ELR Citation: ELR 20658
No(s). 67 Orig (U.S. Jun 23, 1983)

The Supreme Court rules that the doctrine of equitable apportionment is applicable to a dispute over allocation of anadromous fish in the Columbia Basin, but finds that the state of Idaho has failed to prove sufficient injury to warrant an equitable decree. Holding the fish resource analogous to water resources, the Court concludes that Idaho has an equitable right to a fair share of the fish resource. The Court finds, contrary to the Special Master's report, that it is possible to predict the size of the fish runs accurately and therefore it is possible to fashion a workable equitable decree. However, the Court agrees with the Special Master that Idaho has not demonstrated sufficient injury to justify a decree. The Court points out that an equitable decree should be based on present conditions rather than on past wrongs. Not only has Idaho received a substantial share of recent fish harvests, but has failed to demonstrate that Oregon and Washington have mismanaged the resource to Idaho's detriment.

Three justices dissent. They disagree with the Special Master's determination that although Idaho is entitled to its fair share of anadromous fish, it failed to show mismanagement. They would remand for a determination of whether Idaho has a protectable interest in preservation of the fish and what its fair share of harvestable fish should be.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jim Jones, Attorney General; Don Olowinski, Stephen V. Goddard
State Capitol, Boise ID 83720
(208) 334-2411

Counsel for Defendants
Edward B. Mackie, Chief Deputy Attorney General; James Johnson; Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General
Temple of Justice, Olympia WA 98504
(206) 753-6200