constrain exercise of the water court’s retained jurisdiction. 2. Precluding and Remedying Injury The General Assembly has provided that all augmentation plan decrees include a retained jurisdiction period necessary or desirable to preclude and remedy injury and that the water court should extend retained jurisdiction until such time as non-injury is conclusively proved. § 37-92-304(6). “Preclude” means “to prevent or hinder by necessary consequence or implication,” and is synonymous with “to hinder or stop (something that may occur) or ... to stop (someone about to act, or someone’s action).” Webster’s Third Neiv International Dictionary 1785, 1798 (2002). The General Assembly’s use of the word “preclude” makes clear its intent that retained jurisdiction be invoked to prevent anti 359 (<HOLDING>). Likewise, our holding accords with our
holding that the water courts factual determinations other than its injury findings become final and appealable upon entry of the decree and may not be reconsidered under retained jurisdiction holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding that a water courts historic use determinations may not be reviewed under the retained jurisdiction provision holding that the retained jurisdiction period runs from the time the water court enters its decision and not upon full operation holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial