Stern v. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy
2012 UT 16
| Utah | 2012Background
- Point of the Mountain Aqueduct is a 60‑inch pipeline along the Draper Canal delivering culinary water to Salt Lake City and others; private property owners abutting Reaches 16–19 challenge whether District’s use exceeds its rights.
- District acquired the canal through Draper City and Draper Irrigation Company and constructed the buried aqueduct on land formerly used for the Draper Canal, originally built by ULIC between 1915 and 1921.
- ULIC obtained Reaches 16–19 via Crosgrove Deeds (16–17), a Crane Judgment (18) and a Smith Decree (19); these instruments defined rights and restraints along the canal path.
- Over time the canal’s use evolved: storm drainage use began in 1975; irrigation flows ceased in the 1990s; the District began construction of the aqueduct in 2005 and cement air‑valve structures rose above ground; a public bike path was built along the graded canal surface.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Water District; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for questions concerning the interpretation of the Crosgrove Deeds, Crane Judgment, and Smith Decree and the reasonableness of the canal enclosure.
- Key holdings include: Reach 18 conveyed fee simple to ULIC; Reaches 16–17 conveyed fee simple with restrictive covenants running with the land restricting use to canal purposes; Reach 19 easement covers canal purposes including culinary water but remand on enclosure reasonableness; abandonment claim for Reach 19 dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach 18: did Crane Judgment convey fee simple or mere easement? | Plaintiffs contend Crane Judgment only easement. | District argues Crane Judgment conveyed fee simple. | Crane Judgment conveys fee simple; no restrictive covenant. |
| Reaches 16–17: did Crosgrove Deeds convey fee simple or easement, and do covenants run with the land? | Crosgrove Deeds conveyed fee with covenants personal. | Deeds convey fee; covenants run with the land. | Deeds conveyed fee simple; covenants run with the land. |
| Do Crosgrove Deeds' 'canal purposes only' covenants run with the land? | Covenants are personal, not binding on successors. | Covenants run with the land. | Yes, covenants run with the land; limit Reaches 16–17 to canal purposes. |
| What does 'canal' mean in this context—open canal, enclosed pipeline, and culinary uses? | 'Canal' limited to irrigation and open waterways. | 'Canal' includes culinary uses and may encompass a buried pipeline. | 'Canal' includes culinary uses and may encompass a buried pipeline; enclosure must be evaluated factually. |
| Reach 19: has Draper Irrigation abandoned its easement? | Non-use since irrigation ceased constitutes abandonment. | Use for storm drainage continued; no abandonment. | No abandonment; summary judgment affirmed for Water District on abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon Lake Water Users Ass'n v. Hanson, 535 P.2d 1262 (Utah 1975) (whether a judgment 'in fee' limits to easement when not contested)
- Haynes v. Hunt, 85 P.2d 861 (Utah 1939) (interpretation of grant language; fee vs easement)
- Flying Diamond Oil Corp. v. Newton Sheep Co., 776 P.2d 618 (Utah 1989) (intent and running covenants; touch and concern)
- Moyle v. Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co., 174 P.2d 148 (Utah 1946) (reasonableness and enclosure of canals; modernization)
- Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305 (Utah 1998) (enclosure of open canal as reasonable improvement; burden)
- Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, 174 P.2d 148 (Utah 1946) (easement enlargement for improvements; reasonableness standard)
- Park City Utah Corp. v. Ensign Co., 586 P.2d 446 (Utah 1978) (judgment as contract; interpretation of written instruments)
- Hartman v. Potter, 596 P.2d 653 (Utah 1979) (deed interpretation; rules of construction)
- W. Gateway Storage Co. v. Treseder, 567 P.2d 181 (Utah 1977) (easement running with the land; abandonment not by non-use alone)