Laserfiche WebLink
use in this case, the phrase "unless the nontributary ground <br />water being removed will be beneficially used" would be rendered <br />meaningless. <br />Contrary to the argument of the Engineers and BP, we find <br />that section 30- 90- 137(7)(a) actually supports a finding of <br />beneficial use in this case. Section 30- 90- 137(7)(a) recognizes <br />that permitting is required where, as here, the removed water is <br />beneficially used. <br />Furthermore, we observe that the provision does not control <br />our inquiry because the water at issue here is presumed to be <br />tributary. See Safranek V. Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 334, 228 P.2d <br />975, 977 (1951). To the extent that the Engineers and BP assert <br />that the water is nontributary, they must overcome the 7 <br />-7 �) - <br />presumption of tributariness in an evidentiary hearing in the I 1?o J, <br />water court below. See American Water Dev., Inc. v. Alamosa, / <br />874 P.2d 352, 389 (Colo. 2004). Because nontributary <br />groundwater is not subject to the constitutional right of prior <br />appropriation, the General Assembly has plenary authority and <br />can wholly exempt it from regulation. See In Re the Application <br />for Water Riqhts of Park County Sportsmen's Ranch LLP, 986 P.2d <br />262, 269 (Colo. 1999). In sum, we find that section <br />30- 90- 137(7)(a) does not change our conclusion that the <br />extraction of water during CBM production is a beneficial use in <br />the tributary water context, which we presume in this case. <br />17 <br />