Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 37
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-82-106 (2026)

Right to reuse of imported water

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Whenever an appropriator has lawfully introduced foreign water into a stream system from an unconnected stream system, such appropriator may make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise to the extent that its volume can be distinguished from the volume of the streams into which it is introduced. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or diminish any water right which has become vested. (2) To the extent that there exists a right to make a succession of uses of foreign, nontributary, or other developed water, such right is personal to the developer or his successors, lessees, contractees, or assigns. Such water, when released from the dominion of the user, becomes a part of the natural surface stream where released, subject to water rights on such stream in the order of their priority, but nothing in this subsection (2) shall affect the rights of the developer or his successors or assigns with respect to such foreign, nontributary, or developed water, nor shall dominion over such water be lost to the owner or user thereof by reason of use of a natural watercourse in the process of carrying such water to the place of its use or successive use. Source: L. 1891: p. 402, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3178. C.L. § 1641. CSA: C. 90, § 24. CRS 53: § 147-2-6. L. 69: p. 1223, § 21. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-2-6. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 1366, § 2, effective June 22.

37-82-107. Fire suppression ponds - legislative declaration - needs assessment - notice of consideration required - restriction on draining of ponds - rules - no water right created. (1) The general assembly hereby declares that:

(a) Fire suppression ponds are essential for the protection of public safety and welfare; and

(b) Based on this declaration, the state engineer is authorized to review applications and designate ponds as fire suppression ponds in accordance with this section.

(2) A board of county commissioners, in consultation with its fire protection district or fire authority, may apply to the state engineer pursuant to section 37-80-124 for the designation of a pond within the borders of the county as a fire suppression pond.

(3) (a) Before applying for the designation of a pond as a fire suppression pond, a board of county commissioners, in consultation with its fire protection district or fire authority, shall:

(I) Identify ponds in locations where the outbreak of a fire could result in a major wildfire disaster;

(II) Perform a needs assessment of each such pond, which needs assessment shall be completed within one year after the board provides the notice described in subsection (3)(a)(III) of this section; and

(III) For each pond that is identified and under consideration as a potential fire suppression pond, provide notice of such fact to the state engineer, which notice must indicate the location and approximate surface area of the pond.

(b) In performing a needs assessment pursuant to subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section, a board of county commissioners, in consultation with its fire protection district or fire authority, shall:

(I) Identify the refill mechanism of the pond, whether by:

(A) Groundwater;

(B) Diversion on the stream channel;

(C) Diversion off the stream channel; or

(D) Well; and

(II) Apply the criteria established pursuant to rules promulgated by the director of the division of fire prevention and control pursuant to subsection (5) of this section.

(c) If a pond that is under consideration for designation as a fire suppression pond is located in whole or in part upon private property, a board of county commissioners shall acquire the voluntary written approval of each owner of private property that abuts the pond before the board applies to the state engineer for the designation of the pond as a fire suppression pond.

(d) If a board of county commissioners has notified the state engineer pursuant to subsection (3)(a)(III) of this section that a pond is under consideration as a fire suppression pond, the board shall notify the state engineer promptly if and when the pond is no longer under such consideration.

(4) Unless otherwise required by law or as needed to address dam safety concerns, the state engineer shall not order any pond to be drained or backfilled or proceed with any existing order to drain or backfill a pond:

(a) If the state engineer has received notice pursuant to subsection (3)(a)(III) of this section that the pond is under consideration by a board of county commissioners for designation as a fire suppression pond, during the pendency of that consideration; or

(b) If the state engineer has designated the pond as a fire suppression pond pursuant to section 37-80-124 and the pond is operating in accordance with the designation.

(c) Repealed.

(5) (a) On or before May 1, 2023, the director of the division of fire prevention and control in the department of public safety, pursuant to the director's authority under section 24- 33.5-1203.5, shall promulgate rules establishing criteria for boards of county commissioners, in consultation with fire protection districts or fire authorities, to use to identify and evaluate potential fire suppression ponds, as described in subsection (3) of this section. At a minimum, the criteria must require that a fire suppression pond:

(I) Be readily accessible by a fire protection district, fire authority, fire department, or other firefighting entity;

(II) Be located in the wildland-urban interface or another location that faces an elevated threat of fire risk; and

(III) Be located in an area without timely or adequate access to fire hydrants or other water supplies and where the pond provides a needed supply.

(b) Before promulgating the rules described in subsection (5)(a) of this section, the director of the division of fire prevention and control shall solicit and consider input from:

(I) The state engineer;

(II) Local governments, including counties;

(III) Water providers;

(IV) Fire protection districts, fire authorities, and other firefighting entities; and

(V) Basin roundtables.

(6) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a fire suppression pond and the water associated with it:

(a) Are not considered a water right, as defined in section 37-92-103 (12);

(b) Do not have a priority, as defined in section 37-92-103 (10); and

(c) May not be adjudicated pursuant to section 37-92-302.

(7) The division of fire prevention and control in the department of public safety, subject to available appropriations, may provide financial support to a board of county commissioners to facilitate the board's acquisition of augmentation water for ponds that satisfy the criteria established by rules promulgated pursuant to subsection (5) of this section but are not designated as fire suppression ponds.

Source: L. 2022: Entire section added, (SB 22-114), ch. 464, p. 3297, § 2, effective August 10.

Editor's note: Subsection (4)(c)(II) provided for the repeal of subsection (4)(c), effective July 1, 2023. (See L. 2022, p. 3297.)

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 22-114, see section 1 of chapter 464, Session Laws of Colorado 2022. ARTICLE 83 Exchange of Water Cross references: For the appointments and functions of water division engineers, see § 37-92-202.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1977–2020 · leading case: City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 39× “The court did not accept Thornton’s argument that WSSC could not have formed such an intent because it had no knowledge that the right to reuse existed until the 1969 passage of the imported water reuse statute, § 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). The court found it “unlikely” that…”
City of Florence v. Bd. of Waterworks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d 148 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 12× “It is undisputed, however, that such use of foreign water would be appropriate, pursuant to section 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1989), and would not involve a plan for augmentation.”
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Willows Water Dist., 856 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 10× “Fulton was decided prior to the enactment of section 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). See supra footnotes 3 and 4.”
Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Town of Estes Park v. N. Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 677 P.2d 320 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “See Section 37-82-106, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”
City & Cnty. of Denver Ex Rel. Bd. of Water Commissioners v. Consol. Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2, 807 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 37-82-106(1) authorizes an appropriator lawfully introducing foreign water into a stream system from an unconnected stream system to make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise to the extent its volume can be distinguished from the volume of the…”
City & Cnty. of Denver Ex Rel. Bd. of Water Commissioners v. City of Englewood, 826 P.2d 1266 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 3× “, §§ 37-82-106, 37-83-101, 37-83-104, 15 C.”
Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 3× “We turn now to the question of the applicant’s right to reuse and make successive uses of waters to be imported to the Cache La Poudre River drainage from the Colorado River drainage for storage by exchange in Trap Lake II Reservoir.”
Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46 (Colo. 1999). “See § 37-82-106, 10 C.R.S. (1999); City of Thornton v.”
Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Cherokee Metro. Dist., 351 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2015). · cites it 3× “Unlike water native to a public stream, as to which appropriators have no automatic right to recapture and reuse, and which, after an initial application to beneficial use, must therefore be permitted to return to the stream for the benefit of junior appropriators, the reuse of…”
Trail's End Ranch, L.L.C. v. Colorado Div. of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 1058 (Colo. 2004). “§ 37-83-101 (Transfer from one stream to another); § 37-82-106 (Right to reuse of imported water); § 37-87-102 ([Njatural streams and use thereof by reservoir owners), they clearly have no bearing on the taking of water from, and immediate return of it to, a natural surface…”
Coors Brewing Co. v. City of Denver, 2018 CO 63 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 2× “See § 37-82-106(1), C.R.S. (2017) ("Whenever an appropriator has lawfully introduced foreign water into a stream system from an unconnected stream system, such appropriator may make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise.”
City & Cty. of Denver v. Consol. Ditches of Water Dist. No. 2, 2019 CO 68 (Colo. 2019). · cites it 6× “See § 37-82-106(1), C.R.S. (2018) (permitting importer of foreign water to "make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise").”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-82-106(1) — 10 cases
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996). “The court did not accept Thornton’s argument that WSSC could not have formed such an intent because it had no knowledge that the right to reuse existed until the 1969 passage of the imported water reuse statute, § 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). The court found it “unlikely” that…”
City & Cnty. of Denver Ex Rel. Bd. of Water Commissioners v. Consol. Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2, 807 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1991). “Section 37-82-106(1) authorizes an appropriator lawfully introducing foreign water into a stream system from an unconnected stream system to make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise to the extent its volume can be distinguished from the volume of the…”
City of Florence v. Bd. of Waterworks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d 148 (Colo. 1990). “It is undisputed, however, that such use of foreign water would be appropriate, pursuant to section 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1989), and would not involve a plan for augmentation.”
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Willows Water Dist., 856 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1993). “Fulton was decided prior to the enactment of section 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). See supra footnotes 3 and 4.”
Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1987). “We turn now to the question of the applicant’s right to reuse and make successive uses of waters to be imported to the Cache La Poudre River drainage from the Colorado River drainage for storage by exchange in Trap Lake II Reservoir.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-82-106(2) — 2 cases
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996). “The court did not accept Thornton’s argument that WSSC could not have formed such an intent because it had no knowledge that the right to reuse existed until the 1969 passage of the imported water reuse statute, § 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). The court found it “unlikely” that…”
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Willows Water Dist., 856 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1993). “Fulton was decided prior to the enactment of section 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). See supra footnotes 3 and 4.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-82-106(l) — 1 case
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996). “The court did not accept Thornton’s argument that WSSC could not have formed such an intent because it had no knowledge that the right to reuse existed until the 1969 passage of the imported water reuse statute, § 37-82-106, 15 C.R.S. (1990). The court found it “unlikely” that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.