Concerning the Application for Water Rights of: Ginn Battle South, LLC, Ginn Battle North, LLC, Gin — Coats, J…

Summary

Justice Coats dissented from the majority's treatment of the parties' water-rights stipulation as ambiguous and its approval of extrinsic evidence to revise the decree's specific monthly limitations. The dissent would read the stipulation according to its plain language, under which the specified monthly maximums were binding and could not be displaced by a later accounting of historical use. Justice Eid joined the dissent.