Case Title: HELDERMON v. WRIGHT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 100709

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
HELDERMON v. WRIGHT  HELDERMON v. WRIGHT 2006 OK 86 152 P.3d 855 Case Number: 100709 Decided: 11/21/2006 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TEDDY NEAL HELDERMON and SHARON JOYCE HELDERMON, husband and wife and joint tenants, and DENNY LEE HIGHT and JANA HARRIS HIGHT, husband and wife, as CO-TRUSTEES OF THE DENNY LEE HIGHT AND JANA HARRIS HIGHT FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. DANNY WRIGHT, Defendant/Appellant. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III ¶0 Plaintiffs, downstream riparian land owners, brought suit against defendant, upstream riparian land owner, to enjoin him from building a dam on an unnamed stream because he lacked the Oklahoma Water Resources Board's approval for the dam. After the defendant obtained the Board's approval of the proposed dam, the plaintiffs recast the suit as one to the determine the parties' rights to the unnamed stream's waters. The district court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the unnamed stream flow at a rate of 515 gallons of water per minute for their domestic uses and ordered the defendant to release this amount from the dam. The Court of Civil Appeals found that COURT OF CIVIL APPEAL'S OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED. Richard P. Propester, Day, Edwards, Propester & Christensen, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for defendant/appellant. Travis A. Pickens, Travis A. Pickens, P.C., Mitchell, Davis, Klein & Pickens, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Tom A. Frailey, Frailey, Chaffin, Cordell, Perryman, Sterkel & McCalla, LLP, Chickasha, Oklahoma, for plaintiffs/appellees. Robert D. Singletary, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Oklahoma Attorney General. Dean A. Couch, Oklahoma City Oklahoma, for amicus curiae Oklahoma Water Resources Board. James R. Barnett, R. Thomas Lay, Kerr, Irvine, Rhodes & Ables, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for amici curiae Juniper Water Company, Inc., Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Co., Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, the Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District, the City of Ponca City, the City of Perry, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Craig B. Keith, Diane Lewis, Office of Municipal Counselor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for amici curiae the City of Oklahoma City and Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust. Jeff L. Todd, Amy D. White, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for amicus curiae the Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation. Diane Pedicord, Sue Ann Nicely, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, John Vincent, Lawton, Oklahoma, for amicus curiae Oklahoma Municipal League, Inc. Marjorie Galt, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, H. Duane Riffe, Riffe & Associates, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for amicus curiae Oklahoma Rural Water Association. TAYLOR, J. I. ISSUES ¶1 The dispositive issue in this case is whether under title 82, section 105.5, the plaintiffs should have given the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) notice in the district court of this suit. We find that title 82, section 105.5 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires the OWRB be given notice and remand with directions to proceed accordingly. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The defendant, Danny Wright, owns seventy-two acres of land in Caddo County. Wright began building a dam on an unnamed stream on this seventy-two acres without first applying to the OWRB for a water appropriation permit or seeking the OWRB's approval of the dam. ¶3 When the plaintiffs discovered the construction, they filed a petition in the district court seeking to enjoin further construction on the dam. The trial court granted the plaintiffs a temporary injunction until Wright obtained an OWRB permit to construct the dam. Wright then filed an application with the OWRB for the approval of the dam. In his application, Wright stated the permanent pool storage capacity of the reservoir formed by the dam as 700 acre feet ¶4 Title 82, section 105.2(A) of the 2001 Oklahoma Statutes allows a riparian without an OWRB appropriation to store a maximum of a two-year domestic-use supply of water, and title 60, section 60 requires a riparian collecting the water for domestic use to provide for the continued natural flow of the stream. OWRB rule 785:25-3-7(a)(3), ¶5 In the pretrial order, the plaintiffs alleged (1) that they are entitled to "their historic, natural stream flow," ¶6 At trial, the plaintiffs presented expert evidence in support of a 500 to 750 gallon a minute release of stream water. Wright's expert witness posited that a release of 208 gallons a minute would be sufficient to meet downstream riparian's domestic uses. A letter to the OWRB in support of the dam application stated that "a valve will be regulated to provide 500 gallons per minute stream flow downstream." ¶7 The district court found that under title 82, §§ 105.1 and 105.1A and the OWRB rule 785:20-1-2 Wright must release a minimum of 515 gallons per minute of water for downstream riparian owners to have enough water for their domestic use. The Court of Civil Appeals found the trial court, by determining that 515 gallons per minute of flow was necessary to meet the plaintiffs' domestic needs, had considered uses exceeding those statutorily allowed and ruled that title 82, §§ 105.1A and 105.2(A) are unconstitutional under Franco-American Charolaise. III. FRANCO-AMERICAN CHAROLAISE, LTD. v. OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD ¶8 In 1990, this Court issued its opinion in Franco-American Charolaise. ¶9 An analysis of the 1963 amendments can be found in Franco-American Charolaise. IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT ¶10 After this Court granted certiorari in this case, the Attorney General filed a brief, several entities were granted leave to file amici curiae briefs, and the defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing that the current Oklahoma Stream Water Use Law is constitutional. In their supplemental brief, the plaintiffs contend that the resolution of the constitutionality of the current Oklahoma Stream Water Use Law is unnecessary here, but they assert it is unconstitutional under Franco-American Charolaise and article 2, section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution. After studying the briefs and the parties' contentions, we are convinced the cause should be remanded to remedy procedural deficiencies in the proceedings below. V. TITLE 82, SECTION 105.5 OF THE 2001 OKLAHOMA STATUTES ¶11 We focus on the procedures articulated in title 82, section 105.5. Section 105.5 allows a person to bring suit in district court if the person's rights to use stream water as defined by title 60, section 60 are impaired. ¶13 By providing in title 82, section 105.5 that the OWRB may notify the Attorney General of a suit to adjudicate stream water rights, the Legislature clearly anticipated and intended that the OWRB will have notice of such a suit even though the requirement and method for giving notice is omitted. This legislative intent is also discernible from the statewide comprehensive plan to oversee the use and protection of the public's interest in stream water. ¶14 After the legislative intent is ascertained, this Court may supply the language to give the statute the force and effect that the Legislature intended. ¶15 Generally, the public interests will best be served by the Attorney General's intervention in suits over rights to stream water. [F]ew public interests are more obvious, indisputable, and independent of particular theory than the interest of the public of a state to maintain the rivers that are wholly within it substantially undiminished, except by such drafts upon them as the guardian of the public welfare may permit for the purpose of turning them to a more perfect use. This public interest is omnipresent wherever there is a state, and grows more pressing as population grows. VI. CONCLUSION ¶16 Unquestionably, the Legislature intended that Oklahoma's interest in stream water be protected by the OWRB's involvement in suits to determine riparian or appropriative rights to use stream water. Because the Legislature intended that the OWRB be notified of suits involving rights to use stream water and that the State be allowed to intervene in a suit to protect its interest in preserving the waters within its borders, we find that the trial court erred when it proceeded to determine the rights of the parties without proof that the OWRB received notice of the pending suit. Having found the trial court procedure to be flawed, we save for another day the issue of the constitutionality of the Oklahoma Stream Water Use Law. The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion is vacated, the district court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings to be consistent with this opinion. COURT OF CIVIL APPEAL'S OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED. ¶17 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT