- Four water cases are pending before the Colorado Supreme Court as of January 21, 2026.
- The appeals raise questions about groundwater rights, ditch operations, undecreed structures, and administrative authority.
- Several cases test how strictly water courts must apply procedural and technical requirements.
- The outcomes may shape future water rights administration across multiple river basins.
Wednesday, January 21, 2026 — The Colorado Supreme Court is preparing to review four separate water cases appealed from water courts 
across the state. The appeals currently pending include applications for new or changed water rights, disputes over ditch use and waste, challenges to undecreed diversion structures, and a judicial review of actions taken by the State Engineer. All four cases were appealed directly to the Supreme Court under Colorado’s water jurisdiction rules, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
Town of Firestone Water Rights Appeal (Water Division 1).
In Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Town of Firestone, the Town of Firestone appeals a 2024 decision from Water Division 1 involving its proposed municipal groundwater system.
Firestone sought conditional groundwater rights and approval of a plan for augmentation tied to future well fields. Before trial, Firestone and the opposing St. Vrain Sanitation District stipulated that the proposed depletion calculations were adequate to prevent injury to senior water rights. At trial, however, the sanitation district argued that Firestone failed to describe the exact locations of wells that had not yet been constructed.
The water court granted a motion to dismiss several of Firestone’s conditional claims, finding that the application did not provide sufficient precision regarding future well locations. Firestone argues on appeal that the water court applied an overly strict standard for conditional rights, allowed previously undisputed issues to be raised at trial, and failed to consider whether additional terms and conditions could have prevented injury rather than dismissing the claims outright.
The Supreme Court’s review may clarify how much specificity is required for conditional groundwater rights tied to future municipal growth.
Byers Peak Ranch and Ditch Dispute (Water Division 5).
The case Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC v. Byers Peak Properties, LLC arises from a long-running dispute between neighboring ranch owners in Grand County over shared irrigation ditches.
The water court ruled in favor of the downstream landowners, finding that the upstream ranch modified ditches, wasted water, and caused flooding. The court also imposed restrictions on diversion practices and awarded attorney fees on one claim. Byers Peak Land & Cattle challenges those rulings, arguing that the water court misapplied Colorado statutes governing waste of water, exceeded its authority by restricting diversions during free river conditions, and improperly granted easements and access rights tied to ditch use.
The appeal raises questions about the scope of private enforcement of water waste statutes, the limits of water court injunctions, and how historic ditch use is evaluated when land ownership and infrastructure change over time.
Jason Coombs Seepage Ditch Appeal (Water Division 3).
In Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Jason D. Coombs, neighbors appealed a Water Division 3 ruling involving seepage water rights associated with the Morgan Drainage District.
The dispute centers on an undecreed diversion structure installed by the applicant in a decreed seepage ditch. After the applicant sought to dismiss his own change application, the water court allowed continued use of the undecreed structure subject to conditions, rather than requiring its removal.
Opposers argue that the water court improperly authorized use of an undecreed structure located in a ditch the applicant does not own, allowed a change of water right that was not formally requested, and failed to impose conditions sufficient to prevent injury to other water users.
The Supreme Court’s decision could affect how courts handle undecreed structures and the extent of their authority to fashion remedies after an application is dismissed.
Pamela Barrett Judicial Review Case (Water Division 4).
The fourth appeal, Pamela Barrett v. Division of Water Resources, challenges administrative decisions regarding exempt well permits in Water Division 4.
Landowners Pamela Barrett and Raymond Cossey sought judicial review of a State Engineer’s decision upholding exempt well permits following a complaint by neighboring property owners. The water court dismissed the judicial review action as untimely, finding that the landowners failed to follow the correct statutory procedure and deadline.
On appeal, the landowners argue that the water court misapplied the filing requirements, improperly limited access to judicial review, and erred in finding the challenge time-barred.
This case may clarify how appeals of State Engineer decisions must be brought and how strictly procedural deadlines are enforced in water court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are these cases going directly to the Colorado Supreme Court?
Colorado law grants the Supreme Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over most water cases, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
Do these cases involve the Colorado River Basin?
Some cases occur in tributary basins that ultimately connect to the Colorado River system, but the legal principles apply statewide.
Will these decisions change existing water rights?
The cases do not reopen existing decrees, but the rulings could influence how future applications, changes, and enforcement actions are handled.
When are decisions expected?
The Supreme Court has not announced decision dates. Briefing and argument schedules vary by case.
Why do conditional water rights matter so much?
Conditional rights allow planning for future development while protecting senior users. How strictly courts enforce technical requirements can affect long-term municipal and agricultural planning.
Could these rulings affect rural water users?
Yes. Several cases involve ditches, seepage water, and exempt wells, issues commonly faced by rural landowners and irrigation users.
