477 P.3d 1239
Utah2020Background:
- Plaintiffs (Roger & Kimberly Arave, Janet Southwick, and Venture Development Group/Snowberry Inn) hold senior, decades‑old water rights and divert via two shallow wells (Arave Well and Snowberry Well) screened in the Norwood Tuff and overlying unconsolidated material.
- Defendant Pineview West Water Company holds much larger, junior rights and operates five deeper wells, including Well 4 (drilled 2004, deep with a 100 gpm pump) located ~700 ft from Arave Well and ~460 ft from Snowberry Well.
- Testing and seasonal pumping of Well 4 created a cone of depression that, according to the district court, temporarily prevented the Arave Well from producing water and caused the Snowberry Well to “struggle” to fill its cistern while Well 4 pumped.
- The district court (bench trial) found Pineview liable for interference with water rights and negligence, ordered prospective relief (stop pumping Well 4 unless proven non‑interfering), and awarded damages and fee refunds to Plaintiffs.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the interference findings (Arave and Snowberry) for insufficient findings on reasonableness of diversion and failure to quantify the portion of water rights actually lost; it affirmed the negligence judgment but remanded that claim for reconsideration in light of the interference reversal, vacated part of the damages award (refunds for periods when Well 4 was inactive), and denied appellate fee recovery to Pineview.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pineview interfered with Arave Well (water‑rights claim) | Well 4’s pumping dewatered aquifer so Arave couldn’t divert their senior right | Plaintiffs failed to show they couldn’t obtain any measurable portion and did not use reasonable diversion methods | Reversed: plaintiffs failed to prove diversion was reasonable and to quantify loss, so interference not established |
| Whether Pineview interfered with Snowberry Well (Venture) | Well 4 hindered Snowberry’s ability to produce water for the Inn | Venture exceeded its original right; even if senior, it didn’t prove inability to obtain a quantifiable portion or reasonableness | Reversed: Venture retains 1960 right but failed to show reasonableness and quantifiable loss |
| Negligence in siting/drilling/operating Well 4 | Pineview negligently located/used Well 4; harm was foreseeable | Pineview not liable for drilling by prior developers; no expert proof on standard of care/causation | Judgment as to negligence not reversed on appeal; remanded to reconsider and make additional findings in light of interference reversal |
| Damages (refunds and prospective remedies) | Plaintiffs sought fee refunds, pump replacement, property damage, and ongoing relief | Refunds excessive for periods when Well 4 was inactive; awards must track actual injury periods | Partially vacated: refunds limited to periods when Well 4 actually caused injury; damages and prospective remedies remanded for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bingham v. Roosevelt City Corp., 235 P.3d 730 (2010 UT 37) (interference claim requires proof that junior lowering of water table hindered senior’s diversion; plaintiffs with no appropriation of soil moisture have no enforceable right to table level)
- Wayman v. Murray City Corp., 458 P.2d 861 (Utah 1969) (adopting the rule of reasonableness balancing seniority and efficient, beneficial use)
- Fairfield Irr. Co. v. White, 416 P.2d 641 (Utah 1966) (affirming replacement‑water remedies and recognizing priorities among appropriators)
- Wayment v. Howard, 144 P.3d 1147 (2006 UT 56) (interference determinations are fact‑dependent and afford deference to trial court)
- Graves v. N.E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (2015 UT 28) (noting ordinary negligence questions can be resolved by lay factfinder without expert testimony)