Hurtley Irrigation suit settled

Years of litigation culminated in a settlement Friday, January 22, as residents of Panoramic View Estates ended their lawsuit against David Hurtley and the Hurtley Irrigation System.

Ten residents living in or near the Panoramic subdivision filed suit against Hurtley in 1996. They alleged that he interfered with their water rights, denying them irrigation water and using it for his own purposes.

Four of the plaintiffs claimed that Hurtley trespassed on their property to install shut-off valves on their irrigation pipelines.

According to Hurtley and his attorney Ed Fitch, the trespassing charges were dropped in arbitration last week along with over $200,000 in damages to the 10 plaintiffs and claims that Hurtley stored and used the plaintiffs' water.

According to Fitch, Hurtley will transfer his system to Squaw Creek Irrigation District as part of the arbitrated settlement.

The group's attorney, Gordon Stewart, who was unavailable for comment, filed their final complaint in Deschutes County Circuit Court January 15seeking $65,050 for reseeding and loss of crops and pasture rental; $115,000 for three years of account fees; and $20,000 for Hurtley's alleged trespassing.

According to Fitch, the settlement ended with no damages awarded to the plaintiffs and approximately $30,000 awarded to Hurtley for the costs of maintaining the system, including electricity, water and maintenance charges.

Hurtley denies the trespassing charges, saying he had a right to enter the properties to maintain the water system.

He admits installing shut-off valves and turning off the plaintiffs' water when they disputed and refused to pay the charges billed.

"Water was not delivered through the pipeline because they didn't pay their bills," Hurtley explained.

"If I took their water and used it, this would be a crime," he said. "Every year since this thing started there's never been a time when their water was not available."

Hurtley claims that any undelivered water was returned to the irrigation ditch for use by other Squaw Creek Irrigation District customers below his system.

According to Hurtley, the system currently delivers approximately 190 acres of water rights to 30 parcels, six of which are owned by Hurtley himself.

"I will be reimbursed for all hard costs," Hurtley said. "We threw out the account fees but put in $5,000 per year in management fees. This figure was reduced by $2,500 from the original amount."

Fitch explained that the plaintiffs agreed to pay their prorated share of the $5,000 in annual costs, retroactive to 1993, based on the total acres of water rights held by each property owner.

Both sides agreed to pay their respective attorneys' fees.

Hurtley added that adjustments will be made for a year and a half in 1996 and 1997 when no water was delivered to the plaintiffs. Before any adjustments, liability to the plaintiffs equals approximately $26.32 per acre, per year.

"This formula used the principal of actual costs incurred by Hurtley plus a management fee of $5,000 each year prorated to all acreages of all users which would include the plaintiffs," explained Fitch. "All the people who use the system are not part of this lawsuit. They are only (ten) of 15 to 20 users.

"This case really revolves around the cost of operating the system which delivered irrigation water to the residents," Fitch said.

"Both sides agreed to a framework (they) are very happy with."

"I'm glad it's over," said plaintiff Jerry Hakes. "Do I feel we won? Well, there was a lot of give and take both ways."

"I think it was a wash," said plaintiff Ralph Affatati.

"We were trying to come to a settlement and I don't think anybody won," he said. "Hurtley demanded a lot of money and settled for a little less. We spent about five years on this thing and lost time, (money) and crops."

Hurtley estimated that the arbitration was costing the parties a total of $400 per hour in attorneys' and court fees.

"The cost of litigation was exceeding what was at stake," Fitch said.