Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Town of Firestone.

2025 CO 33. No. 24SA109. Water Law—Conditional Groundwater Rights—Augmentation Plans.

May 27, 2025

The supreme court concluded, consistent with its prior decisions, that a water court must evaluate an application for conditional groundwater rights and an accompanying augmentation plan on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the proposed water use would injure those with vested, senior water rights. If an applicant fails to meet its burden of showing that the proposed use would not cause injury, then a water court acts within its authority by rejecting the augmentation plan and dismissing the application for conditional groundwater rights based on the particular facts before it.

The court additionally concluded that a water court correctly declines to retain jurisdiction when an applicant seeks to delay its burden of demonstrating non-injury until after its conditional groundwater rights had been approved.

Under the specific circumstances in this case, the court held that the water court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed an opposer to contest a conditional stipulation to a question of law and the water court likewise did not err by finding that an applicant’s proposed well locations were not sufficiently specific to calculate reasonably accurate estimates of lagged depletions.

The court therefore affirmed the orders issued by the water court for Water Division 1.