The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the case of Arave v. Pineview West Water Company. This case focused on issues of interference with well water rights.
The Araves and other plaintiffs had water rights that allowed them to divert water from two wells for their two homes and a bed and breakfast. Most of these water rights were established in the 1960s and 1970s. Pineview West Water Company ("PWCC") had a larger, junior water right that is allowed to be diverted from deeper and stronger wells to supply water to 70 homes and irrigate 20 acres. One of PWCC's wells is located only a few hundred feet from the plaintiffs' wells. When the PWCC well was first test pumped in 2004, it affected one of the plaintiffs' wells almost immediately. Within hours, the well was unable to pump any water and was sucking air, which resulted in silt damage to the two homes. A subsequent test yielded the same results. The plaintiffs' other well also experienced issues, albeit to a lesser degree. To resolve the issue, PWCC connected the plaintiffs to its water system and provided them with water for a flat rate of $20 per month. Several years later, however, PWCC sought to increase the fees to match the fees paid by other PWCC customers. When negotiations broke down, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit claiming interference with water rights, negligence, and nuisance.
Following a four-day trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their interference and negligence claims. The court concluded that when PWCC's well was operating, it deprived the plaintiffs' first well of "virtually all water" and obstructed the second well's ability to produce water. The court also concluded that PWCC had been negligent in locating, drilling, and using its well in such close proximity to the plaintiffs' wells. The court ordered PWCC to stop pumping its well unless it could demonstrate that it could do so without interfering with the plaintiffs' two wells or, in the alternative, to provide replacement water to the plaintiffs at no cost to the plaintiffs. The court also awarded PWCC to pay approximately $50,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiffs. PWCC appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court.
The Court began by laying out the elements of an interference claim. To prevail on an interference claim, a plaintiff must establish that
(1) they have an enforceable water right;
(2) their water right is senior to the defendant's water rights;
(3) their methods and means of diversion are reasonable;
(4) despite their reasonable efforts, they are unable to obtain the quantity or quality of water to which they are entitled; and
(5) the defendant's conduct obstructed or hindered their ability to obtain that water.
The Court determined that the district court had made insufficient findings regarding the third and fourth elements. With respect to the third element, the district court had not made findings about whether the plaintiffs could have lowered their pumps or modified their wells to reach the available water. With respect to the fourth element, the plaintiffs had not offered evidence about how much water they used or how much of their allowed water they were not able to obtain (due in part to the fact that the plaintiffs did not have a meter on their wells).
Thus, the Court reversed the district court's ruling that PWCC's well had interfered with the plaintiffs' two wells. Because the district court's negligence determination was related to its interference determination, the Court remanded the negligence claim back to the district court for further factfinding and analysis. The Court also vacated a portion of the compensatory damage award and remanded to the district court to revisit the calculation of compensatory damages based on the reversal of the interference determination.
To read the full opinion, click here.
Posts
