DWR_3364078

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 2/20/2015
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

13GW07 Exhibit A to Stipulation.pdf
1 BEFORE THE GROUND WATER COMMISSION, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 13GW7 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLACEMENT PLAN IN THE LOST CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN
IN ADAMS AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO FRONT RANGE RESOURCES, LLC, APPLICANT ORDER REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF QUESTION OF LAW, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND APPLICANT’S
SURREPLY On October 10, 2014, Objectors Equus Farms, Inc., Lost Creek Land & Cattle Company, Henrylyn Irrigation District, Weldon Valley Ditch Company, Morgan County Water Quality
District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation Company, Staff for the Colorado Ground Water Commission, and the Irrigationists Association
(Objectors) filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Question of Law and Partial Summary Judgment. Their motion requests the Hearing Officer to determine, as a matter of law, that
certain South Platte water rights (“Subject Water Rights”1) identified as replacement water contained in the application are not legally available for use as replacement sources in
the proposed replacement plan. The Objectors also request partial summary judgment dismissing the Applicant’s claims to use these sources in the replacement plan. Objectors argue
that the subject water rights that Front Range Resources, LLC, (“the Applicant”) has published and noticed for use in the proposed replacement plan must first be adjudicated in Water
Court to allow for their use in the replacement plan. The Applicant counters that there is no requirement that the water rights at issue must first be changed in Water Court to allow
for their use in this replacement plan, and that as part of the potential approval of the replacement plan, terms and conditions could be imposed to require those water rights to be
adjudicated in Water Court prior to the actual use of the subject water rights in any approved replacement plan. Further, the Applicant argues that water courts frequently approve
the use of water rights in augmentation plans before the water rights are legally available for use in the augmentation plan, and thus, the Commission should approve the replacement
plan even if it includes water rights that are not legally available for use in the plan. Concerning the request for determination of question of law, Water Courts have exclusive jurisdiction
over all water matters involving “waters of the state,” defined as “all surface and underground water in or tributary to all natural streams within the state of Colorado,” except designated
ground water. . §§ 37-92103(13) & 37-92-203(1), C.R.S. (2014); State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752, 759 (Colo. 1981). The Subject Water Rights are “waters of the state”
that were decreed for use by the Division 1 1 *The “Subject Water Rights” are: 1) Up to 20 cfs, but not more than a total of 13,048
acre feet per year, of the Fort Morgan Farms Augmentation Pipeline Water Right decreed in Case No. 11CW40; 2) Fully consumable water associated with six shares of the Weldon Valley
Ditch Company changed for augmentation and replacement uses in Case No. 05CW346 for a maximum of 243 acre feet of water, with a 20-year average volumetric limit of 169.8 acre feet;
3) A portion of the fully consumable accretions and recharge water of the Weldon Valley Ditch Company generated pursuant to the water right and recharge plan confirmed in the decree
entered in Case No. 02CW377; and 4) Fully consumable water accruing to the South Platte River associated with the use and operation of the Fort Morgan Company Augmentation Water Right
decreed in Case No. 2000CW261. All decrees are in Water Division No. 1. EXHIBIT A TO STIPULATION WITH ALL REMAINING OBJECTORS 2 Water Court in the amounts and at the locations decreed.
It is undisputed between the parties and the Hearing Officer that the question of the legal availability of the Subject Water Rights is a water matter under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the water court. See V Bar Ranch LLC v. Cotten, 233 P.3d 1200, 1205 (Colo. 2010). Commission Rule 5.6.1 requires certain proofs that must be met prior to the approval of a replacement
plan. In particular, Rule 5.6.1.A requires that “[t]he source must be such that the water it provides is not required for the fulfillment of vested water rights which are not a part
of the plan.” Prior to approval of a replacement plan, the Applicant must prove that that the Subject Water Rights are not required for the fulfillment of vested water rights which
are not a part of this plan. Without proof of the legal availability of the Subject Water Rights to be included to prevent injury from depletions it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to adequately determine if the plan can prevent material injury to the vested water rights of others in time, place and amount. The Subject Water Rights must be authorized by the Water
Court before the Commission can exercise its jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the Subject Water Rights as a source of replacement water in the proposed replacement plan. Such
prior authorization by the Water Court also ensures proper notice to water users in the South Platte basin of the proposed use of these water rights in this proposed plan. Until such
time as the Water Court issues decrees indicating that these water rights can be used in this specific plan and in this specific basin the Commission has to presume they cannot, and
therefore, no further consideration of the use of these rights will be made in relation to this plan until specific decrees are presented clearly indicating Water Court approval for
inclusion and consideration. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. To the extent the Applicant desires to continue with its non-South Platte water rights for inclusion
in this plan they may proceed as scheduled or wait until such time as they have proper approval through the Water Court to use the Subject Water Rights in this existing proposal. Concerning
the Applicant’s Surreply, the Objectors’ citation to section 37-92-305(8)(c) is irrelevant to the determinations set forth above because it applies to augmentation plans as approved
by the Water Court and does not apply to review and approval of replacement plans. Therefore, the Applicant Motion to File Surreply on November 18, 2014 is DENIED. Dated this 2nd
day of December, 2014. _________________________________________ Joseph (Jody) Grantham, Hearing Officer Colorado Ground Water Commission 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver,
CO 80203 Telephone: [phone], ext. 8288 E-mail: [e-mail] 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have duly served the within ORDER REGARDING JOINT
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF QUESTION OF LAW, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND APPLICANT’S SURREPLY upon all parties herein by emailing copies of the same at Denver, Colorado, this 2nd day
of December 2014, addressed as follows: John Buchanan, Esq. Timothy Buchanan, Esq. Attorneys for Front Range Resources [e-mail] [e-mail] Alan E. Curtis, Esq. David C.
Taussig, Esq. Adam C. Davenport, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Land & Cattle [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Michael F. Browning, Esq.
Attorney for Equus Farms, Inc. [e-mail] P. Andrew Jones, Esq. Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Ground Water Management District [e-mail] [e-mail]
Jefferey J. Kahn, Esq. Matthew Machado, Esq. Attorneys for Morgan County Quality Water District & Weldon Valley Ditch Company [e-mail] [e-mail] Andrea L. Benson,
Esq. Cynthia F. Covell, Esq. Attorneys for Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation Company [e-mail] [e-mail] Steven L. Janssen, Esq. Attorney for Henrylyn
Irrigation District [e-mail] 4 Bennett W. Raley, Esq. Doug M. Sinor, Esq. Attorneys for Northern Colorado Water Conversancy District [e-mail] [e-mail]
Mary Mead Hammond, Esq. Mason H. Brown, Esq. Attorneys for Irrigationists’ Association, Water Dist. 1 [e-mail] [e-mail] Jennifer Mele, Esq. Attorney for Staff
for the Ground Water Commission Attorney General’s Office [e-mail] Susan Schneider, Esq. Conflicts Counsel for Hearing Officer Attorney General’s Office [e-mail]
Rick Nielsen/ Keith Vander Horst Staff for the Ground Water Commission [e-mail] [e-mail] _______________________________________ BEFORE THE
GROUND WATER COMMISSION, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 13-GW-07 ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER CONCERNING MOTION TO CLARIFY OR RECONSIDER
______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLACEMENT PLAN WITHIN THE LOST CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER
BASIN AND LOST CREEK GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN WELD COUNTY. FRONT RANGE RESOURCES, LLC, APPLICANT ______________________________________________________________________
On January 23, 2015, Front Range Resources, LLC (“Applicant”) filed a Motion to Clarify or to Reconsider the Hearing Officer’s Order Regarding Joint Motion for Determination of Question
of Law, Partial Summary Judgment and Applicant’s Surreply entered on December 2, 2014. Response and reply briefs have been filed and reviewed. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied
and the Order of December 2, 2014 stands. For clarification purposes:  The Hearing Officer assumed the allegations of the non-moving party were true in its original determination.
However, even when those allegations are assumed true the Hearing Officer cannot reach the result the Applicant desires due to the undisputed fact that as a matter of law the Commission
has no jurisdiction over the “Subject Water Rights”1 in question.  The plain language of the Subject Water Rights limits them to use in South Platte system at this time.  Objectors2
are correct in their understanding that the Order gave the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application until such time as Water Court
1 *The “Subject Water Rights” are: 1) Up to 20 cfs, but not more than a total of 13,048 acre feet per year, of the Fort Morgan Farms Augmentation Pipeline Water
Right decreed in Case No. 11CW40; 2) Fully consumable water associated with six shares of the Weldon Valley Ditch Company changed for augmentation and replacement uses in Case No.
05CW346 for a maximum of 243 acre feet of water, with a 20-year average volumetric limit of 169.8 acre feet; 3) A portion of the fully consumable accretions and recharge water of
the Weldon Valley Ditch Company generated pursuant to the water right and recharge plan confirmed in the decree entered in Case No. 02CW377; and 4) Fully consumable water accruing
to the South Platte River associated with the use and operation of the Fort Morgan Company Augmentation Water Right decreed in Case No. 2000CW261. All decrees are in Water Division
No. 1. 2 Lost Creek Land & Cattle Company, Equus Farms, Inc., Henrylyn Irrigation District, Morgan County Quality Water District, Weldon Valley Ditch Company, the Lost Creek Ground
Water Management District, the Ground Water Commission Staff, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Irrigationists’ Association, Water District 1. approval is obtained concerning
the Subject Water Rights or to proceed without including those rights.  The Hearing Officer is not ordering the Water Court to do anything. He simply recognizes that until the Water
Court exercises its jurisdiction and determines the Subject Water Rights are legally available for use in this replacement plan neither he nor the Commission may act to consider the
use of these rights in this plan.  No consideration of the Subject Water Rights will occur relevant to this plan until such time as a decree or decrees from the Water Court are presented
authorizing their specific use in this specific plan. Dated this 4th day of February, 2015. ________________________________ Joseph
(Jody) Grantham Hearing Officer Colorado Ground Water Commission 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: [phone], ext. 8288 E-mail: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have duly served the within ORDER CONCERNING MOTION TO CLARIFY OR RECONSIDER upon all parties herein by emailing
copies of the same at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of February 2015, addressed as follows: John Buchanan, Esq. Timothy Buchanan, Esq. Attorneys for Front Range Resources [e-mail]
[e-mail] Alan E. Curtis, Esq. David C. Taussig, Esq. Adam C. Davenport, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Land & Cattle [e-mail] [e-mail] adamd@white-jankowski.
com Michael F. Browning, Esq. Attorney for Equus Farms, Inc. [e-mail] P. Andrew Jones, Esq. Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Ground Water Management District
[e-mail] [e-mail] Jefferey J. Kahn, Esq. Matthew Machado, Esq. Attorneys for Morgan County Quality Water District & Weldon Valley Ditch Company [e-mail] [e-mail]
Steven L. Janssen, Esq. Attorney for Henrylyn Irrigation District [e-mail] Bennett W. Raley, Esq. Doug M. Sinor, Esq. Attorneys for Northern Colorado Water Conversancy
District [e-mail] [e-mail] Mary Mead Hammond, Esq. Mason H. Brown, Esq. Attorneys for Irrigationists’ Association, Water Dist. 1 [e-mail] [e-mail]
Jennifer Mele, Esq. Attorney for Staff for the Ground Water Commission Attorney General’s Office [e-mail] Susan Schneider, Esq. Conflicts Counsel for Hearing Officer
Attorney General’s Office [e-mail] Rick Nielsen/ Keith Vander Horst Staff for the Ground Water Commission [e-mail] [e-mail]
______________________________________
13GW07 Exhibit B to Stipulation.pdf
Page No. 1 BEFORE THE GROUND WATER COMMISSION, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 13-GW-07 ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER CONCERNING CERTAIN
OBJECTORS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLACEMENT PLAN WITHIN THE LOST CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN AND LOST CREEK GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN WELD COUNTY. FRONT RANGE RESOURCES, LLC, APPLICANT
______________________________________________________________________ On January 20, 2015, Lost Creek Land & Cattle Company, Equus Farms, Inc., Henrylyn Irrigation District, Morgan
County Quality Water District, Weldon Valley Ditch Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District, and the Ground Water Commission Staff, (“Objectors”), filed a Motion to
Strike Portions of Applicant’s Rebuttal Disclosures. Response and reply briefs were filed on January 28, 2015 and February 4, 2015, respectively. This case is currently set for a
three -week trial commencing on February 23, 2015. In its motion, the Objectors claim that the engineering and operational proposals contained in the rebuttal report that Front Range
Resources, LLC (“Applicant”) filed on January 9, 2014, should be excluded as improper rebuttal because it was prejudicial at this late date and presented new engineering and operational
proposals not within the scope of its original disclosures. In support of its claim that the model contained new operational proposals and engineering, the Objectors note that the Applicant
provided at least four versions of groundwater models to support various engineering and operational proposals. On June 23, 2014, the Applicant provided a set of model files with its
expert disclosures which was modified and disclosed on July 24, 2014. In response to Objectors’ concerns, the Applicant disclosed “a substantially revised model on October 7, 2014”
and another revised version on October 13, 2014. The Objector’s filed their expert reports on December 8, 2014. The Applicant timely filed its Expert Rebuttal report on January 9,
2015, but provided the executable model files to the Objectors on January 21, 2015. The Objectors argue that the Applicant’s model disclosed on January 9, 2014 was improper rebuttal
and prejudicial to their case because Objectors “have already been put through multiple rounds of reviewing Applicant’s continually-changing proposals regarding its replacement plan,
causing Objectors to incur substantial legal and expert witness costs at each round; and Objectors did not have the opportunity to review the [n]ew [e]ngineering or deal with it in
their own expert reports.” Specifically, the Objectors argue that the Hearing Officer should exclude as new non-rebuttal evidence: “(1) all sections of Applicant's Rebuttal Report
beginning on page 6 with the section entitled Evaluation of Injury through the section entitled Transient Simulations of Proposed Front Range Operations which ends on page 14 of Applicant's
Rebuttal Report; and (2) the section entitled Evaluation of Calibration of Transient Model which begins on page 15 and ends on page 18 of Applicant's Rebuttal Report, and all appendices
EXHIBIT B TO STIPULATION WITH ALL REMAINING OBJECTORS Page No. 2 referenced in these sections; and ( 3) terms and conditions 3 through 5 on page 22 of Applicant's Rebuttal Report (collectively,
the "New Engineering"), and is further described in the attached Affidavit of Dr. Willem A. Schreuder (EXHIBIT A) and the attached Affidavit of Thomas M. Dea, P.E. (EXHIBIT B) which
also includes a copy of Applicant's Rebuttal Report showing the New Engineering.” See page 2, second full paragraph, Objectors Motion, dated January 20, 2015. The Applicant argues
that the Objectors have the burden to prove that any evidence disclosed was not within the proper scope of rebuttal disclosure and that the engineering and operational proposals were
proper rebuttal evidence because only three modifications were made to the model between the supplemental report and the rebuttal report. The applicant argues that the Objectors’ motion
“does not specifically identify what evidence in the rebuttal report the Opposers believe goes beyond the scope of proper rebuttal disclosures or why." Applicant’s Motion, p. 5, dated
January 20, 2015. As directly noted in the paragraph above, Objectors did specify which portions of the report were not disclosed in a timely manner and were not proper rebuttal evidence
and did explain exactly why those issues should have been raised and disclosed earlier. The Applicant argues that it filed its rebuttal report on time “and thus does not have to prove
to the court that late-filed disclosures, or a failure to file, was substantially justified or will not harm Opposers.” Page 5 of Applicant Response Brief. Since the model was only
disclosed approximately 4 weeks prior to trial, it is clear that prejudice occurs. Further, as noted by the Objectors, the Applicant admitted in its motion the tardiness of the final
disclosures: “[T]hree modifications were made to the Model itself between the Supplemental Report and the Rebuttal Report…First, the Model was revised to include observed 2010 water
levels from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, instead of the water levels from 1998 that were used in the USGS Steady State Model. Applicant’s Response. P. 7 (emphasis added).
*** Second, the Model was revised…regarding irrigation return flows. Id. (emphasis added). *** The Rebuttal Report also included changes to the operation and proposed use of the
Model. Id. at page 8 (emphasis added). In the Rebuttal Report, another baseline was added to simulate pumping of the Front Range wells at their maximum permitted pumping rates during
only June and July… to model how individual wells in the Basin might be affected differently based on different methods of withdrawals... Id. (emphasis added). *** …Front Range’s
rebuttal evidence addresses Opposers’ claims… by making changes…rather than simply refuting Opposers arguments.” Id. at p. 9 (emphasis added). Page No. 3 The Applicant admitted
that its “application relies on the use of the Model to show that the Replacement Plan will be operated without causing injury to other water rights.” Motion, p. 10. The Applicant
had an obligation to disclose how the replacement plan would prevent injury in its initial disclosure. If, as the Applicant argues, the late disclosures were Applicant’s “most important
evidence,” such information should have been disclosed well in advance of weeks before trial. The situation here is directly analogous to that in City of Aurora v. Colorado State Engineer,
105 P.3d 595 (Colo. 2005). In that case, as here, the Applicant’s engineers had prepared and disclosed a ground water model for its initial expert disclosure, but shortly before trial
attempted to withdraw the model and in its place, use other evidence to prove the case. Based upon the pleadings, that is what Applicant is attempting to do here, in particular when
changes to the operation and proposed use of the Model are introduced at this late stage. An extension of the trial date is not an appropriate course of action at this time. For
background, the Applicant sought an extension of time in this case already. On April 3, 2014, the Applicant filed with the Hearing Officer a Motion for Extension of Time to Join Additional
Parties and Amend Pleadings, citing ongoing negotiations with Henrylyn Irrigation District concerning the incorporation of other water supplies and recharge facilities. This motion
was opposed by Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company, Equus Farms, Inc., and Lost Creek Ground Water Management District who filed a Joint Motion to Vacate and Stay Proceedings. As the
hearing at that time was over ten months away, the Hearing Officer denied the motion to vacate the hearing and granted an extension through May 5, 2014 for the Applicant to join additional
parties and amend its pleadings, which resulted in an amended replacement plan application being filed and published with additional objectors entering the case.1 Due to the late nature
of the filing of that motion, the Hearing Officer cautioned the Applicant that requests for any additional extensions would be disfavored. 1. As set forth below the Motion to Strike
is GRANTED. 2. Applicant’s failure to timely disclose the executable model files directly related to the Rebuttal Report until January 21, 2015, 12 days past the due date for the Applicant’s
Rebuttal Report and approximately four weeks prior to trial, is not justified. The executable model is the “most important evidence” in this case and failure to disclose and provide
those files on a timely basis is harmful and prejudicial to the opposing parties’ ability to properly prepare for hearing. “Finding otherwise would allow a party to admit expert evidence
on the eve of trial without allowing an opposer to properly prepare.” City of Aurora ex rel. Utility Enterprise v. Colorado State Engineer, 105 P.3d 595, 610-11 (Colo. 2005). 3. The
motion shows that the information contained in the report is improper rebuttal evidence and should have been disclosed much earlier instead of as rebuttal evidence since it pertains
to the basic requirements of the Applicant’s case. 1 Morgan County Quality Water District, the Weldon Valley Ditch Company,
Northern Colorado Water Conversancy District, Irrigationists’ Association, Water Dist. 1 and Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation Company filed objections to the publication of replacement
plan as amended. Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation Company has recently withdrawn its objection to the Application. Page No. 4 4. The executable model files provided to the Objectors
on January 21, 2015, are stricken and the Applicant is precluded from presenting any evidence or testimony at the hearing regarding this iteration/variation of the model. The Applicant
may present evidence and model iteration/variations as disclosed in its Initial Expert Disclosures up through its Supplemental Disclosures provided as part of its October 14, 2014 filings,
along with the executable model files provided to the Objectors at that time. 5. The Applicant is precluded from presenting any evidence or testimony at the hearing regarding post-October
14, 2014 model variations. Dated this 9th day of February, 2015. ________________________________ Joseph (Jody) Grantham Hearing Officer
Colorado Ground Water Commission 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: [phone], ext. 8288 E-mail: [e-mail] Page No.
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have duly served the within ORDER CONCERNING CERTAIN OBJECTORS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES
upon all parties herein by emailing copies of the same at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of February 2015, addressed as follows: John Buchanan, Esq. Timothy Buchanan, Esq. Attorneys
for Front Range Resources [e-mail] [e-mail] Alan E. Curtis, Esq. David C. Taussig, Esq. Adam C. Davenport, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Land & Cattle [e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail] Michael F. Browning, Esq. Attorney for Equus Farms, Inc. [e-mail] P. Andrew Jones, Esq. Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. Attorneys
for Lost Creek Ground Water Management District [e-mail] [e-mail] Jefferey J. Kahn, Esq. Matthew Machado, Esq. Attorneys for Morgan County Quality Water District & Weldon
Valley Ditch Company [e-mail] [e-mail] Steven L. Janssen, Esq. Attorney for Henrylyn Irrigation District [e-mail] Bennett W. Raley, Esq. Doug M.
Sinor, Esq. Attorneys for Northern Colorado Water Conversancy District [e-mail] [e-mail] Page No. 6 Mary Mead Hammond, Esq. Mason H. Brown, Esq. Attorneys
for Irrigationists’ Association, Water Dist. 1 [e-mail] [e-mail] Jennifer Mele, Esq. Attorney for Staff for the Ground Water Commission Attorney General’s Office
[e-mail] Susan Schneider, Esq. Conflicts Counsel for Hearing Officer Attorney General’s Office [e-mail] Rick Nielsen/ Keith Vander Horst Staff
for the Ground Water Commission [e-mail] [e-mail] ______________________________________
13GW07 Order re stipulation dismissing.pdf20150211 Proposed Order Re Stipulation (00156550).DOCX
1 BEFORE THE GROUND WATER COMMISSION, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 13GW7 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLACEMENT PLAN IN THE LOST CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN
IN ADAMS AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO FRONT RANGE RESOURCES, LLC, APPLICANT ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION BETWEEN APPLICANT AND ALL REMAINING OBJECTORS AND DISMISSING APPLICATION
WITH PREJUDICE1 The Hearing Officer, having reviewed the stipulation between Applicant Front Range Resources, LLC ("Front Range") and Objectors, Lost Creek Land & Cattle Company,
Equus Farms, Inc., Henrylyn Irrigation District, Morgan County Quality Water District, Weldon Valley Ditch Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District, the Ground Water
Commission Staff, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Irrigationists’ Association, Water District 1, dated February 10, 2015 (“Stipulation”), and being fully advised in
the matter, finds, determines and Orders as follows: 1. The terms of the Stipulation are approved and are enforceable as an agreement between the signatory parties and as a final
Order of the Hearing Officer. 2. Front Range’s application in this case (“Application”) is dismissed with prejudice. 3. In the event that the Commission remands the Application to
the Hearing Officer and/or does not dismiss the Application, a 10-day hearing will be conducted before the Hearing Officer to begin on March 2, 2015 or March 9, 2015, as directed by