Concerning the Application for Water Rights of: Ginn Battle South, LLC, Ginn Battle North, LLC, Ginn-LA Battle One…

Summary

The court affirmed corrected water-rights decrees because the water court acted within its statutory discretion to correct substantive errors and properly determined that the corrections reflected the parties' intent to use actual historical monthly consumptive-use data. The stipulations' "no less restrictive" language was ambiguous as applied to the monthly limitations, and the record supported interpreting it to preserve actual historical use while preventing injury to other water rights. The court did not reach Tucker's discovery argument because affirmance made that issue unnecessary. Justice Coats, joined by Justice Eid, dissented, maintaining that the stipulation unambiguously fixed specific monthly amounts and did not permit correction based on extrinsic evidence.