Wheatland Irr. Dist. v. Laramie Rivers Co.
Decision Date | 18 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 5780,5780 |
Citation | 659 P.2d 561 |
Parties | WHEATLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant (Petitioner), v. LARAMIE RIVERS COMPANY and The University of Wyoming, and the Wyoming State Board of Control, Appellees (Respondents). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
William R. Jones and John P. McBride of Jones, Jones, Vines & Hunkins, Wheatland, for appellant.
Horace M. MacMillan, II of Pence & MacMillan, Laramie, for appellee Laramie Rivers Co.
George A. Gould, Laramie, for appellee The University of Wyoming.
Steven F. Freudenthal, Atty. Gen., Walter Perry, III, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lawrence J. Wolfe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Wyoming State Bd. of Control.
Before ROONEY, C.J., * and RAPER, THOMAS, ROSE ** and BROWN, JJ.
The appellant, Wheatland Irrigation District (sometimes referred to as Wheatland), filed a petition with the Board of Control seeking abandonment of 41,100 of the 68,500 acre feet of water appropriated under two reservoir permits issued to the appellee Laramie Rivers Company (sometimes referred to as Laramie Rivers) for the Lake Hattie reservoir near Laramie, Wyoming. The sources of supply for Lake Hattie are "to use the water therefrom for the beneficial purposes for which it was appropriated * * * during any five (5) successive years * * *." § 41-3-401(a), W.S.1977, supra n. 1.
The Board of Control denied the petition for the reason that substantial work on the reservoir had been undertaken prior to its filing. In p 7 of its findings of fact the Board said:
2
In p 6 of the conclusions of law section of its order, the Board held:
The grounds for the Board's refusal of the petition can be capsulized as follows:
The contestee had undertaken substantial work to repair the dam by the time the petition was filed and therefore the filing was not timely.
It is to be noted that the Board did not consider whether the appropriator had or had not failed to use the water for five successive years as contemplated by § 41-3-401(a), 3 and therefore this issue has not been resolved by the Board of Control or presented to the district court for decision. The question may therefore not be considered here. Positions and issues not presented to the district court will not be considered by the Supreme Court. Wyoming Bank and Trust Company of Buffalo v. Bonham, Wyo., 606 P.2d 296 (1980).
Wheatland Irrigation District filed a petition for review with the district court and it is from the court's order in favor of Laramie Rivers that Wheatland lodges its appeal here.
The issues which Wheatland assigns for our consideration are these:
Condensed, the only question for resolution by this court is:
Does § 41-3-401, W.S.1977 authorize the Board of Control to refuse to declare an abandonment for the reason that the petition for abandonment was filed after repair work was commenced but prior to the application of the questioned Lake Hattie Reservoir waters to a beneficial use?
The record in this case shows that a restriction to 27,400 feet of storage has been in effect at Lake Hattie since April 5, 1972 when it was imposed by the State Engineer because of infirmities in the dam. In March of 1980, the state of Wyoming approved a loan to Laramie Rivers so that the dam could be repaired, after which, on May 16, 1980, Laramie Rivers publicly announced its intentions with respect to dam repair and future water storage plans. This was the first Wheatland knew of Laramie Rivers' loan approval and dam improvement plans. One week later, on May 23, the abandonment petition was filed. Two days before the filing of the petition, soil compaction tests had been made and the construction company hired for the repair work was placing fill and proceeding with the construction. By July 7, 1980 the work was substantially complete.
According to the record that is available to this court, the Laramie Rivers Company had not stored water in Lake Hattie, and had not beneficially used any water therefrom in excess of the 27,400 acre-foot limitation from April, 1972 until the time the petition for abandonment was filed on May 23, 1980. In fact, no water was stored or beneficially used above the limitation up to the time of hearing before the Board of Control on February 17, 18 and 19, 1981, nor had any water been stored or used above the limitation when the parties were before the district court on July 1, 1982.
From what we have said we must assume that the water in question here was not in the reservoir at any time which is relevant to this appeal in consequence of which there was no such application of this water to beneficial use and place of use as is contemplated by the appellee's appropriation certificate.
These things being so, we must look to the statute to see whether or not the Board of Control was possessed of the authority to deny Wheatland's petition for partial abandonment on the ground that, at the time of its filing, "substantial work had been undertaken to repair the dam," (p 7 of Board's findings of fact) and therefore the petition was not "promptly asserted" (p 6 of conclusions of law).
We summarized the rules of statutory construction by which this court lives when we said in Wyoming State Department of Education v. Barber, Wyo., 649 P.2d 681 (1982):
We subscribe to these rules in analyzing § 41-3-401(a) as it is applicable to the facts of this case. Particularly we are bound here by the rule of Sanches v. Sanches, Wyo., 626 P.2d 61 (1981) and Matter of North Laramie Land Co., Wyo., 605 P.2d 367 (1980), which holds that we will not resort to statutory construction aids where there is no ambiguity in the statute under consideration.
There are no innuendos or double entendres to be found in § 41-3-401(a). The intention of the legislature is there expressed in plain English, leaving no room What does the statute say? It says that where the holder of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laramie Rivers Co. v. Wheatland Irr. Dist.
...CARDINE, JJ. ROSE, Justice. This appeal brings these parties before the court for the second time. See Wheatland Irrigation District v. Laramie Rivers Company, Wyo., 659 P.2d 561 (1983). Background In the first appeal, we held that the abandonment petition of contestant Wheatland Irrigation......
-
Lewis v. State Bd. of Control
...allows for no leeway; the only way to avoid an abandonment is by applying water to beneficial use. Wheatland Irrigation District v. Laramie Rivers Company, Wyo., 659 P.2d 561 (1983). 6 We have also held that before a forfeiture, or abandonment, becomes operative, there must be a formal decl......
-
CHAPTER 10 MAINTAINING MINING PERMITS|GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZATIONS AND WATER RIGHTS
...Wyo. 516, 69 P.2d 535 (1939), Scherk v. Nichols, 55 Wyo. 4, 95 P.2d 74, 80 (1939). [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. ......