Rule 89.Notice When Priority Antedating an Adjudication is Sought
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 10, 2026
Full Text of Rule 89
Amendment History
The source reproduced here (current through June 1, 2026) records no amendment to this rule since its original adoption — no Credits line appears for it in the compiled rules. For the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the Colorado General Assembly.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 89 protects owners of existing water rights when someone applies for a new or conditional water right claiming a priority date that reaches back further than rights already decreed in the same water division. An earlier priority date can move a new claimant ahead of rights adjudicated first, so the rule requires extra notice before that can happen.
Unless a statute already provides for that kind of earlier priority date, the water clerk must include a specific notification in boldface type in the resume — the periodic public notice of pending applications — warning that the application may affect the priority of water rights already claimed or adjudicated in the division. Owners of those affected rights must then object and protest within the time and manner set by statute, or they lose the ability to challenge the claim later.
- The boldface notice applies to both water right and conditional water right applications.
- It covers claims that would antedate an earlier adjudication or predate the effective date of a previously awarded priority.
- It does not apply where a statute already authorizes the earlier priority date being claimed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kind of application triggers the notice required by Rule 89?
Any application for a water right or conditional water right in which the claimant seeks a priority date that antedates an earlier adjudication, or predates the effective date of one or more priorities already awarded by a previous decree in the same water division.
What has to appear in the resume under Rule 89?
The water clerk must include a specific notification in boldface type warning that the application may affect the priority of water rights already claimed or adjudicated in the division, and that affected owners must object and protest in time or be forever barred.
Is boldface notice required if a statute already allows the earlier priority date?
No. Rule 89 carves out an exception for situations where a statute makes separate provision for the antedation or earlier priority being claimed.