337 P.3d 74
Mont.2014Background
- Dispute over historic practice of diverting the Teton River into the Bateman Ditch (begun ~1950) to bypass the Springhill Reach and deliver water downstream to the Burd Ditch (Choteau Cattle Company).
- Upstream junior decree holders (including Saylor and Eldorado) use Bateman Ditch; Choteau Cattle holds the senior Perry decree right (1876) but disclaimed Bateman as a point of diversion during adjudication.
- Lower Teton users (Giese, Kelly, Reichelt) contend diversion into Bateman Ditch reduces groundwater recharge and harms their senior downstream rights, challenging diversions beyond what is necessary for Saylor’s decreed use.
- District Court certified the issue to the Water Court after this Court remanded in Giese v. Blixrud; parties used the record from Water Court Case 41O-129 to resolve Bateman Ditch issues.
- Water Master found the Bateman practice a lawful water management/conservation measure; the Water Court recognized the practice but went further, stating Saylor had a protectable right to use the Bateman Ditch to deliver water to Choteau Cattle.
- Supreme Court affirmed recognition of the Bateman Ditch practice as a management tool available to the District Court and Water Commissioner, reversed the Water Court’s characterization of the practice as a private right of Saylor, and remanded for modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Water Court erred in finding Saylor was a party to a historical exchange/substitution giving him a private right to use Bateman Ditch to deliver water to Choteau Cattle | Lower users: No private right exists; diversion was a management tool and cannot create a new private right benefiting Saylor | Saylor/Eldorado: Historic practice should be recognized and confirmed as a protectable exchange/substitution interest | Court: Bateman diversion is a historic management/conservation measure under court supervision; it is not a private right belonging to Saylor — remanded to limit decision to District Court/Water Commissioner authority |
| Whether Water Court erred by listing Choteau Cattle on the tabulation of rights that "may be diverted into" Bateman Ditch despite Choteau disclaiming the ditch | Lower users: Choteau disclaimed Bateman; listing is improper because no party claimed such an exchange | Saylor/Eldorado: Listing is proper because the list responds to the certification and reflects which rights can be delivered via the ditch as a management tool | Court: Proper to list rights (including Choteau) that can be diverted via Bateman Ditch because the list was responsive to certification and reflects management possibilities |
| Cross-appeal: Whether additional downstream rights (beyond Choteau Cattle) can be diverted through Bateman Ditch | Saylor: Additional rights with historical diversions should be included | Water Court/others: Those rights were rarely diverted and their owners are not before the Court | Court: Agreed with Water Court; declined to add those rarely-diverted rights and did not further consider the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Giese v. Blixrud, 365 Mont. 548, 285 P.3d 458 (2012) (remand directing District Court to certify water-right disputes to Chief Water Judge)
- Heavirland v. State, 372 Mont. 300, 311 P.3d 813 (2013) (standards of review for Water Court review of Water Master reports)
- Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co., 375 Mont. 327, 328 P.3d 644 (2014) (same; clarifies review standards)
- Bostwick v. DNRC, 369 Mont. 150, 296 P.3d 1154 (2013) (court may grant relief to water users who prove harm from water management decisions)