Title: STATE EX REL INTAKE WATER CO v B

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-209 IN THE SUPREMF: COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE ex rel., INTAKE WATER CO., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff and Relator and Appellant, vs. BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA et al., Defendants Respondents and Respondents, and UTAH INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Henry Loble argued and Peter Pauly, argued, Helena, Montana Loble and Pauly,Helena, Montana For Respondents: Donald MacIntyre, Dept. of Natural Resources, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Poore, Roth, Robinson, Butte, Montana Urban L . Roth argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: February 26, 1982 ~ecided: ~ p p 1 5 ~iled: APR 1 5 1 9 8 2 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Relator I n t a k e Water Company f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandate to compel t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n and t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n to a s s i g n a p r i o r i t y d a t e of J a n u a r y 14, 1975, to t h e water r i g h t s a p p l i c a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t Utah I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . The District Court dismissed I n t a k e ' s p e t i t i o n . W e a f f i r m . On November 20, 1973, Utah f i l e d its a p p l i c a t i o n i n Wyoming, on Wyoming forms, t o a p p r o p r i a t e 106,730 acre f e e t from t h e Powder R i v e r , one of t h e r i v e r s s u b j e c t to t h e Yellowstone R i v e r Compact, s e c t i o n 85-20-101 e t s e q . , MCA. The water was to be d i v e r t e d i n Wyoming f o r u l t i m a t e u s e s i n Montana which i n c l u d e i n d u s t r i a l , i r r i g a t i o n , m u n i c i p a l and r e c r e a t i o n . P u r s u a n t to A r t . V I I B o f t h e Compact, t h e Wyoming s t a t e e n g i n e e r s e n t d u p l i c a t e s of U t a h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n to Montana which were r e c e i v e d by t h e Department on December 4 , 1973. A r t i c l e V I I B & C p r o v i d e as f o l l o w s : "B. Each claim h e r e a f t e r i n i t i a t e d f o r an a p p r o p r i a t i o n of water i n one s i g n a t o r y s t a t e f o r u s e i n a n o t h e r s i g n a t o r y state s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e state e n g i n e e r of t h e signa- t o r y state i n which t h e w a t e r is t o be d i v e r t e d , and a d u p l i c a t e copy of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n or n o t i c e s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e state e n g i n e e r of t h e s i g n a t o r y s t a t e i n which t h e water is to be used. "C. A p p r o p r i a t i o n s may h e r e a f t e r be ad j u d i c a t e d i n t h e state i n which t h e water is d i v e r t e d , and where a p o r t i o n or a l l of t h e l a n d s i r r i g a t e d are i n a n o t h e r s i g n a t o r y s t a t e , such a d j u d i c a - t i o n s s h a l l be confirmed i n t h a t s t a t e by t h e p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y . Each a d j u d i c a t i o n is to con- form w i t h t h e laws of t h e state where t h e water is d i v e r t e d and s h a l l be recorded i n t h e county and s t a t e where t h e water is used." These d u p l i c a t e s c o n t a i n e d much of t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t is r e q u i r e d on t h e Montana forms. On March 15, 1974, t h e Department n o t i f i e d Utah t h a t i f it f i l e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e same p r o j e c t on Montana's forms, t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e of November 20, 1973, would be r e t a i n e d . The Department noted t h a t t h e f i l i n g would be p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n s 85-2-301 and 85-2-302, MCA, t h e l a t t e r of which p r o v i d e s i n per- t i n e n t p a r t : "The department s h a l l re t u r n a d e f e c t i v e a p p l i - c a t i o n f o r c o r r e c t i o n or completion t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e t u r n i n g it. An a p p l i c a - t i o n does n o t l o s e p r i o r i t y of f i l i n g because of d e f e c t s , i f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n is c o r r e c t e d , completed, and r e f i l e d w i t h t h e department w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r its r e t u r n to t h e a p p l i c a n t o r w i t h i n a f u r t h e r t i m e a s t h e department may a l l o w . I f a n a p p l i c a t i o n is n o t c o r r e c t e d and -- -- completed w i t h i n 30 d a y s o r w i t h i n a f u r t h e r t i m e as t h e d e p a r ~ e a l i ? i w s , up to 1 8 months, -- t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e h m i c a t i o n --- s h a l l be t h e d a t e o f r e f i l i n g t h e application withthe c o r r e c t i o n s w i t h t h e department. An a p p l i c a t i o n n o t c o r r e c t e d w i t h i n 18 months s h a l l be t e r m i n a t e d . " (Emphasis added.) On A p r i l 4, 1974, Utah r e p l i e d t h a t t h e y intended to f i l e a p p l i - c a t i o n s f o r b e n e f i c i a l water use p e r m i t s on t h e forms p r e s c r i b e d b y Montana. On September 27, 1974, I n t a k e f i l e d a Montana a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h t h e Department and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f i l e d a Wyoming a p p l i c a - t i o n w i t h t h e Wyoming s t a t e e n g i n e e r . D u p l i c a t e s of each a p p l i - c a t i o n were f i l e d i n t h e o t h e r state a t t h e same t i m e . I n t a k e p l a n s to d i v e r t ( f o r i n d u s t r i a l , m u n i c i p a l , i r r i g a t i o n and o t h e r u s e s ) 564,400 acre f e e t from t h e Powder R i v e r i n Montana by a dam and r e s u l t i n g r e s e r v o i r which w i l l extend from Montana i n t o Wyoming. On November 13, 1974, t h e Department informed Utah t h a t t h e Department had n o t y e t r e c e i v e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r p e r m i t s t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h e water on t h e Montana forms. On J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1975, Utah f i l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e forms and paid t h e f i l i n g f e e . The Department a s s i g n e d Utah t h e Wyoming p r i o r i t y d a t e o f November 20, 1973. I n t a k e made r e p e a t e d demands upon t h e Department to change t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e t h a t had been a s s i g n e d to t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f i l e d by Utah, contending t h a t t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e s h o u l d have been t h e d a t e t h a t t h e c o r r e c t e d documents were f i l e d w i t h t h e Department, J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1975. The Department r e f u s e d to d o s o . On March 6, 1975, I n t a k e f i l e d an a c t i o n w i t h t h e District C o u r t of ~ e w i s and C l a r k County s e e k i n g a w r i t of mandate to com- p e l t h e Board and t h e Department to a s s i g n a p r i o r i t y d a t e of J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1975, to U t a h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n . On t h e same day t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandate r e q u i r i n g t h e Board and t h e Department to show cause why they had n o t a s s i g n e d t h e r e q u e s t e d p r i o r i t y d a t e . On August 21, 1975, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d an amended a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate and d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a motion to quash and d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n . About October 14, 1975 (and s t i l l w i t h i n t h e t i m e allowed by t h e S t a t e District Court f o r t h e p a r t i e s to f i l e b r i e f s i n response t o t h e above motions and t o answer i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ) , Utah f i l e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n a g a i n s t I n t a k e i n F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court i n B i l l i n g s and asked t h a t c o u r t t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e r i g h t s of b o t h p a r t i e s i n t h e i r a t t e m p t s to a p p r o p r i a t e t h e Powder R i v e r waters, Utah I n t e r n a t ' 1 I n c . v . I n t a k e Water Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 484 F.Supp. 36. On December 15, 1975, t h e S t a t e D i s t r i c t Court s t a y e d a l l pro- c e e d i n g s i n t h a t c o u r t pending a r u l i n g of t h e Federal District C o u r t . The F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court d e c l i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t c o n s t r u e d t h e Yellows t o n e R i v e r Compact to r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a - t i o n of Wyoming l a w and s t a t e d t h a t Wyoming c o u r t s d i d n o t have sole j u r i s d i c t i o n , 484 F.Supp. a t 45. On January 8 , 1980, t h e S t a t e D i s t r i c t Court d i s s o l v e d its s t a y and allowed f u r t h e r b r i e f s and p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e s . On F e b r u a r y 25, 1981, a f t e r h e a r i n g , t h e District Court g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' motions to quash and d i s m i s s t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n i n a 20-page o r d e r i n which t h e District Court found no clear l e g a l d u t y under t h e Yellowstone R i v e r Compact or Montana water l a w s r e q u i r i n g t h e Department t o a s s i g n t h e l a t e r p r i o r i t y d a t e r e q u e s t e d by I n t a k e . On March 16, 1981, t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d judgment d i s m i s s i n g w i t h p r e j u d i c e any f u r t h e r mandamus p r o c e e d i n g s by I n t a k e b u t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e to any o t h e r remedy I n t a k e might have. I n t a k e a p p e a l s . The i s s u e on a p p e a l can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : Should a w r i t of mandamus i s s u e t o r e q u i r e t h e Department to a s s i g n a p r i o r i t y d a t e of J a n u a r y 14, 1975, to U t a h ' s water r i g h t s a p p l i c a t i o n ? A l l p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t a w r i t of mandate can be used to compel t h e performance of an act which t h e l a w r e q u i r e s as a d u t y r e s u l t i n g from an o f f i c e . S e c t i o n 27-26-102, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When and by whom i s s u e d . (1) I t may be i s s u e d ---- b y t h e supreme c o u r t or t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r any judgemof t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t to any i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , b o a r d , o r p e r s o n to com- p e l t h e performance of an act which t h e l a w spe- c i a l l y e n j o i n s as a d u t y r e s u l t i n g from an o f f i c e . . ." I t is e q u a l l y clear t h a t t h e w r i t w i l l o n l y i s s u e where t h e r e h a s been a showing t h a t a clear l e g a l d u t y e x i s t s and t h e r e is no speedy o r adequate remedy i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of l a w . Cain v. Department of H e a l t h ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 448, 582 P.2d 332. The b a s i c t h r u s t of I n t a k e ' s argument is t h a t Montana's Water U s e A c t c o n t r o l s o v e r t h e Compact, mandating t h e a s s i g n - ment of t h e J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1975, p r i o r i t y d a t e . I n t a k e a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e are v a r i o u s r e a s o n s why a w r i t of mandate l i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t s u i t . F i r s t , I n t a k e c o n t e n d s t h a t a w r i t of mandate lies to com- p e l t h e performance of a n o n d i s c r e t i o n a r y act, McCarten v. Sanderson ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 111 Mont. 407, 109 P.2d 1108, and t h e a s s i g n - ment of U t a h ' s p r i o r i t y d a t e is such an act. I n t a k e f u r t h e r c i t e s s e c t i o n s of Montana's Water U s e A c t and r e a s o n s t h a t t h e Department h a s no d i s c r e t i o n to a s s i g n an earlier d a t e t h a n t h e d a t e U t a h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n s were r e c e i v e d on t h e Montana forms. These s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "85-2-401. P r i o r i t y . . . " ( 2 ) P r i o r i t y of a p p r o p r i a t i o n made under t h i s c h a p t e r d a t e s from t h e f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p e r m i t w i t h t h e department . . . "85-2-302. A p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e r m i t . Except as o t h e r w i s e provided i n (1) and ( 2 ) of 85-2-306, a p e r s o n may n o t a p p r o p r i a t e water or commence c o n s t r u c t i o n of d i v e r s i o n , impoundment, withdrawal, or d i s t r i b u t i o n works t h e r e f or e x c e p t by applying f o r and r e c e i v i n g a p e r m i t from t h e dewartment. The a w l i c a t i o n s h a l l b e - made on a fbrm p r e s c r i b e d b ; * t h e department." -- -- ( ~ m p h a s i s added.) Second, I n t a k e a r g u e s t h a t a w r i t of mandate is a p r o p e r remedy t o compel t h e undoing of a t h i n g w r o n g f u l l y o r i m p r o p e r l y done t h a t d e n i e s a p e r s o n t h e r i g h t s to which he is e n t i t l e d , c i t i n g S t a t e ex rel. Mallott v. Cascade Co. ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 94 Mont. 394, 22 P.2d 811. Other r e a s o n s g i v e n by I n t a k e f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of mandate i n c l u d e : i f an agency f o l l o w s a f u n d a m e n t a l l y wrong r u l e , t h e agency can be compelled to f o l l o w t h e l a w by mandamus, c i t i n g S t a t e ex rel. Bourquin v. S t a t e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 67 Mont. 340, 215 P. 667; and an agency h a s a n implied l e g a l d u t y to undo any a c t i o n t a k e n i n v i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e , c i t i n g P a r k s v. Board of Co. Commissioners of T i l l a - mook Co. ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 1 0r.App. 177, 501 P.2d 85. I n t a k e also a r g u e s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of Compact A r t i c l e X V I I I t o Article V I I (set o u t above) r e s u l t s i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t n o t h i n g i n t h e Compact is intended t o d i v e s t Montana of j u r i s d i c t i o n over its a l l o c a t e d waters and t h u s t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Montana's Water U s e A c t should apply. Article X V I I I p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s : " A r t i c l e X V I I I "No s e n t e n c e , p h r a s e , o r c l a u s e i n t h i s compact o r i n any p r o v i s i o n t h e r e o f s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d o r i n t e r p r e t e d t o d i v e s t any s i g n a t o r y state o r a n y of t h e a g e n c i e s or o f f i c e r s of such states o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e water of each state as a p p o r t i o n e d i n t h i s compact ." The Board, t h e Department and Utah contend t h a t a w r i t of mandate should n o t i s s u e f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e Department d i d n o t v i o l a t e any c l e a r l e g a l d u t y b u t followed t h e c o n t r o l l i n g l a w s of t h e Compact and A c t . These p a r t i e s r e a s o n t h a t t h e Compact is similar to a t r e a t y , s i n c e it was approved by Congress, and state l a w is s u b o r d i n a t e to it. S i n c e A r t i c l e V I I , p a r a g r a p h B, o f t h e Compact states t h a t t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n is t o conform w i t h t h e laws of t h e state of d i v e r s i o n , t h e Department c o r r e c t l y gave Utah the Wyoming p r i o r i t y d a t e . These p a r t i e s p o i n t o u t t h a t i n t h e Wyoming a d j u d i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e s relate back t o t h e d a t e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , i . e . November 20, 1973. A l s o , t h e s e p a r t i e s argue t h a t a w r i t of mandate cannot i s s u e because I n t a k e h a s p l a i n , speedy and a d e q u a t e a d m i n i s t r a - t i v e remedies; t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t f o l l o w a f u n d a m e n t a l l y wrong r u l e ; and t h a t a w r i t of mandate is n o t a p r o p e r remedy to undo an act a l r e a d y done. F i n a l l y , r e s p o n d e n t s contend t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t d i v e s t i t s e l f of its j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e water a l l o c a t e d to Montana under t h e Compact, i.e. t h e Department r e q u i r e d Utah to correct its f i l i n g s on t h e Montana forms i n s u r i n g t h a t water charged a g a i n s t its Compact a l l o c a t i o n is b e n e f i c i a l l y used. W e n o t e t h a t t h i s Court h a s r e c e n t l y addressed o u r scope o f review on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate: " T h i s Court is aware t h a t a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to g r a n t or deny a w r i t of mandate is a matter of d i s c r e t i o n and w i l l be s u s t a i n e d on a p p e a l i n t h e absence of a showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ." Ingram-Clevenger, I n c . v. L e w i s and C l a r k County ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . 636 P.2d 1372, 1374, 38 ~ t . ~ e p . 9 6 , 1699. The D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s case d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e w r i t . Here a w r i t of mandate cannot i s s u e because t h e r e is no clear l e g a l d u t y r e q u i r i n g t h e Department t o a s s i g n Utah t h e J a n u a r y 14, 1975, p r i o r i t y d a t e . C a i n , s u p r a . The Compact, s i g n e d by Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota and r a t i f i e d by Congress ( o n October 20, 1951) h a s t h e s t a t u s of a t r e a t y and s t a t e l a w is s u b o r d i n a t e t o it. See H i n d e r l i d e r v. L a P l a t a R i v e r & C h e r r y Creek D i t c h Company ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 304 U.S. 92, 58 S.Ct. 803, 82 L.Ed 1202 ( a n i n t e r s t a t e compact between Colorado and N e w Mexico w a s found t o be c o n t r o l l i n g o v e r a Colorado S t a t e water d e c r e e ) . Thus, Montana's water s t a t u t e s are s u b o r d i n a t e to t h e Compact p r o v i s i o n s . A r t i c l e V I I , S e c t i o n C, of t h e Compact p r o v i d e s t h a t e a c h a d j u d i c a t i o n must conform w i t h t h e laws of t h e state where t h e water is d i v e r t e d . Wyoming is t h e state of d i v e r s i o n i n t h i s case. I n t a k e does n o t a t t a c k U t a h ' s o r i g i n a l f i l i n g s i n Wyoming o n November 20, 1973. Thus, t h e Department c o r r e c t l y a s s i g n e d t h e November 20, 1973, p r i o r i t y d a t e to Utah i n conformity w i t h Wyoming l a w as r e q u i r e d by t h e Compact. I n t a k e could n o t p r e v a i l even under Montana l a w . The Department is g i v e n t h e d i s c r e t i o n under Montana's Water U s e A c t o f a l l o w i n g up to 18 months f o r a c o r r e c t i o n of d e f e c t i v e f i l i n g . Utah f i l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e Montana forms w i t h t h e Department w i t h i n t h a t p e r i o d . The Department c o r r e c t l y a s s i g n e d Utah t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e of its f i r s t f i l i n g . It had no clear l e g a l d u t y to d o o t h e r w i s e . Af f irmed . Chief J u s t i c e