Laserfiche WebLink
"produced water," which is exempt from the prior appropriation <br />doctrine and instead regulated exclusively by the COGCC. <br />In granting summary judgment in the Ranchers' favor, the <br />water court began with the assumption, unchallenged here, that <br />this case involves tributary water. See Safranek v. Limon, 123 <br />Colo. 330, 334, 228 P.2d 975, 977 (1951) (holding that under <br />Colorado law, all ground water is presumed to be tributary until <br />proven otherwise). The water court found that the extraction of <br />water during the CBM process was a beneficial use constituting <br />both a "well" under the Ground water Act and an "appropriation" <br />under the 1969 Act, because "the removal of water . . . is not <br />incidental" but rather "occurs as the result of the active and <br />intentional pumping of water to accomplish the intended <br />purpose." The water court therefore concluded that CBM <br />production requires a water well permit and, where necessary, a <br />decree adjudicating an augmentation plan. The water court noted <br />that "[t]he conclusion is bolstered by the overall intent of the <br />water law scheme. By passing the 1969 Act, the General Assembly <br />intended to integrate the appropriation, use, and administration <br />of underground water . . . [because under Colorado law] <br />adjudication and administration are essential to protection of <br />water rights." (internal citations and quotations omitted). In <br />finding beneficial use, the water court declined to defer to the <br />8 <br />