FLOOD08050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

: l2 \\ATEN. UW iIE\'jEW VOiUlll<: .; issuel ARTiCLE Ul'nATE 113 the petitioncr's historical COll.<illmlHivc use into a vOllllllctl."ic .lil~lita(ioll slated in acre-feet. CourL~ then incorpor;1te the \"oluI11e Illmt WIO the express {crms of the decrec. Therefore. most modern challg~ decrees impose an acre-foot limit on the amount of water an approprIator may consume in the 3verag-e year. This shift in the methods employed to protect juniors in change proceedings accounts for the difTerence between Golden 's d('("n~es, ,~lanted in the early 1960s, and Con Mutual's change decree, granted ili 1993. \Vhcreas the GOs decrees only required Colden to abandon a portioll of ils flow entitlement in order 10 protect junior users, Con ~[utual's decree imposed a volumetric limit Oil the amount of Priority 12 water it is entitled to consume." Jd. at 198 (citations omitted). the 19~}~ litigation collaterally establishes the appropriate acre-footage Lenos of these decrees would be relevant. Ilowevcr, as we will not rcopen the 60s decrees in order to imply volumetric limitations, the appellant.<;' reliance on issue preclusion is misplaced." Id, "\tV11ilc it is true that a decree [or change in use may not again be collaterally attacked insofar as previously litigated injurious effects arc concerned, this docs not bar junior appropriators from bringing later suits regarding new injuries that were not previously litigated ;ll1d which arose after the change wa.c; decreed." U at 202 (citations omitted). "Appellant.s argue that their claim requesting the addition of volumetric iirnitations to the Gas decrees is not precluded because, as a matter of law, the 60s decrees conL.1.in implied volumetric limitations. In support of this contention, the appellants urge us to extend the rule first announced in OIT, to the facts of the instant casc. However, as we decline to extcnd the rule in Orr, we find the appellants' claim that vol\llJ1etric limitations should be added to the GOs decrees is pi(.(ltlded." Id. at 199-200 (citation omitted). "As Golden's municipal use had not even been decreed at the time of the 60s proceedings, it is obvious t.hat. the appellants could not. have brought t.heir claims of enlarged use based on changing municipal use patterns and increased lawn irrigation, Furthermore, the appellants' second and third claims of enlarged use in the inst.ant case are sustained by different. evidence than that presented in the 60s proceedings. As the water court is not precluded from considering new claims of injury based on allegations of changed circumstances, the appellants' allegations of enlarged use in the instant case are permissible. " Ii. at 203. "'An examination of On- and Afidwa)' Ranches reveals the proper standard for our review. In each individual case, we must review the record of the prior proceeding in order to determine whether historical consumptive use was calculated and reli~d upon in the formation of the earlier decree. If so, we will not modify the resulting decree by implying volumetric limitations into its terms. !he implied volumetric limitation doctrine in Orr was developed m order to prevent injury to juniors when a prior change decree did not addre~s 01' contemplate the question of historical consumptive use. ThiS doctrine wa.<; not developed in order to provide juniors with a method to insert volumetric limitations where they were previously absent, even though historical consumptive use fonned the basis for the earlier decree." ld. at 201 (citations omitted). "Therefore, in the instant case, Golden may not enlarge the use of its decreed rights by changing its pattern of municipal use or by using its water to irrigate lawn acreage which was not anticipated at the time its change in use decree was entered. As it would contradict the most basic principles governing all water decrees were we to allow a party to enlarge its use in such a manner, we must reject Golden's assertion that the appellants' second and third enlarged use claims are precluded. " ld, Municipal Subdistrict, Northern. Colorado Water Conservancy District v, Chevron Shale Oil Co, "fW] e find that the docuine of issue preclusion is unavailable to the appellants in this case. Appellants contend that Golden is precluded from asserting that the 60s decrees contain n~ volumetric limitations because... the 1993 Con Mutual proceedIngs cannot accomplish that which is barred by virtue of claim preclusion." ld, "If we were to allow the 60s decrees to be reopened for the addition of volumetric limitations, then the appellanL<;' argnmcnf. that "The water court recognized that, in light of the fact that the production of oil from shale is not currently economically feasible, Chevron's efforts, although minimal, were sufficient to demonstrate a steady application of effort to complete its appropriation in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner. We defer t.o those findings. In addition, we reject the Subdistrict's contention that Chevron was required to additionally prove that it 'can and will' use the water rights." MUll. Subdist., N. Colo. Water Conse~ancy Disl. v. Chevroll Shale Oil Co., 986 P.2d .... -. .......-...- ...-.-.~ . ~~ ......--~-~~:'.,...~. ,..