## Facts

- Colorado historically had not recognized a public-trust doctrine for waters of natural streams.
- Richard G. Hamilton and Phillip Doe, as proponents, submitted proposed Initiative 2011–2012 #3 to amend the Colorado Constitution by adding six subsections creating a “Colorado public trust doctrine.”
- The initiative’s first subsection would establish a public trust doctrine to protect the public’s interests in the waters of natural streams and direct the State to defend public water-ownership rights of use and enjoyment.
- Two subsections would subordinate certain contract, property, and appropriative water-right interests to what the initiative described as a “public estate in water.”
- Another subsection would authorize public access along natural streams in Colorado up to the high-water mark.
- The final subsections provided enforcement mechanisms and authorized enactment of supplemental and related laws implementing the new constitutional provisions.
- The Colorado Ballot Title Setting Board (Title Board) set a title and ballot title/submission clause that largely tracked the initiative’s provisions.
- Douglas Kemper, as petitioner, sought Colorado Supreme Court review under section 1-40-107(2), challenging both (1) the Title Board’s single-subject determination and (2) whether the title and ballot title/submission clause clearly expressed the initiative’s subject.

## Issues

1. Whether Initiative 2011–2012 #3 violates Colorado’s single-subject requirement by combining multiple subjects (creation of a public trust doctrine, subordination of private water rights, public access along streams, and enforcement/implementation provisions).
2. Whether the title and ballot title/submission clause clearly and fairly express the initiative’s single subject and true intent and meaning, without misleading voters.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the Title Board’s actions.
- The court held that Initiative 3 contains a single subject: the public’s rights in the waters of natural streams.
- The court concluded the initiative’s provisions—establishing a public trust doctrine, addressing the relationship between that doctrine and existing water-right interests, authorizing access up to the high-water mark, and providing enforcement and implementation directions—were necessarily and properly connected to that single subject.
- The court held the title and ballot title/submission clause clearly and fairly expressed the initiative’s single subject and were not misleading.

## Legal Principles

- Review of Title Board actions is limited; the court applies legitimate presumptions in favor of the Board’s titles and will set aside a single-subject determination only in a clear case.
- Colorado’s single-subject requirement (Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5); § 1-40-106.5, C.R.S.) targets logrolling and voter surprise; an initiative may include multiple provisions if they are necessarily and properly connected to a unifying subject.
- A measure is not invalid simply because it has broad consequences or would make significant changes; the question is whether its parts are tied to one general subject rather than separate, unrelated subjects.
- Titles must be clear, fair, and non-misleading (§ 1-40-106, C.R.S.); the title need not address every effect or legal argument about the measure, and the court will not require the “best” title so long as the Board’s language accurately states the measure’s central features.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Title Board’s determination that proposed Initiative 2011–2012 #3 satisfied the single-subject rule because all of its provisions related to defining and enforcing the public’s rights in the waters of natural streams, and the court also upheld the title and ballot title/submission clause as an adequate, non-misleading summary of that subject.


In the Matter of Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3, 274 P.3d 562 (2012)