Utah Supreme Court
Can the state engineer declare water right forfeiture in change applications? Jensen v. Jones Explained
Summary
Marilyn Hamblin owned a water right that had not been used for over 20 years, and when she sought to change its place of use and point of diversion, the state engineer denied the application based on forfeiture. The district court granted summary judgment for the state engineer, concluding that the water right had been forfeited by operation of law.
Analysis
In a significant decision for Utah water law practitioners, the Utah Supreme Court in Jensen v. Jones established clear boundaries on the state engineer’s authority when reviewing water right change applications.
Background and Facts
Marilyn Hamblin owned Water Right No. 55-11041 for diversion from Spring Creek, a tributary of the Provo River. After the creek went completely dry in 2002, Hamblin filed a permanent change application in 2004 seeking to change the water right’s place of use and point of diversion to Highland City. The state engineer denied the application, finding the water right had not been used for over 20 years and concluding it had been forfeited under Utah Code section 73-1-4. The district court granted summary judgment for the state engineer, agreeing that automatic forfeiture had occurred.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the state engineer has authority to determine that a water right forfeiture has occurred when reviewing a change application. A secondary issue involved whether amendments to the forfeiture statute requiring judicial action applied retroactively.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that the state engineer lacks authority to adjudicate forfeiture issues in change application proceedings. The court emphasized that the state engineer “acts in an administrative capacity only and has no authority to determine rights of parties.” Instead, when reviewing change applications, the state engineer must follow the statutory criteria in Utah Code section 73-3-8(1), none of which involves forfeiture determinations. The court noted that “the determination of existing [water] rights… is peculiarly a judicial function.”
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for water law practitioners. The state engineer retains options when forfeiture appears likely, including staying change applications pending judicial adjudication, bringing suit under Utah Code section 73-2-1, or granting conditional approval. However, the engineer cannot simply declare forfeiture and deny applications on that basis. Practitioners should challenge state engineer decisions that exceed these statutory limitations and argue for proper judicial proceedings when forfeiture issues arise.
Case Details
Case Name
Jensen v. Jones
Citation
2011 UT 67
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20090742
Date Decided
October 28, 2011
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The state engineer lacks authority to declare a water right forfeited when reviewing a change application and must instead follow the statutory criteria set forth in Utah Code section 73-3-8(1).
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment decisions
Practice Tip
When challenging a state engineer’s decision based on forfeiture grounds, argue that the engineer exceeded statutory authority since forfeiture determinations are judicial functions beyond administrative scope.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.