IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 91-386 

BAKER DITCH COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

) OPINION 

-V- ) AND 

1 ORDER 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

GALLATIN, THE HONORABLE THOMAS A. 

OLSON, and THE HONORABLE FRANK M. 

DAVIS, Presiding Judges, &IN - 9 4992 

Respondents. s2 3 . / 

rnrl z 

CLERKOFSUPREWIEC~~~~ 

STATE OF MONTANA 

The original opinion and order in this case was dated November 

7, 1991, and filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on that 

date. We herewith clarify that original opinion and order. Our 

original opinion and order in this cause dated November 7, 1991 is 

hereby withdrawn. 

This is an original proceeding on application for writ of 

supervisory control. The petitioner has asked this Court to 

exercise its supervisory control and to direct the District Court 

of the Eighteenth Judicial District and its Water Commissioner to 

distribute the waters of the West Gallatin River in accordance with 

the laws of the State of Montana and more particularly in 

accordance with Cause No. 3850, W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong of the 

Ninth Judicial District in and for the County of Gallatin, which 

adjudicated the water rights of the petitioner and other water 

rights in the West Gallatin River. 

This Court accepts supervisory control in order to promote 
judicial economy and eliminate needless litigation, State ex rel. 

First Bank v. Dist. Court (1989), 240 Mont. 77, 782 P.2d 1260; 

State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court (1985), 217 Mont. 106, 114, 

703 P.2d 148; and to resolve procedural entanglements, State ex 

rel. Leavitt v. Dist. Court (l977), 172 Mont. 12, 560 P.2d 517; and 

Fitzaerald, 217 Mont. at 114 

Water rights on the West Gallatin River were adjudicated in 

Cause No. 3850, W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong, in the then Ninth 

Judicial District of the State of Montana in and for the County of 

Gallatin by decree effective October 7, 1909. The water rights of 

the petitioner were adjudicated therein as well as rights of other 

users on the West Gallatin River. Water commissioners have been 

appointed by the Gallatin County District Court to administer such 

decree. In July 1990, a number of water users on the river 

submitted a petition for appointment of a water commissioner for 

the enforcement of the above described decree. The petition was 

filed in said Cause No. 3850, in accordance of Chapter 5, Title 81 

of the Montana Code Annotated 1989. This was done in July 1990, 

and on July 6, 1990, Judge Thomas A. Olson issued an order for 

temporary appointment of a water commissioner. In that order the 

court stated as follows: 

The court being advised that the West Gallatin River 

is dropping dramatically due to the on-set of hot 

weather, and recognizing that the water users will soon 

present a petition for the appointment of a water 

commissioner, and the court wishing to avoid a dewatering of the river as has happened in the past, 

NOW THEREFORE the court hereby appoints Les Aaberg 

as temporary water commissioner for the West Gallatin 

River effective immediately. 

A formal order appointing the Water Commissioner was signed on the 
same date. The Water Commissioner was appointed until further 

order of the court. In the formal order appointing the Water 

Commissioner it was stated as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED that Les Aaberg be and he is hereby 

appointed Water Commissioner, who shall have the 

authority to measure and distribute to the parties 

entitled thereto under such decree (referring to the W.A. 

Bell v. F.K. Armstrong decree) of the waters of West 

Gallatin, and to which they are entitled according to 

their priority as established by such decree for the 

season of 1990. 

On July 17, 1990, the Water Commissioner so appointed closed 

the headgate of the petitioner, Baker Ditch Co. (Baker Ditch), 

which had decreed water rights, and the Water Commissioner refused 

to allow Baker Ditch to reopen its headgate. When asked why he had 

closed the headgate the Water Commissioner responded that he wished 

to enforce the water rights on the river in order of their 

priority. 

Baker Ditch thereupon filed a dissatisfied water user's 

petition in Judge Olson's court on July 30, 1990. This petition 

was filed under §§ 85-2-406 and 85-5-301, MCA(1989). The 

petitioner in general alleges that Baker Ditch is the owner of a 

decreed water right under the decree in Cause No. 3850 above 

referred to, and that essentially it had not received that water 

right and that the Water Commissioner had informed Baker Ditch it 

would receive no further water until claims upstream appropriated 

with senior priority dates had been satisfied. The petition 

further alleged that Baker Ditch could divert water without injury 

to such upstream seniors. The petition further alleged that the 

headgate was located almost at the end of the West Gallatin River; 
that there was sufficient water to supply Baker Ditch; that such 

water would come from recharging by return flows, seepage and 

otherwise, into the river, even though there might be no water 

available for an upstream superior appropriator to Baker Ditch; and 

that such appropriation by Baker Ditch did not in any way interfere 

with any senior upstream water right holders. It alleged that the 

Water Commissioner's rigid adherence to the priority system 

established, is contrary to the basic principles of water 

administration, and contrasted dramatically with the administration 

of the water rights on said river over the past 30 years. The 

petition also alleged that the water can be diverted by the 

petitioner without any injury to any downstream senior 

appropriators, and that the Gallatin River was flowing enough to 

satisfy these rights even after the appropriation made by Baker 

Ditch. 

Judge Olson then recused himself and the matter was 

transferred to Judge Larry Moran who also sits in the Eighteenth 

Judicial District. A hearing was held on August 23 and evidence 

was presented by lay and expert witnesses. Evidence was presented 

that the Baker Ditch diversions would not injure upstream senior 

water users, and there was no evidence presented that diversion 

would harm any of the water users on the West Gallatin River. The 

Water Commissioner testified that the diversion by Baker Ditch 

would have no adverse effect on upstream senior appropriators. 

Judge Moran thereafter declined to issue a ruling which would 

conflict with Judge Olson's previous instructions in the temporary 

appointment of a water commissioner. Judge Moran did not feel he 

4 
could essentially reverse Judge Olson's instructions and orders to 

the Water Commissioner of the West Gallatin River relative to the 

"dewatering" of the river. Judge Moran then stated that he was not 

prepared to conclude that the only beneficial use of water results 

from diversion, and that would appear to be one of the main issues 

inherent in the position of the petitioner. Judge Moran further 

stated that what essentially is asked for here, is to take 2/3 of 

the remaining water in the Gallatin River, leaving only 1000 miner 

inches available for the river itself. For all practical purposes 

the court would consider this a dewatering of the West Gallatin 

River. If the court were to grant the petition recognizing the 

continuing pattern of re-diverting recharged water, then Judge 

Moran feels that perhaps would be using water which really only 

belongs to the river itself, and to a specific appropriator 

regardless of the appropriator's priority. 

After additional remarks Judge Moran refused to assume 

jurisdiction and remanded the matter back to Judge Olson. Judge 

Olson then called in Judge Frank Davis, Judge of the Fifth Judicial 

District. On April 18, 1991 Judge Davis issued an order which 

discharged the Water Commissioner's original attorney Matt 

Williams. It appeared that Mr. Williams was relieved of his duties 

because he had presented proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law which basically granted Baker Ditch the relief requested. 

Judge Davis recited in his order that Mr. Williams' position was 

that his proposal conformed to the decree. Judge Davis stated that 

what is clear is that Williams did not fulfill his duty to advocate 

the court's position. Judge Davis authorized Mr. Aaberg to employ 

5 
other counsel of his choice to represent the court. The court then 

further ordered that if and when other counsel is obtained that 

counsel should consult with counsel for Baker Ditch and agree, if 

possible, as to what further evidence is deemed necessary or 

otherwise formulate an agreement that the matter may be submitted 

on transcripts and briefs. Should the court's new counsel 

conclude, as did the Water Commissioner's original counsel, that 

the petition has merit, then the two counsels should simply submit 

joint proposed findings, conclusions and order. 

Thereafter on July 9, 1991, Judge Olson again temporarily 

appointed Les Aaberg as Water Commissioner for the West Gallatin 

River. The Water Commissioner then retained the services of Goetz, 

Madden and Dunn of Bozeman to represent him. Again on July 14, 

1991, the Water Commissioner directed Baker Ditch to reduce its 

diversion to a minimal level. On such date there was approximately 

7800 miner inches of flow in the river. 

There has not been a decision on Baker Ditch's petition to 

receive its adjudicated right of water from the river. On July 16, 

1991, the Montana Wildlife Federation filed a motion to intervene 

relative to this petition. It does not appear that the Montana 

Wildlife Federation has any interest in the decree of the water 

rights of the West Gallatin River issued in 1909. 

This case began as an administration of the distribution of 

water of the West Gallatin River in accordance with the 1909 case 

of W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong decree in Cause No. 3850. The 

statutes governing this process are for the purpose of expeditious 

administration and not for the purpose of adjudication. It is a 

6 
relatively simple matter to administer the various water rights and 

their priority. The users are entitled to what the decree gives 

them and no more. By statute, the water court is vested with 

exclusive jurisdiction relative to all matters relating to the 

determination of existing water rights within the boundaries of the 

State of Montana. See 5 3-7-501, MCA (1989). See Mildenberger v. 

Galbraith (1991), 48 St.Rep. 621. District courts are granted the 

authority to supervise the distribution of water that has already 

been adjudicated and to enforce such water decrees. See 5 85-2- 

406(3), MCA. The district court is bound by the existing water 

decree. In the water decree at issue there is no provision which 

provides that water rights may not be enforced in order to avoid a 

cessation of instream flow. 

The law is clear the only matters for decision relative to the 

appointment of a water commissioner and petitions in relation to 

his duties, is whether or not the commissioner is distributing 

water to existing water right holders pursuant to the adjudication 

decree. See Quigley v. McIntosh (1940), 110 Mont. 495, 103 P.2d 

1067. The only purpose of the petition of a dissatisfied water 

user is to enforce rights determined by the decree. 

The Water Commissioner evidently believed that he had to 

enforce the decree to the extent that if a prior appropriator was 

without water upstream that a subsequent appropriator downstream 

could not divert such water under its water right because no water 

was available to an upstream prior appropriator, even though the 

river was being recharged. Such construction is groundless and 

irrational when dealing with the beneficial use of water. If a 

7 
subsequent appropriator is using water in accordance with the 

decree and such use cannot in any way be a detriment to a prior 

appropriator, then the subsequent appropriator has the right to the 

use of such water. See Custer v. Missoula Public Service Co. 

(1931), 91 Mont. 136, 6 P.2d 131; and Quigley v. McIntosh (1930), 

88 Mont. 103, 290 P.2d 266. The decree is to be interpreted 

according to the water law of the State of Montana as provided by 

statutes and appropriate court decisions. The Montana Water Users 

Act provides that the determination and adjudication of water 

rights including new water rights, which include minimum instream 

flow water rights, if any, are vested in the jurisdiction of the 

Water Court. See § 3-7-501, MCA. Mildenberqer, 48 St.Rep. at 621. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the District Court is to instruct 

the Water Commissioner to distribute the water of the West Gallatin 

River to the users in accordance with the decree of 1909 and this 

opinion. Nothing in this order shall restrict the Water 

Commissioner in requiring proper headgates, measuring devises and 

works, in accordance with the decree 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to intervene by the 

Montana Wildlife Federation in the underlying petition of 

dissatisfied should be denied. 

DATED this of January, 1992. / 

. 

bhief Justice 
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler would deny the petition for writ 

of supervisory control and grant the petition for rehearinq. 
January 9, 1992 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

W. Russell McElyea 

Moore, O'Connell, Refling & Manos 

P.O. Box 1288 

Bozeman, MT 59771-1288 

Matt Williams 

Attorney at Law 

506 E. Babcock 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

Les Aaberg 

Water Commissioner 

1145 So. Pinecrest 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

H. A. Bolinger, Esq. 

P.O. Box 1047 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

James H. Goetz 

Attorney at Law 

35 No. Grand 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

Thomas France 

Attorney at Law 

240 N. Higgins 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Hon. Thomas A. Olson 

District Judge 

615 S. 16th St. 
Bozeman, MT 59715 

Hon. Frank M. Davis 

District Judge 

2 S. Pacific, CL #6 

Dillon, MT 59725 

Richard L. Krause, Asst. Counsel 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

225 Touhy Ave. 

Park Ridge, IL 60068 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 91-386 

BAKER DITCH COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

) OPINION 

-v- ) AND 

) ORDER 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

GALLATIN, THE HONORABLE THOMAS A. 

OLSON, and THE HONORABLE FRANK M. 

DAVIS, Presiding Judges, 

Respondents. 

This is an original proceeding on application for writ of 

supervisory control. The petitioner has asked this Court to 

exercise its supervisory control and to direct the District Court 

of the Eighteenth Judicial District and its Water Commissioner to 

distribute the waters of the West Gallatin River in accordance with 

the laws of the State of Montana and more particularly in 

accordance with Cause No. 3850, W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong of the 

Ninth Judicial District in and for the County of Gallatin, which 

adjudicated the water rights of the petitioner and other water 

rights in the West Gallatin River. 

This Court accepts supervisory control in order to promote 

judicial economy and eliminate needless litigation, State ex rel. 

First Bank v. Dist. Court (1989), 240 Mont. 77, 782 P.2d 1260; 

State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court (1985), 217 Mont. 106, 114, 

703 P.2d 148; and to resolve procedural entanglements, State ex 

rel. Leavitt v. Dist. Court (1977), 172 Mont. 12, 560 P.2d 517; and 

1 
~itzqerald, 217 Mont. at 114. 

Water rights on the West Gallatin River were adjudicated in 

Cause No. 3850, W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong, in the then Ninth 

Judicial District of the State of Montana in and for the County of 

Gallatin by decree effective October 7, 1909. The water rights of 

the petitioner were adjudicated therein as well as rights of other 

users on the West Gallatin River. Water commissioners have been 

appointed by the Gallatin County District Court to administer such 

decree. In July 1-990, a number of water users on the river 

submitted a petition for appointment of a water commissioner for 

the enforcement of the above described decree. The petition was 

filed in said Cause No. 3850, in accordance of Chapter 5, Title 81 

of the Montana Code Annotated 1989. This was done in July 1990, 

and on July 6, 1990, Judge Thomas A. Olson issued an order for 

temporary appointment of a water commissioner. In that order the 

court stated as follows: 

The court being advised that the West Gallatin River 

is dropping dramatically due to the on-set of hot 

weather, and recognizing that the water users will soon 

present a petition for the appointment of a water 

commissioner, and the court wishing to avoid a dewatering of the river as has happened in the past, 

NOW THEREFORE the court hereby appoints Les Aaberg 

as temporary water commissioner for the West Gallatin 

River effective immediately. 

A formal order appointing the Water Commissioner was signed on the 

same date. The Water Commissioner was appointed until further 

order of the court. In the formal order appointing the Water 

Commissioner it was stated as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED that Les Aaberg be and he is hereby 

appointed Water Commissioner, who shall have the 

authority to measure and distribute to the parties 
entitled thereto under such decree (referring to the W.A. 

Bell v. F.K. Armstrong decree) of the waters of West 

Gallatin, and to which they are entitled according to 

their priority as established by such decree for the 

season of 1990. 

On July 17, 1990, the Water Commissioner so appointed closed 

the headgate of the petitioner, Baker Ditch Co. (Baker Ditch), 

which had decreed water rights, and the Water Commissioner refused 

to allow Baker Ditch to reopen its headgate. When asked why he had 

closed the headgate the Water Commissioner responded that he wished 

to enforce the water rights on the river in order of their 

priority. 

Baker Ditch thereupon filed a dissatisfied water user's 

petition in Judge Olson's court on July 30, 1990. This petition 

was filed under 55 85-2-406 and 85-5-301, MCA(1989). The 

petitioner in general alleges that Baker Ditch is the owner of a 

decreed water right under the decree in Cause No. 3850 above 

referred to, and that essentially it had not received that water 

right and that the Water Commissioner had informed Baker Ditch it 

would receive no further water until claims upstream appropriated 

with senior priority dates had been satisfied. The petition 

further alleged that Baker Ditch could divert water without injury 

to such upstream seniors. The petition further alleged that the 

headgate was located almost at the end of the West Gallatin River; 

that there was sufficient water to supply Baker Ditch: that such 

water would come from recharging by return flows, seepage and 

otherwise, into the river, even though there might be no water 

available for an upstream superior appropriator to Baker Ditch; and 

that such appropriation by Baker Ditch did not in any way interfere 

3 
with any senior upstream water right holders. It alleged that the 

Water Commissioner's rigid adherence to the priority system 

established, is contrary to the basic principles of water 

administration, and contrasted dramatically with the administration 

of the water rights' on said river over the past 30 years. The 

petition also alleged that the water can be diverted by the 

petitioner without any injury to any downstream senior 

appropriators, and that the Gallatin River was flowing enough to 

satisfy these rights even after the appropriation made by Baker 

Ditch. 

Judge Olson then recused himself and the matter was 

transferred to Judge Larry Moran who also sits in the Eighteenth 

Judicial District. A hearing was held on August 23 and evidence 

was presented by lay and expert witnesses. Evidence was presented 

that the Baker Ditch diversions would not injure upstream senior 

water users, and there was no evidence presented that diversion 

would harm any of the water users on the West Gallatin River. The 

Water Commissioner testified that the diversion by Baker Ditch 

would have no adverse effect on upstream senior appropriators. 

Judge Moran thereafter declined to issue a ruling which would 

conflict with Judge Olson's previous instructions in the temporary 

appointment of a water commissioner. Judge Moran did not feel he 

could essentially reverse Judge Olson's instructions and orders to 

the Water Commissioner of the West Gallatin River relative to the 

"dewatering" of the river. Judge Moran then stated that he was not 

prepared to conclude that the only beneficial use of water results 

from diversion, and that would appear to be one of the main issues 
inherent in the position of the petitioner. Judge Moran further 

stated that what essentially is asked for here, is to take 2/3 of 

the remaining water in the Gallatin River, leaving only 1000 miner 

inches available for the river itself. For all practical purposes 

the court would consider this a dewatering of the West Gallatin 

~iver. If the court were to grant the petition recognizing the 

continuing pattern of re-diverting recharged water, then Judge 

Moran feels that perhaps would be using water which really only 

belongs to the river itself, and to a specific appropriator 

regardless of the appropriator's priority. 

After additional remarks Judge Moran refused to assume 

jurisdiction and remanded the matter back to Judge Olson. Judge 

Olson then called in Judge Frank Davis, Judge of the Fifth Judicial 

District. On April 18, 1991 Judge Davis issued an order which 

discharged the Water Commissioner's original attorney Matt 

Williams. It appeared that Mr. Williams was relieved of his duties 

because he had presented proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law which basically granted Baker Ditch the relief requested. 

Judge Davis recited in his order that Mr. Williams' position was 

that his proposal conformed to the decree. Judge Davis stated that 

what is clear is that Williams did not fulfill his duty to advocate 

the court's position. Judge Davis authorized Mr. Aaberg to employ 

other counsel of his choice to represent the court. The court then 

further ordered that if and when other counsel is obtained that 

counsel should consult with counsel for Baker Ditch and agree, if 

possible, as to what further evidence is deemed necessary or 

otherwise formulate an agreement that the matter may be submitted 

5 
on transcripts and briefs. Should the court's new counsel 

conclude, as did the Water omm missioner's original counsel, that 

the petition has merit, then the two counsel should simply submit 

joint proposed findings, conclusions and order. 

Thereafter on July 9, 1991, Judge Olson again temporarily 

appointed Les Aaberg as Water Commissioner for the West Gallatin 

River. The Water commissioner then retainedthe services of Goetz, 

Madden and Dunn of Bozeman to represent him. Again on July 14, 

1991, the Water Commissioner directed Baker Ditch to reduce its 

diversion to a minimal level. On such date there was approximately 

7800 miner inches of flow in the river. 

There has not been a decision on Baker Ditch's petition to 

receive its adjudicated right of water from the river. On July 16, 

1991, the Montana Wildlife Federation filed a motion to intervene 

relative to this petition. It does not appear that the Montana 

Wildlife Federation has any interest in the decree of the water 

rights of the West Gallatin River issued in 1909. 

This case began as an administration of the distribution of 

water of the West Gallatin River in accordance with the 1909 case 

of W.D. Bell v. F.K. Armstrong decree in Cause No. 3850. The 

statutes governing this process are for the purpose of expeditious 

administration and not for the purpose of adjudication. It is a 

relatively simple matter to administer the various water rights and 

their priority. The users are entitled to what the decree gives 

them and no more. By statute, the water court is vested with 

exclusive jurisdiction relative to all matters relating to the 

determination of existing water rights within the boundaries of the 

6 
State of Montana. See g 3-7-501, MCA (1989). See Mildenberger v. 

Galbraith (1991), 48 St.Rep. 926. District courts are granted the 

authority to supervise the distribution of water that has already 

been adjudicated and to enforce such water decrees. See g 85-2- 

406(3), MCA. The district court is bound by the existing water 

decree. In the water decree at issue there is no provision which 

provides that water rights may not be enforced in order to avoid a 

cessation of instream flow. 

The law is clear the only matters for decision relative to the 

appointment of a water commissioner and petitions in relation to 

his duties, is whether or not the commissioner is distributing 

water to existing water right holders pursuant to the adjudication 

decree. See Quigley v. McIntosh (1940), 110 Mont. 495, 103 P.2d 

1067. The only purpose of the petition of a dissatisfied water 

user is to enforce rights determined by the decree. 

The Water Commissioner evidently believed that he had to 

enforce the decree to the extent that if a prior appropriator was 

without water upstream that a subsequent appropriator downstream 

could not divert such water under its water right because no water 

was available to an upstream prior appropriator, even though the 

river was being recharged. Such construction is groundless and 

irrational when dealing with the beneficial use of water. If a 

junior appropriator downstream is using water and such use cannot 

in any way be a detriment to the upstream prior appropriator, then 

the downstream owner has the right to the use of such water. See 

Custer v. Missoula Public Service Co. (1931), 91 Mont. 136, 6 P.2d 

131; and Quigley v. McIntosh (1930), 88 Mont. 103, 290 P.2d 266. 

7 
The decree is to be interpreted according to the water law of the 

State of Montana as provided by statutes and appropriate court 

decisions. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the District Court is to instruct 

the Water Commissioner to distribute the water of the West Gallatin 

River to the users in accordance with the decree of 1909 and this 

opinion. Nothing in this order shall restrict the Water 

Commissioner in requiring proper headgates, measuring devises and 

works, in accordance with the decree. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to intervene by the 

Montana Wildlife Federation in the underlying petition of 

dissatisfied water users is denied. 

DATED this & day of November, 199 

Justices 

Justice Terry N. Trieweiler would deny the application for writ 

of supervisory control. 
November 7, 1991 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

W. Russell McElyea 

Moore, O'Connell, Refling & Manos 

P.O. Box 1288 

Bozeman, MT 59771-1288 

Matt Williams 

Attorney at Law 

506 E. Babcock 

Bozeman. MT 59715 

Les Aaberg 

Water Commissioner 

1145 So. Pinecrest 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

H. A. Bolinger, Esq. 

P.O. Box 1047 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

James H. Goetz 

Attorney at Law 

35 No. Grand 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

Thomas France 

Attorney at Law 

240 N. Higgins 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Hon. Thomas A. Olson 

District Judge 

615 S. 16th St. 
Bozeman, MT 59715 

Hon. Frank M. Davis 

District Judge 

2 S. Pacific, CL #6 

Dillon, MT 59725 

Richard L. Krause, Asst. Counsel 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

225 Touhy Ave. 

Park Ridge, IL 60068 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

BY: J?izL-- 

Deputy