Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
Topics
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Farming
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last week the Supreme Court of Montana held that there is no implied private right of action for judicial enforcement under the Montana Water Use Act (Act). In Lyman Creek, LLC v. City of Bozeman, DA 19-0112 (Mont. 2019), the Court determined that the Act reserves the right of enforcement only for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), the attorney general, and the county attorneys.
The scarcity of water in the western United States has created a contentious environment for water users. The Montana Water Use Act was adopted to provide for the “administration, control, and regulation of water rights.” Specifically, the Act prioritizes water uses by a “first in time, first in right” system and authorizes the District Court to supervise water distribution disputes between water appropriators. Additionally, the Act provides a judicial enforcement mechanism when water uses violate provisions of the Act.
This case stemmed out of water rights in Lyman Creek – rights that both Lyman Creek, LLC (Lyman) and the City of Bozeman (City) possess. Lyman did not assert that the City was interfering with its water rights but, rather, that . Rather, Lyman alleged that the City was committing separate violations of the Act and therefore Lyman sought to enjoin the City from committing further violations.
In reaching its decision denying Lyman relief, the Court focused on the distinction between the protection of a water right and the enforcement of the Act. As previously stated, the Act provides private parties with a right to protect their water rights in appropriation controversies under § 85-2-406. The Court was clear, however, that this should be read separate and apart from § 85-2-114, which provides for judicial enforcement due to violations of the Act. The Court then analyzed a number of factors including: (1) whether an implied right of private enforcement was consistent with the statute as a whole; (2) the intent of the legislature considering the statute’s plain language; (3) the avoidance of absurd results; and (4) any construction of the statute by the agency charged with its administration. Ultimately, Lyman failed to convince the Court that there was an implied private right of action for enforcement under the Act. Therefore all enforcement actions for violations of the Montana Water Use Act must be brought by either the DNRC, the attorney general, or the county attorneys.
This decision is consistent with Montana’s view on water rights – that is, Montana owns the water and individuals merely possess a right to use it. As such, it is unsurprising that the Court would find that the only State actors have the right to enforce water violations under the Act.