Eugene Water & Electric Board v. Miller

The use of an easement is not necessarily limited to uses stated in the easement. Courts are to discern the nature and scope of the easement’s purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner. Bernards et ux v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579, 592-93, on reh’g, 199 Or 579, 263 P2d 794.

Defendant appealed and assigned error to the trial court’s grant of EWEB’s summary judgment motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court’s judgment exceeded the scope of the easement because it granted EWEB the right “to maintain sufficient water flow to continue to attract fish” whereas the easement only refers to salmon. Defendant argues that “he cannot be forced to allow activity for the protection of fish species not specifically mentioned in the easement.” In response, EWEB argued that the license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “requires protection of other endangered migrating fish species within the project area.” “[T]he parties’ use of an easement is not necessarily limited to uses stated in the easement.” Bernards et ux v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579, 592-93, on reh’g, 199 Or 579, 263 P2d 794. The court “is to discern the nature and scope of the easement’s purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner.” Id. The Court held that the trial court’s use of “fish” does not change the purpose of the easement, because “at the time the easement was created, the definition of ‘salmon’ encompassed several fish species” and the easement does not expressly “limit the use of the ‘salmon fish rack or barrier’ to ‘salmon’ or to exclude other fish species from the channel.” Affirmed.