The Colorado Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling for water providers and private landowners alike, confirming as legally authorized by Colorado statutes the condemnation of land for water right infrastructure. In N. Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enter. v. VIMA Partners, LLC, 2026 CO 29, the Court held that a water activity enterprise, as defined in C.R.S. § 37-45.1-101, is authorized to condemn private property through eminent domain for the purpose of water activities. It is the first time the Court has expressly extended the power of condemnation to a water activity enterprise, and the decision has meaningful consequences for the balance of power between Colorado’s regional water suppliers and the property owners in their path.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose out of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), a regional supply project in Northeast Colorado designed to deliver 40,000 acre-feet of water annually to 15 municipalities and water districts. To advance the project, the NISP Water Activity Enterprise (NISP Enterprise), a statutorily defined legal “enterprise” owned exclusively by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water), filed a condemnation petition seeking permanent and temporary easements on property owned by VIMA Partners, LLC.
NISP Enterprise asserted that the easements were necessary for surveying, locating, constructing, operating, and maintaining water delivery pipelines and related infrastructure for the project. VIMA Partners refused to provide easements, instead filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings that challenged the Enterprise’s authority to condemn private property at all. The district court denied that motion, and VIMA Partners sought relief from the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21.
The Court’s Analysis
The Colorado Supreme Court framed its decision around two questions: first, whether a Colorado enterprise can exercise a water conservancy district’s power of eminent domain for water activities; and second, whether, in exercising that power, the enterprise has the authority to condemn private property.
On the first question, the Court read C.R.S. § 37-45.1-103 together with C.R.S. § 37-45-118(1)(c) to conclude that the plain language of the statutes grants enterprises created by Colorado water conservancy districts (like Northern Water) the same legal authority of the enterprise’s parent district. Because water conservancy districts are expressly granted the power of eminent domain, an enterprise like NISP Enterprise inherits that same power. As an enterprise of Northern Water, NISP Enterprise was therefore authorized to exercise Northern Water’s legal authority, including eminent domain, so long as that authority is exercised in relation to water activity within Northern Water’s service plan.
On the second question, the Court held that an enterprise may exercise condemnation across a broad set of purposes. Because C.R.S. § 37-45.1-103(4) grants legal authority for purposes “relating to water activities,” the Court reasoned that an enterprise may act in connection with its water activities even when the specific action is not itself expressly listed as a water activity in the statute. The Court pointed to the phrase “includes but is not limited to” in C.R.S. § 37-45.1-103(3) as evidence that the Legislature intended an expansive understanding of what counts as a water activity.
Notably, the Court reconciled this expansiveness with the longstanding principle that eminent domain authority is construed narrowly. Courts generally strictly interpret statutes that grant governmental agencies the power to seize private property, and the taking of private property is still very seriously scrutinized. While the Court agreed that a narrow construction of condemnation power applies, it concluded that, given the breadth of the statutory language, the purposes for which an enterprise may exercise that power can be expansive regarding water activities.
Why This Decision Matters
N. Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enter. v. VIMA Partners, LLC confirms the statutory authority of water activity enterprises to exercise their parent district’s power of eminent domain. The Court grounded its holding directly in the plain language of C.R.S. §§ 37-45.1-101, 37-45.1-103, and 37-45-118(1)(c), but it is the first Colorado Supreme Court decision to expressly recognize a water activity enterprise’s power to condemn private property through eminent domain.
For water conservancy districts and their enterprises, the practical takeaway is favorable: so long as a proposed condemnation can be connected to a water activity, the enterprise may invoke its statutory eminent domain authority over the objection of a private landowner. The corollary for property owners is sobering. Landowners whose property is targeted for condemnation by such an enterprise will face a high bar in challenging the enterprise’s authority and are unlikely to find a successful legal remedy on that ground. However, condemnation still carries the requirements of just compensation and other statutory requirements that protect involved landowners.
As regional water projects like NISP continue to expand across Colorado’s Front Range and beyond, this decision is likely to shape how both suppliers and landowners approach the acquisition of easements and rights-of-way for years to come.
For questions regarding the applicability of this decision, please contact:
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.
Read more news and alerts »
Somach Simmons & Dunn | Attorneys at Law
