5E882F33B6BC69F4872586400058987B Hearing Summary CLICS/CLICS2020A/commsumm.nsf PUBLICBILL SUMMARY For LLS 21-0194: UNIF EASEMENT RELOCATION ACTJOINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON COLORADO COMMISSION ON UNIFORM STATE LAWSDate Dec 16, 2020 Location HCR 0112 LLS 21-0194: Unif Easement Relocation Act - To be introduced as a Commission Bill Attachment Tag File Name Attachment http://www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2020A/commsumm.nsf/0/FB8A544AA8CA...$File/21-0194-20201112.pdf?OpenElement 21-0194-20201112.pdf 09:07:43 AM Amy Brimah, Colorado Bar Association (CBA) Real Estates Section, stated that under current Colorado law, a court order is required for relocations in the absence of an agreement of the property owners, the same as in the Act. The Colorado Supreme Court adopted the Third Restatement rule in the ditch relocation case, Roaring Fork Club LP v. St. Jude Company, 36 P.3rd 1229 (Colo. 2001). Relocation under Roaring Fork without a court order is considered trespass, with subsequent penalties. The uniform act contains no penalty for relocation without an order. The Act may provide some incremental improvement to Colorado law but it does not improve the situations under Roaring Fork. The section does not have a formal position, but does have concerns with moving the Act forward. The commission asked whether adding Colorado-specific provisions regarding the consequences of relocating without a court order or providing for other damages would address the section's concerns. Ms. Brimah answered that she anticipated that the water law section would not be in favor of passing the Act. 09:22:52 AM Andrew White, CBA Director of Legislative Relations, added that Roaring Fork has been settled case law for 19 years providing guidance across all property law in Colorado and enacting the uniform act may cause new litigation of provisions or other unintended consequences. The commission discussed that although the legal and real estate communities may be aware of the case law requirements regarding relocations, private citizens may not be. It would benefit everyone to codify Roaring Fork so that anyone could more readily ascertain the legal requirements for relocation. The commission acknowledged that there would be opposition to the Act. Commissioner Gardner agreed to speak with the Colorado Water Congress to explain the Act and that this Act does not constitute a significant change to current law. The commission thanked the CBA for their time and comments on the Act. 09:40:20 AM Commissioner Gardner moved to introduce LLS 21-0194: Uniform Easement Relocation Act as a commission bill, with any technical amendments needed, and urged a "No" vote. Commissioner Mielke seconded and the motion passed 5-4. Commissioner Gardner agreed to sponsor the bill and start it in the Senate. 09:40:21 AM Motion Moved to introduce LLS 21-0194: Uniform Easement Relocation Act as a commission bill, with any technical amendments needed, and urged a "No" vote. Moved Gardner Seconded Alicia Duran Yes Thomas Grimshaw Excused Donald Mielke Yes Thomas Morris Yes Charley Pike Yes Sara Scott Yes Tipper No Joseph Whitfield No Gardner No Claire Levy No YES: 5 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS