California Court of Appeal Affirms Ruling Allowing Irrigation Districts to Withhold Water Deliveries from Landowners That Violate District Rules
Written by J. Palmer Hilton
Somach Simmons & Dunn
Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal upheld a trial court decision authorizing an irrigation district to withhold water deliveries to landowners within the district who violate rules promulgated by the district. The ruling in Inzana v.Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. of Directors (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 429 (Inzana) means that irrigation districts have authority to promulgate rules curtailing water deliveries to landowners who interfere with a district’s ability to carry out its duty to furnish water for beneficial use.
The plaintiff in Inzana (Plaintiff) owns property within Turlock Irrigation District (TID) subject to an easement owned by TID providing for ingress and egress for purposes of maintaining and repairing a water pipeline running underneath the easement. The Plaintiff planted over 160 pistachio trees within the easement making ingress and egress difficult, as well as creating a potential for future damage to the pipeline from growing tree roots. After an administrative hearing, TID found that Plaintiff’s tree planting interfered with the conditions of the easement and ordered him to remove the trees. The trial court upheld this ruling, and Plaintiff appealed asserting that: (1) TID’s order interfered with a vested fundamental right; (2) TID did not have authority to withhold water deliveries; and (3) TID’s rules are inconsistent with the Irrigation District Law (Wat. Code, § 20500 et seq.).
In Inzana, the Court first determined that the Plaintiff had no vested right to water deliveries or to plant trees within the easement; rather, TID had a right under the easement to operate, maintain, and repair the pipeline. The Court relied on the rule that a servient tenement has no right to use his property in a manner prohibited by the easement. The Plaintiff’s planting of the trees within the easement interfered with this right of TID and interfered with TID’s ability to prevent damage to the pipeline.
