With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 810 (quoting Hearing on H.B. 1055 before the S. Comm, on Agrie., Natural Res., & Energy, 53d Gen. Assemb., 1st Sess. (Colo. Apr. 21, 1981) (statement of attorney Charles Elliott)). The General Assembly sought to ensure the protection of vested water rights from injury caused by those out-of-priority diversions authorized by augmentation plan decrees. Were we to require a vested water right holder to wait until actual injury has occurred — even though the operational experience of the augmentation plan indicates that injury will occur in the future — we will have failed to protect that vested water right from injury. Our interpretation accords with our prior decisions applying section 37-92-304(6). See In re Plan for Augmentation of the City & County of Denver, 44 P.3d at 1024, 1032 (<HOLDING>); Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 33 P.3d

A: holding that retained jurisdiction should be invoked where operational experience indicates that senior appropriators will be injured by the plan
B: holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach
C: holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debtor
D: holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debt or
A.