Pioneer Irrigation Dist. v. City of Caldwell, 288 P.3d 810 (Idaho 2011) (holding ditch owner has discretion to grant or deny an encroachment on its easements or rights-of-way and may engage in self-help removal of an unpermitted encroachment if the encroachment unreasonably or materially interferes with the ditch owner’s easements or rights-of-way; however, ditch owner does not have exclusive interest in the easements or rights-of-way, and judicial review of a ditch owner’s decision to grant, deny, or remove an encroachment is limited to whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious, or made in an unreasonable manner).
Pioneer Irrigation District (“Pioneer”) filed suit against the City of Caldwell (“City”) in 2008, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for removal of urban storm water discharge conduits constructed by City without Pioneer’s permission. Pioneer alleged, because City adopted a new municipal storm water management manual, City caused or permitted developers to install storm water discharge pipes in a way that permitted municipal storm water to discharge into Pioneer’s irrigation delivery and drainage facilities without Pioneer’s permission. Pioneer claimed these discharge pipes unreasonably and materially interfered with its irrigation easements and rights-of-ways. Pioneer sought several declarations, including that Pioneer was authorized to remove and prohibit future construction of unauthorized, unreasonable encroachments, under Idaho Code Ann. § 42-1209.
The Idaho District Court, Third Judicial District, Canyon County (“district court”) granted the majority of Pioneer’s motion for summary judgment, holding: i) Pioneer has discretion to permit or deny encroachments of its easements or rights-of-way; ii) Pioneer may engage in self-help under § 42-1209 if an encroachment unreasonably or materially interferes with Pioneer’s easements or rights-of-way; iii) judicial review of Pioneer’s decisions to grant, deny, or remove an encroachment is limited to whether the decisions were arbitrary and capricious, or made in an unreasonable manner; and iv) Pioneer has exclusive interests in its irrigation easements and rights-of-way. City appealed the district court’s partial summary judgment to the Idaho Supreme Court (“Court”).
The Court reviewed the decision de novo, explaining that under a plain language reading of § 42-1209, four conditions must be met to permit a ditch-owner to engage in self-help removal: i) the encroachment is constructed after the effective date of § 42-1209; ii) the encroachment is constructed without permission; iii) the encroachment unreasonably or materially interferes with the use and enjoyment of the easement or right-of-way; and iv) the ditch owner requests that the party responsible for encroachment remove it. The statute further places the financial burden for removal on the encroaching party.
The statute is silent, however, as to what happens when the encroaching party fails to act upon the demand within a reasonable period of time. Looking to public policy, the Court reasoned because irrigation facilities play an “essential role” in Idaho, the policy advanced by § 42-1209 is to ensure people do not construct encroachments that unreasonably or materially interfere with irrigation operations. Further, the Court reasoned forcing a ditch owner into time-consuming litigation without letting the owner engage in self-help would go against this policy. Additionally, self-help should be executed at the encroacher’s expense, so a ditch owner may remove an encroachment first, and sue the encroacher later for damages. The Court found its holding consistent with common law predating § 42-1209, in that an easement owner has a right to removal so long as the encroachment is unreasonable and there is no breach of peace.
Because the Idaho Legislature imposed certain duties upon ditch owners, the Court held in some situations it will be imperative for ditch owners to have the authority to respond quickly to unreasonable encroachments of their easements and rights-of-ways, and to address or remove those encroachments without judicial pre-approval. According to the Court, this advances the legislative objective to permit ditch owners to meet the needs of water users and protect the persons and property of third parties.
The Court held Pioneer is therefore entitled to deference in their decisions involving the maintenance of irrigation ditches and the approval, denial, or removal of encroachments thereof. According to the Court, the Legislature granted irrigation districts the authority to make such decisions through § 42-1209, which allows a ditch owner to review, permit, or deny a third party’s request for encroachment. Ditch owners, especially irrigation districts, must also satisfy comprehensive statutory obligations and risk exposure to liability for failing to reach those obligations. Judicial review of a ditch owner’s decision to grant, deny, or remove an encroachment, the court held, is therefore limited to whether the ditch owner’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious, or whether the ditch owner reached its decisions in an unreasonable manner.
Finally, the Court overturned the district court’s ruling that Pioneer had an exclusive right to its primary easement and right of way. The Court cited a long list of common law rulings indicating a ditch owner’s easement interests are not absolute, even if the owner is an irrigation district entitled to judicial deference in its decision-making process. The Court refused to read a statute as abrogating common law without evidence that abrogation was the Legislative’s intent. Pioneer’s ownership of its easements and rights-of-ways is therefore neither absolute nor exclusive, and may potentially interfere with the ownership interests of landowners and other third parties.
The holding of the district court is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part.