Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Blue River Irr. Co., 5
| Decision Date | 27 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,O,No. 89SA20,5,89SA20 |
| Citation | 782 P.2d 792 |
| Parties | PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, a Colorado corporation, Objector Appellant, v. BLUE RIVER IRRIGATION COMPANY, Applicant-Appellee, and City and County of Denver, acting By and Through its Board of Water Commissioners; Town of Breckenridge; and Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer, Water Divisionbjectors-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Timothy J. Flanagan and William J. Duffy, Kelly, Stansfield & O'Donnell, Denver, and James R. McCotter, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, Public Service Co. of Colorado, of counsel, Denver, for Public Service Co. of Colorado.
Glenn E. Porzak, Holme Roberts & Owen, Boulder, for Blue River Irr. Co.
No appearance for City and County of Denver, Town of Breckenridge and Orlyn Bell, Div. Engineer, Water Div. No. 5.
In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the water court properly interpreted our decision in Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Blue River Irrigation Co., 753 P.2d 737 (Colo.1988) (Blue River I ) when it heard the case on remand. Because we conclude that the water court erred, we again reverse and we remand the case to the water court for trial.
In Blue River I, the Public Service Company of Colorado (Public Service) challenged the water court's quadrennial finding of diligence for 1980-1984 with respect to a conditional water right owned by the Blue River Irrigation Company (Blue River). The facts are recited in Blue River I and will not be repeated here. See 753 P.2d at 738-39.
One of the issues decided in the first appeal, namely Public Service's standing, is not relevant to this appeal. The other two issues considered by this court in Blue River I were whether "the water court erred by ruling that the identity of the shareholders in Blue River, which is a Colorado nonprofit mutual ditch company, was not relevant to the reasonable diligence proceedings," and whether "the water court erred by ruling that the economic feasibility of Blue River's plan to develop its water right was irrelevant to the reasonable diligence proceedings." 753 P.2d at 740. We ruled in Public Service's favor on both issues and remanded the case to the water court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Id. at 743.
On remand, the water court interpreted our opinion very narrowly. It rejected Public Service's attempt to engage in discovery relevant to the issues on which it had prevailed and it refused to allow Public Service to present any witnesses who had not testified at the original diligence proceeding in 1985. Public Service was limited to whatever information it could develop by cross-examining Blue River's witnesses regarding the identity and intent of Blue River's shareholders and the economic feasibility of the proposed irrigation project. Even though Blue River presented new evidence in the form of an analysis of the project's economic feasibility which had been prepared after the 1985 proceeding, Public Service was not permitted to present any rebuttal witnesses to address this issue. Public Service's attempts to elicit information about the identity and intent of the Blue River shareholders were similarly ineffective. The Blue River witness who was available for cross-examination on that issue had severed his connection with the company sometime before the remand hearing and was unable to recall or explain in detail the rather complex ownership of Blue River.
After the hearing, the water court again found that Blue River had satisfied the statutory requirement for the 1980-1984 quadrennial finding of reasonable diligence with respect to its conditional water right. See §§ 37-92-301(4), 37-92-302(1)(a), 15 C.R.S. (1989 Supp.). Public Service then took this appeal.
By a pre-trial order and again by a ruling at the hearing on remand, the water court held that Public Service was limited by the posture of the case as of October 15, 1985, when the court granted Blue River's motion for summary judgment. It prohibited Public Service from conducting any discovery or presenting any witnesses because Public Service had not taken those actions in the 1985 proceeding. Blue River argues that this ruling was sound because the summary judgment motion was decided on the day originally set for the reasonable diligence hearing and Public Service should have been ready for trial. Blue River reasons that, because Public Service had not sought pre-trial discovery on the relevant issues prior to the 1985 hearing and because its witnesses were not present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colo.
...a proposed project is a relevant factor for consideration in a diligence proceeding. 17 Later, in Public Service Co. v. Blue River Irrig. Co., 782 P.2d 792, 794 (Colo.1989) (Blue River II ), we declined to hold that the applicant, Blue River, had the burden of proof regarding that issue. Bl......
-
Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey
...is disputed, basic fairness favors trial on the merits of contested issues of fact and law. See Public Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irrigation Co., 782 P.2d 792, 794 (Colo.1989) (Blue River II ). Here, the defect was not jurisdictional in Objectors' jurisdictional argument is founded here on the......
-
Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness
...granted on a legal issue when an appellate decision sets forth new standards for resolving that issue. See Public Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irrigation Co., 782 P.2d 792, 794 (Colo.1989). Here, the trial court failed to consider the entire trespass claim because it mistakenly believed that exp......
-
Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...on remand to allow the parties "an opportunity to try the case under the appropriate legal standards." Pub. Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irrigation Co. , 782 P.2d 792, 794 (Colo. 1989).B. Rulings on Motions¶ 35 Dakota contends that the remand court abused its discretion by failing to rule on its......
-
Rule 26 GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY; DUTY OF DISCLOSURE.
...proper standards determined in previous supreme court ruling and discovery related to those standards. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irr., 782 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1989). This rule and C.R.C.P. 37 must be construed together along with the requirement that plaintiff establish a prima facie case fo......
-
Chapter 12 - § 12.7 • "CAN AND WILL" REQUIREMENTS
...831 P.2d 470 (Colo. 1992), discussed in Application for Water Rights, 307 P.3d at 1067.[38] Public Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irrigation Co., 782 P.2d 792, 794 (Colo. 1989); Blue River Irrigation Co., 753 P.2d 737.[39] Bd. of Water Works, 831 P.2d 470.[40] Natural Energy Res. Co. v. Upper Gunn......