In Matter of General Determination of All Rights to Use of Water, 2005 UT 64 (UT 9/27/2005)
| Decision Date | 27 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 20040270.,No. 20040334.,20040270.,20040334. |
| Citation | 2005 UT 64 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the General Determination of All the Rights to the Use of Water, Both Surface and Underground, Within the Drainage Area of the Uintah Basin in Utah. Strawberry Water Users Association, a Utah nonprofit corporation; and Strawberry High Line Canal Company, a Utah nonprofit corporation, Petitioners and Appellants, v. Bureau of Reclamation; United States of America; and Department of the Interior, Respondent and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
¶ 1 This appeal probes whether jurisdiction should lie in the federal district court or in the courts of the State of Utah. The dispute centers around competitive applications filed by the Strawberry Water Users1 and the United States with respect to water imported from the upper reaches of the Duchesne River, a Colorado River tributary, into the Great Basin. The water is collected in the Strawberry Reservoir as part of the Strawberry Valley Project2 and delivered through a transbasin diversion tunnel for use primarily in the southern end of Utah County. The parties before the court are the Strawberry Water Users, the United States, and the Utah State Engineer.
¶ 2 The Strawberry Water Users argue that the water rights in question are the product of following the application and beneficial use requirements of Utah law and that Utah courts have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate claims relating thereto. "[T]he United States disagrees and contends that Strawberry's rights to use water derive solely from its contracts with the United States." It asserts "the proper forum for resolution of Strawberry's contract-based claims is federal district court." The State Engineer has submitted memoranda in partial support of the position of the United States.
¶ 3 The parties have not always been so certain about jurisdiction. This litigation began on April 24, 2001, when the Strawberry Water Users filed a petition for an interlocutory decree in the general adjudication of water rights pending since 1936 in Utah's Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County.3 Strawberry named the United States Bureau of Reclamation as respondent. One day later, Strawberry filed an
identical petition in the general adjudication of water rights pending since 1956 in Utah's Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Duchesne County.4 One day after that, it filed an action seeking essentially the same relief in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.5
¶ 4 Strawberry's uncertainty has been matched if not exceeded by that of the United States and the State Engineer. In support of its motion to dismiss the consolidated case in the federal district court, the United States asserted, "[N]either the state engineer nor the court in this action has jurisdiction to adjudicate title to water rights under Utah law." Similarly, the State Engineer moved to remand to state court "because this is not a case where the federal courts have original jurisdiction nor is there any federal question involved." Further evidence of the uncertainty of the United States is found in its protest of Strawberry's change application filed with the State Engineer:
[A]n adjudication of the [ownership of] water rights is required before a change of use application can be processed by the state engineer for this applicant. However, the authority to adjudicate water rights is vested by the Utah Constitution in the [Utah] courts and not given to the state engineer.. . . Thus, the applications must be dismissed pending the necessary adjudication.
¶ 5 After Strawberry filed its petitions in the state courts seeking adjudication, the United States made a complete reversal and urged dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It later withdrew this argument when the State Engineer granted conditional approval of change applications for both Strawberry and the United States. The condition was that the parties obtain a judicial determination establishing who has the right to file such applications. We think it fair to conclude that the parties have struggled with
how best to proceed and that the State Engineer, in particular, both needs and seeks direction. We note that it is not possible to flesh out the jurisdictional issue and provide appropriate guidance without a more extensive discussion of the substance of the dispute than would normally be required at this stage of the proceedings.
¶ 6 Both the Third and Eighth District Courts dismissed Strawberry's petitions for an interlocutory decree under Utah's general adjudications statute, Utah Code Ann. §§ 73-4-1 to -24 (2004). The dismissal orders are abbreviated and do not contain any legal analysis. The Third District Court stated that it "is not satisfied that petitioners' claims are properly a general adjudication proceeding," and that "petitioners seek to adjudicate ownership of water rights based upon federal contract, which should properly be before the Federal Court." The Eighth District Court essentially agreed but also determined that the United States had not been properly joined in the general adjudication in the Uintah Basin and that suits for interlocutory orders brought under Utah Code section 73-4-24 do not qualify for waiver of federal sovereign immunity under 43 U.S.C. § 666 (2005). Because the petitions sought essentially the same relief in each district court and were dismissed for similar reasons, the appeals of those dismissals have been consolidated.
¶ 7 We review the district courts' dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for correctness and accord no deference to their legal conclusions. Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81, ¶ 18, 31 P.3d 1147; see also Peterson v. Bd. of Educ., 855 P.2d 241, 242 (Utah 1993) ().
¶ 8 After thoughtful review we have determined that the dismissals should not stand, but we have also determined that the jurisdictional question does not lend itself to an either/or response. Depending upon how the parties proceed in light of our ruling, there could be issues suitable for either or both state and federal courts. It is our design herein to delineate as best possible between water law issues over which Utah courts have
exclusive jurisdiction and contract issues arising under the federal reclamation contracts over which the federal district court has jurisdiction. Moreover, there may be issues as to whether contractual arrangements, even if clear, would run afoul of Utah water law, which the United States Congress has recognized as controlling. To the extent possible at this juncture, we have attempted to provide guidance to the parties. We note particularly our responsibility to correct erroneous interpretations or assumptions of the State Engineer, who ultimately looks to this court for direction regarding application of Utah water law. Before examining the specific legal issues, we think it imperative to briefly outline the history of federal water reclamation projects followed by the particular history of the Strawberry Valley Project and the origin of the dispute between these parties. We also address the matter of the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity regarding disputes arising from reclamation projects.
¶ 9 "The final westward migration of the late 1800s resulted in an enormous demand by settlers for irrigation systems." Peterson v. United States Dep't of Interior, 899 F.2d 799, 802 (9th Cir. 1990). "As early as 1891, settlers in the western states organized annual irrigation congresses to discuss their water needs and to urge Congress to fund irrigation projects." Id. at 802 n.6. "Western states themselves lacked the means to finance the enormous systems of dams, reservoirs, and canals needed to regulate and distribute water from the western rivers and snow melt." Id.; see also California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 663 (1978).
¶ 10 California, 438 U.S. at 649; see also Peterson, 899 F.2d at 802; United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207, 209 (9th Cir. 1989). Responding to the pressing demand for financial assistance in
funding reclamation projects, Congress enacted the Reclamation Act of 1902. Pub. L. No. 57-161, 32 Stat. 388 ().
With the Reclamation Act of 1902, Congress committed itself to the task of constructing and operating dams, reservoirs, and canals for the reclamation of the arid lands in 17 western states. The projects were to be built on federal land and the actual construction and operation were to be in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior.
Peterson, 899 F.2d at 802 (citing California, 438 U.S. at 650, 664).
¶ 11 When Congress enacted the Reclamation Act of 1902, it had far greater expectations for the program than to...
To continue reading
Request your trial