Introduction

The case of Parker Water and Sanitation District v. Kevin G. Rein addresses the authority of the State Engineer to impose total volumetric limits on the withdrawal of nontributary groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifers. Parker Water and Sanitation District, a quasi-municipal special district in Colorado, applied for six well permits to withdraw groundwater. While each permit included an allowed average annual withdrawal, five of the six permits additionally imposed explicit total volumetric limits on water withdrawal over the lifetime of the permits—a novel condition at the time.

Parker challenged this addition, arguing that the State Engineer exceeded his authority under Colorado statutes and regulations. The State Engineer counterclaimed, asserting that both the relevant statute (C.R.S. § 37-90-137) and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously grant him the authority to impose such volumetric limits. The Water Court ruled in favor of the State Engineer, a decision that Parker appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Summary of the Judgment

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Water Court's decision, affirming that the State Engineer possesses the authority to impose total volumetric limits on nontributary groundwater withdrawals under well permits. The Court interpreted the relevant statutory language and administrative regulations as unambiguous in requiring these limits. Specifically, the Court held that:

• section 37-90-137 of the Colorado Revised Statutes unequivocally mandates a total volumetric limit on groundwater withdrawals based on the quantity of water underlying the applicant's land.
• The Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules further enforce this limit by prescribing the methodology for calculating recoverable water and allowed withdrawal rates.
• The inclusion of total volumetric limits does not violate or impair Parker's vested groundwater rights as established by prior decrees.
• The Water Court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, given the clarity of the statutory and regulatory language.

The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation introduced a total volumetric cap not contemplated by the legislature, potentially abrogating vested rights and leaving groundwater unused.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key precedents to support its interpretation:

• N. Kiowa-Bijou Groundwater Mgmt. Dist. v. Bargas: Recognized the differentiation between nontributary and tributary groundwater and affirmed the state's plenary authority over nontributary groundwater resources.
• Chatfield E. Well Co. v. Chatfield E. Prop. Owners Ass'n: Established that Denver Basin groundwater is a public resource and a nonrenewable, exhaustible resource under Colorado law.
• M.W. Bittinger, The Denver Basin: Its Bedrock Aquifers: Provided geological insights into the Denver Basin aquifers, emphasizing their finite nature.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a thorough statutory interpretation approach, emphasizing the following points:

• Plain Language: The Court found that the language in C.R.S. § 37-90-137(4) clearly mandates a total volumetric limit based on the quantity of groundwater underlying the applicant's land at the time of permit issuance.
• Regulatory Framework: The Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules explicitly prescribe the calculation of recoverable water and set the allowed average annual withdrawal at 1% of this total.
• Hydrogeological Considerations: Recognizing that groundwater withdrawal affects the aquifer's overall quantity and hydrostatic pressure, the Court determined that without a volumetric cap, continued withdrawal could infringe upon other permittees' rights.
• Consistent Legislative Intent: The Court aligned its interpretation with the legislative history, which sought to balance economic development with conservation, ensuring the aquifers' useful life of at least 100 years.

The dissent, however, argued that the legislative history does not support the imposition of a total volumetric cap and that the majority's interpretation could undermine vested rights and lead to unintended negative consequences.

Impact

The affirmation of the State Engineer's authority to impose total volumetric limits has significant implications:

• Water Resource Management: Ensures the sustainable use of nontributary groundwater by preventing over-extraction and prolonging the aquifers' useful life.
• Permitting Process: Future well permits will include explicit volumetric limits, providing clarity and consistency in groundwater allocation.
• Legal Precedent: Strengthens the role of administrative agencies in resource management and upholds statutory interpretations that prioritize conservation alongside development.
• Stakeholder Relations: Landowners and water districts must now account for these limits in their long-term water planning, potentially influencing agricultural, residential, and commercial water use strategies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Parker Water and Sanitation District v. Kevin G. Rein solidifies the State Engineer's authority to impose total volumetric limits on nontributary groundwater withdrawals. By interpreting the relevant statutes and regulations as requiring such limits, the Court emphasized the importance of sustainable groundwater management in Colorado's arid climate.

This ruling balances economic needs with environmental conservation, ensuring that nontributary groundwater remains a viable resource for future generations. Stakeholders must now navigate this regulatory landscape, which prioritizes measured and equitable water use, thereby setting a clear precedent for future groundwater allocation disputes in the state.