Opinion ID: 3154978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Meridian argues that the 1969 Act vests the water courts with exclusive jurisdiction over âwater matters,â including applications for conditional rights like Meridianâs. According to Meridian, the âcorrelative principleâ is that the Commission has no subject matter jurisdiction over âsurface water,â even though it may be in a designated basin. We are not persuaded. Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a courtâs authority to deal with the class of cases in which it renders judgment. Closed Basin Landowners Assân v. Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist., 734 P.2d 627, 636 (Colo. 1987). The 1969 Act gives a water court exclusive jurisdiction over âwater mattersâ within that courtâs division. Â§ 37-92-203(1), C.R.S. (2015). âWater mattersâ include âonly those matters which [the 1969 Act] and any other law shall specify to be heard by the [water courts].â Id. Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Meridian is correct that these âwater mattersâ include the determination of conditional water rights. See Â§ 37-92-302(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015). The 1969 Act, however, applies only to the administration of surface and underground water that is in or tributary to natural streams. See Â§ 37-92-102(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015); see also Gallegos v.Â Colo. Ground Water Commân, 147 P.3d 20, 28 (Colo. 2006). Such waters are â[w]aters of the stateâ and are subject to the 1969 Act. Â§ 37-92-103(13), C.R.S. (2015).Â Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Designated ground water, however, does not constitute âwaters of the stateâ and is administered separately. See id. (excepting designated ground water from the definition of â[w]aters of the stateâ); Â§ 37-92-103(11) (defining â[u]nderground waterâ and providing that such water is considered different from designated groundwater). Specifically, the Management Act authorizes the Commission â[t]o supervise and control the exercise and administration of all rights acquired to the use of designated ground water.â Â§ 37-90-111(1)(a), C.R.S. (2015). Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â When read together, $$[t]he Management Act and the 1969 Act create a conceptual framework which provides for appropriation and administration of designated ground water under the Management Act and appropriation and administration of all tributary water, except that which may be included in the definition of designated ground water, under the 1969 Act. State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752, 757â58 (Colo. 1981). Â¶19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The jurisdictional question in this case thus turns on whether the water that Meridian sought to appropriate was âdesignated ground water.â Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We have long and consistently held that in the context of such a jurisdictional conflict, the Commission must make the initial determination as to whether the controversy implicates designated ground water. See Pioneer Irrigation Dists. v.Â Danielson, 658 P.2d 842, 846â47 (Colo. 1983); Vickroy, 627 P.2d at 759â60. Jurisdiction shifts to the water court only if the Commission concludes that the water at issue is not designated ground water. Gallegos, 147 P.2d at 31â32; Pioneer, 658 P.2d at 846; see also Vickroy, 627 P.2d at 759â60 (âOnly if [proceedings before the Commission] result in aÂ determination that a water matter is at issue can the jurisdiction of the water court be invoked.â). Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Here, as noted above, the evidence raised a question as to whether the water at issue was designated ground water. Accordingly, the case presented a jurisdictional conflict, and the district court correctly concluded that jurisdiction vested with the Commission to make the initial determination as to whether the controversy implicated designated ground water. See Gallegos, 147 P.2d at 31â32; Pioneer, 658 P.2d at 846â47; Vickroy, 627 P.2d at 759â60.