Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 <br /> May 16, 2025 <br /> Acting Chairman Noble called for agenda item no. 9, old business. <br /> a) Discuss rulemaking on the requirements for objections <br /> Ms. Mele addressed the Commission, and reminded attendees of previous <br /> Commission discussions involving rulemaking changes for standardizing the <br /> objection process in Designated Basins. Ms. Mele has prepared a revised version <br /> of the draft rule changes based on comments received from the Commission at <br /> the last meeting in February. Ms. Mele pointed to the revised draft rules <br /> contained in the meeting packet, and commented that there are two new rules <br /> proposed and one revision to an existing rule in the packet. <br /> New Rule provision 5.1.4.1 requires a deadline for the filing of objections after <br /> publication. <br /> Revision to Rule 7.2 pertains to changes in water rights, and the revision <br /> clarifies that any objection to an application is subject to new Rule 13. <br /> New Rule 13 standardizes the objection process, and provides four provisions <br /> for objections, including they be submitted on a form identified by Commission <br /> Staff, reference the application and well structures subject to the objection, <br /> clearly state the objection, and be verified by the objector consistent with <br /> Section 13-27-106, C.R.S. The Commission or Hearing Officer may dismiss an <br /> objection if it does not meet the criteria outlined in new Rule 13 provisions A <br /> through D, while Staff may dismiss an objection if it does not meet the criteria <br /> outlined in new Rule 13 provisions A, B, and D. <br /> Clarification has been made in the revised rules that allow management <br /> districts to file an objection and participate in a case for any reason. <br /> Mr. Vargas-Johnson then addressed the Commission and displayed the form that <br /> was drafted pursuant to the new requirements for objection under new Rule 13 <br /> and amended rules. Mr. Vargas-Johnson pointed out that the form is three <br /> pages long, and discussed the overall layout and information required to be <br /> entered into each page of the form, including the structures included in the <br /> objection and the basis for the objection. Mr. Vargas-Johnson commented that <br /> the form is intended to meet the proposed rule changes and improve the <br /> quality of objections received. <br /> Commissioner Hume asked about item 13(C) and how this requirement will <br /> change the objection process. <br /> Ms. Mele responded that she does not believe item 13(C) will change the <br /> current objection process. This item is intended to clarify that a basis for an <br /> objection needs to be declared, and that an objection to a new appropriation <br />