Title: Wyoming State Engineer v. Willadsen

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Wyoming State Engineer v. Willadsen1990 WY 59792 P.2d 1376Case Number: 89-223Decided: 06/01/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
WYOMING STATE ENGINEER 
AND THE WYOMING STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, PETITIONERS 
(RESPONDENTS),

v.

JACK WILLADSEN AND DUANE 
WILLADSEN, 

RESPONDENTS 
(PETITIONERS).

Petition for review from 
the State Board of Control.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., Mary B. Guthrie, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jennifer Hager, Asst. Atty. 
Gen., and Frank Gibbard, Legal Intern, for petitioner Wyoming State 
Engineer.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., and S. Jane Caton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner Wyoming State 
Bd. of Control.

John W. Pattno, 
Cheyenne, for respondents.

Before 
CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

[¶1]      Jack Willadsen 
and Duane Willadsen appeal from a decision by the Wyoming State Board of Control 
which affirmed the Wyoming State Engineer's determination that an irrigation 
well operated by an upstream landowner did not interfere with the Willadsens' 
surface water rights. The Willadsens appealed the Board of Control's decision to 
the district court, and the district court certified the appeal to this 
Court.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The Willadsens 
present the following issues:

     I. Did the District 
Court err[][] in failing to hear this case and by certifying the case to the 
Supreme Court[?]

     II. Is it error for 
the State Board of Control, as hearing officer, to petition for certification of 
a case to the Supreme Court[?]

     III. Did the Board of 
Control err[][] in arbitrarily disregarding the uncontradicted and unimpeached 
testimony of the Contestant Petitioners[?]

     IV. Did the Board of 
Control err[][] in failing to find that Contestant Petitioners proved by a 
preponderance of evidence that there was interference by Cottonwood No. 1 Well 
with Cottonwood Creek[?]

     V. Did the Board of 
Control err[][] in its arbitrary decision[?]

[¶4]      The Willadsens 
own a surface water right in water which flows out of Cottonwood Creek. The 
creek is located approximately eighteen miles north of Wheatland, Wyoming, and 
feeds a ditch which runs through the Willadsens' ranch. On November 25, 1981, 
the State Engineer's office received a complaint from the Willadsens contending 
that an upstream irrigation well was interfering with their surface water 
rights. Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-911(b) (1977),1 the State Engineer's office 
conducted an investigation to determine if interference existed. The State 
Engineer's office prepared a report and concluded that the investigation could 
not substantiate the existence ofinterference.

[¶5]      The Willadsens 
contested the results of the investigation at a hearing held before the Board of 
Control. The Board of Control received evidence and decided that the Willadsens 
failed to carry their burden of establishing that the irrigation well interfered 
with their surface water rights. The Willadsens appealed the Board of Control's 
decision to the district court, and the district court certified the appeal to 
this Court. We remanded the case back to the Board of Control because it 
utilized the wrong burden of proof. Willadsen v. Christopulos, 731 P.2d 1181 
(Wyo. 1987). We held that the Willadsens were entitled to relief if they 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the well interfered with 
their rights. Id.

[¶6]      Once again, the 
Board of Control held a hearing and received evidence. The Board of Control 
examined evidence presented at the first hearing and heard additional testimony 
from expert and lay witnesses. The Board of Control concluded that "the 
testimony of the parties' experts and lay witnesses did not convince the Board 
that interference between Cottonwood No. 1 Well Permit No. U.W. 48944[] and 
Cottonwood Creek was any more probable than not" and dismissed the Willadsens' 
complaint of interference.

[¶7]      The Willadsens 
appealed the Board of Control's dismissal to the district court. As it did with 
the first appeal, the district court certified the case to this Court. We must 
decide whether the appeal was properly certified and whether the Board of 
Control's conclusion is in accordance with law and supported by substantial 
evidence.

[¶8]      The Willadsens 
contend that the district court erred when it certified their case to this 
Court. W.R.A.P. 12.09 provides in pertinent part that review of an agency 
determination

shall be conducted by the 
court without a jury and shall be confined to the record as supplemented 
pursuant to Rule 12.08, W.R.A.P., and to the issues raised before the agency. 
The court's review shall be limited to a determination of the matters specified 
in § 16-3-114(c).

     If after such review, 
the district court concludes the matter to be appropriate for determination by 
the Supreme Court, the district court may certify the case to the Supreme Court. 
Upon notification of such certification, the petitioner shall pay the required 
docketing fee.

Under that rule, 
the district court's decision to certify a case to this Court is discretional. 
Safety Medical Services, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming, 724 P.2d 468 (Wyo. 1986). The record fails to show that the district court abused 
its discretion, and the Willadsens have not presented cogent argument or 
authority demonstrating such abuse. Consequently, we hold that this appeal was 
properly certified for our review.

[¶9]      The Willadsens 
also contend that the Board of Control's conclusion that the Willadsens failed 
to prove interference is inconsistent with the evidence and is arbitrary. After 
an appropriator of surface water files a complaint alleging interference, the 
State Engineer must conduct an investigation to determine if interference exists 
and issue a report to all interested parties. An appropriator who is 
dissatisfied with the findings of the State Engineer may seek relief under the 
Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. Section 41-3-911(c). If an adjudicatory 
hearing is held before the Board of Control, the appropriator has the burden of 
proving the existence of interference by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Willadsen, 731 P.2d 1181. Our review of the Board of Control's determination is 
subject to the standards specified in W.R.A.P. 12.09 and Wyo. Stat. § 
16-3-114(c) (1977). Doidge v. State Board of Charities and Reform, 789 P.2d 880 
(Wyo. 1990); Employment Security Commission of Wyoming v. Western Gas 
Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866 (Wyo. 1990); Cook v. Zoning Board of Adjustment 
for the City of Laramie, 776 P.2d 181 (Wyo. 1989). Section 16-3-114(c) 
provides:

     To the extent 
necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall 
decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency 
action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole 
record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of 
the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court 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; or

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

[¶10]   When we review an agency decision 
which a party claims is arbitrary and inconsistent with the evidence, we apply 
the substantial evidence test and determine whether the decision is supported by 
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 
a conclusion. Such evidence may be less than the weight of the evidence but 
cannot be contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Big Piney Oil 
& Gas Company v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 715 P.2d 557, 
561-62 (Wyo. 1986) (citations omitted).

[¶11]   We find substantial evidence in the 
record to support the Board of Control's conclusion that the Willadsens did not 
prove the existence of interference. In both hearings before the Board of 
Control, the groundwater hydrologist who designed the interference test for the 
Willadsen investigation testified that pumpage of the well in question did not 
have a measurable or observable effect on Cottonwood Creek. The Willadsens' 
witnesses primarily based their testimony on the same data used by the State's 
witnesses and concluded that interference existed. The Board of Control believed 
the State's expert, and we conclude that a reasonable mind would accept that 
evidence as adequate to support the Board of Control's conclusion. Because the 
Board of Control's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must uphold 
its findings. Id.; McCulloch Gas Transmission Company v. Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming, 627 P.2d 173 (Wyo. 1981).

[¶12]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-911 
(1977) provides in pertinent part:

(b) Any appropriator of 
either surface or underground water may file a written complaint alleging 
interference with his water right by a junior right. Complaints are to be filed 
with the state engineer and are to be accompanied by a fee of one hundred 
dollars ($100.00) to help defray costs of investigation. This section is not 
applicable to interference between two (2) surface water rights. Upon receiving 
the complaint and fee, the state engineer shall undertake an investigation to 
determine if the alleged interference does exist. Following the investigation, 
the state engineer shall issue a report to all interested parties stating his 
findings. The report may suggest various means of stopping, rectifying or 
ameliorating the interference or damage caused thereby.

(c) Any interested 
appropriator who is dissatisfied with the results of the foregoing procedure may 
proceed under the applicable provisions of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure 
Act [§§ 16-3-101 to -115]. If a hearing is to be held, it shall be held before 
the appropriate water division superintendent. The superintendent shall report 
to the board of control at its next meeting. The board shall issue its order to 
include findings of fact and conclusions of law.