Court Opinion

ID: 9544450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:41.089291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:00.523170
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur but would like to add the following :
The appellant, hereafter called Commission, brought an action under the eminent domain statute to condemn a parcel of land belonging to the respondents. The value of the land taken and severance damage, i. e., the damage caused to the land not taken because of the construction, were fixed by a jury at $75,000. No complaint is made by either party as to this sum. This should have been the end of the matter in connection with the eminent domain statute.1
The defendants had drain ditches in their lands to lower the water table, and the water thus collected in the drain ditches was personal property and was as such sold to others.
The court permitted the defendants to claim damages against the Commission for an alleged diminution in the amount of water drained from its land collected in the ditches and sold. There was no pleading made by defendants claiming such damages and no notice ever filed with the Attorney General as required by Sec. 63-30-12, U. C.A. 1953 (Replacement Vol. 7A). Therefore, the claim made could not be asserted against the Commission even if immunity was waived so as to permit recovery.
I am unable to find in the statutes of this State where sovereign immunity is waived for a claim such as the one being made here. The matters for which immunity from suit is waived are set out in Title 63, Chapter 30, U.C.A.1953 (Replacement Vol. 7A), and are:
Sec. 5. Contractual obligations.
Sec. 6. Recovery of real or personal property.
Sec. 7. Negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Sec. 8. Dangerous conditions of a highway.
Sec. 9. Dangerous conditions of public building.
Sec. 10. Negligent acts or omissions of an employee within the scope of his em*23ployment — with stated exceptions thereto.
Although the attorney for the Commission prior to trial stipulated that the amount of loss to the defendants for diminution of drain water could be tried at a separate hearing, that would not, and could not, waive any sovereign immunity of the Commission or make a cause of action where none otherwise existed. An attorney representing the Commission would not be able to change the law. Only the legislature of this State could do that.
As to the rights of the defendants in and to the drain water, they had none whatsoever until they got it in their ditches. They had made no beneficial use of the water and did not have any right to have the water table remain at any particular level. Anyway, the level would vary from year to year according to the amount of rain which falls and to the amount of irrigation water placed on higher land.
As farm lands would be subdivided and no irrigation water used thereon, the water table 'would likewise fall. Would anyone claim that diminution caused thereby of water in defendants’ ditches would give them a cause of action against the subdi-vider or against a farmer who elected not to irrigate? It would seem that if they have a right to compel the state to refrain from lawful activity which diminishes the amount of water which they collect in their drain ditches, they should likewise have the same rights against the subdivider and the farmer who by their lawful conduct caused the water table to be lowered.
I would reverse the trial court on two grounds: First, the claim made cannot be maintained against the Commission because the defendants have no rights to the water until they collect it in their drain ditches; and second, if the claim could have been maintained against the Commission, it is forever barred now because the defendants did not file their claim with the Attorney General within one year after it arose as required by Sec. 63-30-12, U.C.A.1953 (Replacement Vol. 7A).

. Sec. 78-34-10, U.C.A.1953.