Case Title: ESTABLISHMENT ORG OF WARD IRRIGA

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 4 - 2 9 8 I N THF: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 I N THE PP'IATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WARD IRRIGATION D I S T R I C T . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n and for the C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. B o l t e r , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF FECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : L o b l e & Pauly; L e s t e r L o b l e , 11, H e l e n a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : R e c h t & G r e e f ; C h a r l e s R. R e c h t , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Jan. 1 0 , 1985 D e c i d e d : June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of 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 , R a v a l l i County, a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e c o n t r o l o v e r the Bray Lane Headgate i n t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , R a v a l l i County, Montana. W e a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and remand. The f o l l o w i n g i s a map o f t h e a r e a : Hayes Creek and Camas Creek b o t h + l o w e a s t e r l y from t h e i r o r i g i n s i n t h e B i t t e r o o t Mountains. Hayes Creek e n d s i n a marshy a r e a t o t h e w e s t o f Highway 93 and s o u t h o f Camas Creek. To t h e s o u t h i s L o s t Horse Creek, and t o t h e e a s t , t h e B i t t e r o o t River. A d i t c h used by t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n District r u n s from t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r , p i c k s up L o s t Horse Creek w a t e r , r u n s by Hayes Creek, and c o n t i n u e s u n t i l it j o i n s Camas Creek. During h i g h w a t e r , Hayes Creek s p i l l s o u t i n t o t h e d i t c h . I n most y e a r s , t h i s s p i l l a g e d o e s n o t c o n t i n u e p a s t t h e middle o f J u l y . Subsequent t o its c o n f l u e n c e w i t h Camas Creek, t h e combined c r e e k - d i t c h f o l l o w s t h e n a t u r a l bed o f Camas Creek. A s w i t h Hayes Creek, Camas Creek g e n e r a l l y o n l y c o n t r i b u t e s w a t e r t o t h e d i t c h d u r i n g h i g h w a t e r . The d i t c h t h e n r u n s p a s t t h e Bray Lane Headgate. The Foss f a m i l y r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s o p i n i o n c o n s i s t s o f : John F o s s , M i l l o Huggans, A l i c e F o s s , and o t h e r s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o Sam Foss, S r . They own a r a n c h o f approximately 500 a c r e s i n t h e B i t t e r r o o t V a l l e y t h a t i n c l u d e s p a r t s o f s e c t i o n s 26, 34, and 35 o f Township 5 North, Range 21 W e s t , M.P.M. About 130 a c r e s o f t h e Foss ranch i s included i n t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n District. The Fosses have d e c r e e d w a t e r r i g h t s f o r t h e i r land from Hayes Creek, Camas Creek, and t h e B i t t e r o o t River. The e x i s t e n c e of t h e s e r i g h t s i s n o t i n d i s p u t e . The F o s s ' land i n c l u d e d i n t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t h a s w a t e r r i g h t s from Camas Creek and t h e B i t t e r o o t River. The p a r t o f t h e r a n c h n o t i n t h e d i s t r i c t h a s w a t e r r i g h t s from Hayes and Camas Creeks. Camas Creek flows through s e c t i o n 34 above i t s c o n f l u e n c e w i t h t h e d i t c h . H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e Fosses d i v e r t e d t h e i r f i r s t t h r e e Camas r i g h t s t h e r e . Hayes Creek flows i n a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n s o u t h o f t h e Foss r a n c h , and t h e Hayes Creek water r i g h t s , a s w e 1 1 a s f o u r t h Camas r i g h t , were h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d a t t h e Bray Lane Headgate. The Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was formed i n 1938. The District's p e t i t i o n f o r formation s t a t e d a s i t s purpose t h a t : ". . . t h e lands above d e s c r i b e d , [ t h o s e included i n t h e District, i n c l u d i n g , a t t h e t i m e 36 a c r e s owned by Sam Foss] and t o be included i n t h e s a i d Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , a r e t o be i r r i g a t e d from t h e water furnished from t h e B i t t e r o o t River and 1000 i n c h e s o f water o f Lost Horse Creek, and conveyed from t h e s a i d r i v e r by and through t h a t c e r t a i n d i t c h known a s t h e 'Ward Ditch' 11 . . . Sam Foss was t h e f i r s t s i g n a t o r o f t h i s p e t i t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e r e p o r t of t h e S t a t e Engineer, r e q u i r e d by law t o accompany any p e t i t i o n f o r establishment of i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s , s t a t e d t h a t : ". . . t h e p r e s e n t proposal i s t h e formation o f an I r r i g a t i o n District only t o t a k e o v e r and o p e r a t e t h e e x i s t i n g main c a n a l and s t r u c t u r e s f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and d e l i v e r y o f water t o which t h e lands comprising t h e d i s t r i c t a r e e n t i t l e d under i n d i v i d u a l water r i g h t s s e v e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d . . . " Following i t s formation, t h e D i s t r i c t has added s e v e r a l p a r c e l s o f land, i n c l u d i n g some Foss a c r e a g e , t o t h e service a r e a o f t h e Ward Ditch. H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e Fosses have conveyed Camas Creek and Hayes Creek water through t h e Ward Ditch and t h e D i s t r i c t d e l i v e r e d water t o Foss land o u t s i d e t h e d i s t r i c t through t h e Bray Lane Headgate. This p r a c t i c e ended i n 1979 when t h e D i s t r i c t requested t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o p r o h i b i t t h e Fosses from a d j u s t i n g t h e Bray Lane Headgate. O n May 7, 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted t h e D i s t r i c t ' s r e q u e s t and i s s u e d a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and o r d e r t o show cause p r o h i b i t i n g t h e Fosses from any f u r t h e r d i v e r s i o n s a t Bray Lane. The temporary o r d e r was continued f o r f o u r y e a r s . I n A p r i l o f 1983, M i l l o Huggans was h e l d i n contempt o f c o u r t f o r a d j u s t i n g t h e headgate. John Foss was h e l d i n contempt on t h e same b a s i s i n August o f 1984. I n t h i s a c t i o n , t h e Fosses c l a i m t h a t t h e i r Hayes and Camas Creek r i g h t s e x i s t e d p r i o r t o t h e formation of t h e D i s t r i c t ; t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t i s f i r s t u s i n g Hayes Creek and t h e n Camas Creek a s i t s d i t c h ; and t h a t p u r s u a n t t o g e n e r a l w a t e r law p r i n c i p l e s and s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA, t h e y should b e allowed t o d i v e r t t h e i r w a t e r s a t t h e Bray Lane Headgate. Respondents, t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , contend t h a t t h e s o l e i s s u e i s t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e Bray Lane Headgate, an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e District's system. The D i s t r i c t c l a i m s t h a t t h e F o s s e s have n e v e r used t h e Bray Lane Headgate a s an e x c l u s i v e p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n , and t h a t t h e y have a q u i e s c e d c o n t r o l o f a l l h e a d g a t e s t o t h e D i s t r i c t f o r more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c t m a i n t a i n s t h a t c o n t r o l o f t h e Bray Lane Headgate i s n e c e s s a r y t o g u a r a n t e e adequate w a t e r t o i t s members and t o p r e v e n t r n i s d e l i v e r i e s and f l o o d i n g . F i n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c t p o i n t s o u t t h a t it h a s , and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o d e l i v e r t o t h e F o s s e s as much w a t e r a t t h e headgate a s t h e y need. T r i a l was h e l d on December 14, 1983. I n a d d i t i o n t o t a k i n g e v i d e n c e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge p e r s o n a l l y viewed t h e a r e a . On A p r i l 1 7 , 1984, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . Because of t h e complexity o f t h e c a s e , and because appel l a n t s p u t t h e f i n d i n g s a t i s s u e , w e q u o t e them a t l e n g t h : " 2 . The D i s t r i c t owns an i r r i g a t i o n canal which commences a t t h e B i t t e r r o o t River i n S e c t i o n 1 4 , T4N, R21W, M.P.M., p i c k s up L o s t Horse Creek w a t e r and t h e n flows i n a n o r t h e r l y and sometimes w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n f o r a b o u t 3+ m i l e s . . . "6. The o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t a r e such t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t must have c o n t r o l o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w a t e r throughout t h e system and p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e Rray headgate. I f t h e D i s t r i c t d o e s n o t have c o n t r o l o f t h e e n t i r e system, t h e r e s u l t w i l l b e m i s d e l i v e r y o f w a t e r i n c l u d i n g s h o r t a g e s i n some p l a c e s and f l o o d s i n t h e o t h e r . It t a k e s a number o f h o u r s t o a d j u s t d e l i v e r y a t t h e v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n t h e d i t c h which r e q u i r e s p r e p l a n n i n g i n o p e r a t i o n . "7. Camas Creek h a s s e v e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s o f w a t e r from it, i n c l u d i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s owned by Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s . It u s u a l l y d r i e s up by t h e middle o f j u l y [ s i c ] o f e a c h y e a r i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e c r e e k immediately above t h e p l a c e where t h e D i s t r i c t ' s d i t c h flows i n t o t h e bed o f Camas Creek. From t h a t p o i n t , t h e D i s t r i c t u t i l i z e s t h e c r e e k bed a s i t s main d i t c h f o r a s h o r t d i s t a n c e . During t h e i r r i g a t i o n season no w a t e r from Camas Creek r u n s i n t o o r combines w i t h w a t e r i n t h e District d i s t r i b u t i o n system. Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s have no w a t e r which would i n any way run i n t o t h e D i s t r i c t ' s system. They have a system h i g h e r up Camas Creek f o r d i v e r s i o n o f t h e i r Camas Creek w a t e r . "8. Hayes Creek i s l o c a t e d South and W e s t o f Camas Creek. Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s c l a i m t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e District's c a n a l t o convey Camas Creek [ s i c ] [Hayes Creek?] w a t e r t o t h e i r l a n d s , which is t h e o n l y p r a c t i c a l r o u t e . I n t h e p a s t , t h i s r o u t e h a s been used w i t h t h e permission o f t h e District. No measuring d e v i c e h a s ever been i n s t a l l e d t o measure Hayes Creek w a t e r i n o r o u t o f t h e District's c a n a l . . . P a s t r e c o r d s do show t h e D i s t r i c t i n a b s o l u t e c o n t r o l o f t h e system a t a l l t i m e s s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1950's. "9. It i s t h e common p r a c t i c e f o r i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e D i s t r i c t t o b u i l d t h e i r own headga tes f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g w a t e r from t h e D i s t r i c t d i t c h e s t o t h e i r l a n d s . A f t e r such c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t assumes c o n t r o l o f t h e headgate and h a s a u t h o r i t y t o o p e r a t e it. N e i t h e r Sam F o s s n o r h i s s u c c e s s o r s have any r i g h t t o w a t e r flowing i n t o o r c o n t r o l l e d by t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t e x c e p t a s D i s t r i c t members or e x c e p t by p e r m i s s i v e u s e [ s i c ] o f t h e D i s t r i c t . "Now, t h e r e f o r e , t h e Court concludes: "2. Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s do n o t have a u t h o r i t y by e i t h e r g r a n t , a d v e r s e u s e o r c o n t r a c t t o convey Camas Creek o r Hayes Creek w a t e r s t h r o u g h t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system of t h e District. " 3 . I n t h e p a s t , Sam Foss and Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s have flowed Hayes Creek w a t e r through t h e D i s t r i c t ' s c a n a l w i t h p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e District. I n o r d e r f o r them t o d o s o i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e y must o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t . . . " The a p p e l l a n t s r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : (1) T h a t s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA p r o h i b i t s t h e D i s t r i c t from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e Foss f a m i l y ' s u s e o f t h e Bray Lane Headgates; ( 2 ) T h a t t h e c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f Hayes and Camas Creeks does n o t a f f e c t t h e Foss f a m i l y ' s r i g h t s ; ( 3 ) That t h e District's system u s e s t h e n a t u r a l beds o f Hayes and Camas Creeks, and t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f u s e r s o f t h e n a t u r a l f l o w a r e primary and s u p e r i o r t o t h e convenience and management o f t h e d i t c h system; ( 4 ) T h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e F o s s e s do n o t have w a t e r r i g h t s a t t h e Bray Lane Headgate a r e n o t supported by t h e evidence; and t h a t (5) The i n j u c t i o n p r e s e n t l y i n f o r c e i s unlawful. A p p e l l a n t s ' b r i e f c o n t a i n s government s u r v e y d e s c r i p t i o n s and maps o f t h e a r e a t h a t a l l e g e d l y show t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t ' s d i t c h i s a c t u a l l y Hayes Creek, u n t i l it converges w i t h Camas Creek, and a f t e r t h a t p o i n t t h a t it f o l l o w s t h e Camas Creek bed. Respondents o b j e c t t o a p p e l l a n t s ' i n c l u s i o n o f t h e s e s u r v e y d e s c r i p t i o n s and maps because t h e y were n o t i n t r o d u c e d a s e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A p p e l l a n t s contend t h e u s e o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s and maps i s p r o p e r under Rule 201 (b) , Mont. R.Evid. because t h e y p r e s e n t f a c t s " n o t s u b j e c t t o r e a s o n a b l e d i s p u t e . " W e w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e s e documents f o r two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e Comment t o Rule 201 p r o v i d e s t h a t " j u d i c i a l n o t i c e can be t a k e n a t any s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , and i n c l u d e s w i t h i n i t s scope " p u b l i s h e d maps o r c h a r t s 1 ' Commission Comments, Rule 201, Mont.R.Evid. Secondly, t h e Montana Water Code s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o ~ ~ i d e s t h a t i n t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , maps and d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e a c c e p t a b l e a r t i c l e s o f e v i d e n c e by which t o show a w a t e r r i g h t . See s e c t i o n 85-2-224 (2) , M C A . W e a r e m i n d f u l , though, t h a t i n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and maps, w e must a l s o g i v e weight t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e t h e judge p h y s i c a l l y viewed t h e a r e a . I n Grimsley v. E s t a t e o f Spencer (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 670 P.2d 85, 40 St.Rep. 1585, w e s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f review i n an e q u i t y c a s e such a s t h i s : " I n examining t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s Decree, w e a r e e n t i t l e d t o review a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a r i s i n g upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , and d e t e r m i n e t h e same, a s w e l l a s q u e s t i o n s o f law. . . I n s o d o i n g , however, w e have always indulged c e r t a i n presumptions i n f a v o r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . W e d o n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; r a t h e r , we d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e lower c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . . . " 670 P.2d a t 94, 40 St.Rep. a t 1595. See a l s o 79 Ranch, I n c . v. P i t s c h (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 666 P.2d 215, Moving to the substantive issue, as the late Professor Wells A. Hutchins, in his treatise Water Rights Laws in the --- Nineteen Western States (1971) notes r "The purpose of an irrigation organization is to provide water for the use of agricultural lands that cannot be irrigated by individual means as convenient] y or economically as by a group enterprise, if at a 1 1 . . . " Hutchins, supra at 550, 551. But, a district cannot be formed unless its members are willing to part with some of their rights, particularly the right to control the distribution system. Generally, what occurs is that by authority of the Order establishing an irrigation district, the rights to claim and use water under water rights appurtenant to lands included within a district are conveyed thereto. The rights that the district received by authority of the court Order, or other rights subsequently developed, "are held . . . in trust for the performance of their several functions, l1 Hutchins, supra at 551; see also 45 Am.Jur.2dI Irrigation, S62; but: ". . . even if the holders do convey their water rights to the company for the mere purpose of convenient management and distribution of the water to users according to their respective rights, there is no severance of the right from the land to which it was appurtenant." Hutchins, supra at 552. The most important function of an irrigation district is the control., to the mutual advantage of all the members, of the irrigation system. Indeed, though water rights remain with the private appropriator, the prerogative of control must lie exclusively with the district. For this reason, a dI.:;I:r:i~:t court has the limited power, (subject to the wi.-tkd'rawa 1 provision in section 85-7-107 (b) , MCA) when considering a petition for the formation of an irrigation district, to include or exclude lands depending on whether such lands and their appurtenant water rights are essential to the efficacy of the proposed district, see 85-7-107, MCA; In Re Pet for Org. & Est. of an Irr. Dist. (Mont. 1984), 680 P.2d 944, 41 St.Rep. 658, (The Daly Ditch Case) ; Scilley v. Red Lodge-Rosebud Irr. Dist. (1928), 83 Mont. 282, 272 P. Appellants contend that section 85-7-1922, MCA prohi-bits the District from interfering with the Foss family's control of the Bray Lane Headgate necessary to utilize their Hayes and Camas Creek rights. Addressing the powers and duties of irrigation districts, that section states: "Regulation, supervision, apportionment, and control of water distribution. In addition to all other powers granted them by the laws of Montana, boards of commissioners of a 11 irrigation districts, now or hereafter organized under any law of this state, shall have the power and authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control the furnishing and delivery of water through the distribution system of the district. Such authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control shall not apply to users who have water rights or ditch rights, established, acquired by court decree, use, appropriation or otherwise, at the time or prior to the organization of such district, without regard to whether said distribution system or any portion thereof belongs to the district or to the owner of lands served by said district." This provision was enacted in 1935 as a general amendment to the Water Use Act, see Sec. 2, Ch. 63, L. 1935. It was meant to cover situations where an irrigation district is formed and begins the distribution of water and its system overlays existing streams, ditches, and headgates. Section 85-7-1922, MCA, does two things: First, it gives an irrigation district the exclusive right to regulate and control its distribution system. Second, it prohibits a district from controlling its distribution system in a manner that detrimentally affects other water rights over which the district has no control. As such, it is a restatement of the common law rule that: "An irrigation district acquiring a system which has theretofore furnished water to settlers outside of the district, who had a vested right thereto, is compelled to continue to deliver such water." Yaden v. Gem. Irr. Dist. (Id. 1923), 216 P. 250, 252. See also, - The Daly Ditch Case, supra; Koch v. Colvin (1940), 110 Mont. 594, 105 P.2d 334; Maclay v. Missoula Irr. Dist. (1921), 90 Mont. 344, 3 P.2d 286. The above discussion points out the two distinct aspects of the district's functions: control of the irrigation system, and delivery of water to where it is due. Here, the District Court in the 1938 Order establishing the Ward Irrigation District, granted the District exclusive control over the described distribution system--including the Bray Lane Headgate. The same order also effected a transfer of control of the water rights appurtenant to the lands included within the district. It did not affect those water rights appurtenant to lands not included in the district but nonetheless served by the same system. As to those, the District did, and still does, have a continuing obligation to deliver that water in the amount and nature of the use existing before the District was formed. We have recognized this common-sense proposition before. In - The Daly Ditch Case, supra, we noted: "There does appear then to be an obligation, the exact nature of which we do not here attempt to determine, on the p a r t o f t h e newly-organized Daly D i t c h e s I r r i g a t i o n District, i f it i n t e n d s t o u s e t h e p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n and r i g h t s o f a p p r o p r i a t i o n a p p u r t e n a n t t o t h e l a n d s o f Skalkaho Creek exchange u s e r s f o r t h e u s e and b e n e f i t o f o t h e r land owners, t o p r o v i d e s u b s t i t u t e w a t e r i n exchange t o t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s . . . I f t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s j o i n t h e d i s t r i c t , t h e y w i l l r e c e i v e a c r e d i t on t h e i r assessment t o b e determined a t a l a t e r t i m e . I f t h e y d o n o t j o i n , t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s have l e f t t o them a l l l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e remedies i f w a t e r i s n o t d e l i v e r e d t o them." 680 P.2d a t 948, 949, 4 1 St.Rep. a t 663, 664. W e r u l e t h a t t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was g r a n t e d and h a s t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e Bray Lane Headgate. W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e District Court on t h a t p o i n t . T h i s r i g h t t o c o n t r o l , though, i s s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t must d e l i v e r t h e amount o f w a t e r t h a t i s a p p u r t e n a n t t o l a n d s o u t s i d e t h e D i s t r i c t i n c l u d i n g t h e Foss l a n d s , i n t h e same n a t u r e and amount t h a t was d e l i v e r e d p r i o r t o August 1 0 , 1938. I n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e D i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e Bray Lane Headgate i s s u b j e c t t o t h e District C o u r t ' s e q u i t y power t o work a r e a s o n a b l e accommodation between t h e two i n t e r e s t s . F u r t h e r , t h e F o s s e s have t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f b o t h l e g a l and e q u i t a b l e remedies t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t d e l i v e r s t h e w a t e r t o which t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d . S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t h e purpose o f t h i s a c t i o n o f what w a t e r r i g h t s a r e a p p u r t e n a n t t o what l a n d s , and i n t h a t r e g a r d t h e c o n t r o l o f which ones t h a t were conveyed t o t h e D i s t r i c t , and which w e r e n o t , we remand t h i s c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . W e n o t e though, t h a t t h e Foss' f i r s t t h r e e Camas Creek r i g h t s w e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d above where Camas Creek and t h e Ward D i t c h converge. These a r e s t i l l a v a i l a b l e t o them at their original point of diversion. See Galiyer v. McNulty (1927), 80 Mont. 339, 260 P. 401; Smith v. Duff (1909), 39 Mont. 382, 102 P. 984. Since the District Court, in Finding number 7, found that the District uses Camas Creek as its ditch subsequent to where it and the ditch meet, the Fosses are not precluded from applying for a change in the place of diversion or use pursuant to section 85-2-402, MCA. We overrule the District Court's Conclusions number 2 and 3, the portion of Finding number 9 inconsistent with this opinion. and those parts of the Order dependent thereon. The Fosses may if they choose, convey their Camas and Hayes Creek water rights in the same manner and amount established prior to 1938. The District has the obligation to deliver that water. If any measuring device is required, it should be the District's responsibility. This holding does not do violence to section 85-7-1925, MCA. That statute only applies to lands included within irrigation districts. Further, if it appears now that the ditch is too small to service District and other private water rights, and a larger one is needed, the Fosses should not be required to bear any burden of expansion. They were there first, and are entitled to exercise all of the property rights that they have not surrendered, or have had taken by court order. As to appellant's issues number two and three; since we reverse the District Court's conclusions numbers 2 and 3, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith, we do not address them at this time. Issue number four was generally discussed in the context of issue number one. Appellants have the right to have delivered to them by the District the waters allowed them for water rights not within the District, and for water t o which t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d a s members of t h e D i s t r i c t . The D i s t r i c t has e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l of t h e Bray Lane Headgate. To t h a t e x t e n t , we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court on t h i s i s s u e . F i n a l l y , a s t o i s s u e number f i v e , o t h e r than a f f i r m i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r , w e f i n d it a t t h i s p o i n t t o be moot. John Foss has been c i t e d f o r contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e District C o u r t ' s temporary r e s t a i n i n g o r d e r . The i s s u e o f t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n on which John Foss was found i n contempt i s p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e t h i s Court i n a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n . The District Court i s affirmed i n p a r t , reversed i n p a r t , and t h e c a s e is remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings i n accordance w i t h t h i s opinion. Each p a r t y s h a l l b e a r i t s own c o s t s . J u s t i c P W e concur: 1 J u s t i c e s