Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 <br /> May 16, 2025 <br /> does not need to be based on a claim of unreasonable impairment to an <br /> existing water right or creation of unreasonable waste. <br /> Commissioner Hume asked what basis are allowed for objections to be <br /> submitted. <br /> Ms. Mele responded that she did not believe the rule changes were intended to <br /> limit specific basis of objections, but more for standardization and <br /> improvement of the quality of objections received. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble clarified that the Commission should consider both the <br /> language of the proposed rule changes and the objection process going <br /> forward. Acting Chairman Noble also pointed out that the Commission is not <br /> approving the language of the rule at the current meeting, but rather the <br /> Commission is considering whether to move forward with a stakeholder and <br /> rulemaking process based on the draft changes being presented. <br /> Commissioner Pautler commented that under item 13(C), it may be beneficial <br /> to include a limitation on objectors to new appropriations based on the <br /> physical distance between the Objector and Applicant's water rights. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble responded that he believes the requirement for an <br /> objector to specify the water rights being impaired will help all involved <br /> parties better understand the nature of the objection. <br /> Ms. Mele and Commissioner Payne responded that it would be possible to add a <br /> location on the objection form for objectors claiming unreasonable impairment <br /> to list their own wells they claim will be impacted. <br /> Commissioner Pautler commented that he did not want to place Staff in the <br /> position of needing to make decisions on the merits of the basis for objections. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble responded that he interprets new Rule 13 as requiring <br /> Staff to make decisions as to whether the objection meets the requirements <br /> under items 13(A), 13(B), and 13(D) but not on the basis for objections from <br /> 13(C). The Hearing Officer would be charged with reviewing the objection as it <br /> pertains to item 13(C). <br /> Ms. Kosloff responded to clarify that the current meeting discussion would <br /> require a well claimed to be impaired by an application be listed on the <br /> objection form, which would require a change to the form and new Rule 13 <br /> item 13(C). <br /> Mr. Jones commented that he is concerned about due process under item 13(C). <br />