Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Farmers Enjoined From Discharging Waste Water

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In King v. Van Setten, No. 2004 MT 171N, 2004 WL 1447736, at *1 (Mont. June 29, 2004), the defendants grew "barley on the[ir] property and flood irrigate[d] the barley for a period of eight to ten days each year." Id. at *1. The plaintiffs, who owned adjoining land, claimed that some of the irrigation waste water flowed onto their property creating a nuisance and an intentional trespass. See id. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the permanent injunction granted by the lower court preventing the defendants from discharging any waste water onto the plaintiffs' property. See id. The court noted that the defendants "were not enjoined from continuing their flood irrigation practices; indeed, they [were] still free to flood irrigate. They simply [could] not allow waste water to be discharged onto the [plaintiffs'] property." Id. at *2. Thus, the court held that the lower court had not "manifestly abused its discretion" and had "properly tailored" the injunction. Id. at *2, *3.

The case was decided on June 29, 2004; this summary was posted June 10, 2005.