Centennial Water and Sanitation District (Centennial) appealed from a water court order dismissing its objection to the Well Augmentation Subdistrict’s (WAS) proposal to use additional sources of replacement water for its previously decreed augmentation plan. Centennial had asserted that WAS failed to comply with the notice requirements of the decree itself and that this failure amounted to a per se injury, for which it was entitled to relief without any further showing of operational effect. The water court heard Centennial’s motion objecting to WAS’s proposed addition of new sources of replacement water and, without requiring WAS to present evidence, found that Centennial failed to establish prima facie facts of WAS’s inability to deliver augmentation water in quantity or time to prevent injury to other water users. Referencing CRCP 41 as the appropriate procedural vehicle, the water court dismissed Centennial’s objection.

In this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s ruling denying petitioner a preliminary hearing when she was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI),fourth or subsequent offense, a class 4 felony under CRS § 42-4-1301(1)(a), and was being held in custody on that charge.

The Court issued a rule to show cause and now makes the rule absolute. CRS § 16-5-301(1)(b)(II) provides that a defendant who is accused of a class 4, 5, or 6 felony and is in custody for that offense “may demand and shall receive a preliminary hearing.” The legislature amended the DUI statute to provide that DUI is a class 4 felony if the violation occurred after three or more prior convictions arising out of separate and distinct criminal episodes. Here, the complaint and information accused petitioner of committing a class 4 felony and she was being held in custody on that charge. Accordingly, under the plain language of the statute, petitioner was entitled to a preliminary hearing, and the district court erred in denying her request for such a hearing.