Title: Rageth v. Sidon Irrigation Dist.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MARVIN BRENT RAGETH and SHERRI L. RAGETH v. SIDON IRRIGATION DISTRICT2011 WY 121Case Number: S-10-0141, S-10-0184Decided: 08/24/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
MARVIN 
BRENT RAGETH and SHERRI L. RAGETH,Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),v.SIDON IRRIGATION DISTRICT,Appellee 
(Defendant).
 
Appeals 
from the District Court of Big Horn County
No. 
S-10-0141 – The Honorable Dan Spangler, Retired, 
Judge
No. 
S-10-0184 – The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Kara 
Brighton and Harriet M. Hageman of Hageman & Brighton, P.C., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. 
Brighton.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Mary 
Helen Reed of McCarty, Reed and Earhart, Attorneys at Law, L.C., Cody, 
Wyoming.
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
GOLDEN, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      Marvin Brent 
Rageth and Sherri L. Rageth (Rageths) irrigate 559.75 acres in Big Horn County, 
Wyoming, under an adjudicated appropriation of 8 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) 
from Bitter Creek which is conveyed to their property a distance of 6.5 to 7 
miles through the Sidon Canal owned by the Sidon Irrigation District (District) 
organized and existing under pertinent provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. Title 41, 
Chapter 7 (LexisNexis 2011).  
Rageths are not members of District, and their irrigated acreage is not 
located within District’s boundaries.  
District comprises approximately 13,129.98 acres under an adjudicated 
appropriation of 179.57 c.f.s. from the Shoshone River and a supplemental supply 
from Bitter Creek.
 
[¶2]      Rageths commenced 
an action against District seeking a declaration of their conveyance rights in 
the Sidon Canal, reimbursement of water delivery fees paid to District under 
protest for several past irrigation seasons, and the establishment of a 
reasonable annual water delivery fee in future years.  In time, the parties executed a 
stipulation, approved by the district court, that Rageths have the perpetual 
right, as defined by their adjudicated water rights, to divert water from 
District’s Bitter Creek diversion structure and convey such water through the 
Sidon Canal to their property, subject to an annual payment to District to be 
determined by subsequent court order, and that Rageths’ perpetual conveyance 
right does not include any ownership interest in District’s 
facilities.
 
[¶3]      As for Rageths’ 
remaining claims for reimbursement of past water delivery fees and establishment 
of a reasonable annual water delivery fee going forward, District moved for 
summary judgment, which Rageths opposed.  
Following a hearing on that motion, the district court granted District’s 
motion.  Rageths have timely 
appealed from that order in No. S-10-0141.  
The district court also entered its order awarding District’s costs as 
the prevailing party, and Rageths have timely appealed from that order in No. 
S-10-0184.  We consolidated these 
appeals for decision, and now reverse those orders and remand for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
ISSUES
 
[¶4]      In No. S-10-0141, 
the central issue presented is, in the absence of an agreement, what water 
delivery fee may an irrigation district charge a non-member who has a perpetual 
right to convey that non-member’s adjudicated appropriation to that non-member’s 
land outside the irrigation district’s boundaries using the irrigation 
district’s canal and related facilities.  
In No. S-10-0184, with respect to the award of costs to District, the 
resolution of that appeal turns on the outcome of the central issue presented in 
No. S-10-0141.
 
 
FACTS 
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 
[¶5]      Organized in 
1929, District exists under the relevant provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. Title 41, 
Chapter 7 (LexisNexis 2011). District owns the Sidon Canal in Big Horn County, 
Wyoming, which was constructed in 1900 and has been in operation to the 
present.  District covers 
approximately 13,129.98 acres with 179.57 c.f.s. of adjudicated water rights 
diverted from the Shoshone River through the Sidon Canal.  District also has a permit for 
supplemental supply from Bitter Creek.  

 
[¶6]      In 2008, Rageths 
purchased 559.75 acres situated adjacent to the Sidon Canal with 8 c.f.s. of 
adjudicated water rights diverted from Bitter Creek at a structure built and 
maintained by District and conveyed through the Sidon Canal.  Their water flows in Sidon Canal for a 
distance of approximately 6.5 to 7 miles to pump stations where the water is 
pumped above the canal and used in pivots to irrigate their land.  Their land is not located within 
District’s boundaries, and Rageths are not members of District.  
 
[¶7]      District and 
previous owners of Rageths’ land had agreements establishing their payments for 
delivery of their water through the Sidon Canal, but these agreements had 
expired before Rageths’ 2008 purchase of their land.1  After Rageths purchased the land, they 
and District negotiated without success to reach agreement establishing a 
delivery fee.  In 2008, District 
billed Rageths the sum of $7,560.00 for delivering their 8 c.f.s., that sum 
representing 75% of the gross assessment for District’s members, which was based 
on $18.00 per acre at the time.  In 
2009, District billed Rageths the sum of $11,200.00, that sum representing 100% 
of the gross assessment for District’s members, which was based on $20.00 per 
acre at the time.  Rageths paid 
these bills under protest, and District delivered their water throughout the 
irrigation seasons.  

 
[¶8]      In July 2009, 
Rageths filed their action for declaratory judgment to establish a reasonable 
fee for the delivery of their adjudicated irrigation water through the 
approximately 6.5 to 7 mile stretch of the Sidon Canal and for reimbursement of 
alleged overpayments of delivery fees for the prior years.  After the litigation was underway, the 
parties engaged in mediation and, as a result, they executed a stipulation, 
filed with the district court on April 28, 2010, that resolved issues of 
ownership and rights to the use of the Sidon Canal, but not the issues of 
establishing for the future a reasonable delivery fee and reimbursement of 
alleged overpayments of delivery fees for the prior years.
 
[¶9]      With respect to 
those remaining issues, District filed its motion for summary judgment with 
supporting material; Rageths responded in opposition to that motion with 
supporting material; District filed its rejoinder; and the district court heard 
argument.  Following that hearing, 
the district court granted District’s motion and entered its order requiring 
Rageths to pay District the same per acre fee as District assesses its members 
on an annual basis.  

 
[¶10]   Rageths timely filed their notice 
of appeal from the summary judgment order and that is before us in No. 
S-10-0141.  The district court also 
entered its order awarding costs to District as the prevailing party, Rageths 
timely filed their notice of appeal from that order, and that is before us in 
No. S-10-0184.  

 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶11]   Our standard of review for summary 
judgment is well known and need not be repeated here.  See, e.g., Formisano v. Gaston, 2011 WY 8, ¶¶ 3-4, 246 P.3d 286, 288-89 (Wyo. 
2011).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶12]   The district court granted 
District’s summary judgment motion with this brief 
explanation:
 
Wyoming 
Statutes and case law require that irrigation districts operate in a certain 
manner regarding budgets and assessments.  
The procedure advocated by the plaintiffs would defeat the purpose of the 
statutes to provide for uniform treatment of those having legal relationships 
with an irrigation district.  
Previous contracts cannot change those statutes or those case law 
rulings.
 
In 
their appellate briefing, the parties agree that the Wyoming statutes applicable 
to irrigation districts, Wyo. Stat. Ann. Title 41, Chapter 7, and case law 
pertaining to those statutes do not apply to their dispute and are not authority 
to govern Rageths’ legal relationship with District.  District states that it “has never 
argued that the irrigation district assessment laws apply to the Rageths.”  We agree.
 
[¶13]   To reach a decision in this case, 
we find it useful to identify those other points on which the parties are in 
agreement.  They agree that the 
provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-6-303 (LexisNexis 2011),2 pertaining to joint owners of an 
irrigation ditch, provide a basis by which Rageths’ proportionate share of the 
expenses related to the operation, maintenance, and repair of the Bitter Creek 
Diversion and the Sidon Canal can be established, even though District and 
Rageths are not true joint owners of those irrigation works.  This provision recognizes that the 
interests of each party in a ditch or canal “shall be established by the ratio 
between the water right of each water user to the total water rights adjudicated 
under such irrigation works.”  § 
41-6-303.  They also agree that the 
ratio of Rageths’ 559.75 acres to District’s 13,129.98 acres, which is 4.26%, is 
the appropriate ratio to be used to determine Rageths’ proportionate share of 
the expenses related to the operation, maintenance, and repair of the diversion 
and the canal.
 
[¶14]   Both parties also point to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 41-5-102 and 103 as provisions that inform their discussion about 
establishing a ditch user’s proportionate share of expenses.  Rageths correctly observe that these 
provisions are not controlling authority to the dispute at hand, because by 
their strict terms they apply only in the case of an irrigating ditch owned by 
two or more persons.  Nevertheless, 
Rageths maintain that these provisions confirm the legitimacy and validity of 
their position.  District notes that 
these provisions are helpful in that they, like § 41-6-303, recognize the 
principle of proportionality.  Thus, 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-102 (LexisNexis 2011) provides:
 
§ 
41-5-102. Ditches; jointly owned; action to recover proportionate share of 
work.
 
            
In all cases where irrigating 
ditches are owned by two (2) or more persons and one (1) or more of such persons 
shall fail or neglect to do his, her or their proportionate share of the work 
necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of such ditch or ditches 
or to construct suitable head gates or measuring devices at the points where 
water is diverted from the main ditch, such owner or owners desiring the performance of such work as is 
reasonably necessary to maintain the ditch, may, after having given ten (10) 
days written notice to such owner or owners who have failed to perform his, her 
or their proportionate share of such work, necessary for the operation and 
maintenance of said ditch or ditches, perform his, her or their share of such work, and recover 
therefor from such person or persons so failing to perform his, her or their share of such work in any 
competent court having jurisdiction of the matter, the expense or value of such work or labor 
so performed. [Emphasis added.]
 
And, 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-103 (LexisNexis 2011) provides:
 
§ 
41-5-103. Ditches; jointly owned; lien for work.
 
            
Upon the failure of any co-owner 
to pay his proportionate share of such expense as mentioned in W.S. 
41-5-102, within thirty (30) days after receiving a statement of the same as 
performed by his co-owner or owners, such person or persons so performing such labor may secure 
payment of said claim by filing an 
itemized and sworn statement thereof, setting forth the date of the 
performance and the nature of the labor 
so performed, with the county clerk of the county wherein said ditch is 
situated, and when so filed it shall constitute a valid lien against the 
interest of such person or persons who shall fail to perform their proportionate 
share of the work requisite to the proper maintenance of said ditch, which said 
lien when so taken may be enforced in the same manner as provided by law for the 
enforcement of construction liens. [Emphasis added]
 
[¶15]   Discussing these statutory 
provisions, Rageths observe they apply where there is joint ownership of 
irrigating ditches, which is not the situation in this dispute; District has 
made no claim that Rageths have failed or neglected to do their proportionate 
share of the work necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the 
irrigating ditch (Sidon Canal); Rageths have never been provided the opportunity 
by District to do their proportionate share of such work; District has not given 
Rageths ten days written notice of the necessity of performing such work; 
District has not performed Rageths’ proportionate share of such work and has not 
sought to recover from them “the expense or value of such work or labor so 
performed” by District.  § 
41-5-102.  With respect to § 
41-5-103, which Rageths correctly note goes hand-in-hand with § 41-5-102, 
Rageths observe that District has never filed with the county clerk of Big Horn 
County or given them “an itemized and sworn statement” of the Rageths’ 
proportionate share of the work that District performed, which statement must 
set forth “the date of the performance and the nature of the labor so 
performed.”  § 41-5-103.  Rageths correctly note that these 
statutory provisions vest any competent court having jurisdiction of the matter 
with authority to determine the expense or value of such work or labor 
performed.  §§ 41-5-102, 103.  Rageths assert that these statutory 
provisions, which District embraces, “contemplate the same type of analysis that 
Rageths are seeking in this case.”  
They contend that the “expenses” contemplated by these statutory 
provisions are those that are “necessary for the proper maintenance and 
operation” of the Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal, and are not, as 
District asserts, all business 
expenses incurred by District in operating its entire irrigation district system 
from which Rageths receive no benefit.
 
[¶16]   In light of the above and foregoing 
discussion, it is clear that the parties disagree on how to determine the 
expenses necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the Bitter Creek 
Diversion and the Sidon Canal, for it is to those expenses that the parties will 
apply the ratio of 4.26% on which they agree.  We now consider the parties’ respective 
approaches to how that determination is to be made.  For purposes of this consideration, we 
shall use District’s 2008 Fiscal Year Budget and Assessment that District used 
to determine Rageths’ 2009 conveyance fee.  
District’s total assessment of the adjudicated acreage under the Sidon 
Canal (13,129.98 acres) was $262,599.60.  
Dividing the total assessment of $262,599.60 by the total adjudicated 
acreage under the Sidon Canal, the result is $20 per acre.  Multiplying Rageths’ 559.75 acres by the 
sum of $20, the result is approximately $11,200.00.  That same result is achieved if one 
simply applies the ratio of 4.26% to the total assessment of $262,599.60.3  That is District’s 
approach.
 
[¶17]   Rageths oppose that approach for 
the simple reason that District’s total assessment of $262,599.60 covers all 
expenses of operating and maintaining the entire irrigation district 
system.  Rageths point out that 
there are several categories of expenses in District’s fiscal year budget 
reports that do not relate to the operation, maintenance, and repair of the 
Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal.  Those include, but are not limited to, 
“Special Ditches in Cowley and Byron,” “Commissioners Services and Mileage,” 
“Office Supplies, Postage and Printing,” and “Legal and Accounting.”   Rageths maintain that none of these 
particular categories of expenses have anything to do with operation, 
maintenance, and repair of the Bitter Creek Diversion or the Sidon Canal, or 
with the delivery of Rageths’ 8 c.f.s. to their small 
acreage.
 
[¶18]   In their opposition to District’s 
summary judgment motion, Rageths submitted an affidavit executed by Francis A. 
Carr, a consultant on water rights issues since his retirement in 1996 after a 
28-year career with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office.  Mr. Carr conducted a review of 
District’s budget reports for the years 1965 to the present.  District has not maintained separate 
records of actual expenses directly related to the operation, maintenance and 
repair of the Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal. Without those separate 
records of actual expenses related to those particular irrigation works, it was 
not possible for Mr. Carr to determine the precise annual proportionate 
assessment from District’s budget reports.  
Mr. Carr was able, however, to use District’s budget reports to calculate 
a standard percentage to be paid by Rageths to represent their proportionate 
share of the expenses of operation, maintenance, and repair of those particular 
irrigation works.  As explained by 
Rageths in their briefing to this Court:
 
            
For [District’s] future administrative ease – and to avoid an ongoing 
dispute over this same issue – Mr. Carr also used [District’s] historic Budget 
Reports in order to calculate a standard percentage to be paid by the Rageths to 
represent their proportionate share of operation, maintenance and repair of the 
Sidon Canal and the Bitter Creek diversion.  For each year, Mr. Carr determined which 
expense categories of the Budget Reports were attributable to operation, 
maintenance and repair of the Sidon Canal and the Bitter Creek diversion.  (R 207, ¶28).  Following that determination, Mr. Carr 
calculated the Rageths’ proportionate annual payment by multiplying that cost by 
4.26%. (R 207, ¶28).  After that 
calculation was made, Mr. Carr determined the per acre cost to the Rageths’ 
property by dividing the proportionate cost by the number of acres (559.75). (R 
207, ¶29).  That number was then 
divided by the actual assessment charged to the District members in each year to 
determine the percentage of per-acre cost to the Rageths’ property to the 
per-acre assessment paid by District members. (R 207, ¶30). . . 
.
 
            
Mr. Carr presented an example calculation from the 1979 Budget Report in 
his Affidavit.  [District’s] total 
budget for 1979 was $96,000.00.  (R 
207, ¶31).  Of that amount, Mr. Carr 
determined that $44,033.00 could have been attributable to the operation, 
maintenance and repair of the Sidon Canal and the Bitter Creek diversion.  That amount was then multiplied by 4.26% 
to determine the proportionate share of that expense for the Rageths’ property, 
resulting in $1,875.81 total annual cost.  
To determine the per-acre cost, Mr. Carr divided $1,875.81 by 559.75, 
resulting in an expense of $3.35 per acre.  
The Rageths’ per-acre cost ($3.35) was then divided by the per-acre 
assessment paid by [District] members in 1979 ($7.64) resulting in a ratio of 
43.86%.  Therefore, in 1979, the 
per-acre cost for the Rageths’ property for expenses related to the operation, 
maintenance and repair of the Sidon Canal and the Bitter Creek diversion was 
43.86% of the per-acre assessment that [District] members paid in that same 
year.  (R. 208, ¶31). . . 
.
 
            
Mr. Carr conducted a similar analysis for each year between 1964 and 
2009, as demonstrated by the detailed spreadsheets attached as Exhibit B to his 
Affidavit. (R 213-221).  Following 
completion of the historical analysis, an average of the annual percentage was 
calculated.  The historical analysis 
showed that the percentage relationship between the per-acre cost to the 
Rageths’ property and the per-acre cost to [District] members is 38.04%.  (R 208, ¶32). . . . 

 
            
The results of Mr. Carr’s calculations of the historic and appropriate 
apportionment (38.04%) are a far cry from the 75% conveyance fee [District] 
charged Rageths in 2008 and the 100% conveyance fee charged in 2009 and 
2010.
 
            
Mr. Carr testified that the 38.04% ratio is conservative and generous to 
[District] because his analysis was based on Budget Reports, not actual 
expenditures, and the difficulty in determining whether expenses were directly 
related to operation, maintenance and repair of the Sidon Canal and Bitter Creek 
diversion. . . .
 
Rageths 
assert that Mr. Carr’s analysis of District’s historical budget reports and 
assessments reveals the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding 
both the method of calculating Rageths’ annual delivery fee in past years and in 
the years going forward and the amount of refund due Rageths for their 
overpayment of their delivery fees in the previous several years.  They insist that only after a full 
evidentiary hearing can these issues be determined.
 
[¶19]   Responding to the Rageths’ 
argument, District asserts that Rageths are claiming that they may select the 
expenses to which the 4.26% ratio is applied and that District is required to 
maintain separate records of the actual expenses requisite to the proper 
maintenance of the Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal.  District claims there is no basis in law 
for Rageths’ argument.  We 
disagree.  As we understand Rageths’ 
argument, they do not claim they alone may select the appropriate expenses; 
rather, they simply claim, and we agree, that there are genuine issues of 
material fact concerning what those appropriate expenses should be to which the 
4.26% ratio is to be applied.  
Certainly, at trial each party shall have the full opportunity to offer 
evidence and be heard on the matter of expenses and the trier of fact will make 
the selection of the appropriate expenses to which the ratio is applied.  As for District’s statement that 
Rageths’ argument has no legal basis, obviously that legal basis is found in §§ 
41-5-102 and 103 and § 41-6-303, the very provisions relied on by both 
parties.  We agree with Rageths that 
these statutory provisions contemplate the same type of analysis they are 
advocating to determine the expenses requisite to the proper operation, 
maintenance, and repair of the Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal, as 
separate from all business expenses District incurs in operating the entire 
irrigation district system.  
Pursuant to these statutory provisions, it is the burden of the District, 
as owner of the Bitter Creek Diversion and the Sidon Canal that is seeking 
payment from Rageths, as a user of those irrigation works, to establish and 
justify those requisite itemized expenses.  

 
[¶20]   District also expresses concern 
that Rageths are claiming that their proportionate share of the requisite 
expenses should be based on the 6.5- to 7-mile stretch of the Sidon Canal 
between the Bitter Creek Diversion and Rageths’ pumps.  We do find several statements in 
Rageths’ opening and reply briefs that suggest such a limitation.  However, we also find in their reply 
brief this clear statement:
 
Rageths 
. . . are responsible for their proportionate share of expenses related to the 
operation, maintenance and repair of the Sidon Canal (in its entirety) and the 
Bitter Creek Diversion.  [Emphasis 
added.]
 
We 
conclude that, in light of this clear statement, District’s concern is put to 
rest.4  
 
[¶21]   As we reflected on the tenor of the 
statutory provisions and the parties’ respective arguments, we thought that 
independent recourse to Restatement (Third) of Property:  Servitudes, Duties of Repair and Maintenance, § 4.13 
(2011) might be of value to inform our resolution of this dispute.  On a number of occasions we have 
favorably referred to that authority for guidance in our decision-making.  See, e.g., Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel, 2010 WY 160, ¶ 14, 245 P.3d 293, 299 (Wyo. 2010); Foxley & Co. v. Ellis, 2009 WY 16, ¶ 19, 201 P.3d 425, 430 (Wyo. 2009); Seven Lakes Dev. Co. v. Maxson, 2006 WY 136, ¶ 33, 144 P.3d 1239, 1251 (Wyo. 2006); White v. Allen, 2003 WY 39, ¶ 16, 65 P.3d 395, 400 (Wyo. 2003); and 
Hasvold v. Park Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 
6, 2002 WY 65, ¶ 14, 45 P.3d 635, 638-39 (Wyo. 
2002).  In relevant part, § 4.13(4) 
states:
 
(4) 
The holders of separate easements or profits who use the same improvements or 
portion of the servient estate in the enjoyment of their servitudes have a duty 
to each other to contribute to the reasonable costs of repair and maintenance of 
the improvements or portion of the servient estate.
 
Restatement 
of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.13(4) (2011).  
Comment e. to this section states in relevant part:
 
e. 
Maintenance and repair obligations among holders of separate easements, 
subsection (4).  The holders of separate easement rights 
to use the same improvements are obligated to contribute to the reasonable costs 
of repair and maintenance of the portion of the servient estate or the 
improvements used in enjoyment of the servitude.  The rule stated in this section governs 
the relationship among the servitude beneficiaries; it does not govern their 
relationship with the owner of the servient estate, which is determined under 
subsections (1), (2), and (3).  No 
affirmative duty to initiate repair is imposed by this section, but once repair 
or maintenance is reasonably undertaken by one or more of the servitude 
beneficiaries, the others have a duty to contribute to the reasonable 
costs.  The responsibility of each 
user should reflect a fair proportion of the costs.  The basis of fair apportionment will 
vary depending on the circumstances.  
Factors that may be relevant include the amount and intensity of actual 
use and the value of other contributions made by the users to improvement and 
maintenance of the easement or profit.
 
Id.
 
[¶22]   Our independent research of the 
numerous court decisions across the country using § 4.13 for guidance led us to 
Freeman v. Sorchych, 245 P.3d 927 
(Ariz. Ct. App. 2011), which raised the issue whether dominant estate holders 
using an appurtenant roadway easement must share in the costs necessary to 
maintain and repair that common easement in the absence of a cost-sharing 
agreement or a provision imposing such an obligation within the document 
conveying the easement.  Id. at 929.  Following an extensive review of the 
Restatement provision and numerous common law decisions from other states, the 
Arizona court concluded that the doctrine of equitable contribution applied in 
such a situation.  Id. at 934-35.  That court then 
stated:
 
Our 
decision does not, however, mandate an equal or “fifty/fifty” sharing 
agreement.  Instead, each party’s 
contribution should be based on an equitable apportionment determined after 
consideration of various relevant factors, which may include but are not limited 
to each party’s proportionate use of the easement, including the amount and 
intensity of actual use, and the benefits derived therefore; whether each party 
receive proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to participate in the 
decisions regarding repairs and maintenance; whether the completed work was 
reasonable and necessary; whether the repairs and maintenance were performed 
adequately, properly, and at a reasonable price; the value of any other 
contributions (monetary or in kind) by the parties to repairs and maintenance; 
and any other factors that may be deemed relevant.  See generally Healy v. Onstott, 192 Cal. App. 3d 612, 617, 237 Cal. Rptr. 540 (1987) stating that “the trier of fact must 
be allowed to fashion any reasonable contribution 
scheme”).
 
Freeman, 
245 P.3d  at 935-36 (footnotes omitted).
 
[¶23]   Having carefully considered the 
parties’ briefs, the record, the pertinent statutory provisions, and the 
authority revealed by our independent research, we find there exist genuine 
issues of material fact that must be determined only after a full evidentiary 
hearing.  Rageths’ proportionate 
share of the requisite expenses must be based on an equitable apportionment 
determined after consideration of the various relevant factors.  Consequently, we reverse the district 
court’s orders in No. S-10-0141 and No. S-10-0184 and remand for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
FOOTNOTES
1Rageths presented an alternative argument that their annual water 
delivery fee should be based on District’s expired 1964 agreement with Rageths’ 
predecessor in title.  They argued 
that, although the payment provision of that agreement had expired, the 
agreement itself had not, and the intent of the original parties was relevant to 
the present dispute and should be carried out here, citing United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l 
Union, AFL-CIO, Local 7 v. Gold Star Sausage Co., 897 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 
1990).  Rageths have not explained 
how that opinion has application here, and we fail to see a connection.  That case concerned the extent to which 
a union is entitled to compulsory arbitration of certain grievances arising with 
an employer after expiration of a collective bargaining agreement which, during 
its term, unquestionably governed such disputes.  The court observed the general rule was 
that for a dispute to “arise under” an expired contract, a dispute must either 
involve rights which to some degree have vested or accrued during the life of 
the contract and merely ripened after termination, or relate to events which 
have occurred at least in part while the agreement was still in effect.  Because Rageths have made no cogent 
argument on this alternative issue, we decline to consider it.  Abitbol v. State, 2008 WY 28, ¶ 19, 178 P.3d 415, 420 
(Wyo. 2008).
2                       
§ 41-6-303. Relative interests of joint 
owners.
 
Unless the 
owners of ditches, canals and reservoirs make a record as herein provided, or 
have a record thereof made in some other manner, showing the relative ownership 
of each interested party in such irrigation works, said interests shall be established by the 
ratio between the water right of each water user to the total water rights 
adjudicated under such irrigation works.  The relative interests of joint owners 
shall, therefore, be fixed by the issuance of the final certificate of 
appropriation as the same appears of record on the date of the passage of this 
act or as they shall hereafter be recorded in the office of the board of control 
and in the office of the respective county clerks, and no action for the 
recovery of the title to such irrigation works can be brought after ten (10) 
years from the date when the final certificates of appropriation have been 
recorded in the office of said county clerk;  provided, that during such ten (10) 
years the interested water users as mentioned in the final certificates of 
appropriation, or their successors, have had continuous, open, adverse and 
undisputed possession of such irrigation works.  Every conveyance of a ditch, canal or 
reservoir, or any interest therein, shall hereafter be executed and acknowledged 
in the same manner as a conveyance of real estate and recorded as herein 
provided, and any 
such 
conveyance which shall not be made in conformity with the provisions of this 
act, shall be null and void as against subsequent purchasers thereof in good 
faith and for a valuable consideration. [Emphasis 
added.]
3Multiplying $262,599.60 by 4.26% equals 
$11,186.74.
4In Gunnisen-Fayette Canal Co. v. 
Roberts, 364 P.2d 103 (Utah 
1961), the following sharing problem was presented:  A and B are joint water users of a 
50-mile ditch.  B is entitled to 
one-half of the water conveyed over a 1-mile stretch, and A is entitled to all 
of the water conveyed through the 49 miles as well as one-half of the water in 
the 1-mile stretch shared with B.  
What proportion of the necessary or reasonable expenses of maintenance 
should be borne by B?  B contends 
that he should be liable for contribution for only that portion of the canal 
that was used to convey his water.  
The majority of the court decided that apportionment according to the 
number of miles of canal used by a particular water user would be impracticable 
and suggested that the Utah statute, which provided that the ditch owner shall 
pay in proportion to the share in the use or ownership of the water to which he 
is entitled, means that B’s share is that proportion of the total cost that the 
amount of water B actually received bears to the total amount of water in the 
canal.  A concurring opinion, while 
also rejecting the contention of allocation based on the length of the canal 
used by B, suggested that the hypothetical users should share in the ratio of 
49.5 miles for A and one-half mile for B.  
See also Swasey v. Rocky Point 
Ditch Co., 617 P.2d 375 
(Utah 1980), remanded, 660 P.2d 224 (Utah 1983), which 
followed Gunnison-Fayette, holding 
assessments should not be based upon proportion of ditch used but upon ownership 
or use of the water.