Metropolitan Water District v. Sorf

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the case of Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy v. Sorf. The primary issue in the case was enforcement of easement rights associated with a water pipeline.

Metropolitan Water District owns and operates the Salt Lake Aqueduct, a large pipeline that transports water from Deer Creek Reservoir to the Salt Lake City area. The District owns some of the land along the course of the Aqueduct and has easements along other parts of the course of the Aqueduct. Zdenek Sorf is the owner of a parcel of land that the Aqueduct crosses, and in 1946, the then-owner of his land deeded a 125-foot wide easement for the Aqueduct. The District passed regulations controlling use of the Aqueduct easements by the landowners, including a prohibition on the construction of structures or the planting of trees within the easement areas.

Mr. Sorf made improvements to his property within the boundaries of the District's easement. These improvements included a hot tub, a gazebo, garden boxes, a water feature, and a shed. The District filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Mr. Sorf from making any more improvements within the easement area and to allow the District to remove the existing improvements. Mr. Sorf asserted that the case was not yet "ripe" because the District had no current plans to repair, replace, or reconstruct the Aqueduct across Mr. Sorf's property, and that his improvements were not interfering with the District's current operation of the Aqueduct. The district court agreed and dismissed the District's claims. The District appealed the case to the Utah Supreme Court.

The Court began its decision by noting that a dispute is ripe "when a conflict over the application of a legal provision has sharpened into an actual or imminent clash of legal rights and obligations of the parties thereto." The Court concluded that the easement dispute between the District and Mr. Sorf met this standard because the District had valid, deeded easement interests "to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain" the Aqueduct. The Court noted that the district court had incorrectly focused on whether Mr. Sorf's improvements were interfering with the Aqueduct, and that the focus should have been on whether Mr. Sorf's improvements were interfering with the easement. Thus, the Court concluded that there was a "live dispute" that was ripe for judicial resolution.

In the end, the Court reversed the district court's dismissal and sent the case back to the district court because "the parties are both entitled to a determination of whether [Mr. Sorf's improvements] are permissible, and if not, a determination of the proper remedy."

To read the full text of the opinion, click here.