Opinion ID: 889702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Public Policy and Balancing

Text: ¶ 75 As a final matter, I cannot agree with basing our decision on what we think is the better public policy. Opinion, ¶ 28. On the subject of ditch easements, the Legislature has spoken. It has taken the decision out of our hands and has set the standard that is to apply. See § 1-2-103, MCA. No person may encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation. . . . Section 70-17-112(2), MCA. Whether there is interference, and whether that inference is unreasonable, is not part of the statutory calculus and, thus, is not relevant. I would simply apply the plain language of the statute, not try to improve upon it based on our own notions of what is good public policy. ¶ 76 For the same reason, I cannot agree with the premise that we must balance property rights in this case. See Opinion, ¶¶ 18, 19, 25. There is no balancing for the courts to do when a party holds a ditch easement. The Legislature has already struck the balance that it has determined is appropriate: no person may encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation, period. We are wrong to tweak this language by inserting a balancing requirement where the Legislature has already decided that the balance weighs in favor of the irrigator. ¶ 77 In this regard, the Court's statement that Joukova cannot be deprived of her rights to use her land currently accessed via the rock bridge, Opinion, ¶ 30, is simply wrong; of course she can. Joukova bought her land in 2006 subject not only to MRC's preexisting ditch easement, but also to Montana statutory law which states that [n]o personJoukova includedmay encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation. Section 70-17-112(2), MCA. Hence, Joukova never even had, in the first place, a right to use her land in any manner that involved encroaching upon or otherwise impairing MRC's easement rights. Indeed, most of Joukova's problems are of her own making and her ignoring the remedy which the statute provides. She should not now be heard to complain. As we stated over 60 years ago, [i]t is a rather specious argument to say that the [servient landowner] may not use this land as it desires to do, because of the burden imposed by the [easement] and therefore the burden must be lightened. One may not invade the property rights of another and justify or attempt to excuse or explain such legal wrong because of the need. The answer thereto is that the [servient landowner] knew of the limitations imposed on this property at the time it purchased, so it is assumed the [servient landowner] received what it paid for. If it desires the full unrestricted fee another conveyance is called for. City of Missoula v. Mix, 123 Mont. 365, 372, 214 P.2d 212, 216 (1950). Balancing of Joukova's rights is simply inapplicable to this case. She received what she paid for: land that is burdened by a ditch easement which she may not encroach upon or otherwise impair. If she can figure out how to use her land without violating MRC's ditch easements, she is free to do so.