City of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist

13 Citing cases

  1. Haystack Ranch v. Fazzio

    997 P.2d 548 (Colo. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Observing that because the trial court made no attempt to parse the billing statements and timesheets, the allocation was unsupported by the evidence

    The intent to abandon a water right may be inferred through the circumstances of a case, and need not be proved directly. See City County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo. 1990);Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Twin Lakes Assocs., 770 P.2d 1231, 1237 (Colo. 1989).

  2. Heavirland v. State

    372 Mont. 300 (Mont. 2013)   Cited 21 times

    As the Water Court observed, intent to abandon “need not be proved directly, but may be inferred from all the circumstances of the case.” Denver by Bd. Of Water Comm'rs v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo.1990). “The circumstances must be such as to justify an inference of intention to abandon; in other words, to leave the property to be taken by any other person who chooses to do so.”

  3. East Twin Lakes Ditches v. Brd., Cty. Commrs

    76 P.3d 918 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Listing factors that may refute the intent to abandon a water right

    A review of our precedent reveals a number of different factors that Colorado courts have considered as indicative of an intent not to abandon a water right. Significantly, although failure to put the water to beneficial use may give rise to the presumption of abandonment in the first instance, it is not the standard by which the second element, intent to abandon, has been measured. Instead, in determining whether or not an owner intended to abandon his water right, Colorado courts have looked at such factors as: (1) repair and maintenance of diversion structures, Haystack Ranch, 997 P.2d at 554; Twin Lakes Assoc., 770 P.2d at 1237; (2) attempts to put the water to beneficial use, Haystack Ranch, 997 P.2d at 554; Twin Lakes Assoc., 770 P.2d at 1237; (3) active diversion records and non-appearance of the water right on the State Engineer's abandonment list, Haystack Ranch, 997 P.2d at 555; (4) diligent efforts to sell the water right, City and County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 778 (Colo. 1990); People ex rel. Danielson v. City of Thornton, 775 P.2d 11, 20-22 (Colo. 1989); Beaver Park Water, Inc. v. City of Victor, 649 P.2d 300, 302-03 (Colo.

  4. Public Utility District v. Ecology

    146 Wn. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002)   Cited 50 times

    1989). Ecology also cites City County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1990), where the court found the presumption of abandonment raised by a long period of nonuse of water right by a company that purchased a nonoperating power plant and its associated water right, and rejected the argument that no intent to abandon could be found because the owner had sold small portions of the water right on two occasions during a 29 year period. Ecology further maintains that the evidence shows that the District's only intent when purchasing the power plant was to utilize the storage rights to release water for downstream hydroelectric production, and that it has admitted on a number of occasions that it abandoned or terminated the project.

  5. Okanogan Wilderness v. Town of Twisp

    133 Wn. 2d 769 (Wash. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Reciting facts concerning a water right for “domestic purposes ... and for general municipal purposes”

    However, the general rule in western water law is that nonuse is evidence of intent to abandon, and long periods of nonuse raise a rebuttable presumption of intent to abandon, thus shifting the burden of proof to the holder of the water right to explain reasons for the nonuse. Id. at 5-107; see City County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo. 1990) (29 years). In re Clark Fork River Drainage Area, 254 Mont. 11, 833 P.2d 1120, 1123 (1992) (nonuse by city of two water right claims for over 23 years created rebuttable presumption of abandonment though city continued to carry claims as assets on its books during periods of nonuse); State ex rel. Reynolds v. South Springs Co., 80 N.M. 144, 452 P.2d 478 (1969); Moore v. United Elkhorn Mines, 64 Or. 342, 127 P. 964, 967-68 (1912) (nonuse for 10 years raises rebuttable presumption of abandonment).

  6. City County, Denver v. Middle Park

    925 P.2d 283 (Colo. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Reiterating that the intent to abandon, whether by overt act or by continued and unexplained non-use for an unreasonable period of time, is the critical element in determining abandonment of a water right

    Intent is the critical element in determining abandonment. City and County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo. 1990). Continued and unexplained non-use of a water right for an unreasonable period of time creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to abandon.

  7. Consolidated Home Supply v. Berthoud

    896 P.2d 260 (Colo. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    We reject Berthoud's claim that it cannot abandon its water right because of its status as a municipality. See, e.g., City and County of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1990) (finding abandonment of a hydroelectric water right when Denver provided no justification for nonuse of a water right); San Luis Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Alamosa, 55 Colo. 386, 135 P. 769 (1913) (holding that a municipal corporation abandoned a water right after an extended period of nonuse). The question of abandonment is a factual question to be determined by weighing all of the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses.

  8. Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch, LLC v. Petrolia Irrigation Dist.

    399 Mont. 431 (Mont. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Intent to abandon a water right may be inferred from all of the circumstances of the case and need not be proved directly. Heavirland , ¶ 31 (citing Denver by Bd. of Water Comm’rs v. Snake River Water Dist. , 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo. 1990) ). A long period of continuous nonuse creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to abandon; the claimant must produce specific evidence excusing the nonuse to rebut this presumption.

  9. Klamert v. Iverson

    395 Mont. 420 (Mont. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    "[I]ntent to abandon ‘need not be proved directly, but may be inferred from all the circumstances of the case.’ " Heavirland , ¶ 31 (quoting Denver by Bd. of Water Comm’rs v. Snake River Water Dist ., 788 P.2d 772, 776 (Colo. 1990) ). If a continuous period of nonuse is established, the burden of proof then shifts to the claimant to produce specific evidence rebutting that presumed intent.

  10. McKenna v. Witte

    346 P.3d 35 (Colo. 2015)

    1982); Knapp v. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 131 Colo. 42, 279 P.2d 420, 426 (1955). Rather, successful rebuttal requires proof of some affirmative act that negates the owner's intent to relinquish his water right, such as repairs to the diversion structure, Haystack Ranch, 997 P.2d at 554, or diligent efforts to sell the water right, City & Cnty. of Denver v. Snake River Water Dist., 788 P.2d 772, 778 (Colo.1990). Accord E. Twin Lakes, 76 P.3d at 922 (listing factors that may refute the intent to abandon a water right). If such evidence is insufficient or non-existent, however, failure to put water to beneficial use is enough to sustain a finding of abandonment.