Reservoir v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09SA133.,09SA133. |
| Citation | 256 P.3d 645 |
| Parties | BURLINGTON DITCH RESERVOIR AND LAND COMPANY; Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company; United Water and Sanitation District; Henrylyn Irrigation District; and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, Applicant–AppellantsandCity of Thornton; City of Brighton; and City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners, Opposers–AppellantsCity of Englewood, Opposer–Appellant/Opposer–Appelleev.METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT; Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, Inc.; Town of Lochbuie; Platte Valley Irrigation Company; City of Aurora; Golf Course Heritage Todd Creek; Todd Creek Farms Metro District; Centennial Water & Sanitation District; City of Boulder; Harmony Ditch Company; Irrigationists' Association; State Board of Land Commissioners; Colorado Division of Wildlife; City of Black Hawk; City and County of Broomfield; Lower Latham Reservoir Company; Aggregate Industries–WCR, Inc.; Albert Frei & Sons, Inc.; Henderson Aggregate, Ltd.; HP Farms, Inc.; PV Water Holdings, LLC; Adams County Board of Commissioners; Riverside Irrigation District; Riverside Land Company; Brighton Ditch Company; Parker Water and Sanitation District; Platteville Irrigating & Milling Company; Central Colorado Water Conservancy District; South Adams County Water & Sanitation District; Rangeview Metropolitan District; Equus Farms, Inc.; State Water Engineer; Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company; City of Greeley; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Bijou Irrigation District; City of Commerce City; David DeChant; Consolidated Ditches Company of District No. 2; City of Sterling; and Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater, Opposers–Appellees.James Hall, Division Engineer for Water Division No. 1, Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e). |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Akolt & Akolt, LLC., John P. Akolt, III, John C. Akolt, Brighton, Colorado, Dietze and Davis, P.C., Star L. Waring, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Applicant–Appellant Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Company and Applicant–Appellant Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company.The Law Office of Tod J. Smith, Tod J. Smith, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Applicant–Appellant the United Water and Sanitation District.Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, William B. Tourtillott, Brian M. Nazarenus, Susan M. Curtis, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Applicant–Appellant East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District.Law Offices of Steven L. Janssen, Steven L. Janssen, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Applicant–Appellant the Henrylyn Irrigation District.White & Jankowski, LLP, William A. Hillhouse II, David F. Jankowski, Alan E. Curtis, Denver, Colorado, Margaret A. Emerich, Dennis A. Hanson, Thornton, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellant City of Thornton.Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn, P.C., Brent Bartlett, William R. Fischer, Daniel K. Brown, Fort Collins, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellant City of Brighton.Patricia L. Wells, Casey S. Funk, Daniel J. Arnold, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellant, City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners.Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP, David G. Hill, Jon N. Banashek, Heidi C. Potter, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellant/Opposer–Appellee City of Englewood.Balcomb & Green P.C., David C. Hallford, Sara M. Dunn, Scott A. Grosscup, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy, Inc.Lyons Gaddis Kahn & Hall, PC, Steven P. Jeffers, Matthew Machado, Longmont, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee Town of Lochbuie.Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Steven O. Sims, Adam T. DeVoe, Bret A. Fox, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee City of Aurora.Harvey W. Curtis & Associates, Harvey W. Curtis, David L. Kueter, Sheela S. Stack, Englewood, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee City and County of Broomfield.
Lawrence, Jones, Custer & Grasmick, LLP, Bradley C. Grasmick, Kim R. Lawrence, Windsor, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee Central Colorado Water Conservancy District.Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C., Richard J. Mehren, William M. Stenzel, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee South Adams County Water and Sanitation District.John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Chad M. Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Opposer–Appellee State Engineer and Division Engineer.Waggener & Foster, LLP, Richard M. Foster, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Agricultural Ditch and Reservoir Company and Golden Canal and Reservoir Company.Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C., Richard J. Mehren, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Conejos Water Conservancy District.Lyons Gaddis Kahn & Hall, P.C., Jeffrey J. Kahn, Scott E. Holwick, Longmont, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance, Highland Ditch Company, Lake Canal Reservoir Company, Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Company, St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, and Water Users Association of District No. 6.Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn, P.C., Daniel K. Brown, Donald E. Frick, Fort Collins, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Cache la Poudre Water Users Association and La Poudre Water Users Association.Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, LLC, William A. Paddock, Beth Ann J. Parsons, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Rio Grande Water Users Association.Bratton Hill Wilderson & Lock LLC, John R. Hill, Jr., Rufus O. Wilderson, Gunnison, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District.Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, LLC, Mary Mead Hammond, Lee H. Johnson, Beth Ann J. Parsons, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Westminster.Hill & Robbins, P.C., David W. Robbins, Ingrid C. Barrier, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Rio Grande Water Conservation District.Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.
In this appeal from a judgment of the District Court for Water Division No. 1, applicant-appellants, Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (“FRICO”), Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Company (“Burlington”), Henrylyn Irrigation District (“Henrylyn”)—collectively “Companies”—and the United Water and Sanitation District (“United”), and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District (“ECCV”) challenge the water court's decisions regarding historical consumptive use, the effect of prior decrees, the effect of new structures, the water court's one-fill rule analysis, and the impact of these determinations on appellants' rights to use the waters of the South Platte River.1 The Opposer–Appellants—parties who opposed the initial application but also take issue with the water court's decree include the City of Thornton (“Thornton”), the City of Englewood (“Englewood”), the City of Brighton (“Brighton”), and the City and County of Denver (“Denver”). Opposer–Appellees include the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kadingo v. Johnson
...for relief; and (4) identity of or privity between the parties to the two actions. See Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. , 256 P.3d 645, 668 (Colo. 2011). Similarly, issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue decided in a previous proceeding whe......
-
Driskell v. Thompson
...law, there are different legal standards for issue preclusion and claim preclusion. See Burlington Ditch Reservoir and Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645, 668 (Colo.2011) (providing standards for issue preclusion and claim preclusion). Here, because Defendants only......
-
Loveland Essential Grp., LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc., 11CA0722.
...claims for relief, and (4) identity of or privity between the parties to the two actions. Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645, 668 (Colo.2011). We consider only the third factor here.1. Identity of Claims for Relief ¶ 15 In determining w......
-
Harper v. City of Cortez, Mont. Co.
...law, there are different legal standards for issue preclusion and claim preclusion. See Burlington Ditch Reservoir and Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645, 668 (Colo. 2001) (providing standards for issue preclusion and claim preclusion). Here, because Defendants onl......
-
A Roundtable Discussion on the No-injury Rule of Colorado Water Law
...Mut. Water Co., 33 P.3d 799, 807 (Colo. 2001). See also Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645, 661 (Colo. 2011). [6] Burlington Ditch, 256 P.3d at 674-75. David Taussig argues that the Court added this second test to the traditional no-inj......