City of Helena v. Community of Rimini

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the Montana Water Court’s adjudication of the City of Helena’s Tenmile Creek water rights. It held that applying the municipal nonabandonment presumption in Montana Code § 85-2-227(4) was procedural rather than impermissibly retroactive, and upheld reinstatement of 7.35 cfs based on the City’s evidence of future municipal use and related infrastructure. The court also addressed whether the City abandoned 0.60 cfs and reviewed place-of-use restrictions.

Holdings

1. Applying § 85-2-227(4) to Helena's water rights was not impermissibly retroactive because the amendment changed the procedure and burden of proof for proving abandonment rather than substantively altering a vested right.
2. Helena established a presumption of nonabandonment under § 85-2-227(4)(b) and, alternatively, the evidence supported the statutory criteria in subsections (4)(c) and (4)(d)(i).
3. Skinner failed to rebut the presumption of nonabandonment by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Water Court correctly rejected the Master's abandonment finding as to 7.35 cfs.
4. Helena was entitled to the statutory presumption of nonabandonment as to the entire 13.75-cfs water right, including the 0.60 cfs that the Rimini Pipeline could not carry; the Water Court erred in upholding abandonment of that amount.
5. The Court did not reach the merits of Helena's constitutional challenge to the place-of-use restrictions because Helena failed to comply with the notice requirements for challenging the constitutionality of a state statute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Montana Code § 85-2-227(4), as applied to Helena's water rights, was impermissibly retroactive.
2. Whether the Water Court correctly applied § 85-2-227(4) to create a presumption that Helena had not abandoned 7.35 cfs of its municipal water rights.
3. Whether Skinner rebutted the statutory presumption of nonabandonment.
4. Whether Helena abandoned 0.60 cfs because the Rimini Pipeline had a capacity below the 13.75 cfs decreed amount.
5. Whether the Water Court erred in imposing specific place-of-use restrictions on Helena's water rights.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded