PERMFILE130607

• Permit No: M2003037
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/8/2003
• Doc Name: Objectors Witness and Exhibit Lists
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii. This is not permissible under State water law and therefore not
in compliance with section VI. B. 2.,4.,5., and 7. of your own
code. The Applicant simply has not provided any clear picture
of how he can possibly mitigate the negative off-site impacts
(injury) to the neighbors with existing water rights and uses.
iv. Additionally, the proposal before you violates section
IV.A.5.(hl(4) of your code ,because it will interfere with existing
agricultural irrigation systems. The application simply cannot be
approved at this time. The proper course of action for the
Applicant is to withdraw this application or have it denied until
he goes through the proper water court channels and develops
and presents a plan which will not cause harm to existing
agricultural uses of water in the area.
IV. NEED FOR PROPERLY ADJUDICATED WATER RIGHTS FOR PROPOSED
USE.
a. Utter Lack of State Adjudication For any of the Proposed Uses.
The Applicant addresses its full water diversion and impoundment plan
in two paragraphs on page 16 of its origins! application. This
description is, both factually and legally, woefully inadequate and fails
to meet even the most basic elements of your Code. In those two
paragraphs the Applicant states that he intends to do the following
acts which require state water court adjudications: 1. Diversion of
surface water; 2. Storage of surface run off; 3. storage of UVWUA
irrigation water'; 4. Create an open pit we112; 5. Create the need for
augmentation of out of priority use of water; and 6. Change the use of
UVWUA water from agricultural to industrial.3
' The Applicant's brief description of use of water fails to mention that the UVWUA water he
appears to intend to rely upon all year only flows during the irrigation season. Therefore, even if the
Applicant could actually legally use UVWUA water for the proposed industrial use (See, Section V
below), during the Summer, when the ditches are running, the Applicant would have to store
massive quantities of water for use during the winter months. Such storage, as well as any other
storage, however temporary, absolutely requires a storage water right.
a Open pit sand and gravel-mining operators have been brought under the State Engineer's
jurisdiction for both well permitting and plans for augmentation. C.R.S. § 37-90-103(21)(a) defines
a well as, "any structure or device used for the purpose or with the effect of obtaining ground water
for beneficial use from aquifer." Subsequent legislation has codified the jurisdiction of the State
Engineer to regulate sand and gravel operations. C.R.S. § 37-90-137111)(a)(1) requires any gravel
pit that exposed ground water after to the atmosphere after December 31, 1980 to replace all out-
of-priority depletions of ground water.
3 The Georges allegedly own 158 shares of UVWUA water. This translates into a flow, during the
summer months, of 3.17 c.f.s. The Applicant presents no evidence that this amount is enough for
the processing requirements and other functions of the proposed operation. Further, the current use
of this water is for agricultural purposes. It the Applicant wants to use it for industrial purposes, he
3