Faust v. Utility Solutions, LLC, 2007 MT 326

173 P.3d 1183 (Mont. 2007) · Supreme Court of Montana · December 11, 2007 · No. DA 06-0778

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed dismissal of claims by Rosalee Faust and Sandra McManus concerning Utility Solutions, LLC's groundwater appropriations under the Montana Water Use Act. The court held that issuance of final groundwater appropriation permits mooted the requests for injunctive relief and related attorney fees, but did not moot the claim for civil penalties based on alleged past violations. It further held that the Montana Water Use Act does not create a private right of action to enforce its civil penalty provisions.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Brian Morris; Karla M. Gray; James C. Nelson; John Warner; Jim Rice
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
December 11, 2007
Docket number
DA 06-0778
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed the Eighteenth Judicial District Court's dismissal under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of claims seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney fees under the Montana Water Use Act.
Standard of review
A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal presents a conclusion of law, which the Court reviews to determine whether the district court correctly interpreted the law.
Precedential value
Published Montana Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Rosalee Faust, Sandra McManus v. Utility Solutions, LLC, Four Corners County Water and Sewer District
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

statutory interpretationadministrative lawmootnessmotions to dismissappellate procedure

Practice areas

administrative lawwater rightsstatutory interpretationcivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether DNRC's issuance of final groundwater appropriation permits rendered moot the requests for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney fees.
  2. Whether the Montana Water Use Act creates a private right of action allowing private citizens to enforce its civil-penalty provisions.

Holdings

  1. DNRC's issuance of final groundwater appropriation permits rendered Faust's and McManus's request for injunctive relief moot because Utility Solutions' ongoing groundwater pumping was authorized and the requested injunction sought only to stop violations of the Water Use Act.
  2. The final permits rendered moot Faust's and McManus's requests for attorney fees under the Water Use Act and the private attorney general doctrine insofar as those requests depended on obtaining injunctive relief.
  3. DNRC's subsequent issuance of final permits did not necessarily eliminate Utility Solutions' potential liability for past violations; the civil-penalty claim therefore remained justiciable.
  4. The Montana Water Use Act does not create a private right of action allowing private citizens to enforce its civil-penalty provisions.

Key quotations

An injunction will not issue to restrain an act already committed. Injunction is not an appropriate remedy to procure relief for past injuries, it is to afford preventive relief only. (173 P.3d at 1185-86)
We hold that the Montana Water Use Act does not create a private right of action to enforce its civil penalty provisions. (173 P.3d at 1188)

Factual background

Utility Solutions operated water and wastewater systems under contract with the Four Corners County Water and Sewer District. It applied to DNRC for groundwater appropriation permits and began pumping before DNRC granted final approval. Faust and McManus, who owned property and water rights in the area, alleged that the unauthorized pumping adversely affected their water rights and violated the Montana Water Use Act. DNRC issued final permits approximately two weeks before the appeal.

Procedural history

Faust and McManus sued Utility Solutions and the Water District, alleging unauthorized groundwater appropriation and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing. During the appeal, DNRC issued Utility Solutions final groundwater appropriation permits; the Supreme Court held the injunctive-relief and related fee claims moot but reached the private-right-of-action issue concerning civil penalties.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…