City of Helena v. Community of Rimini
388 Mont. 1
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Two Tenmile Creek water rights claims by the City of Helena and Skinner (junior rights holder) involve historic decrees and conveyance capacity; Rimini Pipeline capacity is 13.15 cfs vs decreed 13.75 cfs; long procedural history with a Water Master, then Water Court on abandonment and § 85-2-227(4), MCA; 2005 amendments created a presumption of municipal nonabandonment when certain conditions are met; prior findings partially reversed on remand; final posture requires amended judgment awarding full 13.75 cfs to the City.
- Skinner and Rimini objected to Helena’s claims; Master found 7.35 cfs abandoned and imposed place-of-use restrictions; on remand, Water Court adopted Master findings but addressed § 85-2-227(4) applicability and constitutional issues; Montana Supreme Court remanded for procedural and substantive analysis.
- Historical decrees trace rights to 1864-1865 with decrees Whitcomb v. Helena Water Works; 1903 Decree vests 550 miner’s inches total (13.75 cfs) to the City via Rimini and Yaw Yaw conveyances; Rimini Pipeline built 1921 with 13.15 cfs capacity; 1948 24-inch pipeline increased delivery but capacity remains 13.75 cfs.
- Five issues framed on appeal/cross-appeal: retroactivity of § 85-2-227(4), MCA; whether 7.35 cfs should be reinstated; whether § 85-2-227(4) creates presumption of nonabandonment; whether 0.60 cfs was abandoned; and place-of-use restrictions.
- The decision affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for amended judgment awarding the full 13.75 cfs to Helena.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of § 85-2-227(4) | Skinner argues the statute is retroactive and unconstitutional. | City relies on Royston to deem the change procedural. | Procedural change; not retroactive given statute preserves vested rights. |
| Preservation of 7.35 cfs | Skinner contends the presumption does not apply; evidence should rebut. | City argues presumption applies via § 85-2-227(4). | Court correctly applied presumption and rejected Master’s rebuttal finding. |
| Presumption of nonabandonment under § 85-2-227(4) | Skinner asserts no clear nonabandonment intent; nonuse evidence matters. | City shows 1921 Rimini Pipeline and 1929 report indicate planning for future use. | Court erred in relying on 1925 fire defense/report; but overall affirmed presumption for whole Tenmile system. |
| Abandonment of 0.60 cfs | Skinner argues no abandonment due to lack of intent data. | City contends nonabandonment applies to entire system under § 85-2-227(4). | Court erred in not recognizing presumption applies to entire system; remand to award 13.75 cfs. |
| Place of use restrictions constitutional challenge | As-applied challenge to § 85-2-234(6)(e). | No timely notice of constitutional question; procedural bar. | Notice requirement procedural; challenged on merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Royston, 249 Mont. 425 (1991) (burden-shift in water use cases deemed procedural; does not impair vested rights)
- In re Eldorado Coop Canal Co., 383 Mont. 205 (2016) (clear-error standard; substantial evidence standard; water rights)
- Saint Vincent Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., 261 Mont. 56 (1993) (procedural vs. substantive distinction for retroactivity)
- Royston (full citation in Mont. Reports), Royston, 249 Mont. 425, 816 P.2d 1054 (1991) (burden shift not retroactive to vested rights)
- Power v. Switzer, 21 Mont. 523 (1898) (abandonment tied to beneficial use; nonuse evidence)
- Holmstrom Land Co. v. Meagher Cnty. Newlan Creek Water Dist., 185 Mont. 409 (1979) (extensive nonuse as evidence of abandonment)
- 79 Ranch v. Pitsch, 204 Mont. 426 (1983) (nonuse as evidence of intent to abandon; long nonuse strong)
- McDonald v. State, 220 Mont. 519 (1986) (constitutional protection of existing rights; beneficial use)
- Deer Lodge, In re Adjudication of Water Rights of Clark Fork River, 254 Mont. 11 (1992) (abandonment: nonuse plus intent; water as property right)
- Sheriff, 96 P.2d 841 (1939) (Growing Communities doctrine context (codified later))
- Mordja v. Mont. Eleventh Judicial Dist. Court, 341 Mont. 219 (2008) (retroactivity discussion; procedural vs substantive)