The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to enter into a Water Use Agreement with Tribal, State, and Federal governments. This procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board, made up of the irrigation districts, did not have the ability under Montana statutes to act for the irrigators without a specific vote of the members and approval from the district court. Two days after receiving the case the Montana Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statutes were inapplicable and the Joint Control Board had authority to enter the agreement

Bell, David A.

English

University of Montana

Public Land & Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2013-2014 Article 22 October 2013 Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District David A. Bell University of Montana School of Law, daveinmontana@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/plrlr  Part of the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Bell, David A. (2013) "Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District," Public Land & Resources Law Review: Vol. 0 , Article 22. Available at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/plrlr/vol0/iss4/22 This Case Summary is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Land & Resources Law Review by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu.  1Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District, 2013 MT 92, 369 Mont. 457, 299 P.3d 346.  David A. Bell  I.  ABSTRACT  The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to enter into a Water Use Agreement with Tribal, State, and Federal governments.  This procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board, made up of the irrigation districts, did not have the ability under Montana statutes to act for the irrigators without a specific vote of the members and approval from the district court.  Two days after receiving the case the Montana Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statutes were inapplicable and the Joint Control Board had authority to enter the agreement.  II.  INTRODUCTION  Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District involved a disagreement over an Irrigation District Joint Control Board’s authority to vote for approval of the Flathead Water Compact on the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana.1  Plaintiffs Western Montana Water Users (“Water Users”), who are individually members of the three Defendant Irrigation Districts (“Irrigation Districts”), filed a complaint claiming that Montana law did not allow the Irrigation Districts to negotiate and sign a “Water Use Agreement” with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (“Tribes”) and the United States Government.2  While the Water Use Agreement intends to “settle the rights of irrigators” at issue in the conflict, the agreement itself spurred controversy within the ranks of the irrigators of the lower flathead valley.3  Plaintiff’s procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board could not enter agreements for the irrigators without a member vote and approval from the district court.4                                                           1 Western Montana Water Users Ass’n LLC v. Mission Irr. Dist., 2013 MT 92, ¶ 1, 369 Mont. 457, 299 P.3d 346 (2013). 2 Montana Code Annotated §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957. 3 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.3d 346, at ¶ 8-11. 4 Id.  2III.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND  The Flathead Indian Reservation was created when the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the United States signed the Hellgate Treaty in 1855.5  In 1904, Congress allotted the lands in the Flathead Reservation for homestead purposes.6  In 1908, Congress authorized the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (“FIIP”), which provides irrigation water to both tribal members and non-tribal members on the Flathead Reservation.7  The Tribes of the Flathead Reservation claim that the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 reserved their water rights, including the water diverted by the FIIP.8   The Tribes, the State of Montana, and the United States entered into a proposed Flathead Water Compact (“Compact”) that claims to resolve the Tribes’ water rights claims, including their claims to the FIIP water.9  The parties in this lawsuit are not parties to the Compact10 and it was not being litigated in this matter.11    The Tribes, the United States, and the Defendant Irrigation Districts drafted a document as an appendix (“Water Use Agreement”) to the Compact to “settle the rights of irrigators served by the FIIP … to receive irrigation water.”12  The Water Use Agreement is the document at issue in this proceeding.  Water Users sought a writ of mandate to block the Water Use Agreement from implementation prior to a vote of Irrigation District members.13  Accordingly, the Water Users argued that Montana Code Annotated §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 apply to the Water Use Agreement, requiring the Irrigation Districts to submit the final Agreement for state district court approval and                                                           5 Id. at ¶ 6. 6 Id. 7 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 7. 8 Id. at ¶ 8. 9 Id. at ¶ 9. 10 The parties irrigation rights are determined as part of the negotiated Compact. 11 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 9. 12 Id. at ¶ 10.  13 Id. at ¶ 11.  3to a vote of the members.14   The district court issued an alternative writ of mandate in December 2012, ordering the Irrigation Districts to comply with these statutes before entering the Water Use Agreement.15  In February, 2013, the district court issued a writ of mandate superseding the alternative writ of mandate, determining the Irrigation District had exceeded its authority by entering the Water Use Agreement.16  The order enjoined the Irrigation Districts from entering the Water Use Agreement or any other similar agreement.17  The Irrigation District appealed the writ of mandate and the injunction.18   IV.  ANALYSIS A. Writ of Mandate and Injunction  The standard of review for injunctions is for manifest abuse of discretion.19  Here the Montana Supreme Court determined that a writ of mandate is a conclusion of law properly reviewed for correctness.20  On review, the Court found defects in the district court’s injunction and writ of mandate.21  First, the Court indicated that the district court did not address the statutory issues raised by Plaintiffs and had instead evaluated the Water Use Agreement.22  Rather than addressing the requirements imposed by §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957, the district court enjoined the Irrigation Districts from executing the Water Use Agreement because it was outside their authority based on the Agreement.23  Further, the Water Users did not request relief from the Water Use Agreement itself.24   The Court thus found the injunction was based entirely on the district court’s determination that the                                                           14 Id. 15 Id. at ¶ 12. 16 Id. at ¶ 13. 17 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 13. 18 Id. at ¶ 13. 19 Id. at ¶ 14. 20 Id., citing Bostwick Props. V. Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Cons., 2009 MT 181, ¶ 15, 351 Mont. 26, 208 P.3d 868. 21 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 23. 22 Id. at ¶ 20. 23 Id. 24 Id. at ¶ 21.  4Water Use Agreement terms exceeded the Irrigation District’s authority to contract.25  Regarding the writ, the district court titled the order “writ of mandate” but did not mandate that the Irrigation District take any action.26  With the validity of the writ of mandate in question, the Court also found the district court failed to consider the water issues on the merits, and therefore had no grounds to conclude that the Water Use Agreement took away rights or exceeded authority.27  Due to these defects, the Court concluded that the district court improperly granted the writ of mandate and the injunction because it was based on issues not raised before the district court.28   B. Alternative Writ of Mandate   Upon vacating the writ of mandate, the Court looked to the alternative writ of mandate to determine whether the Irrigation Districts needed to comply with §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 prior to entering the Water Use Agreement.29  The Water Users argued that the statutes required a vote of all Irrigation District members and district court approval prior to entering into the Water Use Agreement.30  The Court analyzed the statutes for legislative intent (including historical and textual contexts) regarding an irrigation district’s ability to enter water contracts with the United States.31  The Court declined the Water Users’ “broad interpretation” of the statutes, finding that the statutes only apply to contracts between the irrigators and the federal government for a loan of money.32  Because the Water Use Agreement had no provisions for a loan of money, the statutes were not applicable to the Water Use Agreement.33  Thus, the Court found the district court incorrectly granted the alternative writ of mandate.34  V.  CONCLUSION                                                           25 Id. at ¶ 21. 26 Id. at ¶ 20. 27 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 22. 28 Id. at ¶ 24. 29 Id. at ¶ 25, 27.  (The Court noted that upon vacating the writ of mandate the alternative writ of mandate was restored). 30 Id. at ¶¶ 27, 33, 39, 43.  31 Id. at ¶ 30-41. 32 Id. at  ¶ 42. 33 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346 at ¶ 41, 43. 34 Id. at ¶ 43.  5 In a unanimous decision, the Court dissolved the writ of mandate and injunction and reversed the district court’s conclusion that §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 applied to the Water Use Agreement.35  The Court also dissolved the alternative writ of mandate.36    The Montana Supreme Court recognized that the district court was under significant time constraints, as the Compact was under consideration for approval at the 2013 Montana Legislature.37  The Court also expressed appreciation for the district court’s work in accommodating competing interests and issuing a timely opinion.38  Nonetheless, the Court found that the parties did not seek injunction of the Water Use Agreement, so the only specific relief was a resolution regarding the applicability of §§ 85-7-1956 and 1957.39  After the district court was reversed, the legislative process surrounding the Compact went forward at the 2013 Montana Legislature where it was not approved.  Ironically, the main goal of negotiated water compacts in Montana has been to prevent costly litigation over water rights.  Although the Flathead Water Compact has been negotiated, the battle over ratification of this agreement has just begun, leading predictably to this procedural challenge. While the Compact failed at the 2013 Montana Legislature, some similar form of the Compact will likely go to lawmakers in the next session and may return to the courts in the future.  At a minimum, the applicability of these statutes will be settled law in future water compact litigation.                                                            35 Id. at ¶ 44. 36 Id. 37 Id. at ¶ 23. 38 Id. 39 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346 at ¶ 23. 

Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District

University of Montana School of Law

Public Land and Resources Law Review
Volume 0 Case Summaries 2013-2014
Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v.
Mission Irrigation District
David A. Bell
University of Montana School of Law, daveinmontana@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons
This Case Summary is brought to you for free and open access by The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public
Land and Resources Law Review by an authorized editor of The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law.
Recommended Citation
Bell, David A. (2013) "Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District," Public Land and Resources Law
Review: Vol. 0 , Article 22.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr/vol0/iss4/22
 1
Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District, 2013 MT 92, 369 
Mont. 457, 299 P.3d 346. 
 
David A. Bell 
 
I.  ABSTRACT 
 The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control 
Board to enter into a Water Use Agreement with Tribal, State, and Federal governments.  This 
procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board, made up of the irrigation districts, did not 
have the ability under Montana statutes to act for the irrigators without a specific vote of the 
members and approval from the district court.  Two days after receiving the case the Montana 
Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statutes were inapplicable and the Joint Control 
Board had authority to enter the agreement.  
II.  INTRODUCTION 
 Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District involved a 
disagreement over an Irrigation District Joint Control Board’s authority to vote for approval of the 
Flathead Water Compact on the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana.1  Plaintiffs 
Western Montana Water Users (“Water Users”), who are individually members of the three 
Defendant Irrigation Districts (“Irrigation Districts”), filed a complaint claiming that Montana law 
did not allow the Irrigation Districts to negotiate and sign a “Water Use Agreement” with the 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (“Tribes”) and the United States Government.2  While the 
Water Use Agreement intends to “settle the rights of irrigators” at issue in the conflict, the 
agreement itself spurred controversy within the ranks of the irrigators of the lower flathead valley.3  
Plaintiff’s procedural challenge alleged that the Joint Control Board could not enter agreements for 
the irrigators without a member vote and approval from the district court.4 
                                                          
1
 Western Montana Water Users Ass’n LLC v. Mission Irr. Dist., 2013 MT 92, ¶ 1, 369 Mont. 457, 299 P.3d 346 (2013). 
2
 Montana Code Annotated §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957. 
3
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.3d 346, at ¶ 8-11. 
4
 Id. 
 2
III.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 The Flathead Indian Reservation was created when the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes and the United States signed the Hellgate Treaty in 1855.5  In 1904, Congress allotted the 
lands in the Flathead Reservation for homestead purposes.6  In 1908, Congress authorized the 
Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (“FIIP”), which provides irrigation water to both tribal members 
and non-tribal members on the Flathead Reservation.7  The Tribes of the Flathead Reservation claim 
that the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 reserved their water rights, including the water diverted by the 
FIIP.8  
 The Tribes, the State of Montana, and the United States entered into a proposed Flathead 
Water Compact (“Compact”) that claims to resolve the Tribes’ water rights claims, including their 
claims to the FIIP water.9  The parties in this lawsuit are not parties to the Compact10 and it was not 
being litigated in this matter.11   
 The Tribes, the United States, and the Defendant Irrigation Districts drafted a document as 
an appendix (“Water Use Agreement”) to the Compact to “settle the rights of irrigators served by 
the FIIP … to receive irrigation water.”12  The Water Use Agreement is the document at issue in this 
proceeding. 
 Water Users sought a writ of mandate to block the Water Use Agreement from 
implementation prior to a vote of Irrigation District members.13  Accordingly, the Water Users 
argued that Montana Code Annotated §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 apply to the Water Use Agreement, 
requiring the Irrigation Districts to submit the final Agreement for state district court approval and 
                                                          
5
 Id. at ¶ 6. 
6
 Id. 
7
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 7. 
8
 Id. at ¶ 8. 
9
 Id. at ¶ 9. 
10
 The parties irrigation rights are determined as part of the negotiated Compact. 
11
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 9. 
12
 Id. at ¶ 10.  
13
 Id. at ¶ 11. 
 3
to a vote of the members.14  
 The district court issued an alternative writ of mandate in December 2012, ordering the 
Irrigation Districts to comply with these statutes before entering the Water Use Agreement.15  In 
February, 2013, the district court issued a writ of mandate superseding the alternative writ of 
mandate, determining the Irrigation District had exceeded its authority by entering the Water Use 
Agreement.16  The order enjoined the Irrigation Districts from entering the Water Use Agreement or 
any other similar agreement.17  The Irrigation District appealed the writ of mandate and the 
injunction.18   
IV.  ANALYSIS 
A. Writ of Mandate and Injunction 
 The standard of review for injunctions is for manifest abuse of discretion.19  Here the 
Montana Supreme Court determined that a writ of mandate is a conclusion of law properly reviewed 
for correctness.20 
 On review, the Court found defects in the district court’s injunction and writ of mandate.21  
First, the Court indicated that the district court did not address the statutory issues raised by 
Plaintiffs and had instead evaluated the Water Use Agreement.22  Rather than addressing the 
requirements imposed by §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957, the district court enjoined the Irrigation Districts 
from executing the Water Use Agreement because it was outside their authority based on the 
Agreement.23  Further, the Water Users did not request relief from the Water Use Agreement itself.24   
The Court thus found the injunction was based entirely on the district court’s determination that the 
                                                          
14
 Id. 
15
 Id. at ¶ 12. 
16
 Id. at ¶ 13. 
17
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 13. 
18
 Id. at ¶ 13. 
19
 Id. at ¶ 14. 
20
 Id., citing Bostwick Props. V. Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Cons., 2009 MT 181, ¶ 15, 351 Mont. 26, 208 P.3d 868. 
21
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 23. 
22
 Id. at ¶ 20. 
23
 Id. 
24
 Id. at ¶ 21. 
 4
Water Use Agreement terms exceeded the Irrigation District’s authority to contract.25  Regarding the 
writ, the district court titled the order “writ of mandate” but did not mandate that the Irrigation 
District take any action.26  With the validity of the writ of mandate in question, the Court also found 
the district court failed to consider the water issues on the merits, and therefore had no grounds to 
conclude that the Water Use Agreement took away rights or exceeded authority.27  Due to these 
defects, the Court concluded that the district court improperly granted the writ of mandate and the 
injunction because it was based on issues not raised before the district court.28   
B. Alternative Writ of Mandate  
 Upon vacating the writ of mandate, the Court looked to the alternative writ of mandate to 
determine whether the Irrigation Districts needed to comply with §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 prior to 
entering the Water Use Agreement.29  The Water Users argued that the statutes required a vote of all 
Irrigation District members and district court approval prior to entering into the Water Use 
Agreement.30  The Court analyzed the statutes for legislative intent (including historical and textual 
contexts) regarding an irrigation district’s ability to enter water contracts with the United States.31  
The Court declined the Water Users’ “broad interpretation” of the statutes, finding that the statutes 
only apply to contracts between the irrigators and the federal government for a loan of money.32  
Because the Water Use Agreement had no provisions for a loan of money, the statutes were not 
applicable to the Water Use Agreement.33  Thus, the Court found the district court incorrectly 
granted the alternative writ of mandate.34  
V.  CONCLUSION 
                                                          
25
 Id. at ¶ 21. 
26
 Id. at ¶ 20. 
27
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346, at ¶ 22. 
28
 Id. at ¶ 24. 
29
 Id. at ¶ 25, 27.  (The Court noted that upon vacating the writ of mandate the alternative writ of mandate was restored). 
30
 Id. at ¶¶ 27, 33, 39, 43.  
31
 Id. at ¶ 30-41. 
32
 Id. at  ¶ 42. 
33
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346 at ¶ 41, 43. 
34
 Id. at ¶ 43. 
 5
 In a unanimous decision, the Court dissolved the writ of mandate and injunction and 
reversed the district court’s conclusion that §§ 85–7–1956 and 1957 applied to the Water Use 
Agreement.35  The Court also dissolved the alternative writ of mandate.36   
 The Montana Supreme Court recognized that the district court was under significant time 
constraints, as the Compact was under consideration for approval at the 2013 Montana Legislature.37  
The Court also expressed appreciation for the district court’s work in accommodating competing 
interests and issuing a timely opinion.38  Nonetheless, the Court found that the parties did not seek 
injunction of the Water Use Agreement, so the only specific relief was a resolution regarding the 
applicability of §§ 85-7-1956 and 1957.39  After the district court was reversed, the legislative 
process surrounding the Compact went forward at the 2013 Montana Legislature where it was not 
approved. 
 Ironically, the main goal of negotiated water compacts in Montana has been to prevent 
costly litigation over water rights.  Although the Flathead Water Compact has been negotiated, the 
battle over ratification of this agreement has just begun, leading predictably to this procedural 
challenge. While the Compact failed at the 2013 Montana Legislature, some similar form of the 
Compact will likely go to lawmakers in the next session and may return to the courts in the future.  
At a minimum, the applicability of these statutes will be settled law in future water compact 
litigation.  
                                                          
35
 Id. at ¶ 44. 
36
 Id. 
37
 Id. at ¶ 23. 
38
 Id. 
39
 W. Mont. Water Users, 299 P.2d 346 at ¶ 23. 


https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=plrlr

Western Montana Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrigation District

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana

University of Montana School of Law