Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Hearings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Green Hills Ranch well permit with monitoring and revisit triggers after contested hearing
Summary
After a continued hearing and negotiations with objectors, the board approved the Green Hills Ranch well drilling permit with data‑collection, monitoring and meet‑and‑confer conditions and reserved further procedural discussion on burden of proof for material injury claims.
Following a continued evidentiary hearing, the Groundwater Management Agency board voted to approve a contested drilling permit for the Green Hills Ranch property, subject to a package of negotiated monitoring and operational conditions.
The matter returned to the board after parties and the agency reviewed materials and transcripts from an earlier hearing in January. Parties—Green Hills Ranch (applicant), the City (interested party) and Del Norte Water Company (objector)—met in the intervening months and negotiated permit terms presented in the staff report. Staff concluded that, based on the record and the additional evidence presented, it could not determine that the proposed well would likely cause material injury or an ‘‘undesirable’’ result requiring denial; staff recommended issuance with conditions.
Del Norte and the city both emphasized the need for clear procedures to address any subsequent evidence of material injury, and urged that the burden of proof and the process for protests be clarified in future rulemaking or guidance. Del Norte’s representative, Barbara Brenner, said Del Norte continued to be concerned about potential impacts to a domestic well (well number 10) but noted willingness to work with the applicant to address impacts.
The applicant's counsel, Ryan Hamilton, said the parties had diligently exchanged information and that subsequent data indicated Del Norte's well is screened in a different aquifer, which reduces the likelihood of interference; counsel reiterated that no evidence of probable material injury was shown in the record. The board observed that monitoring requirements in the permit will provide ongoing data and retained authority to curtail or otherwise modify pumping if monitoring and subsequent analysis indicate material injury or undesirable results.
After discussion a motion to issue the permit with the recommended conditions and the negotiated additions passed by roll call (four affirmative votes recorded, one director absent). Several directors requested that staff prepare a short procedural guide on burden of proof and hearings under the judgment to avoid ambiguity in future protests.
