Opinion ID: 2519896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: purpose of use for which the water was originally appropriated.

Text: Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-3(2)(a) (Supp.2003). Mr. Prisbrey builds his argument on the definition of any person entitled to the use of water, whom he claims to be Leucadia in this case. However, we have previously held that this phrase refers strictly to a party who alone owns the right as an appropriator to the use of public waters. East Jordan Irrigation Co. v. Morgan, 860 P.2d 310, 313 (Utah 1993). An appropriator is designated by statute to be a party who has made an application [to] the state engineer for the right to use water. Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-2(1)(a) (Supp.2003); see also East Jordan Irrigation Co., 860 P.2d at 313 (Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-2 requires any person seeking to appropriate water to do so by written application to the state engineer.). In this case, only Bloomington has made application to the state engineer for use of the water rights in question. Thus, under the facts of this case, any person, as used in section 73-3-3(2)(a), means only Bloomington Water Company. Bloomington alone owns the right as an appropriator of the water rights at the proposed points of diversion. ¶ 24 Furthermore, under its lease with Bloomington, Leucadia owns only a terminable possessory interest in the water rights and, because it acquired an option to buy its leased rights, an executory right to purchase them at some later date. Because Leucadia's interest in the water rights is for a fixed term, it would be illogical to permit Leucadia to make a permanent change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose for use. Were we to adopt Mr. Prisbrey's interpretation of section 73-3-3(2)(a), we would countenance the derogation of the rights of appropriators. ¶ 25 Accordingly, we conclude that Leucadia was not the only party entitled to the use of water under section 73-3-3 of the Utah Code, and that omitting Leucadia as an applicant did not render the state engineer's published notice of proposed change in any way deficient. ¶ 26 Since Mr. Prisbrey has not succeeded in demonstrating that the state engineer's published notice of Bloomington's proposed change application was somehow invalid, it necessarily follows that his protest to the change was not timely filed, and therefore not properly before the state engineer. Section 73-3-7 of the Utah Code unambiguously states that water change protests must be filed with the state engineer within 30 days after the noticed is published, if the adjudicative proceeding is formal. [4] Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-7(1)(b) (Supp.2003). The published newspaper notice stated that protests were to be filed on or before May 26, 1999, and gave the mailing address of the state engineer in Salt Lake City. Mr. Prisbrey did not communicate his objections except by letter, dated September 10, 1999, almost four months after the published due date. Even then, the letter was incorrectly sent to the Utah State Water Board in Cedar City. Clearly Mr. Prisbrey lacked standing, as a matter of law, to challenge the change application proceedings, having failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a timely protest to the state engineer. We accordingly affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bloomington, dismissing Mr. Prisbrey's petition for judicial review of the state engineer's adjudicative proceedings.