Opinion ID: 2630950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Accretions to a Net-Losing Ditch

Text: FRICO appeals the water court's holding that accretions to a net-losing ditch should not be subtracted from the historic beneficial consumptive use. In its brief, FRICO states that it favors the [the court's] determination ... [but] seeks consistency of the legal principle among all ditches, both in change cases and in daily administration of canals. FRICO implies that other water courts have concluded that seepage gains to a net-losing ditch should be subtracted from historic beneficial consumptive use. [3] In essence, FRICO appeals the water court's holding but asks this court to affirm that holding. Under Colorado Appellate Rule 1(d), a party must state the grounds upon which he or she relies in seeking a reversal or modification of the judgment or the correction of adverse findings, orders, or rulings of the trial court. (Emphases added). In prior cases, we have dismissed appeals because the appellant was not an aggrieved party. See, e.g., Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 135, 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965); Camenisch v. Nuccitelli, 150 Colo. 141, 142, 372 P.2d 85, 85 (1962). In Miller, our court explained the rationale behind this principle as follows: Appeals are not allowed for the mere purpose of delay, or to present purely abstract legal questions however important or interesting, but to correct errors injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Only parties aggrieved may appeal. The word  aggrieved  refers to a substantial grievance; the denial to the party of some claim of right, either of property or of person, or the imposition upon him of some burden or obligation. 157 Colo. at 136, 401 P.2d at 605 (quoting Wilson v. Bd. of Regents, 46 Colo. 100, 100, 102 P. 1088, 1089 (1909)). [4] Applying the requirement from Colorado Appellate Rule 1(d) and the principle expressed in Miller , we hold that FRICO has not presented adequate grounds for an appeal because it is not seeking the reversal, modification, or correction of the water court's holding. Rather, FRICO seeks our review to affirm the water court so that its holding may be used as precedent in other cases. Here, FRICO has not shown a substantial grievance with the water court's holding and has alleged no error. To the extent that the trial courts have ruled inconsistently on this point of law, we await a case in which the appellant alleges that the trial court erred in some fashion. Hence, we hold that FRICO has not presented adequate grounds for an appeal on this issue. Therefore, we decline to address whether accretions to a net-losing ditch should be subtracted from historic beneficial consumptive use. [5]