Title: JOE and TAMMY K. GERINGER, Husband and Wife v. MARK D. RUNYAN and SHARON K. RUNYAN, Husband and Wife, and ROBERT WILLSON and JANNA WILLSON, Husband and Wife

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JOE and TAMMY K. GERINGER, Husband and Wife v. MARK D. RUNYAN and SHARON K. RUNYAN, Husband and Wife, and ROBERT WILLSON and JANNA WILLSON, Husband and Wife2010 WY 98Case Number: No. S-09-0122Decided: 07/14/2010NOTICE: 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. 2010

 
 
JOE 
and TAMMY K. GERINGER, Husband and 
Wife,Appellants(Petitioners),v.MARK D. RUNYAN and 
SHARON K. RUNYAN, Husband and Wife, and ROBERT WILLSON and JANA WILLSON, Husband 
and Wife,Appellees(Respondents).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Platte County

The 
Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

Daniel 
B. Frank, Frank Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

J. 
Mark Stewart of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT,* and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

*Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Joe and Tammy 
Geringer filed petitions with the Wyoming State Board of Control (Board) for the 
involuntary abandonment of water rights Mark and Sharon Runyan and Robert and 
Jana Willson (herein referred to collectively as Appellees) hold on lands that 
were formerly in common ownership with lands on which the Geringers hold water 
rights.  Following a hearing, the 
Board denied the Geringers' petitions, finding the Geringers lacked standing to 
pursue the petitions for abandonment.  
The Geringers appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Board's 
ruling.  We also 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The Geringers 
present the following issue for review by this Court:

 
 
Did 
the Board of Control err when it held that the Geringers lack standing under the 
third element of the Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401 requirements for standing by its 
determination that the Geringers were seeking to enlarge their water 
right rather than using the Runyans' and Willsons' undiverted water to 
fulfill the Geringer right?  

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The following 
pertinent facts are undisputed.  All 
parties to this appeal acquired real property through a common grantor.  The Geringers own the largest amount of 
acreage and engage in farming activities.  
The Geringers' irrigation water for their crops comes from a surface 
supply and several underground wells providing additional supply water.1  It is two of the wells providing 
additional supply water that are at issue.  
One well is commonly referred to as the Leonard No. 1 Well.  The Leonard No. 1 Well is adjudicated to 
provide additional supply water to lands owned by the Geringers and also lands 
owned by the Runyans.  The second 
well is commonly referred to as the Chambers No. 2 Well.  The Chambers No. 2 Well is adjudicated 
to provide additional supply water to lands owned by the Geringers and also land 
owned by the Willsons.  

 
 
[¶4]      In irrigating 
their crops, the Geringers employ a pivot irrigation system comprised of two 
pivots.  In order to run both pivots 
at the same time, the Geringers require the full water flow produced by both the 
Leonard No. 1 Well and the Chambers No. 2 Well.  The ability of the Geringers to operate 
both pivots simultaneously thus depends on the nonuse of well water by the 
Appellees concurrently with the Geringers' irrigation.  

 
 
[¶5]      In order to 
protect their unfettered ability to simultaneously operate both pivots, the 
Geringers filed petitions with the Board seeking declarations of abandonment of 
the respective additional supply water rights of Appellees.2  The Geringers did not allege or present 
any evidence suggesting the water supply in the underlying aquifer is 
limited.  Rather, they proceeded 
under the theory that the amount of water available to them under their 
additional supply water right is determined by the adjudicated flow rate of the 
respective wells.  They concluded 
the water available to them under their right, therefore, is limited by the use 
of Appellees of water from the same wells.  
Thus, the Geringers argued they would benefit from a declaration of 
abandonment of the respective additional supply water rights of Appellees 
because they will then have unfettered use of their pivot irrigation 
system.  Conversely, the Geringers 
argued they would be injured if the respective water rights of Appellees are not 
declared abandoned because they will not be able to run their pivot irrigation 
system at the same time Appellees withdraw water from the respective wells.  

 
 
[¶6]      After a hearing, 
the Board denied the Geringers' petitions.  
The Board determined that the Geringers lacked standing to bring the 
petitions because they could not show they had an adequate personal stake in a 
declaration of abandonment.  The 
Board rejected the Geringers' argument that their water supply was limited by 
the flow rate of the respective wells.  
Rather, the Board concluded the water supply was determined by the amount 
of water available in the aquifer.  
The Board held that the Geringers "failed to show that the source of 
supply available for the wells at issue is limited."  Because there was no evidence suggesting 
that the water available in the aquifer was limited, the use by Appellees of 
their additional supply water rights did not impact the Geringers' use of their 
additional supply water rights in a legally cognizable manner.  Consequently, the Board found the 
Geringers lacked standing.  

 
 
[¶7]      The Geringers 
appealed the Board's order to the district court, which upheld the order.  The Geringers then brought this 
appeal.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶8]      This Court 
reviews administrative actions pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedures 
Act.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 
(LexisNexis 2009).  In this appeal, 
we find the dispositive issue to be an issue of law.  We do not defer to the Board's 
determination on issues of law, but rather review such issues de novo.  Three Sons, LLC v. Wyoming Occupational 
Health & Safety Comm'n, 2007 WY 93, ¶ 11, 160 P.3d 58, 62-63 (Wyo. 
2007); Pine Bar Ranch, LLC v. Luther, 
2007 WY 35,  ¶ 8, 152 P.3d 1062, 
1065 (Wyo. 2007).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶9]      The abandonment 
of a water right is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-401 (LexisNexis 2009), 
which provides in part:

 
 
(a) 
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. . . 
.

 
 
(b) 
When any water user who might be benefitted by a declaration of abandonment of 
existing water rights or who might be injured by the reactivation of the water 
right, desires to bring about a legal declaration of abandonment, he shall 
present his case in writing to the state board of control. . . . The following 
persons have standing to petition the state board of control to declare the 
abandonment of existing water rights under this section:

 
 
(i) 
Any person who has a valid adjudicated water right or is the holder of a valid 
permit from the same source of supply which is equal to or junior in date of 
priority to the right for which abandonment is sought[.]

 
 
[¶10]   We have construed § 41-3-401(b) to 
require that, in order to have standing to petition for abandonment, a water 
user must allege and prove three essential elements: 1) that he possesses a 
valid water right of equal or junior status to the water right sought to be 
abandoned; 2) that the water right relied upon by the petitioner and the water 
right for which a declaration of abandonment is sought are from the same source 
of supply; and 3) that the petitioner stands to benefit from a declaration of 
abandonment or to sustain injury by reactivation of the contested water 
right.  Snider v. Kirchhefer, 2005 WY 71, ¶ 11, 
115 P.3d 1, 5 (Wyo. 2005); Schulthess v. 
Carollo, 832 P.2d 552, 557 (Wyo. 1992).  All parties correctly agree that the 
first two elements of the standing analysis are met.  At issue in this appeal, therefore, is 
the third element.  

 
 
[¶11]   With regard to establishing a 
benefit or injury from a decision on a declaration of abandonment, this Court 
has stated:

 
 
In 
a long line of cases, we have repeatedly held that the petitioner must show he 
had a water right that would be affected in some discernible manner by the 
declaration of abandonment.  Laramie Rivers Co. v. Wheatland Irrig.  Dist., 708 P.2d 20 (Wyo. 1985); State Board of Land Commissioners v. 
Lonesome Fox Corp., 707 P.2d 167 (Wyo. 1985); Platte County Grazing Ass'n v. State Board 
of Control, 675 P.2d 1279 (Wyo. 1984); Cremer v. State Board of Control, 675 P.2d 250 (Wyo. 1984); Michell Irrig.  Dist. v. Whiting, 59 Wyo. 52, 136 P.2d 502 (1943); Horse Creek Conservation 
Dist. v. Lincoln Land Co., 54 Wyo. 320, 92 P.2d 572 (1939).  See also Hagie v. Lincoln Land Co., 18 F. Supp. 637 (D.Wyo. 1937).  The foregoing 
cases suggest that the petitioner can show benefit sufficient to establish 
standing if it can show that the exercise of its water right might be 
facilitated by the abandonment, or changed to its advantage, in the sense that 
it would be enabled to make use of water that would not otherwise be available 
if there is no abandonment.  

 
 

Joe 
Johnson Co. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Control, 
857 P.2d 312, 316-17 (Wyo. 1993).  
The first step in determining if the Geringers need and would have more 
water available to them to fulfill their existing water right is to determine 
the nature of their right.  At issue 
is an additional supply water right.  
An additional supply water right confers upon the holder the right to use 
the amount of water necessary for beneficial irrigation purposes.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-901(a)(vii) 
(LexisNexis 2009).

 
 
[¶12]   The first question concerns the 
amount of water necessary to fulfill the Geringers' additional supply 
rights.  In their express issue on 
appeal, the Geringers challenge a finding of fact by the Board that, in taking 
the full water flow from the wells at issue, they were taking an amount of water 
in excess of their additional supply water rights.  The Board found the excess amount of 
water was being obtained by invading the amount of water appropriated to 
Appellees.  The result, according to 
the Board, is that, in seeking the declarations of abandonment of the Appellees 
additional supply water rights, the Geringers are attempting to enlarge their 
own additional supply water rights.  
Such action amounts to a taking by adverse possession, which is not 
allowed under Wyoming law.3  

 
 
[¶13]   The Geringers argue the factual 
finding lacks an evidentiary basis.  
We agree.  The amount of 
water available under an additional supply water right is the amount of water 
necessary for the beneficial consumptive use of crops.  The Board made no finding, nor was any 
evidence presented, as to the amount of water the Geringers needed for the 
beneficial irrigation of their crops.  

 
 
[¶14]   We disagree with the Geringers, 
however, that this factual finding is the determinative reason for the ultimate 
legal conclusion of the Board that the Geringers will neither benefit from, or 
be injured by, a decision regarding abandonment of Appellees additional supply 
water rights.  As already stated, 
the ultimate legal conclusion of the Board was that the Geringers lacked 
standing because they failed to prove the supply of water to the wells at issue 
(the underlying aquifer) is limited.  
Again, the Geringers respond by arguing the supply of water is limited, 
not by the amount of water in the aquifer, but rather by the flow rate of the 
respective wells.  Whenever the 
Appellees access water being pumped from the wells the flow rate, and thus the 
amount of water, concurrently available to the Geringers is diminished.  The most obvious result, as the facts 
currently stand, is that the Geringers would be unable to run their pivot 
irrigation system during such times.  
This leads to the direct conclusion by the Geringers that their 
additional supply water rights are impacted by use of Appellees of water from 
the same wells.  Under the 
circumstances of this case, this clash sets up a purely legal 
question.

 
 
[¶15]   We agree with the Board that the 
ability of the Geringers to fully exploit their additional supply water rights 
is based on the amount of water in the underlying aquifer.  The Geringers' argument that the amount 
of available water is limited by the well flow rate with which the water can be 
delivered is misplaced.  The 
argument confuses the full amount of water available as additional supply water 
with the means individually adopted to transport the water to crops.  An injury to a pattern of use of water 
is not the same as an injury to a water right.  State Bd. of Land Comm'rs v. Lonesome Fox 
Corp., 707 P.2d 167, 171-72 (Wyo. 1985).  

 
 
[¶16]   An additional supply water right is 
a right to use water for a specific purpose  irrigation.  The key to the right as applies to this 
case is whether there is enough water available to the Geringers to adequately 
irrigate crops.  No evidence was 
introduced that the amount of water available for irrigation purposes is 
limited.  The evidence, instead, was 
only that the flow rate of the well affects the Geringers' ability to fully 
employ their pivot irrigation system.  
However, an additional supply water right does not include a right to use 
the water in a specific manner.  
Thus, maintaining the flow rate of water necessary to operate the 
Geringers' pivot irrigation system is not the type of benefit or detriment 
inuring to the Geringers as to confer legal standing to seek a declaration of 
abandonment of the Appellees' additional supply water rights.  

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶17]   While we disagree with certain 
factual findings of the Board, we agree with the result.  The ability of the Geringers to use 
their pivot irrigation system is not part of their additional supply water 
right.  Rather, the critical factor 
in the analysis of the instant applications for abandonment is the amount of 
water available in the aquifer.  
Because no limit to the water supply in the aquifer was shown, the 
Geringers have nothing to gain by a declaration of abandonment of the respective 
additional supply water rights of Appellees.  The determination of the Board that the 
Geringers lack standing to bring the instant petitions for abandonment is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1"Additional supply" is statutorily defined as "underground water for 
irrigation use which is appurtenant to lands that have a direct flow supply of 
surface water or have an original supply from another underground water 
source."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
41-3-901(a)(vii) (LexisNexis 2009).

 
 

2The Geringers filed two separate petitions.  The petitions were consolidated by the 
Board.

 
 

3See Lewis 
v. State Bd. of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 824 (Wyo. 1985) ("water rights may not be acquired by adverse possession or 
prescription in this state").