Petre, Benjamin M.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 56 9-1-2004 Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields, 92 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2004) Benjamin M. Petre Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Benjamin M. Petre, Court Report, Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields, 92 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2004), 8 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 301 (2004). 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 REPORTSMichael GraetzMONTANAHidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields, 92 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2004) (holding:(1) the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction when it recognizedthe existence of an independent source of water, determined thatsource's flow rate, and settled controversies between appropriatorsfrom water source; (2) the district court properly denied a party's mo-tion to certify the issue involving controversy as to the source of waterrights to the chief water judge; and (3) the district court did not de-prive a party of due process of law by not permanently modifying thedecree).The dispute in this case, which concerned the appropriate distribu-tion of water from the Confederate Creek and its tributaries, relatedback to the Confederate Creek Decree ("Decree"). In the Decree, theFirst Judicial District Court, Broadwater County, decreed the waterrights of Confederate Creek and its tributaries to the predecessors ininterest to Hidden Hollow Ranch ("Hidden Hollow") and Gregory W.Field ("Field") on September 24, 1940.Pursuant to the rights established in the Decree, Field's lower di-version was prior to Hidden Hollow's points of diversion. Conse-quently, very little water bypassed Field's lower point of diversion andtraveled toward Hidden Hollow's points of diversion. This led to anumber of incidents between Field and Hidden Hollow, which in-cluded Hidden Hollow's attempt to alter Field's diversion structure,Hidden Hollow's manipulation of the Field's valve, and Field's installa-tion of an improved diversion structure and padlock. Hidden Holloweventually filed an action against Field, in which Hidden Hollowsought to hold Field in contempt for violating the Decree and enjoinField from further interference with Hidden Hollow's water rights.Following a bench trial, the FirstJudicial District Court, BroadwaterCounty dismissed Hidden Hollow's petition and enjoined it from fur-ther interference with Field's diversion works and water conveyancesystem. Hidden Hollow appealed the district court's decision to theMontana Supreme Court. Hidden Hollow raised four primary issueson appeal.The court first addressed Hidden Hollow's argument that the dis-trict court exceeded its jurisdiction and re-adjudicated the parties' un-derlying water rights as previously decreed in the Decree. Accordingto Hidden Hollow, the district court re-adjudicated the water rights byrecognizing the existence of an independent source of water and de-termined the source's flow rate. The court rejected Hidden Hollow'sargument. The court noted district courts have the authority to super-vise the distribution of previously adjudicated water, enforce an exist-ing water decree, and fill in pre-1973 decrees with further delineations.Issue 1WATER LA W REVIEWThe district court's recognition of an independent source of water,determination of the flow rate, and referral to the water at issue as de-veloped water fell under this authority. Thus, the district court did notexceed its jurisdiction..Hidden Hollow also argued the district court erred in denyingHidden Hollow's motion to certify the issue involving the controversyas to the source of the respective parties' water rights to the chief waterjudge. The court rejected Hidden Hollow's argument, relying againon the determination that the district court did not exceed its jurisdic-tion in respect to the previous issue.Next, the court addressed the argument that the district court er-roneously shifted the burden of proof to Hidden Hollow to prove howmuch water Hidden Hollow contributed to the natural drainage fromits independent source. The court stated the burden of proof rests onthe party asserting he or she is entitled to use water released into anatural carrier from another water source. In the case at issue, thecourt noted the district court weighed the evidence presented at trialand concluded Field proved more water was imported from his watersource than the water diverted at his lower point of diversion. On theother hand, Hidden Hollow's evidence was not as persuasive. Thus,the district court permissibly shifted the burden of proof to HiddenHollow.Finally, the court addressed the issue of whether the district court'sorder regarding Hidden Hollow's water right deprived Hidden Hollowof due process of law by ruling on issues not raised by the pleadings.On this issue, Hidden Hollow maintained the district court perma-nently modified the Decree by declaring Field was entitled to all but a0.83 miner's inches of water at his lower point of diversion. HiddenHollow argued that such a modification, in what was essentially an ac-tion for contempt and injunctive relief, deprived Hidden Hollow ofdue process of law. However, the court held the district court did notpermanently modify the Decree, thus the district court did not depriveHidden Hollow of procedural and substantive protections embodiedby the due process clauses of the United States Constitution and theMontana Constitution.In conclusion, the court rejected all of Hidden Hollow's argumentsand affirmed the district court's holding.Benjamin M. PetrePaulson v. Flathead Conservation Dist., 91 P.3d 569 (Mont. 2004)(holding the conservation district had statutory authority to determineproperty owners' rights to construct a waterfront improvement projectwhere another state agency had concurrent jurisdiction over the pro-ject).Volume 8

Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields, 92 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2004)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2149&context=wlr

Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields, 92 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2004)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver