Farmers Water Development Co. v. Colorado Water Conservation Board
2015 CO 21
Colo.2015Background
- The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) followed its Rule 5 public notice, comment, and hearing procedures and voted to appropriate an instream flow (ISF) for a 17‑mile reach of the San Miguel River to preserve aquatic and riparian habitat; it then filed a water‑court application.
- The CWCB made the three statutorily required determinations before filing: (1) the appropriation will preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree; (2) such a natural environment exists; and (3) the appropriation can exist without material injury to water rights.
- Farmers Water Development Company opposed the ISF in the administrative comment process and filed opposition in water court; Farmers did not attend the CWCB hearing and did not challenge the CWCB’s three statutory determinations in water court.
- The water court ruled the CWCB’s ISF decision is quasi‑legislative rather than quasi‑judicial. Farmers reserved the right to appeal; the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the classification de novo.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: the ISF appropriation is a quasi‑legislative, prospective policy decision made on behalf of the people of Colorado, not an adjudication of specific individual rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farmers) | Defendant's Argument (CWCB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWCB ISF appropriations are quasi‑legislative or quasi‑judicial | CWCB action is quasi‑judicial and thus must meet heightened procedural due process protections | CWCB acts in a quasi‑legislative capacity implementing public policy to preserve the natural environment | Quasi‑legislative: CWCB decision is a prospective policy determination on behalf of the public |
| Whether CWCB’s notice/hearing procedures satisfied procedural due process | The notice/comment and hearing framework is insufficient for a quasi‑judicial decision | If action is quasi‑legislative, constitutional due‑process protections for quasi‑judicial acts are not required; CWCB procedures are appropriate | Court declined to reach the alternative argument because it held the action quasi‑legislative (no heightened due‑process requirement) |
| Whether the CWCB process is an administrative substitute for water‑court adjudication | CWCB process substitutes for adjudication and should be treated as adjudicative | CWCB does not decree water rights; it decides only whether to seek an ISF decree in water court and makes policy determinations for the public | CWCB process is not a substitute for water‑court adjudication; water court retains adjudicative authority and reviews CWCB determinations under the APA standard |
| Whether ISF appropriation impermissibly injures vested water rights | ISF will affect or injure senior vested water rights | ISF are junior rights administered within the priority system and cannot take water from existing senior uses; injured parties had procedural avenues but Farmers did not pursue the statutory challenge | Court rejected Farmers’ claim both on the merits (ISFs are junior and cannot call senior rights) and procedurally (Farmers failed to challenge the specific statutory determinations in water court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., 757 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1988) (predominant consideration in quasi‑legislative vs. quasi‑judicial inquiry is the nature of the governmental decision)
- Shoenberg Farms, Inc. v. People ex rel. Swisher, 444 P.2d 277 (Colo. 1968) (quasi‑judicial actions implicate procedural due‑process protections of notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995) (CWCB acts on behalf of the people and has a fiduciary duty to preserve the natural environment)
- Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd., 594 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1979) (legislative objective and delegation of ISF authority to CWCB to preserve the natural environment)