Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this joint opinion, the Supreme Court addressed two direct appeals from the same water court proceedings. Meridian Service Metropolitan District's motion to intervene in a declaratory judgment action between Cherokee Metropolitan District and Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District (UBS) was denied by the water court. Meridian appealed the water court’s ruling to the Supreme Court. However, while Meridian’s appeal was pending, the declaratory judgment proceedings continued without Meridian’s participation, and the water court entered an order granting UBS's motion for declaratory judgment. Cherokee then appealed that order to the Supreme Court. The underlying water action began in 1998 as litigation between Cherokee and UBS over Cherokee’s water rights in the UBS basin. In 1999, Cherokee and UBS settled the litigation by entering a Stipulation and Release. In 2003, Cherokee and Meridian entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to build a new wastewater treatment facility. According to the IGA, wastewater from both Cherokee and Meridian would be treated at the facility, and the return flows would go back into the UBS basin. Upon learning of the Cherokee/Meridian Replacement Plan Application in late 2008, UBS filed a statement of objection with the Colorado Ground Water Commission and moved to dismiss the Replacement Plan Application. Meridian moved to intervene as of right in the underlying water action between UBS and Cherokee to challenge both the preliminary injunction and the motion for declaratory judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the water court’s order denying Meridian’s motion to intervene, and vacated the water court's order granting declaratory judgment. View "Cherokee Metro. Dist. v. Meridian Serv. Metro. Dist." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court involved orders of the District Court for Water Division No. 2 regarding the administration of water on Alvarado Creek in Custer County. Applicants-Appellants Catherine and Peter LoPresti and Opposers-Appellants City of Fountain and Widefield Water and Sanitation District claimed the water court erred in voiding a rotational no-call agreement titled the "Beardsley Decree." Opposers-Appellees John Brandenburg, Douglas and Nancy Brandon, Dilley Family Trust, James D. Hood, Ronald Keyston, Arlie Riggs, Schneider Enterprises, Inc., Dr. Charles Schneider, and Mund Shaikly argued that the Beardsley Decree was an improperly noticed change in water rights, and as such the water court correctly declared it void. The Supreme Court held that the Beardsley Decree was a valid rotational no-call agreement because, and by its plain language, it did not sanction a change in water rights. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the water court. View "LoPresti v. Brandenburg" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District (District) filed an application for absolute water rights, based on their conditional water rights on "Four Counties Ditch Number 3." The State Engineers opposed the application and moved for summary judgment. The water court denied the Engineers' motion, but ruled as a matter of law that in order to perfect a conditional water storage right, the District needed to show that “it diverted and put to beneficial use water in excess of its existing absolute decrees.” Upon careful consideration of the water court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

Burlington Ditch, Reservoir & Land Company (Burlington) and Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) filed applications to change its 1885, 1908 and 1909 water rights. The changes to Burlington and FRICO's rights were precipitated by a new water supply project by the United Water & Sanitation District (United) and East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District (ECCV). Approximately fifty parties argued for their particular interests in relation to Burlington and FRICO's applications. The water court imposed conditions on Burlington and FRICO's historic water rights to prevent injury to all other interested parties' rights. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Burlington, FRICO, United and ECCV challenged the water court's order regarding its determination of the historical consumptive use of the water rights. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the water court's decision.