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

Heading: sufficiency of the decree

Text: The first issue to be discussed is the sufficiency of the decree entered by the District Court. The District argues that the water decree is insufficient because it fails to specify: (1) the exact acreage to which the water rights were appurtenant; (2) the seasonal and hourly limitations which should be imposed on the various water rights; and, (3) the exact location of the various diversion points. Without this information, the District alleges the water right decree will only foster further conflicts between the parties using Sheep Creek. Holmstrom Land Company joins the District in its claim that the decree is deficient. There is no doubt that the decree adjudicating Sheep Creek could have been more detailed. But, the question before this Court is whether the decree satisfies the statutory requirements, particularly section 89-815, R.C.M. 1947, which provides:  Rights settled in one action. In any action hereafter commenced for the protection of rights acquired to water under the laws of this state, the plaintiff may make any or all persons who have diverted water from the same stream or source, parties to such action, and the court may in one judgment settle the relative priorities and rights of all the parties to such action. When damages are claimed for the wrongful diversion of water in any such action, the same may be assessed and apportioned by the jury in their verdicts, and judgment thereon may be entered for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, or for or against one or more of several defendants, and may determine the ultimate rights of the parties between themselves. In any action concerning joint water rights, or joint rights in water ditches, unless partition of the same kind is asked by parties to the action, the court shall hear and determine such controversy as if the same were several as well as joint. (Emphasis added.) The District Court's decree is sufficiently definite to settle the relative priorities and rights of all parties. The decree designates the owners of the various water rights, their priority dates, the amount of the awards in miners inches and the source of the water. This information is sufficient to allow a water commissioner to carry out the District Court's decree. We note that in the future, problems concerning the sufficiency of decrees should not arise because our new water laws will provide the District Court with precise guidelines for their decrees. For example, section 85-2-208 MCA (formerly section 89-877, R.C.M. 1947) provides:  Final decree. (1) The court shall, on the basis of the preliminary decree and on the basis of any hearing that may have been held, enter a final decree affirming or modifying the preliminary decree. If no request for a hearing is filed within the time allowed, the preliminary decree automatically becomes final, and the court shall enter it as the final decree. (2) The final decree shall establish the existing rights and priorities, of the persons named in the petition, for the source or area under consideration. (3) The final decree shall state the findings of fact, along with any conclusions of law, upon which the existing rights and priorities of each person named in the decree are based. (4) For each person who is found to have an existing right, the final decree shall state: (a) the name and post-office address of the owner of the right; (b) the amount of water, rate and volume, included in the right; (c) the date of priority of the right; (d) the purpose for which the water included in the right is used; (e) the place of use and a description of the land to which the right is appurtenant; (f) the source of the water included in the right; (g) the place and means of diversion; (h) the approximate time during which the water is used each year; (i) any other information necessary to fully define the nature and extent of the right. (5) The final decree in each existing right determination is final and conclusive as to all existing rights in the source or area under consideration. After the final decree there shall be no existing rights to water in the area or source under consideration except as stated in the decree. With section 85-2-208 MCA as a guideline, district courts should have no difficulty determining what their final decrees must contain. The present suit, however, was determined under the old water laws and the decree entered by the District Court must be measured against water right decrees entered under those laws. We determine that it is sufficient.