Title: Platte County Grazing Ass'n v. State Bd. of Control

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Platte County Grazing Ass'n v. State Bd. of Control1984 WY 6675 P.2d 1279Case Number: 83-123Decided: 01/16/1984PLATTE COUNTY GRAZING ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF CASPER, NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING, THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, PETITIONERS,

v.

STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, LONESOME FOX CORPORATION, S & S RANCH COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENTS, DOUBLE K RANCH, INC., AND NOEL HALL RANCH COMPANY (PETITIONERS-CONTESTANTS BELOW).

Supreme Court of Wyoming

PLATTE COUNTY GRAZING ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF CASPER, NATRONA 
COUNTY, WYOMING, THROUGH 
ITS DULY CONSTITUTED BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 
PETITIONERS,

v.

STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, 
LONESOME FOX CORPORATION, S & S RANCH COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENTS, 
DOUBLE K RANCH, INC., AND NOEL HALL RANCH COMPANY (PETITIONERS-CONTESTANTS 
BELOW).

Glenn Parker and 
W. Douglas Hickey of Hirst & Applegate, Cheyenne, for petitioners.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., Lawrence J. Wolfe, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., John D. Erdmann, Asst. 
Atty. Gen., James M. Ellerbe, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, for respondent State Bd. of 
Control.

Hugh B. 
McFadden, Jr. and Philip Nicholas of Corthell, King, McFadden, Nicholas, Prehoda 
& Olson, Laramie, for respondents 
Lonesome Fox Corp. and S & S Ranch Co.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and 
CARDINE, JJ.

ROSE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This case comes to this 
court from a petition for judicial review of administrative action, pursuant to 
§ 16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (1982 Replacement) and Rule 12, W.R.A.P. (more 
specifically Rule 12.09, W.R.A.P.,1 effective June 13, 
1983).

[¶2.]     The petition for 
judicial review contemplates two decisions of the State Board of Control. The 
only issue with which we need be concerned has to do with a petition for and an 
order of declaration of partial abandonment of water rights. The petition was 
filed with the State Board of Control by respondents Lonesome Fox Corporation 
and S & S Ranch Company and was later joined by Double K Ranch, Inc. and 
Noel Hall Ranch Company. These ranch companies irrigate their lands from Rock 
Creek and Three Mile Creek in the vicinity of the town of Rock River, in AlbanyCounty. The contested water rights are 
attached to other nearby lands in the Rock Creek drainage area - which lands and 
water rights are owned by the Platte County Grazing Association but which are in 
the process of being purchased by the Board of Public Utilities for the City of 
Casper. Both the 
Platte County Grazing Association and the Board of Public Utilities for the City 
of Casper appear 
here as petitioners.

[¶3.]     A public hearing on the 
abandonment petition was held, the result of which was that the Board of Control 
declared abandoned 2,358.88 acres having original supply and 126.2 acres having 
supplemental supply, leaving 2,126.65 acres having original supply and 108.8 
acres having supplemental supply as not abandoned.

[¶4.]     The 
contestants-respondents, whose water rights are junior to those of 
contestees-petitioners, urge that they have standing to bring the abandonment 
action against the senior water rights of the petitioners pursuant to § 
41-3-401(b), W.S. 1977, which provides:

"When any water user who 
might be affected by a declaration of abandonment of existing water rights, 
desires to bring about a legal declaration of abandonment, he shall present his 
case in writing to the state board of control. * * *"

[¶5.]     It is the respondents' 
position that they would be "affected" by a declaration of abandonment for the 
reason that an abandonment of the petitioners' water rights would have the 
effect of

"* * * improv[ing] the 
security and availability of their [the respondents'] water supplies, thereby 
giving them more water during their irrigation season or by extending the time 
their water would be available."2

[¶6.]     In the Conclusions of 
Law section of its order, the Board of Control found - without giving reasons 
-

"THAT the Contestants 
have standing to seek a declaration of abandonment against the 
Contestee."

[¶7.]     The contestants' only 
complaint for abandonment is that the Grazing Association and the Board of 
Public Utilities have not used their appropriated water for five successive 
years, as contemplated by § 41-3-401(a), W.S. 19773 and have not complied with the 
terms of their permits in that, instead of applying one cfs per 70 acres to all of the lands included in by their 
water authorities, the contestees are applying and have historically applied two 
cfs to one-half of the land described 
in those authorities. Without alleging or proving that this utilization in any 
manner abridges their water rights, 
the contestants urge that they are "affected" water users under the condemnation 
statute because they would be benefited by an abandonment 
order.

[¶8.]     It is to be carefully 
noted that the contestants do not even suggest by allegation or proof that the 
contestees' historic use or proposed use of their water rights has abridged or 
will in any way abridge the water rights of the contestants. The contestants 
only allege that contestees are not complying with the provisions of their appropriations and that this, 
together with an allegation and showing that contestants' water rights will be 
enhanced by abandonment, is 
sufficient to establish standing to bring the action. We cannot 
agree.

[¶9.]     We will 
reverse.

[¶10.]  Typical of the benefits upon which the 
contestants rely to become water users who will be "affected by a declaration of 
abandonment" (§ 41-3-401(b), supra) are those described in the following 
excerpts from the record which have been collected in the brief of 
contestant-respondent Lonesome Fox Corporation, as 
follows:

"The various Contestants 
testified as well. Their respective ownership of lands with appurtenant rights 
out of Rock Creek and Three Mile Creek was not challenged. Each testified about 
the effect of the hoped-for partial abandonment upon his respective 
operation:

"Clifford B. White, 
testifying for Lonesome Fox Corporation:

"`Q. If all or part of 
this partial abandonment is granted, what is going to happen to your water 
rights?

"`A. It will make our 
water rights that much better.

"`Q. In what 
way?

"`A. In that there will 
not be whatever, X number of feet are abandoned, it will move our water rights 
that much farther up in priority, generally allowing us to irrigate for a longer 
period of time during the season.

* * * * * 
*

"`A. The longer we 
irrigate, the more grass we can grow. The only product or the only crop that we 
grow on our land is grass, and the more grass we raise the more cattle we can 
run.'

"Kim Krueger, for Double 
K Ranches, Incorporated:

"`A. . . . when the water 
is available I get it over the pasture land at the same time that I get it over 
the irrigation land, because it's not there that long.

"`Q. Do you turn it on 
later in the fall?

"`A. Try to turn it on 
later in the fall. In the past, oh, 20 years, I guess I can only remember maybe 
twice out of that 20 years that we have been able to do any fall irrigation, but 
I like to, if there's water available at the time.

* * * * * 
*

"`A. Well, to be quite 
honest with you, if some of the rights that are senior to mine are abandoned, I 
would end up with more water.'

"And, on 
cross-examination:

"`Q. In fact, if you had 
the water for a longer period of time, you'd get more acreage 
irrigated?

"`A. I'd have a chance to 
put more out and get more of it spread more intensely on some of the places that 
I can't now, yes.'

"Scott Sims, for S & 
S Ranch Company:

"`A. If abandonment is 
granted, it would mean that our water rights will be more valuable to us because 
we will have longer use period of this water during the irrigation 
season.

"`Q. Which end of the 
season will you have water use?

"`A. I would say on both 
ends, probably on the latter end mostly when we would use it the 
most.

"`Q. Please tell the 
Board if this would be of value to you.

"`A. Yes, it would. 
Usually, the last ten days of irrigation season is the, whenever your hay crop 
will give you the most productivity, and some years, in a short water year, when 
we don't have enough water to bring that hay to its fullest capacity, you notice 
a reduction in the quantity of hay that we put up.'

"And, 
cross-examination:

"`Q. In your opinion, why 
isn't your supply adequate?

"`A. As I say, we're in 
the business of growing hay and grass to be marketed for livestock and we sell 
hay, and it's a source of income to use and if we have a longer use period of 
this water, means more grass and hay to us.

"`Q. And more money to S 
& S Ranch Company?

"`A. 
Yes.'

"And finally, Leola Hall 
for Noel Hall Ranch Company:

"`Q. Should the partial 
abandonment sought here be granted, what would be the effect in your operation, 
if any?

"`A. Well, I would 
assume, as several others have stated, that there would be a longer irrigation 
season and also, hopefully, that water would stay in the creek, the creek 
wouldn't dry up -

* * * * * 
*

"`A. Well, I would 
imagine the longer you have the water on the better your hay is going to be, and 
you could probably irrigate, spread it on out to some of your range 
land.'"

[¶11.]  In summing up the position of the 
contestants, and having asserted that they rely upon the five-year provision of 
§ 41-3-401(a), supra, and subsection (b) of that statute, supra, which latter 
section describes the rights of an "affected" water user, the author of the 
contestants' brief says:

"The logic of our case is 
this: PCGA/CBPU[4] is the holder of appropriations 
from surface and reservoir sources. They have failed to use the water therefrom 
for `the beneficial purposes for which it was appropriated' for the years 1977 
through 1981. Therefore they have abandoned these rights. All Contestants are 
water users who will be affected (will in fact benefit) from a declaration of 
the abandonment of these existing water rights."

 

[¶12.]  We have recently decided Cremer v. State Board of Control, 
Wyo., 675 P.2d 250 (1984) in which we carefully considered the ramifications of § 41-3-401(b), 
supra. That statute says that in order to establish standing to bring an 
abandonment proceeding the petitioner must be able to show that he is a "water 
user who might be affected by a 
declaration of abandonment." (Emphasis added.) In deciding what the word 
"affected" means, we revisited Mitchell 
Irr. Dist. v. Whiting, 59 Wyo. 52, 136 P.2d 502 (1943), where we had long 
ago held that a prior appropriator cannot interfere with the rights of a junior 
appropriator so long as the senior receives all the water to which his 
appropriation entitles him. In Mitchell, we said:

"2 Kinney on Irrigation 
and Water Rights, 2d Ed., 1377, Section 789 remarks that: `So long as the prior 
appropriator obtains all the water of satisfactory quality to the full extent of 
his appropriation, he has no right to interfer with or complain of the enjoyment 
of the rights of subsequent appropriators on the stream.' * * * See, also, Clough v. Wing, 2 Ariz. 371, 17 P. 453; 
Albion-Idaho Land Company v. Naf 
Irrigation Company et al., 10 Cir., 97 F.2d 439, 444." 136 P.2d  at 
508.

[¶13.]  For all the same reasons that a senior 
water rights appropriator who is receiving all the water to which his rights 
entitle him does not have standing to bring abandonment against a junior 
appropriator (because he cannot show that he is "affected" by the junior's use 
of the water), a junior appropriator, whose rights stand unabridged by a senior 
appropriator's unauthorized use of 
his water, does not have standing to bring abandonment against such a senior 
appropriator. The mere unauthorized use or misuse of water does not give another 
appropriator standing to complain. The use or misuse against which complaint is 
lodged must also be shown to be adversely affecting the water rights of the 
complaining appropriator before standing can be said to 
attach.

[¶14.]  When contemplating the meaning of § 
41-3-401(b), supra, we held in the Cremer case that "affected" means adversely affected - injured - it connotes a use which 
results in an abridgment of the 
contestant's water rights as compared to an enhancement of those rights. We said 
that in order that a user be "affected" so as to have standing to bring 
abandonment, the complaining user must be able to show that the contestee is 
utilizing his water to the disadvantage of the water rights of the 
contestant.

[¶15.]  In reaching these conclusions we were 
merely summarizing and reiterating old and familiar rules of this court as well 
as rules of other courts which have been considered with approval. See Hagie v. Lincoln Land Co., D.C.Wyo., 18 F. Supp. 637, 639 (1937); Mitchell v. 
Whiting, supra; Campbell v. Wyoming 
Development Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 100 P.2d 124, reh. denied 102 P.2d 745 (1940); Horse Creek Conservation 
Dist. v. Lincoln Land Co., 54 Wyo. 320, 342-343, 92 P.2d 572 
(1939).

[¶16.]  We summarized our holding in Cremer, when we 
said:

"We therefore reiterate 
the historic rule (which is nothing more than the law of standing applied to 
water users in an abandonment proceeding) that an appropriator's rights are not 
`affected' for the purpose of bringing condemnation unless those rights are 
changed to his disadvantage. In other words, he has to be able to show injury. A water user may not bootstrap 
standing for the purpose of bringing abandonment of his neighbor's water rights 
when the only effect of the abandonment would be to enlarge the contestant's 
appropriation as distinguished from protecting his right to use his previously 
appropriated water." 675 P.2d  at 256.

[¶17.]  The injury factor is, then, the 
jurisdictional requirement which must be present before one water user may bring 
an abandonment petition against the water rights of others. The complainant 
must, in order to vest appropriate boards and courts with jurisdiction to hear 
his petition, be able to allege and prove that his water right has been injured 
- i.e., abridged by the use or misuse that the contestee makes of the water in 
which the contestant has a protective interest.

[¶18.]  This concept was reiterated in our 
relatively recent decision in Budd v. 
Bishop, Wyo., 543 P.2d 368, 373 (1975). In that case, 
we were considering whether or not a post-19455 surplus water appropriator 
possessed standing to contest the constitutionality of the surplus water law. In 
holding that he did not have standing for various reasons not relevant here, we 
went on to observe that the contestant would be possessed of standing to bring 
abandonment if he could show that the wrongful use of water by other 
appropriators on the stream was injuring his rightful access to the water. In 
this connection, we said:

"* * * If, in fact, 
Budd's post-March 1, 1945 right is being limited because prior appropriators are 
wasting water, the law in Wyoming affords him the opportunity to challenge those 
prior water rights. The water right of any appropriator is limited to beneficial 
use, and, even though a larger amount of water has been adjudicated, the water 
right is subject to reduction if not applied for beneficial purposes." 543 P.2d  
at 373.

[¶19.]  When the injury requirement is considered 
within the context of the pleadings and proof in the case at bar, it becomes 
clear that the contestants have not shown that they have standing to complain in 
abandonment, the consequence of which is that the appropriate board and courts 
have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

[¶20.]  Reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rule 12.09, W.R.A.P. 
provides in pertinent part:

"If * * * 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."

2 From the brief of the 
respondent State Board of Control.

3 Section 41-3-401(a), 
W.S. 1977 provides:

"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." (Emphasis 
added.)

4 These initials stand for 
Platte County Grazing Association and Casper Board of Public 
Utilities.

5 The surplus water law 
became effective March 1, 1945.