St. Jude's Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, L.L.C.
2015 CO 51
| Colo. | 2015Background
- Roaring Fork Club (the Club) filed two applications (2007) in Colorado water court: (1) new appropriative rights (21 cfs) and a point-of-diversion correction for uses described as "aesthetic, recreation, and piscatorial" via a flow-through ditch on private land (RFC Ditch); (2) an augmentation plan to replace evaporative losses from that ditch.
- St. Jude's Co. (an agricultural water user) opposed, then sued the Club claiming trespass, breach of a prior settlement (Release Agreement and Ditch Agreement), entitlement to access the John Cerise headgate, and quiet title to a senior priority (Priority 280) used in the Club’s augmentation plan.
- The water court consolidated the matters, held the Club had put 21 cfs to beneficial use (decreed rights for aesthetic, recreation, piscatorial uses), corrected a diversion description, approved the augmentation plan, apportioned ownership of Priorities 280/364 between the parties, denied most of St. Jude’s claims, and awarded attorney fees to the Club under the Release Agreement.
- On appeal the Supreme Court sua sponte asked whether a diversion into and through a ditch for piscatorial and aesthetic purposes, without impoundment, is a “beneficial use” under Colorado law.
- The Court reversed the decree awarding new appropriative rights—holding the Club failed to show application of the claimed amount of water to a statutory "beneficial use"—but affirmed the water court’s contract interpretations, factual findings (including allocation of priorities), discovery rulings, and fee award; it remanded to quantify appellate fees awarded to the Club.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (St. Jude's) | Defendant's Argument (Roaring Fork Club) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diverting and running water through a private flow‑through ditch for aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial purposes (without impoundment) qualifies as a "beneficial use" enabling an appropriation | The Club’s claimed uses are non‑beneficial (passive, subjective enjoyment), cannot be objectively quantified, and would amount to a forbidden riparian‑type right | Such flow‑through recreational/piscatorial/aesthetic uses are within the statutory/constitutional concept of beneficial use and can be quantified by experts; precedent permits flow‑through recreational uses | Reversed: the Club failed to show the claimed amount was applied to a statutorily cognizable beneficial use; flow‑through aesthetic/recreational/piscatorial rights (as asserted) are not allowable here absent legislative authorization or statutory mechanism (e.g., instream/RICD regimes) |
| Whether the Release Agreement and Ditch Agreement barred St. Jude’s claimed extra‑easement access and eminent‑domain remedy | St. Jude’s: retains rights to access John Cerise headgate and to condemn an easement; Ditch Agreement governs and precludes Release’s fee award | Club: Release broadly waives past/present claims arising from the first litigation; Ditch Agreement waives additional easements and does not grant extra‑easement access | Affirmed: the Release and Ditch Agreement (read together) unambiguously bar St. Jude’s extra‑easement claims and preclude private eminent‑domain remedy; the Club entitled to fees on claims released by the Release Agreement |
| Proper allocation/quieting of ownership and priority for Priorities 280 and 364 | St. Jude’s: claims ownership of the senior priority and challenges water court allocation | Club: parties’ historical filings and evidence support shared allocations; water court’s credibility determinations support its apportionment | Affirmed: water court’s allocation (61% to St. Jude’s, 39% to Club, and shared priority treatment) is supported by the documentary record and witness credibility determinations |
| Exclusion of St. Jude’s late supplemental disclosures before trial under C.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) | Late disclosures were material and should have been admitted | Disclosures were untimely, duplicative or could have been produced earlier; exclusion was an appropriate sanction | Affirmed: exclusion was not an abuse of discretion because St. Jude’s failed to show nondisclosure was substantially justified or harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Roaring Fork Club, L.P. v. St. Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2001) (prior litigation resolving claims about ditch alterations and forming the background agreements)
- Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1997) (describing that a water right arises by applying state water to beneficial use under Colorado prior‑appropriation doctrine)
- Vance v. Wolfe, 205 P.3d 1165 (Colo. 2009) (recognizing unconventional uses can be "beneficial" where water is applied to accomplish an objective purpose)
- City & County of Denver v. Sheriff, 96 P.2d 836 (Colo. 1939) (noting that the constitution does not define "beneficial use")
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Rocky Mountain Power Co., 406 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1965) (explaining conflict between riparian concept of preserving stream flow and prior appropriation system)
- City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 880 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1994) (holding certain recreational/piscatorial uses involving diversion and control of streamflow are permissible under the 1969 Act)