Utah Code » Title 73, Chapter 3 — Appropriation
Utah Code

Utah Code § 73-3-14 (2026)

Judicial review of state engineer order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person aggrieved by an order of the state engineer may obtain judicial review in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, and this section.
A person is aggrieved by an order of the state engineer approving or rejecting an application under Section 73-3-8 only if the person has suffered or will suffer a particularized injury from an action taken by the state engineer in accordance with Section 73-3-8.
Venue for judicial review of an informal adjudicative proceeding is in the county in which the water source or a portion of the water source is located.
A person who files a petition of judicial review shall join the state engineer as a respondent in a petition to review the state engineer's decision, but a court may not award a judgment for costs or expenses of the litigation against the state engineer.
A person who files a petition for judicial review as authorized in this section shall:
name the state engineer as a respondent; and
provide written notice in accordance with Subsection (5) to each person who filed a protest in accordance with Section 73-3-7 of:
the filing of the petition for judicial review; and
the opportunity to intervene in accordance with Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24.
In addition to complying with Subsection (3), a protestant in the adjudicative proceeding who files a petition for judicial review shall also name as a respondent the person:
who requested the adjudicative proceeding; or
against whom the state engineer brought the adjudicative proceeding.
A written notice required by this section shall:
be mailed:
within the time provided for by Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(b); and
to the address on record with the state engineer's office at the time the order is issued; and
include:
a copy of the petition; and
the address of the court in which the petition is pending.
If a person who files a petition for judicial review fails to provide notice as required by this section, the court shall dismiss the petition without prejudice upon:
the motion of a party;
the special appearance of a person who:
participated in the adjudicative proceeding; and
is not a party; or
the court's own motion.
A person who files a petition for judicial review is not required to:
notwithstanding Subsection 63G-4-401(3)(b), name a respondent that is not required by this section; and
notwithstanding Subsection 63G-4-402(2)(a)(iv), identify all parties to the adjudicative proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Bonham v. Morgan, 788 P.2d 497 (Utah 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bonham v. Morgan, 788 P.2d 497 (Utah 1989). · cites it 15× “Plaintiffs sued in the district court in compliance with Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1980), which provides in pertinent part: In any case where a decision of the state engineer is involved any person aggrieved by such decision may within sixty days after notice thereof bring a…”
Washington Cnty. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 2003 UT 58 (Utah 2003). · cites it 8× “Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1989). 2 . In an apparent attempt to shift [ocus from the standing issue, the Conservancy District also argues that appeals from orders of the state engineer approving change applications are subject to de novo review in the district court.”
Haik v. Jones, 2018 UT 39 (Utah 2018). · cites it 7× “Haik Lacks Standing Because He Is Not "Aggrieved by an Order of the State Engineer" ¶ 17 Before the district court, Haik argued he had standing to challenge the State Engineer's order under Utah Code section 73-3-14. That provision provides that "[a] person aggrieved by an order…”
Carbon Canal Co. v. Sanpete Water Users Ass'n, 425 P.2d 405 (Utah 1967). · cites it 10× “Section 73-3-14 of our code provides for a plenary review in the district court in any case where a decision of the State Engineer is involved and any party is aggrieved by such decision.”
Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673 (Utah 1989). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1980) (amended 1986 & 1987).”
S & G, INC. v. Morgan, 797 P.2d 1085 (Utah 1990). · cites it 4× “S & G, however, sought judicial review in the district court, contending that substantial economic rights were affected by the administrative decision, making S & G a "person aggrieved” and entitled to judicial review under Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1980). 1 S & G supports its…”
East Jordan Irrigation Co. v. Morgan, 860 P.2d 310 (Utah 1993). · cites it 4× “This matter arose in the district court under Utah Code Ann. §§ 73-3-14 (1989) and 63-46b-15 (1989) as a de novo review of the state engineer's decisions approving Payson's change application.”
Searle v. Milburn Irrigation Co., 2006 UT 16 (Utah 2006). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1989); see also id.”
W. Water, LLC v. Olds, 2008 UT 18 (Utah 2008). · cites it 2× “Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-14 (1989) (allowing any person "aggrieved" by an order of the State Engineer to obtain judicial review under sections 63-46b-1 through -28); id.”
Badger v. Brooklyn Canal Co., 966 P.2d 844 (Utah 1998). · cites it 2× “Following the memorandum decision, some of the protesters filed a petition for de novo review in the district court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §§ 73-3-14 and 63-46b-15 (1989).”
Badger v. Brooklyn Canal Co., 922 P.2d 745 (Utah 1996). · cites it 3× “” A number of the protestants then filed for de novo review before the district court in accordance with Utah Code Ann. §§ 73-3-14 (1989) and 63^6b-15 (1989).”
Rocky Ford v. Kents Lake, 2019 UT 31 (Utah 2019). · cites it 3× “¶37 Utah Code section 73-3-14 expressly authorizes judicial review of the State Engineer’s decision.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 73-3-14(1)(a) — 4 cases
Haik v. Jones, 2018 UT 39 (Utah 2018). “Haik Lacks Standing Because He Is Not "Aggrieved by an Order of the State Engineer" ¶ 17 Before the district court, Haik argued he had standing to challenge the State Engineer's order under Utah Code section 73-3-14. That provision provides that "[a] person aggrieved by an order…”
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik, 2019 UT App 4 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Utah Alunite Corp. v. Jones, 2016 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
Marriott v. Wilhelmsen, 2025 UT 35 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 73-3-14(2) — 1 case
Badger v. Brooklyn Canal Co., 922 P.2d 745 (Utah 1996). “” A number of the protestants then filed for de novo review before the district court in accordance with Utah Code Ann. §§ 73-3-14 (1989) and 63^6b-15 (1989).”
— Utah Code § 73-3-14(3)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Water Horse v. Wilhelmsen, 2025 UT 43 (Utah 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.