Opinion ID: 3166390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: ¶7 This case represents the second appeal from the Crow Water Compact, an agreement to distribute and manage water rights among the United States, the Crow Tribe and the State of Montana (“Settling Parties”). The Crow Tribe, the United States through the Department of the Interior, and the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission agreed to the terms of the Compact in 1999, and the Montana Legislature ratified it the same year. The Compact is codified at § 85-20-901, MCA. The Crow Tribe ratified the Compact by vote of its members in 2011. We recently discussed the facts pertaining to the establishment and history of the Crow Water Compact in a 3 previous appeal, and they will not be repeated here. In re Crow Water Compact, 2015 MT 217, 380 Mont. 168, 354 P.3d 1217 (“Crow I”). ¶8 This appeal arises from the concerns of individual Objectors to the Water Compact. The Objectors in this case are not parties to the Compact, nor do they own land or water rights on the Crow Reservation. Rather, Objectors own land and water rights near the reservation and assert that the Crow Compact will adversely affect their interests. ¶9 In 2012, the Water Court entered a preliminary decree containing the terms of the Compact. After sending notice to over 16,000 persons and entities, the Water Court received approximately 100 objections. Fifteen Objectors remain. ¶10 Pursuant to § 85-2-702(3), MCA, the Compact must be published upon ratification and “must be included in the preliminary decree as provided by 85-2-231, and unless an objection to the Compact is sustained under 85-2-233, the terms of the Compact must be included in the final decree without alteration.” The Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact in a final decree on May 27, 2015. ¶11 The purpose of the Compact was to establish the water rights of the Crow Tribe relative to the rights of the state of Montana and the United States. Crow I, ¶ 17-18. These water rights are quantified using the Practicably Irrigable Acreage standard (PIA). See State ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 219 Mont. 76, 92, 712 P.2d 754, 764 (1985); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 201 Ariz. 307, 316-17, 35 P.3d 68, 77-78 (Ariz. 2001). During the Compact negotiations, the Settling Parties differed on the extent of PIA (and thus the 4 amount of water) the Tribe was entitled to under Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 577-78, 28 S. Ct. 207 (1908). The Settling Parties sought to protect their respective interests without obtaining an expensive and time-consuming survey or years of complex litigation. ¶12 The Tribal Water Rights are articulated by basin in Article III of the Compact. First, it was established that the Tribe has a 500,000 acre feet per year (AFY) natural flow right from the Big Horn River Basin. Additionally, the United States conditionally granted the Tribe another 300,000 AFY, divided into two 150,000 AFY components, from its water right in Bighorn Lake. Second, the Compact states that the Tribe has “all surface flow, groundwater and storage” rights in the other basins covered by the Compact. Finally, the Tribe is also required to reserve 250,000 AFY of the Tribal Water Right between the Yellowtail Afterbay Dam and the Two Leggins diversion facility for the benefit of the fisheries and other recreational purposes. ¶13 The Objectors raise the following issues on appeal: First, the Objectors contend that the Water Court did not apply the proper legal standard regarding their obligation to prove injury from the application of the Compact. Second, the Objectors raise several issues concerning the extent of their injury from the operation of the Compact. Third, the Objectors claim that their due process rights were violated during the Compact negotiation process. We have restated the issues for clarity and brevity and collapse all the objections concerning water rights in the Compact under Issue Two. We do not reach whether the Objectors are entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Private Attorney General Doctrine because the appeal affirms the Water Court’s order. 5