Laserfiche WebLink
portions of the formations at issue. Moreover, as demonstrated by the testimony of <br /> Mr. Levorsen, any concern that the permeability values might vary greatly near the <br /> outcrop area were largely addressed by an adjustment made to the final versions of <br /> the rule, offsetting the nontributary line by a constant distance from the outcrop areas. <br /> Finally, any change in the permeability values near the offset would likely be more <br /> than offset by a corresponding change in storativity values, as the ground water <br /> located at outcrop would likely be under unconfined rather than confined conditions. <br /> Certain parties commented with respect to whether the proposed rules utilized <br /> appropriate values for the distance from the pumping well to the nearest potential <br /> point at which depletions could occur. Specifically, these parties questioned whether <br /> the rules should consider all intermittent and ephemeral streams, as well as all <br /> perennial streams, as points of depletion to a "natural stream" for purposes of the <br /> definition of nontributary water at C.R.S. § 37-90-103(10.5). The State Engineer <br /> does not need to reach this issue with respect to these rules, because as a result of an <br /> adjustment to the proposed rule, the entire outcrop area for each of the formations at <br /> issue were considered points of depletion, regardless as to whether the outcrop areas <br /> were crossed by ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams. Accordingly, the <br /> analysis convincingly demonstrated the proposed areas to be nontributary regardless <br /> of whether intermittent and ephemeral streams are considered points of depletion to a <br /> "natural stream." <br /> Separate rules were originally proposed by different rule proponents for slightly <br /> different but related delineated areas and formations within the Piceance Basin. The <br /> State Engineer fords that there is clear and convincing evidence that would support <br /> adoption of each of these rules. However, upon review, the State Engineer finds that <br /> these rules can be combined into four individual rules with different nontributary lines <br /> for four different formations or portions of formations. First, the rule includes a <br /> nontributary line for wells drilled into the undifferentiated Wasatch Formation, based <br /> upon the separate analyses performed by Mr. Witt and Mr. Bedard. Second, the rule <br /> includes a nontributary line for wells drilled into the middle and lower Wasatch <br /> Formation, based upon Mr. Levorsen's analysis. Third, the rule includes a <br /> nontributary line for wells drilled into the Iles Formation of the Mesaverde Group, <br /> based upon Mr. Levorsen's analysis. Fourth, the rule includes a nontributary line for <br /> wells drilled into the Williams Fork Formation of the Mesaverde Group, based upon <br /> Mr. Levorsen's, Mr. Bedard's, and Mr. Witt's analyses. Because the Williams Fork <br /> and Iles Formations are the only formations within the Mesaverde Group, and <br /> because the nontributary area for the Williams Fork Formation is wholly contained <br /> within the nontributary area for the Iles Formation, the nontributary line for the <br /> Williams Fork Formation also defines the nontributary line for the undifferentiated <br /> Mesaverde Group. <br /> In summary, the inputs to the analyses are appropriate and based upon site specific <br /> data. All inputs to the models are within the expected range. No aspects of the <br /> Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules 2 CCR 402-17, Statement of Basis and Purpose <br /> -24- <br />