Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 70. PROPERTY · CHAPTER 17. SERVITUDES, EASEMENTS, AND COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND · Part 1. Servitudes -- Easements
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112 (2026)

Interference With Canal Or Ditch Easements Prohibited

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 70
  3. CHAPTER 17
  4. Part 1
  5. 70-17-112 Interference with canal or ditch easements prohibited

TITLE 70. PROPERTY

CHAPTER 17. SERVITUDES, EASEMENTS, AND COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND

Part 1. Servitudes -- Easements

Interference With Canal Or Ditch Easements Prohibited

70-17-112. Interference with canal or ditch easements prohibited. (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair, and maintain a canal or ditch or to operate the appropriation works. A person retains this secondary easement if the canal or ditch is converted into a pipeline and the pipeline is conspicuously marked.

(2) A person may not encroach on or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation or any other lawful domestic or commercial purpose, including carrying return water. A person may not encroach on or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch under this subsection that has been converted into a pipeline.

(3) The provisions of subsection (2) do not apply if the holder of the canal, ditch, or pipeline easement consents in writing to the encroachment or impairment.

(4) Each canal or ditch easement obtained by prescription or conveyance is included within the scope of this section. Nothing in this section establishes a secondary easement where none existed prior to April 14, 1981. This section does not affect contracts or agreements concluded prior to April 14, 1981.

(5) If a legal action is brought to enforce the provisions of this section, the prevailing party is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 371, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 180, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 447, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 261 P.3d 570.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 261 P.3d 570. · cites it 232× “Committee members suggested the bill would express "in very specific terms what the case law already provides" and, even in the absence of the law, "anyone with a ditch easement does have a secondary easement and the right to maintain that easement.”
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, 286 P.3d 1212. · cites it 119× “Section 70-17-112, MCA, is the Montana statute expressly 3 prohibiting interference with canal and ditch easements.”
Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 159 P.3d 1062. · cites it 41× “Because plaintiffs had previously acknowledged defendants’ ditch rights but had, nonetheless, forced defendants into court to defend those rights, we held that the filing of the lawsuit alone constituted an impairment of defendants’ easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA.…”
Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 993 P.2d 701. · cites it 38× “¶9 The Gampps do not deny that Engel has a secondary easement, pursuant to § 70-17-112, MCA, which affords her the right of access to the Gampps’ property.”
Mustang Holdings, LLC v. Zaveta, 2006 MT 234, 143 P.3d 456. · cites it 40× “She alleged that Mustang violated § 70-17-112, MCA, which prohibits interference with a party’s ditch easements, and that § 70-17-112(5), MCA, entitled her to attorney’s fees.”
Knudsen v. Taylor, 685 P.2d 354 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 38× “Knudsen filed a separate complaint against Taylor alleging that Taylor had violated section 70-17-112, MCA, by encroaching on or impairing Knudsen's easement for his irrigation ditch; that Taylor's actions constituted a private nuisance and further that Taylor had assaulted…”
Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley, 2003 MT 34, 65 P.3d 225. · cites it 22× “Under § 70-17-112, MCA, the court granted attorney's fees to Graveley for the costs associated with respect to this ditch.”
Rieman v. Anderson, 935 P.2d 1122 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 13× “Section 70-17-112, MCA, provides: (2) No person may encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation or any other lawful domestic or commercial purpose, including carrying return water.”
Sharon v. Hayden, 803 P.2d 1083 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 23× “Pursuant to § 70-17-112, MCA, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this matter.”
Kephart v. Portmann, 855 P.2d 120 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 19× “The pertinent subsections of § 70-17-112, MCA, provide: (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair, and maintain a canal or ditch.”
Butler v. Germann, 822 P.2d 1067 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 14× “Section 70-17-112, MCA. Thus, the District Court's injunction did not change the obligation that the Germanns already had under the law.”
Espy v. Quinlan, 2000 MT 193, 4 P.3d 1212. · cites it 32× “ISSUE 2 ¶23 Did the District Court err when it ordered Quinlan to pay Espy’s attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA? ¶24 Section 70-17-112, MCA, states as follows: (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair,…”
Show all 39 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(1): 10 cases
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 261 P.3d 570. “Committee members suggested the bill would express "in very specific terms what the case law already provides" and, even in the absence of the law, "anyone with a ditch easement does have a secondary easement and the right to maintain that easement.”
Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 159 P.3d 1062. “Because plaintiffs had previously acknowledged defendants’ ditch rights but had, nonetheless, forced defendants into court to defend those rights, we held that the filing of the lawsuit alone constituted an impairment of defendants’ easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA.…”
Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 993 P.2d 701. “¶9 The Gampps do not deny that Engel has a secondary easement, pursuant to § 70-17-112, MCA, which affords her the right of access to the Gampps’ property.”
Kephart v. Portmann, 855 P.2d 120 (Mont. 1993). “The pertinent subsections of § 70-17-112, MCA, provide: (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair, and maintain a canal or ditch.”
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, 286 P.3d 1212. “Section 70-17-112, MCA, is the Montana statute expressly 3 prohibiting interference with canal and ditch easements.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(2): 12 cases
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 261 P.3d 570. “Committee members suggested the bill would express "in very specific terms what the case law already provides" and, even in the absence of the law, "anyone with a ditch easement does have a secondary easement and the right to maintain that easement.”
Mustang Holdings, LLC v. Zaveta, 2006 MT 234, 143 P.3d 456. “She alleged that Mustang violated § 70-17-112, MCA, which prohibits interference with a party’s ditch easements, and that § 70-17-112(5), MCA, entitled her to attorney’s fees.”
Knudsen v. Taylor, 685 P.2d 354 (Mont. 1984). “Knudsen filed a separate complaint against Taylor alleging that Taylor had violated section 70-17-112, MCA, by encroaching on or impairing Knudsen's easement for his irrigation ditch; that Taylor's actions constituted a private nuisance and further that Taylor had assaulted…”
Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 159 P.3d 1062. “Because plaintiffs had previously acknowledged defendants’ ditch rights but had, nonetheless, forced defendants into court to defend those rights, we held that the filing of the lawsuit alone constituted an impairment of defendants’ easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA.…”
Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 993 P.2d 701. “¶9 The Gampps do not deny that Engel has a secondary easement, pursuant to § 70-17-112, MCA, which affords her the right of access to the Gampps’ property.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(2)(5): 1 case
Knudsen v. Taylor, 685 P.2d 354 (Mont. 1984). “Knudsen filed a separate complaint against Taylor alleging that Taylor had violated section 70-17-112, MCA, by encroaching on or impairing Knudsen's easement for his irrigation ditch; that Taylor's actions constituted a private nuisance and further that Taylor had assaulted…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(3): 2 cases
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 261 P.3d 570. “Committee members suggested the bill would express "in very specific terms what the case law already provides" and, even in the absence of the law, "anyone with a ditch easement does have a secondary easement and the right to maintain that easement.”
Musselshell Ditch v. JD BAR D, 2025 MT 63, 566 P.3d 511.
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(4): 2 cases
Mustang Holdings, LLC v. Zaveta, 2006 MT 234, 143 P.3d 456. “She alleged that Mustang violated § 70-17-112, MCA, which prohibits interference with a party’s ditch easements, and that § 70-17-112(5), MCA, entitled her to attorney’s fees.”
Collins v. Swinger, 2001 MT 265N.
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(5): 26 cases
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, 286 P.3d 1212. “Section 70-17-112, MCA, is the Montana statute expressly 3 prohibiting interference with canal and ditch easements.”
Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 993 P.2d 701. “¶9 The Gampps do not deny that Engel has a secondary easement, pursuant to § 70-17-112, MCA, which affords her the right of access to the Gampps’ property.”
Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 159 P.3d 1062. “Because plaintiffs had previously acknowledged defendants’ ditch rights but had, nonetheless, forced defendants into court to defend those rights, we held that the filing of the lawsuit alone constituted an impairment of defendants’ easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA.…”
Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley, 2003 MT 34, 65 P.3d 225. “Under § 70-17-112, MCA, the court granted attorney's fees to Graveley for the costs associated with respect to this ditch.”
Knudsen v. Taylor, 685 P.2d 354 (Mont. 1984). “Knudsen filed a separate complaint against Taylor alleging that Taylor had violated section 70-17-112, MCA, by encroaching on or impairing Knudsen's easement for his irrigation ditch; that Taylor's actions constituted a private nuisance and further that Taylor had assaulted…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-112(l): 1 case
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, 286 P.3d 1212. “Section 70-17-112, MCA, is the Montana statute expressly 3 prohibiting interference with canal and ditch easements.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.