## Facts

- Dan and Joanne Abbott owned land burdened by an irrigation ditch easement (“Savage Lateral”) held by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District.
- Nampa School District No. 131 owned adjacent land across the road, also burdened by the same easement.
- The School District planned to pipe the open ditch underground and realign the road crossing to improve safety and its property’s use.
- The School District obtained permission from the easement holder via a license agreement to: (1) install underground pipe within the easement, (2) change the culvert alignment under the road, and (3) construct a concrete inlet structure and safety/trash screen on the Abbotts’ property within the easement.
- The School District began constructing the inlet structure and screen on the Abbotts’ land without notifying or obtaining their consent.
- The Abbotts sought to stop construction, asserting the license was unauthorized as to their land and the added structures increased the easement burden.
- The trial court dissolved a temporary restraining order and denied a preliminary injunction, finding the work within the easement and not an unreasonable increase in burden.

## Issues

1. Whether a third party may use an easement under a license from the easement holder without the servient owners’ consent, so long as the servient estate’s burden is not enlarged.
2. Whether piping the ditch, altering the culvert crossing, and building an inlet structure and safety/trash screen within the easement exceeded the easement’s scope or enlarged its burden on the servient estate.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
- A third party may use an easement pursuant to a license from the easement holder without the servient owners’ consent if the use does not enlarge the burden on the servient estate.
- The proposed piping, culvert realignment, and inlet/safety screen construction within the easement were reasonable and did not enlarge the burden on the Abbotts’ property.

## Legal Principles

- An easement holder may authorize others to perform work or make improvements that the holder itself could lawfully perform within the easement’s purpose and bounds.
- The controlling inquiry is whether the challenged activity remains within the easement’s scope and does not materially or unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate.
- Reasonable alterations in the manner of use or related structures are permitted when tied to operation, maintenance, or repair of the easement and when the servient estate is not overburdened.
- Servient owners cannot block licensed third-party activity solely by withholding consent when the activity is within the easement and nonburdensome in legal effect.

## Conclusion

The court held that the irrigation district’s license permitted the school district to pipe and reconfigure the ditch system and to build an inlet and safety/trash screen on the Abbotts’ land within the existing easement, because the work served the easement’s function and did not enlarge the burden on the servient estate.


Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 808 P.2d 1289 (Idaho 1991)