Can private developers use eminent domain to install utility pipes in Utah? Wild Country v. WEFive Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important question about private eminent domain authority in Wild Country v. WEFive, clarifying when private entities can condemn property for utility infrastructure.

Background and facts: WEFive purchased mountainside property in unincorporated Salt Lake County that lacked water and sewer access. The property was accessible only via a private road called Oberland Road. After unsuccessful negotiations to purchase easements from neighboring landowners Wild Country and the Lamberts, WEFive filed an eminent domain action seeking to condemn easements to install water and sewer pipes. WEFive had entered into a reimbursement agreement with the South Valley Sewer District and received conditional support from Sandy City, but neither entity would actually own or operate the proposed pipes.

Key legal issues: The case presented two critical questions: (1) whether installing utility pipes alone constitutes a valid public use under Utah Code sections 78B-6-501 to -522, and (2) whether WEFive qualified as the entity “in charge of public use” required by the Eminent Domain Statutes. The neighbors argued that only Sandy City or the Sewer District possessed authority to condemn property for water and sewer infrastructure.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that WEFive lacked eminent domain authority. The court emphasized that Utah Code section 78B-6-501(2)(c)(ii) requires pipes to be “for the use of inhabitants,” which necessitates actual water and sewage service through the pipes. Installing unused pipes serves no public purpose. Additionally, citing Salt Lake City Corp. v. Evans Development Group, the court ruled that WEFive could not qualify as being “in charge of public use” since it would only install pipes without operating the underlying utility services.

Practice implications: This decision reinforces strict limitations on private eminent domain authority in Utah. Private developers cannot circumvent public utility providers by claiming to serve a public use through mere infrastructure installation. The ruling also clarifies that the “person in charge of public use” requirement demands actual operational control over the public service, not just property ownership or construction oversight. Practitioners should carefully analyze both the public use element and the condemning party’s relationship to the proposed use when evaluating private eminent domain claims.