373 P.3d 836
Mont.2016Background
- Eldorado Coop Canal Co. holds four water rights decreed in Perry v. Beattie (1908) and historically administered by a district court–appointed water commissioner.
- The Montana Water Court issued a temporary preliminary decree for Teton River Basin (41O) and, after objections/hearings, modified Eldorado’s claims to impose a cumulative annual volume limit of 15,000 acre-feet.
- Eldorado appealed that Water Court order; this Court in Eldorado I affirmed the Water Court’s authority to impose the volumetric quantification and upheld the 15,000 acre-feet determination.
- Downstream holders (Lower Teton Joint Objectors) asked Water Commissioner Ben Hoge to cap deliveries to Eldorado at the quantified volume; Hoge stopped deliveries.
- Eldorado filed a dissatisfied water user complaint in district court under § 85-5-301, seeking an order directing the Water Commissioner to deliver water per the Perry Decree rather than the Water Court’s volumetric limit.
- The district court denied relief, concluding it must enforce the modified temporary preliminary decree (which supersedes prior claims for administration) and directed the commissioner to distribute pursuant to that decree. Eldorado appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eldorado) | Defendant's Argument (Joint Objectors / Water Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in denying dissatisfied water user complaint | District court should enforce the Perry Decree; Water Court’s volumetric order is not enforceable absent separate enforcement procedures and violated due process | Modified temporary preliminary decree supersedes Perry for administration; Water Court and district court procedures authorized enforcement; Eldorado had notice and opportunity to be heard | Court affirmed: district court correctly enforced the modified temporary preliminary decree and denied Eldorado’s complaint |
| Whether Eldorado waived challenge by not seeking stay in prior appeal | Eldorado contends failure to seek stay does not waive right to a dissatisfied water user action about distribution | Joint Objectors argue Eldorado waived collateral stay challenge | Court: no waiver; adjudication (stay) and distribution (dissatisfied user) are distinct; Eldorado may pursue distribution claim |
| Whether a modified temporary preliminary decree is enforceable against previously decreed rights | Eldorado: only the Perry Decree is enforceable for distribution by the commissioner | Joint Objectors: Water Use Act makes modified temporary preliminary decree enforceable and it supersedes prior claims for administration | Court: statutory scheme makes modified temporary preliminary decrees (post-objections/hearings) enforceable and they supersede prior claims for administration |
| Whether Eldorado’s due process rights were violated by enforcement of volumetric limit | Eldorado: lack of fresh notice or hearing before enforcement violated due process | Joint Objectors: Eldorado participated in the Water Court proceedings and had opportunity to be heard | Court: no due process violation — Eldorado had notice and full participation in objection/hearing process and an opportunity via the dissatisfied user proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Fellows v. Saylor, 382 Mont. 298, 367 P.3d 732 (Mont. 2016) (distinguishing adjudication and distribution and construing Water Use Act)
- Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors, 375 Mont. 420, 337 P.3d 74 (Mont. 2014) (procedural context on Teton River water distribution)
- Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Hoge (Eldorado I), 383 Mont. 205, 369 P.3d 1034 (Mont. 2016) (upholding Water Court’s volume quantification for Eldorado)
- Baker Ditch Co. v. Dist. Ct., 251 Mont. 251, 824 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1992) (scope of dissatisfied water user actions focuses on whether commissioner follows applicable decree)
- Hill v. Merrimac Cattle Co., 211 Mont. 479, 687 P.2d 59 (Mont. 1984) (statutory scheme purpose: quantify water rights and speed decisions)