427 P.3d 1155
Utah2018Background
- Mark Haik owns undeveloped lots in Albion Basin and for years has sought additional water service to develop them; he is not among the property owners the City intended to serve with the challenged project.
- Salt Lake City filed Change Application #57-10013 to add ~25.165 acres to the approved place of use to accommodate a private water system sourcing Bay City Mine water for up to 10 homes (up to 8,000 gpd total).
- Haik administratively objected, arguing the application was filed in bad faith (speculation/monopoly) and that the City’s actions violated Utah Constitution art. XI, § 6 (improper alienation of municipal water); the State Engineer approved the change.
- Haik sought a trial de novo in district court under Utah Code § 73-3-14; the City and State Engineer moved to dismiss for lack of standing and for claims outside the State Engineer’s authority; Haik moved for leave to amend but did not attach a proposed amended pleading.
- The district court dismissed Haik’s petition for lack of standing, held his constitutional claims were not proper subjects of a trial de novo of a change application, and denied leave to amend as procedurally deficient and futile.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed: Haik lacked statutory and public-interest standing to challenge the State Engineer’s order in this forum, and his constitutional claims are not properly litigable in a change-application trial de novo; denial of leave to amend was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Haik's Argument | City/State Engineer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory standing to challenge State Engineer under § 73-3-14 | Haik claimed as a landowner with water needs he is an "aggrieved" person entitled to judicial review | Haik lacks a particularized, concrete injury from this specific change; statute limits review to persons "aggrieved by an order of the state engineer" | Haik lacks statutory standing—no particularized injury; dismissal affirmed |
| Public-interest standing | Haik urged public-interest standing because water allocation and alleged municipal alienation are matters of public importance | City/State argued public-interest standing cannot displace the statutory requirement that a plaintiff be "aggrieved" | Court assumed arguendo constitutional importance but held Haik still cannot press constitutional claims in this forum; two concurring justices would avoid applying public-interest doctrine |
| Proper scope of trial de novo reviewing change applications | Haik sought to litigate constitutional and broad policy claims as part of the de novo review | State Engineer/City: de novo review is limited to issues within State Engineer's statutory authority (Utah Code § 73-3-8) | Constitutional alienation claims are not within the State Engineer's authority and thus not proper in a change-application trial de novo |
| Denial of leave to amend | Haik sought leave to amend after motions to dismiss but did not submit a proposed amended petition or explain how to cure defects | City argued amendment was not pleaded and would be futile because standing defect could not be cured | Denial affirmed: procedural failure to attach proposed amended pleading and futility because Haik could not allege a basis for standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 393 P.3d 285 (Utah 2017) (factual and procedural background of Haik’s prior litigation over water service)
- Washington Cty. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 82 P.3d 1125 (Utah 2003) (equates "aggrieved" with traditional particularized-injury standing for review of State Engineer actions)
- Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 48 P.3d 895 (Utah 2002) (procedural requirement that a motion to amend include a proposed amended pleading)
- Jensen v. Jones, 270 P.3d 425 (Utah 2011) (limits on State Engineer authority in change-application proceedings)
- Badger v. Brooklyn Canal Co., 922 P.2d 745 (Utah 1996) (State Engineer lacks authority to decide certain non-statutory issues in change applications)
- Gregory v. Shurtleff, 299 P.3d 1098 (Utah 2013) (public-interest standing doctrine explained and applied)
- Eldridge v. Johndrow, 345 P.3d 553 (Utah 2015) (stare decisis framework for overruling/altering precedent)