McIntosh v. Graveley ( 1972 )

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 Z 3 1972.
Filed:
MP,R 2 3 BT?
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 * * * f o r d o m e s t i c and o t h e r u s e f u l
and b e n e f i c i a l purposes". 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
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 11
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 Com-
pany, 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, defend-
a 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 defend-
a 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 plain-
tiffs' 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 testimon-
ial evidence tending to prove that McGilvray did not own any
land in the Three Mile Creek drainage as of the date of the ap-
propriation, 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 appro-
priation 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 water-
shed 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 lang-
uage 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 appro-
p 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 . The e v i d e n c e
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 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 defend-
a 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 concern-
i 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 sup-
p 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 ap-
p 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 de-
s 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 & Wilson, 9 5 Mont.
273, 277, 26 P.2d 370. 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. 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.,
Inc., 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.