Utah Court of Appeals
What must a party prove to condemn an irrigation easement in Utah? Bresee v. Barton Explained
Summary
The Bresees sought to establish an irrigation easement across the Bartons’ property to access their reservoir water shares. After their exchange-of-use agreement was terminated, Mr. Bresee illegally installed a T-connection to the Bartons’ mainline. The district court granted summary judgment against the Bresees on their eminent domain claim and awarded bad faith attorney fees.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Bresee v. Barton, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the requirements for establishing an irrigation easement through eminent domain under Utah Code section 73-1-6. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling water rights and property access disputes.
Background and Facts
The Bresees purchased property surrounded on three sides by the Bartons’ land. While the Bresees owned eleven shares in the Parowan Reservoir Company, they lacked access to their water rights after their exchange-of-use agreement with the Bartons was terminated. Without permission, Mr. Bresee entered the Bartons’ property, dug a trench, and installed a T-connection to the Bartons’ irrigation mainline. The Bartons removed the connection and filed counterclaims.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the Bresees could establish an irrigation easement through eminent domain when such an easement would interfere with the Bartons’ existing water use. Utah Code section 73-1-6 permits condemnation for irrigation purposes but requires that the right of way not “unnecessarily impair” or “injure” other property rights.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling. The Bartons presented evidence that they regularly pumped water from their irrigation well to supplement reservoir shares due to insufficient water resources. The court held that the Bresees failed to address the considerable interference issue, essentially conceding that their eminent domain claim did not meet statutory requirements. The court also affirmed the award of bad faith attorney fees, finding the Bresees lacked factual support for their claims.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that Utah Code section 73-1-6 contains an essential non-interference requirement. Practitioners must conduct thorough factual development before pursuing eminent domain claims for water access. The case also demonstrates the importance of addressing opposing parties’ interference arguments in summary judgment proceedings and the risks of proceeding without adequate discovery or factual support for statutory claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Bresee v. Barton
Citation
2016 UT App 220
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140565-CA
Date Decided
November 3, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A party seeking to condemn an irrigation easement under Utah Code section 73-1-6 must demonstrate that the easement would not interfere with the defendant’s existing water rights and use.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment reviewed for correctness with no deference; motions for new trial and motions to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion; bad faith determination reviewed for clear error; without merit determination reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When pursuing eminent domain for water access, conduct thorough discovery to establish that the proposed taking will not interfere with the defendant’s existing water use before filing suit.
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.