Opinion ID: 876900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence to support injunctive relief

Text: The final major issue is the District Court's refusal to enjoin Ward's use of the Mumbrue Bypass. As previously stated, the Mumbrue Bypass was built by Ward in 1972; the bypass allows Ward to divert Sheep Creek water before it passes Holmstrom's diversion point. The original complaint filed by Holmstrom alleged that the Mumbrue Bypass injured Holmstrom because it lowers the water level at Holmstrom's diversion point, and thereby renders it less usable. Holmstrom's complaint asked the District Court to permanently enjoin Ward's use of the Mumbrue Bypass. Holmstrom now claims that the District Court erred when it refused to enjoin Wards use of the Mumbrue Bypass. This issue is controlled by section 89-803, R.C.M. 1947 (not recodified) which provided:  Point of diversion may be changed  change of use. The person entitled to the use of water may change the place of diversion, if others are not thereby injured, and may extend the ditch, flume, pipe, or aqueduct, by which the diversion is made, to any place other than where the first use was made, and may use the water for other purposes than that for which it was originally appropriated. This Court long ago established that the burden is on the party claiming to be injured to plead and prove that the change in location will adversely affect him: While, of course, one may not change the point of diversion any more than the place of use or the character of use to the prejudice of other appropriators (Rev. Codes, sec. 4842), it does not follow that any such change is to be taken in limine as prejudicial. On the contrary, the burden is on the party claiming to be prejudiced by such change to allege and prove the facts. ( Hansen v. Larsen, 44 Mont. 350, 120 P. 229.) Lokowich v. City of Helena (1912), 46 Mont. 575, 577, 129 P. 1063. Although Holmstrom Land Company properly raised the diversion issue in its original complaint, Holmstrom failed to prove injury during the course of the trial. At most, Holmstrom's testimony indicated that their rock diversion might need to be revamped if the bypass was used; however, this testimony does not show injury sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. Accordingly, the District Court did not err when it refused to enjoin the use of the Mumbrue Bypass. The briefs of the parties have brought a number of additional, minor issues to our attention. We have reviewed these issues and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the District Court must be modified to conform to this opinion. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. HASWELL, C.J., and DALY, HARRISON and SHEEHY, JJ., concur.