Title: JOHN MAX STUTZMAN and ROBERTA LEE STUTZMAN, Husband and Wife V. OFFICE OF THE WYOMING STATE ENGINEER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JOHN MAX STUTZMAN and ROBERTA LEE STUTZMAN, Husband and Wife V. OFFICE OF THE WYOMING STATE ENGINEER2006 WY 30130 P.3d 470Case Number: 05-126Decided: 03/16/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
JOHN MAX 
STUTZMAN and ROBERTA

LEE 
STUTZMAN, Husband and Wife,

 
 
Appellants

(Petitioners),

 
 
v.

 
 
OFFICE 
OF THE WYOMING STATE ENGINEER,

 
 
Appellee

 (Respondent).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofParkCounty

The 
Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge, Retired

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

            
S. Joseph Darrah and Christopher M. Brown of Darrah, Darrah & Brown, 
P.C., Powell, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Jay A. Jerde, Deputy Attorney 
General; Hugh B. McFadden, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Britt T. 
Long, Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ., and STEBNER, DJ, 
retired.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      John Max Stutzman 
and Roberta Lee Stutzman (the Stutzmans) requested the Wyoming State Engineer's 
Office (state engineer) to file federal land patents pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 41-3-324 (LexisNexis 2005).  The 
state engineer denied the request, stating  
the land patents were not deeds for reservoir water subject to the 
statute and, therefore, the state engineer's office could not record them.  The Stutzmans filed a petition for 
review in district court claiming the state engineer unlawfully withheld agency 
action.  The district court denied 
the petition, holding the issue was governed by In re Big Horn River System, 2004 WY 21, 
85 P.3d 981 (Wyo. 2004) and the state engineer lawfully declined to record the 
patents.  The Stutzmans appealed the 
district court decision.  We 
affirm.

  

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      The Stutzmans 
present the following issues:

 
 
1.         
Is filing of the offered land patents under Wyoming Statute § 41-3-324 
precluded by the Court's decision in In 
re Big Horn River System, 85 P.3d 891 (Wyo. 200[4])?

 
 
2.         
Whether the land patents delivered to the state engineer for filing 
pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 41-3-324 are deeds for reservoir water and water 
rights.

 
 
The 
state engineer states the issues as follows:

 
 
I.          
Did the District Court accurately conclude that agency action was not 
unlawfully withheld because the holding in In re Big Horn River System, 2004 WY 21, 
85 P.3d 981 (Wyo. 200[4]), forecloses the Stutzmans' state law water right 
claim?

 
 
II.          
As a matter of state law, do the federal land patents the Stutzmans 
submitted for filing as reservoir water deeds with the State Engineer's Office 
qualify as valid deeds?

 
 
FACTS

            

[¶3]      This case arises 
from the same facts as Big Horn, 2004 
WY 21, ¶¶ 5-17, 85 P.3d  at 984-87.  
To summarize, the Stutzmans own farm land located in the Garland Division 
of the Shoshone Reclamation Project in Park County, Wyoming and are members of the Shoshone 
Irrigation District.  The Shoshone 
Reclamation Project is a federal reclamation project constructed and operated by 
the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, 
43 U.S.C. § 371 et seq., (as 
amended).  Big Horn, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 6, 85 P.3d  at 
984.  The project lies on the 
Shoshone River, a tributary of the BigHornRiver, and includes the 
Buffalo Bill Dam and Reservoir.  The 
BOR operates the reservoir, providing water for irrigation, power generation, 
municipal supply, recreation, and other beneficial uses.  With respect specifically to irrigation, 
the BOR provides reservoir water to four irrigation districts, including the 
Shoshone Irrigation District, under contracts with each district.  The irrigation districts, in turn, 
supply water under terms and conditions set out in contracts to individual users 
like the Stutzmans.

 
 
[¶4]      The rights to the 
waters of the BigHornRiver have been the subject of extensive 
adjudication encompassing three separate phases.  For a detailed summary of the factual 
and legal background of the adjudication, see Big Horn, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 5, 85 P.3d  at 
984 and cases cited therein.  The 
Stutzmans' claims fall into Phase III of the adjudication, which began in 1985 
and concerned all state water rights evidenced by permit or certificate.  Pursuant to detailed procedures for 
reporting, confirming and challenging all adjudicated certificates and 
unadjudicated permits for state water rights within the Shoshone Reclamation 
Project, the Phase III adjudication was to be completed by December 31, 
1988.  Big Horn, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 15, 85 P.3d  at 
986.

 
 
[¶5]      On January 4, 
2001, three years after the entire adjudication was scheduled to be completed, 
the Stutzmans filed a petition to intervene in the Phase III adjudication. 
Relying in part on federal land patents that conveyed the land they now own to 
their predecessors, the Stutzmans claimed an individual, proportionate, state 
right to use water stored in Buffalo Bill Reservoir.  Specifically, they claimed "implied" 
secondary rights by and through the reservoir permits, and ownership of a 
"pro-rata" or "proportionate" share of the stored reservoir water by virtue of, 
among other things, the federal land patents.  In making this claim, they relied on the 
language contained in the patents' habendum clause granting, in addition to the 
described tract, "the right to the use of water from the Shoshone Reclamation 
Project as an appurtenance to the irrigable lands in said tract." 

 
 
[¶6]      The district 
court dismissed the Stutzmans' claims as untimely and on March 10, 2004, we 
affirmed, holding, "[t]o the extent the Stutzmans sought to enforce their rights 
against the United 
States pursuant to the federal patents and 
contract, the district court lacked jurisdiction."  Big Horn, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 21, 85 P.3d  at 
988.  We also held the district 
court "had jurisdiction to determine whether the Stutzmans had a legitimate 
claim of a state water right" but the Stutzmans' claim was untimely.  Big Horn, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 22, 85 P.3d  at 
988.  

 
 
[¶7]      On May 14, 2004, 
the Stutzmans attempted to file several of the federal land patents as reservoir 
water deeds with the state engineer's office.  On June 2, 2004, the state engineer's 
office returned the patents without filing them, stating "[t]he documents you 
provided are land patents and not deeds for reservoir water, therefore, the 
State Engineer's Office cannot record them under WS 41-3-324." 

 
 
[¶8]      The Stutzmans 
filed a petition for review in district court alleging that the state engineer 
unlawfully refused to file the land patents.  The district court concluded the issue 
was governed by Big Horn, in which 
this Court "held that [the Stutzmans] do not have a personal state water right 
to appropriate water stored in the reservoir."  On that basis, the district court held 
the state engineer did not unlawfully withhold agency action and denied the 
Stutzmans' petition.  The Stutzmans 
appealed to this Court from the district court's decision.        

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

            

[¶9]      Pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 12.09, our review of the issues is limited to a determination of the 
matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005). 
Accordingly, we "decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional 
and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the 
terms of an agency action."  Id.  We review the whole record or those 
parts of it cited by the parties, taking into account the rule of prejudicial 
error.  We 
shall:

 
 

(i)                 
Compel 
agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and 

(ii)               
Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) 
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with law;

(B)  Contrary to constitutional right, power, 
privilege or immunity;

(C) In 
excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

(D)  Without observance of procedure required 
by law;

(E) 
Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute.  

 
 

Id.  We review an agency's conclusions of law 
de novo.  Wyoming Dep't of Trans. v. Haglund, 982 P.2d 699, 700 (Wyo. 
1999).  We review an agency's 
factual determinations by considering whether they are supported by substantial 
evidence.  DeWall v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 960 P.2d 502, 503 
(Wyo. 
1998).  Using the same evidence and 
same review standards as the district court, our review proceeds as though the 
matter came directly to us from the agency.  Griess v. Office of the Attorney 
General, Div. of Criminal 
Investigation, 932 P.2d 734, 736 (Wyo. 1997).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]   The Stutzmans claim the district 
court incorrectly concluded our decision in  Big Horn governed the issue of whether 
the state engineer's office could properly file land patents under Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 41-3-324.  They contend this 
Court ruled in Big Horn that the 
district court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from federal patents; 
therefore, there was no ruling with regard to the federal patents and the issue 
is not res judicata.  The state engineer contends the district 
court correctly ruled Big Horn 
controls the issue because that decision determined the Stutzmans did not 
have a legitimate claim to a state water right based upon the federal land 
patents.  Therefore, the state 
engineer argues, the issue is res 
judicata.

 
 
[¶11]   Our holding in Big Horn as it pertains to this appeal 
was two-fold.  First, we held the 
district court lacked jurisdiction over the Stutzmans' claim that they had the 
right to use water stored in the Buffalo Bill Reservoir to the extent they 
asserted it against the United States pursuant to federal 
patents and contracts.  With respect 
to that aspect of their claim, we said the McCarran Amendment gave only limited 
consent to the exercise of state court jurisdiction over the United States, 
consent which did not extend to claims against the federal government for 
enforcement of federal contracts.  
Second, we held that although the district court had jurisdiction to 
determine whether the Stutzmans had a legitimate claim under state law to use 
water stored in the reservoir, it properly dismissed the claim because the 
Stutzmans failed to timely assert it. We expressly limited our holding to the 
timeliness issue and did not address the merits of the Stutzmans' claim to an 
implied secondary right to use water stored in the reservoir. 

 
 
[¶12]   Neither of these holdings (that the 
district court lacked jurisdiction in the first instance and the Stutzmans' 
claims were untimely in the second instance) directly addressed the issue now 
before us:  in essence, whether the 
state engineer was required to file the federal patents as "deeds for reservoir 
water" pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324 and unlawfully withheld agency 
action by declining to do so.  This 
is an issue of first impression in Wyoming.  
We begin our analysis by looking at the pertinent statutory 
language.     

 
 
§ 
41-3-324. Deeds and leases for water rights; execution and 
recording.

 
 
            
All deeds for reservoir water and water rights and all leases of the same 
for periods of three (3) years or more shall be executed and acknowledged as 
deeds are executed, and shall be recorded in the office of the county clerk of 
the county in which the reservoir is situated and also filed in the office of 
the state engineer. 

 
 
[¶13]   The Stutzmans argue the federal 
land patents are the legal equivalent of "deeds for reservoir water and water 
rights" because they conveyed the land together with "the right to use the water 
from the [reservoir] as an appurtenance to the irrigable lands."  The state engineer argues the land 
patents the Stutzmans submitted for filing do not qualify as valid deeds because 
they do not adequately describe the water right conveyed.  The state engineer also argues that 
because the Stutzmans failed to timely assert their alleged rights during Big Horn, they have no valid water right 
and requiring the state engineer to file the patents as if they did have a valid 
right would lead to absurd results. 

 
 
[¶14]   In interpreting and construing 
statutory language, our primary purpose is to determine the legislature's 
intent.   Merrill v. Jansma, 2004 WY 26, ¶ 28, 86 P.3d 270, 284-85 (Wyo. 2004).  Where 
the language is clear, we look to its ordinary and obvious meaning, are bound to 
the results so expressed and do not resort to rules of construction. Id.  A statute is unambiguous if its wording 
is such that reasonable persons are able to agree concerning its meaning with 
consistency and predictability.  
Id.  

 
 
[¶15]   When the language is not clear or 
is ambiguous, we look to the mischief the statute was intended to cure, the 
historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public policy of the state, 
the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous facts and 
circumstances.  These are the 
accepted rules of construction to ascertain a legislative intent that is 
reasonable and consistent.  
Id.  A statute is ambiguous only if it is 
found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations.  Id.  Ultimately, whether a statute is 
ambiguous is a matter of law to be determined by the court.  Id.

 
 
[¶16]   We will not insert language into a 
statute that the legislature omitted.  
K.P. v. State, 2004 WY 165, ¶ 
22, 102 P.3d 217, 224 (Wyo. 2004).  
A basic tenet of statutory construction is that omission of words from a 
statute is considered to be an intentional act by the legislature, and this 
court will not read words into a statute when the legislature has chosen not to 
include them.  Id.  At the same time, however, we will not 
interpret a statute in a way that renders any portion meaningless or in a manner 
producing absurd results.  
Id.   

 
 
[¶17]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324 clearly 
and unambiguously provides that all deeds for reservoir water and water rights 
shall be filed in the office of the 
state engineer.  Where the 
legislature uses the word "shall," this Court accepts the provision as mandatory 
and has no right to make the law contrary to what the legislature 
prescribed.   Merrill, 2004 WY 26, ¶ 42, 86 P.3d  at 
288.  Pursuant to the clear language 
of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324, therefore, "deeds for reservoir water and water 
rights" must be filed in the state engineer's office.  The provision expressly does not make 
filing discretionary.  Assuming the 
federal land patents constitute "deeds for reservoir water and water rights" 
within the meaning of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324, the provision would seem to 
require the Stutzmans to file them with the state 
engineer.

 
 
[¶18]   The phrase "deeds for reservoir 
water and water rights" is not expressly defined in the Wyoming Statutes.  However, giving the words their plain 
and ordinary meaning, federal land patents conveying land together with "the 
right to use the water from the [reservoir] as an appurtenance to the irrigable 
lands," would seem to fall within the meaning of the phrase.  A deed is "a written instrument, signed 
and delivered, by which one person conveys land, tenements, or hereditaments to 
another." Black's Law Dictionary 414 (6th 
ed.). The federal land patents are written instruments by which the federal 
government conveyed land to the Stutzmans' predecessors in interest together 
with the right to use water from the reservoir.  We hold they fall within the meaning of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324 and are, therefore, subject to the filing 
requirement. 

 
 
[¶19]   The state engineer argues, however, 
this is not a correct result because it would require his office to treat the 
patents as though they conveyed valid rights to reservoir water when in fact 
they do not under Wyoming law because the Stutzmans failed to 
timely assert their claim during the Big Horn River Adjudication. The state 
engineer asserts a determination by this Court that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-324 
required these patents to be filed in his office would lead to an absurd result, 
an outcome this Court has expressly rejected in cases requiring a determination 
of legislative intent.  We 
agree.  Given our holding in Big Horn that the Stutzmans were time 
barred from asserting any claim to state water rights they may have had under 
the federal land patents, it would be absurd for this Court to require the state 
engineer to file the patents.   

 
 
[¶20]   In two prior cases, this Court 
considered the purpose of the filing requirement contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
41-3-324.  In Sturgeon v. Brooks, 281 P.2d 675, 681 
(Wyo. 1955), 
we considered Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-3241 together with § 41-3-322,2 and concluded the provisions were 
enacted for the benefit of the water commissioner so that he would know the 
parties to whom reservoir water was to be distributed.  A few years later, in Condict v. Ryan, 335 P.2d 792, 793 
(Wyo. 1959), 
we said the purpose of the statute was to provide "notice to all the world, 
including those whose interest in the subject matter of the instrument would be 
adversely affected."  Given that the 
purpose of the provision is to provide notice of claims to water rights, it 
would be illogical to require such notice in cases where a claim has been 
adjudicated and a determination has been made that no valid claim exists under 
Wyoming 
law.  Those are the circumstances 
that existed here, and the state engineer's office did not unlawfully withhold 
administrative action when it declined to file the patents.  

  

[¶21]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1At the time 
Sturgeon was decided, the statute was 
codified as 71-615, W.C.S. 1945.

 
 

2The statute 
was then codified as 71-614, W.C.S. 1945.  
It provides that reservoir owners shall annually deliver to the water 
commissioner a list of the parties who are entitled to water from a reservoir.