DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
109 Eighth Street, Suite 104
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-5075

             
  
                       
                          
   
       !     " #"  $ 

CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR
WATER RIGHTS OF:
THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS
IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Attorneys for the Colorado Water
Conservation Board:
CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, Attorney General
SUSAN J. SCHNEIDER, Attorney Reg. #19961*
First Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources & Environment Section
Office of the Colorado Attorney General
1300 Broadway, 7th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Phone Number: (720) 508-6311
Email Address: susan.schneider@state.co.us
*Counsel of Record

COURT USE ONLY
Case No. 2013CW3109
Water Div. 5

COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD’S AMENDED
COMPREHENSIVE FINDINGS OF FACT
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”) by and through its
undersigned counsel hereby reports that on July 16, 2015 the CWCB, after
deliberation in a public meeting, by a vote of 8 to 1 adopted the following
abbreviated Findings of Fact:
1. The adjudication and administration of the RICDs will materially
impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive
beneficial use its compact entitlements;

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 2
2. The proposed RICDs will not affect the natural environment that
instream flow (ISF) water rights protect; and
3. The adjudication and administration of the RICDs, in the amounts
claimed, will not promote maximum utilization of the waters of the
State.
The Board also by a vote of 8 to 1 adopted the following comprehensive Findings of
Fact:
I.
Considering the specific amounts and activities as claimed in the
application and proposed decree, and after deliberation in a public meeting held in
conjunction with the regularly scheduled Board meeting held on July 15-16, 2015,
in Ignacio, Colorado, the Board makes the following findings about the three
proposed Recreational In-Channel Diversions (RICDs):
a.
The Board must consider whether the adjudication and administration
of the proposed RICDs would materially impair the ability of Colorado to fully
develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. The
Board makes the finding that there remains unallocated Colorado River compact
apportionment available for consumptive beneficial use within Colorado. In
addition, the Board finds that the adjudication and administration of the proposed
RICDs, for the flow amounts and time periods specified in the proposed decree,
dated June 30, 2015, will materially impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop
and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements and will have an
impact on the manner, cost, and timing of such development. The Board makes the
following specific findings about the proposed RICDs for the flow amounts and time
periods claimed:
Period
April 1 - June 7
June 8 - July 23
June 30 - July 6 (5 days)*
July 24 - Sept 30

Flow Rate (cfs)
1250
2500
4000
1250

*The 4,000 cfs event flow rate is further limited to no more than 5 continuous days between June 30
and July 6

i.
There remains unappropriated water that Colorado could place to
consumptive beneficial use upstream of the proposed RICD reaches. The proposed
RICDs will impair Colorado’s ability to fully develop and place to consumptive
beneficial use Colorado’s compact entitlements under the Colorado River compact,
the Upper Colorado River Basin compact, and the associated “Law of the River”

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 3
upstream of the proposed RICDs. The Applicant is seeking less than 50% of the
total average historic volume of stream flows; therefore, the requirements of section
37-92-305(13)(f) C.R.S. (2014) do not apply. The proposed decree, dated June 30,
2015, also provides that the City of Glenwood Springs cannot call for water under
the RICDs water right if such call will not produce at least 500 cubic feet per second
(cfs) at the control structures. Additionally, the City of Glenwood Springs has
limited its claimed amounts to the period between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. each day,
except during competitive events when these hours may be extended to between
6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight each day. Additionally, the Board finds that the
following italicized conditions agreed to by the Applicant would be acceptable
provisions provided that the conditions are also included in the final decree
conditions; however, even with these provisions, the proposed RICD application
significantly impacts Colorado’s ability to develop its compact entitlements:
“11.d. Non-Opposition. Glenwood Springs shall not use the RICD Water
Rights as a basis to oppose any future application in the Water Court for
Water Division 5 that proposes future development of the waters of the
Colorado River or its tributaries upstream of the RICD Water Rights
(including applications to confirm new water rights, changes of water rights,
and/or for approval of plans for augmentation) where the proposed diversion
is less than 1,000 acre-feet per year. Glenwood Springs also shall not use the
RICD Water Rights as a basis to oppose any water rights applications filed to
implement the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement effective September 26,
2013 (“CRCA”), or the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, Colorado River Water Conservation
District, Climax Molybdenum Company, and the Vail Consortium (“Eagle
River MOU”), provided that the contemplated drafts and yields of such water
rights filings do not exceed the contemplated drafts or yields specified in these
agreements. However, unless contrary to other provisions of this decree or
related stipulations or agreements, or out-of-priority diversions are replaced in
time and amount through an exchange, plan for augmentation or substitute
water supply plan approved in the future, all water rights junior in priority to
the RICD Water Rights may be subject to curtailment by a call for water under
the RICD Water Rights, and nothing herein shall prohibit Glenwood Springs
from requesting water rights administration by the State or Division
Engineers or from filing statements of opposition for the purpose of protecting
water rights other than the RICD Water Rights.
11.e. CRCA. Glenwood Springs and the CWCB agree to cooperate and
coordinate in good faith concerning the future operation of the RICD Water
Rights and future water rights appropriated for the “Upper Colorado
Cooperative Project”, which is defined by the CRCA as “a water supply project

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 4
located on the West Slope, agreed to by Denver Water and the signatories to
this Agreement, and designed to produce water for use on the East and West
Slopes, including at least 20,000 acre-feet of average annual diversions for use
on the East Slope.
11.f. River Administration. In operating the RICD Water Rights, Glenwood
Springs will regularly communicate with the Colorado River Water
Conservation District (the “River District”) concerning river conditions and
water rights administration within Water Division No. 5, and will make
reasonable efforts to operate the RICD Water Rights with due consideration of
the water supply, water exchange, and augmentation needs of the River
District, and its constituents, including but not limited to beneficiaries of the
Green Mountain Historic Users Pool, in a manner consistent with the River
District’s statutory obligations in a manner consistent with the River District’s
statutory obligations regarding the development and protection of water
resources for the benefit of its constituents. Glenwood Springs will at all times
operate the RICD Water Rights in recognition of prior decrees and
agreements.”
11.g. For purposes of this Section 11.g., the following determinations shall
apply:
i.
The term “New Water Project” shall mean any single water project
(which may include storage projects or storage projects with direct flow
components) or combination of multiple water projects that: (a) was not
constructed or otherwise in operation as of December 31, 2013; (b) diverts or
stores water from points that are located upstream of the RICD Water Rights;
and (c) is decreed and used for beneficial use within Water Division 5. New
Water Projects may include water projects that utilize decreed water rights
that are either senior or junior in administrative priority to the RICD Water
Rights.
ii.
The term “Firm Yield” shall mean the average annual yield of a New
Water Project (based on a 3-year running average basis), as determined by the
River District in consultation with Glenwood Springs.
iii.
The term “Cumulative Firm Yield” shall mean the combined average
annual yield of all New Water Projects (based on a 3-year running average
basis), as determined by the River District in consultation with Glenwood
Springs.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 5
iv.
The term “Junior Protected Yield” shall mean the portion of the
Cumulative Firm Yield supplied by water rights junior to the RICD Water
Rights, up to a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet minus the Cumulative Firm
Yield of New Water Projects supplied by water rights senior to the RICD Water
Rights.
Glenwood Springs shall consult with the River District on or prior to May
20th of each year regarding the implementation of this Section 11.i. If this
consultation process determines that, during the period from June 8 to July 23
of that year, Glenwood Springs’ placement of a call on the Colorado River for
the RICD Water Rights in excess of 1,250 c.f.s. would likely impair the Junior
Protected Yield, then the RICD Water Rights shall be deemed satisfied by
calling, in order of priority, only those water rights necessary to produce an
administrative flow rate of 1,250 c.f.s. (as measured at the single
measurement point described below in Section 23) from June 8 to July 23 of
that year, or such portion of that period that is determined necessary to satisfy
the Junior Protected Yield. This Section is intended to alleviate potential
conflicts between the future operation of the RICD Water Rights and New
Water Projects, but shall not be construed to require Glenwood Springs to
reduce a call in the event that the Junior Protected Yield can be achieved by:
(1) diverting water outside of the June 8 to July 23 time period each year; or
(2) exercising water rights that are senior to the RICD Water Rights.
ii.
The Board finds that the distance of the proposed RICDs to the State
line is considerable, but in light of other concerns described below, the proposed
RICD application materially impairs Colorado’s ability to develop its compact
entitlements.
iii.
The proposed RICDs are in close proximity to potentially suitable
upstream points of diversion and upstream storage that could be utilized by those
who would place the water to consumptive beneficial use. The Board finds that the
addition of the proposed RICDs will materially impair the ability to divert and place
to consumptive beneficial use water upstream of the proposed RICDs for currently
undecreed uses. Thus, the proposed RICDs will materially impair the ability of the
State of Colorado to consumptively use its compact entitlements.
iv.
The Board finds that suitable downstream points of diversion or
storage for consumptive beneficial use exist before the water leaves the State;
however, in light of other concerns, the proposed RICD application significantly
impacts Colorado’s ability to develop its compact entitlements.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 6
v.
Exchange opportunities within the State may be adversely impacted by
the existence of the proposed RICDs. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed
RICDs will materially impair the ability of the State of Colorado to fully develop
and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements.
vi.
The Colorado River basin is over-appropriated, or "water critical,” in
certain locations within the basin during the RICD season and the proposed RICDs
will further exacerbate these water shortages. Therefore, the Board finds that the
proposed RICDs will materially impair Colorado's ability to fully develop and place
to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements.
vii.
In the case of compact curtailment under the “Law of the River,” it
may be necessary to exchange water through the proposed RICD reaches in order
for the beneficiaries of post-compact water rights to realize necessary beneficial use
of water yielded from pre-compact water rights or other water sources not affected
by compact administration. Such exchanges could allow benefitted post-compact
water rights to continue to divert during a compact curtailment. The Board finds
that the following italicized condition would be an acceptable provision for any
proposed decree to reduce the impacts of the RICDs on Colorado’s ability to fully use
its compact entitlements. Despite this language, in light of other concerns, the
proposed RICD application significantly impacts Colorado’s ability to develop its
compact entitlements:
“11.a. During any period identified by the Upper Colorado River Commission
in a finding issued pursuant to Article VIII(d)(8) of the Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact of 1948 for curtailment of Colorado River basin water uses
within Colorado, which the State of Colorado has agreed to implement in a
manner that impacts water diversions within Water Division 5, the RICD
Water Rights decreed herein will be administered in accordance with the
compact curtailment rules adopted by the State Engineer or such other state
agency as may, in the future, be empowered to adopt rules or otherwise act to
assure compliance with interstate water compacts that are then in effect, if
any, including any such rules intended to avoid, delay, or limit the severity of
such a compact curtailment. If no such compact curtailment rules are then in
effect, Glenwood Springs shall not place a call for the RICD Water Rights
decreed herein during the period that implementation of an Article VIII(d)(8)
curtailment order affects water diversions in Water Division No. 5, unless the
State Engineer or Division Engineer determines that exercise of all or part of
the RICD Water Rights will not affect Colorado’s ability to comply with the
Compact. Otherwise, the RICD Water Rights decreed herein shall be
administered in accordance with this Decree and Colorado law.”

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 7
viii. The RICDs will likely shield waters from consumptive uses that would
otherwise be available under the Colorado River Compacts. Thus, the proposed
RICDs will materially impair the ability of the State of Colorado to consumptively
use its compact entitlements.
ix.
The Board finds that beneficial consumptive water use opportunities
exist upstream of the RICDs that would be impaired by the RICDs. Thus, the
proposed RICDs will materially impair the ability of the State of Colorado to
consumptively use its compact entitlements.
x.
The Applicant has not included adequate provisions in the proposed
decree for reducing or canceling the RICDs at this time. Thus, the proposed RICDs
will materially impair the ability of the State of Colorado to consumptively use its
compact entitlements.
b.
The Board must consider whether the exercise of the proposed RICDs
will cause material injury to existing instream flow (ISF) water rights. The
proposed RICD will not cause material injury to existing instream flow water
rights. The Board makes the following specific findings about the proposed RICDs
regarding the potential for material injury to existing ISF water rights:
i.
There are currently no existing ISF water rights held by the CWCB in
the Colorado River in the proposed RICD reach. However, ISF water rights exist in
the 15-mile Reach above Grand Junction, significantly downstream (approximately
75 miles downstream) of the proposed RICD reach. This instream flow water right
is for July 1 through September 30 of each year, for decreed rates lower than the
rates sought by the RICD. As such, the proposed RICD will not cause material
injury to existing ISF water rights.
ii.
The Board finds that the timing and duration of the RICDs will not
negatively impact the natural environment for which the 15-mile Reach ISF was
decreed and thereby cause material injury to existing ISF water rights.
iii.
The Board finds that the administration of the RICD would not
negatively impact the natural environment for which the ISF was decreed and
thereby cause material injury to existing ISF water rights.
iv.
The Board finds that the construction of the RICD white water park is
not likely to cause material injury to the 15-mile Reach ISF or the natural
environment for which the ISF was decreed.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 8
c.
The Board must determine whether the adjudication and
administration of the proposed RICDs, in the amounts claimed, would promote
maximum utilization of the waters of the State. The Board finds that the proposed
RICDs, in the amounts claimed, do not promote the maximum utilization of the
waters of the State. In addition, the Board makes the following specific findings
about the proposed RICDs regarding maximum utilization of waters of the State:
i.
The Board finds that there are probable future upstream junior
appropriations for direct diversion or storage that may be adversely affected. The
Board finds that the proposed RICDs will prohibit upstream junior appropriations
for direct diversion and storage and, therefore, will materially impair maximum
utilization of the waters of the State. Given the proximity of other water rights, the
Applicant’s RICDs expand the potential for calls that will curtail upstream junior
appropriators. Thus, the proposed RICDs would not promote maximum utilization
of the waters of the State.
ii.
The Board finds that the proposed RICD appropriations, for the flow
amounts sought and the time periods specified, will inhibit maximum utilization by
restricting probable future changes, transfers, or exchanges of water rights from
points of diversion or storage downstream of the reach affected by the proposed
RICDs to points upstream of or within the reach affected by the proposed RICDs.
Therefore, the Board finds that the opportunity to allow future changes, transfers,
and exchanges of water from points located downstream of the proposed RICDs to
points located upstream of the proposed RICDs will be unduly impacted, thereby
preventing maximum utilization of the waters of the State.
iii.
The Board finds that the Applicant intends to comply with appropriate
federal policies, regulations and laws. However, in light of other concerns, the
proposed RICDs will materially impair maximum utilization of the waters of the
State.
iv.
The Board finds that the proposed RICD appropriations do not
promote maximum utilization of Colorado’s water resources because, by claiming
flow rates that are not consistent with flow rates appropriated by nearby water
rights, the Applicant has not attempted to minimize its call upon the river and
avoid waste. Further, the Board finds that there is not a reasonable and efficient
means proposed by the Applicant to use, divert, capture and control the water
diverted through the RICDs and they will not minimize the call upon the river and
avoid waste. Therefore, the RICDs will materially impair maximum utilization of
the waters of the State.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 9
v.
The Board finds that there is not a reasonable demand for the
recreational activities for portions of the time periods requested at the requested
flow rates claimed in the proposed decree, dated June 30, 2015. Thus, the proposed
RICD application will materially impair maximum utilization of the waters of the
State.
vi.
The Board finds that the proposed decree, dated June 30, 2015, does
have appropriate limitations on the time of day, days per period, and the time of
year during which the proposed RICDs would be exercised. However, in light of
other concerns, the proposed RICDs will materially impair maximum utilization of
the waters of the State.
vii.
The Board finds that the depths and individual flow rates of the
proposed RICDs do not promote maximum utilization for flow amounts sought for
the individual time periods because the Applicant is seeking flow rates that would
exacerbate the call on the Colorado River and pull water down through the RICD
reaches.
viii. The Board finds that the frequency and duration of the requested
amounts of water for the proposed RICDs for the requested periods do not promote
maximum utilization of waters of the State.
ix.
The Board finds that there will likely be an economic benefit from the
existence of the proposed RICDs. However, in light of other concerns, the proposed
RICDs will materially impair maximum utilization of the waters of the State.
x.
The Board finds that the proposed RICDs, to varying degrees, may
have detrimental effects on several environmental aspects. Additionally, the Board
finds that the following italicized condition proposed by the Applicant would be an
acceptable provision provided that the condition is also included in the final decree
conditions; however, even with this provision, the proposed RICD application would
not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water resources:
11.h. CPW Coordination. Prior to initiation of a Section 404 permit
application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Glenwood Springs shall
consult with Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) with regard to RICD structure
siting, design and contemplated future maintenance CPW may participate in
the Section 404 permitting process to ensure that terms are included in the
Section 404 permit(s) to protect aquatic resource values. Glenwood Springs
also agrees to consult with CPW as to (1) the timing of construction and (2) the
timing of any future reservoir releases for the benefit of the RICD Water
Rights.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 10

xi.
The Board finds that the relationship of the requested individual RICD
flow rates to the historic appropriated and unappropriated flow rates for each time
period requested will exacerbate the call on upstream juniors, and therefore, would
not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water resources.
xii.
The Board finds that the effect of the RICDs on other potential uses of
water upstream of the RICDs will be detrimental, and therefore, would not promote
maximum utilization of Colorado's water resources.
xiii. The Board finds that the application does not entirely meet the
definition of a RICD, as defined in section 37-92-103(10.3). The Applicant has
provided evidence that there is a demand for a reasonable recreational experience
on additional days outside of the RICD statutory window of April 1 to Labor Day
and the application has been filed by a city government. However, the Applicant
has applied for an RICD outside of its city limits. The Applicant justifies this by
citing the statutory language of section 31-12-105(1)(e), C.R.S. (2014), which
recognizes the ability of a municipality to annex within a three-mile area of the
municipality’s geographical limits if the municipality has in place a plan for that
area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets,
subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks,
aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and
terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by
the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Because the one RICD
structure is not within the city limits but within three miles of the city limits, this
reason alone should not be the basis for finding that the application would not
promote maximum utilization of the waters of the state. However, the Applicant is
seeking more than the “minimum amount of stream flow for a reasonable
recreational experience.” Therefore, the application would not promote maximum
utilization of Colorado's water resources.
xiv. The Board finds that the proposed RICDs do not conserve or efficiently
use the available stream flow that may be called down by other nearby water rights,
and therefore negatively impacts the maximum utilization of Colorado's water.
xv.
The Colorado River basin is over-appropriated, or "water critical,” in
certain locations within the basin during the RICD season and the proposed RICDs
will further exacerbate these water shortages. Therefore, the Board finds that the
proposed RICDs would not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water
resources.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 11
xvi. The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to show how the
proposed RICDs work together with existing and/or future uses within the State of
Colorado in order to promote maximum utilization of waters of the State.
xvii. The Applicant has not included adequate provisions in the proposed
decree for reducing or canceling the RICDs. Therefore, the Board finds that the
proposed RICDs would not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water
resources.
xviii. The Applicant has included descriptions of each recreational
opportunity sought at each flow amount. However, the Board finds that the current
design submitted does not demonstrate that the flows sought are the minimum
amount necessary to provide for each of the reasonable recreational experiences
sought, and therefore negatively impact the maximum utilization of Colorado's
water.
xix. The frequency and flow rates of historic reservoir releases through the
proposed RICD reaches to meet historic upstream and downstream calls will be
necessary to meet a portion of the flow rates claimed for the proposed RICDs, but
not for the flow rates that exceed 1250 cfs. Maintenance of flows through the
RICDs at the historic frequency and flow rates would maintain beneficial use of
waters downstream of the RICDs. However, in light of other concerns, the proposed
RICDs will materially impair maximum utilization of the waters of the State.
xx.
The Board finds that unappropriated native flows exist in the proposed
RICD stream reaches during some of the periods claimed; however, the volume of
unappropriated flows claimed by the proposed RICDs is excessive and therefore the
proposed RICDs would not promote maximum utilization of waters of the State.
Dated this 14th day of September, 2015.

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 12
CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN
Attorney General
E-filed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121. Duly signed original
on file at the Office of the Attorney General.

/s/Susan J. Schneider
SUSAN J. SCHNEIDER, ##19961*
First Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources and Environment Section
Attorneys for the Colorado Water
Conservation Board
*Counsel of Record

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 14th day of September, 2015, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD’S
COMPREHENSIVE FINDINGS OF FACT to be served electronically via ICCES
File & Serve to each of the following:
Name

Type

Attorney

Organization

American Whitewater Opposer

Bartlett Phillip
Miller, Robert
Kortum Harris

Western Resource Advocates

Aurora, City of

John Marshall
Dingess, Ryan P.
McLane, Teri L
Petitt

Hamre Rodriguez Ostrander
and Dingess PC

City And County of
Opposer
Denver Acting By And

Casey S Funk

Denver Water

Colorado Department Opposer
of Transportation

Jennifer Lyn Mele

CO Attorney General

Colorado River Water Opposer
Conservation District

Jason Victor,
Peter Cheney
Fleming

Colorado River Water
Conservation District

Colorado Springs, City Opposer
of

Michael John
Gustafson

Colorado Springs Office of the
City Attorney

Division 5 Engineer

Division 5 Water
Engineer

State of Colorado DWR
Division 5

Opposer

Division
Engineer

Glenwood Hot Springs Opposer
Lodge And Pool Inc

David Carl Hallford, Balcomb and Green PC
Scott M Balcomb

Glenwood Springs,
City of

Applicant

Christopher
Langhorne Thorne,
Kylie Jo Crandall,
Mark Edward
Hamilton

Holland & Hart LLP

Grand County Board
of Commissioners

Opposer

David C Taussig,
Mitra Marie
Pemberton

White & Jankowski, LLP

Grand Valley Water
Users Association

Opposer

Kirsten Marie
Williams Turner and Holmes
Kurath, Mark Allen PC
Hermundstad

EXHIBIT B

 CWCB's Comprehensive Findings of Fact
Case No. 13CW3109
Page 14

Name

Type

Attorney

Organization

Gypsum, Town of

Opposer

Jason M. Groves,
Kevin Land Patrick

Patrick, Miller & Kropf, P.C.

Homestake Steering
Committee

Opposer

Mary Mead
Hammond, Mason
Hamill Brown,
William Arthur
Paddock

Carlson, Hammond &
Paddock, L.L.C.

Orchard Mesa
Irrigation District

Opposer

Kirsten Marie
Williams Turner and Holmes
Kurath, Mark Allen PC
Hermundstad

State Engineer

Opposer

Colorado Division
Of Water Resources

United States of
America

Opposer

Kristen C Guerriero US Attorneys Office

Ute Water
Conservancy District

Opposer

Kirsten Marie
Williams Turner and Holmes
Kurath, Mark Allen PC
Hermundstad

West Divide Water
Conservancy District

Opposer

Edward Bryan
Olszewski

Olszewski, Massih &
Maurer, P.C.

Western Resource
Advocates

Opposer

Bartlett Phillip
Miller, Robert
Kortum Harris

Western Resource Advocates

State of Colorado - Division
of Water Resources

E-filed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121. Duly signed original
on file at the Office of the Attorney General.

/s/ Constance L. Rust___________
CONSTANCE L. RUST

EXHIBIT B