Did the Utah Supreme Court, in Butler, Crockett, and Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co., Expand the Scope of Beneficial Use in the Water Rights Context?

摘要

In Butler, Crockett, and Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.,1 the Utah Supreme Court tested Utah water law's traditional notions of beneficial use when it held irrigation of indigenous vegetation can constitute beneficial use under appropriate circumstances.2 Even though this represents the first time a Utah court recognized a non-economic water use as beneficial,3 it most likely does not represent the major step towards the recognition of private water rights for wildlife habitat flows that environmentalist groups had hoped.4 Writing for the Court, Justice Parrish expressly cautioned, "watering indigenous vegetation generally is not a beneficial use and may, in fact, be wasteful, [and] a determination of beneficial use relies on the individual facts and circumstances of a given situation."5 Using this subjective approach, the Court gave significant deference to the trial court's finding, based largely on the trial judge's personal visit to the property, that Butler, Crocket, and Walsh Development Corporation (BCWDC) had created and maintained an active system of diversion points and ditches for irrigation.