## Facts

- Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District (the District) and Draper Irrigation Company (Draper) sought to permanently change existing water rights in several waterways, including changes to the point of diversion and the nature of use.
- The District and Draper filed a permanent-change application with Utah State Engineer Robert L. Morgan under Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-3.
- After the State Engineer gave preliminary approval, the applicants began constructing diversion facilities, including a screw gate, pipeline, and related structures.
- Stanley and Anne Bonham, and Boyd and Arleen Summerhays (plaintiffs), alleged the new diversion works caused substantial flooding and damage to their property in 1983 and 1984 and threatened ongoing seasonal flooding.
- Plaintiffs also asserted the flooding affected adjacent public land that was being considered for use as a public park.
- Stanley Bonham protested the change application, even though he did not use water from the creeks involved and did not claim impairment of a vested water right.
- The State Engineer concluded that he could not address Bonham’s objections because, in the State Engineer’s view, the change proceeding focused on impairment of vested water rights and Bonham was not a water user asserting such impairment.
- Plaintiffs sought judicial review in district court under Utah’s statutory review provisions, challenging the State Engineer’s handling of the change application.
- The State Engineer moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not “aggrieved persons.”
- The district court agreed, granted summary judgment against plaintiffs on count one for lack of standing, and certified the ruling as final under Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b), allowing an immediate appeal.

## Issues

1. When the Utah State Engineer evaluates a permanent-change application under Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-3, must the engineer apply the substantive criteria in § 73-3-8, including consideration of injury to others and detriment to the public welfare?
2. Are landowners who allege flooding and property damage from the approved change—despite not asserting impairment of an existing water right—“aggrieved persons” with standing to seek judicial review?

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that § 73-3-3’s direction to use the same procedure as appropriation applications brings in the substantive limits found in § 73-3-8, not just notice-and-hearing steps.
- The court rejected the view that change applications can avoid the statutory limits that apply to new appropriations, including consideration of injury to others and the public welfare.
- The court held that plaintiffs who alleged concrete flooding damage and harm affecting nearby public land were “aggrieved persons” entitled to pursue review and a trial on the merits of their statutory claim.

## Legal Principles

- A permanent-change application under Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-3 is subject to the substantive safeguards in § 73-3-8, including evaluation of injury to others and detriment to the public welfare.
- Utah’s statutory scheme does not confine protests and review to holders of vested water rights; non-water users may qualify as aggrieved persons when they allege direct harm caused by an approved diversion change.
- Statutory interpretation and standing determinations are questions of law reviewed without deference to the district court’s legal conclusions.

## Conclusion

*Bonham v. Morgan* holds that the Utah State Engineer must apply § 73-3-8’s substantive limits—including public-welfare and injury-to-others considerations—when deciding permanent-change applications under § 73-3-3, and that landowners alleging flooding and property damage from the change are aggrieved persons with standing to obtain judicial review and proceed to the merits.


Bonham v. Morgan, 788 P.2d 497 (1989)