Clark Fork Coalition v. Montana Wel
380 P.3d 771
Mont.2016Background
- Montana's Water Use Act requires permits for new water appropriations but exempts small groundwater uses; § 85-2-306(3)(a)(iii) exempts wells ≤35 gpm and ≤10 acre-feet/year but excepts a “combined appropriation from the same source by two or more wells or developed springs exceeding 10 acre-feet”.
- The DNRC first promulgated a 1987 rule defining “combined appropriation” to include unconnected wells used together for a single project; in 1993 it replaced that with a rule limiting “combined appropriation” to groundwater developments “physically manifold into the same system.”
- The Coalition (senior water users) challenged the 1993 rule as inconsistent with the statute; the DNRC Hearings Examiner denied relief but ordered DNRC to consider rulemaking; DNRC did not complete replacement.
- The First Judicial District Court invalidated the 1993 rule, reinstated the 1987 rule, and ordered DNRC to promulgate a new rule consistent with the court’s order. The Well Drillers appealed.
- The Supreme Court reviews statutory interpretation de novo, concludes the statutory phrase modifies “appropriation” (quantity) not wells, holds the 1993 rule conflicts with the statute, affirms invalidation, and reinstates the 1987 rule (but removes the district court’s mandate compelling DNRC to initiate rulemaking).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1993 DNRC rule (requiring physical connection) conflicts with § 85-2-306(3)(a)(iii) | Coalition: statute’s “combined appropriation” refers to combined quantity from same source and does not require physical connectivity | Well Drillers/DNRC: “combined appropriation” reasonably means physically joined/manifold developments | Court: Held rule invalid — “combined” modifies appropriation (quantity), the rule added an unauthorized connectivity requirement and expanded the exemption |
| Whether the 1987 rule should be reinstated after invalidation of the 1993 rule | Coalition: prior rule should return as the default legal status | Well Drillers: district court lacked authority to reinstate an old rule | Court: Held reinstatement appropriate as default remedy when a rule is void from inception; 1987 rule reinstated until DNRC validly replaces it |
| Whether the district court erred by ordering DNRC to initiate rulemaking consistent with the court’s order | Coalition: district court may direct remedial consistency | Well Drillers: court overstepped by directing rulemaking outcome | Court: Partly agreed — court can require consistency with its judgment, but the mandate compelling DNRC to initiate rulemaking was removed; DNRC may choose whether to initiate rulemaking |
| Whether legislative amendments ratified the 1993 rule interpretation | Well Drillers: later statutory amendments (1991, 2013) and legislative knowledge of the rule indicate Legislature adopted the 1993 interpretation | Coalition: text of the clause remained unchanged since 1987; amendments do not abrogate original meaning | Court: Held amendments left the original language intact; presumption is unchanged words retain original meaning; Grenz canon inapplicable here — no legislative abrogation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Mont. Power Co. v. Carey, 211 Mont. 91, 685 P.2d 336 (Mont. 1984) (describing Water Use Act purpose to protect senior water rights)
- Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (invalidating a federal agency rule reinstates the prior rule)
- Cumberland Med. Ctr. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 781 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1986) (prior regulation reinstated when current rule void)
- State ex rel. Woodahl v. District Court, 162 Mont. 283, 511 P.2d 318 (Mont. 1973) (invalid statute leaves law as it stood prior)
- Grenz v. Mont. Dept. of Natural Res. & Conservation, 359 Mont. 154, 248 P.3d 785 (Mont. 2011) (presumption that Legislature adopts existing agency interpretation when amending statute)