R.J.A., Inc. v. Water Users Association
Colorado Supreme Court
690 P.2d 823 (1984)
Facts
R.J.A., Incorporated (plaintiff) operated a resort business in Colorado at the headwaters of Tahosa Creek. In the early 1970s, R.J.A. began a project to remove peat moss from a nearby marsh. The peat-moss marsh was about 3,000 years old. R.J.A. sought to remove the peat moss and replace it with a well-drained meadow in order to increase the supply of water by reducing the amount of water that evaporated from the marsh. In 1979, R.J.A. filed an application in the water division of the district court (water court), seeking a decree for a developed water right. R.J.A. claimed that the removal of the marsh significantly decreased the consumptive use of water and resulted in a net gain to the stream that fed Tahosa Creek. R.J.A. asserted that it was entitled to a water right not subject to the priority system established by the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (water-rights act). The water court found that the water to which R.J.A. claimed a water right was a tributary to Tahosa Creek and that the water-rights act governed the determination of water rights over such water. The water court held that the reduction of consumptive use of tributary water may not establish a water right independent of the priority system mandated by the water-rights act. R.J.A. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lohr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
