DWR_4437479

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 11/15/2024
• Subject: Meeting Minutes

Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15
November 15, 2024
Herman would like to discuss with the Commission.
Ms. Herman then provided a brief summary of the proposed rule change
request that would allow Commission Staff to correct clerical errors in permits
and findings &t orders. The Commission had directed Staff to develop proposed
rule changes to allow for the correction of these clerical errors to avoid the
cumbersome process associated with fixing the errors that is currently in place.
Ms. Herman commented that corrections to findings Et orders could only be
made through a new application to correct a previous set of findings Et orders,
since the Commission loses jurisdiction of the findings Et orders once they are
issued. For this reason, Ms. Herman believes a rule making change could not be
developed for fixing clerical errors in findings Et orders. A proposed draft rule
change would be applicable to permits only.
Ms. Herman then described the process anticipated for an abbreviated process
for correcting clerical errors in permits, if a rule change were to be made. The
process would require that the well owner be agreeable to the correction and
notice provided to any parties or record that were part of the original
proceedings. If no objection is received by the permittee or parties of record,
the Commission or Staff would proceed with the correction.
Ms. Herman provided some examples for the types of errors the draft rule
change would be intended to correct, including typographical errors relating to
location descriptions. Situations where substantial changes to a permit would
be made that could not be covered by the changes include the case brought
before the Commission at a previous meeting that had originally spurred the
rule change request. In that case, an application contained the incorrect
description of irrigated acres, which was then included in a set of findings Et
orders. For situations similar to this, a new application would be required, and
a publication would be needed.
Ms. Herman highlighted some questions that are being considered as part of the
rule making process. These questions include whether Staff or the Commission
should be the party making the correction of clerical errors, and whether a
final permit could be corrected under this process while an application was
under review to correct the corresponding findings Et orders.
Ms. Mele commented on the need to discuss whether Staff or the Commission
itself should be correcting clerical errors in permits under a rule change. Ms.
Mele and Ms. Herman believed that it seemed more appropriate for the
Commission to be the party approving the correction of errors.
Chairman Arnusch commented that the original intent of the rule change was
to expedite the correction of errors and improve the efficiency of Commission