Opinion ID: 878436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: water priorities--martin creek

Text: Both parties appeal from the order and decree setting forth the priorities to Martin Creek water. The decree granted Hill first, third, fourth, and equal fifth priorities. The decree granted Merrimac second and equal fifth priorities. We affirm the decree setting forth the Martin Creek priorities. Merrimac raises one issue on the priorities granted, and Hill raises two issues. The Water Court granted Merrimac an equal fifth priority with a priority date of May 1, 1900, and Merrimac contends that instead it should be a first priority with a summer of 1886 priority date (based on a homestead preemption claimed for that year). Hill argues that not only did Merrimac not prove an 1886 priority, but in his cross-appeal claims that Merrimac is entitled to no priority at all for this claim because Merrimac failed to prove that the land was irrigated by Martin Creek water. Hill argues that the water for irrigation could just as likely have come from Cameron Creek (a/k/a Pacific Creek) . Hill further claims in his cross-appeal that he should have been awarded the same priorities for and places of use as were awarded to James Fergus in the 1929 District Court decree referred to in Part V of this opinion. On this issue, however, we have already concluded that the Water Court correctly refused to rely on that decree (see Part V(A) of this opinion), and we therefore hold that Hill cannot rely on the 1929 decree to establish his water priorities and areas of use for Martin Creek water. The evidence is undisputed that in 1886, Conrad Sack, Merrimac's predecessor, entered land now known as Martin Creek Meadows, and created a homestead. The evidence is also undisputed that sometime between 1886 and the summer of 1900, he appropriated water to irrigate the land and built a ditch to carry the water. The question, however, is when did Conrad Sack appropriate the water? The Water Court granted a first priority to Hill based on a May 1, 1895 appropriation, and Merrimac was required to prove that Conrad Sack appropriated the water before May 1, 1895 in order to come iihead of Hill's priority. The evidence is insufficient to support Merrimac's contention that Conrad Sack appropriated the water in the summer of 1886 or anytime before May 1, 1895. Merrimac's claim to priority focuses on the contents of documents filed by Conrad Sack in 1900 to support his claim for a homestead dating back to the summer of 1886. Conrad Sack filed an affidavit in support of his 1886 homestead preemption, and stated that he first made entry on August 15, 1886 and that he established a residence five days later, on August 20, 1886. Two of the questions on the form, together with the answers given, form the basis for Merrimac's claim that Conrad Sack appropriated water and actually irrigated in 1886: Q. What use have you made of the ].and? A. Used it for hay and farming purposes. Q. How much of the land, if any have you broken and cultivated since settlement, and what kind and quantity of crops have ycu raised? A. 10 acres broken, raised. crops each year; 30 acres iyriqated -- hay land.  (Emphasis adzd. ) and made Merrimac relies on the emphasized language above, and argues that plain meaning requires a conclusion that the land was irrigated each year, beginning in 1886. The Water Court concluded, however, that no earlier date than May 1, 1900 could be justified. The documents were signed on August 25, 1900, and because there is no indication when irrigation started, the Water Court concluded that the first application of water was at the beginning of the growing season in May of 1900, since no earlier date could be justified. While we may not agree with the reasoning of the Water Court, and it may be fair to assume that first application of water did take place before 1900, we are left with the same dilem,a of the Water Court in determining when that application took place, for the record is devoid of evidence indicating when the irrigation started. It was Merrimac's burden to prove when the irrigation started, and Merrimac failed in that proof. Merrimac argues that it is most reasonable to assume irrigation started in 1886 because that is when Conrad Sack made his homestead entry. He argues that circumstantial evidence as to how Conrad Sack applied water in another land entry situation involving what is now Martin Creek Meadows, supports an inference that he would have done the same thing with regard to the 1886 land entry. We do not reach the same conclusion. According to his 1900 application for a homestead, Conrad Sack entered the land an August 15, 1886, at a time when the growing season was over. It is unlikely that he would have planted crops in August, but assuming he had done so, it is even more unlikely that he could have built the ditches and appropriated the water through the ditches before the cold winter set in. The other land entry made by Conrad Sack, in 1896, was based not on the Homestead Act, but on the Desert Land Act, which had different legal requirements before application could be made for a land patent. In this situation, Sack started irrigating immediately upon taking possession of the land. The Desert Land Act, to enable one to obtain a land patent, required an appropriation of water and irrigation of land as a condition to making a claim to the land. This contrasts with a Homestead Preemption patent claim, in which issuance of a patent is not conditioned on the appropriation of water or the irrigation of land. Rather, it is conditioned on building a house and living on the land. Jt may be reasonable to assume that Conrad Sack appropriated the water and irrigated the land before 1900, but we have no way of determining whether it took place before 1895 or after 1895. Merrimac could only establish first priority if he could prove that the application of water took place before May 1, 1895, the date on which Hill's predecessor first applied Martin Creek water. That proof was not produced. Although we held that Merrimac did not establish an 1886 priority date for first application of water, we also reject Hill's cross appeal claiming that Merrimac also failed to establish a 1900 priori-tlr date because of failure to prove the water came from Martin Creek. Hill bases this claim on the 1900 homestead application filed by Conrad Sack, which dic?. not mention where he obtained the water to irrigate the land. Hill argues that the land is located in the area of Cameron Coulee (a/k/a Pacific Creek) and that it is just as likely that the water came from this source. The uncontradicted evidence is, however, that for as long as living witnesses could remember, the land involved has been irrigated from the same ditch in this location, and that Martin Creek water flows through this ditch. Hill and his predecessors were on notice for a11 these years that Martin Creek was the water source, and never was there a complaint that Merrimac and its predecessors were illegally using M a r t i n Creek w a t e r t o i r r i g a t e from t h e d i t c h . We a f f i r m t h e Water Court's order and decree setting f o r t h t h e p r i o r i t i e s f o r M a r t i n Creek.