Haik v. Jones

The Utah Supreme Court has issued its decision in the case of Haik v. Jones. The case started in April 2014 when Salt Lake City filed a change application to modify one of the City's water rights to add an additional 25 acres to the authorized place of use in order to allow for 10 homes to be built in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Mark Haik, who has engaged in several lawsuits against the City in the past two decades trying to force the City to serve water to his property in Little Cottonwood Canyon, protested the change application. Mr. Haik alleged, among other things, that the change application was not filed in good faith and that the City was violating the Utah Constitution, which prohibits cities from selling or otherwise disposing of its water rights. Despite Mr. Haik's protest, the State Engineer approved the change application.

Mr. Haik then petitioned the district court to review the State Engineer's decision. The City challenged Mr. Haik's standing to pursue the petition. The district court determined that Mr. Haik did not have proper standing, and dismissed his petition. Mr. Haik then appealed the district court's decision to the Utah Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court first analyzed whether Mr. Haik had "traditional standing." Utah Code section 73-3-14 provides that only "aggrieved" persons may seek judicial review of a State Engineer decision, and the Supreme Court has previously interpreted this statute to mean that a person must show "some distinct and palpable injury." Mr. Haik asserted that his status as a landowner in Little Cottonwood Canyon met this requirement. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that Mr. Haik lacked traditional standing.

The Supreme Court then analyzed whether Mr. Haik qualified for "public interest standing." To qualify for public interest standing, a person must show that there is an issue of significant public importance and that the person is an appropriate party to pursue the action. Mr. Haik asserted that his constitutional claims met these requirements. The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that Mr. Haik's constitutional claims were of significant public interest. However, the Supreme Court determined that these claims were not properly before the court. The Supreme Court noted that the State Engineer does not have authority to adjudicate constitutional claims in a change application setting, and therefore constitutional claims could not be appealed to the district court and the Supreme Court.

Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mr. Haik's case.

To read the full opinion, click here.