DWR_3353964

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 2/17/2012
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

10cw95_AGStaffProcessingRecommendation.pdfMicrosoft Word - 10cw95Meridian_ProcessingRecommendation.docx
DENNIS W. CORYELL, CHAIRMAN, Burlington; COREY M. HUWA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, Roggen; GRANT H. BLEDSOE, Wray; VIRGIL VALDEZ, Alamosa; C. MAX SMITH, Walsh; CAROLYN F. BURR, Denver; LARRY W.
CLEVER, Grand Junction; EARNEST L. MIKITA, Calhan; GEORGE H. SCHUBERT, Calhan STATE OF COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION Division of Water
Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Mike King Executive Director, DNR Dick Wolfe, P.E. Executive Director February 2,
2012 To: Ground Water Commission From: Pat Kowaleski, Assistant A.G. Keith Vander Horst, Designated Basin Team Leader Re: Meridian Service Metropolitan District’s request for a
determination of status of water in Case No. 2010-CW-95, Division 2 Water Court Pursuant to an order of the Division 2 Water Court in case no. 2010-CW-95, Meridian Service Metropolitan
District has submitted to the Commission a request that the Commission determine the status of the water applied for in that case, specifically whether the water applied for must be
allocated and administered by the Colorado Ground Water Commission or by the Water Court and State Engineer. In previous submittals dealing with questions concerning whether water
is designated ground water or not, such as petitions to create new designated basins, petitions to expand the boundaries of a designated basin, and petitions to de-designate all or
part of a designated basin, the Commission has referred such submittals to the Commission’s Hearing Officer for findings and recommendations, prior to final action by the Commission.
It is our recommendation that the Commission refer this submittal to the Commission’s Hearing Officer for his review and initial decision or recommendation. cc: Parties to case no.
2010-CW-95 Paul Anderson, [e-mail] Timothy J. Beaton, [e-mail] Peter D. Nichols, [e-mail] Lisa Thompson, [e-mail] Evan D. Ela, [e-mail]
Martha Phillips Whitmore, [e-mail] Sandy MacDougall, [e-mail] Julianne Woldridge, [e-mail] Michael D. Shimmin, [e-mail] Stuart B.
Corbridge, [e-mail] Jennifer Mele, [e-mail] Robert C. Norris, 970 Summer Games Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80905
10cw95_MeridianSubmittal.pdf

10cw95_Objectors_Mot.-to-Stay---Exhibit-A.pdf87_201110262230000848.pdf

10cw95_Objectors_Mot.-to-Stay---Exhibit-B.pdf925_201110262230450981.pdf

10cw95_Objectors_Motion-to-Stay-Proceedings.pdf456_201110262228230963.pdf

10cw95_Objectors_Reply-for-Motion-to-Stay-Proc-12-06-11-.pdf_
s:\client\schubert\10cw95\motion to stay proceedings - drafts\reply for motion to stay proc. (12.06.11).doc DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 2 STATE OF COLORADO Pueblo Co. Judicial
Building 320 West 10th Street Pueblo, CO 81003 Concerning the Application for Water Rights of: MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, IN EL PASO COUNTY         x COURT USE
ONLY x Michael D. Shimmin (#9182) Stuart B. Corbridge (#33355) Vranesh and Raisch, LLP P.O. Box 871 Boulder, CO 80306-0871 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail];
[e-mail] Case No.: 2010CW95 Water Div: 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Opposers Schubert Ranches, Inc., Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District,
Edna Farmer, Dan Farmer, Jerry Farmer, Joe Farmer, Jr., Farmer Pipeline Company, LLC, Teresa Farmer, and Wayne E. and Frances G. Booker (collectively “Movants”), by and through their
undersigned counsel, hereby provide their reply in support of the Motion to Stay Proceedings filed with the court on October 26, 2011 (“Motion”), and respond to the arguments made by
Applicant Meridian Service Metropolitan District (“Meridian”) in its response to the Motion. 1. As a threshold matter, Meridian’s assertions that the statements in its application must
be accepted by the court as true because Movants have not contested them by affidavit are incorrect and put the cart before the horse. The same can be said of Meridian’s offers of
proof. Movants are not asking in the Motion for a substantive ruling from the court on Meridian’s claims. Additionally, the subject matter jurisdiction issue that provides the basis
for the requested procedural stay of the proceedings is a legal issue. Meridian suggests that the court should be reviewing and determining factual issues concerning the status of
the water involved in ruling on the Motion. Such action would only be appropriate if the court has jurisdiction over this matter. Since that issue has been raised by opposers, it
must first be resolved by the Colorado Ground Water Commission (“Commission”) as a matter of law. Reply for Motion to Stay Proceedings Application of
Meridian Service Metropolitan District Case No. 2010CW95 s:\client\schubert\10cw95\motion to stay proceedings - drafts\reply for motion to stay proc. (12.06.11).doc 2
2. Meridian is also incorrect in its assertions that Movants are barred from raising the subject matter jurisdiction issue in
this case. The May 1, 1968 Order (“Order”) creating the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin (“Basin”) does not, as Meridian asserts, conclusively establish as
a matter of law or fact that all water on the ground surface within the boundaries of the Basin is 1969 Act water that falls under the water court’s jurisdiction. To the contrary,
when read as a whole the Order strongly suggests the opposite conclusion - that there are no continuously flowing natural streams in the Basin, and that very little water (either on
the surface or in the ground) leaves the Basin. The language relied on by Meridian must be read in context. It does not support Meridian’s overly broad and restrictive legal position,
and does not provide a basis to deny the procedural stay requested by Movants. 3. Meridian’s reliance on the decree entered in Case No. 02CW16 also does not support a denial of the
Motion. The findings and conclusions in that decree are only applicable to the specific rights claimed in that case, and that decree therefore does not bar other water users from challenging
the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in other cases that contain different claims. As such, it is not determinative and does not bind the court with respect to the procedural relief
sought by Movants in this case.1 4. Movants reiterate that there is a dispute in this case as to whether the water involved is 1969 Act water that can be adjudicated by the court, or
instead is designated ground water that is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. When such a dispute is present, the matter must first go to the Commission for initial resolution as
a matter of law.2 This requirement has been made clear by the Colorado Supreme Court in State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1981), Pioneer Irr. Districts v. Danielson,
658 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1983), and most recently in Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Com’n, 147 P.3d 20 (Colo. 2006). The court has previously granted the type of relief requested by
Movants, in Water Division 2 Case No. 01CW150, thus following the governing law on this issue. WHEREFORE, Movants continue their request that the court grant the Motion, stay the proceedings
in this case, and vacate the scheduled trial date. Movants also request that the court order the applicant to provide proof to the court that the jurisdictional issue raised in this
Motion has been resolved by the Commission before this case can move forward. 1 Movants note that the stipulated decree in Case No. 02CW16 was entered on March 17, 2004, prior to the
Colorado Supreme Court’s clarifying opinion in Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Com’n, 147 P.3d 20 (Colo. 2006). 2 Meridian’s assertion that no designated ground water is involved
is a red-herring. That is precisely the issue that must be resolved by the Commission. Reply for Motion to Stay Proceedings Application of Meridian Service
Metropolitan District Case No. 2010CW95 s:\client\schubert\10cw95\motion to stay proceedings - drafts\reply for motion to stay proc. (12.06.11).doc 3 Respectfully submitted
this 6th day of December, 2011. VRANESH AND RAISCH, LLP By: Stuart B. Corbridge /s/ signature on file Michael D. Shimmin (#9182) Stuart B. Corbridge (#33355)
ATTORNEYS FOR OPPOSER SCHUBERT RANCHES, INC. TROUT, RALEY, MONTAÑO, WITWER & FREEMAN, P.C. By: Stuart B. Corbridge (for L. Thompson) /s/ signature on file
Peter D. Nichols, #33167 Lisa M. Thompson, #35923 1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1600 Denver, CO 80203-2141 Attorneys for Opposer Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District
MACDOUGALL, WOLDRIDGE & WORLEY, P.C. By: Stuart B. Corbridge (for M. MacDougall) /s/ signature on file Malcom E. MacDougall, #955 Henry D. Worley, #14368 530 Communication Circle,
Suite 204 Colorado Springs, CO 80905-1743 ATTORNEYS FOR EDNA FARMER, DAN FARMER, JERRY FARMER, JOE FARMER, JR., FARMER PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, AND TERESA FARMER
Reply for Motion to Stay Proceedings Application of Meridian Service Metropolitan District Case No. 2010CW95 s:\client\schubert\10cw95\motion to stay proceedings
- drafts\reply for motion to stay proc. (12.06.11).doc 4 MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON & WOODRUFF, P.C. By: Stuart B. Corbridge (for T. Beaton) /s/ signature on file Timothy J. Beaton,
#10403 P.O. box 1440 Boulder, CO 80305-1440 ATTORNEYS FOR WAYNE E. AND FRANCES G. BOOKER Reply for Motion to Stay Proceedings Application of Meridian
Service Metropolitan District Case No. 2010CW95 s:\client\schubert\10cw95\motion to stay proceedings - drafts\reply for motion to stay proc. (12.06.11).doc 5 CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of December, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS by LexisNexis e-filing
addressed to the following: Party Party Type Firm BOOKER, WAYNE E AND FRA Opposer Moses Wittemyer Harrison & Woodruff PC CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Opposer Jackson Kelly PLLC
FARMER PIPELINE COMPANY LLC Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, DAN Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, DAN Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER,
EDNA Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, EDNA Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, JERRY Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, JERRY Opposer
MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, JOE JR Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, JOE JR Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, TERESA Opposer MacDougall
Woldridge & Worley PC FARMER, TERESA Opposer MacDougall Woldridge & Worley PC MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Applicant Schroeder, W B Law Office LLC NORRIS, ROBERT C Opposer
Pro Se- PAINT BRUSH HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Opposer Anderson Paul G LLC STATE AND DIVISION ENGINEERS Opposer CO Attorney General UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK GROUND WATER Opposer
Trout Raley Montano Witwer & Freeman PC UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK GROUND WATER Opposer Trout Raley Montano Witwer & Freeman PC WOODMEN HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Opposer Collins
Cockrel & Cole PC Karen Kleiner ORIGINAL SIGNED DOCUMENT BEING RETAINED IN THE OFFICES OF VRANESH AND RAISCH, LLP
10cw95_ShroederLetter.pdf

10gw95_EmailCorrespondanceObjectorsAG.pdfMicrosoft Office Outlook - Memo Style
1 Vander Horst, Keith From: Lisa Thompson [[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:16 PM To: Kowaleski, Patrick Cc: Stuart Corbridge; Tim Beaton; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Vander Horst, Keith; Rein, Kevin; 'Michael D. Shimmin'; 'Wayne B. Schroeder'; Mele, Jennifer; Witte, Steve; Wolfe,
Dick; Ubscgwmd03; Julianne Woldridge Subject: RE: Letter to Ground Water Commission Pat, The Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District, Schubert Ranches, Wayne and Frances
Booker and the Farmer family/Farmer Pipeline Co. are all Objectors (“Objectors”) in the Meridian Metropolitan District Case No. 10CW95 and this email is a joint response to your emails
of January 30 regarding the Meridian agenda item. Thank you for allowing us to respond. You raised two issues in your previous emails: 1) whether this matter should proceed before
the Commission while Meridian’s Petition for Rule to Show Cause is pending before the Supreme Court, and 2) whether the issue for the Commission to decide is solely a question of law
or whether there are factual issues that need to be presented. First and foremost, this matter should not proceed before the Commission while the Petition is pending before the Supreme
Court. On January 26, 2012, Mr. Schroeder filed the Petition asking the Supreme Court to vacate the Water Court’s order and issue a mandamus requiring the Water Court to proceed with
Meridian’s application. Meridian asserts in its Petition that the Commission has no jurisdiction over its application. Because this threshold issue has been presented to and is pending
before the Supreme Court, it must be decided before the Commission proceeds any further on this matter. Objectors clearly disagree with the legal theories Meridian presented in its
Petition, and the relief requested in the Petition seeks to negate any consideration by the Commission. Meridian itself has created the jurisdictional problem it now faces, and should
not be allowed to short circuit the process by proceeding simultaneously in two different venues. Second, Objectors agree that this application clearly involves factual matters that
require an adjudicatory hearing before the hearing officer. Meridian’s Petition to the Supreme Court states that an “adjudicatory hearing” could be required, and then Mr. Schroeder’s
email to you refers to potential testimony by Mr. Lytle (expert engineer), and “facts and law” in his submittal to the Commission. Thus, it appears that Meridian has contemplated this
matter proceeding as an adjudicatory hearing with expert testimony, which pursuant to Commission rules requires appropriate notice and prehearing disclosures. Objectors strongly recommend
that the issue be removed from the agenda for the February 17 Commission meeting because the procedural setting must first be determined by the Supreme Court. The Commission itself
should not hear argument until after the regular course of proceedings is observed according to the Commission’s rules, with an adjudicatory hearing being conducted by the hearing officer,
an order entered, and then an appropriate appeal that brings it before the Commission for review based on the record. Best regards, Lisa Lisa M. Thompson, Esq. Trout, Raley, Montaño,
Witwer & Freeman, PC 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600 Denver, Colorado 80203 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] email: [e-mail] From: Patrick Kowaleski [mailto:Patrick.Kowaleski@sta
te.co.us] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:55 PM To: 'Michael D. Shimmin'; 'Wayne B. Schroeder'; Jennifer Mele; Steve Witte; Wolfe, Dick Cc: Stuart Corbridge; Tim Beaton; Lisa Thompson;
'[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Vander Horst, Keith'; Rein, Kevin Subject: RE: Letter to Ground Water Commission Mike,
This matter was referred to the Commission by the Court’s Order of December 19. That Order says that we are to determine the status on the water and whether the application seeks to
appropriate water within the boundaries of the Upper Black Squirrel Basin, subject to allocation by the Commission. As a threshold issue, we ary trying to ascertain whether the parties
consider this to be a legal issue, or whether they anticipate that testimony would be necessary. Pat From: Michael D. Shimmin [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012
2:41 PM To: Patrick Kowaleski; 'Wayne B. Schroeder'; Jennifer Mele; Steve Witte; Wolfe, Dick Cc: Stuart Corbridge; Tim Beaton; 'Lisa Thompson'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Vander Horst, Keith'; Rein, Kevin Subject: RE: Letter to Ground Water Commission Pat: I saw that this item is listed on the Agenda
for the Feb 17 GWC meeting. Can you tell us what you are thinking will be the focal point of the discussion, or the decision to be considered by the Commission, at this meeting? Thanks.
Mike Michael D. Shimmin, Esq. Vranesh and Raisch, LLP 1720 14th Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 [e-mail] Telephone [phone] Ext 203 Fax [phone] E-MAIL
NOTICE: This e-mail message (and any attachments) contain information belonging to the sender which is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this information, or any action taken in reliance on the information within this e-mail, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender and then delete the message (and any attachments) from your computer and/or network. Thank you. From:
Patrick Kowaleski [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:26 PM To: 'Wayne B. Schroeder'; Jennifer Mele; Steve Witte; Wolfe, Dick Cc: Michael D. Shimmin;
Stuart Corbridge; Tim Beaton; 'Lisa Thompson'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Vander Horst, Keith'; Rein, Kevin Subject:
RE: Letter to Ground Water Commission Wayne, 3 As attorney for the Commission, I’m advising Dick Wolfe, as Executive Director, on this matter. I’m interested in your position on
whether the issue for the Commission is solely a question of law, which could be argued on briefs, or whether you anticipate that there are factual issues that would need to be presented
to the Commission. If any of the other parties to 10CW95 wish to comment, please do so. Pat From: Wayne B. Schroeder [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, January
19, 2012 3:21 PM To: Jennifer Mele; Patrick Kowaleski; Steve Witte Cc: Doug Woods; [e-mail]; Ted Tchang; Tim Hunker; Bruce A. Lytle Subject: Letter to Ground Water Commission
Jen, Pat and Steve—here are some docs that are being sent by certified mail-return receipt requested to Dick Wolfe to ask for a matter to be heard by the Commission on February 17.
The letter explains everything. I would be most grateful if you folks could take time to read the letter and documents and advise Mr. Wolfe accordingly. This package does not yet
include a copy of the certificate of service on the parties to 2010CW95. That has not yet been prepared. But the enclosures will be served on all parties in the case by LexisNexis.
You will get another set, Jen, by LexisNexis, along with the certificate of service, as soon as my paralegal gets it out the door. Our consultant is Bruce Lytle, who may be in
touch with Steve Witte and Dick Wolfe as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Wayne Wayne B. Schroeder W. B. Schroeder
Law Office, LLC 1668 Bear Mountain Drive Boulder, CO 80305 telephone: [phone] facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] www.schroeder-law.org
ADOPTED UBSGWMD Rules and Regs-signed.pdfMicrosoft Word - ADOPTED UBSGWMD Rules and Regs-signed.rtf
1 RULES, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES COVERING THE CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT, UTILIZATION, PRESERVATION, PROTECTION, RECHARGE, AND ADMINISTRATION OF GROUND WATER LOCATED IN
THE AQUIFERS WITHIN THE UPPER BIG SANDY GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN EL PASO, ELBERT AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, COLORADO. PREAMBLE AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY These rules are a modification
of the rules, regulations, and guidelines adopted by the Upper Big Sandy Ground Water Management District (“the District”) May 11, 1992 and are, in part, responsive to the conditions
described in a study dated June, 2009, titled Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground Water Basin Phase 2 Water Balance Report, performed by Martin and Wood Water Consultant, Inc which
contains conclusions related to the protection and appropriations of ground water from aquifers in the District. The title of these rules is as stated in the heading, and they are
sometimes referred to as “Big Sandy Rules” or “Rules.” The Big Sandy Rules are promulgated and adopted pursuant to the authority granted to ground water management districts by the
General Assembly in the Colorado Ground Water Management Act, C.R.S. Section 37-90-101, et seq., as amended. RULE 1. APPLICATION, SCOPE, AND PURPOSE These Rules shall apply to the
withdrawal and use of designated ground water within the boundaries of the Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground Water Basin (“Big Sandy Basin” or “Basin”), which is coextensive with the
boundaries of the Upper Big Sandy Ground Water Management District (“Big Sandy District” or “District”), in parts of El Paso, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties, Colorado. These Rules
amend, repeal, replace and supersede the rules, regulations, and guidelines adopted by the District May 11, 1992, in their entirety. These Rules shall apply to all ground water users
within the Basin and District. All ground water users shall at all times comply with these Rules, the laws of the State of Colorado regarding ground water usage and the drilling for
wells in aquifers located within the District, and with the Designated Basin Rules as adopted and amended by the Colorado Ground Water Commission (“Commission”). The Rules are intended
to ensure that ground water is put to beneficial use within the boundaries of the Basin and the District on a sustainable basis and in a manner that does not injure prior appropriations
of ground water. These Rules are designed to guard against speculation in ground water and the waste of ground water. 2 Recognizing the unique and local issues presented concerning
ground water usage and the aquifers in the Basin, the Big Sandy Rules are promulgated to address those local concerns. These Rules are intended to facilitate cooperation, coordination,
and consultation between the District and the Commission. The District and the Commission have conferred and consulted in the adoption of these Rules. These Rules are intended to
provide water users with fair and reasonable procedures and requirements that uniformly apply to all water users or classes of water users, consistent with the scope and purposes of
the Ground Water Management Act, the Designated Basin Rules, and the Big Sandy Rules. RULE 2. DEFINITIONS The following terms are defined in C.R.S. Section 37-90-103, and these
terms shall have identical meanings where used in these Rules: Alternate Point of Diversion Well Aquifer Artesian Well Ground water and underground water Designated Ground Water
Designated Ground Water Basin Ground Water Commission or Commission Historical Water Level Person Replacement Plan Replacement Well Subdivision Supplemental Well Underground
Water and Ground Water Waste Well. The following terms, as used in these Rules, shall have the meanings indicated: A. The term “commercial well” refers to any well for which an
application has been filed or a permit issued for commercial purposes. B. The term “District” or “Ground Water Management District” refers to the Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground
Water Management District. C. The terms “Directors”, “Board of Directors”, and “Board” refer to the Directors of the District. D. The term “export” means the actual or planned use
of water at a location outside the boundaries of the Basin or District when the water involved in such use is: 3 (1) ground water, or (2) water that originates as ground water
and that in its natural course would not be visible on the surface of the ground but which through unnatural efforts such as well drilling or other human effort is brought to the surface
(regardless of its use, reuse, release or discharge once it is brought to the surface), that is located in aquifers in the Basin or District, at a location outside the boundaries of
the Basin or District. Such export includes but is not limited to the actual or planned diversion, piping, use, delivery, exchange, replacement, substitution, or augmentation, in any
manner whatsoever that removes ground water or other water described in this definitions that is initially located in the Basin and District to an area outside the Basin and District.
Note: However, exports in small amounts and for defined uses are specifically exempt from approval by the District under Rule 3.1. E. The term “Ground Water User” as used in these
Rules and Regulations refers to any person, individual, partnership, association, corporation, agency of the State of Colorado, or any political subdivision or public agency thereof,
and any agency of the United States of America making a beneficial use, or taking steps or doing work preliminary to making a beneficial use of ground water from an aquifer located
within the boundaries or extensions thereof of the District. F. The term “Large Capacity Well” refers to any well which is drilled and operated under a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S.
37-90-107 and not pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-105. G. The term “Historical Water Level” refers to the average elevation of the ground water level in the District before being lowered
by the activities of man, as nearly as can be determined by scientific investigation and available facts. H. The term “License” means the document issued by the Board of Examiners
of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors to qualified persons making application therefore, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-91-105, authorizing such persons to engage in one
or more methods of well construction or pump installation or any combination of such methods. I. The term “Municipal Well” refers to any well which is drilled for municipal use as
allowed by permit. J. The term “Private Driller” means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, political subdivision, or public agency that uses equipment owned, leased,
or otherwise lawfully possessed by it to dig, drill, redrill, case, recase, deepen, or excavate a well entirely for its own use upon property owned by it. 4 K. The term “Small Capacity
Well” refers to any well which is drilled and operated under a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-105 and not pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-107. L. The term “Waste” refers to an annual
appropriation in excess of the maximum allowed under these Rules and Regulations, or to any act or omission without beneficial use, or causing the pollution of water in any aquifer
whereby rendering the same unfit for domestic or agricultural use. In addition "Waste" means causing, suffering, or permitting any well to discharge water unnecessarily above or below
the surface of the ground. M. The term “Well Driller” refers to any individual, corporation, partnership, association, political subdivision, or public agency which shall operate a
well drilling rig and equipment, and which shall dig, drill, redrill, case, recase, deepen, or excavate a well or wells for hire or for its own use, or for other consideration. RULE
3. EXPORT OF GROUND WATER FROM THE DISTRICT No ground water, including but not limited to water that originates as ground water and that in its natural course would not be visible
on the surface of the ground but which through unnatural efforts such as well drilling or other human effort is brought to the surface (regardless of its use, reuse, release or discharge
once it is brought to the surface), shall be removed from aquifers within the boundaries of the District and put to an approved beneficial use outside the boundaries of the District,
except as provided in this Rule. 3.1 Exportation of Ground Water - Exceptions without Prior Board Approval Exportation of ground water is permitted by the District without prior