Wolfe v. Sedalia Water & Sanitation District, 343 P.3d 16

Background

Sedalia Water and Sanitation District owns part of the 1872 Ball Ditch priority (West Plum Creek, South Platte, Water Division No. 1) acquired from Owens Brothers Concrete Company.
Owens Concrete previously obtained a change decree in 1986 quantifying 13 acre-feet/year as historical consumptive use for augmentation credit, tied to 0.4286 cfs Stephen Sump No.1/Ball Ditch right.
Owens Concrete did not complete its well project; it left 13 acre-feet of historical consumptive use in the stream for 24 years but never claimed augmentation credits.
Sedalia purchased Owens Concrete’s 27.1% interest and sought to apply the 1986 quantified historical use to Sedalia’s own change and augmentation plan in Case No. 10CW26L (Case No. 10CW26L).
Water Court granted partial summary judgment: issue preclusion barred relitigation of the 1986 quantified historical consumptive use, but allowed scrutiny of 24 years of post-1986 nonuse; proceedings were remanded for evidence on nonuse.
On remand, the water court could consider whether prolonged unjustified nonuse constitutes a changed circumstance warranting a revised representative period for calculating historical consumptive use.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether issue preclusion bars relitigating 1986 quantified use	Engineers: cannot relitigate 1986 amount.	Sedalia: 1986 amount should bind future changes absent abandonment.	Issue preclusion applies to 1986 quantification; allowed inquiry into post-1986 nonuse.
Whether post-1986 nonuse is a changed circumstance warranting requantification	Engineers: post-1986 nonuse should reduce historical use.	Sedalia: nonuse cannot alter the prior quantified amount absent abandonment.	Court held nonuse may be a changed circumstance permitting revised representative period, not mandatory requantification.
Role of abandonment vs. requantification in post-decree period	Engineers: abandonment or nonuse reduces available use.	Sedalia: abandonment not yet established; preclusion not dispositive for post-1986 period.	Court held abandonment not determined; nonuse inquiry allowed; standard is abandonment analysis for post-1986 period.

Key Cases Cited

Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Consol. Mut. Water Co., 975 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1999) (addressing preclusion in water-right changes and injury claims)
Midway Ranches Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. City of Colorado Springs, 938 P.2d 515 (Colo. 1997) (caution about changed circumstances and allocation in augmentation context)
Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Waste-water Reclamation Dist., 256 P.3d 645 (Colo. 2011) (claim and issue preclusion framework in water-right actions)
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Consol. Mut. Water Co., 33 P.3d 799 (Colo. 2001) (recognizing parallel preclusion and historic-use principles in conveyance)
Ready Mixed Concrete Co. v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 115 P.3d 638 (Colo. 2005) (historic use as measured over a representative period; change proceedings)
Pueblo West Metro. Dist. v. SE Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 717 P.2d 955 (Colo. 1986) (representative period for calculating historical consumptive use)
High Plains A&M, LLC v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 120 P.3d 710 (Colo. 2005) (use of ditch-wide historical analysis and transfer stability)
Widefield Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Witte, 340 P.3d 1118 (Colo. 2014) (nonuse/exceptions when changes vacate or modify prior decrees)
In re Revised Abandonment List of Water Rights in Water Div. 2, 2012 CO 35 (Colo. 2012) (nonuse and abandonment considerations in reassessing rights)
Weibert v. Rothe Bros., 618 P.2d 1367 (Colo. 1980) (water rights and use limitations under prior appropriation)