Opinion ID: 2626015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the citizens have standing to challenge the council's passage of ordinance 454

Text: ¶ 14 Cloudrock argues that the Citizens lack standing to challenge the Council's passage of Ordinance 454 under both our traditional and alternative tests. The Citizens claim standing under both tests. Because we conclude that the Citizens have standing under our traditional test, we do not reach the parties' arguments regarding alternative standing. ¶ 15 Challenges to county land use decisions are governed by CLUDMA, [8] which provides rights to both an administrative appeal and then an appeal in the district court to any person adversely affected by a land use authority's [9] decision. [10] We have interpreted this language to provide statutory standing that is equivalent in scope to our traditional judicial test for standing. [11] Accordingly, a person has standing to challenge a county's land use decision under CLUDMA when he or she has (1) adequately alleged a personal injury resulting from a land use decision, (2) adequately alleged a causal relationship between the decision and the alleged injury, and (3) requested relief that is substantially likely to redress the alleged injury. [12] ¶ 16 Cloudrock first contends that the Citizens lack standing because their alleged injuries all stem from the Council's approval of the original development in 2002, rather than the Council's more recent approval of the amended development through Ordinance 454. Cloudrock asserts that the 2007 ordinance does not result in an increased impact on the quality or quantity of water because it does not change the number of ERU in the development over that approved in 2002. Cloudrock argues that because the Citizens' only allegations of injury relate to the impact of the development on the water supplied from the Glen Canyon Aquifer, and because the impact on the water supply (as measured by ERU) remains the same, there is no causal connection between the Citizens' alleged injuries and the approval of Ordinance 454. Instead, Cloudrock asserts that the Citizens' challenge is simply a belated and improper attack on the 2002 approval, which had already been upheld in the face of an earlier challenge. ¶ 17 The Citizens respond by setting forth specific ways in which the development would impact them directly, including impacts other than those on the quality and quantity of water available to them through the Glen Canyon Aquifer. [13] They also claim that Ordinance 454 has a new and different impact, and that absent Ordinance 454, Cloudrock's amended development could not go forward. They argue that [b]y seeking to amend earlier development approvals, Cloudrock once again put these matters at issue, subjecting its application to objection and challenge by those adversely affected. ¶ 18 We agree with the Citizens' position. Ordinance 454 was not just a collection of individual amendments to the development agreement approved by the Council in 2002. Rather, it approve[d] the [Cloudrock] Preliminary [Planned Unit Development] and Master Plan as proposed, and the Amended and Restated [Cloudrock] Development Agreement. Ultimately, even though a number of the provisions in the amended development agreement remained unchanged from those approved by the Council in 2002, it was the entire amended agreement that was presented to, voted on, and adopted by the Council. The agreement itself specifies that by executing the agreement, [t]he Parties desire to amend and restate in its entirety the Development Agreement. ¶ 19 In essence, Ordinance 454 replaced the original development agreement with the amended development agreement. And when the amended development agreement was substituted for the original development agreement, it, rather than the original agreement, became the operative source of the Citizens' alleged injuries, thus creating the requisite causal connection. Accordingly, we conclude that the Citizens' alleged injuries stem from the Council's approval of Ordinance 454 rather than the 2002 approval of the original development agreement. We next analyze Cloudrock's contention that the alleged injuries are insufficient to satisfy our traditional standing test. ¶ 20 Cloudrock argues that, even if the Citizens' alleged injuries stem from the approval of Ordinance 454, these injuries are insufficiently personal and particularized to confer standing. Cloudrock contends that the Citizens have not alleged a personal and particularized injury, but rather have alleged nothing more than injuries that are common to everyone who lives within the water district served by the Glen Canyon Aquifer. ¶ 21 Cloudrock's argument reflects a common misconception of the nature of our standing requirementsone that we attempted to clarify in our decision in Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Board. [14] In that case, we rejected the contention that plaintiffs who allege they have been injured in a personal way lack standing merely because others have suffered, or will suffer, a similar injury. Referring to the purpose underlying our standing requirementsensuring that plaintiffs have `a real and personal interest in the dispute' such that they will be incentivized to fully develop the relevant issues before the court [15] we stated: By claiming injuries to their health, property, and recreational activities, [plaintiffs] have shown that they have a particularized stake in the outcome of the dispute. While these concerns may be shared by many who live in [the area] ..., [plaintiffs] have not complained about the impact of the plant's emissions on the community in general, but have claimed that the emissions will directly affect them and their families. In other words, they are alleging private, rather than public, injuries. That others may also share their concerns and be subject to the same specific, individualized injuries does not make the potential harms any less personal to [plaintiffs]. [16] ¶ 22 Here, the Citizens have alleged that the amended development will result in dangerous increases of pollution in the water delivered to their propertywater they drink and use to cook and clean. This allegation of a direct and personal impact is sufficient to create the personal stake that our standing requirements demand. Because the Citizens have alleged personal, particularized injuries resulting from the Council's approval of the amended development, and because it is clear that a ruling reversing the Council's decision would redress the Citizens' alleged injuries by prohibiting the development, we hold that they have standing to challenge the Council's decision to approve Ordinance 454. We now turn to the merits of their challenge.