Introduction

Donald C. Marks v. 71 Ranch, LP (334 P.3d 373), adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Montana on September 16, 2014, addresses a significant dispute over water rights concerning the Confederate Creek water system in Broadwater County, Montana. The appellant, Donald C. Marks, challenged the claimed point of diversion and place of use for four water rights held by 71 Ranch, LP. This case delves into the complexities of water rights adjudication, particularly focusing on the burden of proof required to rebut prima facie evidence established by prior claims and decrees.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the decision of the Montana Water Court, which had dismissed Marks' objection to the claimed point of diversion and place of use for the Creek Rights owned by 71 Ranch, LP. The Water Master initially dismissed Marks' objections, and the Water Court upheld this decision, concluding that Marks failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the claims made by 71 Ranch under pre–1973 water law. The Court emphasized that Marks did not meet his burden to demonstrate that the Creek Rights were not beneficially used, that Confederate Creek comprised separate water sources, or that the rights were abandoned.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the legal framework governing water rights, particularly emphasizing § 85–2–227(1), MCA, which establishes that a claim of an existing water right serves as prima facie proof of its content until a final decree is issued. This places the burden of proof on the objector—in this case, Marks—to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the original claim does not accurately reflect the beneficial use of the water right as it existed before July 1, 1973.

The Court evaluated Marks’ three main assertions:

• Beneficial Use: Marks contended that insufficient water was delivered to the upstream location to constitute beneficial use. The Court upheld the Water Master’s assessment that the water commissioner records were inadequate to prove otherwise, noting that these records typically reflect conditions during water shortages and do not account for total flow volumes.
• Water Sources: Marks argued that Confederate Creek had separate upper and lower water sources. The Court found Marks’ evidence lacking, highlighting that the Rankin Decree treated Confederate Creek as a single, unified system and that no definitive evidence supported the existence of separate sources.
• Abandonment: Marks suggested that the Creek Rights were abandoned due to nonuse. The Court emphasized that Marks failed to meet the stringent requirements for proving abandonment, which necessitates clear evidence of nonuse and intent to abandon, neither of which were satisfactorily demonstrated.

The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Water Master’s findings and that Marks did not meet his burden to rebut the prima facie claims established by 71 Ranch under applicable water laws.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of sustaining previously established water rights claims unless compelling evidence is presented to overturn them. It underscores the significance of historical decrees, like the Rankin Decree, in adjudicating water rights disputes and clarifies the stringent burden of proof required to challenge such claims. Future cases involving water rights in Montana will reference this decision to understand the standards for evidence, especially regarding pre–1973 water law and the treatment of water commissioner records.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Point of Diversion

The point of diversion refers to the specific location where water is withdrawn from a water source, such as a creek or river, for use in irrigation, industrial processes, or other beneficial uses.

Place of Use

The place of use is the designated location where the diverted water is actually utilized. It can differ from the point of diversion depending on the needs and infrastructure of the water rights holder.

Prima Facie

Prima facie is a Latin term meaning "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proven otherwise." In legal contexts, it refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party to prove their assertions during a trial. In Marks v. 71 Ranch, LP, the burden was on the objector, Marks, to disprove the claims made by the claimant, 71 Ranch.

Abandonment of Water Rights

Abandonment occurs when a water rights holder ceases to use their water rights with no intention of resuming use. To prove abandonment, there must be clear evidence of both nonuse and intent to abandon.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Montana's affirmation in Marks v. 71 Ranch, LP emphasizes the critical nature of establishing and maintaining water rights through rigorous adherence to legal standards and evidentiary requirements. By upholding the Water Court's decision, the Court reinforced the principles governing the burden of proof and the sufficiency of prima facie claims under pre–1973 water law. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future water rights disputes, ensuring that established rights are protected unless decisively challenged with substantial evidence.