Colorado Supreme Court Amends the Colorado Water Court Rules
February 19, 2009
On February 19, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted revisions to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 90 and to the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions. These revisions were adopted after consideration of recommendations made by the Water Court Committee of the Colorado Supreme Court. In addition, the Colorado Legislature passed two amendments to the Water Right Adjudication and Administration Act of 1969, in conformance with the Committee’s recommendations. Major changes to the Water Court Rules include:
(1) Filing and Service Requirements. Water Court Rule 2 and C.R.S. § 37-92-302 have been revised to clarify electronic filing and service requirements for water matters.
(2) Ensuring Completeness of Applications. C.R.C.P. 90 has been revised to require that the water clerk promptly refer to the water judge any application that the clerk, in consultation with the water referee, believes does not substantially contain the information required by the Water Court Rule 3 and the standard Water Court forms.
(3) Proceedings before the Water Referee. Water Court Rule 6 has been revised to more clearly articulate the role of the water referee and to establish a procedure for the management of applications before the water referee with the goal of obtaining rulings within a one year.
(4) Expert Testimony. Water Court Rule 11 has been revised to require that each expert sign a declaration that the expert’s report and testimony represents his or her professional judgment, and has not been dictated by any other person. It also sets forth a procedure for experts to meet confidentially and report their agreement or disagreement regarding matters of fact and expert opinion in the case to the clients and attorneys.
(5) Use of Single Expert. Rule 6 has been revised to encourage the use of a single, shared expert in more straightforward cases that do not involve significant technical disputes.
(6) Proposed Decrees. Water Court Rule 11 has been revised to require an applicant to submit a proposed decree with its 26(a)(2) disclosures. It similarly requires opposers, at the time of their 26(a)(2) disclosures, to provide comments to applicant’s proposed decree, including any specific decree provisions they deem necessary .
(7) Water Court Jurisdiction over White River Basin. C.R.S. § 37-92-201(1) has been amended to put the White River basin within Water Division 6 for all purposes. Previously, judicial and administrative authority was divided between Water Divisions 5 and 6.
Read the Revised Water Court Rules
|
