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

Heading: Quantification of Beneficial Consumptive Use Based on a Representative Period of the Water Rightâs Exercise

Text: Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In discussing and applying claim and issue preclusion to water cases, we have been cautious to take into account the facts of the individual case and water lawâs underlying policy objectives of security, reliability, and flexibility. Waters of the natural stream, including tributary groundwater, belong to the public subject to appropriation through actual beneficial use. Colo. Const. art. XVI, Â§ 6. Coloradoâs water rights system is designed to provide security, assure reliability, and cultivate flexibility in the public and private use of this scarce and valuable resource. See Empire Lodge HomeownersâÂ Assân v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1147 (Colo. 2001). A water right is a usufructuary right. One does not âownâ water; rather, one owns the right to use water within the limitations of Coloradoâs prior appropriation doctrine. See Â§ 37-92-103(12), C.R.S. (2014) (defining a âwater rightâ as âa right to use in accordance with its priority a certain portion of the waters of the state by reason of the appropriation of the sameâ); see also Kobobel v. Colo. Depât of Natural Res., 249 P.3d 1127, 1130 (Colo. 2011) (explaining that under Coloradoâs prior appropriation doctrine, a vested priority date has always beenÂ subject to the rights of senior water right holders, as well as the amount of water available in the tributary system). Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Our early case law recognized that water right owners have the right to make changes to the terms of their decrees through the adjudication process set forth by the General Assembly. Strickler v. City of Colo. Springs, 26 P. 313, 315â16 (Colo. 1891) (âWe grant that the water itself is the property of the public. Its use, however, is subject to appropriation, and . . . the owner has the paramount right to such use. In our opinion this right may be transferred by sale so long as the rights of others, as in this case, are not injuriously affected thereby.â); An Act in Relation to Irrigation, ch. 105, sec. 1, 1899 Colo. Sess. Laws 235 (providing for a petition procedure to make changes to decreed water rights). Â¶19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Where a court has never adjudicated the historical beneficial consumptive use under the original appropriationâs decree, that determination must be made in the pending change case by examining the representative period of use. Pueblo West Metro. Dist. v. Se. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 717 P.2d 955, 959 (Colo. 1986); see also Ready Mixed Concrete Co. v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 115 P.3d 638, 646 (Colo. 2005). As we discussed in Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. City of Golden, after development of improved engineering techniques, courts began translating a petitioner's historical consumptive use into a volumetric limitation stated in acre-feet to more accurately prevent injury to juniors in change proceedings. 975 P.2d 189, 197â98 (1999). Indeed, âmany of the early Colorado decrees awarded rates of flow in excess of the amounts necessary for the petitioner's beneficial use, and someÂ even went so far as to grant more water than a particular ditch would carry.â Id. at 198; see also Pueblo West, 717 P.2d at 959 (â[O]nce an appropriator exercises his or her privilege to change a water right the appropriator runs a real risk of a requantification of the water right based on actual historical consumptive use.â (internal citations omitted)). Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A water right under Coloradoâs prior appropriation system arises only by lawful application of the originally decreed water to an actual beneficial use. Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d at 1147; Weibert v. Rothe Bros., 618 P.2d 1367, 1371 (Colo. 1980). Basic principles concerning a change of water right anchor their roots in long-standing water law, which provides that: (1) the extent of beneficial use of the original appropriation limits the amount of water that can be changed to another use, and (2) the change must not injure other water rights. Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Assân. v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 53 (Colo. 1999). Accordingly, the right to make a change to a prior appropriation water right, such as a change in point of diversion or place or type of use, is limited in time and quantity to historical use. Burlington Ditch, 256 P.3d at 675. Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thus, the actual beneficial use of the appropriation becomes the basis, measure, and limit of the water right. Santa Fe Trail Ranches, 990 P.2d at 53. Over an extended period of time, the pattern of historical diversions and use matures, becoming the true measure of the water right. Williams v. Midway Ranches Prop. Ownersâ Ass'n, 938 P.2d 515, 521 (Colo. 1997). In a change proceeding, the water court has a duty to ensure that the true rightâthat which has ripened by beneficial use over timeâis the right that continues in its changed form under the new decree. Santa Fe Trail Ranches, 990 P.2d atÂ 55. The actual historical diversion for beneficial use could be less than the optimum utilization in any particular case, either because the well or other facility involved cannot physically produce at the decreed rate on a continuing basis, or because that amount has simply not been historically needed or applied for the decreed purpose. State Eng'r v. Bradley, 53 P.3d 1165, 1169 (Colo. 2002). Thus, an absolute decree, whether expressed in terms of a flow rate or a volumetric measurement, is not a final adjudication of actual historical use, but implicitly, is further limited to actual historical use over a representative period. Id. at 1170; In re Revised Abandonment List of WaterÂ Rights in Water Div. 2, 2012 CO 35, Â¶ 8, 276 P.3d 571, 574. Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Historical consumptive use under the adjudicated water right is calculated based upon a pattern of diversion and use over a representative period of time, expressed in acre-feet of water and is the quantitative measure of the water right. Burlington Ditch, 256 P.3d at 662; Cent. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Greeley, 147 P.3d 9, 14 (Colo. 2006). The amount of consumptive use water available under a change decree establishes the relative value of a prior appropriation priorityâs usufruct. See NavajoÂ Dev. Co. v. Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374, 1378â80 (Colo. 1982).