|
the same question. She did say that she thought they could achieve a joint resolution on jurisdiction but not necessarily the number of ponds to be involved. Commissioner Wolfe question
<br /> if the matter was or could be an enforcement action. He suggested that if that is the case that if they wanted, the Commission could give direction to staff to hold enforcement in
<br /> this matter until the case is resolved. Hearing Officer Grantham addressed the Commission. He expressed concern regarding the ability of the Commission to manage the process. Mr.
<br /> Grantham said that there are or can be a lot of issues that arise and by meeting every three months they, the Commission, are limited in their ability to respond timely. Mr. Dave Doran
<br /> addressed the Commission. Mr. Doran expressed his frustration over the path the issue has taken. He said that it has been before the Hearing Officer, the Commission, the District
<br /> Court and the Supreme Court and subject to mandated mediation, all requiring the expenditure of large sums of money. He would like to see the matter come before the commission and
<br /> be resolved once and for all. Responding to Commissioner Arnusch, Mr. Doran said that staff could maintain the process, that the District has been before the Commission on many hearings
<br /> and they all went smoothly. Commissioner Noble moved that the petition be published, that the interested parties agree to those issues that they can and bring the remaining issued
<br /> before the Commission to decide the next step. Commissioner Larson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. b. Designated Basins water levels reports update, by Hydrogeological
<br /> Services. Mr. Kevin Donegan addressed the Commission. Mr. Donegan introduced the Hydrogeological Services staff to the Commission before providing a background of the branch and the
<br /> monitoring well network. He then walked the Commission through accessing and manipulating the website to obtain any information they want on water levels throughout the state. He
<br /> did add that they could contact staff with their request and staff would compile the data. c. Proposal regarding formation of a Ground Water Management District within the Upper Crow
<br /> Creek Designated Basin. Mr. Andy Jones, legal counsel, addressed the Commission. He identified his clients, Loyd Farms, Vonda Tietmeyer, BCK Heath Property, LLC and Dennis Zitek,
<br /> as the proponents of Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 February 17, 2017 the matter before the Commission to create a ground water management district in Upper Crow Creek
<br /> Basin. Mr. Jones proceeded to identify the statutory authority for creation of a management district. He also explained the procedures and requirements for doing so. Mr. Jones said
<br /> that at this time his clients are asking for Commission approval to begin the process. Mr. Keith Vander Horst addressed the Commission. He said that statute requires the Commission
<br /> to do a hydrogeological study of the boundaries and make any necessary recommendations for changes. Mr. Vander Horst said that because the proposed district boundaries correspond to
<br /> the Basin boundaries there are no changes to recommend and that the Commission may accept and consent to the boundaries as presented. Chairman Valdez opened the discussion to the public.
<br /> Mr. Tommy Rae addressed the Commission. He said that according to a report he had read, that there are about 600,000 acre-feet of water available in the alluvium and 6,000,000 acre-feet
<br /> in the Upper Laramie and the Laramie Fox-Hills, Mr. Rae said that within a 20 miles boundary of Upper Crow Creek and over a 10 to 20 year span that the oil and gas industry will probably
<br /> use no more than 100,000 acre-feet. He expressed concern that a district would forbid the export of water out of the basin to preserve it for future generations. Mr. Rae said that
<br /> he would work with the proponents to form a district if they would allow for the export of bedrock water for oil and gas development. Chairman Valdez reminded the Commission that what
<br /> was before them was to approve the proposal to begin the process. He then asked for a motion to do so. Commissioner Wolfe asked for confirmation that the Basin boundaries agree with
<br /> the proposed district boundaries. He said that this concern in based on experience with the Republican River Basin boundaries and the Republican River Conservation District Boundaries
<br /> not agreeing. Mr. Jones confirmed that the two boundaries do agree. He said that he believes that it is the intent of his clients that the boundaries agree and that the proposed boundaries
<br /> would be adjusted as needed depending on the ruling in the Gallegos case which is before the Supreme Court. Commissioner Arnusch moved to approve the proposed district boundaries
<br /> as requested. Commissioner Gourley seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chairman Valdez called for agenda item no. 12, public comment. Commissioner Wolfe advised the Commission
<br /> of a conflict with the May meeting. He informed the Commission that there is going to be a seminar covering the State Engineers role in Water Court on Friday the 19th, the scheduled
<br /> day of the next Commission meeting. Mr. Wolfe said that many staff present at the meeting, including himself, would be in attendance at the seminar. He asked for consideration in
<br /> moving the meeting date. Mr. Wolfe also invited the Commissioners to attend the seminar. Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13 February 17, 2017 Chairman Valdez instructed
<br /> Secretary Nielsen to coordinate moving the meeting date. Ms. Leila Behnampour, representing Central Yuma, Frenchman, Sandhills and Marks Butte Ground Water Management Districts addressed
<br /> the Commission. She asked that the Commission monitor the Republican River rule making process and to be prepared to comment if the proposed rules effect the administration of Designated
<br /> Ground Water. Ms. Behnampour next spoke for the four Districts and North Kiowa-Bijou regarding the pace of the rule making for the Designated Basins Rules. She asked for an update
<br /> on the status of the rulemaking process for the entire Rules, including a time line at the next meeting. She said that her clients want that process to continue as expediently as possible
<br /> because some Districts may be injured. Mr. Vander Horst said that he plans to get the proposed rules out by May, July at the latest. Responding to Ms. Behnampour he addressed the
<br /> process to be followed after the proposed rules are sent out. Commissioner Wolfe informed Ms. Behnampour and the Commission that the rulemaking is being done under direction of an
<br /> executive order by Governor and that Mr. Vander Horst cannot begin the formal rulemaking until after the informal stakeholder process, as directed by the provisions of the Smart Government
<br /> Act, is complete. Mr. Bob Longenbaugh addressed the Commission. He suggested that the local management districts follow the example of the Texas District mentioned in the literature
<br /> that Mr. Farmer provided to the local districts. He also informed the Commission that there is a study currently going on that covers the 7 state Ogallala aquifer. He said that Colorado
<br /> State University (CSU) is the lead university in the study. He suggested that the Commission consider inviting the CSU project leader to provide the Commission with an update on the
<br /> purpose and progress of the study. Commissioner Farmer noting that some legislative deadlines occur in a matter of days, said that he would like to see a method whereby the Commission
<br /> could let its position be made know to the legislature in a timely manner on the proposed legislation. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted,
<br /> Richard A Nielsen, P.E., Secretary Colorado Ground Water Commission
<br />PacketMemo2017May.docx
<br />Ground Water Commission
<br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 821
<br />Denver, CO 80203
<br />May 8, 2017
<br />MEMORANDUM
<br />TO: Ground Water Commission Members
<br />FROM: Keith Vander Horst, Designated Basins Team
<br />SUBJECT: May 18, 2017 Ground Water Commission Meeting
<br />The upcoming Ground Water Commission meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 18, 2017, in Room 318, 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203. Please find attached the following:
<br />Please find attached the following:
<br />Meeting agenda
<br />Minutes of the last Commission meeting, Agenda Item No. 3
<br />Staff Activity Report, Agenda Item No. 6
<br />Attorney General’s Report, Agenda Item No. 7
<br />Memo regarding proposal to initiate a change to Rule 7.4 to require a historical withdrawal and depletion analysis for a change of description of irrigated acres, by Staff, Agenda Item
<br /> No. 10.b
<br />Hearing Officer's Report
<br />Please call myself or Rick Nielsen if there are any questions about the Commission meeting.
<br />cc:Commission Staff
<br />Designated Ground Water Management Districts
<br />
<br />
<br />PacketMemo2017May.pdf
<br />
<br />QRTSTAT-2017May.xls QRTSTAT.XLS
<br />Print_Area_MI
<br />TABLE 1
<br />DESIGNATED BASINS BRANCH
<br />QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT
<br />C.R.S. 37-90-
<br />BASIN
<br />RECEIVED
<br />ISSUED
<br />KIOWA BIJOU
<br />LOST CREEK
<br />CAMP CREEK
<br />UPPER BIG SANDY
<br />TOTAL
<br />SUMMARY OF APPLICATION ACTIVITY
<br />INCOMPLETE
<br />AP
<br />NP
<br />AU
<br />AR
<br />AD & AW
<br />CHANGE APPLICATIONS
<br />UPPER CROW CREEK
<br />TOTAL RECEIVED
<br />NEW ISSUED
<br />REPLACE ISSUED
<br />NEW RECEIVED
<br />DENIED & WITHDRAWN
<br />NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS
<br />SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS
<br />UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK
<br />RESUBMITTED
<br />SMALL CAPACITY PERMITS
<br /> REPLACEMENT
<br />CA
<br />CANCELED
<br />LARGE CAPACITY PERMITS
<br />CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT
<br />LARGE CAPACITY PERMITS,
<br />LARGE CAPACITY PERMITS (NEW & REPLACEMENT)
<br />(INCLUES DETERMINATIONS OF WATER RIGHT)
<br />FEBRUARY 1, 2017 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2017
<br />105.00
<br />107.00
<br />111.00
<br />111.00
<br />27.00
<br />18.00
<br />7.00
<br />3.00
<br />0.00
<br />1.00
<br />1.00
<br />2.00
<br />3.00
<br />3.00
<br />57.00
<br />36.00
<br />2.00
<br />10.00
<br />8.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />6.00
<br />9.00
<br />0.00
<br />6.00
<br />2.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />2.00
<br />1.00
<br />33.00
<br />17.00
<br />4.00
<br />8.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />1.00
<br />1.00
<br />18.00
<br />4.00
<br />1.00
<br />4.00
<br />1.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />6.00
<br />3.00
<br />1.00
<br />2.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />1.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />15.00
<br />1.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />0.00
<br />148.00
<br />87.00
<br />15.00
<br />48.00
<br />12.00
<br />1.00
<br />1.00
<br />2.00
<br />6.00
<br />5.00
<br />148.00
<br />102.00
<br />6.00
<br />1.00
<br />8.00
<br />3.00
<br />49.00
<br />14.00
<br />20.00
<br />3.00
<br />0.00
<br />1.00
<br />6.00
<br />5.00
<br />4.00
<br />1.00
<br />0.00
<br />
<br />RulesOfProdecureForAllHearings_version incorporating all solicited comments as of 051617.pdf
<br /> INCLUDES COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 5/16/17 DRAFT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Colorado Ground Water Commission 2 CCR 402-3 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ALL HEARINGS BEFORE THE COLORADO
<br /> GROUND WATER COMMISSION Rule 1 Authority This regulation is adopted pursuant to the authority in section 37-90-111(1)(h), C.R.S. and is intended to be consistent with the requirements
<br /> of the State Administrative Procedure Act, section 24-4-101 et seq., C.R.S. (the “APA”) and the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, sections 37-90-101 et seq., C.R.S. Rule 2 Scope
<br /> and Purpose A. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be followed by Parties in rulemaking and adjudicatory hearings held by the Colorado Ground Water Commission, hereinafter referred
<br /> to as the “Commission.” B. These Rules are intended to establish procedures to assure that all hearings held by the Commission are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, to assure
<br /> that all Parties to proceedings under the Colorado Ground Water Management Act are accorded due process of law, and to provide the Commission with all relevant facts and information
<br /> pertinent to decision making. These rules shall be construed to carry out these purposes. C. These Rules do not apply to interpretive rulings, guidelines or general statements of
<br /> policy, which are not meant to be binding. D. These Rules are promulgated pursuant to sections 37-90-113, and 24-4-103, C.R.S. Rule 3 Applicability A. These Rules apply to rulemaking,
<br /> adjudicatory proceedings concerning the granting, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, limitation or modification of licenses, declaratory orders, reconsideration of
<br /> rulemaking decisions, and reconsideration of adjudicatory proceedings before the Commission. B. Except when necessary to comply with applicable statutes, the Commission may waive the
<br /> requirements of these Rules by timely written notice to all Interested Persons and Parties whenever it is determined that strict adherence to the rules will not promote fairness and
<br /> impartiality. In any such instance, appropriate justification shall be provided to all Interested Persons and Parties. C. In the event of a conflict between these rules and the APA,
<br /> the Management Act or statutes, the statutes shall prevail. The provisions of the APA generally apply to all hearings held by the Commission. Specifically, the provisions of § 24-4-103,
<br /> C.R.S., shall apply to all rulemaking hearings, the provisions of § 24-4-104, C.R.S., shall apply to all decisions regarding the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment,
<br /> limitation or modification of Licenses (permits), and the provisions of § 24-4-105, C.R.S., shall apply to all Adjudicatory Proceedings and petitions for declaratory orders unless such
<br /> provisions are inconsistent with the specific provisions of the Management Act, in which case the those statutory provisions shall control. Rule 4 Definitions A. “Adjudication” -
<br /> the procedure used by the Commission for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of an order; including orders regarding licensing and permitting under § 24-4-104, C.R.S. § 24-4-102(2),
<br /> C.R.S. B. “Adjudicatory Proceeding”: - Adjudicatory Proceedings include notice, prehearing procedures and hearings which are required or allowed by law in order to determine past and
<br /> future rights and obligations of persons or agencies, including persons or agencies aggrieved by an administrative action of the Commission, including all matters contemplated under
<br /> the Commission’s Rules and Regulations for the Management and Control of Designated Ground Water, 2 CCR 410-1 other than rulemaking. Adjudicatory Proceedings are governed by the procedures
<br /> in Rules 9, 10 and 11 of these rules. C. “The APA” – The State Administrative Procedures Act, § 24-4-101 et seq., C.R.S., as may be amended. D. “Agency” – any board, bureau, commission,
<br /> department, institution, division, section, or officer of the state, except those in the legislative branch or the judicial branch. E. “Commission” – The Colorado Ground Water Commission
<br /> as defined under § 37-90-104, C.R.S. as may be amended. The address of the Commission is: Colorado Ground Water Commission c/o Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St.,
<br /> Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 F. “Executive Director of the Commission” – The State Engineer as defined in § 37-90-105(6), C.R.S., as may be amended. G. “Ex parte Communication” – An
<br /> oral or written communication regarding a proceeding where the communication is between the Commission or Hearing Officer and a Party to the proceeding that: takes place after the adoption
<br /> of a petition to notice a rulemaking or after an appeal for an Adjudicatory Proceeding has been Filed; is not on the public record; is not authorized by other specific provision of
<br /> law or order of the Commission; and, with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all Parties is not given. Communications solely inquiring as to the process of the proceeding
<br /> that are not seeking any procedural or substantive relief, nor pertaining to any substantive issues, are not included in Ex parte Communication. H. “File or Filed”: Received in the
<br /> office of the Colorado Division of Water Resources and date-stamped by staff as received on that day or, when filed by electronic mail for rulemakings or Adjudications as provided herein:
<br /> 1. Electronic Mail - Service by electronic mail shall be complete when the Commission or Office of the State Engineer receives an electronic mail containing an attached, signed version
<br /> of the document to be filed. Received shall mean the date on which the electronic mail is delivered to an inbox. When any Person, Interested Person or Party files by electronic mail,
<br /> it shall be considered an agreement to be served by electronic mail. The filer is responsible for furnishing one or more electronic notification addresses at which the electronic filer
<br /> agrees to accept service and shall immediately provide the Commission and all Parties with any change to the electronic filer’s notification address. Special filing arrangements may
<br /> be made on a case-by-case basis as needed. 2. All filings for Rulemaking and Adjudicatory Proceedings under these Rules shall be made by electronic mail. 3. Exception to Electronic
<br /> Filing – Any person may request approval by the Executive Director or his designee to file documents in paper copy format if they are unable for any reason to comply with the electronic
<br /> filing requirements. Pro se Parties may file documents via US mail if electronic filing is not available. I. “Good Cause” – a rational explanation justifying why a requirement in
<br /> these Rules was not met or need not be complied with in the particular circumstance. J. “Hearing Officer” – an agent designated by the Commission pursuant to §37-90-113(2). K. “Initial
<br /> Decision” – a decision made by the Commission’s designated Hearing Officer which will become the final action of the Commission unless appealed to the Commission. § 24-4-102(6), C.R.S.
<br /> L. “Interested Person” - any Person who may be aggrieved by an action of the Commission. §24-4-102(6.2), C.R.S. M. “License” – the whole or any part of any Commission or Division
<br /> of Water Resources permit, certificate, registration, charter, membership, or statutory exemption. § 24-4-102(7), C.R.S. N. “The Management Act” - The Ground Water Management Act
<br /> of 1965, § 37-90-101 et seq., C.R.S., as may be amended. O. “Party” – any person or agency named or admitted as a Party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted
<br /> as a Party in a proceeding before the Commission, subject to the provisions of these Rules. P. “Person” – an individual, limited liability company, partnership, corporation, association,
<br /> county, or a public or private organization other than an agency. Q. “Rules” – these Rules of Procedure For All Hearings Before The Colorado Ground Water Commission R. “Rulemaking
<br /> Proceedings” – Rulemaking Proceedings are the notice and hearing activities required by law for the Commission to adopt rules, as authorized by the Management Act, the APA or other
<br /> specific authority provided to the Commission, that are of general applicability and future effect implementing, interpreting, or declaring law or policy, which are intended to be binding.
<br /> They include adoption of whole generic rules, or deletion of, or revisions or modifications to, existing rules of the Commission. Rulemaking Proceedings are governed by the procedures
<br /> in Rules 6 and 7 of these rules. S. “State Engineer” – the person appointed by the governor pursuant to section 13 of article XII of the state constitution having the general duties
<br /> set forth in section 37-80-101, et seq., C.R.S., as well as duties under the Determination Act, the Management Act, and other provisions of Title 35 and 37 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
<br /> The address of the State Engineer is: Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 T. “Stipulation” – an agreement or concession as to facts or
<br /> the law made by the Parties in a proceeding before the Commission or Hearing Officer. Rule 5 Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution For the purposes of this Rule 5, the term – A.
<br /> “Alternative means of dispute resolution” means any binding dispute resolution procedure that is used to resolve issues in controversy, including, but not limited to, arbitration, fact
<br /> finding, mini trials, , and use of ombudsman, or any combination thereof; B. "Dispute resolution proceeding" means any process in which an alternative means of dispute resolution
<br /> is used to resolve an issue in controversy in which a Neutral is appointed and some or all of the Parties participate; C. "In confidence" means, with respect to information, that the
<br /> information is provided— 1. with the expressed intent of the source that it not be disclosed; or 2. under circumstances that would create the reasonable expectation on behalf of the
<br /> source that the information will not be disclosed; D. “Issue in controversy" means an issue which is material to a decision concerning an administrative program of the Commission and
<br /> with which there is disagreement: 1. between an Agency and Persons who would be substantially affected by the decision; or 2. between persons who would be substantially affected by
<br /> the decision; E. "Neutral" means an individual who, with respect to an issue in controversy, functions specifically to aid the Parties in resolving the controversy; F. General authority
<br /> 1. The Commission or Hearing Officer may approve the use of a dispute resolution proceeding for the resolution of any issue in controversy in an Adjudicatory Proceeding, when all Parties
<br /> to such Adjudicatory Proceeding agree to such a process. The provisions herein regarding alternative means of dispute resolution are strictly voluntary and neither applicants nor objectors
<br /> may be forced to participate. 2. The Commission or Hearing Officer shall consider not using a dispute resolution proceeding if any of the following apply: a. a definitive or authoritative
<br /> resolution of the matter is required for precedential value, and such a proceeding is not likely to be accepted generally as an authoritative precedent; b. the matter involves or may
<br /> bear upon significant questions of state government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution may be made, and such a proceeding would not likely serve to
<br /> develop a recommended policy for the Commission; c. maintaining established policies is of special importance, so that variations among individual decisions are not increased and such
<br /> a proceeding would not likely reach consistent results among individual decisions; d. the matter significantly affects persons or organizations who are not Parties to the proceeding;
<br /> e. a full public record of the proceeding is important, and a dispute resolution proceeding cannot provide such a record; or f. the Commission must maintain continuing jurisdiction
<br /> over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in the light of changed circumstances, and a dispute resolution proceeding would interfere with the Commission’s
<br /> fulfilling that requirement. 3. Alternative means of dispute resolution authorized under this subchapter are strictly voluntary procedures which supplement rather than limit other available
<br /> dispute resolution techniques. G. Neutrals 1. A Neutral may be a permanent or temporary officer or employee of the State of Colorado or any other individual who is acceptable to the
<br /> Parties to a dispute resolution proceeding. The Neutral shall have no official, financial, or personal conflict of interest with respect to the issues in controversy, unless such interest
<br /> is fully disclosed in writing to all Parties and all Parties agree that the Neutral may serve. 2. A Neutral who serves as a conciliator, facilitator, or mediator serves at the will
<br /> of the Parties. H. Confidentiality - Except as provided herein, a Neutral in a dispute resolution proceeding shall not voluntarily disclose or through discovery or compulsory process
<br /> be required to disclose any dispute resolution communication or any communication provided in confidence to the neutral, unless one of the following factors apply:-- 1. all Parties
<br /> to the dispute resolution proceeding and the Neutral consent in writing, and, if the dispute resolution communication was provided by a non-Party participant, that participant also
<br /> consents in writing; 2. the dispute resolution communication has already been made public; 3. the dispute resolution communication is required by statute to be made public, but a Neutral
<br /> should make such communication public only if no other person is reasonably available to disclose the communication; or 4. a court determines that such testimony or disclosure is necessary
<br /> to:-- a. prevent a manifest injustice; b. help establish a violation of law; or c. prevent harm to the public health or safety, of sufficient magnitude in the particular case to outweigh
<br /> the integrity of dispute resolution proceedings in general by reducing the confidence of Parties in future cases that their communications will remain confidential. 5. A Party to a
<br /> dispute resolution proceeding shall not voluntarily disclose or through discovery or compulsory process be required to disclose any dispute resolution communication, unless any of the
<br /> following parameters exist:-- a. the communication was prepared by the Party seeking disclosure; b. all Parties to the dispute resolution proceeding consent in writing; c. the dispute
<br /> resolution communication has already been made public; d. the dispute resolution communication is required by statute to be made public; e. a court determines that such testimony
<br /> or disclosure is necessary to-- i. prevent a manifest injustice; ii. help establish a violation of law; or iii. prevent harm to the public health and safety, of sufficient magnitude
<br /> in the particular case to outweigh the integrity of dispute resolution proceedings in general by reducing the confidence of Parties in future cases that their communications will remain
<br /> confidential; 6. Any dispute resolution communication that is disclosed in violation of these rules shall not be admissible in any proceeding relating to the issues in controversy with
<br /> respect to which the communication was made. 7. The Parties may agree in writing to alternative confidential procedures for disclosures by a Neutral. Any such agreement shall be provided
<br /> to the Neutral before the commencement of the dispute resolution proceeding. 8. If a demand for disclosure by way of discovery request or other legal process is made upon a Neutral
<br /> regarding a dispute resolution communication, the Neutral shall make reasonable efforts to notify the Parties and any affected non-Party participants of the demand. Any Party or affected
<br /> non-Party participant who receives such notice and within 15 calendar days does not offer to defend a refusal of the Neutral to disclose the requested information shall have deemed
<br /> to have waived any objection to such disclosure. 9. Nothing in this section shall prevent the discovery or admissibility of any evidence that is otherwise discoverable, merely because
<br /> the evidence was presented in the course of a dispute resolution proceeding. 10. A decision by the Commission to use or not to use a dispute resolution proceeding under this subchapter
<br /> shall be committed to the discretion of the Commission or its appointed Hearing Officer and shall not be subject to judicial review. I. Effect. A decision by a Neutral under this Rule
<br /> 5 shall be submitted to the Commission at their regularly scheduled quarterly meeting.The decision of a Neutral issued in a dispute resolution proceeding held under this Rule 5 shall
<br /> be binding upon all of the Parties, and all Parties shall be deemed to have waived any right to appeal such decision to the Commission. Upon acceptance of the CommissionIf appropriate,
<br /> the Neutral’s decision shall be adopted as the binding decision of the Commission and enforceable as a decision of the Commission. Rule 6 Hearing Procedures for Rulemaking A. All
<br /> rulemaking proceedings shall be conducted by the Commission, however, the Commission may designate a Hearing Officer to conduct fact finding hearings and make recommendations to be
<br /> filed with the Commission for final consideration and adoption. Whenever the Commission contemplates rulemaking, public announcement may be made at such time and in such manner as
<br /> the Commission may determine. The Commission shall establish a representative group of participants with an interest in the subject of the rule-making to submit views or otherwise
<br /> participate informally in conferences on the proposals under consideration or to participate in public rule-making proceedings on the proposed rules. It is within the discretion of
<br /> the Commission to determine the duration and extent to which such informal proceedings should occur. § 24-4-103(2), C.R.S. B. Any Person shall have the right to petition the Commission
<br /> in writing for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Such petition shall be open to public inspection. Action on such petition shall be within the discretion of the Commission,
<br />
|