CON F IDE N T I A. L. M E M 0 RAN DUM
|
|
- Curtis Carter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 i JOHN W. SUTHERS STATE OF COLORADO STATE SERVICES BUILDING Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street - 7th Floor DEPARTMENT OF LAW Denver( Colorado CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN. Phone 303) Chief Deputy Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL D. DOMENICO Solicitor General June 18,2012 CON F IDE N T I A. L. M E M 0 RAN DUM PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: James Eklund Deputy Legal Counsel Governor's Office Casey Shpall, Deputy Attorney General John Cyran, First Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Section Attorney General's Office Governor's Authority under the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act of1992 to issue an Executive Order Suspending the Operation ofjudicially Approved Augmentation Plans On June 15,2012, you requested the Natural Resources and Environment Section ofthe Attorney General's Office to prepare an infonnalmemorandum addressing whether the Governor has authority to issue an executive order suspending the operation ofjudicially approved augmentation plans in order to allow certain irrigation wells to pump ground water wells in a manner inconsistent with the State's prior appropriation system. The following is the requested memorandum. The opinions expressed in this memorandum are those ofthe authors, and not of the Attorney General., I. Legal and Factual Background Pumping oftributary groundwater by irrigation wells in the South Platte River basin is subject to specific statutory and constitutional restrictions. The South Platte River basin is considered over-appropriated. As a result, Supreme Court has held that, pursuant to Colorado's prior appropriation system, pumping ofground water in the South Platte that may result in outof-priority depletions that could reduce the amount ofwater available to senior water rights may only occur under the provisions of an approved augmentation plan or substitute water supply /
2 Page 2 plan. Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50, (Colo. 2003); see also C.R.S. ;37-92-, ' 308(3)(a).. I.,I As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Simpson v. Bijou, various well usersl' associations have obtained judicially approved augmentation plans. These plans were typically obtained only after extensive judicial proceedings involving numerous objectors. See, e.g. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree, Case No. 03CW99 (May 14, 2008) (hereinafter "03CW99 Decree'~). These judicial decrees ultimately approved by the Court include extensive provisions. governing well pumping. 03CW99 Decree. These provisions, among other things, govern how the parties must determine the time, place and amount of depletions caused by well pumping; the amount of water that the well user must provide to replace such depletions; the location where the well user must provide such replacement water; the timing of the replacement water; : < procedures that must be followed to make such replacements; procedures for predicting future depletions caused by well pumping; procedures for replacing future depletions; procedures for amending the plan; and procedures for accounting for such depletions and replacements. i Id.. Wells covered by the augmentation plans may pump water only pursuant to the provisions of the plan. Id. The 2012 water year has resulted in reduced water in the South Platte River basin. As a result, many of the owners of irrigation wells covered by judicially approved augmentation plans do not have sufficient replacement water to replace depletions caused by out~of-priority ; pumping. Accordingly, pursuant to the specific provisions of the applicable augmentation plans, these wells are not authorized to pump. On June 14,2012, the Weld County Commissioners proposed that Governor.j Hickenlooper issue an executive order pursuant to C.R:S (7) authorizing certain wells to pump tributary groundwater, where such pumping otherwise would.be prohibited u~~er. the terms of the applicable judicially approved augmentation plan. Specifically, the Weld County Commissioners reques~ed that the Governor issue an order that!; [S]uspends for thirty (30) qays the application of all or any portion of the terms of the Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969, whlch pertains to augmentation requirements for permitted irrigation well pumping as applied to the South Platte River in the territory defmed for this Executive Order, and any augmentation plan or substitute water supply plan order, regulation or procedure, arid administration thereof, to any irrigation water pumping authorized by this Executive Order. H'"..,.. ~ Memorandum from John A. Meininger to Governor John Hickenlooper, (June 14,2012)1 (emphasis omitted).
3 Page 3 II. Analysis It is the authors' opinion that the Governor does not have authority to issue the executive order requested by the Weld County Commissioners. First, the requested order is not authorized by the plain language of C.R.S (7). Peoplev. Owens, 228 P.3d 969,972 (Colo. 2010). Section (7) provides as follows: In addition to any other powers conferred upon the governor by law, the governor may: (a) Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency. This provision ostensibly grants the governor authority to issue orders that suspend the provisions of any "regulatory statute" as well as "the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency." Notably, this provision does not give the Governor the authority to suspend judicial orders, judgments, or decrees. A water court decree is a judgment, and like other court orders has preclusive effect and is not subject to collateral attack. Farmer's High Line Canal Reservoir Co. v. City ofgolden, 975 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1999). Thus, by its plain language, (7) does not authorize the Governor to suspend the operation of such decrees. As noted, the augmentation plans governing the operation of irrigation wells within the South Platte River basin typically include detailed provisions dictating the conditions under which such wells may be pumped. These provisions typically require the well user to provide sufficient "replacement water" to replace all out-of-priority depletions, as such depletions are determined pursuant to specific engineering tables included within the decree. The well owners intended to be covered by the requested executive order do not have sufficient replacement water to replace the depletions required under the decree. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of applicable court decrees, the well owners may not pump their wells. C.R.S. section (7) does not authorize the Governor to suspend court orders to allow well owners to pump in a manner contrary to an applicable court decree. Second, the Governor does not have authority to issue the executive order requested by the Weld County Commissioners because such an interpretation of (7) would create separation of powers concerns. Court should not.interpret a statue as creating a separation of powers conflict, when such a conflict is not evident based upon the language of the statute. People v. Owens, 228 P.3d 969, 972 (Colo. 2010).
4 Page 4 Article III ofthe Colorado Constitution prohibits any department ofgovernment from exercising the power belonging to either ofthe other departments. COLO. CaNST. art. 3. The General Assembly is charged with enacting legislation, the Executive Department with seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, and the Judicial Department with the administration of. justice. Colo. Gen. Assembly v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371, 1380 (Colo. 1985); Smith v. Miller, 384 P.2d 738,741 (Colo. 1963). The judiciary's complete independence and freedom from interference is a fundamental principle of separation ofpowers. Smith, 384 P.2d at 741. Even though there appears to be no case law directly addressing whether the Governor may issue an executive order overriding a judicial determination, the Colorado Court ofappeals has held that the General Assembly may not delegate to an executive agency the power to overturn a judicial determination. See Board ofcounty Commissioner v. Industrial Commission, 650 P.ld 1297, (Colo. App. 1982). Specifically, the Court ofappeals held that "the legislative branch of government is 'powerless to confer judicial duties on officials of other departments.'" Id. citing People v. Trueblood, 480 P.2d 548 (Colo. 1971); Denver v. Lynch, 18 P.2d 907 (Colo. 1932). Interpreting C.R.S. section (7) as authorizing the Governor to issue an executive order altering a court-ordered decree would in effect interpret the statute as a grant of duties to an official ofthe executive department. Such a grant would necessarily interfere with the judiciary's power and thus violate separation ofpowers principles. '. Third, the Governor does not have authority to issue the executive order requested by the Weld County Commissioners because such an order would create concerns with respect to the operation of Colorado's constitutional prior appropriation system: I " Article 16 ofthe Colorado constitution defines the water doctrine known as "prior appropriation." The Constitution of the State of Colorado, in Sections 5 and 6 ofarticle'xvi, provides:,11 5. Water of streams public property. The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the State ofcolorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use ofthe people ofthe state, subject to appropriation as herein provided. 6. Diverting unappropriated water priority ofpreferred uses. The right to divert the unappropriated waters ofany natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority ofappropriation shall give the better right as between those using water for the same purposes; but when the waters of any natural stream are not ;l sufficient for the service ofall those desiring to use ofthe same; those using the water for domestic purposes shall have the preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those
5 Page 5 (Emphasis added.) using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing. Since 1876, the constitution and subsequent water court rulings have governed the use, diversion and storage of water in Colorado. "Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purposes..." is the basis for the first in use, first in right doctrine of water appropriation. Id. This Colorado water doctrine is the legal foundation upon which water is governed, managed and distributed in Colorado. The prior appropriation doctrine is codified in the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969, C.R.S., et seq. Section provides: Legislative declaration--basic tenets of Colorado water law (l)(a) It is hereby declared to be the policy ofthe state of Colorado that all water in or tributary to natural surface streams, not including nontributary ground water as that term is defined in section , originating in or flowing into this state have always been and are hereby declared to be the property of the public, dedicated to the use of the people ofthe state, subject to appropriation and use in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of article XVI of the state constitution and this article. As incident thereto, it is the policy ofthis state to integrate the appropriation, use, and administration of underground water tributary to a stream with the use of surface water in such a way as to maximize the beneficial use of all of the waters of this state. An executive order attempting to alter water use that is otherwise subject to a courtordered water rights decree would implicate constitutional concerns under the prior appropriation doctrine and separation ofpowers principles. Article XVI of the Colorado Constitution mandates that the diversion of water be governed by the prior appropriation doctrine and establishes that priority of appropriation is determinative of competing water rights. COLO. CONST. art. XVI, 6. Additionally, the judiciary has the authority to construe the Constitution's meaning and is considered the "final arbiter" of what the Constitution provides. Ed. ofcounty Comm'rs v. Vail Associates, 19 P.3d 1263, 1272 (Colo. 2001). Thus, an executive order altering the use of water to allow out-of-priority diversions contrary to a judicial decree contravenes the Constitution's prior appropriation doctrine.
2017 CO 43. This appeal from the water court in Water Division No. 1 concerns the nature and
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationNON-ATTORNEY S GUIDE TO COLORADO WATER COURTS
NON-ATTORNEY S GUIDE TO COLORADO WATER COURTS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this guide is to assist you through the most common water court processes. These processes include applying for a water right and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 2001 1 Decree SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 108, Orig. STATE OF NEBRASKA, PLAINTIFF v. STATES OF WYOMING AND COLORADO ON PETITION FOR ORDER ENFORCING DECREE AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
More information2015 CO 64. No. 14SA302, Meridian Serv. Metro. Dist. v. Ground Water Comm n Subject Matter Jurisdiction Designated Ground Water Claim Preclusion.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationAn Analysis of the Colorado Water Court System
Colorado Water Court System Prepared for the Office of the State Engineer Under Contract #03-550-P553-007 By Marilyn C. O Leary The Utton Transboundary Resources Center University of New Mexico School
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 137, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More information2016 CO 42. The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority filed an application to make absolute
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationDISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO Weld County Courthouse 901 9 th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 Plaintiff: The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, a Colorado
More informationThe supreme court affirms an order of the district court. for Water Division No. 1, holding that an application for a
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us and are posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage
More information2014 Arkansas River Basin Water Forum
2014 Arkansas River Basin Water Forum Arkansas River Compact: History, Litigation, and the Subsequent Need for Rules Dan Steuer Assistant Attorney General Federal and Interstate Water Unit History of the
More informationArkansas River Compact Kansas-Colorado 1949 ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT
Arkansas River Compact Kansas-Colorado 1949 K.S.A. 82a-520. Arkansas river compact. The legislature hereby ratifies the compact, designated as the "Arkansas river compact," between the states of Colorado
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 137, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More informationIn 1994, Buffalo Park filed an application for conditional. water rights and an augmentation plan for 205 wells to support
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationCOURT USE ONLY Case No. 2015CW3018. Div.: 1
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 901 9 th Avenue / P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 PLAINTIFF, The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, v. DEFENDANTS, Dick Wolfe,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More informationDistrict Court, Water Division 1, State of Colorado The Honorable Todd Taylor Case No.: 15CW3026
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 District Court, Water Division 1, State of Colorado The Honorable Todd Taylor Case No.: 15CW3026 Defendant-Appellant: K-LOW, LLC,
More informationIn this water rights dispute, the Supreme Court holds that. section , C.R.S. (2005), requires the City of Central
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More informationTHE JIM HUTTON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS COMPACT ADMINISTRATION CLAIM
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: February 29, 2016 9:39 PM Weld County Courthouse 901 9 th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 COURT USE ONLY
More informationSTATE AND DIVISION ENGINEERS MOTION FOR JOINDER
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO.1 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 901 9 th Avenue / P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 PLAINTIFF, The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, v. DEFENDANTS, Dick Wolfe,
More information2015 CO 21. No. 13SA173, Colo. Water Conservation Bd. v. Farmers Water Development Co. Water Law Administrative Proceedings and Review.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 142, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More information2018 CO 38M. No. 17SA5, Jim Hutton Educ. Found. v. Rein Water Law Jurisdiction.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationUTE INDIAN WATER COMPACT. Purpose of Compact. Legal Basis for Compact. Water
Available at http://le.utah.gov/~code/title73/73_21.htm Utah Code 73-21-1. Approval of Ute Indian Water Compact. The within Compact, the Ute Indian Water Compact, providing for the execution by the State
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 137, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ON WYOMING S MOTION
More informationOne Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America
H. R. 3267 One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred
More informationReferred to Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing the appropriation of water.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 0 COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND MINING (ON BEHALF OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES) PREFILED NOVEMBER,
More informationOn May 31, 2002, the State Engineer promulgated proposed. amended rules governing the diversion and use of groundwater in
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcase annctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted
More information2014 CO 81. No. 13SA197, Widefield Water v. Witte Historical Consumptive Use Analysis
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More information{1} On the state's motion for rehearing, the prior opinion filed September 14, 1992 is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
STATE EX REL. MARTINEZ V. PARKER TOWNSEND RANCH CO., 1992-NMCA-135, 118 N.M. 787, 887 P.2d 1254 (Ct. App. 1992) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. ELUID L. MARTINEZ, STATE ENGINEER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOULDER CANYON PROJECT
Contract No. 4-07-3O-W0041 Amendment No. 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOULDER CANYON PROJECT AMENDATORY. SUPPLEMENTARY. AND RESTATING CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF NEVADA
More information2015 CO 47. Upper Black Squirrel appealed from an order of the water court interpreting an
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationRequest for the Ground Water Commission to initiate Rule Making Process
May 11, 2017 Keith Vander Horst Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 keith.vanderhorst@state.co.us Via Email Re: Request for the Ground Water Commission to
More informationLIST OF CHAPTERS VOLUME 1. PLUMBING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE COLORADO DOCTRINE OF PRIOR APPROPRIATION Hon. Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
LIST OF CHAPTERS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 PLUMBING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE COLORADO DOCTRINE OF
More information2015 CO 52. Objectors invoked the water court s retained jurisdiction under section
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationTHE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS
THE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 86. PENDING WATER ADJUDICATIONS UNDER 1943 ACT In any water adjudication under the provisions of
More informationREPUBLICAN RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT S RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1 COLORADO DATE FILED: March 4, 2016 2:36 PM Weld County Courthouse 901 9th Avenue P. O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (970) 351-7300 Plaintiff: The Jim Hutton Educational
More informationThe Colorado Supreme Court affirms the water court s. determination that the City and County of Broomfield s
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us and are posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage
More informationDELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPACT (Reprinted 2009)
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPACT 1961 (Reprinted 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I COMPACT Page PREAMBLE..1 ARTICLE 1 SHORT TITLE, DEFINITIONS, PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS...3 Section 1.1 Short title... 3 Section
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA
John B. Weldon, Jr., 0001 Mark A. McGinnis, 01 Scott M. Deeny, 0 SALMON, LEWIS & WELDON, P.L.C. 0 East Camelback Road, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 01 (0) 01-00 jbw@slwplc.com mam@slwplc.com smd@slwplc.com
More informationDIVISION 5 WATER COURT- SEPTEMBER 2017 RESUME
DIVISION 5 WATER COURT- SEPTEMBER 2017 RESUME 1. PURSUANT TO C.R.S., 37-92-302, AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES CLERK FOR DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2017. The water right claimed
More informationA DEAL IS A DEAL IN THE WEST, OR IS IT? MONTANA V. WYOMING AND THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER COMPACT
A DEAL IS A DEAL IN THE WEST, OR IS IT? MONTANA V. WYOMING AND THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER COMPACT SHIRAN ZOHAR I. INTRODUCTION In 2002, the United Nations reported that by 2025, freshwater shortages will affect
More informationCase No.: 2017SA305. Petitioner: Scott Smith. Respondents: Daniel Hayes and Julianne Page, and
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Ballot Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and
More informationPlaintiff. The State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, Defendant. COURT USE ONLY Case No.
DISTRICT COURT CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street, Rm. 256 Denver, CO 80202 Dianne E. Ray, in her official capacity as the Colorado State Auditor, DATE FILED:
More informationDISTRICT COURT, WATER DIV. 6, COLORADO TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN WATER APPLICATIONS IN WATER DIV. 6
DISTRICT COURT, ATER DIV. 6, COLORADO TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN ATER APPLICATIONS IN ATER DIV. 6 Pursuant to C.R.S. 37-02-302, you are hereby notified that the following pages comprise a resume of Applications
More information1. "Bear River" means the Bear River and its tributaries from its source in the Uinta Mountains to its mouth in Great Salt Lake;
Ratification and approval is hereby given to the Bear River Compact as signed at Salt Lake City, in the state of Utah, on the 22nd day of December, A.D., 1978, by George L. Christopulos, the state engineer
More informationMOTION TO STRIKE, IN PART; FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO DISMISS, IN PART, FOR LACK OF RIPENESS
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 LESLIE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE, POLICY and FINANCING, and SUE BIRCH, in her official
More information2019 CO 6. No. 17SA220, Allen v. State of Colorado, Water Court Jurisdiction Water Matters Water Ownership v. Water Use.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA98 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1549 Pueblo County District Court No. 12CR83 Honorable Victor I. Reyes, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony
More information[THE PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL ACT, 1954 ] (Punjab Act 21 of 1954.) Contents. [THE PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL ACT, 1954 ] ( Punjab Act 21 of 1954.
[THE PUNJAB STATE TUBEWELL ACT, 954 ] (Punjab Act 2 of 954.) Contents SNo Subject. Short title, extent and commencement 2. Definitions 3. Application of the Act 4. Application of Act VIII of 873 [THE PUNJAB
More informationCOLORADO SUPREME COURT 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat (2) Appeal from the Title Board
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission
More informationIn The Supreme Court Of The United States
No. 22O141, Original In The Supreme Court Of The United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO and STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants. On Motion for Leave to File Complaint REPLY BRIEF OF
More informationWhen used in sections 371, 376, 377, 412, 417, 433, 462, 466, 478, 493, 494, 500, 501, and 526 of this title
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 12 - RECLAMATION AND IRRIGATION OF LANDS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS 371. Definitions When used in sections 371, 376, 377, 412, 417, 433, 462,
More informationTREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN RELATING TO BOUNDARY WATERS, AND QUESTIONS ARISING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN RELATING TO BOUNDARY WATERS, AND QUESTIONS ARISING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United
More informationDISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 1, STATE OF COLORADO 901 9th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado (970)
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 1, STATE OF COLORADO 901 9th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (970) 351-7300 DATE FILED: February 29, 2016 10:54 PM PLAINTIFF: The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation,
More information2019 CO 14. Nos. 17SA231 and 17SA303, Yamasaki Ring v. Dill Water Law Adjudicated Water Rights Indicia of Enforceability.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationPetitioner Nancy Gallion appeals the revocation of her. driver s license for refusal to take a blood alcohol test when
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted
More informationCOLORADO SUPREME COURT 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat (2) Appeal from the Title Board
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission
More informationThe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA): Protections, Federal Water Rights, and Development Restrictions
: Protections, Federal Water Rights, and Development Restrictions Cynthia Brougher Legislative Attorney December 22, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 13 Nat Resources J. 1 (Winter 1973) Winter 1973 Prerequisite of a Man-Made Diversion in the Appropriation of Water Rights - State ex. rel. Reynolds v. Miranda Channing R. Kury
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON BILL OF COMPLAINT MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
More informationCauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Final Order The Tribunal hereby passes, in conclusion the following order:- Clause-I This order shall come into operation on the date of the publication of the decision
More informationPublic Land and Resources Law Review
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 29 Interpreting the Basin Closure Law in Montana: The Permissibility of "Prestream Capture" -- Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Department of Natural Resources
More informationNew Mexico Water Law Case Capsules 2-1
Water Matters! New Mexico Water Law Case Capsules 2-1 New Mexico Water Law Case Capsules New Mexico has a rich body of water law. This list contains some of the key cases decided in the state and federal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:10-cv-00059-WDM-MEH Document 6 Filed 03/01/10 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH GRAY PETERSON, Plaintiff,
More informationFINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE WATER COURT
District Court, Water Division No. 1, State of Colorado 901 Ninth Avenue, P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Co 80632-2038 (970) 351-7300 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF: UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
More informationIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 Referred to the Committtee on Resources AN ACT
I TH CONGRESS D SESSION S. 1 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEPTEMBER, 1 Referred to the Committtee on Resources AN ACT To provide for the settlement of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, and for other purposes.
More informationGreen Mountain Reservoir Administrative Protocol Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the effective date (as defined in paragraph 17 below), by and among the United States of America ( United States ), the City and County of Denver, acting by
More informationCOURT USE ONLY. Decree: Order. DATE FILED: September 13, :12 PM CASE NUMBER: 2012CW191
DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD (GLENWOOD SPRINGS) COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 109 8th Street, Ste. 104, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 In the Interest of: INYANGA RANCH LLC DATE FILED: September 13, 2015 3:12
More informationSECRETARY OF STATE S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (hereinafter the Secretary ) hereby submits his Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock St Denver, Colorado 80203 SCOTT GESSLER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA JOHNSON,
More informationThe Rio Grande flows for approximately 1,900 miles from the
Water Matters! Transboundary Waters: The Rio Grande as an International River 26-1 Transboundary Waters: The Rio Grande as an International River The Rio Grande is the fifth longest river in the United
More informationARTICLE XIV. - WATER DEPARTMENT
Section 1400. - ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER DEPARTMENT. Sec. 1401. - RULES OF PROCEDURE. Sec. 1402. - WATER RIGHTS. Sec. 1403. - POWERS AND DUTIES. Sec. 1404. - DEMANDS AGAINST WATER DEPARTMENT FUNDS. Sec.
More informationNIGERIA: WATER RESOURCES DECREE Decree No.101. This document is available at
Commencement [23rd August 1993] NIGERIA: WATER RESOURCES DECREE 1993 Decree No.101 This document is available at www.ielrc.org/content/e9302.pdf THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT hereby decrees as follows-
More informationI. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS In Re SRBA Case No. 39576 Subcases: 65-03114, 65-03115 & 65-03116 (Roseberry Irrigation Dist.
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 137, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF
More information[Draft] [Intergovernmental Agreement]
[Draft] [Intergovernmental Agreement] The Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its Windy Gap Firming Project Water Activity Enterprise, Board of County Commissioners
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE
More informationFIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: PASSED: TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER BY LAND APPLICATION
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: PASSED: TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER BY LAND APPLICATION A RESOLUTION TO DELETE IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 13.30 ENTITLED TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
More informationTHIS is an agreed case, submitted for decision without suit under chapter 24 of the code. The section permitting the submission reads as follows:
STRICKLER v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS. Supreme Court of Colorado 16 Colo. 61; 26 P. 313; 1891 Colo. LEXIS 158 January, 1891 [January Term] PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Error to District Court of El Paso County.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission; and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA26 Court of Appeals No. 16CA1867 Logan County District Court No. 16CV30061 Honorable Charles M. Hobbs, Judge Sterling Ethanol, LLC; and Yuma Ethanol, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationThe water court entered a conditional decree for the Pagosa. Area Water and Sanitation District and the San Juan Water
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supct.htm Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE STATE OF NEVADA ROBERT B. GRIFFITH WATER PROJECT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR
1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE STATE OF ROBERT B. GRIFFITH WATER PROJECT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR Contract No. -0-0-W000 Assignment No. 1 AMENDATORY, SUPPLEMENTARY
More information16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs
16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs 06-15-2017 2017COA86 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 16CA0940 City and County of Denver District Court No. 15CV34584 Honorable Catherine A. Lemon,
More information2018COA62. No. 16CA0192 People v. Madison Crimes Theft; Criminal Law Sentencing Restitution. Pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and the
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationPETITION IN CONDEMNATION
DISTRICT COURT, SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO 501 N. Park Ave. P.O. Box 269 CO DATE SumD FILED: m AT it E C63 December 12, 2013 12:24 PM Review FILING Clerk: ID: 808E8030F2FA4 Chris Kilkenny CASE NUMBER: 2013CV30244
More informationComplaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ex rel. CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, in her official capacity as Colorado Attorney General
More informationThe Colorado Supreme Court reviews a water court s award of. attorney fees, costs and moratory interest to the City of
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court for the past twelve months are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseanncts index.htm
More informationSenior College Session 2 Classic and Modern Water Law Cases
Senior College Session 2 Classic and Modern Water Law Cases Today s session Classic and contemporary water cases Illustrate development of water law in US Historically significant decisions Tyler v. Wilkinson
More informationSt. James Place Condominium Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07 CA0727 Eagle County District Court No. 05CV681 Honorable R. Thomas Moorhead, Judge Earl Glenwright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. St. James Place Condominium
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Governor of the State of Colorado, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case 1:13-cv-01300-MSK-MJW Document 82 Filed 09/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-01300-MSK-MJW JOHN B. COOKE, Sheriff
More informationThe Impact of Defining "Beneficial Use" upon Nebraska Water Appropriation Law: L.B. 149, 85th Leg., 1st Sess. (1977)
Nebraska Law Review Volume 57 Issue 1 Article 9 1978 The Impact of Defining "Beneficial Use" upon Nebraska Water Appropriation Law: L.B. 149, 85th Leg., 1st Sess. (1977) T. Edward Icenogle University of
More informationAPALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN COMPACT
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN COMPACT The states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia and the United States of America hereby agree to the following Compact which shall become effective upon
More informationIn re Crow Water Compact
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 In re Crow Water Compact Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana, arieloverstreet@gmail.com
More informationIdaho Water Law: Water Rights Primer & Definitions. A. What is a Water Right?
Idaho Water Law: Water Rights Primer & Definitions DISCLAIMER: This information was created by and is attributable to IDWR. It is provided through the Law Office of Arthur B. for your adjudication circumstances
More informationNo. 137, Original STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF WYOMING. and. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Defendants.
No. 137, Original IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF MONTANA, v. Plaintiff, STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Defendants. Before the Honorable Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Special Master
More information2017 CO 110. No. 15SC714, Isom v. People Sentencing Statutory Interpretation.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 22O141, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE
More informationRESPONDENTS OPENING BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO 2 East 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Ballot Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 17-2147 Document: 01019940123 Date Filed: 02/02/2018 Page: 1 No. 17-2147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. State Engineer, Plaintiff-Appellees,
More informationPAGOSA AREA WATER DIST.
Cite as 170 P.3d 307 ( 2007) PAGOSA AREA WATER AND SANITA- TION DISTRICT and San Juan Water Conservancy District, Applicants Appellees v. TROUT UNLIMITED, Opposer Appellant and Bruce Whitehead, Division
More informationMOTION FOR TELEPHONE TESTIMONY OF W. SCOTT ROCKEFELLER WITH REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING
DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 GERALD ROME, Securities Commissioner for the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. GARY DRAGUL, GDA REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, and
More information