injury to vested water rights and decreed conditional water rights, even if actual injury has not yet occurred. Were we to require a showing of actual injury having already occurred, we would fail to give effect to the specific words used by the General Assembly that retained jurisdiction is properly invoked to prevent injury to vested rights. See Well Augmentation Subdist., 221 P.3d at 410. The legislative deliberations regarding section 37-92-304(6) support our reading of this plain language. The General Assembly’s focus in requiring the inclusion of a retained jurisdiction period in augmentation plans was on the importance of reconsidering the water court’s initial finding of non-injury in light of real life operational experience. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 33 P. 808 (<HOLDING>); Clear Creek Water Users Alliance, 859 P.2d at
holding that the federal circuit should not accord less deference to factual findings of the patent and trademark office than courts accord to the findings of other agencies under the administrative procedure act holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that the retained jurisdiction period runs from the time the water court enters its decision and not upon full operation holding that a water courts historic use determinations may not be reviewed under the retained jurisdiction provision 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