DWR_3555995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Procedure Act, the State Engineer in this matter implemented additional procedural safeguards in the interest of ensuring due process. The State Engineer provided all parties the opportunity for informal discovery by establishing processes for the exchange of information regarding and demonstration of the technical models considered as part of these proceedings. Testimony throughout this proceeding affirmed the usefulness of these informal discovery processes. In addition, the proceedings were bifurcated and continued in order to provide the parties with additional time to gather evidence, prepare for the proceedings, present evidence, and question and cross examine witnesses. The proceedings followed with respect to the adoption of these rules provided the parties substantially more procedural protection than the General Assembly has required, or the State Engineer has historically provided with respect to nontributary decisions. The State Engineer's nontributary determinations have historically been made in the context of the State Engineer's permitting decisions, without notice or hearing, and based solely on State Engineer review of information submitted by the permitting parties. See, e.g. C.R.S. § 37-90-137(2) (requiring notice and hearing only where there are well owners within six hundred feet of the proposed well). These proceedings, by comparison, provided parties not only with ample opportunity to be heard,but with many of the procedural protections, such as the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, that are typically available only in judicial-type forums. The State Engineer also provided extensive process prior to the formal initiation of this rulemaking proceeding. The State Engineer provided public notice through publication on the State Engineer's Substitute Water Supply Notification List of the State Engineer's intent to initiate these rulemaking proceedings well prior to the formal initiation of the proceedings. In order to solicit input into the rulemaking process, the State Engineer noticed and held several public meetings regarding the proposed rulemaking prior to the initiation of these rulemaking proceeding. The State Engineer formed a Produced Nontributary Ground Water Advisory Group, including legal and technical subcommittees, which included representatives from many of the parties to this rulemaking proceeding. The State Engineer notes that there were other opportunities for parties to become aware of and involved in the issues relevant to these proceedings. The CBM produced water issue has been a topic of active investigation and discussion for many years. The State Engineer's Office has previously briefed the General Assembly regarding this issue. There have been active legal and technical discussions regarding this issue. Numerous studies of the issue have been conducted. The issue was the subject of a Water Court proceeding and a Supreme Court appeal. Parties involved in this proceeding participated in the drafting of House Bill 09-1.303. There was extensive testimony throughout these proceedings regarding the Technical Advisory Group established to provide peer review of the model developed for purposes of evaluating CBM well operations in the San Juan Basin—Fruitland Formation. With respect to the Alternate Proposed Rules proposed by the CBM operators, some of the technical information has been available well before the initiation of this rulemaking. This information was requested and provided to party Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules 2 CCR 402-17, Statement of Basis and Purpose -7-