383 Mont. 523
373 P.3d 836
2016 MT 145
ELDORADO COOP CANAL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Ben HOGE, in his capacity as current Water Commissioner for the Perry v. Beattie Decree, Cause No. 371, Montana Ninth Judicial District Court, Defendant and Appellee.
No. DA 15–0576.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs April 27, 2016.
Decided June 14, 2016.
For Appellant: John E. Bloomquist, Bloomquist Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana (for Eldorado Coop Canal Co.).
For Appellee: Stephen R. Brown, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, Montana (for Lower Teton Joint Objectors).
Justice BETH BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Eldorado Coop Canal Company appeals the order of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County, denying its dissatisfied water user complaint. Appellees, the Lower Teton Joint Objectors1 (Joint Objectors), appeared
as interested parties in the District Court proceeding. We restate the dispositive issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Eldorado's dissatisfied water user complaint.
¶ 2 We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 The Water Court currently is in the process of adjudicating the existing water right claims of all appropriators in the Teton River Basin—Basin 41O. As part of that process, the Water Court has issued
a temporary preliminary decree for Basin 41O. Various claims subject to the temporary preliminary decree have been at issue in numerous cases before this Court. E.g., Fellows v. Saylor, 2016 MT 45, 382 Mont. 298, 367 P.3d 732 (hereafter Fellows I); Teton Co–Op Canal Co. v. Teton Coop Reservoir Co., 2015 MT 344, 382 Mont. 1, 365 P.3d 442 ; Teton Coop. Reservoir Co. v. Farmers Coop. Canal Co., 2015 MT 208, 380 Mont. 146, 354 P.3d 579 ; Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co., 2014 MT 167, 375 Mont. 327, 328 P.3d 644. Both Eldorado and the Joint Objectors have been involved in a number of these disputes. E.g., In re Eldorado Coop Canal Co., 2016 MT 94, 383 Mont. 205, 369 P.3d 1034 (hereafter Eldorado I); Eldorado Co–Op Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors, 2014 MT 272, 376 Mont. 420, 337 P.3d 74 (hereafter Eldorado II ).
¶ 4 Eldorado is a water supply entity that distributes water to shareholders from the Teton River northwest of Choteau, Montana. Eldorado owns four water rights that were decreed in Perry v. Beattie, Case No. 371 (Mont. 11th Judicial Dist. Ct., March 28, 1908). Eldorado's water rights historically have been administered under the terms of the Perry Decree by a water commissioner appointed by the District Court pursuant to § 85–5–101, MCA.
¶ 5 In November 2014, the Water Court issued an order addressing objections by various parties—including the Joint Objectors—to Eldorado's existing water right claims as established under the temporary preliminary decree. The order determined the elements of Eldorado's existing water right claims and modified the temporary preliminary decree. The Water Court concluded that Eldorado's water right claims included a cumulative annual volume quantification of 15,000 acre-feet. The Water Court determined that this volume quantification represented Eldorado's historic beneficial use of its existing water rights. The Water Court incorporated the volume quantification into the post-decree abstracts for each of Eldorado's water right claims and concluded that “Eldorado's rights shall appear in the Final Decree for the Teton River Basin (41O) in accordance with the [amended] abstracts attached hereto.”
¶ 6 Eldorado appealed the Water Court's order, which we recently addressed in Eldorado I. In Eldorado I, we concluded that the Water Court acted within its discretion under § 85–2–234(6)(b)(iii), MCA, in determining that Eldorado's claims required a volume quantification in order to adequately administer its water rights. Eldorado I, ¶ 25. We concluded further that the Water Court did not err in determining that Eldorado historically put to beneficial use 15,000 acre-feet of water under its existing water rights. Eldorado I, ¶ 34. Accordingly, we
upheld the Water Court's determination that Eldorado's water rights are subject to an annual volumetric quantification and affirmed the Water Court's order. Eldorado I, ¶¶ 34, 43.
¶ 7 The Joint Objectors are downstream Teton River water rights holders whose predecessors were not parties to the Perry Decree. In July 2015, the Joint Objectors informed Water Commissioner Ben Hoge that Eldorado was approaching the volumetric quantification established by the Water Court's order and requested that Water Commissioner Hoge cap the distribution of Eldorado's water to the volumetric quantification. After learning of the request, Eldorado petitioned the Water Court to stay the volume quantification order pending Eldorado's appeal to this Court in Eldorado I. The Water Court denied Eldorado's request in August 2015. Later that same month, Water Commissioner Hoge ceased delivering water to Eldorado.
¶ 8 On August 23, 2015, Eldorado filed a dissatisfied water user complaint in the District Court pursuant to § 85–5–301, MCA.
Eldorado filed its complaint against Hoge in his capacity as Water Commissioner for the Perry Decree. In its complaint, Eldorado sought an order directing the Water Commissioner to deliver water under Eldorado's flow rates as decreed in Perry and to refrain from imposing the volumetric quantification. The Joint Objectors opposed Eldorado's complaint as interested parties. The District Court held a hearing on the matter on September 16, 2015. Two days later, the District Court issued its order denying Eldorado's dissatisfied water user complaint. Eldorado appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 9 On appeal from a dissatisfied water user proceeding we review findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial credible evidence and conclusions of law for correctness. In re Water Complaint of Kelly, 2010 MT 14, ¶ 25, 355 Mont. 86, 224 P.3d 640.
DISCUSSION
¶ 10 Whether the District Court erred in denying Eldorado's dissatisfied water user complaint.
¶ 11 As an initial matter, we decline to address Eldorado's challenge to the Water Court's determination that its existing water rights are subject to a cumulative annual volume quantification of 15,000 acre-feet. We upheld the Water Court's determination regarding the elements of Eldorado's existing water rights in Eldorado I and affirmed the 15,000 acre-foot volume quantification. Eldorado I, ¶¶ 34, 43. Accordingly, the volumetric quantification issue no longer presents
an actual controversy and has been rendered moot. See Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215, ¶ 31, 333 Mont. 331, 142 P.3d 864. The issues related to enforcement of the volumetric quantification are not moot, however, and we will consider them.
¶ 12 In its order, the District Court first concluded that the Water Court has “jurisdiction over all matters relating to the determination of existing water rights” in Montana and that a district court “only has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of a final decree or a temporary preliminary decree as issued and modified by a water court.” Accordingly, the District Court determined that it did not have the authority to stay the volumetric quantification imposed on Eldorado's water rights. The court concluded further that it must enforce the Water Court's volumetric quantification because its jurisdiction in a dissatisfied water user action is limited to determining “whether [or not] the water commissioner is distributing water to existing water rights holders pursuant to the adjudication decree.” (Quoting Baker Ditch Co. v. Dist. Ct., 251 Mont. 251, 256, 824 P.2d 260, 260 (1992).) Accordingly, the District Court denied Eldorado's dissatisfied water user complaint because it concluded that it had “no power to override the decision of the Water Court” to establish a volumetric quantification for Eldorado's existing water rights.
¶ 13 On appeal, Eldorado asserts several points of error. Eldorado first contends that the purpose of a dissatisfied water user action is limited to enforcing the rights determined by a prior decree. In this case, Eldorado asserts, the prior decree that should be enforced is the Perry Decree. As such, Eldorado claims that the District Court erred by not enforcing the Perry Decree's terms and by instructing the Water Commissioner to enforce the volumetric quantification established in the modified temporary preliminary decree. Furthermore, Eldorado contends, the Water Court's order imposing a volumetric quantification is not enforceable because the statutory procedures for enforcing a water court decree were not initiated. Finally, Eldorado claims that the District Court's order violated its due process rights because it was not...
