Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon

Background

The State of Idaho sued the States of Oregon and Washington asking a court to allocate some migrating salmon and steelhead that originate in Idaho and travel through the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Idaho says fishermen in Oregon and Washington take a disproportionate share of the fish destined for Idaho. The fish must pass eight federal dams and are also subject to treaty shares for Indian tribes under a prior agreement called the Sohappy plan.

Reasoning

A court-appointed Special Master had recommended dismissing Idaho’s complaint because the United States, which runs the dams and acts as trustee for the tribes, was not a party. The Supreme Court examined whether a fair judgment was impossible without the United States. The Court concluded the United States was not indispensable. It said ocean regulation and dam operation did not prevent the Court from ordering an allocation because dam mortality can be estimated, the Sohappy agreement limits tribal shares, and Idaho might enforce limits through existing litigation if needed. The Court therefore sustained Idaho’s objection to dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

Idaho can continue in court to try to win a guaranteed share of fish that reach its spawning grounds. The decision does not decide who ultimately wins or change federal dam operations or tribal treaty rights; those issues remain for later proceedings. If Idaho proves it was harmed, the ruling could lead to limits on some commercial fishing in Oregon and Washington to increase fish reaching Idaho.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Stewart and Marshall dissented, agreeing with the Special Master that the United States was a necessary party and would have dismissed the complaint.