Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/water-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:59:24+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gallegos Family Properties, LLC v. Colorado Groundwater Commission on Monday, June 19, 2017.
The supreme court concluded that the designated groundwater court properly concluded that petitioners failed to satisfy their statutory burden in seeking to de-designate a portion of a designated groundwater basin, and therefore, properly denied the petition to de-designate a portion of the basin. The court also concluded that the designated groundwater court properly awarded respondents a portion of their litigation costs as prevailing parties under C.R.C.P. 54(d). The court affirmed the designated groundwater court in both cases.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Grand Valley Water Users Association v. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc. on Monday, December 5, 2016.
Change of Water Right Application—Historic Consumptive Use Analysis—Transmountain Diversion.
This appeal from the water court in Water Division 2 concerns certain rulings relevant to the historic consumptive use quantification of transmountain water rights that are the subject of a change application. The Supreme Court held that the water court erred when it concluded that storage of the water rights on the eastern slope prior to use for their decreed purpose was lawful. The Court concluded that the right to store water in the basin of import prior to use is not an automatic incident of transmountain water rights, but rather, must be reflected, or at least implied, in the decree. Here, the decree is silent with respect to storage of the water on the eastern slope prior to use for supplemental irrigation and, on the facts of this case, the record does not support the water court’s finding of an implied right in the decree for such storage. To the extent that unlawful storage of the water on the eastern slope expanded the decreed rights, such amounts cannot be included in the quantification of those rights.
Because storage of the subject water rights in the basin of import prior to use was unlawful, the water court erred in including the volumes of exported water paid as rental fees for storage on the eastern slope in its historic consumptive use quantification of the water rights.
Finally, the water court erred in concluding that it was required to exclude the 22 years of undecreed municipal use of the subject water rights from the representative study period. In this case, the undecreed use did not represent expanded use of the decreed right for which an appropriator may not receive credit but rather, 22 years of non-use of the decreed rights. Because unjustified non-use of a decreed right should be considered when quantifying historic consumptive use for purposes of a change application, the water court must determine whether the years of non-use of the rights for their decreed purpose were unjustified. If so, the water court should consider including the years of unjustified non-use in the representative study period as “zero-use” years for purposes of its historic consumptive use analysis.
The Court reversed the water court’s rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On July 12, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2016(09), amending Rule 11 of the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions. There were several changes to the Rule, including updating citations, clarifying deadlines, formatting changes, and more. The most significant change was the addition of subsections (4) and (5) to 11(c), which address Case Management Conferences and amendments to the Case Management Order. A redline of the changes is available here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s adopted and proposed rule changes, click here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in the Eagle River in Eagle County, Colorado: Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority v. Wolfe on Tuesday, May 31, 2016.
Actual Use of Water and Application to Beneficial Use—Nature and Extent of Rights Acquired.
The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority filed an application to make absolute 0.47 cubic feet per second of its Eagle River Diversion Point No. 2 conditional water right. The State and Division Engineers opposed the application, asserting that the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority could not make its Eagle River Diversion Point No. 2 water right absolute when it owned another, more senior conditional water right, decreed for the same claimed beneficial uses at the same location and for diversion at the same point. The Supreme Court held that where there is no evidence of waste, hoarding, or other mischief, and no injury to the rights of other water users, the owner of a portfolio of water rights is entitled to select which of its different, in-priority conditional water rights it wishes to first divert and make absolute.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tucker v. Town of Minturn on Monday, October 26, 2015.
In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether a non-attorney trustee of a trust may proceed pro se before the water court. Opposer-appellant appealed the water court’s order ruling that as trustee of a trust, he was not permitted to proceed pro sebecause he was representing the interests of others. He further appealed the water court’s order granting applicant-appellee’s application for a finding of reasonable diligence in connection with a conditional water right. He asserted that the water court erred in granting the application because its supporting verification was deficient. Addressing a matter of first impression in Colorado, the Court concluded that the water court correctly ruled that a non-attorney trustee cannot proceed pro se on behalf of a trust. In light of this determination, the Court declined to address opposer-appellant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the verification. Accordingly, the Court affirmed.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Office of the State Engineer’s Approval of the Plan of Water Management for the Special Improvement District No. 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District: San Antonio, Los Pinos and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association v. Special Improvement District No. 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District on Monday, June 29, 2015.
Water Management Plans—Groundwater Management Plans—Retained Jurisdiction of Water Management Plans.
Objectors invoked the water court’s retained jurisdiction under CRS § 37-92-501(4)(c) over a plan of water management to raise challenges to an annual replacement plan developed pursuant to that plan of water management. The Supreme Court held: (1) the water court correctly rejected challenges raising issues decided by the water court in a prior decree and approved by this Court in San Antonio, Los Pinos, and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association v. Special Improvement District No. 1, 270 P.3d 927, 931–32 (Colo. 2011); (2) an annual replacement plan need not be stayed pending resolution of objections; (3) the annual replacement plan’s identification of Closed Basin Project water was a suitable and adequate source of replacement water; and (4) the annual replacement plan’s treatment of augmentation plan wells did not violate the plan of water management, and its failure to include a separate list of augmentation plan wells did not render the annual replacement plan invalid. The Court affirmed the water court’s pretrial orders and its judgment and decree upholding the annual replacement plan.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 37
 v.