Show BOUNTIFUL CITY OUT R t to 0 Control Barton Creek Waters Never Acquired I r r Jr L J O OF J 1 J Ceso 0 or of cS oilier 0 Court Mater Matters In an opinion hande handed down toa today the that Ih the rIght ot of ofa 1 a to the n ctr and regulation ot of water within It Its Urn Um Is Its to whIch others have hae a a right ad and ownership II Is based U it corent Consent Id and acquiescence ot of the 0 Te The decision was raa In the cu Cal Calof ot of John Fishier and ond othe others vs a City Charles n 8 JonC r al and ph L Holbrook mayor the tho judgment of Uw the Second curt court Henr henry 1 II jud judge 1 action w as brought by nd and others beneficIally interested lu sought ht to hn have V the acts act ut of City In and distributing the Waters ot of Darton Barton II a In the mountains t ot of t Ii l al ul also that the aton action of lie city council In levying luning Id antl n a ta tax tu to defray th the expense Df regulating the tha water cater ltd and the sale aJI ot of the Iho plaintiffs for taxes IO so levied upon 1 be beset It set aside js nul null rind void od anti and that to 10 the property w he quieted The cause was waa tried before Judge at ant anti judg judgment ment rendered In favor of then nn an I was token taken rho question for tor determInatIon wa was Cly CIty had the rIght uner under tho law t to distrIbute and control tim Waters water or of Daton Barton c creek k and to 10 ta ax the land laM of 01 to meet Ht the ox ln s ot of such Buch dIstributIon control J For or thiry thIrty laN ears prior to the filing or of the action plaintiffs and their grantors and predecessors In interest had used the tho water for tor various purposes I BountifUl ely City wa was incorporated In I 1593 but prior to this this ownen owners of the water hind organized the Creek IrrIgation com company ony elected their ot of floors levied assessments etc As ln soon ns as th the city wo was I it W the Iho of Dr the waleN lp up lumc pointed I a levied ta a as against the thit farms plaintIffs but without the an and against the tho st of plaintiffs o refused to pay the tax hiX and his prop property erty was sold ety lol I It was caime claimed by the appellants that City CIU was Incorporated under chapter 4 ot of th the Comple Complied baws ot of IlLS which provides for tor the he construction ot of wAterworks without the limits ot of the ct city and gives certain jurisdiction over oer the same ame th The curt court finds that tinder section 1251 revIsed statutes 1995 water 15 rights to land hand pass by p deed With lh the land hand unless or 11 may 11 he treated 1 na conveyed and separately So Bo tar far al as appears her itero the olin opha Ion reads th ho waler vater was 11 In an mont ment Appurtenant to the land owned by The plaintiffs curi court finds no evidence In tim tho record to Justify It In hul holding II I that plaintIffs had liati forfeited their rights In tM th wlter water In fact the tue opinIon reads Their ownershIp and right to the tho lan land and water h is unquestioned 1011 Had the cl city token taken possession anti and control ot of the ot of creek with the consent coment or of the owners and then for tor seven years pr continued luch sueh control the court Ourt holds hoMs I It would have acquired tItle hat t tte The court finds that the right ln eon tended for tor bY b Bountiful was 1 never II In Is its ell city Justice MIner Uner wrote the opinion was concurred In by ChIef Justice Bartch ant and Justice |