Lawsuit takes aim at Echo Canyon water rights

A lawsuit alleging the water rights claimed by the Echo Canyon development — formerly known as Kane Springs Preservation and Development — are invalid, has been filed against the developers in Seventh District Court by the Living Rivers nonprofit and Kane Creek Development Watch.

The meat of the lawsuit asserts the “developer’s groundwater and Colorado River water rights were not put to beneficial use for more than seven years, which, under Utah law, means the water rights are subject to forfeiture. Development, even the preliminary bulldozing, cannot legally continue without a water supply.”

John Weisheit, executive director of Living Rivers, which he co-founded 25 years ago, in an email said, “We need to show respect to the Colorado River and our water supplies in times of prolonged drought, water scarcity, flood events and in land use. The developers of this luxury resort on the Colorado River fail to do so.”

Weisheit in a phone interview with The Times-Independent said the objective of the lawsuit “is to put some responsibility on the developer to put the project forward. We already know they’ve illegally used water,” he said. “They seem to think they’re above the law.”

The Utah Division of Water Rights shut down the project in May of 2024 after Weisheit complained they were unlawfully using water from a well that had not been approved.

Marc Stilson, the division’s regional water engineer for southeastern Utah, told The Times-Independent in May of 2024 that the action was taken because the well in question had not yet been approved and, in fact, the water right attached to it has been protested by myriad agencies, businesses and individuals, including the Bureau of Land Management, Intrepid Potash, Kane Creek Development Watch and Weisheit’s Living Rivers nonprofit.

A spokesperson for the project told The Times-Independent that two things stood out to him after the newspaper advised him of the lawsuit’s existence. “First, it seems like a rehash of the last four tactics they tried, all that failed.”

He also said the essence of the lawsuit — that the developer failed to prove up its water rights — “would go against 130 years of water law in the state.”

While the spokesperson said the plaintiffs have the right to file the lawsuit, he doesn’t believe there is precedence for what is alleged. “We hope to speed the [court] process along.”

Weisheit is just as confident that there is precedent. “There are procedures to keep water rights valid,” he said. “And they didn’t do that. We all know the Colorado is no longer a bountiful river. We’re trying to reduce use.”

Weisheit said the public trust would be harmed if the lawsuit were not filed. “We have a duty to intervene,” he said. “We wouldn’t do this without public support and we have it. They [Echo Canyon] have political power and a wealth of financial resources they use to get their way.”

Weisheit also said that regardless of the validity of the developer’s water rights, what they have is insufficient in terms of the scope of the project and what they plan to do with those rights. He also said they have not shown that the project would not lead to springs in the area drying up. “Courthouse Wash springs and the springs on Kane Creek used to gush, now they dribble,” said Weisheit. “Those of us who have lived her for a long time know this.”

Later, Weisheit added, “In their prior protest to the use of these water rights, the BLM noted that several natural springs on public lands adjacent to development could shrink or dry up due to increased groundwater use at the development,” wrote Weisheit in an email. “The BLM’s springs are critical for wildlife and nearby native plants and hanging gardens — places like Moonflower Canyon, Hunter Canyon, Pritchett Canyon, Kane Canyon, and the Behind the Rocks Wilderness Study Area.”

Perhaps one of the more controversial developments in Grand County’s history, opposition to the project has been “strong and consistent,” said the plaintiffs in an email.

“This project does nothing to address Grand County’s affordable housing crisis — in fact, it makes it worse,” said Laura Long with Kane Creek Development Watch. “It’s an exclusive enclave for wealthy investors that would drive up land prices, strain local infrastructure, cost local taxpayers money and destroy the natural character of the canyon and the Colorado River floodplain.”

The resort proposal (which has changed several times) calls for over 550 high-end housing units, 70,000 square feet of commercial space, and 100 overnight accommodations in the heart of the Kings Bottom area.

As for the lawsuit, Weisheit said it was filed because doing so brings the debate into the public arena. “It’s the only way we’ll get the truth,” he said.

The lawsuit lists 14 causes of action, each alleging the former owner of the property, the late Charles Nelson and his family, failed to prove up their water rights dating as far back as the 1980s and no later than 1990. Bob Phillips, another member of Kane Creek Development Watch, said in an email that the evidence is clear that “very little irrigation” has taken place at the site over the past several decades.

The lawsuit seeks a finding from a judge that those 14 separate water rights had been totally or partially forfeited long before the developers purchased the property a few years ago.

This story was first published by The Times-Independent.