Opinion ID: 888046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Andrens' Statutory and Nuisance Counterclaims

Text: ¶ 56 Andrens individually contend that Byrums violated § 85-1-111, MCA, by interfering with their access to the Jefferson River, a navigable river. This statute states, in pertinent part, that [t]he right of any person . . . to take and use any water . . . from any stream or streams for the purpose of irrigation or any beneficial or industrial pursuit shall not be abridged. Section 85-1-111, MCA. Andrens argue Byrums violated this statute by interfering with Andrens' efforts to build an emergency barb to bring water into the Ditch. The specific behavior Andrens point to is Byrums' use of video and audio taping while Andrens were attempting to install the emergency barb to control river flow. Moreover, Andrens argue that Byrums' video and audio taping actions in this respect constitute a nuisance. In further support of their nuisance claim, Andrens also point to Byrums' use of a private airplane used in such a way to buzz the Andrens' home. ¶ 57 Again, the District Court entered no findings of fact or conclusions of law in respect to Andrens' alleged violation of § 85-1-111, MCA, or their nuisance claim. The court simply and summarily concluded that [Respondents'] counterclaim alleging . . . harassment is unfounded. ¶ 58 As we did with respect to the previous issue  and for the same reasons  we conclude the District Court's order dismissing Andrens' statutory and nuisance counterclaim must be vacated. We remand this issue with instructions that the District Court reconsider Andrens' counterclaims for violation of § 85-1-111, MCA, and for nuisance and enter appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon.