Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/90337781/ColoradoWaterCongressCOASSOC-521-ColoradoSupremeCourtRuling12SA22-Initiative-45-1
Timestamp: 2016-08-27 12:58:09
Document Index: 304251242

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 6', '§ 3']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreOpinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the publicand can le accessed lhiough lhe Couil´s honepage al http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage at www.cobar.org ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE April 16, 2012 2012 CO 26 No. 12SA22 -- In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2011-
2012 #45 -- Ballots and Elections -- Single Subject -- Clear Title. The supiene couil affiins lhe lilIe loaid´s deleininalion lhal pioposed initiative 2011-2012 #45 contains a single subject: ¨pulIic conlioI of valeis.¨ Proposed initiative 2011-2012 #45 thus complies with the Colorado Constitution and with section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). In addition, the title, ballot title, and submission clause for proposed initiative 2011-2012 #45 clearly and fairly express the same single subject as the proposed initiative, and therefore comply with the Colorado Constitution and with section 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2011).
Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suile 8OO - Denvei, CoIoiado 80202 2012 CO 26 Supreme Court Case No. 12SA22 Original Proceeding Pursuant to § 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2011) Appeal from the Ballot Title Setting Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #45 Petitioner: Douglas Kemper, v. Respondents: Richard G. Hamilton and Phillip Doe, Proponents, and Title Board: William A. Hobbs, Jason Gelender, and Daniel Domenico. Decision of the Ballot Title Setting Board Affirmed en banc April 16, 2012 Attorneys for Petitioner: Burns, Figa & Will, P.C. Stephen H. Leonhardt Alix L. Joseph Sarah M. Shechter Greenwood Village, Colorado Richard G. Hamilton, Pro Se Fairplay, Colorado Attorneys for Ballot Title Board: John W. Suthers, Attorney General Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Attorney General Denver, Colorado No appearance by or on behalf of Phillip Doe 2 JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE HOBBS dissents. 3 In this original proceeding under section 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2011), we review the ¶1
Ballot Title Setting ßoaid´s (¨TilIe ßoaid¨) findings lhal pioposed Inilialive 2O11-2012 No. 45 (¨Inilialive 45¨), its title, and its ballot title and submission clause (the ¨TilIes¨) contain a single subject.
We hold that the Title Board was correct. Initiative 45 and its Titles state a single subject -- ¨public control of waters¨ -- and therefore comply with article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). We therefore affirm the action of the Title Board. I. Facts and Procedural History Respondents Richard G. Hamilton and Phillip Doe proposed Initiative 45 to ¶2
amend article XVI, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution with the goal of expanding 1
Petitioner Douglas Kemper presented the following two issues for our review: A. Whether the Ballot Title Setting Board (lhe ¨ßoaid¨) incorrectly determined that Initiative 2011-2012 No. 45 is limited to a single subject, as required by Article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. § 1-40-106.5, in light of the multiple objectives of this measure to: 1. Subordinate both past and future water diversion and use rights to mandated state government enforcement of a dominant public water estate; 2. Expand the scope of water appropriation under article XVI, section 6 of the current Constitution, by removing the terms limiting such appropriation lo ¨unappiopiialed valeis of any naluiaI sliean¨ so as lo allow appropriation of nontributary groundwater without consent of the overlying landowner; and 3. Impose a requirement that water appropriators return water unimpaired to the stream. B. Whethei lhe ßoaid´s lilIe and laIIol lilIe and sulnission cIause for Initiative 2011-2012 No. 45 is unfaii in lhal lhe phiase ¨conceining lhe public control of waters¨ is misleading and fails to clearly express a single subject that encompasses all the issues actually addressed in the proposed initiative. 4 the scope of public conlioI ovei aII of lhe slale´s vater. The existing version of article XVI, section 6 addresses the diversion of unappropriated waters of natural streams. Initiative 45, with proposed subsection (1), would deIele lhe ¨unappiopiialed¨ and ¨naluiaI sliean¨ language of the exiting provision lo aIIov diveision of ¨valei vilhin lhe slale of CoIoiado.¨ This right to divert would be limited or curtailed ¨lo piolecl naluiaI eIenenls of lhe pulIic´s doninanl valei estate by holding as unlawful any usufruct use of water causing irreparable hain lo lhe pulIic´s eslale.¨ Proposed subsection (2) would protect the revised public water estate by ¶3
iequiiing appiopiialois lo ieluin lhe valei lhey use ¨uninpaiied lo lhe pulIic.¨ Proposed subsection (3) would additionally clarify the exlenl of lhe pulIic´s conlioI of Colorado water by declaring that the ¨CoIoiado docliine of appiopiialion¨ vouId involve a pulIic gianl of a valei use ¨piiviIege¨ lo appiopiialois, so Iong as they divert valei foi ¨lhe connon good.¨ Proposed subsection (4) would define the state goveinnenl´s ioIe as ¨slevaids¨ of lhe amended public water estate, and would task state officials with implementing and enforcing the revised water regime. Proposed subsection (5) would confer standing upon Colorado citizens to compel the state government to comply with the stewardship obligation outlined in subsection (4). Finally, proposed subsection (6) would authorize the legislature to enact laws supplementary to the provisions of the constitutional amendment. The Title Board designated the Titles for Initiative 45 in accordance with section ¶4
1-40-106(1), C.R.S. (2011), during a public meeting on January 4, 2012. The title as designated and fixed by the Title Board reads as follows: 5 An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning public control of water, and, in connection therewith, allowing appropriative water rights to be limited or curtailed by prohibiting any use of water that would irreparably harm the public ownership interest in water; expanding the right to appropriate water for beneficial use to all water within Colorado, including nontributary groundwater and not limited to unappropriated water, subject to the public ownership interest; requiring water users to return water unimpaired after use to the public so as to protect the natural environment and the use and enjoyment of water by the public; requiring state government to act as steward of and to protect, enforce, and implement the public ownership interest; and allowing any Colorado citizen to sue to enforce the amendment. (Emphasis added). The ballot title and submission clause contains the same language as the title, ¶5
phrased in the form of a question. Petitioner Douglas Kemper filed a Motion for Rehearing on January 11, 2012, arguing that Initiative 45 and the adopted Titles violated the single subject requirements of section 1-40-106.5 and of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. The Title Board heard testimony on the Motion for Rehearing during a meeting on January 18, 2O12. Il discussed lhe neasuie, and denied Kenpei´s objections, finding that both Initiative 45 and the Titles contained a single subject: ¨public control of waters.¨ Kemper seeks lhis Couil´s ieviev of lhe TilIe ßoaid´s findings pursuant to section 1-40-107(2). II. Analysis We hold that the Title Board correctly found that Initiative 45 contains a single ¶6
subject because the proposed subsections necessarily and properly reIale lo ¨public control of waters.¨ We also hold that the Titles set by the Title Board satisfy the clear title requirement because they fairly and clearly reflect the single subject of Initiative 45. 6 We fiisl desciile oui Iiniled ioIe in ievieving lhe TilIe ßoaid´s single subject ¶7
determination. We lhen oulIine CoIoiado´s singIe suljecl iuIe, noling lhe dangers of omnibus initiatives. Analyzing the plain language of Initiative 45, we hold that the proposal complies with the single subject rule. Finally, we describe and apply the clear title requirement to conclude that the Titles clearly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of Initiative 45 and its single subject. A. Single Subject 1. Standard of Review In ievieving a chaIIenge lo lhe TilIe ßoaid´s single subject decision, ¨ve enpIoy ¶8
all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the [Title] ßoaid´s aclions.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo. 2010). We viII onIy oveiluin lhe TilIe ßoaid´s finding lhal an inilialive conlains a single subject in a clear case. In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Pertaining to the Casino Gaming Initiative Adopted on April 21, 1982, 649 P.2d 303, 306 (Colo. 1982). In addition, our limited role in this process prohibits us from addressing the ¶9
merits of a proposed initiative, and from suggesting how an initiative might be applied if enacted. In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d 438, 443 (Colo. 2002). We will sufficiently examine the initiative, however, to determine whether or not it violates the constitutional prohibition against initiative proposals containing multiple subjects. Id.; see also Colo. Const. art. V, §1(5.5). During this examination, we employ the general rules of statutory construction 7 and accord the language of the proposed initiative its plain meaning. In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, for 2007-2008, No. 17, 172 P.3d 871, 874 (Colo. 2007). 2. The Single Subject Requirement CoIoiado Iav iequiies ¨lhal eveiy conslilulionaI anendnenl oi Iav pioposed ly ¶10
inilialive . . . le Iiniled lo a singIe suljecl, vhich shaII le cIeaiIy expiessed in ils lilIe.¨ § 1-40-106.5; see also CoIo. Consl. ail. V, §1(5.5) (¨No neasuie shaII le pioposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title . . . .¨). A pioposed inilialive vioIales lhis iuIe if ils lexl ¨ieIale|sj lo noie lhan one subject, and [has] at least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or connecled vilh each olhei.¨ People ex rel. Elder v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 403, 74 P. 167, 177 (1903); see In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 441 (describing use of Sours test to analyze ballot initiatives). As such, the subject matter of an initiative must le ¨necessaiiIy and piopeiIy connecled¨ ialhei lhan ¨disconnecled oi incongiuous.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, and Summary Adopted April 5, 1995, by Title Bd. Pertaining to a Proposed Initiative ¨Pub. Rights in Waters II¨, 898 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Colo. 1995). A pioponenl´s allenpl lo chaiacleiize a pioposed inilialive undei ¨sone ¶11
oveiaiching lhene¨ viII nol save lhe neasuie if il conlains sepaiale and unconnecled purposes. In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442. We have held that ¨valei¨ and ¨ievenue changes¨ aie lvo exanpIes of ¨oveiaiching lhenes¨ lhal did nol qualify as single subjects when the proposed initiatives associated with the themes contained disconnected or incongruous provisions. See Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 8 I.2d al 1O8O (hoIding lhal ¨valei¨ is loo geneiaI and loo lioad lo conslilule a singIe subject); see also In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary with Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colo. Adding Subsection (10) to Section 20 of Article X (Amend TABOR 25), 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo. 1995) (concIuding lhal unlieIIa suljecl of ¨ievenue changes¨ did nol alter the fact that the measure contained two unrelated subjects -- a tax credit and changes to the procedural requirements for ballot titles). We have previously explained that the single subject rule prevents two ¶12
¨dangeis¨ associaled vilh onnilus inilialives. See In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442-43. First, combining subjects with no necessary or proper connection for the purpose of garnering support for the initiative from various factions -- that may have different or even conflicting interests -- could lead to the enactment of measures that would fail on their own merits. Id. at 442; see § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I). Second, lhe singIe suljecl iuIe heIps avoid ¨volei suipiise and fiaud occasioned ly lhe inadveilenl passage of a suiieplilious piovision 'coiIed up in lhe foIds´ of a complex inilialive.¨ In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442; see § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II). Recognizing these dangers, we have applied the single subject rule to ¶13
water-related initiatives -- similar to Initiative 45 -- on several previous occasions. In 1995 and 2OO7, ve heId lhal lhe pioponenls´ pioposed pulIic liusl initiatives contained multiple subjects. See Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1077; In re Initiative 2007-
2008, No. 17, 172 P.3d at 872-73. In Public Rights in Waters II, we applied the Sours test 9 and determined that the proposed initiative violated the single subject rule because no necessaiy conneclion exisled lelveen lhe neasuie´s lvo valei disliicl eIeclion paragraphs and the two public trust water rights paragraphs. 898 P.2d at 1080. Citing Public Rights in Waters II, we similarly concluded in 2007 that a different proposed public trust doctrine initiative violated the single subject rule because the initiative inpiopeiIy paiied ¨lhe ciealion of a nev enviionnenlaI depailnenl vilh lhe sepaiale and discrete subject of the creation of a public trust slandaid.¨ In re Proposed Initiative 2007-2008, No. 17, 172 I.3d al 875. In 1996, hovevei, ve upheId lhe TilIe ßoaid´s finding that a proposed public trust doctrine initiative satisfied the single subject requirement because the subject -- ¨lhe pulIic´s inleiesl in slale valeis¨ -- was ¨sufficienlIy naiiov and sufficienlIy connecled¨ vilh aII of lhe pioposed inilialive´s provisions. In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, and Summary Adopted March 20, 1996, by the Title Bd. Pertaining to Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d 1277, 1278-81 (Colo. 1996). With this legal framework in mind, we turn to Initiative 45. ¶14
3. Initiative 45 Contains a Single Subject Initiative 45 contains a single subject because its provisions necessarily and ¶15
properly relate to lhe ¨pulIic conlioI of valeis.¨ Sulseclion (1) of lhe pioposed anendnenl cieales a nev appiopiialive valei iegine focused on lhe ¨pulIic conlioI of waters¨ ly eIininaling lhe ¨unappiopiialed¨ and ¨naluiaI sliean¨ Iinilalions of lhe existing legal framework, and replacing them with a comprehensive ¨doninanl valei eslale¨ conlioIIed ly lhe pulIic. Iioposed sulseclion (2) necessaiiIy and piopeiIy 10 relates to the doctrine created in proposed subsection (1) because subsection (2) grants appropriators a usufructory property right in the publicly-controlled water, while also subordinating that right of use to the dominant public interest by requiring appropriators to return used water unimpaired to the public. Additionally, proposed subsection (3) necessarily and properly relates to the ¶16
¨pulIic conlioI of valeis¨ lecause it limits appropriative uses to those that advance ¨lhe connon good.¨ Proposed subsections (4) and (5) describe the necessary implementation and enforcement details of the publicly-controlled water regime by iequiiing lhe slale goveinnenl lo ¨slevaid¨ lhe ¨pulIic´s iighls and inleiesls¨ in ¨ils valei eslale,¨ and ly gianling citizens standing to compel the government to fulfill these stewardship duties. Finally, proposed subsection (6) necessarily and properly allows the legislature to create a statutory body of law to supplement the new constitutional water requirements, just as the current water statutes necessarily supplement the existing constitutional provisions. As the Title Board correctly found, Inilialive 45 ¨onIy nodifies lhe exisling iighls ¶17
and interests in water between private individuals and the public, . . . it does not alter the long-iecognized scope of lhe suljecl.¨ The proposaI´s provisions are dependent upon and connected to each other because they define the purpose of the measure, describe the broadened scope of lhe pulIic´s conlioI ovei CoIoiado´s valei iesouices, and outline how to implement and enforce this dominant public water estate. See In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 441. As such, like ¨lhe pulIic´s inleiesl in slale valeis,¨ ¨pulIic conlioI of valeis¨ is ¨sufficienlIy naiiov and sufficienlIy 11 connecled¨ vilh aII of lhe pioposed inilialive´s piovisions to satisfy the single subject rule. See In re Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d at 1278-81. UnIike ¨valei¨ aIone, ¨pulIic conlioI of valeis¨ is nol an ¨overarching theme¨ ¶18
enpIoyed ly Inilialive 45´s pioponenls lo inpeinissilIy enconpass sepaiale and unconnected purposes. See Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 I.2d al 1O8O. Ralhei, ¨pulIic control of waters¨ desciiles lhe singIe suljecl of lhe pioposed anendnenl lecause, as described above, the proposed subsections necessarily and properly relate to one another by together creating a new water appropriation doctrine centered on the concept of a dominant public water estate. Iuilhei, Inilialive 45 does nol liiggei eilhei of lhe lvo ¨dangeis¨ of onnilus ¶19
initiatives. See In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442-43. First, the proponents do not meld unrelated subjects together to garner support for Initiative 45 from various factions of the electorate. Id.; see § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I). Instead, Initiative 45 is a cohesive proposal to amend the state constitution to create a new water regime focused on lhe ¨pulIic conlioI of valeis.¨ WhiIe Initiative 45 indeed involves a number of different provisions, its discrete subsections are necessarily and properly connected, rather than disconnected or incongruous, because they all relate to the same revised legal framework. See Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079. Initiative 45 also will not lead to the ¨volei suipiise and fiaud occasioned ly lhe ¶20
inadveilenl passage of a suiieplilious piovision 'coiIed up in lhe foIds´ of a complex inilialive.¨ In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442; see § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II). Our review of the pioposaI´s plain language does not reveal any 12 embedded provisions that would lead to voter surprise or fraud. In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442. Rather, the plain language of the measure unambiguously expands lhe pulIic´s conlioI ovei aII of lhe slale´s valei iesouices, subordinates appropriative rights to the public interest, and implements and enforces the publicly-controlled regime by way of state government stewardship. As such, voters would not be surprised to learn that by voting for Initiative 45, they would be voting to alter the existing water regime to prioritize the public control of water in Colorado. Initiative 45 contains a single subject.
B. Clear Title 1. Clear Title Requirement An inilialive´s singIe suljecl must be clearly expressed in its title. Colo. Const. ¶21
art. V, §1(5.5); see In re Proposed Initiative 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d at 647-48. A sufficienlIy cIeai lilIe viII ¨enalIe lhe eIecloiale, vhelhei faniIiai oi unfaniIiai vilh lhe subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose such pioposaI.¨ In re Proposed Initiative 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d at 648; see also § 1-40-106(3)(b). In selling a lilIe, lhe TilIe ßoaid ¨shaII considei lhe pulIic confusion lhal nighl ¶22
be caused by misleading titles and shall, whenever practicable, avoid titles for which 2
Kemper argues that, if adopted, Initiative 45 would so drastically alter the landscape of Colorado water law that it could not possibly contain a single subject. We again emphasize that our limited role in this process prohibits us from opining on how Initiative 45 might operate if applied. In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 443. We therefore refrain from analyzing the merits and potential effects of Initiative 45, as Kemper suggests, and instead confine our single subject review to the plain language of the proposed amendment. 13 lhe geneiaI undeislanding of lhe effecl of a 'yes´ oi 'no´ vole viII le uncIeai.¨ § 1-40-106(3)(b). The TilIe ßoaid need nol sel lhe ¨lesl possilIe¨ lilIe, ialhei, lhe lilIe must fairly reflect lhe pioposed inilialive such lhal voleis ¨viII nol le nisIed into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the [Title] ßoaid.¨ In re Proposed Initiative 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d at 648. This Court affords the Title Board great deference in the exercise of its drafting authority. Id. We will only ieveise lhe TilIe ßoaid´s decision if lhe lilIes aie ¨insufficienl, unfaii, oi nisIeading.¨ Id. As we did with the text of the initiative, we accord the language of the Titles their plain meaning during our review. See, e.g., In re 2007-2008, No. 17, 172 P.3d at 874. 2. The Titles Satisfy the Clear Title Requirement The Titles satisfy the clear title requirement because they fairly reflect the true ¶23
intent and meaning of Initiative 45, and clearly express the single subject of the proposed measure. See Colo. Const. art. V, §1(5.5); § 1-40-106(3)(b). The Titles first expressly state the single subject of Initiative 45 by describing the proposal as ¨|ajn amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning public control of water.¨ (Emphasis added). They then summarize how proposed subsections (2) through (6) of the proposal relate to this subject, and thereby reflect the true intent and meaning of the measure. The Title Board employed sufficiently clear language in setting the Titles to allow ¶24
the electorate to ¨deleinine inleIIigenlIy vhelhei lo suppoil oi oppose¨ Initiative 45, even without familiarity with water law principles. See In re Proposed Initiative 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d at 648; see also § 1-40-106(3)(b). Although the Titles 14 necessarily contain several terms of art due to the technical nature of Colorado water law, they also summarize how Initiative 45 will revise the state constitution in sufficiently plain language to allow voters to understand the purpose and substance of the proposal. Voters will not be misled into supporting or rejecting Initiative 45 due to the words employed by the Title Board because a ¨yes¨ vole viII pIainIy expand public control over lhe slale´s valei, whiIe a ¨no¨ vole viII unquestionably reject the pioposaI´s revisions to the existing constitutional framework. Thus, the Titles are not misleading, and fairly reflect the purpose and substance of Initiative 45 and its single subject. See § 1-40-106(3)(b). We therefore defer to the Title Board and affirm its designation of the Titles. III. Conclusion We hold that Initiative 45 contains a single subject. We also hold that the Titles ¶25
fairly reflect the true intent and meaning of the proposed measure. We therefore affirm the Title Board. JUSTICE HOBBS dissents.
APPENDIX ² Initiative 45 and Titles 2 3 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning public control of water, and, in connection therewith, allowing appropriated water rights to be limited or curtailed by prohibiting any use of water that would irreparably harm the public ownership interest in water; expanding the right to appropriate water for beneficial use to all water within Colorado, including nontributary groundwater and not limited to unappropriated water, subject to the public ownership interest; requiring water users to return water unimpaired after use to the public so as to protect the natural environment and the use and enjoyment of water by the public; requiring state government to act as steward of and to protect, enforce, and implement the public ownership interest; and allowing any Colorado citizen to sue to enforce the amendment. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning public control of water, and, in connection therewith, allowing appropriated water rights to be limited or curtailed by prohibiting any use of water that would irreparably harm the public ownership interest in water; expanding the right to appropriate water for beneficial use to all water within Colorado, including nontributary groundwater and not limited to unappropriated water, subject to the public ownership interest; requiring water users to return water unimpaired after use to the public so as to protect the natural environment and the use and enjoyment of water by the public; requiring state government to act as steward of and to protect, enforce, and implement the public ownership interest; and allowing any Colorado citizen to sue to enforce the amendment? 1 JUSTICE HOBBS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In my view, Initiative 2011-12 #45 relates to more than one ¶26
subject and it has at least two distinct and separate purposes that are not dependent upon or connected with each other. Accordingly, under our precedent in Waters II, we should hold that the Title Board erred in setting the Title and Ballot Title and Submission Clause for this initiative and remand the case to the Board with directions to strike them and return the initiative to its proponents. In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & Summary Adopted April 5, 1995, by the Title Board Pertaining to a Proposed Initiative ¨IulIic Righls in Waleis II¨, 898 P.2d 1076, 1080 (Colo. 1995) (Waters II). I. An initiative that joins multiple subjects poses the danger of voter surprise and ¶27
fraud occasioned by the inadvertent passage of surreptitious provisions coiled up in the folds of a complex initiative. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, for 2007-2008, #17, 172 P.3d 871, 875 (Colo. 2007) (In re 2007-2008, #17). Grouping the provisions of a proposed initiative under a broad concept that potentially misleads voters will not satisfy the single subject requirement. In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 532 (Colo. 1996). Multiple provisions fall under a single subject only if they have a ¨necessaiy and piopei ieIalionship.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, Summary Clause for 1997-1998 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927, 929 (Colo. 1998). 2 For initiatives seeking to repeal constitutional provisions, we examine the ¶28
underlying constitutional provision in order to determine whether the repealing initiative contains a single subject. In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 533 (Colo. 1996). If a constitutional provision contains multiple subjects and an initiative proposes to repeal the provision, then the initiative contains multiple subjects. Id. ¨|Ijn order to pass the single-subject test, the subject of the initiative should be ¶29
capable of being cleaiIy expiessed in lhe inilialive´s title.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, Summary for 2005-2006 No. 73, 135 P.3d 736, 738 (Colo. 2006). Il is oui ioIe lo ¨consider whether the titles, summary, and submission clause reflect the intent of the amendment.¨ In re Proposed Initiative on Transfer of Real Estate to Amend Colorado Constitution by Adding a Section 9 to Article XVIII, 200 Colo. 40, 43, 611 P.2d 981, 983 (1980). We reverse the Board's action in preparing them ¨if they contain a material and significant omission, misstatement, or misrepresentation.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1997-
98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077, 1082 (Colo. 1998) (emphasis added). A title is unlawfully nisIeading if ¨voleis . . . couId consliue lhe lilIes¨ in a vay incoiieclIy iepiesenling lhe text of the initiative. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999-
2000 No. 215, 3 P.3d 11, 16 (Colo. 2000). We iejecl lilIes if lhey ¨create confusion and are misleading because they do not sufficienlIy infoin lhe voleis¨ of inpoilanl aspecls of the initiative. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2001-
2OO2 No. 21 & No. 22 (¨LngIish Language Lduc.¨), 44 P.3d 213, 221 (Colo. 2002). 3 We nusl ensuie lhal lhe ßoaid´s lilIes and sunnaiy enalIe ¨infoined volei ¶30
choice.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, Summary for 1999-2000 No.29, 972 P.2d 257, 266 (Colo. 1999). The lilIes and sunnaiy nusl ¨convey to voters the inilialive´s IikeIy inpacl.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 37, 977 P.2d 845, 846 (Colo. 1999). They nusl piolecl againsl ¨pulIic confusion.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 25, 974 P.2d 458, 465 (Colo. 1999). They nusl ¨enable the electorate, whether familiar or unfamiliar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently vhelhei lo suppoil oi oppose such a pioposaI.¨ In re Proposed Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28, 33 (Colo. 1993). The ßoaid nusl ¨avoid lilIes foi vhich lhe geneiaI undeislanding of a 'yes' oi ¶31
'no´ vole viII le uncIeai.¨ In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary Approved April 6, 1994, & April 20, 1994, for the Proposed Initiative Concerning ¨Auto. Ins. Coverage'¨, 877 P.2d 853, 855 (Colo. 1994). }usl as ¨valei¨ vas loo lioad a lhene in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1080, to unite ¶32
multiple subjects into a single subject, this initiative grouped by the Title Board as ¨public control of walei¨ faiIs, in my view, to meet the single subject requirements of ailicIe V, seclion 1(5.5) of lhe CoIoiado Conslilulion and lhe TilIe ßoaid´s enalIing statute, section 1-40-106.5(1)(a), C.R.S. (2011). II. We have a duty to determine whether a proposed initiative the Title Board has ¶33
approved for the ballot contains cleverly concealed multiple purposes under a 4 seductively-stated broad title. In re 2007-2008, #17, 172 P.3d at 875; see also In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1076 (Colo. 2010). Heie, lhe inilialive slales lhal ils puipose is ¨lo piolecl naluiaI eIenenls of lhe pulIic´s dominant water estate by holding unlawful any usufruct use of water causing iiiepaialIe hain lo lhe pulIic´s eslale.¨ To lhal end, il iequiies aII valer use appiopiialois ¨lo ieluin valei uninpaiied lo lhe pulIic, aflei use, so as lo piolecl lhe naluiaI enviionnenl and lhe pulIic´s use and enjoynenl of valeis.¨ While those provisions may appear to constitute one subject, i.e. whatever the ¶34
voids ¨pulIic´s doninanl valei eslale¨ nay nean, lhe inilialive aIso deIeles a fundamental provision of section 6 of article XVI of the Colorado Constitution: the piovision in effecl since 1876 lhal appiopiialion of lhe pulIic´s valei iesouice acls upon ¨unappiopiialed valeis of any naluiaI sliean.¨
This deIelion vouId suljecl ¨any valei vilhin lhe Slale of CoIoiado¨ lo lhe appiopiialion syslen. This vouId incIude non-tributary groundwater, the allocation of which is currently within the plenary power of the General Assembly. See Colorado v. Sw. Colo. Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294, 1319 (Colo. 1983). The General Assembly has employed its plenary 1
Initiative #45 would amend Colorado Constitution article XVI, § 6, by amending the first sentence of the section and adding subsections (2)-(6). The amendment to the first sentence reads as follows: The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream WATER WITHIN THE STATE OF COLORADO to beneficial uses shall never be denied, BUT MAY BE LIMITED, OR CURTAILED, SO AS TO PROTECT NATURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC´S DOMINANT WATER ESTATE BY HOLDING UNLAWFUL ANY USUFRUCT USE OF WATER CAUSING IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PUBLIC´S ESTATE. 5 authority to provide for the vesting of non-tributary groundwater in the overlying landowner. See Bayou Land Co. v. Talley, 924 P.2d 136, 148-49 (Colo. 1966). Further, the deIelion of lhe voids ¨unappiopiialed valeis¨ aIIovs lhe appiopiialion of aIieady appiopiialed valei in oidei ¨lo piolecl lhe naluiaI enviionnenl and lhe pulIic´s use and enjoyment of waters.¨ In addilion, lhe iequiienenl lhal valei le ieluined lo lhe sliean ¨uninpaiied¨ ¶35
would radically transform Colorado into a riparian water law state, as the basis of riparian water law is that water use may cause only a minimal impact upon quality and quantity. See Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F.Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (No. 14,312); Pyle v. Gilbert, 265 S.E.2d 584, 587 (Ga. 1980) (enunciating the modified riparian reasonable use doctrine). In United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., the United States Supreme Court explained that the common law riparian doctrine, based on the idea that running valeis veie ¨connon lo aII and piopeily of none,¨ deveIoped ¨vheie Iands veie anpIy valeied ly iainfaII.¨ 339 U.S. 725, 744-45 (1950). Land, not water, was the piinaiy naluiaI assel in lhese aieas, so valei access lecane a iighl ¨annexed lo lhe shoie.¨ Id. at 745. Each riparian right owner faced strict limits in how he or she could use lhe sliean valei, as each dovnsliean usei had ¨the right to have the water flow down to him in its natural volume and channels unimpaired in quality.¨ Id. (emphasis added). This docliine, aIso caIIed lhe naluiaI fIov lheoiy, ¨vas a IogicaI iuIe al a line ¶36
when the primary use of water was to turn mill wheels because it insured that all mill 6 siles vouId have equaI access lo necessaiy povei.¨
A. Dan Tarlock, Law of Water Rights and Resources § 3.12|1j (1989). ßul lhe iuIe vas ¨inefficienl lecause aII lul lhe Iasl iipaiian on lhe sliean nusl Iel lhe fuII fIov of lhe sliean diain lo lhe sea.¨ Id. Were Colorado to adopt such a rule, of course, the full flow of our streams would ¶37
drain not to the sea but to the reservoirs, fields, and cities of our neighboring states. We thought the U.S. Supreme Court put this possibility to rest in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907). There, Kansas sought to enjoin Colorado diversions from the Aikansas Rivei, undei lhe lheoiy lhal Kansans veie enlilIed lo lhe iivei´s uninpaiied flow. 206 U.S. at 48. The Court held that Kansas was not entitled to the whole of the iivei´s fIov lul onIy lo an ¨equitable apportionment of benefits between the two states resulting from the flow of the river,¨ as deleinined ly lhe Couil. Id. at 118. Initiative #45 would in effect overturn this decision. Thus, three subjects are concealed within the folds of this complex initiative. ¶38
Any one of these subjects might lead a voter to vote for the initiative even though the voter does not favor one or more of the other subjects. This is precisely the logrolling dilemma that the voters intended to avoid when they adopted the single subject requirements of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 # 91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1079 (Colo. 2010); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010, # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo. 2
In a region of water scarcity, however, a riparian doctrine would allow landowners to monopolize water resources. It was to promote distributive justice, and not to prioritize private over common property, that Coloradans adopted the Colorado doctrine. David B. Schorr, Appropriation as Agrarianism: Distributive Justice in the Creation of Property Rights, 32 Ecology L.Q. 3, 4 (2005). 7 2009). It also violates the requirements that an initiative must not potentially mislead voters, that its title must not misrepresent or insufficiently inform voters so as to create confusion, and lhal il convey lhe inilialive´s IikeIy inpacl so as lo enalIe volei choice. First, Initiative 2011-12 #45 would subordinate all existing water rights in ¶39
CoIoiado ciealed ovei lhe pasl 15O yeais lo lhe nevIy ciealed ¨pulIic´s doninanl valei eslale¨ and hoId ¨unIavfuI any usufiucl use of valei causing iiiepaialIe hain lo lhe public´s eslale¨ in oidei ¨lo piolecl lhe naluiaI enviionnenl and lhe pulIic´s use and enjoynenl of valeis.¨ This provision would create a super water right for such purposes. Under existing Colorado law environmental and recreational uses are currently subject to appropriation in priority by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for instream flow and lake level water rights under section 37-92-102(3), C.R.S. (2011), and by local governmental entities for recreational in-channel water rights under sections 37-92-103(10.3), 37-92-102(6)(b), and 37-92-305(13), C.R.S. (2011) . Second, Initiative 2011-12 #45 would allow non-tributary groundwater to be ¶40
appropriated by anyone without the consent of the overlying landowner. Third, Initiative 2011-12 #45 would impose riparian water law upon the State of ¶41
Colorado and upon already appropriated water rights, by requiring that the appropriator must return the water to the steam unimpaired. These three subject matters separately and together propose to drop what ¶42
amounts to a nuclear bomb on Colorado water rights. Masquerading as a measure to piolecl lhe pulIic´s conlrol of water, it would prevent farmers, cities, families and businesses from making beneficial use of water rights that have vested in them over the 8 pasl 15O yeais undei CoIoiado´s slalules and Conslilulion. Il vouId depiive CoIoiado of its interstate allocation of waters of the Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers by imposing a predominantly non-consumptive water regimen upon the State and its water users, resulting in the free flow of waters across our boundaries for the use of olheis, devaslaling CoIoiado´s econony and vay of Iife. Initiative 2011-12 #45 and the subject the Title Board identified in approving it -- ¶43
¨pulIic conlioI of valei¨ -- can cause voter surprise and fraud by the inadvertent passage of surreptitious provisions coiled up in the folds of a complex initiative. The title is particularly misleading because Colorado exercises a high degree of public control of water through the prior appropriation system itself, curtailing junior uses to senior uses in order of priority during short supply. Indeed, the value of a water right resides in its relative priority vis-à-vis all other water rights. See Navajo Dev. Co. v Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374, 1379 (Colo. 1982). Enforcement of the priority system makes a market in changes of water rights and lease water possible, adapting senior water right priorities to different uses, including environmental uses, while retaining the beneficial historical consumptive use allocation perfected under the original appropriation. Initiative 2011-12 #45 would destroy the water market by rendering reliance on Colorado water rights insecure and unenforceable. The lilIe aIso faiIs lo connunicale lhe inpacl of ¨iequiiing valei useis lo ieluin ¶44
valei uninpaiied¨ -- converting Colorado to a riparian water rights system. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2001-2002 No. 21 & No. 22 (¨LngIish Language Lduc.¨), 44 P.3d at 221 (iequiiing lhe TilIe ßoaid lo ¨sufficienlIy 9 infoin lhe voleis¨ of inpoilanl aspecls of lhe inilialive). Voleis aie nuch noie IikeIy to construe this language as a general requirement that water users comply with water quality laws. III. In my view, we have a duty under article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado ¶45
Conslilulion and lhe TilIe ßoaid´s enalIing slalule, seclion 1-40-106.5(1)(a), to reverse lhe TilIe ßoaid´s aclion in selling lhe lilIe for this initiative. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. Colorado Public Sector Union Contributions2011 RPS Summit Combined Presentations FileColorado RES Impacts 4-12-13 (1)Colorado's Coalition for Clean Energy FutureExhibit D Hall Complaint SOS UOCAVA Watcher GuidelinesExhibit C Hall Complaint Watcher GuidelinesExhibit B Hall Complaint Christopher AffidavitExhibit a Hall Complaint Fletcher AffidavitFinal Hall ComplaintARRA 1603 Multiple States(1)ColoradoWaterCongressCOASSOC 522 ColoradoSupremeCourtRuling12SA8(Initiative 3)[1]CORA on Mines travel expendituresVolt Colorado_Radio AdvisoryMinesCORAWestern State CORAAdams State CORAUNC CORAMesa State CORACU CORAMetroStateCORACSU CORACORA WSC Independence Institute 2012UNCO $100,000 plus salary listUNCO overtime response
ColoradoWaterCongressCOASSOC 521 ColoradoSupremeCourtRuling12SA22 (Initiative 45)[1] by Amy Oliver470 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionState Supreme Court ruling allowing ballot initiative #45 for the confiscation of private water rights to move forward.State Supreme Court ruling allowing ballot initiative #45 for the confiscation of private water rights to move forward.Interests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedIn the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for the 2009-2010 #45by Circuit MediaEssay Tute 5by b0okwyrmTX AG's letter on public records from Texas A&M-Corpus Christiby jpeeblesAdmin Mini-Outlineby clairebear888Untitledby eurolexNAILING THE BARby Leonardo Da Vinci2. CIR vs. Algueby Jayson Ababa25by Jhenjhen GandaNat Res 3rd Casesby iheartyouliannePAL v CAB (1968)by Castle CastellanoIn Re Integration of Philippine Barby John Ramil RabeLaborby Marie CecileConcord Council Member Misled Bingo Applicant?by ContraCostaBee8. Villanueva vs Palawan Council for Sustainable Development.pdby Irish M. DiosomitoC & M Timber Corp vs Alcalaby Bloome CeePublic Access to Legislativeby Dhamendra UnkaAtty Notice 1by getsome2. Ynot v. Intermediate Apelate Court (1987)by Marco BorromeoUS Internal Revenue Service: rp-00-43by IRSArticle 5 6by Ana MergalE - 1 Ynot vs IACby Serje BualYNOT VS. IACby denver41Law of Evidenceby Hafeni tulongeni HamukotoHealth and Human Services: MM3530by HHSPfr Cases Compilation Final b1by dodong1232007 Reform Legislationby hbtilsonCalifornia Tax Board: cn890714aby Taxmanynot vsby Sandee Sarmiento EsparteroSimilar to ColoradoWaterCongressCOASSOC 521 ColoradoSupremeCourtRuling12SA22 (Initiative 45)[1]In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for the 2009-2010 #45Essay Tute 5TX AG's letter on public records from Texas A&M-Corpus ChristiAdmin Mini-OutlineUntitledNAILING THE BAR2. CIR vs. Algue25Nat Res 3rd CasesPAL v CAB (1968)In Re Integration of Philippine BarLaborConcord Council Member Misled Bingo Applicant?8. Villanueva vs Palawan Council for Sustainable Development.pdC & M Timber Corp vs AlcalaPublic Access to LegislativeAtty Notice 12. Ynot v. Intermediate Apelate Court (1987)US Internal Revenue ServiceArticle 5 6E - 1 Ynot vs IACYNOT VS. IACLaw of EvidenceHealth and Human ServicesPfr Cases Compilation Final b12007 Reform LegislationCalifornia Tax Boardynot vs