Fellows v. Office of Water Commissioner
285 P.3d 448
Mont.2012Background
- Fellows owns a Spring Creek water right decreed in 1892 (Sands Cattle and Land Co. v. Jackson).
- He alleges Spring Creek is recharged by seepage from the Teton River’s natural channel, linking the two hydrologically.
- Choteau Cattle Company held a senior Perry decree right (300 miner’s inches) downstream of Springhill Reach.
- Mid-20th century Bateman Ditch diversion redirected Choteau Cattle’s water around Springhill Reach without express court authorization.
- District Court dismissed Fellows’ complaint as failing to state a claim and lacking standing without proven hydrological connectivity.
- Court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 85-5-301(1) provides standing for Fellows. | Fellows asserts connectivity allows relief under § 85-5-301(1). | District Court held standing depended on hydrological connectivity and Perry decree scope. | Yes; connectivity need not be proven to withstand dismissal. |
| Whether the district court could issue declaratory relief on connectivity. | Declaratory relief should resolve rights pending Water Court adjudication. | Relief limited to rights under the Perry decree; declaratory relief on connectivity improper. | Declaratory relief on connectivity is permissible; district court can address connectivity. |
| Whether Fellows’ complaint should have been dismissed for lack of connectivity. | Allegations show hydrological connection; dismissal wrong. | Connectivity is central and must be proven, potentially via Water Court. | Reversed; factual connectivity inquiry should proceed. |
| What is the proper forum for determining existing water rights and connectivity? | Water Court should decide connectivity under § 85-2-406(2). | Water Court adjudication is the appropriate path; district court limited to prior decree enforcement. | Water Court has exclusive role for adjudicating existing rights; remand for certification. |
| Is the Bateman Ditch diversion lawful and within the Perry decree’s framework? | Diversion harms Fellows’ Spring Creek right. | Diversion maximizes beneficial use for Perry-decree appropriators and is lawful. | Reversed in part; case remanded to address connectivity and certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quigley v. McIntosh, 110 Mont. 495, 103 P.2d 1067 (Mont. 1940) (mechanics of dissatisfied water user proceedings to enforce decrees)
- In re Kelly, 2010 MT 14, 355 Mont. 86, 224 P.3d 640 (Mont. 2010) (limits of § 85-5-301 to disputes within prior decrees)
- Montana Trout Unlimited v. Beaverhead Water Co., 2011 MT 151, 361 Mont. 77, 255 P.3d 179 (Mont. 2011) (recognizes groundwater and surface water connectivity can exist)
- Montana Trout Unlimited v. DNRC, 2006 MT 72, 133 P.3d 224 (Mont. 2006) (connectivity between surface and ground water acknowledged)
- In re Petition of Deadman’s Basin Water Users Association, 2002 MT 15, 308 Mont. 168, 40 P.3d 387 (Mont. 2002) (district court authority to adjudicate water rights limited; Water Court role emphasized)
- Baker Ditch Co. v. District Court, 251 Mont. 251, 824 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1992) (district court supervises distribution of decreed rights but cannot adjudicate new rights)