ESTABLISHMENT ORG OF WARD IRRIGA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-298 I N THF: SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1985 I N THE PP'IATTER O F THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION O F THE WARD IRRIGATION DISTRICT. A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. B o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F FECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : L o b l e & Pauly; L e s t e r L o b l e , 11, H e l e n a , Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : Recht & Greef; C h a r l e s R. Recht, Hamilton, S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Clerk Jan. Montana 1 0 , 1985 June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 M r . J u s t i c e L. Court. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d This i s an appeal t h e O p i n i o n of the f r o m a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 , R a v a l l i C o u n t y , a d j u d i c a t i n g the control over Irrigation District, the Bray Lane R a v a l l i County, Headgate in Montana. We affirm i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , a n d remand. The f o l l o w i n g i s a map o f t h e a r e a : the Ward Hayes Creek and Camas Creek +low easterly both t h e i r o r i g i n s i n t h e B i t t e r o o t Mountains. from Hayes C r e e k e n d s i n a m a r s h y a r e a t o t h e w e s t o f Highway 9 3 a n d s o u t h o f Camas To t h e s o u t h i s L o s t H o r s e C r e e k , Creek. the Bitteroot River. A ditch used by t h e Ward D i s t r i c t r u n s from t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r , Creek water, runs by Hayes Creek, and t o t h e e a s t , Irrigation p i c k s up L o s t Horse and continues it until j o i n s Camas C r e e k . D u r i n g h i g h w a t e r , Hayes Creek s p i l l s o u t into In the continue ditch. past the most years, middle of this July. spillage does not to its Subsequent c o n f l u e n c e w i t h Camas C r e e k , t h e combined c r e e k - d i t c h t h e n a t u r a l b e d o f Camas C r e e k . follows A s w i t h Hayes C r e e k , Camas Creek g e n e r a l l y o n l y c o n t r i b u t e s w a t e r t o t h e d i t c h d u r i n g high water. The d i t c h t h e n r u n s p a s t t h e B r a y Lane H e a d g a t e . The F o s s of: John family referred Foss, Millo t o i n t h i s opinion Huggans, Alice s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o Sam F o s s , 500 approximately includes North, ranch parts Range is of acres sections 21 W e s t , included in in the 26, M.P.M. the Sr. 34, and 35 of Irrigation i n t h e Ward of other land The F o s s ' that Township 5 t h e Foss District. and t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r . these rights is not i n dispute. Valley 130 a c r e s o f Fosses have decreed w a t e r r i g h t s f o r t h e i r C r e e k , Camas C r e e k , and They own a r a n c h o f Bitterroot About Ward Foss, consists The f r o m Hayes The e x i s t e n c e land included I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t h a s w a t e r r i g h t s from Camas Creek and t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r . The p a r t o f t h e r a n c h n o t i n t h e d i s t r i c t has water r i g h t s f r o m Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s . Camas Creek flows confluence with t h e ditch. through section 34 above its H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e Fosses diverted t h e i r f i r s t t h r e e Camas r i g h t s t h e r e . Hayes C r e e k f l o w s i n a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n s o u t h o f t h e F o s s r a n c h , a n d t h e Hayes Creek water rights, we11 as as fourth Camas right, were The Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was formed i n 1 9 3 8 . The h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d a t t h e Bray Lane H e a d g a t e . District's p e t i t i o n f o r formation s t a t e d a s i t s purpose t h a t : ". . . t h e l a n d s above d e s c r i b e d , [ t h o s e included i n t h e District, including, a t t h e t i m e 3 6 a c r e s owned by Sam F o s s ] and in the said Ward to be included I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , a r e t o be i r r i g a t e d from the water furnished from the B i t t e r o o t R i v e r and 1000 i n c h e s o f w a t e r o f L o s t H o r s e C r e e k , and conveyed from the said r i v e r by and through t h a t c e r t a i n d i t c h known a s t h e 'Ward D i t c h ' ... 11 Sam F o s s was t h e f i r s t s i g n a t o r o f t h i s p e t i t i o n . the report accompany of the any State petition Engineer, for required establishment Further, by of law to irrigation districts, stated that: ". . . the present proposal is the f o r m a t i o n o f an I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t o n l y t o t a k e o v e r and o p e r a t e t h e e x i s t i n g main canal and structures for the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and d e l i v e r y o f w a t e r t o which t h e l a n d s c o m p r i s i n g t h e d i s t r i c t are entitled under individual water rights severally established " ... Following its parcels of land, formation, the District has added several i n c l u d i n g some F o s s a c r e a g e , t o t h e s e r v i c e a r e a o f t h e Ward D i t c h . Historically, Hayes Creek w a t e r t h e F o s s e s h a v e conveyed Camas C r e e k and t h r o u g h t h e Ward D i t c h and the D i s t r i c t d e l i v e r e d water t o Foss land o u t s i d e t h e d i s t r i c t through t h e Bray Lane H e a d g a t e . T h i s p r a c t i c e ended i n 1979 when t h e D i s t r i c t requested t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o p r o h i b i t t h e Fosses from a d j u s t i n g t h e Bray Lane H e a d g a t e . D i s t r i c t Court granted temporary prohibiting restraining t h e Fosses the District's order and O May 7 , n 1979, t h e r e q u e s t and i s s u e d a order to show from a n y f u r t h e r d i v e r s i o n s cause a t Bray Lane. April The t e m p o r a r y o r d e r w a s c o n t i n u e d f o r f o u r y e a r s . of 1 9 8 3 , M i l l o Huggans was h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f f o r a d j u s t i n g t h e headgate. In court John F o s s was h e l d i n c o n t e m p t on t h e same b a s i s i n A u g u s t o f 1 9 8 4 . In t h i s action, Camas Creek District; rights t h e F o s s e s c l a i m t h a t t h e i r Hayes a n d existed to prior that the D i s t r i c t the formation of the i s f i r s t u s i n g Hayes C r e e k a n d t h e n Camas C r e e k a s i t s d i t c h ; and t h a t p u r s u a n t t o g e n e r a l w a t e r l a w p r i n c i p l e s a n d s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA, they should b e a l l o w e d t o d i v e r t t h e i r w a t e r s a t t h e B r a y Lane H e a d g a t e . R e s p o n d e n t s , t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , c o n t e n d t h a t the sole Headgate, issue an is the integral right part of to control the Lane system. t h e District's Bray The D i s t r i c t c l a i m s t h a t t h e F o s s e s have n e v e r u s e d t h e Bray Lane Headgate a s an e x c l u s i v e p o i n t o f diversion, and t h a t t h e y have aquiesced c o n t r o l o f a l l headgates t o t h e D i s t r i c t f o r more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s . that control guarantee of the adequate Additionally, t h e District maintains Bray water r n i s d e l i v e r i e s and f l o o d i n g . t h a t it h a s , Lane to its Headgate members is necessary and to to prevent Finally, the District points out and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o d e l i v e r t o t h e F o s s e s as much w a t e r a t t h e h e a d g a t e a s t h e y n e e d . T r i a l was h e l d taking evidence, the area. o n December 14, 1983. t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge In addition t o p e r s o n a l l y viewed On A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 8 4 , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . B e c a u s e of t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e c a s e , a n d b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s p u t t h e f i n d i n g s a t i s s u e , w e q u o t e them a t length: " 2 . The D i s t r i c t owns a n i r r i g a t i o n c a n a l w h i c h commences a t t h e B i t t e r r o o t R i v e r i n S e c t i o n 1 4 , T4N, R21W, M . P . M . , picks u p L o s t H o r s e C r e e k w a t e r and t h e n f l o w s i n a n o r t h e r l y a n d sometimes w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n f o r a b o u t 3+ m i l e s ... " 6 . The o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t a r e such t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t must have c o n t r o l o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of water throughout t h e system and p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e Rray headgate. I f t h e D i s t r i c t d o e s n o t have control o f t h e e n t i r e system, t h e r e s u l t w i l l be misdelivery of water including s h o r t a g e s i n some p l a c e s a n d f l o o d s i n I t t a k e s a number o f h o u r s t o the other. adjust delivery a t the various points in t h e d i t c h which r e q u i r e s p r e p l a n n i n g i n operation. " 7 . Camas Creek has several it, appropriations of water from i n c l u d i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s owned b y Sam Foss's successors. It u s u a l l y d r i e s up by t h e middle o f j u l y [ s i c ] o f each y e a r i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e creek immediately above t h e p l a c e where t h e D i s t r i c t ' s d i t c h f l o w s i n t o t h e bed o f Camas C r e e k . From t h a t p o i n t , t h e D i s t r i c t u t i l i z e s t h e c r e e k bed a s i t s main d i t c h f o r a short distance. During t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n n o w a t e r f r o m Camas C r e e k r u n s i n t o o r combines w i t h w a t e r i n the District d i s t r i b u t i o n system. Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s h a v e n o w a t e r w h i c h would i n a n y way r u n i n t o t h e D i s t r i c t ' s s y s t e m . They h a v e a s y s t e m h i g h e r u p Camas C r e e k f o r d i v e r s i o n o f t h e i r Camas C r e e k w a t e r . " 8 . Hayes C r e e k i s l o c a t e d S o u t h and W e s t o f Camas C r e e k . Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s claim t h e r i g h t t o use t h e District's c a n a l t o c o n v e y Camas C r e e k [ s i c ] [Hayes Creek?] w a t e r t o t h e i r l a n d s , which i s t h e only p r a c t i c a l route. In t h e past, this route has been used with the No m e a s u r i n g permission of t h e District. d e v i c e h a s ever b e e n i n s t a l l e d t o measure Hayes C r e e k w a t e r i n o r o u t o f t h e District's canal P a s t r e c o r d s do show t h e D i s t r i c t i n a b s o l u t e c o n t r o l o f t h e system a t a l l t i m e s s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1950's. ... "9. I t is the common practice for i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e D i s t r i c t t o build their own headga tes for d i s t r i b u t i n g water from the D i s t r i c t ditches t o t h e i r lands. A f t e r such construction, the District assumes c o n t r o l o f t h e headgate and h a s a u t h o r i t y N e i t h e r Sam F o s s n o r h i s t o o p e r a t e it. successors have any right to water flowing into or controlled by the i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t except a s District members o r e x c e p t b y p e r m i s s i v e u s e [ s i c ] of the District. "Now, therefore, the Court concludes: " 2 . Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s d o n o t h a v e a u t h o r i t y by e i t h e r g r a n t , a d v e r s e u s e o r c o n t r a c t t o c o n v e y Camas C r e e k o r Hayes Creek w a t e r s through t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m of t h e D i s t r i c t . " 3 . I n t h e p a s t , Sam F o s s a n d Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s h a v e f l o w e d Hayes C r e e k w a t e r through the District's canal with In order for permission of t h e District. them t o d o s o i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e y m u s t " obtain permission of t h e District ... The a p p e l l a n t s r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : (1) T h a t s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA p r o h i b i t s t h e D i s t r i c t from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e F o s s f a m i l y ' s u s e o f t h e Bray Lane Headgates; ( 2 ) T h a t t h e c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s does not a f f e c t t h e Foss family's r i g h t s ; ( 3 ) That t h e District's system u s e s t h e n a t u r a l beds o f Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s , and t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f u s e r s o f t h e n a t u r a l f l o w a r e p r i m a r y a n d s u p e r i o r t o t h e c o n v e n i e n c e and management o f t h e d i t c h s y s t e m ; ( 4 ) T h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e F o s s e s do n o t have w a t e r r i g h t s a t t h e Bray Lane Headgate are not supported by the evidence; and that ( 5 ) The i n j u c t i o n p r e s e n t l y i n f o r c e i s u n l a w f u l . Appellants' brief d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d maps o f the District's converges with ditch Camas is contains the area and survey t h a t a l l e g e d l y show t h a t actually Creek, government Hayes after Creek, that point until it that it follows the appellants' because Camas inclusion of were they District Creek descriptions Mont. R . E v i d . reasonable is maps because they dispute." two r e a s o n s . introduced Appellants and We First, Respondents object to t h e s e s u r v e y d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d maps not Court. bed. as evidence contend proper present the under facts before use of the 201 ( b ) , Rule "not the subject w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e s e documents to for t h e Comment t o R u l e 2 0 1 p r o v i d e s t h a t " j u d i c i a l n o t i c e can be t a k e n a t any s t a g e o f t h e proceeding, and includes Commission Montana its Comments, Water adjudication a r t i c l e s of scope "published Rule within 201, Mont.R.Evid. Code specifically process, maps and e v i d e n c e by which maps or charts1' Secondly, pro~~ides hat t descriptions are the in the acceptable t o show a w a t e r r i g h t . See s e c t i o n 85-2-224 ( 2 ) , MCA. We the a r e mindful, d e s c r i p t i o n and District Court's though, maps, findings, t h a t i n our consideration of w e must a l s o g i v e weight t o t h e particularly since the judge p h y s i c a l l y viewed t h e a r e a . I n Grimsley v. E s t a t e of Spencer (Mont. 40 1983), 670 P.2d 85, St.Rep. 1585, we s t a t e d t h e standard o f review i n an equity case such a s t h i s : " I n e x a m i n i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s Decree, we a r e e n t i t l e d t o review a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a r i s i n g upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , and d e t e r m i n e t h e same, a s w e l l a s q u e s t i o n s o f law. In s o doing, however, w e have always i n d u l g e d c e r t a i n presumptions in favor of the trial court's determination. We do not s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; r a t h e r , we d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r there is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e lower c o u r t ' s findings. " 670 P.2d a t 9 4 , 40 S t . R e p . a t 1 5 9 5 . .. .. See a l s o 7 9 Ranch, I n c . v . P i t s c h (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 666 P.2d 215, Moving to the substantive issue, as the late Professor Wells A. Hutchins, in his treatise Water Rights - -in the Laws Nineteen Western States (1971) notes r "The purpose of an irrigation organization is to provide water for the use of agricultural lands that cannot be irrigated by individual means as convenient]y or economically as by a group enterprise, if at a1 1 " Hutchins, supra at 550, 551. ... But, a district cannot be formed unless its members are willing to part with some of their rights, particularly the right to control the distribution system. Generally, what occurs is that by authority of the Order establishing an irrigation district, the rights to claim and use water under water rights appurtenant to lands included within a district are conveyed thereto. The rights that the district received by authority of the court Order, or other rights subsequently developed, "are held ... their several functions,l1 in trust for the performance of Hutchins, supra at 551; see also 45 Am.Jur.2dI Irrigation, S 6 2 ; but: .. ". even if the holders do convey their water rights to the company for the mere purpose of convenient management and distribution of the water to users according to their respective rights, there is no severance of the right from the land to which it was appurtenant." Hutchins, supra at 552. The most important function of an irrigation district is the control., to the mutual advantage of a l l the members, of the irrigation system. Indeed, though water rights remain with the private appropriator, the prerogative of control must lie exclusively with the district. dI.:;I:r:i~:t court has wi.-tkd'rawa provision 1 the in limited section power, For this reason, a (subject to 85-7-107 (b), MCA) the when considering a petition for the formation of an irrigation district, to include or exclude lands depending on whether such lands and their appurtenant water rights are essential to the efficacy of the proposed district, see 85-7-107, MCA; In Re Pet for Org. & Est. of an Irr. Dist. (Mont. 1984), 680 P.2d 944, 41 St.Rep. 658, (The Daly Ditch Case) ; Scilley v. Red Lodge-Rosebud Irr. Dist. Appellants prohi-bits the contend District (1928), 83 Mont. 282, 272 P. that from family's control of the Bray section interfering Lane 85-7-1922, with Headgate utilize their Hayes and Camas Creek rights. powers and duties of the MCA Foss necessary to Addressing the irrigation districts, that section states: "Regulation, supervision, apportionment, and control of water distribution. In addition to all other powers granted them by the laws of Montana, boards of irrigation commissioners of a 11 districts, now or hereafter organized under any law of this state, shall have the power and authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control the furnishing and delivery of water through the distribution system of the district. Such authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control shall not apply to users who have water rights or ditch rights, established, acquired by court decree, use, appropriation or otherwise, at the time or prior to the organization of such district, without regard to whether said distribution system or any portion thereof belongs to the district or to the owner of lands served by said district." This provision was enacted in 1935 as a general amendment to the Water Use Act, see Sec. 2, Ch. 63, L. 1935. It was meant to cover situations where an irrigation district is formed and begins the distribution of water and its system overlays existing streams, ditches, and headgates. 85-7-1922, MCA, does two things: First, it Section gives an irrigation district the exclusive control its distribution system. right to regulate and Second, it prohibits a district from controlling its distribution system in a manner that detrimentally affects other water rights over which the district has no control. As such, it is a restatement of the common law rule that: "An irrigation district acquiring a system which has theretofore furnished water to settlers outside of the district, who had a vested right thereto, is compelled to continue to deliver such water." Yaden v. Gem. Irr. Dist. (Id. 1923), 216 P. 250, 252. The See also, - Daly Ditch Case, supra; Koch v. Colvin (1940), 110 Mont. 594, 105 P.2d 334; Maclay v. Missoula Irr. Dist. (1921), 90 Mont. 344, 3 P.2d 286. The aspects above of discussion the points district's out functions: the two control distinct of the irrigation system, and delivery of water to where it is due. Here, the District Court in the 1938 Order establishing the Ward Irrigation District, granted the District exclusive control over the described distribution system--including the Bray Lane Headgate. The same order also effected a transfer of control of the water rights appurtenant to the included within the district. lands It did not affect those water rights appurtenant to lands not included in the district but nonetheless served by the same system. As to those, the District did, and still does, have a continuing obligation to deliver that water in the amount and nature of the use existing before the District was formed. We before. have recognized this common-sense proposition The In - Daly Ditch Case, supra, we noted: "There does appear then to be an obligation, the exact nature of which we do not here attempt to determine, on the p a r t o f t h e newly-organized Daly D i t c h e s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , i f it i n t e n d s t o u s e t h e p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n and r i g h t s o f appropriation appurtenant t o t h e lands of Skalkaho Creek exchange u s e r s f o r t h e u s e and b e n e f i t o f o t h e r l a n d o w n e r s , t o provide s u b s t i t u t e water i n exchange t o If the t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s exchange w a t e r u s e r s j o i n t h e d i s t r i c t , t h e y w i l l r e c e i v e a c r e d i t on t h e i r assessment t o b e determined a t a l a t e r time. I f t h e y d o n o t j o i n , t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s h a v e l e f t t o them a l l l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e remedies i f water i s n o t d e l i v e r e d t o them." 680 P.2d a t 9 4 8 , 949, 4 1 St.Rep. a t 663, 664. ... and I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was g r a n t e d r u l e t h a t t h e Ward We has the Headgate. exclusive right therefore affirm t h e District We to control the Bray Court on Lane that This r i g h t t o c o n t r o l , though, i s s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n point. The D i s t r i c t m u s t d e l i v e r t h e amount o f w a t e r conditions. t h a t is appurtenant t o lands outside t h e D i s t r i c t including the Foss delivered lands, prior in the same t o August 10, nature and 1938. In amount was regard, this that the D i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e Bray Lane Headgate i s s u b j e c t to the District Court's e q u i t y power t o work accommodation between t h e two i n t e r e s t s . a reasonable Further, t h e Fosses h a v e t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f b o t h l e g a l and e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t d e l i v e r s t h e w a t e r t o which t h e y a r e entitled. determination Since the District f o r t h e purpose of Court did not make a t h i s a c t i o n o f what w a t e r r i g h t s a r e a p p u r t e n a n t t o what l a n d s , and i n t h a t r e g a r d t h e c o n t r o l o f which o n e s t h a t w e r e conveyed t o t h e D i s t r i c t , and which w e r e n o t , we remand t h i s c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent with t h i s opinion. W e n o t e though, t h a t t h e Foss' f i r s t t h r e e Camas C r e e k r i g h t s w e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d a b o v e w h e r e Camas C r e e k a n d t h e Ward D i t c h c o n v e r g e . T h e s e a r e s t i l l a v a i l a b l e t o them at their original point of diversion. See Galiyer v. McNulty (1927), 80 Mont. 339, 260 P. 401; Smith v. Duff (1909), 39 Mont. 382, 102 P. 984. Since the District Court, in Finding number 7, found that the District uses Camas Creek as its ditch subsequent to where it and the ditch meet, the Fosses are not precluded from applying for a change in the place of diversion or use pursuant to section 85-2-402, MCA. We overrule the District Court's Conclusions number 2 and 3, the portion of Finding number 9 inconsistent with this opinion. and those parts of the Order dependent thereon. The Fosses may if they choose, convey their Camas and Hayes Creek water rights in the same manner and amount established prior to 1938. that water. The District has the obligation to deliver If any measuring device is required, it should be the District's responsibility. violence applies to to section lands This holding does not do 85-7-1925, MCA. included within That statute only irrigation districts. Further, if it appears now that the ditch is too small to service District and other private water rights, and a larger one is needed, the Fosses should not be required to bear any burden of expansion. They were there first, and are entitled to exercise all of the property rights that they have not surrendered, or have had taken by court order. As to appellant's issues number two and three; since we reverse the District Court's conclusions numbers 2 and 3, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith, we do not address them at this time. Issue number four was context of issue number one. generally discussed in the Appellants have the right to have delivered to them by the District the waters allowed them for water rights not within the District, and for water t o which t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d a s members o f t h e D i s t r i c t . D i s t r i c t h a s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e Bray Lane Headgate. that extent, we affirm the District Court on this The To issue. F i n a l l y , a s t o i s s u e number f i v e , o t h e r t h a n a f f i r m i n g the D i s t r i c t Court's moot. John F o s s h a s b e e n c i t e d f o r c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g the provisions of order. John o r d e r , w e f i n d it a t t h i s p o i n t t o be t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s temporary r e s t a i n i n g The i s s u e o f t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n on which Foss was found in contempt is presently before t h i s Court i n a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n . The part, District and the case Court i s affirmed i s remanded accordance with t h i s opinion. for in part, reversed in f u r t h e r proceedings in Each p a r t y s h a l l b e a r i t s own costs. P Justic W e concur: Justices 1

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.