Opinion ID: 2823828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Presumption Based on Failure to Use Decreed Point of Diversion

Text: Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The water court found that â[t]he evidence presented is convincing that water was never diverted into the Tip Jack Ditch from the relocated diversion point.â (Emphasis added.) In so finding, the court explained: The flow rate was only 2.0 cfs, which all of the expert witnesses involved with the case agree was insufficient to move water down . . . due to theÂ length of the ditch, the porous nature of the soil in the ditch that would result in high ditch losses, and the gradient of the ditch. The court accepted evidence that there was no diversion structure on the South Fork of the Republican River at the relocated diversion point in the decree. Based on the elevation of the river relative to the relocated diversion point, the court explained that a pump would have been needed to move water from the river to the ditch, but âthere is no evidence that a pump was ever installed or used in this area.â Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Nonuse refers to the water rightânot simply the water itself. A water right is defined in terms of a specific point of diversion, and water right holders can only perfect a water right through actual use. High Plains A & M, LLC v. Se. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 120 P.3d 710, 717 (Colo. 2005) (â[A]ppropriations of surface water and tributary ground waterâwhether adjudicated by a conditional, absolute, or change of water right decreeâhave a situs that includes the point of diversion and the place where the actual beneficial use occurs.â (emphasis added)). Use of the decreed point of diversion is a key element of use of the water right itself. It thus follows that proving nonuse of that diversion point is proof of nonuse of the water right in question. Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Here, the water court found that the Engineers proved that the point of diversion decreed in the 1978 change of water right proceeding had never been used to divert water to the Tip Jack Ditch. But it appears that the water court believed that nonuse at the decreed diversion point was insufficient to prove nonuse of the water right, as required to raise the presumption of abandonment. We disagree. Because the Engineers proved that over ten years of nonuse of the decreed diversion point hadÂ passed, the Engineers did not need to prove more to trigger the presumption that Hutton had abandoned the water right. The burden then shifted to the water right holder, the Foundation, to demonstrate a fact or condition excusing such nonuse or a lack of intent to abandon. Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â To be sure, our holding adds a step in the analysis. But the second step necessarily resolves an important question of burden-shifting and public policy. Once the Engineers establish nonuse of the decreed diversion point, the burden shifts to the water right holder to show use to rebut the presumption of abandonment. At that point, the water right holder stands in the better position to provide evidence of use and intent. The onus should be on a water right holder who is using an undecreed point of diversion to rebut a presumption of abandonment. Thus, we conclude that the water court erred in holding that the Engineers did not establish the statutory presumption of abandonment for the Tip Jack water right.