Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors
2016 MT 94
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Eldorado Coop Canal Co. claimed four pre-1973 water rights (Eldorado, Truchot, Dennis, Beattie) decreed in 1908 (Perry decree) and filed irrigation and stockwater claims in Water Court Basin 41O (total claimed volume 15,000 acre-feet/year).
- Objectors (Lower Teton Joint Objectors and Teton Coop Reservoir Co.) contested Eldorado’s claimed volumes and other attributes; the case was tried before a Water Master and then reviewed by the Water Court (this is Water Court Case 41O-129B).
- The Water Master quantified separate annual volumes for the four rights totaling 10,350 acre-feet/year, using a 1.5 acre-feet/acre/year duty (based on expert Johnson) and estimated irrigable acreage per right.
- The Water Court concluded the Master erred in his volume methodology, rejected the Master’s per-right volumes, and adopted Eldorado’s claimed aggregate volume (with a remark limiting combined annual diversion to no more than 15,000 acre-feet/year).
- The parties appealed: Eldorado argued the 15,000 cap improperly constrains historic use; objectors argued the Master’s lower, per-right volumes were supported by substantial evidence and should stand. The Supreme Court affirmed the Water Court.
Issues
| Issue | Eldorado’s Argument | Objectors’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether cumulative volume for the four rights may be limited to 15,000 AF/yr | Water Court’s 15,000 AF cap improperly constrains historic beneficial use; McDonald protects pre‑WUA use | Master’s lower quantification (10,350 AF) better reflects historic use and evidence | Court affirmed Water Court: volume quantification is permissible; no party rebutted Eldorado’s claimed volume by preponderance, so combined cap of 15,000 AF/yr stands (Water Court reached right result) |
| 2) Whether separate per-right volume limits were required | A combined cap improperly allows junior rights to be used out of priority; separate limits needed | Combined limit is acceptable; rights have been comingledunder historical use and remain constrained by other right elements | Court held combined volume cap permissible so long as historic beneficial use and priority are preserved; no error in a single combined limit |
| 3) Whether Truchot Right flow rate should be limited to 225 vs. 300 miner’s inches | Truchot’s transferred 75 inches were not proved transferred to Eldorado; limit should be 225 | Water Commissioner records, surveys, and Eldorado’s claim support Eldorado’s full 300 inches | Court affirmed Water Court’s acceptance of Master’s finding of substantial evidence showing Eldorado’s use of full 300 inches; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Heavirland v. State, 311 P.3d 813 (Mont. 2013) (standards for Water Master findings and Water Court review)
- Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera Cnty. Canal & Reservoir Co., 328 P.3d 644 (Mont. 2014) (review of substituted findings and clear error standard)
- McDonald v. State, 722 P.2d 598 (Mont. 1986) (volume determinations permissible if tied to historic beneficial use)
- Worden v. Alexander, 90 P.2d 160 (Mont. 1939) (amount per acre for irrigation is a factual question dependent on site-specific conditions)
- Quigley v. McIntosh, 103 P.2d 1067 (Mont. 1940) (water rights cannot be enlarged beyond original beneficial use to injure others)
- Tipp v. Skjelset, 967 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1998) (appellate right‑result/wrong‑reason rule)
- Interstate Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Desaye, 820 P.2d 1285 (Mont. 1991) (difference of opinion on evidence does not equal clear error)
- Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil, 299 P.3d 327 (Mont. 2013) (Water Court’s obligation not to substitute its judgment for Water Master on facts)
- Nelson v. Brooks, 329 P.3d 558 (Mont. 2014) (claim form provides prima facie proof of claimed elements; rebuttable by preponderance)