Lewis v. State Bd. of Control, I
Citation | 699 P.2d 822 |
Decision Date | 17 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. I,No. 84-161,No. IV,No. III,No. II,I,II,III,IV,84-161 |
Parties | Gertrude A. LEWIS; Betty M. DesRosiers; Richard L. Lewis; Grace W. Lewis; Roland B. Lewis; Relta K. Cox; David M. Nelson and Constance Nelson, husband and wife; Rudolph Gunter; and Julian Land & Livestock Co., a Wyoming corporation, Appellants (Plaintiffs/Petitioners), v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, an agency of the State of Wyoming (George Christopulos, President; Paul Schwieger, Ex-Officio Secretary; Francis Carr, Adjudication Officer; Earl Michael, Superintendent Water Division; Paul Kawulok, Superintendent Water DivisionI; Craig Cooper, Superintendent Water DivisionII; and John Teichert, Superintendent Water DivisionV; in their official capacity); R.S. Peterson & Sons, Inc., a Wyoming corporation; Ben Weston; Marie Weston; Dale Weston; Robert A. Faddis; John H. Faddis; Hubert Faddis; Fred Allen Feller; Irene Feller; Utah Power & Light Company, a Utah corporation; John Sedey and Clara Sedey, husband and wife, Appellees (Defendants/Respondents). |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Timothy O. Beppler and Roy A. Jacobson, Jr. of Vehar, Lehman, Beppler and Jacobson, P.C., Evanston and Kemmerer, for appellants.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., and John D. Erdmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee State Bd. of Control.
Harry L. Harris and Mark W. Harris, Evanston, for remaining appellees.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a decision of the district court dismissing appellants' claims based on adverse possession and affirming the State Board of Control's order denying appellants' petition for abandonment of water rights.
We affirm.
Appellants state the issues as follows:
On March 13, 1981, appellants petitioned the State Board of Control for a declaration of abandonment of water rights pursuant to § 41-3-401, W.S.1977. Appellants, contestants below, include persons who hold water rights to several streams which are tributary to Twin Creek. Contestees below were the owners of the downstream Beckwith Quinn & Company appropriation (BQ appropriation) from Twin Creek, which appropriation Thereafter, contestants (then plaintiffs) filed a petition in district court for judicial review of agency action pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, § 16-3-114, W.S.1977 (October 1982 Pamphlet) 1 and Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 In addition, contestants joined with the petition a complaint seeking a determination of their ownership in the water rights by virtue of adverse possession. This "Complaint/Petition" prayed for several things, including: (1) an order setting aside the order of the State Board of Control, (2) a declaration that defendants' (contestees') appropriation rights "be declared abandoned and subordinated to Plaintiffs' respective appropriation rights on the Clear Creek, South Fork and North Hartley Creek," and (3) "[i]n the alternative, that the Court enter its judgment granting Plaintiffs a prescriptive water appropriation right over the BQ appropriation rights of record" on the Twin Creek drainage area.
is the most senior in the Twin Creek drainage area. An administrative hearing was held, and the State Board of Control denied the petition for abandonment.
Contestants claim that for lengthy and successive periods of time, ranging from 27 years, on South Fork, to 50 years, on Clear Creek, they have used the water from the subject tributaries to the detriment of the BQ appropriators' priorities. Further, contestants claim that their use has been open, visible, notorious and adverse to the BQ appropriators, and that the adverse use has been continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive for the statutory period of ten years.
Contestants admit that at various times during the above-mentioned time periods, the BQ appropriators have sought regulation of the junior water rights by officials of the State. However, the State failed to regulate these tributaries so that the BQ appropriators could receive their priority. Contestants thus claim that the BQ appropriators failed to exhaust their administrative and legal remedies to enforce such regulation.
The trial court dismissed contestants' claim of adverse possession, based on failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), W.R.C.P. In reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), this court will only sustain such dismissal if the complaint shows on its face that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn., Wyo., 608 P.2d 1299 (1980), appeal after remand 630 P.2d 514, cert. denied 454 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 961, 71 L.Ed.2d 105 (1981), reh. denied 455 U.S. 1039, 102 S.Ct. 1743, 72 L.Ed.2d 157 (1982). Therefore, we treat as true all the allegations of contestants' complaint. Moxley v. Laramie Builders, Inc., Wyo., 600 P.2d 733 (1979).
Even with this generous standard of review, we find that the trial court was correct in dismissing contestants' claim based on adverse possession for the simple reason that we here hold that water rights may not be acquired by adverse possession or prescription in this state. 3
The question of whether or not rights to water may be acquired through adverse possession has never, until now, been answered in Wyoming. The question was considered in Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 100 P.2d 124 Id., 102 P.2d at 750.
reh. denied with opinion 55 Wyo. 347, 102 P.2d 745 (1940). There plaintiffs sought, based on a claim of prescription, to quiet title to certain water rights of the Little Laramie River, which had been used by plaintiffs for over fifty years. The plaintiffs had adjudicated water rights to appropriate from the Little Laramie River, which was a tributary to the Big Laramie River, on which the defendant had adjudicated water rights. This court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that their use of the water was adverse. We went on to say "no claim of a prescriptive right can be set up by plaintiffs, at least up to the time of the adjudication of the waters of Little Laramie River in 1892." Id., 100 P.2d at 138. "The only possible question is as to prescription since that time, if a prescriptive title may be obtained at all in this state, which we refused to decide." Id., 102 P.2d at 748. We also noted some of the things that a plaintiff would have to show in order to prove adverse possession, such as an invasion, in a substantial manner, of the rights of the defendant and the extent of that invasion during a continuous prescriptive period, and that all of this must be done with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant and in an open and notorious manner. We then said
Once again we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the elements of adverse possession are present inasmuch as we hold it impossible to acquire water rights by adverse possession. We base this holding on the Wyoming Constitution and the Wyoming statutes. The relevant constitutional provisions are as follows:
Article 8, § 1, Wyoming Constitution:
"The water of all natural streams, springs, lakes or other collections of still water, within the boundaries of the state, are hereby declared to be the property of the state."
Article 8, § 2, Wyoming Constitution:
Article 8, § 3, Wyoming Constitution:
These provisions establish the doctrine of appropriation for beneficial use as the law in this state. The statutes go on to set up the procedures for appropriating water. Section 41-3-101, W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1984, defines the nature of water rights and beneficial use:
Section 41-4-501 et seq., W.S.1977, explain the procedure for obtaining a water right, i.e.:
"Any person, association or corporation hereafter intending to acquire the right to the beneficial use of the public water of the state of Wyoming shall, before We have held that the only way to acquire a water right is through a permit granted by the State. Wyoming Hereford Ranch v. Hammond Packing Co., 33 Wyo. 14, 236...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mostert v. CBL & Associates, 86-220
...Dismissal is a drastic remedy, and is sparingly granted. Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo., 599 P.2d 580 (1979). In Lewis v. State Board of Control, Wyo., 699 P.2d 822, 824 (1985), we " * * * In reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) [W.R.C.P.], this court will only sustain such dismissal if the c......
-
Meyer v. Norman, D-87-2
... . Page 283 . 780 P.2d 283 . Joseph B. MEYER, Attorney General, State of Wyoming, Petitioner, . v. . William D. NORMAN, Respondent. . No. D-87-2. . Supreme Court of ... Cf. White v. Fisher, 689 P.2d 102 (Wyo.1984) (Supreme Court vested with superintending control over all the courts of the state and the state judicial system in general with a duty to protect ... "He who seeks equity must come into the court with clean hands." Lewis v. State Board of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 827 (Wyo.1985). The Respondent does not come into the ......
-
Hocker v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
...of the fundamental principles of equity is that "he who seeks equity must come into the court with clean hands." Lewis v. State Bd. of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 827 (Wyo.1985). In this case, First State breached its contractual duty to drop down and defend Messrs. Hocker and Cummins once New H......
-
Scott v. McTiernan, 98-113
...relative equities and conduct of the parties to abandonment actions in previous water rights cases. See, e.g., Lewis v. State Board of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 829-30 (Wyo.1985); Sturgeon v. Brooks, 73 Wyo. 436, 281 P.2d 675, 684 (1955). In Lewis, we held that an abandonment did not occur whe......
-
CHAPTER 7 WATER RIGHT LITIGATION1
...Board, 759 P.2d 210 (Okl. 1988); Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 508 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1963); Lewis v. State Board of Control, 699 P.2d 822 (Wyo. 1985). [14] The following are reported cases from among the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation states involving such declaratory judgm......
-
CHAPTER 10 MAINTAINING MINING PERMITS|GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZATIONS AND WATER RIGHTS
...[121] Wheatland Irrigation Dist. v. Laramie Rivers Co., 659 P.2d 561 (Wyo. 1983). [122] Id. at 564. [123] Lewis v. State Bd. of Control, 699 P.2d 822 (Wyo. 1985). [124] Id. at 839. [125] Id. [126] Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401(a) (1977). [127] Id. [128] Id. [129] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.060 (1986). [......
-
CHAPTER 13 TITLE EXAMINATION OF ANCILLARY LANDS, RIGHTS, AND AGREEMENTS
...either appropriated or unappropriated can be acquired by adverse use or adverse possession."); see also Lewis v. State Bd. of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 824-26 (Wyo. 1985) (holding water in Wyoming may not be acquired through adverse possession because it contravenes the State's Constitutional ......
-
Chapter 2 THE PURPOSEFUL TENSION WITHIN THE DOCTRINE OF BENEFICIAL USE
...prevented exercise of the water right).[208] Yentzer v. Hemenway, 440 P.2d 7, 13-14 (Wyo. 1968); see also Lewis v. State Bd. of Control, 699 P.2d 822, 829 (Wyo. 1985) (finding nonuse of a portion of a water right due to inadequate supplies due to drought or inability of the state agency in ......