Opinion ID: 2823828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence to Rebut the Presumption

Text: Â¶19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Despite the prolonged nonuse of the decreed diversion point, the question remains whether the Foundation rebutted the presumption of abandonment by proffering evidence of some fact or condition excusing nonuse or showing the Foundationâs intent not to abandon. Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Foundation argues that it rebutted the presumption because it presented evidence that it diverted the Tip Jack water right through the Hutton 2 ditch. It argues that Jim Hutton diverted both the Tip Jack water right and the Hutton 2 water right from the Hutton 2 diversion point, where he then pumped the water into the Tip JackÂ Ditch and Hutton 2 laterals. The Foundation presented aerial photographs to support this assertion. The water court agreed that the Foundation presented âample evidence to show that the Tip Jack Ditch east of Hale Road was maintained by Jim Hutton during the period the Engineers claim non-use of the Tip Jack water right.â (Emphasis in original.) Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In arguing that undecreed diversions are sufficient to rebut the presumption of abandonment, the Foundation cites Lengel v. Davis, 347 P.2d 142 (Colo. 1959). There, we noted: Certainly a change in the method or means of conveying appropriated water from the source of supply to the point of beneficial use is not evidence of abandonment. Likewise the unauthorized, unprotested, change of the point of diversion is not evidence of abandonment; on the other hand, it is evidence of nonabandonment. Id. at 146 (emphasis added). Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Foundation also relies on Means v. Pratt, 331 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1958). In Means, we concluded that âone does not lose his possessory property rights in water by diverting the water at a point or points other than those decreed to him.â Id. at 808â09. Based on this precedent, the Foundation argues that it did not lose its possessory interest in the Tip Jack water right or evidence an intent to abandon the water right because the Huttons put the water to beneficial use through a different, undecreed diversion point for over thirty years. Â¶23Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Engineers argue that this precedent is irrelevant because we decided Lengel and Means before the 1975 enactment of the abandonment statute that created aÂ rebuttable presumption of abandonment from nonuse. Before 1975, the court imposed a âclear and convincingâ burden of proof, not a preponderance of the evidence standard. See, e.g., Lengel, 347 P.2d at 146 (âProperly the court would require clear and convincing proof before concluding that a person abandoned an 1885 water right, one of the oldest on a river in an arid or semiarid area.â). Â¶24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Regardless of the burden of proof applied, we spoke clearly in both cases about the relationship between undecreed diversions and abandonmentâuse of a water right at an undecreed point of diversion does not evidence intent to abandon. 5 Further, Colorado water law strongly disfavors findings of abandonment. See, e.g., Williams v.Â Midway Ranches Prop. Ownersâ Assân, 938 P.2d 515, 527 (Colo. 1997) (âAbandonment is not favored under Colorado water law.â). Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Still, the water courtâs order lacked clarity as to whether it found that the Foundation utilized the Tip Jack water right, as opposed to just the Tip Jack Ditch. In addition, the water court did not plainly differentiate among the three water rights atÂ issue when concluding that the Foundation had rebutted the presumption of abandonment. Specifically, in making its findings, the water court relied on the following evidence: As discussed in other sections of this order, such evidence includes Jim Huttonâs maintenance of the ditches over the years; reserving use of the water rights in the 1991 conservation easement between the Huttons and the state of Colorado; pledging the water rights as collateral for a loan in 1995; creating the Foundation in 2000, which included the water rights; and leasing the land and water rights to Mr. Cure in 2000 or 2001. However, use of the Tip Jack Ditch does not necessarily equate to use of the Tip Jack Ditch water right. Therefore, the water court must separately analyze use of the Tip Jack water right to determine whether the Foundation has successfully rebutted the presumption of abandonment through evidence excusing its nonuse of the decreed diversion point or lack of intent to abandon. We thus remand for further consideration of the Foundationâs evidence of its intent not to abandon. 6