Opinion ID: 2823795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stay of the 2012 Annual Replacement Plan

Text: Â¶33Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors contend that each ARP is an extension or completion of the Amended Plan, and, therefore, like the Amended Plan, an ARP is tantamount to rules and regulations promulgated by the State Engineer. See San Antonio, 270 P.3d at 939â40 (observing that section 37-92-501(4)(c) provides that judicial review of the State Engineerâs approval of a groundwater management plan shall proceed under section 37-92-501(3)(a) for review of a proposed rule or regulation, such that âthe same substantive standards apply to a ground water management plan as apply to proposed rules and regulationsâ). Objectors argue that this courtâs holding in Simpson v. BijouÂ Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50, 55, 59 (Colo. 2003), as modified on denial of rehâg (May 27, 2003), that proposed water rules and regulations cannot take effect before all protests are resolved, requires the court to stay operation of the 2012 ARP. In Objectorsâ view, the 2012 ARP cannot yet go into effect, and groundwater pumping in the Subdistrict is not authorized under section 37-92-501(4)(c); thus, section 37-92-502(2)(a) requires the State Engineer to immediately curtail all pumping. We disagree. Â¶34Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectorsâ argument hinges on its premise that the ARP is an extension or completion of the Amended Plan. But as the water court observed, if it or this court believed the Amended Plan to be incomplete without an ARP, the Amended Plan would not have been upheld. Indeed, we noted in San Antonio that âthe GeneralÂ Assembly did not intend that subdistricts would have to identify in detail their future sources of replacement water (and timings and amounts) upon adoption of [a] plan.â 270 P.3d at 946. We agree with the water court that an ARP is not a part, extension, or completion of the Amended Plan but, rather, is a separate tool to predict annual stream depletions and provide the method by which the Subdistrict will replace those depletions in a given plan year. Â¶35Â Â Â Â Â Â Importantly, unlike the provision for judicial review of the State Engineerâs approval of a groundwater management plan, section 37-92-501(4)(c) does not state that retained jurisdiction to review operation of the Amended Plan shall proceed under section 501(3)(a). The 2012 ARP plainly concerns the operation, not the creation, of the Amended Plan. The water court approved, and this court affirmed, the contents, disclosures, formulas, and timelines of the ARP framework as set out in the Amended Plan and 2010 Decree. See San Antonio, 270 P.3d at 935. The purpose of the water courtâs retained jurisdiction under section 501(4)(c) is to review the operation of the Amended Planâspecifically, the ARPâs conformity to the terms of the Amended Plan and 2010 Decree and its ability to prevent injury to senior right holders. Thus, review of the 2012 ARP is not akin to review of a proposed rule or regulation, and nothing requires courts to stay operation of the 2012 ARP pending resolution of all challenges to it. Â¶36Â Â Â Â Â Â In any event, this case is distinguishable from Bijou Irrigation, 69 P.3d at 50. There, we expressed concern that the statutory scheme provided no opportunity for water users to comment prior to the adoption of rules and regulations, so the hearingÂ procedures were the âonly meaningful opportunity for interested parties to protest potential infringements on their water rights.â Id. at 72. Review of an ARP does not implicate the same due process concerns. Here, Objectors had a full and fair opportunity to be heard and present their objections to the Amended Planâand the Amended Planâs detailed ARP frameworkâin the 2010 proceedings. Thus, the rationale of Bijou Irrigation does not extend to individual ARPs. See id. Â¶37Â Â Â Â Â Â Finally, we note that, as a practical matter, to delay the effect of the ARP pending resolution of any objections to it would permit any objector to halt the operation of an ARP each year simply by asserting (much less establishing) that the ARP did not conform to the Amended Plan or the terms of the 2010 Decree. Even if objections proved meritless, to stay the operation of the ARP and, hence, the Amended Plan, could prevent the Plan and ARP from ever going into effect. We will not interpret section 37-92-501(4)(c) to produce such an absurd result. See Frazier v. People, 90 P.3d 807, 811 (Colo. 2004); State v. Nieto , 993 P.2d 493, 501 (Colo. 2000). Â¶38Â Â Â Â Â Â In sum, we affirm the water courtâs August 9, 2012 order denying Objectorsâ Motion for a Determination that the 2012 Annual Replacement Plan is Not In Effect and For an Order That the State Engineer Curtail All Subdistrict Well Pumping.