Twin Lakes Canal Co. v. Choules, 254 P.3d 1210

Twin Lakes owns Twin Lakes Reservoir and holds a prescriptive overflow easement under I.C. § 5-246.
Choules Property partly overlies the reservoir and contains the servient estate affected by the easement.
Choules moved earth and debris to areas below the reservoir’s gauge height, potentially reducing storage and damaging a clay liner.
District court held § 5-246 permits servient owners to use property consistent with ownership, dismissing claims about the reservoir.
Twin Lakes alleged ongoing earthmoving endangered the reservoir and canal and sought injunction and damages; district court granted partial relief.
Interlocutory appeal focused on interpretation of § 5-246 and its impact on the servient owner’s use and the common law rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 5-246 alter the common law rule on servient-use interference?	Twin Lakes argues plain language abrogates interference ban.	Choules argues statute permits any use consistent with ownership regardless of interference.	Yes; statute alters common law.
Is § 5-246 plain and unambiguous, not palpably absurd?	Plain language yields absurd results restricting dominant estate rights.	Language clearly authorizes broad servient-use rights without normal interference limits.	Not palpably absurd; unambiguous.
Does the court’s interpretation allow destruction of the easement by servient owner?	Statute safeguards easement while allowing ordinary use that could destroy it.	Ordinary uses cannot destroy the easement; interference is permitted only as stated.	Interpretation permits use consistent with ownership without creating destructive effect on easement.
Should Twin Lakes prevail on preliminary injunction/damages for reservoir claims?	Interference with storage constitutes denial of easement.	§ 5-246 permits interference consistent with ownership; no standard for injunctions.	Affirmed dismissal of reservoir-related injunction/damages.
Should attorney fees be awarded under I.C. § 12-121?	First-impression question justifies fees; appeal reasonable.	Novel legal question weighs against fee award.	No attorney fees awarded.

Deffenbaugh v. Washington W. Power Co., 24 Idaho 514, 135 P. 247 (1913) (periodic flooding does not create prescriptive easement to flood future)
Lavin v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 51 Idaho 1, 1 P.2d 186 (1931) (periodic flooding not enough for prescriptive right)
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Washington Fed. Sav., 135 Idaho 518, 20 P.3d 702 (2001) (servient owner may use land so as not to unreasonably interfere with easement)
Pioneer Irrigation District v. Smith, 48 Idaho 734, 285 P. 474 (1930) (reasonable farming uses not enjoined if not interfering with easement)
City of Bellevue v. Daly, 14 Idaho 545, 94 P. 1036 (1908) (easement holder must fence cattle away; servient uses allowed in ordinary husbandry)
West Coast Power Co. v. Buttram, 54 Idaho 318, 31 P.2d 687 (1934) (servient owner may plow; cannot enjoin ordinary cross-use of easement)
Wheeler v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare, 147 Idaho 257, 207 P.3d 988 (2009) (statutory interpretation requires plain meaning and, if ambiguous, legislative intent)
Hecla Mining Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 108 Idaho 147, 697 P.2d 1161 (1985) (presume legislature knew common law when enacting statutes)