Laserfiche WebLink
Engineers' interpretation of the term and found that the <br />regulation of CBM production by the COGCC was not exclusive. <br />The Engineers and BP appealed to this court pursuant to <br />C.A.R. 1(a)(2); § 13- 4- 102(1)(d), C.R.S. (2008); and Colo. <br />Const., art. VI, § 2. In their appeal,.they challenge the water <br />court's ruling that the extraction of water in the CBM process <br />is a beneficial use giving rise to an appropriative water right. <br />We now affirm the water court's ruling that the extraction <br />of water for the purpose of CBM is a beneficial use giving rise <br />to an appropriative water right. As a result,.CBM wells are <br />subject to permitting, adjudication, and administration pursuant <br />to the 1969 Act as well as the Ground Water Act. <br />II. <br />Through the enactment of the Ground Water Act and the 1969 <br />Act, the General Assembly delegated responsibility for the <br />administration, distribution, and regulation of the waters of <br />the state to the state and division engineers <br />Danielson v. <br />Jones, 698 P.2d 240, 247 (Colo. 1985). The issue presented by <br />this appeal is whether the Engineers are required to permit CBM <br />wells under the provisions of the Ground Water Act -- that is, <br />whether CBM production puts water to a beneficial use such that <br />CBM wells are "wells" as defined in that Act. <br />Under the Ground Water Act, "no new wells shall be <br />constructed outside the boundaries of a designated ground water <br />0 <br />