Replacing open canals with pipelines in Oregon’s Tumalo Irrigation District “does not unreasonably burden” neighboring landowners, even if it lowers property values, according to a federal appeals court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected arguments that Tumalo Irrigation District violated easements across neighboring properties by installing the pipeline, as removing open canals and harming surrounding riparian vegetation isn’t legally a “nuisance.”

“No evidence suggests that the original parties to the express easement contemplated that the irrigation system would benefit plaintiffs’ property with seepage from open canals,” the 9th Circuit’s ruling said.

The appellate court has dismissed the claims of several neighbors who oppose the irrigation piping project, only about two weeks after oral arguments in the case were heard earlier this month in Portland, Ore.

The 9th Circuit has decided that U.S. District Judge Michael McShane properly threw out the lawsuit last year, agreeing the project “does not exceed the scope of TID’s rights of way on plaintiffs’ land.”

The appellate court said the arguments of the opponents would produce an “absurd result” that’s “contrary to common sense.”

If opponents were correct that federal law limits the easement’s vertical reach, the irrigation district “could not perform necessary construction of and maintenance on natural ground canals and laterals,” such as digging out accumulated silt, the ruling said.

Contrary to the claims of opponents, the irrigation district has demonstrated the piping project is necessary to improve water delivery to farmers and “improve public safety” by preventing drownings, the 9th Circuit said.

“Plaintiffs fail to establish genuine factual disputes as to these issues,” and even if the project “will devalue their properties, their claims fail as a matter of law,” the ruling said.

The 9th Circuit also rejected the argument that USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act by insufficiently analyzing the effects of awarding $30 million to the project.

Implementing on-farm irrigation efficiency upgrades — an alternative to piping touted by opponents — was “properly eliminated” from the USDA’s analysis because it’d be “difficult to implement” without enhancing “water delivery reliability and public safety,” the 9th Circuit said.

“The environmental assessment acknowledged that the project would affect riparian vegetation in and around the open canals, but determined that the affected areas did not meet the ‘functional criteria’ for wetlands and that the project would benefit downstream riparian areas,” the ruling said.

During oral arguments in early December, opponents alleged the piping project was the “most destructive, most invasive, most deleterious” option the irrigation district could have chosen.

Converting canals to underground piping is “not necessary” for irrigation, as conserving the 50% of water lost to seepage “doesn’t show reasonable necessity” as required by the easement, said Esack Grueskin, attorney for the opponents.

“The purpose of the canal is not for giving any specific allotment to the district’s patrons or promoting specific conservation benefits,” Grueskin said.

Attorneys for the irrigation district and USDA countered that riparian areas created by water seepage aren’t protected as wetlands under state or federal regulations.

Regardless of the piping project, the irrigation district isn’t obligated to run water through the “artificial canal built through the desert,” said Mark Reinecke, its attorney. “You can’t force somebody to deliver water to seep into the ground for their personal enjoyment.”