The Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the trial court, although it differs somewhat in its analysis. The Supreme Courts rejects the trial court’s conclusion that the long bill headnotes were properly vetoed by the Governor because they are "items" within the meaning of article IV, § 12, of the Colorado Constitution. However, the Court agrees with the trial court’s alternative holding that by adopting the headnotes, the legislature intruded into the executive branch’s responsibility to administer the laws and violated the separation of powers doctrine established in article III of the Colorado Constitution. Likewise, the Court agrees with the ruling that the Governor cannot veto an appropriation in a substantive bill, unless he vetoes the entire bill. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The water court approved the application and, in its decree, imposed a duty of curtailment on the state engineer in the language of CRS § 37-92-305(8). Harmony assigned error to the water court’s failure to construe the language of the statute and include in the decree that curtailment of out-of-priority diversions is authorized only when the augmentation plan is not being operated in compliance with the other terms and conditions of the decree.

The Supreme Court affirms, holding that: (1) CRS § 37-92-305(8) specifies what a water court decree must demand of the state engineer; and (2) the water court complied with the statute’s mandate by imposing a duty of curtailment on the state engineer in the precise terms of the statute. The judgment of the water court is affirmed.

Petitioner argued that the Title Board lacked jurisdiction to set the title for Initiative #55, on the basis that it contains multiple subjects, in violation of article V, § 1(5.5), of the Colorado Constitution. The Supreme Court concludes that Initiative #55 violates the single-subject prohibition. Initiative #55 presents at least two unrelated and incongruous purposes: (1) decreasing taxpayer expenditures contributing to the welfare of individuals not lawfully present in Colorado; and (2) restricting access to administrative services. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the action by the Title Board.