Opinion ID: 2633010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Application Process Is Strictly Prescribed by Statute

Text: ¶20 The application process for appropriating water can be conceptually divided into two stepsinitiation and consideration. The appropriation process is initiated by filing an application with the State Engineer. Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-2(1) (Supp. 2007). The application contains basic information about the applicant and the requested appropriation. Id. § 73-3-2(1) to -(2). On receiving a completed application, the State Engineer records the date on which he received it. Id. § 73-3-5(1). At this point, the State Engineer must examine the application and determine whether any corrections, amendments or changes are required for clarity and if so, see that such changes are made before further processing. Id. § 73-3-5(2). If the application complies with the statutory requirements, it is filed and recorded. Id. § 73-3-5(3). So ends the initiation step. ¶21 Once an applicant has successfully initiated an application, the appropriation process moves into the consideration step as the State Engineer begins the process for making a decision on the application. The State Engineer must publish a notice of the application in a local newspaper. Id. § 73-3-6(1)(a). Following publication, only clerical errors, ambiguities, and mistakes that do not prejudice the rights of others may be corrected by the State Engineer. Id. § 73-36-(1)(c). The purpose of publication is to allow any person interested [to] file a protest with the state engineer. Id. § 73-3-7. The State Engineer considers these protests, among other statutory requirements, in deciding whether to approve or reject the application. Id. § 73-3-7(2); id. § 73-3-8 (outlining standards governing State Engineer's consideration of an application). ¶22 A party who fails to comply with the statutory requirements for initiating an application for appropriation, as set out by section 73-3-2, has failed to exhaust administrative remedies because the application has not been considered on the merits by the State Engineer and it has not been published in order to notify potentially affected parties. Cf. id. § 73-3-8(1) (outlining factors necessary for the State Engineer to approve an application); see also id. § 73-3-6 (requiring publication of an application after it has been properly filed). This distinction between the initiation step and the consideration step is important in the context of a claim that an applicant has failed to exhaust administrative remedies because an application that has not been properly initiated, per statutory requirements, has not been considered by the State Engineer, and it would be inappropriate for a court to review de novo an application that the State Engineer has not even considered. ¶23 In this case, Western Water failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because the Revised Application did not comply with the statutory requirements for initiating an application. First, the Revised Application was sufficiently different from the Original Application that it constituted a new application. The State Engineer does not have authority to reconsider a new application. Second, the new application was submitted in an improper form.