346 P.3d 286
Idaho2015Background
- Daryl and Linda Mullinix own a 20-acre parcel (the Killgore‑Mullinix parcel) that was conveyed with appurtenant water/ditch rights from prior owners; Killgore’s Salmon River Fruit Co. owns adjacent land and a buried pipeline conveying water from Joe Creek across Mullinix’s parcel.
- Both parties hold SRBA partial decrees splitting an earlier Joe Creek right: Killgore 2.2 cfs and Mullinix 0.4 cfs (same priority date). The parties executed a Settlement Agreement requiring Mullinix’s point of diversion to be downstream of Killgore’s.
- The district court originally ordered Mullinix to install a separate weir/diversion below Killgore’s; Mullinix could not obtain an easement on Robinson’s land to do so because Killgore would not release objections.
- The district court then allowed Mullinix to tap Killgore’s buried pipeline as it crossed Mullinix’s property, retained jurisdiction, found both sides had committed unclean‑hands conduct, and awarded costs to Mullinix. The court also (erroneously, per this decision) applied Idaho Code § 42‑912 and ordered an annual delivery fee from Mullinix to Killgore.
- On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the right to tap the pipeline and the district court’s equitable remedy, vacated the portion of the judgment requiring payment of an annual delivery fee under § 42‑912, and remanded. Costs on appeal awarded to Mullinix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mullinix) | Defendant's Argument (Killgore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May Mullinix tap Killgore’s pipeline on Mullinix’s property to receive his Joe Creek water? | Mullinix: yes — his parcel carries appurtenant water and ditch rights, and the pipeline follows the historic ditch to the parcel. | Killgore: no — settlement requires a separate downstream diversion; pipeline access would defeat that term. | Held: Yes. Mullinix obtained an appurtenant water right and ditch right that transferred with the land; he may tap the pipeline on his property. |
| 2. May the court suspend the separate point‑of‑diversion requirement and allow use of Killgore’s pipeline? | Mullinix: equitable relief is proper because Killgore prevented obtaining the required easement, harming Mullinix’s ability to use his right. | Killgore: settlement terms bar use of Killgore’s diversion or pipeline. | Held: Court properly used equity to set aside that clause while Killgore obstructed compliance; equitable remedy affirmed. |
| 3. Is Idaho Code § 42‑912 applicable so Killgore must furnish water and Mullinix must pay delivery fees? | Mullinix: district court relied on § 42‑912 to require delivery and accepted standard fees. | Killgore: either not applicable or contested. | Held: § 42‑912 did not apply to Killgore’s distribution; the portion of the judgment requiring an annual delivery fee was vacated. |
| 4. Did the district court err in findings re: tortious injury and award of costs/fees? | Mullinix: prevailed and sought costs and appellate fees. | Killgore: contested prevailing‑party status and other findings. | Held: Tort claim determination became moot after amended judgment; costs below affirmed for Mullinix; no appellate attorney fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Cummings, 81 Idaho 327, 340 P.2d 1111 (recognizing decreed water rights as real property appurtenant to land)
- Crow v. Carlson, 107 Idaho 461, 690 P.2d 916 (water rights decrees are res judicata and binding proof of diversion and beneficial use)
- Keyser v. Morehead, 23 Idaho 501, 130 P. 992 (piping a ditch becomes part of the ditch; co‑owners retain rights in the pipe)
- Zingiber Inv., LLC v. Hagerman Highway Dist., 150 Idaho 675, 249 P.3d 868 (ditch rights and water rights are separate property interests)
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Mussell, 139 Idaho 28, 72 P.3d 868 (appellate principle: affirm correct result even if trial court relied on incorrect theory)