Accordingly, we hold that the legislature did not make an unlawful delegation of authority to UDOT when it included the mitigation of impacts as a defined transportation purpose in section 72-5-102 of the Utah Code. {15 Finally, we address G. Kay's assertion that UDOT had no authority to acquire water rights by eminent domain. We find this argument to be without basis. The condemnation statute provides that UDOT "may acquire any real property or interests in real property necessary for temporary, present, or reasonable future state transportation purposes." Utah Code Ann. § 72-5-103(1) (2001) (emphasis added). Water rights are a type of interest in real property and thus may be condemned by UDOT for state transportation purposes. See Spears v. Warr, 2002 UT 24, ¶¶ 21-22, 44 P.3d 742 (<HOLDING>). 16 We find no error in the district court's
holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest holding that water stock sold appurtenant to land represents an interest in water which is a real properly right holding that failure to use irrigation water rights on conveyed property for more than ten years did not sever water rights from said property absent compliance with statutory requirements holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property