Laserfiche WebLink
the use of certain water on the i!'~ swell Ditch located on the purge.": a River. The parties . <br />agreed to exchange the use of water rights on tha Maxwell Ditch, as set forth in the letter <br />Agreement of June 1, 1988. Defendant drafted the Agreement. The Agreement is enforceable <br />according to its terms; as previously found in the Order dated February 23, 1997, none pro tuns <br />January 30, 1995, entered in connection with Mr. Tatumts motion for partial summary judg- <br />ment. Basin Resources, Inc. is tha successor in interest to Wyoming Fuel Company in the <br />Agreement. . <br />BRI is the owner of 3.0 c.f.s. of the 4.0 c.f.s. originally decreed to the Maxwell No. 11 <br />Ditch water right. Tatum is the owner of 3:0 c.fs. in the Maxwell No. 9 Ditch water right. <br />Wyoming Fuel and Tatum agreed to an exchange/trade of the use of 2 c.fs. of their respective <br />interests in the water rights as set forth in the letter of June 1,1988. Both parties performed <br />wider the Agreement by honoring the exchange for several summers. At the time of this <br />Agreement, the parties. were uncertain whether the exchange required water court approval <br />and agreed to cooperate if water court approval was required. Efforts to complete the trans- <br />action broke down after personnel changed at Wyoming Fuel Company, and both parties <br />ultimately ceased efforts to complete tha transaction. This lawsuit followed. The June 1,1988 <br />Agreement between the parties provided that they would exchange a like amount of water from <br />different locations, and also recognized that the existing priorities of the water rights might, in <br />the future, result in what they refetrod to as a "shortfall" and also provided what was to be done <br />in that event. The parties contemplated and discussed a simple exchange of the use of each <br />others' water and sought to avoid the need for involvement of the water court. The Agreement <br />was R simple "you use my water and 1'11 use your water". The parties did not contemplate the <br />exchange of priority number or points of diversion. Their Agreement expressly so stated. The <br />Agreement contemplated that if water court approval was required they would cooperate to <br />obtain the approval. Water commissioners in this jurisdiction have historically allowed parties <br />to exchange the use of water without water court adjudication and, in fact; the parties exch- <br />angeduse of each others' water until defendant contacted state and local water authorities <br />claiming that the Agreement was an exchange of priority numbers and point of diversion; <br />thereby requiring water court approval. After the state and local water officials stopped the <br />• water exchange, defendant sold tha water they traded to Tatum, to a third party (Toupa]). <br />The Court finds from the avidonce that the parties entered into the Agreement to <br />exchange the Maxwell Ditch water rights and both parties partially performed under the <br />Agreement. Subsequent, and after numerous changes in personnel at the mining operation, and <br />the sale of Wyoming Fucl to Basin Resources, Inc., defendant's new personnel and owners <br /> <br />