Opinion ID: 2499081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Initiative 3 and its Titles Contain a Single Subject

Text: ¶ 14 Initiative 3 and its Titles contain a single subject: the public's rights in the waters of natural streams. Initiative 3's proposed subsections are necessarily and properly connected to this subject, see Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079, and the Titles fairly and clearly express the single subject as well. See In re Proposed Initiative 2007-2008 No. 62, 184 P.3d at 58. We first analyze Initiative 3, and then address the Titles.
¶ 15 Initiative 3 contains a single subject. Proposed subsection (2) expressly adopts the Colorado public trust doctrine. The plain language of Initiative 3 indicates that this proposed doctrine is necessarily and properly connected to the subject of the public's rights in waters of natural streams because the doctrine's delineated purpose is to protect the public's interests in the water of natural streams and to instruct the state of Colorado to defend the public's water ownership rights of use and public enjoyment. (Emphasis added). ¶ 16 In addition, proposed subsections (3) through (5) are necessarily and properly connected to the subject of the public's rights in waters of natural streams because they describe the proposed doctrine's legal relationship to existing contract, property, and appropriative rights. Subsection (3) states that the new public right to water of natural streams would be superior to rules and terms of contracts or property law. Then, subsections (4) and (5) necessarily and properly describe how the superior public right to the water of natural streams will interact with usufruct water rights and with streambed and stream bank access. Subsections (6) and (7) necessarily delineate the procedures for enacting and enforcing the new public trust regime to protect the public's right and interest in water. Far from being disconnected and incongruous, the proposed subsections of Initiative 3 have the single distinct purpose of describing a new legal regimethe Colorado public trust doctrinethat would govern the public's rights in waters of natural streams. See Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079. ¶ 17 Unlike water in Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1080, the public's rights in waters of natural streams is not some overarching theme that Initiative 3's proponents employed in an attempt to meld separate and unconnected purposes into a single subject. Rather, the public's rights in waters of natural streams describes the purpose of the Colorado public trust doctrine and relates to the other necessarily and properly proposed subsections of Initiative 3 describing the details of that doctrine. Just as the public's interest in state waters was sufficiently narrow and sufficiently connected with the proposed initiative's provisions in In re Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d at 1278-81, the public's rights in waters of natural streams is sufficiently narrow and sufficiently connected to the proposed constitutional amendment contained in Initiative 3. ¶ 18 Initiative 3 additionally does not present either of the dangers attending omnibus measures. First, the proponents did not combine an array of disconnected subjects into the measure for the purpose of garnering support from various factions. See In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442. Initiative 3 does not, for example, prescribe how to establish water district election procedures while also developing a strong public trust doctrine, as did the multi-subject initiative in Public Rights in Waters II. 898 P.2d at 1080. Nor does it create a new environmental department while also proposing to enact a separate and discrete public trust doctrine. See In re Proposed Initiative 2007-2008, No. 17, 172 P.3d at 875. Rather, Initiative 3's proposed subsections all relate to the Colorado public trust doctrine and that doctrine's impact on the public's rights in waters of natural streams. ¶ 19 Initiative 3 also fails to trigger the second danger of omnibus measures because voters will not be surprised by, or fraudulently led to vote for, any surreptitious provision[s] `coiled up in the folds' of a complex initiative. In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d at 442. In In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-98 No. 84, 961 P.2d 456, 460 (Colo. 1998), we held that a tax cut initiative contained multiple subjects because it proposed to not only cut taxes, but also to replace local revenue affected by these tax cuts within all tax and spending limits. The phrase within all tax and spending limits required the state to replace local revenues by diverting funding from existing state programs. In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-98 No. 84, 961 P.2d at 460. We reasoned that voters would be surprised to learn that by voting for local tax cuts, they also had required the reduction, and possible elimination, of those state programs. Id. at 460-61. ¶ 20 No such surprise would occur should voters approve Initiative 3 because the plain language of the measure unambiguously proposes a new Colorado public trust doctrine, describes the impact of that doctrine on other legal rights, and lays out procedures for implementing and enforcing the constitutional amendment. [2] Furthermore, Initiative 3 is not overly lengthy or complex, nor is the plain language confusing or otherwise misleading, as it was in the tax cut initiative case. See id. at 460; Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079. As such, Initiative 3 complies with the single subject rule.
¶ 21 The Titles clearly express Initiative 3's single subject. They first explicitly state that Initiative 3 concerns the public's rights in the water of natural streams, and then accurately and unambiguously summarize the details of the measure. Kemper argues that the Titles are unfair because the phrase concerning the public's rights in the water of natural streams does not clearly express a single subject. We held above that the phrase in question, as used in Initiative 3, contains a single subject in accordance with Colorado law. Therefore, we reject Kemper's argument because the public's rights in the water of natural streams is the single subject of Initiative 3 and is clearly and fairly expressed in the Titles. See Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5); see also § 1-40-106(3)(b), C.R.S. (2011). Kemper has not argued any other grounds upon which we might conclude that the Titles are improper. Therefore, we affirm the designation of the Titles because they contain a single subject.