The Colorado Supreme Court issued a split decision on January 26, 2026, in a high-stakes water rights dispute that pitted multiple business entities against each other over properties near Colorado's Byers Peak. The court's ruling in *Byers Peak Properties, LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC* (2026 CO 7) affirmed portions of the lower water court's judgment while reversing others, highlighting the complex nature of water law in Colorado's mountain regions.
The case originated in Water Division 5, where Honorable James B. Boyd presided as water judge. The dispute involved several Colorado limited liability companies and individual property owners on one side, facing off against Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC, along with the State Engineer and Division 5 Engineer.
On the plaintiff side, the case brought together Byers Peak Properties, LLC; Byers Peak Downhill Properties, LLC; individuals C. Clark and Meredith C. Lipscomb; and Colorado Adventure Park, LLC. These parties secured a favorable judgment and injunction order from the water court below, which Byers Peak Land & Cattle subsequently appealed to the state's highest court.
The Supreme Court of Colorado, sitting en banc with all justices participating, delivered its opinion through Justice Gabriel. The unanimous participation of Chief Justice Marquez, Justice Boatright, Justice Hood, Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter underscored the significance of the water rights issues at stake.
Water rights disputes in Colorado carry particular weight due to the state's prior appropriation doctrine, which allocates water based on a "first in time, first in right" principle. This legal framework becomes especially contentious in areas like Byers Peak, where development pressures and recreational activities compete with traditional agricultural and ranching uses for limited water resources.
The case number 24SA254 reflects the Supreme Court's 2024 docket, indicating the appeal moved relatively quickly through the judicial system. The original case in Water Division 5 carried the designation 19CW3067, suggesting the underlying dispute began in 2019 and took several years to resolve at the trial level.
Legal representation in the case reflected the high stakes involved, with multiple prominent Colorado law firms participating. The plaintiffs-appellees were represented by Patrick, Miller & Noto, P.C., with Kevin L. Patrick and Jason M. Groves from the firm's Basalt office handling the matter. Additional representation came from Campbell, Wagner and Frazier, LLC, with Michael O. Frazier from Greenwood Village participating.
Defendant-appellant Byers Peak Land & Cattle engaged Fairfield and Woods, P.C., with Joseph B. Dischinger and Philip E. Lopez from the Denver office managing the appeal. The state agencies involved in the case were represented by the Colorado Attorney General's office, with Attorney General Philip J. Weiser leading a team that included First Assistant Attorney General Derek L. Turner and Assistant Attorneys General Robert Harris and Mackenzie T. Herman.
The court's decision to both affirm and reverse portions of the water court's ruling suggests the case involved multiple claims or issues that received different treatment under Colorado water law. Water court proceedings typically address questions of water rights priority, beneficial use, and compliance with state water administration requirements.
The involvement of the State Engineer and Division 5 Engineer as parties indicates the case likely touched on water administration issues that fall under state regulatory authority. Colorado's water engineers play crucial roles in implementing the prior appropriation system and ensuring compliance with water rights decrees.
The Byers Peak area, located in Summit County, represents a region where traditional ranching operations increasingly intersect with recreational development and residential growth. These competing uses often create tensions over water allocation and can lead to complex litigation when parties disagree about their respective rights.
The Supreme Court's mixed ruling may reflect the nuanced nature of water rights law, where different claims or legal theories can receive varying treatment even within a single case. The court's willingness to both affirm and reverse suggests careful consideration of the distinct legal and factual issues presented.
The case outcome will likely influence future water rights disputes in Colorado, particularly those involving multiple parties with competing development and agricultural interests. The decision may provide guidance on how courts should balance traditional water uses against newer recreational and commercial developments in mountain communities.
For the immediate parties, the split decision means both sides achieved partial victories, though the specific implications will depend on which portions of the lower court's ruling were affirmed or reversed. The mixed outcome may also influence any potential settlement discussions or future litigation strategies in related water rights matters.
The timing of the decision, coming in late January 2026, positions it early in the new year's legal calendar and may signal the court's recognition of the importance of resolving water rights disputes promptly in Colorado's competitive water allocation environment.