Opinion ID: 2625037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court's Exclusion

Text: NMID sought to introduce evidence establishing that the sidewalk and proposed fence on Washington Federal's side of the lateral presented a danger to the public. NMID first argues that the district court's decision to exclude evidence regarding the dangers posed by the sidewalk was a legal conclusion rather than an evidentiary ruling. The district court, however, noting that I.C. § 42-1102 does not provide for the exercise of safety practices as an incident to easements for irrigation laterals, concluded that evidence of NMID's safety concerns was not relevant to the question of whether the sidewalk and proposed fence inferred with NMID's use of the easement. This suggests that the district court was making an evidentiary ruling. Specifically, the court stated: The concern I have is relevance. I don't see the statute giving an easement to keep people away from the ditch. This also illustrates that the district court understood that it had the discretion to admit or deny the evidence. Thus, the question before the Court is whether the trial court acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the applicable legal standards, and whether the trial court reached its decision through an exercise of reason. We hold that it did. NMID argues that district court erred by refusing to allow evidence regarding safety concerns, pointing to the decisions of other states that have found the exercise of safety practices incident to the easement enjoyed by the dominant owner. NMID analogizes the Finch Lateral situation to cases involving electrical transmission lines in which the courts have generally held that encroachments on easements are inconsistent with the easement because of the increased dangers the encroachments impose. NMID contends that this section of the Finch Lateral is particularly dangerous to the public, and becomes even more so with the construction of the sidewalk. Because the sidewalk is a safety hazard, NMID asserts, it is inconsistent with the purposes of the easement. The provisions of the CCE granting the easement to NMID do not include any expressed terms relating to concern for safety, or the avoidance of danger. Accordingly, there is no contractual basis for consideration by the district court of the evidence offered by NMID. Furthermore, it should be noted that I.C. § 42-1102 only contemplates a right-of-way for cleaning, maintaining, and repairing canals. The statute provides notice to owners of land that the owner of the ditch or canal has the right-of-way, and serves to clarify what the right-of-way includes. See 1996 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 187, p. 594. This Court in the past has commented upon the necessity and importance of the canal system in Idaho. See Kunz v. Utah Power & Light Co., 117 Idaho 901, 904, 792 P.2d 926, 929 (1990) (Idaho's extensive agricultural economy would not exist but for the vast systems of irrigation canals and ditches which artificially deliver stored or naturally flowing water from Idaho's rivers and streams into abundant fields of growing crops.). Idaho Code section 42-1102 thus provides a means for entities like NMID to maintain their canals such that they may properly deliver and drain the water that forms the agricultural lifeblood of this state. Missing from the statute is any suggestion that owners of the right-of-way may, in cleaning, maintaining, or repairing the canal or ditch, restrict the servient landowner's use of the right-of-way because of safety concerns. It is not the province of the Court to read desirable protections into a statute that simply are not there as a matter of legislative prerogative. In sum, there was no contractual or statutory requirement that the district court consider safety issues. Accordingly, the Court holds that the district court's exclusion of the safety evidence was both within its discretion and the applicable standards before it, and was exercised with reason.