author: Justice KOURLIS

text:
    Britt E. TIDWELL, an incapacitated person, by his conservator, Xavier O. TIDWELL, Petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal and home rule city of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
    No. 02SC532.
    Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
    Nov. 10, 2003.

      Downey, Miller and Hopp, Wesley W. Hoyt, Englewood, Colorado, David I. Levy, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.
    Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C., Thomas S. Rice, Brian K. Matise, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.
   Justice KOURLIS

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this case, Officer Timothy McAleer, a Denver Police Officer, was in his patrol car chasing a green Oldsmobile in an attempt to stop and apprehend the driver when the Oldsmobile failed to obey a stop sign and collided with a white limousine, killing the driver of the limousine and seriously injuring its passenger, Britt Tidwell, the plaintiff in this case. Tidwell brought a tort action against the City and County of Denver (the “City”) to recover for his injuries associated with the accident.

The City argued that it was immune from suit under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), section 24-10-106, 7B C.R.S. (2003). Tidwell countered that the provisions of the GIA were unavailable to the City because the Officer failed to activate his lights and siren during the chase. The trial court concluded that the City was immune from suit.

The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in Tidwell ex rel. Tidwell v. City and County of Denver, 62 P.3d 1020, 1023 (Colo.App.2003), on other grounds, holding that the Officer was in “pursuit,” but since the pursuit was investigatory in nature, he was not required to use emergency signals under section 42-4-108(3), 11 C.R.S. (2003).

In addition to addressing the immunity issues, the trial court also entered summary judgment in this case in favor of the City because it determined that Tidwell introduced no evidence at the evidentiary hearing on immunity issues to show that any failure on the part of the City caused the accident between the Oldsmobile and the limousine.

Resolution of this case requires us first to determine whether the Officer was “pursuing” the driver of the Oldsmobile and, if so, whether the pursuit was investigatory. We now hold: 1) that Officer McAleer was engaged in a “pursuit” of the Oldsmobile; and 2) that the pursuit was not investigatory in nature as that term appears in the statute. Accordingly, Officer McAleer was required to activate his emergency signals in order for the City to claim the protection of governmental immunity under the terms of the GIA.

We also hold that it was inappropriate for the trial court to enter summary judgment for the City on causation. The City’s then pending summary motion did not address causation. Rather, the City raised causation in the context of the governmental immunity analysis, arguing that the accident did not result from the Officer’s conduct. That inquiry was appropriate. However, Tidwell was not permitted to engage in discovery on that point, and was not permitted to present facts at the hearing supporting his contention that the Officers actions had a causative effect in the accident. Lastly, the trial court should have afforded the benefit of inferences to the plaintiff and evaluated causation only for the limited purposes of the 12(b)(1) motion. Accordingly, we reverse that judgment as well and return this case to the court of appeals with directions to remand it to the trial court for further proceedings.

I. Facts

On Saturday, May 4,1996, at approximately 6 o’clock on a clear and dry morning, in the City and County of Denver, Officer McA-leer was traveling north on Colorado Boule.vard when he made a right-hand turn onto 23rd Avenue (23rd) and began heading east. Just after Officer McAleer turned onto 23rd, he noticed an older-model green Oldsmobile stop abruptly a few blocks ahead of him on 23rd, somewhere between Cherry and Dahlia Streets. The erratic driving of the Oldsmobile caught the officer’s attention since there was no other traffic in the early morning hours in this residential neighborhood.

As Officer McAleer approached the car, he noticed the old age of the car and the fact that it had temporary tags instead of license plates. He also noticed that the car had stopped in front of a retail business section of the block. This, combined with the Oldsmobile’s sudden stop, led Officer McAleer to form a suspicion either that the car was stolen or that the occupants of the car might have been preparing to engage in other criminal activity.

Reasonably suspecting that a crime “either had been or was about to be committed,” Officer McAleer pulled up behind the Oldsmobile and activated his yellow “stage one” overhead lights or “wigwags.” Officer McA-leer activated only the wigwags (instead of the “stage two” red, blue and white rotating lights or “stage three” lights and siren) because, he believed, his sole responsibility was to let other drivers know that he was stopped and that they needed to stay to the left of his car. As he later explained at the evidentiary hearing following the accident, Officer McA-leer believed that the multi-colored lights and siren were used only to signify an intent to stop a vehicle ahead of him. Since the vehicle he was investigating was already stopped and should have been aware of his intent to investigate, there was no need for anything except the wigwags, according to Officer McAleer.

By this point, a passenger had already exited the Oldsmobile and was standing on the sidewalk. When Officer McAleer got out of his car, he told the passenger to get back into the Oldsmobile. After arguing with Officer McAleer briefly, the passenger took off running, first through a nearby park and then disappearing from sight. Simultaneously, while Officer McAleer was still outside of his car, the Oldsmobile sped away with its passenger door open. According to Officer McAleer, the behavior of both the driver and the passenger confirmed his reasonable suspicions that a crime had been committed.

Officer McAleer hurried back to his car in hopes of “recontacting” the Oldsmobile. Though Officer McAleer testified he was not certain about the possibility of finding the Oldsmobile since it was speeding down 23rd “as fast as [it] could go,” he explained that when he left the scene, his goal was to find the car and apprehend the driver. As Officer McAleer put his car into gear, he saw the Oldsmobile turn left, heading north down an “unknown” street. From his point of departure, Officer McAleer' drove “about 40-45 miles per hour” until he arrived at the alley between Eudora and Elm Streets (1.5 blocks east). The speed limit along 23rd at this time was 30 miles per hour. At no point did Officer McAleer turn on his stage two rotating lights or his stage three siren.

When Officer McAleer got to the alley, he slowed down significantly in order to glance down the alley. When he did not see the Oldsmobile, he resumed speed until he got to the next alley, between Elm and Fairfax. After failing to locate the car down that alley, he accelerated again toward Fairfax. As he slowed down to look north down Fairfax, Officer McAleer noticed taillights a few blocks ahead that he believed could be the Oldsmobile’s.

He then turned left onto Fairfax and rushed toward the car. Just as he was completing the turn, however, Officer McAleer saw a flash of light and then a cloud of smoke. Seconds later, Officer McAleer approached the intersection of 26th Avenue (26th) and Fairfax, where he discovered that the Oldsmobile had collided with a white limousine that was heading west down 26th. Britt Tidwell was a passenger in that limousine. The limousine ended up on its side on a lawn on the northwest corner of the intersection. The Oldsmobile was facing south, resting further down Fairfax, just north of the intersection.

An investigation later revealed that the Oldsmobile was traveling between sixty and seventy miles per hour at the time of the impact. The limousine was traveling at a rate of approximately twenty-six miles per hour. The Oldsmobile failed to obey the stop sign at 26th and Fairfax. The limousine had the right of way, and no stop sign. The driver of the limousine died and Tidwell suffered serious brain injuries in the accident. Vincent Reedy, the driver of the Oldsmobile, was later convicted of vehicular homicide.

II. Legal Proceedings

Tidwell brought a negligence action against both the City and Officer MeAleer in 1998. Specifically, he charged that Officer MeAleer caused his injuries by engaging in a high-speed pursuit of an automobile without using lights or siren to warn nearby drivers. He asserted that Officer MeAleer initiated and maintained a reckless and careless high-speed chase without following normal police procedures and thereby violated section 42-4-108(3), which requires police officers engaged in a pursuit to use “audible or visual signals” when they are going to violate normal traffic laws.

On February 22, 2001, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo.1993) (the “Trinity hearing”) to determine whether the City was immune from Tidwell’s suit under the GIA. During more than two days of testimony, the trial court heard from several police officers, including Officer MeAleer, and several experts on motor vehicle accidents. The court also had in evidence the deposition of Mr. Adolfo Fierro, who lives near the intersection of 26th and Fairfax.

The trial court ruled that the City was immune from suit based on its finding that Officer MeAleer was not engaged in a “pursuit.” Accordingly, and pursuant to Trinity Broadcasting, it dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). The court held that since there was no pursuit, Officer MeAleer was not required to use audible or visual signals. Thus, the City was granted immunity from suit under the “emergency vehicle” exception to section 24 — 10—106(1) (a), which would normally waive immunity from suit “for injuries resulting from ... the operation of a motor vehicle” owned by the City.

Importantly, the trial court refused to hear evidence that touched on matters not related to the “pursuit.” When Tidwell offered the testimony of one expert who was going to explain that the collision would have been avoided if the limousine had been driving even 1-2 miles per hour slower, the court did not allow it. The court explained that any inferences as to whether the lights and siren would have caused the limousine to slow down were only relevant to cause, not to pursuit.

Instead, the vast majority of testimony related to Officer McAleer’s speed between 23rd and Dahlia and 26th and Fairfax and why he did not activate his lights and siren. During the presentation of evidence, the City’s experts explained how the officer’s speed indicated he was not in “pursuit” as that term is defined by Denver Police Department Operations Manual (the “Police Manual”). In contrast, Tidwell’s expert focused on why the evidence did support the existence of a “pursuit.” In addition, Tid-well’s main witness was Officer McAleer himself, who explained why he did not activate his lights and siren. He stated that in his opinion, the rotating lights and siren (stage three) are used only to communicate to a vehicle being pursued. He said that because the driver of the Oldsmobile knew or should have known that Officer McAleer wanted to “recontact” him, there was no need to use the lights or the siren. Specifically, Officer McAleer testified that to him it only made sense to activate the lights and siren when an officer is “a car length or two” behind the party he is pursuing. Otherwise, he said, “it just seems kind of strange.”

During his direct examination, Officer McAleer unequivocally agreed that police procedures require him to activate the lights and siren whenever he is engaged in a pursuit. But, he said, he was not required to use them in this instance since, in his opinion, he was not involved in a “pursuit.” Officer McAleer even testified that his intent in following the Oldsmobile was to apprehend the driver and agreed that police procedures do require him to activate the lights and siren whenever an officer attempts to apprehend a driver. However, he said, the lights and siren are really only required when there are other “vehicles or people” around who are “jeopardized.”

Officer McAleer agreed that it was likely he was exceeding the speed limit at some point during his attempt to “recontact” the driver. He also testified that the lights and siren would have been helpful to warn other drivers on the road, provided they were within “earshot.” Yet, he insisted that because he was not engaged in a “pursuit,” there was no requirement at all to activate the lights or the siren.

Relying solely on the definition of “pursuit” found in the Police Manual, the trial court agreed with the City that there was no pursuit in this case. Thus, it held, the City was immune from suit. The trial court also proceeded to enter summary judgment for the City on the grounds that the officer’s conduct did not cause the accident.

The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, but on different grounds. Contrary to the trial court, it held that there was indeed a “pursuit” in this case but that the City was nonetheless entitled to governmental immunity under the GIA’s “emergency vehicle exception.” Tidwell, 62 P.3d at 1023. The court of appeals held that, even though he was engaged in a pursuit, Officer McAleer was not required to activate his lights and siren under section 42-4-108(3), which states that a police vehicle need not turn on its audible or visual signals when the pursuit is investigatory in nature.

III. Immunity Analysis

' 1. Governmental Immunity Act (GIA)

Section 24-10-106(1) of the GIA states that as a general rule, “[aj public entity shall be immune from liability in all claims for injury which lie in tort.” The statute also enumerates several exceptions to the rule that waive sovereign immunity for tort actions. Pertinent to this case is the first exception under the statute, which announces that “immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from ... the operation of a motor vehicle, owned or leased by such public entity.” § 24-10-106(l)(a). There is an exception to this exception for emergency vehicles falling under the ambit of section 42-4-108. Id.

Under section 24-10-106(l)(a), a public entity is immune from any tort suit if the emergency vehicle is “operating within the provisions of section 42-4-108(2) and (3).” Id. Section 42-4-108(2) provides in pertinent part that a:

driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, ... when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, ... may ... (a) [pjark or stand, ... (b) [pjroceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, ... (c) [ejxceed ... lawful speeds ... so long as said driver does not endanger life or property ... [and] (d) [disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

Section 42-4-108(3) dictates that these exemptions “apply to section 24-10-106(l)(a), C.R.S., only when such vehicle is making use of audible or visual signals meeting the requirements of section 42-4-213” (the “lights and siren requirement”). There is an exception to this requirement, however, which states that “an authorized emergency vehicle being operated as a police vehicle while in actual pursuit of a suspected violator of any provision of [title 42] need not display or make use of audible or visual signals so long as such pursuit is being made to obtain verification of or evidence of the guilt of the suspected violator.” Id.

The net effect of these statutes is that a governmental entity is generally immune from tort liability in connection with the operation of an emergency vehicle. However, the vehicle must be operating with emergency lights and siren activated, unless the vehicle is in pursuit of a suspected violator to obtain evidence of guilt.

In this case, there is no dispute that Officer McAleer failed to activate his lights and siren. For purposes of the Trinity issues, there is also no real dispute that Officer McAleer was exceeding the lawful speed limit and otherwise disregarding normal traffic regulations. Thus, the City’s immunity from suit turns on whether Officer McAleer was indeed engaged in a “pursuit” of the Oldsmobile as contemplated by section 42-4-108(3) and whether, if he was engaged in a “pursuit,” the pursuit was made to “obtain verification of or evidence of’ the other driver’s guilt pursuant to the statute.

2. Standard of Review

Whether governmental immunity applies to bar a suit is a question of jurisdiction for the trial court. Springer v. City and County of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 798 (Colo.2000). As a result, “if raised before trial, the issue is properly addressed pursuant to a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” Cor-sentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082, 1087 (Colo. 2000). Where “the jurisdictional issue involves a factual dispute, a reviewing court employs the clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court’s findings.” Springer, 13 P.3d at 798. Where, however, the facts are undisputed and the issue is one of law, the appellate court reviews the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling de novo. Id.

In this case, the trial court ruled on only one of the questions of law: concluding there was no pursuit. To the contrary, the court of appeals concluded there was a pursuit, but that it was for purposes of “verification.” Since matters of statutory interpretation are matters of law, we review both of these rulings de novo. Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271, 273 (Colo.1995).

3. Interpretive Principles and the GIA

“Because the GIA’s immunity derogates Colorado’s common law, legislative grants of immunity must be strictly construed.” Corsentino, 4 P.3d at 1086. Accordingly, “we construe the GIA provisions that withhold immunity broadly [and] we construe the exceptions to these waivers strictly.” Id. (internal citations omitted); Springer, 13 P.3d at 798.

As with all matters of statutory construction, in construing the GIA, including its waivers, we must give effect to the legislature’s intent. Springer, 13 P.3d at 799. To accomplish that task, “[w]e look to the language of the statute, giving words their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. And, “[i]f the plain language of the statute demonstrates a clear legislative intent, we look no further in conducting our analysis.” Id. Because the exception at issue in this case would abrogate a common law remedy otherwise available to Tidwell, we cannot construe it in a way that would grant the City immunity absent a clear expression of legislative intent. Beach v. Beach, 74 P.3d 1, 4 (Colo.2003).

4. Pursuit

With these interpretive principles in mind, we, for the first time, construe the term “pursuit” as well as the verification exception to the lights and siren requirement.

As the court of appeals correctly noted, “neither the GIA nor Title 42 defines ‘pursuit.’ ” Tidwell, 62 P.3d at 1023. Accordingly, we must give this term its plain and ordinary meaning. “A strained or forced construction of a statutory term is to be avoided, and we must look to the context of a statutory term.” Fogg, 892 P.2d at 274. We agree with the court of appeals that the appropriate source from which to glean the plain and ordinary meaning of pursuit is from the dictionary and not the Denver Police Manual. See id. (endorsing the dictionary definition for the term “emergency” for purposes of the GIA). As the court of appeals pointed out, “if the meaning of ‘pursuit’ were based on a governmental entity’s definition of the term, there could be conflicting definitions of the term throughout the state.” Tidwell, 62 P.3d at 1023.

Further, the Police Manual definition to which the trial court refers presents an additional problem under section 424H08. Specifically, the Police Manual defines “pursuit” by a determination of whether the officer has given a “visual and audible signal” to a driver. Because 42-4-108 requires “audible or visual signals” whenever there is a “pursuit,” the Police Manual’s definition could be tautological.

Webstei*’s New World College Dictionary 1166 (4th ed.1999) defines to “pursue” as 1) “to follow in order to overtake, capture, or kill; chase,” and 2) “to proceed along, follow or continue with a specified course, action, plan, etc.,” and 3) “to try to find, get, win, etc.; strive for; seek after.” Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary 1250 (7th ed.1999) defines “pursuit” as “[t]he act of chasing to overtake or apprehend.”

Once we focus on the dictionary definitions, we quickly conclude that Officer McAleer was engaged in a “pursuit” as that term is ordinarily understood. Here, the driver of the Oldsmobile fled the scene of the initial stop in a clear attempt to avoid arrest or further investigation. According to his own admission, Officer McAleer hurriedly followed the driver in order to apprehend him. Accordingly, Officer McAleer was engaged in a “pursuit” for purposes of 42-4-108. Thus, we agree with the court of appeals that the trial court erred in ruling that there was no “pursuit” in this case.

5. The “Verification” Clause

Next, we apply the above interpretive rules to construe the verification exception to the lights and siren requirement. As the court of appeals stated, “no Colorado appellate opinion has interpreted this exception.” Tidwell, 62 P.3d at 1022. In its decision, the court of appeals held that Officer McAleer was not required in this instance to activate his lights and siren since he was conducting an investigation as provided under section 42-4-108(3).

Specifically, the court of appeals explained that since the initial purpose of Officer McA-leer’s stop was investigatory in nature (he had no intent or probable cause to arrest anyone in the car at that point), this purpose continued to operate even as he pursued the fleeing Oldsmobile since, it explained, “nothing in § 42 — 4—108(3) ... limits [this] exception to verifications while the officer is moving.” Id. at 1023. On appeal to this court, the City argues further that even though Officer McAleer had probable cause to stop and arrest the driver of the Oldsmobile for a Title 42 violation (careless driving), as required by the statute, the verification clause applied because Officer McAleer was without evidence of auto theft, also a Title 42 violation. Thus, they argue, despite the existence of probable cause to stop a driver for one violation, whenever the officer still needs to verily any other Title 42 violation, that officer need not activate lights and siren. We disagree.

Because statutory terms must be “construed in harmony with one another so as to give full effect to the legislative intent in enacting the statute,” we must look at section 42-4-108 as a whole in order to interpret the plain and ordinary meaning of the verification clause. Fogg, 892 P.2d at 274. Indeed, “consideration of an undefined term in context may provide guidance as to legislative intent and the term’s proper meaning.” Id. Looking at section 42-4-108 as a whole, it is clear that in enacting this statute, the General Assembly meant to balance the needs of law enforcement and other emergency service providers with the safety concerns of non-governmental drivers on Colorado roads.

In context, it appears that the purpose of the lights and siren requirement is to ensure that operators of emergency vehicles give due regard to the safety of other drivers on the road. It is not, as the City contends, a mere request to stop or pull over. Language found in subsection (4) of the statute indicates the legislature’s concern.

Subsection (4) of section 42-4-108 provides that “[t]he provisions of this section shall not relieve that driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of such driver’s reckless disregard for the safety of others.” This statute, including the exact language found in subsection (4), has existed since it was first passed in 1957 (well before the passage of the GIA in 1971), when it was then codified as section 13-4-4, C.R.S. (1957). The verification clause has also existed in the same form since 1957. § 13-4-4(2).

While undoubtedly one of the purposes of a police vehicle’s audible and visual signals is to order a pursued vehicle to stop, another purpose is to make other drivers aware of the pursuit so they may alter their conduct accordingly. This is seen by the explicit incorporation of section 42-4-213, 11 C.R.S. (2003) within subsection (3) of 42-4-108 (the verification exception). Section 42-4-108(3) states that emergency vehicles can violate normal traffic regulations provided they use audible or visual signals as required by section 42-4-213. Section 42-4-213(1) requires all emergency vehicles to be equipped with a siren “capable of emitting a sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than five hundred feet.” Sections 42-4-213(2) and (3) permit, but do not require, a police vehicle to have mounted signal lamps with “sufficient intensity to be visible at five hundred feet in normal sunlight.” Subsection (5) states that “[t]he use of either the audible or the visual signal equipment described in this section shall impose upon drivers of other vehicles the obligation to yield right-of-way and stop as prescribed in section 42-4-705” (a police stop). § 42-4-213(5) (emphasis added). Thus, reading 42-4-108 and 42-4-213 together as the legislature explicitly intended, it is clear that a police vehicle in pursuit of a driver suspected of violating Title 42 must activate its lights and siren in order to alert the suspect to stop as well as to warn other drivers of the ongoing pursuit.

In interpreting the verification exception to the lights siren requirement, as well as any other statute, “we must strive to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts.” City of Grand Junction v. Sisneros, 957 P.2d 1026, 1028 (Colo.1998).

In order to interpret the exception in harmony with the entire statute, we construe the verification exception merely to permit a reasonably safe pursuit of a suspect, without lights and siren, only where the officer is trying to confirm his suspicions that the driver has violated Title 42 and where the officer otherwise has no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the driver of the vehicle. We note here that a police officer must have some individualized suspicion that the driver has broken the law before the officer may use the lights or siren to stop the vehicle. See People v. Taylor, 41 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Colo.2002) (holding that the “flashing lights and blaring sirens of a police vehicle” implicate the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure requirements). The statute recognizes that Fourth Amendment protection by allowing an officer to pursue a vehicle to obtain that individualized evidence, without activating emergency signals.

We believe that this construction achieves the goal of section 42^4-108, which is to maintain' a balance between the needs of law enforcement in pursuing a suspect and the safety of drivers on public roads.

In this case, Officer McAleer testified both that he already had authority to stop and arrest the driver of the Oldsmobile and that he was pursuing the driver for this reason. Specifically, he explained that by the time the Oldsmobile fled the scene at 23rd and Dahlia, he had probable cause to stop the driver because of his careless driving. Further, he was hoping to “recontact” the car to confirm whether the ear was indeed stolen. Officer McAleer testified at the Trinity hearing that, in his opinion, the emergency signals were not necessary since he was not in “pursuit” of the Oldsmobile, because he was not one or two car lengths behind it. Parenthetically, then, even if we were to accept the Citys interpretation of the verification exception, there are no facts in this case that would trigger its application. Yet, the City insists that since Officer McAleer was not certain about the car theft, he should have been permitted to violate traffic laws and drive in an unsafe manner in pursuit of the speeding Oldsmobile by virtue of the fact that at least one of the reasons for the pursuit was not supported by probable cause.

Not only does this interpretation violate the clear intent of the lights and siren requirement, it misreads the plain meaning of the exception. The exception states that a police vehicle “while in actual pursuit of a suspected violator ... need not display or make use of [its] signals so long as such pursuit is being made to obtain verification of or evidence of the guilt of the suspected violator.” 42-4-108(3) (emphasis added). This would indicate that the exception is intended to cover those pursuits solely made for investigation, where the officer lacks the requisite suspicion to stop the suspect. Where an officer already has probable cause to stop a driver and the officer is pursuing the driver for that reason, the statute contemplates the use of emergency signals.

IV. Summary Judgment

Finally, we must address the propriety of the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the City. At the time of the Trinity hearing, there was no pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City on the issue of causation of the accident. The City had filed a summary judgment motion averring that there were no facts to support a conclusion that Officer McAleer owed a tort-based duty to prevent a third-party from harming Tidwell. While this argument could relate to the ultimate question of whether it was Officer McAleer or the driver of the Oldsmobile that caused the accident in the legal and proximate causation sense, the Motion focused on the existence of a duty.

Specifically, the City agreed that Officer McAleer would have owed a duty to prevent a third-party from harming Tidwell, but only if a “special relationship” existed between Officer McAleer and the driver of the Oldsmobile. Citing to Davenport v. Comty. Corrections of Pikes Peak Region, Inc., 962 P.2d 963, 968 (Colo.1998), the City explained that a special relationship exists where the actor has control over the third-party. The City even conceded that because of the level of control involved, a special relationship does exist between an officer and a third-party where the officer is chasing the third-party. However, the City contended that no such relationship existed between Officer McAleer and the driver of the Oldsmobile since Officer McAleer never chased the driver of the Oldsmobile, and thus never forced the driver to flee.

Following its determination that Officer McAleer was not in “pursuit” of the Oldsmobile, and that, therefore, the City was protected by governmental immunity, the trial court turned to a consideration of summary judgment. At that point, the trial court re-framed the summary judgment question as one of causation rather then duty. It then entered summary judgment in favor of the City from the bench since “nothing Officer McAleer did at the time of this incident was a cause of the accident.”

Initially, the trial court did not intend to address the causation issues and had, indeed, precluded the plaintiff from introducing the deposition of an expert witness who reported that through various sources, he was certain that the driver of the Oldsmobile knew he was being followed by Officer McAleer. Tid-well also tried to examine another expert witness who would have inferred that, had the siren been activated, the limousine might have slowed down, avoiding the collision altogether. Tidwell was rebuffed, however, when the trial court prohibited the testimony, explaining that anything relating to cause was “irrelevant” to the issue of whether there was a pursuit.

Only at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing did the trial court return to the causation question, and, in passing, entered findings and ultimately a conclusion resulting in summary judgment for the City.

We now reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the City on the issue of causation. Causation was an appropriate inquiry, to a limited extent, as related to governmental immunity. However, the trial court both limited the plaintiffs opportunity to obtain and present evidence on that point, and then exceeded the scope of the governmental immunity analysis in its entry of summary judgment.

We have previously stated that the issue of state immunity under the GIA is a question of subject matter jurisdiction and must, therefore, be determined according to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). Trinity Broadcasting, 848 P.2d at 924; Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 451-52 (Colo.2001). We have also stated that under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. We imposed this burden on the plaintiff in Trinity Broadcasting after noting that federal courts also require the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction under the analogous federal rule. Trinity Broadcasting, 848 P.2d at 925. While we have consistently imposed this burden upon the plaintiff in cases involving the GIA, we have not clarified how a plaintiff is to meet that burden.

In engaging in that analysis here, we first observe that although federal courts’ interpretation of its rules and statutes can be an aid in construing analogous Colorado rules and statutes, an attack on the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court is not analogous to an attack on jurisdiction of a state court. Accordingly, - federal precedent may have little impact in this arena.

For example, in Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas System, Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir.1991) the Tenth Circuit explained that “[sjince federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against [their] jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.” Accordingly, federal courts afford no presumptions to the plaintiffs jurisdictional allegations in deciding subject matter jurisdiction. Holt v. U.S., 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir.1995). The determination can be made on the face of the complaint, or after a limited inquiry. Penteco Corp., 929 F.2d at 1521; Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003 (explaining that “[t]he jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case if subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on the same statute which provides the substantive claim in the case”).

There is no similar presumption against jurisdiction in Colorado state courts. Rather, we are courts of general jurisdiction, with a mandate to construe our rules liberally to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” C.R.C.P. (l)(a).

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a motion designed to dispose of cases without requisite jurisdiction at an early stage in the proceedings. In the context of a claim against a governmental entity, before allowing the case to proceed on its merits, a trial court must determine whether the plaintiff has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites of the statute.

In this vein, we now hold that where a plaintiff has sued a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that governmental immunity has been waived. However, because there is no presumption against state court jurisdiction and because we must construe statutes that grant governmental immunity narrowly, we also hold that the plaintiff should be afforded the reasonable inferences of his evidence. When the alleged jurisdictional facts are in dispute, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter findings of fact. When there is no evidentiary dispute, the trial court may rule without a hearing. Padilla ex rel. Padilla v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 25 P.3d 1176, 1180 (Colo.2001). We restate our direction to the trial court to allow the parties latitude in discovering or introducing evidence tending to prove or disprove jurisdiction if necessary to the ultimate determination. Trinity Broadcasting, 848 P.2d at 924.

Although the burden falls upon the plaintiff, the burden is a relatively lenient one. In many GIA eases, the question of jurisdiction turns on whether the plaintiff gave timely and appropriate notice of the claim as required by the statute. See, e.g., id.; see also Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs., 54 P.3d 386, 389 (Colo.2002). Such evidentiary determinations are far simpler than the evidentiary determination required of the trial court in this case. Here, the question presented to the trial court encroached upon the merits of the ease. In response to the 12(b)(1) motion in this case, Tidwell was required to demonstrate that he could satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites found in the GIA. Specifically, under subsection (1) of 24-10-106, he was required to offer evidence proving that he suffered from “injuries resulting from” conduct enumerated by subparts (a) through (f).

The phrase “resulting from” clearly requires some relationship between a plaintiffs injuries and the public entitys conduct before a waiver of immunity is triggered. However, nothing in our previous cases or the statute requires a plaintiff to show that his injuries were “caused by” the public entity’s conduct in the tort sense.

Consistent with the principles guiding our interpretation of “pursuit”, we interpret the statutorily undefined phrase “resulting from” both to give effect to legislative intent and to interpret a term that waives immunity broadly. To effectuate the legislature’s intent, we look both to the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase as well as statutory context. Fogg, 892 P.2d at 274. Webster’s New World Dictionary (4th ed.1999) defines to “result” as “to happen or issue as a consequence or effect: often with from.” Further, section 24-10-106, viewed as a whole, demonstrates a distinction between the phrase “caused by” and “resulting from.” For instance, subpart (d)(II) waives immunity for injuries resulting from “[a] dangerous condition caused by ” a failure to realign a stop or yield sign. Additionally, subpart (d)(III) waives immunity for injuries resulting from “[a] dangerous condition caused by ” an accumulation of snow on public sidewalks. We make these comparisons not to construe the phrase “caused” by but only to acknowledge that the legislature had two different concepts in mind when inserting both terms in the statute. Fogg, 892 P.2d at 274 (“[Tjerms should be construed in harmony with one another so as to give full effect to the legislative intent in enacting the statute.”). Thus, we cannot treat “caused by” and “resulting from” as synonymous.

Instead, we interpret “resulting from” broadly and apply its commonly accepted meaning. Accordingly, we hold that a waiver must be found where the injuries complained of occurred as a consequence or effect of any of the public entity’s alleged conduct or omissions. As we cannot interpret a term to withhold a waiver without clear legislative intent, we determine that a waiver will exist where a plaintiff alleges facts proving a minimal causal connection between the injuries and the specified conduct. Because the required showing is minimal, and because discovery by the time of the Trinity hearing has been limited, the trial court should afford the plaintiff the inferences of his allegations. Under this rubric, the trial court need not reach so far as to determine whether Tidwell’s injuries were “caused by” Officer McAleer for purposes of the tort analysis that the finder of fact in the case would ultimately undertake. Instead, it need only decide whether Tidwell’s injuries resulted from Officer McAleer’s conduct in the broader sense elucidated here.

Indeed, in Trinity Broadcasting, we were careful to distinguish between a 12(b)(1) motion, where the court is free to weigh the evidence and determine only its “power to hear the case,” and a 12(b)(5) motion, which “results in a determination on the merits at an early stage of plaintiffs case.” Trinity Broadcasting, 848 P.2d at 925. Of course, it is the 12(b)(5) motion that the trial court can convert into a summary judgment motion on the merits when it takes matters outside the pleadings into account. See id. at 924. THnity Broadcasting explained that the 12(b)(1) motion, which is the appropriate focus of the THnity hearing, constitutes nothing more than a “factual attack on the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint.” Id.

Motions under 12(b)(5) that dispose of the ease on a determination of the merits, including the consideration of disputed factual issues, are to be considered only after affording the plaintiff the “safeguard of having all its allegations taken as true and all inferences favorable to [the] plaintiff ... drawn.” Id. at 925; see also Medina, 35 P.3d at 452.

“[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Cary v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 68 P.3d 462, 465 (Colo.2003). In considering a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he non-moving party is entitled to the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the undisputed facts, and all doubts must be resolved against the moving party.” Id. at 465-66. Additionally, the trial court must review “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” before ruling on the motion. C.R.C.P. 56(c).

Cumulatively, then, summary judgment was clearly not appropriate on the causation issue because neither party addressed the merits of the tort analysis in the context of a dispositive summary judgment motion. Dismissal was also not appropriate on the causation issue because: 1) discovery was suspended on that issue; 2) the plaintiff was not allowed to present evidence at the hearing on that issue; and 3) the trial court did not frame the question of causation as it should have been framed for jurisdictional purposes. We also note here that the trial court need not have reached this issue given its ruling on “pursuit.” However, on remand, the proper inquiry, after giving the plaintiff an opportunity to discover and present evidence on the issue, should be whether, affording all inferences to the plaintiff, the accident resulted from Officer McAleer’s action or inaction.

V. Conclusion

We conclude that the City is not entitled to the protection of governmental immunity under the provisions of the GIA that deal with pursuit by an emergency vehicle. We agree with the court of appeals that the Officer was in pursuit of the Oldsmobile, but reverse that court’s conclusion that the pursuit was made pursuant to the verification exception. Rather, we determine that the verification exception did not apply, and that the Officer was required to activate his emergency signals in order to fall within the ambit of the GIA.

Because of our ruling on governmental immunity, we must also address the entry of summary judgment for the City by the trial court. We reverse that judgment as well, on the grounds that both the parties and the court appear to have inappropriately intermixed the summary judgment inquiry with the immunity inquiry. Not only did Tidwell not receive a fair opportunity to discover and present facts supporting his contention, but also the court entered summary judgment when the only causation question then extant was one to be evaluated under a dismissal standard. We therefore now reverse the court of appeals, and return this case with directions to remand it to the trial court for further proceedings.

      . The City is the only remaining party to this suit as Officer MeAleer was dismissed as a party with prejudice on October 18, 1999 per a stipulation of the parties.

      . The Denver Police Department Operations Manual, under 204.01(l)b.l, defines “Pursuit" as follows:
      Pursuit shall mean an active attempt by an officer (operating a department vehicle) to apprehend an operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual and audible signal by the officer directing such operator to bring the vehicle to a stop, fails to obey such direction, and either increases the vehicle’s speed, extinguishes the vehicle's lights or makes some other overt action designed to avoid apprehension.
      Trial Ex. 6, (R. I at 131).

      . Officer McAleer explained during the hearing that the "wigwags” are only visible from a vantage point behind the police vehicle.

      . For reasons only of economy, we refer to this exception throughout the opinion as the "verification” exception or clause.

      . See City of Grand Junction v. Sisneros, 957 P.2d 1026, 1029 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (indicating that a police vehicle is immunized for a broader range of conduct than merely what is enumerated in 42-4-108(2)).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Chief Justice MULLARKEY

license: Public Domain

text:
    CITY OF GOLDEN, a Colorado municipal corporation, Plaintiff, v. Hal D. SIMPSON, in his official capacity as Colorado State Engineer, and Richard L. Stenzel, in his official capacity as Division Engineer for Water Division No. 1, and the Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company, Defendant.
    No. 02SA364.
    Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
    Jan. 12, 2004.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 2004.

      Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP, Glenn E. Porzak, Steven J. Bushong, P. Fritz Holleman, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Appellant.
    Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Lori J. Coulter, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Appellee Hal D. Simpson.
    The Law Offices of Brice Steele, P.C., Brice Steele, Brighton, Colorado, Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, L.L.C., Mary Mead Hammond, Lee H. Johnson, Karl D. Ohlsen, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Appellee Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company.
   Chief Justice MULLARKEY

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

I. Introduction

In this water case, the State Water Engineer ordered the City of Golden to stop diverting water from Clear Creek at the Church Ditch during a river call in the drought year of 2002. Golden sought to prevent enforcement of the order by immediately moving for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against the state. The state, in turn, orally requested an injunction to enforce its cease-and-desist order. After a full-day hearing, the water judge held that Golden did not have a valid right to the water it had been diverting at the Church Ditch and ordered Golden to comply with the state’s order to enforce the conditions of a 1966 change of water right decree. Consequently, the judge denied the TRO and dismissed Golden’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Golden makes two arguments as to how the water court erred. First, Golden claims that it has valid rights to the water, and should not have had to stop diverting. Second, Golden asserts that regardless of the merits, the court prematurely dismissed the case after simply holding a hearing on the TRO, and instead should have conducted another hearing involving the permanent injunction.

We reject both of Golden’s arguments. The 1966 change decree that established Golden’s rights is unambiguous and, under it, Golden does not have rights to the water it claims. Consequently, the water court was correct in dismissing Golden’s complaint.

II. Facts and Procedural History

On Friday, September 6, 2002, the Division Engineer for Water Division No. 1 issued a cease-and-desist order directing the City of Golden to stop diverting water from Clear Creek under its Oulette Ditch Priority No. 5. The Division Engineer issued the order after concluding that Golden was in violation of a 1966 change decree. This change decree resulted when, in 1966, Golden obtained permission to move a very senior water right approximately six miles up Clear Creek from its original point of diversion and change the use of the water from irrigation to municipal.

Prior to 1966, Golden held irrigation water rights to divert 6.69 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) from Clear Creek at the Oulette Ditch headgate, which is located several miles downstream from Golden. This was a very senior water right dating back to May 31, 1860. Golden, however, needed water for municipal uses, and needed the water much farther upstream where its municipal intake site was located. Consequently, the water court entered a change decree imposing certain conditions on Golden. This decree reduced Golden’s rights from 6.69 cfs to 3.42 cfs to reflect historical beneficial use, moved the diversion point six miles upstream to the Church Ditch, and changed the use to municipal.

The decree confirmed a settlement agreement Golden negotiated with other water right holders on this stretch of Clear Creek. Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company (“FHL”) was one of these holders. It held water rights that entitled it to divert 44.4 cfs at the Farmers High Line Canal (“FHL Canal”), which intersects with Clear Creek between the Church and Oulette Ditches. Golden’s Priority No. 5 was senior to many of FHL’s rights, and so, before 1966, if Golden did not have 6.69 cfs available at Oulette Ditch during the irrigation season, it could put a call on the river and limit the amount of water that FHL and others diverted upstream.

The FHL Canal, however, is several miles upstream from Oulette Ditch, and historically there has typically been water entering and leaving Clear Creek between the FHL Canal and the Oulette Ditch. Thus, even when FHL diverted all of the available water at the headgate of the FHL Canal, there was frequently sufficient water for Golden to divert 6.69 cfs at the Oulette Ditch headgate. Consequently, Golden’s right was often satisfied from sources below the FHL Canal, and FHL was free to divert water at the FHL Canal without regard to Golden’s more senior right.

In the attempt not to harm other appropriators, paragraph 7(e) of the 1966 change decree sought to recreate the pre-change relationship between FHL and Golden. If conditions on Clear Creek were such that Golden would not have had to call for FHL’s water absent the change decree, Golden was prohibited from taking water from FHL after the change decree as well. Specifically, paragraph 7(e) said that when water flowing at the Oulette Ditch was 3.5 cfs or greater— sufficient to satisfy Golden’s new volume at its prior point of diversion — and when Clear Creek did not have enough water to satisfy both Golden’s and FHL’s rights, Golden must stop diverting water at the Church Ditch. These two requirements were intended to mitigate the harm from moving Golden’s point of diversion from several miles downstream from the FHL Canal to just upstream from the FHL Canal. If there was at least 3.5 cfs at the Oulette Ditch headgate, Golden’s new rights were effectively subordinated to FHL’s. At all other times, Golden’s Priority No. 5 continued to be senior. Under these terms, FHL would not be harmed by Golden’s change of the point of diversion.

In mid-July of 2002, during a severe drought, there was not sufficient water at the FHL headgate to satisfy FHL’s water rights. Consequently, it placed a call on Clear Creek. Although FHL was using all of the water available at the FHL headgate, inflows downstream from the FHL Canal provided approximately 5-10 cfs at the Oulette Ditch headgate. In August, FHL obtained data revealing that Golden was exercising its Priority No. 5 despite FHL’s call and the 5-10 cfs flow at the Oulette Ditch headgate.

FHL reported to the Division Engineer that Golden was in violation of the 1966 change decree. After discussing the situation with Golden twice in two weeks, the Division Engineer issued the cease-and-desist order of September 6, 2002. The cease- and-desist order demanded that Golden stop diverting at the Church Ditch by 12:01 am on Sunday, September 8, 2002. Golden did not comply, but immediately filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for preliminary injunction, and a complaint for injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing its order.

Monday, September 9, the Water Court for Water Division No. 1 held a hearing on Golden’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The hearing lasted all day, and addressed two issues: whether Golden had a legally enforceable right to continue its diversion, and if so, whether Golden would suffer immediate and irreparable injury if forced to stop diverting water from Clear Creek.

Based on testimony at the hearing, and on his interpretation of the 1966 decree, the water judge held that Golden did not have a legally enforceable right to continue diverting water. Consequently, the judge denied Golden’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismissed Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief. The judge further ordered Golden to comply with the state’s cease-and-desist order. Golden appealed directly to the Supreme Court as required by section 13-4-102(l)(d). § 13 — 4—102(l)(d), 5 C.R.S. (2003); § 37-92-304(9), 10 C.R.S. (2003).

III. Analysis

The City of Golden, the petitioner, makes two arguments. First, it claims that the water court was incorrect when it employed the plain language of the 1966 change decree to hold that Golden did not have a valid right to 3.42 cfs of Priority No. 5 water when two conditions were met: over 3.5 cfs of water was flowing at the Oulette Ditch headgate, and FHL had a call on Clear' Creek. Second, Golden argues that the water court erred when it dismissed Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief without a separate hearing on the matter.

We reject both arguments. Although the City of Golden offers several creative interpretations of the 1966 change decree, we agree with the water judge that the terms are clear: Golden does not have the right to divert water from Clear Creek when the two conditions are satisfied, and in this case they were. Because the decree is clear on its face, no extrinsic evidence is admissible to alter its plain meaning.

We also hold that the water judge acted within his discretion when he dismissed Golden’s motion for a preliminary injunction and its complaint for injunctive relief after just one hearing. At the TRO hearing, the water judge stated that he would hear evidence on the merits of the case if time permitted, and indeed all of the parties presented expert testimony regarding the merits. At the end of the hearing, Golden’s attorney told the judge that he knew of no additional evidence that he would present at a subsequent hearing. After the hearing, the judge decided that Golden did not have a legal right to the Priority No. 5 water and could not prevail. Therefore, he properly ordered Golden to comply with the state’s cease-and-desist order and dismissed Golden’s complaint.

In the following sections, we examine each of Golden’s arguments in greater detail.

A. The Change Decree

This case requires us to interpret a change decree. When a holder of a decreed water right wishes to transfer its rights to another party, or move the point of its diversion up- or down-stream, or alter the destination or use of the water, the holder must petition the water court. See § 37-92-302(l)(a), 10 C.R.S. (2003); Empire Lodge Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1149 (Colo.2001). If the affected parties negotiate an acceptable solution, the court may issue a change decree making the agreement official; if not, the change case proceeds to trial. See generally § 37-92-304,10 C.R.S. (2003).

Before issuing a change decree, the water court must ensure that it is crafted in such a way as to prevent injury to other water users; if that is not possible, the water court must deny the application. § 37-92-305(3), 10 C.R.S. (2003); James N. Corbridge Jr. & Teresa A. Rice, Vranesh’s Colorado Water Law 246 (rev. ed.1999). When examining the question of injury, the court assumes that appropriators have a right to the stream conditions as they existed at the time of the appropriation. Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owner’s Ass’n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 57-58 (Colo.1999); Handy Ditch Co. v. Louden Irrigating Canal Co., 27 Colo. 515, 518, 62 P. 847, 848 (1900).

If the parties affected by the change cannot reach an acceptable agreement, the water court decides what conditions are necessary to protect against injury to other water rights. § 37-92-305(3), 10 C.R.S. (2003); DeHerrera v. Manassa Land & Irrigation Co., 151 Colo. 528, 530, 379 P.2d 405, 407 (1963). As an example, some change decrees limit the amount of water diverted, some limit the timing or season of diversion, and others limit the amount consumed. § 37-92-305(4). These conditions attempt to ensure that the other appropriators’ rights will continue to be satisfied to the degree that they were satisfied in the past. § 37-92-305(3).

Once a change is adjudicated, courts consider the matter fully litigated, and will not reopen a final case in order to alter or add to the terms of the decree. See generally Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. City of Golden, 975 P.2d 189 (Colo.1999). A change decree includes a specified period of retained jurisdiction to address injurious effects that may result from placing the change of water right into operation. Farmer’s Reservoir and Irrigation Co. v. Consol. Mut. Water Co., 33 P.3d 799, 811-12 (Colo.2001).

Courts interpret a stipulated change decree as they would interpret a contract. USI Props. East v. Simpson, 938 P.2d 168, 173 (Colo.1997). A court’s primary goal is to implement the intent of the parties as expressed in the language of the decree. Id. To ascertain this intent, the courts turn to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. Id. If the terms are clear, a court will neither look outside the four corners of the instrument, nor admit extrinsic evidence to aid in interpretation. Id. Disagreement between the parties involved does not necessarily indicate that the documents are ambiguous. Id. Instead, the court must adopt the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed. Id. If the contract involved is a stipulation, such as this change decree, any party that participated in the original stipulation is proscribed from introducing legal contentions contrary to the plain meaning of the decree. Id. This approach lends consistency and stability to Colorado water law and decrees.

In this case, we must construe Golden’s 1966 change decree. This decree came about in response to Golden’s request to move its point of diversion approximately six miles upstream on Clear Creek, and to change the use from seasonal irrigation to year-round municipal. The change decree lists eleven parties (including FHL) that may have been injured by the change, but then goes on to list several conditions with which Golden was required to comply in order to mitigate such harm. At the time of the decree, all parties stipulated that the conditions in the decree would prevent injury to Clear Creek appropriates.

The change decree contained three relevant types of conditions. First, Golden was required to abandon 3.27 cfs of the 6.69 cfs that it had been previously entitled to divert. Second, Golden’s Priority No. 5 rights were deemed junior and subordinate during the winter, non-irrigating months as compared to some of the other rights on Clear Creek. Third, Golden was prohibited from diverting water when certain parties placed a call on the stream, but only if there was at least 3.5 cfs flowing in Clear Creek at the Oulette Ditch headgate. According to the change decree, if Golden adhered to these conditions, Golden’s change of the diversion point and the change from irrigation to municipal purposes would not injure any other appropriates.

In the case at hand, Farmers High Line Canal and Reservoir Company and the State and Division Engineers claim that Golden is in violation of the third type of condition, specifically paragraph 7(e), of the change decree. Golden insists that it is not. Paragraph 7(e) states, in relevant part:

As to the Farmers Highline Canal, the above mentioned Priority No. 5 shall be exercised by the City of Golden only at times such that its use will not result in a call at the headgate of the Farmers High-line Canal on the No. 5 and 9 direct rights divertible at said headgate_These limitations are effective when the flow at the present Oulette headgate exceeds 3.5 cfs.

Paragraph 12 of the change decree states that “[w]herever the word ‘flow’ is used in connection with said headgate points, it shall mean the total flow of Clear Creek.”

The parties agree that at the time the Division Engineer ordered Golden to stop diverting at the Church Ditch, FHL had a call at the headgate of the FHL Canal, and the total flow of Clear Creek at the Oulette headgate exceeded 3.5 cfs. The State and Division Engineers and FHL contend that these facts satisfied the prerequisites in paragraph 7(e) and that Golden was required to stop diverting water under Priority No. 5. Golden, however, argues that the decree is ambiguous, and that the two prerequisites were not actually satisfied.

We review a lower court’s interpretation of a contract de novo. Lake Durango Water Co., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 P.3d 12, 20 (Colo.2003). Paragraph 7(e) clearly says that if FHL has a call at the FHL Canal headgate on Clear Creek, and if the total flow of Clear Creek at the Oulette Ditch headgate is at least 3.5 cfs, then Golden must stop diverting its 3.42 cfs at the Church Ditch. Any other interpretation of paragraph 7(e) reads language into the decree that does not exist. Because both parties agree that FHL had placed a call at the FHL Canal, and also that the total flow of Clear Creek was in excess of 3.5 cfs at the Oulette Ditch, the water judge was correct in holding that Golden had no right to divert water and was thus also justified in dismissing Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief.

Golden, however, offers novel interpretations of paragraph 7(e) in an attempt to demonstrate that the decree is ambiguous. We are not persuaded, but we briefly address each of Golden’s arguments. First, Golden argues that the language in the change decree saying that Golden may divert water “only at times such that its use will not result in a call” should be interpreted to mean that Golden should only be required to stop diverting “when, but for Golden’s diversions under the No. 5 right, the FHL No. 9 would not be calling” — in other words, when the available water at the FHL Canal is within 3.42 cfs of FHL’s total appropriation of 44.4 cfs. Golden claims that this is the only time that its use “result[s]” in an FHL call as required by the change decree. The parties refer to this theory as the “cusp” interpretation. According to Golden’s cusp theory, when FHL has access to 44, 43, 42, or 41 cfs of its total 44.4 cfs rights (and the flow at Oulette is over 3.5 cfs), Golden must stop diverting. But according to Golden, if FHL’s supply drops to 40.98 cfs or below, then Golden may continue diverting.

Golden’s interpretation does not adhere to the intent of the parties. We know that the parties intended that the change decree would not injure the appropriators on Clear Creek, including FHL: paragraph 7 of the decree states that “the granting of the change of point of diversion requested by Petitioner will not injuriously affect the vested rights of any of the protestants, or others, provided that the Petitioner ... be required to comply with the following conditions and limitations .... ” and then goes on to list the conditions, including the one that Golden disputes herein.

Prior to the change decree, when there was not sufficient water for FHL at the FHL Canal, but there was sufficient water for Golden at the Oulette Ditch, two conditions would be true: FHL would be calling for water, and Golden would not. Therefore, despite the fact that Golden’s Priority No. 5 was senior to most of FHL’s rights, Golden would not have to supercede FHL’s junior rights, and because its point of diversion was downstream from FHL, Golden would not be taking any of the water destined for the FHL Canal.

The change decree must be interpreted to effectuate the intent stated within the four corners. After the change decree, if FHL calls and the specified flow occurs at the Oulette Ditch, Golden cannot be allowed to decrease the amount of water available at the FHL Canal. This is true whether there is 4, 40, or 44 cfs available to FHL. Golden’s interpretation of the “result[s] in a call” language leads to absurd results. Golden’s taking 3.42 cfs of FHL’s water is no less harmful to FHL if FHL has 40.98 cfs than if it has 41 cfs.

At the TRO hearing, Golden presented witnesses who claimed that interpreting the “result[s] in a call” language to encompass all times that FHL had a call on Clear Creek would render Golden’s rights junior and subordinate to FHL’s, and that had the drafters meant to do this, they would have explicitly used the words “junior and subordinate” as they did in some of the other sections. Golden further argued that making Golden’s rights essentially junior and subordinate to FHL’s rights would be an unfair windfall to FHL.

We are not persuaded. The other paragraphs in the change decree that contain the “junior and subordinate” language require that Golden stop diverting water if some other appropriator places a call on Clear Creek during the non-irrigation season. Pri- or to the change decree, Golden would not have been using water during the winter months; consequently, after the change decree, Golden is required to stop diverting water during the winter months if another appropriator needs that water. This is a different situation from that described in paragraph 7(e). Under paragraph 7(e), Golden must stop diverting only at intermittent times when the two specified conditions are satisfied. Moreover, paragraph 7(e) is more complex than the other paragraphs: as the flow at Oulette rises above 0 cfs, Golden must ratchet down its use. When the flow is 1.0 cfs, Golden may take 2.5 cfs; when the flow is 2.0 cfs, Golden may take 1.5 cfs. Ultimately, when the flow at Oulette is 3.5 cfs, Golden must cease diverting at Church Ditch. Because of this complexity and level of negotiated detail, the drafters avoided the “junior and subordinate” language used in other paragraphs of the decree and instead used specific language regarding how the decree would operate.

Golden’s next argument concerns the second requirement from paragraph 7(e): “these limitations are effective when the flow at the present Oulette headgate exceeds 3.5 cfs.” Golden argues that in this sentence “flow” should only include water that is available for diversion, and should not include any water that is scheduled for delivery to downstream users. In support of this argument, Golden seeks to introduce extrinsic evidence to show that Clear Creek now carries imported water and storage releases that it did not carry at the time of the change decree. Golden also argues that it is standard practice for the State Engineer’s office to exclude this scheduled water from the amounts available for diversion.

Typically, parties that import water have rights superior to the rights of other appropriators in regards to the imported water. See City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1, 66 n. 59 (Colo.1996). The 1966 change decree, however, defines “flow” as “the total flow of Clear Creek.” Although we have already decided that this language is plain on its face, and that .no extrinsic evidence should be admitted to alter this plain meaning, we briefly address Golden’s argument. Even if we assume, without deciding, that Golden is correct in saying that the conditions in Clear Creek have changed, and that the State Engineer’s office typically excludes water that is scheduled for delivery from the available flow, we would still reject Golden’s argument.

By 1966, the doctrine of foreign water was already well-developed. In 1898, this court said that appropriators are “entitled to the use of the water of [a] stream to the extent that by their efforts and expenditures they increased its average, continuous flow....” Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Buckers Irrigation, Milling Improvement Co., 25 Colo. 77, 82, 53 P. 334, 336 (1898); see also Comrie v. Sweet, 75 Colo. 199, 201, 225 P. 214, 214 (1924). In 1951, we held that “appropriators on a stream have no vested right to a continuance of importation of foreign water which another has brought to the watershed.” Brighton Ditch Co. v. City of Englewood, 124 Colo. 366, 377, 237 P.2d 116, 122 (1951).

These precedents demonstrate that as of 1966, the principle that some tributary water, such as imported water, was not subject to Colorado’s appropriation system was commonly recognized. This water was designated for the importer even if there were appropriators with senior rights on the stream. Because imported water was a familiar concept at the time of the change decree, the water lawyers who drafted the document could be expected to incorporate the concept into their definition of “flow”. Instead of excluding imported water or water already scheduled for delivery to a downstream user, however, the drafters explicitly defined the “flow” as the “total flow of Clear Creek.” Hence, we cannot now amend the definition.

Finally, Golden argues that the state’s historical interpretation of the change decree demonstrates that Golden should not have to stop diverting at Church Ditch. Golden asserts that at no time since 1966, even during droughts in 1977, 1978, and 1981, did the state ever order Golden to stop diverting. Golden claims that during some of this time FHL placed a call on Clear Creek, and the flow at Oulette Ditch exceeded 3.5 cfs.

This argument also requires extrinsic evidence, which we have already rejected. Even if we were to allow this evidence, however, FHL witnesses at the TRO hearing testified that Golden had not provided the Division Engineer with accurate measurements of the amount of water it was diverting until 2000, so until that time, the Engineer had no data upon which to curtail Golden’s diversion. Furthermore, the drought of 2002 was remarkably severe, and the lack of enforcement of the decree’s conditions in the past cannot be dispositive of the 2002 situation.

In conclusion, Golden’s various interpretations of the 1966 change decree and attempts to introduce extrinsic evidence are ineffective because the decree is plain on its face. The water judge was correct in deciding that the decree requires Golden to cease and desist diverting water under its Priority No. 5 rights at the Church Ditch whenever: (1) FHL makes a call at the FHL Canal head-gate, and (2) the total flow at the Oulette Ditch headgate is greater than 3.5 cfs. This interpretation satisfies the intent of the parties to prevent the change decree from injuring users of Clear Creek water.

B. The Procedure

Golden’s second challenge to the water court’s decision is procedural. Golden argues that the water judge erred when he dismissed Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief after just one hearing. We disagree.

On Monday, September 8, 2002, just two and one-half days after being served with the cease-and-desist order, the City of Golden filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for preliminary injunction, and a complaint for injunctive relief with the Division No. 1 Water Court. With its motions, Golden hoped to temporarily or permanently prevent the Division Engineer from enforcing the state’s cease-and-desist order.

The purpose of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is to prevent “immediate and irreparable harm” to one of the parties in a lawsuit. Mile High Kennel Club v. Colo. Greyhound Breeders Ass’n, 38 Colo.App. 519, 559 P.2d 1120, 1121 (1977). A court may grant a TRO without notice to the party to be restrained. C.R.C.P. 65(b). Due to the powerful nature of TROs, they are short in duration (no more than ten days), and may only be issued upon a strong showing that specific immediate and irreparable harm will occur absent the order. McLean v. Farmers High Line Canal & Reservoir Co., 44 Colo. 184, 195, 98 P. 16, 20 (1908).

To obtain a longer-lasting temporary order, a party may move for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo or protect rights pending the final determination of a cause. Id. Like a TRO, its purpose is to prevent irreparable harm prior to a decision on the merits of a case. Combined Communications Corp. v. City and County of Denver, 186 Colo. 443, 447, 528 P.2d 249, 251 (1974). The moving party must satisfy six factors to obtain a preliminary injunction: a reasonable probability of success on the merits; a danger of real, immediate, and irreparable injury which may be prevented by injunctive relief; lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law; no disservice to the public interest; balance of equities in favor of the injunction; and, the injunction will preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648, 658-54 (Colo.1982). A permanent injunction, on the other hand, requires success on the merits of the case.

In a water case, if a water user refuses to comply with a State or Division Engineer’s cease-and-desist order, the state may move for an injunction to prohibit further use. § 37-92-503(l)(a), 10 C.R.S. (2003). The ensuing trial is referred to as a “503 hearing” in reference to section 37-92-503, which sets forth the procedure surrounding the hearing, the criteria for the injunction, and the penalties for violating the injunction. To prevail, the state must prove that “the water is being applied to a beneficial use,” and that “the diversion is causing or will cause injury to persons owning, or entitled to use water under, water rights having senior decreed priorities.” § 37-92-503(2).

If the court issues the injunction to enforce the Water Engineer’s order, the water user must pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees. Id Furthermore, if the water user proceeds to disregard the injunction, the user is in contempt of court and is subject to treble damages and attorney fees. § 37-92-503(4); § 37-92-504. When the Engineer files for an injunction under section 503, the water court must accelerate the case, place it above other water matters, and then render a decision at the conclusion of the hearing. § 37-92-503(l)(c). Time is of the essence.

In this case, instead of awaiting the Engineer’s section 503 motion to enforce his cease-and-desist order, Golden took the offensive and immediately filed for a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. In response to Golden’s filings, the water court promptly scheduled a hearing beginning Monday morning following the Friday cease-and-desist order. The plaintiff at the hearing was the City of Golden, and the defendants were: the State and Division Engineers, the Farmers Highline Canal and Reservoir Company, the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, the City of Arvada, the City of Thornton, the City of Westminster, the Coors Brewing Company, and Wan-namaker Ditch Company.

At the hearing, the attorney for the State and Division Engineers orally moved for an injunction and enforcement under section 37-92-503. The judge expressed his intent to address the question of the TRO. He went on to say that he would “move on to the other issue concerning the injunction asked for by the State, if time permits, and if the parties have been adequately notified.”

The parties proceeded to call witnesses and present evidence. Golden called two witnesses: Gary Thompson, who was the president of a water resources engineering company, and who had worked with Golden since 1985; and Dan Hartman, the Director of Public Works for the City of Golden. Golden’s witnesses testified not only as to the immediate and irreparable harm that the cease-and-desist order allegedly would cause to Golden, but also to the merits of the case — the proper interpretation of the 1966 change decree.

In response, the state called Richard Sten-zel, the Division Engineer for Division No. 1. The City of Westminster called Kelly DiNa-tale, the Water Resources and Treatment Manager for the City of Westminster, and Michael Happe, a Senior Water Resources Engineer for the City of Westminster. Finally, Coors called Neal Jaquet, the Director of Water Resources at Coors. These witnesses also testified extensively as to the proper interpretation of the 1966 change decree.

After the full-day trial, including eight parties and six expert witnesses, the court denied the TRO. In so ruling, the water judge explained that he decided two issues. The first, the “main issue” according to the judge, was the “effect of the decree, particularly paragraph 7(e) of the decree,” and “whether the ultimate result of that decree ... is that Golden has an enforceable right against Farmers High Line Canal ... under its call.” Then, the judge said, if Golden “survive[d] that hurdle,” the court would address the question of immediate and irreparable harm.

After a recess and closing arguments, in which six attorneys reinforced their own interpretations of the change decree, the judge rendered his opinion from the bench. He said that before turning to the question of immediate and irreparable harm, he must “determine whether [Golden had] a legally enforceable right in this particular ease in order for this court to order that they be permitted to continue their diversion.”

In his ruling, Judge Hays rejected the “cusp” interpretation, saying that it “doesn’t make sense” and that the “language [of the change decree] is straightforward and unambiguous, and [he was] not going to attempt to apply some other of Golden’s creative interpretations to the language of 7(e).” Thus, the judge found that the first condition for enjoining Golden was met — Golden’s water use resulted in an FHL call. The judge next ruled that the second condition was also met because there was 3.5 cfs flowing at the Oulette headgate. Ultimately, the judge found “that Golden has not established its right to continue diverting ... because the conditions set forth in the ’66 decree prevent it from doing so.”

In conclusion, Judge Hays said that Golden “bargained away a lot of rights in transferring its diversion from downstream at the Oulette headgate upstream to the Church Ditch, but what it bargained and gave away, it has to live with from this point forward .... [Golden’s motion for a] temporary restraining order shall be denied.” Later that afternoon, the judge issued a written order requiring Golden to comply with the state’s cease-and-desist order, and also dismissing Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief.

Golden argues that even if the judge correctly denied the TRO, he should not have dismissed Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief. First, Golden claims, a hearing on the merits of the case was necessary. We disagree. The water judge heard extensive evidence from five expert witnesses regarding interpretation of the 1966 change decree. Then, when the water judge asked whether Golden would have any additional evidence to present at a hearing on the merits, Golden’s attorney responded: “I’m not sure there would be any, Your Honor,” thus agreeing that no additional hearing was necessary.

When water rights are in dispute, and one party is not receiving its entitled allotment, time is of the essence. That is why section 37-92-503 requires the water court to expedite a 503 hearing and decide the case at the conclusion of the hearing. This case offers similar concerns. FHL was not receiving the water to which it was entitled. Golden continued diverting water despite FHL’s call and the state’s cease-and-desist order. When the court decided, as a matter of law, that Golden was not entitled to the 3.42 cfs of water that it continued to divert, the court properly dismissed Golden’s case and upheld the cease-and-desist order.

Moreover, the hearing addressed more than simply the TRO. At the beginning of the hearing, the judge notified the parties that he might reach the merits of the case, specifically the 503 injunction requested by the state. Then, at the hearing, all parties introduced evidence on the merits. At the end of the hearing, Golden’s attorneys told the water judge that they had no further evidence to offer at trial. Hence another hearing would have been pointless.

Golden now argues that in a subsequent hearing it would have offered extrinsic evidence showing that the flows at the Oulette Ditch comprised water scheduled for delivery to downstream users, and was not available for diversion. Golden also claims that it would have shown that return flows from the FHL Canal were not sufficient to meet Golden’s 3.5 cfs at the Oulette Ditch. Having determined that the 1966 change decree was unambiguous, however, the water court properly denied a motion for reconsideration based on this extrinsic evidence. This extrinsic evidence is irrelevant because the 1966 change decree plainly defines “flow” to be the total amount of water flowing in Clear Creek at the Oulette Ditch. The only relevant flow is total flow, and even after subsequent investigation, Golden does not assert that the total flow was less than 3.5 cfs. The amount of water promised to downstream users, or the amount that came from return flows below the FHL Canal is irrelevant.

We hold that the judge followed proper procedure. He heard the relevant evidence offered by the parties on the matter in dispute — Golden’s water rights under the 1966 change decree. In his written order, he ordered Golden to comply with the state’s cease-and-desist order, thus granting the state’s 503 motion. Because Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief and the state’s request for 503 injunctive relief were two sides of the same coin, it would be impossible to grant both. Therefore, when the judge granted the state’s injunction against Golden, the judge properly and necessarily dismissed Golden’s complaint against the state.

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the water court’s interpretation of Golden’s 1966 change decree. The decree plainly requires Golden to cease diverting water under its Priority No. 5 rights from Church Ditch when two conditions are satisfied: FHL has a call on Clear Creek, and the total flow of Clear Creek at the Oulette Ditch exceeds 3.5 cfs. The evidence supports the water court’s decision that these two conditions were satisfied and Golden did not have a valid right to the Priority No. 5 water under the circumstances of FHL’s call. Thus, the water court properly dismissed Golden’s complaint for injunctive relief in a prompt and efficient matter.

      . In addition to the evidence introduced at the hearing below, see Farmer's High Line Canal and Reservoir Co. v. Wolff, 23 Colo.App. 570, 131 P. 291 (1913), for an historic description of the water use and return flows on Clear Creek.

      . Paragraph 7(e) of the 1966 change decree states, in full:
      As to the Farmers Highline Canal, the above mentioned Priority No. 5 shall be exercised by the City of Golden only at times such that its use will not result in a call at the headgate of the Farmers Highline Canal on the No. 5 and 9 direct rights divertible at said headgate. Diversions by the Farmers Highline Canal, under its Priority No. 5 right shall not be diminished by pro-rating with the Priority 5 right of the City of Golden. These limitations are effective when the flow at the present Oulette headgate exceeds 3.5 cfs. When the flow at the present location of the Oulette headgate is less than 3.5 cfs, the Priority No. 5 right of the City of Golden may be exercised against the Priority No. 9 right of the Farmers Highline Canal by the difference between the actual flow at the present location of the Oulette Ditch headgate and 3.5 cfs, or said difference shall be prorated between the Priority No. 5 right of the City of Golden and the Priority No. 5 right of the Farmers Highline Canal. Subject to the rights of Petitioner to contest diversion by the Farmers Highline Canal on its No. 9 Priority out of storage season, and without any admission by Petitioner of any right to so divert.

      . Golden's right was scaled so that it could only divert water in the amount that Clear Creek’s flow at the Oulette Ditch fell below 3.5 cfs. For example, if Clear Creek's flow at Oulette was 3 cfs, Golden could divert 0.5 cfs, and if Clear Creek's flow at Oulette was 2 cfs, Golden could divert 1.5 cfs. If the flow at Oulette was zero, Golden could divert all 3.42 cfs of its Priority No. 5 right.

      . Although the Water Right Determination and Administration Act, which contains § 37-92-302, was passed in 1969, the law requiring adjudication of changes has remained predominately the same since 1899. James N. Corbridge Jr. & Teresa A. Rice, Vranesh's Colorado Water Law 269 (rev. ed.1999).

      . Witness DiNatale, the Water Resources and Treatment Manager for the City of Westminster, testified that Golden was required to relinquish 3.27 cfs to reflect its historical use. Golden had previously been entitled to irrigate 299 acres during irrigation season (the summer). After the change, the rights were municipal and year-round.

      . At oral arguments, Golden argued that it had not had a chance to present evidence on the matter; however, at trial, Golden's witness agreed that "[t]he fact is, there is always now more than 3.5 cfs at the Oulette Ditch headgate.”

      . The judge's order said in relevant part: "The court held a hearing on Golden's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and ruled at the conclusion of evidence that Golden was not enti-tied to injunctive relief and must comply with the Cease and Desist Order served upon it by the State Engineer's Office. Thus the court dismisses Golden's complaint.”