Montana-Wyoming water fight goes to Supreme Court
BILLINGS — Attorneys from Montana and Wyoming squared off before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a cross-border dispute over how they share the region's scarce water supplies.
Montana has accused its southern neighbor of taking too much water from the Tongue and Powder rivers, breaking a 1950 agreement between the states.
Justice skeptical of Bullock argument
But justices Monday voiced skepticism when Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock said new irrigation practices had put Wyoming in violation of the agreement.
"The beneficial use is that use by which the water supply is depleted. Well, the use here is irrigation," Chief Justice John Roberts said as Bullock was presenting his argument. "It doesn't say irrigation up to the technological development in 1950. ... And if they get better at it so they use more (water), well, that's too bad for you."
The issue before the court centered on a claim that Wyoming has been consuming more water due to irrigation advances such as center-pivot sprinklers.
Those sprinklers allow farmers to use water more efficiently, by increasing the amount that goes directly to their crops. But they also mean less surplus water comes off of fields — decreasing the "return flow" into rivers that flow downstream to Montana.
Roberts noted that western water laws lean toward "first come, first serve" — which gives priority to those who hold the earliest water claim.
Some justices see no equitable solution
However, several justices said Monday they didn't immediately see an equitable solution to the dispute. The court will rule later this year.
Bullock said after Monday's court session that Montana farmers had given up their priority rights in 1950 out of a belief that the agreement would protect them.
"We gave that up with the hope and expectation that we'd have a fixed supply of water," he said. "There aren't any cases that say first come, first served if what that means is you've changed the amount of water you're giving the downstream water users."
Wyoming Assistant Attorney General Peter Kenneth Michael suggested the case came down to how much water his state's users were taking out of the Tongue and Powder rivers — not what happens to the water after that.
"In the western United States ... appropriated water is not all the water in the air and on the land and dropping from the sky; appropriated water is water confined in a water course," he said.
Special master nixes Montana claim
A court-appointed special master rejected part of Montana's claim last year. Stanford University law professor Barton Thompson Jr. ruled last year that Wyoming could not be faulted for embracing irrigation improvements that encouraged increased conservation.
The office of the U.S. solicitor general sided with Wyoming on the issue, although it has backed Montana in others aspects of the case.
Once the irrigation issue is resolved, the broader question of Wyoming's overall water use still needs to be settled.
Attorneys for Wyoming contend some water uses by its residents and businesses was not covered by the 1950 agreement, known as the Yellowstone River Compact.
Justices in October ruled that Montana has raised a valid issue with its lawsuit and rejected Wyoming's attempt to dismiss the case.
But Montana has yet to make its case in terms of quantifying how much water Wyoming is actually using. State officials say that won't happen until further legal issues are resolved.
Ruling could affect natural gas industry
The lawsuit also could have consequences for Wyoming's natural gas industry. Over the last decade, companies seeking a type of gas known as coal-bed methane have pumped billions of gallons of water from underground aquifers shared by the two states.
Montana contends the companies are draining water that would otherwise feed the Tongue and Powder rivers. A Texas-based energy company, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., attempted to intervene in the case but was denied in October.
Attorneys expect the case to grind on possibly for years before a final ruling.
North Dakota is also listed as a defendant because it is a party to the Yellowstone Compact. However, no claims have been made against it and the outcome of the lawsuit is likely to have little bearing on the state.