Establishment Org. of Ward Irriga

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: June 13, 1985
• Docket: 84-298
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 84-298

I N THF: SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA

I N THE PP'IATTER O F THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION O F THE WARD IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. B o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL O F FECORD:

For A p p e l l a n t :

L o b l e & Pauly; L e s t e r L o b l e , 11, H e l e n a , Montana

For R e s p o n d e n t :

Recht & Greef; C h a r l e s R. Recht, Hamilton, Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Jan. 1 0 , 1985

Decided: June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5

Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.

This i s an appeal f r o m a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , R a v a l l i C o u n t y , a d j u d i c a t i n g

the control over the Bray Lane Headgate in the Ward

Irrigation District, R a v a l l i County, Montana. We affirm i n

p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , a n d remand.

The f o l l o w i n g i s a map o f t h e a r e a : Hayes Creek and Camas Creek both +low easterly from

t h e i r o r i g i n s i n t h e B i t t e r o o t Mountains. Hayes C r e e k e n d s

i n a m a r s h y a r e a t o t h e w e s t o f Highway 9 3 a n d s o u t h o f Camas

Creek. To t h e s o u t h i s L o s t H o r s e C r e e k , and t o t h e e a s t ,

the Bitteroot River. A ditch used by t h e Ward Irrigation

D i s t r i c t r u n s from t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r , p i c k s up L o s t Horse

Creek water, runs by Hayes Creek, and continues until it

j o i n s Camas C r e e k . D u r i n g h i g h w a t e r , Hayes Creek s p i l l s o u t

into the ditch. In most years, this spillage does not

continue past the middle of July. Subsequent to its

c o n f l u e n c e w i t h Camas C r e e k , t h e combined c r e e k - d i t c h follows

t h e n a t u r a l b e d o f Camas C r e e k . A s w i t h Hayes C r e e k , Camas

Creek g e n e r a l l y o n l y c o n t r i b u t e s w a t e r t o t h e d i t c h d u r i n g

high water. The d i t c h t h e n r u n s p a s t t h e B r a y Lane H e a d g a t e .

The F o s s family referred t o i n t h i s opinion consists

of: John Foss, Millo Huggans, Alice Foss, and other

s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o Sam F o s s , Sr. They own a r a n c h o f

approximately 500 acres in the Bitterroot Valley that

includes parts of sections 26, 34, and 35 of Township 5

North, Range 21 W e s t , M.P.M. About 130 a c r e s o f t h e Foss

ranch is included in the Ward Irrigation District. The

Fosses have decreed w a t e r r i g h t s f o r t h e i r land f r o m Hayes

C r e e k , Camas C r e e k , and t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r . The e x i s t e n c e

of these rights is not i n dispute. The F o s s ' land included

i n t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t h a s w a t e r r i g h t s from Camas

Creek and t h e B i t t e r o o t R i v e r . The p a r t o f t h e r a n c h n o t i n

t h e d i s t r i c t has water r i g h t s f r o m Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s .

Camas Creek flows through section 34 above its

confluence with t h e ditch. H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e Fosses diverted

t h e i r f i r s t t h r e e Camas r i g h t s t h e r e . Hayes C r e e k f l o w s i n

a n e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n s o u t h o f t h e F o s s r a n c h , a n d t h e Hayes Creek water rights, as we11 as fourth Camas right, were

h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d a t t h e Bray Lane H e a d g a t e .

The Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was formed i n 1 9 3 8 . The

District's p e t i t i o n f o r formation s t a t e d a s i t s purpose t h a t :

". . . t h e l a n d s above d e s c r i b e d , [ t h o s e included i n t h e District, including, a t t h e t i m e 3 6 a c r e s owned by Sam F o s s ] and to be included in the said Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , a r e t o be i r r i g a t e d from the water furnished from the B i t t e r o o t R i v e r and 1000 i n c h e s o f w a t e r o f L o s t H o r s e C r e e k , and conveyed from the said r i v e r by and through t h a t c e r t a i n d i t c h known a s t h e 'Ward D i t c h ' ... 11

Sam F o s s was t h e f i r s t s i g n a t o r o f t h i s p e t i t i o n . Further,

the report of the State Engineer, required by law to

accompany any petition for establishment of irrigation

districts, stated that:

". . . the present proposal is the f o r m a t i o n o f an I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t o n l y t o t a k e o v e r and o p e r a t e t h e e x i s t i n g main canal and structures for the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and d e l i v e r y o f w a t e r t o which t h e l a n d s c o m p r i s i n g t h e d i s t r i c t are entitled under individual water rights severally established ... "

Following its formation, the District has added several

parcels of land, i n c l u d i n g some F o s s a c r e a g e , t o t h e s e r v i c e

a r e a o f t h e Ward D i t c h .

Historically, t h e F o s s e s h a v e conveyed Camas C r e e k and

Hayes Creek w a t e r t h r o u g h t h e Ward D i t c h and the D i s t r i c t

d e l i v e r e d water t o Foss land o u t s i d e t h e d i s t r i c t through t h e

Bray Lane H e a d g a t e . T h i s p r a c t i c e ended i n 1979 when t h e

D i s t r i c t requested t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o p r o h i b i t t h e Fosses

from a d j u s t i n g t h e Bray Lane H e a d g a t e . O May 7 , n 1979, t h e

D i s t r i c t Court granted the District's r e q u e s t and i s s u e d a

temporary restraining order and order to show cause

prohibiting t h e Fosses from a n y f u r t h e r d i v e r s i o n s a t Bray Lane. The t e m p o r a r y o r d e r w a s c o n t i n u e d f o r f o u r y e a r s . In

April of 1 9 8 3 , M i l l o Huggans was h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f court

f o r a d j u s t i n g t h e headgate. John F o s s was h e l d i n c o n t e m p t

on t h e same b a s i s i n A u g u s t o f 1 9 8 4 .

In t h i s action, t h e F o s s e s c l a i m t h a t t h e i r Hayes a n d

Camas Creek rights existed prior to the formation of the

District; that the D i s t r i c t i s f i r s t u s i n g Hayes C r e e k a n d

t h e n Camas C r e e k a s i t s d i t c h ; and t h a t p u r s u a n t t o g e n e r a l

w a t e r l a w p r i n c i p l e s a n d s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA, they should

b e a l l o w e d t o d i v e r t t h e i r w a t e r s a t t h e B r a y Lane H e a d g a t e .

R e s p o n d e n t s , t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , c o n t e n d t h a t

the sole issue is the right to control the Bray Lane

Headgate, an integral part of t h e District's system. The

D i s t r i c t c l a i m s t h a t t h e F o s s e s have n e v e r u s e d t h e Bray Lane

Headgate a s an e x c l u s i v e p o i n t o f diversion, and t h a t t h e y

have aquiesced c o n t r o l o f a l l headgates t o t h e D i s t r i c t f o r

more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s . Additionally, t h e District maintains

that control of the Bray Lane Headgate is necessary to

guarantee adequate water to its members and to prevent

r n i s d e l i v e r i e s and f l o o d i n g . Finally, the District points out

t h a t it h a s , and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o d e l i v e r t o t h e F o s s e s as

much w a t e r a t t h e h e a d g a t e a s t h e y n e e d .

T r i a l was h e l d o n December 14, 1983. In addition t o

taking evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge p e r s o n a l l y viewed

the area. On A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 8 4 , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s

and c o n c l u s i o n s . B e c a u s e of t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e c a s e , a n d

b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s p u t t h e f i n d i n g s a t i s s u e , w e q u o t e them

a t length:

" 2 . The D i s t r i c t owns a n i r r i g a t i o n c a n a l w h i c h commences a t t h e B i t t e r r o o t R i v e r i n S e c t i o n 1 4 , T4N, R21W, M . P . M . , picks u p L o s t H o r s e C r e e k w a t e r and t h e n f l o w s i n a n o r t h e r l y a n d sometimes w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n f o r a b o u t 3+ m i l e s ...

" 6 . The o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t a r e such t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t must have c o n t r o l o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of water throughout t h e system and p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e Rray headgate. I f t h e D i s t r i c t d o e s n o t have control o f t h e e n t i r e system, t h e r e s u l t w i l l be misdelivery of water including s h o r t a g e s i n some p l a c e s a n d f l o o d s i n the other. I t t a k e s a number o f h o u r s t o adjust delivery a t the various points in t h e d i t c h which r e q u i r e s p r e p l a n n i n g i n operation.

" 7 . Camas Creek has several appropriations of water from it, i n c l u d i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s owned b y Sam Foss's successors. It u s u a l l y d r i e s up by t h e middle o f j u l y [ s i c ] o f each y e a r i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e creek immediately above t h e p l a c e where t h e D i s t r i c t ' s d i t c h f l o w s i n t o t h e bed o f Camas C r e e k . From t h a t p o i n t , t h e D i s t r i c t u t i l i z e s t h e c r e e k bed a s i t s main d i t c h f o r a short distance. During t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n n o w a t e r f r o m Camas C r e e k r u n s i n t o o r combines w i t h w a t e r i n the District d i s t r i b u t i o n system. Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s h a v e n o w a t e r w h i c h would i n a n y way r u n i n t o t h e D i s t r i c t ' s s y s t e m . They h a v e a s y s t e m h i g h e r u p Camas C r e e k f o r d i v e r s i o n o f t h e i r Camas C r e e k w a t e r .

" 8 . Hayes C r e e k i s l o c a t e d S o u t h and W e s t o f Camas C r e e k . Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s claim t h e r i g h t t o use t h e District's c a n a l t o c o n v e y Camas C r e e k [ s i c ] [Hayes Creek?] w a t e r t o t h e i r l a n d s , which i s t h e only p r a c t i c a l route. In t h e past, this route has been used with the permission of t h e District. No m e a s u r i n g d e v i c e h a s ever b e e n i n s t a l l e d t o measure Hayes C r e e k w a t e r i n o r o u t o f t h e District's canal ... P a s t r e c o r d s do show t h e D i s t r i c t i n a b s o l u t e c o n t r o l o f t h e system a t a l l t i m e s s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1950's.

"9. I t is the common practice for i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e D i s t r i c t t o build their own headga tes for d i s t r i b u t i n g water from the D i s t r i c t ditches t o t h e i r lands. A f t e r such construction, the District assumes c o n t r o l o f t h e headgate and h a s a u t h o r i t y t o o p e r a t e it. N e i t h e r Sam F o s s n o r h i s successors have any right to water flowing into or controlled by the i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t except a s District members o r e x c e p t b y p e r m i s s i v e u s e [ s i c ] of the District.

"Now, therefore, the Court concludes:

" 2 . Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s d o n o t h a v e a u t h o r i t y by e i t h e r g r a n t , a d v e r s e u s e o r c o n t r a c t t o c o n v e y Camas C r e e k o r Hayes Creek w a t e r s through t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m of t h e D i s t r i c t .

" 3 . I n t h e p a s t , Sam F o s s a n d Sam F o s s ' s s u c c e s s o r s h a v e f l o w e d Hayes C r e e k w a t e r through the District's canal with permission of t h e District. In order for them t o d o s o i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e y m u s t obtain permission of t h e District ... "

The a p p e l l a n t s r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s :

(1) T h a t s e c t i o n 85-7-1922, MCA p r o h i b i t s t h e D i s t r i c t

from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e F o s s f a m i l y ' s u s e o f t h e Bray Lane

Headgates;

( 2 ) T h a t t h e c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s

does not a f f e c t t h e Foss family's r i g h t s ;

( 3 ) That t h e District's system u s e s t h e n a t u r a l beds o f

Hayes a n d Camas C r e e k s , and t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f u s e r s o f t h e

n a t u r a l f l o w a r e p r i m a r y a n d s u p e r i o r t o t h e c o n v e n i e n c e and

management o f t h e d i t c h s y s t e m ;

( 4 ) T h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t

Court t h a t t h e F o s s e s do n o t have w a t e r r i g h t s a t t h e Bray

Lane Headgate are not supported by the evidence; and that

( 5 ) The i n j u c t i o n p r e s e n t l y i n f o r c e i s u n l a w f u l .

Appellants' brief contains government survey

d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d maps o f the area t h a t a l l e g e d l y show t h a t

the District's ditch is actually Hayes Creek, until it

converges with Camas Creek, and after that point that it follows the Camas Creek bed. Respondents object to

appellants' inclusion of t h e s e s u r v e y d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d maps

because they were not introduced as evidence before the

District Court. Appellants contend the use of the

descriptions and maps is proper under Rule 201 ( b ) ,

Mont. R . E v i d . because they present facts "not subject to

reasonable dispute." We w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e s e documents for

two r e a s o n s . First, t h e Comment t o R u l e 2 0 1 p r o v i d e s t h a t

" j u d i c i a l n o t i c e can be t a k e n a t any s t a g e o f t h e proceeding,

and includes within its scope "published maps or charts1'

Commission Comments, Rule 201, Mont.R.Evid. Secondly, the

Montana Water Code specifically pro~~ides hat t in the

adjudication process, maps and descriptions are acceptable

a r t i c l e s of e v i d e n c e by which t o show a w a t e r r i g h t . See

s e c t i o n 85-2-224 ( 2 ) , MCA.

We a r e mindful, though, t h a t i n our consideration of

the d e s c r i p t i o n and maps, w e must a l s o g i v e weight t o t h e

District Court's findings, particularly since the judge

p h y s i c a l l y viewed t h e a r e a . I n Grimsley v. E s t a t e of Spencer

(Mont. 1983), 670 P.2d 85, 40 St.Rep. 1585, we s t a t e d t h e

standard o f review i n an equity case such a s t h i s :

" I n e x a m i n i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s Decree, we a r e e n t i t l e d t o review a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a r i s i n g upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , and d e t e r m i n e t h e same, a s w e l l a s q u e s t i o n s o f law. ..In s o doing, however, w e have always i n d u l g e d c e r t a i n presumptions in favor of the trial court's determination. We do not s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; r a t h e r , we d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r there is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e lower c o u r t ' s findings. .. " 670 P.2d a t 9 4 , 40 S t . R e p . a t 1 5 9 5 .

See a l s o 7 9 Ranch, I n c . v . P i t s c h (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 666 P.2d 215, Moving to the substantive issue, as the late Professor Wells A. Hutchins, in his treatise Water Rights - -in the Laws - Nineteen Western States (1971) notes r "The purpose of an irrigation organization is to provide water for the use of agricultural lands that cannot be irrigated by individual means as convenient]y or economically as by a group enterprise, if at a1 1 "... Hutchins, supra at 550, 551. But, a district cannot be formed unless its members are willing to part with some of their rights, particularly the

right to control the distribution system. Generally, what occurs is that by authority of the Order establishing an

irrigation district, the rights to claim and use water under water rights appurtenant to lands included within a district are conveyed thereto. The rights that the district received

by authority of the court Order, or other rights subsequently developed, "are held ... in trust for the performance of their several functions,l1 Hutchins, supra at 551; see also 45 Am.Jur.2dI Irrigation, S 6 2 ; but:

". .. even if the holders do convey their water rights to the company for the mere purpose of convenient management and distribution of the water to users according to their respective rights, there is no severance of the right from the land to which it was appurtenant." Hutchins, supra at 552. The most important function of an irrigation district

is the control., to the mutual advantage of a l l the members, of the irrigation system. Indeed, though water rights remain with the private appropriator, the prerogative of control must lie exclusively with the district. For this reason, a dI.:;I:r:i~:t court has the limited power, (subject to the wi.-tkd'rawa provision 1 in section 85-7-107 (b), MCA) when considering a petition for the formation of an irrigation district, to include or exclude lands depending on whether

such lands and their appurtenant water rights are essential to the efficacy of the proposed district, see 85-7-107, MCA; In Re Pet for Org. & Est. of an Irr. Dist. (Mont. 1984), 680 P.2d 944, 41 St.Rep. 658, (The Daly Ditch Case) ; Scilley v. Red Lodge-Rosebud Irr. Dist. (1928), 83 Mont. 282, 272 P.

Appellants contend that section 85-7-1922, MCA prohi-bits the District from interfering with the Foss family's control of the Bray Lane Headgate necessary to utilize their Hayes and Camas Creek rights. Addressing the powers and duties of irrigation districts, that section states: "Regulation, supervision, apportionment, and control of water distribution. In addition to all other powers granted them by the laws of Montana, boards of commissioners of a 11 irrigation districts, now or hereafter organized under any law of this state, shall have the power and authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control the furnishing and delivery of water through the distribution system of the district. Such authority to regulate, supervise, apportion, and control shall not apply to users who have water rights or ditch rights, established, acquired by court decree, use, appropriation or otherwise, at the time or prior to the organization of such district, without regard to whether said distribution system or any portion thereof belongs to the district or to the owner of lands served by said district."

This provision was enacted in 1935 as a general amendment to the Water Use Act, see Sec. 2, Ch. 63, L. 1935. It was meant to cover situations where an irrigation district is formed and begins the distribution of water and its system overlays existing streams, ditches, and headgates. Section

85-7-1922, MCA, does two things: First, it gives an irrigation district the exclusive right to regulate and control its distribution system. Second, it prohibits a

district from controlling its distribution system in a manner that detrimentally affects other water rights over which the district has no control. As such, it is a restatement of the common law rule that: "An irrigation district acquiring a system which has theretofore furnished water to settlers outside of the district, who had a vested right thereto, is compelled to continue to deliver such water." Yaden v. Gem. Irr. Dist. (Id. 1923), 216 P. 250, 252. See also, - Daly Ditch Case, supra; Koch v. Colvin (1940), The 110 Mont. 594, 105 P.2d 334; Maclay v. Missoula Irr. Dist. (1921), 90 Mont. 344, 3 P.2d 286. The above discussion points out the two distinct aspects of the district's functions: control of the irrigation system, and delivery of water to where it is due. Here, the District Court in the 1938 Order establishing the Ward Irrigation District, granted the District exclusive control over the described distribution system--including the Bray Lane Headgate. The same order also effected a transfer of control of the water rights appurtenant to the lands included within the district. It did not affect those water rights appurtenant to lands not included in the district but nonetheless served by the same system. As to those, the District did, and still does, have a continuing obligation to deliver that water in the amount and nature of the use existing before the District was formed. We have recognized this common-sense proposition before. In - Daly Ditch Case, supra, we noted: The "There does appear then to be an obligation, the exact nature of which we do not here attempt to determine, on the p a r t o f t h e newly-organized Daly D i t c h e s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , i f it i n t e n d s t o u s e t h e p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n and r i g h t s o f appropriation appurtenant t o t h e lands of Skalkaho Creek exchange u s e r s f o r t h e u s e and b e n e f i t o f o t h e r l a n d o w n e r s , t o provide s u b s t i t u t e water i n exchange t o t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s ... If the exchange w a t e r u s e r s j o i n t h e d i s t r i c t , t h e y w i l l r e c e i v e a c r e d i t on t h e i r assessment t o b e determined a t a l a t e r time. I f t h e y d o n o t j o i n , t h e exchange w a t e r u s e r s h a v e l e f t t o them a l l l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e remedies i f water i s n o t d e l i v e r e d t o them." 680 P.2d a t 9 4 8 , 949, 4 1 St.Rep. a t 663, 664.

We r u l e t h a t t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t was g r a n t e d

and has the exclusive right to control the Bray Lane

Headgate. We therefore affirm t h e District Court on that

point. This r i g h t t o c o n t r o l , though, i s s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n

conditions. The D i s t r i c t m u s t d e l i v e r t h e amount o f w a t e r

t h a t is appurtenant t o lands outside t h e D i s t r i c t including

the Foss lands, in the same nature and amount that was

delivered prior t o August 10, 1938. In this regard, the

D i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e Bray Lane Headgate i s s u b j e c t

to the District Court's e q u i t y power t o work a reasonable

accommodation between t h e two i n t e r e s t s . Further, t h e Fosses

h a v e t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f b o t h l e g a l and e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s t o

i n s u r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t d e l i v e r s t h e w a t e r t o which t h e y a r e

entitled. Since the District Court did not make a

determination f o r t h e purpose of t h i s a c t i o n o f what w a t e r

r i g h t s a r e a p p u r t e n a n t t o what l a n d s , and i n t h a t r e g a r d t h e

c o n t r o l o f which o n e s t h a t w e r e conveyed t o t h e D i s t r i c t , and

which w e r e n o t , we remand t h i s c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

consistent with t h i s opinion.

W e n o t e though, t h a t t h e Foss' f i r s t t h r e e Camas C r e e k

r i g h t s w e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y d i v e r t e d a b o v e w h e r e Camas C r e e k a n d

t h e Ward D i t c h c o n v e r g e . T h e s e a r e s t i l l a v a i l a b l e t o them at their original point of diversion. See Galiyer v. McNulty (1927), 80 Mont. 339, 260 P. 401; Smith v. Duff (1909), 39 Mont. 382, 102 P. 984. Since the District Court, in Finding number 7, found that the District uses Camas Creek as its

ditch subsequent to where it and the ditch meet, the Fosses are not precluded from applying for a change in the place of diversion or use pursuant to section 85-2-402, MCA. We overrule the District Court's Conclusions number 2 and 3, the portion of Finding number 9 inconsistent with this

opinion. and those parts of the Order dependent thereon. The Fosses may if they choose, convey their Camas and Hayes Creek water rights in the same manner and amount established prior to 1938. The District has the obligation to deliver that water. If any measuring device is required, it should

be the District's responsibility. This holding does not do

violence to section 85-7-1925, MCA. That statute only applies to lands included within irrigation districts. Further, if it appears now that the ditch is too small to service District and other private water rights, and a larger one is needed, the Fosses should not be required to bear any

burden of expansion. They were there first, and are entitled to exercise all of the property rights that they have not surrendered, or have had taken by court order. As to appellant's issues number two and three; since we reverse the District Court's conclusions numbers 2 and 3, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith, we do not address them at this time. Issue number four was generally discussed in the context of issue number one. Appellants have the right to have delivered to them by the District the waters allowed them for water rights not within the District, and for water t o which t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d a s members o f t h e D i s t r i c t . The

D i s t r i c t h a s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e Bray Lane Headgate. To

that extent, we affirm the District Court on this issue.

F i n a l l y , a s t o i s s u e number f i v e , o t h e r t h a n a f f i r m i n g

the D i s t r i c t Court's o r d e r , w e f i n d it a t t h i s p o i n t t o be

moot. John F o s s h a s b e e n c i t e d f o r c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g

the provisions of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s temporary r e s t a i n i n g

order. The i s s u e o f t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n on which

John Foss was found in contempt is presently before t h i s

Court i n a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n .

The District Court i s affirmed in part, reversed in

part, and the case i s remanded for f u r t h e r proceedings in

accordance with t h i s opinion. Each p a r t y s h a l l b e a r i t s own

costs.

W e concur: 1 P Justic

Justices