In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2011-2012 # 45 Douglas Kemper, — Hobbs, J…

Summary

The dissent would have held that Initiative 2011-12 #45 violated Colorado's single-subject requirement because it combined several unrelated changes to the State's water law under the broad concept of public control of water. It also would have found the title misleading because it failed to disclose that the initiative would subordinate existing water rights, authorize appropriation of non-tributary groundwater without the overlying owner's consent, and impose a riparian-style unimpaired-return requirement. The dissent would have reversed the Title Board and directed it to strike the title and return the initiative to its proponents.