Opinion ID: 1144687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: map of the granby reservoir system

Text: The ditches on Dirty George Creek begin about two miles below the reservoirs, the headgate of the Granby ditch being located first. The Hoosier ditch of objector White is just below the Granby ditch and the other ditches are several miles further downstream. The storage rights of the reservoirs depend on decrees rendered in 1907 and in 1937. Some of the rights of objector are junior to the 1907 decrees of petitioner but senior to the rights adjudicated in 1937. There are other decrees of objector adjudicated in 1937 which are junior to the petitioner's 1937 rights. The amount and priorities decreed are set forth in the tables which followthose of petitioner appearing in caps. It is to be noted in the tables that a. f. indicates acre feet and c. f. s. indicates cubic feet per second of time. Priority of Filling Decrees of Petitioner and Objector (Petitioner's Decrees in Caps) Ditch or Priority Year Reservoir No. Adjudicated Amount --------- -------- ----------- ------ Granby No. 5 8 1907 287.00 a.f. Granby No. 10 9 1907 114.75 a.f. Granby No. 2 9 1907 57.40 a.f. Granby No. 11 10 1907 75.00 a.f. Granby No. 1 11 1907 57.43 a.f. Granby No. 3 14 1907 8.00 a.f. Granby No. 8 14 1907 11.50 a.f. Granby No. 9 15 1907 111.50 a.f. Granby No. 7 16 1907 12.00 a.f. Granby No. 6 19 1907 11.50 a.f. Blake 24 1907 .62 c.f.s. Bourn 37 1907 1.00 c.f.s. Obert A-28 1914 1.50 c.f.s. Obert A-46 1914 3.00 c.f.s. Perkins A-71 1914 1.50 c.f.s. Eagle A-101 1914 9.70 c.f.s. Granby No. 1 H-29 1937 57.43 a.f. Granby No. 2 H-29 1937 114.77 a.f. Granby No. 6 H-29 1937 34.48 a.f. Granby No. 7 H-29 1937 64.08 a.f. Granby No. 11 H-29 1937 11.75 a.f. Bourn H-43 1937 .50 c.f.s. Red Haw H-68 1937 2.50 c.f.s. Rule H-119 1937 3.00 c.f.s. Perry H-134 1937 .50 c.f.s. Obert J-48 1954 3.00 c.f.s. Eagle J-293 1954 1.30 c.f.s. Blake J-330 1954 1.13 c.f.s. Valley View J-332 1954 2.00 c.f.s. The injuries that objectors allege they would suffer appear in the objections filed; in the pre-trial statement; and in the amendment to the objections made during the trial. The gist of the objections of Hallenbeck is that under the requested decree the reservoirs would be allowed to fill from sources other than contemplated in the original decrees and that water previously available to him would be stored by petitioner. The objections filed by White alleged that no plan was filed to show that no injury would be caused; that water previously available to him would be withheld. In a pre-trial memorandum, counsel for Hallenbeck specified the nature of his objections. He stated that the system had never held and would not then hold the amount of water decreed. He also stated that it was not his contention that any of the original capacity had been abandoned; that the decree to the extent it exceeded the original capacity was void since there is an implied limitation in every decree which restricts storage rights to actual capacity. A further objection was that the present location of the reservoirs is different from the original location, a change which was not authorized. Subsequent to the trial, counsel for the objectors moved to amend their pleadings to conform to the evidence and alleged that the maximum capacity of the reservoirs from the date of their respective decrees was 569.7 feet and that any amount decreed in excess thereof has been abandoned. At the trial, the president of the Reservoir Company testified that three of the reservoirs could hold no water, that the Forest Service required trees to be removed within five feet of the waterline before a reservoir could be rehabilitated, that this would cost approximately $2,500 for Reservoir No. 2, and that they would prefer to store the water in one of the other reservoirs where evaporation would be reduced and where it could be administered more conveniently. No witness for the petitioner testified as to exactly what plan for storage would be used if the decree were granted, although it was indicated that one possibility was to raise the dam on No. 11 to increase the capacity of Nos. 5, 10 and 11 and store the water from Nos. 1 and 2 there. Objector offered expert testimony of a civil engineer who had surveyed the reservoirs and the reservoirs could not hold the 1047 acre feet decreed to them, and that even if Nos. 2, 3, and 8, which were then unable to hold any water, were repaired the total capacity would be only 569.7 acre feet. The trial court ruled that this evidence was admissible only on the issue of abandonment and that it would not be considered on the question of injury as a result of change in place of storage. The only testimony to show capacity at the date of the decree was to the effect that there was no indication that the then capacity differed from any previous capacity. The testimony of both the engineer and the objector in this respect was with reference to the preceding twenty years only. The evidence introduced by petitioner as bearing on capacity was that the system had distributed to their stockholders 1000 acre feet of water in each of seven years between 1937 and 1950, and with 400 acre feet stored in No. 12 as it was during that period, they were able to meet the demands of all their users. An engineer witness for petitioner admitted that if the relief sought by petitioner were granted less water would flow down the creek than now flows. Whether he meant that this would be the result of expansion of storage facilities or of the compensating effects of more flexible use of existing storage facilities is not clear. Much testimony was concerned with when the various reservoirs filled. This was conflicting and somewhat ambiguous. Witnesses for objector said that the snow melt began earlier in the vicinity of the lower reservoirs, such as Nos. 7 and 11, and that consequently these reservoirs filled and spilled from one to three weeks earlier than did the reservoirs at the upper part of the system. The latter were said to be in wooded country which retarded the snow melt. Witnesses for the petitioner, on the other hand, stated that Reservoir No. 1 filled at the same time as did Nos. 7, 10 and 11 and that No. 1 is considered a sure filler. An officer of the petitioner did concede that No. 7 would usually spill before No. 1. Presumably the controls in No. 7 were set to allow it to spill when its senior decree of 12 acre feet had been stored, and apparently this was the spill to which reference was being made. The testimony was not clear as to the difference in time between the spill from No. 7 at 12 feet and from No. 1 at 57.43 acre feet. Objector argued that if No. 7 is allowed to accumulate the quantity now assigned to No. 2, substantial prejudice will result in that he would be delayed in exercising his rights, and this would amount to a prejudicial change. The water commissioner for the district where the reservoirs are located testified that many of the junior decrees are satisfied only by floodwater from a heavy runoff in the spring. Objector himself stated that he depended on spring peak flow. He also pointed out that in many years there was sufficient water available between the reservoirs and the ditches to satisfy the junior ditch decrees apart from the floodwater. On cross examination he said that if the requested relief were granted the petitioners would probably be able to move their appropriations, junior and senior, indiscriminately to their best advantage. In its findings of fact and decree the trial court adopted the petitioner's version with respect to all of the evidence and it also adopted petitioner's theories as to the law of the case. The court found that all eleven of the reservoirs filled from the same source; that the continued use of said reservoirs will be the same as has been in the past, that there will be no increase in the duty of said reservoir waters, nor will said waters be used in a different way or place than is now being used. A further finding of the trial court was that there had been no abandonment of the adjudicated rights by the petitioners and that their storage of such waters has been largely the same from year to year, except perhaps during exceptionally dry years. The court also found that objectors cannot insist that the conditions in the past remain the same because of the breaking of the dams and leaking of the same which has been for their benefit and to the detriment of the petitioners; in other words, they cannot insist upon a continuation of the petitioner's misfortunes, to furnish them water. The Court must find that the change in storage rights will have no injurious effect upon the objectors' vested rights. The trial court made no specific finding with respect to injury to the objectors apart from the general observation quoted immediately above. The court concluded that by granting the petition and holding that the decrees previously entered be strictly observed, petitioners will not be allowed to take more water than was previously decreed to them in 1907 and 1937. The final conclusion was that the reservoirs be incorporated into one storage unit under the name of Granby Reservoir System with the right to store water decreed to said reservoirs from the present sources of supply as provided in the several decrees. It should also be mentioned that by refusing to consider testimony as to capacity of the several reservoirs except as bearing upon the issue of abandonment, the court in effect precluded a showing by objectors that the change would produce injury. In urging reversal, objectors argue: First, that the court erred in limiting the testimony as to capacity of the reservoirs to the issue of abandonment in view of the fact that petitioner was in effect seeking a decree authorizing it to enlarge its reservoirs to the detriment of junior right holders. Secondly, that a modification would result in changed stream flow conditions which would operate to the detriment of junior appropriators. Third, that there was an abandonment of the rights established by the decree to the extent of the difference between the quantity awarded and the actual reservoir capacity. The action was treated by counsel and the court as having arisen under C.R.S. '53, 147-9-22, relative to modification of decrees by changing the point of diversion of ditches or other structures or by changing the location of reservoirs or other structures. This section allows an owner or claimant of a water right desiring modification of a decree by changing his point of diversion to file in the court which entered the adjudication decree a petition in writing, setting forth among other things, the point of diversion as fixed by the decree; the new point of diversion sought by the petitioner; a list of ditches and reservoirs taking water from the same source with the names and addresses of the owners or claimants thereof so far as known to the petitioner; an allegation that the proposed change will not injuriously affect the vested rights of others or if it has injurious effect on the vested rights of others the terms and conditions suggested by the petitioner to prevent such injurious effect and to protect the parties affected.