Delta Canal Co. v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch, LC
2013 UT 69
| Utah | 2013Background
- Irrigation Companies (Delta Canal Co., Melville Irrigation Co., Abraham Irrigation Co., Deseret Irrigation Co., Central Utah Water Co.) and Frank Vincent Family Ranch, LC dispute Vincent’s Sevier River water right
- The 1936 Cox Decree awarded 22 c.f.s. flow with storage of 90% of water yielded from April 16 to Oct 1, totaling a 5,000 acre-feet volume
- Vincent purchased the right in 1998 and used it for crops and commercial bird hunting; alleged nonuse during 1988–1998 (partial nonuse) and post-1998 use reduction
- Irrigation Companies contend there was partial forfeiture and partial abandonment during a 20-year nonuse window preceding the 2008 suit
- District court granted summary judgment for Vincent, holding pre-2002 partial forfeiture unavailable and post-2002 exceptions protected Vincent
- Utah Supreme Court reverses and remands, holding partial forfeiture existed pre-2002 and clarifying post-2002 rules, abandonment as a common-law claim, and measurement of Vincent’s right
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-2002 Forfeiture Statute allowed partial forfeiture | Irrigation Cos.—pre-2002 allowed partial forfeiture | Vincent—no partial forfeiture before 2002; physical-causes exceptions apply | Pre-2002 permit of partial forfeiture is available |
| Whether Beneficial Use Statute requires partial forfeiture to enforce safety of use | Irrigation Cos.—beneficial use supports partial forfeiture | Vincent—beneficial use alone allows nonuse without forfeiture | Beneficial use supports partial forfeiture as the governing policy |
| Whether 2002 amendment §73-1-4(3)(f)(i) codifies the physical-causes exception | Irrigation Cos.—exemption does not create safe harbor | Vincent—exemption protects during shortages | Exemption codifies the physical-causes exception; not a blanket safe harbor |
| Whether abandonment is a statutory or common-law claim | Irrigation Cos.—abandonment within Forfeiture Statute | Vincent—abandonment is common-law | Abandonment is a common-law claim requiring intent, not a statutory result |
| How to properly measure Vincent’s water right (flow vs volume) | Irrigation Cos.—need full use of 5,000 af; volume needed | Vincent—Cox Decree flow (22 c.f.s.) with implied volume; both should be defined | Water right measured as flow 22 c.f.s. plus inferred volume 5,000 af; both components defined for proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Marble Creek Irrigation Co., 49 P. 892 (Utah 1897) (recognizes limits of rights to use water based on beneficial use)
- Rocky Ford Irrigation Co. v. Kents Lake Reservoir Co., 135 P.2d 108 (Utah 1943) (physical-causes exception; nonuse due to force majeure may avoid forfeiture)
- Eskelsen v. Town of Perry, 819 P.2d 770 (Utah 1991) (partial forfeiture policy supported by doctrine of beneficial use)
- Platt v. Town of Torrey, 949 P.2d 325 (Utah 1997) (extent of right limited by beneficial use; five-year nonuse not always required for limitation)
- Sigurd City v. State, 142 P.2d 154 (Utah 1943) (beneficial use foundational to water rights prior to codification)
- Green River Canal Co. v. Olds, 110 P.3d 666 (Utah 2004) (overview of general adjudication process and beneficial use)