Swalley Irrigation District v. Alvis

326 F. App'x 995
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 9, 2009·No. No. 08-35263·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Several landowners appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Swalley Irrigation District. The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision.1

The court is satisfied that with respect to both the land subject to the Act of [997] March 3, 1891, 43 U.S.C. § 946, and the so-called “Section Sixteen” land, Swalley’s right of way is not limited to the construction of open canals or ditches. See 43 U.S.C. § 951; Jones v. Edwards, 219 Or. 429, 347 P.2d 846, 848 (1959); Kell v. Oppenlander, 154 Or.App. 422, 961 P.2d 861, 864 (1998) (quoting Bernards v. Link, 199 Or. 579, 248 P.2d 341, 349 (1952)); Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.10 (2000). Accordingly, the conversion of the existing canal into a pressurized pipeline is permissible so long as it does not increase the burden on the landowners’ property.

Here, the landowners have not presented evidence establishing that their property will be devalued by the proposed conversion. See FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1997). The pipeline will not extend beyond Swalley’s existing right of way. Removal of any aesthetic benefits provided by the open canal merely eliminates an incidental benefit provided by Swalley’s use of the easement; such action does not place an additional burden on the landowners’ property.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Swalley Irrigation District v. Alvis, 326 F. App'x 995 (9th Cir. 2009).

326 F. App'x 995 (Swalley Irrigation District v. Alvis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc.
398 F.3d 1125 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Kell v. Oppenlander
961 P.2d 861 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1998)
Jones Et Ux v. Edwards Et Ux
347 P.2d 846 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Bernards v. Link
263 P.2d 794 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1953)