Opinion ID: 2566838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irrigation of Natural Vegetation as Beneficial Use

Text: ¶ 51 Having determined the applicable standard of review, we now address PPOC's claim that BCWDC's irrigation efforts did not qualify as beneficial use. Our legislature has declared that beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to the use of water in this state. Utah Code Ann. § 73-1-3 (1998); see also id. § 73-3-1 (stating that appropriation must be for some useful and beneficial purpose). Accordingly, [a]n appropriative water right depends on beneficial use for its continued validity. Eskelsen, 819 P.2d at 775. Beneficial use is more than use alone; thus, a finding of beneficial use requires more than a mere diversion of water. Richfield Cottonwood Irrigation Co. v. Richfield, 84 Utah 107, 34 P.2d 945, 949 (1934) (The mere fact that the city of Richfield has for many years diverted water from Cottonwood creek does not give it the right to the use of such water nor establish a right thereto. It must be made to appear that the water diverted has been put to a beneficial use.); see also Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Assoc. v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 (Colo.1999) (Diversion of water by itself cannot ripen into a water right if the water is not used beneficially.). Similarly, a diversion of water merely to serve purposes of speculation or monopoly will not constitute beneficial use. See Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-8 (1998). ¶ 52 As developed in the courts, beneficial use has two different components: the type of use and the amount of use. Neuman, 28 Envtl. L. at 926. PPOC's forfeiture claim turns on the first of these components, namely, whether Walsh's irrigation of natural vegetation was the type of use that could be considered beneficial. ¶ 53 At trial, Walsh testified that his irrigation of BCWDC's property allowed him to successfully cultivate various plants of a type indigenous to the area, including plants he purchased at a nursery and relocated to the property. Walsh further testified that he was able to harvest berries and also trees to gift to friends and family, and that the enhanced foliage provided feed and cover for animal life in the area. The trial court found that Walsh's irrigation produced the benefits of, among other uses, satisfy[ing] aesthetic desires, reduc[ing] the fire hazard, and creat[ing] property line buffers. The trial court then ruled that the use of water to these ends, under the circumstances of this case[,] does constitute a beneficial use. The trial court did not cite, nor did BCWDC provide, any case law recognizing the use of water to these ends as beneficial. [5] Instead, the trial court relied on the notion that beneficial use as a concept has evolved beyond the traditional requirement that a use result in economic benefit, stating, The early cases holding that a beneficial use meant an agricultural crop, or use in a heavy industrial setting, did not necessarily exclude uses that might be recognized today as a beneficial use, such as enhancing or maintaining indigenous foliage and vegetation. ¶ 54 Whether Walsh put the water to a beneficial type of use is a close question. We are particularly skeptical of ends that appear to be merely incidental to water use and that are declared as beneficial only in hindsight. However, because the trial court is entitled to significant discretion in applying principles of beneficial use, we affirm the trial court's finding that the water available under WUC 57-3442 was put to beneficial use during the alleged forfeiture period and its corollary holding that PPOC failed to establish its forfeiture claim. We caution, however, that our holding should not be interpreted to imply that irrigation of natural vegetation generally constitutes beneficial use. Such an interpretation would not only be inaccurate, it would expand the concept of beneficial use beyond any meaningful application in future disputes. ¶ 55 While watering indigenous vegetation generally is not a beneficial use and may, in fact, be wasteful, a determination of beneficial use relies on the individual facts and circumstances of a given situation. In cases such as this, consideration of the ends to which the irrigation has been applied is particularly relevant. For example, it is conceivable that one water user would irrigate natural vegetation for purposes of land reclamation or cultivation of vegetation for grazing, [6] while another might inattentively run water through fallow fields merely as a subterfuge to maintain a water right or to hoard water for speculation. While the former situation could conceivably constitute beneficial use, the latter could not.