Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />, ~ <br />) <br /> <br />C. Impact of Amendments and Change Applications <br /> <br />41. Once federal reserved water rights are quantified, "that amount is then <br />outside the state appropriation system." U.S. v. City and County of Denver, By and <br />Through Bd. ofWaterCom'rs. 656 P.2d 1,34-35 (Colo.1982); see Mar. 7 Order, esp. pp. <br />23-24. The Indian reserved water rights in this case are "permanent and cannot be lost as <br />a result of change of use, forfeiture, abandonment, or nonuse." Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 <br />(1991 Consent Decrees) at Stipulation for a Consent Decree, '13.1 The federal Indian <br />reserved water rights provided to each tribe under the 1991 Consent Decrees are subject <br />to annual diversion limits as provided by decree. See Applicant's Ex. 2&3 (1991 <br />Consent Decrees). The doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from expanding its <br />reserved water rights adjudication through an amendment of its original decree. See In re <br />Application for Water Rights of U.S., 101 P.3d 1072, 1082 (Colo.2004); Arizona v. <br />California, 460 U.S. 605,620, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1392 (1983); Nevada v. U.S., e.g., 463 <br />U.S. 110, 133, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2920 (1983). Moving Parties have never disputed that the <br />1991 Consent Decrees settled the amount of reserved water rights for the benefit of the <br />Tribes. See e.g., Tr. April 21, 2006, at 27 (Argument of Scott McElroy); Mar. 7 Order. <br /> <br />42. Under Colorado law a change of water rights may not injure other water <br />rights. C.R.S. 9 37-92-305(3). Under Colorado law, the court shall determine whether <br />conditions must be imposed on a change of water rights to prevent injury to other water <br />rights. See c.R.S. ~ 37~92~305; Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Ass'n v. <br />Simpson, 990 P.2d 46,53-54 (Colo. 1999),. In re Application for Water Rights of <br />Midway Ranches Property Owners Ass'n, 938 P.2d 515, 521 (Colo.1997). The Court <br />must ensure continuation of stream conditions as they existed at the time vested water <br />rights holders first made their appropriation. Farmers Reservoir and Irr. Co. v. City of <br />Golden. 44 P.3d 241,245 (Colo.2002) (citations omitted). <br /> <br />43. Although the Motions to Amend filed on behalf of both Ute Tribes are <br />proceedings in equity for which reliefis appropriate under c.R.C.P. 60(b). these <br />proceedings may function in reality as an action to enlarge or change a water right (see <br />~47 herein). Therefore, the motions are governed by the provisions of the Water RIght <br />Determination and Administration Act. See Town of Breckenridge v. City and County of <br />Denver By and Through ad. of Water Com'rs, 620 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Colo. 1980); Mar. 7 <br />Order at 11-12. The court must be cognizant of all the actual impacts of the amendments <br />with respect to both paragraphs 6.A. and 7.A. of the Stipulations for a Consent Decree. <br />See Town of Breckenridge, supra. The Water Court must detennine in a change of water <br />right proceeding whether such change will injuriously affect others who are entitled to <br />use. water under a vested water right or decreed conditional water right. C.R.S.37-92- <br />305(3). Town of Breckenridge. supra., at 1050. The Court finds that where the impact <br /> <br />1 "If the change is to an off.reservation use, the Tribe must affirmatively state that it is <br />voluntarily electing to change the use to an off~reservation place of use and understands <br />that as a condition precedent, that portion of its water right shall be changed to a <br />Colorado State water right.. . during the use of that right off the Reservation:' Applicant's <br />Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent pecrees) at Stipulation to a Consent Decree, '12.D. <br /> <br />16 <br />