SUNSET IRRIGATION DIST v AILPORT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12622 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1974 SUNSET IRRIGATION P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, THEODORE AILPORT, e t a 1. , Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . VERNON WOOLSEY; I D A B. TERRY, f o r m e r l y I D A B. CRONIN; DAN W. CRONIN, J R . ; D N L F PARK; J O H N POPE ; J H. MYERS ; O AD J O E EBERHARDT, t h e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o GEORGE M. CAREY; ROBERT LEWIS, t h e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o EVA McCORMICK; and A A L N VAN DUSEN, R OG . . Appealing Defendants. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t S. K e l l e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : L o b l e , P i c o t t e , L o b l e , P a u l y and S t e r n h a g e n , Helena, Montana L e s t e r H . L o b l e , I1 a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Murray and H o l t , M i s s o u l a , Montana R o b e r t Brown, S t e v e n s v i l l e , Montana F o r Respondent : Boone, K a r l b e r g and Haddon, M i s s o u l a , Montana W i l l i a m T. Boone a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana Koch and McKenna, Hamilton, Mont2na Thomas P. Koch a p p e a r e d , Hamilton, Montana September 10, 1974 Submitted: Filed: fin: ,U 5 ;-., k . 1 -- Decided : :* ;,' ' i 1 Clerk - :Y7$ Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley Castles d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e f o u r t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n R a v a l l i County, t h e Honorable R o b e r t S. K e l l e r , p r e s i d i n g a f t e r t h e d e a t h of t h e l a t e P h i l l i p Duncan who t o o k t h e t e s t i m o n y . The c o u r t found i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f and g r a n t e d i t an a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f w a t e r . The c o u r t found a g a i n s t c r o s s - c l a i m a n t s and c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t s and d e n i e d them r e l i e f . P l a i n t i f f i s Sunset I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , a n i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t o r g a n i z e d under s t a t u t e . P l a i n t i f f brought t h e a c t i o n t o a p p r o p r i a t e a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r s o f Burnt Fork Creek by e n l a r g e ment of t h e d i s t r i c t ' s e x i s t i n g dam on B u r n t Fork Lake, s i t u a t e d a t t h e head o f Burnt F o r k Creek, i n a mountain b a s i n i n v o l v i n g a b o u t one s q u a r e m i l e o f t h e d r a i n a g e a r e a o f t h e c r e e k which d r a i n s 74 s q u a r e m i l e s . The enlargement o f t h e dam would i n c r e a s e t h e s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y o f t h e l a k e from 386 a c r e f e e t t o 953 a c r e f e e Burnt Fork Creek i s a n a d j u d i c a t e d s t r e a m . ~ e f e n d ' a n t sr e s i s t e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n . C e r t a i n of t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a c r o s s - c l a i m and c o u n t e r - c l a i m u n d e r s e c t i o n 89-1015, R.C.M. 1947, t o r e q u i r e w a t e r u s e r s on a n a d j u d i c a t e d s t r e a m t o u s e w a t e r a c c o r d i n g t o d e c r e e and t o r e q u i r e t h e w a t e r commissioner t o d i s t r i b u t e and measure t h e w a t e r i n a c c o r d a n c e with the decree. The i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w a r e two i n number, ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n g r a n t i n g S u n s e t a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 953 a c r e f e e t of w a t e r t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r i g h t t o impound i t ; and ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n denying r e l i e f t o t h e c r o s s -2- c l a i m a n t s and c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t s . B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g t h e i s s u e s , we s h a l l comment b r i e f l y on t h e s i t u a t i o n posed by t h e d e a t h o f t h e t r i a l judge who heard t h e evidence. A s t i p u l a t i o n was e n t e r e d i n t o which waived a new t r i a l , approved Judge K e l l e r ' s a s s u m p t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n and a view o f t h e a r e a , and s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e u s u a l presumptions o f c o r r e c t n e s s o f Judge K e l l e r ' s f i n d i n g s b a s e d on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e would n o t a p p l y . Thus, we e x - amine t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d a s i f we were t r i a l j u d g e s . By t h i s we do n o t mean t h a t we w i l l s e p a r a t e l y and i n d e t a i l f i n d f a c t s ; b u t t h a t we w i l l examine t h e r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e ultimate facts. Judge K e l l e r viewed t h e e n t i r e w a t e r d r a i n a g e . We w i l l o n l y view t h e e x h i b i t s . (For a comparison o f a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , s e e Worden v . A l e x a n d e r , e t a l . , 108 Mont. 208, 90 P.2d 160.) F u r t h e r , t h e i s s u e s a r e approached d i f f e r e n t l y i n a p p e l l a n t s ' b r i e f from t h a t of r e s p o n d e n t ' s b r i e f . Appellants a s - s e r t t h a t s u n s e t ' s a c t i o n t o a p p r o p r i a t e w a t e r s o f Burnt F o r k Creek i s by enlargement of i t s p r e s e n t l y u n l a w f u l dam. Much o f t h e t h r u s t o f a p p e l l a n t s 1 argument i s based on t h e r e p e a t e d a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p r e s e n t e x i s t i n g dam i s u n l a w f u l . So, we w i l l review t h e h i s t o r y of S u n s e t ' s s t o r a g e . B u r n t Fork was a d j u d i c a t e d i n Cowell v . J u l i a n , R a v a l l i County Cause No. 556, d e c r e e d a t e d A p r i l 1 9 , 1905. I n 1907, t h e r e c o r d shows a dam f o r s t o r a g e w i t h a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f w a t e r which came down by conveyances o f r e c o r d ( a l b e i t p e r h a p s n o t p e r f e c t and e x c l u s i v e t i t l e ) t o S u n s e t . -3- It i s c l e a r t h a t S u n s e t h a s a s s e r t e d and s u r v i v e d a l l r i g h t s o f ownership. I n 1929 t h e dam was e n l a r g e d t o i t s p r e s e n t s i z e , a b o u t 400 f e e t l o n g and 1 8 f e e t h i g h w i t h a b o u t 35 a c r e s o f area i n the lake. The dam c a p t u r e s and s t o r e s w a t e r from a drainage a r e a of about one square mile. From November 1 t o May, f l o o d and s u r p l u s w a t e r s from s p r i n g s , m e l t i n g snows and r a i n s t h a t would o t h e r w i s e go t o w a s t e a r e s t o r e d . The dam was c o n s t r u c t e d and o p e r a t e d u n d e r a p e r m i t o f t h e U.S. Forest Service. The s t o r e d w a t e r i s r e l e a s e d a b o u t J u l y 1 5 and cond u c t e d by means o f t h e c r e e k c h a n n e l t o two d i t c h e s which t h e n convey t h e w a t e r t o S u n s e t l a n d s . The f o r e g o i n g b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e dam was n o t , a s a p p e l l a n t s keep r e p e a t i n g , a n i l l e g a l dam i n any s e n s e o f t h e word. I t would unduly l e n g t h e n t h i s o p i n i o n t o a n a l y z e t h e testimony of each witness. However, Judge K e l l e r i n a memo a t t a c h e d t o h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s h a s s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d h i s r a t i o n a l e a s follows : There i s no q u e s t i o n b u t what w a t e r i s g o i n g t o waste, both during t h e n o n - i r r i g a t i o n time of t h e y e a r , and a t t h e h i g h w a t e r p e r i o d . ~ e f e n d a n t s 'conc e r n i s p r e d i c a t e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e need f o r k e e p i n g a n underground r e s e r v o i r f i l l e d , which i s done w i t h r u n - o f f w a t e r , and w i t h t h o r o u g h l y f l o o d i n g t h e c r o p lands a t t h e period of highwater, s o t h a t t h e i r d e c r e e d r i g h t s w i l l m a i n t a i n t h e growth o f c r o p s f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e growing s e a s o n . "MEMO: "The amount o f w a t e r s t o r e d from October 1 u n t i l May 1, o r t h e need f o r t h a t w a t e r , i s n o t s e r i o u s l y contended by any o f t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e d e f e n s e . A p a r t from t h e f a c t t h a t no one h a s had i t f o r o v e r f o r t y y e a r s , t h e amount i n v o l v e d i s i n f i n i t e s i m a l compared t o t h e r e s t of t h e d r a i n a g e of Burnt Fork Creek, and t h i s C o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h a t i s t r u l y water going t o waste. A s t o t h e use of water d u r i n g normal r u n - o f f t i m e by a l l of t h e u s e r s , t h e t e s t i m o n y made i t c l e a r t h a t everybody used a l l t h e w a t e r h e c o u l d g e t , two t o t h r e e t i m e s t h e d e c r e e r i g h t s , and t h e r e was s t i l l w a t e r r u n n i n g down t h e c r e e k , i . e . , a l l o f t h e w a t e r a t normal r u n - o f f t i m e c a n n o t be p u t t o a b e n e f i c i a l u s e , c a n n o t even be u s e d . Now t h e normal r u n - o f f w a t e r s h o u l d b e coming from lower e l e v a t i o n s t h a n B u r n t F o r k Lake, and a g a i n , t h e amount t h a t would b e impounded i n t h e proposed dam would be l e s s t h a n 5% o f t h e r u n - o f f w a t e r s , i . e . , t h e defendants w i l l not s u f f e r detriment. "The f a c t t h a t s o many of t h e u s e r s , i n c l u d i n g many o f t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e d e f e n s e , urged t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a dam a t t h e mouth o f Gold Creek makes i t c l e a r t h a t a v a s t number of t h e u s e r s , i f n o t a l l o f them, b e l i e v e d t h e r e i s n o t o n l y w a t e r g o i n g t o w a s t e , b u t t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d be a n impoundment of t h e s e w a t e r s . "The c o n c e r n o f P r o f e s s o r Bowman t h a t t h e new dam w i l l s t o p t h e s p r i n g s from f l o w i n g i n t h e Burnt Fork Lake b a s i n o m i t t e d s o m e t h i r g i n t h e t e l l i n g . H e viewed t h e Lake, and t o o k t h e p i c t u r e s o f t h e Lake, i n September, i . e . , when t h e h e a d g a t e s were open, and t h e Lake was down a s f a r a s i t c o u l d go. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of t h e s e s p r i n g s were j u s t above t h e l e v e l o f t h e Lake when h e viewed i t i n September o f 1968, i . e . , a l l of t h o s e s p r i n g s would b e s h u t down by t h e w e i g h t o f t h e w a t e r w i t h t h e p r e s e n t dam, s i n c e 2 t o 7 f e e t o f w a t e r would be s u f f i c i e n t t o do t h i s . The e f f e c t o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n i n t h e p a s t , i t h i s t e s t i mony i s c o r r e c t , i s t o p r o v i d e a n a d d i t i o n a l a q u i f e r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e d e c r e e d u s e r s . The Lake w a t e r s were impounded a t a t i m e when t h e y do n o t need t h e w a t e r , and t h i s i s when t h e s p r i n g s a r e s h u t o f f , i . e . , when t h e y do n o t need t h e w a t e r . When t h e dam i s l e t o u t , t h e p l a i n t i f f s g e t o n l y t h e amount o f w a t e r t h a t i s i m pounded i n t h e dam, w i t h a l l e x c e s s w a t e r g o i n g on down t h e c r e e k . A s t h e w a t e r s a r e l e t o u t o f t h e dam, t h e s e s p r i n g s a r e r e l e a s e d , which a l s o r e l e a s e s t h e w a t e r s i m pounded by t h e s h u t t i n g o f f o f t h e s p r i n g s . T h i s i s w a t e r t h a t g o e s on down t h e c r e e k , f o r i t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o m p u t a t i o n o f w a t e r impounded by t h e S u n s e t I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . I f P r o f e s s o r owm man's t e s t i m o n y i s c o r r e c t , t h e same c o n d i t i o n w i l l c o n t i n u e i n t h e f u t u r e , o n l y more s p r i n g s w i l l b e s t o p p e d , g i v i n g a g r e a t e r benef i t t o t h e decreed u s e r s . h he c o n c e r n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h i s w a t e r i s g o i n g o u t of t h e d r a i n a g e d i s t r i c t i s n o t a v a l i d c o n c e r n . It i s w a t e r g o i n g t o w a s t e , which would o t h e r w i s e be f l o w i n g i n t o t h e B i t t e r r o o t R i v e r , of no more u s e t o t h e d e c r e e d u s e r s t h a n i f i t g o e s up on t h e S u n s e t Bench. "The new dam s h o u l d b e a b e n e f i t t o a l l p a r t i e s . H e r e t o f o r e , t h e normal flow i n May, b e f o r e t h e dam f i l l s , was w i t h h e l d from t h e c r e e k , and a t t i m e s , t h i s flow c o u l d have been u t i l i z e d by t h e d e c r e e d u s e r s who needed t o i r r i g a t e i n May. The new dam w i l l have t h e k i n d o f c o n t r o l s i n i t t h a t w i l l p e r m i t t h i s f l o w t o be r e l e a s e d , and a t t h e same t i m e g i v e a g r e a t e r impoundment of r u n - o f f w a t e r s . The Court was n o t t o o impressed w i t h t h e arguments c o n c e r n i n g a d v e r s e u s e , b u t i n a Court o f E q u i t y , i t ' s e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u t t o overlook laches. II What t h e t r i a l c o u r t found, and a s we f i n d from t h e record, i s t h a t : no i n j u r y was shown t o p r i o r a p p r o p r i a t o r s ; t h e r e was s u r p l u s w a t e r t o be a p p r o p r i a t e d i n t h e manner proposed; t h e s t o r a g e proposed n o t o n l y would n o t i n j u r e o t h e r u s e r s b u t a c t u a l l y b e n e f i t them; t h a t t h e proposed dam c o u l d b e o p e r a t e d s o a s n o t t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h o t h e r s ; and t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s were g u i l t y of laches. O t h e r m a t t e r s such a s a d v e r s e u s e and p r e s c r i p - t i v e r i g h t s were n o t r e a l l y a n i s s u e and need n o t be d e t e r m i n e d . W have examined t h e r e c o r d , e x h i b i t s , and f i n d a s t h e e d i s t r i c t court did. Thus, a s t o t h e i s s u e s p r e v i o u s l y s e t f o r t h , t h e Court was c o r r e c t i n g r a n t i n g a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n of w a t e r w i t h t h e r i g h t t o impound i t , s u b j e c t t o c o n d i t i o n s ; and was a l s o c o r r e c t i n denying r e l i e f t o t h e c r o s s - c l a i m a n t s and c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . -- W e concur: * > . - $- . , ------&L ,,--,&, -.--, - &-~-&-Qikd!~ tice - ,-------'d-kkk---.+-l.- Chief J u s t i c e s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison. ------

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.