DWR_3364085

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 5/18/2018
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

Case No. 09GW11 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
Philip Lopez Subject: Application for a change of water right. Two parties filed objections. Status: The hearing set for February 25 and 26, 2010 has been stayed because the water
rights to be changed were for use in the replacement plan in 08GW71. The matter is stayed pending resolution of the issues in Case No. 98CW80 as described above for Cherokee Metro
District’s replacement plan. FRONT RANGE RESOURCES Case No. 13GW07
15CV30493 Designated Basin: Lost Creek 16SA243 Management District: Lost Creek Attorney: Pat Kowaleski Subject: Front Range Resources filed for a
replacement plan. Objections were filed by Equus Farms Inc., Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District and Staff. Status: The matter was
dismissed by the Commission and appealed to the District Court where it was set for trial June 6-16, 2016. Defendants, including the Commission, filed a motion dismiss the application
on the grounds that it is speculative because there are no binding contracts with actual end users for the water. On May 26, 2016 the Court ruled that Front Range Resources was seeking
to appropriate and change water rights and that the anti-speculation doctrine does apply to the application. The Court further found that Front Range Resources’ existing contracts
were not binding and do not constitute obligations to provide water, and that the proposed replacement plan did not detail how or if water would be used on land owned by Front Range
Resources. Front Range Resources appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 affirming the 3 district court and holding that the anti-speculation
doctrine applies to replacement plans involving new appropriations or changes of water rights and that Front Range Resources’ replacement plan was speculative. No petition for rehearing
was filed and the Court’s mandate has been issued to make the ruling final. MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 16GW05 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management
District: Upper Black Squirrel Attorney: Paul Benington and Philip Lopez Subject: Petition for determination of jurisdiction pertaining to surface water in Pond B and Pond C.
Status: This matter was filed on December 16, 2016 and no deadlines have been set. Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Booker Trusts are the only parties that have expressed
interest in being parties, and Booker Trusts only to monitor the case. The Staff has informally negotiated with Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Meridian to attempt to resolve all
issues. The Staff’s understanding is that that all parties appear to agree that the subject water is designated ground water, and will be presenting a stipulated proposed order for
the Ground Water Commission’s consideration at the May 18, 2018 meeting. HUTTON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION V. REIN, ET AL. Case No. 15CW3018 Designated Basin: Northern High Plains
Management District: Attorney: Chad Wallace, Pat Kowaleski Subject: Lawsuit filed by the Hutton Educational Foundation in an effort to make the State Engineer administer designated
ground water rights and surface rights together for the purpose of compact compliance under the Republican River Compact. Complaint also alleges that SB-52, which revised 37-90-106
to limit how designated basin boundaries may be modified, and the Colorado Groundwater Management Act of 1965, are unconstitutional. The Ground Water Commission filed a Motion to
Intervene and an Answer to the Hutton Complaint on December 16, 2015 and such Motion was granted on January 18, 2016. Status: The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the second
and third claims in which Hutton asserted that the Management Act and SB-52, amending the Act, were unconstitutional. The water court agreed and dismissed the second claim and part
of the third claim. The water court held that it does not have jurisdiction over designated ground water and that the Commission must first determine whether designated ground water
is implicated, and therefore the issue was not ripe. Hutton sought certification of the dismissal for appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The trial court certified its order of
dismissal for appeal and stayed the remaining claims until the appeal is resolved. Hutton identified 4 the issues for appeal to include the trial court’s dismissal and the underlying
question of whether SB 10-52, amending the Management Act, is unconstitutional. Some of the defendants, joined by the Commission, filed a motion with the Supreme Court to limit the
issues on appeal to the dismissal, and to exclude any arguments on the constitutionality of Management Act statutes. The Supreme Court granted the motion to limit the appeal to the
water court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017, and the parties are awaiting a decision. A status conference was held on January 8, 2017, and
the parties are still waiting to see how a Supreme Court ruling would affect the Water Court case. A further status conference has been scheduled for May 25, 2017. LGS HOLDING GROUP
2013, LLC Case No. 18GW02 18GW02 Designated Basin: Southern High Plains Management District: N/A Attorney: Philip Lopez Subject: Application for new wells and commingling of
wells in Southern High Plains Designated Basin. Status: A number of parties have filed objections, including the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 3. The case
has been referred to the Hearing Officer and an initial status conference has been set for May 8, 2018 to set the matter for hearing. RULEMAKING PROCEEDING – RULE 7.4 Case No. 17GW04
Designated Basin: All basins Management District: N/A Attorney: Philip Lopez Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rule 7.4 to require an applicant for a change of irrigated acreage to
demonstrate to choose one of two options to demonstrate the change will not result in increased use of the well: (1) restrict the future number of acres to be irrigated to the historical
average number of acres irrigated by the well; or (2) restrict the future use of the well to the historical depletion of the aquifer by the well, as demonstrated by a historical consumptive
use analysis. Status: At the April 9, 2018 special meeting, the Commission adopted changes to Rule 7.4., making them applicable to all applications filed after the adoption of the
Rule on April 9, 2018. The Attorney General issued her opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Rule on April 11, 2018. The Rule was published in the Colorado Register on April
25, 2018, and will become effective on May 15, 2018. RULEMAKING PROCEEDING - RULES 5.6 & 5.8 Case No. 17GW05 Designated Basin: All basins Management District: N/A Attorney:
Jen Mele 5 Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rules 5.6 pertaining to replacement plans and Rule 5.8 pertaining to aquifer storage and recovery plans. Status: In its August
11, 2017 meeting the Ground Water Commission directed its Staff and Hearing Officer to proceed with the formal rulemaking process to amend Rules 5.6 and 5.8. A notice of public rulemaking
hearing scheduled for June 18-22, 2018 was published by the Secretary of State in the Colorado Register on December 10, 2017. However with the passage of HB18-1199 in April 2018, which
provides specific statutory authority for the Ground Water Commission to approve plans for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), Staff is revising its approach to ASRs in the revised
rules. Instead of categorizing ASRs as replacement plans under Rule 5.6, Staff is instead proposing to keep ASRs under a separate rule, Rule 5.8. As a result the hearing has been
moved to August 20-24, 2018 to give parties an opportunity to respond to the revised format. RAIL LAND CO., LLC Case No. 18GW03 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Management District:
N/A Attorney: Philip Lopez Subject: Application for determinations of Water Rights in the Laramie-Fox Hills, Lower Arapahoe, Upper Arapahoe, and Denver Aquifers. Status: The City
of Aurora has filed objections. The case has been referred to the Hearing Officer.
AG Report2018-5-3 PB KVH.docxATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission
May 18, 2018
The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of May 4, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="004A16ECase No. 08GW71
</w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r><w:rPr><w:b/><w:13SA330
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: An application for approval of a replacement plan to make new appropriations from the alluvial aquifer within the basin. Objections were submitted by the District, along with
four other water users in the basin. A hearing was held for two weeks in Denver beginning on June 8, 2009 during which the Applicants completed their initial presentation and the objectors
began their presentations. An additional week of hearing scheduled for August 3 through 7, 2009 was vacated following a ruling from the Division 2 Water Court regarding Cherokee’s
use of some of its wells, subject to further negotiations and amendment of the proposed replacement plan. This case was consolidated with change cases 08GW78 and 09GW15, and the trial
was set to continue in January 2010.
Status: In November of 2009, the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District filed in district court, in Case No. 98CW80, for a declaratory judgment asking the court
to determine whether under a 1999 Stipulation Cherokee is required to use its waste water as recharge for the basin or if that waste water can be claimed as replacement credit under
a replacement plan. <On June 17, 2013 the Court found that neither Cherokee nor Meridian is prohibited from claiming wastewater return credits for its replacement plan. UBS filed an
appeal on December 18, 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court under the 1999 Stipulation, but included in the decision ambiguous language as to whether Cherokee
can use effluent as a source of replacement water in a replacement plan. Counsel for Cherokee filed a Motion for Determination of Question of Law on January 31, 2018 to clarify its
use of effluent in its replacement plan. The Hearing Officer ordered Cherokee to publish notice of its requested relief sought in the Motion. Publication occurred on March 15 and
March 22, 2018. Parties will discuss a timeline for responsive briefing on the Motion at the next status conference on May 11, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="008C4F42">Case No. 08GW78 </w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00FC0F61">09GW15
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Applications to change the type and place of use of wells. Objections were submitted by the District and other water users in the basin. Both cases were consolidated with
08GW71 above.
Status: See above.
meridian service metro district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00EBCase No. 09GW11
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for a change of water right. Two parties filed objections.
Status: The hearing set for February 25 and 26, 2010 has been stayed because the water rights to be changed were for use in the replacement plan in 08GW71. The matter is stayed pending</
resolution of the issues in Case No. 98CW80 as described above for Cherokee Metro District’s replacement plan.
<
FRONT RANGE RESOURCES Case No. 13GW07
15CV30493</w:t></w:r></w:p><w:p w14:paraId="75B9903C" w14:textId="3CF924A3" w:rsidR="00567999" w:rsidRDefault="00567999" w:rsidP="005
Designated Basin: Lost Creek 16SA243</w:Management District: Lost CreekAttorney: Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Front Range Resources filed for a replacement plan. Objections were filed by Equus Farms Inc., Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District
and Staff.
Status: The matter was dismissed by the Commission and appealed to the District Court where it was set for trial June 6-16, 2016. Defendants, including the Commission, filed a motion
dismiss the application on the grounds that it is speculative because there are no binding contracts with actual end users for the water. On May 26, 2016 the Court ruled that Front
Range Resources was seeking to appropriate and change water rights and that the anti-speculation doctrine does apply to the application. The Court further found that Front Range Resources’
existing contracts were not binding and do not constitute obligations to provide water, and that the proposed replacement plan did not detail how or if water would be used on land owned
by Front Range Resources. <Front Range Resources appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 affirming the district court and holding that
the anti-speculation doctrine applies to replacement plans involving new appropriations or changes of water rights and that Front Range Resources’ replacement plan was speculative.
No petition for rehearing <was filed and the Court’s mandate has been issued to make the ruling final.
MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTCase No. 16GW05
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Attorney: Paul Benington and Philip Lopez
Subject: Petition for determination of jurisdiction pertaining to surface water in Pond B and Pond C. < <
Status: This matter was filed on December 16, 2016 and no deadlines have been set. Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Booker Trusts are the only parties that have expressed interest
in being parties, and Booker Trusts only to monitor the case. The Staff has informally negotiated with Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Meridian to attempt to resolve all issues.
<The Staff’s understanding is that that all parties appear to agree that the subject water is designated ground water, and will be presenting a stipulated proposed order for the Ground
Water Commission’s consideration at the May 18, 2018 meeting.
HUTTON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION V. REIN, ET AL. Case No. 15CW3018
Designated Basin: Northern High Plains
Management District:
Attorney: Chad Wallace, Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Lawsuit filed by the Hutton Educational Foundation in an effort to make the State Engineer administer designated ground water rights and surface rights together for the purpose
of compact compliance under the Republican River Compact. Complaint also alleges that SB-52, which revised 37-90-106 to limit how designated basin boundaries may be modified, and the
Colorado Groundwater Management Act of 1965, are unconstitutional. The Ground Water Commission filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer to the Hutton Complaint on December 16, 2015
and such Motion was granted on January 18, 2016.
Status: The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the second and third claims in which Hutton asserted that the Management Act and SB-52, amending the Act, were unconstitutional. The
water court agreed and dismissed the second claim and part of the third claim. The water court held that it does not have jurisdiction over designated ground water and that the Commission
must first determine whether designated ground water is implicated, and therefore the issue was not ripe. Hutton sought certification of the dismissal for appeal to the Colorado Supreme
Court. The trial court certified its order of dismissal for appeal and stayed the remaining claims until the appeal is resolved. Hutton identified the issues for appeal to include
the trial court’s dismissal and the underlying question of whether SB 10-52, amending the Management Act, is unconstitutional. Some of the defendants, joined by the Commission, filed
a motion with the Supreme Court to limit the issues on appeal to the dismissal, and to exclude any arguments on the constitutionality of Management Act statutes. The Supreme Court
granted the motion to limit the appeal to the water court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017, and the parties are awaiting a decision. A status
conference was held on January 8, 2017, and the parties are still waiting to see how a Supreme Court ruling would affect the Water Court case. A further status conference has been scheduled
for May 25, 2017.
LGS HOLDING GROUP 2013, LLCCase No. 18GW02 18GW02
Designated Basin: Southern High Plains
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for new wells and commingling of wells in Southern High Plains Designated Basin.
Status: A number of parties have filed objections, including the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 3. The case has been referred to the Hearing Officer and an initial
status conference has been set for May 8, 2018 to set the matter for hearing.
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING – RULE 7.4Case No. 17GW04
Designated Basin: All basins
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rule 7.4 to require an applicant for a change of irrigated acreage to demonstrate to choose one of two options to demonstrate the change will not result
in increased use of the well: (1) restrict the future number of acres to be irrigated to the historical average number of acres irrigated by the well; or (2) restrict the future use
of the well to the historical depletion of the aquifer by the well, as demonstrated by a historical consumptive use analysis. <
Status: At the April 9, 2018 special meeting, the Commission adopted changes to Rule 7.4., making them applicable to all applications filed after the adoption of the Rule on April 9,
2018. The Attorney General issued her opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Rule on April 11, 2018. The Rule was published in the Colorado Register on April 25, 2018, and
will become effective on May 15, 2018.
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING - RULES 5.6 & 5.8Case No. 17GW05
Designated Basin: All basins
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rules 5.6 pertaining to replacement plans and Rule 5.8 pertaining to aquifer storage and recovery plans. <
Status: In its August 11, 2017 meeting the Ground Water Commission directed its Staff and Hearing Officer to proceed with the formal rulemaking process to amend Rules 5.6 and 5.8. <A
notice of public rulemaking hearing scheduled for June 18-22, 2018 was published by the Secretary of State in the Colorado Register on December 10, 2017. However with the passage of
HB18-1199 in April 2018, which provides specific statutory authority for the Ground Water Commission to approve plans for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), Staff is revising its approach
to ASRs in the revised rules. Instead of categorizing ASRs as replacement plans under Rule 5.6, Staff is instead proposing to keep ASRs under a separate rule, Rule 5.8. As a result
the hearing has been moved to August 20-24, 2018 to give parties an opportunity to respond to the revised format.
RAIL LAND CO., LLCCase No. 18GW03
Designated Basin: Lost Creek
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for determinations of Water Rights in the Laramie-Fox Hills, Lower Arapahoe, Upper Arapahoe, and Denver Aquifers.
Status: The City of Aurora has filed objections. The case has been referred to the Hearing Officer.
4
6
AG Report2018-5-3 PB.docxATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission
May 18, 2018
The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of May 4, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="004A16ECase No. 08GW71
</w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r><w:rPr><w:b/><w:13SA330
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: An application for approval of a replacement plan to make new appropriations from the alluvial aquifer within the basin. Objections were submitted by the District, along with
four other water users in the basin. A hearing was held for two weeks in Denver beginning on June 8, 2009 during which the Applicants completed their initial presentation and the objectors
began their presentations. An additional week of hearing scheduled for August 3 through 7, 2009 was vacated following a ruling from the Division 2 Water Court regarding Cherokee’s
use of some of its wells, subject to further negotiations and amendment of the proposed replacement plan. This case was consolidated with change cases 08GW78 and 09GW15, and the trial
was set to continue in January 2010.
Status: In November of 2009, the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District filed in district court, in Case No. 98CW80, for a declaratory judgment asking the court
to determine whether under a 1999 Stipulation Cherokee is required to use its waste water as recharge for the basin or if that waste water can be claimed as replacement credit under
a replacement plan. On June 17, 2013 the Court found that neither Cherokee nor Meridian is prohibited from claiming wastewater return credits for its replacement plan. UBS filed an
appeal on December 18, 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court under the 1999 Stipulation, but included in the decision ambiguous language as to whether Cherokee
can use effluent as a source of replacement water in a replacement plan. Counsel for Cherokee filed a Motion for Determination of Question of Law on January 31, 2018 to clarify its
use of effluent in its replacement plan. The Hearing Officer ordered Cherokee to publish notice of its requested relief sought in the Motion. Publication occurred on March 15 and
March 22, 2018. Parties will discuss a timeline for responsive briefing on the Motion at the next status conference on May 11, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="008C4F42">Case No. 08GW78 </w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00FC0F61">09GW15
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Applications to change the type and place of use of wells. Objections were submitted by the District and other water users in the basin. Both cases were consolidated with
08GW71 above.
Status: See above.
meridian service metro district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00EBCase No. 09GW11
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for a change of water right. Two parties filed objections.
Status: The hearing set for February 25 and 26, 2010 has been stayed because the water rights to be changed were for use in the replacement plan in 08GW71. The matter is stayed pending</
resolution of the issues in Case No. 98CW80 as described above for Cherokee Metro District’s replacement plan.
<
FRONT RANGE RESOURCES Case No. 13GW07
15CV30493</w:t></w:r></w:p><w:p w14:paraId="75B9903C" w14:textId="3CF924A3" w:rsidR="00567999" w:rsidRDefault="00567999" w:rsidP="005
Designated Basin: Lost Creek 16SA243</w:Management District: Lost CreekAttorney: Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Front Range Resources filed for a replacement plan. Objections were filed by Equus Farms Inc., Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District
and Staff.
Status: The matter was dismissed by the Commission and appealed to the District Court where it was set for trial June 6-16, 2016. Defendants, including the Commission, filed a motion
dismiss the application on the grounds that it is speculative because there are no binding contracts with actual end users for the water. On May 26, 2016 the Court ruled that Front
Range Resources was seeking to appropriate and change water rights and that the anti-speculation doctrine does apply to the application. The Court further found that Front Range Resources’
existing contracts were not binding and do not constitute obligations to provide water, and that the proposed replacement plan did not detail how or if water would be used on land owned
by Front Range Resources. <Front Range Resources appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 affirming the district court and holding that
the anti-speculation doctrine applies to replacement plans involving new appropriations or changes of water rights and that Front Range Resources’ replacement plan was speculative.
No petition for rehearing was filed and the Court’s mandate has been issued <to make the ruling final.
MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTCase No. 16GW05
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Attorney: Paul Benington and Philip Lopez
Subject: Petition for determination of jurisdiction pertaining to surface water in Pond B and Pond C. < <
Status: This matter was filed on December 16, 2016 and no deadlines have been set. Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Booker Trusts are the only parties that have expressed interest
in being parties, and Booker Trusts only to monitor the case. The Staff has informally negotiated with Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Meridian to attempt to resolve all issues.
<The Staff’s understanding is that that all parties appear to agree that the subject water is designated ground water, and will be presenting a stipulated proposed order for the Ground
Water Commission’s consideration at the May 18, 2018 meeting.
HUTTON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION V. REIN, ET AL. Case No. 15CW3018
Designated Basin: Northern High Plains
Management District:
Attorney: Chad Wallace, Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Lawsuit filed by the Hutton Educational Foundation in an effort to make the State Engineer administer designated ground water rights and surface rights together for the purpose
of compact compliance under the Republican River Compact. Complaint also alleges that SB-52, which revised 37-90-106 to limit how designated basin boundaries may be modified, and the
Colorado Groundwater Management Act of 1965, are unconstitutional. The Ground Water Commission filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer to the Hutton Complaint on December 16, 2015
and such Motion was granted on January 18, 2016.
Status: The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the second and third claims in which Hutton asserted that the Management Act and SB-52, amending the Act, were unconstitutional. The
water court agreed and dismissed the second claim and part of the third claim. The water court held that it does not have jurisdiction over designated ground water and that the Commission
must first determine whether designated ground water is implicated, and therefore the issue was not ripe. Hutton sought certification of the dismissal for appeal to the Colorado Supreme
Court. The trial court certified its order of dismissal for appeal and stayed the remaining claims until the appeal is resolved. Hutton identified the issues for appeal to include
the trial court’s dismissal and the underlying question of whether SB 10-52, amending the Management Act, is unconstitutional. Some of the defendants, joined by the Commission, filed
a motion with the Supreme Court to limit the issues on appeal to the dismissal, and to exclude any arguments on the constitutionality of Management Act statutes. The Supreme Court
granted the motion to limit the appeal to the water court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017, and the parties are awaiting a decision. A status