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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-90-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Groundwater Management Act".

Source: L. 65: R&RE, p. 1268, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-18-38.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Peterson v. Ground Water Comm'n, 579 P.2d 629 (Colo. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peterson v. Ground Water Comm'n, 579 P.2d 629 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 4× “" Nowhere in the Colorado Ground Water Management Act (Act), section 37-90-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1977 Supp.”
Gallegos Fam. Props., LLC v. Colorado Groundwater Comm'n, 2017 CO 73 (Colo. 2017). “(2016) (“1969 Act”), and designated groundwater managed under the Colorado Groundwater Management Act, sections 37-90-101 to -143, C.R.S. (2016) (“Management Act”), We first distinguished tributary groundwater from designated groundwater, explaining that “designated groundwater…”
Kuiper v. Warren, 580 P.2d 32 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 6× “e within the time prescribed by statute, regardless of whether due diligence has been shown? Secondly, do statutory time provisions in the designated ground water context violate constitutional guarantees to divert unappropriated water? And, finally, did the trial court err in…”
Thompson v. Colorado Ground Water Comm'n, 575 P.2d 372 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 4× “The Colorado Ground Water Management Act, section 37-90-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973, charges the commission with various duties.”
Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Comm'n, 147 P.3d 20 (Colo. 2006). “is not barred under either issue or claim preclusion from bringing their current claims, (2) the Colorado Ground Water Commission ("Commission") has jurisdiction over surface water rights where designated ground water withdrawals impact surface rights, 1 and (8) where such…”
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 2× “5 The complaint averred that Vickroy’s well is within the boundaries of the Kiowa-Bijou designated ground water basin and of the District; that the well diverts “designated ground water;” and that Vickroy had not obtained the permit required for such diversion under the Colorado…”
Se. Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Huston, 593 P.2d 1347 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 3× “Const. Art. XVI, § 7. If these constitutional provisions do not apply to non-tributary waters, then as to such waters which are not “designated ground water” what is the effect of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (section 37-92-101 et seq.”
Danielson v. Kerbs Ag., Inc., 646 P.2d 363 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 2× “This case arises under the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, section 37-90-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973. The Colorado State Engineer, as plaintiff-appellant (State Engineer), appeals from a district court order denying a request for injunctive relief against defendant-appellee,…”
Mt. Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte, 690 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1984). “Nothing in the record warrants the conclusion that any permit issued to AMAX would be so conditioned that it impaired AMAX’s right to appropriate ground waters of the state under the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, §§ 37-90-101 to -141, 15 C.R.S. (1973 & 1983 Supp.”
Pioneer Irrigation Districts v. Danielson, 658 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “We affirm the water court’s dismissal and reiterate our holding in Vick-roy that the Colorado Ground Water Commission has original jurisdiction in administering designated ground water within the meaning of the Colorado Ground Water *844 Management Act of 1965, sections…”
Ground Water Comm'n v. Shanks, 658 P.2d 847 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 2× “Retrospective application of the jurisdictional requirement would void all final decrees issued between 1965, when the Ground Water Management Act of 1965, section 37-90-101 to 141, C.R.S.1973, was passed; and 1981, when the Vickroy decision was rendered.”
Berens v. Ground Water Comm'n, 614 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 6× “” Our reasoning was founded upon the statutory scheme established in the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, section 37-90-101, C.R.S. 1973, et seq., which provides conditional appropriators with a one-year period in which to put their appropriation to beneficial use.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.