Estate of Steed v. New Escalante Irrigation Co.
Utah Supreme Court
846 P.2d 1223 (1992)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
New Escalante Irrigation Company (New Escalante) (defendant) had long-established appropriative water rights in the Escalante River in Utah that it used for agricultural purposes. Initially, New Escalante employed a flood-type irrigation system. Overflow from the irrigation (wastewater) would drain into Alvey Wash. Water from the Escalante River did not otherwise feed the wash. Paul Steed had a later-acquired decreed water right in the wash and took advantage of the wastewater from New Escalante’s irrigation. In 1982, New Escalante changed its irrigation system to a much more efficient sprinkler system that significantly diminished the water runoff to Alvey Wash. Mary Kazan, as the administratrix of Paul Steed’s estate (Steed) (plaintiff), sued New Escalante, seeking damages and injunctive relief to enforce Steed’s claimed right to the wastewater from New Escalante’s operation as part of his water rights in the wash. The trial court rejected Steed’s claim because there was no direct connection between the Escalante River and Alvey Wash. Therefore, Steed could not compel New Escalante to continue using its appropriative rights in the Escalante River to continue feeding the wash and Steed’s water needs. Steed appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howe, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.