Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2010 WY 98

Summary of Decision issued July 14, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Gehringer v. Runyan

Citation: 2010 WY 98

Docket Number: S-09-0122

Appeal from the District Court of Platte County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge.

Representing Gehringer: Daniel B. Frank, Frank Law Office, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Runyan: J. Mark Stewart of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Gehringers filed petitions with the Wyoming State Board of Control (Board) for the involuntary abandonment of water rights held by Mark and Sharon Runyan and Robert and Jana Wilson (Appellees) on lands that were formerly in common ownership with the lands on which the Gehringers hold water rights. Following a hearing, the Board denied the Gehringers? petitions, finding they lacked standing to pursue the petitions for abandonment.

The abandonment of a water right is governed by § 41-3-401 and the Court has construed it to require that in order to have standing to petition for abandonment, a water user must allege and prove: that he possesses a valid water right of equal or junior status to the water right sought to be abandoned; that the water right relied upon by the petitioner and the water right for which a declaration of abandonment is sought are from the same source of supply; and that the petitioner stands to benefit from a declaration of abandonment or to sustain injury by reactivation of the contested water right. The parties agreed that the first two elements had been met; whether the petitioner stood to benefit from a declaration of abandonment was not met. No evidence was introduced that the amount of water available for irrigation purposes was limited. The evidence was only that the flow rate of the well affects the Gehringer?s ability to fully employ their right to use the water in a specific manner. Maintaining the flow rate of water necessary was not the type of benefit or detriment inuring to the Gehringers as to confer legal standing to seek a declaration of abandonment of the Appellees additional supply water rights.

Conclusion: While the Court disagreed with certain factual findings of the Board, it agreed with the result. The ability of the Gehringers to use their pivot irrigation system is not part of their additional supply water right. Rather, the critical factor in the analysis is the amount of water available in the aquifer. Because no limit to the water supply in the aquifer was shown, the Gehringers have nothing to gain by a declaration of abandonment of the respective additional supply water rights of Appellees. The determination of the Board that the Gehringers lack standing to bring the petitions for abandonment was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2az2npz .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on July 15, 2010 (boomark / email).