Opinion ID: 2613155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Hallenbeck Decision

Text: In 1907 and in 1937, the Granby Ditch and Irrigation Company (the Granby Company) acquired rights to store water in a system of reservoirs. The Granby Company subsequently filed a petition for a decree entitling it to store water decreed to its system of reservoirs in whatever location and sequence it saw fit within the systema so-called `blanket decree.' Hallenbeck, 144 Colo. at 486, 357 P.2d at 359. Several parties objected and argued that water previously available to them would now be stored by the Granby Company, and that the decree to the extent that it exceeded the original capacity was void since there is an implied limitation in every decree which restricts storage rights to actual capacity. Id. at 490, 357 P.2d at 361. At trial, an engineer testifying on behalf of the Granby Company stated that if the relief ... were granted less water would flow down the creek than now flows. Id. at 491, 357 P.2d at 362. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court concluded that by granting the petition and holding that the decrees previously entered be strictly observed, [the Granby Company] will not be allowed to take more water than was previously decreed to them in 1907 and 1937. Id. at 493, 357 P.2d at 363. The objectors appealed. We first noted that the action was governed by section 147-9-22, which permitted owners of water rights to file petitions to change the location of reservoirs or other structures for storing water. § 147-9-22, 6 C.R.S. (1953); Hallenbeck, 144 Colo. at 494, 357 P.2d at 363. A petition filed under that section was required to state the new point of location sought by the owner, and to state whether the proposed change would injuriously affect the vested rights of others. § 147-9-22(7), 6 C.R.S. (1953). If the petition asserted that the vested rights of others may be injured, then the owner was required to provide terms and conditions to prevent such injurious effect and to protect the parties affected. Id. We found that the decree violates the basic and fundamental requirement of the statute that the new point of location be specifically set forth. Petitioner was required to show its proposed change with particularity. Hallenbeck, 144 Colo. at 494, 357 P.2d at 363. We next found that injury to junior right holders was threatened because petitioner Granby Company admit[ted] that less water would flow downstream as a result of the changes. Id. at 495, 357 P.2d at 363. We then found that the Granby Company failed to suggest terms and conditions to prevent the injurious effect. Id. at 498, 357 P.2d at 364. We finally found that the trial court failed to consider the evidence with reference to specific and particular invasion of vested rights. Id. at 498, 357 P.2d at 365. We thus reversed the judgment and remanded the cause.