Case Title: HANSON v SO SIDE CANAL USERS ASSO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12727 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1975 E L M E R Do H A N S O M e t a l e , Plaintiffs and Respondents, S O U T H SIDE C A N A L USERS' ASSOCIATION e t al., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Victor H e Fall, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg, Jr. argued, Bozeman, Montana Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana James T o Harrison, Jr. argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Small, Cummins, Hatch and Gregory A. Jackson, Helena, Montana Floyd 0, Small argued and Carl Hatch appeared, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 8, 1975 Decided: JUh! 1 3 1975 Filed : 3 t F : 3 :975 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal by defendants South Side Canal Users' Association and Montana S t a t e Water Conservation Board, from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court, Meagher County, adj.udicating p l a i n t i f f s ' r i g h t s t o waters of the North Fork of t h e Smith River and awarding each a p r i o r i t y date of April 1, 1915. The original decree adjudicating waters of the North Fork of the Smith River was rendered by the d i s t r i c t court on August 30, 1890. A l l p l a i n t i f f s i n the present action, except Elmer Hanson and Howard Zehntner, a r e successors i n i n t e r e s t t o the o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s of the i n i t i a l action and own decreed r i g h t s i n the North Fork. Other persons having decreed r i g h t s i n the North Fork have not been joined a s p a r t i e s t o t h i s present action. O n October 23, 1935, the Montana S t a t e Water Conservation Board f i l e d f o r record i n the o f f i c e of the c l e r k and recorder of Meagher County i t s declaration of intention t o store, control and d i v e r t " A l l unappropriated waters of North Fork of Smith River and t r i b u t a r i e s * * * I I Said waters w i l l be appropriated by means of Storage Reservoir, Located: Meagher County, Sec. 17 & 20, T. 10 N. R. 8. 11 Within four years of the f i l i n g of t h a t notice, the S t a t e Water Conservation Board constructed the Sutherland D a m with a capacity of approximately 11,000 acre f e e t of water. After the construction of the dam and within four years of the f i l i n g of i t s declaration, the State Water Conservation Board a l s o completed the construction of the South Side Canal. P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r complaint i n the d i s t r i c t court on March 6, 1969, and alleged therein: 11 That ever since the making and entering of the afore- mentioned decree and adjudication of water r i g h t s , a l l of the above-named p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t have, i n the spring season of each year, been taking and using f o r beneficial use and purposes and f o r i r r i g a t i o n of t h e i r lands within the drainage of said Smith River and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , sub- s t a n t i a l and * * * additional amounts of the flood or waste waters t h a t normally run and flow down said stream o r streams, over and above t h e i r taking and use of t h e i r decreed r i g h t s i n t h e normal flow of s a i d stream o r streams; and t h a t such appropriation and useage of said flood or waste waters by p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , have existed and been continuous, each and every year since the time of the entry of said aforementioned decree and adjudication; and t h a t by reason thereof, and through the taking and use of said flood or waste waters, p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , have made and established a valid appropriation and use of said flood and waste waters, dating back t o a period prior t o 1918. "That pursuant thereto, p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t have continuously used said flood or waste waters i n addition t o t h e i r decreed r i g h t s i n the normal flow of s a i d stream during the months of April, May, and June of each year, u n t i l the defendant S O U T H SIDE C A N A L USERS' ASSOCIATION interrupted and interfered with p l a i n t i f f s ' use thereof during the past two years * * *. "* * * and t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a r e accordingly de- sirous of obtaining herein a supplemental decree of adjudication of the water r i g h t s of said North Fork-of the Smith River and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , recognizing and adopting the decreed r i g h t s a s established and e x i s t i n g under t h e aforementioned o r i g i n a l adjudication decree of 1890, together with any amendments thereof t o the present time, and f u r t h e r adjudicating and decreeing t o the plain- t i f f s herein additional r i g h t s i n the waters of said stream o r streams i n the respective amounts a s hereinabove s e t f o r t h f o r each of said p l a i n t i f f s * * *. "* * * and t h a t t o the extent and amount of flood o r waste waters required t o f i l l said reservoir, the p l a i n t i f f s herein recognize and accede t o the r i g h t s of said Water Conservation Board, but t h a t it i s claimed and sought by p l a i n t i f f s herein t o a s s e r t and e s t a b l i s h t h e i r respective r i g h t s t o any and a l l waste o r flood waters i n o r upon s a i d streams each year t h a t a r e not required f o r the f i l l i n g of s a i d reservoir, and which would normally otherwise be l o s t t o any present beneficial use * * *. "* * * but t h a t during the past two (2) years, s a i d defendant South Side Canal users' Association, has a l s o , and i n addition t o the purchased storage waters from said reservoir, diverted and assumed t o convey through said d i t c h and canal, large q u a n t i t i e s of flood or waste waters from the said North Fork of the Smith River and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , which a r e waste o r flood waters of said stream o r streams, over and above the amounts thereof re- quired f o r the purposes of the Montana S t a t e Water Con- servation Board and i t s reservoir hereinabove mentioned. * * * "That the diversion by said defendant, South Side Canal Users' Association, of s a i d waste o r flood waters from said stream was and i s i n derogation of the r i g h t s of each and a l l of the p l a i n t i f f s herein t o the use of s a i d waters * * *. 1' That such diversion and interference of said flood or waste waters by said defendant South Side Canal Users' Association, i s without r i g h t , and con- t r a r y t o t h e r i g h t s of the p l a i n t i f f s and each of them hereinabove named by v i r t u e of the f a c t t h a t , a s herein- above s e t f o r t h , said p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r respective predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , have heretofore appropriated and established t h e i r respective r i g h t s t o t h e amounts of said flood o r waste waters i n the amounts hereinabove s t a t e d , and have used and made beneficial use of such waters con- tinuously f o r a period dating back prior t o the year 1918, and t h a t said p l a i n t i f f s , and each of them, a r e e n t i t l e d a s against said defendant South Side Canal users' Associa- t i o n , t o a decree adjudicating the r i g h t s of s a i d p l a i n t i f f s , and each of them, t o prior r i g h t s i n and t o the waters and flood waters of said North Fork of the Smith River and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , over and above any decreed r i g h t s t h a t said p l a i n t i f f s , o r any of them, o r any other persons, may now have i n the use of the normal flow of said stream or streams * * * . I ' T r i a l commenced October 13, 1970, but was continued u n t i l April 16, 1973, while the p a r t i e s attempted t o s e t t l e t h e i r d i f f e r - ences among themselves. I n its findings of f a c t Nos. XIV and XV, the d i s t r i c t c our t found t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , o r t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , made valid and complete appropriations of the waters of the North Fork of the Smith River, i n addition t o t h e i r r i g h t s under the 1890 decree; t h a t the exact date of any one of such appropria- tions was not shown but it was c l e a r t h a t none of the appropria- tions was l a t e r than the year 1915. H e therefore awarded a l l p l a i n t i f f s additional water r i g h t s i n various q u a n t i t i e s , each with an equal p r i o r i t y date of April 1, 1915. Several issues were raised by defendant South Side Canal Users' Association i n its appeal. While the Montana S t a t e Water Conservation Board f i l e d a b r i e f and argued o r a l l y , it did not f i l e any notice of appeal. W e need discuss only one issue: Whether the evidence was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e findings of f a c t and conclusions of law entered by the d i s t r i c t court? W e hold the evidence does not support a finding t h a t any of t h e p l a i n t i f f s made a valid additional appropriation a s of 1915 o r a t any time prior t o Although numerous witnesses, including members of the South Side Canal users' Association, testified that they used as much flood water as was available in the spring; that they had done so for as long as they could remember; and, that the flood waters were beneficial to their crops; the testimony of only three witnesses bore even remotely on events prior to the year 1921. Billy Smith was born in 1903 and had lived in White Sulphur Springs all his life. In 1915, he would have been 12 years of age. He testified that the decreed users had been using considerable amounts of flood waters ever since he could remember. However the earliest specific date which is mentioned in his testimony is 1925, when he started working for the Cestle Mountain Ranch. Louis Jefferson testified that he had worked on the Holmstrom ranch since 1918 and started irrigating "in the early 20's". He then testified that the ranchers in the area had been It using the flood waters ever since that time". That latter testi- mony related as much to "the early 20's" as it did to 1918. He testified the Holmstrom ranch had been using the flood waters "for the past 50 [years] that I know of." Fifty years prior to the testimony of Louis Jefferson would have been 1923. Gertrude McStravick testified that she could "remember quite clearly what happened around 1913, '14." She stated she was sure that her granduncle always used the flood waters, "Otherwise he couldn't have grown the hay he did." She stated that she "rode around the ranch in his buggy with him and it was always very wet. I I However, her testimony made no distinction between flood water and decreed water. Further, on cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the capacity of the ditches as far back as 1913. The testimony set forth above is the sole testimony in a lengthy transcript bearing on events prior to 1921. I t was clearly insufficient to support the award of 11,450 miner's inches of flood waters to the fifteen plaintiffs with a priority date prior to 1921. Nor have p l a i n t i f f s since 1921 acquired any r i g h t s i n the waters of t h e North Fork of t h e Smith River a d d i t i o n a l t o t h e i r 1890 decreed r i g h t s . I n 1921 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted Chapter 228, Laws of 1921, which prescribed t h e method of making an appro- p r i a t i o n of t h e waters of an adjudicated stream. Section 4 of t h a t s t a t u t e was codified a s section 89-829, R.C.M. 1947, repealed 1973. I n Anaconda National Bank v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 401, 411, 244 P. 141, t h i s Court held t h a t method of appropriation of the waters of an adjudicated stream exclusive a s t o appropriations made a f t e r t h e passage of the a c t . Here, ~ l a i n t i f f s ' complaint d i d not comply with t h e requirements of section 89-829, a s i t e x i s t e d a t t h e time of i t s f i l i n g . P l a i n t i f f s acknowledge they have not followed t h e procedure f o r making appropriations s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 89-829, R.C.M. 1947, b u t contend, instead, t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y procedure i s n o t exclusive. That argument i s answered by the holding i n Anaconda National Bank. p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint w i l l not be construed a s t h e p e t i t i o n c a l l e d f o r by section 89-829. The complaint sought the adjudication of r i g h t s which p l a i n t i f f s alleged had previously vested i n them and which were, allegedly, being wrongfully diverted by t h e South Side Canal Users' Association. It d i d not purport t o obtain f o r plain- t i f f s any new water r i g h t with a p r i o r i t y d a t e a s of t h e d a t e of - f i l i n g t h e complaint. W e do n o t answer whether p l a i n t i f f s could have obtained a d d i t i o n a l water r i g h t s had they complied with s e c t i o n 89-829, R.C.M. 1947, a s it then existed; nor whether p l a i n t i f f s may appropriate t h e so-called "flood waters'' of the North Fork of the Smith River pursuant t o the present Montana Water Use Act, sections 89-865, R.C.M. 1947, e t seq.; nor t h e extent of t h e s t a t e ' s appropriation should t h e p l a i n t i f f s be successful i n making such an appropriation. W e acknowledge here the d i s s e n t of D i s t r i c t Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, s i t t i n g i n place of Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. F i r s t , a s we read the record, t h e south s i d e canal was constructed within four years of completion of t h e dam and i s not j u s t recently b u i l t . The dissent s t a t e s t h a t we attempt t o i n t e r p r e t the I l words unappropriated waters" a s meaning waters t h a t had not theretofore been decreed. Far from it. W e acknowledge t h a t p l a i n t i f f s Hanson and Zehntner do not own "decreed" r i g h t s but do have valid appropriations. Of course, many, many, existing water r i g h t s have not been "decreed" but they have been appropriated. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed. Justice U W e Concur: / Justices. Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, D i s t r i c t Judge,sitting f o r Chief Justice James T . Harrison, dissenting: I dissent. Prior t o 1890 the P l a i n t i f f s ' predecessors i n i n t e r e s t dug canals and took the waters of the North Fork of Smith River and used them f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. O n August 30, 1890 the D i s t r i c t Court from Meagher County issued a decree adjudicating the waters of Smith River; i n doing so the D i s t r i c t Court followed the customary practice of awarding about one inch per acre of i r r i g a t e d land. This practice took i n t o consideration the f a c t t h a t the adjudications were actually applicable only a t times when the water supply was short and the court was attempting t o spread t h e available water among a s many landowers a s possible. There i s no dgubt t h a t a f t e r 1890 the water users on the North Fork of Smith River, and i n f a c t the water users on a l l of 1!ontana1s decreed streams, continued t o use much more water during the high water or flood-water season; neither i s there any doubt t h a t such floodwaters were always put t o beneficial use. In 1935 the s t a t e of llontana f i l e d a Declaration of Intent t o Store, Divert and Control the unappropriated waters of the North Fork of Smith River. Within four years thereafter the s t a t e b u i l t a dam and a reservoir capable of holding 11,000 acre f e e t of water. In the years following the construction of the dam the s t a t e always sold about three-fourths of t h a t stored water t o the P l a i n t i f f s herein, who needed and used t h a t water on t h e i r lands i n addition t o the waters decreed t o them by the 1890 decree. This f a c t alone should e s t a b l i s h the need by the P l a i n t i f f s f o r water i n addition t o what they were allowed by the 1890 decree, and should a l s o e s t a b l i s h that the floodwaters had always been needed and put t o beneficial use. Recently the s t a t e b u i l t a canal t o carry floodwaters from the North Fork of Smith River t o an area outside the Smith River drainage. The s t a t e contended they had the r i g h t t o do t h i s because by t h e i r 1935 Declaration of Intent they had acquired ownership t o a l l waters t h a t were not decreed by the 1890 decree. The P l a i n t i f f s thereupon brought t h i s action t o prevent the s t a t e from removing the floodwaters from the Smith River drainage; the P l a i n t i f f s contended t h a t as f a r back a s 1890 they had appropriated and had acquired a r i g h t t o the use of the floodwaters, and that the mere f i l i n g of a Declaration of Intention by the s t a t e i n 1935 did not deprive them of t h e i r existing r i g h t s . The majority opinion attempts t o i n t e r p r e t the words 11 unappropriated w a ters" i n the s t a t e ' s Declaration of Intent a s meaning waters t h a t had not theretofore been decreed t o some person. That such was not the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t should be obvious from the existing f a c t s , and i s c e r t a i n l y borne out by the recent l e g i s l a t i o n wherein the S t a t e Legislature s t a t e d t h a t existing r i g h t s should be honored and t h a t decreed r i g h t s were only one of the means of ascertaining the e x i s t i n g r i g h t s . The D i s t r i c t Court held i n favor of the P l a i n t i f f s , and the D i s t r i c t Court Judge made some very accurate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and held t h a t the P l a i n t i f f s had existing r i g h t s t o the floodwaters of the Worth Fork of Smith River, which existing r i g h t s were i n excess of the decreed r i g h t s which were applicable i n the l a t e r i r r i g a t i n g season when the water supply was short. The D i s t r i c t Court decree should be affirmed. However, i t should be modified i n two particulars: The D i s t r i c t Court decree should be modified by granting the s t a t e a decreed r i g h t t o s t o r e 11,000 acre f e e t of floodwaters, which decreed r i g h t should be subsequent t o the 1890 decreed r i g h t s , but prior i n time t o the P l a i n t i f f s ' floodwater r i g h t s ; The District Court decree should also be amended by granting to the state of Montana a decreed right to those flood- waters in excess of the floodwater rights granted to the Plaintiffs by the District Court. Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, District Judge, sitting for Chief Justice James T. Harrison.