EnerVest Ltd v. Utah State Engineer

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the case of EnerVest, Ltd. v. Utah State Engineer. The case focused on the issue of who has standing to appeal a district court's decision on an objection to a proposed determination.

Minnie Maud Creek is a stream in Duchesne County that is tributary to the Green River. The General Adjudication for Minnie Maud Creek was initiated in 1956, and the State Engineer issued a Proposed Determination in 1964. The Minnie Maud Reservoir and Irrigation Company ("MMRIC") was awarded twelve water rights in the Proposed Determination. Four objections were filed, which challenged eight of MMRIC's water rights.

In 2012, EnerVest filed a petition to expedite a hearing on the objections, which were still pending. The district court granted the hearing, but limited the scope to the question of whether MMRIC was correctly listed as the owner of the water rights. Several parties participated in the hearing, including EnerVest and Michael Carlson, who had not filed objections to the Proposed Determination, and the Hammerschmid Trust, who had filed an objection. EnerVest and the Hammerschmid Trust argued that MMRIC did not own the water rights, and Carlson argued that MMRIC did own the water rights. The district court agreed with Carlson, and ruled that MMRIC was correctly listed as the owner of the water rights in the Proposed Determination.

EnerVest and the Hammerschmid Trust appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Hammerschmid Trust voluntarily dismissed their appeal, leaving EnerVest as the sole appealing party. Carlson then challenged EnerVest's standing to continue the appeal.

The Utah Supreme Court first had to determine if the appeal was proper under Rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows appeals for individual claims within a larger case. The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was not proper for under Rule 54(b) because the district court did not offer a rationale for why the immediate appeal was necessary and because the district court's rulings were not final.

The Supreme Court then had to determine if the appeal was proper under Rule 5(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows interlocutory appeals (i.e., appeals before a case is final). As part of this determination, the Supreme Court examined whether EnerVest had standing to pursue the appeal. The key fact in this analysis was that neither EnerVest nor its predecessor-in-interest had filed an objection to the Proposed Determination, and a party who does not timely object to a Proposed Determination acquiesces to the Proposed Determination as published. Because EnerVest had already acquiesced to the Proposed Determination, it lacked standing to appeal the district court's decision upholding the Proposed Determination. Furthermore, EnerVest could not pursue the Hammerschmid Trust's interests in the appeal. As the Supreme Court noted, "a non-objecting party's interests can piggyback on another party's objection, but only as far as the objecting party is willing to travel. Once the objecting party chooses to end its objection's journey, the non-objecting party cannot take over.

Based on these determinations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

**On January 11, 2019, the Utah Supreme Court issued an amended opinion in this case. This article has been updated to reflect the amended opinion. To read the full amended opinion, click here.