Opinion ID: 2613155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Application of Hallenbeck to the Present Case

Text: The City of Thornton contends that this case is controlled by Hallenbeck since it involves a blanket decree, which must be deemed invalid by virtue of its comprehensive character. We disagree. Hallenbeck was decided under section 147-9-22, 6 C.R.S. (1953), which was repealed in 1969. [7] The Alliance's application is governed by section 37-92-305, 15 C.R.S. (1990). Section 37-92-305(3) provides, A change of water right ... shall be approved if such change or plan will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right. In cases in which a statement of opposition has been filed, the applicant shall provide to the ... water judge ... a proposed ruling or decree to prevent such injurious effect.... § 37-92-305(3), 15 C.R.S. (1990). Neither that section, nor section 147-9-22, expressly prohibits granting an application for change of a right to store water which seeks to add sites to an existing right to store water at a single site. Unlike its statutory predecessor, section 37-92-305 does not require applications for change of location of a water storage facility to include the new point of location. See § 147-9-22(6). The section requires applicants to submit proposed decrees designed to prevent injurious effect when a statement of opposition is filed. § 37-92-305(3). The water court ruling granting the Alliance's application for alternate places to store water contained the following terms and conditions: A. The changes awarded herein shall apply to 110,000 acre-feet of storage capacity in any of the alternative storage reservoirs. Therefore, any additional storage capacity owned or utilized by the Alliance may only be utilized to store water under priorities other than the priority described ... above. B. If the Alliance seeks to utilize a storage reservoir with a capacity greater than [] 110,000 acre-feet or seeks to utilize a series of reservoirs with a combined capacity greater than 110,000 acre-feet, it shall designate through an accounting form satisfactory to the State Engineer what priority the Alliance is utilizing to store water and that under the priority described ... above it is storing no more than 110,000 acre-feet. C. Storage of water at the alternative storage sites approved herein shall be limited to the quantity of water which is physically available in priority at the original place of storage described ... above. [8] The water court stated at trial that the terms and conditions, by only permitting the Alliance to store 110,000 acre-feet of water, would prevent injury to other water right owners. The water court's decree subsequently stated that compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the decree would prevent injury to the objectors as contemplated under section 37-92-305(3). Thus, unlike the Granby Company, the Alliance has complied with the governing statutory provisions. Additionally, in Hallenbeck, an engineer for the applicant testified at trial that less water would flow downstream if requested changes were granted. The Hallenbeck court accordingly determined on appeal that injury to junior right holders was threatened, and concluded that the Granby Company's application should be denied because the Granby Company did not suggest terms and conditions to prevent the injurious effect. The water court in the present case, however, found that the Alliance will not store any greater amount of water than that originally decreed. Based on the facts of this case, we are not persuaded by the City of Thornton's contentions.