(1) There is established in each water division the position of water judge of the district courts of all counties situated entirely or partly within the division. Said district courts collectively acting through the water judge have exclusive jurisdiction of water matters within the division, and no judge other than the one designated as a water judge shall act with respect to water matters in that division. Water matters shall include only those matters which this article and any other law shall specify to be heard by the water judge of the district courts. Water matters include determinations of rights to nontributary groundwater outside of designated groundwater basins. Judgments and decrees entered prior to July 1, 1985, in accordance with the procedures of sections 37-92-302 to 37-92-305 with respect to such groundwater shall be given full effect and enforced according to the terms of such decrees.
(2) On or before January 10 of each year, the supreme court shall designate or redesignate a water judge for each division to hear all pending and new water matters in that division for the year in which the designation is made, and any vacancy that occurs during such year shall be filled by designation of the supreme court. The services of the water judge shall be in addition to his regular duties as a district judge but shall take priority over such regular duties, and the schedules of the judges in the various divisions shall be arranged and adjusted so that the water judge shall be free to hear water matters. If it becomes necessary during any year for the proper handling of water matters in any division, the supreme court shall designate one or more additional water judges of the district courts in that division, and the term "water judge", as used in this article, refers to all water judges acting in a division. The water judge for a particular division shall be selected from among the judges of the district courts of the counties situated entirely or partly within the division; except that the chief justice may make temporary assignments of other judges.
(3) The water judge of a division shall normally sit in the county where the water clerk is located, but, at the discretion of the judge for convenience of parties, he may sit in other counties in the state, and he shall conduct hearings in other counties as specified in section 37-92-304 (4). Should the functions of the water judge require separate or additional facilities, the same shall be provided for by the state from funds appropriated to the supreme court.
(4) For the purpose of making investigations required by section 37-92-302 (4) and rulings required by section 37-92-303, the water judge of each division shall appoint such referees as may be necessary for that division. The term "referee", as used in this article, refers to all referees acting in a particular division.
(5) Each water referee authorized by this section shall be appointed by the water judge of the water division from a list of not less than three qualified persons to be submitted to the water judge by the executive director of the department of natural resources; but, in any water division, the water judge may elect to perform the functions which by this article would otherwise be vested in the water referee. When and if an extraordinary work load exists in any water division, additional referees may be appointed.
(6) Persons appointed as water referees shall possess such training and experience as to qualify them to render expert opinions and decisions on the complex matters of water rights and administration. The persons may, as the situation requires, be either full-time, part-time, or contractual court employees of the state of Colorado. All expenses in connection with the performance of the functions of water referees, including salaries and other compensation, office space, and clerical and technical assistance shall be paid from funds appropriated to the supreme court. Each water referee shall execute such oath of office as may be prescribed by the supreme court.
(7) The water judge of each division by order shall refer promptly to a referee of that division all applications filed pursuant to section 37-92-302, and the water clerk of that division shall transmit promptly to such referee the order of referral and the duplicate application and thereafter shall transmit promptly to such referee duplicates of any statements of opposition that are filed.
Source: L. 69: p. 1204, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-21-10. L. 70: p. 430, § 1. L. 83: (1) amended, p. 2079, § 1, effective October 11. L. 85: (1) amended, p. 1167, § 6, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Sw. Colorado Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 20× “1973: There is established in each water division the position of water judge of the district courts of all counties situated entirely or partly within the division. Said district courts collectively acting through the water judge have exclusive jurisdiction of water matters…”
Humphrey v. Sw. Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 9× “In SWDC, the court of appeals held that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction because disputes of this type are “water matters” falling under the water court’s exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to section 37-92-203, 15 C.R.S. (1973). 709 P.”
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 12× “Section 37-92-203, C.R.S.1973. As relevant here, water matters include an application for change of a water right.”
Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 5× “) Furthermore, the Conservation Board’s authority was not created as a limit upon the “exclusive jurisdiction of water matters” reposed in the water courts by the General Assembly at section 37-92-203, 15 C.R.S. (1990): There is established in each water division the position of…”
Crystal Lakes Water & Sewer Ass'n v. Backlund, 908 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 12× “The water court articulated the issue before it as “whether the [Association’s] claims constitute ‘water matters’ within the meaning of § 37-92-203.” The water court concluded that none of the five claims for relief, as framed by the Association in its complaint, was within the…”
v. State of Colorado, 2019 CO 6 (Colo. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Analysis ¶7 After summarizing the principles applicable to the water court's jurisdiction, we address the question before us, namely, whether Allen's inverse condemnation claim concerning the ditch company shares constitutes a "water matter" within the water court's jurisdiction.”
State Eng'r v. Smith Cattle, Inc., 780 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 10× “At the time of the water court’s original proceedings, section 37-92-203(1), 15 C.R.S. (1974), gave district courts, acting through water judges, exclusive jurisdiction over “water matters.”
Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 9× “Our construction of the Water Right Act as excluding applications for determination of abandonment under section 37-92-302(l)(a) does not mean that the water judge is without authority to make determinations and enter decrees of abandonment.”
Am. Water Dev., Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 5× “(1990), subject to adjudication under section 37-92-203(1), 15 C.R.S. (1990), (2) a claim to water underlying Baca Grant No.”
Se. Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Huston, 593 P.2d 1347 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 11× “A-4 In' support of the argument that this court cannot change venue, the Joint Venturers cite section 37-92-203 and 304(4), C.R.S. 1973 and C.”
Qualls, Inc. v. Berryman, 789 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 12× “Southwestern, the legislature amended subsection 37-92-203(1) to explicitly grant to water courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate rights to nontributary ground water outside of designated basins.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(1) — 40 cases
State v. Sw. Colorado Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983).
“1973: There is established in each water division the position of water judge of the district courts of all counties situated entirely or partly within the division. Said district courts collectively acting through the water judge have exclusive jurisdiction of water matters…”
Humphrey v. Sw. Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1987).
“In SWDC, the court of appeals held that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction because disputes of this type are “water matters” falling under the water court’s exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to section 37-92-203, 15 C.R.S. (1973). 709 P.”
v. State of Colorado, 2019 CO 6 (Colo. 2019).
“Analysis ¶7 After summarizing the principles applicable to the water court's jurisdiction, we address the question before us, namely, whether Allen's inverse condemnation claim concerning the ditch company shares constitutes a "water matter" within the water court's jurisdiction.”
State Eng'r v. Smith Cattle, Inc., 780 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989).
“At the time of the water court’s original proceedings, section 37-92-203(1), 15 C.R.S. (1974), gave district courts, acting through water judges, exclusive jurisdiction over “water matters.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(1)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(2) — 2 cases
State v. Sw. Colorado Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983).
“1973: There is established in each water division the position of water judge of the district courts of all counties situated entirely or partly within the division. Said district courts collectively acting through the water judge have exclusive jurisdiction of water matters…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(3) — 2 cases
Crystal Lakes Water & Sewer Ass'n v. Backlund, 908 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1996).
“The water court articulated the issue before it as “whether the [Association’s] claims constitute ‘water matters’ within the meaning of § 37-92-203.” The water court concluded that none of the five claims for relief, as framed by the Association in its complaint, was within the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(5) — 1 case
Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980).
“Our construction of the Water Right Act as excluding applications for determination of abandonment under section 37-92-302(l)(a) does not mean that the water judge is without authority to make determinations and enter decrees of abandonment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(7) — 5 cases
Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980).
“Our construction of the Water Right Act as excluding applications for determination of abandonment under section 37-92-302(l)(a) does not mean that the water judge is without authority to make determinations and enter decrees of abandonment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-203(l) — 1 case
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.