Cache LaPoudre Water Users Ass'n v. Glacier View Meadows
Colorado Supreme Court
191 Colo. 53, 550 P.2d 288 (1976)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Glacier View Meadows (Glacier) (plaintiff) was developing a residential neighborhood near Fort Collins, Colorado. Glacier acquired shares in an irrigation company to support the development, giving Glacier access to reservoir and direct-flow water from the LaPoudre River. The development, however, planned to use wells to support the needs of the residents. Therefore, Glacier applied to the water court to institute a plan of augmentation that would allow the groundwater drawn from the residential wells to be replaced by Glacier’s rights to reservoir and direct-flow water. Cache LaPoudre Water Users Association (the association) (defendant), representing water-rights holders in the river, objected to the application, complaining that the Cache LaPoudre River was already overappropriated and, therefore, could not be relied upon to provide 100% replacement of the groundwater used by the development. The water court granted Glacier’s application but required that if drought conditions were present, the residents in the Glacier development would have to acquire additional water from other sources so that the water consumed would not exceed the water available for replacement. The association appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Groves, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.