## Facts

- Ralph L. Archuleta and Theodore Gomez owned neighboring agricultural lands along the Huerfano River.
- Archuleta held deeded interests in three decreed irrigation water rights diverted from the river and historically delivered through ditches crossing land later owned by Gomez: Manzanares Ditch No. 1 (priority 26), Archuleta Ditch (priority 30), and Manzanares Ditch No. 2 (priority 31).
- Gomez used water carried in the ditches on his lands and made changes to ditch alignments and facilities.
- Archuleta filed in water court seeking an injunction requiring restoration of the three ditch rights-of-way and delivery of water to allow his use of the decreed rights.
- Gomez asserted he had adversely possessed Archuleta’s deeded interests in the decreed water rights associated with the ditches.

## Issues

1. Whether Gomez proved adverse possession of Archuleta’s decreed water right interests by showing actual beneficial consumptive use of those rights exclusively, hostilely, and adversely for the statutory period, rather than merely intercepting or conveying water in the ditches.
2. Whether any portion of Archuleta’s decreed water rights had been abandoned to the stream, affecting the availability of injunctive relief and the possibility of adverse possession.
3. Whether the water court properly found Archuleta’s injunction claim substantially frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees to Gomez.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held the water court applied an incorrect legal standard by treating interception/use of water in the ditches as sufficient to award Gomez ownership of all of Archuleta’s decreed rights.
- The court ruled that adverse possession of decreed water rights requires proof of actual beneficial consumptive use of the other party’s decreed water right interest on the claimant’s lands, exclusively, hostilely, and adversely, for the statutory period.
- The court remanded for the water court to determine what portion (if any) of Archuleta’s decreed rights Gomez adversely possessed under the correct standard and what portion (if any) Archuleta abandoned to the stream.
- The court vacated the attorney-fee award and the substantial-frivolousness finding and remanded for reconsideration consistent with the corrected legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- Water in a natural stream or tributary aquifer cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
- Adverse possession may occur “behind the headgate,” after lawful diversion under an adjudicated right, among private users within a ditch system.
- To adversely possess a decreed water right interest, the claimant must prove actual beneficial consumptive use of all or part of the other’s adjudicated right, exclusively, hostilely, and adversely, for the statutory period.
- Mere interception, diversion, carriage, or control of ditch facilities is insufficient absent proof of actual beneficial consumptive use of the specific decreed right interest.
- Any abandoned portion of a water right reverts to the stream, and neither an injunction nor adverse possession can revive an abandoned water right.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a wholesale transfer of decreed irrigation water rights based on ditch interception and clarified that adverse possession of decreed water rights requires proof of actual beneficial consumptive use behind the headgate for the statutory period; it remanded to quantify any adverse possession and any abandonment and set aside the attorney-fee award pending reconsideration under the proper standards.


Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d 333 (Colo. 2009)