DWR_3364090

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 11/18/2016
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

without a demonstrated need or without terms and conditions to prevent an expansion of the use contemplated at the time of the appropriation. B. Staff did not require action on permit
no.16927-FP, rather the applicant agreed to the reduction in order to continue his historical irrigation practices. The applicant indicates that Staff required the applicant to take
a reduction of 29 acres and 72.5 acre-feet from permit no. 12520-FP and a reduction of 32 acres and 80 acre-feet from permit nos. 13530-FP/16927-FP. However, that is incorrect. The
evidence showed that what Staff required in order for Mr. Einspahr to obtain a replacement permit for the well associated with permit no. 12025-FP was a change in the description of
irrigated acres for that permit. And the evidence showed that what Staff required in order for a change in 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC
12 description of irrigated acres for that permit was a reduction of a total of 61 acres and 152.5 acre-feet between the two wells. Staff did not require that the reductions be split
between the two wells. Rather, Staff indicated the only way to allow the applicant to continue his historical irrigation practices was to split the reduction as suggested, but welcomed
other suggestions from the applicant. (Staff’s Exhibit 34). Staff’s letters of February 24 and March 9, 2015 do not require that the applicant split the reductions, in fact they
make it clear that the applicant can take the reduction with one or both wells. Staff’s letters do tell Mr. Einspahr what likely needs to be done to continue to irrigate in the fashion
he desires. Staff proposed the most reasonable solution and Mr. Einspahr decided to proceed with the most reasonable solution. The letters from Staff are clear though that Mr. Einspahr
must reduce by 61 acres and 152.5 acre-feet. So when Mr. Einspahr proceeded by splitting what are clearly required reductions between the two wells, he accepted the solution suggested
by Staff and accepted the terms of the approval of the change in description of irrigated acres. His application for a change in description of irrigated acres would not have been
approved by Staff without the required reductions in their entirety. If Mr. Einsphar can now successfully contest more than half of the required reductions, he would be unfairly obtaining
the benefit of the approval on his change of the description of irrigated acres without the agreed-upon reduction. Taking the full reduction was what Mr. Einspahr agreed to do and
needed to do in order to keep irrigating in his chosen manner. He received the bargained-for benefit, and as a result he must comply with the total ordered reduction. If the Commission’s
determination is that the applicant need not take a reduction for the well associated with permit nos. 13530-FP/16927-FP, then the only solution at the time of the application for the
replacement permit would have been for Staff to require that the 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC 13 applicant take the full 61 acre reduction
under permit no. 12025-FP, leaving him with 99 acres of land that can be irrigated under that permit. But that is not a practical result. If the full reduction of 61 acres and 152.5
acre-feet between the two wells is not enforced, Staff will be unable to allow such a splitting of a reduction between wells that includes a reduction for a well that is not the subject
of an application. This would be the case even if the applicant agrees to do so, for fear that the applicant will then appeal the reduction on the well permit that was not technically
in front of Staff. C. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the description of acres irrigated in permit no. 12025-FP was the result of clerical error. Mr. Einspahr alleges
that the legal description of Permit No. 12025-FP that describes the 70 acres of overlap with permit nos. 13530-FP/16927-FP was established as a result of clerical error. Clerical
error is defined as “simple, minor mistakes”, and those mistakes appearing on the face of a record. Boulder County Bd. Of Comm’rs v. HealthS outh Corp ., 246 P.3d 948, 952 (Colo. 2011).
As it pertains to water right decrees, the Colorado Supreme Court explained that clerical errors include those errors apparent on the face of the record whether made by counsel or
the court during the case, and which cannot “reasonably be attributed to exercise of judicial consideration or discretion”. Telluride Co. v. Division Engineer of Water Div. 4 , 195
Colo. 143, 144, 575 P.2d 1297, 1298 (1978). The order of a court is intended to be the embodiment of the determination by the court, and the court, by virtue of the same authority
under which it originally rendered a judgment, can revise the rendered order to capture the true intent of the court based on the record. Bessemer Irrigating Co. v. W. Pueblo Ditc
h & Reservoir Co. , 65 Colo. 258, 261-262, 176 P. 302, 303304 (1918). 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC 14 The theme running through these
statements of the law, and the case law in general as it pertains to clerical error, is that the mistake is apparent on the face of the record. This is true of the cases cited by the
applicant in his prehearing statement. In Meyring Livestock Co. v. Wamsley Cattle Co ., 687 P.2d 955 (Colo. 1984), for example, the claimed clerical error pertained to the decreed
depth of the reservoir. The testimony in the record was inconsistent with the decree ultimately entered in that case, which constituted clerical error. Here, there is no conflict
in the record, and no way to find that it was simply an error in the issuance of the permits. The final permits, the conditional permits, and the Statements of Beneficial Use, which
are actual statements from the owner of the well at the time stating how those wells are being used, reflect that between these two wells only 301 acres can legally be irrigated. When
the final permits were at issue because of the submittal of new owner documentation and payment for publication of final permit information, Mr. Einspahr made no objection as to the
legal descriptions of acres to be irrigated by the wells. Mr. Einspahr also did not contest the location of acreage in 1992 when he was sent a copy of the final permit. There is
simply insufficient evidence to find that any of the various owners of the well associated with permit no. 12025-FP intended to irrigate anything besides the land described as being
all in Section 6. Nothing in the record suggests the Commission could have decided in 1990 when issuing final permit no. 12025-FP that the land to be irrigated under the permit was
in both Section 1 and Section 6. An application for a water right to irrigate land in both Section 1 and Section 6 was never before the Commission. There was no evidence of the irrigation
of land in Section 1 in front of the Commission at the time the final permit was issued. The Commission could not have entered a final permit for irrigation of land in Section 1. 15GW10,
Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC 15 Furthermore, under the 1969 Act, a water court may decree rights no more extensive than those sought. Denver
by Board of Water Comm’rs v. Vail Valley Consol. Water Dist ., 751 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1988). In Denver v. Vail Valley , the Supreme Court held that the ultimate decree issued by the water
court is determinative of a specific issue presented to the court in specific manner. Denver argued that it was entitled to Middle Creek as a source of water decreed for its water
right because although the source was not listed in the decree or statement of claim, the map and filing statement filed with the State Engineer indicated Middle Creek as a source of
water. The Supreme Court rejected this notion because pursuant to the law under which Denver applied for this right, the statement of claim is the document that puts the world on
notice of the expected use and details of the right, the map and filing statement was not. Denver also argued that it was just error that Middle Creek was not named as a source, which
is evident from the facts surrounding the application. The Supreme Court also rejected this argument, noting the important principle of Colorado water law that a “water court may decree
rights no more extensive than those sought in an applicant’s statement of claim” Denver , 751 P.2d at 73. The Supreme Court made clear that where an applicant fails to include a claim
in a diligence application, such omission cannot be corrected as a clerical error since making a finding with respect to a water right never mentioned in the application and never considered
by the court “would expand the definition of clerical error beyond the bounds of precedent and reason” Id . The same is true in designated basins. While in this matter we are not
talking about omission of a source of water but the description of irrigated acres, the same concept applies. The application before the Commission for the conditional permit, as well
as the conditional permit itself, the SBU and the final permit, only described the irrigated acreage 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC 16
in Section 6. Because the irrigated acreage that the applicant now claims was intended to be irrigated by the subject well was never before the Commission and never considered by the
Commission as land to be irrigated by the well associated with permit no. 12025-FP, the Commission could not have decided then that it was the land to be irrigated by the applicant
and it cannot do so now. Such a determination is not considered a clerical error and requires a change of water right. The statutory requirements for issuance of permits within designated
basins clearly require reliance on the conditional permit and the Statement of Beneficial Use in issuing the final permit. §§ 37-90-107 and 108, C.R.S. There is no directive to Staff
to ignore these documents in the event an owner says they are not true. Rather, the statute makes clear that the Commission cannot issue a final permit for an amount of water beyond
that allowed in the conditional permit. § 37-90-108(3)(b) C.R.S. Staff cannot simply ignore documents on a suspicion that they are factually incorrect. If Staff was allowed or required
to take the word of a water user over what is clearly stated in well permits and Statements of Beneficial Use, documents that are created at the time the water right is being permitted,
these historical documents would have no reliability and no meaning and water users would have no stability in the use of their water. If Staff ignores the documentation in their files
and assumes a typographical error at a mere statement of a water user as applicant urges here, all orders and records Staff and water users rely on would be called in to question and
DWR as the administrator of water rights would be routinely asked to ignore permits and well permit files. The controlling documents would essentially be meaningless. Such a result
is untenable and would create confusion and inconsistency in the administration of water rights within designated basins. 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on
Appeal to the GWC 17 CONCLUSION Staff requests that the Commission affirm the decision of the Hearing Officer that a reduction of 61 aces and 152.5 acre-feet was one of the conditions
of approval of the change in the description of irrigated acreage for permit no. 12025-FP, and affirm the reduction taken by Staff in the amount of 32 acres and 80 acre-feet from permit
no. 16927-FP to bring the allowable irrigated acreage under that permit to 10 acres with an appropriation of 25 acre-feet. In the alternative, if the Commission believes Mr. Einspahr
can properly withdraw permit nos. 16927-FP/13530-FP from consideration, Staff requests a determination that Mr. Einspahr must be required to reduce permit no. 12025-FP by the full 61
acres and 152.5 acre-feet. Dated this 9th day of November, 2016. CYNTHIA COFFMAN Attorney General _________________________________________ JENNIFER
MELE, NO. 30720* Senior Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Section Attorney for Ground Water Commission Staff 1300 Broadway, 7th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: [phone] *Counsel of Record 15GW10, Petition of Gayln Einspahr Page Staff’s Brief on Appeal to the GWC 18 CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9th day of November, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing STAFF’S BRIEF ON APPEAL TO THE GROUND WATER COMMISSION STAFF
to be sent via e-mail, to each of the following: Via e-mail to: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer, [e-mail] Russell Sprague (Gayln Einsphar) [e-mail]
Keith Vander Horst, (Staff Ground Water Commission) [e-mail] Rick Nielsen, (Staff Ground Water Commission) [e-mail] A duly signed copy is on file
at the Office of the Attorney General /s/ Pauline Wilber _________________________________________
263-00003_Einspahr Appeal Brief_11-9-16 Final.pdfMicrosoft Word - 263-00003_Einspahr Appeal Brief_11-9-16 4845-8007-0460 v.1
1 Before the Ground Water Commission, Colorado 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 821, Denver, CO 80203 COMMISSION OR HEARING OFFICER USE ONLY ____________________________ Case
Number: 15GW10 IN THE MATTER OF AN OBJECTION TO AN APPLICATION FOR REDUCTION IN PERMITTED ACRES AND AUTHORIZED ANNUAL APPROPRIATION FOR PERMIT NO. 13530/16927 Applicant: Gayln Einspahr
In the Northern High Plains Designated Ground Water Basin In Yuma County Attorneys for Applicant: Russell J. Sprague, Atty. Reg. #40558 Kimbra L. Killin, Atty. Reg. #24636 COLVER
KILLIN & SPRAGUE, LLP 216 S. Interocean Holyoke, CO 80734 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 970.854.2423 E-mail: [e-mail]; [e-mail] APPLICANT GAYLN EINSPAHR’S
APPEAL BRIEF Applicant Gayln Einspahr (“Einspahr”), through his undersigned counsel, submits this Appeal Brief for his appeal of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Initial
Decision of the Hearing Officer dated May 16, 2016 (the “Initial Decision”). I. INTRODUCTION In February 2015, Einspahr applied for a replacement well for Permit No. 12025, which historically
and actually irrigated property in both Section 6 and the adjacent Section 1, all in Township 6 North, Range 44 West of the 6th P.M., Yuma County, Colorado (“Section 6” and “Section
1”, respectively). Colorado Ground Water Commission Staff (“Staff”) rejected the application for a replacement well based upon a clerical error in the documents in Staff’s file that
identified the property to be irrigated by Permit No. 12025 as only in Section 6 and overlapping with 2 property identified on Permit No. 13530/16927. Although the properties irrigated
by Permit No. 12025 and Permit No. 13530/16927 had historically and actually been two separate irrigated parcels, Staff mandated that Einspahr reduce his irrigated acreage and annual
appropriation by 61 acres and 152.5 acre feet before a replacement permit for Permit No. 12025 would be issued. Staff reasoned that the overlap showing in its file created a potential
and theoretical increase in irrigated acres. Einspahr disagreed with Staff’s positions, and particularly with any reduction in Permit No. 13530/16927, but facing an impending irrigation
season, he applied to change the description, acreage, and annual appropriation for Permit No. 12025 and also to reduce the acreage and annual appropriation of Permit No. 13530/16927
to obtain the replacement well permit for Permit No. 12025 – when this application was submitted, Einspahr’s counsel stated in no uncertain terms that Einspahr believed the overlap
was a clerical error and that Einspahr planned to object to the reduction of Permit No. 13530/16927 because the actual irrigation with these permits was on different properties. Einspahr
timely objected to the reduction on Permit No. 13530/16927 and proceeded to hearing before the Hearing Officer on March 15, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Hearing Officer issued the Initial
Decision denying Einspahr’s objection to the reduction in Permit No. 13530/16927. The Hearing Officer erred in the Initial Decision in the following four ways: (1) the Hearing Officer
erroneously found that the change in description for Permit No. 12025 was conditioned upon a reduction of irrigated acreage and annual appropriation on Permit No. 16927; (2) the Hearing
Officer improperly held that Staff must analyze Permit No. 13530/16927 in conjunction with the initial application submitted for replacement of Permit No. 12025; (3) the Hearing Officer
inappropriately held that potential injury can establish material injury under C.R.S. § 37-90-111(g) and 2 CCR 410-1 Rule 7.4.1; and (4) the Hearing Officer erred by finding irrigation
under Permit No. 12025 was illegal and not the result of a clerical error. Because of these errors, the Commission should set aside the Initial Decision, grant Einspahr’s objection
to the reduction of permitted acreage and annual 3 appropriation for Permit No. 16927, and enter an Order to restore Permit No. 16927 to 42 permitted acres and 105 acre feet of annual
appropriation. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Factual Background As noted above, this matter involves Permit No. 12025, Permit No. 13530, and Permit No. 16927. The historical and actual
irrigation under the permits, along with the facts surrounding issuance of these permits, provides the backdrop for this case. Irrigation of Properties with the Permits Permit No.
12025 and Permit No. 13530/16927 irrigate two separate properties in Yuma County, Colorado south of Holyoke, Colorado. (Ex. E-14; Tr. 28:1-29:15.)1 Einspahr commonly refers to the properties
as Circle 103 (Permit No. 12025) and Circle 105 (Permit No. 13530/16927), which are identified consistent with Einspahr’s testimony on the following image of Einspahr Exhibit 15 (Tr.
31:7-32:13.): Einspahr has farmed and owned approximately 26 irrigated properties over 33 years in and around Circle 103 and Circle 105. (Tr. 26:13-27:13.) Einspahr has farmed Circle
103 and Circle 105 1 For convenience, Einspahr Exhibits from the hearing are denoted as Ex. E-__, Staff Exhibits from the hearing are
denoted as Ex. S-__, and references to the transcript of the hearing are denoted with Tr. __. 4 under Permit No. 12025 and Permit No. 13530/16927, respectively, continuously since 1982
in the same irrigation pattern shown above without overlap. (Tr. 29:5-7) This irrigation pattern has included Circle 105 being irrigated within Section 6 consistent with the legal description
on final Permit No. 13530/16927. (Ex. E-4; Ex. E-13.) Circle 103, however, has been split in half north-to-south by the section line between Section 6 and Section 1 to the west, which
is different from the legal description solely in Section 6 on final Permit No. 12025. This irrigation pattern for Circle 103, and Permit No. 12025, likely occurred from first beneficial
– as Einspahr testified, the original 1969 center pivot sprinkler system in the current irrigation pattern was used to irrigate Circle 103 from the time Einspahr began farming the property,
and a trail road and power line poles between Circle 103 and Circle 105 make actual overlap in irrigation impossible. (Tr. 36:2-14, 36:19-39:4, 43:6-46:19.) Permit No. 13530 and Permit
No. 16927 The application for Permit No. 13530 was filed on October 31, 1968, to construct a well and annually appropriate 400 acre feet of ground water to irrigate 160 acres in portions
of Section 6. (Ex. E-11.) Permit No. 13530 was issued conditionally on January 13, 1969, and a Statement of Beneficial Use was filed by Ceres Land Co. on January 31, 1985. (Ex. E-11;
Ex. S-21.) The Statement of Beneficial Use included a legal description for irrigated acres that differed from the conditional permit, and in accordance with Staff protocol at the time,
the legal description for Permit No. 13530 was changed to match the Statement of Beneficial Use. (Ex. S-22; Tr. 148:8-149:13.) Permit No. 13530 was issued final on July 16, 1985 to
annually appropriate 400 acre feet of ground water to irrigate the lands in Section 6 described in the Statement of Beneficial Use. (Ex. E-13; Ex. S-22.) Permit No. 16927 initially
was applied for on February 18, 1972 to increase the irrigated acres and annual appropriation in conjunction with Permit No. 13035. In other words, Permit No. 16927 expanded the irrigated
acreage and annual appropriation of Permit No. 13035 by 42 acres and 105 acre feet in Section 6. Permit No. 16927 was conditionally issued on February 21, 1973, and a Statement of Beneficial
Use was filed on March 30, 1973. (Ex. E-1; Ex. E-3; Ex. S-26.) Permit No. 5 16927 was issued final on June 21, 1990 with the same described acreage as Permit No. 16927. (Ex. E-4; Tr.
146:24-147:3.) Both Permit No. 13035 and Permit No. 16927 withdraw ground water from the same location and irrigate the same property. (Tr. 90:14-91:2.) Permit No. 12025 Permit No.
12025 initially was applied for on February 21, 1967 to construct a well to irrigate 160 acres and annually appropriate 480 acre feet, and the permit was conditionally issued on June
6, 1967. (Ex. S-14.) A Statement of Beneficial Use for Permit No. 12025 was filed on January 31, 1985, and the final permit for Permit No. 12025 issued on June 21, 1990. (Ex. S-15;
Ex. E-13.) The legal description of irrigated acreage on these documents include parcels only in Section 6 and creates a theoretical overlap of irrigation of approximately 61 acres
with the permitted acreage for Permit No. 13530/16927. (Ex. E-24.) Within a year after Permit No. 12025 was conditionally issued, Staff documents show a legal description for the irrigated
acreage for Permit No. 12025 in both Section 6 and Section 1 consistent with the actual irrigation pattern noted above. Specifically, on April 16, 1968, a Map and Statement for Water
Well Filing for Permit No. 12025 was filed, which as shown in the image below from Einspahr Exhibit 17, showed the “area to be irrigated” by Permit No. 12025 as straddling Section 1
and Section 6 and noted “See USGS map. Likely located in Sec. 1, T4N, R45W”:2 2 Staff witness Richard Nielsen (“Nielsen”) stated that
the Map and Statement for Water Well Filing is to show the location of the well, but the document expressly calls for a depiction of the irrigated acreage. When further questioned on
his testimony, Nielsen stated this document appears to show an irrigated acreage for Permit No. 12025 in Section 1 and Section 6. (Tr. 183:21-185:1.) 6 Irrigation of property in Section
1 and Section 6 consistent with Einspahr’s actual irrigation pattern also is depicted in a map in the Sandhills Groundwater Management District that was developed by the Colorado Division
of Water Resources at least by March 1987, if not earlier. (Ex. E-17; Tr. 187:12-19.) District Manager Nate Midcap described this map as containing “vital information” and “correct
and accurate” acre descriptions for Permit No. 12025 and Permit No. 13530/16927 up until this case. (Ex. E-17.) As depicted below, this map shows the “permitted pattern” of Permit No.
12025 straddling Section 1 and Section 6: Until his application for replacement permit for Permit No. 12025, Einspahr had no reason to believe the described acres on Permit No. 12025
did not match the actual historical irrigated acres in 7 Section 1 and Section 6. (Tr. 78:11-17.) Einspahr testified that the terrain in which Circle 103 and 105 sit is sand hill terrain
that requires use of complex metes and bounds legal descriptions for the properties. As demonstrated on the aerial photo below, the section line between Section 1 and Section 6 does
not correspond with the county road intersection, which is customary. This creates a substantial basis to conclude that a legal description entirely to the east of the intersection
line would indicate a mistake was made with the notation of the property to be irrigated under Permit No. 12025 (Circle 103) being entirely in Section 6 (Tr. 76:10-22.): B. Procedural
History On February 20, 2015, Einspahr filed an application seeking only a replacement permit to redrill Permit No. 12025 because the well was failing (the “12025 Replacement Application”).
(Ex. E-21; Ex. S-4.) By letter on February 24, 2015, Staff rejected the 12025 Replacement Application because, as noted above, documents in Staff’s file, including the final permit,
showed an overlap of 61 acres in the legal descriptions with the permitted acreage of Permit No. 13530/16927. (Ex. E-23.) Staff’s February 24, 2015 letter demanded that Einspahr submit
documents to reduce the permitted acreage and annual appropriation under Permit Nos. 12025 and 13530/16927 by 61 acres and 152.5 8 acre feet before the 12025 Replacement Application
would be approved.3 Staff advised Einspahr to reduce each permit by 32 acres and 80 acre feet and allocate another 3 acres and 7.5 acre feet of reduction. (Ex. E-23.) Staff reasoned
that the overlap in acreage required a reduction because a correction of the permits without a reduction would create an “effective” increase in permitted acres and the possibility
of harm to other appropriators. (Ex. S-3.) In making its demand, Staff relied upon Rule 7.4.1 of the Rules and Regulations for the Management and Control of Designated Ground Water,
2 CCR 410-1. (Ex. E-23.) Einspahr immediately disagreed with Staff’s mandate regarding the reduction of 61 acres and re-submitted only the 12025 Replacement Application on March 2,
2015 because the intended and actual irrigated acreage under Permit No. 12025 did not overlap with the permitted or actual irrigated acreage under Permit No. 13530/16927. (Ex. E-21;
Ex. E-25; Tr. 59:11-62:14.) Einspahr’s position was that that the discrepancy on the State Engineer’s records was in the legal description on Permit No. 12025 and was only a clerical
mistake dating back to the original application and beneficial use for Permit No. 12025. (Ex. E-25.) Staff rejected the re-submitted 12025 Replacement Application by letter on March
9, 2015 because Einspahr had not submitted applications for the demanded reduction in permitted acreage and annual appropriation for the overlap with both permits; Staff re-iterated
its demand for a 61 permitted acre reduction before the 12025 Replacement Application would be granted. (Ex. E-26.) To proceed with the 12025 Replacement Application as growing and
irrigation season rapidly approached, Einspahr submitted by letter from counsel on March 26, 2016, and upon direction of Staff, the following documents: (a) the 12025 Replacement Application,
(b) an application to change the legal description for Permit No. 12025 to the actual historic irrigated parcel in Section 1 and Section 6, (c) an application to reduce the permitted
acreage and annual appropriation under Permit 3 At the hearing, Richard Nielsen testified on behalf of Staff that the overlap could
be construed as up to 70 acres. However, Mr. Nielsen conceded that Staff was only seeking 61 acres of reduction due to Staff’s initial 9 No. 12025 by 29 acres and 72.5 acre-feet, and
(d) an application to reduce the permitted acreage and annual appropriation under Permit No. 13530/16927 by 32 acres and 80 acre-feet. (Ex. E-28.) Einspahr’s letter from counsel specifically
and expressly stated that Einspahr was submitting the application for reduction in permitted acreage and annual appropriation for Permit No. 13530/16927 because Staff had “required
it in order to promptly proceed with the Permit 12025-FP well replacement.” But, Einspahr was submitting that application under objection and expected to object to such reduction because
“there is no change to that irrigation circle as a result of correcting the legal description for 12025-FP”, and the clerical mistake on the legal description for Permit No. 12025 “should
not prejudice the neighboring circle (of which the legal descriptions overlapped), as there will be no change to the acres irrigated pursuant to [Permit No. 13530/16927].” (Ex. E-28.)