A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Landowner Lawfully Terminated From Irrigation System
Lindon City, Utah, enacted an ordinance governing a proposed secondary water system to be used for irrigation. The project was intended to reduce the cost, waste, and burden on the city's potable water system created by the diversion of its water into open canals administered by mutual irrigation companies. To accomplish its goal, the city required residents who desired connection to the secondary system and who owned shares in the irrigation companies to transfer water shares to the city. Peter Whitmer refused to transfer his shares, but he offered to pay a connection fee. The city refused. Subsequently the city finished the secondary water system and mistakenly connected Whitmer to it. When the mistake was discovered, the city terminated this connection. Whitmer sued the city, claiming an unconstitutional taking of his property. The trial court ruled for the city. The appellate court said residents' connection to the municipal secondary water system was optional. To connect, the court said, Whitmer was required to pay a connection fee of two irrigation company shares. However, the court said, he could have chosen to continue to irrigate with water from the irrigation company. The court emphasized that the city's scheme did not affect the irrigation company or Whitmer's access to it. Because Whitmer's shares and his use of the irrigation company were not taken or damaged by Lindon's ordinance, there was not unconstitutional taking of Whitmer's property, the court concluded. The trial court decision was affirmed.
Landowner Lawfully Terminated From Irrigation System
Lindon City, Utah, enacted an ordinance governing a proposed secondary water system to be used for irrigation. The project was intended to reduce the cost, waste, and burden on the city's potable water system created by the diversion of its water into open canals administered by mutual irrigation companies. To accomplish its goal, the city required residents who desired connection to the secondary system and who owned shares in the irrigation companies to transfer water shares to the city. Peter Whitmer refused to transfer his shares, but he offered to pay a connection fee. The city refused. Subsequently the city finished the secondary water system and mistakenly connected Whitmer to it. When the mistake was discovered, the city terminated this connection. Whitmer sued the city, claiming an unconstitutional taking of his property. The trial court ruled for the city. The appellate court said residents' connection to the municipal secondary water system was optional. To connect, the court said, Whitmer was required to pay a connection fee of two irrigation company shares. However, the court said, he could have chosen to continue to irrigate with water from the irrigation company. The court emphasized that the city's scheme did not affect the irrigation company or Whitmer's access to it. Because Whitmer's shares and his use of the irrigation company were not taken or damaged by Lindon's ordinance, there was not unconstitutional taking of Whitmer's property, the court concluded. The trial court decision was affirmed.
Landowner Lawfully Terminated From Irrigation System
1998-04-01
1 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2002
Landowner Entitled to Water Service
Wiley | 1988
Private Landowner Perspective on Landscape Management
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2004
Landowner Had Not Revived Water Right
Wiley | 1988