Opinion ID: 2460248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the city holds title to the exchange water

Text: ¶ 33 The district court ruled that the 1905 Agreement conveyed to the City Big Ditch's title to its Big Cottonwood Creek water right. The district court also determined that, rather than a straight exchange of titles, Big Ditch received only a contractual right to receive irrigation water from the City. Big Ditch contends that the Agreement involved a quid pro quo exchange of titles and that Big Ditch holds legal title to the water that the City is required to deliver to Big Ditch's system. [8] We uphold the district court's construction of the Agreement. ¶ 34 Both parties asserted in the district court that the 1905 Agreement is integrated and unambiguous and should be construed as a matter of law. The district court agreed, and neither party has appealed this finding. We therefore interpret the Agreement as a matter of law. ¶ 35 The Agreement states that Big Ditch grants, bargains and sells to the City all of the right of . . . its portion of the water flowing in Big Cottonwood Creek. In return, the City agreed to perpetually and continuously deliver to [Big Ditch] from the first day of April until the first day of October a flow of water suitable for the purposes of irrigation in an amount tied to the measured flow of the creek. The Agreement further provides that the City may deliver the water to Big Ditch from any source that the City sees fit. ¶ 36 We conclude that the City holds title to the water on both sides of the exchange. While Big Ditch's promise to the City contains language of conveyance, the City's commitment to deliver water to Big Ditch is devoid of conveyance language. Rather, the City retained the right to designate the sources of the water it delivers to Big Ditch, which is a fundamental attribute of ownership. Additionally, Big Ditch is not obligated to maintain its water rights; that responsibility rests with the City. We therefore conclude that the City holds title to all of the contract water. ¶ 37 The district court correctly concluded that the 1905 Agreement was not a mere exchange of title. Rather, the Agreement effectuated an exchange of title to Big Ditch's water right for a contractual commitment by the City to deliver water to Big Ditch. Therefore, the 1905 Agreement vested in the City title to all the water rights at issue. [9]