Opinion ID: 2334067
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reach 19: Abandonment

Text: ¶ 78 In support of the claim that the Draper Irrigation Company [43] abandoned its Reach 19 easement in 1993, appellants assert that Draper Irrigation: (1) ceased transporting irrigation water in the canal, (2) terminated its water rights at the diversion point correlating with that stretch of the canal, (3) discontinued using the pumping station that delivered water to Reach 19 of the canal, and (4) constructed a buried irrigation pipeline through other portions of the canal. [44] The district court granted summary judgment to the Water District on this issue because Draper Irrigation continuously used the canal for storm water drainage, even after the company discontinued using it for irrigation water. We affirm. ¶ 79 Although an easement may be abandoned, such claims are not easily won. A party asserting that an easement has been abandoned must show by clear and convincing evidence that the owner intended to abandon the property right. [45] Moreover, where an easement is created by express grant, mere non-use of the easement is insufficient to demonstrate intent to abandon. [46] There must be additional clear and convincing evidence that the owner intended to make no further use of the property. [47] ¶ 80 As the district court concluded, appellants in this case fail even to show non-use. The canal was continuously used for storm water drainage during the period of alleged abandonment. The relevant time period for the alleged abandonment is between 1993, when irrigation flows ceased, and 1998, when Draper Irrigation recorded at the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office a notice of property interest covering its easement across Reach 19. But beginning in December 1975, Draper Irrigation entered into a series of agreements with Salt Lake County, authorizing the County to use the canal for storm drainage and flood control. These agreements continued in force with respect to Reach 19 until 1999. ¶ 81 Draper Irrigation's authorization to Salt Lake County refutes appellants' argument that Draper Irrigation intended to abandon the easement. Draper Irrigation can hardly be said to have intended to abandon its property interest while simultaneously permitting Salt Lake County's use. Entering into a carefully-crafted contractual agreement demonstrates intent to control access to the property and limit its use to authorized individuals, not to abandon the easement. ¶ 82 Appellants acknowledge that Salt Lake County used Reach 19with permission from Draper Irrigationfor storm water between 1993 and 1998. Yet they insist that use of the property for storm drainage is not use of the property for canal purposes, essentially arguing that Draper Irrigation abandoned the easement by using the canal for a purpose other than to transport irrigation water. This argument is flawed. First, the broad notion of canal purposes outlined above could easily include storm water drainage. See supra ¶¶ 61-67. And even if storm water drainage is ultimately outside the easement's scope, appellants' argument wrongly conflates intent to abandon with misuse of an easement. The claim for exceeding the scope of an easement is not abandonment, but trespass. Cf. Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 UT 48, 194 P.3d 897 (defendants charged with criminal trespass for exceeding scope of public easement). Abandonment claims require evidence not of misuse, but of non-use. Merely showing that the owner's use is possibly beyond the scope of an easement does not show intent to permanently discontinue using the property. ¶ 83 On this record, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that appellants have shown by clear and convincing evidence that Draper Irrigation discontinued using Reach 19 with the intent to permanently abandon its easement. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Draper Irrigation's successor in interest, the Water District.