public use. After the Revolutionary War, the thirteen original states succeeded the Crown in ownership of tidelands, becoming the new ‘sovereigns’ of America. In the early 19 th century, Arnold v. Mundy reaffirmed the Doctrine. The plaintiff claimed the defendant trespassed on his private oyster bed and took the plaintiff’s oysters. The defendant, in response, claimed he only took the oysters below the high water mark in a tidal, navigable river. The court, siding with the defendant, held navigable rivers, along with the coasts, were “common” to all the citizens for fishing, passing, and navigation. This holding also extended to the land under the water. Martin v. Waddell, another oyster farm dispute, affirmed Arnold’s holding. Three years after Martin, the Supreme Court held in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan that because new states were admitted to the union “on equal footing” as the original states, the new states received the same rights as the original thirteen states. Thus, any new state received an automatic transfer of title to lands underlying navigable waters at the time of statehood. Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh then held that state ownership expanded to navigable, non-tidal waters and their beds. Later, the Supreme Court released The Daniel Ball test, the federal test for navigability. The Daniel Ball test states that waters are navigable when they are used as highways for commerce, over which customary trade and travel may be conducted. By the mid 19 th century, American law well established that states were presumed to hold title to both the beds, banks, and surface of navigable streams. In the late 19 th century, the Supreme Court decided the Doctrine’s seminal case: Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois. The Illinois legislature granted the Railroad 1,000 thousand acres of submerged land beneath the Chicago waterfront. Later, the legislature attempted to rescind the grant, leading to the lawsuit. The Court concluded a state cannot transfer lands under navigable waters to private parties, as it holds them in trust for the public for fishing, navigation, and commerce. Illinois Central not only affirmed state authority over submerged beds, but also established the idea the state was a trustee for the public of the submerged lands, and private parties could not “obstruct” the public’s access to fishing, navigation, or commerce. Shively v. Bowlby then followed, affirming Illinois Central’s holding. Shively also added that each individual state’s laws govern public trust waters. Once a concept of Roman and English law evolved into American’s modern public trust doctrine: under each state’s laws, the state, as trustee for the public, owns the beds of navigable rivers and tidelands. These trusts open to the public for commerce, navigation, and fishing. II. The Public Trust Doctrine Relating to Idaho's Recreational Access Idaho follows the public trust doctrine and allows recreational access to navigable waterways. However, if the waterway is non navigable, recreational access is not allowed, as it is deemed private property. Idaho’s constitution declares: “ all water originally appropriated for private use, but which after such appropriation has heretofore been … is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulations and control of the state.” The Idaho Supreme Court held in Callahan v. Price that Idaho holds title to submerged lands of navigable waterways. To determine what waters and submerged beds are under state control, Idaho uses the federal test of navigability. Originally, Idaho’s public trust doctrine only covered navigation, but has been expanded to recreation. Earlier caselaw out of the Idaho Supreme Court supported recreational access: Southern Idaho Fish and Game Association v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., upheld public access to the beds of navigable streams, and Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., upheld the state has title to the beds of all navigable bodies of water below the natural high-water mark. However, earlier caselaw also upheld private ownership of non-navigable stream beds. Mesenbrink v. Hosterman reaffirmed the principle that riparian landowners also owned the beds of non-navigable bodies of water and treats unauthorized access to water as a trespass. In 1996, Idaho codified— and limited—the public trust doctrine in the Public Trust Doctrine Act (“PDTA”). The PDTA codifies Idaho’s waters as held in the public trust, and includes recreation as a suitable purpose. III. The Public Trust Doctrine Relating to Montana's Recreational Access Montana’s constitution enshrines the public trust doctrine: “ All surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people and are subject to appropriation for beneficial uses as provided by law.” The Supreme Court of Montana, in Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Curran, decided against using The Daniel Ball test to determine public access to waters, and instead held that if a waterway was used for recreational boating rather than as highways for commerce, the water will still be considered navigable. Later in the opinion, the court decided the ownership of the streambed to be irrelevant, and the public can access public waters up to the high water mark. Further, the Doctrine, along with Montana’s constitution, do not allow a private party to “interfere” with public recreational access of the state’s waters. Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Hildreth soon followed, reaffirming Curran’s holding and cementing public recreational access to waters within Montanan law. In response to these decisions, the Montana legislature passed the Stream Access Laws (“SAL”) which codified the public’s right to recreate in waters regardless of public or private ownership of the land underlying the waters. Within the SAL, Montana divides recreational waters into two categories: Class I and Class II waters. Class I waters are types of navigable surface waters, determined either by the federal navigability test, or are waters capable of log floating or transportation of furs and skins. Class II waters are any other type of water, except for lakes. Galt v. State upheld these classifications, affirming both classifications of waters are for public recreational access. Overall, Montana’s recreational access can be summarized to allow recreation on any surface water without regard to public or private ownership or whether the surface water is navigable. Conclusion Differences in public recreational access to waters in Idaho and Montana stem from variations in their constitutions, case law, statutory codifications of the public trust doctrine, and the extent to which each state relies on the federal navigability test. Idaho’s constitution declares “water is originally appropriated for private use.” This is then followed by the language “waters after appropriation” are for public use. Through statutory interpretation, a reasonable person can determine that Idaho’s constitution prioritizes private ownership, as water is first mentioned for private use, and, following appropriation, can then be used for public use. In contrast, Montana’s constitution declares “all” waters are for public use, which is then followed by the language “subject to appropriation.” Montana’s constitution prioritizes public ownership, as ‘all’ water is first mentioned for public use, after which it can be “appropriated” for private use. Idaho follows the federal navigability test to determine public or private ownership of the waters, which then determines whether public recreational access is allowed. On navigable rivers, Idaho allows public recreational access, since the state owns the waters and submerged beds. On non-navigable rivers, Idaho does not allow public recreational access, since the littoral landowner owns both the waters and submerged beds. Montana disregards the federal navigability test to determine ownership of submerged lands. Both navigable and non-navigable rivers are open to public recreation, as to the ownership of the streambeds is irrelevant.  Additionally, Idaho codified the public trust doctrine in the PDTA, while Montana codified it in the SLA. On one hand, the PDTA explicitly limits the public trust doctrine. On the other hand, the SLA expands recreational access to waters, thereby expanding the public trust doctrine. Sources: Erin Ryan, A Short History of the Public Trust Doctrine and its Intersection with Private Water Law, 39 Vir. Envtl. L. J. 135, 137 (2020) Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020) National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983) Cert denied, 464 U.S. 977. Ralph W. Johnson and Russell A. Austin Jr., Recreational Rights and Titles to Beds on Western Lakes and Streams, 7 Nat. Res. J. 1 (1967) The Public Trust Doctrine: What it is, Where it Came from, and Why Colorado Does Not (And Should Not) Have One: 16 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 17 (2012). Justinian, the Institutes of Justinian 2.1.1 (Thomas Cooper trans. & ed. 1841). Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L 1 (N.J. 1821). Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 222 (1845). Reed D. Benson, Burke W. Griggs, & A. Dan Tarlock Water Resource Management: A Casebook in Law and Public Policy at 521 (Foundation Press, 8th ed. 2021). The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1870). Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 452 (1892) Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich L. Rev. 471, 478 (1970) Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 26 (1894). 26 Idaho Const. Art. XV § 1. Callahan v. Price, 146 P. 732, 735 (Idaho 1915). Idaho Code § 58-202 (1996) (referencing The Daniel Ball Test). Newton v. MJK/BJK, LLC, 469 P.3d 23, 29 (Idaho 2020) (referencing Idaho Forest Indus., Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement Dist., 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987)). Southern Idaho Fish and Game Association v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., 528 P. 2d 1295 (Idaho 1974) Ritter v. Standal, 566 P.2d 769 (Idaho 1977) Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Inc v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho 1983) Mesenbrink v. Hosterman, 210 P.3d 516, 520 (Idaho 2009) (reaffirming Callahan v. Price, 146 P. 732, 735 (Idaho 1915)). Idaho Code § 58-1201(6) (1996). Idaho Code § 58-1203(3) (1996). Mont. Const. Art. IX. § 3(3). Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Curran, 682 P.2d 163, 169 (Mont. 1984) (quoting Lamprey v. Metcalf, 53 N.W. 1139, 1143 (Minn. 1893)). Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-302(1) (1985). Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-301(2) (1985). Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-301(2)(3) (1985). Galt v. State, 731 P.2d 912, 915 (Mont. 1987) In re Adjudication of Existing Rights to the Use of all Water, 55 P.3d 396, 404 (Mont. 2002).