Olsen v. McQueary

NO. 83-326
IN THESUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1984
LARS LEWIS OLSEN, MARY ANN OLSEN,
ROBERT JOSEPH OLSEN, and JOYCE
OLSEN ,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
EVERED L. McQUEARY, W 1 O N A McQUEARY,
ANDREW BECK and DONALD W. BECK,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and for the County of Powell,
The Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF =CORD:
For Appellants:
Johnson, Skakles & Kebe; Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda,
Montana
For Respondents :
Loble & Pauly; C. Bruce Loble, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 14, 1984
~ ~ ~ i d ~ d :30, 1984
August
r
Filed:
b ,.-!2
4 j ;984
I
!
& a!
, )-
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of the
Court.
The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from t h e judgment of the Third
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court, Powell County, which decreed the
respective water rights of plaintiffs and defendants in
Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k and Lower F r e d B u r r Creek c h a n n e l n e a r
Deer Lodge, Montana. W a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t
e
Court.
The p l a i n t i f f s own p r o p e r t y i n P o w e l l County in the
Lower Fred Burr Creek drainage. Some o f these lands are
owned by L a r s and Mary Ann O l s e n , h u s b a n d a n d w i f e , and some
by R o b e r t and J o y c e O l s e n , husband and w i f e .
D e f e n d a n t Andrew Beck owns p r o p e r t y u p h i l l from t h e
Olsens in t h e Upper Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e . Defendant
Donald Beck is t h e g u a r d i a n of Andrew Beck, who h a s b e e n
adjudged an incompetent. Evered a n d Ramona McQueary,
husband and w i f e , through a management agreement, are
p r e s e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r managing t h e Andrew Beck p r o p e r t y .
The McQuearys c l a i m no w a t e r r i g h t i n t h i s a c t i o n , and w e r e
d i s m i s s e d a s d e f e n d a n t s by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k i s a n a t u r a l s t r e a m a r i s i n g i n a
h i l l y a r e a e a s t of t h e B e c k p r o p e r t y and f l o w i n g i n a w e l l
defined channel through the Beck property. However, the
creek disappears i n t o t h e ground n e a r the Beck farmstead,
e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d . The Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l
runs in a n o r t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n and w a t e r flows in the
channel on an intermittent basis. The District Court
found t h a t Upper F r e d B u r r Creek and Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k
c h a n n e l a r i s e from s e p a r a t e s o u r c e s o f w a t e r and e x c e p t i n
t i m e s of flood, Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k c o n t r i b u t e s no w a t e r
t o t h e Lower Fred B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l . T h e c o u r t a l s o found
t h a t Upper Fred Burr Creek is n o t a tributary to either
Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l o r t h e Deer Lodge R i v e r . An y
w a t e r t h a t f l o w s t h r o u g h t h e Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l
is e i t h e r f o r e i g n water imported v i a i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s from
Cottonwood Creek and Baggs Creek or waste, drainage and
return flow accumulations from irrigation on adjacent
ranches.
Bob and J o y c e O l s e n have a d e c r e e d s i x t y i n c h w a t e r
r i g h t o u t of Cottonwood Creek w i t h a n 1 8 8 2 p r i o r i t y d a t e .
L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck own l a n d i n t h e Upper and Lower
Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e s , between t h e r e s p e c t i v e r a n c h e s o f
p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s . L o u i s Sinith and Sam B e c k a l s o
h a v e d e c r e e d r i g h t s f r o m Cottonwood C r e e k . Bob a n d J o y c e
Olsen, L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck together i m p o r t more t h a n
3,500 miner's inches of Cottonwood Creek water into the
d r a i n a g e a r e a o f Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l . The r a n c h e s
of L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck a r e u p h i l l f r o m t h e O l s e n s ' l a n d
and any waste, drainage and return flow waters from
i r r i g a t i o n on t h e s e r a n c h e s f l o w i n t o t h e lower F r e d B u r r
C r e e k c h a n n e l and a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e by p l a i n t i f f s . The
District Court found that plaintiffs, Robert and Joyce
O l s e n , had a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d s i x t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s o f
t h i s w a t e r w i t h a 1954 p r i o r i t y d a t e . The c o u r t f o u n d t h a t
p l a i n t i f f s L a r s and Mary Ann O l s e n a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d
f i f t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1965.
I n 1872, d e f e n d a n t s ' p r e d e c e s s o r , Grant, appropriated
and diverted 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of Upper Fred Burr Creek
waters. Grant's successor filed a declaration of water
r i g h t i n 1885 i n t h e c o u n t y o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r
i n c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h s t a t u t o r y law. Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k i s
a h i g h m o u n t a i n s t r e a m whose p r i n c i p a l flow occurs i n t h e
spring. Defendants' irrigated lands are located on s t e e p
h i l l s i d e s w i t h s h a l l o w t o p s o i l l a y i n g o v e r c o a r s e rock and
gravel. S u c c e s s f u l g r o w i n g of c r o p s on t h i s l a n d r e q u i r e s
repeated flood i r r i g a t i o n .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t 1 . 5 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s p e r
acre were required to successfully irrigate this land.
T h e r e i s s e l d o m s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r i n Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k t o
irrigate all of defendants' land. Thus, Beck and his
predecessor have consistently used the entire amount of
Upper Fred Burr Creek w a t e r s a v a i l a b l e f o r i r r i g a t i o n and
s t o c k w a t e r p u r p o s e s , e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s
p r e d e c e s s o r s had appropriated a n d d i v e r t e d 250 m i n e r ' s
i n c h e s f r o m Upper F r e d B u r r Creek w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e o f
1 8 7 2 , and 1 , 0 1 0 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s f r o m Upper Fred Burr Creek
w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1915.
P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s u i t i n 1979, a l l e g i n g wrongful use
of t h e w a t e r s o f F r e d B u r r C r e e k by d e f e n d a n t s a n d a l l e g i n g
t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had s u p e r i o r r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r , a t least
t o the waters i n e x c e s s of 250 m i n e r s i n c h e s . Plaintiffs
asked f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r s of Fred
B u r r C r e e k and a p p o i n t m e n t of a w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n t o m e a s u r e
and distribute the water in accordance with the court's
decree. D e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r answer c l a i m e d s u p e r i o r r i g h t s
t o a l l w a t e r s of Fred Burr Creek. The c a s e was h e a r d by
J u d g e Boy?., who e n t e r e d a decree in April of 1983. The
d e c r e e awarded d e f e n d a n t s 1 , 2 6 0 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s from Upper
Fred Burr Creek. P l a i n t i f f s Robert and J o y c e O l s e n w e r e
awarded sixty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek
channel, and plaintiffs Lars and Mary Ann 01-sen were awarded
fifty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel.
The plaintiffs' first issue on appeal is whether the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District
Court are supported by substantial credible evidence. We
first address a subsidiary issue raised by plaintiffs: Did
the District Court err in adopting verbatim much of the
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law tendered by
the respondents?
In the past this Court has discouraged the trial
court's wholesale adoption of proposed findings and
conclusions of the prevailing party. In re Marriage of
Wolfe (Mont. 1983), 659 P.2d 259, 261, 40 St. Rep. 211, 213;
Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (Mont. 1981), 625 P.2d 536, 538-39, 38
St.Rep. 416, 419. dowever as we stated in Kowis v. Kowis
(Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 1084, 1088, 40 St.Rep. 149, 154:
" [W]here. . . findings and conclusions are sufficiently
comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis
for decision, and are supported by the evidence, they will
not be overturned simply because the court relied upon
proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel."
Here, the findings and conclusions of the trial court were
comprehensive and pertinent to the issues presented for
decision, providing a solid basis for the court's decision.
The remaining question is whether the findings and
conclusions of the District Court are supported by
substantial credible evidence.
The court found that the Fred Burr Creek drainage
actually consisted of two separate streams, Upper Fred Burr
Creek and Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The court also
determined that Upper Fred Burr Creek is not a tributary to
Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. These findings provided the
basis for the court's eventual decree of water rights to the
parties. In particular, the plaintiffs maintain that
findings of fact six and seven, quoted below, are clearly
erroneous and require reversal.
"6. That from the totality of the
evidence as confirmed by the Defendants'
expert, Charles C. Bowman, Upper Fred
Burr Creek is a natural stream arising in
a hilly area easterly from the Andrew A .
Beck property, flowing in a well-defined
channel through the Beck property until
it disappears into the ground, except in
times of flood, at or near the Beck
farmstead, occupied by the McQuearys as
their residence.
"7. The Lower Fred Burr Creek channel is
a separate source of water supply from
Upper Fred Burr Creek and arises
generally in the North Half of Section 27
of Township 8 North, Range 9 West where
it flows as an intermittent stream in a
northwesterly direction."
The standard of review long employed by this Court
requires only that the findings and conclusions of the
District Court be supported by substantial credible
evidence. In re Marriage of Pickering (Mont. 1984), 678
P.2d 1146, 1147, 41 St.Rep. 617, 618, "Findings will not be
overturned unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence
against them, recognizing that evidence may be weak or
conflicting, yet still support the findings." Jensen v.
Jensen (Mont. 1981), 629 P.2d 765, 768, 38 St.Rep. 927, 930.
The challenged findings of the trial court are
largely, although not entirely, based upon the testimony of
the respondents' expert witness, Charles C. Bowman. Bowman
is a retired professor of agricultural engineering from
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y who h a s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r a number s f
years in Montana water law, irrigation and drainage
problems. P r o f e s s o r Bowman t e s t i f i e d t h a t Upper F r e d B u r r
C r e e k is a d r a i n a g e c o m p l e t e l y s e p a r a t e f r o m Lower F r e d B u r r
Creek c h a n n e l . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t e x c e p t i n times o f flood,
Upper Fred Burr Creek disappears into the ground on the
defendants' land, we11 u p h i l l f r o m p l a i n t i f f s ' land. The
u p p e r c r e e k g o e s u n d e r g r o u n d where i t f l o w s i n t o a l a r g e a n d
very porous gravel deposit underlain by consolidated
hardpan. Professor Bowman testifed that Lower Fred Burr
Creek c h a n n e l a r i s e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e downslope from
where the upper creek disappears, and is fed by water
i m p o r t e d by d i t c h e s from Baggs and Cottonwood C r e e k s , and by
return flow and drainage waters from field i r r i g a t i o n on
r a n c h e s above p l a i n t i f f s ' l a n d . The t e s t i m o n y o f P r o f e s s o r
Bowman and o t h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e x c e s s o f 3 , 5 0 0 m i n e r ' s
i n c h e s of f o r e i g n w a t e r was i n t r o d u c e d e a c h s e a s o n i n t o t h e
Lower F r e d B u r r d r a i n a g e t h r o u g h i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s .
This testimony was corroborated by an American
Stabilization and Conservation Service map and a United
States Geological Survey contour map of the Fred Burr
d r a i n a g e s , b o t h of which w e r e e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t
objection. Both maps clearly depict a distinct break
between t h e two s t r e a m c o u r s e s a l o n g t h e e a s t b o u n d a r y o f
Section 26, Township 8 North, Range 9 West. Professor
Bowman a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e P o w e l l C o u n t y Water R e s o u r c e s
Survey book, which he helped prepare, reflected a clear
d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n t h e two d r a i n a g e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o o k
judicial n o t i c e of the S u r v e y book, which i s p u b l i s h e d by
t h e S t a t e E n g i n e e r ' s O f f i c e i n H e l e n a , Montana.
W hold
e that the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s of fact six
and s e v e n a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d
w i l l n o t be disturbed.
The plaintiff also objects to the District Court's
finding that the defendant established an appropriation
based on b e n e f i c i a l use of 1,010 m i n e r ' s inches, with a
p r i o r i t y d a t e of June, 1915. No o b j e c t i o n was made t o t h e
court's finding in favor of the defendant of an
a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 250 m i n e r ' s inches with a p r i o r i t y d a t e of
May, 1872. The court's f i n d i n g s make it clear that the
t o t a l award of 1,260 miner's i n c h e s of water t o defendant
was i n t e n d e d by t h e c o u r t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t Andrew A. Beck,
and his grantors and predecessors in interest have
consistently diverted and beneficially used - of
all the
a v a i l a b l e w a t e r s o f Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k s i n c e 1 9 1 5 . The
d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d f o u r w i t n e s s e s a t t r i a l who t e s t i f e d a t
l e n g t h r e g a r d i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l u s e o f w a t e r f r o m Upper F r e d
B u r r C r e e k o n t h e Beck r a n c h . All t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Beck
ranch h a s used a l l of t h e w a t e r s o f Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k
for irrigation. The oldest witness, Mr. Soren Beck,
testified that this p r a c t i c e was established as early as
1915. Viewing t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e
prevailing party, it is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e District C o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g of a 1915 a . p p r o p r i a t i o n of 1,010 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s by
t h e d e f e n d a n t is s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e .
I n r e M a r r i a g e o f P i c k e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 8 P.2d 1146, 41
St.Rep. 6 1 7 ; O v e r t o n v . O v e r t o n (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 674 P.2d 1089,
40 St.Rep. 2047.
The p l a i n t i f f s next contend that t h e District Court
e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t s t o c e r t a i n
testimony given in deposition by Alfred A. Bansen.
Defendants objected to Hansen's testimony on grounds that it
was speculative, immaterial, incompetent and irrelevant.
Hansen's testimony focused on events occurring in the Fred
Burr drainage area from 1905-1917, when Hansen was from
eight to twenty years of age. Much of Hansen's testimony
was speculative, and he plainly implied several times during
the course of the deposition that his testimony was based on
vague recollections from his childhood. Hansen's testimony
concerning irrigation practices on Lars Olsen's land is
irrelevant because, as the deposition eventually reveals,
the land Hansen was discussing is not owned by Lars Olsen at
all. Rather, it is part of the Kohrs Ranch, now owned by
the federal government. Baving carefully reviewed Hansen's
deposition, we find no error by the trial court in
sustaining the objections.
Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the District Court
erred in sustaining the defendants' objections to
introduction of plaintiffs' exhibits I and J. Exhibit I is
a warranty deed to plaintiff Lars L. Olsen which purports to
convey a decreed right to 500 miner's inches of Fred Burr
Creek waters. We note that since this case is the only
adjudication of the Fred Burr drainage to date, the deed in
question could not have conveyed a decreed water right.
Exhibit J is a deed in Lars L. Olsen's chain of title which
purports to convey a water right of 500 miner's inches in
Fred Burr Creek. Both exhibits were apparently introduced
to establish a 500 miner's inch water right in favor of Lars
L. Olsen.
Plaintiff Lars L. Olsen argues that Exhibit J is
admissible because it constitutes a substitute for a notice
of appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Such a
notice, "when duly made, shall be taken and received in all
courts of this state as prima facie evidence of the
statements therein contained." Section 89-814, RCM 1947.
We find that the deeds do not qualify as notices of
appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Even if we
were to consider these deeds as notices of appropriation
pursuant to section 89-810, they are fatally defective and
inadmissible as evidence of an appropriation because they
are executed with unsworn acknowledgements, rather than with
verified affidavits as required by section 89-810. "This
Court has strictly construed the provisions of section
89-814. We have held that any nonconformance with section
59-810 renders the notice of appropriation inadmissible as
evidence." Holmstrom Land Co. v. Meagher Cty. Newlan Creek
Water District (1979), 185 Mont. 409, 427, 605 P.2d 1060,
1070.
Plaintiff Lars L. Olsen also claims that Exhibit I
should have been admitted because it established that Lower
Fred Burr Creek channel carried enough water to provide
Olsen with 500 miner's inches of water. Olsen contends that
Exhibit I would therefore tend to establish that Upper Fred
Burr Creek is a tributary to Lower Fred Burr Creek channel,
rather than a separate drainage. This is a dubious
assertion, since the recitation of a water right in the deed
makes no reference to the source of the waters claimed. An
overwhelming volume of the testimony presented at trial
indicated that Upper Fred Burr Creek is isolated from Lower
Fred Burr Creek channel, and that the water available in
Lower Fred Burr Creek channel consists of foreign, waste,
d r a i n a g e and return flow waters. W e need not address t h e
t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y w h e r e t h e e f f e c t o f t h e
disallowed exhibit is m i n i m a l in relation to the overall
w e i g h t of e v i d e n c e . The f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t would
undoubtedly be unaffected by a d m i s s i o n o f Exhibit I. We
w i l l n o t r e v e r s e o r remand a r u l i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t Court
where, a s here, it is c l e a r t h a t t h e e v e n t u a l d e c i s i o n w i l l
remain unchanged. K i r b y Co. of Bozeman, Inc. v. Employment
S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n of t h e Montana S t a t e D e p t . of Labor and
I n d u s t r y (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 3 , 3 7 S t . R e p . 1255,
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s , a f f i r m e d .
Justice .,
W e concur:
-
Chief J u s t i c e