With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Larimer & Weld Irrigation Co., 18 Colo. 298, 33 P. 144 (1893); La Junta & Lamar Canal Co. v. Hess, 6 Colo.App. 497, 42 P. 50 (1895). The terms of the Allotment Contract clearly preclude the accrual of benefits derived from the use of CBT water to lands and users outside the boundaries of NCWCD. Thornton was or should have been aware of these contractual conditions at the time it acquired its interest in WSSC. Thus, Thornton is bound by these conditions in accord with the intent of the original parties. Where, as here, the scope of a water right is defined by contract, the general provisions of Colorado water law are not necessarily inapplicable, but their application is subject to the terms of the contract. Merrick v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 621 P.2d 952, 955-56 & nn. 3, 4 (Colo.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Estes Park, 677 P.2d at 326-27

A: holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract
B: holding that such provisions are valid
C: holding that contract provisions controlled over provisions of plan for augmentation statute section 37923053
D: holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa
C.