Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy v. SHCH Alaska Trust

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued a decision in the case of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy v. SHCH Alaska Trust. The case focused on the scope and size of an easement for a water pipeline, as well as a district's authority to regulate land use within the easement area.

The District owns an easement for a water pipeline across the Trust's property in Wasatch County. The Trust determined to build a commercial zipline course on its property, and received a conditional use permit from Wasatch County. The District purported to enact regulations restricting land use within the easement area on the Trust's property. Pursuant to these regulations, the District asserted that the Trust was required to obtain a license from the District before constructing the zipline course. The Trust moved ahead with the zipline course without obtaining the permit. The District then sued the Trust in district court and requested that the court order the Trust to comply with the District's regulations. The Trust counterclaimed and asked the court to determine the relative property interests of the parties, including the scope and size of the easement.

The district court ruled that Utah law granted regulatory authority to the District. Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment to the District. The district court also determined that the easement was 200 feet in width. The Trust then appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court first examined the District's assertion that it had regulatory authority. The District cited several provisions of the Utah Limited Purpose Local Districts Act to support its asserted authority. The Supreme Court reviewed each of these provisions and determined that none of them granted the District the authority to enact land use regulations that affect the property of others. The Supreme Court also noted that statutes governing land use regulations by cities and counties carefully define and limit the regulatory authority, and that it would be unreasonable to allow districts to exercise similar authority without the same limitations and public participation requirements.

The Supreme Court held that the District's rights with respect to the easement were no different than the rights that any other easement holder has. These rights include the right to prevent the landowner from unreasonably interfering with the easement. The case was remanded to the district court to gather the facts and determine if the Trust's zipline course unreasonably interfered with the District's pipeline easement.

The Supreme Court also reviewed the district court's determination that the pipeline easement was 200 feet in width. The original documents establishing the easement did not define the size or scope of the easement; rather, the documents created and undefined "floating easement." In 1961, an engineer for the US Bureau of Reclamation drafted a written description of the easement, which defined it as a 200-foot easement. The district court had determined that this description was determinative. The Supreme Court determined that the written description could be considered, but was not dispositive. The case was remanded to the district court to gather the facts and determine the extent and width of the easement.

To read the full opinion, click here.