Introduction

The case of United States of America (Bureau of Land Management) vs. Barthelmess Ranch Corporation et al., adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Montana on December 28, 2016, addresses significant issues surrounding water rights under Montana law. The appellants, including various ranch corporations and individual objectors, challenged the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) claims to stockwatering rights in several reservoirs and a natural pothole lake. Central to the dispute were whether the BLM properly perfected its water rights and whether it owned reserved water rights under a 1926 Executive Order.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the Water Court's partial summary judgment favoring the BLM. The Water Court had initially granted partial summary judgment, recognizing the validity of BLM's water claims in five reservoirs and partially in the Pothole Lake. The objectors contested the BLM's appropriations, arguing that the BLM failed to apply the water to a beneficial use since it did not own or use livestock directly. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the Water Court's decision, confirming that the BLM's actions constituted valid water rights under the state's prior appropriation doctrine.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key Montana and federal precedents, including:

• Bailey v. Tintinger (1912) - Established that entities could appropriate water for use by others upon completing diversion systems.
• St. Onge v. Blake l y (1926) - Recognized that multiple claims can exist on the same water source under Montana law.
• WINTERS v. UNITED STATES (1908) - Affirmed reserved water rights on federal lands.
• Teton Co – Op Canal Co. v. Teton Coop Reservoir Co. (2015) - Addressed water storage and over-appropriation issues.
• California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co. (1935) - Discussed the substitution of the riparian doctrine with appropriation in arid regions.
• Ickes v. Fox (1937) - Clarified that water rights appropriated by federal agencies in the context of land management do not equate to ownership of the water itself.

These precedents collectively reinforced the application of the prior appropriation doctrine in Montana, affirming that both private entities and federal agencies like the BLM can hold valid water rights provided they comply with state laws regarding appropriation and beneficial use.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on reaffirming the prior appropriation doctrine, which holds that the first user to put water to a beneficial use has the superior right to that water. The Objectors argued that because the BLM did not directly use livestock, it failed to apply the water to a beneficial use, thereby invalidating its appropriation. However, the court held that under Montana law, the construction and maintenance of reservoirs by the BLM constituted sufficient diversion of water to support a legitimate appropriation claim. The court emphasized that multiple appropriations from the same water source are permissible, and the existence of prior uses by Objectors' ancestors did not preclude the BLM's later claims.

Furthermore, the court rejected the Objectors' contention that only "public service corporations" could appropriate water for others, clarifying that Montana law allows entities capable of diverting and distributing water to do so, irrespective of their corporate status.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for water rights management in Montana and potentially other western states adhering to the prior appropriation doctrine. By upholding the BLM's rights to stockwater in federal reservoirs, the court reinforced the ability of federal agencies to manage water resources for public and agricultural use effectively. It also clarified that the lack of direct ownership or use of livestock by the BLM does not invalidate its water rights, provided that water is adequately diverted and made available for beneficial use.

Moreover, the decision emphasizes the principle that multiple claims to the same water source are compatible under Montana law, preventing potential conflicts and ensuring a structured allocation of scarce water resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prior Appropriation Doctrine

The prior appropriation doctrine is a water rights system commonly used in western states, including Montana. It operates on the principle of "first in time, first in right," meaning that the first person to divert water from a source for beneficial use has the senior right to that water. These rights are not tied to land ownership and can coexist with other users' rights as long as they do not infringe upon senior rights.

Beneficial Use

Beneficial use refers to the application of water for a purpose deemed beneficial under the law, such as irrigation, stockwatering, or wildlife management. To perfect a water right, an appropriator must demonstrate the intent to use the water beneficially and must actually apply the water to such a use.

Reservoir Impoundment

Impoundment involves the construction of structures like dams or reservoirs to divert and store water. In this case, the construction of reservoirs by the BLM was considered sufficient to establish a beneficial use, thereby solidifying their appropriation claims.

Reserved Water Rights

Reserved water rights are rights set aside by Congress to ensure sufficient water availability for specific purposes, such as supporting wildlife on federal lands. These rights are recognized under both state and federal law and hold priority based on their reserved status.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Montana's affirmation of the Water Court's decision marks a significant reinforcement of the prior appropriation doctrine within the state's water rights framework. By upholding the BLM's stockwatering rights and clarifying the parameters under which federal agencies can claim and manage water resources, the court has provided clear guidance for future water rights adjudications. This decision ensures that water rights are allocated efficiently and fairly, accommodating both historical claims and contemporary management needs.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores the adaptability of Montana's water law in balancing the interests of federal agencies, private entities, and historical users, thereby contributing to the sustainable management of vital water resources in an arid region.