May 25, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for water court

Colorado Supreme Court Proposes Changes to CRCP and Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions

June 30, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued a notice of proposed rule changes and requests for public comment.  The Court proposes amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 121, Section 1-1 and Chapter 36 of the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions.

The changes to CRCP 121, Section 1-1 involve the addition of a new paragraph 5 to read as follows:

In accordance with CRCP 11(b), an attorney may undertake to provide limited representation to a pro se party involved in a court proceeding. Upon the request of and with the consent of a pro se party, an attorney may make a limited appearance for the pro se party in one or more specified proceedings, if the attorney files and serves with the court and the other parties and attorneys (if any) a notice of the limited appearance prior to or simultaneous with the proceeding(s) for which the attorney appears. At the conclusion of such proceeding(s) the attorney’s role terminates without the necessity of leave of court, upon the attorney filing a notice of completion of limited appearance. Service on an attorney who makes a limited appearance for a party shall be valid only in connection with the specific proceeding(s) for which the attorney appears.

More information about the change to CRCP 121 and the rationale for the proposed change can be found here.

The changes to Chapter 36 of the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions are twofold. If the changes are adopted, the rule “would convert time periods contained in the current Water Court Rules to uniform increments of 7 in place of the various time periods currently specified in the rules. This would conform to the Civil Rules Committee’s suggestion that all Colorado court rules be converted to ‘the rule of 7′ as with Federal Rules.” Additionally, the changes would “accommodate multiple applicants in a single application for augmentation and exchange plans and non-tributary groundwater applications.”

More information about changes to the Water Rules, including line edits and the rationale for the proposed changes, can be found here.

Public comments on either change should be submitted with an original and seven copies no later than Friday, September 30, 2011, at 5:00 pm addressed to: Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, Christopher T. Ryan, 101 West Colfax, 8th Floor, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Colorado Supreme Court: Application for a Conditional Appropriative Right of Exchange is a Conditional Water Right

June 21, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City and County of Broomfield in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder and Weld Counties: Centennial Water and Sanitation District v. City and County of Broomfield on June 20, 2011.

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of the district court for Water Division No. 1, holding that an application for a conditional appropriative right of exchange is a conditional water right subject to the can-and-will test and the first-step requirement. The Court found that the City and County of Broomfield, as a government entity, need not own nor control all sources of substitute water supply at the time the decree is entered but must demonstrate that it has taken the first step toward acquiring the proposed sources and that it can and will acquire them. This analysis is to be applied source by source. The Court found that the water court properly concluded that Broomfield met its burden with regard to two of the eight proposed sources of substitute supply that it does not own or control. Accordingly, the water court’s decree was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , ,

Colorado Supreme Court: Water Court’s Judgment and Decree Upheld Regarding Determination of Historical Consumption Use of Burlington-FRICO Water Rights

June 2, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. on May 31, 2011.

Determination of Historical Consumptive Use of Water Rights—CRS § 37-92-305—Unlawful Enlargement of Water Rights—“One-Fill” Rule—Preclusive Effect of Prior Water Court Orders and Decrees—New Structures and Points of Diversion.

Appellants Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Company (Burlington), Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO), United Water and Sanitation District (United), Henrylyn Irrigation District (Henrylyn), and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District (ECCV) challenged the order and decree of the water court regarding its determination of historical consumptive use of water rights, the effect of prior decrees and new structures related to the Burlington Canal, the application of the “one-fill” rule, and the impact of these decisions on appellants’ senior rights to use the waters of the South Platte River.

This case arose from two applications seeking changes in points of diversion and storage of water rights, as well as changes from irrigation to municipal use for Burlington and FRICO water rights with 1885, 1908, and 1909 priority dates. These changes were precipitated by the United–ECCV Water Supply Project, aimed at providing a renewable source of water to replace Denver Basin groundwater on which ECCV previously relied.

To prevent an unlawful enlargement of the Burlington–FRICO water rights, the water court limited appellants’ 1885 Burlington direct flow water right to 200 cubic feet per second, historically diverted and used for irrigation above Barr Lake. Likewise, the 1885 Burlington storage right was limited to annual average reservoir releases of 5,456 acre-feet. The water court further determined that seepage gains into the Beebe Canal, water collected through the Barr Lake toe drains, and diversions at the Metro Pumps could not be given credit in the calculation of historical consumptive use. The court determined that historical releases from Barr Lake, rather than a pro rata share of the one-fill rule,constitute the proper measure of storage rights. The water court concluded that its system-wide analysis of historical consumptive use was not precluded by the orders and decrees issued in FRICO Case No. 54658 and Thornton Case No. 87CW107. The court imposed conditions to prevent injury to other water rights by the heretofore undecreed diversions via the Globeville Project. The Supreme Court upheld the water court‘s judgment and decree.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Weld County Conducting Court Service-Improvement Program This Week

May 16, 2011 by Leave a Comment

This week, judges, magistrates, clerks, and other court employees will collect data to help improve the way the courts of Colorado’s Nineteenth Judicial District conduct their business. The program was first instituted in 2008, using public surveys to gather information and assess the functioning and accessibility of the courts in the district. In the last three years, the surveys have been used at least once in each of Colorado’s twenty-two judicial districts. Weld County was one of the first districts to participate in the initial survey.

On Wednesday, court employees will spend time talking to people about their experiences as jurors, parties to a case, or as recipients of other Judicial Branch services. Attorneys, law enforcement officers, and anyone who does business with the courts will be encouraged to participate. People exiting the buildings at the Weld County Court Complex will be asked whether they had business with the courts and are willing to fill out a brief anonymous survey. Survey forms will be available in English and Spanish.

The survey is designed to measure public opinion about access to and fairness of the courts. Questions include whether people felt safe in the building, whether they could easily understand the forms they needed, and whether they felt their case was handled in a fair manner. Participants also are asked whether they felt the judge or magistrate listened to them, whether they had all the necessary information before making a decision, and whether they felt they were treated with courtesy and given clear information about the next step in their case.

The new information will be used not only to check the progress of changes initiated since the first round of surveys, but also to support the possibility of further improvements. Two areas initially identified as needing attention were the website and setting performance goals. The website has been completely redesigned to improve access and usability. The district also now regularly monitors case processing, data integrity, and case closure rates to further help ensure the second area is being addressed.

In Fiscal Year 2010, more than 43,100 cases were filed in the Weld County Combined Courts, including 12,615 cases filed in District Court, 509 in the Water Court, and 30,039 in Weld County Court.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , , ,

Colorado Supreme Court: State Engineer’s Orders Curtailing Well Owners’ Use of Water in Their Wells Is Not a Taking

March 30, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kobobel v. State of Colorado on March 28, 2011.

U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV—Colo. Const. art. II, sec. 15—Water Law—Inverse Condemnation—State’s Cease and Desist Orders Curtailing Tributary Groundwater Well Pumping—Water Court Jurisdiction

The supreme court affirms the water court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim. The court holds that the well owners’ claim is a water matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the water court because it is predicated on the well owners’ right to use the water in their decreed wells. The court further holds that the state engineer’s orders curtailing the well owners’ use of the water in their wells did not constitute a taking in violation of article II, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The cease and desist orders simply curtailed the well owners’ out-of-priority diversions consistent with Colorado’s prior appropriation doctrine. Because the well owners cannot show that the State infringed on a constitutionally protected property right, they are not entitled to just compensation for the “taking” of that alleged right.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,
Newer Posts»
Protected

2013-05-25 01:28:18