452 P.3d 1158
Utah2019Background:
- Metro (Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy) holds an easement for the Salt Lake Aqueduct Corridor crossing land now owned by SHCH Alaska Trust; Metro operates a pipeline along a 42‑mile corridor.
- Metro adopted regulations restricting uses within the Corridor (bans on structures, planting, certain storage, fence specs, and license requirements for some activities) and told Alaska it needed a license for a commercial zipline.
- Alaska operated the zipline without a Metro license; Metro sued for injunctive and declaratory relief; the district court granted Metro summary judgment, concluding the Limited Purpose Local Districts Act authorized Metro to regulate private uses in the Corridor and that the easement was 200 feet wide.
- Alaska appealed. The Utah Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and whether the district court erred in treating a 1961 Federal Bureau of Reclamation engineer description as dispositive of easement scope.
- The Supreme Court held the Act does not authorize a limited purpose local district to enact land‑use regulations over private property it does not own; Metro’s power is limited to its easement rights. The Court also held the district court erred in treating the 1961 description as controlling, and remanded to determine (1) whether Alaska’s zipline unreasonably interfered with Metro’s easement rights and (2) the proper scope of the easement under balancing principles.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Metro) | Defendant's Argument (Alaska) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Limited Purpose Local Districts Act (Title 17B) authorizes Metro to enact land‑use regulations over private fee land within the Corridor | Act grants Metro broad powers to acquire, operate, and regulate rights‑of‑way and to adopt rules for efficient operation; read together, provisions permit regulation of private uses in the Corridor | Act confers only powers expressly or necessarily implied; it does not authorize a local district to regulate private land use—Metro’s authority is limited to its property/easement rights | Reversed: Act does not authorize Metro to regulate private property use; Metro may only act within its easement rights and statutory powers already granted (must respect common‑law property principles) |
| Whether the easement across Alaska’s land is 200 feet wide based on a 1961 Bureau of Reclamation engineer description | The 1961 written description (recorded) establishes the easement’s 200‑foot width | Easement created under the 1890s Act is a floating/roving easement; scope must be determined by purpose and a factual balancing of interests, not conclusively by the 1961 description | Reversed: the engineer’s 1961 description may be evidence but is not dispositive; remand for factual determination of easement scope under floating‑easement principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Coca‑Cola USA, 48 P.3d 941 (Utah 2002) (summary judgment standard and review principles)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. FPA W. Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed for correctness)
- Basin Flying Serv. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 531 P.2d 1303 (Utah 1975) (agencies/local entities have only statutory powers conferred by legislature)
- McBride v. McBride, 581 P.2d 996 (Utah 1978) (servient‑estate owner may use property so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with easement)
- N. Union Canal Co. v. Newell, 550 P.2d 178 (Utah 1976) (easement holder cannot unreasonably restrict servient‑estate owner's use; reasonableness is fact dependent)
- Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, 174 P.2d 148 (Utah 1946) (use of an easement must be as reasonable and as little burdensome to the servient estate as its purpose permits)