Frank Sigel Dietrich

The case involved Idaho Power Co. challenging an order by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission setting rates for electric service across its system in Idaho and parts of Oregon. The company argued that the rates were procedurally flawed and confiscatory under the federal Constitution, amounting to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The court reviewed the rate base, operating expenses, revenues, and net income, finding that the overall rates produced a return of approximately 6.7% on the apportioned Idaho rate base, which was not confiscatory. However, the court held that certain specific rate schedules for charitable institutions, water heating, air heating, and irrigation were invalid and enjoined their enforcement.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a farmer on the federal Boise Project irrigation system who fell behind on maintenance charges for drainage facilities and sued the project manager after water delivery was shut off pursuant to federal statute. The court decided for the defendant, dissolving the temporary injunction and permitting the withholding of water. The core reasoning was that the National Reclamation Act and the 1914 federal statute specifically authorize denying water to users in arrears for more than one year, state rules limiting such remedies for private irrigation companies do not bind federal projects, and no sufficient facts supported claims of estoppel or other defenses.

environmentfederal powerproperty