Utah Court of Appeals
Can prescriptive easements be established in natural streams under Utah law? Lowry v. G&L Enterprises Explained
Summary
Palmer and Lowry owned adjacent properties separated by old state highway 89, with a spring-fed stream flowing from Crystal Springs through Palmer’s property to Lowry’s property. After a dispute over Lowry’s intention to replace the stream with a pipeline, Lowry filed suit seeking a prescriptive easement over the road crossing Palmer’s property. The trial court granted Lowry easements in both the stream bed and over the road.
Analysis
In Lowry v. G&L Enterprises, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah Code section 57-13a-102, which governs prescriptive easements in water conveyances, applies to natural streams or only to artificially created water channels.
The case arose from a dispute between neighboring property owners Palmer and Lowry over water rights and road access. Water from Crystal Springs flowed naturally through Palmer’s property to Lowry’s property via a stream. When Lowry proposed replacing the stream with a pipeline, Palmer objected, leading to litigation over prescriptive easement rights.
The trial court granted Lowry prescriptive easements in both the stream bed and over a road crossing Palmer’s property, applying Utah Code section 57-13a-102. However, the Court of Appeals found this application of the statute was incorrect.
The court analyzed the statutory language of section 57-13a-102, which defines “water conveyance” as “a canal, ditch, pipeline, or other means of conveying water.” Using principles of statutory interpretation, the court examined the ordinary meaning of “ditch,” finding it refers to “a long narrow excavation dug in the earth” that requires human action to create artificially.
The court also applied the ejusdem generis doctrine, noting that since the specific terms “canal, ditch, [or] pipeline” all refer to artificially created watercourses, the general term “other means of conveying water” should be interpreted as restricted to similar artificially created conveyances, not natural streams.
Consequently, the court reversed the grant of prescriptive easement in the stream bed because the statute did not apply to the natural Crystal Springs stream. However, it affirmed the easement over the road because Palmer failed to adequately preserve his challenge to the trial court’s factual findings on that issue.
Case Details
Case Name
Lowry v. G&L Enterprises
Citation
2011 UT App 94
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100130-CA
Date Decided
March 24, 2011
Outcome
Reversed in part and Affirmed in part
Holding
Utah Code section 57-13a-102, governing prescriptive easements in water conveyances, does not apply to natural streams.
Standard of Review
Broad measure of discretion for trial court’s conclusion that prescriptive easement exists; correctness for statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging the adequacy of trial court findings on appeal, parties must specifically object at the trial court level to preserve the issue, as waiver rules apply strictly to inadequate factual findings arguments.
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.