In a recent decision with important implications for irrigators, landowners, and water users across Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court clarified who may enforce Colorado’s statutory prohibition on “water waste.” In Byers Peak Properties, LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC, 2026 CO 7 (Colo. 2026), the Court unanimously held that Colorado’s water waste statute does not create a private right of action. Instead, enforcement authority rests with the state through the State Engineer.

The dispute arose from neighboring ranch properties that historically shared irrigation infrastructure following the division of a larger ranch. After relations between the parties deteriorated, one landowner alleged that the other was diverting excessive irrigation water, resulting in runoff and flooding onto downstream property. The plaintiffs brought claims in water court under several theories, including statutory water waste, nuisance, trespass, and requests for injunctive relief.

The Court held that C.R.S. § 37-84-108, which prohibits running more water through a ditch than necessary, does not authorize private lawsuits. Instead, enforcement actions must be brought in the name of the state. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme assigns enforcement authority to public officials, not neighboring landowners. Further, although the plaintiffs alleged real injury from flooding, the Court concluded that injury alone is insufficient to support a statutory waste claim absent a legally protected right to enforce the statute.

Because the statutory waste claims failed, the Court also concluded that the water court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over related trespass and nuisance claims tied to those theories. As a result, the injunction entered by the water court could not stand. The Court further clarified that related statutory provisions concerning ditch operation and water rights protection do not provide remedies for irrigation runoff or flooding damage between neighbors.

This decision draws a clearer line between water rights disputes and property damage disputes. The Court signaled that irrigation waste enforcement is primarily regulatory and state driven, while runoff-related claims may belong in traditional tort litigation. For water users and landowners, the decision increases the importance of early forum selection and claim framing. Parties alleging irrigation-related flooding should carefully evaluate whether a true water rights issue exists, whether the claims belong in district court instead of water court, and whether state administrative remedies may be more appropriate than civil litigation.

For questions regarding the applicability of these new requirements, please contact:

• Michael W. Daugherty, mdaugherty@somachlaw.com
• Ryan J. Mitchell, rmitchell@somachlaw.com

Somach Simmons & Dunn provides the information in its Environmental Law & Policy Alerts and on its website for informational purposes only. This general information is not a substitute for legal advice, and users should consult with legal counsel for specific advice. In addition, using this information or sending electronic mail to Somach Simmons & Dunn or its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship with Somach Simmons & Dunn.