By Colton Goldfarb and John Sittler
In a recent May 4, 2026, opinion handed down from the Colorado Supreme Court, water activity enterprises now have confirmed authority to bring an eminent domain proceeding against a private property owner and condemn private property for water-related activities. [Northern Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enterprise v. VIMA Partners, 2026 CO 9 (Colo. 2026).]
Background
Northern Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enterprise (the “Enterprise”, a business owned by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern), filed a petition of condemnation in Weld County District Court seeking to acquire both permanent and temporary construction easements on land owned by VIMA Partners. The Enterprise requires easements for the surveying, locating, construction, operation, and maintenance of water delivery pipelines and related infrastructure as part of a regional supply and distribution project called the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP or the Project). The Project aims to supply 40,000 acre-feet of new, reliable water supplies to 15 municipalities in districts in northern Colorado annually.
Procedural Background
In the petition for condemnation submitted to the court, the Enterprise identified multiple legal sources for its authority to implement the power of eminent domain. Most prominently, Article XVI in Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution and Colorado Statutes C.R.S. 37-86-102, 104(1), 37-45.1-103(4), and 37-45-118(1)(c). VIMA Partners filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings following the petition, arguing that none of the legal authorities asserted by the Enterprise granted it eminent domain powers, which VIMA argued are the exclusive authority of water conservancy districts. The District Court in Weld County denied the motion for judgement, ultimately siding with the Enterprise.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court applied the canons of statutory interpretation to interpret the Colorado General Assembly’s intent for the statutes cited by the Enterprise. VIMA Parters contended that the water enterprise statutes and statutes involving the powers of eminent domain must be narrowly construed, with any ambiguities in the language resolved in favor of the condemned landowner. As such, VIMA argued, the condemnation power should be limited to water conservancy districts and not extended to water enterprises. However, the Court did not agree with these contentions, holding that the language of the statutes was clearly intended to provide such powers to water enterprises and that case law calling for narrow interpretation is distinguishable. All parties agreed that water conservancy districts hold eminent domain powers, and the Court’s ruling confirms that these powers extend to subsidiary water enterprises as well. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the district court ruling confirming the Enterprises’ condemnation authority as a water enterprise.
This holding is the most recent of several controversial issues surrounding NISP. As a part of the Project, NISP seeks to create a large reservoir northwest of Fort Collins that will flood a valley containing a seven-mile stretch of US Highway 287 between Fort Collins and Laramie, Wyoming. The reservoir will be filled with water from the Cache Le Poudre and become one of the largest in the northern half of the state. In 2025, Save the Poudre, an environmental advocacy group, sued Northern Water to stop the Project, but settled for $100 million to be invested into various conservation projects and alterations to the scope project. Nonetheless, the Project remained largely intact, with this most recent win in court being seminal to its long-term implementation.
The Future of Water Enterprises in the State
Looking beyond the benefits to Northern Water, the Enterprise, and NISP, confirmation of eminent domain powers in water enterprises could create a dramatic change in the way Colorado water suppliers will handle their infrastructure. Denver Water recently dealt with a long-term injunction with the expansion of Gross Reservoir Dam as part of their plan to expand capacity amid growing population within their service area. The process of completing accompanying infrastructure has now become much easier with condemnation of prime locations now within its confirmed authority.
Conclusion and Implications
Whether the power of eminent domain for water enterprises is beneficial will continue to be a topic of debate, although that power is now clearly legal. On one hand, water enterprises can more effectively supply water to users within their service districts through new water projects. On the other hand, large-scale infrastructure, including massive dams and reservoirs, can now be constructed with significantly less burden than before. With climate change and western aridification changing the amount of available water for all uses, water districts and their associated enterprises may continue to exercise their constitutional and statutory eminent domain authority in service of expanded water projects. The Court’s opinion is available online at: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-05/25SA305.pdf
