San Antonio v. Special Improvement District No. 1 of Rio Grande Water Conservation District
AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
INDEX OF OPINION
Introduction and Holding ... keer ea keke aa aka a aaa kes 931
I.
ne e 932
IL.
HoldiAQ salas aaa k r ee bene k den e e arn k edn a ee de ae e e ed dae ea n d ern ee es 935
A. Standard of Review. lle alr errr kaa rear kee ekle es 985
B. Constitutional and Statutory Prior Appropriation Setting .................... 936
C. Statutory Criteria for Subdistrict Plan Approval. 937
1. State Engin@@r .k kerr kkk kkk ka kake eka ekke e eka 938
2. The Trial COUPR kkk keer eee eer era e eae ee kkk} 939
a. State Engineer Approval of a Ground Water Management Plan Pursuant to Section 387-92-501(4)(@) ............................. 939
b. Official Plan of a Subdistrict . lke lek. .l 940
D. Application to this Case seers kere reek kerk keke es 941
1. The Plan's PrOVISIOMS lls veer errs eek. kk. 941
2. The Decree's Additional Terms and Conditions ......................... 944
3. The Objectors' Contentions 945
a. The augmentation and no-injury finding objections .................. 945
b. The State Engineer lacks authority objection ....................... 948
c. The trial court lacks authority objection 948
d. The delay of implementation objection ............................. 949
e. The recharge decrees Objection .. 949
f. The contract ObJ@@tiOM . errr erk erea kaa kk} s 950
g. The Closed Basin Project replacement water objection ............... 951
h. The phreatophyte objection lk... ..}. 951
(el 952
IIL. 952
ApPp@AGIX . ..... ...ll ly ll sa aa k y ae a aa e e aa en aa e n aan e aan bean ba ae n bae ee a ae eae eee kes 952
This appeal is from a judgment and decree of the District Court for Water Division 8 ("water court") and the Alamosa County District Court in two consolidated cases tried before Judge John Kuenhold, Chief Judge and Water Judge ("trial court"). In combination, these two cases involve an amended plan for water management ("Plan") adopted by Special Improvement District No. 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District ("Subdistrict").
The Plan as decreed is the product of an iterative public process of adoption, review, revision, and approval by the Rio Grande Water Conservation District ("District"), the Subdistrict, the State Engineer and the trial court. The District and any of its subdis-tricts are political subdivisions of the state created by statute to carry out water planning and management functions within the San Luis Valley.
Section 37-48-101, C.R.S (2011), the legislative declaration to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District Act, states its purpose, in part, to be
the conservation of the water of the Rio Grande and its tributaries for beneficial use and the construction of reservoirs, ditches, and works for ... the growth and development of the entire area and the welfare of all its inhabitants and ... to safeguard for Colorado all waters to which the state of Colorado is equitably entitled.
The Subdistrict's Plan implements both longstanding statutory provisions for management of the ground and surface water resources of the Rio Grande Basin within Colorado's San Luis Valley, such as sections 37-48-108, -128 and -126, C.R.S. (2011), of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District Act, and statutes enacted in the first decade of the twenty-first century, in particular seetion 87-92-501(4), C.R.S. (2011), of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act. These and ancillary statutory provisions introduce into Colorado water law a basin-specific mechanism for optimizing the conjunctive use of tributary groundwater and surface water within Water Division No. 3, the use of which is subject to the Rio Grande Compact under section 87-66-1011, C.R.S. (2011).
As summarized in section 37-92-501(4), the General Assembly's purpose is to maintain a "sustainable water supply" in the confined and unconfined aquifers underlying the San Luis Valley, while permitting "the continued use of underground water consistent with preventing material injury to senior surface water rights" and consistent with the state's obligations under the Rio Grande Compact. Subdistrict No. I's Plan may be the predecessor to like plans which, in conjunetion with State Engineer rules, will comprise a comprehensive water management framework for Water Division No. 3.
Objectors-appellants San Antonio, Los Pi-nos and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association; Save Our Senior Water Rights, LLC; Richard Ramstetter; and Peter Atkins (collectively, "Objectors") challenge the Plan
We hold that Subdistrict No. I's Plan as decreed complies with the special statutory provisions applicable to its development and implementation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment and decree.
I.
Facts
In Simpson v. Cotton Creek Circles, LLC, 181 P.3d 252 (Colo.2008), we addressed and affirmed State Engineer rules regarding new withdrawals from the confined aquifer. In doing so, we discussed the hydrogeology of the San Luis Valley, the Rio Grande Compact, evolving steps taken by the State Engineer to study, propose, and adopt rules for administration of surface and groundwater rights in Water Division No. 3, the General Assembly's enactment of legislation for development of the Rio Grande Decision Support System, and the State Engineer's development of a computerized groundwater model (the RGDSS model) to simulate groundwater and surface water interaction.
The San Luis Valley lies between two mountain ranges in south-central Colorado.
Consistent with the Rio Grande Compact, the State Engineer administers the Rio Grande and Conejos rivers based on annual projected runoff and other criteria related to the apportionment of the interstate stream among Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. See generally William A. Paddock, The Rio Grande Compact of 1938, 5 U. Denv. Water L.Rev. 1 (2001); Colo. Found. for Water Educ., Citizen's Guide to Colorado's Interstate Compacts (2010). In 1972, the State Engineer issued a moratorium on new well permits drawing from the confined and unconfined aquifers outside the Closed Basin.
In Alamosa-La Jara Water Users Protection Ass'n v. Gould, we remanded the State Engineer's proposed 1975 rules for Water Division No. 3 for further development, identifying optimum use as the guiding principle for water management. 674 P.2d 914, 985 (Colo.1983); see also Santo Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 (Colo.1999) (stating that prior appropriation water law fosters optimum use, efficient water management and priority administration). Since our remand for further rulemaking, the General Assembly has undertaken to adopt substantial statutory oversight over water management in the San Luis Valley.
Severe drought in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has led to substantial curtailment of surface water use, large aquifer depletions particularly in the Closed Basin, and the need to manage wells to safeguard sustainable amounts of groundwater and prevent injury to adjudicated surface water rights. Accordingly, the process for developing rules has included the enactment of new statutory provisions for water management in the San Luis Valley. In 1998, the General Assembly adopted HB 98-1011, in part to address the lack of collective knowledge about the valley's aquifers and their connection to the surface streams. See Ch. 281, sees. 1-2, §§ 87-90-102, -187, 1998 Colo. Sess. Laws. 852, 852-58.
Pursuant to this directive, the State Engineer and the Colorado Water Conservation Board initiated the Rio Grande Decision Support System (RGDSS, pronounced "RIG-dis") study.
The significant drought of the early twenty-first century increased the urgency for a sustainable water supply solution. In 2004, the General Assembly adopted SB 04-222, providing yet more guidance to the State Engineer in drafting rules for Division 3 underground water use. See Ch. 285, see. 1, 2004 Colo. Sess. Laws 777 (codified at § 87-92-501(4)). The Plan now before us represents the first attempt by water users in the San Luis Valley to regulate groundwater use in compliance with an interlinked set of statutory provisions designed to achieve sustainable aquifer levels while preventing injury to adjudicated senior surface rights.
Pursuant to section 37-48-1283, a majority of landowners owning a majority of the land within the proposed Subdistrict boundaries petitioned the District board of directors to establish the Subdistrict. The District submitted the petition to the Alamosa County District Court, which approved the creation of the Subdistrict in July 2006 in case no. 2006CV64, retaining jurisdiction over matters involving the Subdistrict under section 87-48-124(2), C.R.S. (2011).
Lands included within Subdistrict boundaries are within the Closed Basin of the San Luis Valley, north of the Rio Grande. See Appendix. The Subdistrict includes around 174,000 irrigated acres that rely primarily on groundwater wells for water supply. Around 3000 Subdistrict irrigation wells pump water
The Subdistrict's board of managers drafted an official plan that contained a ground water management plan. As required by section 37-48-126(2), the Plan obtained the approval of the State Engineer, who filed a notice of approval with the water court and initiated case no. 2007CW52. After a public hearing on the Plan in October 2007, the District board of directors and the Subdis-trict board of managers formally adopted the Plan as the official plan of water management for the Subdistrict.
Pursuant to section 87-48-126(8)(b), several parties objected to the board of directors' approval of the Subdistrict Plan before the district court in case no. 2006CV64. In accordance with section 37-92-501, several parties also objected to the State Engineer's approval of the Subdistrict Plan before the water court in case no. 2007CWS52. Because the Subdistrict's official plan included a ground water management plan, the trial court exercised its discretion under section 37-48-126(8)(b) to consolidate the cases regarding objections to both the Plan's approval by the District board of directors and its approval by the State Engineer.
The trial court eventually held two trials. A seven-day trial on the objections led to the first Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, entered on February 18, 2009. In that order, the trial court determined the Plan to be "conceptually compatible" with the legal requirements of ground water management plans and the intent of the legislature in enacting SB 04-222. Among a series of findings, it found that (1) the Plan properly sought to stabilize the storage level of the unconfined aquifer at a "sustainable" level of 200,000 to 400,000 acre-feet less than the aquifer's 1976 level, and (2) the strategies proposed to meet that goal-fallowing up to 40,000 acres of previously irrigated land and restoring and maintaining a hydraulic divide between the Rio Grande and the Closed Basin-were reasonable and supported by the evidence.
However, the trial court rejected and sent back the Plan to the Subdistrict board of managers and District board of directors for "further consideration and amendment because it lacks detail, grants discretion with no guidance, fails to acknowledge the replacement of injurious depletions as a priority, and simply is not a 'comprehensive and detailed plan'" as required by section 37-48-126.
The trial court advised the Subdistrict to include in an amended Plan:
(1) the timeframe and the methodology to be used to determine the depletions caleu-lated to occur to the Rio Grande and its tributaries resulting from the operation of Subdistrict Wells; (2) a procedural time-frame for disclosure of the methodology for replacement of the depletions to the Rio Grande and its tributaries resulting from the operation of Subdistrict Wells; (8) a timeframe for annual review and calculations regarding the past irrigation season and procedures for addressing under or over-delivery; (4) a template for the annual operating plan which should contain the specific information concerning the operation of the plan in a coming year; and (5) provisions for review of the operation of the plan at the end of the year.
(Internal quotation marks omitted).
Citing section 37-48-126(8)(b), the court referred the Plan back to the District and Subdistrict to remedy deficiencies. In response, through a public process, the Subdis-trict developed five detailed appendices for the Plan. In May 2009, the State Engineer approved the amended Plan as meeting the requirements of section 37-92-501(4)(a) and (b), and published notice. After a public hearing in June 2009, the District adopted the amended Plan as the official plan of the Subdistrict under section 87-48-126(8)(a), and published notice.
Objectors filed timely objections to both the State Engineer's and the District's approval of the amended Plan, and the court set the consolidated cases for a second trial. In a June 2009 case management order, the
In its May 27, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree, the trial court found that the amended Plan, together with decree conditions included as part of its judgment, provides a satisfactory methodology and procedure for determining injurious depletions from well pumping within the Subdistrict, acquiring replacement water, and operating an annual replacement plan for protecting against injury to adjudicated senior surface rights.
The trial court delved deeply into the amended Plan's ability to address injury to senior surface rights. The crucial calculations in the plan are the RGDSS-dependent projections of lagged impacts to surface streams from Subdistrict groundwater pumping. The trial court held that, although the RGDSS model has inherent limitations in determining stream impacts caused by groundwater pumping, the most updated version-the RGDSS groundwater model Phase 5 and response functions developed in connection therewith-constitutes the best available tool to determine the timing, amount, and location of depletions to surface streams from Subdistrict well pumping. The court found that using RGDSS to calculate the Subdistrict's net groundwater consumption accurately and reasonably calculates the out-of-priority diversions by Subdistrict wells that may cause material injury to surface rights and must be replaced.
The court found and ruled that the amended Plan, in order to meet the requirements of section 37-92-501(4)(a) and (b), must be accompanied by decree conditions that primarily address the replacement of injurious stream depletions resulting from ongoing and past Subdistrict well pumping that will have future impact. See Well Augmentation Subdistrict v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 418 (Colo.2009).
Construing the statutory criteria for sub-district water management plans in Water Division No. 3, the court determined that it need not make the threshold no-injury finding contained in the augmentation plan statutes. Instead, the court found, the General Assembly intended that an approved, decreed, and implemented subdistrict plan with a ground water management component would operate as an alternative means for protecting against injury to adjudicated senior water rights. The water court retained jurisdiction to ensure the Plan is operated, and injury is prevented, through the means of an annual replacement plan, in conformity with the terms of the court's decree. The State Engineer approved the Plan with the inclusion of the trial court's decree conditions. The Subdistrict does not contest the trial court's judgment and decree with the added conditions.
The Objectors challenge the trial court's judgment and decree on a number of grounds. We agree with the trial court that the Plan meets the criteria of the applicable statutory provisions governing its adoption.
IL
Holding
We hold that Subdistrict No. I's Plan as decreed complies with the special statutory provisions applicable to its development and implementation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment and decree.
A.
Standard of Review
We review de novo the water court's conclusions of law. S. Ute Tribe v. King Consol. Ditch Co., 250 P.3d 1226, 12832 (Colo.2011). We will not set aside the water court's factual findings unless they are "so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record." Id. We interpret statutes de novo. Id. Our duty in interpreting any statute is to effectuate the General Assembly's intent in enacting it. Id. We look first to the text of a statute and apply its plain meaning; we give effect to each word and provision of the statute, construing applicable provisions in
B.
Constitutional and Statutory Prior Appropriation Setting
In construing statutory provisions applicable to adjudication and administration of Colorado's prior appropriation system established pursuant to article XVI, sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Colorado Constitution, we are cognizant of three fundamental principles:
(1) that waters of the natural stream, including surface water and groundwater tributary thereto, are a public resource subject to the establishment of public agency or private use rights in unappropriated water for beneficial purposes; (2) that water courts adjudicate the water rights and their priorities; and (3) that the State Engineer, Division Engineers, and Water Commissioners administer the waters of the natural stream in accordance with the judicial decrees and statutory provisions governing administration.
Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1147 (Colo.2001).
When there is an insufficient supply of water to satisfy all water right uses, the General Assembly, consistent with Colorado's prior appropriation constitutional provisions, has charged the State Engineer with curtailing the undecreed uses and decreed junior rights in favor of decreed senior rights. Id. at 1149; see § 37-92-501(1), C.R.S. (2011) ("The state engineer and the division engineers shall administer, distribute, and regulate the waters of the state in accordance with the constitution of the state of Colorado. ...").
By the 1960s there was growing conflict between surface water and groundwater users due to the hydraulic connection between the pumping of largely undecreed groundwater wells and the declining levels of surface flow in rivers such as the Rio Grande. See Cotton Creek Circles, 181 P.3d at 255 (noting that by 1958, there were already 7500 flowing wells in the San Luis Valley); Alamosa-La Jara, 674 P.2d at 918 (discussing the history of well construction and the State Engineer's decision to cease issuing permits for new wells due to the connection between the aquifer and the surface flow of the Rio Grande).
In response to this conflict, the General Assembly in 1965 enacted the Groundwater Management Act, which provided that the State Engineer was to administer both the surface water and groundwater in accordance with the priority system. Ch. 318, sees. 1-2, § 148-11-22, 1965 Colo. Sess. Laws 1244. In determining the validity of the 1965 Act, we recognized that implicit in the constitutional provisions concerning prior appropriation and vested rights was a requirement of maximum utilization of both the surface and subsurface waters of the state. Fellhauer v. People, 167 Colo. 320, 336, 447 P.2d 986, 994 (1968). We also recognized the necessity for constitutional integration of the maximum utilization and vested rights doctrines. Id.
In response, the General Assembly enacted the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. Ch. 373, sec. 1, §§ 148-21-1 to -45, 1969 Colo. Sess. Laws 1200, 1200-19 (codified as amended at §§ 37-92-101 to -602, C.R.S. (2011)). The 1969 Act established Colorado's current water law administrative scheme, including its system of water divisions and courts. Id. §§ 148-21-8 to -11, at 1202-05; see generally Colo. Found. for Water Educ., Citizen's Guide to Colorado Water Law (3d ed. 2009). Under its stated policy of conjunctive use, the 1969 Act required integration of groundwater wells into the priority system. Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50, 60 (Colo.2008); see also § 148-21-2(2), 1969 Colo. Sess. Laws at 1200-01. The Act allowed unadjudicated wells in existence prior to 1969 to continue pumping in accordance with their original appropriation dates, so long as they filed an application for adjudication of their priorities by 1971. Simpson v. Bijou, 69 P.3d at 60; see also § 148-21-22, 1969 Colo. Sess. Laws. at 1212. As amended, the Act provides that State Engineer rules and regulations shall have as their objective the optimum use of water consistent with preservation of the priority system of water rights. § 37-92-501(2)(e).
The inherently fact-specific determination of non-injury occurs during trial based on reliable evidence of the quantity, time, location, and quality of depletions and the legal availability of replacement water. City of Aurora, 105 P.3d at 616. To establish that an augmentation plan does not result in injury, "[the applicant's evidence must be sufficient to enable the water court to consider the amount and timing of the applicant's depletions, the amount and timing of legally-available replacement water, and lack of injury to vested appropriations." Buffalo Park Dev. Co. v. Mountain Mut. Reservoir Co., 195 P.3d 674, 684 (Colo.2008). The applicant must identify the source of legally available replacement water. Id.
In City of Aurora, the water court held that the applicant's proffered groundwater model was insufficiently reliable to predict the timing, amount, and location of either depletions or replacement water. 105 P.3d at 618. We affirmed, holding that the court's exclusion of that model from evidence at trial was not manifestly erroneous. Id. We derived these requirements of specificity in an augmentation plan from the statute detailing the proper standard of review in that context. In Buffalo Park, for example, we quoted at length from section 87-92-805(8)(a), (5), and (8), C.R.S. (2011). 195 P.38d at 684. We determined that repeated statutory emphasis on quantity and timing of depletions, proposed uses, and replacement water required the applicant to prove these prospective quantities, locations, and timings with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine non-injury. Id.; see § 37-92-805(8). While non-injury was the constitutional and legislative motivation behind this scrutiny, we based the method of the serutiny-specific, reliable projections of quantities, locations, and timings of water movements-on provisions of the statute. Buffalo Park, 195 P.3d at 684.
But, augmentation plan applications to the water court need not be the sole device for authorizing out-of-priority diversions by providing a supply of adequate replacement water to the stream for the prevention of material injury to adjudicated senior rights. In Empire Lodge, we recognized the authority of the General Assembly to enact statutes addressing other means for prevention of material injury, thereby obviating the necessity of State Engineer curtailment orders. 39 P.3d at 1158 n. 17.
C.
Statutory Criteria for Subdistrict Plan Approval
The General Assembly has enacted such alternative means for the management of surface water and tributary groundwater in the San Luis Valley. The applicable statutory criteria require the trial court and us to review whether a water management plan is sufficiently comprehensive and designed to prevent material injury to adjudicated senior surface rights. A classic form of injury involves diminution of the available water supply that a water rights holder would otherwise enjoy at the time and place and in the amount of demand for beneficial use under the holder's decreed water right operating in priority. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 33 P.3d at 807.
In 1967, the General Assembly created the Rio Grande Water Conservation District to promote the conservation, use, and development of the water resources of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Ch. 829, see. 1, § 150-10-1, 1967 Colo. Sess. Laws 664, 664 (re-codified at § 37-48-101, C.R.S. (2011)).
When a subdistrict is created, the District board of directors is obligated to
prepare and adopt as the official plans for [the] subdistrict a comprehensive detailed plan, setting forth any plan of water management for the subdistrict, any improvements or works, including all canals, reservoirs, and ditches ... and the manner of utilization of the same in any plan of augmentation or plan of water management....
§ 37-48-126(1). A "plan of water management" in turn is defined as
a cooperative plan for the utilization of water and water diversion, storage, and use facilities in any lawful manner, so as to assure the protection of existing water rights and promote the optimum and sustainable bemeficial use of the water resources available for use within a district or a subdistrict, and may include development and implementation of plams of augmentation and exchanges of water and ground water management plans under section 37-92-501(4)(c).
§ 37-48-108(4) (emphasis added). Thus, a plan may, but need not, include a plan for augmentation. In order to fund such plans of water management (or other improvements contained in the official plan), the sub-district-a political subdivision of the state-is empowered to fix and collect rents, rates, fees, and tolls from any owner or occupant of real property that is connected with, served by, or benefitted by the improvements or water management plan. § 37-48-189(1)(a)-(b), C.R.S. (2011).
The subdistrict must hold a public hearing on a proposed official plan before adopting it, and objectors to the plan must file their objections before the court that handled the case "establishing the district." § 37-48-126(8). If the official plan for the subdistrict contains a ground water management plan within the meaning of section 87-92-501(4)(c), the State Engineer must approve the ground water management plan before the subdistrict holds its public hearing on the official plan. § 37-48-126(2).
1. State Engineer
Pursuant to section 87-92-501(1), the State Engineer has jurisdiction to administer, distribute, and regulate Colorado's waters and may also promulgate rules and regulations to assist in these duties. The authorizing statute lays out several principles to guide the Engineer in the adoption of such rules, including:
Recognition that each water basin is a separate entity ... [clonsideration of all the particular qualities and conditions of the aquifer ... [clonsideration of relative priorities and quantities of all water rights ... [and)[tJhat all rules and regulations shall have as their objective the optimum use of water consistent with the preservation of the priority system of water rights....
§ 37-92-501(2)(a)-(e).
In 2004, the General Assembly amended section 37-92-501 to add subsection (4), a provision specific to the State Engineer's administration of groundwater use in Water Division No. 3. See Ch. 235, see. 1, 2004 Colo. Sess. Laws 777 (SB 04-222). The General Assembly added subsection 4 to recognize Division 83's history of conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water, the unique geologic conditions underlying the Rio Grande watershed, Colorado's annual delivery obligations under the Rio Grande Compact, and the Division's consequent need for greater flexibility in water management. See § 37-92-501(4).
Under the added provision, the General Assembly gave the State Engineer "wide discretion to permit the continued use of underground water consistent with preventing material infury to senior surface water rights." § 87-92-501(4)(a). When regulating the aquifers of Water Division No. 3, section 37-92-501(4)(a) requires that the State Engineer consider the following principles: (1) the aquifer systems are to be maintained at sustainable levels; (2) unconfined aquifers serve as valuable underground storage reservoirs;
Section 37-92-501(4)(b) further requires that when adopting rules pursuant to the power to regulate underground water, the State Engineer shall:
(I) Recognize contractual arrangements among water users, water user associations, water conservancy districts, ground water management subdistricts, and the Rio Grande water conservation district
vk eg ea 6+
(II) Establish criteria for the beginning and end of the division 8 irrigation season 2
(III) Not recognize the reduction of water consumption by phreatophytes as a source of replacement water for new water uses or to replace existing depletions, or as a means to prevent injury from new water uses; and
(IV) Not require senior surface water right holders with reasonable means of surface diversions to rely on underground water to satisfy their appropriative water right.
§ 37-92-501(4)(b).
Under section 37-92-501(4)(c), the State Engineer must also approve any new plan of groundwater management promulgated by a subdistrict.
2. The Trial Court
The judicial standard of review of a plan of water management differs depending on whether the court is reviewing the State Engineer's approval of a ground water management plan under section 37-92-501(4)(c) or the official plan of a subdistrict under section 37-48-126(b).
a. State Engineer Approval of a Ground Water Management Plan Pursuant to Section 37-92-501(4)(c)
Section 37-92-501(4)(c) provides that judicial review of the State Engineer's approval of a ground water management plan shall proceed in accordance with section 37-92-501(8)(a), which states that "[alny person desiring to protest a proposed rule and regulation may do so in the same manner as provided in section 37-92-304 for the protest of a ruling of a referee." Section 37-92-8304 provides, in turn, that such a protest proceeds through filing a pleading with the water court, which hears the matter de novo. § 37-92-8304(2)-(8).
The water court must judge a ground water management plan by the same standards as rules and regulations promulgated by the State Engineer. First, section 37-92-501(4)(c), in referring to section 37-92-501(8)(a), establishes that the approval of a ground water management plan shall take place in the same manner as review of a regulation. Second, the plain language of section 37-92-501(4)(c) makes clear that the same substantive standards apply to a ground water management plan as apply to proposed rules and regulations; a ground water management plan must "meet the requirements" of section 37-92-501(4)(a) and (b). See § 37-92-401(4)(c). Finally, an approved plan substitutes for rules which would otherwise be promulgated by the State Engineer and the State Emgineer cannot curtail groundwater withdrawals made pursuant to an approved ground water management plan meeting the rulemaking criteria. Id.
In reviewing a ground water management plan, the concern for the water court, aside from constitutional issues, is whether the plan meets the requirements of section 37-92-501(4). The gravamen of the inquiry is whether the plan finds support in statutory and constitutional authority, a question of law. Accordingly, the water court should not defer to the State Emgi-neer's conclusions regarding the plan's compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
After the water court concludes its review, section 37-92-501(4)(c) requires the water judge to retain jurisdiction over the water management plan "for the purpose of ensuring that the plan is operated, and injury is prevented, in conformity with the terms of the court's decree approving the water management plan." § 37-92-501(4)(c) (emphasis added).
b. Official Plan of a Subdistrict
Review of the official plan of a subdistrict takes place in the district court which oversaw the establishment of the subdistrict. § 37-48-126(8)(b).
A subdistrict's approval of its official plan is most akin to a government body's quasi-legislative action. Quasi-legislative action is "prospective in nature, is of general application, and requires the balancing of questions of judgment and discretion." City & Cnty. of Denver v. Eggert, 647 P.2d 216, 222 (Colo. 1982). Quasi-legislative actions are of general applicability and do not determine specific cases and controversies. Id. Quasi-judicial action, on the other hand, decides rights, duties, or obligations of specific individuals by applying presently existing legal standards or policy considerations to past or present facts. Colo. Ground Water Comm'n v. Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd., 919 P.2d 212, 217 (Colo.1996).
Adoption of the plan through a public process is quasi-legislative in nature. Propounding a plan of water management requires the subdistrict and district-and the State Engineer when a ground water management plan component is included-to exercise their policy judgment, considering and balancing a number of policy goals. See § 37-48-108(4) (declaring that a plan of water management shall operate in any lawful manner "so as to assure the protection of existing water rights and promote the optimum and sustainable beneficial use of the water resources"). A subsdistrict plan is prospective in nature: it applies generally applicable policy going forward rather than adjudicating the rights of individuals in particular controversies by applying law to the facts of a case.
Because adoption of an official plan is a quasi-legislative action, the most appropriate standard of review for the trial court is "reasonableness." See Eagle Peak Farms, 919 P.2d at 217 (applying the reasonableness standard to an agency rulemaking, which it determined to be a quasi-legislative action); see also Citizens for Free Enter. v. Dep't of Revenue, 649 P.2d 1054, 1065 (Colo. 1982) (concluding that the department acted "reasonably" in promulgating a regulation). When reviewing quasi-legislative action, a court presumes that the action is valid and does not substitute its policy judgment for that of the decision-making body. Eagle Peak Farms, 919 P.2d at 217 (concluding that the rules adopted by an agency are presumed to be valid).
Accordingly, a party challenging the official plan of a subdistrict has the burden to show that the plan is unreasonable or arbitrary, or that the subdistrict, in adopting the plan, "violated constitutional or statutory law, exceeded its authority, or lacked a basis in the record" for the plan provisions.