Opinion ID: 886045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Bean Lake

Text: ¶ 11 Bean Lake involved a claim for inlake water rights for fish, wildlife and recreation purposes in a natural pothole lake. In Bean Lake this Court stated, [i]t is clear therefore that under Montana law before 1973, no appropriation right was recognized for recreation, fish and wildlife, except through a Murphy right statute.1 Bean Lake, 234 Mont. at 343, 766 P.2d at 236. ¶ 12 The Bean Lake decision appears to be inconsistent with earlier case law in which the Court recognized appropriations for fish, wildlife and recreation. See, e.g., Osnes Livestock Co. v. Warren (1936), 103 Mont. 284, 62 P.2d 206, and Paradise Rainbows v. Fish and Game Commission (1966), 148 Mont. 412, 421 P.2d 717. In holding that no appropriation right was recognized for fish, wildlife and recreation, the Bean Lake Court ignored Osnes and misread Paradise Rainbows. The Osnes Court ruled that an earlier diversion of water, even if used only to maintain a swimming pool or fish pond, had priority over a later appropriation and stated, it is not clear that such a use [swimming pool or fish pond] would not be a beneficial use and hence the basis of a valid appropriation. Osnes, 103 Mont. at 302, 62 P.2d at 214. The Bean Lake Court neglected to discuss or acknowledge the Osnes precedent. ¶ 13 In Paradise Rainbows, the Court again recognized the diversion of water for fish ponds as a valid appropriation of water. The Paradise Rainbows holding explicitly validated a diversionary appropriation for fish. In Bean Lake, however, the Court concentrated solely on the Paradise Rainbows Court's unwillingness, under the peculiar facts of that case, to protect an instream fish and recreation right and, consequently, overlooked the fact that in Paradise Rainbows the Court upheld a diversionary appropriation of water for fish. ¶ 14 The majority of briefs submitted in this case concur that the Bean Lake decision is fraught with internal inconsistencies. In Bean Lake, the Court acknowledged that beneficial use is the touchstone of a valid appropriation right. Bean Lake, 234 Mont. at 340, 766 P.2d at 234. The Court noted that Article IX, Section 3, of the 1972 Montana Constitution recognized recreation as a beneficial use and accepted as given that the activities of the DFWP in stocking Bean Lake, maintaining the fishery resource . . . coupled with the general public use of Bean Lake for the purpose of recreation, wildlife and fishing constituted a beneficial use of the waters within the meaning of the appropriation doctrine. Bean Lake, 234 Mont. at 339, 766 P.2d at 233. ¶ 15 In seeming conflict with these findings that (1) beneficial use is the test of a valid right, and (2) fish, wildlife and recreation uses are beneficial uses, the Court concluded that no Montana legal authority, deriving from common law or statute, acknowledged that recreational, fish or wildlife uses, even though beneficial, gave rise to any water rights by appropriation under Montana law and therefore under Montana law before 1973, no appropriation right was recognized for recreation, fish and wildlife. . . . Bean Lake, 234 Mont. at 340, 343, 766 P.2d at 234, 236.
¶ 16 In Bean Lake, the Court cited and discussed Paradise Rainbows, in which this Court specifically recognized as a valid appropriation a diversion of water for fish propagation. There is no hint in the Bean Lake decision of an intent to overrule Paradise Rainbows. Bean Lake is no model of clarity, ignores Osnes altogether, fails to appreciate the ultimate holding in Paradise Rainbows precedent and incorrectly states Montana law. Prior to 1973, Montana explicitly recognized water rights for fish, wildlife and recreation uses. Montana was not alone in recognizing as beneficial the use of water for fish, wildlife and recreation purposes. See, e.g., Faden v. Hubbell (1933), 93 Colo. 358, 28 P.2d 247, 250-51 ([i]t is self-evident that water diverted and employed for the propagation of fish is devoted to a useful purpose, and all of the parties completed their appropriations of water by its application to the beneficial use designed); State ex rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co. (1945), 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421, 428 (we are unable to find authority, or justification in reason, to support the claim that the `beneficial use' to which public waters, as defined in this and other jurisdictions, may be put, does not include uses for recreation and fishing). ¶ 17 To the extent Bean Lake suggests that fish, wildlife and recreation are not beneficial uses, it simply misstates Montana precedent and is hereby overruled. We next address whether Bean Lake correctly held that non-diversionary water rights for fish, wildlife and recreation purposes were not recognized in Montana under the doctrine of prior appropriation.