MCINTOSH v GRAVELEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 11973 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1972 /" WILLIAM McINTOSH, JR.. , HATTIE ~ C I N T O S H, SOREN N, BECK and D N L P, MURRAY, O AD P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , CLIFFORD GRAVELEY, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Small, C u m i n s & Hatch, Helena, Montana, Floyd 0, Small argued, Helena, Montana, For Respondent : Loble, P i c o t t e and Lobl-e, Helena, Montana, Henry Loble and P e t e r Pauly argued, Helena, Montana, Submitted: February 18, 1972 Decided : MAR Filed: MP,R 2 3 BT? Z 3 1972. M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f - t h e C o u r t . This is a s u i t involving defendant's r i g h t t o use c e r t a i n waters of S p r i n g Gulch, a t r i b u t a r y o f Ophir Creek, i n Powell County f o r i r r i g a t i n g a t r a c t of l a n d i n a n a d j a c e n t d r a i n a g e and t o change t h e p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n o f such waters. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Powell County, t h e Hon. N a t A l l e n , d i s t r i c t judge p r e s i d i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , e n t e r e d a judgment o f d i s m i s s a l o f p l a i n t i f f s 1 claims. From t h i s f i n a l judgment, p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l . The f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t case s e t f o r t h t h e s a l i e n t f a c t s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s a p p e a l . Ophir Creek i s a s t r e a m r i s i n g i n Powell County which f l o w s i n a s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n i n t o t h e L i t t l e B l a c k f o o t R i v e r n e a r Avon, Montana. S p r i n g Gulch i s a t r i b u t a r y o f Ophir Creek f l o w i n g i n t o it from a n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n ; i t l i e s w i t h i n t h e Ophir Creek drainage. Immediately w e s t and a d j a c e n t t o t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e l i e s t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e . The w a t e r s o f Ophir Creek and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e w a t e r s -of S p r i n g Gulch, were a d j u d i c a t e d on March 28, 1928 i n Q u i g l e y e t a l . v. V i c t o r Gold Mining Company, e t a l . , Cause # 1185 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Powell County. Under t h a t d e c r e e one James McGilvray was d e c r e e d t h e r i g h t t o u s e 75 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s o f t h e waters of S p r i n g Gulch w i t h a p r i o r i t y a s o f March 31, 1 9 1 1 "on t h e l a n d s b e l o n g i n g t o him a s described i n h i s p l e a d i n g s and b e n e f i c i a l purposes". * * * f o r d o m e s t i c and o t h e r u s e f u l The l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n h i s p l e a d i n g s 1 i n c l u d e d l a n d s i n t h e NE 1 / 4 NE 1 / 4 o f S e c t i o n 26, Township 1 N o r t h , Range 8 West, i n Powell County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e found, i n e f f e c t , t h a t such l a n d s were a c t u a l l y i n t h e NE 1/4 SE 1 / 4 o f s a i d s e c t i o n , township and range. A p o r t i o n of t h e s e l a n d s and o t h e r l a n d s o f McGilvray f o r which t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n w a s made, comprising i n a l l n o t less t h a n 5 4 acres, are l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n - age and i n t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e . P l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s case a l l claim t o be s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o v a r i o u s d e c r e e d h o l d e r s o f water r i g h t s i n Ophir Creek and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s i n Q u i g l e y v. V i c t o r Gold Mining Company, s u p r a . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t case, however, d e c l i n e d t o s o f i n d as t h e proof t h e r e o f r e s t e d e n t i r e l y upon t h e unsubstantiated o r a l testimony of t w o of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Thus t h e n a t u r e , e x t e n t , and p r i o r i t y o f p l a i n t i f f s ' water r i g h t s i n Ophir Creek and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s remain unknown. Defendant, on t h e o t h e r hand, i s t h e acknowledged s u c c e s - sor i n i n t e r e s t t o t h e l a n d s of McGilvray f o r which t h e l a t t e r w a s d e c r e e d t h e r i g h t t o u s e 75 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of water o f S p r i n g Gulch w i t h a p r i o r i t y as o f March 31, 1 9 1 1 i n Q u i g l e y v. V i c t o r Gold Mining Company, s u p r a . The w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch d e c r e e d t o McGilvray, defenda n t ' s p r e d e c e s s o r , were o r i g i n a l l y d i v e r t e d from t h e w e s t bank o f S p r i n g Gulch by means o f " t h e o l d McGilvray d i t c h " i n a w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a c r o s s t h e d r a i n a g e d i v i d e from t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e t o t h e a d j a c e n t Three M i l e C r e e k d r a i n a g e f o r use therein. Any f u r t h e r b e n e f i t o f t h e d i v e r t e d waters was l o s t t o t h e water u s e r s i n t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e because such waters c o u l d n o t r e t u r n t o t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e by p e r c o l a t i o n , seepage or o t h e r w i s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch were d i v e r t e d from t h e w e s t bank o f Spring Qllch by a n o t h e r d i t c h known as t h e "Faisview Mine D i t c h t 1 which w a s l o c a t e d downstream from " t h e o l d McGilvray d i t c h " between t h e l a t t e r and t h e c o n f l u e n c e of S p r i n g Gulch and Ophir C r e e k . These waters of S p r i n g Gulch were conveyed i n a w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a c r o s s a s t e e p h i l l s i d e t o a p o i n t above t h e t a i l i n g dump for t h e F a i r v i e w Mine where t h e "Fairview Mine D i t c h " a b r u p t l y t e r m i n a t e d . These waters were used e x c l u s i v e l y t o o p e r a t e a b o i l e r a t t h e F a i r v i e w Mine which i s l o c a t e d i n t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e . S i n c e 1959 d e f e n d a n t h a s d i v e r t e d t h e w a t e r s of S p r i n g Gulch d e c r e e d t o h i s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray from a p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n on t h e w e s t bank of Ophir Creek l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one-half m i l e downstream from t h e c o n f l u e n c e o f S p r i n g Gulch and Ophir Creek f o r u s e on v a r i o u s d i f f e r e n t t r a c t s o f l a n d under h i s c o n t r o l by means o f d i f f e r e n t d i t c h e s and combinations of d i t c h e s . During t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n o f 1959 and 1960, de- f e n d a n t used a d i t c h known a s t h e "Ophir-Quigley" o r "Chinau d i t c h t o convey such S p r i n g Gulch waters t o l a n d s h e owns i n t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e l o c a t e d n e a r B l a c k f o o t C i t y . In the f a l l o f 1960 and t h e s p r i n g o f 1 9 6 1 , d e f e n d a n t and p l a i n t i f f s McIntosh c o n s t r u c t e d t h e "McIntosh-Graveley" d i t c h , w i t h o u t p r o t e s t o r o b j e c t i o n from t h e o t h e r p l a i n t i f f s , f o r t h e purpose of c a r r y i n g t h e w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch d e c r e e d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray o u t of t h e O p h i r Creek d r a i n a g e and i n t o t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e f o r u s e t h e r e i n . A t a l l t i m e s when water w a s a v a i l a b l e and needed d u r i n g t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n s from 1 9 6 1 t h r o u g h 1966 and f o r a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n i n 1967, d e f e n d a n t used a n old d i t c h owned by p l a i n t i f f s McIntosh, known a s t h e "McIntoshflditch i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e newly c o n s t r u c t e d "McIntosh-Grave1ey"ditch t o convey t h e w a t e r s of S p r i n g Gulch d e c r e e d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray o u t o f t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e and i n t o t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s u s e t h e r e i n . I n t h e s p r i n g o f 1968, d e f e n d a n t c o n s t r u c t e d a d i t c h known as t h e "Graveley" d i t c h o r i g i n a t i n g on t h e w e s t bank o f Ophir Creek j u s t below t h e p o i n t of d i v e r s i o n of t h e "McIntosh" d i t c h . The "Graveley" d i t c h g e n e r a l l y p a r a l l e l s t h e c o u r s e o f t h e "McIntosh" d i t c h f o r some d i s t a n c e , and a t a p o i n t where t h e "McIntosh" d i t c h c o u r s e s i n a s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n d e f e n d a n t h a s p l a c e d a s i p h o n under t h e "McIntosh" d i t c h which c o n n e c t s t h e "Graveley" d i t c h c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1968 t o t h e "McIntosh-Graveley" d i t c h c o n s t r u c t e d i n 1 9 6 0 and 1961. During t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o l s o f 1969 and 1970, d e f e n d a n t h a s used t h i s combination o f d i t c h e s t o convey t h e w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch, d e c r e e d t o h i s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray, o u t of t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e and i n t o t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e f o r defendant's use therein. Defendant p r o p o s e s t o c o n t i n u e t h e u s e o f these d i t c h e s f o r t h a t purpose. At all t i m e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s conveyed t h e waters o f S p r i n g Gulch by means o f t h e v a r i o u s d i v e r s i o n works l o c a t e d on t h e w e s t bank o f Ophir Creek downstream from t h e c o n f l u e n c e o f S p r i n g Gulch and Ophir Creek, d e f e n d a n t h a s d i v e r t e d and conveyed such waters o u t o f t h e Ophir Creek d r a i n a g e f o r u s e on l a n d s h e owns i n t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e . These l a n d s of d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e a r e l a n d s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e a c q u i r e d from h i s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray, f o r which t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n was made. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o found t h a t t h e burden o f defenda n t ' s p r e s e n t u s e o f t h e waters o f S p r i n g Gulch i s no g r e a t e r t h a n t h e burden o f t h e o r i g i n a l u s e o f such waters, and t h a t t h e water u s e r s of Ophir Creek and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s s u f f e r e d no g r e a t e r i n j u r y o r detriment thereby. The o n l y p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n w i t h w e i r s and measuring devices a t h i s r e s p e c t i v e p o i n t s of d i v e r s i o n is t h e defendant. Defendant h a s one w e i r and measuring d e v i c e a t t h e p o i n t where S p r i n g Gulch flows i n t o Ophir Creek, and a n o t h e r a t h i s p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n on t h e w e s t bank of Ophir Creek where t h e "Graveley" ditch is located. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found a f a i l u r e o f proof on t h e p a r t of any of t h e p l a i n t i f f s t h a t d e f e n d a n t i s d e p r i v i n g them of any of t h e w a t e r s t h e y claim under t h e d e c r e e i n Q u i g l e y v. V i c t o r Gold Mining Company, s u p r a . However, t h e d i s t r i c t found t h a t t h e r e a r e a c c r e t i o n s t o t h e f l o w of S p r i n g Gulch below t h e o r i g i n a l p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n of t h e S p r i n g Gulch w a t e r s d e c r e e d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e d e c e s s o r McGilvray. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t entitled t o these accretions. Accordingly, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d d e f e n d a n t t o i n s t a l l a w e i r o r measuring d e v i c e a t t h e o r i g i n a l p o i n t of diversion. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o found t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t o b j e c t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s u s e of t h e waters o f S p r i n g Gulch, h e r e t o f o r e d e s c r i b e d , u n t i l t h e f i l i n g o f t h e i n s t a n t s u i t on December 3 , 1969. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t t h i s c o u r s e of conduct on t h e p a r t of p l a i n t i f f s induced d e f e n d a n t t o expend s u b s t a n t i a l sums of money i n improving h i s d i v e r s i o n works. From t h i s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l b a r r e d a s s e r t i o n o f any claims t h a t p l a i n t i f f s might o t h e r w i s e have i n t h e i n s t a n t s u i t . The i n s t a n t s u i t w a s t r i e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y i n J u l y 1970. A f t e r p l a i n t i f f s r e s t e d , d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a judgment o f d i s m i s s a l w i t h p r e j u d i c e under Rule 4 1 ( b ) o f t h e Montana Rules o f C i v i l Procedure, which t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d on t h e b a s i s of i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The judgment was i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t denying a l l claims f o r relief of t h e p l a i n t i f f s , b u t r e q u i r e d d e f e n d a n t t o i n s t a l l a measuring d e v i c e a t t h e o r i g i n a l p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n o f t h e McGilvray a p p r o p r i a t i o n s o a s n o t t o b e n e f i t from down- stream a c c r e t i o n s i n S p r i n g Gulch t o which d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t entitled. P l a i n t i f f s now a p p e a l from t h i s judgment. The i s s u e s upon a p p e a l can be summarized i n t h i s manner: (1) s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and judgment; ( 2 ) whether d e f e n d a n t had t h e r i g h t t o d i v e r t t h e w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch i n t o t h e a d j a c e n t Three M i l e Creek d r a i n age f o r u s e t h e r e i n ; ( 3 ) whether d e f e n d a n t had t h e r i g h t t o change the point of diversion of the Spring Gulch waters, In addition to these issues posed by plaintiffs, defendant raises the further issue as to whether estoppel and laches bar plaintiffs' claims in any event. Directing our attention to the first issue, we note extensive exceptions by the plaintiffs to the district court's findings of fact which are incapable of complete summarization. However, the gist of plaintiffs' principal contentions in this regard can be summarized in this manner: (1) the uncontradicted evidence shows that McGilvray, defendant's predecessor, never attempted to convey the waters of Spring Gulch into the Three Creek Mile/drainage for use on his lands there, nor was he ever decreed any right to do so under the decree in Quigley v. Victor Gold Mining Company, supra; ( 2 ) any diversion of the waters of Spring Gulch by defendant to the Three Mile Creek drainage for use on his lands there was permissive only during times when plaintiffs had no need or use for such waters; (3) defendant's change in the point of diversion saddled plaintiffs with an increased burden in exercising their water rights to their damage and detriment. At the outset we note that the decree in Quigley v. Gold Victor/Mining Company, supra, grants to defendant's predecessor McGilvray certain rights to the waters of Spring Gulch for use on certain described lands owned by him, some of which lie in the Ophir Creek drainage and some of which lie in the Three Mile Creek drainage. This decreed water right is based on an appro- priation as of March 31, 1911. The appropriation and use of the waters of Spring Gulch under the decree is for irrigation of - 8 - the entire tract of land owned by McGilvray both in the Ophir Creek drainage and the Three Mile Creek drainage, and is not limited to any particular parcel of land owned by him, The conclusion is inescapable that the appropriation and decreed water right of McGilvray covered those described parcels of land owned by him in the Three Mile Creek drainage, as well as those located in the Ophir Creek drainage. Plaintiffs sought to overcome the foregoing by testimonial evidence tending to prove that McGilvray did not own any land in the Three Mile Creek drainage as of the date of the appropriation, and that he never attempted to divert or use Spring Gulch waters on any lands in the Three Mile Creek drainage. Such collateral attack and attempted relitigation of matters concluded in the decree in Quigley v. Victor Gold Mining Company, supra, is not permissible. That decree and the issues litigated and determined therein are res judicata and binding on the parties in the instant suit, all of whom claim their respective rights herein through predecessor parties in that earlier litigation. Brennan v. Jones, 101 Mont. 550, 55 P.2d 697; Missoula Light & Water Co. v. Hughes, 106 Mont. 355, 77 P.2d 1041. Plaintiffs cite three Montana cases for the proposition that where a decree does not specifically authorize an appropriation to remove water to an alien watershed permanently, the appropriator has no right to do so. Spokane Ranch & Water Co, v. Beatty, 37 Mont. 342, 96 P. 727; Galiger v. McNulty, 80 Mont. 339, 260 P. 401; Quigley v. McIntosh, 110 Mont. 495, 103 P.2d Spokane Ranch & Water Co, c o n t a i n s t h i s l a n g u a g e , b u t s u g g e s t s t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n o n l y i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e facts of t h a t c a s e , which are f a r d i f f e r e n t from t h e f a c t s h e r e , There, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge d i d n o t i n t e n d t o g r a n t t h e r i g h t t o release t h e water permanently t o an a l i e n watershed w i t h r e g a r d t o a g r i c u l t u r a l water r i g h t s o r t h e same language would have been used t h e r e as i n t h e case of a p l a c e r mining water r i g h t where such r i g h t w a s g r a n t e d . In the i n s t a n t case t h e c o n t r a r y i n t e n t i o n a p p e a r q a s t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e water on land i n t h e foreign drainage is spelled o u t i n the decree. G a l i g e r simply s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t waters p r i m a r i l y belong i n t h e watershed o f t h e i r o r i g i n , i f t h e r e i s l a n d t h e r e i n which r e q u i r e s i r r i g a t i o n . Quigley s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a water u s e r who h a s been d e c r e e d t h e r i g h t t o u s e a s p e c i f i s . a m o u n t o f water on g i v e n l a n d s c a n n o t s u b s e q u e n t l y e x t e n d t h e u s e of t h a t water t o a d d i t i o n a l l a n d s n o t under a c t u a l or contemplated i r r i g a t i o n a t t h e t i m e t h e r i g h t was d e c r e e d , t o t h e i n j u r y of s u b s e q u e n t appropriators. However, t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s n o t germane t o t h e i n s t a n t case, a s no i n j u r y t o subsequent appropriators i n t h e d r a i n a g e o f o r i g i n i s p o s s i b l e where permanent d i v e r s i o n o f t h e waters i n t o a n o t h e r watershed was d e c r e e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l ap- propriation. On a number of o c c a s i o n s t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e waters o f a s t r e a m l o c a t e d i n one d r a i n a g e can be approp r i a t e d f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes o r o t h e r b e n e f i c i a l u s e s i n - 10 - another drainage. Spokane Ranch & Water Co, v . B e a t t y , s u p r a ; C a r l s o n v . C i t y o f Helena, 43 Mont. 1, 1 1 4 P . 110; Lokowich v . C i t y o f Helena, 46 Mont. 575, 129 P. 1063; G a l i g e r v . McNulty, s u p r a ; T h r a s h e r v. Mannix & Wilson, 95 Mont. 273, 26 P.2d 370; S t a t e e x r e l . Mungas v. D i s t . C t . , 102 Mont. 533, 59 P.2d 71. Where, as h e r e , t h e w a t e r u s e r i n t h e d r a i n a g e o f o r i g i n i s n o t i n j u r e d , he h a s no c a u s e t o complain i f t h e w a t e r i s d e v o t e d t o b e n e f i c i a l use i n a foreign drainage. P l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t any d i v e r s i o n of t h e waters o f S p r i n g Gulch by d e f e n d a n t i n t o t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e f o r u s e on h i s l a n d s t h e r e w a s w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s d u r i n g t i m e s when p l a i n t i f f s had no need o r u s e f o r t h e waters i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . simply d o e s n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . The e v i d e n c e The most i t shows i s a p e r m i s s i v e u s e r of a d i t c h f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e t o c a r r y h i s water. D i t c h r i g h t s and w a t e r r i g h t s a r e two s e p a r a t e r i g h t s and i n no s e n s e synonymous. P l a i n t i f f s f i n a l l y contend t h a t t h e change i n t h e p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n o f t h e w a t e r s from t h e w e s t bank of S p r i n g Gulch where t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n w a s made t o t h e w e s t bank o f Ophir Creek c o n s t i t u t e d a n i n c r e a s e d burden on them a s water u s e r s i n Ophir Creek. The o n l y t e s t i m o n y i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t - i n g t h i s i s t h e i r t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e y would b e s a d d l e d w i t h t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e of t h e expense o f a w a t e r commissioner t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e waters i n accordance w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s , I f a w e i r and measuring d e v i c e i s i n s t a l l e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n t o measure t h e water t o which d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d , a s w e l l as c o n t i n u i n g t h e e x i s t i n g measuring d e v i c e a t defenda n t ' s p r e s e n t p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n a s r e q u i r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , it i s d i f f i c u l t t o see why a water commissioner i s any more n e c e s s a r y t h a n i f t h e w a t e r were t a k e n from t h e o r i g i n a l point of diversion. A s i d e from t h i s , t h e expense o f employing a water commissioner d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e t h e burden o r d e t r i ment r e q u i r e d t o be proven by p l a i n t i f f s i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l . other W e have examined t h e / z o n t e n t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f s concerni n g s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e and f i n d t h e f a c t s e i t h e r supp o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e o r immaterial t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h i s appeal. The second i s s u e r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f s upon a p p e a l i s whether d e f e n d a n t had t h e r i g h t t o d i v e r t t h e w a t e r s o f S p r i n g Gulch i n t o t h e a d j a c e n t d r a i n a g e f o r u s e on h i s l a n d s t h e r e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t i s u s i n g t h e water f o r i r r i g a t i o n o f l a n d s i n t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e which he s u b s e q u e n t l y a c q u i r e d from p e r s o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e o r i g i n a l app r o p r i a t o r s and which i n no s e n s e were t h e l a n d s f o r which t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n was made. It should a l s o be noted t h a t t h e r e i s no c l a i m of abandonment o f t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t case. Having h e r e t o f o r e found t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e d e c e s s o r was g r a n t e d t h e r i g h t to convey t h e waters o f S p r i n g Gulch across t h e d r a i n a g e d i v i d e f o r u s e on h i s l a n d s l o c a t e d t h e r e and des c r i b e d i n h i s p l e a d i n g s under t h e d e c r e e i n Q u i g l e y v. Victor Gold Mining Company, s u p r a , and it b e i n g a d m i t t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h e r e succeeded t o t h o s e r i g h t s , t h e o n l y remaining q u e s t i o n i s whether d e f e n d a n t can u s e t h e s e waters on h i s o t h e r and d i f f e r e n t l a n d s l o c a t e d i n t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e . T h i s q u e s t i o n h a s h e r e t o f o r e been answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y i n a similar Montana c a s e , T h r a s h e r v . Mannix 273, 277, 26 P.2d 370. & Wilson, 9 5 Mont. T h e r e , t h e argument w a s made t h a t t h e h o l d e r o f a water r i g h t e n t i t l i n g him t o t h e u s e o f s u c h waters on h i s l a n d s i n a n a l i e n w a t e r s h e d , c o u l d n o t b r i n g a d d i t i o n a l l a n d s i n t h e a l i e n watershed under i r r i g a t i o n w i t h t h e waters d i v e r t e d from t h e w a t e r s h e d of t h e i r o r i g i n . This Court dismissed t h a t c o n t e n t i o n i n t h e s e words: " * * * I t a p p e a r s from t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e s e new l a n d s are o u t s i d e t h e watershed o f Gold Creek. From t h e t e s t i m o n y it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e waters d i v e r t e d under t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t were, and t h e c o u r t found and so adjudged i n t h e former d e c r e e , t h e waters t h e r e b y a p p r o p r i a t e d , and had been and c o u l d c o n t i n u e t o be, used w i t h o u t t h e watershed o f Gold Creek. I n view of t h e s e f a c t s no i n j u r y c o u l d r e s u l t t o t h e s e p l a i n t i f f s from t h i s change of u s e , f o r t h e u s e b o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r was f o r t h e same purpose; t h e r e b e i n g no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r any o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o e n j o y any b e n e f i t s from p e r c o l a t i n g w a t e r s r e s u l t i n g from i r r i g a t i o n under t h i s r i g h t i n u r i n g t o them, a s t h e i r l a n d s are e i t h e r a l l w i t h i n t h e watershed of Gold Creek, o r , i f w i t h o u t , a t a h i g h e r l e v e l t h a n t h e l a n d s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Such i s t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e . P l a i n t i f f s could not f u r t h e r b e n e f i t from t h e w a t e r s d i v e r t e d t o t h e Three M i l e Creek d r a i n a g e under t h e o r i g i n a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n , s o t h e y a r e n o t burdened o r damaged i n any way from i r r i g a t i o n o f o t h e r l a n d s i n t h a t drainage. The n e x t i s s u e i s whether d e f e n d a n t had t h e r i g h t t o change t h e p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n of t h e S p r i n g Gulch waters. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e i s s e c t i o n 89-803, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : "The person e n t i t l e d t o t h e u s e o f water may change t h e p l a c e o f d i v e r s i o n , i f o t h e r s a r e n o t t h e r e b y i n j u r e d , and may e x t e n d t h e d i t c h , flume, p i p e , or a q u e d u c t , by which t h e d i v e r s i o n i s made, t o any p l a c e o t h e r t h a n where t h e f i r s t u s e was made, and may u s e t h e water f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s t h a n t h a t f o r which it was o r i g i n a l l y appropriated." The burden of proof o f i n j u r y as t h e r e s u l t o f a change i n t h e p o i n t of d i v e r s i o n i s upon t h o s e who a l l e g e i n j u r y , h e r e the plaintiffs. Inc., F o r r e s t e r v. Rock I s l a n d O i l & R e f i n i n g Co., 133 Mont, 333, 323 P.2d 597, and cases t h e r e i n c i t e d . Here, p l a i n t i f f s have no a d e q u a t e measuring d e v i c e s t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h any d e g r e e o f a c c u r a c y t h e amount o f water t h e y are r e c e i v i n g under t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s . I t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r them t o prove t h a t t h e y are b e i n g d e p r i v e d o f waters t o which t h e y a r e lawfully e n t i t l e d . The o n l y proof o f t h i s w a s i n r e g a r d t o t h e a c c r e t i o n s t o t h e S p r i n g Gulch w a t e r s below t h e p o i n t o f o r i g i n a l diversion. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t remedied t h i s by a t t a c h i n g a c o n d i t i o n t o i t s d e c r e e r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o i n s t a l l a measur- i n g d e v i c e a t t h e o r i g i n a l p o i n t o f d i v e r s i o n and d i v e r t no g r e a t e r amount o f water a t t h e changed d i v e r s i o n p o i n t on t h e w e s t bank of Ophir Creek. There i s a complete f a i l u r e o f proof on t h e p a r t o f p l a i n t i f f s of any o t h e r damage. F i n a l l y c a s t o t h e i s s u e s o f l a c h e s and e s t o p p e l , w e deem it unnecessary t o d i s c u s s t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h i s o p i n i o n ; n e i t h e r h a s been r a i s e d a s a n i s s u e upon a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f s , appellants here. I n view o f o u r h o l d i n g s h e r e i n d e f e n d a n t i s entitled to prevail irrespective of determination of these issues. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Associate Justice . Hsn Jack Shanstrom, District Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Justice Wesley Castles.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.