Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Ben Hog , 383 Mont. 523 ( 2016 )

06/14/2016
DA 15-0576
Case Number: DA 15-0576
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 145ELDORADO COOP CANAL COMPANY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BEN HOGE, in his capacity as current
Water Commissioner for the Perry v. Beattie Decree,
Cause No. 371, Montana Ninth Judicial District Court,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Teton, Cause No. DV 15-037
Honorable Robert G. Olson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
John E. Bloomquist, Bloomquist Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana
(for Eldorado Coop Canal Co.)
For Appellee:
Stephen R. Brown, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula,
Montana (for Lower Teton Joint Objectors)
Submitted on Briefs: April 27, 2016
Decided: June 14, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Eldorado Coop Canal Company appeals the order of the Ninth Judicial District
Court, Teton County, denying its dissatisfied water user complaint. Appellees, the Lower
Teton Joint Objectors1 (Joint Objectors), appeared as interested parties in the District
Court proceeding. We restate the dispositive issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user
complaint.
¶2 We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶3 The Water Court currently is in the process of adjudicating the existing water right
claims of all appropriators in the Teton River Basin—Basin 41O. As part of that process,
the Water Court has issued a temporary preliminary decree for Basin 41O. Various
claims subject to the temporary preliminary decree have been at issue in numerous cases
before this Court. E.g., Fellows v. Saylor, 2016 MT 45, 382 Mont. 298, 367 P.3d 732(hereafter Fellows I); Teton Co-Op Canal Co. v. Teton Coop Reservoir Co., 2015 MT
344, 382 Mont. 1, 365 P.3d 442; Teton Coop. Reservoir Co. v. Farmers Coop. Canal Co.,
2015 MT 208, 380 Mont. 146, 354 P.3d 579; Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County
Canal & Reservoir Co., 2014 MT 167, 375 Mont. 327, 328 P.3d 644. Both Eldorado and
the Joint Objectors have been involved in a number of these disputes. E.g., In re
Eldorado Coop Canal Co., 2016 MT 94, 383 Mont. 205, 369 P.3d 1034 (hereafter
1
The Lower Teton Joint Objectors are Steven Kelly, Monte Giese, William Riechelt, and
Kalanick Ranches, Inc.
2
Eldorado I); Eldorado Co-Op Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors, 2014 MT 272,
375 Mont. 420, 337 P.3d 74 (hereafter Eldorado II).
¶4 Eldorado is a water supply entity that distributes water to shareholders from the
Teton River northwest of Choteau, Montana. Eldorado owns four water rights that were
decreed in Perry v. Beattie, Case No. 371 (Mont. 11th Judicial Dist. Ct., March 28,
1908). Eldorado’s water rights historically have been administered under the terms of the
Perry Decree by a water commissioner appointed by the District Court pursuant to
§ 85-5-101, MCA.
¶5 In November 2014, the Water Court issued an order addressing objections by
various parties—including the Joint Objectors—to Eldorado’s existing water right claims
as established under the temporary preliminary decree. The order determined the
elements of Eldorado’s existing water right claims and modified the temporary
preliminary decree. The Water Court concluded that Eldorado’s water right claims
included a cumulative annual volume quantification of 15,000 acre-feet. The Water
Court determined that this volume quantification represented Eldorado’s historic
beneficial use of its existing water rights. The Water Court incorporated the volume
quantification into the post-decree abstracts for each of Eldorado’s water right claims and
concluded that “Eldorado’s rights shall appear in the Final Decree for the Teton River
Basin (41O) in accordance with the [amended] abstracts attached hereto.”
¶6 Eldorado appealed the Water Court’s order, which we recently addressed in
Eldorado I. In Eldorado I, we concluded that the Water Court acted within its discretion
3
under § 85-2-234(6)(b)(iii), MCA, in determining that Eldorado’s claims required a
volume quantification in order to adequately administer its water rights. Eldorado I,
¶ 25. We concluded further that the Water Court did not err in determining that Eldorado
historically put to beneficial use 15,000 acre-feet of water under its existing water rights.
Eldorado I, ¶ 34. Accordingly, we upheld the Water Court’s determination that
Eldorado’s water rights are subject to an annual volumetric quantification and affirmed
the Water Court’s order. Eldorado I, ¶¶ 34, 43.
¶7 The Joint Objectors are downstream Teton River water rights holders whose
predecessors were not parties to the Perry Decree. In July 2015, the Joint Objectors
informed Water Commissioner Ben Hoge that Eldorado was approaching the volumetric
quantification established by the Water Court’s order and requested that Water
Commissioner Hoge cap the distribution of Eldorado’s water to the volumetric
quantification. After learning of the request, Eldorado petitioned the Water Court to stay
the volume quantification order pending Eldorado’s appeal to this Court in Eldorado I.
The Water Court denied Eldorado’s request in August 2015. Later that same month,
Water Commissioner Hoge ceased delivering water to Eldorado.
¶8 On August 23, 2015, Eldorado filed a dissatisfied water user complaint in the
District Court pursuant to § 85-5-301, MCA. Eldorado filed its complaint against Hoge
in his capacity as Water Commissioner for the Perry Decree. In its complaint, Eldorado
sought an order directing the Water Commissioner to deliver water under Eldorado’s
flow rates as decreed in Perry and to refrain from imposing the volumetric quantification.
4
The Joint Objectors opposed Eldorado’s complaint as interested parties. The District
Court held a hearing on the matter on September 16, 2015. Two days later, the District
Court issued its order denying Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user complaint. Eldorado
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 On appeal from a dissatisfied water user proceeding we review findings of fact to
determine whether they are supported by substantial credible evidence and conclusions of
law for correctness. In re Water Complaint of Kelly, 2010 MT 14, ¶ 25, 355 Mont. 86,
224 P.3d 640.
DISCUSSION
¶10 Whether the District Court erred in denying Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user
complaint.
¶11 As an initial matter, we decline to address Eldorado’s challenge to the Water
Court’s determination that its existing water rights are subject to a cumulative annual
volume quantification of 15,000 acre-feet. We upheld the Water Court’s determination
regarding the elements of Eldorado’s existing water rights in Eldorado I and affirmed the
15,000 acre-foot volume quantification. Eldorado I, ¶¶ 34, 43. Accordingly, the
volumetric quantification issue no longer presents an actual controversy and has been
rendered moot. See Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215, ¶ 31, 333
Mont. 331, 142 P.3d 864. The issues related to enforcement of the volumetric
quantification are not moot, however, and we will consider them.
5
¶12 In its order, the District Court first concluded that the Water Court has
“jurisdiction over all matters relating to the determination of existing water rights” in
Montana and that a district court “only has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of a final
decree or a temporary preliminary decree as issued and modified by a water court.”
Accordingly, the District Court determined that it did not have the authority to stay the
volumetric quantification imposed on Eldorado’s water rights. The court concluded
further that it must enforce the Water Court’s volumetric quantification because its
jurisdiction in a dissatisfied water user action is limited to determining “whether [or not]
the water commissioner is distributing water to existing water rights holders pursuant to
the adjudication decree.” (Quoting Baker Ditch Co. v. Dist. Ct., 251 Mont 251, 256, 824
P.2d 260, 260 (1992).) Accordingly, the District Court denied Eldorado’s dissatisfied
water user complaint because it concluded that it had “no power to override the decision
of the Water Court” to establish a volumetric quantification for Eldorado’s existing water
rights.
¶13 On appeal, Eldorado asserts several points of error. Eldorado first contends that
the purpose of a dissatisfied water user action is limited to enforcing the rights
determined by a prior decree. In this case, Eldorado asserts, the prior decree that should
be enforced is the Perry Decree. As such, Eldorado claims that the District Court erred
by not enforcing the Perry Decree’s terms and by instructing the Water Commissioner to
enforce the volumetric quantification established in the modified temporary preliminary
decree. Furthermore, Eldorado contends, the Water Court’s order imposing a volumetric
6
quantification is not enforceable because the statutory procedures for enforcing a water
court decree were not initiated. Finally, Eldorado claims that the District Court’s order
violated its due process rights because it was not given notice or any opportunity to be
heard before the District Court enforced the 15,000 acre-feet volumetric quantification.
¶14 The Joint Objectors counter that Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user complaint is a
collateral request for a stay of the Water Court’s order imposing a volumetric
quantification. The Joint Objectors therefore contend that Eldorado waived its right to
challenge the volumetric quantification here because Eldorado did not challenge the
Water Court’s denial of its request for a stay of the volumetric quantification. The Joint
Objectors next assert that under Montana’s water rights system the Water Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to quantify the extent of Eldorado’s existing water rights based on
beneficial use. The Joint Objectors contend that the Water Court’s volumetric
quantification order therefore supersedes the Perry Decree under the plain language of
the Water Use Act. Accordingly, the Joint Objectors claim, the District Court did not err
in denying Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user complaint because the Water Commissioner
lacks the authority to deliver water in excess of the volumetric quantification established
by the Water Court. Finally, the Joint Objectors assert that Eldorado received all the
notice it was due because it participated during every stage of the proceedings that
resulted in the volumetric quantification.
7
Waiver by Eldorado’s failure to seek review of the Water Court’s denial of its stay
request
¶15 M. R. App. P. 22 allows a party that has unsuccessfully sought to stay judgment
pending appeal to seek relief in this Court. We agree with Eldorado that it did not waive
its right to file a dissatisfied water user complaint by failing to seek such relief in its prior
appeal. Montana statute provides, in relevant part:
A person owning or using any of the waters of the stream . . . who is
dissatisfied with the method of distribution of the waters of the stream . . .
by the water commissioner . . . and who claims to be entitled to more water
than the person is receiving . . . may file a written complaint, duly verified,
setting forth the facts of the claim.
Section 85-5-301(1), MCA. The “whole question” in a dissatisfied water user proceeding
under § 85-5-301, MCA, “is whether the water commissioner is distributing water to the
respective users according to the applicable decree.” Fellows v. Office of Water Comm’r,
2012 MT 169, ¶ 16, 365 Mont. 540, 285 P.3d 448 (citations omitted) (hereafter Fellows
II).
¶16 While Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user complaint did challenge the Water
Court’s volumetric quantification that was then pending on appeal, it also challenged the
Water Commissioner’s distribution of Teton River water and contested which water
rights decree is applicable to that distribution. Eldorado’s complaint therefore involved
the distribution of water, while Eldorado’s motion to stay the Water Court’s order
involved the adjudication of its existing water rights. Montana’s water rights system
distinguishes water adjudication from water distribution. Compare § 3-7-501, MCA
(granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Water Court to determine existing water rights),
8
with § 85-2-406, MCA (granting jurisdiction to district courts to supervise the
distribution of water among appropriators). See also Baker Ditch Co., 251 Mont. at 255,
824 P.2d at 260 (concluding that “the statutes governing [the distribution of water] are for
the purpose of expeditious administration and not for the purpose of adjudication”). As
such, Eldorado’s failure to seek relief from the Water Court’s denial of its motion to stay
the order establishing a volumetric quantification did not result in waiver of its right to
challenge the distribution of water through a dissatisfied water user action.
Enforcement of the Water Court’s volumetric quantification
¶17 Eldorado contends that the District Court erred because the only enforceable
decree for the Teton River is the Perry Decree; therefore, the District Court is authorized
to direct the Water Commissioner to administer water according to the terms of the Perry
Decree only. The Joint Objectors counter that the District Court properly enforced the
provisions of the modified temporary preliminary decree for Basin 41O because that
decree supersedes the Perry Decree. Both Eldorado and the Joint Objectors rely on
provisions of the Montana Water Use Act in support of their arguments.
¶18 It is well-established that “statutes should be construed according to the plain
meaning of the language used therein.” Fellows I, ¶ 21 (quoting State v. Price, 2002 MT
229, ¶ 47, 311 Mont. 439, 57 P.3d 42) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, a
statute “must be read as a whole, and its terms should not be isolated from the context in
which they were used by the Legislature.” Fellows I, ¶ 21 (quoting Price, ¶ 47) (internal
quotations omitted). We accordingly must interpret a statute “as a part of a whole
9
statutory scheme and construe it so as to forward the purpose of that scheme.” Stokes v.
Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2011 MT 182, ¶ 15, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754(quoting Wright v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2011 MT 43, ¶ 24, 359 Mont. 332, 249 P.3d 485)
(internal quotations omitted).
¶19 While Montana’s Constitution recognizes and confirms “existing rights to the use
of any waters for any useful or beneficial purpose,” Mont. Const. art. IX, § 3(1), it
requires also that the Legislature “provide for the administration, control, and regulation
of water rights” and “establish a system of centralized records,” Mont. Const. art. IX,
§ 3(4). In implementing this constitutional mandate, the Legislature created the Water
Court and granted it exclusive jurisdiction over “all matters relating to the determination
of existing water rights within the boundaries of the state of Montana.” Section 3-7-
224(2), MCA. The Legislature correspondingly granted jurisdiction to district courts to
enforce the provisions of water rights decrees and to supervise the distribution of
adjudicated water. Title 3, Ch. 7, Pt. 2, MCA; Title 85, Ch. 2, MCA. The Legislature
therefore has established a statutory scheme for water rights in which the Water Court is
responsible for interpreting and determining the nature and extent of existing water rights
while the district courts are responsible for supervising the distribution of water as
adjudicated by the Water Court and for enforcing water rights decrees. In re Deadman’s
Basin Water Users Ass’n, 2002 MT 15, ¶ 15, 308 Mont. 168, 40 P.3d 387. One of the
Legislature’s purposes in implementing this statutory scheme was “to quantify the many
10
water users’ rights in Montana’s water and to speed up decisions on those water rights.”
Hill v. Merrimac Cattle Co., 211 Mont. 479, 489, 687 P.2d 59, 65 (1984).
¶20 Under Section 85-2-406(1), MCA, a district court’s supervisory authority over the
distribution of adjudicated water “includes the supervision of all water commissioners.”
See also Luppold v. Lewis, 172 Mont. 280, 287, 563 P.2d 538, 542 (1977) (concluding
that in order to “achieve a uniform method of [water] distribution, the instructions given
by the district court must be binding upon the office of water commissioner”). In
effectuating its supervisory authority, “[a] district court may order the distribution of
water pursuant to a district court decree entered prior to July 1, 1973, until an enforceable
decree is entered under part 2 of this chapter.” Section 85-2-406(2)(a), MCA. The
District Court, therefore, had the authority to order Water Commissioner Hoge to
distribute water pursuant to the Perry Decree—a district court decree entered prior to
July 1, 1973—until an enforceable decree was entered under Part 2 of Title 85, Chapter 2,
MCA.
¶21 Part 2 of Title 85, Chapter 2, MCA, provides that the Water Court “may issue a
temporary preliminary decree . . . if the temporary preliminary decree is necessary for the
orderly adjudication or administration of water rights,” § 85-2-231(1), MCA, and
prescribes procedural requirements for issuing such a decree, §§ 85-2-231(2)-(6), -232,
MCA. Once a temporary preliminary decree is issued, interested parties have the right to
object to water right claims as they appear in the decree and the Water Court must hold a
hearing on those objections. Section 85-2-233, MCA. The determinations made as a
11
result of this objection and hearing process modify the water right claims established in
the temporary preliminary decree. See § 85-2-234(1), MCA (“The water judge shall . . .
on the basis of any hearing that may have been held . . . enter a final decree affirming or
modifying the preliminary decree”); W. R. Adj. R. 21(e) (“Following the conclusion of
the evidentiary hearing . . . the water court shall review the evidence in the record, render
its written decision . . ., and modify the abstract of each applicable claim in accordance
with the written decision”). “A temporary preliminary decree . . . or a portion of a
temporary preliminary decree . . . as modified after objections and hearings is enforceable
and administrable according to its terms.” Section 85-2-406(4), MCA. Outside the
Water Use Act, the Legislature has confirmed that, “[i]n the absence of any final decree
having been issued, the district court having jurisdiction may enforce the provisions of a
temporary preliminary decree . . . entered under 85-2-231, as modified by a water judge
after objections and hearings.” Section 3-7-212, MCA. The plain language of the
statutory scheme makes clear that a temporary preliminary decree—as modified after
objections and hearings—is an enforceable decree.
¶22 Here, it is undisputed that the Water Court properly issued a temporary
preliminary decree for Basin 41O pursuant to § 85-2-231, MCA. The Water Court then
conducted a hearing on the objections to Eldorado’s water rights as established in the
temporary preliminary decree. Based on the objection and hearing process, the Water
Court issued an order modifying Eldorado’s rights under the decree—which we upheld in
Eldorado I. Eldorado I, ¶ 43. The portion of the temporary preliminary decree
12
pertaining to Eldorado’s rights—as modified by the Water Court after objections and
hearings—is therefore an enforceable decree under the plain language of the Water Use
Act. Sections 85-2-406(2)(a), (4), -231(1), MCA. As such, the District Court has the
authority to enforce and administer Eldorado’s water rights according to the terms of the
modified temporary preliminary decree. Sections 85-2-406(4), 3-7-212, MCA. See also
Eldorado II, ¶ 28 (concluding that a district court’s authority to supervise the distribution
of water among appropriators “includes enforcement of Temporary Preliminary and
Preliminary Decrees of the Water Court”).
¶23 We are unpersuaded by Eldorado’s claim that the District Court “improperly
strayed” from the Perry Decree’s terms by instructing the Water Commissioner to impose
the volumetric quantification established in the modified temporary preliminary decree.
The Water Use Act clearly provides that “[f]or purposes of administering water rights,
the provisions of a temporary preliminary decree or a preliminary decree, as modified
after objections and hearings, supersede a claim of existing right until a final decree is
issued.” Section 85-2-227(1), MCA (emphasis added). Accordingly, for purposes of
administering Eldorado’s water rights, the modified temporary preliminary decree
supersedes Eldorado’s claims of existing right under the Perry Decree until a final decree
for Basin 41O is issued.2 We conclude that the District Court correctly instructed the
2
As noted above, the Water Court’s order modifying Eldorado’s water right claims under the
temporary preliminary decree concluded, “Eldorado’s rights shall appear in the Final Decree for
the Teton River Basin (41O) in accordance with the [amended] abstracts attached hereto.” The
Water Court therefore made clear that the final decree for Basin 41O would not alter Eldorado’s
rights further.
13
Water Commissioner to distribute Eldorado’s water rights pursuant to the modified
portion of the temporary preliminary decree.
Procedure for enforcing the modified temporary preliminary decree
¶24 Eldorado argues that the temporary preliminary decree was not enforceable
because the appropriators in Basin 41O did not initiate procedures prescribed in § 85-5-
101, MCA, for enforcing a decree. Section 85-5-101, MCA, governs the appointment of
water commissioners and provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Whenever the rights of persons to use the waters of any stream . . . or
other source of supply have been determined by a decree of a court of
competent jurisdiction, including temporary preliminary, preliminary, and
final decrees issued by a water judge, it is the duty of the judge of the
district court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, upon the application
of the owners of at least 15% of the water rights affected by the decree, in
the exercise of the judge’s discretion, to appoint one or more
commissioners. The commissioners have authority to admeasure and
distribute to the parties owning water rights in the source affected by the
decree the waters to which they are entitled, according to their rights as
fixed by the decree and by any certificates, permits, and changes in
appropriation right issued under chapter 2 of this title. . . .
(2) When the existing rights of all appropriators from a source or in an area
have been determined in a temporary preliminary decree, preliminary
decree, or final decree issued under chapter 2 of this title, the judge of the
district court may, upon the application by both the department of natural
resources and conservation and one or more holders of valid water rights in
the source, appoint a water commissioner. The water commissioner shall
distribute to the appropriators, from the source or in the area, the water to
which they are entitled.
Section 85-5-101(1), (2) MCA. Section 85-5-101, MCA, prescribes procedural
requirements for appointing a water commissioner to distribute water according to an
applicable water rights decree; the statute does not prescribe procedural requirements for
14
enforcing a temporary preliminary decree when a water commissioner already has been
appointed to distribute the water in the source affected by a decree. In fact, the statute
explicitly grants the Water Commissioner the
authority to admeasure and distribute to the parties owning water rights in
the source affected by the [Perry Decree] the waters to which they are
entitled, according to their rights as fixed by the decree and by any . . .
changes in appropriation right issued under chapter 2 of this title.
Section 85-5-101(1), MCA (emphasis added).
¶25 Here, the District Court appointed Water Commissioner Hoge pursuant to § 85-5-
101, MCA, to distribute adjudicated Teton River water. See Eldorado II, ¶ 12 (analyzing
water distribution from the same stretch of the Teton River at issue here and stating, “The
District Court appointed Water Commissioners to administer the water rights decreed in
Perry, as provided in § 85-5-101, MCA”); Fellows II, ¶ 4 (analyzing water distribution
from the same stretch of the Teton River at issue here and referring to “the District
Court’s water commissioner administering the Perry v. Beattie water rights pursuant to
§ 85-5-101, MCA”); Giese v. Blixrud, 2012 MT 170, ¶ 3, 365 Mont. 548, 285 P.3d 458(analyzing water distribution from the same stretch of the Teton River at issue here and
stating, “The District Court appointed a Water Commissioner pursuant to § 85-5-101,
MCA, to administer the water rights decreed in Perry”). Accordingly, the procedural
requirements for appointing a water commissioner to distribute water under § 85-5-101,
MCA, have been met.
¶26 Although Water Commissioner Hoge was appointed to distribute water pursuant to
the Perry Decree, it is Water Commissioner Hoge’s “duty to admeasure and distribute”
15
water to appropriators “in the same manner and under the same rules as decreed water
rights are admeasured and distributed.” Section 85-5-105, MCA. Accord § 85-5-101(1),
MCA (the Water Commissioner has the “authority to admeasure and distribute to the
parties owning water rights in the source affected by the decree the waters to which they
are entitled, according to their rights as fixed . . . by any . . . changes in appropriation
right issued under chapter 2 of this title”). As stated above, the Water Use Act makes
clear that, “[f]or purposes of administering [Eldorado’s] water rights, the provisions of
[Basin 41O’s] temporary preliminary decree . . . as modified after objections and
hearings, supersede [Eldorado’s] claim of existing right” under the Perry Decree.
Section 85-2-227(1), MCA. Therefore, it is Water Commissioner Hoge’s duty to
admeasure and distribute Eldorado’s water rights according to the provisions of the
modified temporary preliminary decree insofar as it supersedes the Perry Decree.3
¶27 We find no support for Eldorado’s additional procedural arguments under § 85-2-
406(4), MCA, and W. R. Adj. R. 31, both of which apply in the commencement of an
action to enforce a Water Court decree. Again, the District Court already had appointed a
water commissioner to distribute water pursuant to the applicable decree—and the decree
applicable to Eldorado’s rights is the modified temporary preliminary decree. Section
3
Eldorado’s argument that the Water Commissioner appointed under the Perry Decree can only
distribute water pursuant to that decree is undermined by the fact that, historically, the Water
Commissioner apparently has distributed water to appropriators whose water rights were not
subject to the Perry Decree. Appellee’s Response Brief 14, Teton Co-Op Canal Co. (No. DA
15-0136) (noting testimony from the Water Commissioner appointed to distribute water under
the Perry Decree “that [Teton Cooperative Reservoir Company’s] water right was administered
and distributed by the district court in spite of the fact that [Teton Cooperative Reservoir
Company’s] water right was not decreed in Perry v. Beattie”).
16
85-2-227(1), MCA. Moreover, Water Commissioner Hoge had the authority to distribute
Eldorado’s water rights “according to their rights as fixed . . . by any . . . changes in
appropriation right issued under chapter 2 of this title.” Section 85-5-101, MCA.
¶28 Eldorado’s interpretation of the applicable statutes is contrary “to the plain
meaning of the language used therein.” Fellows I, ¶ 21. Moreover, such an interpretation
conflicts with the “whole statutory scheme” for water rights the Legislature has
implemented pursuant to its constitutional mandate. Stokes, ¶ 15. Here, the Water Court
entered a temporary preliminary decree establishing the water rights in Basin 41O. The
Water Court—acting within its exclusive jurisdiction—then interpreted and determined
the nature and extent of Eldorado’s existing water rights after objections and hearings.
At that point, the provisions of the temporary preliminary decree relating to Eldorado’s
rights “supersede[d] [Eldorado’s] claim of existing right” under the Perry Decree, § 85-2-
227(1), MCA, and the modified portion of the temporary preliminary decree became
“enforceable and administrable according to its terms,” § 85-2-406(4), MCA. The
District Court—acting within its jurisdiction—then correctly enforced the modified
temporary preliminary decree and supervised the distribution of Eldorado’s water as
adjudicated by the Water Court.
¶29 As stated above, the “whole question” in a dissatisfied water user proceeding
under § 85-5-301, MCA, “is whether the water commissioner is distributing water to the
respective users according to the applicable decree.” Fellows II, ¶ 16. Based on the
foregoing analysis, we conclude that the District Court correctly directed Water
17
Commissioner Hoge to distribute Eldorado’s water rights according to the modified
temporary preliminary decree for Basin 41O.
Due Process
¶30 Eldorado contends that its due process rights were violated because it was not
provided with notice and had no opportunity to be heard prior to the volumetric
quantification being enforced. Eldorado “participated in a four-day trial in front of a
Water Master” following the objections to its water right claims as established in the
temporary preliminary decree. Eldorado I, ¶ 7. The Water Master then issued a report
“regarding each of Eldorado’s claimed water rights.” Eldorado I, ¶ 8. The Master’s
report received objections from all parties—including Eldorado. Based on these
objections, the Water Court amended the Master’s report to include a combined annual
volume for Eldorado’s claims of 15,000 acre-feet. Eldorado I, ¶ 15. Eldorado appealed
the Water Court’s order to this Court and argued that “the Water Court impermissibly
constrained its water rights by quantifying the volume of [its] rights as it did.” Eldorado
I, ¶ 23. We concluded that the Water Court correctly determined the extent of Eldorado’s
rights and we therefore upheld “the Water Court’s findings regarding volume.” Eldorado
I, ¶ 34.
¶31 Once Water Commissioner Hoge informed Eldorado that he had been requested
by the Joint Objectors to administer Eldorado’s rights by the volumetric quantification,
Eldorado sought a stay of the volume quantification order from the Water Court, which
the Water Court denied. The Water Court’s order denying the stay concluded that the
18
“Water Commissioner is subject to direction by the local district court judge. Future
enforcement of the 15,000 acre foot limit will be pursuant to the district court’s authority
to administer water rights.” As detailed above, the Water Court’s imposition of the
volumetric quantification modified the temporary preliminary decree, and the District
Court accordingly had authority to enforce the volumetric quantification. Eldorado
exercised its statutory right to file a dissatisfied water user complaint and was heard on its
complaint.
¶32 “Under both federal and state jurisprudence the requirements for procedural due
process are (1) notice, and (2) opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the
case.” Montanans for Justice v. State, 2006 MT 277, ¶ 30, 334 Mont. 237, 146 P.3d 759(citations omitted). These requirements “are ‘flexible’ and are adapted by the courts to
meet the procedural protections demanded by the specific situation.” Montanans for
Justice, ¶ 30 (citation omitted). Here, Eldorado participated in every step of the process
that resulted in the establishment of its existing water rights under the modified
temporary preliminary decree. We conclude that Eldorado had adequate notice and an
opportunity to be heard before the volumetric quantification was enforced.
CONCLUSION
¶33 We affirm the District Court’s order denying Eldorado’s dissatisfied water user
complaint.
/S/ BETH BAKER
19
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
20