City of Florence v. Board of Waterworks of Pueblo
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rovira
The Cities of Florence and Canon City (cities) appeal that portion of the judgment *149and decree issued by the water court holding that the retained jurisdiction provision of section 37-92-304(6), 15 C.R.S. (1989), was inapplicable because Pueblo’s exchange plan did not involve a change of water right or a plan for augmentation. Under the facts of this ease, we believe that the water court correctly interpreted the statute, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment and decree.
I
In the proceedings below Pueblo sought absolute and conditional decrees for appropriations of existing and proposed rights…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Trans-County Water, Inc. v. Central Colorado Water Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
- Water Supply and Storage Co. v. CurtisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- Water Rights of Orr v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
3Cited by36 opinions
- City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- Martinez v. BadisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Dempsey v. RomerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Consolidated Mutual Water Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2001
- Lira v. DavisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.