Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Fellows filed the underlying complaint challenging the Water Commissioner’s administration of water under the Perry v. Beattie decree. The district court dismissed Fellows’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that Fellows’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim. Fellows then requested the district court to certify a question to the Water Court. The district court granted the request. The Water Court entered a final order that tabulated the water rights necessary to address Fellows’s underlying complaint. By the time of its certification order, the water claims had been adjudicated in a temporary preliminary decree, and therefore, the Water Court ordered that the matter be closed and returned to the district court. The Perry Defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the Water Court’s judgment. The Water Court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Water Court correctly followed the law of the case; (2) Fellows’s petition for certification was proper; and (3) the Water Court did not err in defining the scope of the controversy, in determining the purpose of the tabulation, and in tabulating the applicable rights involved in the controversy. Remanded. View "Fellows v. Saylor" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) filed suit challenging the decision of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to approve the expansion of Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc.’s (GSM) gold mine to include a nearby pit. DEQ and GSM (together, Appellees) asserted that MEIC should be collaterally estopped from relitigating the question of whether the Montana Constitution and the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act (MMRA) require lands disturbed by a mining operation to be fully reclaimed because this precise issue had already been litigated, with MEIC receiving an adverse ruling from the district court. The district court agreed and entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly found that collateral estoppel precluded MEIC from relitigating whether the Montana Constitution or the MMRA requires land disturbed by the taking of natural resources to be fully reclaimed to its previous condition; and (2) the district court did not err by upholding the DEQ’s decision. View "Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned individual objectors to the Crow Water Compact, an agreement to distribute and manage water rights among the United States, the Crow Tribe, and the State of Montana. The Supreme Court affirmed the Water Court’s order, holding (1) the Water Court applied the proper legal standard of review in approving the Compact in the final order; (2) the Objectors failed to meet their burden of showing that the Compact was unreasonable and materially injured their interest; and (3) the Compact negotiation process did not violate the Objectors’ due process rights. View "In re Crow Tribe Water Compact" on Justia Law

In 1982, Teton Co-Operative Canal Company (Teton Canal) filed a statement of claim for existing water rights for the Eureka Reservoir. Teton Cooperative Reservoir Company (Teton Reservoir) objected to Teton Canal’s claims. The Water Master held a hearing in 2012 and, in 2015, adjudicated Teton Canal’s claims. Teton Reservoir appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the Water Court’s order regarding Teton Canal’s water right claims to the Eureka Reservoir, holding that the Water Court erred in determining that off-stream water storage in the Eureka Reservoir was included as part of Teton Canal’s April 18, 1890 Notice of Appropriation. Remanded to the Water Court to assign a new priority date to Teton Canal’s rights to the Eureka Reservoir and for further proceedings. View "Teton Co-op Canal Co. v. Teton Coop Reservoir Co." on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissions (collectively referred to as DFWP) decided to transfer a group of bison to two reservations as part of a quarantine program. Plaintiffs, collectively referred to here as the Citizens for Balanced Use, filed this lawsuit challenging the DFWP action and seeking to enjoin the bison transport. While the bison transport was still in process, the district court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining certain bison movement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court relied upon erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under Mont. Code Ann. 27-19-201(3). View "Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased property from Defendants in 1993. The warranty deed for the property contained no express mention of water rights, ditch easements, or appurtenances. Plaintiff nevertheless believed that a water right came with the property and that a ditch easement existed to transport the water to his property. Defendants later purchased real property which historically contained a ditch. It was subsequently discovered the property did have a ditch that traversed from a creek, across Defendants' property, to a 20-acre "place of use" on the properly now owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to reopen use of the ditch and filed an action against Defendants seeking a declaration that he had a ditch easement across Defendants' property. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that Plaintiff had no ditch easement across property owned by Defendants. View "Roland v. Davis" on Justia Law

Franz Weinheimer filed a notice of water appropriation in 1971 which listed a point in Section 4 as the point of diversion. Franz's son Francis filed a claim with the water court in 1981. Francis transferred the property interests in the claim to Weinheimer Ranch (Ranch) in 1991. The Ranch filed a motion to amend the claim in 2002 and a supplement to the motion in 2003 seeking to amend the claim's historical right, priority date, and source. The water court denied the Ranch's motion to amend the claim's historic rate and priority date. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts in the record did not require an inference that the Ranch's predecessor in interest mistakenly had listed Section 9 instead of Section 4 on his 1986 notice of appropriation, and the water court reasonably declined to infer such a finding; and (2) the water court properly determined that the Ranch had failed to present substantial evidence in support of its motion to amend its claim. View "Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil" on Justia Law

On December 14, 2012, the district court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing several irrigation districts to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 85-7-1956 and -1957 before executing a water use agreement with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation and the United States. On February 15, 2013, the district court issued another writ of mandate that rescinded and superseded the alternative writ of mandate. The writ of mandate enjoined the irrigation districts from entering into the proposed agreement. The Supreme Court vacated both the district court's writ of mandate and injunction and the court's alternative writ of mandate, holding that the district court (1) issued an appealable order, making the appeal from the district court's writ of mandate and injunction as well as the issue of whether the statutes apply to the water use agreement properly before the Court; (2) improperly granted the writ of mandate and injunction; and (3) incorrectly compelled the irrigation districts to comply with sections 85-7-1956 and -1957 before they executed the water use agreement. View "W. Mont. Water Users Ass'n, LLC v. Mission Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

Bostwick Properties (Bostwick) sought a water use permit from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), which was denied. The district court (1) agreed with DNRC that Bostwick failed to prove no net depletion of surface water and lack of adverse effect, and therefore Bostwick was required to mitigate its water usage in order to receive a water use permit; (2) determined that Bostwick had submitted an adequate mitigation proposal, and therefore, ruled that DNRC improperly had denied Bostwick's permit application; and (3) determined that DNRC exhibited bias toward BNRC, but any bias did not prejudice Bostwick. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) DNRC and the district court properly required Bostwick to mitigate its water usage; (2) the district court properly determined Bostwick's mitigation proposal was adequate as a matter of law; and (3) DNRC bias did not substantially prejudice Bostwick. View "Bostwick Props., Inc. v. Dep't of Natural Res. & Conservation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit against several power companies alleging that the Colstrip power facility, which bordered land owned by Plaintiffs, contaminated groundwater under their property. The parties proceeded with mediation after three years of litigation. The mediation ended with the transmission of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to the parties' counsel. After some of Plaintiffs expressed reservations about accepting the settlement, the power companies filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that the MOU was a written and signed settlement agreement. After a hearing, the district court granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the MOU was a binding, enforceable settlement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by finding the MOU was an enforceable settlement agreement; (2) did not err by allowing parol evidence to change an option to purchase into a right of first refusal; and (3) erred in admitting evidence protected by the mediation confidentiality statute, but the error was harmless. View "Kluver v. PPL Mont., LLC" on Justia Law