Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik
2019 UT App 4
| Utah Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Haik and Raty claim portions of a 1910 Morse Decree water right (Original Water Right) via WRN 57-7800, seeking to divert Little Cottonwood Creek water to lots in Albion Basin.
- A 1934 Agreement granted Salt Lake City (SLC) winter (Oct 1–Apr 1) use of most of the Original Water Right, reserving 7,500 gallons/day for the Ditch in the non-irrigation season.
- WRN 57-7800 was returned to creek diversion and later divided among six owners in 2003; Haik and Raty hold interests and filed change applications to divert to their lots (some change applications were approved for others; Haik’s and Raty’s remain pending).
- SLC and the Metropolitan Water District sued for a declaratory judgment on the nature, validity, and priority of Haik’s and Raty’s claimed rights; they also moved for partial summary judgment asserting (1) the 1934 Agreement limits winter use and (2) Haik’s and Raty’s portions were forfeited for seven years of nonuse.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment: holding the 1934 Agreement limits Haik’s and Raty’s winter rights and that their portions of WRN 57-7800 were forfeited for nonuse. The court also dismissed Raty’s counterclaims seeking mandatory water service and constitutional protections. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief on competing water rights | Haik & Raty: SLC/District lack a particularized injury and thus lack standing | SLC/District: they hold overlapping rights to the same source (Creek) and face impairment of public supply; declaratory relief is proper | Held: SLC and District have standing—overlapping claims to same source create a justiciable controversy |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / exhaustion of administrative remedies | Haik & Raty: SLC/District must exhaust administrative appeals of state engineer’s change decisions before court action | SLC/District: adjudication of water rights is judicial; state engineer lacks authority to finally determine parties’ rights | Held: District court had jurisdiction; exhaustion not required because adjudication of rights is beyond the state engineer’s authority |
| Forfeiture for seven years nonuse of WRN 57-7800 portions | Haik & Raty: evidence shows water diverted to Ditch and used by successors; court failed to analyze volume/materiality and applied incorrect legal standard; statute of limitations bars claim | SLC/District: no evidence Haik/Raty used their specific portions since 2003; no lease/agreements to save rights; statute of limitations not triggered because no return to beneficial use | Held: Forfeiture proper—no evidence Haik/Raty put their portions to beneficial use or executed leases; no need for quantitative analysis where use is nonexistent; statute of limitations did not bar claim |
| Raty’s counterclaims for mandatory municipal water service and constitutional protections | Raty: SLC must supply water to her lot (in service area) under Utah Const. art. XI §6; due process, equal protection, and PSC regulation claims | SLC/District: article XI §6 protects municipal inhabitants within city limits; supplying nonresidents is permissive; no protectable property interest; PSC regulation barred by state constitutional precedent | Held: All counterclaims dismissed—Raty is not an "inhabitant" for art. XI §6 protection, no property interest for due process, no class-of-one equal protection showing, and municipal water distribution not subject to PSC oversight |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 82 P.3d 1125 (Utah 2003) (overlapping claims to same water source can confer standing for declaratory relief)
- Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145 (Utah 1983) (elements required for declaratory-judgment actions and standing analysis)
- Sanpete County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Price River Water Users Ass’n, 652 P.2d 1302 (Utah 1982) (declaratory relief resolves uncertainties between competing water claims)
- Delta Canal Co. v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch, LC, 420 P.3d 1052 (Utah 2013) (forfeiture analysis requires focus on materiality/volume when some beneficial use exists)
- Jensen v. Jones, 270 P.3d 425 (Utah 2011) (state engineer acts in an administrative capacity and cannot finally adjudicate competing water rights)
- County Water System v. Salt Lake City, 278 P.2d 285 (Utah 1954) (municipal water distribution beyond city limits is not subject to Public Service Commission regulation)