Matter of the Activities of Dnrc

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 6, 2006
Docket86-397
StatusPublished

This text of Matter of the Activities of Dnrc (Matter of the Activities of Dnrc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of the Activities of Dnrc, (Mo. 2006).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 86-397 ___________________________________

IN RE THE MATTER OF THE REVISIONS TO THE ) WATER RIGHT CLAIM EXAMINATION RULES ) ORDER AND THE WATER COURT PRACTICE AND ) PROCEDURE RULES. ) ___________________________________

On December 30, 2004, the Honorable Bruce C. Loble, Chief Water Judge of the Montana Water Court, filed herein a Petition to Revise Water Right Claim Examination Rules (Petition). The Petition proposed universal revisions of the Water Right Claim Examination Rules adopted by this Court in 1991. The 1991 Water Right Claim Examination Rules apply to the water right claim examination duties of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and to the Water Court’s water adjudication duties. The Petition proposed revisions both to the water right claim examination duties of DNRC and to the Water Court’s practice and procedure rules. We issued an order on January 19, 2005, directing that the bench and bar and any interested persons file written comments, suggestions, or criticisms to the Clerk of this Court regarding the Petition filed by the Water Court on or before April 30, 2005. We later extended the comment deadline to May 31, 2005, at the request of the Water Court, in an order dated May 11, 2005. Various entities, including DNRC, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (DFWP), and the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) filed comments on the Petition. The Court considered the Petition at its public meeting conducted on August 31, 2005. The Court deferred adoption of the proposed rules until the Water Court and the interested parties could collaborate on further revisions. This collaboration resulted in the Water Court filing a First Amended Petition to Revise Water Right Claim Examination Rules (First Amended Petition). The First Amended Petition supersedes the original Petition filed by the Water Court. The First Amended Petition focuses on revisions to rules currently used by DNRC in conducting its examination of water right claims. We have attached the new Water Right Claim Examination Rules to this Order as Exhibit A. DNRC, DFWP, and MSGA submitted comments on the proposed Water Right Claim Examination Rules contained in the First Amended Petition. All parties supported the adoption of the proposed Water Right Claim Examination Rules 1 through 26 and Rules 28 through 46, including the title page and table of contents. DFWP objected to the requirement in proposed Rule 27 (h)(5), that the Water Court hold a hearing to determine the validity of every wildlife, recreation, and fish and wildlife claim, other than claims filed by the DFWP under the Murphy right statutes. MSGA filed a response to DFWP’s objection. The Water Court filed a Second Amended Petition to Revise Water Right Claim Examination Rules (Re: Water Court Practice and Procedure Rules) (Second Amended Petition) on May 30, 2006. The Second Amended Petition also supersedes the original Petition filed by the Water Court. The Second Amended Petition focuses on the practice and procedure rules used by the Water Court. The Second Amended Petition also recommends that the title of these practice and procedure rules be changed to Water Right Adjudication Rules. We have attached the new Water Right Adjudication Rules to this Order as Exhibit B. DNRC and DFWP also submitted comments on the proposed Water Right Claim Examination Rules contained in the Second Amended Petition. DFWP objected to proposed W.R.Adj.R. 9(b), Notice of Intent to Appear (NIA), on the grounds that it fails to reflect Water Court decisions on the scope of NIA participation. The Court reviewed the comments submitted by the Water Court, DNRC, DFWP, and MSGA to the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition. The Court also discussed the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition at its public meetings conducted on August 31, 2005, and September 26, 2006. We express our sincere appreciation to the Water Court and to all of the interested parties for their participation, cooperation, and collaboration in seeking consensus in the revision of the proposed rules. The Court first determines that DFWP correctly points out that the Montana Code contemplates when hearings are necessary. Section 85-2-248(8), MCA, requires the Water Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on any issue remark that remains unresolved by the

2 process set out in § 85-2-248(2)-(7), MCA. We agree with DFWP that many of the remarks on wildlife, recreation, and fish and wildlife claims likely would be resolved through the process set out in § 85-2-248(2)-(7), MCA. As a result, we adopt DFWP’s amended Water Right Claim Examination Rule 27(h)(5), as reflected in the attached Exhibit A. We next recognize DFWP’s concern of a potential conflict between the Water Court’s past decisions on the scope of NIA participation and the scope as allowed under proposed Rule 9(b), W.R.Adj.R. We conclude, however, that the better practice would be to resolve any conflicts arising between the Water Court’s application of M. R. Civ. P. 24 and its application of Rule 9(b), W.R.Adj.R., when a case in controversy exists rather than issue what would amount to an advisory opinion. The Court has determined that the proposed rules, including the revisions to the claim examination rules set forth in the First Amended Petition, and the revisions to the Water Court practice and procedure rules set forth in the Second Amended Petition, would benefit the Water Court and parties appearing before it, promote the prompt and accurate resolution of water right claims and disputes, and facilitate the completion of water rights adjudications in Montana. These determinations complete our review and approval of the proposed rules, with one exception. The one exception involves the issue of the appearance of non-lawyers in the Water Court on behalf of parties. DFWP argued that non-lawyers have appeared in Water Court proceedings far beyond the parameters of pro se representation allowed in Montana district courts. DFWP asked this Court to clarify the Water Court’s policies for non-lawyer appearances. The Water Court justifiably relied upon informal advice provided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1993 regarding the acceptability of the Water Court’s historical practice of allowing non-lawyer appearances in circumstances that exceeded the parameters of pro se representation allowed in Montana district courts. The time has come, however, to move the Water Court into compliance with Montana law regarding the unauthorized practice of law. The Court agrees with DFWP that the Water Court needs to clarify its policies and rules regarding non-lawyer appearances. The Water Court will promulgate, in consultation

3 with DNRC, DFWP, and other interested parties, rules regarding non-lawyer appearances in Water Court. These proposed rules will apply prospectively only and will reflect the unique nature of practice in the Water Court. At the same time, however, these proposed rules must comport with the requirements of § 37-61-210, MCA, and the Rules of the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, adopted in 1991, and amended in 2000. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Amended Petition to Revise the Water Right Claim Examination Rules is GRANTED, with the revised rules to take effect upon the date of this Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Amended Petition to revise the Water Rights Adjudication Rules is GRANTED, with the revised rules to take effect upon the date of this Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Water Court, in consultation with DNRC, DFWP, and other interested parties, shall file with this Court within 60 days, proposed rules on non-lawyer appearances in Water Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Montana publish in the next available issue of The Montana Lawyer a copy of this Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matter of the Activities of Dnrc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-the-activities-of-dnrc-mont-2006.