<br />AG Report2003-11-21.doc ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
<br />
<br />Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission
<br />November 21, 2003
<br />
<br />The listing below summarizes all matters in which the Office of the Attorney General currently represents the Colorado Ground Water Commission.
<br />
<br />
<br />EAGLE PEAK & PROSPECT VALLEY Case number: 96-GW-13, 99CV97 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Management District: Lost Creek Before: Adams County District Court Attorney:
<br /> Pat Kowaleski
<br />Subject: Application for ten new well permits and changes for 39 existing wells, with a replacement plan and export out of the District.
<br />Status: At the November, 1998 meeting the Commission affirmed the Initial Decision of its Hearing Officer that it was not appropriate to hear Eagle Peak’s change applications because
<br /> the Lost Creek District had not yet approved Eagle Peak’s export application. The Commission took the position that it could not approve an application involving export unless the export
<br /> had been approved by the District. On January 14, 1999 Eagle Peak appealed this decision to the Adams County District Court and the Court concluded that the Commission no longer has
<br /> jurisdiction of the matter and the Court will hear the dispute. At the last Commission meeting, the Commission directed the Staff to negotiate a settlement with the applicant if the
<br /> parties were not able to reach a three way settlement, with the District, by September 30, 2003. No such settlement was reached, and the Staff sent its proposed stipulation to the Commission
<br /> and to the District for comments. Minor modifications to the stipulation were made as a result of comments received from the District, and the stipulation has been signed.
<br />
<br />EAGLE PEAK FARMS LTD Case Number: 98CV1727 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Management District: Lost Creek Before: Adams County District Court Attorney: Pat Kowaleski
<br />Subject: Denial by the Lost Creek District of Eagle Peak’s application for export
<br />Status: The District denied Eagle Peak’s application for export and when Eagle Peak appealed the decision to District Court, the Court dismissed the challenge because all parties had
<br /> not been properly served. The Court of Appeals overturned this procedural decision and remanded the case to the District Court for a determination on the merits. The District filed
<br /> a Petition for Rehearing with the Court of Appeals and the Petition for Rehearing was denied on February 3, 2000. The Lost Creek District filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
<br /> the Colorado Supreme Court on March 3, 2000 and the petition was denied on August 20, 2000. Motions affecting how this matter will proceed are pending before the District Court. This
<br /> case is related to the case above, but the Commission is not a party to the case, since it involves the District’s decision to deny export.
<br />
<br />KENNETH POTTORFF Case No. 02-GW-14 Designated Basin: Northern High Plains Management District: Plains Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objection by the District to the issuance of amended final permits and the
<br />temporary change of use applications for 2 wells from irrigation to highway construction and irrigation. The amended final permits concern a claimed 320 additional approved acres put
<br /> to use by both wells prior to August 5, 1977. The temporary change of use was approved by the Commission on May 2, 2002 and expired on December 31, 2002.
<br />
<br />Status: At the prehearing conference, it was noted that Mr. Pottorff has filed for bankruptcy and
<br />an automatic stay was granted by the Bankruptcy Court. Subesquently, the Bankruptcy Judge granted a relief from stay, which allowed this matter to be set for hearing before the Hearing
<br /> Officer. The Hearing Officer vacated the hearing set for May 14 and 15, 2003 because the property involved in this matter was at auction on April 22, 2003. On May 27, 2003, Mr. Pottorff
<br /> provided the hearing officer with a status report indicating that portions of the subject land had been sold to William Hornung who will pursue the applications. By letter dated August
<br /> 25, 2003, the Applicant informed the Hearing Officer that he no longer desired to pursue the issuance of the permits. Consequently, the Hearing Officer issued an order to dismiss the
<br /> case. Case closed.
<br />
<br />PEORIA CROSSING, LLC. Case No. 02-GW-18 Designated Basin: Kiowa-Bijou Management District: North Kiowa Bijou Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Peoria Crossing filed an application for determination of water right to allow
<br />appropriation of designated ground water from the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer underlying its 241.36 acre property. Peoria Crossing filed an appeal challenging the Staff’s calculation
<br /> of a cylinder of appropriation for an existing well owned by LaFarge West, Inc., and the resulting decrease in the amount of allocation determined for the aquifer underlying Peoria
<br /> Crossing’s property.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing was held on October, 22, 2002. Peoria Crossing, LaFarge West and the Staff
<br />participated in the hearing. On December 2, 2002, the Hearing Officer issued his initial decision and found: (1) a cylinder of appropriation is not a water right, but rather a measure
<br /> of the beneficial use that is the actual water right for a pre-213 well; (2) although LaFarge’s well was permitted and completed prior to implementation of the 1965 Act, the 1965 Act
<br /> and modified prior appropriation doctrine apply to the determination of the final extent of LaFarge’s water right; (3) Staff’s calculation of the cylinder of appropriation for LaFarge’s
<br /> well is incorrect; and (4) LaFarge does not yet have a final permit, and in order to proceed with the proper determination of the amount of water available to the Applicant, Staff must
<br /> proceed with final permitting and notice of LaFarge’s water right in a separate proceeding. The Hearing Officer ordered that this matter is held in abeyance until Staff completes final
<br /> permitting for LaFarge’s well, and ordered Staff to initiate final permitting within a reasonable time frame. Staff published the notice of intent to issue final permit on July 31,
<br /> and August 7, 2003. LaFarge West filed a Motion to Vacate Order, which was subsequently withdrawn. On September 11, 2003, the Hearing Officer issued an order stating that the Initial
<br /> Decision of the Hearing Officer is the Final Decision of the Commission. Case closed.
<br />
<br />WAYNE E. and frances g. booker Case No. 02-GW-20 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
<br /> Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objections by the District, Cherokee Metropolitan District, and Schubert Ranches
<br />to applications to relocate the wells with Permit Nos. R-16265-FP, R-16271-FP, R-16272-FP, 27560-FP, and 27585-FP
<br />
<br />Status: The Applicants appealed the Staff’s evaluation of their application and requested a
<br />hearing before the Commission to obtain a variance from Commission Rules. The setting of a hearing before the Hearing Officer was postponed until after the variance request hearing.
<br /> The Commission denied the variance request at its February 21, 2003 meeting. A hearing in this matter was held on September 9, 2003. The Applicant, District, Shubert Ranches and
<br /> Staff participated in the hearing. On September 17, 2003, the Hearing Officer issued his Initial Decision and found as follows: (1) The applications are for changes of water right
<br /> pursuant to section 37-90-111(1)(g), C.R.S. and Commission Rule 7; (2) According to Commission Rule 7.3.2, there is no water available to move to the new well locations requested by
<br /> the Applicant; (3) The Applicants’ request to be excluded from the requirement of including years of non-use in their historic use analysis “for good cause” pursuant to Commission
<br /> Rule 7.10.1 is denied; and (4) Because there is no water available to move, the applications are denied. On October 16, 2003, the Applicants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
<br /> File Exceptions to the Initial Decision. The Executive Director granted the Motion to allow the Applicants to file exceptions to the Initial Decision by November 17, 2003.
<br />
<br />WOODMAN HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 03-GW-04 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
<br /> Matt Poznanovic and Tanya T. Light
<br />Subject: Objection by the Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District to
<br />Woodman Hill’s application for a replacement plan to allow withdrawals from the Dawson aquifer underlying a 1648.25 acre overlying land area, in accordance with Determination of Water
<br /> Right Nos. 129-BD and 133-BD.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer is set for November 19 and 20, 2003.
<br />
<br />alpha & omega, llc. Case No. 03-GW-05 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objection by the District to Alpha & Omega’s application for a replacement plan to allow withdrawals from the Arapahoe aquifer underlying a 40 acre overlying land area, in
<br /> accordance with Determination of Water Right No. 224-BD.
<br />
<br />Status: On August 4, 2003, the Applicant and District entered into a Stipulation, and upon entry
<br />of the stipulation, the District will withdraw its objection. The Staff raised concerns regarding certain terms and conditions contained in the stipulation. Consequently, the Hearing
<br /> Officer ordered Staff to provide comments regarding its concerns. On July 22, 2003, Staff submitted its comments to the Hearing Officer and the parties for their review. On August
<br /> 29, 2003, the District accepted the Staff’s proposal. On September 3, 2003, the Hearing Officer remanded the matter back to Staff to take the necessary steps to issue a replacement
<br /> plan. Case closed.
<br />
<br />Reinaldo gallegos, et al. Case No. 03CV1335 Designated Basin: Upper Crow Management District: Before: Weld County District Court Attorney: Pat Kowaleski
<br />Subject: The Gallegos family requested a hearing to determine whether administration and curtailment is required of the wells and junior surface water rights along Crow Creek to satisfy
<br /> the Gallegos Family’s senior surface water right. At its August, 2003 meeting the Commission affirmed its Hearing Officer and concluded that the Commission has no jurisdiction over
<br /> surface rights, and is not required to administer the basin based on the priority system.
<br />On September 26, 2003 the Gallegos family appealed the Commission’s decision to District Court, and also brought an additional action against the State Engineer in his capacity as the
<br /> administrator of surface rights. Assistant Attorney General Alexandra Davis is handling the latter litigation.
<br />In the Commission litigation, we have filed a Motion with the Court, asking that the Court notify and join all well permit holders who might be adversely affected if the Court were to
<br /> call out permit holders, based on the Gallegos’ decreed surface right. Gallegos has also filed a Motion to join this case with the case against the State Engineer.
<br />
<br />Status: Motions are pending before the Court.
<br />
<br />jerry r. landress Case No. 03-GW-07 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
<br /> Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objection by the Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District to
<br />applications for determinations of water right to allow appropriations from the Laramie-Fox Hills, Dawson, Arapahoe, and Denver aquifers underlying a 119.34 acre property.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer was set for August 20, 2003. On August 12, 2003,
<br />the Staff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to vacate the hearing and for an order holding that (a) The Applications are not speculative; (2) District Rules do not apply to the Applications.
<br /> The District filed a response in opposition to the Motion on both issues. On September 29th, the Hearing Officer issued his Order finding: (1) The Applicant has satisfied the Commission’s
<br /> criteria and the applications are not speculative; (2) As a matter of law, the applicability and effect of District rules is not relevant to the resolution of this determination of
<br /> water right; and (3) The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The District filed exceptions to the September 29, 2003 Order. This matter will be heard on appeal by the Commission
<br /> at its February 2004 meeting.
<br />
<br />
<br />falcon school district 49 Case No. 03-GW-08 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
<br /> Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objection by the Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District to
<br />Falcon School District’s application for a replacement plan to allow withdrawals from the Dawson aquifer underlying a 40 acre overlying land area, in accordance with Determination of
<br /> Water Right No. 307-BD.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer is set for November 14, 2003.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />jay harris Case No. 03-GW-09 Designated Basin: Northern High Plains Management District: Frenchman Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Appeal by Mr. Harris to the denial of his application to appropriate additional
<br />water and increase the acres irrigated by the well with Permit No. 6366-FP.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer is set for December 3 and 4, 2003.
<br />
<br />rmbg, llc. Case Nos. 03-GW-10 and 03-GW-11 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney:
<br /> Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Objections by the District to applications for determinations of water right to
<br />allow appropriations from the Dawson, Arapahoe, and Denver aquifers underlying a 69.72 acre property and objections by the District to applications for determinations of water right
<br /> to allow appropriations from the Arapahoe, and Denver aquifers underlying a 977.19 acre property.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer is set for January 23, 2004.
<br />
<br />MEADOW LAKE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CORP. Case No. 03-GW-12 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing
<br /> Officer Attorney: Tanya T. Light
<br />Subject: Objection by the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management
<br />District to applications for determinations of water right to allow appropriations from the Laramie-Fox Hills, Arapahoe and Denver aquifers underlying a 163 acre property.
<br />
<br />Status: A meeting to set a hearing in this case was held on October 17, 2003. At the
<br />meeting Steve Shuttleworth, representing the applicant, stated that the Meadow Lake Airport purchased the property from the applicant, and that he is withdrawing the application. Mr.
<br /> Shuttleworth was asked to submit a letter to the Staff’s attorney withdrawing his application. To date he has not done so, despite several telephone calls and requests from the Attorney
<br /> General’s office. A hearing has not been set in this case.
<br />
<br />WU-HSIEN HSIEH, YEN Y. HSIEH, MING H. HSIEH, GORDON H. LEE AND LUCIA H. LEE (JOSHUA TRUSTEES) Case No. 03-GW-13 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black
<br /> Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Tanya T. Light
<br />Subject: Objection by the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District to the applications for determinations of water right to allow appropriations from the Laramie-Fox
<br /> Hills, Arapahoe and Denver Aquifers underlying a 76.3 acre property.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer has been set for December 16, 2003. On October 23, 2003 the applicants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to vacate the hearing and for
<br /> an order holding that (1) the applicants have satisfied the Commission criteria and the application is not speculative; (2) the applicants are not required to adhere to District rules
<br /> during the resolution of the determination of water right application; (3) the District’s request to review additional details regarding Applicant’s plan for the water be denied; and
<br /> (4) that the matter be remanded to Commission Staff to take administrative steps required to proceed with the issuance of the determination of water rights. On November 6, 2003 the
<br /> District filed a response in opposition to the Motion on all issues. On November 7, 2003 the Staff filed a Response in Support of the Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asserting
<br /> that (1) under Landress and Bradbury, the Commission has the authority to establish criteria to determine whether an application is speculative, and since this application meets that
<br /> criteria, the application is not speculative; and (2) Bradbury clearly holds that the applicants are not bound by District rules in the permitting process because the District’s jurisdiction
<br /> begins after the Commission has issued a well permit, which comes after approval of a determination of water right. Replies from the applicants and the Staff are due November 17, 2003.
<br /> The Hearing Officer has not yet ruled on these motions. It is the Staff’s contention that the Hearing Officer’s initial decision in Landress has precedential effect in this application
<br /> until and unless the Commission overturns that decision at the February 2004 Board meeting.
<br />
<br />appeal of rules adopted by the upper black squirrel creek ground water management district Case No. 03-GW-14 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper
<br /> Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic
<br />Subject: Cherokee, Meridian Ranch, Meridian Service, Paint Brush Hills and Woodmen
<br />Hills Metropolitan Districts filed an appeal to the adoption of Rule Nos. 3, 17, 18, and 19 by the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District.
<br />
<br />Status: A prehearing conference was held on November 5, 2003. The Hearing Officer
<br />determined that the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear appeals of rules regarding small capacity wells, and therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of proposed District
<br /> Rule 3. The hearing in this matter is set for March 17, 18 and 19, 2004.
<br />
<br />lafarge west, inc. Case No. 03-GW-15 Designated Basin: Kiowa-Bijou Management District: North Kiowa-Bijou Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Matt Poznanovic and
<br /> Tanya T. Light
<br />Subject: LaFarge West has filed an objection to the approval of its final permit.
<br />
<br />Status: A hearing before the Hearing Officer shall be scheduled.
<br />
<br />P:NR\H2O\GWC\02-21 AG Report.doc
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />AgendaNov03.doc
<br /> NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING OF THE
<br /> COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION
<br />
<br />10:00 a.m. Friday November 21, 2003
<br />
<br />1313 Sherman St. Rm. 318
<br />Denver, CO 80203
<br />
<br /> A G E N D A
<br />Determine Quorum.
<br />
<br />Review and Approval of Agenda Items.
<br />
<br />Approval of Minutes for Meeting of August 15, 2003.
<br />
<br />Report of the Executive Director by Hal Simpson.
<br />
<br />Motion for Reconsideration of May 16, 2003 Commission Decision Concerning the Petition for Reinstatement of a Well Permit Regarding Expanded Acres of Well Permit No. 11744-FP, Owned
<br /> by Steve and Ronda Hayes by Mike Shimming, Attorney for Well Owners.
<br />
<br />Update on Eagle Peak Farms Ltd. v. Colorado Ground Water Commission (Case No. 99CV0097) and Eagle Peak Farms Ltd. v. Lost Creek GWMD (Case No. 98CV1727), both in Adams County District
<br /> Court by Bill Fronczak.
<br />
<br />Discussion on the Whether the Ground Water Commission Should Seek the Authority to Levy Fines for Illegal Uses of Designated Ground Water by Bill Fronczak.
<br />
<br />Discussion and Decision on the Processing of Changes of Water Rights in Designated Basins Where Ground Water is Available for Appropriation by Bill Fronczak.
<br />
<br />Staff Report by Suzanne Sellers and Megan Sullivan.
<br />
<br />Report of the Attorney General by Matthew Poznanovic.
<br />
<br />Management District Reports:
<br /> a. Frenchman e. WY i. Southern High Plains
<br /> b. Sand Hills f. Arikaree j. North KiowaBijou
<br /> c. Marks Butte g. Plains k. Upper Black Squirrel
<br /> d. Central Yuma h. East Cheyenne l. Upper Big Sandy
<br />Lost Creek
<br />Old Business.
<br />
<br />New Business.
<br />
<br />Selection of Meeting Dates for the 2004.
<br />
<br />Commission in Executive Session (12:00-1:00) Concerning the Following:
<br />
<br />Reinaldo Gallegos, Marianne Gallegos, Harold l. Gallegos, Ellen Gallegos, and Gene J. Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Commission, an Administrative Agency of the State of Colorado,
<br /> and Mr. Hal D. Simpson, The Colorado State Engineer, as Ex Officio Executive Director of the Colorado Ground Water Commission (Case No. 03CV1335) in Weld County District Court.
<br />
<br />Adjournment.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />enforcementstatute(KWK).doc Enforcement of Commission and State Engineer Orders for the Unauthorized Diversion or Use and Waste of Designated Ground Water
<br />
<br />Purpose:
<br />The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the State Engineer’s authority to enforce either Commission or State Engineer orders issued for the improper diversion or use and/or waste
<br /> of ground water whether inside or outside a designated basin. Furthermore this legislation will allow the Commission or the State Engineer to collect penalties, litigation costs and
<br /> attorney fees resulting from the enforcement of said orders.
<br />
<br />Scope:
<br />The State Engineer has powers to enforce improper diversions of ground water in his own capacity and as the Executive Director for the Commission. Currently, under the Water Right Determination
<br /> and Administration Act of 1969, specifically § 37-92-502 and 37-92-503, 10 C.R.S. (2003), the State Engineer and Division Engineers have the ability to enforce improper diversions of
<br /> ground water and collect fines, attorney fees and litigation costs associated with the enforcement of said orders. This legislation is intended to incorporate similar legislation in
<br /> the Ground Water Management Act of 1965, where ground water is permitted. Furthermore, this legislation will authorize the State Engineer, as the Executive Director of the Commission,
<br /> to collect fines, attorney fees, and litigation costs for violation of Commission orders regarding unauthorized diversions of designated ground water.
<br />The State Engineer, as the Commission’s Executive Director, has been authorized by Commission resolution to conduct day to day activities on behalf of the Commission. This legislation
<br /> will clarify the State Engineer’s exclusive authority and his authority under his role as the Commission’s Executive Director under Section 37-90-110, 10 C.R.S. This section currently
<br /> authorizes the State Engineer to cease diversions of designated ground water, require meters, etc. This proposed legislation would clarify that the State Engineer has the sole authority
<br /> to issues orders ceasing illegal ground water diversion, have the ability to post orders for the illegal use of ground water, administer and enforce replacement plans issued by the
<br /> Commission, administer the movement of water utilized for replacement or augmentation, and have the ability to collect energy records relating to ground water withdrawal. Much of the
<br /> new authorities are already in statute under § 37-92-502, 10 C.R.S.
<br />Penalties will be authorized to offset the costs associated with enforcement of either State Engineer or Commission issued orders. Penalties will either go into a ground water enforcement
<br /> fund to be utilized by the State Engineer.
<br />Litigation costs and attorney fees will offset legal services incurred by the Attorney General for prosecuting orders issued by the State Engineer or the Commission.
<br />
<br />37-90-110. Powers of the state engineer.
<br />Statute text
<br />(1) In the administration and enforcement of this article and in the effectuation of the policy of this state to conserve its ground water resources and for the protection of vested
<br /> rights, the state engineer EITHER IN HIS OWN CAPACITY OR AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION is empowered:
<br />(a) To require all flowing wells to be equipped with valves so that the flow of water can be controlled;
<br />(b) To require both flowing and nonflowing wells to be so constructed and maintained as to prevent the waste of ground waters through leaky wells, casings, pipes, fittings, valves, or
<br /> pumps, either above or below the land surface;
<br />(c) To go upon all lands, both public and private, for the purpose of inspecting wells, pumps, casings, pipes, fittings, and measuring devices, including wells used or claimed to be
<br /> used for domestic or stock purposes;
<br />(d) To order the cessation of the use of a well pending the correction of any defect that the state engineer has ordered corrected;
<br />(e) To commence actions to enjoin the illegal opening or excavation of wells or withdrawal or use of water therefrom and to appear and become a party to any action or proceeding pending
<br /> in any court or administrative agency when it appears that the determination of such action or proceeding might result in depletion of the ground water resources of the state contrary
<br /> to the public policy expressed in this article or might injure vested rights of other appropriators;
<br />(f) To take such action as may be required to enforce compliance with any regulation, control, or order promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this article.
<br />(G) ISSUE to the owners or users of WELLS IN THE STATE such orders as are necessary to implement the provisions of THIS section AND SECTION 37-90-111. If such orders are given VERBALLY,
<br /> they shall be confirmed IN WRITING WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS OF THE VERBAL ORDER.
<br />(H) In addition to any other methods of giving notice, the posting of a written order, in plain sight, at the place of diversion shall be considered sufficient notice of the order of
<br /> the state engineer; and, when so posted, such order shall be effective from the time of posting.
<br />(I) The state engineer shall administer the movement of water involved in any replacement plan or plan for augmentation. In such administration, the state engineer shall issue such
<br /> orders as are necessary and appropriate.
<br />(J) The state engineer has authority to order any person or company supplying energy used to pump ground water to provide, at reasonable times, records of energy used to pump ground
<br /> water. Nothing contained in this paragraph (J) shall affect any reporting requirements of the public utilities commission pursuant to section 40-3-110, C.R.S.
<br />37-90-111. Powers of the ground water commission - limitations.
<br />Statute text
<br />(1) In the administration and enforcement of this article and in the effectuation of the policy of this state to conserve its designated ground water resources and for the protection
<br /> of vested rights and except to the extent that similar authority is vested in ground water management districts pursuant to section 37-90-130 (2), the ground water commission is empowered:
<br />(a) To supervise and control the exercise and administration of all rights acquired to the use of designated ground water. In the exercise of this power it may, by summary order, prohibit
<br /> or limit withdrawal of water from any well during any period that it determines that such withdrawal of water from said well would cause unreasonable injury to prior appropriators;
<br /> except that nothing in this article shall be construed as entitling any prior designated ground water appropriator to the maintenance of the historic water level or any other level
<br /> below which water still can be economically extracted when the total economic pattern of the particular designated ground water basin is considered; and further except that no such
<br /> order shall take effect until six months after its entry.
<br />(b) To establish a reasonable ground water pumping level in an area having a common designated ground water supply. Water in wells shall not be deemed available to fill the water right
<br /> therefor if withdrawal therefrom of the amount called for by such right would, contrary to the declared policy of this article, unreasonably affect any prior water right or result in
<br /> withdrawing the ground water supply at a rate materially in excess of the reasonably anticipated average rate of future recharge.
<br />(c) To issue permits for the construction of replacement wells. Any permits issued shall set forth the conditions under which a well may be modified by a change of the well itself or
<br />
|