Summary
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s adjudication of water rights for 52 acres owned by Hat Bar Cattle Company in the Big Horn River general adjudication. The court held that the Special Master ultimately applied the burden of proof correctly and that the findings of beneficial use before December 31, 1963, and continuous irrigation thereafter were not clearly erroneous.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Special Master improperly shifted the burden of proof from Hat Bar, the claimant, to Whitt, the objector.
- Whether the finding that the water had been put to beneficial use before December 31, 1963, was clearly erroneous.
- Whether the finding that the 52 acres had been continuously irrigated from December 31, 1963, through the hearing was clearly erroneous.
Holdings
- Although the Special Master's stated conclusion of law was not entirely accurate, the Special Master did not actually shift the burden of proof to Whitt. Hat Bar and the State were required to present evidence supporting the claimed water right before Whitt presented her objection evidence.
- The Special Master's finding that the Hat Bar property had been irrigated and the water put to beneficial use before December 31, 1963, was supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
- For purposes of this case, continuously irrigated means irrigation at least once during every five successive years, and the evidence supported the finding that the 52 acres were continuously irrigated under that standard.
Key quotations
“We see no reason not to accept Ms. Whitt’s definition for purposes of this case.” (¶ 19)
“The evidence as a whole and the reasonable inferences taken from it provide sufficient support for the Special Master’s finding that the Hat Bar was “continuously irrigated” over the years.” (¶ 23)
Factual background
Hat Bar was the successor to a 1905 water permit covering 207 acres, but the permit expired on December 31, 1963, without being cancelled. A 1994 field inspection found evidence of irrigation on 52 acres and recommended reinstatement and adjudication for those acres, while the remaining 155 acres were eliminated from the permit. Betty Whitt, a neighboring landowner through whose property water was conveyed, objected to the adjudication, arguing that Hat Bar had not shown beneficial use before the permit's expiration or continuous irrigation thereafter.
Procedural history
The Special Master held a contested case hearing on Whitt's objection to the State's recommendation to reinstate and adjudicate part of Hat Bar's expired water permit. The Special Master recommended adjudicating water rights for 52 acres, and the Washakie County District Court adopted that recommendation under the clearly erroneous standard applicable to a master's report. After the district court entered its final order concluding the general adjudication, Whitt timely appealed.