Hohn, Maria E.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Article 11 9-1-2006 Colorado Water Court's Exclusive Jurisdiction for the Adverse Possession of Water: Archuleta v. Gomez Maria E. Hohn Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Maria E. Hohn, Case Note, Colorado Water Court's Exclusive Jurisdiction for the Adverse Possession of Water: Archuleta v. Gomez , 10 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 135 (2006). This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COLORADO WATER COURT'S EXCLUSIVEJURISDICTION FOR THE ADVERSE POSSESSIONOF WATER: ARCHULETA V. GOMEZI. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 135II. BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 136A . T HE PARTIES .......................................................................... 136B . T H E FACTS ............................................................................. 136C. THE PROCEDURE ................................................................... 137III. ARCHULETA V. GOMEZ ............................................................ 137A . Q UESTIONS RAISED ................................................................ 137B. THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING .................... 137IV. CBA WATER LAW SECTION SEPTEMBER LUNCHEON ........ 138V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 139I. INTRODUCTIONUpon first glance, adverse possession of water rights in a system ofprior appropriation seems somewhat counterintuitive. If one can sim-ply usurp the "first in time, first in right" system, then a water rightwould become valueless.' Colorado grappled with this confusion asearly as the turn of the last century, and the notion of adverse posses-sion of water evolved with the doctrine of prior appropriation.2 TheColorado Supreme Court provided clarification in Meadow Ditch andIrrigation Company v. Park Ditch and Reservoir Company.3 A rival claimantcan, in fact, establish adverse possession of water diverted from thestream as long as the adverse possessor satisfies the statutory provi-sions.4 Such adverse possession is possible because it is hostile to thepriority owner; not to the stream, junior appropriators, or the public.51. The general theory behind the doctrine of prior appropriation is that the firstone to place water to beneficial use has the first priority; in other words, first in time,first in right. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443 (1882).2. Lower Latham Ditch Company v. The Louden Irrigating Canal Company, 27Colo. 267, 273-74 (1900).3. Meadow Ditch and Irrigation Co. v. Park Ditch and Reservoir Co., 130 Colo.537, 539 (1954).4. Id. See also In re Water Rights of V-Heart Ranch, Inc., 690 P.2d 1271 (Colo.1984) (affirming the adverse possession of water rights).5. Meadow Ditch v. Park Ditch, 130 Colo. at 540.WATER LA W REVIEWAdverse possession of water involves many areas of law, obviouslyincluding property law and statutory limitation of actions. Nonethe-less, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined in May 2006 that onlythe water court has competent jurisdiction to entertain claims of ad-verse possession of water.6 According to statute, water courts have ex-clusive jurisdiction over "water matters."7 To many, this decision cameas a surprise. It merely demonstrates, however, that the concept ofadverse possession of water rights is still evolving and requires furtherclarification from the Colorado Supreme Court to reconcile adversepossession and the doctrine of prior appropriation.II. BACKGROUNDA. THE PARTIESRalph Archuleta and Ted Gomez are both record owners of por-tions of three irrigation ditches in south central Colorado. Theseditches, the Manzanares Ditch No. 1, priority 26, the Archuleta Ditch,priority 30, and the Manzanares Ditch No. 2, priority 31, all draw waterfrom the Huerfano River, which begins near Blanca Peak in the Sangrede Cristo Mountains and eventually flows into the Arkansas Riverdownstream of Pueblo. Both parties have rights to the river datingback to the 1960s. Archuleta's father, Lupe Archuleta, deeded the in-terests to Ralph in 1991 by a personal representative's deed. LupeArchuleta acquired the rights in 1967. Gomez obtained his rights in1968.B. THE FACTSBeginning in 1968, Ted Gomez acquired water rights to portions ofthe three ditches at issue. Since such time, Gomez used the water forirrigation purposes, maintained the headgates, and contributed fundsfor cleaning and repairs to the ditches. The evidence sustained at thetrial court indicates that neither Archuleta, nor his predecessors, usedtheir water rights from 1968 until 2003 or 2004. Archuleta argued thathe gave his uncle, Felipe Archuleta, who lives in the vicinity, permis-sion to use his water rights, thereby maintaining his ownership right.Felipe Archuleta testified, however, that he only began using the wateraround 1999. Nonetheless, Archuleta argued that Gomez was interfer-ing with his rights. Furthermore, Archuleta asserted that Gomez's in-terference caused damage to his personal property, including fire-wood, 40-year-old siding, and tools.6. Archuleta v. Gomez, 140 P.3d 281 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).7. C.R.S. 37-92-203(1).Volume 10CASE NOTEC. THE PROCEDUREOn July 27, 2004, the dispute between Archuleta and Gomez camebefore the district court for Huerfano County in Walsenburg, Colo-rado. At the trial level, the court found that the statute of limitationsbarred all of Archuleta's claims. Through "actual, adverse, hostile,open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous use of the water for theprescribed statutory period," Gomez established ownership rightsthrough adverse possession.8 Furthermore, the trial court found thatArchuleta failed to demonstrate any damages resulting from Gomez'salleged interference sufficient to sustain his burden of proof. Thecourt found any damage that occurred to Archuleta's personal prop-erty was de minimis. Archuleta then appealed the district court's deci-sion to the Colorado Court of Appeals.HI. ARCHULETA V. GOMEZA. QUESTIONS RAISEDThe principal question raised sua sponte by the Colorado Court ofAppeals concerned the trial court's jurisdiction to hear this matter.According to the Court of Appeals, the water court has exclusive juris-diction over "water matters" and has authority to quantify "an existingbeneficial use of water," establish a priority date for the water right,and confirm "pre-existing beneficial uses."9 "Actions to determine thelegal right to use water are water maters within the exclusive jurisdic-tion of the water courts," whereas actions to determine the ownership ofa water right are matters for the district court. ° Actions to determineownership include, for example, "interpretation of deeds, chains oftitle, quiet title proceedings, real estate transfers, dissolution proceed-ings, and foreclosures."" The Court of Appeals applied these princi-ples to the facts of the case to answer the jurisdictional question.B. THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS HOLDINGThe court of appeals ultimately determined that adverse possessionprimarily concerned the legal right to use water, not the ownership ofa water right. 2 Because an adverse possession case necessarily involves"both the enforcement of a water right and an assertion that the rightto use the water should be terminated and awarded to another based8. Archuleta v. Gomez, No. 2003 CV 2 (Dist. Ct. Huerfano County, Colo. Sept.15, 2004).9. Archuleta v. Gomez, 140 P.3d at 284. See Humphrey v. Sw. Dev. Co., 734 P.2d637 (Colo. 1987).10. Archuleta v. Gomez, 140 P.3d at 284.11. Id. at 285.12. Id. at 286.Issue 1WATER LAW REVIEWon beneficial use of the water," the water court is the only appropriatecourt to hear such a case. 3 The court found that only the water courtcan provide an adequate consideration of water law principles and asufficient comparison with property law principles. Consequently, thedistrict court lacked jurisdiction and the court of appeals vacated thedecision regarding adverse possession.The court of appeals affirmed, however, the district court's deci-sion with regards to the damages to Archuleta's personal property.Finding that these damage claims were not ancillary issues directly af-fecting the water rights, the district court did have proper jurisdic-tion. 4 The court had no reason to find the trial court's findings clearlyerroneous.IV. CBA WATER LAW SECTION SEPTEMBER LUNCHEONThe Water Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association ("CBA")hosts a monthly luncheon that addresses current issues in the practiceof water law. For the month of September, Moye White LLP, hostedthe luncheon, which addressed Archuleta v. Gomez. Henry "Hank"Worley, the attorney for Gomez, presented his perspective on thecourt's decision and its implications to a relatively large audience ofapproximately thirty CBA members. Worley, a graduate from Colo-rado College and the University of Colorado School of Law, is a share-holder in the law firm of MacDougall, Woldridge, and Worley, P.C. inColorado Springs. Worley presented for thirty minutes and thenopened up the floor for questions from both the audience present andthose listening from one of the Colorado Bar Association's nine re-gional locations across the state.In a light-hearted effort to explain the "unfortunate" outcome inArchuleta v. Gomez, Worley started his presentation by proposing thatthe location of his practice and the "remote" locale of his cases must bedisconnecting him from the mainstream water law practice and proce-dure. When the audience failed to respond with laughter, he con-cluded that the silence was implicit evidence that his proposal was, infact, correct.Turning to the case, Worley laid out the facts as he saw them. Go-mez had come to his office, seeking representation in an action filedby Archuleta to enjoin Gomez from interfering with his water rights inditches stemming from the Huerfano River. Worley filed an answer onbehalf of Gomez, alleging limitation of actions as an affirmative de-fense. Worley explained that limitation of actions, by its nature, im-plicitly includes an adverse possession claim. The District Court forHuerfano County agreed, finding Archuleta's claim barred by the fact13. Id. at 287.14. Id. at 285.Volume 10CASE NOTEthat Gomez had adversely possessed the water rights in question. Onappeal, much to Worley's dismay, the Court of Appeals vacated thedistrict court's decision on jurisdictional grounds that adverse posses-sion of water rights is a matter for the water court, not the districtcourt. Neither Worley nor the opposing attorney raised this issue.Worley proceeded to discuss his difficulties with this decision. Firstof all, he contested the court of appeals' determination that adversepossession constitutes a "water matter" pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-301(1). He cited C.R.S. § 37-92-101 and 37-92-301(2) as enumeratingwhat constitutes water matters, and argued that the court's interpreta-tion did not align with these statutory provisions. Secondly, Worleyargued that this decision, which establishes that the water court is theonly court with jurisdiction to determine title in an adverse possessioncase, contradicts the 1959 Colorado Supreme Court decision whichdeclared that water court decrees of water rights do not establish title.15Worley also discussed his confusion over the language used in theopinion. He found the terms "grant" and "termination" to be inap-propriate, or at least perplexing descriptions of the process of adversepossession. Lastly, Worley questioned why the court went into a discus-sion on abandonment and forfeiture of water rights, as neither attor-ney raised those issues.During the question and answer period, members of the audienceraised several interesting points. In particular, one attorney askedwhether the limitation of actions affirmative defense used by Worley issufficient for future cases, or whether a counter-claim for adverse pos-session is necessary. After consultation via conference call with theopposing attorney from the case, Worley explained that since the courtof appeals did not reach this issue, it is still unclear. Worley concludedby suggesting that any attorneys who lost previous cases in districtcourts regarding adverse possession of water should seek "another biteat the apple," because the decisions necessarily are invalid since thedistrict court apparently lacked jurisdiction. On a final note, Worleyadvised the attorneys to file adverse possession of water rights cases inwater court in the meantime.V. CONCLUSIONSMany questions remain regarding the adverse possession of waterrights in a system of prior appropriation. First and foremost, is thewater court the proper venue for adverse possession disputes? Eventhough the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over "watercases involving priorities or adjudications," it decided the appropriatevenue for the adverse possession of water rights.16 For purposes of de-15. See Saunders v. Spina, 140 Colo. 317, 324 (Colo. 1959).16. Archuleta v. Gomez, 140 P.3d at 284.Issue I140 WATER LAW REVIEW Volume 10termining what "water matters" includes, clarification as to the distinc-tion between the classifications of the "legal right to use water" and the"ownership of water" is necessary. Hopefully the Colorado SupremeCourt will provide guidance.Maria E. Hohn

Colorado Water Court\u27s Exclusive Jurisdiction for the Adverse Possession of Water: Archuleta v. Gomez

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1814&context=wlr

Colorado Water Court\u27s Exclusive Jurisdiction for the Adverse Possession of Water: Archuleta v. Gomez

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver