¶3 In response, Independence claimed that under this court's decision in East Cherry Creek Valley Water &Sanitation District v. Rangeview Metropolitan District, 109 P.3d 154 (Colo. 2005), the water court had no authority to apply the antispeculation doctrine when reviewing an application to amend an augmentation plan for not-nontributary groundwater. Independence argued that such authority lay instead with the State Engineer's Office ("SEO"), which applies the antispeculation doctrine as part of its well permitting process.

Specifically, the State Engineer makes findings in lieu of those made under section 37-90-137 in the context of nontributary groundwater because the adjudication of rights in nontributary groundwater doesn’t imply that the applicant has an obligation to construct a well. E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Rangeview Metro. Dist., 109 P.3d 154, 157 (Colo. 2005); see also § 37-90-137(6) ("Rights to nontributaiy ground-water outside of designated groundwater basins … may include a determination of the right to such water for existing and future uses." (emphasis added)).