Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 <br /> August 14 Ft 15, 2025 <br /> protect the GWMDs ability to participate. Regarding the Objection Form, Mr. <br /> Jones pointed to Section 3, which covers Objector Water Right Information as <br /> an area that could be revised. Mr. Jones explained that often when objections <br /> are filed in situations such as a change of water right, the intent of the <br /> objection is to ensure proper terms and conditions are included so that the <br /> change does not become injurious. It is not always clear if and how injury will <br /> occur at the beginning of the application process, since the Applicant may not <br /> have provided enough information to make a determination at that stage. Mr. <br /> Jones suggested that Section 3(B) be modified to say, "If you own a water right <br /> would your water right(s) be unreasonably impaired if the application <br /> referenced in No. 2 is approved without appropriate terms and conditions?". <br /> Mr. Jones also suggested that the appropriate terms and conditions language <br /> also be added to Section 3(C) for the same reasons. <br /> Commissioner Hume asked if it would be beneficial to modify the "would" to <br /> "could" under Section 3(B). <br /> Mr. Jones thought this was a fair suggestion, but the "appropriate terms and <br /> conditions" language may be a better approach. <br /> Mr. Ullmann thought that these forms are often intended to be used for <br /> Objectors that don't have counsel, and added the "appropriate terms and <br /> conditions" language may be confusing to those individuals. <br /> Mr. Jones thought the questions on the form may be too specific. <br /> Ms. Mete wondered if having a "maybe" box under Section 3(B) would be <br /> appropriate, since there is limited information available to the Objector at this <br /> stage in an application. <br /> Ms. Mete and Mr. Jones agreed that the intent is for the Objector to give some <br /> kind of context for why they think their water right could be injured by an <br /> application rather than just stating they will be injured, and it may be best not <br /> to require an Objector to state why they will be injured and instead explain <br /> their concerns about potential injury. Possible changes to the language under <br /> Section 3(C) could be "...why do you believe...", or "...what is your assertion..." <br /> instead of "...describe how your water right would be unreasonably <br /> impaired...". <br /> Mr. Jones and Commissioner Hume thought most Objectors want to be involved <br /> in the application process to receive more information to see if they may be <br /> injured by an application. <br />