Opinion ID: 2520075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Trial Court Correctly Apply Traditional Standing Requirements?

Text: ¶ 19 The trial court held that the Conservancy District could not challenge the approval of the change application or assert forfeiture of the CPB's water rights unless the Conservancy District could show that it would suffer some demonstrable or measurable harm absent a forfeiture. In other words, the trial court required the Conservancy District to show a measurable connection between the water use of the CPB and the Conservancy District's own water use or proposed water use. The Conservancy District argues that this requirement is not supported by our case law and that the trial court, in effect, created a new test for standing. ¶ 20 We have recognized that the first and most widely employed standard for establishing standing requires a plaintiff to show some distinct and palpable injury that gives rise to a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute. Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n, 869 P.2d at 913. This requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate such particularized injury is the traditional test for standing. Soc'y of Prof'l Journalists v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166, 1170 (Utah 1987). ¶ 21 The trial court held that the Conservancy District could show a particularized injury only by demonstrating some connection between the water use of the CPB and that of the Conservancy District. Absent such a connection, neither the state engineer's approval of the change application nor any forfeiture of the CPB's water rights would have any impact on the Conservancy District. The trial court's holding in this respect was appropriate. The trial court did not create a new test for standing as the Conservancy District contends. Rather, it correctly applied the traditional rule.