In Western Water, LLC v. Olds, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to the State Engineer on the basis that Western Water had not exhausted its administrative remedies.  Western Water had filed an application to appropriate an enormous quantity of water from the Jordan River and its tributaries.  When the State Engineer denied the application, Western Water requested reconsideration and in its request suggested substantial changes that could be made to its application.  The State Engineer did not act on the request and it was deemed denied after twenty days.  When Western Water filed its appeal to the district court, it requested review only of the revised plan submitted with its request for reconsideration.  The Court concluded that the revised plan was so different from the original plan that it constituted a new application to appropriate.  Because Western Water had failed to strictly comply with the requirements for filing a new application, and because the State Engineer had not specifically considered the revised plan, Western Water did not satisfy its obligation to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing an appeal in district court.  Although the Court did not consider other issues before it, the Court did call the constitutionality of Utah Code section 73-3-15 into question.  The Court suggested that the two-year deadline (three with an appeal) may result in due process violations or violation of the principle of separation of powers.  Accordingly, the Court invited the Legislature to revisit this time limit.
 
In re General Determination, Penta Creeks, LLC v. Olds, 2008 UT 25, 182 P.3d 362.
This case is a small portion of the General Adjudication of the Green River Drainage Area, and it involves procedural questions about the effectiveness of objections to a Proposed Determination.  Penta Creeks' predecessor had originally filed an objection to the Proposed Determination in 1973, with the objection being signed by its attorney.  In 2003, the State Engineer sent the First Addendum to the Proposed Determination to Penta Creeks at an obsolete address.  Upon receiving notice of the Addendum in 2005, Penta Creeks filed its objection.  The State Engineer moved to dismiss both the objections.  The district court dismissed the first objection on the basis that it was not properly verified, merely being signed by the attorney.  The court dismissed the second objection as untimely.  The Supreme Court agreed that an attorney signature did not suffice as "verification" under the adjudication statute but held that the court must consider whether "due cause" for the defect existed.  The Supreme Court further held that the State Engineer failed to provide adequate notice of the Addendum.  The State Engineer is required to give notice according to the address list on file with the district court where the adjudication is being heard.  The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the district court to determine whether there was "due cause" for the second objection's being late.