Title: OLSEN v MCQUEARY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 83-326
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 1984

NO. 83-326 IN THESUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 LARS LEWIS OLSEN, MARY ANN OLSEN, ROBERT JOSEPH OLSEN, and JOYCE OLSEN , Plaintiffs and Appellants, EVERED L. McQUEARY, W1ONA McQUEARY, ANDREW BECK and DONALD W. BECK, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Powell, The Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF =CORD: For Appellants: Johnson, Skakles & Kebe; Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents : Loble & Pauly; C. Bruce Loble, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: June 14, 1984 ~ ~ ~ i d ~ d : August 30, 1984 r b 4 ,.- !2 j ;984 Filed: ! I & , a ) ! - Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The p l a i n t i f f s appeal from t h e judgment of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court, Powell County, which decreed t h e r e s p e c t i v e water r i g h t s of p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s i n Upper Fred Burr C r e e k and Lower Fred Burr Creek channel n e a r Deer Lodge, Montana. W e a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The p l a i n t i f f s own p r o p e r t y i n Powell County i n t h e Lower Fred Burr C r e e k d r a i n a g e . Some of t h e s e l a n d s a r e owned by Lars and Mary Ann Olsen, husband and w i f e , and some by Robert and Joyce Olsen, husband and w i f e . Defendant Andrew Beck owns p r o p e r t y u p h i l l from t h e Olsens i n t h e Upper Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e . Defendant Donald Beck is t h e g u a r d i a n of Andrew Beck, who h a s been a d j u d g e d an i n c o m p e t e n t . Evered and Ramona McQueary, husband and w i f e , t h r o u g h a management a g r e e m e n t , a r e p r e s e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r managing t h e Andrew Beck p r o p e r t y . The McQuearys c l a i m no water r i g h t i n t h i s a c t i o n , and were d i s m i s s e d a s d e f e n d a n t s by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Upper Fred Burr Creek is a n a t u r a l stream a r i s i n g i n a h i l l y a r e a e a s t of t h e B e c k p r o p e r t y and flowing i n a w e l l d e f i n e d channel through t h e B e c k p r o p e r t y . However, t h e c r e e k d i s a p p e a r s i n t o t h e ground near t h e B e c k f a r m s t e a d , e x c e p t i n times of f l o o d . The Lower Fred Burr Creek channel runs i n a n o r t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n and water flows i n t h e channel on an i n t e r m i t t e n t b a s i s . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t Upper Fred Burr Creek and Lower Fred Burr C r e e k channel a r i s e from s e p a r a t e s o u r c e s of water and e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d , Upper Fred Burr Creek c o n t r i b u t e s no water t o t h e Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The c o u r t a l s o found t h a t Upper Fred Burr Creek is n o t a t r i b u t a r y t o e i t h e r Lower Fred Burr Creek channel o r t h e Deer Lodge River. An y water t h a t flows through t h e Lower Fred Burr Creek channel is e i t h e r f o r e i g n water imported v i a i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s from Cottonwood Creek and Baggs Creek o r w a s t e , d r a i n a g e and r e t u r n f l o w a c c u m u l a t i o n s from i r r i g a t i o n on a d j a c e n t ranches. Bob and Joyce Olsen have a decreed s i x t y inch water r i g h t o u t of Cottonwood Creek w i t h a n 1882 p r i o r i t y d a t e . Louis Smith and Sam Beck own land i n t h e Upper and Lower Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e s , between t h e r e s p e c t i v e ranches of p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s . Louis Sinith and Sam B e c k a l s o have decreed r i g h t s from Cottonwood Creek. Bob and J o y c e Olsen, Louis Smith and Sam Beck t o g e t h e r import more t h a n 3,500 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of Cottonwood Creek water i n t o t h e d r a i n a g e a r e a of Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The ranches of Louis Smith and Sam Beck a r e u p h i l l from t h e O l s e n s ' l a n d and any w a s t e , d r a i n a g e and r e t u r n f l o w w a t e r s from i r r i g a t i o n on t h e s e ranches flow i n t o t h e lower Fred Burr Creek channel and a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r use by p l a i n t i f f s . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , Robert and Joyce Olsen, had a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d s i x t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of t h i s water with a 1954 p r i o r i t y d a t e . The c o u r t found t h a t p l a i n t i f f s L a r s and Mary Ann Olsen a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d f i f t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s with a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1965. I n 1872, d e f e n d a n t s ' p r e d e c e s s o r , G r a n t , a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of Upper Fred Burr Creek waters. G r a n t ' s s u c c e s s o r f i l e d a d e c l a r a t i o n of water r i g h t i n 1885 i n t h e county o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r i n conformance w i t h s t a t u t o r y law. Upper Fred Burr Creek is a high mountain s t r e a m whose p r i n c i p a l flow o c c u r s i n t h e s p r i n g . Defendants' i r r i g a t e d l a n d s a r e l o c a t e d on s t e e p h i l l s i d e s w i t h shallow t o p s o i l l a y i n g over c o a r s e rock and g r a v e l . S u c c e s s f u l growing of c r o p s on t h i s land r e q u i r e s r e p e a t e d f l o o d i r r i g a t i o n . The District Court found t h a t 1.5 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s p e r a c r e were r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y i r r i g a t e t h i s l a n d . There is seldom s u f f i c i e n t water i n Upper Fred Burr C r e e k t o i r r i g a t e a l l of d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d . Thus, Beck and h i s p r e d e c e s s o r have c o n s i s t e n t l y used t h e e n t i r e amount of Upper Fred B u r r Creek w a t e r s a v a i l a b l e f o r i r r i g a t i o n and s t o c k water purposes, e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s had a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s from Upper Fred Burr Creek w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1872, and 1,010 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s from Upper Fred Burr Creek w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1915. P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s u i t i n 1979, a l l e g i n g wrongful use of t h e w a t e r s of Fred Burr Creek by d e f e n d a n t s and a l l e g i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had s u p e r i o r r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r , a t l e a s t t o t h e w a t e r s i n e x c e s s of 250 miners inches. P l a i n t i f f s asked f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r s of Fred Burr Creek and appointment of a water commission t o measure and d i s t r i b u t e t h e water i n accordance w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s d e c r e e . Defendants i n t h e i r answer claimed s u p e r i o r r i g h t s t o a l l w a t e r s of Fred Burr Creek. The c a s e was heard by Judge Boy?., who e n t e r e d a d e c r e e i n A p r i l of 1983. The d e c r e e awarded d e f e n d a n t s 1,260 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s from Upper Fred Burr Creek. P l a i n t i f f s Robert and Joyce Olsen were awarded sixty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, and plaintiffs Lars and Mary Ann 01-sen were awarded fifty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The plaintiffs' first issue on appeal is whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court are supported by substantial credible evidence. We first address a subsidiary issue raised by plaintiffs: Did the District Court err in adopting verbatim much of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law tendered by the respondents? In the past this Court has discouraged the trial court's wholesale adoption of proposed findings and conclusions of the prevailing party. In re Marriage of Wolfe (Mont. 1983), 659 P.2d 259, 261, 40 St. Rep. 211, 213; Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (Mont. 1981), 625 P.2d 536, 538-39, 38 St.Rep. 416, 419. dowever as we stated in Kowis v. Kowis (Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 1084, 1088, 40 St.Rep. 149, 154: " [W] here. . . findings and conclusions are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for decision, and are supported by the evidence, they will not be overturned simply because the court relied upon proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel." Here, the findings and conclusions of the trial court were comprehensive and pertinent to the issues presented for decision, providing a solid basis for the court's decision. The remaining question is whether the findings and conclusions of the District Court are supported by substantial credible evidence. The court found that the Fred Burr Creek drainage actually consisted of two separate streams, Upper Fred Burr Creek and Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The court also determined that Upper Fred Burr Creek is not a tributary to Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. These findings provided the basis for the court's eventual decree of water rights to the parties. In particular, the plaintiffs maintain that findings of fact six and seven, quoted below, are clearly erroneous and require reversal. "6. That from the totality of the evidence as confirmed by the Defendants' expert, Charles C. Bowman, Upper Fred Burr Creek is a natural stream arising in a hilly area easterly from the Andrew A . Beck property, flowing in a well-defined channel through the Beck property until it disappears into the ground, except in times of flood, at or near the Beck farmstead, occupied by the McQuearys as their residence. "7. The Lower Fred Burr Creek channel is a separate source of water supply from Upper Fred Burr Creek and arises generally in the North Half of Section 27 of Township 8 North, Range 9 West where it flows as an intermittent stream in a northwesterly direction." The standard of review long employed by this Court requires only that the findings and conclusions of the District Court be supported by substantial credible evidence. In re Marriage of Pickering (Mont. 1984), 678 P.2d 1146, 1147, 41 St.Rep. 617, 618, "Findings will not be overturned unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence against them, recognizing that evidence may be weak or conflicting, yet still support the findings." Jensen v . Jensen (Mont. 1981), 629 P.2d 765, 768, 38 St.Rep. 927, 930. The challenged findings of the trial court are largely, although not entirely, based upon the testimony of the respondents' expert witness, Charles C. Bowman. Bowman is a retired professor of agricultural engineering from Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y who h a s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r a number s f y e a r s i n Montana w a t e r law, i r r i g a t i o n and d r a i n a g e problems. P r o f e s s o r Bowman t e s t i f i e d t h a t Upper Fred Burr Creek is a d r a i n a g e completely s e p a r a t e from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t e x c e p t i n times of f l o o d , Upper Fred Burr Creek d i s a p p e a r s i n t o t h e ground on t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d , we11 u p h i l l from p l a i n t i f f s ' l a n d . The upper c r e e k goes underground where it flows i n t o a l a r g e and v e r y p o r o u s g r a v e l d e p o s i t u n d e r l a i n by c o n s o l i d a t e d hardpan. P r o f e s s o r Bowman t e s t i f e d t h a t Lower Fred Burr Creek channel a r i s e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e downslope from where t h e upper creek d i s a p p e a r s , and is fed by water imported by d i t c h e s from Baggs and Cottonwood Creeks, and by r e t u r n flow and d r a i n a g e w a t e r s from f i e l d i r r i g a t i o n on ranches above p l a i n t i f f s ' land. The testimony of P r o f e s s o r Bowman and o t h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e x c e s s of 3,500 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of f o r e i g n water was i n t r o d u c e d each season i n t o t h e Lower Fred Burr d r a i n a g e through i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s . T h i s t e s t i m o n y was c o r r o b o r a t e d by a n American S t a b i l i z a t i o n and Conservation S e r v i c e map and a United S t a t e s G e o l o g i c a l Survey contour map of t h e Fred Burr d r a i n a g e s , both of which were e n t e r e d i n t o evidence w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n . Both maps c l e a r l y d e p i c t a d i s t i n c t break between t h e two s t r e a m c o u r s e s along t h e e a s t boundary of S e c t i o n 2 6 , Township 8 North, Range 9 West. P r o f e s s o r Bowman a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Powell County Water Resources Survey book, which he helped p r e p a r e , r e f l e c t e d a c l e a r d i v i s i o n between t h e two d r a i n a g e s . The D i s t r i c t Court took j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e Survey book, which is p u b l i s h e d by t h e S t a t e E n g i n e e r ' s O f f i c e i n Helena, Montana. W e h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t s i x and seven a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d . The p l a i n t i f f a l s o o b j e c t s t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h e d a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n based on b e n e f i c i a l u s e of 1,010 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s , w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of J u n e , 1915. No o b j e c t i o n was made t o t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t o f a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e o f May, 1872. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s make it c l e a r t h a t t h e t o t a l award of 1,260 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of w a t e r t o d e f e n d a n t was i n t e n d e d by t h e c o u r t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t Andrew A. Beck, and h i s g r a n t o r s and p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y d i v e r t e d and b e n e f i c i a l l y used - a l l o f t h e a v a i l a b l e w a t e r s of Upper Fred Burr Creek s i n c e 1915. The d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d f o u r w i t n e s s e s a t t r i a l who t e s t i f e d a t l e n g t h r e g a r d i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l u s e o f w a t e r from Upper Fred Burr Creek on t h e Beck ranch. A l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Beck ranch h a s used a l l of t h e w a t e r s of Upper Fred Burr Creek f o r i r r i g a t i o n . The o l d e s t w i t n e s s , Mr. S o r e n B e c k , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e was e s t a b l i s h e d a s e a r l y a s 1915. Viewing t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , it is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of a 1915 a . p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 1,010 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s by t h e d e f e n d a n t is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . I n r e Marriage o f P i c k e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 678 P.2d 1146, 41 St.Rep. 617; Overton v. Overton (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 674 P.2d 1089, 40 St.Rep. 2047. The p l a i n t i f f s n e x t contend t h a t t h e District C o u r t e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t s t o c e r t a i n testimony given in deposition by Alfred A. Bansen. Defendants objected to Hansen's testimony on grounds that it was speculative, immaterial, incompetent and irrelevant. Hansen's testimony focused on events occurring in the Fred Burr drainage area from 1905-1917, when Hansen was from eight to twenty years of age. Much of Hansen's testimony was speculative, and he plainly implied several times during the course of the deposition that his testimony was based on vague recollections from his childhood. Hansen's testimony concerning irrigation practices on Lars Olsen's land is irrelevant because, as the deposition eventually reveals, the land Hansen was discussing is not owned by Lars Olsen at all. Rather, it is part of the Kohrs Ranch, now owned by the federal government. Baving carefully reviewed Hansen's deposition, we find no error by the trial court in sustaining the objections. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in sustaining the defendants' objections to introduction of plaintiffs' exhibits I and J. Exhibit I is a warranty deed to plaintiff Lars L. Olsen which purports to convey a decreed right to 500 miner's inches of Fred Burr Creek waters. We note that since this case is the only adjudication of the Fred Burr drainage to date, the deed in question could not have conveyed a decreed water right. Exhibit J is a deed in Lars L. Olsen's chain of title which purports to convey a water right of 500 miner's inches in Fred Burr Creek. Both exhibits were apparently introduced to establish a 500 miner's inch water right in favor of Lars L. Olsen. Plaintiff Lars L. Olsen argues that Exhibit J is admissible because it constitutes a substitute for a notice of appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Such a notice, "when duly made, shall be taken and received in all courts of this state as prima facie evidence of the statements therein contained." Section 89-814, RCM 1947. We find that the deeds do not qualify as notices of appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Even if we were to consider these deeds as notices of appropriation pursuant to section 89-810, they are fatally defective and inadmissible as evidence of an appropriation because they are executed with unsworn acknowledgements, rather than with verified affidavits as required by section 89-810. "This Court has strictly construed the provisions of section 89-814. We have held that any nonconformance with section 59-810 renders the notice of appropriation inadmissible as evidence." Holmstrom Land Co. v. Meagher Cty. Newlan Creek Water District (1979), 185 Mont. 409, 427, 605 P.2d 1060, 1070. Plaintiff Lars L . Olsen also claims that Exhibit I should have been admitted because it established that Lower Fred Burr Creek channel carried enough water to provide Olsen with 500 miner's inches of water. Olsen contends that Exhibit I would therefore tend to establish that Upper Fred Burr Creek is a tributary to Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, rather than a separate drainage. This is a dubious assertion, since the recitation of a water right in the deed makes no reference to the source of the waters claimed. An overwhelming volume of the testimony presented at trial indicated that Upper Fred Burr Creek is isolated from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, and that the water available in Lower Fred Burr Creek channel c o n s i s t s of f o r e i g n , w a s t e , d r a i n a g e and r e t u r n flow w a t e r s . W e need n o t a d d r e s s t h e t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y where t h e e f f e c t of t h e d i s a l l o w e d e x h i b i t is minimal i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e o v e r a l l weight of evidence. The f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t would undoubtedly be u n a f f e c t e d by admission of E x h i b i t I. W e w i l l n o t r e v e r s e o r remand a r u l i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t Court where, a s h e r e , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e e v e n t u a l d e c i s i o n w i l l remain unchanged. Kirby Co. of Bozeman, Inc. v. Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n of t h e Montana S t a t e Dept. of Labor and I n d u s t r y (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P.2d 1040, 1043, 37 St.Rep. 1255, The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s , a f f i r m e d . W e concur: J u s t i c e ., - Chief J u s t i c e