Baker v. Safadi-Chamberlain.
2025 COA 63. No. 24CA0848. Water and Irrigation—Rights-of-Way and Ditches—Extent of Right-of Way—CRS § 37-86-103.
July 3, 2025
Baker, Safadi-Chamberlain, and several of their neighbors own water rights through the North Poudre Irrigation Company. The water is delivered by a private open ditch that runs across Safadi-Chamberlain’s property and then crosses three other neighbors’ properties before it terminates on Baker’s property. In 2019, the water right owners agreed to pipe part of the ditch that runs from North Poudre Irrigation Company’s canal to just before Safadi-Chamberlain’s property. In 2022, Baker and at least one neighbor decided that the remainder of the ditch should also be piped, but Safadi-Chamberlain refused to allow them to pipe the portion of the ditch on her property. Baker filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that CRS § 37-86-103 entitled him to pipe the segment of the ditch on Safadi-Chamberlain’s property. The district court held a bench trial and interpreted the 2019 amendment to § 37-86-103 as requiring the court to determine whether “piping of the ditch is reasonable and necessary related to the operation of the ditch.” The court found that piping of the remaining portion of the lateral ditch is not reasonable and necessary and entered judgment for Safadi-Chamberlain.
On appeal, Baker argued that the court misinterpreted § 37-86-103, maintaining that the statute granted him an unfettered right to pipe the ditch. The court of appeals focused on the statute’s clause concerning the right to improve the ditch’s efficiency, finding it to be the only clause that references the right to pipe a ditch. It construed the plain language of § 37-86-103 to provide that a beneficiary of a ditch right-of-way has a right to pipe the ditch only when doing so would improve the ditch’s efficiency. Here, the record supports the district court’s finding that the “evidence did not establish that piping of the remaining open ditch to the Baker property would increase the efficiency or materially impact delivery of water to the properties.” Accordingly, the court correctly entered judgment in favor of Safadi-Chamberlain.
The court also denied Safadi-Chamberlain’s request for appellate attorney fees under C.A.R. 38(b) because it found that Baker’s appeal was not frivolous.
The judgment was affirmed.