Opinion ID: 1354851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Director properly allocate the burden of proof in evaluating the evidence?

Text: The Director's findings of fact in part contain the following statement: The initial burden is on the proponents of cancellation to show that a period of five successive years of nonuse of water under the terms of the water right in question has occurred. With the exception of that portion of the water right in question appurtenant to the 0.1 acre garden area, proponents did meet that burden in regard to the use of water for irrigation. The burden of proof then shifted to the protestant to refute the showing made by proponents. Protestant did not meet that burden. [11] The Director is mistaken. The burden of proof does not shift. There is no affirmative defense in this proceeding. The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position. ORS 183.450(2). The proponents of cancellation have the burden to prove by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, ORS 183.450(5), that Rencken had ceased or failed to use the water appropriated for a period of five successive years. [12] We recognize that it could be argued that the Director of Water Resources' error in allocating the burden of proof was not included in Rencken's assignments of error in the Court of Appeals or reasons for review in this court. We hold that the error is properly before this court. This proceeding is remanded to the Director of Water Resources to re-evaluate the evidence in light of this opinion.