Green v. Chaffee Ditch Co.
Colorado Supreme Court
371 P.2d 775 (1962)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Siblings Lydia Hoffman Morrison and Milton Coy Hoffman (the Hoffmans) (plaintiffs) owned land along the Cache la Poudre River in Colorado. The Hoffmans had decreed water rights allowing them to divert 16 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the river. However, since the decree, the Hoffmans used only 95 acre-feet of water annually, primarily for irrigation of crops with a small amount for domestic use and livestock. This amount translated to approximately 50 percent beneficial use of their water rights. The Hoffmans sought to transfer 8 cfs of their water rights to the City of Fort Collins (plaintiff), which in turn sought to change the location of the water diversion to a point further upstream. Chaffee Ditch Company (Chaffee) (defendant), among others, objected to the proposed transfer and change of diversion point, alleging that it would negatively impact their water rights to draw from the river. The Hoffmans and the city sought a decree from the court allowing the transfer and diversion-point change. The trial court held that although Chaffee had junior water rights to the Hoffmans, any transfer and change of diversion point may not injure junior rights holders. The city could only acquire the 8 cfs the Hoffmans beneficially used, which meant that the Hoffmans, in turn, could no longer divert any water for use on their land. The Hoffmans and the city appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.