Laserfiche WebLink
JUSTICE COATS, concurring in part and dissenting in part. <br />Although I agree that the extraction of groundwater in the <br />coalbed methane ( "CBM ") production process falls within the <br />administrative responsibilities of the state and division <br />engineers, I do not agree that this process, in itself, amounts <br />to a "beneficial use" of the water extracted, for either <br />constitutional or statutory purposes. Furthermore, since the <br />engineers have an obligation to regulate the removal of the <br />waters of the state from their natural course or location, <br />whether they are diverted for beneficial use or not, I do not <br />consider it either necessary or appropriate to resolve the <br />question of beneficial use as a declaratory judgment for the <br />protection of senior appropriators. I therefore respectfully <br />dissent from all but the conclusion of part II. C. of the <br />majority's opinion. <br />The division engineer has a statutory obligation to order <br />the discontinuance of any diversion not necessary for <br />application to a beneficial use, as well as any diversion of <br />water required to satisfy senior rights. § 37- 92- 502(2)(a), <br />C.R.S. (2008). The state and division engineers would have us <br />read this provision as requiring them to order discontinuance <br />only to the extent necessary to prevent material injury to <br />senior water rights, but otherwise they do not deny their <br />obligation. In fact, however, section 502(2)(a) contains two <br />