Can neighbors acquire water rights through prescriptive easements in Utah? Valcarce v. Fitzgerald Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Valcarce v. Fitzgerald addresses the complex intersection of prescriptive easements, water rights, and attorney fee awards in neighbor disputes over irrigation systems.

Background and facts: The Julanders owned property with rights to the Packer-Stauffer Spring and leased it to Fitzgerald for farming. An irrigation canal had carried water from the spring across the Valcarce property to the Julander and neighboring properties for over forty years. After the Valcarces acquired adjacent property in 1989, Paul Valcarce repeatedly damaged the canal’s head gate, removed damming devices, and plowed dirt into the canal, preventing water from reaching downstream properties. Fitzgerald eventually filed suit to establish his prescriptive easement rights.

Key legal issues: The court addressed whether a prescriptive easement existed, whether Fitzgerald’s installation of PVC pipe exceeded the scope of the easement, and whether attorney fees were properly awarded under section 78-27-56 for the Valcarces’ allegedly meritless and bad faith litigation conduct.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court applied Utah’s established rule that once a claimant shows open and continuous use under claim of right for twenty years, use is presumed adverse unless the servient estate owner proves initial permissive use. The Valcarces failed to rebut this presumption. The court also applied Utah’s unique approach to water easement improvements, recognizing that water users in Utah’s arid climate must contemplate future conservation measures. Fitzgerald’s PVC pipe installation constituted a reasonable improvement that didn’t materially burden the Valcarce property. However, the court found error in the attorney fee award, noting that fees must be properly allocated between successful and unsuccessful claims.

Practice implications: This decision reinforces Utah’s liberal approach to prescriptive easements for water rights and the presumption of adverseness after twenty years of open use. For practitioners handling water rights disputes, the case demonstrates that reasonable conservation improvements are generally permissible within existing easements. When seeking attorney fees under section 78-27-56, counsel must carefully document time allocation between different claims and parties, as wholesale fee awards will face appellate scrutiny.