2013 CO 3
Colo.2013Background
- Minturn sought 2005 changes of water rights and 2007 new water rights; water court issued decrees.
- Opposers, including Tucker's predecessors, signed stipulations that decrees would be no less restrictive than Exhibit A.
- Post-decree, Minturn learned monthly consumptive-use numbers were based on billing month data, not actual use; April was omitted as a winter month.
- Minturn petitioned to correct substantive errors under § 37-92-304(10); Tucker opposed, claiming modification of the stipulations.
- Minturn and remaining Opposers generally consented to corrections; Tucker objected and argued potential modification of the stipulations.
- Water court granted corrected decrees; majority affirmed; dissent criticized contract interpretation and statutory application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to correct decrees | Minturn argues §37-92-304(10) authorizes correction of substantive errors. | Tucker argues stipulations bar changes and protect the bargain. | Yes; water court had authority to correct substantive errors. |
| No less restrictive meaning | Minturn contends corrections reflect actual use and are no less restrictive overall. | Tucker contends any monthly increase is per se less restrictive. | No; corrections deemed no less restrictive overall. |
| Construction of stipulation language | Minturn argues no less restrictive applies to overall terms, not monthly figures alone. | Tucker argues plain-language monthly figures in stipulations control. | Ambiguous; court construes to reflect intent and protect against injury. |
| Discovery rulings | Minturn asserts no abuse in denying discovery after new affidavits were filed. | Tucker contends denial prejudiced due process and discovery. | No abuse; discovery denials upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Metro. Dist. v. Simpson, 148 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2006) (contract interpretation of stipulations; aim to effectuate intent)
- Cherokee Metro. Dist. v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Mgt. Dist., 247 P.3d 567 (Colo. 2011) (interpretation of stipulations; no less restrictive focus)
- Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Trout Unlimited, 170 P.3d 307 (Colo. 2007) (monthly and annual consumptive use modeling in decrees)
- Upper Eagle Reg’l Water Auth. v. Wolfe, 230 P.3d 1203 (Colo. 2010) (injury assessment in augmentations; non-injury prerequisite)
- Farmer's Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Consol. Mut. Water Co., 33 P.3d 799 (Colo. 2001) (principles of non-injury and allocation in changes)