Court Opinion

ID: 9552114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:04:55.546446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:40.288547
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree that the Salt Lake City Corporation should pay $50,000 for water which it did not condemn. Our statute1 provides for the recompense to the owner in condemnation proceedings as follows:
(1) The value of the property sought to be condemned.
(2) If the property sought to be condemned is only a part of a larger tract, the damages which will accrue to the part not taken by reason of its severance.
*1245(3) The damage occasioned by the proposed construction, although no part is taken.
(4) The benefit to the part not taken is to be deducted from the damage set out under (2) above.
It is now well settled law in this state that damage to a going business is not compensable. The amount to be paid for the land taken is the market value thereof valued at its highest and best use, and it is of no consequence whether the owner can or cannot make a profit by his own efforts and ingenuity. He gets no -pay for that.
Water which is appurtenant to land passes with the land unless reserved in the deed or grant.2 In the instant case, the water was not appurtenant to the land. It was used in the business of the landowner, to wit: for the washing of wool. Therefore, the water would not pass with the land even though a deed without a reservation were given.
In this case, the city did not condemn the water and, therefore, did not get any right to it. The landowner still owns the right to use the water. It can sell it to others and can change the point of diversion so long as that new point is still over the aquifer in which the water is stored.3
The only possible damage to the landowner would be the small fee payable to the state engineer for permission to change the point of diversion plus the cost of digging a new well, together with the cost of having an engineer certify that the water rights had been proved upon. However, it should be observed that the landowner had already been paid $635,694 for the value of the land, the well (including the piping), the plumbing connections, and all reservoir facilities in connection with the well and the diversion of the water. The expert witness for the city testified that a new well could be drilled for a cost of not to exceed $8,000.
The state engineer testified that there was no value to the water because the area was open to drilling and any person could obtain the same amount of water or more by simply filing an application and drilling a well.
All the realty and appurtenances affixed thereto had been paid for, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. The only matter for trial was the amount which the city should pay to the landowner, if anything, for the value of the right to use the water — a right which the city did not get and which the owner retained.
It is not proper to attempt to fix values by adding various elements of value together. When full compensation has been paid, it is not permissible to allow additional compensation for a specific element which may give value. That element would have to be considered in connection with all other matters, and the value of the property taken would then be determined at one time and not by adding together the piecemeal values.4
The water was not appurtenant to the land; it was not applied thereto. Instead, it was appurtenant to and used in the business of the landowner. Where water is available for the taking, there will be no value of it beyond the cost of possessing it. In this case, the value of the well and all appurtenances used in getting possession of the water was paid for in full. I think the landowner in this case has been fully paid for any damages he sustained by reason of the condemnation proceedings. I, therefore, would reverse the judgment of the trial court but would not award costs to either party.
CROCKETT, J., concurs in ELLETT’s, C. J., dissent.
HALL, J., does not participate herein.

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

. 73-1-11, U.C.A., 1953, as amended.

. 73-3-3, U.C.A., 1953, as amended.

. 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 136(8).