Opponents of an irrigation pipeline project in Central Oregon are incorrect that it violates an easement meant for open canals, according to a federal judge.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has determined the Tumalo Irrigation District hasn’t exceeded the scope of an easement across opponents’ properties by replacing open canals with piping.

The irrigation district is installing pipelines to conserve water that would otherwise be lost to seepage and evaporation, but opponents fear the loss of an open canal will harm vegetation and reduce their property values.

Kasubhai has recommended rejecting the arguments of nine landowners who filed a complaint seeking to block the pipeline project, but the ruling must still be affirmed by U.S. District Judge Anne Aiken to have legal effect.

“Placing irrigation pipes below ground is a reasonable modification that falls squarely within the easement’s purpose,” Kasubhai said.

The argument that landowners will be “unnecessarily burdened” by diminished property values should also fail, he said. “However, the removal of an unintentional benefit to servient estate holder is insufficient to establish an increase in burden.”

Opponents of the project claim the irrigation district’s easement across their properties does not permit digging below the bottom of the canal to install the pipeline. They pointed to language governing the easement that limits its scope to 50 feet “on each side” of the canal.

The judge said the 50-foot limit applies vertically as well as horizontally, which means they’ve wrongly interpreted the easement’s terms.

“Critically, plaintiffs’ interpretation effectively replaces the word ‘each’ with ‘either’ in an attempt to limit the geographic scope of the easement to the water’s horizontal margins,” he said.

The Tumalo Irrigation District, which manages 80 miles of canals and pipelines that serve about 7,400 acres, typically lost half the water running through open canals.

Such losses disrupt irrigation when below-average snowpacks reduce the water supply, with federal protections for the threatened Oregon spotted frog further aggravating the problem.

Opponents filed a lawsuit in 2020 against replacing open canals with pipelines because the lack of seepage would likely kill century-old Ponderosa pines and other plants along the canal, damaging wildlife habitat and property values.

“The burden is the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value. It cannot occur in this way if the burden on the servient estate is increased,” said Esack Grueskin, attorney for opponents, during oral arguments earlier this year.

The irrigation district countered that irrigation districts have historically built elevated pipelines to cross rivers and other obstacles, just as it’s now common to rely on easement to install pipelines underground.

“The method of delivery may reasonably change over time,” said Mark Reinecke, the irrigation district’s attorney. “There is nothing to say it cannot be done below the bottom of the canal or anything else.”