Wilson v. Tyrrell
2011 WY 7
Wyo.2011Background
- Decades-long dispute over Lucerne's use of an old eastern channel to transport irrigation water across Wilson land.
- Wilson II held the eastern channel was no longer part of the river and quieted title to adjacent land subject to Lucerne's easement rights.
- District court previously enjoined Wilsons from interfering with Lucerne's facilities and recognized Lucerne's easement to transport water.
- Wilsons sought to force headgate construction at Lucerne's diversion dam under §41-3-613, arguing the eastern channel was riverine.
- Remand following Wilson II directed the district court to identify and locate Lucerne's easement, if needed by surveying evidence.
- This appeal consolidates S-10-0054 (State Engineer/ Lucerne challenging a headgate decision), S-10-0055 (quiet title easement location), and S-10-0119 (costs) and requests review under Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Headgate requirement under §41-3-613 satisfied? | Wilson asserts headgate at diversion dam required by statute. | Lucerne/State Engineer argue statute allows but does not mandate headgate where justified. | Not contrary to law; headgate placement at the adjudicated point satisfactory under the statute. |
| Was the State Engineer's ruling not to require a headgate at the dam arbitrary and capricious? | Decision lacking rational basis given excess flow down eastern channel. | Agency considered on-the-ground facts and prior rulings; rational basis exists. | Not arbitrary or capricious; there is a rational basis for the decision. |
| Did district court follow this Court's remand mandate? | District court failed to implement remand instructions fully. | Court substantially complied; easement identified and location clarified. | District court substantially complied; remand to finalize quiet title/easement consistent with mandate. |
| Are district court's findings of fact clearly erroneous? | Findings overstated, especially about channel banks and freeboard. | Findings supported by surveyor and former State Engineer; credible under standard. | No clear error; findings consistent with record and law of the case. |
| Did district court abuse its discretion excluding the Wilsons' expert? | Belated disclosure and discovery violations excused expert testimony. | Disclosures were violated; exclusion was within district court's discretion. | No abuse; exclusion warranted given noncompliance with Rule 26 requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Lucerne Canal & Power Co., 77 P.3d 412 (Wyo. 2003) (original River/Channel status and quiet title context; remand groundwork)
- Wilson v. Lucerne Canal & Power Co., 150 P.3d 653 (Wyo. 2007) (remand on quiet title; eastern channel no longer a river channel; easement focus)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wyo. 2008) (arbitrary and capricious review standard clarified)
- Northfork Citizens for Responsible Development v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Park County, 228 P.3d 838 (Wyo. 2010) (administrative review; substantial evidence not always required; deference to agency)
- Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman, 226 P.3d 889 (Wyo. 2010) (preserves deferential review of district court findings under bench trial standard)