## Facts

- Roaring Fork Club, L.L.C. operated a private golf, fishing, and residential resort on the Roaring Fork River system, including Roaring Creek.
- The Club filed two applications in Water Division 5 seeking new appropriative rights for aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial uses associated with resort operations.
- The Club proposed diverting water from Roaring Creek to a ditch on its property but did not specify concrete plans or demand supporting the full quantity claimed.
- St. Jude’s Co., an agricultural user with existing rights in the same system, opposed the applications and separately sued the Club asserting trespass, breach of a prior settlement agreement, declaratory and injunctive relief tied to an asserted eminent-domain entitlement, and quiet title claims related to rights implicated in the augmentation plan.
- The water court granted the Club’s requested appropriative rights for the stated uses, approved an augmentation plan, and amended the legal description of a point of diversion for an already decreed right.
- In the separate civil action, the water court denied most of St. Jude’s claims, quieted title in relevant disputed rights, and awarded the Club attorney fees under a fee-shifting settlement agreement.
- St. Jude’s directly appealed the consolidated judgment to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Club proved the required intent to apply the specific quantity of water claimed to a legally cognizable beneficial use for purposes of obtaining new appropriative rights.
2. Whether the water court erred in resolving St. Jude’s related claims involving trespass, breach of the settlement agreement, declaratory and injunctive relief premised on asserted eminent-domain powers, and quiet title.
3. Whether the attorney-fee award to the Club under the settlement agreement was proper and whether the Club could recover additional appellate fees incurred defending that award.

## Decision

- The court reversed the decree granting the Club new appropriative rights because the Club failed to demonstrate intent to apply the claimed amount of water to beneficial use.
- The court affirmed the remainder of the water court’s rulings challenged by St. Jude’s, finding no misinterpretation of agreements or governing law, no clearly erroneous findings, and no abuse of discretion.
- The court granted the Club appellate attorney fees limited to fees incurred defending the trial-level fee award and remanded to determine the amount.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

## Legal Principles

- A decree for a new appropriative water right requires proof of a non-speculative intent to apply the specific quantity claimed to beneficial use, as required by the Colorado Constitution and water statutes.
- Aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial uses may qualify as beneficial uses, but the applicant must still substantiate the quantity sought with evidence of concrete plans or demand for that amount.
- Appellate review will not disturb fact-bound contract, property, and discovery rulings absent legal error, clearly erroneous findings, or abuse of discretion.
- Contractual fee-shifting provisions may support an award of trial and appellate attorney fees when the contractual conditions are met, including fees incurred defending an award already granted.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the Club could not obtain decreed new appropriative rights without showing a definite intent to put the full claimed quantity to beneficial use, reversed those decrees, and otherwise affirmed the water court’s resolution of related contract, trespass, title, and fee disputes, while remanding to set appellate fees owed under the parties’ settlement agreement.


St. Jude’s Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, L.L.C., 2015 CO 51, 351 P.3d 442 (Colo. 2015)