DWR_3364080

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 2/21/2014
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

Plains and East Cheyenne GWMDs by BreAnn Ferguson
Southern High Plains GWMD by Max Smith
North KiowaBijou GWMD by Robert Loose
Upper Black Squirrel GWMD by Tracy Doran
Upper Big Sandy GWMD by Tracy Doran
Lost Creek by GWMD by Thomas Sauter
Upper Crow Creek Basin by Scott Tietmeyer
Republican River Water Conservation District by Deb Daniel
Old Business
New Business
Public Comments
Executive Session (if needed)
Adjournment

NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING OF THE
COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION
February 21, 2014
Agenda2014Feb_Draft.pdfNOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING OF THE
1. Determine quorum 2. Review and approval of agenda items 3. Approval of Minutes for Meeting of November 15, 2013 4. Report of the Executive Director by State Engineer
Dick Wolfe 5. Commissioners’ Reports 6. [IF PRESENTORS ARE AVAILABLE] Presentation on either the south metro area WISE (Water infrastructure and Supply Efficiency) project, or the
Chatfield Reservoir re-allocation effort 7. Hearing on the request of the State Board of Land Commissioners for an exception to Rule 5.5 to allow issuance of two conditional permits
in the Southern High Plains with a duty of water less than 3-1/2 acre-feet per acre 8. Staff Report by Keith Vander Horst 9. Report of the Attorney General by Jen Mele. This is a
background briefing on legal issues in the written report. The Board may refer any item contained or discussed under this topic to Agenda Item No. 13 for discussion in Executive Session
if the Board has questions about the litigation. 10. District Reports: a. Marks Butte, Frenchman, Sand Hills and Central Yuma GWMDs by Nate Midcap b. W-Y GWMD by Jack Dowell c. Arikaree
GWMD by Rod Mason d. Plains and East Cheyenne GWMDs by BreAnn Ferguson e. Southern High Plains GWMD by Max Smith f. North Kiowa-Bijou GWMD by Robert Loose g. Upper Black Squirrel GWMD
by Tracy Doran h. Upper Big Sandy GWMD by Tracy Doran i. Lost Creek by GWMD by Thomas Sauter a. Upper Crow Creek Basin by Scott Tietmeyer b. Republican River Water Conservation District
by Deb Daniel 11. Old Business 12. New Business 13. Public Comments 14. Executive Session (if needed) NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING OF THE COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION 10:00 a.m.,
Friday, February 21, 2014 1313 Sherman St., Room 813 Denver, CO 80203 A G E N D A NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING OF THE COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION February 21, 2014 A G E N D
A (page 2, cont.) 15. Adjournment
AnalysisOfDeNovoReview.docx
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Cynthia H. Coffman
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Daniel D. Domenico
Solicitor General
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Office of the Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr
Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone [phone]
February 6, 2014
MEmorandum
TO:Colorado Ground Water Commission
FROM:Patrick Kowaleski, Senior Assistant Attorney General
RE:Scope of de novo review of Commission decisions
Since the Commission has recently had its decisions in two cases appealed to District Court, and since we have new Commissioners who are not familiar with the issue of de novo review,
I have been asked to provide the Commission with some background information on the issue of how Commission decisions are treated on appeal.
When a party is “adversely affect or aggrieved’“ by a decision of the Commission, that party may take an appeal of the decision to District Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado
Ground Water Management Act, § 37-90-115, C.R.S. Pursuant to that section of the act, “[p]roceedings upon appeal shall be de novo; except that evidence taken in any administrative proceeding
appealed from may be considered as original evidence, subject to legal objection, as if said evidence were originally offered in such district court.”
Over the years it has not been unusual for a party to appeal a decision of the Ground Water Commission, but the appeal was typically based solely on the evidence that had been adduced
before the Commission and its Hearing Officer.
Recently however, in the Gallegos and Meridian cases, the appellants have indicated that they may wish to present evidence to the Court, beyond that which they presented to the Commission.
This position led a Court, for the first time, to determine what is meant by de novo review, as that term is used in the Commission’s statute. The Court, in the Gallegos case, determined
it could consider evidence that the Commission had not considered. The Court also concluded that its review should be entirely separate, and independent, from the determination made
by the Commission, thus not giving deference to the Commission’s determination.
The decisions of most State agencies, unlike decisions of the Ground Water Commission, are reviewed solely on the record that is created by the agency, and the parties are not allowed
to introduce new testimony on appeal. In these appeals the reviewing Court will look at things such as whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or capricious, or unsupported by any
evidence when the record is considered as a whole. Unless this test is met, the decision will be upheld. See § 24-4-106, 107, C.R.S.
An amendment to the Commission’s statute which had been discussed would not propose to adopt this latter “arbitrary and capricious” standard, and would retain a Court’s de novo, and
therefore, independent, review. The legislative change that had been discussed would, however, require that the Court only review the record that was created by the Commission, and
would not allow the consideration of any additional testimony on appeal, beyond that which was presented to the Commission. After reviewing the testimony and materials that had been
presented to the Commission, the Court would reach its own conclusion on whether the relief sought on appeal should be granted.
This analysis of de novo review is meant to assist the Commission in its policy-making role, as it discusses any possible legislative proposals. If the Commission wishes to discuss the
specifics of either the Gallegos or Meridian litigation, the Commission should go into executive session for that discussion.
<
cc:Keith Vander Horst
AG File:DOCUMENT4
Page 2
AnalysisOfDeNovoReview.pdf
John W. Suthers Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel D. Domenico Solicitor General STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW Office of the Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone [phone] February 6, 2014 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Colorado Ground Water Commission
FROM: Patrick Kowaleski, Senior Assistant Attorney General RE: Scope of de novo review of Commission decisions Since the Commission has recently had its decisions in two cases appealed
to District Court, and since we have new Commissioners who are not familiar with the issue of de novo review, I have been asked to provide the Commission with some background information
on the issue of how Commission decisions are treated on appeal. When a party is “adversely affect or aggrieved’“ by a decision of the Commission, that party may take an appeal of the
decision to District Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, § 37-90-115, C.R.S. Pursuant to that section of the act, “[p]roceedings upon appeal
shall be de novo; except that evidence taken in any administrative proceeding appealed from may be considered as original evidence, subject to legal objection, as if said evidence were
originally offered in such district court.” Over the years it has not been unusual for a party to appeal a decision of the Ground Water Commission, but the appeal was typically based
solely on the evidence that had been adduced before the Commission and its Hearing Officer. Recently however, in the Gallegos and Meridian cases, the appellants have indicated that
they may wish to present evidence to the Court, beyond that which they presented to the Commission. This position led a Court, for the first time, to determine what is meant by de
novo review, as that term is used in the Commission’s statute. The Court, in the Gallegos case, determined it could consider evidence that the Commission had not considered. The Court
also concluded that its review should be entirely separate, Page 2 and independent, from the determination made by the Commission, thus not giving deference to the Commission’s determination.
The decisions of most State agencies, unlike decisions of the Ground Water Commission, are reviewed solely on the record that is created by the agency, and the parties are not allowed
to introduce new testimony on appeal. In these appeals the reviewing Court will look at things such as whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or capricious, or unsupported by any
evidence when the record is considered as a whole. Unless this test is met, the decision will be upheld. See § 244-106, 107, C.R.S. An amendment to the Commission’s statute which had
been discussed would not propose to adopt this latter “arbitrary and capricious” standard, and would retain a Court’s de novo, and therefore, independent, review. The legislative change
that had been discussed would, however, require that the Court only review the record that was created by the Commission, and would not allow the consideration of any additional testimony
on appeal, beyond that which was presented to the Commission. After reviewing the testimony and materials that had been presented to the Commission, the Court would reach its own conclusion
on whether the relief sought on appeal should be granted. This analysis of de novo review is meant to assist the Commission in its policymaking role, as it discusses any possible legislative
proposals. If the Commission wishes to discuss the specifics of either the Gallegos or Meridian litigation, the Commission should go into executive session for that discussion.
cc: Keith Vander Horst AG File: DOCUMENT4
GWC_enforcment_packet.docx
Enforcement Items and Actions
NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS
On January 8, 2014, Staff issued Overpumping Orders to 12 well owners (involving 13 wells) in the Republican River Basin. These orders were issued as a result of the wells exceeding
their permitted acre-foot allocations during the 2013 water year. For the 2014 water year, 10 of these wells will have their permitted appropriations reduced by the amounts the wells
overpumped during the 2013 water year.
Because the additional three wells were under Order in 2013 for overpumping, these wells will have their permitted appropriations reduced by twice the amount they overpumped in 2013.
In addition, these well owners will be responsible for fines of up to $500 for each day their wells pumped in excess of their individual permitted limits.
The following owners have received Overpumping Orders for the 2014 water year.
Central Yuma GWMD:
Stulp Investments
Arikaree GWMD:
Osmus Land Company
Larry Routten
Robin and Helen Liming
Allen Liming (Violated 2013 Ovepumping Order, court action pending)
WY GWMD:
Eagle Creek Farms
Larry Bond
Francis Rogers (Violated 2013 Overpumping Order, court action pending)
Frenchman:
Richard Lebsack
Kenneth Heerman (2 wells)
Elaine Gerk
Krueger Enterprises (Violated 2013 Overpumping Order, court action pending)
Additional Enforcement Actions <
Arikaree GWMD:
The District reported that Joe and Dan McCormick were using an irrigation well for unpermitted commercial purposes. A cease and desist order was issued, and the McCormicks are now believed
to be operating the well in compliance with the permit.
KIOWA BIJOU
Following a field inspection, Rocky Mountain Roosters, Inc. was found to have excavated groundwater ponds without well permits and associated replacement plans. A show cause letter
was sent to Brett Axton, the owner of the hunting club, addressing the issues. Mr. Axton has responded, claiming that he intends to go before the GWC to address the matter.
LOST CREEK
Lost Creek GWMD
It was reported by the district that PV LLC was operating a number of large capacity wells without adhering to the administrative requirements associated with the wells’ change of use
authorizations. After meeting with representatives of PV, it was determined that while notice of intention of use had been submitted for the wells, the wells had not actually been
used under the change of use authorizations, and therefore, PV had not fulfilled any of the associated administrative requirements. Staff is currently working with PV LLC to address
the issues.
HearingOfficersReport2014Feb.pdf
1 HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT Prepared for the February 21, 2014, meeting of the Colorado Ground Water Commission The listing below summarizes all adjudicatory matters pending before
the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of February 5, 2014. Updated/new information is indicated in bold italics. Gallegos, Reinaldo etc Case No. 03-GW-06 Designated Basin: Upper
Crow Creek Date of request: 30-Apr-03 Subject: Petition to de-designate portions of the Upper Crow Ck Designated Basin Status: Hearing Officer issued decision on March 27,
2012. Hearing on appeal scheduled for 10:00 a.m. September 5, 2012 before a special session of the Commission. Commission upheld Hearing Officer’s decision. Case appealed to District
Court for de novo review (see Case No. 03CV1335, Weld County District Court). Trial before the District Court set for February 24, through March 7, 2014. Woodmen Hills Metro Dist,
Case No. 03-GW-20 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 30-Oct-03 Subject: Objection to (3) three applications to appropriate designated ground water
from the alluvial aquifer of Black Squirrel Creek, or its tributaries and an application for a replacement plan to prevent injury to water rights of other appropriators and allow the
proposed appropriation from the alluvial aquifer. Receipt No 501564-A, B, and C. Status: Awaiting republication and information from the Applicant. Morley Howard Investments LLC,
Case No. 07-GW-02 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 01-Mar-07 Subject: Objection to three change of Determination of Water Right Applications (Receipt
Nos. 3610361 A - C). Status: Pending Management District’s export hearing. Order to show cause issued on October 29, 2013, as to why this matter should not be dismissed due to lack
of prosecution. Applicant has until December 2, 2013 to respond. No response received and therefore, Order will be issued dismissing the case and applications for lack of prosecution.
2 Cherokee Metro & Meridian Svc Dist. Case No. 08-GW-71 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 15-Oct-08 Subject: Objection to an application for approval
of a replacement plan to make new appropriations from the alluvial aquifer within the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Basin. Status: Two weeks of hearing held June 8th thru
June 19, 2009. Case consolidated with Case Nos. 08GW78 as well as the change case filings for well nos. 9 through 12 (09GW15). Case is presently stayed pending outcome of district
court declaratory judgment proceedings on stipulation interpretation. Supreme Court issued a decision in December on the ability of Meridian to Intervene in the declaratory action
regarding the stipulation in 98CW80 and indicated Meridian could intervene and remanded to water court for further action. All cases related to the replacement plan are stayed pending
the outcome of a determination concerning interpretation of the stipulation as it relates to use and reuse within the basin. Action still pending determination by District Court as
to whether Order entered by Court is presently appealable. Relevant cases before Commission therefore remain stayed. Cherokee Metropolitan District Case No. 08-GW-78 Designated
Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 29-Dec-08 Subject: Objection to an application to change the type and place of use of Well Permit No. 49988-F. Status: See Case
No. 08GW71 above. Case stayed pending resolution of declaratory judgment action in water court. Farmer, Edna I Case No. 09-GW-02 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date
of request: 12-Mar-09 Subject: Objection to an application for Determination of Water Right Status: Stayed pending outcome of Cherokee replacement plan case, Case No. 08GW71. Farmer,
Daniel & Teresa Case No. 09-GW-03 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 12-Mar-09 3 Subject: Objection to an application for Determination for Water
Right Status: Stayed pending Cherokee replacement plan case, Case No. 08GW71. Meridian Service Metropolitan Dist., Case No. 09-GW-11 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Date of request: 15-Jun-09 Subject: Objection concerning an application to change a determination of water right Status: Stayed pending outcome of Case No. 08GW71 (Cherokee
replacement case). Cherokee Metro & Meridian Svc Dist. Case No. 09-GW-15 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 17-Nov-09 Subject: Objection to an application
to change the type and place of use Status: See 08GW71 above. Case is presently stayed pending outcome of district court declaratory judgment proceedings. Greathouse, William Case
No. 11-GW-06 Designated Basin: Southern High Plains Date of request: 3-May-11 Subject: Objection to the Issuance of a Final Permit Status: Prehearing conference scheduled
for August 4, 2011. At prehearing conference parties agreed to attempt to resolve the matter. Case is stayed pending outcome of negotiations. Staff sent letter to Applicant in June
of 2012 and is awaiting reply. As of February 5, 2014, staff informed hearing officer they have spoken to lessee and expect response in near future. Stay Order continues. Meridian
Service Metropolitan District Case No. 12-GW-10 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Date of request: 12-Jan.-12 Subject: Determination of jurisdictional issue between Water
Court and Commission. Status: Initial decision of Hearing Officer entered on April 25, 2013. Commission upheld Hearing Officer’s decision. Meridian appealed to El Paso County District
Court. Certification of record on appeal is complete. 4 Front Range Resources, LLC Case No. 13-GW-05 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Date of request 12-Sept-13 Subject: Change
the place of use of ten wells located in the Lost Creek Designated Basin Status: Status conference set for December 17, 2013 and upon discussion as to relation to Case No. 13GW07,
the matter was set for another status conference at 10:00 a.m. on April 16, 2014. Flying B Bar Ranch Case No. 13-GW-06 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Date of request 30 Sept
13 Subject: Request for changes in determinations of water rights Status: Setting conference held on October 31, 2013, and the Objectors withdrew. Applications were remanded to staff
for processing and case closed. Front Range Resources, LLC Case No. 13-GW-07 Designated Basin: Lost Creek Date of request 12-Sept-13 Subject: Application for approval of a
replacement plan located in the Lost Creek Designated Basin Status: Case is set for a fifteen day trial commencing February 23, 2015. Case Management Order sets numerous deadlines.
David Leslie Bashor Case No. 13-GW-08 Designated Basin: Upper Crow Creek Date of request 12-Dec-13 Subject: Applications to construct two new wells located in the Upper Crow
Creek Designated Basin Status: At setting conference objections withdrawn and applications were remanded to staff for processing. Case Closed. David Leslie Bashor Case No. 13-GW-09
Designated Basin: Upper Crow Creek Date of request 12-Dec-13 5 Subject: Applications to appropriate ground water from the Laramie Fox-Hills located in the Upper Crow Creek Designated
Basin Status: At setting conference objections withdrawn and applications were remanded to staff for processing. Case Closed. Respectfully submitted ______________________________
Joseph (Jody) Grantham, Hearing Officer
LandBoardApplications&ExemptionRequest.pdf

LandBoardExceptionStaffMemo.pdfMr
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES John W Hickenlooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer Office of
the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818  Denver, CO 80203  Phone: [phone]  Fax: [phone] www.water.state.co.us February 21, 2014 GWC Meeting To: Colorado Ground
Water Commission From: Commission Staff RE: Hearing on the request of the State Board of Land Commissioners for an exception to Rule 5.5 to allow issuance of two conditional permits
with a duty of water less than 3-1/2 acrefeet per acre. The existing wells are located in the Southern High Plains Designated Basin and within the Southern High Plains Ground Water
Management District. The Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners has made application for the appropriation of designated ground water through an existing well, constructed under
cancelled permit no. 3714-F. The proposed use of ground water is irrigation of 235.6 acres described as two 92-acre circles in the S1/2, a 28-acre corner in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4,
and 23.6 acres being part of the center of the S1/2 of the NE1/4 and the N1/2 of the SE1/4, all of Section 36, Township 29 South, Range 44 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The proposed
pumping rate is 90 gpm and the proposed annual appropriation is 101 af/yr. A pump test, performed April 25, 2013, reported a maximum pumping rate of 90 gpm which would provide a maximum
annual diversion, over a 254-day growing season, of 101 acre-feet. Permit no. 3714-F was cancelled at the request of the owner upon issuance of permit no. 69637-F. Also the Colorado
State Board of Land Commissioners has made application for the appropriation of designated ground water through an existing well, constructed under expired permit no. 69637F, located
652 feet from the North section line and 361 feet from the East section line, in the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section 36, Township 29 South, Range 44 West of the 6th Principal Meridian to
irrigate the same 235.6 acres described above. The proposed pumping rate is 300 gpm and the proposed annual appropriation is 337.8 af/yr. A pump test, performed July 7, 2011, reported
a maximum pumping rate of 300 gpm which would provide for a maximum annual diversion, over a 254-day growing season, of 336.7. Permit no. 69637-F was expired for failure to timely
and adequately provide evidence of beneficial use as required by statute. Rule 5.5 states: 5.5 Water Quantity Requirements for Issuance of New Permits for Irrigation Use - For new
permits, the amount of water to be appropriated for irrigation of agricultural lands shall be 2-1/2 acre-feet per irrigated acre for all aquifers in all designated basins except the
Southern High Plains Basin where this amount shall be 3-1/2 acre-feet per acre. In reviewing permit applications, the amount of water available for appropriation must be sufficient
to irrigate the requested acreage at the prescribed rate unless an exception is granted by the Commission. Land Board Exception Request, Staff Comments Page 2 February 21, 2014 Commission
Meeting Applying a duty of water of 3-1/2 acre-feet per acre, pursuant to Rule 5.5, to the proposed irrigation of 235.6 acres results in a requirement that 824.6 acre-feet of water
be available from the two wells. The two wells together can produce only 437.7 acre-feet (a duty of 1.86 acre-feet per acre). The applicant is requesting permits to operate the wells
to limits of their physical capacities. In accordance with Rule 5.5, the Colorado Land Board has requested an exception to Rule 5.5 so that permits may be issued for the irrigation
of 235.6 acres with appropriations totaling 437.7 acrefeet. If the exception is granted, Staff anticipates issuing the permits for irrigation of the 235.6 acres as applied for, resulting
in a combined duty of water of 1.86 acre-feet per acre. If the exception is not granted Staff anticipates issuing the permits for a total irrigated area of 125 acres, for a duty of
water of 3.5 acre-feet per acre. The request was published in the Plainsman Herald newspaper on December 19 & 26, 2013 and no objections were received within the allotted time. It
is unclear to Staff what standard the Commission would use in granting this exception, but is of the opinion that approval of the exception would not cause an injurious affect on other
water rights.
Minutes_11-2013_draft.docxMINUTES

MINUTES
FOURTH QUARTERLY MEETING
COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15, 2013
The fourth Quarterly Meeting of the Colorado Ground Water Commission took place on November 15, 2013, at Castle Rock Town Hall, 100 N Wilcox, Castle Rock, Colorado. Chairman Cory Huwa
called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Richard Nielsen called the roll and determined that a quorum was present. Commission members present were Grant Bledsoe, Carolyn Burr,
Corey Huwa, Steve Kramer, George Schubert, Virgil Valdez, Dick Wolfe and James Eklund. Staff members present were Kevin Rein, Keith Vander Horst, Richard Nielsen, Chris Grimes, Jay
Bloomfield, Justina Mickelson, Janelle Myot and David Keeler. Also present were Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer, Pat Kowaleski, A.G. for the Commission and Jennifer Mele, A.G. for staff.
<Members of the public were also present.
Chairman Huwa called for agenda item no. 2, biennial election of chair and vice-chair.
Commissioner Burr nominated Commissioner Huwa for chairman.
Commissioner Valdez seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bledsoe moved to close nominations and that Commissioner Huwa be elected chairman by acclamation.
Commissioner Schubert seconded the motion which passed unanimously with Commissioner Huwa abstaining.
Commissioner Valdez nominated Commissioner Bledsoe for vice-chairman.
Commissioner Burr seconded the motion.
Commissioner Schubert moved to close nominations and that Commissioner Bledsoe be elected vice-chairman by acclamation.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion which passed unanimously with Commissioner Bledsoe abstaining.
Chairman Huwa called for agenda item no. 2, Review and Approval of Agenda Items, the agenda was approved as presented.
Chairman Huwa took a few minutes to introduce Mr. Mark Marlowe, Director of Utilities for the Town of Castle Rock.
Chairman Huwa called for agenda item no. 4, Approval of Minutes for Meeting of August 16, 2013, Chairman Huwa asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. There
being none,
Commissioner Valdez moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Report of the Executive Director by Dick Wolfe
Before beginning his report, Mr. Wolfe discussed a few items of general business. He brought to the attention of the Commissioners a brochure in their folders that described a free
on-line course from Colorado State University on water matters. Mr. Wolfe next addressed the matter of Commissioner terms. He noted that the appointments of Commissioners Bledsoe,
Huwa and Mikita have expired and that those terms of Commissioners Burr and Valdez expire in May of 2014. Mr. Wolfe did note that Commissioner Valdez could, if he desired, be reappointed.
Mr. Wolfe drew the attention of the commissioners to another flier in the folders being a notice to be published in all local newspapers within the Designated Basins advising the general
public of the vacancies. He did ask that if they had any comments to bring them to the attention of Mr. Rick Nielsen. Mr. Wolfe briefly discussed the proposed meeting dates for 2014,
noting that the August meeting could be out of town if the Commission wanted.<
Mr. Wolfe opened his report advising the Commission that he had been busy with five dispute resolution hearings on the Republican. He mentioned that two of three for Nebraska have been
heard and the third will be heard later this year. Mr. Wolfe also mentioned that the two for Colorado (compliance pipeline and Bonny Reservoir) have been presented to the arbitrator
and a decision is expected by the end of November. Mr. Wolfe cautioned that the arbiter’s decision is non-binding and can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reminded the Commission