Pioneer Irrigation Dist. v. City of Caldwell

• Decision Date: 14 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 37242.,37242.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff–Counterdefendant–Respondent, v. CITY OF CALDWELL, Defendant–Counterclaimant–Appellant.

153 Idaho 593

288 P.3d 810

PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff–Counterdefendant–Respondent,

v.CITY OF CALDWELL, Defendant–Counterclaimant–Appellant.

No. 37242.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, December 2011 Term.

Nov. 14, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 2012.

Hamilton, Michaelson & Hilty, LLP, Nampa, and Holland & Hart, LLP, Boise, for appellant. Eric Stidham argued.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Boise, for respondent. Brad Williams argued.

SUBSTITUTE OPINION, THE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION DATED APRIL 27, 2012 IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN

HORTON, Justice.

In 2008, Pioneer Irrigation District (Pioneer) filed suit against the City of Caldwell (the City), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as the removal of urban stormwater discharge conduits constructed by the City without Pioneer's authorization. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pioneer. The court held that Pioneer held exclusive interests in its irrigation easements and rights-of-way such that Pioneer could maintain trespass claims against the City. The court also held that I.C. § 42–1209 granted Pioneer the power to remove encroachments constructed without its permission that it deemed to unreasonably or materially interfere with its easements and rights-of-way. The district court held that review of certain decisions by the irrigation district would be limited to whether they were arbitrary and capricious or reached in an unreasonable manner. The City moved for permissive appeal, which motion the district court granted. We affirm the decision of the district court, except for its holding that irrigation easements and rights-of-way are exclusive interests.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pioneer instituted this action in early 2008, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City. Pioneer alleged that by adopting a new municipal storm water management manual, the City had caused or permitted developers to install storm water discharge pipes such that municipal storm water was being discharged into Pioneer's irrigation delivery and drainage facilities without Pioneer's permission. Pioneer alleged that these discharge pipes unreasonably and materially interfered with its irrigation easements and rights-of-ways. Pioneer sought several judicial declarations, including that Pioneer was authorized to both remove and prohibit the future construction of unauthorized, unreasonable encroachments pursuant to I.C. § 42–1209. Pioneer also sought injunctive relief, alleging that it enjoyed an exclusive right to possession of its irrigation facilities and that municipal storm water runoff events were a trespass upon those facilities.

Relevant to this appeal, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted portions of Pioneer's motion, holding that where Pioneer exercised its discretion under I.C. § 42–1209 to deny a proposed encroachment as an unreasonable or material interference, a court's review of that exercise of discretion is limited to whether the decision was reached in an unreasonable manner, arbitrary and capricious, or based upon findings that were clearly erroneous. The court also held that I.C. § 42–1209 permits the owner of an irrigation easement or right-of-way to engage in self-help to remove an encroachment that was constructed without permission and unreasonably or materially interfered with the easement or right-of-way. The district court held that the owner of an irrigation easement or right-of-way enjoys an exclusive interest therein, and on those grounds denied the City's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Pioneer's trespass claims.

Following the district court's grant of the City's I.A.R. 12 motion for permissive appeal, this Court granted the City leave to appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the trial court. Read v. Harvey, 141 Idaho 497, 499, 112 P.3d 785, 787 (2005). A reviewing court will construe all disputed facts and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Sprinkler Irr. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., 139 Idaho 691, 695–96, 85 P.3d 667, 671–72 (2004). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c).

III. ANALYSIS

A. This Court's holding is limited to those issues raised in the City's motion for permissive appeal.

The City attacks the district court's holdings on a variety of grounds, including errors in statutory interpretation, the constitutionality of the district court's statutory interpretation, and lack of specificity regarding the easements' scope. Pioneer similarly defends on a variety of grounds, including statutory interpretation, the application of res judicata to preclude collateral challenges to Pioneer's ownership interests, and judicial estoppel of claims that the judgment is invalid because it does not include all affected servient landowners.

However, when considering a permissive appeal, we must "address only the precise question that was framed by the motion and answered by the trial court." Winn v. Frasher, 116 Idaho 500, 501, 777 P.2d 722, 723 (1989). In the present case, the City moved for permissive appeal of the court's grant of partial summary judgment. The district court granted that motion. The City's and the district court's express statements of the issues to be addressed by the permissive appeal were nearly verbatim. The district court phrased those issues as follows:

1. Idaho Code section 42–1209 vests Pioneer with the initial discretion to determine whether an encroachment is likely to unreasonably or materially interfere with the use and enjoyment of its irrigation or drainage easements or rights-of-way, and to deny permission for the encroachment on those grounds. Judicial review of Pioneer's determination and decision is limited to (a) whether Pioneer's denial of permission to encroach was arbitrary and capricious or based on clearly erroneous findings, and (b) whether Pioneer's decision-making process was reasonable.

2. Idaho Code section 42–1209 authorizes Pioneer to enforce the removal of any encroachments installed after the effective date of section 42–1209 that Pioneer determines materially and unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of its irrigation and drainage easements or rights-of-way, at the expense of the encroaching party, subject to certain limitations:

A. Pioneer must initially request removal of the encroachment by the encroaching party;

B. Pioneer's right of self-help (i.e., in lieu of pursuing a judicial remedy) to remov[al] of the encroachment must be accomplished within the borders of its easement or right-of-way and without a breach of the peace; and

C. Judicial review of Pioneer's determination and decision is limited to (a) whether Pioneer's decision to request removal of an existing encroachment was arbitrary and capricious or based on clearly erroneous findings, and (b) whether Pioneer's decision-making process was reasonable.

3. That Pioneer Irrigation District enjoys exclusive rights in its primary easements and rights-of way under Idaho Code sections 42–1102 and 1209.

We are bound to address only these issues. Since several of the parties' claims and defenses on appeal are irrelevant to these precise questions, we do not address them here.

B. Under I.C. § 42–1209, review of Pioneer's decision whether to permit an encroachment is an exercise of discretion.

The City asserts that the question whether a proposed encroachment constitutes an unreasonable or material interference is a question that should be resolved by a trier of fact. The district court disagreed, reasoning that irrigation districts are quasi-municipal corporations engaged in the proprietary role of providing irrigation for landowners' benefit, and that thus the scope of a civil challenge to an irrigation entity's denial of permission to encroach must be limited to whether (a) the denial was arbitrary and capricious or based on clearly erroneous findings, or (b) the entity's decision-making process was unreasonable.

To resolve this issue, we must derive legislative intent, looking first to the language of I.C. § 42–1209. Hayden Lake Fire Prot. Dist. v. Alcorn, 141 Idaho 307, 312, 109 P.3d 161, 166 (2005). Where a statute is unambiguous, its plain language controls. Id. If a statute is ambiguous because more than one reasonable interpretation exists, we look to rules of statutory construction for guidance. Payette River Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Valley Cnty., 132 Idaho 551, 557, 976 P.2d 477, 483 (1999). In the event that this Court is required to engage in statutory construction, we may ascertain legislative intent from the statute's context, the public policy in support of the statute, and the statute's legislative history. State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 462, 988 P.2d 685, 688 (1999).

Idaho Code § 42–1209 was enacted in 2004. 2004 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 179, § 3, at 563. The statute expressly recognizes irrigation easements and rights-of-way are "essential" to "irrigation districts, Carey act operating companies, nonprofit irrigation entities, lateral ditch associations, and drainage districts," providing:

Accordingly, no person or entity shall cause or permit any encroachments onto the easements or rights-of-way ... without the written permission of the irrigation district ... owning the easement or right-of-way, in order to ensure that any such encroachments will not unreasonably or materially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the easement or right-of-way. Encroachments of any kind placed in such easement or right-of-way, without such express written permission shall be removed at the expense of the person or entity causing or permitting such encroachments, upon the request of the

...