414 P.3d 226
Idaho2018Background
- Dispute over whether an uphill ranch (Moulton-Skinner) may send irrigation and surface water through a natural draw, under and across a county road, onto the downstream Hartvigson/Olson ranch.
- Lemhi County sued to relieve flooding on a county road; trial court previously ordered Hartvigson property to allow 3.25 CFS through culverts under the road.
- The district court held after bench trial that the downhill owners must accept up to 3.25 cubic feet per second (CFS) discharged down the basin/Hartvigson Draw under both a prescriptive easement and the civil-law natural servitude doctrine.
- Trial findings: long-standing open, continuous, and known flow (decades to a century); historical flood irrigation sent roughly 3–3.5 CFS down the draw; culverts and downstream channel can handle 3.25 CFS; larger flows occur from natural events.
- Appellants (downhill owners) appealed, arguing use was permissive (not adverse), scope/amount was unsupported, the drain is not the natural Pratt Creek outlet, and the judgment insufficiently describes the basin location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lemhi/Moulton-Skinner) | Defendant's Argument (Olson/Hartvigson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prescriptive easement exists for water flow through the draw | Use was open, notorious, continuous, adverse, and for statutory period; longstanding irrigation/wastewater supports prescriptive right | Flow was permissive or accommodated by wastewater right; not hostile | Court: prescriptive easement established (clear and convincing evidence of elements) |
| Scope (amount) of any easement — is 3.25 CFS supported? | Historical use and witness testimony support ~3–3.5 CFS; culverts/channel handle 3.25 CFS | No precise measurements; testimony insufficient to fix 3.25 CFS | Court: 3.25 CFS is supported by evidence and adopted as reasonable scope |
| Whether the drainage is a natural watercourse and natural servitude applies to irrigation/wastewater | Basin is a natural watercourse from Pratt Creek diversion through draw; natural servitude includes accumulated irrigation/wastewater so long as not unnaturally concentrated | Basin is not the natural Pratt Creek outlet; natural servitude limited to naturally occurring surface water, not irrigation wastewater | Court: basin is a natural watercourse; natural servitude applies to flows (including irrigation runoff) subject to limits to prevent unreasonable accumulation/release |
| Whether the judgment sufficiently describes the drainage location | Judgment as issued is adequate to fix rights | Judgment fails to describe the basin with the particularity required for interests in real property | Court: judgment must be clarified — remanded to specify precise origin/course/destination of the basin drainage |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474 (2006) (elements required to establish a prescriptive easement)
- Hodgins v. Sales, 139 Idaho 225 (2003) (prescriptive easement elements and necessary findings)
- West v. Smith, 95 Idaho 550 (1973) (presumption that long open continuous use is adverse; burden shifts to servient owner to prove permissive use)
- Loosli v. Heseman, 66 Idaho 469 (1945) (definition and requirements of a natural watercourse)
- Dayley v. City of Burley, 96 Idaho 101 (1974) (Idaho recognition of natural servitude for drainage between adjoining lands)
- Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 119 Idaho 299 (1991) (upper owner may accumulate and return water to natural course but cannot concentrate releases to increase damage)
- Kosanke v. Kopp, 74 Idaho 302 (1953) (judgment affecting real property must describe lands and interests with precision and particularity)