Blackfoot farmers sue Idaho after state shuts off irrigation water
Published at | Updated at
BLACKFOOT – A couple’s lawsuit against the Idaho Department of Water Resources alleges an arbitrary state law is denying them access to irrigation water and preventing them from watering crops.
Jerry and Valerie Bingham own a 1,000-acre farm west of Blackfoot where they grow wheat, alfalfa and potatoes. The department shut off their water in May allegedly because they were not part of a state-approved mitigation plan. They filed a petition on Sept. 15 asking the court to review the department’s order. They also filed a motion to stay the order pending a review.
The Binghams were not available for comment, but attorney Stephen Davis is representing them at no cost. He’s with Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm that “defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse,” according to its website.
In an interview with EastIdahoNews.com, Davis provided additional background on the case. He says the department issued a curtailment order at the Bingham Family Farm in July 2025, which shut off their water. The department amended the order in December, which allowed them to use some water from April to mid-May 2026. Since mid-May, the couple has been unable to pump water for irrigation.
“This case is about letting the Binghams use their water rights as the law says they can,” Davis says.
RELATED | Butte County water dispute ends as groundwater users join state mitigation plan
The Binghams reportedly have water rights dating back to 1950. What Davis calls an “arbitrary rule” at the IDWR says those who aren’t part of an approved mitigation plan can’t use their water rights.
“Those mitigation plans ignore the priority of water rights among landowners,” says Davis. “The Binghams have the most senior water rights in the area.”
Under Idaho law, water is a public use and is subject to state regulation. Surface water users have senior water rights, and groundwater users are required to have a plan to recharge the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer during periods of shortage. Earlier this year, the IDWR issued a statewide drought declaration. Although groundwater users are required to conserve a minimum of 205,000-acre-feet of water annually, the water shortage in 2026 means there are no opportunities for recharge.
RELATED | Idaho declares drought emergency for all 44 counties as snowpack hits record lows
Before 2024, junior groundwater users were threatened with curtailment if the department determined there was a shortage. The 2024 Stipulated Mitigation Agreement is a four-year plan that provides a safe harbor and protects wells from being shut off, but only if users join a groundwater district and are compliant with a mitigation agreement.
Davis says the Binghams don’t want to join a groundwater district and proposed five of their own mitigation plans to the department, one of which called for a 40% reduction in water usage. All of their proposals were rejected.
“They asked for a reconsideration, and it was denied. They asked for a hearing on the motion to reconsider and it was denied,” says Davis.
EastIdahoNews.com reached out to the Department of Water Resources, which offered “no comment” on the case.
Davis cites Article 1, section 14 of Idaho’s Constitution, which revolves around water infrastructure and its public use across the state.
“Private property may be taken for public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefor,” the law says.
RELATED | Idaho’s reservoirs hit historic low as winter outlook raises more water worries
In a news release, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Damien Schiff says the issue of priority water rights is the heart of the case and the government is obligated to “respect the Binghams’ water rights or pay them for its refusal to do so.”
“Their lawsuit seeks a return to the lawful, predictable framework Idaho farmers need to steward resources, grow food, and plan for the future,” Schiff says.
Davis says oral argument on the petition is scheduled for Feb. 11, 2027. There’s been no ruling on the motion to stay the shutoff order.
