Court Opinion

ID: 9509573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:47:26.417336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:50.606163
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WEBER
dissents as follows:
I dissent from the majority opinion and its reversal of the judgment of the District Court denying a permanent injunction to stop a discharge of the defendants’ water across plaintiffs’ land.
*444In the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of the District Court dated July 22, 1993, the District Court included the following key findings of fact:
16. That the water discharging from Turnas’ fish pond follows the natural draw and flows across the Duchams’ property, Hyland’s property and onto Wilson’s property.
17. That water which flows onto land owned by Plaintiff Ducham was originally diverted by Plaintiff Hyland onto land which she herself owned.
18. That in times prior to Turnas discharging water from their fish pond, during the Spring of the year, the Ducham draw flowed water. This water flowed as a result of Spring snow melt and rain fall and water from the Green Mountain ditch. Typically the Ducham draw would dry up during the month of June, and by July the draw was passable with haying equipment. Since the construction of Defendants’ fish pond, the flow of water through the draw may have increased, but the Plaintiffs failed to establish the quantum of any increase. There is no evidence of any material decrease in the amount of Plaintiffs’ property available for hay production in its traditional usage which has been caused by Defendants. (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing are the findings which led the District Court to conclude that an injunction was not appropriate. The majority has not addressed this determination of fact by the District Court.
The above findings establish that the water flowed down this draw as a result of spring snow melt, rain fall, water from the Green Mountain ditch, and water originally diverted from the pond by plaintiff Hyland. While there is no argument that some water runs down the draw from the defendants’ fish pond, the District Court pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the quantum of any increase in the normal flow. In a similar manner, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of any material decrease in the amount of their property available for hay production. I conclude there is substantial evidence to support the foregoing findings on the part of the District Court. I would therefore affirm the denial of the injunction.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE concurs in the foregoing dissent.
JUSTICE HUNT concurs in the foregoing dissent.