Case Title: SUNSET IRRIGATION DIST v AILPORT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12622 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 SUNSET IRRIGATION P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, T H E O D O R E AILPORT, et a 1. , Defendants and Appellants. V E R N O N WOOLSEY; IDA B. TERRY, formerly IDA B. CRONIN; DAN W. CRONIN, J R . ; D O N A L D F . PARK; JOHN POPE ; J . H. M Y E R S ; J O E EBERHARDT, t h e successor i n i n t e r e s t t o GEORGE M. CAREY; ROBERT LEWIS, t h e successor i n i n t e r e s t t o EVA McCORMICK; and A R A L O N G VAN DUSEN, Appealing Defendants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert S. Keller, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Loble, P i c o t t e , Loble, Pauly and Sternhagen, Helena, Montana Lester H. Loble, I1 argued, Helena, Montana Murray and Holt, Missoula, Montana Robert Brown, Stevensville, Montana For Respondent : Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, Missoula, Montana William T. Boone argued, Missoula, Montana Koch and McKenna, Hamilton, Mont2na Thomas P. Koch appeared, Hamilton, Montana Submitted: September 10, 1974 Decided : :* - k - - : Y 7 $ f i n : 5 . ;-., F i l e d : ,U ; , ' i 1 1 ' Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court o f t h e f o u r t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n R a v a l l i County, t h e Honorable Robert S. Keller, presiding a f t e r t h e death of t h e l a t e P h i l l i p Duncan who took t h e testimony. The court found i n favor of p l a i n t i f f and granted it an appropriation of water. The court found a g a i n s t cross-claimants and counter-claimants and denied them r e l i e f . P l a i n t i f f i s Sunset I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , an i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t organized under s t a t u t e . P l a i n t i f f brought t h e a c t i o n t o appropriate a d d i t i o n a l waters of Burnt Fork Creek by enlarge- ment of the d i s t r i c t ' s e x i s t i n g dam on Burnt Fork Lake, s i t u a t e d a t t h e head of Burnt Fork Creek, i n a mountain basin involving about one square mile of t h e drainage area of t h e creek which drains 74 square miles. The enlargement of t h e dam would increase t h e storage capacity of t h e lake from 386 a c r e f e e t t o 953 a c r e f e e Burnt Fork Creek i s an adjudicated stream. ~efend'ants r e s i s t e d t h e appropriation. Certain of t h e defendants f i l e d a cross-claim and counter-claim under s e c t i o n 89-1015, R.C.M. 1947, t o require water users on an adjudicated stream t o use water according t o decree and t o require t h e water commissioner t o d i s t r i b u t e and measure t h e water i n accordance with the decree. The issues f o r review a r e two i n number, (1) whether t h e court was i n e r r o r i n granting Sunset an appropriation of 953 a c r e f e e t of water together with t h e r i g h t t o impound i t ; and (2) whether t h e c o u r t erred i n denying r e l i e f t o t h e cross- -2- claimants and counter-claimants. Before discussing t h e i s s u e s , we s h a l l comment b r i e f - l y on t h e s i t u a t i o n posed by t h e death of t h e t r i a l judge who heard t h e evidence. A s t i p u l a t i o n was entered i n t o which waived a new t r i a l , approved Judge K e l l e r ' s assumption of j u r i s d i c t i o n and a view of the a r e a , and s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e usual presumptions of correctness of Judge Keller 's findings based on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence would not apply. Thus, we ex- amine t h e e n t i r e record a s i f we were t r i a l judges. By t h i s we do not mean t h a t we w i l l separately and i n d e t a i l find f a c t s ; but t h a t we w i l l examine t h e record t o determine t h e ultimate f a c t s . Judge K e l l e r viewed t h e e n t i r e water drainage. We w i l l only view t h e e x h i b i t s . (For a comparison of a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , see Worden v. Alexander, e t a l . , 108 Mont. 208, 90 P.2d 160.) Further, t h e i s s u e s a r e approached d i f f e r e n t l y i n appel- l a n t s ' b r i e f from t h a t of respondent's b r i e f . Appellants a s - s e r t t h a t s u n s e t ' s a c t i o n t o appropriate waters of Burnt Fork Creek i s by enlargement of i t s presently unlawful dam. Much of t h e t h r u s t of a p p e l l a n t s 1 argument i s based on the repeated a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e present e x i s t i n g dam i s unlawful. So, we w i l l review the h i s t o r y of Sunset's storage. Burnt Fork was adjudicated i n Cowell v. J u l i a n , R a v a l l i County Cause No. 556, decree dated A p r i l 19, 1905. I n 1907, t h e record shows a dam f o r storage with an appropriation of water which came down by conveyances of record ( a l b e i t per- haps not p e r f e c t and exclusive t i t l e ) t o Sunset. It i s c l e a r -3- t h a t Sunset has a s s e r t e d and survived a l l r i g h t s of owner- ship. I n 1929 t h e dam was enlarged t o i t s present s i z e , about 400 f e e t long and 18 f e e t high with about 35 a c r e s of area i n t h e lake. The dam captures and s t o r e s water from a drainage area of about one square mile. From November 1 t o May, flood and surplus waters from springs, melting snows and r a i n s t h a t would otherwise go t o waste a r e stored. The dam was constructed and operated under a permit of t h e U.S. Forest Service. The stored water i s released about J u l y 15 and con- ducted by means of the creek channel t o two ditches which then convey the water t o Sunset lands. The foregoing b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e dam was not, a s appellants keep repeating, an i l l e g a l dam i n any sense of t h e word. It would unduly lengthen t h i s opinion t o analyze t h e testimony of each witness. However, Judge Keller i n a memo attached t o h i s findings and conclusions has succinctly s t a t e d h i s r a t i o n a l e a s follows : "MEMO: There is no question but what water i s going t o waste, both during t h e non-irrigation time of t h e year, and a t the highwater period. ~ e f e n d a n t s ' con- cern is predicated primarily on t h e need f o r keeping an underground r e s e r v o i r f i l l e d , which is done with run-off water, and with thoroughly flooding t h e crop lands a t t h e period of highwater, so t h a t t h e i r decreed r i g h t s w i l l maintain t h e growth of crops f o r the r e s t of the growing season. "The amount of water stored from October 1 u n t i l May 1, o r t h e need f o r t h a t water, i s not s e r i o u s l y contended by any of the witnesses f o r t h e defense. Apart from t h e f a c t t h a t no one has had it f o r over f o r t y years, t h e amount involved i s i n f i n i t e s i m a l compared t o t h e r e s t of t h e drainage of Burnt Fork Creek, and t h i s Court is s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h a t is t r u l y water going t o waste. A s t o t h e use of water during normal run-off time by a l l of the users, t h e testimony made it c l e a r t h a t everybody used a l l t h e water he could g e t , two t o t h r e e times t h e decree r i g h t s , and t h e r e was s t i l l water running down t h e creek, i . e . , a l l of t h e water a t normal run-off time cannot be put t o a b e n e f i c i a l use, cannot even be used. N o w t h e normal run-off water should be coming from lower elevations than Burnt Fork Lake, and again, t h e amount t h a t would be impounded i n the proposed dam would be l e s s than 5% of the run-off waters, i . e . , t h e defendants w i l l not s u f f e r detriment. "The f a c t t h a t so many of t h e users, including many of the witnesses f o r the defense, urged t h e construc- t i o n of a dam a t t h e mouth of Gold Creek makes it c l e a r t h a t a v a s t number of the u s e r s , i f not a l l of them, believed t h e r e i s not only water going t o waste, but t h a t t h e r e should be an impoundment of these waters. "The concern of Professor Bowman t h a t the new dam w i l l s t o p t h e springs from flowing i n t h e Burnt Fork Lake basin omitted somethirgin t h e t e l l i n g . H e viewed t h e Lake, and took t h e pictures of t h e Lake, i n September, i . e . , when t h e headgates were open, and t h e Lake was down a s f a r a s it could go. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a s t majority of these springs were j u s t above t h e l e v e l of t h e Lake when he viewed it i n September of 1968, i.e., a l l of those springs would be shut down by the weight of t h e water with t h e present dam, s i n c e 2 t o 7 f e e t of water would be s u f f i c i e n t t o do t h i s . The e f f e c t of t h i s condition i n t h e past, i t h i s t e s t i - mony is c o r r e c t , is t o provide an a d d i t i o n a l a q u i f e r f o r the b e n e f i t of t h e decreed users. The Lake waters were impounded a t a time when they do not need t h e water, and t h i s i s when t h e springs a r e shut o f f , i . e . , when they do not need t h e water. When t h e dam is l e t o u t , t h e p l a i n t i f f s g e t only t h e amount of water t h a t is i m - pounded i n t h e dam, with a l l excess water going on down t h e creek. A s t h e waters a r e l e t out of t h e dam, these springs a r e released, which a l s o releases t h e waters i m - pounded by t h e s h u t t i n g o f f of the springs. This is water t h a t goes on down t h e creek, f o r it is not included i n t h e computation of water impounded by t h e Sunset Ir- r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . I f Professor owm man's testimony i s c o r r e c t , t h e same condition w i l l continue i n t h e f u t u r e , only more springs w i l l be stopped, giving a g r e a t e r bene- f i t t o t h e decreed users. h he concern of t h e defendants t h a t t h i s water is going out of the drainage d i s t r i c t i s not a v a l i d concern. It is water going t o waste, which would otherwise be flowing i n t o the B i t t e r r o o t River, of no more use t o t h e decreed users than i f it goes up on t h e Sunset Bench. "The new dam should be a b e n e f i t t o a l l p a r t i e s . Heretofore, t h e normal flow i n May, before t h e dam f i l l s , was withheld from t h e creek, and a t times, t h i s flow could have been u t i l i z e d by the decreed users who needed t o i r r i g a t e i n May. The new dam w i l l have the kind of controls i n it t h a t w i l l permit t h i s flow t o be released, and a t t h e same time give a g r e a t e r impoundment of run-off waters. The Court was not too impressed with t h e arguments concerning adverse use, but i n a Court of Equity, i t ' s extremely d i f f i c u t t o overlook laches. I I What the t r i a l court found, and a s we find from t h e record, i s t h a t : no i n j u r y was shown t o p r i o r appropriators; t h e r e was surplus water t o be appropriated i n the manner proposed; t h e storage proposed not only would not i n j u r e other users but a c t u a l l y b e n e f i t them; t h a t t h e proposed dam could be operated s o a s not t o i n t e r f e r e with o t h e r s ; and t h a t t h e appellants were g u i l t y of laches. Other matters such a s adverse use and prescrip- t i v e r i g h t s were not r e a l l y an i s s u e and need not be determined. W e have examined t h e record, e x h i b i t s , and f i n d a s t h e d i s t r i c t court did. Thus, a s t o t h e issues previously s e t f o r t h , t h e Court was c o r r e c t i n granting an appropriation of water with the r i g h t t o impound it, subject t o conditions; and was a l s o cor- r e c t i n denying r e l i e f t o the cross-claimants and counter-claimants. Accordingly t h e judgment i s affirmed. W e concur: - - ------ * > . - &-~-&-Qikd!~ t i c e - $ , - . -.--, - - , - , - - - - - , - & & , L ,----- l.- ---'d-kkk---.+-- Chief J u s t i c e s i t t i n g i n place of J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison.