Opinion ID: 2823795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retained Jurisdiction and the Law of the Case Doctrine

Text: Â¶29Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors contend that their invocation of the water courtâs retained jurisdiction in the 2010 Decree under section 37-92-501(4)(c) required the court to review all challenges to the Amended Plan and the 2012 ARP, notwithstanding the findings in the 2010 Decree and this courtâs decision in San Antonio, 270 P.3d at 931â32. Specifically, Objectors assert that numerous aspects of the Amended Plan were not before the water court in 2010 because the Amended Planâs actual operation was not known until the Subdistrict submitted its ARP. Objectors also contend that this courtâs holding in San Antonio, id., does not preclude their challenges. We disagree. Â¶30Â Â Â Â Â Â In the 2010 Decree, the water court retained jurisdiction under section 37-92-501(4)(c) to ensure that the Subdistrict operates the Amended Plan in compliance with the 2010 Decree and that the Plan prevents injury to senior surface right holders. Section 37-92-501(4)(c) grants the court broad powers of oversight to consider the operation of a plan of water management: âThe water judge shall retain jurisdiction over the water management plan for the purpose of ensuring the plan is operated, and injury is prevented, in conformity with the terms of the courtâs decree approving the water management plan.â (Emphasis added.) Under the terms and conditions of the 2010 Decree, the water court specifically retained jurisdiction âto reconsider, enforceÂ and require alteration or even termination of a plan if it fails to prevent injury or is not operated in accordance with the terms of the Courtâs decree and the plan itself.â We acknowledged this broad retained jurisdiction in San Antonio. 270 P.3d at 935, 944â45. Â¶31Â Â Â Â Â Â That said, the water court correctly concluded that, to the extent Objectorsâ challenges sought to resurrect issues with respect to the Amended Plan addressed in San Antonio, id. at 931â32, this courtâs opinion was binding law of the case. Under the law of the case doctrine, âprior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.â People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999). A trial court has discretion to apply the law of the case doctrine to its own prior rulings. Id. However, the law of the case established by an appellate court must be followed on remand in subsequent proceedings before a trial court. People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983) (citing Cache La Poudre Reservoir Co. v. Water Supply & Storage Co., 62 P. 420 (Colo. 1900)). This principle protects the finality of judgments and ensures lower courtsâ adherence to decisions of higher courts. Id. Â¶32Â Â Â Â Â Â In San Antonio, we concluded that the Amended Plan as decreed meets the applicable statutory criteria and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to permit the continued use of groundwater consistent with preventing material injury to senior surface water rights. 270 P.3d at 931â32. The water court correctly concluded that, to the extent that Objectors raised challenges that were resolved by the 2010 Decree and affirmed on appeal, it was bound to follow the previously decided law of the case. We therefore affirm the water courtâs August 10, 2012 order dismissing ObjectorsâÂ challenges that sought reconsideration of methodologies for forecasting hydrological conditions and for calculating Subdistrict well pumping and recharge credit that were approved in the 2010 Decree and affirmed by this court in San Antonio.