SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: February 18, 2015 4:59 PM 2 East 14th Avenue FILING ID: D6FEFE546AOFB Appeal from the District Court Water Division 2, Case No. 2009CW142 Water Division 1, Case No. 2009CW272 Water Division 5, Case No. 2009CW186 Opposers-Appellants: GRAND VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, ORCHARD MESA IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND UTE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE UTE WATER ACTIVITY COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION BASALT WATER A court Use only A. CONSERVANCY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EAGLE BOARD OF Case N03 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN 2014SA303 DICK WOLFE, P.E., STATE DAVID NETTLES, P.E., DIVISION ENGINEER FOR WATER DIVISION 1; STEVE WITTE, P.E., DIVISION ENGINEER FOR WATER DIVISION 2, AND ALAN MARTELLARO, P.E., DIVISION ENGINEER FOR WATER DIVISION 5; V. Applicant?Appellee: INC. a Colorado corporation. Attorneys for Opposer-Appellee, the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners: Patricia L. Wells, General Counsel Casey S. Funk, No. 11638* Mary J. Brennan, No. 12734 Daniel J. Arnold, No. 35458 James M. Wittler, No. 44050 Address: 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204-3412 Phone Number: 303-628-6460 Fax Number: 303-628-6478 E-mail: casev.fi?ik??denverwater.org danici.atnol.d@denverwater.org *Counsel of Record ANSWER BRIEF OF CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules. Speci?cally, the undersigned certi?es that: The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g). Choose one: It contains words. IZI It does not exceed 30 pages. The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k). DFor the party raising the issue: It contains under a separate heading (1) a concise statement of the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to authority; and (2) a citation to the precise location in the record (R. not to an entire document, where the issue was raised and ruled on. lZlFor the party responding to the issue: It contains, under a separate heading, a statement of whether such party agrees With the opponent?s statements concerning the standard of review and preservation for appeal, and if not, Why not. Ell acknowledge that my brief may be stricken if it fails to comply with any of the requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32. 3/ Casey S. unk Signature of attorney or party TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .. 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .. 1 A. Course of Proceedings Below. .. 1 B. Denver Water?s Interest in This Appeal. .. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .. 4 IV. ARGUMENT .. 5 A. Standard of Review .. 5 B. It is Improper for Grand County to Attach Denver Water?s Decrees. .. 6 C. A Decree Specifying Places of Storage of Imported Water in The Basin of Use Is Unnecessary. .. 8 D. Grand County Misconstrues the Court?s Holding Regarding the Authority of the Gar?eld County District Court to Award Priorities in the Arkansas River Basin .. 12 V. CONCLUSION .. 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water Sanitation Dist. v. City County of Denver, 928 P.2d 1254 (C010. 1996) .. 3 Bd. of County Comm ?rs of the County of Arapahoe v. Denver Bd. of Water Comm ?rs, 718 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1986) .. 2 Buffalo Park Dev. Co. v. Mountain Mut. Reservoir Co., 195 P.3d 674 (Colo. 2008) .. 6 Burlington Ditch Reservoir Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. 256 P.3d 645 (Colo. 2011) .. 6, 11 Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Greeley, 147 P.3d 9 (C010. 2006) .. 10 City County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist, 276 P.2d 992 (Colo. 1954) .. 3 City County of Denver v. Sheri?, 96 P.2d 836 (Colo. 1939) .. 3 City County of Denver v. City ofEnglewood, 304 P.3d 1160 (C010. 2013) .. 9 City County of Denver v. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist, 696 P.2d 730 (Colo. 1985) .. 2 City County of Denver v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co. 506 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1972) .. 8 City of Arvada v. City County of Denver, 663 P.2d 611 (Colo. 1983) .. 3 City of Florence v. Bd. of Waterworks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d 148 (Colo. 5, 8 City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrig. Co., 926 P.2d 1 (C010. 1996) .. 8, 9 Comrie v. Sweet, 225 P. 214 (Colo. 1924) .. 8 Dallas Creek Water Company v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27 (C010. 1997) .. 10 Gibbs v. Wolf Land Co., 856 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1993) .. 6 Gorman v. Tucker, 961 P. 2d 1126 (C010. 1998) .. 6 High Plains A LLC v. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist, 120 P.3d 710 (Colo. 2005) .. 10 ii Orchard City Irrig. Dist. v. Whitten, 361 P.2d 130 (Colo. 1961) .. 5 Paul v. Marty, 211 P. 667 (Colo. 1922) .. 7 Ready Mxed Concrete Co. v. Farmers Reservoir Irrig. Co., 115 P.3d 638 (Colo. 2005) ..5 Ripley 12. Park Center Land Water Co., 90 P. 75 (C010. 1907) .. 8 State Dep ?t of Natural Res, Div. of Wildlife v. Ogburn, 570 P.2d 4, 5 (C010. 1977) .. 11 Water Supply Storage Co. v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1987) .. 8 Widefield Water Sanitation District v. Witte, 340 P.3d 1118, (Colo. 2014) .. 10 Statutes Act ofFeb. 23, 1881, 1881 Colo. Sess. Laws 142, codi?ed at 3807 Mills Stat. Ann. (1930) .. 7, 12 Act oprr. 11, 1903, ch. 130, 1903 Colo. Sess. Laws 297, codi?ed at 3803 Mills Stat. Ann. (1930) .. 7, 12 Act oprr. 19, 1943, ch. 190, 2, 1943 Colo. Sess. Laws 613, codi?ed at C.R.S. ?148-9?2 (1963) .. l2 C.R.S. 31?35-402 .. 2 C.R.S. ?148-9-2 (1963) .. 12 C.R.S. 37-82-106 .. .. 8, 9 Denver, Colo., City Charter Art. .. 2 Law Review Articles Casey S. Funk, Basic Storage 10], 9 Denv. U. Water L. Rev. 519, 524 (2006) .. 4 Constitutional Provisions Colo. Const. art. XX, 1 .. 2 C010. Const. art. XX, 6 .. 2 1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Denver Water wishes to address the following issue: 1. Did the Water Court properly conclude that storage in the Arkansas River basin of foreign water imported under the Bule Ivanhoe System water rights decreed in CA. 2621 by the Garfield County District Court was lawful? II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Course of Proceedings Below. Denver Water adopts the Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts set forth in the Answer Brief ?led by Appellee, Busk?Ivanhoe, Inc. (?Appellee?). B. Denver Water?s Interest in This Appeal. Opposer-Appellee, City and County of Denver acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners, (?Denver Water?) filed a statement of opposition to the Busk Ivanhoe application in Water Division 1, Case No. 2009CW272 (R. at 631)1 to monitor the claims and defenses made by the Appellee as well as the parties that opposed the application. Denver Water stipulated to a proposed decree (R. at 2426) and did not participate at trial. Denver Water chose to participate in 1 References to the record identify the relevant . page number of the relevant record Clerk?s record is designated as R. at [page number], exhibits are designated as EX. at [page number] and trial transcripts are designated as Tr. at [page number]: [lines]. 1 this appeal when (1) Grand County submitted Denver Water?s water right decrees as attachments to its amicus brief, thus potentially subjecting Denver Water?s decrees to improper and unwarranted interpretation; and (2) when the opposers contested the ability of an importer of foreign water to store water after direct diversion through a tunnel - a long standing practice of many importers. Denver Water is a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. Colo. Const. art. XX, 1 and 6; City County of Denver v. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist, 696 P.2d 730, 740 (Colo. 1985). Denver Water derives its authority and power to operate a water supply system under the state constitution, the Denver City Charter and provisions of state law. Colorado Const. art. XX, 1 and 6; Denver, Colo., City Charter Art. C.R.S. 31?35-402. Pursuant to the Denver City Charter, Denver Water provides treated and raw water for all uses and purposes necessary for the full development of land within the City and County of Denver. Denver Charter ?10.1.l. Pursuant to perpetual water service agreements, Denver Water serves as the water utility for other governmental entities outside the City and County of Denver, but within Denver Water?s service area. Denver Water provides treated and raw water necessary to serve the full development of all land within its service area. Bd. of County Comm ?rs of the County of Arapahoe 12. Denver Bd. of Water Comm ?rs, 718 P.2d 235, 237 (Colo. 1986). Denver Water 2 also has commitments to provide nearly 68,000 acre feet of treated and raw water to customers outside its service area under perpetual ?xed amount contracts. See e. g, City of Arvada v. City County of Denver, 663 P.2d 611, 612?613 (Colo. 1983) Denver Water has ?devoted itself to securing high quality water supplies from the Fraser, Williams Fork, and Blue River systems.? Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water Sanitation Dist. 12. City County of Denver, 928 P.2d 1254, 1259 (Colo. 1996); see also City County of Denver v. Sheriff, 96 P.2d 836, 838 (Colo. 1939); City County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist, 276 P.2d 992, 996-997 (Colo. 1954). Storage is essential in the basin of use to ultimately apply these high quality Colorado River waters diverted from Water District No. 36 (Blue River basin)?, Water District 51 (Williams Fork and Fraser River basins)3 to bene?cial use without waste. Storage in the basin of use is 2 Until the adoption of the 1969 Act replaced them with larger ?water divisions,? Colorado was divided into seventy ?water districts.? See article 13 of chapter 148, 7 C.R.S. (1963) (repealed 1969). Water District No. 36 consisted of ?all the lands irrigated from water taken from the Blue river and its tributaries.? 148?13?37, 7 C.R.S. (1963) (repealed 1969). 3 Water District No. 51 consisted of ?all lands irrigated by water taken form the Grand river above the mouth of the Blue river, and from the streams draining into the said portion of the Grand river, except the Muddy and Troublesome creeks and the streams draining into the said creeks. 148?13-51, 7 C.R.S. (1963) (repealed 1969) 3 required to regulate deliveries to treatment plants, maximize the use of imported waters either directly or by exchange and maintain adequate storage reserves in times of drought. Casey S. Funk, Basic Storage 101, 9 Denv. U. Water L. Rev. 519, 524 (2006). Requiring direct use of imported waters from tunnels to treatment plant without storage would lead to waste and unnecessary increases in treatment costs, adversely affect the yield from these water rights, impair the ability to maximize bene?cial use, and compromise existing agreements with West Slope entities, including Grand County, that have been premised on the ability of Denver Water to move water around in its system and store direct importations of water from Colorado River sources in any of its east slope storage facilities. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT It does not matter whether a decree speci?cally identifies storage in the basin of use of the imported foreign water. As a matter of law, one of the inherent characteristics of imported foreign water is that it can be regulated in the basin of use because appropriations in the basin of use have no rights to this foreign water. Once imported, the foreign water can be stored wherever and applied to bene?cial use; provided that, for an irrigation use as in the case of CA. 2621, the importer does not enlarge use of the water by irrigating more lands than contemplated. Water can be stored under a storage priority in the basin of origin and then 4 delivered through a tunnel into the basin of use. Likewise, water can be diverted directly in priority, without being stored, through a tunnel into the basin of use. In both cases, once the foreign water is in the basin of use, it can be stored before it is delivered for its ultimate bene?cial use because it is foreign water and does not affect other appropriators? rights in the basin of use. Because foreign water has traditionally been treated differently from native water to promote the efficient use of foreign water, the direct ?ow nature of the right applies to the diversion through the tunnel and not ..to the use or successive use of the foreign water in the basin of use. City of Florence v. Bd. of Watemorks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d 148, 154 (Colo. 1990) IV. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review Denver Water agrees that de novo is the standard of review of the Water Court?s legal conclusions and interpretations of prior decrees. Ready Mixed Concrete Co. v. Farmers Reservoir Irrig. Co., 115 P.3d 638, 642 (Colo. 2005) (holding that judicial construction of a water decree and the accompanying referee?s report is a matter of law reviewed de novo) (citing Orchard City Irrig. Dist. v. Whitterz, 361 P.2d 130, 133 (Colo. 1961)). The water court has authority to determine a prior decree?s setting, intent, meaning and effect when ascertaining the existence of an undecreed enlargement of a decreed water right. Burlington Ditch Reservoir Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist, 256 P.3d 645, 660 (Colo. 2011). As to reviewing whether the Applicant expanded its use under the C.A. 2621 Decree, this Court should accept the water court's factual ?ndings unless they are so clearly erroneous as to ?nd no support in the record. Bu?alo Park Dev. Co. v. Mountain Mat. Reservoir Co., 195 P.3d 674, 683 (Colo. 2008). The suf?ciency, probative effect, weight of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom are for the water court to determine; this Court should not disturb them on appeal. Gibbs v. Wolf Land Co., 856 P.2d 798, 801 (Colo. 1993). B. It is ImprOper for Grand County to Attach Denver Water?s Decrees. Grand County attached copies of Denver Water?s decrees to its amicus brief to contradict the Water Court?s conclusion that the Gar?eld District Court did not list places of storage outside its district because of jurisdictional concerns. However, Denver Water?s decrees were not considered by the Water Court4; and therefore, are outside the record and should not be considered on appeal. Gorman v. ticker, 961 P.2d 1126, 1131 (Colo. 1998) (explaining that issues raised only by 4 In fact, upon objection by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, evidence of other transmountain diversions were excluded by the Water Court because the other transmountain diversions were not relied upon in formulating the expert?s opinion and were not relevant. July 23, 2013, Minute Order, R. at 4144; Tr. I at 234213 245:3. 6 amicus curiae and not by the parties will not be considered by appellate court); v. Banking Bd. of 530 P.2d 1306, 1307 (Colo. 1974) (providing that: appellate court is not at liberty to consider matters outside the record presented to it in its determination of any cause?); Paul v. Marty, 211 P. 667, 668 (Colo. 1922) (Appellate court cannot look at matters not in the record to sustain a judgment). This matter is limited to the meaning and intent of the Busk?Ivanhoe Decree entered in CA. 2621 and not Denver Water?s decrees entered by different courts under different adjudication acts, which have no bearing on the decree entered in CA. 2621. Denver Water?s Blue River Decree (CA. 1805 (for purposes of irrigation/ 1806 for purposes other than irrigation)) and Williams Fork Extension Decree (CA. 1430) were not adjudicated under the same adjudication act as the Busk-lvanhoe decree. Only Denver Water?s Williams Fork and Fraser River Decrees (CA. 657) were adjudicated under the 1903 Adjudication Act for nonuirrigation purposes, 3803 Mills Stat. Ann. (1930), which followed the 1881 Adjudication'Act procedures. 3807 Mills Stat. Ann. (1930). Furthermore, simply because Denver Water listed these places of East Slope storage does not mean that (1) Denver Water was required to do so, (2) the Claimant in CA. 2621 was required to do so, or (3) the omission of east slope places of storage precludes storage of imported foreign water. C. A Decree Specifying Places of Storage of Imported Water in The Basin of Use Is Unnecessary. The law of imported foreign water derived from principles associated with developed water and the enactment of C.R.S. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrig. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 66, n. 59 (C010. 1996) (citing Ripley 12. Park Center Land Water Co., 90 P. 75 (C010. 1907)); See generally Comrie v. Sweet, 225 P. 214 (Colo. 1924). The similarity between developed water and imported foreign water was recognized in City &County of Denver v. Fulton Irri gating Ditch Co., 506 P.2d 144, 146 (Colo. 1972) and subsequently in City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrig. Co. This court also recognized the special characteristics of imported foreign water in City of Florence v. Bd. of Waterworks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d at 153? 54, and later in Water Supply Storage Co. v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680, 685 (Colo. 1987). From these cases, certain principles have evolved defining the special characteristics of imported foreign waters. These characteristics of imported foreign water are: 1) Importers of foreign water are accorded Wide latitude as to the use and 5 ?Whenever an appropriator has lawfully introduced foreign water into a stream system from an unconnected stream system, such appropriator may make a succession of uses of such water by exchange or otherwise to the extent that its volume can be distinguished from the volume of the streams into which it is introduced.? disposal of the appropriated water. Florence, 793 P.2d at 154. 2) A right to this water in the producer [importer] is independent of the priority system already in place on the stream. Bijou, 926 P.user of imported foreign water is not required to maintain return ?ows from the use of imported foreign water under section C.R.S. 37?82? 106(1). Bijou, 926 P.2d at 72. 4) appropriators have no vested right to a continuance of importation of foreign water, which another has brought to the watershed. Id. at 67. 5) Junior water users have no legal expectation with respect to imported reusable water. Id. at 68. 6) Water users on the stream into which an appropriator imports transmountain water have no legal rights to the volume of water attributable to the transmountain diversion absent some other applicable legal mechanism, such as an exchange. City dis County of Denver v. City ofEnglewood, 304 P.3d 1160, 1166 (Colo. 2013). The following additional principles of law apply to whether storage of imported foreign water caused an enlargement: 7) "Its priority, location of diversion at the source of supply, and amount of water for application to bene?cial uses are the essential elements of the water right." Dallas Creek Water Company v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27, 38 (C010. 1997). 8) Each water right has a situs identi?ed by the point of the diversion and the place to which the water is delivered for actual bene?cial use. High Plains A LLC v. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist, 120 P.3d 710, 716-717 (Colo. 2005). A water right requires both an appropriator and a place where the appropriation is put to actual bene?cial use. Id. 9) A water right decreed for irrigation purposes cannot lawfully be enlarged beyond the amount of water necessary to irrigate the lands for which the appropriation was made. Central Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. 12. City of Greeley, 147 P.3d 9, 14 (C010. 2006); see also Widefielal Water Sanitation District v. Witte, 340 P.3d 1118 (Colo. 2014). Applying these principles to the issue presented, the decree in CA. 2621 describes the points of diversion and the place to which the water is delivered for actual bene?cial use. However, once foreign water is physically diverted into the basin of use, the water may be stored at any location because no priority attaches to 10 a particular place of storage. This water can then be delivered or exchanged to the place of use. Because water users in the basin of use have no legal rights to any volume of foreign water attributable to the transmountain diversion, it makes no difference if the water is diverted directly through the tunnel and then stored, where the foreign water is stored, or when the foreign water is used by the importer because no water user of native water is entitled to return ?ows from such use of foreign water. See, State Dep of Natural Res, Div. of Wildlife v. Ogbum, 570 P.2d 4, 5 (C010. 1977). As to an alleged enlargement by the importer under the decree in the basin of origin, if the storage supplements the supply of water to the place of use, and the amount of acreage under the original appropriation for irrigation has not been enlarged, then the precise location of that storage does not matter. Therefore, it does not matter if or where imported foreign water is stored in the basin of use; provided that, such storage does not cause an expansion of the contemplated irrigation use the storage of imported water in the basin of use did not cause the claimant to irrigate more lands than decreed). Here, the water court evaluated the testimony and evidence, and determined the lands upon which the water was used had not been expanded. R. at 4366, 1i58.c. This Court should accept the water court?s factual ?ndings unless they are so clearly erroneous as to 11 ?nd no support in the record. Burlington Ditch, 256 P.3d at 660. D. Grand County Misconstrues the Court?s Holding Regarding the Authority of the Gar?eld County District Court to Award Priorities in the Arkansas River Basin. The water court interpreted the Adjudication Act of 1881 codi?ed at Section 3807, Mills Ann. Stat. (1930) as providing a reason, in part, why the Gar?eld County District court did not list places of storage in the Arkansas. The Water Court concluded that the Gar?eld County District COurt did not have the authority to adjudicate a priority for storage of water in an entirely separate basin. As stated by the Water Court, the absence of a speci?c reference in the ?ndings of fact of an intent to store does not determine the appropriator?s intent to store or preclude storage. Simply because other courts have, in CA. 65 7,6 CA. 1806,7 and CA. 1430,8 identi?ed places of storage in the basin of use does not mean the omission to describe speci?c places of storage under CA. 2621 makes storage in the basin of use unlawful. The Water Court did further investigation and determined that (1) the administrative practice of the state water of?cial allowed storage of foreign water (R. at 4364, 1151); (2) it was the common practice at the time to permit 6 Act of Apr. 11, 1903, ch. 130, 1903 C010. Sess. Laws 297, 297 (codi?ed at 3803 Mills Stat. Ann. (1930)). 7 Act oprr. 19, 1943, ch. 190, 2, 1943 C010. Sess. Laws 613, 614 (codi?ed at C.R.S. ?148~9~2 (1963)). 8 Id. 12 storage of imported foreign water (R. at 43 64, 152); (3) the CA. 2621 Decree and the supporting pleadings evidenced a need for supplemental water in the late irrigation season that were commonly supplied through storage (R. at 43 64, 153); and (4) storage in the Arkansas basin did not cause the claimant to irrigate more lands than decreed (R. at 4364, 1154). Therefore, the Court Should uphold the Water Court?s ?ndings and determinations that storage under CA. 2621 in the Arkansas basin was proper. V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Denver Water respectfully requests this Court to af?rm the Water Court?s Judgment and Decree. Dated this 17th day of February, 2015. PATRICIA L. WELLS, General Counsel CASEY S. FUNK, No. 11638 MARY J. BRENNAN, No. 12734 DANIEL J. ARNOLD, No. 35458 JAMES M. VVITTLER, NO. 44050 ilecl pursuant to Rule 121 . A duly signed original is onfile at Denver Water Department, Legal Division By: 8/ Casey S. Funk Attorneys for Opposer-Appellee, the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this Egay of February 2015, a true and correct copy of the ANSWER BRIEF OF CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS was ?led and served Via ICCES E-FILING to the following: Alan Martellaro, RE, Division Engineer For Water Division 5 Opposer- Katherine Abbott Daniels Appellant Ryan Paul Louis Benington BasaltWater iO'ppos'er-I' .- Christopher'LGeigerAppellant .Diavid'CarlHallford i - 33-; - ScottiAGrosscl'm Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County Opposer- Christopher Geiger Appellant David Carl Hallford Scott A Grosscup Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Opposer? Anne D. Bensard' Appellant I Jennifer M. Dilalla . . Timothy James Beaten Busk-ivanhoe, Inc., A Colorado Corporation Applicant? Austin Hamre Appellee John Marshall Dingess Ryan P. McLane Centennial Water And Sanitation District Opposer Veronica A. Sperling Colorado River Water Conservation District Oppose?r? I Christopher Geiger . - . Appellant David Carl Hallford . i Scott A Grosscup David L. Nettles, P.E., Division Engineer For Water Division 1 Opposer- Katherine Abbott Daniels Appellant Ryan Paul Louis Benington 14 Dick - Appellant 'KatherineAhbott Daniels Ryan? . 7 "Paul Louis BeningtOni' Grand County Board Of County Commissioners Davide. Taussigf?: Aimi?us Gilda: 'M-itra'MariePernberton Grand Valley Water Users Association Opposer- Kirsten Marie Kurath Appellant Mark Allen Hermundstad High Line'CanaliCOmpany Oppo's'er-Appellee: ._R_ohe_rt Frederick Krassa Orchard Mesa Irrigation District Opposer? Kirsten Marie Kurath Appellant Mark Allen Hermundstad Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Opposer? Spencer W. Williams Appellant Stephen Hunter Leonhardt Steve Witte, P.E., Division Engineer For Water Division 2 Opposer- Katherine Abbott Daniels Appellant Ryan Paul Louis Benington Ute Water 'C'tiniservanICy DiStrict ActingEBy And Through the UteiWater 0ppoiSer-_ i Kirsten Marie Hath. Activity Enterprise iiAppellant. - Mark Allen He ndstad LCin/Fiaser I E??led per C.R.C.P Rule 21 with a duly signed copy on ?led at the Denver Water Department, Legal Division 15'