Salt Lake City v. East Jordan Irrigation Co., 40 Utah 126

Summary

Salt Lake City sought to condemn the right to enlarge and use an existing irrigation canal owned by East Jordan Irrigation Company. The court upheld the statute authorizing canal enlargement and concluded that the proposed use was public and necessary, but reversed the damages judgment because damages had been measured improperly and included injuries to individual water users who were not parties. It held that compensation should be limited to actual damage to the corporation’s property or use, including the value of any land taken and proven costs or impairment caused by the enlargement.

Holdings

1. Salt Lake City's proposed use of the enlarged canal to improve water delivery to its inhabitants was a public use.
2. A proceeding under Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 1288x22, to enlarge another's irrigation canal is governed by principles applicable to eminent domain.
3. Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 1288x22, complied with Utah Constitution article I, section 22, because it required compensation for damages caused by the enlargement.
4. Just compensation is measured by the money value of the canal owner's actual loss or damage caused by the taking, enlargement, or interference with use, not by the value of the benefit gained by the condemning city.
5. The irrigation company could recover only damages suffered by it as a corporate entity; it could not recover damages belonging to individual stockholders or water users for injuries to their private rights.
6. If the canal owner retains possession and use of the canal, no property is actually taken, and the enlargement causes no additional costs, expenses, or impairment of use, the owner may recover only nominal damages.
7. Recoverable damages may include the value of land actually taken or damaged, the cost or loss associated with diverting appliances that must be changed, corporate losses from temporary interference with water distribution, the substantial value of unused wider canal portions appropriated for the city's use, and any diminution in the canal's usable value for the company's existing purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Salt Lake City's proposed enlargement and joint use of East Jordan Irrigation Company's canal constituted a public use.
2. Whether Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 1288x22, was unconstitutional because it did not provide for just compensation.
3. What measure of just compensation governed the city's enlargement and joint use of the canal.
4. Whether the irrigation company could recover damages suffered by individual stockholders and water users who were not parties to the proceeding.
5. Whether the damages judgment and trial instructions required reversal and a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded