DWR_3364078

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 2/20/2015
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

the Hearing Officer, and the associated hearing deadlines shall be modified accordingly. 4. Dismissal of the Application does not create any presumptions, foreclose any claims, positions,
or arguments, shift the burden of proof in any appeal, or otherwise prejudice the parties. 5. Each party to the Stipulation will bear its own costs and expenses to date in this matter,
including attorneys’ fees. 6. The procedures set forth in the Stipulation as approved herein are due to the unique and particular circumstances of this case and set no precedent for
future appellate procedures before the Commission. 1Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation Company resolved its opposition to this
case through a separate stipulation which was approved by the Hearing Officer on January 27, 2015. Dated this 13th day of February, 2015. __________________________________
Joseph (Jody) Grantham Hearing Officer Colorado Ground Water Commission 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 821 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: [phone] ext. 8288 [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have duly served the within ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION BETWEEN APPLICANT AND ALL REMAINING OBJECTORS AND DISMISSING APPLICATION
WITH PREJUDICE upon all parties herein by emailing copies of the same at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of February 2015, addressed as follows: John Buchanan, Esq. Timothy Buchanan,
Esq. Attorneys for Front Range Resources [e-mail] [e-mail] Alan E. Curtis, Esq. David C. Taussig, Esq. Adam C. Davenport, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Land & Cattle
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Michael F. Browning, Esq. Attorney for Equus Farms, Inc. [e-mail] P. Andrew Jones, Esq.
Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. Attorneys for Lost Creek Ground Water Management District [e-mail] [e-mail] Jefferey J. Kahn, Esq. Matthew Machado, Esq. Attorneys for Morgan County
Quality Water District & Weldon Valley Ditch Company [e-mail] [e-mail] Steven L. Janssen, Esq. Attorney for Henrylyn Irrigation District [e-mail]
Bennett W. Raley, Esq. Doug M. Sinor, Esq. Attorneys for Northern Colorado Water Conversancy District [e-mail] [e-mail] Mary Mead Hammond, Esq. Mason H. Brown,
Esq. Attorneys for Irrigationists’ Association, Water Dist. 1 [e-mail] [e-mail] Jennifer Mele, Esq. Attorney for Staff for the Ground Water Commission Attorney
General’s Office [e-mail] Susan Schneider, Esq. Conflicts Counsel for Hearing Officer Attorney General’s Office [e-mail] Rick Nielsen/ Keith Vander
Horst Staff for the Ground Water Commission [e-mail] [e-mail] ______________________________________
13GW07 Stipulation - fully executed.pdf.
BEFORE THE GROUND WATER COMMISSION, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 13GW7 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLACEMENT PLAN IN THE LOST CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN IN
ADAMS AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO FRONT RANGE RESOURCES, LLC, APPLICANT JOINT STIPULATION BETWEEN APPLICANT AND ALL REMAINING OBJECTORS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION WITH PREJUDICE1
Applicant Front Range Resources, LLC ("Front Range") and Objectors, Lost Creek Land & Cattle Company, Equus Farms, Inc., Henrylyn Irrigation District, Morgan County Quality Water District,
Weldon Valley Ditch Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District, the Ground Water Commission Staff, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Irrigationists’ Association,
Water District 1 (collectively, "Objectors"), by and through their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Front Range filed an application in this
case in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. § 37-90-107.5 and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for the Administration Management and Control of Designated Ground Water,
2 CCR 410-1, which application was amended on May 5, 2014 (“Application”). The Application seeks approval of a replacement plan within the Lost Creek Designated Ground Water Basin.
2. On January 9, 2015, Front Range provided its rebuttal expert report in this case (“Rebuttal Report”). 3. The Rebuttal Report disclosed evidence regarding Front Range’s transient
ground water model and testimony of Front Range’s water resources engineering experts. Front Range’s position is that this model and testimony comprise important evidence that the
Replacement Plan will not cause material injury. 4. A hearing on the Application was scheduled to commence on February 23, 2015, for three weeks. All parties were prepared to proceed
with the hearing. 5. On December 2, 2014 and February 4, 2015, the Hearing Officer entered orders, attached hereto as EXHIBIT A, dismissing certain water rights as replacement water
sources and prohibiting Front Range from presenting evidence on such replacement water sources. 1Fort Morgan Reservoir and Irrigation
Company (“FMRICO”) resolved its opposition to this case through a separate stipulation which was approved by the Hearing Officer on January 27, 2015 and, pursuant to the stipulation,
FMRICO withdrew its statement of objection. All remaining parties are signatories to this stipulation. Stipulation With All Remaining Objectors Case No. 13GW07 Page 2 6. On February
9, 2015, the Hearing Officer entered the Order attached as EXHIBIT B, precluding Front Range from presenting certain evidence disclosed in the Rebuttal Report. 7. The parties jointly
request that the Hearing Officer immediately enter an order approving the Stipulation and dismissing the Application in the form attached hereto (“Proposed Order”). Upon the Hearing
Officer’s entering the Proposed Order, the hearing scheduled to begin on February 23, 2015 and all pre-hearing deadlines shall be vacated, unless the hearing and pre-hearing deadlines
are modified pursuant to paragraph 11 below. Commission Staff and counsel for Commission Staff have represented to the parties that the Proposed Order will be included on the Commission
agenda for consideration at the February 20, 2015 meeting. The parties shall jointly request that the Commission approve the Hearing Officer’s entry of the Proposed Order at the February
20, 2015 Commission meeting. In the event Front Range or any Objector attends the Commission meeting and addresses the Commission, any statements made shall be limited to supporting
and defending the terms of the Stipulation and the factual bases supporting the Stipulation. 8. The parties expressly: (1) waive any and all objections to the Hearing Officer and
the Commission not holding a hearing regarding the Application and (2) waive any and all claims that the proceedings before the Hearing Officer and Commission were not complete or that
there was a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 9. Except as expressly waived in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation, the terms of this Stipulation and dismissal of the Application
will not create any presumptions, foreclose any claims, positions, or arguments, shift the burden of proof in any appeal, or otherwise prejudice the parties. 10.In the event that the
Hearing Officer enters the Proposed Order dismissing the Application and the dismissal is approved by the Commission, the parties agree that such dismissal will constitute a final,
appealable act of the Commission, and the parties agree that Front Range shall have the right to appeal such dismissal of the Application to the Adams County District Court Judge appointed
pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 37-90-115(1)(V). 11.In the event that the Commission remands the Application to the Hearing Officer and/or does not dismiss the Application,
the parties agree that a hearing will be conducted before the Hearing Officer, and this Stipulation shall be void and of no further effect. In this event, the parties further agree
to extend the start date of the hearing to begin on March 2, 2015 or March 9, 2015, as directed by the Hearing Officer, and that the hearing shall be decreased to a 10-day hearing,
and that the associated hearing deadlines shall be modified accordingly. 12.This Stipulation will bind and benefit Front Range and Objectors and their respective assigns and successors
in interest; however, individuals other than the signatories to this stipulation are neither bound by nor are they intended to benefit from this Stipulation. Stipulation With All Remaining
Objectors Case No. 13GW07 Page 4 LAWRENCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK LLP P. Andrew Jones (#29076) Ryan Donovan (#44435) Attorneys for the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District TROUT,
RALEY, MONTAÑO, WITWER & FREEMAN, P.C. Bennett W. Raley (#13429) Douglas M. Sinor (#31148) Lisa M. Thompson (#35923) Attorneys for Northern ColoradoWater Conservancy District CARLSON,
HAMMOND & PADDOCK, L.L.C. Mary Mead Hammond(#9851) Mason H. Brown (#44831) Attorneys for Irrigationists’ Association, Water District 1 Digitally signed by Ryan Donovan DN: cn=Ryan Donovan,
o=LJCG Law, ou, email=[e-mail], c=US Date: 2015.02.12 11:25:33 -07'00'
AG Report2015-2-20.docxATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission
February 20, 2015
The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of February 6, 2015.
cherokee metropolitan district
Case No. 08-GW-71
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer and District Court
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: An application for approval of a replacement plan to make new appropriations from the alluvial aquifer within the basin. Objections were submitted by the District, along with
four other water users in the basin. A hearing was held for two weeks in Denver beginning on June 8, 2009 during which the applicants completed their initial presentation and the objectors
began their presentations. An additional week of hearing scheduled for August 3 through 7, 2009 was vacated following a ruling from the Division 2 Water Court regarding Cherokee’s
use of some of its wells, subject to further negotiations and amendment of the proposed replacement plan. This case was consolidated with change cases 08GW78 and 09GW15, and the trial
was set to continue in January 2010
Status: In November of 2009, the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District filed in District Court, in Case No. 98CW80 for a declaratory judgment asking the court
to determine whether Cherokee is required to use its waste water as recharge for the basin or if that waste water can be claimed as replacement credit under a replacement plan. On
June 17, 2013 the Court found that neither Cherokee nor Meridian is prohibited from claiming wastewater return credits for its replacement plan. Those orders were held to be final
appealable orders on October 31, 2103. UBS filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2013 on the issue of whether Cherokee can use basin recharge as replacement water under the 1999
Stipulation between the parties. Meridian filed a notice of cross-appeal on December 27, 2013 on the procedural issue of whether the water court can hold up the replacement plan pending
in front of the Commission pending resolution of the issues before the court. The parties participated in oral argument before the Supreme Court and now are awaiting a decision.
cherokee metropolitan district
Case No. 08-GW-78 09-GW-15</w:t></w:r></w
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applications to change the type and place of use of wells. Objections were submitted by the District and other water users in the basin. Both cases were consolidated with
08GW71.
Status: See above.
edna farmer et al.
Case No. 09-GW-02
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney:
Subject: This case involves the determination of water right in the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. An objection was filed by Cherokee Metropolitan District. The applicant moved to consolidate
this case with 08GW71, the replacement plan application by Cherokee and Meridian Service Metropolitan District, and09GW03, another application for determination of water right (discussed
below). This motion was denied by the hearing officer.
Status: The hearing officer will set the matter for a hearing.
daniel and theresa farmer et al.
Case No. 09-GW-03
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney:
Subject: This case involves the determination of water right in the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. An objection was filed by Cherokee Metropolitan District. The applicant moved to consolidate
this case with 08GW71, the replacement plan application by Cherokee and Meridian Service Metropolitan District, and 09GW02, another application for determination of water right (discussed
above). This motion was denied by the hearing officer.
Status: The hearing officer will set the matter for a hearing.
meridian service metro district
Case No. 09-GW-11
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Application for a change of water right. Two parties filed objections.
Status: The hearing set for February 25 and 26, 2010 has been stayed because the water rights to be changed were for use in the replacement plan in 08GW71. The matter is stayed pending</
resolution of the issues in case no. 98CW80 as described above for Cherokee Metro District’s replacement plan.
Gallegos, Reinaldo, et al
Case No. 03-GW-06
Designated Basin: Upper Crow Creek
Management District:
Before: District Court
Attorney: Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Petition to de-designate portions of the Upper Crow Creek Designated Ground Water Basin.
Background: The petitioners originally sent letters to the State Engineer in 2002 and 2003 seeking curtailment of wells within the Basin. The State Engineer declined to curtail wells
and the petitioners appealed the issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction over surface water rights first to District Court and eventually to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held
that the Commission has jurisdiction over surface water rights only to the extent the holder of surface rights seeks to change a boundary of a designated basin, in which case the surface
rights owner must show, using information that was not before the Commission at the time of designation, that pumping of the designated ground water has more than a de minimis effect
on the surface rights and is causing injury to those rights. The matter was remanded to the Commission, and this petition to de-designation a portion of the designated basin was filed
with the Commission on August 11, 2010.
Status: A trial was held starting on February 24, 2014 and lasting 7.5 days. As of July 7, 2014 closing arguments have been filed and the parties await a judgment from the court.
<
WILLIAM GREATHOUSE
Case No. 11-GW-06
Designated Basin: Southern High Plains
Management District:
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Application for final permit. Applicant does not agree with Staff’s assessment of the amount of irrigated land associated with the permit.
Status: This matter is stayed while applicant applies for supplemental permit for the additional acreage. On November 4, 2014, the Hearing Officer issued an Order to Show Cause as to
why the stay should not be lifted and the matter dismissed for failure to <prosecute by December 4, 2014. No response was received as of February 3, 2015 and the matter was dismissed.
<
meridian service metro district
Case No. 12-GW-10
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Jen Mele & Pat Kowaleski
Subject: An application for junior surface and storage rights was filed in water court (10CW95), however objectors argue that the claimed water is actually designated ground water since
if not for the diversion, it would recharge the basin. Since only the Commission has the authority to decide when water is designated basin water, the matter is now before the Commission
to make this determination.
Status: The hearing was held January 22 - 24, 2013 before the Hearing Officer. <The Hearing Officer issued the Initial Decision of the Hearing Officer on April 25, holding that the
applicant must determine what portion of the water claimed in the water court application historically contributed to the water supply of the designated basin and subtract that out
from the surface water claim. An appeal of the Initial Decision was submitted to the Commission and the Commission upheld the Initial Decision. Meridian appealed the Commission’s
decision to the district court and trial was held July 29 – 31, 2014. <The District Court held in favor of the Management District and the Commission, finding that a portion of the
water claimed by Meridian is designated ground water over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Meridian has appealed the matter to the Supreme Court.
FRONT RANGE RESOURCESCase No. 13-GW-7
Designated Basin: Lost CreekManagement District: Lost CreekAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Front Range Resources filed for a replacement plan. Objections were filed by Equus Farms Inc., Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company and the Lost Creek Ground Water Management
District.
Status: The matter is set for a 15 day trial starting February 23, 2015 before the hearing officer.
GOURLEY, BLAKE & CHELSEACase No. 14-GW-1
Designated Basin: Southern High PlainsManagement District: <Southern High PlainsAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applicants filed an application for a new well. Objections were filed by Don and Morgan Foster.
Status: The Morgans’ objection is based on alleged injury a small capacity livestock well more than one mile from the subject well. Because under the Rules spacing requirements are
one half mile, and because the Rules direct Staff to look at injury to large capacity wells not small capacity wells when considering permit applications for large capacity wells, Staff
filed a motion for summary judgment asking the hearing officer to dismiss the matter and remand to Staff for issuance of the permit. The hearing officer granted the motion and the
matter was remanded to Staff for issuance of a permit.
MERIDIAN SERVICE METRO. DIST.Case No. 14-GW-2
Designated Basin: Upper Black SquirrelManagement District: Upper Black SquirrelAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applicants filed an application for six new wells, which are French drains that were discussed in Case No. 12-GW-10. Objections were filed by Staff, Farmers and Upper Black
Squirrel Ground Water Management Dist.
Status: The matter was dismissed by the Hearing Officer after the applicant presented its case at the hearing that began on January 14.
GARDNER, JAMES T. (deceased)Case No. 14-GW-3
Designated Basin: Upper Black SquirrelManagement District: Upper Black SquirrelAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Application for a change in description of irrigated acres. An objection was filed by the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District. < <
Status: The executor for the estate of James T. Gardner, Jim Stata, has indicated that he no longer wishes to pursue the change application. <The matter has been remanded to staff
and closed
MERIDIAN SERVICE METRO. DIST.Case No. 14-GW-4
Designated Basin: Upper Black SquirrelManagement District: Upper Black SquirrelAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applicants filed an application for a change in place of use for eight Determinations of Water Right. The Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners filed an objection.

Status: The State Land Board withdrew its objection and the application was remanded to Staff for processing.
WAYNE H. ROTHCase No. 14-GW-5
Designated Basin: Upper Crow CreekManagement District: Upper Crow CreekAttorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applicants filed an application to change the use of two wells. An objection was filed by the Nussbaum Ranch.
Status: Nussbaum Ranch withdrew the objection and the matter has been remanded to staff for processing. <
TOM MAYCase No. 14-GW-6
Designated Basin: Northern High PlainsManagement District: Plains Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Applicants filed an application to change in type of use of three wells. An objection was filed by David Aranci.
Status: The objector has withdrawn his objection and the matter remanded to Staff for processing.
6
6
AG Report2015-2-20.pdfATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission February 20, 2015 The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents
the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of February 6, 2015. CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 08-GW-71 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper
Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer and District Court Attorney: Jen Mele Subject: An application for approval of a replacement plan to make new appropriations
from the alluvial aquifer within the basin. Objections were submitted by the District, along with four other water users in the basin. A hearing was held for two weeks in Denver beginning
on June 8, 2009 during which the applicants completed their initial presentation and the objectors began their presentations. An additional week of hearing scheduled for August 3
through 7, 2009 was vacated following a ruling from the Division 2 Water Court regarding Cherokee’s use of some of its wells, subject to further negotiations and amendment of the proposed
replacement plan. This case was consolidated with change cases 08GW78 and 09GW15, and the trial was set to continue in January 2010 Status: In November of 2009, the Upper Black Squirrel
Creek Ground Water Management District filed in District Court, in Case No. 98CW80 for a declaratory judgment asking the court to determine whether Cherokee is required to use its waste
water as recharge for the basin or if that waste water can be claimed as replacement credit under a replacement plan. On June 17, 2013 the Court found that neither Cherokee nor Meridian
is prohibited from claiming wastewater return credits for its replacement plan. Those orders were held to be final appealable orders on October 31, 2103. UBS filed a notice of appeal
on December 18, 2013 on the issue of whether Cherokee can use basin recharge as replacement water under the 1999 Stipulation between the parties. Meridian filed a notice of cross-appeal
on December 27, 2013 on the procedural issue of whether the water court can hold up the replacement plan pending in front of the Commission pending resolution of the issues before the
court. The parties participated in oral argument before the Supreme Court and now are awaiting a decision. CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 08-GW-78 09-GW-15
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer 2 Creek Attorney: Jen Mele Subject: Applications
to change the type and place of use of wells. Objections were submitted by the District and other water users in the basin. Both cases were consolidated with 08GW71. Status: See
above. EDNA FARMER ET AL. Case No. 09-GW-02 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Subject: This case involves the determination of water right in the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. An objection was filed by Cherokee Metropolitan District. The applicant
moved to consolidate this case with 08GW71, the replacement plan application by Cherokee and Meridian Service Metropolitan District, and09GW03, another application for determination
of water right (discussed below). This motion was denied by the hearing officer. Status: The hearing officer will set the matter for a hearing. DANIEL AND THERESA FARMER ET AL.
Case No. 09-GW-03 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Subject: This
case involves the determination of water right in the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. An objection was filed by Cherokee Metropolitan District. The applicant moved to consolidate this
case with 08GW71, the replacement plan application by Cherokee and Meridian Service Metropolitan District, and 09GW02, another application for determination of water right (discussed
above). This motion was denied by the hearing officer. Status: The hearing officer will set the matter for a hearing. MERIDIAN SERVICE METRO DISTRICT Case No. 09-GW-11 Designated
Basin: Upper Black Squirrel 3 Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Jen Mele Subject: Application for a change of water right.
Two parties filed objections. Status: The hearing set for February 25 and 26, 2010 has been stayed because the water rights to be changed were for use in the replacement plan in
08GW71. The matter is stayed pending resolution of the issues in case no. 98CW80 as described above for Cherokee Metro District’s replacement plan. GALLEGOS, REINALDO, ET AL Case
No. 03-GW-06 Designated Basin: Upper Crow Creek Management District: Before: District Court Attorney: Pat Kowaleski Subject: Petition to de-designate portions of the Upper
Crow Creek Designated Ground Water Basin. Background: The petitioners originally sent letters to the State Engineer in 2002 and 2003 seeking curtailment of wells within the Basin.
The State Engineer declined to curtail wells and the petitioners appealed the issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction over surface water rights first to District Court and eventually
to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Commission has jurisdiction over surface water rights only to the extent the holder of surface rights seeks to change a boundary
of a designated basin, in which case the surface rights owner must show, using information that was not before the Commission at the time of designation, that pumping of the designated
ground water has more than a de minimis effect on the surface rights and is causing injury to those rights. The matter was remanded to the Commission, and this petition to de-designation
a portion of the designated basin was filed with the Commission on August 11, 2010. Status: A trial was held starting on February 24, 2014 and lasting 7.5 days. As of July 7, 2014
closing arguments have been filed and the parties await a judgment from the court. WILLIAM GREATHOUSE Case No. 11-GW-06 Designated Basin: Southern High Plains Management District:
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Jen Mele Subject: Application for final permit. Applicant does not agree with Staff’s assessment of the amount of irrigated
land associated with the permit. Status: This matter is stayed while applicant applies for supplemental permit for the additional acreage. On November 4, 2014, the Hearing Officer
issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the stay should not be lifted and the matter dismissed for failure to 4 prosecute by December 4, 2014. No response was received as of February
3, 2015 and the matter was dismissed. MERIDIAN SERVICE METRO DISTRICT Case No. 12-GW-10 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Before:
Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Jen Mele & Pat Kowaleski Subject: An application for junior surface and storage rights was filed in water court (10CW95), however objectors
argue that the claimed water is actually designated ground water since if not for the diversion, it would recharge the basin. Since only the Commission has the authority to decide