Establishment Org. of Ward Irriga ( 1985 )

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, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Jan. 1 0 , 1985
Decided: June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the
Court.
This i s an appeal 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 the Bray Lane Headgate in the Ward
Irrigation District, R a v a l l i County, 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 :
Hayes Creek and Camas Creek both +low easterly from
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. 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
Creek. 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 , and t o t h e e a s t ,
the Bitteroot River. A ditch used by t h e Ward Irrigation
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 , p i c k s up L o s t Horse
Creek water, runs by Hayes Creek, and continues until it
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 the ditch. In most years, this spillage does not
continue past the middle of July. Subsequent to its
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 follows
t h e n a t u r a l b e d o f Camas C r e e k . 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 family referred t o i n t h i s opinion consists
of: John Foss, Millo Huggans, Alice Foss, and other
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 , Sr. They own a r a n c h o f
approximately 500 acres in the Bitterroot Valley that
includes parts of sections 26, 34, and 35 of Township 5
North, Range 21 W e s t , M.P.M. About 130 a c r e s o f t h e Foss
ranch is included in the Ward Irrigation District. The
Fosses have decreed w a t e r r i g h t s f o r t h e i r land f r o m Hayes
C r e e k , Camas C r e e k , and t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r . The e x i s t e n c e
of these rights is not i n dispute. The F o s s ' land included
i n t h e Ward 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 through section 34 above its
confluence with t h e ditch. 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, as we11 as fourth Camas right, were
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 .
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
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
to be included in the said Ward
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 . Further,
the report of the State Engineer, required by law to
accompany any petition for establishment of 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 formation, the District has added several
parcels of land, 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, t h e F o s s e s h a v e conveyed Camas C r e e k and
Hayes Creek w a t e r 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 . O May 7 ,
n 1979, t h e
D i s t r i c t Court granted the District's r e q u e s t and i s s u e d a
temporary restraining order and order to show cause
prohibiting t h e Fosses from a n y f u r t h e r d i v e r s i o n s a t Bray
Lane. 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 . In
April 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 court
f o r a d j u s t i n g t h e headgate. 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, 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
Camas Creek rights existed prior to the formation of the
District; that the D i s t r i c t 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 issue is the right to control the Bray Lane
Headgate, an integral part of t h e District's system. 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 . Additionally, t h e District maintains
that control of the Bray Lane Headgate is necessary to
guarantee adequate water to its members and to prevent
r n i s d e l i v e r i e s and f l o o d i n g . Finally, the District points out
t h a t it h a s , 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 o n December 14, 1983. In addition t o
taking evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge p e r s o n a l l y viewed
the area. 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
the other. I t t a k e s a number o f h o u r s t o
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
appropriations of water from it,
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
permission of t h e District. No m e a s u r i n g
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
t o o p e r a t e it. N e i t h e r Sam F o s s n o r h i s
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
permission of t h e District. In order for
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 contains government survey
d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d maps o f the area t h a t a l l e g e d l y show t h a t
the District's ditch is actually Hayes Creek, until it
converges with Camas Creek, and after that point that it
follows the Camas Creek bed. Respondents object to
appellants' inclusion of 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
because they were not introduced as evidence before the
District Court. Appellants contend the use of the
descriptions and maps is proper under Rule 201 ( b ) ,
Mont. R . E v i d . because they present facts "not subject to
reasonable dispute." We w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e s e documents for
two r e a s o n s . First, 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 within its scope "published maps or charts1'
Commission Comments, Rule 201, Mont.R.Evid. Secondly, the
Montana Water Code specifically pro``ides hat
t in the
adjudication process, maps and descriptions are acceptable
a r t i c l e s of e v i d e n c e by which 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 a r e mindful, though, t h a t i n our consideration of
the d e s c r i p t i o n and maps, w e must a l s o g i v e weight t o t h e
District Court's findings, 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. 1983), 670 P.2d 85, 40 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 ... in trust for the performance of
their several functions,l1 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. For this reason, a
dI.:;I:r:i~:t court has the limited power, (subject to the
wi.-tkd'rawa provision
1 in section 85-7-107 (b), MCA) 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. (1928), 83 Mont. 282, 272 P.
Appellants contend that section 85-7-1922, MCA
prohi-bits the District from interfering with the Foss
family's control of the Bray Lane Headgate necessary to
utilize their Hayes and Camas Creek rights. Addressing the
powers and duties of 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
commissioners of a 11 irrigation
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. Section
85-7-1922, MCA, does two things: First, it gives an
irrigation district the exclusive right to regulate and
control its distribution system. 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.
See also, - Daly Ditch Case, supra; Koch v. Colvin (1940),
The
110 Mont. 594, 105 P.2d 334; Maclay v. Missoula Irr. Dist.
(1921), 90 Mont. 344, 3 P.2d 286.
The above discussion points out the two distinct
aspects of the district's functions: control 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 lands
included within the district. 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 have recognized this common-sense proposition
before. In - Daly Ditch Case, supra, we noted:
The
"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
t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s ... If the
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.
We r u l e t h a t t h e Ward 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
and has the exclusive right to control the Bray Lane
Headgate. We therefore affirm t h e District Court on that
point. 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
conditions. 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
t h a t is appurtenant t o lands outside t h e D i s t r i c t including
the Foss lands, in the same nature and amount that was
delivered prior t o August 10, 1938. In this regard, 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 a reasonable
accommodation between t h e two i n t e r e s t s . 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. Since the District Court did not make a
determination f o r t h e purpose of 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. The District has the obligation to deliver
that water. If any measuring device is required, it should
be the District's responsibility. This holding does not do
violence to section 85-7-1925, MCA. That statute only
applies to lands included within 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 generally discussed in the
context of issue number one. 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 . The
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. To
that extent, we affirm the District Court on this 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 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
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 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
order. 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
John 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 District Court i s affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and the case i s remanded for f u r t h e r proceedings in
accordance with t h i s opinion. Each p a r t y s h a l l b e a r i t s own
costs.
W e concur: 1
P
Justic
Justices