0  

  

WATERRIGHTSINMONTANA

      

   

                

Report for the MONTANA SUPREME COURT  Prepared by the LAND USE & NATURAL RESOURCES CLINIC  

University of Montana School of Law  

Spring 2014  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Our Legal 

System Works 

Today,  

How Montana 

Compares to 

Other States,  

and  

Ideas for 

Montana’s 

Future 

             

   

  

CLINIC STUDENTS William Fanning, Student Project Leader (2013 – 2014) Carolyn Sime (Fall 2013) CLINIC DIRECTORS Professor Michelle Bryan Mudd, Project Supervisor Professor Martha Williams 

LAND USE & NATURAL RESOURCES CLINIC University of Montana School of Law 32 Campus Drive Missoula, MT 59812 406.243.2528 

  

TABLEOFCONTENTS

REPORTOVERVIEW&BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................2

PARTI:HOWTHINGSWORKINMONTANATODAY.............................................................................................5

A. ABriefHistory............................................................................................................................................5

B. EntitiesthatImplementtheWaterUseAct...............................................................................6

C. HowSpecificWaterRightsIssuesareResolved.....................................................................9

D. FocusAreasfortheFuture...............................................................................................................15

PARTII:ACOMPARISONTOOTHERSTATES......................................................................................................17

California.............................................................................................................................................................17

Colorado..............................................................................................................................................................19

Idaho......................................................................................................................................................................21

Oregon..................................................................................................................................................................22

Utah........................................................................................................................................................................23

Washington........................................................................................................................................................24

Wyoming.............................................................................................................................................................26

TrendsinOtherStateSystems...............................................................................................................27

PARTIII:IDEASFORMONTANA’SFUTURE..........................................................................................................28

ShortTerm.........................................................................................................................................................28

LongerTerm......................................................................................................................................................29

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................................30

BIBLIOGRAPHYOFSOURCES....................................................................................................................................31

1  

REPORTOVERVIEW&BACKGROUND 

  Montana’sWaterUseActisnowinitsfourthdecade.Thestateischartingacoursetocompleteadjudicationofexistingwaterrightsandisundertakingstatewidewaterplanningforafuturethatincludesamorecomplexsetofwateruses,alongsideclimate‐drivenwaterchanges.Ourunderstandingofgroundwaterandsurfacewaterhydrologyisincreasinglymoresophisticated.Andourneedtobothprotectexistingwaterusesandadapttomeetnewwaterdemandsgrowsevergreater.

Lookingtowardthefuture,ourcourtsandagenciesseektoensurethatthelegalprocessesforwaterrightsremainrelevantandareprofessional,fair,effective,andefficient.TheMontanaSupremeCourtthuscommissionedthisreporttoassesshowMontana’swaterrightslegalsystemworkstoday(PartI),howitcomparestootherstates(PartII),andhowMontanamightadaptitslegalsystemtomeetourstate’swaterfuture(PartIII).

Inpreparingthisreport,theLandUse&NaturalResourcesClinicconsultedwith

representativesfromtheMontanaSupremeCourt,theWaterCourt,andtheDepartmentofNaturalResources&Conservation(DNRC).Theserepresentativeshelpedidentifykeyfocusareasforthereport,recommendedcomparisonstatesintheWest,andprovidedimportantfeedbackonreportdrafts.Wethanktheserepresentativesfortheirgenerouscommitmentoftimeandexpertise.

TheClinicbeganitsresearchwithregulations,statutes,andcaselaw.Buttogeta

senseofhowthingsworkontheground,wealsointerviewedwaterrightsusers,waterjudges,stateagencypersonnel,watercommissioners,andwaterlawyersandconsultants.TheClinicindependentlyselecteditsintervieweestoensurethattheyrepresentedadiversityofperspectivesandexperiences.Over50peoplewereinterviewed,andeachpersonwasassuredconfidentiality.Theseinterviewsyieldedadditionalfocusareasforthereport.WearegratefultothemanypeopleinMontanaandacrosstheWestwhodevotedcountlesshourshelpinguswiththisreport.

Wenotethatthisreportiswrittenforalayaudienceandcontainsageneralsummaryof legal processes. The summary is a composite of bothwritten laws and interviews. Bynecessity,wecouldnotcovereverynuanceofwaterlawthatmightarise.Thus,wewishtonotethatcertainaspectsofthelawarenotfullyaddressed,andmanylegaltermsofartarereplacedwithsimplifiedterminology.Nonetheless,wehopethisreportwillserveasausefulstartingplacefordiscussingpossiblewaysthatMontana’slegalsystemmightevolvetoservethewaterusersandpeopleofthisgreatstate.

2  

EXECUTIVESUMMARYAfterbrieflyexplainingMontana’scurrentwaterrightssystem,PartIofthisreport

highlightssomekeyfocusareasforfurtherconsiderationandstudy,including:

Generally,WaterCourtdecreesdescribewaterrightsastheyexistedonorbeforeJuly1,1973,evenifthoserightsareuseddifferentlytoday.Withtheexceptionofabandonment,changeshappeningafterJuly1,1973aretypicallynotpartoftheWaterCourt’sfocusinadjudication.Decreesthusmaynotaccuratelydescribethewaterusethatisoccurringatthetimetheyareissued,andtheycanbecomeincreasinglylessrelevantastimegoeson.

SomechangestoexistingwaterrightsrequireDNRCreview(i.e.,changesinpointofdiversion,placeofuse,purposeofuse,orplaceofstorage),whereasotherchangescanoccurwithoutDNRCreview(e.g.,changestomethodsofirrigationorinternalditchsystems).Agency‐authorizedchangesresultinarecordthatispartofthestate’scentralizeddatabase.ButchangesoccurringoutsideofagencyreviewmaynotbecomepartofthestaterecordsiftheyarenotaddressedintheWaterCourt’sdecrees.

Wateruserschangingcertainaspectsoftheirpre‐July1,1973rightswillberequiredtoappearbeforeboththeDNRCandtheWaterCourt.AlthoughtheWaterCourtmakesmanyfindingsabouttheunderlyingcharacteristicsofwaterrightsduringadjudication,DNRCmakesadditionalfindingsabout“historic”volumeandconsumptiveuseduringitschangeofuseprocess.DNRCchangeproceedingshaveadifferentfocusandburdenofproofthanWaterCourtadjudicationproceedings,whichcanleavewateruserswonderingwhytheirwaterrightistreateddifferentlyineachforum.AndbecausetheDNRC“looksback”to1973whenmakingitsfindings,wateruserscanfacechallengesinlocatinghistoricalevidenceofuse.Additionally,awaterusermayrelyonaDNRCchangeapprovalonlytolaterlearnthatherwaterrighthasbeenmodifiedintheWaterCourtadjudication.Whilewaterusersarealertedtotheriskofsuchfuturemodifications,theymaynonethelessneedtomoveforwardintheshorttermwithchangestotheirwaterrightsoperations.

WaterusersmayberequiredtoappearbothbeforeadistrictcourtandtheWaterCourt

iftheyhaveadisputeaboutwateroritsdistributionthatalsorequiresadeterminationoftheunderlyingcharacteristicsofwaterrights.Althoughdistrictcourtsaddressdisputesaboutwateranditsdistribution,andtheWaterCourtrulesonthecharacteristicsofwaterrights,thosequestionsareoftenintertwined.Thusbothcourtsmaybeinvolvedbeforeawateruser’smatterisfullyresolved.

Districtcourtjudgescanlacktheexpertise,time,andresourcestoresolvecomplex

waterdisputes.Districtcourtjudgesalsovaryinthewaythattheyappoint,compensate,train,andoverseewatercommissioners.Further,somedistrictcourtjudgesareuncomfortablewiththejudicialbranchdirectlyoverseeingwatercommissioners,whoessentiallyservea“lawenforcement”function.

3  

WaterCourtdecreesareissuedbybasin,andbasinsoftenspanmultiplejudicialdistricts.Districtcourtshavehistoricallyappointedwatercommissionersformorelocalizedwaterdistributionwithintheirdistrict,andtherearequestionsabouthowtofairlyandeffectivelyachievewaterdistributionthroughoutanentirebasinunderMontana’scurrentwatercommissionerlaws.

DifferenttypesofwaterrecordsareissuedbytheDNRC,WaterCourt,anddistrict

courts.Thelawisnotalwaysclearonwhenandhowtheserecordsshouldbeupdatedorintegrated.Waterusersthushavetoreviewmultiplerecordstofullyunderstandawaterrightandwatersource.Additionally,asnoted,sometypesofwaterrightschangesarecurrentlynotcapturedbystaterecords.

Inwatershedswherethecourts,DNRC,watercommissioners,andwaterusershold

regularmeetings,theaccuracyofwateruseinformationcanimproveandthelikelihoodoflitigationmaybereduced.

PartIIprovidesabriefoverviewofhowotherwesternstatesapproachsomeofthe

issuesthatMontanaisfacing.Whilenostateprovidesamodelofperfection,therearesomeout‐of‐stateideasthat,aftercarefulstudyanddiscussion,maymeritconsiderationforuseinMontana’ssystem.Inparticular:

Moststatesallowtheadjudicatingcourttodeclarewaterrightsastheyarecurrently

used,ratherthanhowthoserightswereusedatsomepointinthepast.

Statesgenerallyallowwaterjudgestoresolvebothadjudicationmattersandotherwaterdisputeanddistributionmattersinoneproceeding.Somealsousewaterjudgesasappellatejudgesforagencydecisionsaboutwater.

Moststatesidentifyadivertedvolumeforadjudicatedwaterrights,sothatagenciesreviewingwaterrightschangesconductlessfact‐findingregardinghistoricalwateruse.

Manystateshaveashorter“lookback”period(5‐15years)forcalculatinghistoric

consumptiveuseinachangeofuseproceeding.

Somestatesgivecourtsongoingjurisdictionoverwaterdecrees,sothatfuturechangestodecreedrightsarereviewedbythewaterjudgepresidingovertheadjudication.Otherstateshaveahybridmodelwhereagenciesreviewchanges,butappealsofchangedecisionsgotothewaterjudge.

Moststateagenciesemploywatercommissionersandhaveastandardizedprocessfor

hiringandtrainingthoseemployees.Inseveralofthosestates,thecommissionersareorganizedbymajorwaterdivisionsandsub‐basinssothatbasin‐widedecreescanbeeffectivelyadministered.Whilecommissioneroversightiscentralized,thecommissionersthemselvesarepeoplethatliveandworkintheirlocalcommunities.

4  

Somestateshaveinvestedinmoderntechnologyandgatheredhydrologicdatatoensureeffective,real‐timemonitoringofwaterdistributiononbasin‐widescales.

PartIIIdescribessomepossibleshorttermandlongertermmodificationsto

Montana’swaterrightssystemthatmeritfurtherstudyanddiscussion.Wearecarefultonotethatthisreportdiscussesthesemodificationsinbroadstrokesthatwillhavetobecarefullyrefinedinprocessesinvolvingallstakeholders.

Intheshortterm,creatingconcurrentWaterCourt–districtcourtjurisdictionover

waterdisputesanddistributionisrecommendedasalegislativeactionthatwouldallowlitigantstoavoidduplicativeproceedingsinvolvingthesamewaterrights.

AnadditionalshorttermrecommendationfortheDNRC,WaterCourt,anddistrict

courts(withMontanaSupremeCourtoversight)istodevelopinternalproceduresforupdatingandintegratingthewaterrecordsgeneratedbyeachentitysothatusershavea“one‐stop‐shop”foraccessingup‐to‐date,comprehensive“livingrecords.”

Afinalshorttermrecommendationistocoordinateeducational,collaborative

meetingsineachwatershedaimedatimprovingtheaccuracyoflocalwaterinformationandfosteringinformalconflictresolution.

Inthelongerterm,aprimaryrecommendationisthatthestatedevelopaprocessfor

addressingpost‐July1,1973changestowaterrightsinadjudication.Theprocessshouldaddresshowchangesareraised,howotherwaterusersmayobject,andhowtheWaterCourt’sreviewmesheswithDNRCchangereviewtoensurefairnessamongusers.Theprocessshouldalsoconsidertherelatedquestionofwhethera“lookback”periodthatgoesbackto1973isappropriatewhenconsideringchangestowaterrights.

Additionally,toreducetheburdenondistrictcourtsandprovidebetterexpertisein

waterrightsdisputes,alongertermlegislativerecommendationiscreatingtheoptionofallowingwateruserstoappealagencywaterrightsdecisionstotheWaterCourtasadistrictcourtofspecializedexpertise.

Afinallongertermrecommendationistomodernizethewatercommissionerlaws,

includinghowcommissionersareappointed,trained,paid,andsupervised,alongwithhowuserspetitionforcommissionersunderbasin‐widedecreesthatspanmultiplejudicialdistricts.Thestateshouldconsiderwhichentityisbestsuitedforcarryingoutthislawenforcementfunction.Andtopositionitselffortheeffectiveimplementationofbasin‐widewaterrightsdecrees,thestateshouldalsoconsiderhowmultiplewatercommissionerswillcoordinateacrossbasins,andhowhydrologicdataandmoderntechnologywillbecomeavailableforcommissionerstoeffectivelymonitorlarge‐scalewaterdistribution.

 

5  

PARTI:HOWTHINGSWORKINMONTANATODAY

A. ABriefHistory

Fromitsearliestterritorialdays,Montanahasrecognizedthatpeoplecanusestatewatersforavarietyofbeneficialusessuchasmining,irrigation,municipal,stockwatering,industry,andcommerce.Likemanywesternstates,weadoptedthepriorappropriationdoctrineof“firstintime,firstinright”togovernuseofthosewaters.Underthisdoctrine,asenioruserwithanearlierprioritydateisentitledtousethefullamountofherwaterbeforeajunioruserwithalaterprioritydatecanusewater.Thisdoctrinealsoallowsuserstochangetheirwaterusesolongasotherusersarenotinjured.

Until1973,Montanaallowedwaterrightstodevelopintwoways.Themost

commonmethodwastosimplydivertwaterandapplyittoabeneficialuse—a“useright.”Underalesscommonmethod,ausercouldfollowastatutoryprocessthatincludedrecordinganoticeofappropriationatthecountycourthouse—a“filedright.”Theclassiccharacteristicsofawaterrightincludeditsprioritydate,pointofdiversion,flowrate(inminer’sinches),andplaceofuse.Ifdisputesarose,wateruserscouldgotoastatetrialcourt(a“districtcourt”)andseekacourtordercalleda“decree”thatresolvedthecharacteristicsofthewaterrightsatissue—“decreedrights.”Additionally,courtshearddisputesoverwhetherchangesinwateruseinjuredotherusers.Courtscouldalsoappointa“watercommissioner”—anon‐the‐groundofficialwhodistributeswatertousersaccordingtoadecree.

Overtime,itbecamedifficulttotrackthenumerouswaterrightsonaparticular

watercourse,especiallysincemostrightshadnopaperrecord.Becausewatercoursesoftenspanmultiplecounties,thelimitedpaperrecordsthatdidexistwerescatteredamongmultiplecountycourthouses.Manywatercoursesalsobecameover‐appropriated,withclaimedwaterrightsexceedingactualwatersupply.ThroughouttheWest,statesalsobeganexperiencingcompetingpressuresfromotherstates,thefederalgovernment,andtribesclaiminginterestsinthesamewaters.Forthesevariousreasons,Montanafacedaneedtomodernizeitswaterrightssystem.

Our1972MontanaConstitutionincludedaspecialprovisiononstatewatersthat

recognizedallexistingwaterrightsandcalledforacentralizedrecordkeepingsystemforallwaterrights.In1973,theMontanaLegislaturethenpassedtheWaterUseAct,alawaimedinpartatclarifyingwaterrightsownershipthroughoutthestate.Thelawlooksbothintothepastandintothefuture,withJuly1,1973,servingasanimportantpointintime.

Lookingintothepast,thelawrequiresaspecialprocesscalled“adjudication”that

requiresourcourtstodecree“existing”waterrightsthroughouttheentirestate.An“existing”waterrightmeansthe“righttotheuseofwaterthatwouldbeprotectedunderthelawasitexistedpriortoJuly1,1973.”Theadjudicationisanambitiousundertakingthatcontinuestoday,withanestimatedcompletiontargetof2028.Lookingintothefuture,thelawrequiresanagency‐issuedpermitfornewwaterusescommencingonorafterJuly

6  

1,1973.Additionally,asofJuly1,1973,theagencyapprovescertainchangestowaterrights.Thelawalsorequirestheagencytomaintaincomprehensivewaterrightsrecordsfortheentirestate.

Asthestate’swaterrightssystemhasevolved,sohaveitswateruseneeds.For

example,thelawnowrecognizesthatwateruseforrecreationandfisheryprotectionisavalidbeneficialuse,andconservationorganizationssearchforwaystoconverthistoric,consumptivewaterusestoinstreamrights.Someirrigatorsareinterestedinmoreefficientmethodsofwateruseandseektoconvertwatersavingstonewuses.Hydraulicfracturingandotherwater‐dependentextractiveprocessesareintroducingnewdemandsonourwaterresources.Andinover‐appropriatedwatercourses,including“closedbasins”wherenewrightsaremorerestricted,thereisaninterestincreativewaystomodifyexistingwaterusestomakemorewateravailablefornewuses.Atthesametime,ourimprovedunderstandingofhydrologymeansthatwecanbetteranalyzehowchangesofwaterrightsmayaffectexistingusers.Overall,thesetrendssignalaneedforawaterrightssystemthatprovidesbothpredictabilityandadaptabilitysothatcurrentusesarenotonlyprotected,butalsonimbleenoughtochangeinresponsetosociety’sneeds.

B. EntitiesthatImplementtheWaterUseAct

ThreemainentitiesimplementwhatiscommonlyknownastheWaterUseAct:theWaterCourt,thedistrictcourts,andtheDepartmentofNaturalResources&Conservation(DNRC).AdjudicationtodefinethecharacteristicsofexistingwaterrightsfallswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheWaterCourt.Districtcourtscontinuetoplayaroleinresolvingindividualwaterusedisputesandimplementingdecreesthroughtheappointmentofwatercommissionersthatdistributewater.TheDNRCprovidestechnicalexpertisetotheWaterCourtbyexaminingexistingwaterrightsclaimsmadetotheWaterCourt.Additionally,theDNRChasjurisdictionoverapplicationsfornewwaterrightsaswellasapplicationsforpost‐July1,1973changestoexistingwaterrights.Theagencyisalsoresponsibleformaintainingacentralizedrecordofallwaterrights.TheMontanaSupremeCourtplaysaroleaswell,supervisingtheWaterCourtanddistrictcourtsandenactingrulesthatgovernboththeWaterCourtandDNRC’sreviewofexistingwaterrightsclaims.

MontanaWaterCourtCreatedin1979,theWaterCourtisaspecialdistrictcourtwithexclusive

jurisdictiontodeterminethecharacteristicsofexistingwaterrights.Thecourtalsodetermineswhetherexistingrightshavebeenabandonedduetononuse.InadditiontotheWaterUseAct,theWaterCourt’sadjudicationproceedingsaregovernedbyMontanaSupremeCourtrules.

TheWaterCourt’smissionistoexpediteandfacilitatethestatewideadjudicationof

over218,000existingwaterrightsclaims.TheLegislatureoriginallyexpectedstatewideadjudicationtotakeabout15years,but,asinotherstates,thisprocesshasprovenmorecomplicatedandtime‐consumingthananticipated.Thecurrenttargetforcompletionof

7  

finaldecreesinallbasinsis2028.TheLegislaturerecentlyauthorizedtheexpansionofWaterCourtstafftohelpmeetthistarget.

AChiefWaterJudgeandAssociateWaterJudgeleadtheWaterCourt,both

appointedbytheChiefJusticeoftheMontanaSupremeCourt.Therearealsofoursittingdistrictcourtjudges(onefromeachmajorwaterbasin)whocanbetappedtoserveasadditionalwaterjudges,althoughthispracticerarelyoccurs.TheChiefWaterJudgeappoints“watermasters”whoareassignedtoparticularbasinsaroundthestate.Watermastersassistthecourtinmakingrecommendedfindingsandconclusionsaboutwaterrightsclaims.Theyalsofacilitatethepotentialsettlementofdisputes.Thevastmajorityofwaterrightsdisputesbeforethecourtareresolvedwithoutatrial.

TheWaterCourt’smainjobisdecreeingwaterrightsonabasin‐widebasis.Under

theWaterUseAct,thecourtalsotakescertifiedquestionsfromdistrictcourtsdecidinglocalizedwaterdisputesthatraisequestionsaboutcharacteristicsofanexistingwaterright.Thesequestionsaregivenprioritybylawsothatthedistrictcourtcanreceiveananswerandproceedtoresolvethedispute.Additionally,whendistrictcourtsappointwatercommissionerstodistributewaters,theWaterCourtprovidesitsdecreesandotherbackgroundinformationtothedistrictcourts.AppealsofWaterCourtdecisionsgototheMontanaSupremeCourt.

DistrictCourtsMontanahasnearly50electeddistrictcourtjudgesservingin22judicialdistricts

aroundthestate.Thesecourtshavegeneraljurisdiction,whichmeansthejudgescanhearallcriminalandcivilmatters.Althoughthesedistrictcourtsnolongerconductadjudications,otherlocalizedwaterdisputesbetweenindividualuserscanproceedindistrictcourt.Occasionally,theWaterCourtmaydispatchawatermastertoassistthedistrictcourtonsuchwatercases.Asnoted,thedistrictcourtmayalsocertifyaspectsofitscasestotheWaterCourtwhenthecharacterizationofanexistingwaterrightisneeded.

Districtcourtjudgescanalsoappoint“watercommissioners”todoon‐the‐ground

distributionofwateraccordingtothetermsofadecree(called“enforcement”proceedings).Watercommissionerappointmentstypicallyoccurwhenownersofatleast15%ofthewaterrightsonawatersourcemakearequest.Inbasinsthatdonothaveadecree,watercommissionersarenotanoption.

Finally,whentheDNRCgrantsordeniesanapplicationforanewwaterrightora

changeofwaterright,thatdecisionmaybeappealedtoadistrictcourtforreview.TheDNRCcanalsoinitiateacaseindistrictcourttostopillegalorwastefulusesofwater.

8  

DepartmentofNaturalResources&ConservationTheDNRCispartoftheexecutivearmofstategovernment,withadirector

appointedbytheGovernor.Theagencymaintainsasearchable,centralizedwaterrightsdatabasethatcontainsbasicinformationaboutstatewaterrights,whethertheyarenewlypermittedorexistingwaterrightsthatpredatetheWaterUseAct.

Intheareaofadjudication,thedepartmentprovidestechnicalexpertisetothe

WaterCourt,suchascompilinginformationfromitsdatabase,conductingfieldexaminations,interviewingclaimants,examiningaerialphotographsandWaterResourcesSurveys,andcreatingtopographicalandhydrologicalmaps.Thedepartment’sclaimsexaminationsaregovernedbyMontanaSupremeCourtrules.Underthoserules,iftheagencyidentifiesaconcernwithaclaimedwaterright,itplacesan“issueremark”ontheclaimthatmustultimatelygetresolvedduringtheadjudication.Forexample,aDNRCexaminermightuseanissueremarktonoteadiscrepancybetweenirrigatedacresclaimedandirrigatedacresdepictedonahistoricalaerialphoto.Whentheagencyisdoneexaminingtheclaimsforaparticularbasin,ittransmitsareporttotheWaterCourt.

AstheWaterCourtdecreestherightsinparticularbasins,theagencyistaskedwith

maintainingtherecordsofthosedecreedrights,alongwiththerecordsofnewlypermittedrightsandcertainchangestowaterrights.Inanenforcementactioninvolvingwaterdistribution,theDNRCalsoassiststheWaterCourtanddistrictcourtbycompilinginformationsuchaswaterdistributionlistsanddetailedmapsofthediversionsinvolved.

Intheareaofpermitting,theDNRCreviewsanddecidesuponapplicationsfornew

appropriationpermitsandcertainchangestowaterrights.TheWaterUseActdescribesthespecificcriteriaanapplicantmustmeettogetanewappropriationorchangeofuseapproved,andtheDNRChasadoptedrulesthatimplementthosestatutes.Toreduceconflictsofinterest,theagencyhasonesetofemployeeswhoreviewandmakepreliminarydeterminationsaboutanapplication,andanothersetofemployeeswhoactas“administrativejudges”hearingobjectionsandresolvingcontestedissuesrelatedtotheapplication.DNRCrulemakingandpermitdecisionscanbothbeappealedtodistrictcourt.

TheDNRCalsoinvestigatesandmayactuponcomplaintsinvolvingillegalusesof

water,andsometimesplaysaninformalmediatorroleinresolvingdisputesamongindividualwaterusers.Becauseoflimitedresources,theDNRCdoesnotpursueenforcementofallwateruseviolations.Inthoseinstances,awaterusercouldfilehisowncaseindistrictcourt.

9  

C. HowSpecificWaterRightsIssuesareResolved

AdjudicatingCharacteristicsofanExistingWaterRightAdjudicationbeforetheWaterCourtisessentiallyalargelawsuitinvolvingallusers

onawatersource.Topreserveherwaterrights,eachuserhadtotimelyfilea“statementofclaim”describingthewaterright.Thatclaimisconsidered“primafacie”evidenceoftheright,whichmeansthatitisacceptedasproofunlessother,contradictoryevidenceprovesotherwise.WhentheDNRCplacesan“issueremark”onastatementofclaim,itdoessobasedonevidenceitfindsthatmaycontradicttheclaim.Otherwaterusersandaffectedpartiescanalsoobjecttoaclaimandprovidecontraryevidence.Ultimately,allissueremarksandobjectionsmustberesolvedthroughsettlementoraWaterCourtdetermination.Beforeafinaldecreeissues,theWaterCourtissuestemporarypreliminaryand/orpreliminarydecrees.Someintervieweesindicatedthatwaterusers“overclaimed”waterrightsonasourceandthatneighborswerenotcomfortableobjectingtooneanother’sinflatedclaims.Otherintervieweesinotherbasinsbelievedclaimswereaccuratelystated.

TheWaterUseActrequiresthattheWaterCourtdecreethecharacteristicsof

“existing”waterrights.Asnoted,thesearerights“totheuseofwaterthatwouldbeprotectedunderthelawasitexistedpriortoJuly1,1973.”Therefore,theprimarylawthattheWaterCourtappliesispre‐1973waterlaw.Similarly,theprimaryevidencethattheWaterCourtreviewsisevidenceofusepredating1973—evidencewhichisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttoobtainaswitnesseswithhistoricalknowledgepassaway.Withtheexceptionofabandonment,WaterCourtdecreesfocusprimarilyonusesastheyexistedbefore1973.Asaresult,theymaynotreflectthewayawaterrightisusedtoday.Oneintervieweeaptlyobservedthatthedecreeislikea“snapshotintimewhilethemoviekeepsonplaying.”Forexample,thecourtmightdecreeawaterrightforaranchthatexistedin1973,eventhoughtheranchtodayissubdividedintomultiplelotsandwaterisnolongerusedforthesamepurposes.Asdiscussedbelow,thesepost‐July1,1973changessometimesinvolveactionsthatshouldhaveundergoneDNRCreviewandapproval;butinotherinstances,thesechangesareofatypethatrequirednoagencyauthorization.

Inmostinstances,thewaterrightcharacteristicsthatadecreedescribesarepriority

date,flowrate,pointofdiversion,periodofuse,andplaceofuse.(Modernflowrateistypicallynotedincubicfeetpersecond(cfs)forsurfacewaterandgallonsperminute(gpm)forgroundwater.Overtime,theWaterCourthasbeguntomorespecificallydescribetheditchsystemstiedtoparticularwaterrightssothatwatercommissionerscanmoreeasilydistributedecreedwater.BecausetheLegislatureremovedtheWaterUseAct’soriginalrequirementoffindingadivertedvolumeonirrigationwaterrightclaims,theWaterCourtdoesnotalwaysspecifythatinformation.“Volume”isawayofdescribingthemaximumamountausercandivertduringherperiodofuse.(Typicallynotedasacre‐feet).Asnotedbelow,thisinformation“gap”cancreatedifficultywhenarightsholderseekstochangethewaterrightwiththeDNRCbecausetheagencyrequiresfindingsrelatedtovolumeandconsumptiveuse.

10  

SeekingaNewWaterRightToobtainanewappropriationofwater,anapplicantmustapplytotheDNRCand

demonstratethatallapplicablestatutorycriteriaaremet,includingthatwaterisavailableforthenewuseandthatexistinguserswillnotbeinjured.PermitsfornewappropriationsaremadesubjecttothefinaloutcomeoftheWaterCourtadjudication.Inclosedbasinsthathavemorerestrictionsonnewappropriations,theprocessismorerigorousbecauseapplicantsmayberequiredtofindmitigation(replacement)wateriftheirproposedusewilldepletesurfacewatersandadverselyaffectexistingwaterrightsholders.

ChangingaWaterRightCertainchangestobothexistingwaterrightsandpost‐July1,1973waterrights

requireDNRCapprovalbasedonthestatutorycriteriaintheWaterUseAct.Changesthatrequireapprovalincludemovingthepointofdiversion,placeofuse,orplaceofstorage,aswellaschangingthepurposeoftheuse.Aconversionfromfloodtosprinklerirrigation,achangeincrops,ormodificationstointernalditchsystems—wherenochangeinpointofdiversionorplaceofuseresults—doesnotrequireagencyapproval,evenifthechangeincreases“historic”consumptiveuse.Agency‐authorizedchangesarerecordedinthecentralizedwaterrightsdatabase,whereaschangesmadeoutsideoftheagencyprocessmaynotbereflectedinstatewaterrightsrecords.

Animportantpartofchangereviewisensuringotherwaterusers(bothseniorand

junior)arenotinjuredbythechange.Theagencyfocusesonthehistoricvolumedivertedunderthewaterright,alongwithanestimateofthehistoricvolumeconsumed.“Consumedwater”isthevolumeofwaterthatdoesnotreturntothewatersourceafteruse.Thewaterthatdoesreturntothesystemis“returnflow,”andotherwaterusersmaydependonthatreturnflowfortheirwaterrights.Forexample,theirrigationwaterusedbyacropisconsideredconsumptivebecauseitdoesnotreturntothesource,whereasthewaternotconsumedbythecropthatfindsitswaybacktoacreekwouldbe“returnflow.”

AlsorelevanttotheDNRCcalculationisthewaterright’shistoric“patternofuse.”

Forexample,anirrigatormayhavehistoricallydivertedwaterintohisditchforalimitednumberofdayseachmonth.Inotherwords,theirrigatordidnotdivertwatercontinuouslyovertheentireuseperiod.Sometimesirrigatorsalternateddiversiondayswithotherirrigatorsthatsharedthesameditch.Ifawateruserlaterincreasesthenumberofdayshedivertswater,theoverallvolumeofwatertakencouldalsoincrease.

Thus,whenawaterrightchanges,theagencymayplacelimitsonthediverted

volumeandconsumptiveusetoitshistoricalamountasawayofprotectingexistingusers.Theendresultisthatawaterusermaynotbeabletochangethefullamountofawaterrightiftheproposedchangewouldenlargetheright’svolumeorconsumptiveuse.

Thisfocusonvolumeandconsumptiveuseduringchangereviewisdifferentthan

thefocusintheWaterCourtadjudication.Recallthat,undertheWaterUseAct,theWaterCourtdoesnotdecreevolumeasamatterofcourseinitsproceedings.Whenvolumeis

11  

decreed,thatvolumegenerallydoesnotspecifywhatportionwashistoricallyconsumed.NordoestheWaterCourttypicallydecreeawaterright’shistoricpatternofuse(suchaswhenanirrigatordivertswaterforalimitednumberofdayspermonth),butratherdescribesthegeneralperiodofuseallowed(suchasApril1toOctober30foranirrigationright).AsoneDNRCintervieweeexplained,theagencytherefore“fillsingaps”leftbythedecreetodeterminewhetheranapplicanthasmetthestatutoryno‐injuryrequirement.

Determiningvolumeandconsumptiveuseappearstobeoneofthemostvexing

tasksforwaterusers,waterlawyers,andconsultants.BasedonitsunderstandingofMontanawaterlaw,theDNRC“looksback”to1973whendetermining“historicuse.”Thus,waterusersmustgatherevidenceofpastfarmingoperations,placesofirrigation,periodsofuse,andthelike.Aerialphotosandcountywaterresourcessurveysmayalsobeavailable.Alternatively,becausehistoricalevidencecanbedifficulttofind,theagencyhasmathematicalmodelsandrulesitcanusetocalculatehistoricvolumeandconsumptionbasedoncrops,climaticdata,andcountyagriculturalstatistics.Somewaterusersappreciatehavingmodelswhenhistoricalevidenceislacking;otherwaterusersarenotconfidentinthevalidityofthemodelsandexpressconcernthatitisdifficulttointroducealternativemethodsofcalculatingvolumeandconsumption.Anumberofintervieweesindicatedthatinthepastusershavedeclinedtopursuechanges,ormadechangeswithoutnotifyingtheagency,toavoidthechallengesofthechangeprocess.

Inthepastfewyears,theDNRChasreformeditsapplicationprocesstosimplify

submissionrequirements,providemoretechnicalsupport,andmakeitsdecisionsmoretransparent.TheDNRCnotesthatithashadfewerappealssincethesereforms,andmoreapplicantsareapplyingwithouttheexpenseofhiringaconsultant.Becausethereformsarestillnew,manyoftheintervieweeswithwhomwespokehadnotyetgonethroughthenewprocess.Interviewswithsomewaterusersrecentlyseekingtochangerightsforinstreamflowsuggestthattheremaybeongoingconcernswiththechangeprocessforthatsectorofwaterusers.Ininterviewingwaterlawyersandconsultantsingeneral,somenotedthattheywouldstillwanttohiretheirowntechnicalexperttodeterminewhetheritwasworthwhiletoapplyforapermitorchangeauthorization,andtobepreparedwiththeirowndataiftheydidnotagreewiththeagency’sfindings.

AnotherimportantdistinctionbetweenDNRCchangereviewandWaterCourt

adjudicationistheburdenofproofonthewateruser.Inadjudication,thewateruser’sclaimedhistoricuseisprimafacieproofofavalidright.Asnotedabove,theclaimitself,withnootherevidence,willinitiallybeacceptedastrueonitsface.Objectorscarrytheburdenofovercomingtheprimafacieproofofawaterrightclaimbya“preponderanceoftheevidence.”Preponderanceoftheevidencemeansthatthepartywiththeburdenmustintroduceevidencetotipthescaletowardaparticularfact(toshowthatfactismoreprobablethannot).Forobjectors,thatmeansshowingthatcertainaspectsofaclaimare,moreprobablethannot,incorrect.Objections,alongwithDNRCissueremarks,canresultinaclaimanthavingtoprovideadditionalprooftosupportaclaim.Absentobjectionsorissueremarks,however,awaterusermayestablishherexistingrightbasedherclaimalone.

12  

InaDNRCchangeproceeding,bycontrast,theapplicantwateruserhastheinitialburdenofprovingthestatutorychangecriteriabyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Thosecriteriacoverissues(suchasthepotentialforinjurytootherwaterusers)thatarenotaddressedintheWaterCourt.Iftheapplicantdoesnotintroduceenoughevidenceattheoutset,herapplicationwillbedeniedforfailuretomeetthestatutorycriteria.Fromapracticalstandpoint,waterusersmaythushavetoprovideadditionalevidenceintheDNRCchangeproceedingbeyondthatrequiredintheWaterCourt.Agencypersonnelexpressconcernthatwateruserslackabasicunderstandingofthesedifferencesbetweenadjudicationandagencyprocesses.

Becauseofthesedifferences,somewaterusersperceivethattheyhavereceived

theirfullwaterrightclaimintheadjudication,onlyto“lose”someofthatrightforfailuretoprovidesufficientevidenceofhistoricvolumeandconsumptioninthechangeprocess.Ontheotherhand,agencypersonnelexpressconcernthat,basedontheirexperiences,manyexistingrightsareover‐claimedornotrigorouslyscrutinizedduringadjudication.Theycitethechangeprocessasanimportant“checkandbalance”onadjudicationthatprovidesanopportunitytobetterinvestigatethehistoricuseofaclaimedrightsothatotherusersareprotectedfrominjury.Duringthisinvestigation,theagencyindicatesitmayalsounearthpastchangesofwaterrightsthatdidnotundergoagencyreviewandthatmayhaveenlargedthevolumeorconsumptiveuseofawaterright.

AnotherareaofpotentialconfusionariseswhentheDNRCauthorizeschangestoan

existingwaterrightbeforeitisfinallyadjudicated.Inthissituation,theDNRCmaybemakingdecisionsabouthistoricusebeforetheWaterCourthasruledonthevalidityandunderlyingcharacteristicsofthewaterright.AlthoughagencychangeauthorizationsstatethattheyaresubjecttofinaladjudicationbytheWaterCourt,waterusersintheshorttermstillrelyonthosechangedecisionstomodifytheiroperations.Inoneexample,awateruserreceivedDNRCapprovalofachange,investedmoneytoupgradeanirrigationsystem,andsubsequentlylostthatwaterrightwhentheWaterCourthelditabandoned.Shortofabandonment,theWaterCourtcouldalsoconcludethatawateruserhasasmallerwaterrightthanoriginallyclaimed,orthattherightisactuallyjuniortoadditionalusersonthesource.Theserulingscouldsimilarlydisrupttheassumptionsonwhichachangeauthorizationwasbased.Whilesuchexamplesappeartoberare,theimplicationsarenonethelessworthhighlighting.

StoppingUnlawfulUse,Interference,orWasteofWaterTheDNRCinvestigatescomplaintsofillegalwateruse,interferencewithanother’s

wateruse,orwasteofwater.Illegalwaterusemightentailusingwaterwithoutawaterright/permit,orusingwaterinwaysnotauthorizedbythewaterright/permit.Wasteoccurswhensomeonedivertswaterwithoutapplyingittoabeneficialuse.Inthesesituations,theDNRCmaytakeinformalstepsthatincludemeetingwiththeallegedviolatortofindsolutionsforbringingthewateruseintocompliancewithstatelaw.Wheninformalprocessesproveunsuccessful,theagencymayalsopetitionthedistrictcourttoordertheviolatortoceasetheunlawfulconduct.Thecountyattorneyorattorneygeneralalsohaveauthoritytofilesuchasuit,althoughthisisinfrequentlydone.Asnotedabove,whenDNRC

13  

doesnotpursueapotentialWaterUseActviolation,individualsmayelecttofiletheirowncaseindistrictcourt.

DisputingtheActionsofAnotherWaterUserIfindividualwaterusersareinalocalizeddispute,theymaytaketheircontroversy

todistrictcourt.Perhapsonewateruserbelievesanotherwaterusershouldnotdivertwaterdownaparticularditch,orshouldnottakewaterataparticulartime.Or,perhapstherewasasaleoflandandcontractinterpretationquestionsexistaboutwhetherthesellerintendedtotransferwaterrightstothebuyer.Whilealimitednumberofdistrictcourtjudgeshaveexperienceandinterestinwaterrights,otherdistrictcourtjudgesmaynot,andthehandlingofwaterdisputescanbetaxingonanalreadyheavydistrictcourtcaseload.Onoccasion,theWaterCourtdispatchesitswatermasterstoassistdistrictcourtjudgesinwaterrightsdisputesintheircourts.

Anareaofconcernoccurswhenindividualwateruserdisputesoverlapwithlarger

questionsofadjudication.Recallthatifalawsuitrequiresadeterminationofawaterright’scharacteristics,thedistrictcourtmustsendthatparticularquestiontotheWaterCourtfordetermination.Whennodecreeexiststoguidethedistrictcourt,theWaterCourtwillstepintoassist,andtheDNRCmaybecalledupontogathertechnicalinformationaboutthewaterindispute.TheWaterCourtthenresolvesthewaterright’scharacteristicsandreturnsthemattertodistrictcourtsoitcanproceedwithitscase.Whenthesecertifiedquestionsarise,theymustbegivenhighestpriorityundertheWaterUseAct.

Ontheflipside,theWaterCourtmayencounterditcheasementorotherwater

disputequestionsentwinedwiththeissuesitisresolvingduringadjudication.Itmaylacktheauthoritytoresolvetheserelatedquestions,leavingpartiestotaketheirremainingdisputebeforethedistrictcourt.Attheendoftheday,wateruserscanthusfindthemselvesappearingbeforetwoseparatecourtstoachievefullresolutionoftheirwaterrightsissues—aphenomenonthatoneintervieweedescribedas“beingcaughtinajurisdictionalseam.”

DistributingWaterUnderaDecreeSometimesmultiplewaterusershaveconcernsaboutthefairdistributionofwater

onasourceandrequesttheservicesofawatercommissioner.Montana’swatercommissionerstatutesdatebacktotheearly1900sandthuspredatetheWaterUseAct.Underthosestatutes,adistrictcourtjudgetypicallyappointsawatercommissionerupontherequestofwaterusersrepresentingatleast15%ofthewaterrightsonasource.Enforceabledecreescanincludehistoricdecreesandtemporarypreliminary,preliminary,andfinaldecreesissuedbyawaterjudge(whichsupersedehistoricdecrees).Inbasinsthatdonothaveadecree,watercommissionersarecurrentlynotanoption.

Judgesnotethatwatercommissionersneedtobeindividualswithgoodpeopleskills

andtechnicalskills.Commissionersbecomeintimatelyfamiliarwiththediversions,head

14  

gates,andditchsystemsofaparticularwatersource,aswellastheuniquehydrologyandpersonalitiesofthewaterusersonthatsource.

Theappointmentprocessforcommissionersvariesfromjudgetojudge.Acommon

approachisforthewaterusersthemselvestorequestaparticularcommissioner.Anotherapproachisforthejudgetoselectthecommissionerafteradvertisingthepositionandconductinginterviews.Thecompensation,qualifications,andtrainingofcommissionersvaryaroundthestate,andthisvariabilitywasaconcernforseveralinterviewees.

Historically,districtcourtdecreesfocusedonlocalizedpartsofawatersource,and

watercommissionershavemostcommonlybeenappointedtolocalizedstreamsegments.Today,however,theWaterCourtisissuingdecreesthatcoverentirebasins.Thesebasinsoftenspanthejurisdictionofmultipledistrictcourts.Intervieweesthusquestionedhowlarge‐scaleWaterCourtdecreeswilleffectivelybeadministeredbyonedistrictcourtandonewatercommissioner.Inonebasin,forexample,lowerriverusershavebeenunabletogetthe15%approvalnecessaryforappointmentofacommissionerbecausetheupperriverusershavedeclinedtosignthepetition.Inanotherbasinthatspansmultiplecourtdistricts,waterusersresidinginonejudicialdistrictfeltdisenfranchisedwhentheyweresuedbywaterusersresidinginanotherjudicialdistrict.Theout‐of‐districtwaterusersexpressedconcernthatthejudgeandwatercommissionerwouldhaveloyaltiestowardthosewateruserslocatedwithintheirownjudicialdistrict.Agencypersonnelalsonotedthatthereisanoveralllackofadequatemeasuringdevicesandhydrologicdatainthestate,whichfurtherhampersacommissioner’sabilitytoadministerdecrees.

Severaldistrictcourtjudgeshighlightedthevalueofwatercommissioners,while

notingtheneedtoclarifytheirroles.Somejudgesexpresseddiscomfortwiththenecessary,yetpotentiallyexparte,communicationsthatoccurbetweenthemandthewatercommissionerswhenimplementingadecree.Waterusersdissatisfiedwithacommissioner’sdistributioncanfileapetitionwiththedistrictcourt.Thus,thewatercommissioner,ifsued,becomesalitigantbeforetheverycourtthatisoverseeingherwork.Additionally,somejudgeswonderedwhetherthewatercommissionerisprovidingalawenforcementfunctionbetterlocatedintheexecutivebranch.Atthesametime,somejudgesnotedhowimportantitisforajudgetoremaininvolvedinthedistributionmatteraftershehasdevelopedexpertiseinvolvingthewatersource.Thesejudgesemphasizedthegreatvalueofhavingawatercommissionerlocatedwithintheircommunitythatworksasateamwiththejudge.

TheWaterCourtandDNRCassistthedistrictcourtandwatercommissionerby

creatingatabulationofwaterrightsthatincludestheWaterCourtdecreeinformation,DNRCpermitandchangeinformation,anddetailedmapsdepictingthelocationsofheadgates,ditches,andplacesofuse.Thistabulationandmapsareboundintoa“RedBook”thatguidesthewatercommissionerinherwork.ThewatermasteranddistrictcourtjudgemayholdinformationalsessionswherewateruserscanhearaboutthedistributionprocessandprovideinputonthedraftRedBookbeforeitbecomesfinal.Onedistrictcourtjudgeconductsannual“waterwalks”wherewaterusers,commissioners,DNRCofficials,andWaterCourtrepresentativesmeetonsitetodiscusswatersupplyanddeliveryconditions.

15  

Thesecollaborativeapproachesincreasethedistrictcourtjudge’sfamiliarityandexpertise,buildtrust,andstrengthencollaborationamongstakeholderssothatlitigationisminimized.Whileaselectnumberofdistrictcourtjudgeshavedevelopedthesecollaborativemodels,theprevailingviewamongintervieweeswasthatmostjudgeslacktheexpertise,interest,andtimetohandlesuchcomplexwaterrightsdisputes.

LocatingWaterRecordsWithrespecttowaterrightsrecords,therearealsosomeconcernsaboutwhere

waterusers,waterlawyers,consultants,andthepubliclooktofindacompleteandup‐to‐datelistingofallwaterrightsonasource.WaterCourtdecreesdonotlistagencypermitsorchangeauthorizations.Thus,evenwhenfinaldecreesissue,thelawcurrentlydoesnotprovideamechanismforupdatingthosedecreestoreflectnewandchangeduses.

DNRC’scentralizeddatabasecontainsabstractsofpost‐July1,1973waterpermits,

alongwithabstractsofexistingwaterrightsclaimsundergoingWaterCourtadjudication.TheseabstractsareupdatedtoreflectDNRC‐authorizedchangesandWaterCourtrulingsonthecharacteristicsofexistingwaterrights.Eveninthismorecomprehensivedatabase,however,itisnotalwaysclearwheninterimWaterCourtdeterminationsshouldtriggerDNRCmodificationstoabstracts.Forexample,whentheWaterCourtissuesatemporarypreliminaryorpreliminarydecreebeforeitsfinaldecree,theagencylacksclearguidanceonwhethertomodifychangeauthorizationswitheachinterimruling,orwaituntilthefinalrulingissuesandallissuesareresolvedonappeal.Theagencyalsonotesalackofguidanceonhowownershipchangesandsplitsinownershipofwaterrightsshouldbereflectedintherecords.Further,asnoted,thereiscurrentlynomechanismforrecordingchangestoexistingrightsthatdonotundergoagencyreview.

Additionally,waterdisputesinthedistrictcourtgenerateaseparatesetoforders

relatedtowaterrights.Indistributionproceedingsinparticular,theRedBookgeneratedtogoverncommissionerimplementationofaWaterCourtdecreecontainsdetailsbeyondthosestatedintheWaterCourt’sdecreeortheDNRCwaterrightabstract.Therearethusmultiplelocationsofinformationthatmustbereviewedtofullyunderstandthescopeoflegalrecordsrelatingtoawaterrightanditswatersource.D. FocusAreasfortheFuture

BasedoninterviewswithvariousstakeholdersinMontana’swaterrightssystem,

somecommonfocusareasemergeforthefuture.InPartIII,below,thereportrecommendssomepossiblewaysofproceedinginthesefocusareas.Inparticular,stakeholdershighlight:

Thetimegap.WaterCourtdecreesmaynotreflectcurrentwaterrightusesbecausethe

courtgenerallydescribeswaterrightsastheyexistedbeforeJuly1,1973.Inotherwords,theremaybepost‐July1,1973changestoanexistingwaterrightthatgounaddressedinadecree.Somepost‐July1,1973changesundergoagencyreview,

16  

whereasothersdonot.Changesnotrequiringagencyreviewthusmaynotbereflectedinstatewaterrecords.Evenwhenagencychangeauthorizationsoccur,however,thoseauthorizationsdonotaffecttheWaterCourt’sgeneralobligationtodescriberightsintheirpre‐July1,1973formulation.Foreachyearthatadjudicationcontinues,thetimegapbetweenpresentdayusesanddecreeduseswidensfurther.

Thechangeconundrum.Inmostinstances,theWaterCourtisnotdecreeingavolumeorconsumptiveuseforexistingwaterrights.Duringthechangeprocess,theDNRC“fillsinthisinformationalgap”byfindingahistoricdivertedvolumeandconsumptiveusesoitcanthenanalyzewhetherotherusersmaybeinjuredbythechange.Applicantsthusmayhavetoproduceadditionalevidencebeforetheagency.BecausetheDNRC“lookback”periodextendsto1973,someapplicantsstruggletofindsufficientevidenceofhistoricuseandinsteadrelyonagencyrulesandmathematicalmodels.

Adjudicationandchangereviewinvolvedifferentcriteria,typesofevidence,andburdensofproof,andapplicantssometimesfeelthey“lose”decreedwaterduringthechangeprocessbecausetheDNRCmaylimittheamountofwatertheycanchange.Changesarealsoprocessedwithoutknowingtheultimateoutcomeofadjudication.Althoughchangeauthorizationsexpresslynotethattheyaresubjecttofinaladjudication,waterusersmayrelyonchangeapprovalsandlaterhavetheirwaterrightsclaimsalteredbytheadjudicationprocess.

Multiplecourtforums.Wateruserscanoccasionallybecomecaughtinthe“jurisdictional

seam”betweenadistrictcourtandtheWaterCourt.CertificationsfromadistrictcourttotheWaterCourtslowdownthedistrictcourtcase.Ontheflipside,theWaterCourtispresentlyunabletoresolvedistributionandotherindividualizedwaterdisputequestionsthatnaturallyariseinitsadjudicationproceedings.Waterusersmaythusberequiredtoappearintwoseparateforumstoresolvetheirwaterrightsmatter.Asarelatedmatter,districtcourtjudgeswithheavycaseloadsmaylacktheresources,expertise,orinteresttowadeintocomplexwatercases,whetherthosecasesinvolveindividualwaterdisputes,broaderdistributionanddecreeenforcement,orappealsofagencywaterdecisions.

Clarifyingandsupportingthecommissionerrole.Thewatercommissionerstatutesareamongtheoldeststatutesaffectingwaterrightsandmaynotreflectmoderndayrealities.Somedistrictcourtjudgesexpressdiscomfortwiththenecessary,yetpotentiallyexparte,communicationsthatoccurbetweenthemandthewatercommissionerswhenimplementingadecree.Somestakeholdersexpressconcernsabouttheinconsistencyinhiringandtrainingofwatercommissioners,andthefactthatcourtsmustplayaroleinlawenforcement.ThereisalsoconcernabouthowWaterCourtbasin‐widedecreeswillbeenforcedwhentheyspanmultiplejudicialdistricts,andwhetherMontanahasadequatemeasuringdevices,hydrologicdata,andtechnologytoimplementthoseeffectivelyimplementdecrees.

17  

Creatinglivingrecords.Ingeneral,waterusersmustconsultmultiplerecordstofullyunderstandawaterrightanditswatersource,andsometypesofchangestoexistingrightsaresimplynotreflectedintherecords.ItisalsounclearwhenDNRCshouldupdateitsrecordsastheWaterCourtmakesinterimrulingsonwaterrightsclaimspendingfinaldecree.Further,thereispresentlynoprovisionforupdatingdecreestoreflectchangesandnewpermittedusesonawatersourcesothatdecreesrepresentacomplete,“livingrecord”ofallwaterrights.Attheendoftheday,welacka“one‐stop‐shop”forascertainingwaterrightsinformation.

Developingrobustcollaborativeprocesses.Stakeholdersnotethevalueofpublic

outreachandworkinggroupsdesignedtoeducatewaterusers,improveon‐the‐groundknowledgeofawatersource,andresolveconflictsthatmayariseamongwaterusers.Whiletherearecurrentlyinformalcollaborativeprocessesbeingusedinselectwatersheds,thereisnocoordinatedefforttoapplythesemodelsthroughoutthestate.

PARTII:ACOMPARISONTOOTHERSTATES

Thissectionsummarizesingeneraltermsthewaterrightssystemsofseveralotherwesternstates,andthenfocusesmoreparticularlyonhowthosestatesapproachthetypesofissuesidentifiedinPartI.Notably,noteverystateissuccessfulinitsapproach.Indeed,someintervieweesexpressedtheiradmirationofcertainfeaturesinMontanawaterlaw.Nonetheless,thisreporthighlightssomeout‐of‐stateinnovationsthatmeritconsiderationasMontanaplansitswaterfuture.Wealsonotethat,becauseeachstatehasitsownuniquelegalsystemsaroundwater,anyadaptationsmadeinMontanashouldbedoneaftercarefulstudyandinvolvementofallstakeholders.

California

Overview.Californiahasacomplexwaterrightssystembecauseitrecognizesbothriparianandappropriativesurfacewaterrightsandbecauseitdoesnotcomprehensivelyregulategroundwaterwithdrawalsthroughacentralizedpermitsystem.Ithasnotconductedstatewideadjudicationofwaterrights,butbothitstrialcourtsanditsStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB)haveauthoritytoadjudicatesurfacewaterrights.Trialcourtsalsohavejurisdictiontoseparatelyadjudicategroundwaterrights.Since1914,theSWRCBhasregulatedsurfacewaterrightsthroughapermitprogramthatcoversnewpermits,changesofuse,andenforcementofpermitviolations.Trialcourtsimplementdecreesbyappointinga“watermaster”(somewhatlikeMontana’s“watercommissioner”)thatoverseestheexerciseofdecreedrightsandsometimesphysicallyoperatesthewaterdiversionstructuresofdecreedrightsholders.

Concurrentcourt‐agencyjurisdictionoveradjudication.InCalifornia,surfacewaterrightsadjudicationcancommenceeitherbeforeatrialcourtorbeforetheSWRCB.Waterusersinitiatetrialcourtadjudicationbyfilingalawsuit.Inthisscenario,thetrialcourtmayasktheSWRCBtoanalyzewaterrightsclaimsandprovidetechnicalexpertisetothecourt.TheSWRCBcanalsocommenceitsownadjudicationofasurfacewatersource,resultingin

18  

anorderthatisfiledwithatrialcourtforultimateapprovalinadecree.Becausethetrialcourtshavegeneraljurisdiction,theycanadjudicateboththecharacteristicsofwaterrightsaswellasrelatedmatterssuchasdistributionandditcheasementdisputes.UnlikeMontanaWaterCourtdecrees,Californiadecreesarenotcomprehensive:theymayaddressappropriativerightsbutnotriparianrights,ormayaddressonlysurfacewaterorgroundwater,butnotboth.Moderndecreesdoaddressdivertedvolume,anddescribewaterusesastheyexistatthetimeofdecree.Butdecreesarenotuniforminallrespects;rather,theyaretailoredtothecircumstancesoftheaffectedcommunity.

Durabilityofdecrees.DecreesinCaliforniaarenotregularlyupdated.Watermasters,however,maintainandupdaterecordsforthosewaterrightscoveredbythedecreestheyadminister.TheSWRCBalsomaintainsupdatedrecordsbasedonmandatorywaterusereportingbyallsurfacewaterrightsholders.

Changesofwaterrights.Californiabeganrequiringsurfacewaterusepermitsin1914.Changestopost‐1914waterrightsgobeforetheSWRCB.Whenitanalyzesconsumptiveuseduringitschangeprocess,theagencytypicallylooksatcurrentandrecentusesofthewaterrightproposedforchange.Dependingonthetypeofchangerequested,historicusesmayalsobereviewedtotheextenttheyarerelevant.

Changestoadjudicated,pre‐1914surfacewaterrightsaremorecomplexanddependonthelanguageofthedecree.Someminorchangesmaymerelyrequiretheapprovalofthewatermasterandneednotgobeforethetrialcourt.Mostchanges,however,requireapprovalofthetrialcourtthatoriginallyissuedthedecree.Inthissituation,thecourtisdeemedtohaveongoingjurisdictionoverthedecreeanditreopensandamendsthedecreetoreflectthechange.Californiaalsoexpresslyappliestheprincipleofresjudicata(theideathatonceamatterhasbeenjudgedonthemerits,itmaynotgenerallybere‐litigated)toprecludetheSWRCBfrommodifyingthecharacteristicsofajudiciallydecreedwaterright.

Waterdistribution.Inwatersystemsthathavebeenadjudicated,thereisawatermasterthatdistributeswaterunderthedecree,conductsstudiesaboutthehydrologyofthewatersource,collectsfees,andeveninitiatesprojectstofacilitatetheavailabilityanddeliverabilityofwaterrightsrecognizedbythedecree.Thewatermasterissuesreportstothetrialcourtpursuanttothedecree.Inruralareas,thewatermastermaybeanindividualorsmallgroup.Butinmajorurbanareas,thewatermasterisactuallyapublicentitywithagoverningboard.Waterrightsholdershaveasayinthemembershipoftheboard,whichadoptsrulesandregulations,holdspublicmeetings,andisconsideredanarmofthecourt.Boardactionsareappealedtothetrialcourt.Intervieweesheldmixedviewsofthisapproach,dependingonhowwelltheparticularboardisfunctioning. 

19  

Colorado

Overview.Coloradohas“unitaryadministration”ofwaterrights.Watercourtsadjudicatethecharacteristicsofexistingwaterrights(includingdivertedvolume)andalsohaveultimateauthorityoverrecognizingnewwaterrightsandchangesofrights.TheStateEngineerassiststhewatercourtsbyprovidingtechnicalexpertiseonwaterrightscases,andissuesapprovalsofsometechnicalmatters.Inhigh‐profileorcontroversialmatters,theStateEngineeralsooccasionallyopposesanapplicationtoprotectstateinterests.Thatofficealsooverseesthestatewatercommissionersthatdistributewaterinaccordancewithwatercourtdecrees.ActionstakenbytheStateEngineer,includingagencydecisionsandrulepromulgation,areappealedtothewatercourts.

Watercourtadjudication.Watercourtshavejurisdictionoverallwatermatters:bothgeneralbasin‐wideadjudicationsandsmaller,individualdisputesamongwaterusers.Watercourtsalsohavetheoptionofseparatingoutrelatedissuessuchasownershipdisputesoverwaterorrelatedditcheasementquestionsandsendingthosematterstodistrictcourt.Thisbroaderwatercourtjurisdictionavoidsthedual‐courtproblemthatMontanawaterusersfacewhentheymustgototheWaterCourtforadjudicationandthedistrictcourtforindividualdisputesanddistributionmatters.

Coloradohas7majorwaterdivisions,eachwithitsownspecializedwatercourt.

Thedivisionsgenerallyfollowthestate’s7majorbasinboundariessothatacourthasjurisdictionoveranentirewatersource—bothforpurposesofadjudicationanddistribution.This,too,differsfromMontana,whereabasin‐widedecreemightencompassmultiplejudicialdistrictsandusersstruggleoverwhichdistrictshouldoverseedistributionquestions.InColorado,thejudgesservingonthewatercourtsaredesignateddistrictcourtjudgesthathandleboththeirregulardocketaswellaswatermatters.ThesedesignationsarecompetitiveandhighlysoughtafterbytheColoradojudiciary.AnimportantdistinctionbetweenColoradoandMontanaisthatColoradoadjudicatedmostofitswaterrightsacenturyago,soitsmodernadjudicationsare“supplemental”tothosehistoricaldecrees.

Eachwaterdivisionalsohasa“waterreferee”(akintoMontana’s“watermaster”)whoinvestigateswatercasesfiledwiththecourt,overseessettlementdiscussions,andissuesproposedrulings.Refereesmaybeeitherlawyersorengineers.Ifthereferee’sproposedrulingreceivesaprotest,themattergoesonatrialtrackbeforethewaterjudge,witha1‐yeartimelinefordecision.Thewatercourtshaveauniquesettlementrulerequiringtheparties’expertstomeetwithouttheirattorneystoattempttoresolvefactualdisputes—asteplaudedbyboththecourtsandthelawyers.WatercourtdecisionsareappealeddirectlytotheColoradoSupremeCourt.

Durabilityofdecrees.AsoneColoradowaterjudgeobserved,“one‐shotadjudicationsofwaterrightsdon’twork.”Forthisreason,Coloradowatercourtsretainongoingjurisdictionoverdecreesandupdatethemonaregularbasistoreflectnewlyrecognizedwaterrightsandchangestowaterrights.(Thereareapproximately1,200suchrequestsannually).Eachmonththewatercourtpublishesa“resume”ofrequestsfornewor

20  

changedwaterrightssothatallwaterusershavenoticeofpotentialmodificationstothedecree,alongwiththeopportunitytoprotest.TheStateEngineermaintainsawaterrightstabulationthatcommissionersanduserscanconsultforup‐to‐datedecreeinformation.Whenwaterrightsaredecreed,theyreflectthecurrentrealitiesofthewaterright.Aprimarydriverofthis“livingdecree”approachistheneedforadaptabilitytorespondtodemandsintheColoradowatermarket.

Changesofwaterrights.Asnoted,changesofwaterrightsareultimatelyapprovedbythewatercourtwithtechnicalsupportfromtheStateEngineer.Thatofficehasdivisionengineersthatoverseeeachofthe7majorbasins,andserveasthepointofcontacttothewatercourtrefereeforthatdivision.Changesofwaterrightsareallowedsubjecttoconditionsthatprotectagainstinjurytootherusers.Anapplicantmustproveanabsenceofharmtootherusersandmusthirehisownexpert.TheStateEngineeralsoconductsanindependenttechnicalanalysisthatreviewshistoricconsumptiveuse,aswellaslocationandtimingofreturnflows.Afterconferringwiththereferee,thedivisionengineerprovidesa“consultationreport”tothewatercourtthatrecommendsfindingsandconditions.

Thereisnodefinite“lookback”periodfordetermininghistoricconsumptiveuse,but20‐30yearsofrecordiscitedastypical.Nonetheless,statementsofoppositioncouldraisefactquestionsthatgobackfartherintime.The10‐yearabandonmentstatutealsoplaysarole.Onewaterlawyersaiditistypicalforthewatercourttoimpose“knockdowns”onthewaterright,meaningareductioninhistoricdecreedvolumetoaccountforchangesbetweentheproposedandhistoricconsumptiveuse.Coloradoalsohasa“fasttrack”changeprocessforrelocatingpointsofdiversion,whichincludesapresumptionofnon‐injurywhentherearenointerveningusersbetweentheoriginalandproposeddiversionlocation.This“fasttrack”approachdoesnotrequireahistoricconsumptiveuseanalysis.Onewaterlawyerindicatedthatitisrareforachangetoqualifyforthisfast‐trackstatus.Becausethewatercourtsreviewagencydeterminationsandincorporatechangedrightsintotheirlivingdecrees,theyavoidtheMontanadilemmaofhavingdifferentproceedingsandstandardsbetweentheagencyandtheWaterCourt.

Waterdistribution.Underseparationofpowersprinciples,Coloradolocatesitsenforcementfunctionintheexecutivebranch.Coloradohas115surfacewatercommissionersand20groundwatercommissionerswhodistributewateraccordingtowatercourtdecrees.Commissionersservein78waterdistrictsnestedwithinthe7majorstatebasins.Whenawatersourcespansmultipledistricts,thereisaleadcommissionerandassistantcommissionersthatcoordinateandrelyheavilyonremote‐sensing,real‐timemonitoringdata.CommissionersareemployeesoftheStateEngineer,andtheyarehiredafterreceivinginputfromlocalwaterusers.Commissionersresideinthelocalcommunityandworkfromtheirhomes.Whencommissionershavequestionsabouthowtoapplyorinterpretawatercourtdecree,theyreporttheirquestiontothedivisionengineer,whointurnconsultswiththewatercourtreferee.Inthisway,expartecommunicationsareavoidedbetweenthecourtandacommissionerwhomayultimatelybesuedbydissatisfiedwaterusers.Watercommissionersalsoplayanimportantroleinadivisionengineer’sreviewofneworchangedwaterrightsbecauseoftheir“bootsontheground”perspectiveontheaffectedwatersource.

21  

Idaho

Overview.Idaho’sstatewide,waterrightsadjudicationoccursinasingle,designatedcourtcalledtheSnakeRiverBasinAdjudicationDistrictCourt(SRBA‐DC),whichisaseparatedivisionofthedistrictcourts.Thiscourthasexclusivejurisdictionoverwaterrightsmatters.TheSRBA‐DCisalsotheexclusiveforumtopetitionforjudicialreviewofanywater‐relatedagencydecisions.TheIdahoWaterResourcesDivision(IDWR)isanagencythatprovidestechnicalassistancetotheSRBA‐DC.Inaddition,IDWRhasbroadauthorityandresponsibilityfordistributingwaterthroughits“watermasters”(likeMontana’s“watercommissioners”).Since1971,IDWRhasbeenresponsibleforprocessingapplicationsfornewwaterusesandchangesofuse.TheSRBA‐DCreviewstheseadministrativedecisionsinanappellatecapacity.

Specializeddistrictcourtadjudication.TheSRBA‐DCexercisesuniqueandexclusivejurisdictiongiventoitbythelegislature.ItissupervisedbytheIdahoSupremeCourt,anditsfocushaslargelybeenontheSnakeRiverBasin,whichcomprises87%ofthelandareaofIdaho.IDWRservesasanindependentexpertandtechnicalassistanttotheSRBA‐DCbyfilingDirector’sReports,whichareprimafacieevidenceofthenatureandextentofclaimants’waterrights.Thecourtuses“specialmasters”(likeMontana’s“watermasters”)tomakepreliminaryrulingsonissues.JurisdictionremainswiththeSRBA‐DCuntilfinalordersofwaterrightsaredecreed.Withsomeexceptionsforgroundwaterrightsandpreviouslychangedwateruses,IdahoissimilartoMontanainthatitdoesnotasaroutinepracticedecreevolumeaspartofitsadjudication.

Durabilityofdecrees.IntheSnakeRiverBasin,theSRBA‐DCadjudicationprocessresultsina“timegap”similartoMontana’sbecauseitdecreesrightsasof1987.However,theIDWRhasonoccasionrecommendedfindingsbasedonpost‐1987changeswhenotherusersarenotifiedandnoobjectionsareraised.Idahodecreesarenotregularlyupdatedtoreflectnewusesorchangesinuse.IDWRischargedwithmaintainingwaterrightsrecords.Ifthereisanadministrativeproceedingthatchangeselementsofawaterright,theadministrativedecisionsupersedesthejudicialdecreeforthatparticularwateruser.

Changesofwaterrights.IDWRprocessesapplicationsforchangesofuse(called“transfers”).Ifthenatureofuseisnotchanging,IDWRdoesnotevaluateconsumptiveusewithinthetransferprocess.Thus,ifsomeoneissimplychangingtheplaceofuseorpointofdiversionfortheirirrigationwaterright,IDWRwillallowthewaterrighttobetransferredinfull.Essentially,IDWRonlyevaluateshistoricconsumptiveuseintransfersproposingtochangethenatureofuseofthewaterright.Forexample,ifanirrigationwaterrightisbeingchangedtoindustrialuse,theagencywouldevaluatethehistoricconsumptiveuseassociatedwiththeirrigation.Althoughthereisnospecific“lookback”periodfordeterminingconsumptiveuse,Idahodoesrecognizeafive‐yearforfeitureforunusedwaterrights.Thus,IDWRgenerallywilllookatthepreviousfiveyearsofcropsasameasureoftheconsumptiveuse.Applicantsarealsofreetoprovideadditionaldata.Aninnovatoramongwesternstatesforitsuseofwaterrightssoftware,IDWRdependsheavilyona

22  

GeographicInformationSystem(GIS)frameworkandquantitativemodelswhenconsideringtheimpactsofneworchangedwateruses.

Toensureconsistencyandcourtexpertiseregardingtheadministrationofwaterrights,theIdahoSupremeCourtplacedappealsofagencychangedecisions,aswellasotherwater‐relateddecisions,withintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheSRBA‐DC.IDWRdecisionsarereviewedforabuseofdiscretionorclearerrorusingaclosedadministrativerecord.IDWRappearsastherespondentandisrepresentedbytheIdahoAttorneyGeneral’sOffice.

Waterdistribution.IDWRoverseesthedistributionofwaterthrough“watermasters”electedfromstatewaterdistricts.DistributiondisputesareraisedinanIDWRadministrativeforum,afterwhichpartiesmayappealtheagencydecisiontotheSRBA‐DC.

Oregon

Overview.SincethepassageoftheOregonWaterCodein1909,allnewpermitsandchangesofuse(“transfers”)areadministeredthroughtheOregonWaterResourcesDepartment.Allpre‐statutoryrightsareadjudicatedinbasin‐specificactionsaftertheDepartmentexaminestheclaimsandpresentsproposedfinalorderstothelocaldistrictcourt.Althougharoundtwo‐thirdsofthestateisadjudicated,theKlamathBasinistheonlybasinadjudicatedinthelast40years.

Agency‐drivenadjudication.Inanadjudication,theDepartmentexaminesallclaimsinabasinandissuesproposedfinalorders.Proteststotheproposedfinalordersarefirstheardbyanadministrativelawjudge.TheDepartmentthenreviewstheadministrativelawjudge’sfindingsandissuesaproposedFindingsofFactandanOrderofDetermination(FFOD),whichispresentedtoalocaldistrictcourt.ThelocaldistrictcourtcanaffirmtheFFODasadecree.ThedistrictcourtwillhearanycontestedissuesandreviewtheDepartment’sorderunderadenovostandard(decidingthematteranew,withoutdeferringtotheDepartment’sfindings).Untilentryofthefinaldecree,theFFODistreatedasanenforceablepreliminarydecree.Thedescriptionoffinallydecreedrightsgenerallyincludesamaximumrate(incfsorgpm)andaduty/divertedvolume(inacre‐feet)andmirrorsthedescriptionofrightsobtainedthroughthestatutorypermittingprocess.Waterrightsaredescribedaccordingtothoseusesoccurringatthetimeofdecree.

Durabilityofdecrees.LikeMontana,Oregondecreesarenotupdatedonanongoingbasis;instead,decreedrightsreceivea“certificate”likestatutorypermittedrightsandaremaintainedwithintheDepartment’scentralizedwaterrightsrecords.

Changesofwaterrights.TheDepartmentdealswithallfuturechangestodecreedwaterrights,subjecttoappealtoadistrictcourt.Althoughthereisnostatutory“lookback”periodforconsumptiveuse,theforfeiturestatuteguidestheagency(requiring5yearsofcontinuousnon‐useinthelast15years).Statedanotherway,theagencyaskswhetherthewaterhasbeenbeneficiallyusedtoitsfullextentonceinthelastfiveyears.Inoneattorney’sexperience,thevastmajorityofthecasesinvolvenolookbackatall,butrather

23  

focusonwhetherthereisinjuryifthecurrentuseischangedtotheproposeduse.Typicalevidenceincludesrecentpowerbillsorcropyields.Pre‐statutoryrightsthathavenotbeendecreeddonotqualifyfortransfer.

Waterdistribution.TheDepartmenthastwentywatermasters(hydrologists),dividedamong5regionsinthestate,whonotonlyimplementdistribution,butalsoconductinspectionsandenforceviolationsofstatewaterlaw.TheyalsoplayanimportantsupportingrolewhentheDepartmentprocessesapplications,byprovidinginformationoncropuse,injuryreview,andwateravailability.

Utah

Overview.Utahbeganrequiringwaterrightspermitsin1903.Priorto1903,rightswereestablishedbyfilinga“diligenceclaim”withtheStateEngineersOffice(SEO),whichtodayprocessesapplicationsfornewappropriationsandchangesofexistingrights.Ifanewuseisauthorized,theSEOmonitorstheuseforseveralyearstoconfirmitisperfected,andthenissuesaCertificateofBeneficialUse.TheSEOalsohasexclusivejurisdictionoverenforcementanddrivestheadjudicationprocessforpre‐1903rights.

Agency‐drivenadjudication.Innearlyeverystatestreamwithpre‐statutorydiligenceclaims,thereareongoinggeneralstreamadjudications(someofwhicharebeingprosecutedinsmallerstreamsegments).Someoftheseadjudicationshavelanguishedfordecades,butincreasedstaffinghasbegunspeedinguptheprocess.Diligenceclaimsaredecreedastheyexistedpre‐1903,andincludeadivertedvolumeinacre‐feet.BecausetheSEOhasbeenapprovingwaterrightschangessince1903,andthusdeterminingthevalidityofallchangeddiligenceclaims,Utahdoesnotfacethesame“timegap”issueasMontana.

TheSEOinitiatesadjudicationproceedingsindistrictcourt,afterwhichwaterusers

filetheirclaimsandSEOfieldstaffchecktheaccuracyoftheclaims.SimilartoOregon,theSEOthenissuesaProposedDeterminationofWaterRightsBook,whichcontainsrecommendationstothedistrictcourt.Usershave90daystoobjecttotheproposeddetermination,althoughobjectionsarefewandsettlementsarecommon.TheburdenofproofisontheclaimanttoovercometheSEO’sdetermination,andobjectionsthatcannotberesolvedaredecidedbythecourt.Untilthefinaldecreeisissued,theSEOdistributeswaterinaccordancewithitsProposedDetermination.

Durabilityofdecrees.Thedistrictcourtretainsongoingjurisdictionoverdecrees.Ifindividualwateruserdisputesarise,itcansupplementthedecreewithadditionalrulings.Thecourtreservestherighttomakechangesinthequantificationofthedecreebasedontheavailabilityofbetterscientificinformationandanalyticaltechniquesthatbecomeavailable.Ifsuchmodificationsbecomeadvisableinthefuture,thecourtalsoretainsjurisdiction,uponmotionoftheSEO,tomodifytheirrigationduty,thedomesticuseallowance,andthestockwaterallowance.

24  

Changesofwaterrights.TheSEOreviewschangesofallwaterrights.Itdoesafullhydrologicalanalysisofthechangetodetermineiftherewillbeinjury,anditassumesmaximumvolumeofusebasedonfloodirrigation.SEOdecisionsarereviewedindistrictcourt,subjecttodenovoreview.Roughly90%ofwaterrightsapplicationsarehandledwithoutanattorneyand“fewerthan1%oftheapplicants”appealSEOdecisions.

AlthoughUtahhasaforfeiturestatutethatappliestowaterrightsthatarenotused

for7years,theUtahSupremeCourthasheld,underseparationofpowers,thattheSEOdoesnothaveauthoritytodeclareunadjudicatedrightstobeforfeitedduringthechangeapplicationprocess.Instead,forfeitureisaquestionthatmustariseinthegeneraladjudicationproceedingorinaprivateforfeitureaction.Forthatreason,theagencydoesnot“lookback”athistoricalusesforpre‐statutoryrights.

Waterdistribution.TheSEOhasdistributionauthorityandappointswatercommissionersfor4‐yearterms,basedoninputbylocalwaterusers.Similartoseveralofthesurveyedstates,commissionersarepaid,trained,anddirectedbytheSEO.

Washington

Overview.InWashington,superiorcourts(atypeoftrialcourt)conductadjudicationsthatarecommencedbythestateDepartmentofEcology(Ecology).Adjudicationscanrangefromsmalldisputestolarge,generaladjudications.Theycanbelimitedtosurfacewaterorgroundwater,orincludeboth.Since1918,82basinsinWashingtonhavebeenadjudicated.Themainactiveadjudicationtodaycommencedinthe1970sandinvolvessurfacewatersintheYakimaRiverBasin.Andsince1967,arelinquishmentstatutehasprovidedthatfailuretouseallorpartofawaterrightwithoutgoodcausefor5successiveyearscantriggerlossofthewaterright.Thereisalsoacommonlawcauseofactionforabandonment.

Court‐drivenadjudication.Superiorcourtsmayappointspecialmasterstotakeevidenceandissuepreliminaryfindingsandconclusions.Thepartiesbeartheburdenofproofandhavedeadlinesforsubmittingevidencetosupporttheirclaimedwateruse.Ecologyinvestigatesclaims,gathersitsownevidence,andreportsfindingstothecourt.Washingtondecreesincludeamaximumdivertedvolumeinadditiontoflowrate,anddecreesreflectcurrentwateruses.

Changesofwaterrights.Duringanongoingadjudication,partiesrequesttemporarychangesdirectlythroughthecourtoverseeingtheadjudication.Forpermanentchanges,Ecologyprocessesrequestsandrecordsitsagencydecisionwiththecourt.Thechangethenbecomespartofthefinaldecree.Post‐decree,Ecologyprocesseschangesofuseoutsideofthecourt.A“supersedingcertificate”isissuedandEcologyupdatesitsrecords.

AppealingEcology’sdecisiononachangerequestissomewhatcomplicated.Iftheagencydecisiontouchesontheextentandvalidityofaclaimedwaterright,thatdecisionisappealedtothetrialcourtoverseeingtheadjudicationsubjecttodenovoreview.Ifthe

25  

decisiontouchesonmattersotherthantheextentandvalidityofaclaimedwaterright,thataspectoftheappealiscertifiedtoaPollutionControlHearingsBoard(PCHB).Decisionsbythatboardcanbeappealedbacktothetrialcourt,whichappliesdeferentialreview.

IntheYakima,thestateencourages,butdoesnotrequire,thatchangeproposalsbebroughttotheWaterTransferWorkingGroup:avoluntaryteamofagenciesandwaterusersthatmeettoprovidetechnicalreviewofproposedwaterrighttransfersintheYakimaBasin.Thisoptionalprocessguidesapplicantstothosetypesofwaterrightchangesandtransfersthatcanquicklyandeasilygainapprovalfromthestate.

Becausedecreesresolvevolume,Ecologydoesnotadjustvolumeinachangeproceedinginvolvinganadjudicatedwaterrightunlesstherearequestionsofrelinquishment/nonuse.AndtheWashingtoncourtshaveheldthatintheprocessingofachangeapplication,thedoctrineofresjudicatabarsEcologyfromraisingallegationsofrelinquishmentthatitfailedtoraiseduringitsinvestigationofawaterrightsclaimduringtheadjudication.Thus,theagencycannot“lookback”beyondthedateofthecourt’sordercharacterizingtheright.Innon‐decreedwaterrightssituations,Ecologyreviewsthehistoryofthewaterrighttoperformatentativedeterminationofthevalidityandextentofthewaterright.

Wheneveranapplicantseekstoaddirrigatedacresornewpurposestoawater

right,Ecologyisalsorequiredtolimittransferstothe“annualconsumptivequantity”whichmeans“theestimatedoractualannualamountofwaterdivertedpursuanttothewaterright,reducedbytheestimatedannualamountofreturnflows,averagedoverthetwoyearsofgreatestusewithinthemostrecentfive‐yearperiodofcontinuousbeneficialuseofthewaterright.”Thus,thelook‐backperiodunderthisformulaisgenerally5years.

Durabilityofdecrees.SimilartotheMontanaapproach,Ecologymaintainsarecordofdecreedrightsanddoesnotupdatethosedecreestoreflectchangesmadeaftertheybecomefinal.TheYakimaBasindecreemaybeupdated,however,inlightofthepossibilityofongoingcourtjurisdiction.

Waterdistribution.Theadjudicatingcourtshaveauthoritytofashionenforcementandimplementationofadecree.Typically,thecourtswillchargeEcologywiththetaskofenforcementandimplementation,andappealsofEcologyactionswillgotothePCHB.IntheYakimaBasin,thecourt’sproposedfinaldecreeenvisionsthatEcologywillsuperviseenforcement,withthecourttakingdirectappealsofagencyactionsforthreeyears.Thereafter,appealswillgotothePCHBandthentothecourtunderitsongoingjurisdiction.Ecologyisinchargeofhiring,training,andsupervising“watermasters”(likeMontana’s“watercommissioners”)thatdoon‐the‐grounddistributionofwater.UnlikeMontana,Washingtonwatermastersareusedbothindecreedandnon‐decreedbasins.

 

26  

Wyoming

Overview.Incontrasttothejudicially‐drivenapproachofColorado,Wyomingtakesastrongagency‐drivenapproachtowaterrights.Since1890,theWyomingStateEngineer’sOffice(SEO)hasissuedpermitsforallwaterrights.TheStateEngineerandsuperintendentsheadingeachoffourwaterdivisionsmakeuptheStateBoardofControl(BOC),which“adjudicates”waterrightsandconsiderswaterrightschanges.

Agency‐exclusiveadjudication.Atstatehood,Wyominghadabout5,000territorialrights.TheStateEngineertookswornproofsofhistoricuseandconductedfieldinspectionsoneachoftheserightsduringtheperiodfrom1890to1920.Today,ifawateruserseekstochangeapre‐1890right,thentheagency“adjudicates”thatindividualrightbyconductingfact‐findingtoconfirmitwasperfected.Onceawaterrightis“adjudicated,”itisgivenaduty(statedasaflowrate)and“permanentlyattachedtothespecificlandorplaceofusedescribedonthecertificate.”ItcannotberemovedorchangedexceptbyactionoftheBOC.Awaterusermayalsorequestanadjudicationofherrighttoconfirmitsvalidityinadvanceofmarketingthewaterright.AppealsofBOCactionsgotodistrictcourt,whichmustadvancethewatercasetotheheadofitsdocket.

TheexceptiontoindividualizedagencyadjudicationistheBigHornRiverBasinadjudication,whichisageneraladjudicationthathasbeenongoinginstatedistrictcourtbecauseitinvolvesfederalandtribalrights.Withrespecttothepre‐1890rightsinvolvedinthatcase,theSEOhasfollowedtheOregonandUtahmodelsbyprovidingtechnicalexpertiseandmakingproposedfindingsforapprovalbythedistrictcourt.

Durabilityofdecrees.BecauseWyomingadjudicatedpre‐1890rightsoneatatime,therearenocomprehensivedecreesforawatersourceoutsidetheBigHornRiverBasin.TheSEOdoesmaintainandupdateitsstatewidepermitrecords.

Changesofwaterrights.Tochangeanexistingright,anapplicantpetitionstheBOC,whichdeterminesdivertedvolumeandconsumptiveusetoensurenoinjurytootherusers.Althoughthe“lookback”periodis5years,basedonthestate’sabandonmentstatute,theBOCisknowntobe“prettyfriendly”toapplicantstryingtoresuscitatetheirwaterrights.Additionally,thereisaheavyburdenonwateruserswhoarguethatanotheruserhasabandonedtheirrights,whichmakesitdifficulttoeliminateunperfectedclaims.IntervieweesnotedthattheBOCmaytellanapplicanttogobackandusethewaterandreturninfiveyears.Finally,insteadoftheBOCaskingforobjectionstoachangeapplication,theapplicantobtainsconsentformssignedbyotherusersonthestream.Intheabsenceoffullconsent,theBOCholdsacontestedcasehearing.

Waterdistribution.WaterCommissionersarehydrographersandfull‐timeemployeesoftheSEO.Streamsaregenerallynot“regulated”unlessausermakesa“call.”Ifa“callforregulation”comesin,thenthehydrographerusestheBOCtabulationbooksandlistingsofun‐adjudicatedpermitsingoodstandingtoregulatebypriority.Thisdecisioncanbeappealedtoadivisionsuperintendent,thentheSEO,andultimatelythecourts.

27  

TrendsinOtherStateSystems 

Withoutpassingjudgmentonthemeritsofdifferentstateapproaches,wenotesomeofthemoresignificanttrendsobservableinotherstates: EverysurveyedstateexceptWyominghasajudicialroleinadjudication(andeven

WyomingdoesfortheBigHornBasin).InstateslikeOregonandUtah(andsometimesCalifornia),thestateagencyplaysalargerroleinmakingfindingsandresolvingobjections,andadistrictcourtsignsoffontheagency’swork.InstateslikeColorado,Washington,andIdaho,thejudiciaryplaysalargerroleinmakingfindingsandresolvingobjections,withtheagencyplayingtheroleoftechnicalexpert.

Moststatecourtdecreesreflectwaterusesastheyexistatthetimeofthedecree,ratherthansomedistantpointinthepast.InIdaho,whichdatesitsdecreesbackto1987,decreeshavesometimesbeenadaptedtoreflectcurrentuseswhennopartiesobject.

Moststatecourtsconductingadjudicationalsohaveauthoritytohandlerelatedwater

disputesanddistributionmatters,thusavoidingthe“jurisdictionalseam”thatexistsinMontana.Capitalizingontheexpertiseofwaterjudges,Idahohasfurtherdesignateditswatercourtasthesoleappellatecourtforallagencywaterdecisions.Washingtondoesthisonamorelimitedbasisbymakingthewaterjudgetheappellatejudgeforagencydecisionsaffectingwaterrightscurrentlyunderadjudication.

SomestateslikeColorado,Utah,andCaliforniaallowcourtstoretainongoingjurisdictionoverdecreessothatchangesarereviewedbythecourtanddecreesareupdatedtoreflectchanges.Otherstatesplacetheagencyinchargeofapprovingchangestodecreedrights.Washingtonoccupiesamiddleterritoryinthatitsagencyprocesseschangestodecreedrightswhiletheadjudicationispending,butappealsoftheagencydecisiongotothetrialcourtoverseeingtheadjudication.

Insomestates,courtdecreeshavebeenexpresslyheldtoberesjudicataandagenciesareprecludedfromconsideringcertainevidencethatwouldbeconsidereda“reopening”ofissueswithinthepurviewofadjudication.

Inmanystates,thetrendtowardconvertingagriculturalwaterusetomunicipalwater

use(inresponsetopopulationgrowth)hasrequiredthechange/transferprocesstobecomestreamlinedtofacilitatewatermarketing.

Inmoststates,theagencyischargedwithkeepingupdatedrecordsandthedecreeisnotupdatedtoreflectneworchangeduses.Colorado,Utah,andCaliforniaareexceptions.

Ineverysurveyedstate,exceptWyomingandIdaho(someofthetime),decreesincludedivertedvolumeaspartoftheadjudicationprocess.Thus,mostagenciesarenotdeterminingdivertedvolumeduringthechangeprocess.

28  

Allstateagenciesareexaminingconsumptiveuseduringthechangeprocess,althoughthemethodologyvaries,andIdahodoessoonlywhenthewaterright’spurposechanges.Severalstateshaveaspecific“lookback”periodfordeterminingconsumptiveuse.Theperiodisoftentiedtothestatutoryperiodforforfeitureorabandonment,sotherangeisoften5‐15years,whichismuchlessthanMontana’slookbackto1973.

Moststateshaveastandardizedprocessforhiringandtrainingwatercommissioners,andtheyareusuallyemployeesofthestateagency.Inseveralstates,commissionersareorganizedbymajorwaterdivisionsthatcorrelatewithwatercourtjurisdictionsothatbasin‐widedecreescanbeeffectivelyadministered.

Somestateshaveinvestedinmoderntechnologyandgatheredhydrologicdatato

ensureeffective,real‐timemonitoringofwaterdistributiononbasin‐widescales.

Afewstatesleveragetheirwatercommissionerfunctionbyhavingthemgatherevidencerelatedtochangeandpermitapplications,conductwellanddaminspections,andenforcewasteandillegaluseviolations.

PARTIII:IDEASFORMONTANA’SFUTURE ThispartdescribespossibleshorttermandlongerterminnovationsthatMontanacanmaketoitswaterrightssystem.Inmanyrespects,Montanaistobelaudedfortheprogressithasalreadymadeinclarifyingstatewidewaterrights.Inotherrespects,Montanacanbenefitbylearningfromthetechnicalandlegalinnovationsofotherstatesystems.And,importantly,Montanamaydiscernthatnovelapproaches,yetuntestedelsewhere,providethebestpathforward.Becausethisreportdiscussespossibleapproachesinbroadstrokes,wenotethatallofthesuggestedideasshouldbecarefullyrefinedandstudiedinprocessesinvolvingallstakeholders.

ShortTerm 

ConcurrentWaterCourtjurisdictionoverwateruserdisputesanddistribution.Intheshortterm,legislationcanprovidetheWaterCourtconcurrentjurisdictionoverwaterdistributionmattersandindividualwateruserdisputes.Whensuchissuesariseduringadjudication,theWaterCourtcanthenavoidreferringthosematterstothedistrictcourt,whichallowsthepartiestoachievefullresolutionoftheirissuesinoneforum.Withconcurrentjurisdiction,thepartiesordistrictcourtcanalsoelecttocertifyadistrictcourtcaseinfulltotheWaterCourt,ratherthansplittingtheproceedingintotwocases,ascurrentlawrequires.ThisapproachalsoeliminatesthedilemmaofmultipledistrictcourtsbeinginvolvedinawatercommissionerappointmentbecausetheWaterCourtcanprovidereliefonabasin‐widebasis.WhiletheWaterCourtforeseesamodestincreaseinworkloadunderthisscenario,itnotesthatitisalreadydedicatingsignificantresourcestoassistingdistrictcourtsonwaterrightsquestions.By

29  

combiningallwaterissuesintooneproceeding,asotherstatesdo,theburdenonthedistrictcourtsandcourtsystemasawholeisreduced,asarelitigantexpensesduetoappearancesinmultipleforums.

Arecordscoordinationpolicy.AnadditionalshorttermstrategyfortheDNRC,WaterCourt,anddistrictcourtsistodevelopinternalproceduresforupdatingandintegratingthewaterrecordsgeneratedbyeachentity.ThepartiescanresolvehowinterimWaterCourtrulingsaffectabstractsintheDNRCdatabase,howownershipchangesandsplitsarerecorded,andhowtocreatea“one‐stop‐shop”forwaterusersthatwanttoviewabstracts,WaterCourtdecisions,districtcourtorders,andRedBooktabulations.Theoptimalsystemwouldbeonewherethepublicandwateruserscanconsultasinglesourceforcomprehensive,currentwaterrightsinformation—a“livingdecree.”

Educationandcollaboration.Buildinguponthe“waterwalk”and“RedBook”communitymeetingexamplesdiscussedabove,theDNRC,Legislature,andMontanacourtsystemcouldundertakeamoreplannedenterpriseofeducationandoutreachthatbringstechnicalandlegalexpertisetobearonawatershed‐by‐watershedbasis.Basedonpastexperiences,thesewatershedcollaborationsyieldmeaningful,on‐the‐groundinformationandcreatemorepossibilitiesforout‐of‐courtdisputeresolution.

LongerTerm Addressingthe“timegap”inadjudication.Inthelongerterm,aprimary

recommendationisthatthestatedevelopaprocessforenablingtheWaterCourttoissuedecreesthatbetterreflectactualusesoccurringatthetimeofdecree.Theprocessshouldconsiderhowpost‐July1,1973changes(boththosethatrequireagencyreviewandthosethatdonot)areraisedandreviewed,howotherwaterusersmayobject,andhowfairnesswillbeensuredamongwaterusers.Suchaprocessshouldalsohelpcapturethenon‐agencyreviewedchangesoccurringinMontana’swaterrightssystem.Atthesametime,thestateshouldconsidertherelatedquestionofhowwaterusersseekingchangesofusecanavoidtheburdenofgatheringhistoricalevidenceasfarbackas1973.Whileeachstatehasitsownuniquerulesrelatedto“lookbacks,”itmayproveworthwhileforMontanatoreviewthosestateswithshorterlookbackperiodsanddeterminewhethersimilarconceptscanbeincorporatedintoMontana’slegalsystem.

AppealsofagencydecisionstotheWaterCourt.AsnotedinPartI,appealsofDNRCwaterdecisionscurrentlygotolocaldistrictcourts.Inthelongerterm,thestatecouldconsiderprovidingwateruserstheoptionofappealingDNRCwaterdecisionstotheWaterCourtasanalternativevenuetolocaldistrictcourts.TheWaterCourtcouldreviewappealsunderthesameadministrativeproceduresasanyotherdistrictcourt.ThisapproachwouldbecomparabletothattakeninIdaho,whereitswatercourthandlesadministrativeappeals,orinWashington,whereawaterjudgereviewschangeappeals.TheWaterCourtdoesnotexpectasignificantincreaseinworkloadifthis

30  

changeisimplemented.Thebenefitsofthisprocesscouldbereducedworkloadtodistrictcourtsandincreasedexpertiseforwaterusersappealingagencymatters.

Amodernizedwatercommissioneranddistributionsystem.Afinallongertermrecommendationistomodernizethestatelawsthatapplytowatercommissioners.Theselawsshouldclarifythewaywatercommissionersareappointed,trained,paid,andsupervisedsothatthereisamoreuniformstatewideapproach.Inlightofconcernsexpressedbydistrictcourtjudges,thestateshouldalsoconsiderwhetheranotherentityismostappropriateforcarryingoutthislawenforcementfunction.Onthispointwenotethatotherstateswithagencyoversightofcommissionersstillusecommissionersthatresideandworkwithinlocalcommunities.Additionally,asthestatetransitionstobasin‐widewaterrightsdecreesthatspanmultiplejudicialdistricts,itshouldexaminetheprocessbywhichjudgesappointcommissionerstoensurethatthereiscoordinationandfairnessamongthevarioushydrologicalregionsofawatersource.Bythesametoken,thestateshouldconsiderhowitwillprovidewatercommissionerswiththetechnologyanddatatheyneedtofairlyandaccuratelydistributewateracrosslargehydrologicalareas.

CONCLUSION

ThisreporthasdescribedthegeneralcontoursofMontana’scurrentwaterrights

legalsystem,focusingontheareaswherewaterusers,agencyofficials,thecourts,andotherstakeholdersconfrontthelargestquestionsandchallenges.ThesystemsofotherwesternstatesprovideimportantplacestocompareandcontrastwhatwedoinMontana,andmayservetoinspireusaswecraftourownstate‐drivensolutions.Thereporthasidentifiedsomepossiblestartingplacesforsolutionsintheshortandlongerterm,butthesuccessofthosesolutionsdependsoncarefulrefinementandcollaborationamongstakeholders.TheClinicobservedsignificantcollaborationamongthosestakeholdersasitpreparedthisreport,andweareoptimisticthatconstructivesolutionswillbeforthcoming.

Inconclusion,weexpressourgratitudetoChiefJusticeMikeMcGrathofthe

MontanaSupremeCourtfortheopportunitytoworkonthisimportantdocument.AndweexpressoursincerethankstotheWaterCourtandtheDNRCforthetimeandexpertiseeachprovidedinsupportofourwork.Shouldthestatesodesire,theClinicwouldbepleasedtoassistinthefuturestepstakentoshapeMontana’swaterrightssystem.

 

31  

BIBLIOGRAPHYOFSOURCES

Foreachstatelisted,theClinicreviewedtheprimarystatutesandregulationsgoverningwaterusepermitting,adjudication,anddistribution.TheClinicalsoconductedconfidentialinterviewswithvariousindividualsfamiliarwiththatstate’slegalsystemforwaterrights.Beyondthisbasicresearch,wehavelistedotherbackgroundresourcesforeachstate.

Montana

DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation.“AdministrationofWaterCourtDecrees:AnOverviewoftheProcessforDistributionandAdministrationofWaterUnderMontanaWaterCourtDecrees.”October2013.http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/adjudication/water_distribution/overview.pdf.DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation,LegislativeEnvironmentalQualityCouncil,andMontanaUniversitySystemWaterCenter.“WaterRightsinMontana”(handbook).LegislativeEnvironmentalPolicyOffice,April2014.http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2014‐water‐rights‐handbook.pdf.Doney,TedJ.MontanaWaterLawHandbook.StateBarofMontana,1981.Hutchins,WellsA.“TheMontanaLawofWaterRights.”Bulletin(MontanaAgriculturalExperimentStation)545.MontanaAgriculturalExperimentStation,MontanaStateCollege,1958.LegislativeAuditDivision.“PerformanceAudit:WaterRightsAdjudication:DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation,ReservedWaterRightsCompactCommission,andtheMontanaWaterCourt.”AReporttotheMontanaLegislature,June2010.http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Audit/Report/09P‐09.pdf.MontanaWaterAdjudicationAdvisoryCommittee.“ReportoftheWaterAdjudicationAdvisoryCommitteetotheMontanaSupremeCourt,the55thMontanaLegislature,GovernorofMontana,MontanaWaterCourt,MontanaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation.”October1,1996.MontanaWaterCourt.“MeetingonWaterCourtRules”(transcript).C.BruceLoble,ChiefWaterJudge,Presiding.November21,2000.MontanaWaterCourt.MontanaWaterCourtGuideBook.http://courts.mt.gov/content/water/guides/step_guide_book.pdf.Saunders,Snyder,Ross&Dickson,P.C.“EvaluationofMontana’sWaterRightsAdjudicationProcess.”PreparedfortheWaterPolicyCommitteeoftheLegislatureoftheStateofMontana.September30,1988.http://leg.mt.gov/content/publications/environmental/1988adjudication.pdf.

32  

Shovers,Brian.“Diversions,Ditches,andDistrictCourts:Montana'sStruggletoAllocateWater.”MontanaTheMagazineofWesternHistory55,no.1(Spring2005):p.2‐15.Stone,AlbertW.MontanaWaterLawforthe1980s:Up‐dating,Supplementing,andAugmentingSelectedAspectsofMontanaWaterLaw.A.W.Stone,1981and1989Supplement.WaterPolicyInterimCommittee.“BoilingItDown:AStudyofWaterPolicyinMontana.”AReporttothe62ndLegislature,November2010.http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2010‐water‐policy.pdf.WaterPolicyInterimCommittee.“Water–Montana’sTreasure:AnAnalysisofWaterManagementinMontana.”AReporttothe61stMontanaLegislature,September2008.http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2008montanastreasure.pdf.

California

CaliforniaWaterLawJournal.http://blogs.mcgeorge.edu/waterlawjournal/archives/.StateWaterResourcesControlBoard.“AGuidetoWaterTransfers.”July1999.http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_transfers/docs/watertransferguide.pdf.StateWaterResourcesControlBoard.“TheWaterRightsProcess”(webpage).http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.shtml.

ColoradoColoradoDepartmentofNaturalResources,DivisionofWaterResources.“GuidetoColoradoWellPermits,WaterRights,andWaterAdministration.”September2012.http://water.state.co.us/dwripub/documents/wellpermitguide.pdf.ColoradoFoundationforWaterEducation.Citizen’sGuidetoColoradoWaterLaw.ThirdEdition,2009.http://www.yourwatercolorado.org/flip/catalog.php?catalog=waterlaw.JusticeGregoryJ.Hobbs,Jr.“Colorado’s1969AdjudicationandAdministrationAct:SettlingIn.”UniversityofDenverWaterLawReview3(Fall1999):p.1‐19.

WaterCourtCommittee,ColoradoSupremeCourt.“Non‐Attorney’sGuidebooktoColoradoWaterCourts.”http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/self_help/non‐attorneys_guidebook_to_colorado_water_courts_final.pdf.

Idaho

IdahoDepartmentofWaterResourcesWaterRights(website).http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/WaterRights/default.htm.IdahoWaterAdjudications.“BackgroundInformationontheSnakeRiverBasinAdjudication”(brochure).http://www.srba.state.id.us/DOC/BROCH1.HTM#SEC1.

33  

“IntheMatteroftheAppointmentoftheSRBADistrictCourttoHearAllPetitionsforJudicialReviewfromtheDepartmentofWaterResourcesInvolvingAdministrationofWaterRights.”AdministrativeOrder,IdahoSupremeCourt,December9,2009.http://www.srba.state.id.us/adminorders.pdf.“Re:RulesofProcedureGoverningPetitionsforJudicialRevieworActionsforDeclaratoryJudgmentofDecisionsfromtheIdahoDepartmentofWaterResources.”AdministrativeOrder,FifthJudicialDistrictCourtoftheStateofIdaho,July1,2010.http://www.srba.state.id.us/adminorders.pdf.Shaw,DavidB.“SnakeRiverBasinWaterRightAdjudication.”IdahoDepartmentofWaterResources,August1988.http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/AdjudicationBureau/SRBA_Court/PDFs/history.pdf.Strong,CliveJ.“TheFirstTwentyYearsoftheSnakeRiverBasinAdjudication:IsThereanEndinSight?”TheAdvocate:OfficialPublicationoftheIdahoStateBar5,no.1(January2007):p.14‐17.http://www.isb.idaho.gov/pdf/advocate/issues/adv07jan.pdf.

OregonMacDougal,Douglas,AdamOrford,andDanielTimmons.“KlamathAdjudication:TheJudicialPhaseBegins,NewErainOregon’sContentiousWaterHistory.”TheWaterReport113(July15,2013):p.8‐12.OregonWaterResourcesDepartment.“ResolvingtheKlamath:SpecialSupplementtotheKlamathGeneralStreamAdjudication.”October1999.http://digitallib.oit.edu/cdm/ref/collection/kwl/id/369.OregonWaterResourcesDepartment.WaterRightsinOregon:AnIntroductiontoOregon’sWaterLaws.CentennialEdition,September2009.http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/pubs/aquabook.aspx.OregonWaterResourcesDepartment.“WaterUseAuthorizations.”WRDInfosheetNo.6,December2006.http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pubs/docs/infosheet6.pdf.

Utah

Clyde,StevenE.“WaterLawAdaptability:IncreasingWaterUseEfficiencyMeetingtheCompetingNeedsofGrowingPopulationandSustainableAgriculture.”TheWaterReport117(Nov.15,2013):p.1‐15.UtahDepartmentofNaturalResourcesDivisionofWaterRights.“AdministeringUtahWaterRights”(brochure).http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/Brochures/division_brochure_administering.pdf.UtahDepartmentofNaturalResourcesDivisionofWaterRights.“AdministrativeEnforcementProcedures:ABriefExplanation”(brochure).RevisedMay2014.http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/regulation/brochure.pdf.

34  

UtahDepartmentofNaturalResourcesDivisionofWaterRights.“Utah’sWaterRightProcess”(brochure).http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/Brochures/water_right_process_pageformat.pdf.UtahOfficeofLegislativeResearchandGeneralCounsel.“HowWaterWorks:AnOverviewofSources,Uses,Funding,andPricing.”ABriefingPaperfortheUtahLegislature,November2012.http://le.utah.gov/interim/2012/pdf/00002706.pdf.

Washington

Ottem,SidneyP.“TheGeneralAdjudicationoftheYakimaRiver:TributariesfortheTwenty‐FirstCenturyandaChangingClimate.”JournalofEnvironmentalLaw&Litigation23(2008):p.275‐354.WashingtonDepartmentofEcology.“FocusonWaterRightsAdjudication.”PublicationNumber:08‐11‐048.November2008,revisedMay2009.WashingtonDepartmentofEcology.“PolicyfortheEvaluationofChangestoEnableIrrigationofAdditionalAcreageortheAdditionofNewPurposesofUsetoExistingWaterRights.”POL1210,effectiveJuly12,2004,revisedFeb.8,2006.http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rules/images/pdf/pol1210r.pdf.WashingtonDepartmentofEcology.“WaterResourcesProgramPolicyforConductingTentativeDeterminationsofWaterRights.”POL1120,August30,2004.http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rules/images/pdf/pol1120.pdf.WaterDisputesTaskForce.“AReporttotheWashingtonStateLegislature.”December2003.http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rights/Images/pdf/wdtfr.pdf.

Wyoming

“BigHornAdjudication,RecommendationsforConcludingtheAdjudication.”ReportofanAdHocCommittee:InreGeneralAdjudicationofAllRightstoUseWaterintheBigHornRiverSystemandAllOtherSources,StateofWyoming,submittedtoJudgeGaryP.Hartman.CivilNo.4993,WyomingDistrictCourt,FifthJudicialDistrict.RevisedNovember6,2005,filedbythecourtDecember13,2005.http://bhrac.courts.state.wy.us/DocumentCenter/BHCR/RPND9B0000.pdf.Cooper,CraigO.“AHistoryofWaterLaw,WaterRights&WaterDevelopmentinWyoming1868‐2002.”WyomingWaterDevelopmentCommissionandStateEngineer’sOffice,June2004.http://wwdc.state.wy.us/history/Wyoming_Water_Law_History.pdf.Jacobs,JamesJ.,PatrickT.Tyrrell,andDonaldJ.Brosz.WyomingWaterLaw:ASummary.UniversityofWyomingAgriculturalExperimentStation,B‐849R,May2003.http://www.wyomingextension.org/agpubs/pubs/b849r.pdf.Kropf,RamseyL.“Basin‐WideAdjudicationsintheWest:WhatWorks,WhatDoesn’t?”PaperpresentedatStrategiesinWesternWaterLawandPolicyCourts,CoercionandCollaborationconference,NaturalResourcesLawCenter,UniversityofColoradoSchoolofLawBoulder,Colorado,June8‐11,1999.

35  

Kropf,RamseyL.“ForumforChangingValues:DoWeStillNeedAdjudications;GeneralStreamAdjudications,WaterManagementandaCrystalBall.”PaperpresentedattheAmericanBarAssociationSectionofEnvironment,Energy,andResources25thAnnualWaterLawConference,Coronado,California,February,22‐23,2007.http://www.waterlaw.com/media/AdjudicationsPaper2007.pdf

GeneralResourcesPaddock,WilliamA.“ASurveyofStatutesGoverningAppropriationofWaterRightsinTwelveWesternStates.”TheWater‐EnergyNexusAcquisition,Use,andDisposalofWaterforEnergyandMineralDevelopment,PaperNo.2B,RockyMountainMineralLawFoundation,September13‐14,2012.Rassier,PhillipJ.“WaterandWaterRights.”PartXIRiverBasinandStateSurveys,SubpartB.MatthewBender&Company,Inc.,2014.Thorson,JohnE.,RamseyLaursooKropf,DarCrammond,andAndreaK.Gerlak.“DividingWesternWaters:ACenturyofAdjudicatingRiversandStreams.”UniversityofDenverWaterLawReview8(Spring2005):p.355‐461.Weil,SamuelC.WaterRightsintheWesternStates.Bancroft‐WhitneyCo.,1905.