Laserfiche WebLink
<br />After lengthy and expens1ve l1t1gation, the Colorado <br />Supreme Court rejected the Huston cla1ms and clar1f1ed much of <br />the former uncertainty 1n nontributary groundwater law. <br />Colorado v Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation D1st., 671 <br />P. 2d 1294 (Colo. 1983). The court held: <br /> <br />1. Nontr1butary groundwater 1s not subject to appropr1at1on <br />under the const1tutlon. <br /> <br />2. Landowners do not own nontrlbutary groundwater beneath <br />thelr land. <br /> <br />3. Rlghts ln nontr1butary groundwater are subject only to the <br />well permit procedures found 1n S.B. 213. <br /> <br />4. The water court does not have jur1sd1ction over <br />app11cat1ons for permits to use nontributary groundwater. <br /> <br />5. The leg1slature 1s free to deal w1th nontributary <br />groundwater as 1t sees f1t. <br /> <br />D. Senate Bl1l 439. <br /> <br />Many water users and the1r attorneys were concerned that <br />the Huston dec1s1on generated uncerta1nty concern1ng the <br />valid1ty of exist1ng and pending groundwater claims. They were <br />particularly concerned that the lack of water court <br />jur1sd1ct1on could affect rights. In response to these <br />concerns, the leg1slature enacted S.B. 439 1n 1983. The B111 <br />spec1f1ed the water court as a forum to determ1ne whether the <br />S.B. 213 well perm1t cr1ter1a are sat1sf1ed. <br /> <br />-7- <br />