WSPC12924 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

!\!! 'e e " i bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants modification of a consent decree. Rufo. 502 U.S. at 393. The party may satisfy this initial burden 'by showing either a significant change in factual conditions or in law." Id. at 384. Second, if the moving party meets this standard, the court then considers whether ''the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." !d. at 383. Mar. 7 Order at 7. 7. The frrst part of the Rufo standard has heen met and the 1991 Consent DeCrees may be modified due to the change in law found in the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-258 (2001) ("2000 Settlement Act Amendments"). Mar. 7 Order at 9. 8. With respect to the second part ofthe Rufo standard, the. Court must be cognizant of all the actual impacts of the amendments. See Town of Breckenridge v. City and County of Denver Bv and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs, 620 P .2d 1048, 1051 (Colo. 1980) (proceedings may also function in reality as an action to enlarge or change a water right and therefore are governed by the provisions of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act); Mar. 7 Order at 11-12. The Court finds that where the impact of amendments to a consent decree for water rights causes injury to other water rights holders or enlarges a water right, the amendments are not suitably tailored to the change in circumstances. See C.RS. ~ 37-92-305(3). 9. .The doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from expanding its 1991 reserved water rights adjudication.through an amendment of its original decree. See In re Application for Water Ri2hts of U.S., 101 P.3d 1072, 1082(Colo.2004); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 620, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1392 (1983); Nevada v. U.S., e.g., 463 U.S. 110, 133, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2920 (1983); Mar. 7 Order at 12-30. The 1991 Consent Decree settled the amount of reserved water rights for the benefit of the Ute Tribes. Mar. 7 Order at 12-30. The 1991 Consent Decree entitled each Tribe to a supply of water from the ALP with annual diversion limits. See Applicant's Ex. 2&3 (1991 Consent Decrees). Therefore, diversions by ALP from the Animas and La Plata Rivers on behalf of the two Ute Tribes are limited to the reserved water rights quantified in the 1991 Consent Decrees. 10.. The court is required to determine whether conditions must be imposed on a change of water rights to prevent injury to other water rights. See C.R.S. ~ 37-92-305; Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46,53-54 (Colo. 1999) : rn Ie Apolication for Wate! Rights of Midway Ranches Prooertv Owners Ass'n, 938 P.2d 515,521 (Colo.l997). 30 11. This Court's analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendments and change applications is confined to an analysis of water rights as decreed in Colorado. The size, capacity, or other features of ALP, are authol'ized by separate decrees in Colorado (see ALP Decrees), and are not affected by this decree.