Opinion ID: 3133246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SRBA Proceedings & Settlement Agreement

Text: On September 10, 2007, Mullinix filed a claim for water right No. 79-2063, claiming a 1928 priority date to use 0.6 cfs of water from Joe Creek to irrigate eighteen acres of Mullinix’s 3 property. Mullinix subsequently amended this claim to 0.4 cfs for 20.1 acres. On February 6, 2008, two partial decrees were issued to Killgore: (1) water right No. 79-2094 for 1.5 cfs of water from the Salmon River to irrigate 130 acres with a priority date of 1966 and (2) water right No. 79-4001 for 2.6 cfs of water from Joe Creek to irrigate the same 130 acres with a priority date of 1965. On January 29, 2009, Mullinix was issued a partial decree for water right No. 792063 for 0.4 cfs of water from Joe Creek to irrigate 20.1 acres. On June 10, 2010, the SRBA court upheld a Special Master’s decision to set aside the partial decrees for water rights Nos. 79-2094, 79-4001, and 79-2063 and remanded the case for further proceedings. On March 25, 2011, Mullinix and Killgore executed a Settlement Agreement. The Agreement provided in relevant part: 1. Water Right No. 79-2063 claimed by Mullinix in the amount of 0.4 cfs for 20.1 acres diverted out of Joe Creek shall be decreed as disallowed. 2. Water Right No. 79-4001 has been administratively split into Water Right No. 79-14233 in the amount of 2.20 cfs for 110 acres in the name of Killgores and Water Right No. 79-14234 in the amount of 0.40 cfs for 20.1 acres in the name of Mullinix. . . . 3. Mullinix agrees to move the point of diversion for Water Right No. 79-14234 to a location on Joe Creek below the current diversion used by Killgores for Water Right No. 79-14233. Killgore and Mullinix shall coordinate with the [IDWR] on whether it is necessary to redescribe the point of diversion for their respective water rights within a quarter quarter-section. Neither party shall object to a change in the point of diversion of these two rights as long as the Mullinix point of diversion is below the Killgores’ point of diversion. 4. Mullinix agrees not to make a call on any of Killgores’ Water Right No. 7914233 as long as Killgores are not diverting more from Joe Creek than allowed by Water Right No. 79-14233 and Idaho Law. 5. Water Right No. 79-2094 has been split by the [IDWR] into Water Right No. 79-14231 for 1.27 cfs on 110 acres owned by Killgores and into Water Right No. 79-14232 for 0.23 cfs on 20.1 acres owned by Mullinix. . . . 6. Mullinix shall move the point of diversion for Water Right No. 73-14232 downstream on the Salmon River to a point on Mullinix’s property located in T 27 N, R 1E, Section 23, SENW. Killgores shall not object to this change in the point of diversion for Water Right No. 79-14232. 7. This is the complete agreement between the parties concerning the elements of the water rights at issue in these subcases and nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a determination or acknowledgement of any party’s right to an easement, right-of-way or conveyance system. 4 On May 31, 2011, the SRBA court decreed the water rights to Mullinix and Killgore in accordance with the Agreement. The SRBA partial decrees provided that the point of diversion for Mullinix’s and Killgore’s water rights to Joe Creek was T27N R01E S23. In addition, the decrees provided that their Joe Creek water rights had the same priority date: April 1, 1965. D. Current Proceedings to Resolve Water Conveyance On May 25, 2012, Mullinix filed a complaint against Killgore seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Mullinix sought: (1) entry of a judgment that Mullinix had the right to connect and use Killgore’s pipeline to convey water from Joe Creek in exercise of Mullinix’s water right; (2) to enjoin Killgore from interference with Mullinix’s use of Killgore’s pipeline; and (3) damages for Killgore’s tortious interference with Mullinix’s water system and property rights. Killgore answered and counterclaimed for (1) quiet title to an easement for the pipeline as it crossed through Mullinix’s property; (2) breach of the Settlement Agreement; (3) conversion of Killgore’s water rights, point of diversion, and pipeline; (4) interference with easement and water rights; and (5) injunctive relief. Mullinix answered and filed an amended complaint with an additional claim that Killgore was required to furnish water to Mullinix pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-912. The parties filed a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits. The Honorable John R. Stegner presided over a court trial on May 29, 30, and 31, 2013. After the district court heard closing arguments, the district court orally pronounced its findings and conclusions. The district court ruled: I think the real challenge here is to try to reconcile the Settlement Agreement with the Statutes and Constitution of the State of Idaho. And in order to do that, I think I have to give effect to 42-912, and Article 15, Section 4, and that means that I believe Mr. Mullinix is entitled to an injunction authorizing his access to the delivery system that is operated by the Killgores. With regard to the tortious injury to property claim brought by Mr. Mullinix, I find that the Killgores did tortiously injure his property. With regard to the Killgores’ counter-claims of breach of the Settlement Agreement[,] Conversion [a]nd Interference [w]ith [t]he Easement, I also find that the Killgores have proven their case. And I find that each of those offsets the others. Mullinix and Killgore have engaged in self-help which I do not believe should be rewarded under the circumstances and, therefore, I’m not authorizing any damages to either side for those causes of action. I’m rejecting Killgores’ claim for injunctive relief. 5 With regard to the -- what I would like to see, and I realize I don’t always get to do what I would like to see, but here is what I would like to see -- I would like to see Mullinix put in a second weir and bubbler on [Ernest] Robinson’s property. However, I cannot order or authorize construction of a bubbler or a weir on somebody’s property who wasn’t a party to this lawsuit, so that presumes a written easement can be obtained by Mr. Mullinix. I don’t know if that can be acquired, but that’s, I think, the gravamen of the evidence, that it made the most sense to have a second weir placed in the creek and the bubbler at the same elevation as the original bubbler. This would give effect to the settlement agreement requiring [Mullinix’s] point of diversion being below the Killgores’ point of diversion. The second bubbler would then have a pipe that would rejoin the Killgore pipe, which would, as the testimony indicated, increase the pressure in the original pipe. This work would have to be at the Mullinixes’ expense. I read 42-912 as giving Mullinix the ability to gain access to the pipe that runs across his property. . . . .... I’m prepared to issue an easement to the Killgore’s . . . Salmon River Fruit Company to the property but not without a valid description of the property. If you want an easement . . . I need a property description. . . . and that cost of that survey would have to be borne by the Killgores. Again, if I get my druthers, which I rarely get, I would order that a device to measure the flow of water in the pipe be undertaken by the Killgores, so that if flows fall below the 2.6 cubic feet per section that are apportioned to Killgores and Mullinix, that Killgores are then in a position to advise Mullinix to reduce his use at that time. The district court concluded its ruling by stating: If you want to read my remarks as saying a pox on both your houses, I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment. There’s a lot of unclean hands, unclean hands on both sides of this case, a lot of self-help on both sides which the law, of course, abhors. And to make it patently clear, I think this case will require significant future involvement by me to maintain some semblance of order as far as the use and distribution of water is concerned. Anticipating future involvement with the case, the district court set a status conference for July 8, 2013. At the July 8, 2013, status conference, the district court learned that Mullinix was unable to obtain an easement from the Robinsons. According to Mullinix, the Robinsons did not want to expose themselves to liability, violate their easement, or “be seen as taking sides” with this issue, and Killgore would not release the Robinsons from any potential liability. Mullinix explained that the issue could be solved by Killgore advising the Robinsons in writing that Killgore did not object to the easement. The district court explained: 6 [T]he testimony at trial indicated to me that the most intelligent way to deal with this issue was to have Mullinix put a point of diversion below Killgores and have a bubbler that was the same elevation as the Killgores’ bubbler, and that that would have as little impact on the pressure in the system. . . . And when I have been shown engineering evidence that suggests one course of action makes the most sense, I try to implement what makes the most sense. But if the Killgores are going to prevent Mullinix from getting an easement from Robinson, then we will have to go back to square one and I’ll have to order that Mullinix tie into the diversion system that’s already in existence. Killgore responded that the district court could not issue an order that allowed Mullinix to use Killgore’s diversion system as that was inconsistent with the Agreement. The district court disagreed. The district court explained to Killgore: Now, you have a choice and your client has a choice, they can either work with Mullinix and Robinson and put a new bubbler in at the same elevation as the existing bubbler with a point of diversion below Killgores’ point of diversion, or I’m going to allow Mullinix to tie into Killgores’ water delivery system. The district court further clarified that it was not forcing Killgore to procure an easement for Mullinix, but, if the parties did not procure an easement or if Killgore provided no assistance, the district court would issue an order allowing Mullinix to tie into Killgore’s water system. The district court set another status conference for August 5, 2013. At the August 5, 2013, status conference, Mullinix informed the district court that Killgore still was not willing to waive any objection to the Robinsons’ grant of an easement to Mullinix. Killgore agreed that Mullinix “accurately described where we are at,” but also stated, “The Killgores haven’t done anything to negatively affect in [sic] obtaining an easement, haven’t threatened litigation or anything like that.” The district court requested that Mullinix prepare an order allowing Mullinix to tie into Killgore’s pipeline as it crossed Mullinix’s property. On September 23, 2013, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its findings, the district court reiterated the water rights granted in the SRBA partial decrees: Mullinix had a right to 0.4 cfs and Killgore had a right to 2.2 cfs of water from Joe Creek. The district court stated that Mullinix’s right was “inferior” to Killgore’s right. The district court also determined: Killgore’s continued unwillingness to allow Mullinix access to the water Killgore pipes across Mullinix’s property is without legal basis and will cause harm to Mullinix, which can only be remedied by an order based on the equitable powers of this Court. Mullinix are the successors in interest to a portion . . . of water right No. 79-4001 appropriated and held by James and Josephine Killgore for use on lands 7 which included the Mullinix parcel. Mullinix are the current owners and successors in interest to land . . . that was held previously by both James and Josephine Killgore and Louis and Maude Weise. Under Article XV, Section 4, of the Idaho Constitution, Mullinix, as successors in interest to James and Josephine Killgore and Louis and Maude Weise, have a legal interest in the continuing water rights as guaranteed by Idaho’s constitution. Under Idaho Code § 42-101, Mullinix, as successors in interest to land held previously by both James and Josephine Killgore and Louis and Ma[u]de Weise, have a legal interest in the continuing water rights as established by Idaho statute. Mullinix’s right derives in large part from the settlement agreement that was entered into by Mullinix and Killgore . . . and later embodied in IDWR water right No. 79-14234. The district court then explained that the evidence at trial showed that the best and most effective way to deliver water to Mullinix was through the second weir and bubbler system. The district court noted that adding the second bubbler and connecting that water system to Killgore’s pipeline would increase pressure in the pipe to benefit both parties. The district court recognized that Mullinix was unable to obtain an easement to install a second weir, but also recognized that its decision should not be read or construed to prevent Mullinix from doing so. Absent an easement for the second weir, the district court ruled that Killgore was obligated to furnish water to Mullinix’s property pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-912 because Killgore owned and controlled an irrigation works to distribute water to certain lot owners of Killgore’s Horseshoe Bend Estates subdivisions. The district court also determined that Mullinix’s right to 0.4 cfs of water would decrease proportionally if the flow of water fell below 2.6 cfs. The district court further determined that Mullinix’s right to water would terminate if the flow declined to 2.2 cfs or less. Finally, the district court granted Killgore an easement across Mullinix’s parcel for the purpose of operating the pipeline. On September 23, 2013, the district court entered a decree to the same effect as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Regarding any decrease in flow, the district court stated: “Should the flow of water in the pipeline decrease to less than 2.6 [cfs], Mullinix’s right will decline proportionally.” The decree granted Mullinix the right to install a tap or valve on Killgore’s pipeline as it crossed Mullinix’s parcel. Pursuant to the decree, Mullinix was required to pay an annual delivery fee to Killgore at the same rate as the subdivision lot owners of Killgore’s Horseshoe Bend Estates. Finally, the district court recognized that Mullinix and Killgore have been unable to resolve disputes between themselves and therefore retained jurisdiction over the case. 8 On October 7, 2013, Mullinix moved for reconsideration. Mullinix also moved for attorney’s fees and costs. On November 1, 2013, the district court entered an order finding that Mullinix was the prevailing party and awarded costs to Mullinix. On November 1, 2013, Killgore filed a notice of appeal. On June 16, 2014, Mullinix filed a motion to enforce the district court’s decree. On July 28, 2014, the district court issued an order granting Mullinix’s motion for reconsideration and Mullinix’s motion to enforce the decree. This order provided that Killgore had interfered with Mullinix’s water rights and had tampered or vandalized Mullinix’s valve. Regarding any decrease in flow, the district court amended its decree to provide that Mullinix’s right to water would decline proportionally only when Killgore put his water to full beneficial use. The district court also ruled that Killgore could not interfere with Mullinix’s use of water if Killgore was not irrigating or placing the full 2.2 cfs to beneficial use. The district court provided that both parties must cooperate with the IDWR and exercise good faith in cooperating with each other. On December 19, 2014, the Court conditionally dismissed this appeal unless the Court was provided a final judgment pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54. On January 9, 2015, the Court was provided an amended judgment/decree, but this judgment also failed to satisfy Rule 54. On January 23, 2015, the Court was provided a second amended final judgment. Notably, this second amended final judgment ruled that Mullinix’s claim for tortious injury to property and Killgore’s counterclaims for breach of the Agreement, conversion, and interference with easement and water rights “are denied.” This determination is contrary to the district court’s prior oral ruling and amended judgment/decree, which found that the parties had proven their claims but the damages offset each other.