DWR_3364085

• Board or Commission: Colorado Ground Water Commission
• Document Type - Board and Commission Meetings: Meeting Document
• Document Date: 5/18/2018
• Subject: MEETING MATERIALS

16GW05_OrderOfTheGWC.pdf
BEFORE THE COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION 1313 SHERMAN ST., RM. 821 DENVER, CO 80203 HEARING OFFICER OR COMMISSION USE ONLY IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MERIDIAN SERVICE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT IN THE UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN AND UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN EL PASO COUNTY Case No. 16GW05
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION OVER SURFACE WATER WITHIN THE UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK DESIGNATED GROUND WATER BASIN The Colorado Ground
Water Commission (“Commission”), having reviewed the Petition of Meridian Service Metropolitan District (“MSMD”) for Determination of Jurisdiction Over Surface Water Within the Upper
Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin and being fully advised in the matter, finds, determines and Orders as follows: Procedural Background 1. On December 16, 2016, MSMD
filed a Petition for Determination of Jurisdiction Over Surface Water Within the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin (“Petition”), which was assigned Case No. 16GW05.
As directed by the Commission in its meeting of February 17, 2017, on March 9, 2017, and March 16, 2017, notice of the Petition was published in the Ranchland News, a newspaper of general
circulation in El Paso County. 2. The time for filing objections or requesting to become a party to the proceedings has expired. The following parties filed objections or otherwise
requested party status: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District (“UBS District”) and the Wayne E. Booker Revocable Living Trust and Frances G. Booker Revocable Living
Trust (“Booker Trusts”). The Staff of the Commission (“Staff”) is automatically a party to the proceedings. 3. The Petition was considered by the Commission during its regular meeting
on May 18, 2018, in which it approved the findings and Order below. Case No. 16GW05 Order of the Ground Water Commission Page 2 MSMD’s Petition 4. The Petition requests
the Commission “to determine if it has jurisdiction over the replacement of depletions caused by evaporation to surface water flowing into and through lined impoundments in the Upper
Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin,” alternatively stated as a request for the Commission to determine “whether, and the extent to which, the surface water that flows
into Ponds B and C is designated ground water, in whole or in part, subject to the jurisdiction of the Ground Water Commission.” 5. According to the Petition: A. MSMD is a Colorado
Special District organized and operating pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-101 et seq. It provides water and wastewater service, parks and recreation facilities, drainage, landscape, and other
services for the Meridian Ranch development. B. Meridian Ranch is a 2,623 acre residential and commercial master planned development located in the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated
Ground Water Basin approximately 12 miles northeast of Colorado Springs in parts of Sections 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 30, Township 12 South, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. C. MSMD owns
and operates “Ponds” “B” and “C” located within the Meridian Ranch. D. Both structures were designed and built by the Meridian Ranch developer for both storm water detention and to
permanently store water. E. The storage capacity of the ponds located above the normal pond water surface elevation is used for storm water detention. Ponds B and C are designed to
temporarily store the surface water inflows from a 100year or less storm originating in the drainage basin upstream of the ponds. The storm water detention capacity of both ponds is
designed to operate passively with uncontrolled outlets designed to release all storm water inflow within 72 hours. Each of the detention facilities is designed to pass over its spillway
all inflows in excess of a 100-year storm event. The water in the storm water detention capacity of the ponds is not subjected to any treatment process. F. The permanent storage capacity
of these two ponds lies below the storm water regulation capacity. Petitioner maintains the surface elevation of the ponds at the level of the ponds’ outlet structures; Case No.
16GW05 Order of the Ground Water Commission Page 3 therefore, normal surface inflow into the ponds is passed through the ponds to the stream channel below the ponds. G. The source
of water for the initial filling of Ponds B and C was water delivered from the Petitioner’s reuse water from its golf course irrigation system. H. The source of inflow to the ponds
is surface water flowing in the stream channels upstream of each pond. The surface water originates within and upstream of Meridian Ranch. I. Each pond was constructed with a compacted
clay liner to prevent infiltration of groundwater into the ponds or the loss of water stored therein by seepage from the ponds. J. Both ponds are constructed above the local groundwater
table, and neither pond exposes groundwater. K. To ensure that any depletions from Ponds B and C are fully replaced to prevent injury to downstream water users, Petitioner intends
to seek approval of a replacement plan from the Ground Water Commission or an augmentation plan from the Water Court, as appropriate. L. The Petitioner does not seek to appropriate
Designate Groundwater, but does seek to replace any depletions to stream flows resulting from evaporation from the water surface of the Pond B and C lying below their storm water detention
pool. M. If the Ground Water Commission determines that the surface water that flows into Ponds B and C is designated ground water, in whole or in part, then Petitioner will seek approval
from the Ground Water Commission of a Replacement Plan to replace depletion to designated groundwater. If the Ground Water Commission determines that the surface water that flows into
Ponds B and C is not designated ground water, in whole or in part, then Petitioner will seek approval of an augmentation plan from the District Court for Water Division No. 2 to replace
out-of-priority depletions to waters of the state. N. Ponds B and C are located about 1 mile upstream of the point of diversion for the Woodmen Hills Intake 2.0 c.f.s. direct flow
surface Case No. 16GW05 Order of the Ground Water Commission Page 4 water right conditionally decreed by the District Court for Water Division No. 2 (“Water Court”) in Case No.
02CW61 and made an absolute water right in Case No. 05CW43. The surface water that flows through Ponds B and C comprises part of the surface water supply for the Intake. 6. Subsequent
to filing the Petition, MSMD has clarified that the intent of the Petition is to request that the Commission determine whether the surface water that is depleted due to evaporation
while in the Ponds is designated ground water such that the Commission has jurisdiction over all such depletions. Jurisdiction 7. The 1969 Act assigned to the water court exclusive
jurisdiction over water matters. § 37-92-203(1), C.R.S. (2017). A “water matter” under the 1969 Act includes all water in or tributary to a natural stream, § 37-92-103(13), C.R.S.
(2017), as well as determination of rights to nontributary groundwater located outside of a designated ground water basin. § 37-92-203(1), C.R.S. (2017). 8. Designated ground water,
however, is excluded from the definition of “waters of the state” in the 1969 Act and is administrated separately under the Colorado Groundwater Management Act. § 37-92-103(13), C.R.S.
(2017). The Groundwater Management Act vests exclusive authority in the Commission to “supervise and control the exercise and administration of all rights acquired to the use of designated
groundwater.” § 37-90-111(1)(a), C.R.S. (2017). 9. Designated ground water includes all “groundwater which in its natural course would not be available to and required for the fulfillment
of decree surface rights.” § 37-90103(6)(a), C.R.S. (2017). 10. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the Commission, not the Water Court, “must make the initial determination as
to whether the controversy implicates designated ground water” Meridian Serv. Metro. Dist. v. Colo. Ground Water Comm’n, 361 P.3d at 396; Pioneer Irrigation Dists. v. Danielson, 658
P.2d 842, 846 (Colo. 1983); State ex rel. Danielson v. Vickroy, 627 P.2d 752, 757-58 (Colo. 1981). The Commission has authority to entertain this Petition pursuant to Section 24-4-105(11),
C.R.S. (2017). Jurisdiction only shifts to the Water Court if the Commission determines that designated ground water is not involved. Meridian, 361 P.3d at 396. Case No. 16GW05
Order of the Ground Water Commission Page 5 Findings of the Commission 11. Pond B is located in the SW¼ of the NE¼ of Section 30, Township 12 South, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.
Pond C is located in the SE¼ of the SW¼ of Section 30, Township 12 South, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. Both Ponds B and C (“Ponds”) are located within the Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Designated Ground Water Basin (“UBS Basin”) and the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District. 12. The Commission has jurisdiction over all designated ground water
flowing into, located in, and flowing out of the Ponds. The Commission has jurisdiction over all depletions to designated ground water while in the Ponds. 13. The “surface water”
referenced in the Petition consists of all water flowing on the surface of the ground in the stream channels in the UBS Basin upstream of Ponds B and C that flows into, is located in,
or is depleted while in each pond. Use of the term “surface water” in the Petition does not imply that the Petition asserts that all water flowing on the surface of the ground in the
stream channels upstream of Ponds B and C that flows into, is located in, or is depleted while in each pond is “waters of the state”. 14. Consistent with Meridian, MSMD filed the Petition
in this matter requesting that the Commission determine the extent to which the “surface water” that is depleted due to evaporation while in the Ponds is designated ground water. 15.
MSMD intends to file a replacement plan application seeking to quantify and replace depletions to that portion of the designated ground water caused by the evaporation from the water
impounded in Ponds B and C. The UBS District and Booker Trust assert that MSMD may not store or impound designated ground water and is responsible for replacement of all depletions
associated with the construction and operation of Ponds B and C. Any disputed issues of law and fact related to the replacement plan will need to be decided by the Commission and its
Hearing Officer in the context of an application for a replacement plan. Stipulation of the Parties 16. MSMD, UBS District, Booker Trusts, and the Staff agree that, for purposes of
this Petition only, all “surface water” that is depleted due to evaporation while in the Ponds is designated ground water within the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Groundwater
Basin and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 17. MSMD, UBS District, Booker Trusts, and the Staff disagree on various statements and claims made by MSMD in
the Petition and the requirements for the Case No. 16GW05 Order of the Ground Water Commission Page 6 replacement plan that MSMD will seek from the Commission. Nevertheless, the
parties agree that any disputed issues do not prevent the Commission from issuing an Order determining that all “surface water” that is depleted due to evaporation while in the Ponds
is designated ground water such that the Commission has jurisdiction over all such depletions. Order of the Commission 18. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by this
reference. 19. Having reviewed the Petition, considered the above findings, and been advised of the agreement between MSMD, UBS District, Booker Trusts, and the Staff, the Commission
determines and Orders that, for the purpose of this Petition only, all “surface water” that is depleted due to evaporation while in the Ponds is designated groundwater in the Upper
Black Squirrel Creek Designated Groundwater Basin and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 20. The Commission makes no determination herein regarding its jurisdiction
over water that is not the subject of MSMD’s Petition. 21. The Commission makes no determination other than that all depletions to the “surface water” while in the Ponds is designated
groundwater subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission makes no finding or determination, and this Order has no impact on, the Woodmen Hills Intake water right decreed
in Case No. 02CW61 and made absolute in Case No. 05CW43. Dated this _____ day of May, 2018. ______________________________ Kevin G. Rein, P.E. Executive Director
Colorado Ground Water Commission
ActivityLog.pdf
Designated Groundwater Basins Well Application/Permit Activity Log From 02/01/2018 to 04/30/2018 Plains Kiowa B. SHP U Blk Sq. Lst Ck Cmp Ck. U Big Sdy Crow Ck. Total Total Applications
Received 47 67 9 38 16 2 15 21 215 Non-Exempt 10 35 18 6 3 19 91 Exempt 37 33 9 20 9 2 12 21 143 Total Applications Unacceptable 8 13 2 5 3 8 39 Non-Exempt 1 10 1 8 20 Exempt
7 3 2 4 3 8 27 Total Applications Resubmitted 1 6 1 4 3 1 16 Non-Exempt 5 1 2 8 Exempt 1 1 4 3 1 10 Total Applications Withdrawn 1 1 2 Non-Exempt 1 1 2 Total Permits Issued (New
Well) 22 52 10 31 12 2 13 1 143 Non-Exempt 4 12 7 7 4 34 Exempt 18 40 3 24 8 2 13 1 109 Total Permits Issued (Replacement) 10 4 3 1 4 1 3 26 Non-Exempt 4 1 1 2 1 9 Exempt 6
3 2 1 2 1 2 17 Total Permits Canceled 2 2 3 1 1 9 Exempt 2 2 3 1 1 9 Total 176 291 50 166 81 14 64 87 929
AG Report2018-5-18.docxATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission
May 18, 2018
The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of May 4, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="004A16ECase No. 08GW71
</w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r><w:rPr><w:b/><w:13SA330
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
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 under a 1999 Stipulation 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. UBS filed an
appeal on December 18, 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court under the 1999 Stipulation, but included in the decision ambiguous language as to whether Cherokee
can use effluent as a source of replacement water in a replacement plan. Counsel for Cherokee filed a Motion for Determination of Question of Law on January 31, 2018 to clarify its
use of effluent in its replacement plan. The Hearing Officer ordered Cherokee to publish notice of its requested relief sought in the Motion. Publication occurred on March 15 and
March 22, 2018. Parties will discuss a timeline for responsive briefing on the Motion at the next status conference on May 11, 2018.
cherokee metropolitan district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="008C4F42">Case No. 08GW78 </w:t></w:r><w: </w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00FC0F61">09GW15
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
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 above.
Status: See above.
meridian service metro district
</w:t></w:r><w:r w:rsidR="00EBCase No. 09GW11
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer
Attorney: Philip Lopez
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.
<
FRONT RANGE RESOURCES Case No. 13GW07
15CV30493</w:t></w:r></w:p><w:p w14:paraId="75B9903C" w14:textId="3CF924A3" w:rsidR="00567999" w:rsidRDefault="00567999" w:rsidP="005
Designated Basin: Lost Creek 16SA243</w:Management District: Lost CreekAttorney: Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Front Range Resources filed for a replacement plan. Objections were filed by Equus Farms Inc., Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company, the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District
and Staff.
Status: The matter was dismissed by the Commission and appealed to the District Court where it was set for trial June 6-16, 2016. Defendants, including the Commission, filed a motion
dismiss the application on the grounds that it is speculative because there are no binding contracts with actual end users for the water. On May 26, 2016 the Court ruled that Front
Range Resources was seeking to appropriate and change water rights and that the anti-speculation doctrine does apply to the application. The Court further found that Front Range Resources’
existing contracts were not binding and do not constitute obligations to provide water, and that the proposed replacement plan did not detail how or if water would be used on land owned
by Front Range Resources. <Front Range Resources appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 affirming the district court and holding that
the anti-speculation doctrine applies to replacement plans involving new appropriations or changes of water rights and that Front Range Resources’ replacement plan was speculative.
No petition for rehearing <was filed and the Court’s mandate has been issued to make the ruling final.
MERIDIAN SERVICE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTCase No. 16GW05
Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel
Attorney: Paul Benington and Philip Lopez
Subject: Petition for determination of jurisdiction pertaining to surface water in Pond B and Pond C. < <
Status: This matter was filed on December 16, 2016 and no deadlines have been set. Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Booker Trusts are the only parties that have expressed interest
in being parties, and Booker Trusts only to monitor the case. The Staff has informally negotiated with Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD and Meridian to attempt to resolve all issues.
<The Staff’s understanding is that that all parties appear to agree that the subject water is designated ground water, and will be presenting a stipulated proposed order for the Ground
Water Commission’s consideration at the May 18, 2018 meeting.
HUTTON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION V. REIN, ET AL. Case No. 15CW3018
Designated Basin: Northern High Plains
Management District:
Attorney: Chad Wallace, Pat Kowaleski
Subject: Lawsuit filed by the Hutton Educational Foundation in an effort to make the State Engineer administer designated ground water rights and surface rights together for the purpose
of compact compliance under the Republican River Compact. Complaint also alleges that SB-52, which revised 37-90-106 to limit how designated basin boundaries may be modified, and the
Colorado Groundwater Management Act of 1965, are unconstitutional. The Ground Water Commission filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer to the Hutton Complaint on December 16, 2015
and such Motion was granted on January 18, 2016.
Status: The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the second and third claims in which Hutton asserted that the Management Act and SB-52, amending the Act, were unconstitutional. The
water court agreed and dismissed the second claim and part of the third claim. The water court held that it does not have jurisdiction over designated ground water and that the Commission
must first determine whether designated ground water is implicated, and therefore the issue was not ripe. Hutton sought certification of the dismissal for appeal to the Colorado Supreme
Court. The trial court certified its order of dismissal for appeal and stayed the remaining claims until the appeal is resolved. Hutton identified the issues for appeal to include
the trial court’s dismissal and the underlying question of whether SB 10-52, amending the Management Act, is unconstitutional. Some of the defendants, joined by the Commission, filed
a motion with the Supreme Court to limit the issues on appeal to the dismissal, and to exclude any arguments on the constitutionality of Management Act statutes. The Supreme Court
granted the motion to limit the appeal to the water court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017, and the parties are awaiting a decision. A status
conference was held on January 8, 2017, and the parties are still waiting to see how a Supreme Court ruling would affect the Water Court case. A further status conference has been scheduled
for May 25, 2017.
LGS HOLDING GROUP 2013, LLCCase No. 18GW02 18GW02
Designated Basin: Southern High Plains
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for new wells and commingling of wells in Southern High Plains Designated Basin.
Status: A number of parties have filed objections, including the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 3. The case has been referred to the Hearing Officer and an initial
status conference has been set for May 8, 2018 to set the matter for hearing.
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING – RULE 7.4Case No. 17GW04
Designated Basin: All basins
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rule 7.4 to require an applicant for a change of irrigated acreage to demonstrate to choose one of two options to demonstrate the change will not result
in increased use of the well: (1) restrict the future number of acres to be irrigated to the historical average number of acres irrigated by the well; or (2) restrict the future use
of the well to the historical depletion of the aquifer by the well, as demonstrated by a historical consumptive use analysis. <
Status: At the April 9, 2018 special meeting, the Commission adopted changes to Rule 7.4., making them applicable to all applications filed after the adoption of the Rule on April 9,
2018. The Attorney General issued her opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Rule on April 11, 2018. The Rule was published in the Colorado Register on April 25, 2018, and
will become effective on May 15, 2018.
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING - RULES 5.6 & 5.8Case No. 17GW05
Designated Basin: All basins
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Jen Mele
Subject: Rulemaking to revise Rules 5.6 pertaining to replacement plans and Rule 5.8 pertaining to aquifer storage and recovery plans. <
Status: In its August 11, 2017 meeting the Ground Water Commission directed its Staff and Hearing Officer to proceed with the formal rulemaking process to amend Rules 5.6 and 5.8. <A
notice of public rulemaking hearing scheduled for June 18-22, 2018 was published by the Secretary of State in the Colorado Register on December 10, 2017. However with the passage of
HB18-1199 in April 2018, which provides specific statutory authority for the Ground Water Commission to approve plans for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), Staff is revising its approach
to ASRs in the revised rules. Instead of categorizing ASRs as replacement plans under Rule 5.6, Staff is instead proposing to keep ASRs under a separate rule, Rule 5.8. As a result
the hearing has been moved to August 20-24, 2018 to give parties an opportunity to respond to the revised format.
RAIL LAND CO., LLCCase No. 18GW03
Designated Basin: Lost Creek
Management District: N/A
Attorney: Philip Lopez
Subject: Application for determinations of Water Rights in the Laramie-Fox Hills, Lower Arapahoe, Upper Arapahoe, and Denver Aquifers.
Status: The City of Aurora has filed objections. The case has been referred to the Hearing Officer.
5
6
AG Report2018-5-18.pdfATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT Cases involving the Colorado Ground Water Commission May 18, 2018 The listing below summarizes matters in which the Office of the Attorney General represents
the Colorado Ground Water Commission as of May 4, 2018. CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 08GW71
13SA330 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Philip Lopez 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 under a 1999 Stipulation 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. UBS filed an appeal on December 18, 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court under the 1999 Stipulation, but included in the decision
ambiguous language as to whether Cherokee can use effluent as a source of replacement water in a replacement plan. Counsel for Cherokee filed a Motion for Determination of Question
of Law on January 31, 2018 to clarify its use of effluent in its replacement plan. The Hearing Officer ordered Cherokee to publish notice of its requested relief sought in the Motion.
Publication occurred on March 15 and March 22, 2018. Parties will discuss a timeline for responsive briefing on the Motion at the next status conference on May 11, 2018. 2 CHEROKEE
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Case No. 08GW78 09GW15 Designated Basin: Upper Black Squirrel Creek
Management District: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Before: Jody Grantham, Hearing Officer Attorney: Philip Lopez 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 above. Status: See above. MERIDIAN SERVICE METRO DISTRICT