Laserfiche WebLink
the evidence was that the ground water flow path (if such a flow path is assumed to <br /> exist)between the outcrop area and wells located to the east of the Greater <br /> Wattenberg Area would be through the lower permeability formations located within <br /> the Greater Wattenberg Area; thus, use of the lower permeability numbers was <br /> warranted. With respect to areas west of the Greater Wattenberg Area, Dr. Weimer's <br /> testimony established that higher permeability numbers measured for such areas <br /> reflected the permeability of the outcrop areas located on an upthrown fault block, and <br /> not the permeability of the subject formations located within the Denver-Julesburg Basin <br /> downthrown fault block. These outcrop areas are specifically excluded from the <br /> delineated nontributary area. <br /> The objecting parties also contended that in calculating a geometric mean <br /> permeability value, Mr. Levorsen improperly averaged data from wells with multiple <br /> permeability measurements, resulting in bias in the distribution of data points. The <br /> State Engineer finds this concern unwarranted. As the objecting parties admit, the <br /> permeability numbers within any formation may vary with vertical distribution, or <br /> depth, as well as with horizontal distribution. Thus, as testified by Mr. Levorsen, <br /> averaging all of the measured permeability values, regardless as to whether the <br /> measured permeability values are distributed vertically or horizontally within a <br /> formation, is a valid method for determining the overall effective permeability within <br /> that formation. <br /> Finally, the objecting parties argued that the permeability values for certain of the <br /> formations, although site specific, were inappropriately derived from only a limited <br /> number of wells. The State Engineer notes that permeability values for other <br /> formations were derived from numerous wells, and that the permeability values for <br /> the formations with a relatively limited number of measurements generally were <br /> higher than the permeability values for the formations with a relatively higher number <br /> of measurements. Thus, the limited number of measurements for certain formations <br /> did not appear to result in bias resulting in a larger nontributary area for the <br /> formations having a lower number of data points. Moreover, all analyses must <br /> necessarily be based upon available data. Nonetheless, the State Engineer recognizes <br /> the limited number of data points for certain formations does raise concerns regarding <br /> the degree of accuracy of the Glover-Balmer analyses in this instance those <br /> formations. Because of these concerns, the State Engineer did not rely upon the <br /> Glover-Balmer method as determinative in establishing the validity of the <br /> nontributary line. The State Engineer finds that the testimony of Drs. Weimer and <br /> Snow conclusively established through a geologic analysis the lack of a hydraulic <br /> connection between the subject formations located within the Denver-Julesburg Basin <br /> downthrown fault block, and the subject formations located within an upthrown fault <br /> block that may be hydraulically connected to the formation outcrop areas. The Glover- <br /> Balmer analyses provide additional assurance that error would not be meaningful with <br /> respect to the State Engineer's delineation of nontributary areas. . <br /> Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules 2 CCR 402-17, Statement of Basis and Purpose <br /> -33- <br />