Opinion ID: 2823836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim and Issue Preclusion in Water Cases

Text: Â¶23Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Our Farmers High Line decision is a leading case regarding application of claim and issue preclusion to water cases. Due to the âunique nature of water law, the litigation surrounding water rights decrees commonly raises complex problems of claim and issue preclusion.â Farmers High Line, 975 P.2d at 198. As a result, a water court must tailor the traditional analytical framework employed to determine whether aÂ previous action operates as a bar to a current claim in order to suit the specific context of water decrees. âTension exists between the mandate requiring courts to give preclusive effect to purportedly final decrees entered in previous actions and the need to leave the courthouse door open to petitioners who allege new injury as a result of anotherâs enlarged use.â Id. We addressed in Farmers High Line an argument seeking to reopen a prior adjudicated decree to insert volumetric limitations. We observed that the âimplied volumetric limitation doctrine . . . was developed in order to prevent injury to juniors when a prior change decree did not address or contemplate the question of historical consumptive use.â Id. at 201. We held that, while claim preclusion prevented reopening the prior decree absent a change case, claim preclusion would not bar a water court âfrom considering new claims of injury based on allegations of changed circumstances,â such as âthe appellantsâ allegations of enlarged use.â Id. at 203. In reaching this conclusion, we cited Midway Ranches, 938 P.2d at 524â25, an augmentation plan case wherein we addressed the potential illegal enlargement of a mutual companyâs ditch right through the issuance of additional shares; we held that the amount of water allocated to each ditch company through a ditch-wide allocation methodology would ordinarily continue into future change cases involving the remaining shares of the ditch. Midway Ranches was an augmentation plan case. 8Â