Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Grand Valley Water Users Ass'n v. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 5, 2016No. Supreme Court Case 14SA303Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Rice

¶74 The majority concludes that the water court erred when it: (1) concluded that stor*471age of the Busk-Ivanhoe rights on the eastern slope prior to use was lawful; (2) included the volumes of exported water paid as rental fees for storage on the eastern slope in its historic consumptive use quantification of the water rights; and (3) concluded that it was required to exclude the twenty-two years of undecreed use of the subject water rights from the representative study period. Maj. op. ¶¶ 7-9. In my view, however, the storage on the eastern slope prior to use'was lawful because it was within…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  2. Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Ass'n v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  3. Tonko v. MallowSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
  4. City of Florence v. Board of Waterworks of PuebloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  5. Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 2011

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API