Training, Hydrology. ect State Engineer's Office Forum

Home Browse Search

8) Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority v Simpson, 167 P.3d 729 (Colo. 2007), September 10, 2007 The Supreme Court affirmed the water court's approval of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority's augmentation plan for the replacement of 10.8 acre -feet of the Authority's depletions by exchange through releases from Wolford and Ruedi Reservoirs. The Court decided two issues in this case. Fist, the Court affirmed the water court's approval of the Authority's use of a table of estimated monthly depletion rates to calculate out -of- priority depletions in six of the Authority's service areas. The CWCB and the State and Division Engineers opposed the use of the table because it was based on 20- year -old predictions of the Authority's future mix of uses, and the Authority did not show its actual mix of uses occurring today during the irrigation season. The State argued that the Authority had failed to provide strict proof of its actual mix of uses and depletions occurring today, and that the Authority was required to show such uses and depletions in order to satisfy their prima facie burden of proof. The Court disagreed and found Court found that the pronouncement of the Authority's expert in the absence of evidence that the table does not accurately reflect the Authority's actual mix of use or actual depletion rates was sufficient to satisfy the Authority's prima facie burden of proof. The Authority's expert pronounced that the table accurately replaces current depletions in time and amount, but "no other evidence was put forth to verify that the table accurately reflects depletion rates for outdoor irrigation, and more specifically, for sprinkler use." Despite the Court's "significant reservations about the Authority's use of the projected depletion table, which was never premised upon an actual mix of use or actual depletion rates but rather dated estimates of those figures," the Court affirmed the water court's approval of the table to calculate the Authority's replacement obligations. In doing so, the Court did not address the meaning of the term "strict proof." The Court also found that more definite answers regarding the Authority's use of the table "may hinge on the water court's retained jurisdiction, which will operate as a test period for the water court's findings by allowing for reconsideration of the depletion table if actual operation of the plan results in injury." Second, the Court found that claim preclusion did not bar the CWCB from challenging the Authority's reliance on the depletion table in this case because, in a prior case to which the CWCB was party, the CWCB had failed to oppose use of the depletion table to calculate replacement obligations in a previous case. The Court found that the table at issue consisted of "dated estimates as to future depletion rates and potential mix of uses — hardly the stuff upon which to bar new information or data in later augmentation adjudications." The Court also found that "[j]ust as differences from one change of point of diversion action to another render claim preclusion inappropriate, so to do small differences between augmentation plans prevent operation of claim preclusion." "As each augmentation case, like each change case, must rest on circumstances as they are found to exist at the time that change is requested, res judicata cannot preclude consideration of the individual circumstances of each plan."