DWR_3364076

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 2/17/2017
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

will come before the Commission to determine if Designated Ground Water is involved. Chairman Valdez called for agenda item no. 9, Management District Reports Mr. Nate Midcap, reporting
for the Marks Butte, Frenchman, Sandhills and Central Yuma GWMD’s, reported that his Districts have been dry. He said that some farmers with late sugar beets or a cover crop are irrigating.
Mr. Midcap advised the Commission that his Districts are closely watching the Hutton Case, the progress on the Republican River Compact Rules and are concerned about the timeline to
amend the Rules for Designated Basins. He reported that his Districts want to require a historic use analysis for a change in description of irrigated acres be adopted by the Commission
but that his Districts will amend their Rules if the timeline for the Commission rules is to far into the future. Mr. Bryon Mc Call, reporting for the W-Y GWMD, introduced himself
to the Commission, informing the Commission that Jack Dowell, after twelve years as manager, had retired. Mr. Mc Call said that since being appointed as manager, he has been using
his time to get organized. There was no report for the Arikaree GWMD. Ms. Deb Daniel, reporting on behalf of Brandi Baquera for the Plains GWMD, reported that Ms. Baquera has spent
the past months inspecting and verify totalizing flow meters and chemigation systems with very few requiring repair. Ms. Deb Daniel, reporting on behalf of Carolyn Talbert for the
East Cheyenne GWMD, told the Commission that the weather had kept Ms. Talbert from attending the meeting. She said that Ms. Talbert told her that the first year as manager has been
challenging and educational. Ms. Talbert told Ms. Daniel that she has been active in meter verification and well testing and that she is looking forward to the upcoming year. Mr.
Blake Gourley, reporting for the Southern High Plains GWMD advised the Commission that it is dry and windy; yesterday the wind was blowing at 50 mph. He noted that most of the crops
were in and that everybody is excited about the price of corn. Mr. Robert Loose reporting for the North Kiowa Bijou GWMD, reported that his area is also dry. Commenting on the Staff
Activity Report, he noted that North Kiowa-Bijou has the majority of large capacity applications, 29 and the majority of the small capacity applications, 45. Mr. Loose said that the
District Board members continue to educate the new home owners in the District on their responsibilities as small capacity well owners. He also reported that the Board is working with
the Town of Wiggins regarding its planned importation of South Platte River water to augment the town’s supplies. Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 November 18, 2016
Commissioner Farmer read the report of Ms. Tracy Doran for the Upper Black Squirrel GWMD. Ms. Doran’s report was a re-cap of the year 2016. It covered those matters of most concern
to the District, Cherokee Metropolitan District and its’ efforts to raise the allowed TDS in the Basin, pending hearings before the Commission and some discussion on High Capacity change
applications. Ms. Doran noted in her report that the District is concerned about illegal impoundment of surface water and the growing marijuana market. Mr. David Tausig reporting
for the Upper Big Sandy GWMD, advised the Commission that the District Board is working on the small capacity rules. He noted that small capacity permits allow for a yield of 50 gpm
and that the Board is considering tying the production to the number of acres involved. Mr. Tausig also said that the Board is tweaking their export rules to address some specific
issues that have come up. Mr. Tausig advised the Commission that the District study, conducted by the USGS, regarding the relationship between the alluvial waters and those of the
bedrock aquifers continues. In closing he said that the Board is continuing the program to help producers acquire meters and get them installed on their wells. Mr. Andy Jones, reporting
for the Lost Creek GWMD, informed the Commission the two big items of concern to the District at this time are the Front Range Resources replacement plan appeal and that the District
is taking steps to require totalizing flow meters on all wells. Mr. Andy Jones, reporting for Upper Crow Creek Basin, reported that though the Basin is dry, Crow Creek is flowing close
to the flow at the time of designation. He added that concern over end of season loss of production from those wells in the White River formation remains high. Mr. Jones informed
the Commission that there has been a new wave of oil and gas exploration. Currently, most of the water for this exploration is coming from Wyoming but residents expect that to change
if the expansion continues. He closed his remarks reminding the Commission that residents remain interested in forming a District. Ms. Deb Daniel, reporting for the Republican River
Water Conservation District, reported that there is a cost to the long term approval of the pipeline as reported by Kevin Rein. The approval requires that Colorado retire 25,000 acres
of irrigated land in the South Fork of the Republican River, 10,000 acres by 2022 and the remaining 15,000 acres by 2027. If Colorado fails to meet this goal, then Colorado must have
a reduction in consumption plan to present to Kansas and Nebraska. Ms. Daniel added that part of the reason for the approval of the Harlan Reservoir project in Nebraska is because
Kansas needed someplace to store water and Kansas can store 30,000 acre-feet there. Ms. Daniel advised the Commission that the administration of the old Bonny reservoir continues to
be an ongoing concern. She said that based on the calculations of the engineers, the RWWCD plans to run the pipeline through March or April. Ms. Daniel said that recognizing their
differences, the WPP is considering what method of conservation works best for each District. On other matters, Ms. Daniel reported that the negotiating committee is talking with the
owners of ground water rights and surface water rights in an effort to lease or purchase those rights for use in the RRCCP. Further, the legislative committee is looking into the concerns
surrounding the two different boundaries, the RRWCD boundary and the RR Domain Boundary as defined in the stipulation. There are wells in the domain boundary that are receiving the
protection of the RRWCD but are not located within the RRWCD boundary. Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 November 18, 2016 Ms. Daniel concluded her remarks saying that
the static water level measurements need to continue as they are extremely important for business in the Northern High Plains as are the historic pumping records. She also asked that
the Commission work on a timely schedule for the rule changes. Chairman Valdez called for agenda item no. 10, old business. a) Proposal to amend Rule 5.2.9 to determine that the
alluvial aquifer, and all of the Fan and White River aquifers, in the Upper Crow Creek Basin are over appropriated. Mr. Andy Jones, attorney for the proponents, addressing the Commission
advised them that he would make his presentation after item b, of old business. b) Proposal to amend Rule 5.6 regarding replacement plans, and Rule 5.8 regarding artificial recharge,
storage, and recovery plans. Mr. Keith Vander Horst re-acquainted the Commission with the proposed Rule changes. Mr. John Buchanan, representing Front Range Resources, urged the Commission
not to fast track the amendments to Rules 5.6 and 5.8. He said that Lost Creek Land and Cattle LLC, a private company is asking for the Rule changes to protect its property rights.
Mr. Buchanan said that bringing water from outside the Basin to recharge the aquifer is a good thing which would be essentially stopped if a provision in the rule change requiring
water rights be changed prior to filing an application with the Commission is approved. Mr. Buchanan brought his remarks to a close by informing the Commission that staff was working
with Lost Creek Land and Cattle LLC to write the suggested changes and not allowing Front Range Resources to participate, in violation of Rule. Mr. Vander Horst addressed the Commission.
He noted that staff does not have a position on fast tracking the Rule change. Mr. Vander Horst reminded the Commission that at the August meeting, at the request of Mr. Alan Curtis,
the Commission approved the fast track course. Mr. Vander Horst also advised the Commission that the process is not yet at the stakeholder process but that staff is composing suggested
changes, in consultation with Mr. Curtis, as proponent of the proposed rule change, to present to all stake holders, including Mr. Buchanan, at some point in the future. Mr. Alan Curtis
approached the Commission and reminded them of the reason that they agreed to the fast track approach on these rules in August. He said that Lost Creek Land and Cattle LLC and others
in the basins had recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending their water rights against the deep pockets of Front Range Resources and it’s replacement or storage and
recovery plan, they were not quite sure which. Mr. Curtis asked that the fast track continue so that the Rules can be clarified prior to the next application for a replacement plan
or for aquifer storage and recovery. Ms. Leila Behnampour representing Central Yuma, Frenchman, Marks Butte and Sandhills GWMD and North Kiowa LLC, addressed the Commission. Ms. Behnampour
expressed the concern of her clients that amendments to all of the Rules are being put on hold because of the fast tracking of a few rules. She would like to see the general rule changes
be expedited as well and not have to wait until 2018. Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 November 18, 2016 Commissioner Farmer stating that the Commission needs to be
educated on the matter suggested that an interim meeting might be helpful. Responding to questions from Mr. Rein, Mr. Buchanan said that it is their belief that the stake holder process
has begun and that they want to be treated the same as any private party participating in drafting the proposed rule changes. Responding to a question of Commissioner Farmer encouraging
the process for amending Rule 5.2.9 continue on a fast track, Mr. Vander Horst said that the process for Rule 5.2.9 is well along and ready for publication. Commissioner Arnusch said
that the process should continue for Rules 5.6 and 5.8 and that he did not see a motion as being necessary to do so. Responding to a question of Mr. Kowaleski, Mr. Vander Horst said
that based on the August meeting and the discussion today he is of the belief that he should proceed with the stake holder meetings and come back to the Commission for authorization
to file the proposed rules with the Secretary of State without further consultation with Mr. Curtis or other parties. a) Proposal to amend Rule 5.2.9 to determine that the alluvial
aquifer and all of the Fan and White River aquifers, in the Upper Crow Creek Basin are over appropriated. Mr. Vander Horst briefed the Commission on the history of the request and
of the stake holder process recently completed. He asked the Commission for authorization to file the Notice of Rule Change with the Secretary of State and to publish the Rule change.
Mr. Jones approached the Commission. Noting that there was no opposition to the proposed change, Mr. Jones requested that the hearing be scheduled to be heard by the Commission at
the February meeting. Commissioner Gourley moved to file the rule change with the Secretary of State. Commissioner Fowler seconded the motion which passed unanimously. c) The Office
of the State Engineer’s role as an implementing agency under SB-181 of 1989. Mr. Vander Horst, covering his November 8, 2016 memorandum to the Commission, provided the Commission with
a history of SB-89-181 noting that while the State Engineer is an implementing Agency, the Ground Water Commission is not. Commissioner Fowler said that based on the information provided
she does not believe that the Commission needs to be an implementing agency at this time. Mr. Jones addressed the Commission, reminding them that the reason the subject of the Commission
being an implementing agency was to give credence to their Rules which speak to water quality. He suggested amending the Rules to specifically say that Rule 41 applies. Commissioner
Farmer asked if Rule 42, dealing with site specific as opposed to the general regulations of Rule 41 could also be considered. Mr. Jones said it could. Ground Water Commission Meeting
Minutes Page 11 November 18, 2016 Chairman Valdez called for agenda item no. 11, new business. a) Request for Authorization to Proceed with Rulemaking: Amendments to 2 CCR 402-3,
Rules of Procedure for All Hearings Before the Colorado Ground Water Commission. Mr. Kevin Rein, speaking on behalf of Hearing Officer Grantham reminded the Commission that this action
is in accord with direction from the Governor and legislature to review and amend all rules associated with regulatory agencies. Mr. Rein said that Mr. Grantham is asking for authorization
to begin the rulemaking process, publication and stakeholder meetings. The Commission authorized Mr. Grantham to proceed with the rulemaking process. b) Selection of next year’s meeting
dates and locations. Mr. Chris Grimes presented February 17, 2017 in Denver as the date and location for the first (1st) quarterly meeting of the Commission. The Commission approved
this date. Commissioner Arnusch, noting that the November 2017 meeting date would conflict with the largest agricultural meeting in the State asked if the 2017 November meeting could
be moved up a week. The Commission directed Mr. Grimes to bring this matter to the attention of Secretary Nielsen. Commissioner Fowler requested that staff, at the next meeting, present
a proposed rule making schedule for 2017 that considers all of the Rules, not just those that are being fast tracked. Chairman Valdez called for agenda item no. 12, public comment,
there was none. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Richard A Nielsen, P.E., Secretary Colorado Ground Water Commission
MSMD Petition for Determination of Jurisdiction over Surface Water.pdf
depar™£NT of natural resources 13 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES"K l*\f */\*N John W. Hickenlooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. . Director/State Engineer August
23, 2013 Meridian Sen/ice Metropoiitan District 12311 Rex Road Peyton, CO 80831 RE: Meridian's Subsurface Drains and Recharge Structures, and Ponds Gentlemen: I am writing to formally
convey what Meridian Service Metropolitan District (Meridian) needs to do to legalize the subsurface drains that have been constructed within the Meridian Ranch development. I am also
writing to address what appears to be storage of water in ponds without the benefit of appropriate water rights. As the drains are wells diverting designated ground water, Meridian
must submit applications for well permits for ail drains. Please submit one application for each drain line or system. 'For each application include a map showing the extent of all
drain lines including j information pn type-and sjze pfpiping, whatseptions areperfqratedand non-perforated, akd r4gaJ^8^eskt|>tio^^the^1 tsf dischargedwater (which apparently would
be' thd^poirSdTdfscRarge"to the recharge structures)." I told Meridian during our June 4, 2013 field inspection that well permits were required. Please submit,well permit applications
for all drains that exist within Meridian's development within 30 days. For our office to issue well permits Meridian must either demonstrate all diverted ground water is returned to
the alluvia! aquifer or Meridian must also apply for and obtain approval of a replacement plan that replaces depletions to the alluvial aquifer. Meridian has stated it intends to demonstrate
all ground water entering the drains is recharged back into the alluvial aquifer, and has constructed a number of recharge structures for this purpose (which have been referred to as
dispersion pits, infiltration galleries, or colloquially as donuts). There are concerns that the recharge structures do not effectively recharge all the water to the alluvia! aquifer
because water appears on the surface of the ground in the vicinity of some of the recharge structures. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street/ Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203
• Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] www.water.state.co.us Meridian Service Metropolitan District August 23, 2013 Page 2 Chris Grimes conducted a field inspection on April 24,
2013 visiting recharge structures near the high school, near the golf course club house (described as serving Filing 1), a structure that was described as serving Filings 3 and 7, a
structure described as serving Filing 2, and a structure described as serving Filing 4. There had been approximately 5 inches of snow in the area within 36 hours prior to this inspection
which made it difficult to determine whether the waters that were seen on ground surface were surface runoff of precipitation, or the exposure of the water table or surfacing of water
that had been introduced into the recharge structures. In a field inspection Chris Grimes and I conducted on June 4, 201 3 we visited recharge structures near the high school, near
the golf course club house, and the structure described as serving Filings 3 and 7. Meridian stated there had been no precipitation in the area for approximately 10 days before this
inspection, therefore any waters seen would be exposure of or surfacing of ground water. Following are comments on each of the above recharge structures that were visited. Recharge
Structure near High School The recharge structure near the high school is in a drainage that runs off the Meridian property via culverts beneath Eastonville Road. In both inspections
there was water on ground surface immediately down gradient of the recharge structure and up gradient of the culverts beneath Eastonville Road. Within that area is a recently constructed
dam surfaced with rock. Due to the presence of water on ground surface it appears that not all of the water introduced into this structure is being effectively recharged into the alluvium.
The presence of standing water also indicates that the drainage is not effectively conveying surface water downstream off the site through the culverts under Eastonville Road. Review
of the USGS topographic map and historical aerial photographs indicates that there historically has not been standing water at this location upstream of Eastonville Road. The map and
photos also indicate that construction of the high school resulted in an adjacent natural drainage (northeast of the subject drainage) that was previously conveyed under Eastonville
Road directly opposite the high school being re-routed to discharge to the drainage and culverts under Eastonville Road that this recharge structure drains to. It appears that some
combination of re-routing of the adjacent drainage into this drainage, construction of the rock surfaced dam along with possible alteration of ground surface in the drainage, and delivery
of additional water via the recharge structure has resulted in an increase in delivery of water to this site and presence of water on the ground surface. Meridian Service Metropolitan
District August 23, 2013 Page 3 Meridian needs to ensure effective recharge of the ground water delivered to the recharge structure from the drain. This requires that there be no water
on ground surface in the vicinity of the recharge structure. This could possibly be accomplished by bringing in fill and raising the ground surface upstream of Eastonville Road, assuming
the ground water flow capacity of the alluvial aquifer above, beneath, and down gradient of Eastonville Road can handle the amount of ground water coming into the site. Meridian stated
it intends to construct a storm water detention pond on this drainage immediately upstream of Eastonville Road. Along with bringing in fill and raising the ground surface, it appears
that the detention pond contours and outlet will have to be constructed so as to ensure that all surface water inflows (e.g. precipitation runoff) are released out of the pond and delivered
to and through the culverts under Eastonville Road so as to prevent any storage of water other than would be required for flood control purposes. Other than when operating for flood
control mitigation the area should not have any water on ground surface. Given the continued presence of water on ground surface, it appears earth work needs to be done to ensure effective
recharge before a well permit could be issued for the drain that delivers ground water to this recharge structure, Recharge Structure near Golf Course Club House, serving Filing 1 At
the April 24, 2013 inspection there was a single recharge structure, with water on the ground surface in the stream channel adjacent to the recharge structure. A second recharge structure
was added prior to the June 4, 201 3 inspection. At the June 4, 201 3 inspection while the stream channel was wet there was essentially no surface water. On June 4, 201 3 the recharge
structures were effectively recharging the water from the supply drain. Verification that no recharged water surfaces on the ground would be needed over varying seasons and wet & dry
periods. Recharge Structure serving Filings 3 & 7 At the April 24, 2013 inspection there was standing water in the drainage and detention pond down gradient of this structure, it was
not clear whether this standing water was sourced < from precipitation runoff or ground water exposure. At the June 4, 2013 inspection there was a small amount of standing water at
the bottom of the detention pond. As there was no recent precipitation this water would be exposed ground water. Review of the USGS topographic map and historical aerial photographs
indicates that there historically has not been standing water at this site. Mr. Robert Longenbaugh, engineer for the Farmer family, has claimed that construction of the detention pond
in the drainage adjacent to this recharge structure resulted in excavation of the drainage and pond site such that naturally occurring ground water has been exposed. Meridian Service
Metropolitan District August 23, 2013 Page 4 Please provide construction drawings, geologic reports, etc. that show what excavation and earth work occurred in this area and what the
effect of those excavations and earth work had on the depths of the water table and bedrock to ground surface. Meridian needs to ensure there is no ground water exposure in the vicinity
of this site, both to ensure effective recharge of the water delivered to the recharge structure from the drain, and to prevent exposure of naturally occurring ground water. Please
explain how this will be accomplished. it appears earthwork may be needed to ensure effective recharge before a well permit could be issued for the drain that delivers ground water
to this recharge structure. Recharge Structures serving Filings 2 and 4 At the April 24, 201 3 inspection there was no surface water near these two sites indicating the recharge structures
were effectively recharging the water from the supply drains. Verification that no recharged water surfaces on the ground would be needed over varying seasons and wet & dry periods.
Ponds During the June 4, 2013 field inspection we walked upstream from the recharge structure near the golf course club house to a pond containing water, identified as "Pond C". We
understood the pond is diverting water flowing down the stream channel; please verify this or otherwise identify the source of water in the pond. I cannot fine a water right attached
to this pond. If Meridian believes it has a right to storewater in this pond, please identify or explain what it believes that right is. Given the recent decision of the Commission
in Meridian's application for direct flow surface rights (GWC case no. 12-GW-10, Water Court case no. 10-CW-95), the water coming down the channel and stored in the pond could be either
designated ground water and/or tributary surface water. If the water is designated ground water (or for those portions that are) an application for a diversion of designated ground
water and an application for a replacement plan needs to be made to the Ground Water Commission. If the water is tributary surface water (or for those portions that are) application
for a water right needs to be made with the Water Court. Along with these applications a determination will have to be made of the amounts of water available to each right. Quantification
of the amount of water available to a tributary surface right would be based on the amount of water (i.e. precipitation) that historically was surface run-off into the stream channel
that flowed past this pond absent (i.e. prior to) Meridian's development (or any Meridian Service Metropolitan District August 23, 201 3 Page 5 other upstream development), limited
by any amounts of such water already decreed to Meridian's current surface right that exists downstream of that pond (decreed in case no. 05CW-43). It would appear that all waters available
for diversion as tributary surface rights have already been appropriated by Meridian's existing surface right. Absent Meridian holding the appropriate water right(s), ali flows in the
stream channel should be passed on and no storage should be occurring. Review of aerial photographs indicates there are at least two other similar ponds on the Meridian property that
contain water (identified as Ponds A and B on Figure 7 of Meridian's Master Development Drainage Plan, Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD Exhibit U-21 in case no. 1 2-GW-1 0, copy attached).
Their ability to divert and store water is similar to that of Pond C. Please provide Meridian's response regarding the source and claim of legal right to water in these ponds within
30 days. Be advised that by copy of this letter to the Division 2 Engineer he is being made aware of the apparent inappropriate storage of water in these ponds. Failure to respond within
30 days or failure to provide an adequate legal basis for the storage of water in the ponds may result in orders being issued to drain the ponds. If you have any questions feel free
to contact me. Please copy the Division Engineer, the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District, and Robert Longenbaugh with your response. Sincerely, Keith Vander
Horst, P.E. Designated Basins Team Leader cc: Steve Witte, Division 2 Engineer . Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD Robert Longenbaugh: 41 03 Stoney Creek Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525-5600
r MASTER DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PLAN MERIDIAN RANCH V /I ¦ > -V\ '"S ' © . \ © - 'O—1 v.©© I'L r © © \ © @\ r-. * I -\ V. 'Jr% —lci uvrrw ' "7."" T " "!tuno rwfr wV©? o\\ ^wm \ 1 c \
MBR1 2>c"OECKfWCH, OUKMOO 1 > © I \Jkrr-© ' l: "•J/ \ vs""i © : ; k 1 hV_(J ©* ;> W 1 ©H —J®-r-r:-" '// Fy" , f\ HI ; «« i*0 7/ix-J t I.\ ^ — m W U >9/ u m y M: © \ ' " 1 EUMCNT. ,
schoo. V 35 AC s V / l-y"© r-i .6. 11 — ---J / ) \ / fgf.l ,( 7 - \ v»> / A MS-84 A 1 -/ y \ Mlf s I v '• 1 ©!! 'n y-s®.'--: R!e /. / ® 2. " 17® ua eWr §-|c:'V \ • ©r ¦£ ffv>. \ ®\'oi
\ NW»-T—>-J e"»I"! «¦— ' » /. «/¦ / '/J ' - 1 ¦ © < ElU <© ^f?Sr . fcS v © ; / if2a mM\\M 1 -9 f/ 1 -)tE > \¦ n»**n HI AC *'*> 7 'r—3ii h \ /r/.» /: V -. , WN \ ' 'mrbp f ©•.I. :'KWS''
V Ko UGCNP fer / 01 © I \ © / . . -o . , ^ 3 " :J asAPI lie SCALC --ru ^E7_ ' O iroi ioy» COMTRAC'ORS "ictus MOAD r*iCC«.. CO 80431 mot ii«n>u< inaijuDEVELOPED CONDITIONS - SCS MAP*Wtf
H ' IMW \«» i-JlfinMH-"1" (X«lan I- ••!», ,1,11. oii>v<a lllHIXixmilM'BUOi'Wl" »CH>VMIWIA»1II»WI«« u» FIGURE 7 yIV MAY 2012 Exhibit U-21 1 9 September 23, 2013 V, V SEP Colorado Division
of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 Attn: Mr. Keith Vander Horst, P.E. Designated Basins Team Leader Operation of Detention Ponds A, B, and C in the Meridian
Service Metropolitan District. Subject: Project No. 1303-13 Dear Keith: In your letter ofAugust 23, 2013, you raised the issue related to the water being stored in Ponds A, B, and C
associated with the golf course in the Meridian Service Metropolitan District (Meridian Ranch). All ofthese ponds were approved by El Paso County for storm water retention and detention