Opinion ID: 2566838
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weight of Proposed Determination

Text: ¶ 38 We next address PPOC's contention that the trial court accorded undue deference to the state engineer's proposed determination regarding WUC 57-3442. The appropriate deference to be accorded to the state engineer's determination is a question of law that we review for correctness. Wilson Supply Inc. v. Fradan Mfg. Corp., 2002 UT 94, ¶ 11, 54 P.3d 1177 (Generally, we review a trial court's legal conclusions for correctness, according the trial court no particular deference. (citation omitted)). ¶ 39 The trial court gave great weight to the state engineer's determination, which supported BCWDC's claim to WUC 57-3442. PPOC argues that the trial court did so improperly, thereby abdicating its role as sole arbiter of law and fact. While PPOC acknowledges that determinations of the state engineer are generally entitled to at least some weight, it reasons that the claims and circumstances presented by this particular case render the state engineer's determination irrelevant. The state engineer agrees that the proposed determination was not relevant to the allegations of forfeiture in this case. ¶ 40 We have previously explained the singular role played by the state engineer in the process of water rights adjudication. See, e.g., Green River Canal Co. v. Thayn, 2003 UT 50, ¶¶ 28-30, 84 P.3d 1134; United States Fuel Co. v. Huntington-Cleveland Irrigation Co., 2003 UT 49, ¶ 14, 79 P.3d 945; In re San Rafael River Drainage Area, 844 P.2d 287, 289-90 (Utah 1992); In re Escalante Valley Drainage Area, 11 Utah 2d 77, 355 P.2d 64, 65 (1960). The state engineer is an executive, not a judicial officer, and does not have authority to adjudicate the rights of water users. Green River Canal Co., 2003 UT 50 at ¶ 30, 84 P.3d 1134 (citations omitted). Accordingly, courts are not obligated to defer to the state engineer's proposed determinations. [4] United States Fuel Co., 2003 UT 49 at ¶ 14, 79 P.3d 945 (While courts may consider the state engineer's determination persuasive in determining parties' respective rights, they are under no obligation to defer to his or her findings.). At the same time, however, we have recognized that the state engineer has `special training in the operation and control of natural streams and irrigation and other artificial use and control of water and water rights' and that `he is especially qualified to understand the facts involved in these problems.' Green River Canal Co., 2003 UT 50 at ¶ 31, 84 P.3d 1134 (quoting E. Bench Irrigation Co. v. State, 5 Utah 2d 235, 300 P.2d 603, 606 (1956)); see also In re Escalante, 355 P.2d at 65 ([The state] engineer's determination is not an arbitrary thing but is based upon many things, including an extensive survey of the area and its water systems and ditches.). ¶ 41 The proposed determination in this case recommended that WUC 57-3442 be awarded to BCWDC. The proposed determination, published in 1983, was based on field inspections of BCWDC's property conducted in October 1981 and February 1982. However, PPOC's forfeiture claim was based on the period of April 1982 to April 1990. Given that the dates of alleged forfeiture extend far beyond the dates of the state engineer's field inspections, we agree with PPOC that the state engineer's recommendation could have only limited bearing on the forfeiture determination in this case. Nevertheless, we do not find that the trial court's consideration of the proposed determination necessitates reversal of the trial court's ruling because the trial court independently assessed the evidence offered by the parties and was unable to find, based upon the evidence offered, that BCWDC[ ] forfeited its water right under WUC 57-3442, based upon non-use. The trial court, in making its own factual findings, stated that the evidence shows that BCWDC has used the water during the time period in question. This finding did not rely on the state engineer's proposed determination and was itself sufficient to deny PPOC's claim.