Costinett, Matthew J.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 61 1-1-2002 Gaudreau v. Clinton Irrigation Dist., 30 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2001) Matthew J. Costinett Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Matthew J. Costinett, Court Report, Gaudreau v. Clinton Irrigation Dist., 30 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2001), 5 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 627 (2002). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSremanded to the district court for further proceedings.Christine EllisonGaudreau v. Clinton Irrigation Dist., 30 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2001)(affirming the district court's holding that: (1) the Clinton IrrigationDistrict ("CID") had no duty to prevent flood waters caused by icejamson the Clark Fork River from overflowing their irrigation system anddamaging Gaudreau's property; (2) CID exercised reasonable care inthe maintenance of its system; and (3) CID had no duty to warnGaudreau of flooding conditions so that they could protect theirproperty).Appellants, Jeanne Gaudreau ("Gaudreau") and Jerry Montelius("Montelius") operate a horse riding and boarding facility nearClinton, Montana near the Clark Fork River. Upstream from theGaudreau facility, the Clinton Irrigation District ("CID") owns andoperates an irrigation ditch. A headgate on the CID system divertswater from the Clark Fork River into a canal. Once waters enter thecanal, they are directed through a series of culverts under an interstatehighway and into a channel that runs adjacent to the Gaudreau facility.On the evening of February 7, 1996, an ice jam formed on the ClarkFork River downstream from the headgate, causing river water to backup and flood the channel upstream from the Gaudreau facility.Another ice jam formed on the channel, which caused overlandflooding of the area adjacent to the channel, including the Gaudreaufacility. After the flooding receded, significant damage was revealed toreal and personal property at the Gaudreau facility.Gaudreau and Montelius sued CID in the District Court, FourthJudicial District, Missoula County, for negligence, trespass, andnuisance. At trial, Gaudreau and Montelius abandoned the trespassand nuisance claims and proceeded on the negligence claims. Thedistrict court ruled in favor of CID. Gaudreau and Montelius appealedto the Supreme Court of Montana asserting that the district courterred in: (1) determining that CID had no duty to prevent flood waterscaused by ice jams on the Clark Fork River from overflowing the CIDsystem and damaging their property; (2) determining that CIDexercised reasonable care in the maintenance of its system; and (3)concluding that CID had no duty to warn them of the floodingconditions so that they could protect their property.First, the supreme court noted that Gaudreau and Montelius'reliance on a Montana statute governing the liability of water userassociations for damages stemming from improper maintenance wasmisplaced because: (1) the statute did not apply to irrigation districts,like CID; (2) it did not impose liability, but disclaimed liability by thestate; and (3) only applied to damages "occurring on the works," andnot property damages such as those Gaudreau and Montelius alleged.As such, the statute did not support the existence of a duty by CID toprevent flooding due to ice jams.Issue 2WATER LAWREVIEWSecond, the Supreme Court noted that the primary factor indetermining whether an irrigation district owes a duty to a damagedplaintiff is whether it was foreseeable that a district's acts or omissionswould pose a risk of injury to the plaintiff. According to the court,testimony at trial clearly demonstrated that overland flooding from theClark Fork River generally and due to ice jams was uncommon. Assuch, the risk of damage to the Gaudreau facility from overlandflooding from the Clark Fork River was not foreseeable. Therefore,the Supreme Court held that CID had no duty to erect or maintainflood control measures on their system to protect the Gaurdreaufacility.Third, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the districtcourt that no evidence existed to suggest that CID failed to exercisereasonable care in the maintenance of their system. According to theSupreme Court, Gaudreau and Montelius were relying in their appealof this issue on evidence that was clearly controverted at trial. As such,the Supreme Court held that CID exercised reasonable care in themaintenance of its system.Fourth, the Supreme Court noted that the precedent on whichGaudreau and Montelius were relying to impose a duty to warn on CIDrequired CID to have foreknowledge of the hazard or to have createdthe hazard. According to the Supreme Court, overland flooding dueto ice jams was already established as unforeseeable and was created bya mix of circumstances out of the control of CID. As such, CID did nothave a duty to warn Gaudreau and Montelius of the overland floodingdue to the ice jams.Matthewj CostinettIn re Deadman's Basin Water Users Ass'n, 40 P.3d 387 (Mont. 2002)(holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when itprohibited irrigation from Deadman's Basin Reservoir in a mannercontrary to the water purchase contract).In 2000, Wiley Micks contracted with Deadman's Basin WaterUsers Association to purchase the right to 775 acre-feet of water fromthe Deadman's Basin Reservoir ("Reservoir"). Micks depended on thewater to irrigate his hay crop. The hay crop was important tosustaining the animals at the genetic materials facility he operated.The water purchase contract provided for a pro rata reduction in waterdistribution in the event an inadequate amount of water existed tosatisfy the outstanding water purchase contracts.On its own motion, the Fourteenth Judicial District Court,Musselshell County, found that the water level in Deadman's BasinReservoir had reached "a critically low level." The district courtdecided that the reservoir water should be used to maintain theMusselshell River flow, which supplied domestic, municipal, stock andwildlife water usage. On August 2, 2000, the district court issued anVolume 5

Gaudreau v. Clinton Irrigation Dist., 30 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2001)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2713&context=wlr

Gaudreau v. Clinton Irrigation Dist., 30 P.3d 1070 (Mont. 2001)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver