Zingiber Investment, LLC v. Hagerman Highway District
150 Idaho 675
| Idaho | 2011Background
- LynClif Farms and Zingiber own adjacent parcels along Highway 30; Padgett Ditch crosses both properties and is fed from Billingsley Creek.
- LynClif relocated the section of Padgett Ditch on Zingiber’s land and installed a fish screen; LynClif then sought a permit to pipe its water across Zingiber’s property via the Justice Grade right-of-way.
- The District granted a permit allowing LynClif to bury a pipe along the right-of-way adjacent to Zingiber’s property, delivering LynClif’s water and Martin’s downstream rights, while preserving Zingiber’s 0.32 cfs water right to the upstream edge.
- Zingiber sued in Case CV 2008-57 for declaratory relief challenging the District’s permit; Judge Melanson held Zingiber lacked standing. LynClif then filed Case CV 2008-125 seeking a declaration that it had the unilateral right to pipe the ditch.
- A final judgment held that LynClif could pipe the ditch under I.C. § 42-1207 either in the pre-2006 location or in the right-of-way, and that LynClif must deliver Zingiber’s full water right to a concrete structure at the edge of Zingiber’s property.
- Zingiber appealed, challenging both the statutory interpretation and the standing ruling; the court affirmed, and awarded attorney fees to the District and LynClif on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does I.C. § 42-1207 authorize unilateral piping by the ditch owner? | Zingiber contends LynClif cannot pipe without consent and that both are landowners. | LynClif argues the statute allows a ditch owner to bury in the easement or right-of-way without servient-landowner consent, so long as not to impede water flow. | Yes; §42-1207 authorizes unilateral piping by the ditch owner within the easement/right-of-way. |
| Did Zingiber possess independent ditch rights over the portion crossing its land? | Zingiber claims it holds independent ditch rights in the crossing portion. | LynClif contends Zingiber is servient estate owner with no independent ditch-rights in that portion. | No; Zingiber is servient estate owner and lacks independent ditch-rights in the crossing portion. |
| Were Zingiber's water rights adequately protected when LynClif piped the ditch? | Zingiber argues its carriage/irrigation rights may be compromised by piping. | LynClif delivered Zingiber’s full water right to a concrete structure at the ditch’s entry to Zingiber’s property, per SRBA and district orders. | Yes; Zingiber’s water rights were protected by delivery to the concrete structure at the property edge. |
| Is the standing issue in Case CV 2008-57 moot after construction of the pipe, and/or should attorney fees be awarded on appeal? | Zingiber argues standing and relief remain relevant for declaratory action. | The pipe has been constructed; mootness applies; fees should reflect prevailing positions and frivolousness. | Moot for standing; fees awarded to District and LynClif on appeal; cross-appeal on fees regarding LynClif in CV 2008-125 denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Savage Lateral Ditch Water Users Assoc. v. Pulley, 125 Idaho 237 (Idaho 1993) (ditches and water rights are separate; ditch rights are easements)
- Simonson v. Moon, 72 Idaho 39 (Idaho 1951) (distinguishes ditch rights from water rights)
- Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544 (Idaho 1991) (dominant estate may alter easement so long as burden does not increase)
- Linford v. G.H. Hall & Son, 78 Idaho 49 (Idaho 1956) (easement relocation burdens servient estate; unilateral relocation requires consent)
- State v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 21 Idaho 410 (Idaho 1911) (ownership and delivery of water rights; head of water concept)
- Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co., 224 U.S. 107 (S. Ct. 1912) (carriage water and head of water notions in irrigation)
- Reynolds Irrig. Dist. v. Sproat, 69 Idaho 315 (Idaho 1948) (water right easements and ditch rights interplay)
- Gardner v. Fliegel, 92 Idaho 767 (Idaho 1969) (easements and servient/dominant estates principles)
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am., 148 Idaho 427 (Idaho 2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law)