Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 <br /> August 14 &t 15, 2025 <br /> changes have been combined into one process for efficiency purposes would <br /> help prevent opening up other rule changes not intended at this time. <br /> Mr. Ullmann stated that from what he understood, there would be two <br /> separate stakeholder processes, but one submittal for the formal filing with the <br /> Secretary of State. <br /> Ms. Mete agreed that this is the question being discussed, and that the decision <br /> to file one submittal or two with the Secretary of State does not have to be <br /> made at this meeting. The two broad categories of rule changes can still move <br /> forward with the stakeholder process. The decision to combine the two broad <br /> categories of rule changes into one submittal (or not) may depend on the <br /> timing of the stakeholder process for each category of rule changes. <br /> Commissioner Diaz asked if holding off on the stakeholder process for the rule <br /> changes involving objections would delay the overall rulemaking process. <br /> Ms. Mete responded that it is difficult to say at this time if the process would <br /> be delayed. A delay would depend on how the stakeholder process goes for the <br /> rule changes related to the correction of clerical errors. <br /> Commissioner Hume thought it would make sense to combine the two into one <br /> process for efficiency. <br /> Commissioner Pautler mentioned that without having Commissioner Noble at <br /> the meeting, it would make sense to hold off on further discussion of the <br /> proposed rule changes related to objections until the November meeting. <br /> Mr. Andy Jones speaking on behalf of Upper Crow Creek and Lost Creek then <br /> provided comments on the proposed rule changes. Mr. Jones emphasized that <br /> he would like to make sure the proposed rule changes that involve objections <br /> do not limit the ability of GWMDs to participate. Regarding Rule 13(A), Mr. <br /> Jones requested that language be added after "be submitted on the form <br /> identified by Commission Staff" that also allows for alternate forms created by <br /> an Objector's Council containing the same information be submitted. The <br /> language to be added could read "... or if filed by Council, on a form containing <br /> all the information required by the Commission form". This would be similar to <br /> what is allowed in Water Court. Mr. Jones also agrees that the language in the <br /> second half of 13(C)(2) is redundant, and could be removed. Language could be <br /> modified in sections 13(C)(1) and 13(C)(2) that may read "if the basis for the <br /> objection in whole or in part is based on..." that would indicate that objections <br /> based on other reasons are allowed. Regarding the language in 13(D), Mr. Jones <br /> requested that the Commission consider stronger language, including "This rule <br /> shall not limit..." instead of "This rule is not intended to limit..." to better <br />