The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in the case of
Utah State Engineer v. Johnson. This case is part of the larger
General Adjudication for the Utah Lake / Jordan River area.
In 1981, East Warm Creek Irrigation and Canal Company filed a
Water User's Claim in the General Adjudication, which claimed the right to divert 4.96 cfs for the irrigation of 407.5 acres and stockwatering of 250 head. In 1985, the State Engineer filed the
Proposed Determination with the district court, which included the Company's claimed water right. No one (including the Company) objected to the Company's claimed water right in the Proposed Determination.
In 1999, the Company filed a
Diligence Claim with the State Engineer, which asserted the right to irrigate an additional 64.6 acres. The Company asserted that these 64.6 irrigated acres had been unintentionally omitted from its 1981 Water User's Claim. Two weeks after filing the Diligence Claim, the Company transferred a 50% interest in the Diligence Claim to Evan Johnson.
In 2000, the State Engineer filed an Amendment to the Proposed Determination with the Court, which recommended that the Company's Diligence Claim be disallowed. Johnson objected to the Amendment. Following several years of discovery and negotiation, the State Engineer moved for summary judgment on Johnson's objection. The State Engineer argued that the Diligence Claim was barred by
Section 73-4-9 of the Utah Code and that the Diligence Claim could not modify the Proposed Determination because the only way to modify a Proposed Determination is through a properly filed objection -- which had not been filed. The district court agreed the State Engineer, and dismissed Johnson's objection. Johnson appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals.
Johnson argued that the Diligence Claim was proper and that the State Engineer denied his due process rights by issuing the Amendment to the Proposed Determination, which recommended that the Diligence Claim be disallowed. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and noted that Section 73-4-9 of the Utah Code specifically provides that a person who fails to timely file a claim in the General Adjudication "shall be forever barred and estopped from subsequently asserting any rights, and shall be held to have forfeited all rights all rights to the use of the water therefore claimed by him." Thus, the Court concluded that because the Company's 1981 claim asserted the right to irrigate only 407.5 acres, and because the Company did not object to this right as contained in the Proposed Determination, the Company was statutorily prohibited from later asserting additional irrigated acreage under the 1999 Diligence Claim. The Court of Appeals further held that Johnson's due process rights were not violated because Johnson's predecessor (the Company) had proper notice of the General Adjudication process, as evidenced by the fact that the Company participated in the General Adjudication proceedings.
Johnson also argued that the State Engineer should have been prohibited from seeking summary judgment due to its failure to prosecute the case in a timely manner. The Court of Appeals again disagreed. The Court of Appeals noted that General Adjudications are "highly unusual in nature" and take longer than normal cases. The Court also noted that Johnson had an obligation and opportunity to move the litigation forward, and did not do so. Finally, the Court noted that Johnson and the State Engineer had engaged in lengthy negotiations, which included a failed stipulation, which were a reasonable cause for delay in the case proceedings.
The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnson's objection. The end result is that the Company's Diligence Claim is disallowed, as proposed in the Amendment to the Proposed Determination.
To read the full opinion,
click here.
Posts
