Opinion ID: 2606242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Colman's canal property for purposes of article I, section 22?

Text: Article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution provides, Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. A claimant must possess some protectible interest in property before that interest is entitled to recover under this provision. Colman alleged that the Utah Division of State Lands and Forestry granted him, as part of a lease with the state, an easement for the maintenance and operation of the canal. It has always been accepted in this state that even an implied easement is a property interest protectible under article I, section 22. Utah State Road Comm'n v. Miya, 526 P.2d 926, 928-29 (Utah 1974); Hampton v. State ex rel. Road Comm'n, 21 Utah 2d 342, 345, 445 P.2d 708, 710 (1968); Dooly Block v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 37, 33 P. 229, 231-32 (1893). An express easement, such as that alleged by Colman, is also private property for the purposes of article I, section 22. See Whiterocks Irrigation Co. v. Mooseman, 45 Utah 79, 79-80, 141 P. 459, 460 (1914); Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-2(2) (Supp. 1989). Nichols on Eminent Domain states, An easement is an interest in land, and it is taken in the constitutional sense when the land over which it is exercised is taken; but if it is only destroyed and ended, a destruction for public purposes may also be an appropriation for the same purpose. 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 5.14, at 5-186 (3d ed. 1989) (citing United States v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333, 339, 30 S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787 (1910)). A lessee holding under a valid lease also has a property interest protected by the takings clause of the constitutional provisions: It has been judicially established that lessees for years or from year to year, holding under a valid devise, grant, or lease, have such an interest in property as to be classed as owners in the constitutional sense, and to be entitled to compensation for the taking of their interest... . 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 5.06, at 5-97 to 101 (3d ed. 1989). We conclude that Colman has alleged a property interest protectible under article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution. We emphasize again that we regard the allegations of the complaint as true. We do not look to evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing. Colman cannot recover if the State proves that in fact there was no canal or that Colman had no legal rights in the canal. Colman can only recover for the taking of property to the extent that property exists and to the extent he has legal rights in that property.