Opinion ID: 887322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Petitions 176, 290, and 369

Text: ¶ 19 The findings specific to Petitions 176, 290, and 369 were grouped with several other petitions which have not been specifically disputed by the MID on appeal. Regarding this group of petitions, the Standing Master found that the MID's objection to the exclusion of the properties, filed July 1, 2003  which asserted that each Petition is deficient in that it offers insufficient proof and documentation that the Petitioners cannot feasibly obtain water from the Irrigation District through existing irrigation works  did not provide sufficient evidence that these properties are served by the MID's works. The Standing Master further found that the MID's works do not touch these properties, these properties had private land and/or public roadways between them and the nearest MID works, and these petitioners do not and cannot feasibly obtain water from the MID irrigation works. ¶ 20 The Map illustrates that the property at issue behind Petition 176 has a MID ditch running across it and is designated on the Map as Access, Using. The Map further reveals that Petition 176 consists of three parcels  two of which are designated as Access, Using and one of which is designated No Access, Not Using. With respect to Petition 290, the Map illustrates that this property also has a MID ditch running across it and is listed on the Map as Access, Using. The Map also reveals that Petition 290 consists of two parcels  one of which is designated as Access, Not Using, and one of which is designated as No Access, Not Using. Finally, the Map illustrates that the property at issue behind Petition 369 has two MID ditches upon the property, and the Map indicates this property has access, but is not currently using, the MID's works. ¶ 21 The MID maintains that if the Standing Master had compared Petitions 176, 290, and 369 to the Map, it would have been apparent to the Standing Master that the properties affected by these Petitions all have access to the MID's ditches. Although each of those petitioners asserted in their petitions that they did not have access to the MID's works, the MID's evidence  the Map  shows otherwise. None of these petitioners made themselves available for their scheduled hearings. ¶ 22 A finding of fact will not be reversed absent a showing that it is clearly erroneous. Clark Fork, 254 Mont. at 14, 833 P.2d at 1122. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence. Clark Fork, 254 Mont. at 14-15, 833 P.2d at 1122. The MID presented the Map as evidence of its position. With no testimony from petitioners and no evidence in the record to rebut the Map, we determine that there is no substantial evidence to support the exclusion of the parcels within Petitions 176, 290, and 369 from the MID. The District Court therefore erred in upholding the findings as they relate to those three petitions, and we accordingly reverse the decision in regards to the two parcels within Petition 176 designated on the Map as Access, Using, the parcel within Petition 290 designated on the Map as Access, Not Using, and the sole parcel represented by Petition 369. The remainder of the group of petitions which was grouped with Petitions 176, 290, and 369 in the Standing Master's findings remain unaffected by this reversal and are hereby affirmed.