Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 <br /> May 16, 2025 <br /> of the overlying land from an erroneous determination, Staff will use their best <br /> judgement for how many of the new owners will be notified. For example, <br /> there may be situations where the overlying land includes several dozen <br /> subdivided parcels, in which case, every individual owner would likely not be <br /> notified. Once the publication has been made and the comment period passed <br /> with no objections, Staff would issue the new determinations. If there was an <br /> objection, Staff and the Hearing Officer would move forward with the <br /> objection process. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble asked how Staff would handle other cases involving <br /> determinations issued in error, outside of the examples that were previously <br /> provided. <br /> Ms. Brucker responded that Staff wanted to keep the amendment process open <br /> and available to other scenarios that cannot be foreseen at this time. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble wondered if it makes sense to provide a narrower <br /> definition for situations where this amendment process would apply. Acting <br /> Chairman Noble expressed concern that this process may be misused by <br /> Applicants that are not satisfied with their existing water right allocation. <br /> Ms. Brucker responded that the form could be modified to clarify that it is only <br /> intended to be used in situations where there was an error with a previously <br /> issued water rights determination, and cannot be used in other situations (such <br /> as a change in water rights application). <br /> Acting Chairman Noble commented that on the draft notice included in the <br /> meeting packet, he did not see the deadline for the comment period <br /> mentioned. <br /> Ms. Brucker responded that the deadline for the comment period is contained <br /> in the draft notice toward the end of the document. <br /> Acting Chairman Noble then asked the Commission if there were any comments <br /> on the draft memo provided in the meeting packet to the Commission outlining <br /> how these errors would be corrected by Staff. <br /> Commissioner Pautler thought that it would be appropriate to table this <br /> discussion for the next meeting. <br /> Ms. Brucker was agreeable to bringing the issue to the next meeting for formal <br /> approval by the Commission (after the draft form is revised). <br />