Opinion ID: 878436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: general orientation and statement of issues

Text: Defendant, Merrimac Cattle Company (Merrimac) appeals and plaintiff, Oscar Hill (Hill) cross-appeals from parts of an order of the state Water Court, sitting in Judith Basin County, deciding the water rights between the parties. On the issues raised by Merrimac, we affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand for further findings and hearings, if necessary. On the issues raised by Hil-I.,we also affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand for further findings and to take additional evidence if necessary. Hill contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear any of the issues until the entire basin is adjudicated, and in response to this issue, we ordered further briefing. We also asked the parties to brief the question of whether the decree of the Water Court can be appealed before the District Court has decided the trespass and damage claims of the parties based on Hill's complaint and the countercl.aim of Merrimac. We conclude that we do have jurisdiction and that based on the circumstances of this case, an appeal is proper before the trespass and damage claims are decided by a jury. See Part 111 of this opinion. This appeal primarily concerns the water rights to Martin Creek and Davis Creek, although other streams or springs are also involved. For example, Hill raises the issue of whether Cameron Coulee (a springs) is a tributary of Kartin Creek or Paul Creek. In addition, the parties raise general issues not specifically relating to Martin or Davis Creek. We first set forth the issues as they relate to each creek or stream and then set forth other more general issues. (1) Prescriptive Use: Martin Creek and Davis Creek. Although Merrimac contends it has first priority to arti in Creek and Davis Creek wa-ter,Merrimac appeals from the Water Court's decree and order in holding that Merrimac did not prove a. prescriptive use right to either Martin Creek or Davis Creek water. We affirm the Water Court's holding. See Part IV of this opinion. (2) Priorities - Martin to Creek Water. Merrimac contends that it established first priority to Martin Creek water and therefore that the priorities should be reordered. Hil.1 cross-appeals and raises two issues. Hill arques that the Water Court should have permitted Hill to irrigate those lands based on the priorities established and as they were described in a 1929 Judith Basin District Court case, entitled Spencer v. Silve. One of the parties, Joe Fergus, was a predecessor to Hill. Hill also contends that the Water Court erred in awarding any water rights to Merrimac because Merrimac failed to prove that its fields were irrigated by Martin Creek water. We affirm the Water Court on Merrimac's appeal and on Hill's cross appeal. See Parts V ( A ) , and VI of this opinion. (3) Priorities - Davis Creek Water. to Merrimac contends that the priorities it was granted should take precedence over the priorities granted to Hill. Merrimac also contends that the Water Court improperly relied on the complaint and answer filed by Joe Fergus in the 1 9 2 9 District Court case of Spencer v. Silve, Fergus, and Duncan. The Water Court relied on the answer and counterclaim by Fergus in establishing 1 8 8 4 priority dates for Hill. Hill cross-appeals and contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish even those priority rights granted to Merrimac, and therefore that Merrimac has no priorities over Hill to the use of Davis Creek water. Hill also contends that the Water Court improperly admitted in evidence a letter from an attorney to Joe Fergus in relation to that 1929 case, by which Merrimac argued that Fergus had abandoned his attempt to prove 1884 priority dates for Davis Creek water. We hold that the Water Court improperly relied on the answer and counterclaim in the 1929 case as a basis to establish priority dates for Hill. We hold further that the letter from the attorney to the client was properly admitted in evidence. We further hold that the evidence is sufficent 's to establish Merrima.~ priority dates. Although the Water Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, the effect of our holding is that Merrimac is entitled to priorities to the use of Davis Creek water. See Parts V(B), and VII of this opinion. (4) Whether Cameron Coulee - - Tributary - Martin is a to Creek .---- or to Paul Creek. Hill's cross-appeal claim contends that Cameron Coulee is a tributary to Martin Creek or to Paul Creek, and if correct, this would entitle Hill to the excess water from Cameron Coulee after 14errimac first used the 18.6 miner's inches granted by the Water Court based on historical usage. The Water Court, however, held that Cameron Coulee is not a tributary to either Martin Creek or Paul Creek, and we affirm. See Part VIII of this opinion. (5) Measure o ' water - - - - flow for each acre under irrigation. Merrimac contends that the Water Court should have granted Merrimac 1.25 miner's inches for each acre under irrigation for al-1 of its water rights, rather than the 1 miner's inch granted. Hill does not dispute this 1.25 factor as such, but argues that if it is the proper factor, then Hill should also be granted l . 2 5 miner's inches per acre for each of its water rights. Because we are uncertain what the Water Court intended, and bemuse evidence exists to support each figure, we remand to the Water Court to enter additional findings and to take more evidence if necessary. See Part IX of this opinion. (6) Possibility - - - that Hill was allotted excess water because - failure - determine the precise acreage - - of to Hill had under irrigation. The Water Court granted Hill 1,890 miner's inches of water based on a measure of 1 miner's inch per acre. However, in doing so the Water Court failed. to determine the number of acres that Hill has under irrigation. Merrimac therefore contends that Hill was awarded excess water because Hill has far less than 1,890 acres under irrigation. We remand for further findings, and more evidence if necessary, to determine the acreage that Hill has under irrigation. See Part X of this opinion. (7) Failure - - forth -- descriptions - which to set the land on - -is presently irrigating. Hill Hill contends tha-t the Water Court mistakenly restricted the use of his water to the specific land as described in his predecessor's land pa.tents rather than setting forth the descriptions of land on which water is presently being applied. Merrimac agrees that the cause must be remanded for this determination. We remand for further findings and more evidence is necessary to determine and describe the land that Hill is presently irrigating. See Part XI of this opinion. 11. BACKGROUND FACTS The Merrimac and Hill ranch lands are adjacent, with the Merrimac lands being upstream from the Hill lands. All of the streams involved in the litigation involve Merrimac as the upstream user and Hill as the downstream user. The ranches are on the eastern side of the Highwood Mountains, and are in a valley bisected by Martin Creek and Davis Creek, two of the primary streams involved in this litigation. The I-ow lands of both ranches are irrigated from Martin Creek and Davis Creek and their tributaries. Martin Creek eventually becomes a tributary to Davis Creek. Both ranches trace their origin to land homesteaded in the 1880's. Merrimac consists of land first homesteaded and settled by John and Conrad Sack on Davis and Martin Creek in 1883. Merrimac was started by A. J. McDonald and is currently operated b7 l Lenny J. McDonald, the fourth generation to grow up on the ranch and take over operations. Merrimac bought the Sack land in 1910, and additional land was acquired in 1916 from Ed Simpson, who in 1882 was the first homesteader on Davis Creek. The Hill Ranch traces its beginning to the Fergus family. Annie Fergus homesteaded on Davis Creek in 1885, and a number of her children homesteaded on surrounding parcels. One child, Owen Fergus, acquired most of the already homesteaded parcels, and enlarged the ranch with other purchases. Later, transfers by deed and inheritance resulted in all the Fergus holdings consolidating in Anna Marie Duncan. Anna Marie married Felix Hill, and their minor children inherited the ranch when Anna Marie and Felix died in 1952 and 1954 respectively. A guardianship was established and Lenny McDonald, Merrimac president and second generation McDonald, and Carlo Hill, an uncle of the minor Hill children, as co-guardians. That guardianship continued until 1 9 6 5 . One of the minor children, John, stayed on the ranch and continued to operate it until 1975, at which time the ranch corporation known as ZV Ranch was dissolved. The Hill ranch land was then transferred to Oscar Hill, who grew up on the ranch, and who continues to operate it. The parties dispute the priorities of water rights in Martin Creek and Davis Creek. There had never been a serious dispute between the parties or their predecessors until the spring of 1 9 8 0 . At that time, Hill entered Merrimac's land without notice and without permission blocked Merrimac's Martin Creek ditch and Davis Creek ditch. The Martin Creek ditch led to Merrimac's Martin Creek Meadow,' and the Davis