Case Title: Hofeldt v. Eyre

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hofeldt v. Eyre1993 WY 49849 P.2d 1295Case Number: 91-179Decided: 04/01/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming
Harold HOFELDT, 

Petitioner, 
(Plaintiff),

v.

John EYRE, Thomas Redmon, 
and the Wyoming State Board of Control, 

Respondents, 
(Defendants).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie County.

Jack Gage of 
Gage & Moxley, Cheyenne, for petitioner.

John Eyre and 
Thomas Redmon, pro se.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., Mary Guthrie, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dennis C. Cook, Sr. Asst. Atty. 
Gen., and Frederick E. Chemay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Wyoming State 
Bd. of Control.

Before 
THOMAS, CARDINE, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ., and BROWN, Ret. J.

BROWN, Justice, 
Retired.

[¶1]      The Wyoming State 
Board of Control denied Harold Hofeldt's petition for a declaration of 
abandonment of certain supplemental supply water rights attached to lands owned 
or leased by respondents Thomas Redmon and John Eyre.

[¶2]      Respondents state 
that the issues are:

Does the abandonment 
statute, § 41-3-401, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1991), apply to a supplemental supply 
water right in the same manner as it does to an original supply water right; 
and

     If not, is a 
supplemental supply right subject to a declaration of abandonment for non-use 
when the irrigation requirements of the appurtenant lands are fully satisfied 
without having to use the supplemental supply right.

[¶3]      We reverse and 
remand to the State Board of Control.

[¶4]      Respondent Redmon 
holds several water rights appurtenant to land located in Township 16 North, 
Range 114 West, Uinta County. These rights include original direct-flow rights, 
secondary supply, and supplemental supply rights.

[¶5]      Redmon's original 
supply rights under Permits 2360 Enl. and 2361 Enl. (the Leonard Wall 
appropriations) are appurtenant to 160 acres in Sections 8 and 17 and to 120 
acres in Section 17, respectively. Water under these rights is diverted and 
conveyed to the appurtenant land by means of the enlarged Deeben-Heinze Ditch. 
These water rights have priorities of May 14, 1909, and June 20, 1910, 
respectively.

[¶6]      Redmon was also 
entitled to apply water to some of these same lands under the Leonard Wall 
appropriation, Permit No. 5440 Enl., and Permit No. 5612 Res. This secondary 
supply right has a priority of April 2, 1947, is appurtenant to the acreage to 
which the original supply rights apply under Permits 2360 Enl. and 2361 Enl., 
and is conveyed from the reservoir to the lands by means of the enlarged 
Deeben-Heinze Ditch. 

[¶7]      Redmon also holds 
a supplemental water right under permit No. 27022 for 249.5 acres, with a 
priority of October 10, 1978.1 Redmon's supplemental water right, 
with an October 10, 1978 priority, encompasses a diversion from the Black's Fork 
River through the Redmon Portable Pipeline to supplement the original supply 
water rights under Permit No. 2360 Enl. and Permit No. 2361 Enl., the Enlarged 
Deeben-Heinze Ditch and the Leonard Wall appropriation, which divert from the 
Black's Fork River. It is appurtenant to 80 of the acres in Section 8 and 62.7 
of the acres in Section 17 to which Permit 2360 Enl. applies, and to 106.8 of 
the acres in Section 17 to which Permit 2361 Enl. applies. Water supplied under 
this supplemental supply right is conveyed to the lands in question by pumping 
it through the Redmon Portable Pipeline.2

[¶8]      Petitioner Harold 
Hofeldt holds a water right under Permit No. 6920 Enl., with a priority of 
November 14, 1986. Petitioner's water right encompasses a diversion from the 
Black's Fork River, a tributary of the Green River. On April 16, 1990, Hofeldt 
filed a Petition for Declaration of Abandonment pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 
41-3-401 (Supp. 1991), seeking a declaration by the Board that certain 
supplemental supply water rights, owned and used by respondents Redmon and Eyre, 
respectively, under Permit No. 27022, had been abandoned.

[¶9]      Petitioner 
asserted that water under Permit No. 27022 had not been applied to beneficial 
use through the Redmon Portable Pipeline on the lands of record for at least 
five consecutive years immediately preceding the filing of the petition for 
declaration of abandonment when water was available to satisfy the right. In the 
five years immediately preceding the filing of the petition for declaration of 
abandonment (April 16, 1990), Redmon/Eyre purchased water from the Meeks Cabin 
Reservoir rather than use their supplemental supply through the Redmon 
pipeline.3

[¶10]   The State Board of Control denied 
Hofeldt's petition and Hofeldt filed a petition for review in the district court 
dated February 13, 1991. In Finding of Fact Number 16 (which also contains a 
conclusion of law), the State Board of Control determined:

THAT Contestees' 
[Redmon/Eyre] legal entitlement to use of supplemental water under Permit No. 
27022 did not constitute a requirement that water be diverted at such times. 
Contestees['] evidence was uncontroverted that the lands in contest were 
sufficiently irrigated for their purposes by water from other sources during the 
time period at issue, thereby eliminating the need for the supplemental supply 
during that period.

The district 
court certified the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09.

[¶11]   The single issue in this appeal is 
whether the abandonment of water rights statute applies to a supplemental supply 
water right. Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401(a) (Supp. 1991) provides, in pertinent 
part:

Where the holder of an 
appropriation of water from a surface, underground or reservoir water source 
fails, either intentionally or unintentionally, to use the water therefrom for 
the beneficial purposes for which it was appropriated, whether under an 
adjudicated or unadjudicated right, during any five (5) successive years, he is 
considered as having abandoned the water right and shall forfeit all water 
rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.[4] 

[¶12]   There is no dispute with respect to 
the facts necessary for our determination:

(1) In each of the five 
years before Hofeldt filed his abandonment petition, there was insufficient 
water from Redmon's original supply right to irrigate appurtenant 
lands.

(2) That during each of 
the five years immediately preceding the filing of the petition for declaration 
of abandonment, water was generally available under Redmon's supplementary 
supply permit.

(3) In each of the five 
years referred to above and pertinent to this case, Redmon/Eyre used reservoir 
water to supplement the original supply permit rather than water under the 
supplementary supply permit.

[¶13]   Hofeldt's standing to petition for 
a declaration of abandonment under Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401(b)(i) (Supp. 1991)5 is not contested. The parties agree 
that this is a case of first impression in Wyoming and that cases cited in the 
briefs are not much help to this court in making its determination. In Cremer v. 
State Board of Control, 675 P.2d 250 (Wyo. 1984), we held that surplus water 
rights were not subjected to abandonment without also abandoning their base 
rights (original rights). The State Board of Control contends that the rationale 
of Cremer with respect to surplus water rights should also apply to 
supplementary water rights; that is, the supplementary water right cannot be 
subject to abandonment unless the original water rights are also abandoned. The 
Board makes an additional argument and cites one of its own rules in 
support:

The appropriation of 
water as supplemental supply is defined in detail by W.S. 41-3-113. In general, 
it involves the appropriation of direct flow water from another source to 
augment or supplement the available water for an existing appropriation for 
which the original source of supply does not provide a full supply. The amount 
of supplemental water which may be diverted is the amount available, in 
priority, to bring the total water diverted from all sources [to] the 
appropriated amount. When the original source will furnish the entire amount 
of the appropriation, then no water may be diverted from the supplemental 
source. The water available from the original source must first be diverted in 
priority before any water from the supplemental source may be 
diverted.

Regulations and 
Instructions, Part IV, Chapter 1, Section 10 (1986) (emphasis added). This rule 
is cited in support of the contention that, as stated in respondents' brief, 
"[T]he Board's rule authorizes, but does not require the use of a supplemental 
supply right when the original supply right does not furnish enough water to 
fulfill the entire appropriation." (Emphasis in original.) From an 
interpretation of the Board's rule that an owner of a supplementary right may 
use the right, the Board then reasons that if he is not required to use it, the 
right is not subject to abandonment. We are not persuaded by this reasoning. 
According to the Board's position, an appropriation could, under the 
circumstances of this case, hold supplementary water rights for 100 years or 
more and never use them. 

[¶14]   This case is one to be decided on 
the basis of policy rather than statutory law or precedent. It would not be 
illogical to adapt the rationale of the Cremer case to the facts of the case 
here and conclude that supplemental water rights are not subject to abandonment 
unless original rights are also abandoned. We believe, however, that there are 
more compelling reasons to decide otherwise.

[¶15]   There are certain basic principles 
with respect to water law that are reflected in our statutes and case law. Water 
is the lifeblood of Wyoming's economy. It is a scarce resource which must be 
effectively managed and efficiently used.6 Because water is a precious and 
scarce resource, it must not be wasted. Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-101 (Supp. 1991) 
provides in relevant part that "[b]eneficial use shall be the basis, the measure 
and limit of the right to use water." Furthermore, beneficial use is a 
continuing requirement which must be satisfied in order for the appropriation to 
remain viable. Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. State Board of Control, 578 P.2d 557 (Wyo. 1978). Because of the great value of water, an appropriator, 
according to the basic statute on abandonment, cannot hold his water rights 
indefinitely without using them. Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401.

[¶16]   We hold that supplemental water 
rights are subject to abandonment under Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401, et seq. We 
believe that this determination best reflects the spirit of the water policy of 
the state.

[¶17]   Reversed and remanded to the State 
Board of Control for the entry of an order consistent with this 
opinion.

CARDINE, J., filed a specially 
concurring opinion.

THOMAS, J., dissenting (dissent 
to be filed at a later date).

CARDINE, Justice, specially 
concurring.

[¶18]   Statutes presently existing do not 
answer the question to be resolved in this case, which is whether a supplemental 
water right may be abandoned through non-use. I can agree with a rule that would 
provide that a failure to use the supplemental right when it is needed any time 
during a five-year period can result in abandonment. My problem with application 
of the rule to this case of first impression is that appellee suffers the loss 
of his supplemental water right without knowing beforehand what use was required 
to retain the supplemental water right. And now it is too late to make such use 
of the right.

"The general rule from 
time immemorial is that the ruling of a court is deemed to state the true nature 
of the law both retrospectively and prospectively. In civil cases, at least, 
constitutional law neither requires nor prohibits retroactive operation of an 
overruling decision, but in the vast majority of cases a decision is effective 
both prospectively and retrospectively, even an overruling decision. Whether the 
general rule should be departed from depends on whether a substantial 
injustice would otherwise occur."

Harvey By and 
Through Harvey v. General Motors Corp., 739 P.2d 763, 765 (Wyo. 1987) (quoting 
Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661, 676 (Utah 1984)).

[¶19]   The equities of this particular 
case are closely balanced. But, because appellees obtained their needed 
supplemental water from a different source, the balance seems to weigh more 
heavily on the side of appellant. Were it otherwise, I would favor prospective 
application only of the rule enunciated in this case. 

 FOOTNOTES

1 A supplemental supply 
right is "a permit or certificate of appropriation for the diversion, from a 
stream, of water from a new source of supply for application to lands for which 
an appropriation of water from a primary source already exists." Wyo. Stat. § 
41-3-113 (1977).

2 The Redmon lands were 
owned by Clifton T. Redmon, Donna Rae Redmon, Clifton R. Redmon, Jr., and Tamara 
Joan Redmon. John Eyre is a lessee and operator of some of the lands appurtenant 
to the supplemental water rights.

3 Wall Development Company 
water is mentioned in the transcript and briefs. Whether such water was applied 
to Redmon lands is immaterial for our purposes.

4 Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401(a) 
makes no distinction between original direct flow rights and supplemental supply 
rights.

5 Wyo. Stat. § 
41-3-401(b)(i) reads:

(b) 
When any water user who might be benefitted by a declaration of abandonment of 
existing water rights or who might be injured by the reactivation of the water 
right, desires to bring about a legal declaration of abandonment, he shall 
present his case in writing to the state board of control. The board has 
exclusive original jurisdiction in water right abandonment proceedings. The 
board shall, if the facts so justify, refer the matter to the superintendent of 
the water division where the abandonment is claimed to have occurred for public 
hearing. The total absence of water to divert during an irrigation season 
precludes the inclusion of any such period of nonuse resulting therefrom in the 
computation of the successive five (5) year period under this section. The 
following persons have standing to petition the state board of control to 
declare the abandonment of existing water rights under this section:

(i) 
Any person who has a valid adjudicated water right or is the holder of a valid 
permit from the same source of supply which is equal to or junior in date of 
priority to the right for which abandonment is sought[.]

6 In re General 
Adjudication of All Rights to use Water in Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273, 
279 (Wyo. 1992).