Title: Orchard Mesa Irrigation Dist. v. CITY & CITY. OF DENVER
Citation: 511 P.2d 25
Docket Number: 25645
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: June 11, 1973

511 P.2d 25 (1973) ORCHARD MESA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Acting By and Through its Board of Water Commissioners, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Defendants-Appellees. No. 25645. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 11, 1973. *26 Williams, Turner &amp; Holmes, Anthony W. Williams, Grand Junction, Delaney &amp; Balcomb, Kenneth Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, for plaintiff-appellant. George L. Zoellner, Kenneth L. Broadhurst, James J. Petrock, Saunders, Snyder &amp; Ross, P. C., Glenn G. Saunders, Davis, Graham &amp; Stubbs, John M. Sayre, Denver, for defendants-appellees. DAY, Justice. This matter arises in connection with the application of plaintiff-appellant in Water Court, Div. 5, for a biennial finding of reasonable diligence pursuant to 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, XXX-XX-XX(1)(a), amended in 1970. The Water referee found reasonable diligence concerning the conditional decree for 100 c. f. s. from the Colorado River, priority No. 360A, with a date of April 28, 1914. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the City and County of Denver filed statements of opposition. They hold junior decrees and claim the right to divert the water in question upstream. Honorable Clifford H. Darrow, acting district judge, rejected the findings of the referee, entered new findings that the applicant had failed to exercise reasonable diligence, and cancelled the conditional decree in toto. Hereinafter the appellant, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, will be referred to as the applicant. The appellees will be referred to as the protestants. The applicant is a nonprofit Colorado irrigation district organized according to C. R.S.1963, 150-1-1 et seq. Applicant operates and manages the Orchard Mesa irrigation system located entirely in Mesa County, Colorado. It has one absolute direct flow decree from the Colorado River, priority No. 197, for 450 c. f. s. with date of October 25, 1907. By virtue of inclusion of the Vinelands into the district, it also has acquired a right to a direct flow diversion for 10.2 c. f. s. with a date of October 1, 1900, priority No. 211. In relation to the use of its decreed rights and whether there was evidence of due diligence to protect the conditional decree, the trial court found inter alia: Applicant claims that two errors in findings of the court as to the capacity of the Orchard Mesa siphon and limitations by contract on the amount of water to be run through the Government High Line Canal vitiate the court's conclusions that due diligence had not been shown. We do not agree. These items were not controlling in the court's conclusions. In this type of case involving factual issues, it is fundamental that a trial court's findings are binding upon the appellate court and will not be overturned if the evidence is sufficient to sustain them. Baca Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Model Land and Irrigation Co., 80 Colo. 398, 252 P. 358; Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Central Trust Co., 32 Colo. 102, 75 P. 391; Handy Ditch Co. v. Louden Irrigating Canal Co., 27 Colo. 515, 62 P. 847. See also Knapp v. Colorado River Water Conservation District, 131 Colo. 42, 279 P.2d 420. The record considered by the trial court contains evidence to support the court's findings that no steps had been taken *28 by the District in fifty years to apply the 100 c. f. s. of water in the conditional decree to the "irrigation of its lands." For example, the minutes of several meetings by the Board of Directors of the district in the years prior to the filing for a finding of diligence contain admissions that the district had failed to take any action on its conditional decree. Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the January 25, 1967 meeting: Then in the minutes of the 1968 annual meeting further Board discussion was reported as follows: The trial court correctly construed these exhibits, as well as other evidence, as showing a lack of intent to diligently utilize the conditional decree. To prove due diligence there must be shown an intention to use the water, coupled with concrete action amounting to diligent efforts to finalize the intended appropriation. At some time the steps required to be diligently pursued will result in putting the water to beneficial use. Support of the claim of due diligence by the applicant must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. A record which shows only a hope someday to use the water, but with admitted prior years of inaction, will not support the claim. The judgment is affirmed.