Olsen v. McQueary

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: August 30, 1984
• Docket: 83-326
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 83-326 IN THESUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984

LARS LEWIS OLSEN, MARY ANN OLSEN, ROBERT JOSEPH OLSEN, and JOYCE OLSEN , Plaintiffs and Appellants,

EVERED L. McQUEARY, W 1 O N A McQUEARY, ANDREW BECK and DONALD W. BECK, Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Powell, The Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF =CORD:

For Appellants: Johnson, Skakles & Kebe; Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, Montana

For Respondents : Loble & Pauly; C. Bruce Loble, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 14, 1984 ~ ~ ~ i d ~ d :30, 1984 August

r Filed: b ,.-!2 4 j ;984

I ! & a! , )- Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of the Court.

The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from t h e judgment of the Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court, Powell County, which decreed the

respective water rights of plaintiffs and defendants in

Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k and Lower F r e d B u r r Creek c h a n n e l n e a r

Deer Lodge, Montana. W a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t e Court.

The p l a i n t i f f s own p r o p e r t y i n P o w e l l County in the

Lower Fred Burr Creek drainage. Some o f these lands are

owned by L a r s and Mary Ann O l s e n , h u s b a n d a n d w i f e , and some

by R o b e r t and J o y c e O l s e n , husband and w i f e .

D e f e n d a n t Andrew Beck owns p r o p e r t y u p h i l l from t h e

Olsens in t h e Upper Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e . Defendant

Donald Beck is t h e g u a r d i a n of Andrew Beck, who h a s b e e n

adjudged an incompetent. Evered a n d Ramona McQueary,

husband and w i f e , through a management agreement, are

p r e s e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r managing t h e Andrew Beck p r o p e r t y .

The McQuearys c l a i m no w a t e r r i g h t i n t h i s a c t i o n , and w e r e

d i s m i s s e d a s d e f e n d a n t s by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k i s a n a t u r a l s t r e a m a r i s i n g i n a

h i l l y a r e a e a s t of t h e B e c k p r o p e r t y and f l o w i n g i n a w e l l

defined channel through the Beck property. However, the

creek disappears i n t o t h e ground n e a r the Beck farmstead,

e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d . The Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l

runs in a n o r t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n and w a t e r flows in the channel on an intermittent basis. The District Court found t h a t Upper F r e d B u r r Creek and Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l a r i s e from s e p a r a t e s o u r c e s o f w a t e r and e x c e p t i n

t i m e s of flood, Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k c o n t r i b u t e s no w a t e r t o t h e Lower Fred B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l . T h e c o u r t a l s o found

t h a t Upper Fred Burr Creek is n o t a tributary to either Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l o r t h e Deer Lodge R i v e r . An y

w a t e r t h a t f l o w s t h r o u g h t h e Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l is e i t h e r f o r e i g n water imported v i a i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s from

Cottonwood Creek and Baggs Creek or waste, drainage and return flow accumulations from irrigation on adjacent ranches. Bob and J o y c e O l s e n have a d e c r e e d s i x t y i n c h w a t e r

r i g h t o u t of Cottonwood Creek w i t h a n 1 8 8 2 p r i o r i t y d a t e . L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck own l a n d i n t h e Upper and Lower Fred Burr Creek d r a i n a g e s , between t h e r e s p e c t i v e r a n c h e s o f p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s . L o u i s Sinith and Sam B e c k a l s o h a v e d e c r e e d r i g h t s f r o m Cottonwood C r e e k . Bob a n d J o y c e

Olsen, L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck together i m p o r t more t h a n

3,500 miner's inches of Cottonwood Creek water into the d r a i n a g e a r e a o f Lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l . The r a n c h e s of L o u i s S m i t h and Sam Beck a r e u p h i l l f r o m t h e O l s e n s ' l a n d and any waste, drainage and return flow waters from

i r r i g a t i o n on t h e s e r a n c h e s f l o w i n t o t h e lower F r e d B u r r C r e e k c h a n n e l and a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e by p l a i n t i f f s . The

District Court found that plaintiffs, Robert and Joyce O l s e n , had a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d s i x t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s o f

t h i s w a t e r w i t h a 1954 p r i o r i t y d a t e . The c o u r t f o u n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s L a r s and Mary Ann O l s e n a p p r o p r i a t e d and d i v e r t e d f i f t y m i n e r ' s i n c h e s w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1965.

I n 1872, d e f e n d a n t s ' p r e d e c e s s o r , Grant, appropriated and diverted 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of Upper Fred Burr Creek waters. Grant's successor filed a declaration of water r i g h t i n 1885 i n t h e c o u n t y o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r i n c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h s t a t u t o r y law. Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k i s

a h i g h m o u n t a i n s t r e a m whose p r i n c i p a l flow occurs i n t h e spring. Defendants' irrigated lands are located on s t e e p h i l l s i d e s w i t h s h a l l o w t o p s o i l l a y i n g o v e r c o a r s e rock and gravel. S u c c e s s f u l g r o w i n g of c r o p s on t h i s l a n d r e q u i r e s

repeated flood i r r i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t 1 . 5 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s p e r

acre were required to successfully irrigate this land. T h e r e i s s e l d o m s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r i n Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k t o

irrigate all of defendants' land. Thus, Beck and his predecessor have consistently used the entire amount of

Upper Fred Burr Creek w a t e r s a v a i l a b l e f o r i r r i g a t i o n and s t o c k w a t e r p u r p o s e s , e x c e p t i n t i m e s of f l o o d .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s had appropriated a n d d i v e r t e d 250 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s f r o m Upper F r e d B u r r Creek w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e o f 1 8 7 2 , and 1 , 0 1 0 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s f r o m Upper Fred Burr Creek w i t h a p r i o r i t y d a t e of 1915. P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s u i t i n 1979, a l l e g i n g wrongful use

of t h e w a t e r s o f F r e d B u r r C r e e k by d e f e n d a n t s a n d a l l e g i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had s u p e r i o r r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r , a t least t o the waters i n e x c e s s of 250 m i n e r s i n c h e s . Plaintiffs asked f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of r i g h t s t o t h e w a t e r s of Fred

B u r r C r e e k and a p p o i n t m e n t of a w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n t o m e a s u r e and distribute the water in accordance with the court's decree. D e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r answer c l a i m e d s u p e r i o r r i g h t s t o a l l w a t e r s of Fred Burr Creek. The c a s e was h e a r d by J u d g e Boy?., who e n t e r e d a decree in April of 1983. The d e c r e e awarded d e f e n d a n t s 1 , 2 6 0 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s from Upper Fred Burr Creek. P l a i n t i f f s Robert and J o y c e O l s e n w e r e awarded sixty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, and plaintiffs Lars and Mary Ann 01-sen were awarded

fifty miner's inches from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The plaintiffs' first issue on appeal is whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court are supported by substantial credible evidence. We first address a subsidiary issue raised by plaintiffs: Did

the District Court err in adopting verbatim much of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law tendered by the respondents? In the past this Court has discouraged the trial court's wholesale adoption of proposed findings and conclusions of the prevailing party. In re Marriage of Wolfe (Mont. 1983), 659 P.2d 259, 261, 40 St. Rep. 211, 213; Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (Mont. 1981), 625 P.2d 536, 538-39, 38 St.Rep. 416, 419. dowever as we stated in Kowis v. Kowis (Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 1084, 1088, 40 St.Rep. 149, 154: " [W]here. . . findings and conclusions are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for decision, and are supported by the evidence, they will not be overturned simply because the court relied upon proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel." Here, the findings and conclusions of the trial court were

comprehensive and pertinent to the issues presented for decision, providing a solid basis for the court's decision. The remaining question is whether the findings and conclusions of the District Court are supported by substantial credible evidence. The court found that the Fred Burr Creek drainage actually consisted of two separate streams, Upper Fred Burr Creek and Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. The court also determined that Upper Fred Burr Creek is not a tributary to Lower Fred Burr Creek channel. These findings provided the

basis for the court's eventual decree of water rights to the parties. In particular, the plaintiffs maintain that findings of fact six and seven, quoted below, are clearly erroneous and require reversal. "6. That from the totality of the evidence as confirmed by the Defendants' expert, Charles C. Bowman, Upper Fred Burr Creek is a natural stream arising in a hilly area easterly from the Andrew A . Beck property, flowing in a well-defined channel through the Beck property until it disappears into the ground, except in times of flood, at or near the Beck farmstead, occupied by the McQuearys as their residence. "7. The Lower Fred Burr Creek channel is a separate source of water supply from Upper Fred Burr Creek and arises generally in the North Half of Section 27 of Township 8 North, Range 9 West where it flows as an intermittent stream in a northwesterly direction." The standard of review long employed by this Court requires only that the findings and conclusions of the District Court be supported by substantial credible evidence. In re Marriage of Pickering (Mont. 1984), 678

P.2d 1146, 1147, 41 St.Rep. 617, 618, "Findings will not be overturned unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence

against them, recognizing that evidence may be weak or conflicting, yet still support the findings." Jensen v. Jensen (Mont. 1981), 629 P.2d 765, 768, 38 St.Rep. 927, 930. The challenged findings of the trial court are largely, although not entirely, based upon the testimony of the respondents' expert witness, Charles C. Bowman. Bowman is a retired professor of agricultural engineering from Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y who h a s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r a number s f

years in Montana water law, irrigation and drainage problems. P r o f e s s o r Bowman t e s t i f i e d t h a t Upper F r e d B u r r

C r e e k is a d r a i n a g e c o m p l e t e l y s e p a r a t e f r o m Lower F r e d B u r r Creek c h a n n e l . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t e x c e p t i n times o f flood, Upper Fred Burr Creek disappears into the ground on the defendants' land, we11 u p h i l l f r o m p l a i n t i f f s ' land. The

u p p e r c r e e k g o e s u n d e r g r o u n d where i t f l o w s i n t o a l a r g e a n d very porous gravel deposit underlain by consolidated

hardpan. Professor Bowman testifed that Lower Fred Burr Creek c h a n n e l a r i s e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e downslope from where the upper creek disappears, and is fed by water i m p o r t e d by d i t c h e s from Baggs and Cottonwood C r e e k s , and by return flow and drainage waters from field i r r i g a t i o n on r a n c h e s above p l a i n t i f f s ' l a n d . The t e s t i m o n y o f P r o f e s s o r

Bowman and o t h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e x c e s s o f 3 , 5 0 0 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s of f o r e i g n w a t e r was i n t r o d u c e d e a c h s e a s o n i n t o t h e

Lower F r e d B u r r d r a i n a g e t h r o u g h i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s . This testimony was corroborated by an American

Stabilization and Conservation Service map and a United States Geological Survey contour map of the Fred Burr

d r a i n a g e s , b o t h of which w e r e e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t objection. Both maps clearly depict a distinct break between t h e two s t r e a m c o u r s e s a l o n g t h e e a s t b o u n d a r y o f Section 26, Township 8 North, Range 9 West. Professor Bowman a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e P o w e l l C o u n t y Water R e s o u r c e s

Survey book, which he helped prepare, reflected a clear d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n t h e two d r a i n a g e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o o k judicial n o t i c e of the S u r v e y book, which i s p u b l i s h e d by t h e S t a t e E n g i n e e r ' s O f f i c e i n H e l e n a , Montana. W hold e that the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s of fact six

and s e v e n a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d

w i l l n o t be disturbed.

The plaintiff also objects to the District Court's

finding that the defendant established an appropriation

based on b e n e f i c i a l use of 1,010 m i n e r ' s inches, with a

p r i o r i t y d a t e of June, 1915. No o b j e c t i o n was made t o t h e

court's finding in favor of the defendant of an

a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f 250 m i n e r ' s inches with a p r i o r i t y d a t e of

May, 1872. The court's f i n d i n g s make it clear that the

t o t a l award of 1,260 miner's i n c h e s of water t o defendant

was i n t e n d e d by t h e c o u r t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t Andrew A. Beck,

and his grantors and predecessors in interest have

consistently diverted and beneficially used - of all the

a v a i l a b l e w a t e r s o f Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k s i n c e 1 9 1 5 . The

d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d f o u r w i t n e s s e s a t t r i a l who t e s t i f e d a t

l e n g t h r e g a r d i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l u s e o f w a t e r f r o m Upper F r e d

B u r r C r e e k o n t h e Beck r a n c h . All t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Beck

ranch h a s used a l l of t h e w a t e r s o f Upper F r e d B u r r C r e e k

for irrigation. The oldest witness, Mr. Soren Beck,

testified that this p r a c t i c e was established as early as

1915. Viewing t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e

prevailing party, it is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e District C o u r t ' s

f i n d i n g of a 1915 a . p p r o p r i a t i o n of 1,010 m i n e r ' s i n c h e s by

t h e d e f e n d a n t is s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e .

I n r e M a r r i a g e o f P i c k e r i n g (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 8 P.2d 1146, 41

St.Rep. 6 1 7 ; O v e r t o n v . O v e r t o n (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 674 P.2d 1089,

40 St.Rep. 2047.

The p l a i n t i f f s next contend that t h e District Court

e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t s t o c e r t a i n testimony given in deposition by Alfred A. Bansen. Defendants objected to Hansen's testimony on grounds that it was speculative, immaterial, incompetent and irrelevant. Hansen's testimony focused on events occurring in the Fred Burr drainage area from 1905-1917, when Hansen was from eight to twenty years of age. Much of Hansen's testimony was speculative, and he plainly implied several times during the course of the deposition that his testimony was based on vague recollections from his childhood. Hansen's testimony concerning irrigation practices on Lars Olsen's land is irrelevant because, as the deposition eventually reveals, the land Hansen was discussing is not owned by Lars Olsen at all. Rather, it is part of the Kohrs Ranch, now owned by the federal government. Baving carefully reviewed Hansen's deposition, we find no error by the trial court in sustaining the objections. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in sustaining the defendants' objections to introduction of plaintiffs' exhibits I and J. Exhibit I is

a warranty deed to plaintiff Lars L. Olsen which purports to convey a decreed right to 500 miner's inches of Fred Burr Creek waters. We note that since this case is the only adjudication of the Fred Burr drainage to date, the deed in question could not have conveyed a decreed water right. Exhibit J is a deed in Lars L. Olsen's chain of title which purports to convey a water right of 500 miner's inches in Fred Burr Creek. Both exhibits were apparently introduced to establish a 500 miner's inch water right in favor of Lars L. Olsen. Plaintiff Lars L. Olsen argues that Exhibit J is admissible because it constitutes a substitute for a notice of appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Such a notice, "when duly made, shall be taken and received in all courts of this state as prima facie evidence of the statements therein contained." Section 89-814, RCM 1947. We find that the deeds do not qualify as notices of appropriation under section 89-810, RCM 1947. Even if we were to consider these deeds as notices of appropriation pursuant to section 89-810, they are fatally defective and inadmissible as evidence of an appropriation because they are executed with unsworn acknowledgements, rather than with verified affidavits as required by section 89-810. "This Court has strictly construed the provisions of section 89-814. We have held that any nonconformance with section 59-810 renders the notice of appropriation inadmissible as evidence." Holmstrom Land Co. v. Meagher Cty. Newlan Creek Water District (1979), 185 Mont. 409, 427, 605 P.2d 1060, 1070. Plaintiff Lars L. Olsen also claims that Exhibit I should have been admitted because it established that Lower Fred Burr Creek channel carried enough water to provide Olsen with 500 miner's inches of water. Olsen contends that Exhibit I would therefore tend to establish that Upper Fred Burr Creek is a tributary to Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, rather than a separate drainage. This is a dubious assertion, since the recitation of a water right in the deed makes no reference to the source of the waters claimed. An overwhelming volume of the testimony presented at trial indicated that Upper Fred Burr Creek is isolated from Lower Fred Burr Creek channel, and that the water available in Lower Fred Burr Creek channel consists of foreign, waste,

d r a i n a g e and return flow waters. W e need not address t h e

t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y w h e r e t h e e f f e c t o f t h e

disallowed exhibit is m i n i m a l in relation to the overall

w e i g h t of e v i d e n c e . The f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t would

undoubtedly be unaffected by a d m i s s i o n o f Exhibit I. We

w i l l n o t r e v e r s e o r remand a r u l i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t Court

where, a s here, it is c l e a r t h a t t h e e v e n t u a l d e c i s i o n w i l l

remain unchanged. K i r b y Co. of Bozeman, Inc. v. Employment

S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n of t h e Montana S t a t e D e p t . of Labor and

I n d u s t r y (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P . 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 3 , 3 7 S t . R e p . 1255,

The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s , a f f i r m e d .

Justice .,

W e concur:

- Chief J u s t i c e