The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20200116.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET CASE USR19-0060 - NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ, LLC Tyler Exhibit Submitted By Page # Description A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 12/03/2019) Planning Services 3 - 11 PowerPoint Presentation Applicant Planning Services 12 Continuance Request (dated 01/02/2020) 13 Continuance Memo (dated 01/08/2020) Applicant 14 - 17 Applicant Applicant Applicant Public Works Planning Services Maria Petrocco, Law Offices of Maria Petrocco Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmick LLP Planning Services Planning Services Brad L. Hagen, P.E., Civil Resources, LLC Planning Services Planning Services Badger Sump Decree and Definition of Drain Tile Structure (received 03/11/2020) Results of Ground Penetrating Radar by TransGlobal 18 Services LLC (received 03/11/2020) Amended Proposed Grading Plan and Site Layout with 19 Drain Tiles Located (received 03/11/2020) Proposed Battery Tank Containment and Liner Design 20 (received 03/11/20) 21 Proposed Development Standard Site Plan, Grading Plan (annotated), Grading Plan, Salt Water Disposal liner, Irish Owl aerial overview dated 22 - 25 1/14/2020 (received 6/8/2020) Continuance request on behalf of Donn Leffler (SPO), Scout Card, Irish Owl aerial dated 3/10/2020 (received 26 - 29 6/8/2020) Letter of objection on behalf of Donn Leffler (SPO), Supreme Court case of Roaring Fork Club v. St. Jude 30 - 41 (received 6/9/2020) NGL Underground Injection Formation Permit application, Badger Sump, email string with Bob 42 - 71 Koehler -Kim Ogle- Jason Maxey (received 6/9/2020) Bob Koehler email response to inquiry on well status for 72 - 75 NGL Central (received 6/9/2020) Engineering recommendations to protect the Leffler 76 - 97 Coffin Well water right (received 8/28/2020) Memo supporting request for continuance, Request for continuance letter signed by NGL representative and 98 - 99 Donn Leffler (SPO) representative (received 9/15/2020) Memo with status update from Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmick LLP (dated 100 - 101 10/29/2020) 2020-0116 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET- PAGE 2 CASE USR19-0060 - NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ, LLC Tyler Exhibit Submitted By Page # Description S. Applicant T. Applicant U. Applicant Letter dated 10/30/2020 regarding status of negotiations with Donn Leffler (SPO) 102 (received 11/01/2020) Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC, evaluation and reconfiguration of collector -pipe system for Leffler 103 - 138 irrigation well (received 11/01/2020) Wernsman Engineering and Land Development LLC, Central Weld Facility Drain Line Layout and Profiles 139 - 140 (received 11/01/2020) Memo dated 11/2/2020 with status update from Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones V. Planning Services 141 Donovan LLP (received 11/03/2020) W. X. Y. Z. AA. BB. CC.. DD. EE. FF GG. HH. JJ. KK. LL. 2020-0116 Public her t='rigs concerning this property will be heard before the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Both hearings will he bed at; WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1150 "0" Street • Greeley, CO 80631 Planning Colturnission Hcarinii will tie held on Board of County Commissioner Hearing will be held on `0.2. a s} A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review, USR19-0060, for Oil and Gas Support and Service, including an unmanned, pipeline only, Class II Saltwater Disposal Facility and related infrastructure, up to five (5) construction trailers and five (5) conex containers for temporary use during construction in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. -THEIR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT i� Al THEU'ELC7 COUNTY NT`s` DEPARTMENT of Pt.. ; ', a _R ICES. AT 97015345100. e.tSt _, .' l For =k(i tllor .Th f r ti, t1 ,3tu)) visit .44as' , 4'eiac ourilt)1 f)►Unniriigi aep,. :Jr, 14. LL- Yves_ _ -r: il:l • • I .- ��i-=-e - - S: - i - Paz — ---9 0 Pant: "panngs-oonearnin - ` t - �� :pt48pr�r r 1P'bailOard-beboi u ocinlyP•�nt,allg-Gfxi7PPira n andStAttio— I.f,.O'adr-c tiimum; era: anti ra,n,r;g5 wail be hekf n EL(_} rfii NT"tr w. D i � FO "7" '•a`41 a4,J �j 141111 rllhl r'` St., • Greeley. CO 30631 H"rare IrnOrwakserG7i aiEgan11r141t18 h2if1OI1 Tr-{ ell - �rx r_t ��S' rkaGlle - war Jlt. :n_�F --- [r'tag am 14 i' f3lliir ' t-C9.;.rt(iifrrdj7ll IN.SYg r, jlNIMISAILMIIIMaleivith l'd.'.l.r•:?l' c>srdetCounty,- ,,rrsi�t�,a, _ rf19wen oe rem _on ury•, t "'J tr•1w_ IpeC�t:)I Rc•Ylna..IVF'I.1'l "r'J S br>aort-an oervcc—IriEltididg a.. unmanned — W cilso-E�1ii -- bye q:$iitwaier 011p05.- I Fyceltty I-teti L1iresIruettere, lip to rise (5) e_v alstrue _ Elgin 4.r ilerg-intt-fiti-r-1S c , : r:ra, cn AgrrcArttar:lli Zcr. Di;erIC; uc 1{!n I -I I se NAtrntx x7.1 cr,3g' __MIECEugTHER INFORMATIOIT 1, 3,ECBt1iT aGT ' ✓ A• r—" GOUNPO QEpARTmehef3F PLANNING SERVIEE'S-k 971k35 30_f- _ —Par: 9 1 raffiran r 1- • IP P.. -e 7r1L"1ti_.Btr�'i'-:.M..'rrl7 jr tt %tS I Atitsal& TV'aae 'i4F'rrdi .. - Caw' r- 124 flii77:ffit71't�..:Zrall L nTS •al.7.PILh aril. L•rWtl aapiea aie`u .__^.-.-.1 SA 7 ta�V'Ell'; Cl. *Ca:_'trlh' = ' n'LLa.n' La 4i ;iC ainili aLfe--,l�6i aldrPl3 alc ae�al?sue'. aireinlinialit tri'e s..—. lwer1ar- ato ,'teri:1a_..•r NfaE'►ininitIsfl!tJYr.Slli nilit:$tom rlseacc t:�.orxnt'1'a3La"t M•11a� >n,° -.a-•.ter ter s.. 'Rt i l�'.TJ34 Sg[y:9r® .--L" innaW. tifi7t :i'r'diillinlda45•S01:v aswan: roaassaii►.....:.�....�.-'•°tfri'D.ra'!c.�.•......n•:-,.,a- PaiStY4> Glob'iJtif#F1��'.�►i�.ifl'F'Y.`f�.`� Aa•-tasise— --- r7' y -.-._-•r--- "r.r .. a llina'ea.aytaili AYaMPr.:8 rIlaf aillia ,_."•""e• l-:r4aul irrli - aTrpi r-.S'ame •e non onto ata_a-a iinSineninOVIllerliflireal ire 1 ' ' SIIINI rr'IlIIIIC We - '--rlMENlhsAB 'nor. 'f�ttstt. nn t 'L.fli'VI�a `llE ai::.�'_•litalk Ft :19Lii' IWIL IKTLA • -31174 ilr AZ Iris lGaa7l ranG'a Minna - - 1t1 ..a.galC 1:..-:,A AMC= MIX lailltiatiW:alllaral r'ksn '� 1SSAMIlr !wn-'aae • ads r l -,a it IIINStira'rIWAIS. ;*...r2la SI'.Ll'N 567S1i T.rl 1A! Helot ' .'la alafr _ f xlia�aa .at• p w •f IMEZCIl nn llglfl- email ZIII rJrt]LAaf i..:a `r -...-w ' - _WCIle r 1M17ev;a rat®EPL.n - aal'�rla aa±.tiaeti1lr'.is 1r'7L 1llaat7.le. riaaar al=argiia!a!110 . Ca! lal. Will iaaa ra e• Plrr.art1110.30FIl '.. -. . -- !»vet-Ei "4rt.7 arsi-IL ® I F�I�CP.rd.a. W4ii ltd R7 raariaYlerint L1_"s 3 rIPA Wit:.• -. . . >, r - - - - '` ate?/'f. l 2 iNlat j z 5_TaR r a? -7 7.Q.di iairiter4ti4r Intl — IlaltIMONllCli "«!s'•'1111'IILatra tarila ,I -V.7 lillafll♦ LJL-iRliilSll JF1'ilant 71i6T • laiJIa, lam► ilar.Qf!i}IEF- 5irfc+. itaiL7l'."9d♦Of i1Art..r. 1 niana4 ggl. ES I, `selit27, MN Mil SLY41.11Walflit rdi. i.i S_n' 'de`,tr re t'IMOft iT '<.lra atla'Ta4RQ.•JLlr -.-rF •.011MIN I, ISr.7Cierlli7iLT.laftall as rlY+iilG itlial1'.7st ?IFAI d - 11 Sal N.:l iParlegerilW.li►..flair i+.,SERI iFtnir s ea'. Ilterel l'rrttltt7lllfr''r' • - .: .' .: DfICALSMINIMI 6tlIIlF'a nILINI G±3iCk 'E.WI=likt; 'Cant &RIf71Pallao ti's 'ariAnILalere ieTtr x"1&4.naig n :HMS raNii.Can3CIIPW1.tit MIN 4filWatm s1titinilaniaillfreaa'IArlelli. i9:x' "K 5iiiea ��+ � _:�Pl1rlti•1ilf/ liSntan It'arlriaiti:r'3LMl�, as Iiiilrine iliffi- T.'li![a�ISRfl x79111 irdzr.7rr�i!f11 +3.C illt . rank �:zr3Y7rE•" _ alst.uraraElrlilt}CIS[i@l!F'C7..rtLrF'•��aitr'!•l1.'JIAl1[tw a.nn',;war—n:irit!<watfE-11i t i":hG/' rank -�1�- Jr/ 1-4=.13!la 7Jt W!_Wt r'S*SI"af Nr &T-Sf6 t. wn'rntl-r �4fi2.1llfi X 'yt'dCJflii2.1i!'r7�•,i -iel.lfl7i^� Rirr_raa teZYIIr of ir:.:IR�i.e9,Y.gA1iaJ;F�r`.': r ate r'-! ewc'ii"aat ac.t e- iSR,`.t:.l..'v.a!rr-r wf.�'r YPb'1ITr'Q'''iT.dl_____ 7t Pllt7trLr ira>'aat. E LM allltiffaCai el.TrAt.r Y.�--mlo:. l{LIA.E7- 1elle italiiti7lesail altalr=;l tipi J r .._r' *. ISTeOAan1a miiirdininanara Ka a'sa-c -'iItr wn3::es` flit, areiroCiYi'Si si.'ealti .MI:tile kit Nat. LuartTitirriwr. f '•a .7�J� -`- - - ••• rar3ilC Mail Al C ?fl! 0 d.a ltr�?--,:r 4r i �L l+rdl■ 1ri79Y1L[A' • .YF_17r arlitin'a4ill riera'LT_Ait+ ; eV's''.t tiw�LR �.irn._llj_d -raM' fl' lt7 M'iC. '9-: L -.a itf.A it WWI aam?et.larAi '*SS7.wiiC+ aUni ellaiall MOM-7/ta Willnreawie.a- -.el1:Ya:'."IIMflia.' ' �± 's .ati f l,e7 raz l JIM it gr . sirrLls.&s c .1..i rs to y4 ilia came ritlfsil' milt a ___J SIL i� 7, M1F+ri!4f , l4 trn a. r?ate, sr i s' tlr/!4 �►,- c 1e'.r 24ar�ra�Pl: r axw aa4Tdre.c �IlinilriiPnQrLa c� -lINSal•tt ate T i.'wT!- Irr7aliniasraSe,tCAnt st r,yr3i.Enww& ..a.alitillIRPIttairjar.IIINtelaia, I IP lot' -411.4reteretvarl Mr zit -'`Ilan trt...: alai® 6w7411. a' r n. arlii 'am watt-- 1 Ss mei i !tires- . s:Talon I'.M77.rlr IMLflfl iii' 'K t a I. T?IF.rt nrLE"•r 7,141 beet telli»illiMilalc .71IicIF inili al.,ar2: 7 Taiiilrlil'_ -it PPMil SID 'Io t1aisi ISCPCiafi110C WI% WhiliiTailaarler ••':ei Mallet— rs WPIIIMP lldrtral4aflllf lf:Var_ 'li 161 Wall72"-5 illl ''l IPECt >o:4Y'��+:..:od".,till �iiXlT i NS Sill lal - k'X Lialfe1S,1i1 ra-a inlCraLaru�ICEI P:a..t�1 !Waal:stiJ_r--"IrW9/Gi ,'i%flyalRE?irllirLrita.MitiLst7Lef'RLLWiatamos �'1• ..tgia' Eldrit•, t'Mi'•,�� 41''•• la:M 1r3rx.'Pl %ar u t • .7f WLL --Tic-alga-le. EhC.ale wyeralFlhL'ii IIlik.t traa:vW'3'PY'7iaifalli:f4il, C'al—ilrY.: lrle.f4llitl atew?Y f Sia LAM IANIE -a ii- -. eSJS:ar..' l'&' UMW .:?-llllas7!l 'ilaFdrXlt'aelkWW. Mall:tat21 F:afis enrol llCA ar, - _a n saaaQ1iR . -naa d)/!rlfE.4 lilt I J-rt" Iflat 7,r �•�i larlrl a a �.lit-it 1:..' ilaii lasl� Cara trilC='•aSn.V�`1e1S1 aal_' larTr. •a i '?a .f'••1�sL"Arr" -M c'iflit.'sr'V' 'Sflflft�il Sh.c alt tar -SW 1:11,'15+ at''iffita -IIMED�� IA7-attaav slf l' 1.SlitCrti>lift"3[ilisin2lab Inti.:..—� a r7C7itIrr7�`YN.f:::IMAfflQOf {ra?fir�9a ac- ffi'i1 rt.w', :ameMOI 'TFr' bal!t.cn :ec..S-- sraaT —aw araTiltar iasar' -a'v a'_ a' Warta .x..... _- ^,—a Sr r—_ rate 'Ewa Far WES'� .V. -. 3t I- r... t ti ."'-G— e:ra Mat TES '.iEII ',' eAwassi :77� istenr:r,tk Ural LS= zafT fii117lsaao iffaFfillitlallift ' Sal iiaillifl;1 Tiltii'1.a: fiir Mr- Cal 57ii i inner lansifa e,-.-- tif"'pl'.ra&a?'.'a\t p. _'1JLfstIi ILA WS7lla 07:Grii r. itlirrAw-ral7l:.`I'lr®ZiQ1:ar sionsi fir. aim "can s.- s_ AriV.li li•!ls r!i r ialthacill 1 16• J!♦6T!4ai..T A.W.L1Q9r,11 llllA tiff/r!'e e-alilla R: Iejat r;-..aaaiti Failiear'YRLAflrala tllIMULLAT iT : --.1161111ZIEU OIL. CuCta..ff:'}kill ISLAM l'_agraLWHiLi'SS1C1:.ntrsta I Cana W ' 'aa7f IIEW Arm tior Rri:+f li?At W tta'1iiiiiiiiirac "--w._ Ai: Memisiiiia burr Invil . 7?11P Thilealli Aril ntlia tl rim Callailllaliri$7a,t EWA—IncadfMa.aiiira5.i11altk_liblktall1 3322* r.®ilinL u -i.a a .- Sala?llitifli—Asia'YIrlialli a n-tA•Ara :>!girlaQtpr-aawa .t Ain :Ira'. .TIlanaltMari R'anSaa WO —MIS a*.rdif04MILetf=Sfl.t..,'s .lartarE Plat giratil rr_St— .94 .F�rir .cir.fl�.4a'1"r� aon.R,��'oar*Ctiiitiffi ice' r: atrr' ai:T.>tralklall, JYIJCn-�Lrllat4i alilb :r_Mtn...a'ulaaa-dlltlfLrtl.Sllfeirlfice�Ca rk r ae-ir • NMIIIIILISACtlarflinifrenif WSWISCASANSCAVEMErtiararinealtrinintarasair Ar alaa l: aiR'rralter emir •61, a 1 e 1.11-* :_'3�k'.b'atlirt_iltliP _� . �.r+a�l--�, d ! WIRICitra llfa iiie,alrtrdt!• lea . 41w it-rst ^aril MIY.RI il► 4 r. I via tFiL�lul1, _ /l'P1:�41g- Arte_ 1lLi•Ia RISR rP6ar Sign P anting orth of Hwy 392 a1 •`., a ` ,resat.. •.: t•. f- - • r•a- .. •. . ;17 is sq • S -^' . to � . Y +! ♦ -t, �.r=, r � �.- • _1.► r- • � .• ' fir-.-..�"'t•ti▪ 1"1"44S �.�a .a fir.,' s '. AR - '.. e' — . •r it".. r• r • 4 ti as f 'eget -�- •t �'i ,>• A r -rho K..•' ti ;,.i • • I ri'- r•-. I • • • r d ' •. ♦ _ i t ..: i ��// ♦ . i -+4 aY r te •.• •R_ . • tyJ ` {' ♦ 1 Lys r n f,.. ' r• r- J• et u • ..'u - '• 1 '- '•>i'. l' ` r 1--5-1irsionswa:a3;i1'ii"fRRlNon ir-nr, t, *nil C.SI nem. Twin Try., .,a..,.. a�T�3�i�rr !WIMP IIPPW Public hearings concerning this property will be heard before the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Both hearings will be held at: WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1150 "O" Street • Greeley, CO 80631 Planning Commission Hearing will be held on tperataittr_Latd_20 1 ; at P Board of County Commissioner Heating will be held on Applicant: 'fba. W ti- Lila/ Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review, USR19-0060, for Oil and Gas Support and Service, including an unmanned, pipeline only, Class II Saltwater Disposal Facility and related infrastructure, up to five (5) construction trailers and five (5) conex containers for temporary use during construction in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Case Number:l. 1#p Acres: 60 i 1 s..• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT AT THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES, AT 970-353-6100, ext For Additional Infur ration visit www.weldcountyplanningcases.org 477tH nuN: Pat osel I flwidrtinns h but not Nrnired a ', the eturnbe'roto r.'ir15 the Su'btect'rt' c!7a''Ci" i�.. l[;reritulhSSett S-rfic�avillor,le pintPhanono' Use tySpy' lniAavSw,4emir'equerranch,tha -/ttl U/eP...71f)l0}'C' IptNsnr`npemi inn se. reeling. and maim tfofgtiOwpb/ vehicles andvehlcle ti:7H'ti'C1Cftin'',the ris'IMing C'utT/r1155h3.7and Dotted niCQL'r7tY'conk I45,0nmltpprflIsm Sign Planting — West of County Road 31 . v _ s. t` M fir• �•1'�4 '1 ▪ • - .: - om.„-R _aiy_ _• I a. • / • erg r' r rM r T • 1st :•♦T��1'1 'erg' g 1 J r. gi • 1ST+`r 4-414 t ;A • Water Solutions Thursday, January 2, 2020 Kim Ogle Weld County Planning Deparment 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 Re: NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC USR19-0060 Central Weld SWD BOCC Hearing Dear Mr. Ogle: A hearing with the Weld County Board of County Commissioners regarding our USR application (USR19-0060) is scheduled for January 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. We would like to respectfully reque a f0 -day extension to complete ad itica _a1 s-;;vey.:g and engineering work related to the project. We believe that any comments related to the project will be answered and satisfied with the requested additional tine. Should you have any questions "'_warding this rqucst, please do not hesitate to contact me. (..3U.3)81)-lUlU Doug.White@nglep.com 3773 Cherry Creek N Or=: S. :'.000, Denver CO 80209 0: 303)815-10 ifs =: (303)815- 1J 1 i TO: DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Weld County Board of County Commissioners January 8, 2020 Kim Ogle, Planning Services Request for Continuance USR19-0060, NGL Water Solutions DJ EXHIBIT E- OSR.1 OD loD The Department of Planning Services received a letter from Doug White. Executive Vice President for NGL Water Solutions dated January 2, 2020 requesting a sixty (60) day continuance of a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review. USR19-0060, for Oil and Gas Support and Service, including an unmanned, pipeline only, Class II Saltwater Disposal Facility and related infrastructure, up to five (5) construction trailers and five (5) conex containers for temporary use during construction in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. (Central Weld Facility) The applicant is requesting this action to address survey and engineering issues related to the proposed project. The Department of Planning Services is requesting a continuance of case number USR19-0060 until the March 11, 2020 for the Board of County Commissioners hearing. 1 BA DGER SUMP FINDINGS 1. The name of the claimant is Charles S. Anderson, whose postoffice address. is Route 3, Box 308, Greeley, Colorado. The name of the structure, by deans of whh.ch water is diverted, is "Badger SW*?, 2. The source of supply of the water of said irrigation structure is not a natural streams, but from a distinct source of underground or subsurface water undorlying lands owned by claim- ant and _others, which le not naturtly tributary to any natural stream, and which is pumped. to the aurtace from the above named e t ructure. said water is not tributary to, nor any part of, any known or natural stream, and would not in its natural course appmcisbly augment the flow of sny natural stream; and, *xcept for that traction consumed by crops and evaporation, the *sten o r s o puspo d 4 an d spread upon the l ati d is brought from a h igho r to. a loser . level in the water district at a more rapid rate than would be accomplished ,it the water were to remain in itsratural and undisturbed condition, and all water not consumed replenishes the underlying water -bearing strata. The specific supply of water of the Badger Sump is not a natural stream but from a distinct source of underground uater which is not naturally tributary to any natural stream, and is from an underground tile pipeline, collecting water under claimant's lands and lands lying to the North of claimant's lands in Sections Fifteen (15) and Sixteen (16), Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, which source of water has been conveyed to the predecessor in interest of claimant by virtue of an agreement executed April 22, 1940 and recorded April 29, 1940 in Book 1062, Page 50, Weld County hbcards. 1303 • • • • • • • • l • • I 3. The Badger Sump is located on said underground tile pipeline and in a plot of land 100 feet in diameter, the center of which is Die feet South and 59 feet West of the northeast corner of Section Twenty-one (21), Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West or the 6th P.R.,-Weld County, Colorado, and at a place where said underground pipeline empties into said sump. The lands overlying and surrounding said sump are owned by claimant and said lands are irrigated from ditches taking water from the Cache la poudrs River, A general physical description of the structure and installation by means of which appropriation of water is ac- complished is as follows; Depth of Structure 13 feet Size or Discharge Pipe 6 inches Horsepower of Motor 7-1/2 4. The water produced from said structure is used to irri- gate 160 acres of claimant's overlying land located in The Bast Half (B ) of the Northeast quarter (N64) of Section Twenty-one (21), the West Ralf VW ) of the Northwest quarter 0fft) of Section Twenty-two (22), all. in Township Six (6) North, Ea ge Sixty -air (66) west of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and the amount appropriated is the reasonable amount necessary to supplement the supply of irrigation water heretofore and now being taken from ditches from the Cache la Poudre River for said lands, and the amount appropriated correlates to the needs of claimant and any others owning lands overlying the same distinct source of underground waters diverted by said structure. 5. The initiation of the original appropriation was by commencement of construction of the structure on Deceoher 31, z 197. The structure was completed and operated to the capaoity claimed, and the water applied to beneficial use in irrigation with due diligence. 1 304 6, The amount of water claimed by original construction and appropriation is 2.7 cubic feet per second of time. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Is a muter of law and equity, claimant is entitled to a decree' to the effect that he be permitted to pump, and divert and use water from a distinct source of underground or subsurface water as described for irrigation of said lands as follows: Subterraylfrn Cubic Feet per Priority Mete r i4 ority Second of Time Date ` 11400 2,7 December 313 1907 7 S.V.. Dad: REE IT IS THERE ORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the party or parties entitles thereto be permitted to pump and divert underground meters described in the foregoing findings for irri- gation purposes from the Utructure which is also described in the foregoing findings, which is located on an underground pipe- line and in a plot of land 100 feet in diameter, the center of which is 11!} feet South and 59 feet West of the northeast corner of section Twenty-one (21), Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty- six (66) Nest of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and at a place where said underground pipeline empties into said sump. The amount of water, priority date and' priority number are as follows: Sub:err e Cubic Feet per Priority wateriWITrity Second of Time Date 4to. 2.7 December 31, 1907 7 S.w. Said amount of water is reasonable and necessary to suppleasnt the supply of irrigation water for .3- 27 • 1 303 -The East Hall (R) of the Northeast Quarter (K ) of Section Twenty-one (21), the west Half (W of the Northwest Quarter (NN ) of Section Twenty-two (22), all in Tornahlp Six (6) Northe RallSw Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P.M., %seld County, Colorado, overlying lands, and such amount appropriated end decreed corre- lates to the needs of any other lands overlying the same distinct source of underground water as is diverted by said stricture. REV. DATE A 1 ), TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANCE 66 WEST, SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY COLORADO 200' 400' DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 20-00027 TRANSGLOBAI SERVICES LLC 1100 Macon Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Phone: 817-529-1180 TBPLS FIRM # 10193740 - f s OHE— — ORE—. DRAWN BY: CPM CHECKED BY: GJS e 2014 D*g.LKJobe rcaS t2f t 9: Distfthution Mt DS t + t,Aky1 LEGEND —OHE— — —OHE— — — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC BOUNDARY LINE • EXISTING PIPELINE O POWER POLE BEARING CHANGE IRISH OWL Situated in SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST, SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, Weld County, Colorado DATE: 01-14-2020 DATE: 01-14-2020 PAGE ' OF 1 EXHIBIT 'iz\�1 - 00\00 EXHIBIT 150 2 N V`SYZV\ -00\0 d \\r I) name r MSS SIN ,r MI ran W .1 bill 201'.4 ar-.MU 1 3 sv •�� NO O KW WS" M S CAP N N N I•h M. i/MY \\\ANN\ S I/I Sit Pµ. Rift PUMP B FF = 47 // /' LOT .4, RS -9694 ( r i ea Sr fatal an in Pin AN \ .astn. at. NCI Water Solutions D LLC CENTRAL WELD IN C/IL/TV USE 19-OOXX InsO .y1 IS EX1ENT CF FL0c0 PLAIN (ELEVATION = 5754) / a 1«' a/ -e-.. / NY01Na 101 a -as / I C 1 or 40 I NW .034113 10 »» tilt .»u N' /VAR awn' San- Or- sr Sr One. AOr/-Or- r TANK CONTAINMENT FE = 4756.0 1A1•00.W4 \ it Zt ..n to iUt at D W1MAtt o>ra KOCfw y 1W_ IMO IOu10 A ate INN f»' 4tPN+10 CAP it .1„w Legal Desc: Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th. P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado 1r CUP (KM) Mr .100 0• nett' 4760 4755 4750 ExSJN0 OROU.O on000sto CRAM ORAN UNIN011N PIPE 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2.50 3+00 DETENTION POND CROSS SECTION 4 /8 4755 4750 3+ SO DRAWN FOR U 3 51) 3 1 0U Z 0 a.r EJW 319/2020 r - so. W41' EXHIBIT I UNLOADING SLAB TRENCH DRAIN L INt RS I O CON IAC I CONCH' It TANK FARM CON 1 AINMLN I TERMINATE LINER USING A BATTEN BAR AT CONCRETE FACE 4 TANK CON IAINMEN I G • n CONCRETE SLAB I INERS TO CONTACT CONCRETE • SUMP • • 1 //\/ MONITORING WELL MONITORING WELL / • a b (SEE DE AR 0 TI IIS PAGE; SSEE DE TAR 0 THIS PAGE) \/\// //\/\\ \/\\/ ///\ • \/ St% //7 \/ NATIVE // ,, ` �� \ ti /C s • \//..,..N& %' 1 C'N, N// i . N N, jp/ /N • 4• • 3"Sch40 • •PVC RISER �\ ' \ ALL LINERS TO GRADE CONTINUOUS 60 mil HDPE TOWARD `�I 1 I • '' ' , /\ \\ • / / / / 3 Scr ' \/ MONITORING CONTAINMENT LINERS SUMP • I / / \/\ \ PVC 815E ►. , ' �FjM• • TORING NAGE GEOGRID OR • .a •Ptp \ • il /`•\ Nt7W tria T . UMP SLAB 41 ratiggheaatrams r--• // 7 N _�}a \/ // \/ N A \\ /\ \ .._,.. / //\/ <B> ¶,2 -A \\ /. GEOGRID. 3/4' WASHED \ \/ �G • . P. 1 OR ROAD Bo ' -ROCK ' ` V -NOTCH BOTTOM OF PIPE 'C7 p''N/\\ •It \ NOTE: Linear beneath \\ to wrap sump and unloading trench drain, extending upwards to contact the surrounding slab in all plan directions M TO ING SUMP ,' 41 //\ // /\\ / n n 4 ♦ 12" VAULT LID CONIINUOUS 3 LXPANDING PLUG 60 mil HDPE CONTAINMENT � • �• • • • a • • var \\ \/ . o • a •6 b ve Q /CONTINUOUS 4, 60 mil HOPE CONTAINMENT• / i p• • a a A 4 p • • • LINERS AN/NN.. • i \ - i�/ice\!N,\ \//i //i a ///// / N. PVC RISER //,.,_ \Sch40 \\ n • • / //\(7/ MONITORING/ • : 3" Sd+4O PVC RISL •. - , , .CONTINUOUS /\-7.////l., -. �SUMP SUMP • p• \ • GT Q �•, /CONTANMENT///x///,N1:::....." //\LINER% \\\*7N, \/ // // T \ /AN GF ^ \ /\// \ \ ► . : [it G1.. . -•� / N /N\ &\ /\\ l\ /l // i WELL DETAIL A •o •• <B> . G • <B> WELL DETAIL B / NOTE: This figure This is reflects intended the to leak convey detection design intent system design of leak only, detection and system only. is not intended All to structural replace the and construction construction engineering engineering to be performed for parameters being and addressed. verified by others. co O PO Q W F- V O Z a 0 5 PROJECT INFORMATION SECONDARY d CONTAINMENT GENERAL DESIGN z CD cn z O U W F- F" UW W 0 0 a� DATE: .are, SCAM As WILD sNFET: ONAWra BY. EXHIBIT N 0 MEMORANDUM Ti •r FROM: Zackery Roberson Public Works DATE: March 11, 2020 USR19-0060 NGL Public Works is requesting an additional Development Standard (Number 18 and renumber): • Water, wastewater and other materials to be disposed of via the injection well, shall be delivered by pipeline only. re aaOMA00 -nn9rAn GM Ca.AM. NGL. Water Solutions DJ, LLC CENTRA L fl/EL B £4 Cl/i try 1/SR !9-OOXX sna Sid ?ON. AIKI PUMP BLDG FF = 4756.0 LEACH FIELD LOT .4, RE -3531 AREA TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED *WI ,M91 \\NAANNAVANAATTIITT •POaf ' al IJV4 s ' IUC//Ar J011t a es -s -t. R1r7rtl► WI le-JW TANK CONTAINMENT FF = 4756.0 0 IOW AS! CONCP YCMI it tiff. M W M rawA 0 A<*M dew 335* £IWwW CAP L5 Ni>9 EXHIBIT As --OO CO 392 a) N Vicinity Map SCALE 1"=2000' Legal Desc: Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North. Range 66 West of the 6th. P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado FTGEN D SWALE PROPERTY LINE EDGE ROW EDGE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE EXTENT OF DETENTION POND 0 r 0 U Qx O O 0 2 `if cnn�T g cti CC � Z J W O 0 z _MA -1 EJW 01CUD aAn 8/1/2019 soar PMOLCT , '4ilT F 4 _ 0 \ • WARY" M*.tl • V 0•S --� I Igt•p p/• yM tr.-ens twer .S 1 101 A d-.fRfl e. StVio £14 FS. 2M/. PUMP BIDG FF = 47 6.0 LOT A. RE -SCSI aa a NGL Water Solutions D LLC CENTRAL WELD £4 GIL ITY USR I9-OOXX 1Ni4 .51 11-' EXTENT OF FLOOD PLAN (ELFVAT1CN = 5754) I .,w'IN, ae-Mi ante* lev ,p N -.Ill► L7 a i 00» x PO 10 C Nm101/110W C 10 =WIN W •11.-5" UAW. LZN`A\PENT. - FF- •t75 r, r `tt Y. . -C' 1 ,..IRO tS 53 ft CM Legal Desc: Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th. P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado •i ass map) o •1,01' DMNIC �. Sao Rd ea COW S[[110N ,t ta. RNA IQMD 0 KW Sb. 1M. *A S CM if Yea 4 760 4 760 4755 4750 PR MS TING GROUND SLID GRMJ( • i-114:11d -s. 0+00 0+50 1+00 R+50 7.00 2.50 5,00 DETENTION POND CROSS SECTION 4755 4750 3+50 V J 3 8 b 11/4 _ 1 Ihimmadt WERNSt'1AN ENGINEERING L _ AND LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC uN R)0 PHONE 970 539 2656 FJW an 3/:2:.20 . r-50 11Q, Legal Desc Lot A of Recorded Exemption No 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P M , County of Weld, State of Colorado S C 91 1., TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH. RANCE 66 WEST, SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. WELD COUNTY COLORADO 200' 0' 200' 400' SCALE: 1" = 200' DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 20-00027 TRANSGLOBAI S I R Y i C I S L L 1100 Macon Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Phone: 817-529-1180 TBPLS FIRM # 10193740 LEGEND -OHE- - -OHE- - - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING PIPELINE 0 POWER POLE • BEARING CHANGE Energy Partners LP IRISH OWL Situated in SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST, SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, Weld County, Colorado DRAWN BY: CPM DATE: 01-14-2020 DWG. NO. CHECKED BY: GJS DATE: 01-14-2020 a^sicsalSr+as:.Cl6-S ^ver•Dx.m._ Jessica Reid Subject: Attachments: FW: USR19-0060 CENTRALWELDGRADING392O2Oc.pdf; NG392020c.pdf; 20-00027 Irish Owl Overview_Aerial.pdf; TGS_NGL_Irish Owl_20200310.pdf; SWD Liner Printable.pdf; Scout Card.pdf Importance: High From: Maria Petrocco <maria@petroccolaw.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 8:03 AM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Cc: Ryan Donovan <ryan@Ijcglaw.com>; Suzanne Leffler <lefflersl@what-wire.com> Subject: USR19-0060 Importance: High Caution. This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Kim, We would request a continuance on behalf of Mr. Leffler. It appears that the land use case is premature. The well has not been permitted. As you can see from the attached scout card, the well is closed because the application is incomplete. We are currently working with Bob Koehler of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") to object to this proposed injection well. He can be reached on his cell at (303) 656-1486 to confirm this matter. It is inefficient to work towards a site plan for an injection well that has not been permitted by the COGCC and may not very well get permitted. In addition, the attached is all the information provided to Mr. Leffler by NGL on this matter. First, these are simply diagrams and not in the form of an engineering report that can be evaluated by Mr. Leffler's engineers to confirm the assertion that his water rights will not be injured. Second, the diagrams show NGL is proposing to construct their facilities directly on top of Mr. Leffler's drain tiles in violation of Colorado law which grants Mr. Leffler a right to access those drain tiles for maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation. Thank you. Sincerely, Maria Petrocco Law Offices of Maria Petrocco 8690 Wolff Court #200 Westminster, CO 80031 Phone (720) 216 -5175 Cell: (720) 732-9521 1 6/5/2020 COGCC Data Data i _ Home I Contact Us I Help COGIS Database Downloads Field Scout Cards Imaged Documents Production By County _ •• . • COGIS - UIC DISPOSAL Information CENTRAL WELD SWD - #160015 Information Facility ID: Facility Status: Operator Name: County: Field: Facility Type: Initial Inj. Date: Inj. Zone Name: Avg Porosity: TDS: Related Ckt Insp Dc 160015 Facility Name/No: CL Status Date: NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ LLC Operator Number: WELD - #123 BRACEWELL UIC Disposal 11/1/2018 LYONS 8 186000 Location: Lat/Long: Order#: Fluid Type: Inj. Zone Code: Avg Permeablity: Frac Gradient: Well(S) Ordered by API Order by Well Name CI 6/ 1C SI https://cogcc.state.co.us/data.html#/cogis 1/1 STATUS CODES Rev 1-15-2017 Well Status Codes Wellbore Status Codes Formation Completion Status Codes AC ACTIVE OR staff.) MONITOR WELL: GAS WELL. STORAGE (Manually WELL COMPLETION assigned by COGCC AB ABANDONED PERMIT DRILLED; FOR OR DRILLED WELLBORE THE WELL WELLBORE HAS THAT WILL BEEN OR ABANDONED. VACATED NOT BE AB ABANDONED COMPLETION: PERFORATIONS HAVE BEEN SQUEEZED OR ABANDONED. MORE WITH SACKS CEMENT OF CEMENT; OR ISOLATED OR THE BY WELL A BRIDGE HAS PLUG BEEN WITH 2 AL ABANDONED OPERATOR: LOCATION: WELL HAS NOT PERMIT BEEN VACATED; SPUD. PER AC ACTIVE MONITOR staff.) WELLBORE: WELL. (Manually GAS STORAGE assigned WELL OR by COGCC AC ACTIVE COMPLETION by COGCC FORMATION staff.) OR MONITOR COMPLETION: WELL GAS COMPLETION. STORAGE (Manually WELL assigned DA DRY AND ABANDONED WELL. CM COMMINGLED: MULTIPLE WELLBORES CM COMMINGLED: PRODUCING DOWNHOLE; A REPORTING MULTIPLE IN THE A NON FORMATION -REPORTING WELL FORMATIONS AND CODE PRODUCTION FORMATION STATUS COMPLETED IS PR. AND IS COMMINGLED CODE STATUS IS CM; COMPLETED FORMATION COMMINGLED WELLBORE; STATUS WELLBORE IS CM; AND IN A STATUS AND NON THE THE PRODUCING WELL; REPORTED -REPORTING SINGLE IS PR. FROM PRODUCTION FROM WELLBORE REPORTING THE ONLY SAME IS ONE DG DRILLING: WELL HAS SPUD BUT IS NOT DG DRILLING VELLBORE: WELLBORE HAS SPUD DM DOMESTIC GAS WELL COMPLETION. REPORTED AS COMPLETED. BUT IS NOT YET REPORTED AS COMPLETED. 'DOMESTIC DM GAS WELL. DM DOMESTIC GAS WELLBORE. IJ INJECTION SECONDARY FORMATION RECOVERY. COMPLETION FOR WASTE DISPOSAL OR IJ INJECTION SECONDARY WELL RECOVERY. FOR WASTE DISPOSAL OR IJ INJECTION OR SECONDARY WELLBORE FOR RECOVERY WASTE DISPOSAL PR PRODUCING FORMATION COMPLETION. PA PLUGGED AND ABANDONED WELL. PR PRODUCING WELLBORE. SI SHUT-IN NOT PRODUCTION. PRODUCING FORMATION BUT COMPLETION: IS MECHANICALLY COMPLETED CAPABLE FORMATION OF IS 1 TA TEMPORARILY ABANDONED FORMATION COMPLETION: PR PRODUCING WELL. SI SHUT-IN NOT CAPABLE PRODUCING WELLBORE: OF COMPLETED BUT IS PRODUCTION. MECHANICALLY WELLBORE IS COMPLETED PRODUCTION FORMATION WITHOUT INTERVENTION. NOT MECHANICALLY CAPABLE OF , SI SHUT-IN PRODUCING PRODUCTION WELL: BUT COMPLETED IS MECHANICALLY WELL IS NOT CAPABLE OF TA TEMPORARILY COMPLETED CAPABLE OF ABANDONED WELLBORE PRODUCTION NOT WITHOUT WELLBORE: MECHANICALLY Oil & Gas Location (Surface) Status Codes INTERVENTION. AC ACTIVE LOCATION: APPROVED FORM 2A (INCLUDES EXPIRED 2A - su SUSPENDED PERMIT: PERMIT TO DRILL IS WO WAITING ON COMPLETION: WELLBORE HAS SUSPENDED UNTIL AN ISSUE IS RESOLVED. BEEN DRILLED BUT IS NOT YET REPORTED AS check WELL/PERMIT expiration date) IN OR EXISTENCE HISTORICALLY PRIOR CREATED LOCATION TO 2009. FOR COMPLETED. TA TEMPORARILY ABANDONED WELL: COMPLETED XX APPROVED PERMIT TO DRILL WELLBORE: AL ABANDONED LOCATION: PERMIT VACATED; PER OPERATOR: PRODUCTION WELL NOT MECHANICALLY WITHOUT INTERVENTION. CAPABLE OF INCLUDES WELLBORE EXPIRED NOT YET REPORTED PERMITS. AS SPUD; LOCATION WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED. CL CLOSED RECLAIMED. LOCATION: LOCATION WAS BUILT AND HAS BEEN WO DRILLED WAITING ON BUT COMPLETION: IS NOT YET REPORTED WELL HAS BEEN AS COMPLETED. XX APPROVED REPORTED PERMITS. PERMIT AS SPUD; TO DRILL INCLUDES WELL; EXPIRED NOT YET UN UNKNOWN: INFORMATION. OLD WELL WITH MINIMAL LAANCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5245 RONALD REAGAN BLVD., SUITE 1 JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO 80534 TELEPHONE: 970-622-8181 I fCC WWW.LICGLAW.COM ryanga`ljcglaw.com P. Andrew Jones • Bradley C. Grasmick • David P. Jones • Ryan M. Donovan Wesley S. Knoll • Alyson K. Scott • Sheena M. Moran (Of Counsel) June 9, 2020 Via Email Only Kim Ogle Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Via email: kogle@weldgov.com RE: USR 19--0060 Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Mr. Donn Leffler, who continues to oppose NGL's USR Application in the above referenced case number. This letter supplements my prior letters and verbal testimony made on behalf of Mr. Leffler. As you know, this matter was continued from a hearing on March 11, 2020 to allow Mr. Leffler the opportunity to review engineering studies which NGL purportedly conducted. On March 31, 2020, NGL provided the documents attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. As is clear from these Exhibits, they consist of four drawings which show the expected location of the drain tiles which comprise the delivery system for Mr. Leffler's decreed water rights. The drawings also show the proposed location of NGL's infrastructure associated with its pending USR application. No other information has been provided to Mr. Leffler by NGL. At this time, Mr. Leffler is requesting that NGL's USR Application be denied for the following reasons: First, the COGCC has not yet approved the disposal well permit application and therefore this USR Application is premature. The COGCC has indicated that the permit application before that body is incomplete. Granting a USR permit, or continuing this matter indefinitely, without the COGCC permit causes Mr. Leffler to incur unnecessary and substantial legal fees in negotiating a USR application which is based on a disposal well that may not get permitted. Mr. Leffler's counsel, Ms. Maria Petrocco will primarily be addressing this issue. Mr Kim Ogle USR 19-0060 Page 2 of 2 Second, Mr Leffler's water rights, associated infrastructure and easements are protected under the Colorado Supreme Court's holding in Roaring Fork Club v St Jude's Company, 36 P 3d 1229 (Colo 2001) I have enclosed a copy of this opinion as Exhibit 5 The St Jude's decision speaks to the issue before the Commissioners in NGL's USR Application and stands for the proposition that in Colorado, owners of the burdened estate (NGL) may not alter the easements associated with water rights without the consent of the benefitted owner (Mr Leffler) Absent such consent, the owner of the burdened estate does not haveCthe right to "self-help" and simply alter the ditch easement Doing so would constitute a trespass and afford Mr Leffler remedies in law and equity Rather, if no agreement is reached between the owners of the two estates, the law requires the owner of the burdened estate to file a declaratory judgment action in district court and make a showing that the alteration of the ditch easement will not injure the benefitted estate Mr Leffler has worked in good faith to reach an agreement with NGL as to allow NGL to develop its property in a manner that will not injure Mr Leffler's water rights, infrastructure and associated easements NGL has not met its burden of showing that no injury will result from the installation and operation of its proposed facilities In fact, the drawings provided by NGL in Exhibits 1-4 illustrate that NGL intends to construct its facilities directly above Mr Leffler's drain tiles Constructing the facilities in this manner would, on its face, violate Mr Leffler's statutory (E g , CRS § 37-86-102, 103) and constitutional (Art XVI, § 7) rights to deliver his water through the property sought to be developed by NGL If approved as shown in Exhibits 1- 4, Mr Leffler would be denied access to maintain, repair, and replace his drain tiles Absent an agreement with Mr Leffler, St Jude's prohibits NGL from trespassing upon Mr Leffler's property rights by simply constructing the facilities It must first show that no injury will occur and it has not met that burden Mr Leffler should not be required to continue to incur legal expenses when NGL has not met its threshold burden, let alone provided Mr Leffler with sufficient information to evaluate the potential for injury NGL has failed to show that its proposed facilities will not injure Mr Leffler's water rights, a requirement that they must meet under state law The USR application therefore cannot be granted under law and Mr Leffler requests that the County deny NGL's application without further proceedings Sincerely, LAWRENCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK, LLP 1 Digitally signed by Ryan M. �� Donovan D_N cn=llyanM Donovan `-Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmlck LLP au emai=pyan@Ilcglawcam, c=US // Date 3030 0609 13 134-06Y10 Ryan M Donovan cc Mr Donn Leffler Ms Maria Petrocco 36 P.3d 1229 Page 1 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) N Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. ROARING FORK CLUB, L.P., Petitioner, v. ST. JUDE'S COMPANY, Respondent. No. 00SC372. Nov. 19, 2001. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 17, 2001. Ranch sued hunting and fishing club for altering irrigation ditches that served both properties. Following a bench trial, the District Court, Pitkin County, Thomas W. Ossola, J., entered judgment for the ranch, and ordered injunctive relief On cross -appeals, the Court of Appeals, 15 P.3d 281, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. Following the grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Kourlis, J., held that: (1) club committed trespass when it unilaterally altered irrigation ditches; (2) owners of servient estates can alter easements at their own expense provided alterations do not damage the dominant estates; and (3) case would be remanded to determine whether alterations damaged ranch. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. West Headnotes Waters and Water Courses 244 405k244 Most Cited Cases The holder of a irrigation ditch easement has the right to inspect, operate, maintain, and repair the ditch. J2[ Waters and Water Courses 244 405k244 Most Cited Cases While burdened estate owners have a qualified right to cross, and take equipment across, a benefitted estate owner's irrigation ditch, they cannot damage the ditch or unreasonably inhibit the benefitted estate owner's ability to maintain the ditch. 131 Waters and Water Courses 244 405k244 Most Cited Cases By unilaterally altering irrigation ditches serving benefited estate, owners of burdened estate committed trespass, and owner of benefited estate was entitled to nominal, actual or even punitive damages, as appropriate. Fa Easements ()=47 141k47 Most Cited Cases Restatement (Third) of Property section entitling the owner of a servient estate to make reasonable changes, at his or her expense, in the location or dimensions of an easement to permit normal use of the servient estate, provided the changes do not significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burdens on the owner of the easement in its use and enjoyment, or frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created, has been adopted. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). ill Declaratory Judgment ` 185 118Ak 185 Most Cited Cases When the owner of an estate burdened by an irrigation ditch seeks to move or alter the ditch easement and the benefited owner refuses to consent, the burdened owner may seek a declaratory determination from a court that the proposed alteration does not damage the benefitted owner. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). J61 Waters and Water Courses 244 405k244 Most Cited Cases When seeking a declaratory determination that moving or altering an irrigation ditch does not damage the benefited owner, the burdened owner must first present to the court a prima facie case that the alteration would cause no damage; a successful showing creates a presumption that shifts the burden of production to the benefitted owner to establish damage and the benefitted owner must then come forward and demonstrate the actual damage the alteration would cause. Rules of Evid., Rule 301; Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). J71 Waters and Water Courses `r''" 244 405k244 Most Cited Cases In evaluating damage, or the absence of damage, when an owner of an estate burdened by an irrigation ditch seeks a declaratory determination to move or alter the ditch, the trial court must not only look at the operation of the ditch for the benefitted owner, but also look at the maintenance rights associated with the ditch; if the maintenance rights of the owner of the Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) ditch easement are adversely affected by the change in the easement, then such change should not be permitted. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). 181 Waters and Water Courses €244 405k244 Most Cited Cases When an owner of an estate burdened by an irrigation ditch seeks a declaratory determination to move or alter the ditch, the water provided to the ditch easement owner after the alteration must be of the same quantity, quality, and timing as provided under the ditch owner's water rights and easement rights in the ditch. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). j91, Waters and Water Courses 142 405k142 Most Cited Cases A water right operating in combination with the collection of rights and obligations are vested property rights. 1101 Waters and Water Courses €'144.5 405k 144.5 Most Cited Cases Just as water rights owners have a right to maintenance of stream conditions existing at the time of their appropriations, so too do ditch owners have the same right. j111 Waters and Water Courses `r "244 405k244 Most Cited Cases When the owner of the burdened estate had neither the consent of owner of the benefited estate nor the permission of the court to make alterations to irrigation ditches, the owner of the burdened estate committed a trespass, and the trial court was entitled to fashion a remedy at law or in equity and could shift maintenance burdens and responsibilities as a part of equitable relief 1121 Easements 54 141k54 Most Cited Cases When an owner of a servient estate unilaterally alters an easement without the court's or the dominant estate owner's permission, a court willconsider whether the change significantly lessened the utility of the easement, increased the burdens on the owner of the easement, or frustrated the purpose for which the easement was created, in evaluating the legitimacy of the alteration, but may also impose equitable and legal Page 2 remedies to redress the trespass. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3). *1230 Hale Hackstaff, Tymkovich & Erkenbrack, LLP, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Richard A. Westfall, John R. Paddock, Jr., Denver, CO, Patrick, Miller & Kropf, PC, Kevin L. Patrick, Scott C. Miller, Aspen, CO, Attorneys for Petitioner. Gregory J. Cucarola, Sterling, CO, Attorney for Respondent. Justice KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. I . In this case we address the unilateral alteration of irrigation ditches. St. Jude's Company (hereinafter Ranch) owns 240 acres of agricultural land near Basalt, Colorado. Roaring Fork Club, L.P., (hereinafter Club) acquired the neighboring, upgradient property adjoining Ranch's in 1995. Previously, the owner of Club's land had used it for agricultural purposes; however, Club developed the property for recreational use by building a private fishing and golf club. Club and Ranch share an interest in three irrigation ditches that traverse Club's property and serve both properties. Seeking to alter the ditch course in order to accommodate its golf and fishing development, Club attempted to contract with Ranch either to purchase portions of Ranch's easement or to formalize a ditch maintenance arrangement. However, the parties were unable to reach such an agreement. Nevertheless, Club moved forward with construction in and around the ditches. In 1997 Ranch initiated a trespass action against Club seeking a mandatory and permanent injunction requiring Club to restore the ditches to their original location and course and to remove those improvements that prevented Ranch from maintaining the ditches. The case proceeded before the trial court, acting in equity. Following three days of trial, the court found that Club had excavated within Ranch's rights -of -way, graded and destroyed ditch banks and portions of ditches, realigned ditch channels, diverted ditch water flows, piped portions of ditches, constructed cabins and golf course greens within the easements, and temporarily piped wastewater into one of the ditches. *1231 As a result, the trial court concluded that Club Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) had committed trespass on Ranch's easements. The court also stated that because Ranch sought an equitable remedy, the court was required to balance the equities between the parties in fashioning an appropriate remedy. Weighing the equities, the court found that Club never denied Ranch access to the ditches or denied it the opportunity to maintain the ditches; that Ranch had not suffered any diminution in the quantity of water delivered through the system; and that Ranch had not suffered any increased cost in maintenance of the ditches because of the development. The court also found that Ranch's traditional disposition of spoilage and maintenance of the ditches would be inconsistent with Club's use of its property for recreational purposes. Finally, the court found that requiring Club to restore the ditches to their condition prior to trespass would be extremely costly and would substantially interfere with Club's current and ongoing use of its property. The trial court concluded that Ranch was entitled to injunctive relief in one of two forms. The court held that Club must either remove all of the developments that reasonably interfered with entry, access, and maintenance of the ditches and restore the original ditches as prayed for by Ranch (the "restoration" option), or Club could assume all responsibility for, and expense of, operation and maintenance of the ditches on its property, and would be permanently obligated to deliver, upon demand, water to Ranch in the amount and quality, and at the time consistent with, Ranch's adjudicated rights (the "maintenance and delivery" option). The trial court clarified in a post -trial order that the right to choose between the alternative remedies imposed by the injunction belonged to Club. Club exercised the maintenance and delivery option, and Ranch appealed the trial court's disposition of the case. On appeal, a majority of the court of appeals reversed, in part, the injunction formulated by the trial court, holding that the maintenance and delivery option did not comply with Colorado law. St. Jude's Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, L. P., 15 P.3d 281, 285 (Colo.App.1999). Further, the court of appeals held the trial court order unjustifiably rewarded Club, a bad faith actor, for deliberate and conscious trespass. Id. We granted certiorari to determine two issues. The first issue is whether the court of appeals properly applied I 'alley Development Co. v. Weeks, 147 Colo. 591, 364 P.2d 730 (1961), and Brown v. Bradbuty, 110 Colo. 537, 135 P.2d 1013 (1943), to preempt the trial court's exercise of its equitable discretion; and the second is whether the court of appeals erred by requiring the trial court to award injunctive relief Page 3 We now hold that the owner of property burdened by a ditch easement (hereinafter "burdened estate") may not move or alter that easement unless that owner has the consent of the owner of the easement (hereinafter "benefitted estate"); OR unless that owner first obtains a declaratory determination from a court that the proposed changes will not significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burdens on the owner of the easement, or frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created. We further clarify that the right to inspect, operate, and maintain a ditch easement is a right that cannot be abrogated by alteration or change to the ditch. Therefore, we affirm that portion of the court of appeals' judgment upholding the trial court finding of trespass upon Club's unilateral alteration of the easement. However, we remand this case for further proceedings in light of our interpretation of Colorado case law as set forth in this opinion. II. Ditches are important to Colorado. They permit a landscape, economy, and history in which fertile valleys prosper. Without them, properties adjacent to or distant from watercourses wither. Colorado is not a riparian state in which only those lands adjacent to the streams and rivers have rights to waters. Rather, as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be *1232 used and developed. Colorado Territorial Laws 67 § 2 (1861) reprinted in Gregory J. Hobbs, Colorado Water Lain: An Historical Overview, 1 U. Deny. Water L.Rev. 1, 31 (1997) ("That when any person, ... [whose] farm or land, used by him for agricultural purposes, is too far removed from said stream ..., [that person] shall be entitled to a right of way through the farms or tracts of land which lie between him and said stream...."). By the time of passage of our constitution, that right was embodied in Article XVI, § 7, which provides, "Allpersons and corporations shall have the right-of-way across public, private and corporate lands for the construction of ditches, canals and flumes for the purpose of conveying water for domestic purposes, for the irrigation of agricultural lands and for mining and manufacturing purposes, and for drainage, upon payment of just compensation." The statute that the first legislative assembly enacted in 1861 has now become section 37-86-102, to wit: "Any person owning a water right or conditional water right shall be entitled to a right-of-way through the lands which lie between the point of diversion and Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) point of use or proposed use for the purpose of transporting water for beneficial use in accordance with said water right or conditional water right." § 37-86-102, 10 C.R.S. (2001). W Because ditches are important, so too are the rights attendant upon a ditch easement. The holder of a ditch easement has the right to inspect, operate, maintain, and repair the ditch. Osborn & Caywood Ditch Co. v. Green, 673 P.2d 380, 383 (Colo.App.1983) ("[T]he owner of the easement, or dominant estate, may do whatever is reasonably necessary to permit full use and enjoyment of the easement including the exercise of rights of ingress and egress for maintenance, operation, and repair."); see also }'under v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 551, 555 (1872) ("It may be said, that all lands are held in subordination to the dominant right of others, who must necessarily pass over them to obtain a supply of water to irrigate their own lands...."). 2 The Green decision also directs that, while burdened estate owners have a qualified right to cross, and take equipment across, a benefitted estate owner's ditch, they cannot damage the ditch or unreasonably inhibit the benefitted estate owner's ability to maintain the ditch. Green, 673 P.2d at 383. "The right to maintain a ditch, canal or aqueduct across the lands of another necessarily implies the right to go on such lands for the purpose of cleaning out the waterway and making other proper repairs...." 93 C.J.S. Waters § 130(c)(1) (1956). Additionally, the Colorado legislature has required "ditch owners" to undertake a host of duties in relation to ditch upkeep. See § § 37-84-101 to -120, 10 C.R.S. (2001). [FN 1 j Many of those statutes permit and even require the benefitted estate owner to have direct access to the entire length of the ditch. Therefore, we approach the issues before us in this case with due regard for the importance of ditches and ditch rights under the law. FN 1. We note that Colorado's criminal statutes forbid the cutting, obstructing, altering or damaging of a ditch coupled with either the intent to cause injury or to steal or divert water in order to profit personally. § 37-89-101, 10 C.R.S. (2001). The legislature amended this statute in 2001 requiring those convicted of the offense to make full restitution to the victim for actual damages sustained. H.B. 01-1250, 2001 Leg., 1st Sess. (Colo.2001). The statute demonstrates the high level of concern the legislature has Page 4 for the structures that convey water in our state. Ch. 272, sec. 1, § 37-89-101, 2001 Colo. Sess. Laws 988. The first question we must answer is whether Club had the right to move the ditch that served both its property and Ranch's property, because the answer tothat question then shapes any inquiry about appropriate remedy. A. Although there are clearly some distinctions, we begin by reviewing the law as it relates to road and other easements. The majority rule in the United States prohibits burdened estate owners from unilaterally relocating easements. Note, The *1233Right of Owners of Servient Estates to Relocate Easements Unilaterally, 109 Harv. L.Rev. 1693, 1693 (1996) ("In the majority of jurisdictions in the United States, neither the owner of the dominant estate nor the owner of the servient estate may unilaterally relocate an easement once it has been fixed."); see also 28A C.J.S. Easements § 157 (1996) ("As a general rule, in the absence of contrary statutes, the location of an easement when once established cannot be changed by either party without the other's consent."). The traditional rule emerged out of the notion of reciprocity; since the benefitted estate owner could not unilaterally move the easement, neither could the burdened estate owner. See Restatement (Third) Of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8 cmt. f (2000). This traditional rule has historically governed ditch easements as well. See 93 C.J.S. Waters § 192(b)(2) (1956) ("In the absence of statute, the owner of the servient estate has no right to change the place or location of an appropriator's ditch."); Archibeck 1. Mongiello, 58 N.M. 749, 276 P.2d 736, 739 (1954) (applying general prohibition on moving easements to ditch easement); Lunn v. Schmidt, No. 49537, 1985 WL 8129, at *4, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 8840, at *12 (Ohio Ct.App. Oct. 17, 1985) ("The plaintiffs correctly state the general rule that neither the dominant landowner nor the servient landowner may materially alter the easement without the consent of both parties. The placing of closed pipe in a drainage ditch, constitutes a material alteration."). B. Colorado's first case on point is Cherrichigno v. Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) Dickinson. 63 Colo. 443, 167 P. 1178 (1917), which follows the majority rule in holding that a property owner has "no right for his own convenience or profit to change the location of a ditch, or to do anything which will interfere with the vested rights of' a benefitted estate therein, without consent of the benefitted estate. Id. at 445, 167 P. at 1178. The next case was Brown v. Bradbury, 110 Colo. 537, 135 P.2d 1013 (1943), in which the plaintiffs owned a ditch easement that bisected defendant Bradbury's estate. The ditch ran near Bradbury's home and "Mrs. Bradbury was fearful that their small son might fall into it and be drowned." Id. at 538, 135 P.2d at 1013. Mr. Bradbury unilaterally substituted a new ditch away from the house, which ran along a road right of way that Brown also owned on Bradbury's estate. The new ditch conveyed water to Brown's property "in the same or increased quantity as before." Id Brown sought an injunction to restore the old ditch, asserting irreparable injury. The trial court, however, found that damages were "insignificant and immeasurable." Id. at 539, 135 P.2d at 1013. The trial court allowed the ditch to remain in its new location but ordered Bradbury to eliminate certain curves in the new ditch and shifted to him the burden of repairing, maintaining, and keeping the ditch "in such condition as to insure the delivery of the same amount of water." Id. at 538, 135 P.2d at 1013. On appeal, this court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order and cited Stuart v. County Commissioners, 25 Colo.App. 568, 580, 139 P. 577, 581 (1914), for the proposition that a defendant cannot destroy a ditch easement "without providing for plaintiff other adequate and satisfactory means for receiving his water from said carrier so that his lands could be advantageously irrigated as prior to said change." Brown, 110 Colo. at 538, 135 P.2d at 1014. Several years later, relying on the Stuart and Brown holdings, Valley Development Co. (Valley) substituted an underground pipe for a ditch easement to convey water across their property to defendant Weeks. I alley Dev. Co. v. Weeks, 147 Colo. 591, 593, 364 P.2d 730, 731 (1961). Valley subdivided its land and then built and sold homes to good faith purchasers. Weeks sought an injunction requiring Valley to restore the ditch to its former location and also sought damages "both general and exemplary." Id. The trial court held generally for Weeks, but then found that "it was impossible to restore the ditch to its former course by mandatory injunction because innocent persons had purchased houses." Id. The court granted unspecified "other equitable relief' and monetary damages, excluding exemplary damages. Page 5 *1234 In reviewing Weeks on appeal, we observed that Valley had "misconstrued" the true meaning and intent of Brown. Id. at 594, 364 P.2d at 732. Correcting the misunderstanding, we explained that the Brown court "merely held that on the record presented there it would not disturb an equitable judgment." Id. at 595, 364 P.2d at 732. We then reiterated Colorado's settled easement rules as set forth in Cherrichigno v. Dickinson: "[A]n owner of a servient tenement has 'no right for his own convenience or profit to change the location of a ditch, or to do anything which will interfere with the vested rights of a dominant tenement therein, without the consent of that party." Id. (quoting Cherrichigno v. Dickinson, 63 Colo. 443, 445, 167 P. 1178, 1178 (1917)). Still, we upheld the trial court's refusal to order the ditch restored. We found that Cherrichigno controls "except where a trial court has, under its equitable powers in cases involving easements, determined the conditions under which such easement may be altered where other equities have arisen. In cases of the latter type, the Brown doctrine is applicable." Id. (emphasis added). Finally, we statedthat "once the interference and alteration had been accomplished, the trial court had the equitable power to determine what should be done about it." Id. at 596, 364 P.2d at 732. Accordingly, we find ourselves at the onset of the 21st century with competing land uses in Colorado proliferating and somewhat unclear common-law precedent as to the interlocking rights of estates benefitting from easements and those estates burdened by them. On the one hand, Cherrichigno states unequivocally that a burdened estate owner may not move a ditch easement without the consent of the benefitted estate owner. Cherrichigno, 63 Colo. at 445, 167 P. at 1178. On the other hand, Stuart indicates it can be done if the burdened owner provides an adequate substitute. Stuart, 25 Colo.App. at 580, 139 P. at at 581. Similarly, both Brown and Weeks stand for the proposition that a ditch easement need not be restored to its original course and condition when equity dictates otherwise. IV. 13] We observe that the development of the common law on point appears to serve two purposes: first, that ditch easements are a property right that the burdened estate owner may not alter absent consent of the benefitted owner; and second, that there may be some circumstances in which such alteration would work no harm to the benefitted owner and would greatly serve Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) the burdened owner. Our resolution of this case honors both of those precepts. Accordingly, we first affirm both the trial court and court of appeals finding that Roaring Fork (Club) trespassed upon St. Jude's (Ranch's) easement by unilaterally altering it. For that trespass, Ranch may well be entitled to damages. Bobrick v. Taylor, 171 Colo. 375, 379-80, 467 P.2d 822, 824 (1970) (affixing award for trespass at cost of restoration); see also Engler v. Hatch, 472 P.2d 680, 683 (Colo.App.1970) (not selected for publication) (finding the cost of restoration is a proper award even though restoration not ordered). Other trespass cases award actual and even punitive damages where appropriate. Proper v. Greager, 827 P.2d 591, 597 (Colo.App.1992) ("[I]f necessary to grant an injured party complete relief for past interference with his easement, the court may also award monetary damages"); Campbell v. Kelsall, 717 P.2d 1019., 1019-20 (Colo.App.1986) (awarding benefitted owner actual and punitive damages in trespass where burdened owner unilaterally destroyed a ditch easement). However, the trial court may also find that such trespass does not warrant exemplary damages and that monetary damages are either incalculable or unproven. In such cases, nominal damages are appropriate. See CJI-Civ. 4th 18:3. Second, however, we recognize that Ranch may or may not be entitled to restoration of the easement depending upon the test we set forth below. It is in this area that we seek to clarify the law trial courts should apply when determining whether or not to order restoration of an altered easement. V. In other areas of property law, the law in Colorado has begun to recognize that the *1235 competing uses betweentwo interested owners should be accommodated, if possible, and that inflexible notions of dominant and servient estates do little to advance that accommodation. In Lay Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 923 P.2d 313 (Colo.App.1996) (hereinafter Lazy Dog 1 )., cert. denied, Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Co., No. 96SC252, 1996 Colo. LEXIS 374 (Colo. Sept. 3, 1996), the court of appeals upheld a trial court's imposition of a "compromise" between competing landowners subject to an easement. Id. at 317-18. There, both the plaintiff and the defendant shared a road that ran along a common property line. The plaintiff planned to subdivide his property for residential development; the defendant operated a cattle ranch. Over the plaintiffs objections, the defendant sought to gate the shared road at both ends. As a solution, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to install cattle guards, while also Page 6 ordering that if the defendant needed to move the cattle guards at a later date, the defendant would bear those costs. Id. at 316; see also Schold v. Sawyer. 944 P.2d 683, 685 (Colo.App.1997) (holding the burdened estate's erection of cattle guards permissible when they do not unreasonably interfere with the right of way). An equitable solution maximizes the usage both owners seek for their respective properties. This doctrine, however, does not apply where either owner seeks unreasonable uses. In Hornsilver Circle, Ltd. 1'. Trope, 904 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Colo.App.1995), the court of appeals properly ordered restoration when an alteration effectively eliminated one-third of a parking space easement. In Mid -America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., 942 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir.1991), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Kansas law, ordered restoration of a buried pipeline easement after the defendants had built a racetrack on top of it, because of the damage to the owner of the easement. Id. at 1521. Analogously, surface estate owners and severed mineral owners have interests that are frequently at odds. In that context, the direction of the law in Colorado has also been toward the accommodation doctrine, in requiring that, whenever possible, the uses must be exercised consonantly with one another. See Gerrity Oil v. :Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 927 (Colo.1997) ("The fact that neither the surface owner nor the severed mineral rights holder has any absolute right to exclude the other from the surface may create tension between competing surface uses. 'The broad principle by which these tensions are to be resolved is that each owner must have due regard for the rights of the other in making use of the estate in question.' ") (citing Grynberg v. City of Northglenn, 739 P.2d 230, 234 (Colo.1987)). In litigation subsequent to Lacy Dog I, this court reiterated the balancing of interests approach and applied it to resolve the easement usage dispute. Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 965 P.2d 1229, 1238 (Colo.1998). We determined that "both the holder of the easement and the owner of the land burdened by the easement have rights to use the property. Consequently, the interests of both parties must be balanced in order to achieve due and reasonable enjoyment of both the easement and the servient estate." Id. (citing Riddell v. Ewell, 929 P.2d 30, 31 (Colo.App.1996); Hornsilver Circle, Ltd. v. Trope, 904 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Colo.App.1995); Osborn & Ca}nl'ood Ditch Co. v. Green, 673 P.2d 380., 383 (Colo.App.1983); Restatement (Third) of Property § 4.9 cmt. c; 7 Thompson, Thompson on Real Property § 60.04(a)(1), at 451 (Thomas ed.1994); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements 81 (1996)). Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) Other jurisdictions have applied a variation of the accommodation doctrine to easements and have permitted the burdened estate owner to move an easement so long as the new location affords benefits that are substantially similar to those previously enjoyed by the benefitted estate. See, e.g., Lewis v. Young, 92 N.Y.2d 443, 682 N.Y.S.2d 657, 705 N.E.2d 649, 654-55 (1998); see also Note, supra, at 1693. More importantly, the most recent Restatement on Property adopts an approach that gives as much freedom of use as possible to the burdened owner, subject to the requirement that the benefitted owner not be damaged. Restatement (Third) Of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8 cmt. f (2000). The Restatement articulates the balance between burdened and benefitted estate holders as follows: *1236 Unless expressly denied by the terms of an easement, ... the owner of the servient estate is entitled to make reasonable changes in the location or dimensions of an easement, at the servient owner's expense, to permit normal use or development of the servient estate, but only if the changes do not a) significantly lessen the utility of the easement, b) increase the burdens on the owner of the easement in its use and enjoyment, or c) frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3) (2000). Accordingly, under the Restatement, a burdened estate owner may unilaterally move an easement (unless it is specified in deeds or otherwise to have a location certain), subject both to a reasonableness test and to the constraints delimited in the rule. A. The Restatement approach allows a burdened property owner such as Club to move or alter a ditch easement in order to maximize the use of its own property-- PROVIDED that such alteration does not damage the benefitted estate owner. Such an approach is most consistent with Colorado law, including the line of authority directly related to ditch easements, and represents the better approach to resolve the competing equities. Arguments in favor of the Restatement rule emphasize that it maximizes the overall utility of the land. The burdened estate profits from an increase in value while the benefitted estate suffers no decrease. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8 cmt. f. Further, the burdened owner is free to make the most economic use of her land, including uses Page 7 unforeseen when the easement originated (e.g., outdoor recreation clubs). Without so stating, Brown and Weeks essentially applied the Restatement rule by allowing burdened estate owners to alter the ditch over the benefitted estate owner's objections. Both courts would have achieved the same result under the Restatement rule; the moves were reasonable, inflicted no hardship upon the benefitted estate, and did not frustrate the purpose or lessen the utility of the easement. Other jurisdictions grappling with unilateral easement relocations have reached similar conclusions. In Fleischmann v. Hearn, 141 Md. 463, 118 A. 847, 849 (1922), Maryland's highest court stated: "A mandatory injunction will of course be denied where damages will constitute an adequate remedy; where the obstruction does not constitute a material interference with the rights of the owner of the easement; or where the damages sustained are merely nominal." Id. (citations omitted). The court continued: The Court should consider the relative expense and inconvenience which it would occasion to the parties; in other words, "the balance of injury"; and should refuse to grant the injunction wherever it would operate inequitably and oppressively. While there is some authority to the contrary, the better view is that a mandatory injunction will be denied and plaintiff left to his remedy at law, where the expense of [restoration] is greatly disproportionate to the benefit to be derived by the owner of the easement, and where in addition thereto a merely technical right has been violated resulting in no actual damage; where the removal would bring no actual advantage to the owner of the easement. Id. (citations omitted). Idaho has decreed by statute that burdened estate owners may unilaterally alter an irrigation easement. Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 808 P.2d 1289, 1294 (1 991) ("In Idaho easements for irrigation laterals are also subject to the servient estate owner's right to move the lateral at his own expense. Idaho Code § 42-1207 allows such a change when it does not impede the flow of water or injure any person using the lateral ditch."). [FN2] FN2. Idaho Code § 42-1207 (Michie 1996) provides: Where any lateral ditch or buried irrigation conduit has heretofore been, or may hereafter be, constructed across or beneath the lands of another, the person or persons owning or controlling said land shall have the right at their own expense to change said lateral ditch or buried irrigation conduit Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) to any other part of said land, but such change must be made in such a manner as not to impede the flow of the water therein, or to otherwise injure any person or persons using or interested in such lateral ditch or buried irrigation conduit. Any increased operation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the landowner who makes the change. A landowner shall also have the right to bury the ditch of another in pipe on the landowner's property.... *1237 Furthermore, we note that the policy arguments in support of the traditional rule that a burdened owner may never move or alter a ditch easement may no longer apply. It appears that the traditional rule originated from a general precept that prohibited burdened owners from obstructing easements. Over time, the rule extended to other areas, including unilateral alterations. Note: Balancing the Equities: Is Missouri Adopting a Progressive Rule for Relocation of Easements?, 61 Mo. L.Rev. 1039, 1042-45 (1996) (hereinafter Balancing the Equities ). According to the Arizona Supreme Court, "The reason for [the traditional] rule is that treating the location as variable would incite litigation and depreciate the value and discourage the improvement of the land upon which the easement is charged." Stamatis v. Johnson, 71 Ariz. 134, 224 P.2d 201, 203 (1950), modified, 72 Ariz. 158, 231 P.2d 956 (1951). In fact, in both Weeks and Brown, the burdened owner's estate was arguably more valuable after the easement alterations, while the benefitted estate remained unchanged --a seminal assumption. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine rejected the unilateral modification of an easement that kept the same ingress and egress points because it "confer[s] an economic windfall on the servient owner, who presumably purchased the land at a price which reflected restraints existing on the property." Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660, 665 (Me.1980). That statement could just as easily provide support for, rather than opposition to, the Restatement rule. The point is that each property owner ought to be able to make the fullest use of his or her property allowed by law, subject only to the requirement that he or she not damage other vested rights holders. The Restatement rule simply maximizes overall benefit by helping one party without hurting the other. Lifting only the locational constraints, while the easement itself remains constant, facilitates that utility. In any case, the "windfall" will be tempered by the burdened estate owner incurring the expense of moving the easement Page 8 and ensuring it conforms to the rule's strictures. The old rule creates a "bilateral monopoly" in that neither owner can transact with anyone else. Note, supra, at 1701. While the Restatement rule "imposes upon the easement holder the burden and risk of bringing suit against an unreasonable relocation," it "far surpasses in utility and fairness the traditional rule that left the servient land owner remediless against an unreasonable easement holder." Balancing the Equities, supra, at 1060. The Restatement rule operates to redistribute the (one-sided) burden the traditional rule places on the estate burdened by the easement. Under either rule, the courts will determine controversies in which the benefitted owner claims that the burdened owner has proceeded unreasonably. j41 Therefore, based upon the direction implicit and explicit in our case law and the practical realities of competing property uses, we accept section three of the Restatement (Third) of Property as the correct statement of controlling legal principle for purposes of analyzing a ditch easement relocation or alteration. B. 15][61 We must now reconcile the notion that interference with a ditch easement without consent constitutes trespass, with the Restatement doctrine. Clearly, the best course is for the burdened owner and the benefitted owner to agree to alterations that would accommodate both parties' use of their respective properties to the fullest extent possible. Barring such an agreement, we do not support the self-help remedy that Club exercised here. When a dispute arises between two property owners, the court is the appropriate forum for the resolution of that dispute and --in order to avoid an adverse ruling of trespass or restoration --the burdened owner should obtain a court declaration *1238 before commencing alterations. If a burdened owner seeks to move or alter a ditch easement and the benefitted owner refuses to consent, then the burdened owner may seek a declaratory determination from a court that the alteration does not damage the benefitted owner(s) in accordance with the Restatement test. Declaratory judgments are a familiar mechanism in easement disputes. Parties employ them to determine the existence, scope, and location of easements. See e.g., Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Empire Club, 804 P.2d 175 (Colo.1991); Riddell v. Ewell, 929 P.2d 30 (Colo.App.1996). Similarly, in a declaratory judgment proceeding concerning a proposed easement alteration, a judge would apply the Restatement rule to determine whether the planned changes pass the three -prong test. IFN31 Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) FN3. In seeking such a determination, the burdened owner would presumably first present to the court a prima facie case that the alteration would cause no damage under the Restatement Rule. A successful showing would create a presumption, and, like other legal presumptions, this one would shift the "burden of production" to the benefitted owner to establish damage. CRE 301. The benefitted owner must then come forward and demonstrate the actual damage the alteration would cause. If the burdened owner made a prima facie showing of no damage, and the benefitted owner chose not to participate, or brought forth evidence of damage insufficient to rebut the presumption, then the court would enter a declaration of rights permitting the burdened owner to undertake specific alterations. However, if the benefitted owner successfully demonstrated damage, then the court should decline to permit the alteration. See Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Big O Tires, 940 P.2d 397, 401 (Colo.1997) and Bodaghi v. Department of Natural Resources, 995 P.2d 288, 296 (Colo.2000) for applications of similar burden shifting. [7][8][9][101 Such a procedure gives a forum both to the burdened owner, who seeks to make alterations that will genuinely cause no damage to the benefitted owner and will increase his own property uses, and to the benefitted owner, who can demonstrate that changes would, in fact, cause damage. In evaluating damage, or the absence of damage, the trial court must not only look at the operation of the ditch for the benefitted owner, but also look at the maintenance rights associated with the ditch. If the maintenance rights of the owner of the ditch easement are adversely affected by the change in the easement, then such change does not comport with the Restatement requirements. Furthermore, the water provided to the ditch easement owner must be of the same quantity, quality, and timing as provided under the ditch owner's water rights and easement rights in the ditch. A water right operating in combination with the collection of rights and obligations are vested property rights. See Weeks, 147 Colo. at 596, 364 P.2d at 732. They cannot simply be replaced with the mere "delivery" of a fixed quantity of adjudicated water. JFN41 Ditches are linear delivery systems that function as a part of a whole. Page 9 FN4. Just as water rights owners have a right to maintenance of stream conditions existing at the time of their appropriations, so too do ditch owners have the same right. The right to water through a ditch across another property is not merely a "delivery" right to an adjudicated amount. For example, a court evaluating whether an alteration to a ditch system caused or would cause damage to a ditch easement owner's rights could examine whether the original ditch permitted the down gradient owner to take advantage of run-off water in a way that would be interrupted by the new location. VI j111 Finally, we return to the proceedings in this case, to date and on remand. Again, we note that the trial court found Club had committed trespass, and we agree. Nonconsensual, unilateral alterations jeopardize valuable vested property rights both in the easement and in the water rights exercised by means of the ditch. Club had neither the consent of Ranch nor the permission of the court to make the alterations to the ditch. For that trespass, the trial court is entitled to fashion a remedy at law or in equity. Here, the trial court could shift maintenance burdens and responsibilities as a part of equitable relief, see Brown, 110 Colo. at 538, 135 P.2d at 1013, but subject to the right of Ranch to enter and maintain the substitute facility and also to charge the cost to Club, should Club fail in its court -ordered maintenance obligation. However, we further recognize that by this opinion we have identified a remedy that was not previously clear in the law: namely, the right of the burdened owner to go to court and seek a *1239 declaration that proposed alterations will not damage the benefitted owner. If Club had sought that remedy, rather than engaging in self-help, it might have won the right to alter the ditch easement upon the court finding that the changes comported with the Restatement rule. Accordingly, to resolve the issues before us, we direct the trial court first to determine whether the alterations to the ditch cause damage under the Restatement test. In making that determination, the trial court may rely upon previous testimony or may request or permit additional testimony within its discretion. If the answer is that the alterations do cause damage to Ranch (taking into account maintenance as well as water rights benefits), then the trial court must order restoration of the ditch easement to its original course. If the answer is that Club's alterations do not cause damage, then the alterations may remain in place. Because we have only today identified the declaratory Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 36 P.3d 1229 Page 10 (Cite as: 36 P.3d 1229) judgment action as an avenue for burdened estate owners that legitimately believe the anticipated changes will work no harm, we permit Club to attempt to prove in this case that Ranch has incurred no damage. We nonetheless clearly disapprove of Club's self-help approach in this case and similarly disapprove any unilateral alterations by burdened estate owners in the future. 1121 In sum, this holding serves two purposes, both in line with Colorado precedent. First, parties seeking to alter easements, and who cannot secure the consent of the other estate, may address the courts for permission in line with the Restatement test. Second, when a party unilaterally alters an easement without the court's or the other estate owner's permission, a court will still apply the Restatement test to evaluate the legitimacy of the alteration, but may also impose equitable and legal remedies to redress the trespass. VII. Accordingly, we answer the first question on certiorari by holding that the owner of property burdened by a ditch easement has no right to move or alter the easement without consent of the benefitted owner unless he first obtains a declaration of a court that such alterations will cause no damage to the benefitted owner. Such a determination should be made with reference to the Restatement doctrine, as consistent with Brown and Weeks. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We remand this case first to determine whether Club's alteration of the easement was reasonable and otherwise satisfied the criteria of Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3) (2000); namely, that the change does not significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burdens on the owner of the easement, or frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created. If the alteration does not meet this test, the court must order restoration. Further, Ranch is entitled to an order allowing it to inspect, maintain, operate, and repair the ditch easement and water structure, irrespective of the allocation of costs and burdens of maintenance that might form part of equitable relief 36 P.3d 1229 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. CO West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works FORM 31 Rev 04/15 State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801, Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 894-2100 Fax: (303) 894-2109 UNDERGROUND INJECTION FORMATION PERMIT APPLICATION Document Number: 401854138 Date Received: Per Rule 325, this form shall be submitted with all required attachments. A Form 31 — Intent shall be submitted and approved prior to completing an injection zone. A Form 31 — Subsequent shall be submitted following collection of water samples and injectivity test (if performed) and must be approved prior to injection in any new injection facility. NOTE: Per Rule 324B, an aquifer exemption is required for any injection formation with water quality less than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS). Contact the Commission for further requirements if the TDS as determined by water analysis for the injection zone is less than 10,000 mg/L. Form 31 Type IR Intent Subsequent UIC Facility ID 0 UIC Facility ID Required for Subsequent Form 31 FACILITYJNFQ.RMATlQN Facility Name and Number: CENTRAL WELD SWD Facility Location: SESE / 16 / 6N / 66W / 6 Facility Type: Enhanced Recovery Single or Multiple Well Facility? Single Proposed Injection Program (Required): 1 County: WELD Field Name and Number: BRACEWELL 7487 IR Disposal Simultaneous Disposal Multiple The Central Weld SWD 1 well will take produced water from nearby oil & gas wells in Weld County. Water will be trucked to theSurface Facility adjacent to this well, where residual hydrocarbons and sediments will be removed before injection. Under normaloperating conditions, estimated fluid injection rates for produced water will be a minimum of 10,000 bbls per day @ 2200 psi to amaximum of 24,000 bbls per day @ 2500 psi. A Step Rate Test will be used to determine maximum injection pressure. The abovevolumes are estimated for the single new well to be included in the adjacent Facility. OPERATOR INFORMATION OGCC Operator Number: 10373 Name of Operator: NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ LLC Address: 3773 CHERRY CRK NORTH DR #1000 City: DENVER State: CO Zip: 80209 Contact Name and Telephone: Name: JOE VARGO Phone: (303) 815-1010 Fax: ( ) Email: Joseph.Vargo@nglep.com INJECTED FLUID TIRE All injected fluids must be Exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C. (Check all that apply.) IR Produced Water I Exempt Gas Plant Waste Other Fluids (describe): Commercial Disposal Facility Natural Gas IR Used Workover Fluids CO2 I Flowback Fluids IT( Drilling Fluids iYes i No Commercial UIC Bond Surety ID 20180196 Commercial Facility Description: Describe the physical region of the facility, the details of the operations, and the type of fluids to be injected. Date Run: 1/24/2019 Doc [#401854138] Page 1 of 4 1 Physical region of Operation is Weld County and surrounding areas 2 Water will be trucked to the Surface Facility where residual hydrocarbons and sediments will be removed before injection Under normal operating conditions, estimated fluid injection rates for produced water will be a minimum of 10,000 bbls per day @ 2200 psi to a maximum of 24,000 bbls per day @ 2500 psi 3 Injected Fluid Types Produced Water, Drilling Fluids, Flowback Fluids, Exempt Gas Plant Waste & Used Workover Fluids 4 None other than listed above PROPOSED INJECTION FORMATIONS FORMATION (Name) ADMIRE Porosity 8 % mD Formation TDS mg/L Ig Acid Frac Gradient I psi/ft Permeability ; - None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) AMAZON Porosity 9 % mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient r psi/ft ( Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) ATOKA Porosity 2 0/0 mD Formation TDS mg/L ir< Acid Frac Gradient I psi/ft Permeability "- None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) COUNCIL GROVE Porosity 6 0/0 mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient 1 psi/ft ; Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) DES MOINES Porosity 4 % mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient I-- _ psi/ft Permeability 1-' None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) FOUNTAIN Porosity 18 % mD Formation TDS mg/L jX Acid Frac Gradient ,-- psi/ft Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) LOWER SATANKA Porosity 7 % mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient r psi/ft I Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) LYONS Porosity 11 % mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient I- psi/ft ; Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) MISSOURI Porosity 4 To mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient I psi/ft i Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment FORMATION (Name) VIRGIL Porosity 8 % mD Formation TDS mg/L r Acid Frac Gradient I. psi/ft ,- Permeability None Proposed Stimulation Program Frac Treatment Date Run 1/24/2019 Doc [#4018541381 Page 2 of 4 FORMATION (Name) WOLFCAMP Porosity 1 % Formation TDS mg/L Frac Gradient psi/ft Permeability mD Proposed Stimulation Program r Acid i Frac Treatment f— None ANTICIPATED FACILITY OPERATIONS CONDITIONS Under normal operating conditions, estimated TOTAL fluid injection rates and pressures for this facility FOR WATER Daily Injection Rate Range From 10000 to 24000 bbls/day Surface Injection Pressure Range From 2200 to 2500 psi FOR GAS Daily Injection Rate Range From to mcf/day Surface Injection Pressue Range From to psi Estimated Initial Injection Date 5/1/2019 AREA OF REVIEW OIL and GAS WELL EVALUATION SUMMARY Review all existing wells within 1/2 mile far injection formation isolation Area Review Date 11/29/2018 Total number of Oil & Gas Wells within Area of Review 44 ABANDONED WELLS (All wells that have been plugged PA and DA status)) Total within Area of Review 2 Number To Be Re -Plugged 0 ACTIVE WELLS (All wells that have not been plugged AC, DG, DM, IJ, PR, SU, SI, TA, WO, XX, UN status) Total within Area of Review 42 Number Requiring Casing Repair 0 Number To Be Plugged 0 Operator's Area of Review Contact Email paul gottlob@ ptenergyservices corn I No Wells within 2,640' I hereby certify that the statements made in this form are, to the best of my knowledge, true, correct, and complete Print Name PAUL GOTTLOB Signed Title Regulatory & Engin Tech Date COGCC Approved Date Form 31 - Intent Expiration Date Per Rule 325 o, a 90 day extension of the Expiration Date may be requested via a Sundry Notice, Form 4 submitted prior to Form 31- Intent expiration Order Number UIC FACILITY ID 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, IF ANY COA Type Description Attachment Check List Att Doc Num Name 401854216 _ OFFSET WELL EVALUATION 401854224 LIST OF MINERAL OWNERS %-MILE 401854226 LIST OF SURFACE OWNERS %-MILE Date Run 1/24/2019 Doc W40195413R1 Panda I el 4 401854227 LIST OF WATER WELLS'/ -MILE Date 401854231 MAP OF MINERAL OWNERS 1/4 -MILE 401854232 MAP OF O&G WELLS IN AREA OF REVIEW 401854233 MAP OF SURFACE OWNERS 1/ -MILE 401854235 MAP OF WATER WELLS Y< -MILE 401854236 REMEDIAL CORRECTION PLAN FOR WELLS'/ -MILE 401854244 SURFACE USE AGREEMENT FOR SALT WATER DISPOSAL 401866618 OIL & GAS WELL PLAT _ 401916294 SURFACE FACILITY DIAGRAM 401916296 OTHER 401916340 NOTICE TO SURFACE & MINERAL OWNERS 401916492 WELLBORE DIAGRAM -PROPOSED Total Attach 15 Files User Group Comment - General Comments Comment Stamp Upon Approval Total 0 comment(s) Date Run 1/24/2019 Doc (#4018541381 Page 4 of 4 NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ, LLC CENTRAL WELD SWD 1- UIC Well. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP: NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ, LLC, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 80209 has purchased the Surface Location in Weld County, Parcel #080516400060 NGL Water Solutions Central Weld SWD 1 API 05-123-42099 To be Determined ..,—,4I Formation 1 Tops I Btm Porosity _ TDS I Lithology I Frac Gradient Permeability _ Lyons 9024' 9266' 11% 51,000 Sandstone Lower Satanka 9266' 9346' 7% 51,000 Silstone/Shale Wolfcamp 9346' 9392' 1% 51,000 Dolomite, Anhydrite Amazon 9392' 9438' 9% 14,000 Dolomite Council Grove 9438' 9618' 6% 14,000 Dolomite Admire 9618' 9674' 8% 14,000 I Sandstone, Shale Virgil 9786' 9890' 8% 14,000 , Limestone, Dolomite z Missouri 9953' 10,224" i 4% 14,000 Sandstone, Shale Des Moines 10,224" 10,508' ,Atoka 4% 13,000 z o Sandy Limestone, Sandstone, Shale 2 , 10,508' TD 2% 13,000 Sandstone, Shale *Depths and porosity are based on the NGL 1-8B SWD (05-123-29536) **TDS is estimated from the NGL C-10 well (API no. 05-123-40772) 4IPT 11/27/18 SRC ENERGY INC. ATTN: ERIN EKBLAD 1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 DENVER, CO 80634 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre -Application Notification COGCC Rule 305.a.(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Building Unit Owner COGCC Rule 325. i. Notification: Dedicated Injection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD #1 well: Surface Hole Location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Mineral Owner, a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personol delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in 534-60-103(7), C.R.S., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the following information: 1 a. Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. 4 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which w ll be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to include produced water, drilling fluids, exempt gas plant waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD #1 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Admire, Virgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — only upon the drilling and logging will the actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date will vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d. Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA I P: 720.420.5700 I F: 720.420.5800 I www.iptengineers.com Page I 1 4IPT 2 e. The Local Governmental Designee (LGD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 jmaxey@weldgov.com Direct: (970) 400-3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, a written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m. - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as a source of drinking water or present or future use as a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water. As a Mineral Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations: NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. # 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, fat/ freaky Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Co'e Boulevard, SuEte 200 I Golden, CO 80401 JSA I P: 720.420.5700 I F: 720.420.5800 I www.iptengineers.com Page 12 4IPT 11/27/18 BUXMAN, HAROLD, RONALD & PATRICIA 14441 COUNTY ROAD 66 GREELEY, CO 80631-9306 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre-Appl;cation Notification COGCC Rule 305.a.(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Build•ng Urit Owner COGCC Rule 325.1. Notification: Dedicated Injection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGI. Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD #1 well: Surface Hole Location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Surface Owner, a. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personal delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in §34-60-103(7), C.R.S., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the followirg information: 1. a Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cnerry Creek N Dr. # 1000 Denver, CO 802C9 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which will be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to include produced water, drilling fluids, exempt gas plant waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD #1 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Admire, Virgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — only upon the drilling and logging will the actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date will vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d. Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard. Suite 200 1 Golden, CO 80401 USA I P: 720.420.5700 F: 720.420.5800 1 www.iptengineers.com Pagel 4IPT 2 e. The Local Governmental Designee (LGD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 jmaxey@weldgov corn Direct: (970) 400-3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, a written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m. - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as a source of drinking water or present or future use as a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water. As a Surface Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations: NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. # 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /aid '. Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard. Suite 200 I Golcen, CO 80401 USA l P: 720.420.5700 I F: 720.420.5800 I www.iptengineers.com Page I2 4IPT 11/27/18 FAGERBERG, LYNN & LESLIE 18271 COUNTY ROAD 70 EATON, CO 80615 8815 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre-App'ication Notification COGCC Rule 305.a,(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Building Unit Owner COGCC Rule 325.i. Notification: Dedicated Injection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD #1 well: Surface Hole location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Surface Owner, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personal delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in §34-60-103(7), C. R.5., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the following information. 1. a. Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. if 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This 's an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which will be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to induce produced water, drilling fluids, exempt gas plant waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD #1 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Admire, Virgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — only upon the drilling and logging will the actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date wil vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d. Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1170 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, 0O 80401 USA I P: 720.420.5700 I F 720.420.5800 ( www.iptengineers.com Page I 1 4IPT 2 e. The Local Governmental Designee (LGD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Imaxey@weldgov.com Direct: (970) 400 3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, a written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m. - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as o source of drinking water or present or future use as a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water As a Surface Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations. NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. At 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, geffr Vt' Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard. Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA I P. 720.420.5700 I F: 720.420 5800 I www iptengineers.com Page 12 4IPT 11/27/18 JUAREZ, BENJAMIN 14709 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631 9351 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre -Application Notification COGCC Rule 305.a.(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Building Unit Owner COGCC Rule 325.i. Notification: Dedicated Irjection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD a1 well: Surface Hole Location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Surface Owner, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personal delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in §34-60-103(7), C.R.S., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the following information: 1. a. Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. 4 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which will be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to include produced water, drilling fluids, exempt gas plant waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD 41 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Admire, Vrgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — only upon the drilling and logging will he actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed n the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date will vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commiss:on 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA P: 720.420.5700 F. 720.420.5800 I www.iptengineers.com Page I 1 4IPT 2 e. The Local Governmental Designee (LGD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 maxeyffweldgov.com Direct: (970) 400-3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, a written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m. - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as a source of drinking water or present or future use as a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water. As a Surface Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations: NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. it 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attent:on to this matter. Sincerely, Pagthr>,fre4 Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Su to 200 1 Golden, CO 80401 USA I F 720.420.5700 1 F: 720.420.5800 1 wrvww.iptengineers.com Page 1 2 4IPT 11/27/18 LEFFLER, DONN 14492 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631-9350 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre -Application Notification COGCC Rule 305.a.(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Building Unit Owner COGCC Rule 325.i. Notification: Dedicated Injection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD #1 well: Surface Hole Location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Surface Owner, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personal delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in §34-6O-103(7), C. R.5., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the following information: 1. a. Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek N D•. # 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which will be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to include produced water, drilling fluids, exempt gas plart waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD #1 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Aamire, Virgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — only upon the drilling and logging will the actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date will vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d. Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA I P: 720.420.5700 I F. 720.420.5800 ( www.iptengineers.com Page I1 4IPT 2 e. The Local Governmental Designee (LGD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 1maxey@weldgov.com Direct: (970) 400-3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, o written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m. - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as a source of drinking water or present or future use os a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water. As a Surface Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations: NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. # 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, lllli tx* Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA I Pe 720.420.5700 j F: 720 420.5800 + www.,ptengineers.com Page 12 &PT 11/27/18 SKOGLUND, ALLEN, DAWN, LIVING TRUST 34556 COUNTY ROAD 29 GREELEY, CO 80631 9367 RE: COGCC Rule 305.a.: Pre -Application Notification COGCC Rule 305.a.(2): Exception Zone/Buffer Zone Notice to Building Unit Owner COGCC Rule 325.i. Notification: Dedicated Injection Well New IPT Inc. This well (Greeley SWD 1) was recently permitted by Irish Owl LLC and has been acquired by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC and will be re -permitted as a deeper vertical injection well and re -named as shown below. Central Weld SWD #1 well: Surface Hole Location planned at 229' FSL, 335' FEL, SESE Sec. 16-T6N-R66W, Weld County, Colorado Dear Surface Owner, a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rule 325.i. stipulates that Notice of the application for a dedicated injection well shall be given by the applicant by registered or certified mail or by personal delivery, to each surface owner and owner as defined in 534-60-103(7), C.R.S., within one -quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed well or wells and to owners and operators of oil and gas wells producing from the injection zone within one-half (1/2) mile of the disposal well or to owners of cornering and contiguous units where injection will occur into the producing zones, whichever is the greater distance. You are entitled to the following information: 1. a. Operator name and contact info: NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. tt 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Contact: Joe Vargo at 303-815-1010 b. Rule 325.1 - Notice of application requirements: Location legal description is shown above and a general description of the proposed Wells & Facilities, Proposed Injection Zones, Depth of Injection follows: This is an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well which will be permitted to accept exempt E&P waste per RCRA Subpart C: to include produced water, ari'iirg fluids, exempt gas plant waste, used workover fluids & flowback fluids from surrounding oil & gas wells. The Central Weld SWD #1 well will be a vertical well with proposed injection formations including: Blaine, Lyons, Ingleside, Lower Satanka, Wolfcamp, Amazon, Council Grove, Adm're, Virgil, Missouri, Fountain, Des Moines, Atoka, Morrow & Mississippian (All zones are typically expected but not necessarily present or in this sequence — on y upon the drilling and logging will the actual list of formations be determined). The anticipated depths of injection are between approximately 7,000' to 12,000'. c. Anticipated date operations will commence: The subject well is scheduled to be drilled and completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019. The exact date will vary based upon the rig availability and other operational factors. d. Additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well may be obtained at the commission office: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 303-894-2100 Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 I Golden, CO 80401 USA I P: 720.420 5700 I F: 720.420.5800 I www.iptengineers.com Page I 1 AIPT 2 e The Local Governmental Designee (LCD) contact information: Jason S. Maxey Oil & Gas Specialist Local Government Designee 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 imaxcv@weldgov.com Direct: (970) 400-3579 You are also entitled to file a request as follows: New IPT Inc. Subparagraph i - Any person who would be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the propose injection zone may file, within fifteen (15) days of notification, a written request for a public hearing before the Commission, provided such request meets the protest requirements specified in subparagraph m. of this rule. The notice shall also state that additional information on the operation of the proposed disposal well moy be obtained at the Commission office. Subparagraph m, - Evaluation of written requests for public hearing. Written requests for public hearing before the Commission by a person, notified in accordance with subparagraphs i. and j. of this rule, who moy be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the authorization of the underground disposal into the proposed injection zone, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director in consultation with the applicant. Written protests shall specifically provide information on: a. Possible conflicts between the injection zone's proposed disposal use and present or future use as o source of drinking water or present or future use as a source of hydrocarbons, or b. Operations at the well site which may affect potential and current sources of drinking water. As a Surface Owner you may contact the following individual concerning the proposed operations: NGL Water Solutions, LLC Joe Vargo 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr. # 1000 Denver, CO 80209 303-815-1010 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, hketc:c44ilite Paul Gottlob Regulatory & Engineering Technician Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc Consultants to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Corporate Headquarters 1707 Cole Boulevard, Suite 200 1 Golden, CO 80401 USA I P: 720.420.5700 1 F: 720.420 5800 1 www.iptengineers.com Page 12 t _a m co 1'- ru rip O 0 Q CD m co U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at wsnvw.usps.comt. OFFICIAL s esd 1k 27-/g riot isteriices (check boor. at tee se soorciasonv OFw►urrn Receipt (narocapyi $ E Return Recap: yeiectrcnt:) U Ci nifiea Mail Restricted Delivery $ - ! !!Adult Sicnature Require(' 5 ;11 /AO Signature kostncted Oel:vcry Postage $ Waif Potsti S Sent To �httt8f and . $1-91 SRC ENERGY INC. ATTN: ERIN EKBLAD 1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 DENVER, CO 80634 Postmark Here U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.coM.. OF r Corbilield Mall f=a►= is e• Extra Senwica b F* ff.: eck boa. add S as ajaropro:ul O Hutton P.aceipt (haroiovy; S • Hdtc.rn Recdipt (e:eclron,c) s O Certified Mail Restr.cted Deiive r $ CIA� USE J Ault Signature Fuquued $ 1 %cult 3icnature Restricted D vey $ _ Poraers total -PT) Soar Postmark Hare SKOGLUND, ALLEN, DAWN, LIVING TRUST *,,, _ 34556 COUNTY ROAD 29 GREELEY, CO 80631- 9367 X64• S.3 ® Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ▪ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. ^Ic Aridnnccprl tn' SRC ENERGY INC. ATTN: ERIN EKBLAD 1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 DENVER, CO 80634 IIIIIIIIIII i u i i i m 9590 9402 3784 8032 7076 70 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature x / B. Received by (Printed Name) t oc) ❑ Agent L&Address :-e C. Date of Delivery 1/4.y% D. Is delivery address different from item 1? O Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: O No 2. Article Number (Transfer from cryvirp lat-vm ?018 0360 0000 6783 6663 3. Service Type G Adult Signature C Adult Signature Restricted Dollvery Certified Mail® C Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Collect on Delivery C Co'lect on Delivery Restricted Delivery iii til Re.ricted Delivery ee- ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Malin" O Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Return Recept for Merchandise D Signature ConfirmaticnTM o Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 t≥Ati7rnt. WE1-b SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION E Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ® Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1 Gr-tirlo Artrirocccarl try SKOGLUND, ALLEN, DAWN, LIVING TRUST 34556 COUNTY ROAD 29 GREELEY, CO 8063:1.-9367 i i I VIII' 111 of i i 11111 i 9590 9402 3784 8032 7076 56 .� -1a I.I. -a--- pr.--. .. a4.. - :w...►. ....w0. PR I.►1►IN 11 Domestic Return Receipt ON DELIVERY COMPLETE THIS SECTION A. Signature X - c isaj '- :it f Ill Agent Fr Addressee _L,� 4 i,tI. B. Received by (Printed Nam ) ; a IQP, t>' a qs iii � i ≤ 1 C. Date ' I of Delivery '�.�' er TID. Is delivery address ditf rents frroml'rtem If YES, enter deliveaddress 1? below: Yes pr No 3. Service Type o Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 12S.Cenifiec Mail® E Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery U Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 7018 0360 0000 6783 6625 it iI Restricted Delivery %.,. a..►......, ❑ Priority Mail Express® G Registered MaliTM t . Registered Mail Restricted Delivery D Return Receipt for Merchandise C Signature ConfirmationTM C Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 e, Domestic Return Receipt 1 1/-z7-ie Postmark Here tertitee tagW in 0 ctJ Q U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery intormation, visit our Website at.wwMv mice a, OF Lr bar, odd tee w itaf prslKwl % Return Receipt (tiardcopy; $ [] Return Receipt (electronic) S _ rl Cenirted Msa Restrr_tea Debi -Jeri $ AG.',: Signature Rectums $ - - [] AtJult Segnatur, Rostnc:eu Delivery $ _ Postage efi7 FAGERBERG, LYNN & LESLIE 18271 COUNTY ROAD 70 EATON, CO 80615-8815 siSr' 11-77-/S Postmark Here ees . •N*,•MM•• U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www,usps.comt. issiFt:iCselAin St s r itD SAD / two $t yt etas r Cnaorr tuc _sod fee as apprepfifal Rettern Receipt Inardcepy; S Pieu.rr.• Receipt (elerctrentc; S DCer tied Mail Restricted Deli;erj $ IT Adult S!9natur«: Requirwi b 11 Adult Signings Restricted Delivery S LEFFLER, DONN 14492 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631-9350 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1 Article Addressed to: FAGERBERG, LYNN & LESLIE 18271 COUNTY ROAD 70 EATON, CO 80615-8815 i I i i i 1 i i 9590 9402 3784 8032 7076 49 .COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ❑ Agent .Addressee C. Date of Delivery i D. Is delivery address different,,han item 1? O Yes If YES. enter delivery adatess below: ❑ No I) it .{:..1 .. A1.. —..L_.. T ��_e. • 3. Service Type O Adult Signature o Adult Signature Restricted Delivery l: ertitied T�tai'r' • Certified Mali Restricted Delivery O Collect on D©livery ^-"--` -- Delivery Restricted Delivery 7018 0360 0000 6783 6632 iii ail Restricted Delivery I (over 5500) ❑ Priority Mali Express® ❑ Registered Mail"' O Registered Mail Restricted Delivery O Return Receipt for Merchandise O Signature Contirrtaticnt" a SlgnatoreContmnaflon Fiestncied Dear ery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 e, idea SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ® Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. a Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: LEFFLER, DONN 14492 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631-9350 i IIlF ilu 1111 I i i i I i I 9590 9402 3784 8032 7076 25 i Domestic Return Receipt COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ❑ Agent g Addressee C. Pate of Delivery D. Is delivery address different rSn item 1? Yes It YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type CI Adult Signature Adult Signature Restricted Del;very K Certified Mail® 11 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery 7018 0360 0000 6783 66 5 6n ('nllPct on Delivery Restricted Delivery ail Restricted Delivery tu'.es ,p�.1Jl 1 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 (. kM' D Priority Mail Express( Registered Mailt*" Registered Mail Restricted Delivery Return Receipt for Mcrchandrse Signature Confirrnation'T" Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt 1 m c0 —D U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only For delivery-intormation, visit our website at www.usps.comt-. Extra $a rtcii j hair, scn -,• t�lssdr In as ,�. -.xatl Re:urn Receipt (haracopy? � Headrn Receipt (electronic) £ '3 Certified Mail Rastncied 0e;,ccry, Acutt S:gnature Recu red c DKd3It Signature Restr.ctea ^ue w5^r Pester S m ,try Pc CD co 1 co C7 Ci m D 7•9( JUAREZ, BENJAMIN 14709 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631-9351 i e II -27-a Pozwicirk Here U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For dellVeiy information, visit our website at W w.usps.comel. UFFICIAL Certified Mai F 6rvices IS Fees steenbok a : fori appropuatei Re:urn Receipt tharrmcopyr Rrturn Receipt (electronic) ❑ Certified Mail Rtetncted Qeiwary i i Adult Stgnetwe Rewired r� Aduit Sid nature Rest►ictec3 Uu:tvery t S S E Postmark Here BUXMAN, HAROLD, RONALD & PATRICIA 14441 COUNTY ROAD 66 GREELEY, CO 80631-9306 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. } Artirfp Ariclras.SPcl tn: JUAREZ, BENJAMIN 14709 HIGHWAY 392 GREELEY, CO 80631-9351 liii I IHJIl i i 9590 9402 3784 8032 7076 32 I 1 I t r COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X f1444/ Z tr/J"e B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery //I rye, j LAA' _ D. 1s delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery aadress below: ❑ No ❑ Agent Ca Addressee 3. Service Type O Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature aricted Ce:every &Cc-tdied Mail® t_ U Certified Mail Restricted D©tivcy : Collect on Delivery •�) 7018 0360 0000 6783 6649 u aria • Pnonty ia;l Upraise/ U Registered Mail''* U Registered Mail $estr;clod Delrvery o Return Receipt for _ Mer>rtd Delivery Roe eitvery O S'9r�1ue Confirrnau onT>,. l l a.��ture Confirmation e� er $ l�l Restrictedi Delivery Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 n. lap Green Card never returned Domestic Return Receipt TOPS All listed in MD Parkman - 3,652' Sussex - 4,433' Shannon - 4,778' Niobrara - 6,946' Ft. Ha ys - 7,225' Codell - 7,245' Cathie - 7,263' X 8entonite - 7,519' JSand -7,700' Skull Creek - 7,853' Dakota - 7,932' Morrison - 8,072' Sundance - 8,318' Entrada - 8,346' Lykins - 8,400' Permian - 8,662' Forelle - 8,777' Minnekahta - 8,824' Blaine 8,970' Lyons - 9,024' Lower Satanka - 9,266' Wolfcamp - 9,346' Amazon - 9,392' Council Grove - 9,438' Admire - 9,618' Virgil - 9,786' Missouri - 9,953' Des Moines - 10,224' Atoka - 10,508' TD - 10,602' WELLBORE DIAGRAM NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC CENTRAL WELD SWD 1 SHL: SESE Sec 16-T6N-R66W Weld County , CO API 05-123-42099 • • • • • • • • • • • • lin ilhts MD=10,602' Planned i K.B.= 4772 G.L.= 4756 16 10-3/4", 40.5# J-55 ST&C CSG Set @ 1175' (13-1/2" O.H.) Cmt'd w/ 270 sx total DV Tool @ 7495' Cmt'd w/ 654 sx lead, 136 sx tail (TOTAL 790 sx 2nd stage) EOT & Packer @ 8,055' (5-1/2" tbg) PBR & TOL @ 8,075' Permanent Packer 7-5/8" 29.7# HCL-80 CSG Set @ 9,024' (9-7/8" O.H.) Cmt'd w/ 215 sx (1st stage) Swell Packer @ 9,345' (Swab Lyons & L. Satanka together) Slotted Pipe 1/21/2019 PAG Swell Packer @ 9,617' (Swab Wolfcamp, Amazon & C. Grove together) (Swab Admire thru Fountain together) Slotted Pipe Liner slotted with 2" by 0.040" slots on 6" centers 5-1/2" 17# N-80 LT&C Slotted LNR (TOL @ 8,075', EOL @ 10,602') (6-5/8" O.H.) NOT TO SCALE I his map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION From: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:17 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Caution This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kim If I am left alone for another half hour I'll have answers to your questions from yesterday. Basically we are waffling. We have asked NGL for details on how they propose to protect Mr. Leffler's drain tiles. With that in hand we'll 1. Decide whether the protection is adequate. This is an engineering decision. I don't see any engineering problems with the well itself. 2. However, the drain tile situation causes me to ask the question (mine and a cause of the waffling) whether the entire project is an adverse impact on public welfare? This is new territory for us. I think I am personally causing other staff to have conniptions, but I do want the question considered before we move forward with permitting the well. Long winded reply to your earlier email coming shortly. I'm half way through it. Cheers, Robert P. (Bob) Koehler, PhD. UIC Lead - Geology Advisor Cell: 303-656-1486 Phone: 303-894-2100 x5147 Emai/; Bob. Koeh/erestate, co, us COLORADO Oil b Gas Conservation Commission Department of Natural Resources From: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:04 PM To: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Cc: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Hello and good afternoon Bob Were you able to gain any new perspective on the permitting of this facility? Your comments are most appreciative. Kind regards, Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle@weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:18 AM To: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Cc: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Bob Thank you for your response. I will look for your agency's additional comments later today. Kind regards, Kim Ogle Principal Planner From: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:56 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kim, We are discussing the situation. I should be able to answer your questions tomorrow. I am reluctant to say anything at this point because I tend to say too much and don't want to commit COGCC to any direction. There are reasons for us to approve or not approve the project and it all gets bureaucratic quickly. Within the last hour I talked to my supervisor and the engineering manager. The engineering manager will discuss with the environmental manager who works with the Director on approval of regular production permits and based on the Engineering -Environmental discussion the question of what we need to do will go to the Director. There are several ways we might resolve our side of the permitting but until we get the Director which way to go we are not approving or rejecting. One thing I will say is that given this is an unusual situation as your question #3 shows we wanted to see what Weld County would do. Yes, using an ice flow -penguin analogy we're sort of pushing Weld County off the ice flow first to see what happens. Based on your questions Weld County would rather we went first. I should have an answer tomorrow. I hope early so I can get back to you. I have been in touch with both Mr. Leffler's legal counsel Maria Petrocco and with NGL's Senior VP Douglas White and Neel Duncan (IPT consultant). Sincerely, Robert P. (Bob) Koehler, PhD. UIC Lead — Geology Advisor Cell: 303-656-1486 Phone; 303-894-2100 x5147 Email: BobsKoehler@statesco.us COLORADO Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Department of Natural Resources From: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:23 PM To: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Cc: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Hello Bob, In preparation for the NGL Board hearing I wanted to reach back out to you for clarification on a few points. 1. What is the current status of the permit document number 401854138 for the Central Weld SWD on behalf of NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC? The COGIS webpage shows the permit to be current. Correspondence received to this office has a Scout Card for the Central Weld SWD, Facility No. 160015 with a status of CL, which per the Oil & Gas Location (Surface) Status Code is Closed Location: Location was built and has been reclaimed. This designation is not factually correct as the facility is in permit review and has not been constructed by either Irish Owl or NGL. It is currently vacant land without surface development. My question is what is the status of the NGL Permit? 2. Per previous conversation with you, is the requested permit on hold waiting for internal direction on how to proceed? 3. Has the State, in your tenure ever reviewed subsurface structures on lands that are not a part of the proposed injection well? If yes, please provide a short narrative on why the review and what was the outcome. 4. Does Mr. Leffler, an adjacent property owner with claims that the permitting of this injection well facility will have an adverse consequence on his ability to irrigate his agricultural lands have leverage in the permitting of the well from the State of Colorado? As an adjacent property owner, who raised concerns during the permitting process, does the State consider mitigation or other requirements from applicants to address Mr. Leffler's concerns? 5. Mr. Leffler's attorney is on record stating he has this ability to cancel the permit requested by NGL from the state. Is this an accurate statement? Any other comments that you are able to provide on the status and or the permitting of this specific well would be most appreciative. Kind regards, Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle@weldgov.com From: Jason Maxey < maxey@weldgov.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:01 AM To: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Cc: Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Hi Bob, Thank you for your email. I hope you are doing well! Even though I've had some high-level conversations with Mr. Leffler (quite a few months ago), the Oil and Gas Energy Department actually does not handle these types of applications / permits. They are handled within the Planning Department. I have copied that Director, Tom Parko, along with Kim Ogle who is their Principle Planner. They would be better suited to help answer questions since the permit process resides with them. Even though I cannot specifically answer any questions, I hope this clarification and connection to the Planning Department helps. Thank you, Jason S. Maxey Director / Local Government Designee Oil & Gas Energy Department maxey@weldgov.com 970-400-3579 From: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:49 PM To: Jason Maxey <jmaxey@weldgov.com> Subject: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jason, Please let me know when it would be convenient to have a phone conversation about the NGL-Central Weld SWD #1 and what Weld County knows about it. This is a location where Mr. Donn Leffler has been before the Weld County Commission (maybe not the full Commission?) to request that a Special Use Permit (USR?) not be granted because he owns drain "tiles" below the surface that might be damaged by drilling and operation of this proposed well. I'd like to discuss what you know about the well and what Weld County is thinking too. If you just want to call my cell # is below. Email would work too if you'd rather do that. Mr. Leffler and NGL have been hanging for too long and I need to move the project to denial or approval. Thanks for your attention. Stay healthy, happy, and safe! Cheers, Robert P. (Bob) Koehler, PhD. UIC Lead - Geology Advisor Cell: 303-656-1486 Phone: 303-894-2100 x5147 Email: Bob. Koehlerastate. co, us COLORADO Oil Et Gas Conservation Commission Department of Natural Resources EXHIBIT N N .o S O Jessica Reid ! ket -oa' O From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kim Ogle Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:49 AM Jessica Reid Jan Warwick; Isabella Juanicorena; Esther Gesick; Zackery Roberson; Ben Frissell; Lauren Light; Tom Parko Jr. Bob Koehler's response to Permit status Bob Koehler's email response to Inquiry on well status for NGL Central rec'd 6.9.2020.docx Hello and good morning, Please find attached a response to the NGL Central UIC application from the COGCC. I have spoken with the applicant, Mr. Doug White, Senior Vice President, with NGL who will be asking for a continuance of this land use case at today's hearing so that NGL can address the issue raised by the State of subsurface encumbrances, specifically the protection of Mr. Leffler's drain tiles that cross under the property. Mr. White will be present today to request additional time to address the engineering related concerns raised by the State. In anticipation of this possible issue, I spoke with Esther who I believe indicated open dates in September? Please let me know of possible dates so that I may notify the applicant. Thank you. Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle@weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 From: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:06 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> S ubject: RE• NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kim. Please see my comments below. S incerely, Robert P. (Bob) Koehler, PhD. U IC Lead — Geology Advisor Cell: 303-656-1486 Phone: 303-894-2100 x5147 Email: Bob.Koehlerstate.co.us COLORADO Oil b Gas Conservation Commission Department of Natural Resources From: Kim Ogle <kogleweldgov.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:23 PM To: Bob Koehler - DNR <bob.koehler@state.co.us> Cc: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC: Application for Commercial Disposal Well -Central Weld SWD #1 Junction of Hwy 392 and N. 59th Ave/CR 31 Hello Bob, In preparation for the NGL Board hearing I wanted to reach back out to you for clarification on a few points. What is the current status of the permit document number 401854138 for the Central Weld SWD on behalf of NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC? The Form 31 Formation Permit and Form 33 Well permits are In Process right now. These are both Intents which means they are initial plans. (NGL will file a "Subsequent" 31/33 pair after the well is drilled.) The 31/33 Intents are on an informal hold because of the drain tile question. This is an unusual situation for us. Our injection rules do not directly address drain tiles. Just today we asked NGL to update the information we have on the surface installation for the Form 2A. We want to see more detail on how NGL proposes to protect Mr. Leffler's drain tiles. If NGL can convince our engineering staff that the drain tiles can be adequately protected then the Form 31/33 may proceed. However, I am personally hung up on something in COGCC Rule 325 -Underground Disposal of Water specifically, Rule 325.b which says in part. "b. Withholding approval of underground disposal of water. The Director may withhold the issuance of a permit and the granting of approval of any Underground Injection Formation Permit Application, Form 31 and any Injection Well Permit Application, Form 33 for any proposed disposal well when the Director has reasonable cause to believe that the proposed disposal well could result in a significant adverse impact on the environment or public health, safety and welfare." My question is whether Mr. Leffler's property falls requires a public welfare determination. To my knowledge we have not had a permit application where this question has come up. In my opinion this is a call for our Director and our chain of command (me included) have been slow to resolve the question. The COGIS webpage shows the permit to be current. Correspondence received to this office has a Scout Card for the Central Weld SWD, Facility No. 160015 with a status of CL, which per the Oil & Gas Location (Surface) Status Code is Closed Location: Location was built and has been reclaimed. Facility 160015 was the old Irish Owl permit. Because Irish Owl withdrew from the state we closed Facility 160015. NGL is in the process of getting a whole new permit for the location. (Did you look at the UIC Facility 160015 Scout Card vs the Central Weld SWD #1 API: 123-42099 Well Scout Card? The Closed would be from the UIC Facility Scout Card.) This designation is not factually correct as the facility is in permit review and has not been constructed by either Irish Owl or NGL. It is currently vacant land without surface development. Yes, no construction and no NGL permit. I told NGL not to construct without my permits. They shouldn't do so without the Weld County USR either is my understanding. My question is what is the status of the NGL Permit. Is the requested permit on hold waiting for internal direction on how to proceed? Yes see above. Depending on when NGL gets us updates I've asked for we can move forward quickly on a decision about the Form 31/33s here. 2. Has the State, in your tenure there ever reviewed subsurface structures on lands that are not a part of the proposed injection well? To my knowledge we have not had to review permits where subsurface structures have been a consideration. As I said above this is new turf for us. If yes, please provide a short narrative on why the review and what was the outcome. 3. Does Mr. Leffler, an adjacent property owner with claims that the permitting of this injection well facility will have an adverse consequence on his ability to farm actually have leverage in the permitting of the well from the State of Colorado? As the landowner Mr. Leffler is notified of the proposed well and has the right to enter a protest. He did that. Based on his protest we are here. I suspect that whatever decision we here make about the NGL permit that the losing side will request a hearing before our Commission. As an adjacent property owner, who raised concerns during the permitting process, does the State consider mitigation or other requirements from applicants to address Mr. Leffler's concerns? Mr. Leffler's attorney is on record stating he has this ability to cancel the permit requested by NGL from the state. Is this an accurate statement? Mr. Leffler's water attorney, Mr. Ryan Donovan sent us a letter explaining the water rights from their point of view. We don't have anything in our Injection rules dealing with water rights although there may be something in the general well Permitting rules. In my personal opinion Mr. Donovan's explanation would bear on the question of public welfare. I do not believe he has the ability to cancel the permit. He can ask us, effectively what his letter is doing, to deny the permit. Any other comments that you are able to provide on the status and or the permitting of this specific well would be most appreciative. Today I talked to Doug White from NGL, Neel Duncan from IPT, and Maria Petrocco. I tried to convey what I said above to everyone over the phone and/or emails. Sure hope this is helpful. Sorry, I thought I get this to you sooner but emails and phone calls from NGL and Mr. Leffler's reps and others got me off track. Kind regards. Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle©weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. August 24, 2020 Mr. Ryan Donovan Lawrence, Jones. Custer & Grasmick 5245 Ronald Reagan Blvd, Suite 1 Johnstown, CO 80534 CIVIL RESURCES, LLC ENGINEERS & PLANNERS RE: Engineering Recommendations to Protect the Leffler Coffin Well Water Right Dear Mr. Donovan: Civil Resources. LLC is presenting the following letter report to identify potential conflicts associated with the proposed construction and operation of a deep injection well site within the coffin well collection system footprint. Project Background The water right is designated as a "coffin well" described as delivering 2.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the conclusions of the legal findings document included in Attachment A. Coffin Wells are considered "non -tributary" to a natural stream and therefore not subject to river calls and return obligations which makes the water right extremely valuable. The size of the existing collection system is unknown, however, an expected minimum size of eight (8) inches for each "finger" of the estimated geometry shown on the NGL figure (Attachment B) is expected to be required in order to reliably deliver the 2.7 cfs decreed flow rate. The 1907 construction report of the Badger Sump is described as being thirteen (13) feet deep and is used to irrigate 160 acres. The material type of the existing drainage system is said to be wood with an estimated bury depth of 2 to 5 feet below the ground surface (unverified). The local geology indicates that the coffin well collection system is within the Piney Creek Alluvium, according to regional geologic mapping (Colton, 1978). Piney Creek Alluvium is described as a dark -grey humic sandy and gravelly alluvium, as noted in Figure 1 which is expletive of why the well system is so productive. According to a soil report by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the surface is overlain by mostly Kim loam with an average slope of 1 to 3%. On the Northeast portion of the NGL property, the surface is said to be Nunn clay loam at a 0 to 1% slope (NRCS). NGL has proposed to construct a deep wastewater injection well operation on the property overlying Mr. Leffler's Badger Well collections system. The primary improvements included in NGL's proposed Site Plan are identified as a Tank Containment area. a pump building. injection well and detention pond. Conclusions The surface use activities proposed by NGL overlay and therefore have a high likelihood of damaging the underlying collection system associated with the Badger Well. The damage has potential to occur during construction of NGL's proposed facility or during ongoing operations Therefore, in order to permit the proposed surface use and protect Mr. Leffler's coffin well water right. Civil Resources suggests that the collection system be rebuilt along the perimeter of the proposed NGL improvements while still being located within the Piney Creek alluvium present on the east 2/3 of the Site. Further, CR suggests that an Engineer be contracted to complete a geotechnical investigation along the pipe alignment to confirm the presence of the alluvial water source at the required depths and complete a final design for the collections system pipe sizes; depths and alignments. The likely collection pipe system material should be 8 to 12 inch slotted PVC 323 FIFTH STREET • FREDERICK. COLORADO 80530 • PHONE: 303.833.1416 • FAX: 303.833.2850 CIVIL RES-WURCES or an Advanced Drainage System (ADS) product and placed on the perimeter of the proposed NGL improvements area in permanent easements that allow access and maintenance as illustrated on Figure 2. Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide recommendations on how to protect your water right and associated delivery system. Sincerely, CIVIL RESOURCES, LLC. Brad L. Hagen, P.E. Civil Engineer / Principal J:1Leffler\DonLeffler-CoffinWell2020 FIGURES il. eir 4 . : ( • • • • I I \ CCarirrir-) (AWE RE SsU RC E S 2.1 P.O. /nap M 14 It gamma. CO 03530 X13.4213.X13.4213.0 wv+w avct]tesouacesca• I J, _ . - prty Ma ALLUVIUM iUt ui HULOWC-O64-1S•V Sir sly b grayly yly anea•rat marling y mete aliS. . O ease as me Uodab•• tars Mims Ss aee 10 b 20127 It . Or 1 4- 1 1 48/6 faw O to 6 a•1 atom • Mt" fowl OWa Organ per a damawi�d by wally davala ad 81$1•$‘ sot gain col- t. by efts bm,•am am •w b•b•• •se taat As uStan aaady d by b•/ w e alms d South PDS pray wee pally covered in 1.765 and art 1973 flans 0-6 m (0-20 ro. Locally .etras., sacra ye P' DOW LEPR.ER ♦ • ♦ • ♦ , s 4'%� R ( 14 68 1 ♦ • •� • • ` •• • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • % • ♦ i 1 LEFFLER COFFIN WELL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ♦ • • ♦ �+� ♦. esa a • • • •. f a.• • NGL PROPERTY LINE -, • \ + A t '�•_ LT� 1• a a t �♦ Ii ` • • . S , �•.: • r • Lake• • • Mrre.792 . rasa • NV . G REE ♦ `• ► LEFFLER _ . I ' •, ' t Ns i( PROPERTY ;IRRIGATED BY COFFIN WELL & �* •' • *• COLLECTION LINES• • s• • COFFIN WELL) ` ,, , '� • • •• • • • , •` (il: J , ♦ •allinilib• At a 11! • • A * • • T i Seei • • 4 • . . euman I • . • • ♦� • • R' , La ke' . • '� i fi .. • • .. • •. . • . . •. • • a • ♦ • t • • • og a • • ♦ ` • • •♦ • • \ • • ♦ 1 • • • . • . . • •' •�• . . - • • . j• , •• •• -- f2 --e 7--A J,e ... «��_ II •-1 7 B. trc1 . • •p OVERALL/ •• — • • t 0 • Ob �voTes - . to pc •/ems • ' �/\ T71: • • • . •Call _ Want pa / • . i a 3 i } 4 t I ♦ • • • • ♦ /I V • 7 rno dial*" WC. eta sicanat carom scat tars% P PIPE ONLr I. a * Cr Oar TM l.• ■m srasfl L• VC uRan KOn Or peptlOIKari _ 4 ,..Q.[ 41N14Ull CO4PKTCN minify racer .ro o.t• 4c curs !.o, �dti .K5 &bo rt +Dlwn w Or sr asGro aw+• ua.. 1r40 � 9L wets CO ION Or mats 5TOCAIC Warr r UEL I Sr aOO.K I40. MN tia. t s- 10. Rarc sip 4 2 Kai tit& It 2P,020 trier at Tat IA-• Oa t3P0. ADD O..414 VMOMO3 ►21 coma NC f31LJ6Lk ul/i . s IliAi5 4 LPL A Kneel below. Call erwn w. dip (4. Civil RESIURCES 323 Sir STREET P.O. In GOO NIEDEOZOc, CO /0630 70).1311410 www. C1 VILRESOUKES COH OOM WoRBR u@1.. CO .2D Vila -tat 11 CC W -J LL W —J COFFIN WELL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ..• y'12_2_ s._ ea ate COFFIN WELL & PROPOSED NGL IMPROVEMENTS 2 ATTACHMENT A BADGER SUMP LEGAL FINDINGS BADGER SUMP FIB DINGS 1, The name of the claimant is Charles E. Anderson, those postoffice address is Route 3, Box 306, Greeley, Colorado. The name of the structure, by means of Which water is diverted, is 'Badger s'p'• 2, The source of supply of the water of said irrigation structure is not a natural stream, but from a distinct source of underground or- subsurface water underlying lands owned by claim- ant and others, which le not haturdly tributary to any natural stream,, and.Which which is pumped. to the surface from the above named structure. Said water is not tributary to, nor any part of, any known or natural stream, and would not in its -natural course appreciably augment the flow of any natural stream; and,., except for that fraction consumed by crops and evaporation, the Rater, eopu ef'ard spread upon the land is, brought from a higher to.a lower.levol in the water district at a more rapid rate than would be accomplished if the water were to remain in itsraturai and undisturbed'canditipn, and all, water not consumed replenishes the underlying water bearing strata. The specific supply of water of the Badger Sump -is not .a natural stream but fronts distinct source of underground eater which is not naturally tributary to any natural stream, and le from an underground tile pipeline, collecting water under Claimant'. lands and lands lying to the North of claimant's lands in Sections Fifteen (15)'`and Sixteen (16), Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P,.M., Weld County, Colorado, which source of water has been conveyed to the predecessor in interest of claimant by virtue of an agreement executed April 22, 1940 and recorded April 20, 19(}0 in Book 1062,'page 50, Weld County hecords. 1303 ti 3. The Badger Sump is located on said underground tile pipeline and in a plot of land 100 feet in d iaiaeter, the center of which is 11) feet South and 59 feet West of the northeast. corner of Section Twenty-one (21), Township Six (6) North, Range Sixty-six (66) west or the 6th P.N., Weld County, Colorado, and at a place where said underground pipeline empties into said sump. The lands overlying and surrounding said sump are .owned by claimant and said lands are irrigated from ditches taking water from the Cache la Poudre River. A general physical description of the structure and installation by means ,^f which appropriat on of water is ac- complished is as follows: Depth of Structure 13 feet Size of Discharge Pipe 6 inches Horsepower of Motor 7‘1A 4{., The water produced from said structure is used to irri- gate 166 acres of claimant's overlying land located in ) The East Ralf. (E ) of the/Northeast quarter (Rg of Section:Ienty-one (21); the'West Half (wen of the Naralit in Township Sitof m (6) ction North, Twenty-two (22), Rage Sixty -air (66) Rest of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado, and the amount appropriated is the reasonable amount necessary 'to supplement the supply of irrigation water heretofore and now being taken from ditches from the Cacho la Poudre River for said lands, and the amount appropriated correlates to the needs of claimant and any others owning lands overlying the parse distinct source, of underground waters d{.verted by said structure. 5.' -The initiation of the original appropriation was by commencement of construction of the structure on Deceor 31, 197. The structure was completed and operated to the capacity claimed, and the water applied to beneficial use in irrigation with due diligence. 1_304 26 6, The amount of water claimed by original construction and appropriation is 2.7 cubic feet per second of time. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW as a natter of law and equity,' claimant is entitled to a decree to the effect that he be- permitted to pump, and divert and.use water from a -distinct source of underground or. subsurface water as described for irrigation of said lands as follows: Subterra in Cubic Feet per Priority lateWaterWVOTWFity Second of Time Date to. 2.7 December 31, 1907 .7 S.w. IT IS THEREeOR.S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the party or parties entitled thereto be permitted to pulp and divert underground eaters described in the foregoing findings for irri- gation purposes from the ptructure which is also described in the foregoing findings, which is located on an underground pipe- line and in a plot of land 100 feet in diameter, the center of which is lll} feet South and 59 feet west of the northeast corner of Section Twenty-one (21)y Township .Six (6) North, Range Sixty- six (66) West of the 6th-P.N., Weld County, Colorado, and at a place where said underground pipeline empties into said sump. The amount of water, priority date and' priority number are as follows: Cubic Feet per Second of Time Subrerr e priority WatierA r"i"o"rity ioo. 2.7 December 31, 1907 7 s.w. Said amount of water is reasonable and necessary to supplement the supply of irrigation water for -3- 27 1303 1 The East Half (Mil of the. Northeast Quarter MT of Section Twenty-one (21), the West Half (Wt of the Northwest Quarter (Mt) of Section. Twenty-two (22), all in Tornship S,z (6).North,. Range Sixty-six (66) West of the 6th P.M., 'seld County, Colorado, overlying lands, and --such amount appropriated end decreed Corre- lates to the needs of any other lands overlying the same distinct source of underground eater as is di4erted by said structurs. 13% 2S ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED NGL SURFACE USE Legal Desc: Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th. P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado a 941 J J pU J.! o! tr Si 5 3w J W z U z 2020 C 1 1 wit iVGL Water Solutions Dl, L/ C CENTRAl L WELD £4 CILITY DJi'JLL PAD L YOU?' AM WASR FOAPeNT LIST /Th' 1M'S L0G'Anow NELLS 1. Of TAMt $ F. CGSNDCNSAIF -MAWS I, Nr41E'R TAM%'S la SEPARATrF/! �'INscnON PUMPS F. 4149ARRIu I PlA40 Stint / I 100 150 Ve • I $7 is�+.:tr r S re o allay, IS 1St LOT 4, RE -.76.71 I • i ass slain Oillaargirsa - - t ) w.».1.1AL1111L1._ A .Lte.a +ant A.Y.. w.ry i w -re, sawn NO en AIS mar OW n\tncl��iw�tnitit.IR«tT te O 0 O TY. w wr"Yrs` arawir ar 1 _ A. - r.. 72g g me' CR 70 CO 392 WCR rr ti nig Vi snit Map SCALE 1=2000' SITE Legal Desc: Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 0805-16-4 RE -3634 Situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th. P.M., County of Weld. State of Colorado O Q .2 O �JJ� 00 z EJW San MR r Q0' Sett i 4bins. mss WSW IN tee nos .Ss •D `!TTTITTrrn" sa sea•rr•wa t•• rips, Ms GOD NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC (Ar iRA L WELD 121 Ut/TV DRILL FAD LA YDL/T sat riot tint PCVIPATEN/ [LS I ' T/#S L ACA 11O'V 10 NfZE S /, AE ! An /, CCM/OLENSA1£ TANKS N:e 127? T , . /a SEPARAR�S I. LOS- A, RE -3631 ewe _r .R7na wa c.,0 Ile L -t■ X wri r _r en, t----- ---. kkvkAttt.tttttts,NktvvitsWkniktvk ntkIteisstXkltnXIAW tt tvtLUttn intt pity»►ittniXtnntsivinnunt1 ►nttvvw.‘“i vkkkkkkkknntuisiskin1 • • , .eLli.., 0 O o O O O O 0 O O M Waal a ao N C MR R ••V •' w ant kk #5 0 8' O.C. E.W. EXISTING GRADE RAMP UP TO CONCRETE WITH CLASS 6 POADOASE 10' MIN CR 70 CO 392 �w Wet WI S 'r moss •H MSS nat, 00�•t1 assistes Were Vi inity Map SCALE 1'=2000' • I • • •t • • • •;• •••••••••••••••••• a A, A.._ w••• ��.-.•. y gal...••. I. /- • • •• r 04 0 12- O.C. E.W. /CONCRETE SLAB TO BE POURED ON exisTING GRADE EXISTING DRAIN PIPE CONCVi7EPAD IO•K I'MIN TILE PROTECTION wick ?C t.'r /SITE o, r O d EE 00 08AB Mn 4 016.1 (3) ;got y,w B/ti —sew 6/24/2020 a T r CD Lat40°, Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 CHILD CARE CENTER CULTURAL ITEMS MAP CENTRAL WELD SWD 1 IRRIGATION PUMP HOUSE MEASURED FROM THE NEAREST CENTRAL WELD SWD 1 EDGE OF PRODUCTION c ^r+LI?Y BUILDING i xi i93' NE x1004' NE BUILDING UNIT ±1193' NE ±1004' NE HIGH OCCUPANCY BUILDING UNIT 5280'+ 5280'+ SCHOOL FACILITY 5280'+ 5280'+ SCHOOL PROPERTY LINE 5280'+ 5280'+ CILD CARE CENTER ±3577' SW ±3555' SW 5280'+ S280'+ DESIGNATED OUTSIDEACTIVITYAREA PUBLIC ROAD (HIGHWAY 392) ±204' S - PUBLIC ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 31) - x136' E ABOVE GROUND UTILITY ±254' S :164' E RAILROAD 5280'+ 5230'Y 1 PROPERTY LINE :19fl' S ±134' NWi 0 SECTION: 16 TOWNSHIP: 6N RANGE: 66W 6TH. P.M. WELD COUNTY, CO 300 1'=300' DATE: 6/25/2020 PR0JECT#: 2018228 Lat40°, Inc. 6250 W. 10th Street, Unit 2, Greeley, CO 970-515-5294 SECTION: 16 WELL LOCATION CERTIFICATE FOUND #6 REBAR WITH r 3.25" ALUM. CAP LS 38106 TOWNSHIP: 6N RANGE: 66W CENTRAL WELD SVVD 1 6TH. P.M. WELD COUNTY, CO N 88'44'53" E 2742.06' FOUND #6 REBAR WITH 3.25" ALUM. CAP LS 22098 z O • O Cri N CO O N 88'26'54" FOUND #6 REBAR WITH r 3.25' ALUM. CAP LS 26595 N 88'32'29" E 2570.55' b N N W Z FOUND i� REBAR r x.25" ALUM. CAP LS 20685 .427,4 I I FOUND #6 REBAR WITH 3.25" ALUM. CAP LS 10855 £16, TON., 1?.667., N 88'26'54" E 2614.27 E 2686.30 - - - FOUND #6 REBAR WITH vc 2.5" ALUM. CAP LS 38230 (O CO N w S 88'44'2r W 2656.08' 1000 1'3=1000' N OO'35'31 " Sri/1 S E3816'29" W 50.02' S 88'16'30" W 2656.17' L FOUND #6 REBAR WITH 2.5" ALUM. CAP LS 38203 CLIENT: NGL WATER LLC LANDMAN: PAUL SOLUTIONS DJ, GOTTLOB INSTRUMENT OPERATOR: CASEY KOHOUT SURVEY DATE: 6/23/2020 SURFACE USE: CROPLAND SHL FOOTAGE SHL LAT' I SHL LONG ° SHL PDOP SHL ELEV (FT.) SHL 1/4/1/4 SHL S--T-R 228 _ FSL 265 I FEL 40.48178 I -104.77431 1.6 , 4755 SESE _ 16-6-66 BHL BHL LAT ° BHL LONG' BHL .S -T-11 FOOTAGE 228 1 FSL 13151 FEL 40.481781-104.77449 16-6-66 ■ ■ C O= C` GBH LEGEND ALIQUOT MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED CALCULATED POSITION SURFACE HOLE LOCATION (SHL) ENTRY POINT LOCATION (EP) BOTTOM HOLE LOCATION (BHL) EXISTING WELL ABANDONED WELL NOTE: 1) Bearings shown are Grid Bearings of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983. The lineal dimensions as contained herein are based upon the "U.S. Survey Foot." 2) Distances to section lines measured at 90 degrees from said section lines. 3) Ground elevations are based on an observed GPS elevation (NAVD 1988 DATUM). 4) Latitude and Longitude shown are (NAD 83 DATUM). 3) IMPROVEMENTS: Ste '67.)::,,4710N DR,k NC.; for all visible improvements within 500' of oil and gas location. 6) This map does not represent a boundary survey. O O N NIC O ri O 0 cfri J m Brion S. Rottinghaus—On b , inc. Colorado Licensed Professional DATE: 6/23/2020 ..and Surveyor No. 38571 PROJECT#: 2018225 ATTACHMENT C USGS SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION Soil Map —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Coffin Well) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOl) Sods Sad Map Unit Polygons Sad Map Unit Lines CI Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features u Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot ji Spoil Area Stony Spot r Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other .� Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation 4-hh Rails 0420 Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background k!`^a Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 24 000 Warning Soil Map may not be valid at this scale Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements Source of Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL Coordinate System Web Mercator (EPSG 3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below Soil Survey Area Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 50,000 or larger Date(s) aerial images were photographed Jul 19, 2018 —Aug 10 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National/Cooperative Soil Survey 8/14/2020 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Coffin Well Map Unit Legend MaprUnit Symbol - i Map Unit Name -) , Acres In AOI Percent of AOI` 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent 80 4 slopes 50 4% 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 40 2 25 2% 47 Olney line sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 3-6-6 j 22 9% 1111 85 Water 2 5 ► 1 5% Totals for Area of Interest 159 6 I 100 0% USDA Natural Resources Web Sod Survey -age Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8!14/2020 Page 3 of 3 4 a7 a.t S n • A 1 I 51OW Mp Sale 1:3,x90 fleeted m x Warn (1 re ►r) yne& 0 50 im an 51QRE Metes 323 Fed a 150 30C 933 9CC MM taus ti n: Web Murata Cone des: be3Sse Spence UTNI bee 1111 VIGSM Natural Resources Conservation Service Sod Map Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cofin Wei) Stint Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 51� I KT hf t 9 Soil Map —Weld County. Colorado Southern Part (Coffin Well) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AO') Area of Interest (AOI) Soils O Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features V y 0 O N Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot 0 CO A •• Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation *4-4 Rails Background Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that compnse your AOI were mapped at 1 24,000. blaming: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL Coordinate System Web Mercator (EPSG 3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection. which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area: such as the Albers equal-area conic projection should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area Weld County. Colorado Southern Part Survey Area Data Version 19, Jun 5 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 50,000 or larger Date(s) aerial images were photographed Jul 19 2018 —Aug 10 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident LSDA Natural Resources a Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/14/2020 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —Weld County. Colorado, Southern Part Coffin Well Map Unit Legend Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Map Unit Symbol 32 Kim loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes 80.4 50.4% 41 Nunn slopes clay loam, 0 to 1 percent 40.2 25.2% 47 Olney fine sandy percent slopes loam, 1 to 3 36.6 22.9% 85 Water 2.5 1.5% Totals for Area of Interest 159.6 100.0% r Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/14/2020 Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 16, 2020 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Services SUBJECT: Request for Continuance USR19-0060, NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC The Department of Planning Services received a letter from Ryan M. Donovan, Esq., on behalf of Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmick LLP attorneys for Mr. Don Leffler, adjacent property owner and co-signed by Mr. Doug White, NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC requesting a continuance of USR19- 0060, a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review. USR19-0060, is for an Oil and Gas Support and Service. including an unmanned, pipeline only, Class II Saltwater Disposal Facility and related infrastructure. up to five (5) construction trailers and five (5) conex containers for temporary use during construction in the A (Agricultural) Zone District previously cont nued from March 11, 2020 and June 10, 2020 and scheduled for today. September 16. 2020 to allow both parties time to explore settlement related to NGL's USR application. Both parties. Mr. Leffler and his counsel and Mr. White. applicant are requesting a continuance until November 4, 2020. The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request. LAANCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5245 RONALD REAGAN BLVD., SUITE. 1 JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO 80534 TELEPHONE: 970-622-8181 "Cc WWW.LJCGLAW.COM rvan(d ljeglaw.com P. Andrew Jones • Bradley C. Grasmick • David P. Jones • Ryan M. Donovan Wesley S. Knoll • Sheena M. Moran (Of Counsel) September 14, 2020 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 VIA EMAIL: kogle@weldgov.com RE: USR 19-0600; Request for Continuance Dear Mr. Ogle, The purpose of this letter is to request a continuance of the above referenced USR application by NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC ("NGL"). The matter was previously continued until September 16, 2020. The request for the continuance is to allow Mr. Leffler, who is represented by our firm, and NGL additional time to explore settlement related to NGL's USR application. Mr. Leffler requests a continuance until November 4, 2020. Mr. Leffler has conferred with NGL on the request, and NGL has consented to such continuance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmick LLP Digitally signed by Ryan M. Donovan DN: cn=Ryan M. Donovan, o=Lawrence Jones Custer Grasmick LLP, ou. email=Ryan@ljcglaw.com. c=US Date: 2020.09.14 12:32:13 -06'00' NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. Doug Attorneys for Mr. Donn Leffler RMD:mt Enclosures Vice President, NGL MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 4, 2020 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Services SUBJECT: USR19-0060 NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC The following electronic mail was received by the Department of Planning Services from Ryan Donovan, Esq., with Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP on Thursday October 29, 2020. From: Ryan Donovan <rya n @ Icwaterlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:49 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>; Doug White <Doug.White@nglep.com> Cc: Maria Petrocco <maria@petroccolaw.com> Subject: RE: BOCC PLANNING CASES (09/16/2020) Caution.. This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, Kim Thank you for checking in. The current status is that despite diligence efforts on behalf of both NGL and Mr. Leffler no agreement has been reached as of today. I am hopeful we will get there, but, remain skeptical that it will be inked by Wednesday's hearing. Several draft agreements have been exchanged between the parties. The main "sticking point" is engineering related to Mr. Leffler's water rights infrastructure. I am frankly ignorant on whether the Colorado Rules of Evidence apply to land use hearings before the Commissioners, so I am reluctant to share too many details about the nature of the settlement that is being proposed at this time. My assessment is that there are genuine efforts by both parties to reach an engineering solution, the result of which would protect Mr. Leffler's water rights and allow him to withdraw his objection to the USR application. We received a revised engineering report from NGL this morning. I have not yet had a chance to review it, nor confer with Mr. Leffler or his engineer (Brad Hagen of Civil Resources LLC) on the revised report. I will make every effort to move this along as quickly as possible, but my case load is extensive at present and I know Mr. Hagen's is as well. I will keep you posted on our status. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Donovan Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP 5245 Ronald Reagan Blvd. Suite 1 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Phone: 970-622-8181 www.lcwaterlaw.com From: Kim Ogle [mailto:kogle@weldgov.com] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:56 AM To: Ryan Donovan <ryan@Icwaterlaw.com>; Doug White <Doug.White@nglep.com> Cc: Maria Petrocco <maria@petroccolaw.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: BOCC PLANNING CASES (09/16/2020) Hello and good morning, On Wednesday November 4, 2020 we are back in front of the Commissioners for the NGL Central Disposal Facility. At the last hearing there was agreement from both parties to request for a continuance to allow Mr. Leffler and NGL time to explore a settlement agreement. Has such an agreement been tendered? If the agreement has not been tendered, please provide comment on the sticking points. Thank you. Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle@weldgov.com <image001.jpg> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Water Solutions October 30, 2020 Board of County Commissioners, i am writing in regard to NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC Use By Special Review Permit application USR19-0060 as previously continued after the Board heard testimony and statements from NGL and Donn Leffler and his legal team. NGL has worked in good faith for almost two months to reach a written agreement regarding engineered scope of design and construction of mitigation measures in the form of a new water collection system on NGL's property in order to satisfy the "risk of significant adverse impact on the environment and public (including Mr. Leffler) health, safety, and welfare" concerns previously identified. NGL recognizes the concerns voiced by Mr. Leffler and has created a comprehensive third party engineered solution to provide mitigation measures as required to address potential adverse impacts to Mr. Leffler's water collection system and has worked in good faith to reach written agreement with Mr. Leffler. While NGL has diligently pursued finalization of an agreement with the Leffler team, as of today, no agreement has been executed by the parties. We endeavor to continue to complete and execute the agreement prior to November 4th. NGL's engineering work is complete and if we are unable to achieve a signed written agreement with Mr. Leffler for the November 4th hearing, NGL is prepared to present to the BOCC and ask for approval of our application. ouglas W. White 8207 W. 201 Street, Suite B, Greeley, CO 80634 .- ha rtc : 970 -3L6 --5b60 Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Consulting, Contracting, Numerical Modeling 324 Remington Street, Suite 110 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.492.5710 October 28, 2020 Jonathan Jiang VP Engineering NGL Water Solutions 3773 Cherry Creek N Dr, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80209 RE: Central Weld Facility and Leffler Well — Evaluation and reconfiguration of collector -pipe system for Leffler irrigation well. Dear Mr. Jiang: This letter presents results from the evaluation we conducted to reconfigure groundwater collector pipes used by the Leffler irrigation well. The well is owned by Mr. Don Leffler. Its general location is east of the Town of Windsor, Weld County, Colorado, at the intersection of Hwy 392 and County Road 31. The well's pump house is located in the far northeast corner of Section 21, Township 6N, Range 66W, and some of the well's collector pipes are located to the north across Highway 392, in the southeast corner of Section 16, under NGL's property (Figure 1 ) (1) Background and Objective The Leffler Well has been described as a 13 -ft -deep sump ("Badger Sump") which is fed groundwater by at least three 100 -year -old subsurface wooden pipes which extend under NGL Energy's property in the southeast corner of Section 16. In effect, the collector pipes function as French drains on the NGL property and deliver that water to a vault on the Leffler property. (We will refer to them as drains or pipes interchangeably in this report.) Mr. Leffler is concerned that construction work and industrial activity planned for NGL's property could negatively impact the drains, such as by cutting them or causing the aged wooden pipes to collapse. Mr. Leffler's engineering consultant, Civil Resources, LLC, proposed that NGL install new collector pipes in a route that circles the NGL development and which can be tied into existing pipe on the north side of Hwy 392. NGL agreed to that proposal and asked Miller Groundwater Engineering to evaluate whether the planned collector pipe reconfiguration can be expected to maintain the current performance of the collector -drain system. JONATI IAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGI, WATER SOLUTIONS OCTOB 1 lR 28, 2020 (2) Information Relied On • Letter from Civil Resources, LLC, to Ryan Donovan, dated August 24, 2020, which provides some verbal descriptions of the Leffer well and includes maps, drawings, and other attachments showing the expected location of well collector drains, a proposed new route, and other site components. • Map of existing collector -pipes as located by NGL's contractors. As reported to us, the general paths of the pipes were located by ground penetrating radar. • Depth and presence of a collector pipe positively confirmed at one location by NGL via Hydovac pot -holing on October 1, 2020 (Figure 1). • Depth to groundwater from local ground surface at three locations (including one at the wooden pipe) as measured by Miller Groundwater on October 1, 2020, through temporary observation holes provided by NGL contractors. • Aquifer information from public sources such as the Division of Water Resources well permit database, published geologic maps (e.g., Colton 1978 and Hershey and Schneider 1971), and GIS maps published by the South Platte Decision Support System (SPDSS) groundwater modeling project. • Our site visit to observe the area and to see components of the Leffler well system. • Our conversation with Mr. Leffler on October 1, 2020. (3) Descriptions and Observations of Leffler Well System The Leffler Well has been described as a 13 -ft -deep sump which is fed groundwater by at least three horizontal collector pipes which function as subsurface drains akin to French drains. According to documents provided by Civil Resources, the pipes are presumably over 100 years old and reach north into the Section 16 (Figure 1) and also to the northeast into Section 15 (northeast of the intersection of County Road 31 and Hwy 392). Mr. Leffler said the pipes are wood and are a rectangular or box -shaped structure. Using Hydrovac (a method commonly used in the energy industry to locate subsurface utilities without damaging them in the process), NGL's field location crew found one of these wooden pipes on October 1, 2020 (Point A in Figure 1). They reported it to look like a loose collection of aged wood planks without a clear form or shape. The wood pipes discharge by gravity into a concrete vault located immediately on the southwest edge of the intersection (Figure 1). We saw a USGS survey marker embedded in the concrete and dated 1959. During our visit, water was discharging into the vault from a pipe near the bottom and on the NW side of the vault, pooling up about one foot, and then flowing Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 12 JONATHAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WAFER SOLU FIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 out through a second pipe oriented to the southeast of the vault Mr Leffler said that this water flows on to the southeast, to and through a manhole visible about 500 ft southeast of the vault (shown on Figure 1) and then eventually discharges either to an irrigation lateral or an irrigation pond (not seen) Mr Leffler said the vault is also connected to his well's sump by a pipe We were unable to spot that pipe or pipe entrance in the vault during our visit The concrete vault is roughly 9 ft deep (below local grade) We could see a large (maybe 12 inch diameter) pipe discharging water from the northwest, and a similar sized pipe taking in water toward the southeast, but a separate pipe to the Leffler well could not be seen at that time There is a wooden baffle in the vault which Mr Leffler said he sometimes uses to partially block off the southeast exit pipe to direct more of this water toward his well/sump Mr Leffler explained to us that the system used to pump from an open pit/sump, but it was filled in with gravel decades ago Based on what we saw and the description provided by Mr Leffler, the sump's horizontal dimension may be about 10 ft x 10 ft square We saw coarse aggregate/gravel around the well, at least at ground level We measured the open depth inside the well casing (before hitting what felt like a soft bottom) to be 16 5 ft below ground surface (bgs) and we measured the non -pumping water level inside the well casing at 5 3 ft bgs during our site visit (4) Aquifer Information Referring to GIS maps provided by the State of Colorado's SPDSS project, the aquifer around the NGL property and Leffler well is mapped to have a transmissivity around 140,000 gallons per day per foot (18,700 ft2/day) and hydraulic conductivity around 500 ft/day, suggesting saturated thickness around 40 ft Public well permit records for other wells in the wider area to the east and west suggest a smaller saturated thickness and possibly lower hydraulic conductivity, but that data was sparse Also, geologic maps (Colton 1978, Hershey and Schneider 1972) show a relatively narrow alluvial channel immediately along County Road 31 and the Leffler well Based on this information and the reported high productivity of the Leffler well, we used the SPDSS map values in our evaluation rather than lower estimates from the less -productive wells nearby Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 13 JONATHAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WATER SOLU PIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 (5) Miller Groundwater's Opinions about the Leffler Well's Function The opinions, observations, and conclusions expressed in this section (Section 5) and in the following section (Section 6) are the professional opinions of Miller Groundwater Engineering, and our inclusion of them in this report does not imply that Mr Leffler or his engineers necessarily have evaluated these statements or that they agree or disagree with them We are providing this information because it documents our understanding of the Leffler well/sump system at the time of our evaluation That understanding is relevant to how we approached our work In particular, the Leffler Well is an interesting and unique well/sump system, so we feel it is important to document what we observed and what is and isn't known about its construction and current function To provide a more specific illustration to conduct an evaluation of whether the planned new system is expected to be functionally equivalent to the existing system, we of course first developed an understanding of that existing system We reasonably assume there is well screen (i e , perforated/slotted/wire-wrapped pipe) running vertically through the gravel -filled sump, and we speculate that the bottom of that sump does not have a constructed floor Therefore, given its depth, the gravel -filled sump and the well screen are likely in reasonably good contact with the underlying aquifer, allowing the Leffler well to function like a regular vertical well that has a shallow completion depth (16 5 ft bgs) but a large effective diameter (the 10 ft x 10 ft sump) Based on this, we expect that some of the well's water production comes locally from the aquifer around and under the sump, directly to and through sump The wooden collector drain pipes under NGL's property appear to be at about 5 ft below grade on the south side of the NGL property They may be shallower on their north end if they were sloped and because the ground elevation is slightly lower to the north and east The 5 ft depth is based on one positively confirmed location and based on the fact that the collector pipes discharge by gravity into the concrete vault before reaching the well and are only slightly deeper at the Leffler vault We measured the water table depth at the pipe to be about 4 ft bgs (on October 1, 2020) The pipes were discharging to the vault during our visit, so we assume the natural water table may be higher and the 4 ft bgs we measured was the steady-state drained condition For estimating flow rates to the drains and to the sump, we have assumed the natural (un- drained) water table near the pipes ranges from 2 ft to 4 ft below grade, therefore ranging from 15 ft to 3 5 ft above the middle of the pipes (assuming a half -full 12 -inch pipe) Such shallow Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page I4 JONATHAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WAI ER SOLUTIONS OC I'OBER 28, 2020 water table conditions have been reported in the area in well logs and also recounted to us by Mr Leffler Based on the observations, measurements, and assumptions listed above, we estimate that the Leffler well today could produce about 2 0 cubic feet per second (cfs) in total from its sump and the Section 16 drains Uncertainty in aquifer parameters adds at least +/- 25% "error" (uncertainty) to that estimate, and uncertainty in other details likely creates +/- 50% uncertainty in that production estimate Based on the sump dimensions and reported aquifer properties, we estimate that about half of the well's production could come directly through its sump and not from the collector drains We therefore estimate about 10 cfs comes from the Section 16 collector pipes (+/- 50%) This estimate does not include additional pipes reported in 1940 to be in Section 15 Those Section 15 drains would be outside of the NGL property These flow and yield estimates were developed using a relatively simple groundwater flow model we constructed with the widely used MODFLOW-2000 software Model files and additional information can be provided upon request Since the drains currently discharge by gravity into an open vault and then flow from that vault into the well (while also flowing simultaneously to another open manhole), pumping the well does not necessarily increase the flow rate through the drains This condition may vary at times For example, during our site visit the drain pipe's discharge into the vault did have some tailwater (i e , partially submerged discharge) and that tailwater might be lowered when the Leffler well is pumping Under those conditions, pumping the well could slightly increase the drain's flow rate by removing the tailwater in the Leffler vault Note also that Mr Leffer sometimes blocks off the southeast exit pipe to direct more water to the well/sump We highlight these details just so it is understood that flow through the collector drain pipes is partially independent from pumping at the well/sump (6) Miller Groundwater's Opinions about Decreed/Permitted Pumping Rate of Leffler Well To our knowledge, the actual current performance of the Leffler well is unknown According to a legal document dated 1940 (and which refers to the well's initial use in 1907), the Leffler well is legally permitted to operate at 2 7 cfs However, that permitted limit does not mean it can actually produce 2 7 cfs in its current condition In our experience, that permitted rate may have been only an estimate or, very likely, it was a rate it was capable of producing on a short- term basis (e g , 2 hour test) when the well was an open sump and when the wooden collection Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 15 JONATI IAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WATER SOLU FIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 pipes were relatively new That 1940 permitted rate is not reliable guidance for what the well can produce today or what it can sustain during a full irrigation cycle To be clear, we do not dispute that this is a good well which provides a lot of irrigation water We agree that this well is a valuable physical asset and that it has a highly valuable water right associated with it As we estimated above, available data suggests to us it could produce 2 0 cfs, and it may indeed produce the decreed 2 7 cfs under the right conditions However, it is also equally possible that it produces significantly less than 2 0 cfs, depending on its current condition We highlight these facts and opinions so that NGL is aware of the well's value, but also so that NGL is aware that we do not have current or "baseline" performance data which could be used to compare "before and after" performance (7) Proposed Replacement Drains for Section 16 Despite the uncertainties listed previously, we do not need to completely understand the well's actual performance today in order to design a new and functionally equivalent collector -drain system for the Section 16 drains under NGL's property In fact, we do not need to fully understand the existing drain performance either The key factors —aquifer permeability, drain depth, and water table depth —that apply to the existing drains will also apply to the new drains if the new drains are in roughly the same location and at the same depth(s) as the existing drains This assumes also that the new drains have sufficient perforated open area to take in the desired flow rate, and that they are sized (diameter) and/or sloped sufficiently to convey that water to the vault We have evaluated three different configurations for the new drain pipes, all of which were found to meet and exceed the function of the existing drain pipes We used the simple MODFLOW model discussed above to conduct that assessment The currently preferred configuration is shown on Figure 1 Mr Leffler's engineer (Civil Resources) did not approve the first configuration we proposed since we had not included a drain segment on the east side of the property His concern was that, according to geologic maps, the aquifer might be less productive on the west side of NGL's property To address his concern, we added a north -south segment on the east side of the NGL property and we moved the west side of the pipes slightly eastward This is much like the plan originally proposed by Civil Resources In Table 1 we compare the estimated performance of the new drains against the existing drains This is based on the reported locations and depth of the existing drains, and the Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 16 JONAIHAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WA TER SOLU TIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 assumptions listed previously (The precision shown in Table 1 is provided to facilitate comparison and should not be interpreted as the level of accuracy of the estimates ) Again, the actual performance of the existing drains may be higher or lower than we have estimated, yet we can still compare the drains under the same set of aquifer assumptions Table 1. Drain Yield (cfs) vs. Water Table Depth 2 ft bgs ' 4 ft bgs existing drains 1 16 0 53 new drain 137 0 62 if combined 142 0 64 Calculated Increase in _Yield - new drain 18% 17% if combined 22% 21% Approximately 1,200 linear feet of existing drains were mapped under the NGL property The proposed new drains have 1,850 linear feet The additional length of drain pipe and the wider footprint of the drain configuration explain why the new drains are expected to slightly exceed the performance of the existing drains Figure 2 and Figure 3 are maps of modeled drawdown created by the existing drains and the new drains, respectively General recommendations for the pipes are noted on Figure 1 Inputs and results from a pipe flow -depth calculation are provided as Figure 4 That calculation uses the standard Manning Pipe flow equation Note that there are two pipe runs, so -each run only has to carry half the total flow requested by Civil Resources (i e , 1 35 instead of 2 7 cfs) We have also attached a product brochure for perforated PVC pipes which are rated to take in at least 0 01 cfs per linear foot of pipe and therefore rated to accept well over 2 7 cfs, which was a design request of Civil Resources The brochure is provided as an example, but other perforated pipes can be substituted if they have sufficient intake and conveyance capacity Again, we expect that these or any pipes will actually collect less than 2 7 cfs based on aquifer limitations and, in particular, based the shallow depth of the pipes (both the existing and planned new pipes) Our opinion is that that the function of the new pipe configuration can Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 17 JONATI IAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WATER SOLUIIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 meet or exceed the function of the existing pipes based on similar location and very similar depth, plus having additional linear feet and slightly greater footprint of the collection area (8) Minor Variations on Trench Design based on Trench Observations We understand that Mr Leffler's engineer asked about geotechnical boring information and has a concern about the subsurface being less productive to the west of the existing drains We address those concerns here At the time of construction, we recommend that some test trenches be excavated at a few locations along the new drain route, and excavated to slightly greater than the planned depth of the new drains, and these trenches be observed by Miller Groundwater or other groundwater engineer From those observations we might make slight changes to the trench section detail For example, if the new drains —which are planned to be at the same depth of the existing drains —happen to align with a silty layer and we observe sandy layers slightly deeper, then we would recommend the drain trench be slightly over -excavated below the drain depth (e g , 1 to 2 ft) and the drain's bedding be extended deeper Given that the new drains will be at the same depth as the existing drains this should not be needed to match existing performance, but it is an opportunity to increase the yield of the new drains further above the yield of the existing drains by better connecting the drains to the most permeable zones Similarly, we might suggest that some segments of the drain route have additional bedding placed above the drain as well if there are more permeable zones higher, but still within the saturate zone This latter change is less likely at this site since the drains are shallow and a minimum 2 -ft bedding above the drains is already specified in the plans Geotechnical borings made along the drain path sometime prior to construction may help somewhat with planning the total depth of the excavation, but we do not expect borings to change the fundamental plan details such as drain depth, slope, or size We expect geotechnical boring information would change only the trench details described above (bedding depth and height below and above the drain) Therefore, it is our opinion that NGL can opt to make bedding changes based on direct observations of the soil profile made during installation trenching In fact, in our experience on other French drain projects, it was helpful to make those kinds of drain -bedding decisions during installation since one can get a better look at variations in subsurface soil conditions from a long open trench than from sporadic soil borings We have the unique situation here of putting new drains essentially right next to old drains and at the same depth as the old drains Therefore, both old and new drains will experience the Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 18 JONATHAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WAFER SOLUTIONS OCTOBER 28, 2020 same shallow soil types Again, this means that observations made during construction can improve the drain function over existing drains, but that we don't require additional information today to plan to match the performance of existing drains , Civil Resources noted that geologic maps show the alluvial deposits at the NGL property and along County Road 31 to change toward the west and maybe become less productive We have considered that scenario through an additional groundwater model simulation in which we assumed all sections of new drain pipe that fall west of the existing drains collect zero water This simulation limits the new drains to only that footprint near existing drains and thereby indicates how sensitive the new drain plan is to those sections that extend west of the existing footprint In that scenario, the drains still produced 9% more than the existing drains, down from the 18% increase shown in Table 1 for the full new drain footprint, but still more than the existing drains (As noted before, this level of precision is provided simply for comparison purposes ) This result is reasonable and expected physically Consider, for example, that the combination of new drains and old drains did not double yield but increased it only by 20% This is because the limitation on yield is the aquifer and the shallowness of the drains (existing and planned) and is not highly sensitive to the total linear feet of pipe installed Adding that extra linear feet of pipe to the west just approaches diminishing returns (i e , 20% increase and not double) For this same reason, we can have less linear feet of pipe without a large reduction in yield and/or the west side of the new drain plan can be in a less productive zone and not be a critical change to the yield since we have enough pipe on the east side of the property Miscellaneous Notes Presumably the new drains may collect more water than the old drains, based simply on them being in better condition than 100 -year -old wooden drains, or due to having better bedding, etc More flow is likely a desirable goal for Mr Leffler's well However, if the new drains collect substantially more water than the old drains and if that exceeds the current -conditions capacity of the existing pipes crossing under Hwy 392, or if they exceed the capacity of Mr Lefflers vault exit pipe, that could create a shallow water table (wet conditions) on the south side of the NGL property or at the Leffler vault Mr Leffler reports that wet ground has occasionally been observed on his property Consideration should be given to how to manage this risk For example, NGL might install valves at the mid -point of the new drains on the NGL property to be able to limit the flow rate in case if ever needed Civil Resources also suggested that the new drains discharge to a manhole or vault on the north side of Hwy 392 We agree that discharging the new drains into a manhole at that location Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Page 19 JONNITIAN JIANG, VP ENERGY NGL WATER SOLUTIONS )NS OCTOBER 28. 2020 would offer opportunities to observe drain function, and possibly another location at which to manage flows if needed. A manhole at that location could also facilitate future maintenance. For example, Mr. Leffler said that the drains to the southeast of his vault (Section 22) have clogged up at least once in the past with plant growth and had to be cleaned out. Note also that such a backup on the Leffler property or in Section 22 could lead to a backup of the new drains under NGL's property and create wet conditions for NGL. Finally, note that attempting to connect new pipes to a 100 -year -old wooden pipe may pose some risk to the integrity of the old pipe. This list is not meant to include all possibilities but is provided so that NGL's engineers can anticipate at least these identified risks and possibilities. (9) Technical and Practical Limitations Subsurface data is often limited in its spatial coverage and spatial resolution, and subsurface measurements testing produces only approximate results. Estimates and projections about groundwater behavior therefore have inherent uncertainties and assumptions. Providing certainty is rarely an attainable goal. By using good, common, and accepted methods, and in particular relying on our professional experience, this work provides reasonably reliable guidance for expected site groundwater behavior, but NGL has acknowledged that actual groundwater behavior may be different from expected or projected behavior. Additionally, the actual as -built construction and future maintenance of the collector -well system may be different than what is currently planned or known to us, and such changes are outside our scope and control. We appreciate you contacting us for this work. Please contact us if you would like to discuss anything further. Sincerely, dtc-- Calvin Miller, PE, PhD Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC Miller Groundwater Engineering, LLC �y , -. , � L �$4 w ,••\\N 0. ? •,• 'CO c • • • 3a9 • • ••o /V/� r� • • �✓ S•'Z'/ • _• aa.•..a•• ..� 1 { I 10 Figure 1. New layout proposed for Leffler Well collector drains on NGL property in Section 16. northing (state plane. FEET) N a w \III twig I: Map go 1.420.100 1 120.000 ; 1.419,900 1.419.800 1.419.700 -. 1.419.600 1.419.500-4 1,419,400 1.419.300 1.419.200 1.419.100 1.419.000 1.418.900 • 1.418.800 1.418.700 1.418.600 3.202.200 3.200.600 3.200.800 3.201.000 3.201.200 3.201.400 3.201.600 3.201.800 3.202.000 easting (state plane, FEET) 3.202.400 3202.600 3.202.800 Notes: (1) Existing drains shown as mapped by radar (solid black lines). (2) Pipe at location marked as point "A" found through pot -holing to be at 5 ft below grade. with water table (while draining) at 4 ft below grade. (3) Water flows through vault and on to the southeast when not being used by Leffler well. (4) Pipe from vault to Leffler well could not be seen on site visit 10/1/2020. (5) Actual sustainable pumping rate of well is unknown. Actual flow provided by drains is unknown. (6) Existing mapped drain lines at 1,200 linear feet (LF). New drain route at 1,850 IS Gap in new drain route left at north end to avoid existing drain line in case that line runs further north. (7) New drain to be installed at similar depths as existing drain lines (with final depth and trench design pending geotechnical boring information). (8) Assumping equivalent depth and aquifer conditions, new drain route calculated to be equivalent to existing mapped drain lines (plus 15%) based on rate of water collected. The expected increase is due to the combination of longer LF and a larger overall footprint. (9) If existing drains remain functional, then total combined collection rate calculated to be 20% higher than current. (10) In our current opinion, not all of the Leffler Well's water comes from these drains. Some is obtained directly at the sump. The well Decree (1940) also mentions some of the Leffler well's drains being in Section 15 (to northeast) (11) New drain line needs small slope to remain below water table. Recommend minimum 12 -in dia PVC pipe for conveyance capacity. 3.203.000 Pry: NGL and Leffler Well, Windsor. Colorado. Report: TBD Miller Groundwater Engineering. tit Figure 2. Estimated water table drawdown created by existing pipes. northing (state plane. FEET) 1 1)0 3(n( 1.420.200 1.420.100 1.420,000 1.419 900 1.419.800 1.419.700 1,419.600 1.419.500 1.419.400 1.419,300 1.419.200- 1.419.100 - 1.419.000- 1.418.900 1.418.800- 1.418.700 - 1.418.600 - SE Section 1 3.200.600 3 2(X) KO(1 3101 (1(10 3.201.200 3.201.400 3.202.200 3,202.400 3.207 (i00 3.202.800 Leffler Well/sump 3.201.600 3,201.800 3.202.000 easting (state plane. FEET) W Section I manhole access to drain 3.203.000 Project: NC!. and Lefler Well, Windsor, Colorado. Report: TBD Miller Groundwater Engineering. it Figure 3. Estimated water table drawdown created by new drains. northing (state plane, FEET) t I 1.420.100 1.420.300 1.420.200 • 1,420.100: 1.420.000 • 1,419.900 1.419.800 -- 1.419.700 • 1,4 19,500 -. 1.419.400 • 1.419.300 -1 1.419.200 1.419.100- 1.419.000 1.418.900 1.418.800 1.418.700 1.418.600 3.200.600 3.200.800 3.201.000 3.201.200 3.201.400 3.201.600 3.201,800 3,202.000 3.202.200 3.202.400 3,202.600 3.202.800 3.203.000 easting (state plane. FEET) Project: NGL and Leffler Well, Windsor. Colorado. Report: TBD Miller Groundwater Engineering. tic- Figure 4. Pipe flow depth/capacity calcualtion. Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk. Inc. 12 inch Perforated Pipe @ 0.1% - Half of 2.7 cfs flow Circular Diameter (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope (%) N -Value Calculations Compute by: Known Q (cfs) Elev (ft) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 = 1.00 - 1.00 - 0.10 = 0.010 Known Q = 1.35 Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ftls) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft) Section Tuesday, Oct 27 2020 = 0.76 = 1.350 = 0.64 = 2.11 = 2.12 = 0.49 = 0.85 = 0.83 0 1 2 3 Depth (ft) 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Reach (ft) S otted PVC VVell Casing Certa-Lok" & Solvent -Weld HIGH PERFORMANCE Superior flovv performance CertainTeed Corrosion Large selection of slot configurations Choice of joining systems Quality made certain. Satisfaction guaranteed. CertainTeed — the name that contractors have come to associate with the industry's broadest line of high -quality PVC well products — is also the industry leader in high performance slotted well casing. Using new manufacturing technology, slotted casing can now be produced with open areas and efficiencies that rival those of other screens, often at a fraction of the cost. Combine PVC screens with PVC well casing for the ultimate corrosion -resistant, low -maintenance water well! A Size and Joining System for Every Application Slotted casing can be produced in sizes from 2" all the way up to the largest commercially available PVC well casing product (17.4" O.D.), in a variety of wall thicknesses and strengths to suit virtually all applications: • Domestic • Irrigation • Municipal • Aquifer Storage and Recovery • Environmental CertainTeed also offers a choice of joining systems: traditional solvent -weld or the contractor -proven, all-weather Certa-LokTM mechanical joint. Slot Width Selection A wide selection of precision -machined factory slot designs (.010"-.125") with closely spaced inlet openings provides for uniform development over the length of the screen and proper stabilization of the gravel pack. Long Life Well rehabilitation costs are minimized, as PVC screens are inherently more resistant than conventional steel products to clogging and encrustation. PVC also outperforms stainless steel in highly corrosive environments, at a fraction of the cost. All screens are manufactured from PVC casing that is listed by NSF International as safe for use with potable water. Single Source for All Your Well Product Needs No more unloading, local -machining, and repackaging required. With CertainTeed, the industry's best slotted casing is shipped ready to use — no field fabrication required — along with your other PVC well product needs, including solid casing, drop pipe for submersible pumps, and a variety of fittings. Slotted PVC casing is also ideal for use as underdrain pipe. Applications include, but are not limited to: • Leachate collection systems for solid waste landfills • Drainage and dewatering applications • Mining heap leach projects PVC underdrain pipe is supplied with precision -machined slots, which provide greater intake capacity and continuous, clog -resistant drainage of fluids, as compared to standard round -hole perforated pipe. Slotted underdrain reduces entrance velocity into the pipe, thereby reducing the possibility that solids will be carried into the system. Slot rows can generally be positioned symmetrically or l 11 d h f d d' h i O ' d Airs 11 h as} mmetrica y aroun t e pipe C1rCUm erence, epen ing upon t e app ication. utsl a iameters are genera y t e same for PVC and non -corrugated polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. However, the HDPE pipe must be extruded with a thicker wall (and therefore a reduced cross-sectional flow area) to obtain a comparable stiffness rating. Slotted PVC and Underdrain Pipe Specifications This chart illustrates standard manufacturing capabilities only. Not all products shown are routinely stocked — call for availability. Slot configurations not included on this chart are covered under CertainTeed's non-standard product warranty. NOM. SIZE NOM. O.D. NO. OF ROWS CLASS MIN.WALL THICKNESS JOINT AVAILABILITY O.D. OPEN AREA, SQ. INCHES PER FOOT OF SCREEN (.25" SLOT WIDTH INCHES SLOT SPACING) 0.010 0.013 0.016 0.020 0.025 0.032 0.040 0.050 0.085 0.100 0.125 2" 2.375 4 SCH40 0.154 SW 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.6 5.6 7.0 3" 3300 4 SCH40 0.216 SW 16 3A 4.1 5.0 6.2 7.7 4" 4.500 4 SDR26 0.173 SW SDR2I 0.214 SW 3.0 3.9 4.8 8.0 9.7 12.2 14.8 18.2 27.2 SCH40 0.237 SW,CLIB 41/2" 4.950 4 SDR26 0.190 SW,CLIB SCH40 0.248 SW,CLIB 3.0* 4.5* 5.4* 9.2 11.3 14.1 17.1 21.0 31S SDRI7 0.291 SW,CLIB 5" 5.563 4 SDR26 0.214 SW SDR2 I `« SDRI7 0.265 0.327 SW,CLIB SW,CLIB 4,5* 5.4* 10.0 12.3 15.4 18.7 23.0 34.4 SCH80 0.375 CLIB 6" 6.625 6 SDR26 0.255 SW SCH40 SDR2I 0.280 0.316 SW,CLIB SW,CLIB 8.2* 12,6 15.4 19.2 23.4 28.7 43.0 SDRI7 0.390 SW,CLIB 6 1/4" 6.900 6 DR27.6 0.250 SW 6 V8" SDR2I 0.329 SW,CLIB 12.6* 15.4 19.2 23.4 28.7 43.0 6.9"O.D. SDRI7 0.406 SW,CLIB 8" 8.625 6 SDR26 0.332 SW SDR2I 0.410 SW 14.2* 20.3 25.4 30.8 37.9 56/ 63.8 74.6 SDRI7 0.508 CLIB 10" 10.750 6 SDR26 0.413 SW SDR2 I 0.51 I SW 22.5* 28.1 34.1 41.9 62.7 70.7 823 SDRI7 0.632 CL 12" 11750 8 SDR26 0.490 SW SDR2I 0.606 SW 30.0* 37.4 45.5 55.9 83.7 94.2 110.1 SDRI7 0.750 CL 14" 14.000 8 SCH40 SDR 17 0.437 0.823 SW CL 32.9* 41.1 49.9 61.3 91.8 103.4 120.7 16" 16.000 10 10 SCH40 SDR26 0.500 0.616 SW SW,CL 36.3 45.3 55.1 67.6 101.2 114.0 133.1 _ 8 SDR2I 0.762 CL 31.0 38.7 47.0 57.7 86.4 97.3 113.6 8 SDRI7 0.941 CL 433 518 64.9 97.2 109.4 127.8 17A" O.D. 17.400 8 SDRI7 1.024 CL 52.8 64.9 97.2 109.4 127.8 KEY: SW = Solvent Weld Belled End, CL = Certa-Lok (w/coupling), CLIB = Certa-Lok Integral Bell * = Not available in SDR 17 or SCH80 ** = Equivalent to SCH40 Notes: I .As a general rule, Flow Rating (GPM/ft) in a gravel -packed well = O.D. Open Area (in2/ft)* (.50 blockage factor)* (.3 I conversion factor) at an entrance velocity of 0.1 fps. 2. Open area percentage varies from 2% to over 20%, depending upon casing size and slot width. 3. CertainTeed can supply a detailed Engineering Specification for any of the products shown, or for special made-to-order products. 4. Slots can often be lengthened on thick -wall products to provide additional I.D. penetration; revised specifications showing increased open area are available upon request. S. Standard slot spacing = .25". Smaller and wider spacing is available - wider spacing is recommended for slot widths of .100" and above. 6. Specifications subject to change. Standard manufacturing tolerances apply. 7.All dimensions are in inches. Our Slots Pay Off Three Ways! CertainTeed solid and slotted casing is available with a joining system to suit all of your needs: Traditional Solvent - Weld joint — Now with a deeper bell for a stronger, more durable bond. Available in sizes 2" - 16". national groundwater association MEMBER Certa-Lok'" — Check out the Best Joint in Town. No more "glue and screw" attachments. Mechanical joint achieves full strength instantly in all weather conditions. Fast assembly and disassembly. Available in sizes 10"-17.4" O.D. Certa4.okTM Integral Bell Well Casing — All the advantages of the contractor -proven Certa-Lok joining system, now with a conventional belled -end joint for even faster assembly. The economical choice for all of your small -to -medium diameter well casing requirements. Available in sizes 4", 4 1/2", 5", 6", 6.9" O.D., 8". Mixed Sources 1".... • .jt. .Ip t' _ ,ti .411 int. In.. ;..1 ..:.; I I It.. XXr well .� ASK ABOUT OUR OTHER CERTAINTEED PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS: EXTERIOR: ROOFING • SIDING • WINDOWS • FENCE • RAILING • TRIM • DECKING • FOUNDATIONS • PIPE INTERIOR: INSULATION • GYPSUM • CEILINGS CertainTeed Corporation Pipe & Plastics Group P.O. Box 860 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Phone: 866-CT4-PIPE (866-284-7473) Fax: 610-254-5428 www.certainteed.com CertainTeed L� 40-37-33F © 6/08 CertainTeed Corporation Printed in U.S.A. SURE-FIT0 PVC WELL CASING NAPCO is the industry leader in solvent weld PVC well casing, offering a broad range of sizes and classes to suit virtually all applications, from small diameter residential to large diameter irrigation wells. Sure -Fit PVC well casing is NSF14 listed, which is your assurance that these products have been independently tested by a nationally recognized authority for portable water use. Sure -Fit is produced at our modern manufacturing facilities to the dimensional and quality standards of ASTM F480. NAPCO Sure -Fit PVC well casing is produced with a deeper bell for a stronger, more durable bond. Bell lengths on 4"' through 6" casing exceed minimum ASTM F480 requirements by 7% - 30%. Solvent weld belled end joints are designed to seal securely, creating a continuous watertight system. NAPCO also manufactures the industry's most complete line of fittings for use with solvent weld casing (see pages 3-4). All fittings are individually fabricated to exacting quality standards at our modern production facilities. PVC well casing and drop pipe have gained broad acceptance since their introduction almost 40 years ago. Today; due to its outstanding physical and mechanical properties, PVC is the predominant and preferred material used for water wells. PVC compounds used in the production of NAPCO well products meet the requirements of ASTM D1784, cell classification 12454. THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGES OF PVC • Long Life: PVC is completely immune to electrolytic and galvanic corrosion, so it won't rust or rot like metal pipe can. • High Chemical Resistance: PVC's excellent chemical resistance makes it immune to virtually all chemicals normally found in wells, including chlorine -based disinfectants and the highly corrosive acids often used for well rehabilitation. • Testing performed by NSF International has shown that PVC will have no detrimental effects on the taste or color of potable water. Many customers prefer to drink potable water pumped through PVC rather than water pumped through metal pipe. • Because PVC is a non-conductor, the chances of lightning damage are minimized. • Lightweight and easy to handle. • Quick and easy to install. • Approved for use by most State Regulatory Agencies. Only products bearing the NSF Mark are Certified CHECK OUT OUR WATER WELL CALCULATORS Use these calculators to estimate the best NAPCO piping solution for your project: • Slotted Well Casing Flow Rate: https://napcopipe.com/en/calculators/slotted-well-casing-flow-rate-calculator • Well Casing Depth: https://napcopipe.com/en/calculators/well-casing-depth-calculator • Well Drop Pipe: https://napcopipe.com/en/calculators/well-drop-pipe-calculator 2 napcopipe.com SURE-FITO PVC WELL CASING Solvent Weld Bell End, ASTM F480 • Nom. Size . Class, Thic.. Min. Wall ��, ! Inside .. Min. eter BOD Approx. Dimensions Bell Setting Length Casing Weight ft. lbs/ft. RHCP, psi N �1L'; r . .0D , _ 2" 2.375 SCH 40 0.154 2.009 2.750 10 0.73 291 34S02001011000 4.50 20 0.72 34S02002011000 3" 3.500 SCH 40 0.216 2.993 4.000 4.00 20 1.48 250 34S03002011000 SDR 32.5 0.138 4.130 4.813 6.50 20 1.28 29 34K04002011000 J SDR 26 0.173 4.060 4.875 6.50 20 1.57 58 34104002011000 4" 4.500 SDR 21 0.214 4.001 4.938 6.50 20 1.93 111 34G04002011000 10 2.19 34S04001011000 SCH 40 0.237 3.946 5.000 6.50 20 2.12 152 34S04002011000 SDR 26 0.190 4.470 5.375 6.50 20 1.90 58 34104502011000 4 1/2'' 4.950 SCH 40 0.248 4.370 5.500 6.50 20 2.45 130 34S04502011000 SDR 17 0.291 4.279 5.563 6.50 20 2.82 215 34D04502011000 SDR 26 0.214 5.026 6.000 7.00 20 2.42 58 34105002011000 5" 5.563 SDR SCH 21/ 40 0.265 4.950 6.125 7.00 20 2.92 111 34S05002011000 SDR 17 0.327 4.796 6.250 7.00 20 3.61 215 34D05002011000 SDR 32.5 0.204 6.114 7.063 7.00 20 2.76 29 34K06002011000 SDR 26 0.255 5.998 7.188 7.00 20 3.43 58 34106002011000 6" 6.625 SCH 40 0.280 5.951 7.250 7.00 20 3.75 77 34S06002011000 SDR 21 0.316 5.877 7.313 7.00 20 4.20 111 34G06002011000 SDR 17 0.390 5.711 7.438 7.00 20 5.13 215 34D06002011000 6 1/4" 6.900 DR 27.6 0.250 6.298 7.438 7.00 20 3.50 48 34J06902011000 6 1/8" 6.900 SDR 21 0.329 6.122 7.625 7.00 20 4.56 111 34G06902011000 6.9" 6.900 SDR 17 0.406 5.948 7.750 7.00 20 5.56 215 34D06902011000 8" 8.625 SDR 26 0.332 7.799 9.313 7.00 20 5.80 58 34108002011000 SDR 21 0.410 7.655 9.500 7.00 20 7.10 111 34G08002011000 10" 10.750 SDR 26 0.413 9.742 11.625 7.50 20 9.02 58 34110002011000 SDR 21 0.511 9.549 11.875 7.50 20 11.05 111 34G10002011000 12" 12.750 SDR 26 0.490 11.567 13.813 8.00 20 12.72 58 34112002011000 SDR 21 0.606 11.322 14.063 8.00 20 15.59 111 34G12002011000 14 14.000 SCH 40 0.437 12.927 14.938 8.00 20 12.53 30 34S14002011000 16" 16.000 SCH 40 0.500 14.785 17.063 8.00 20 16.39 30 34S16002011000 SDR 26 0.616 14.537 17.313 8.00 20 20.03 58 34116002011000 Notes • All dimensions in inches unless specified. All dimensions and weights are for estimation purposes. • R.H.C.P. = Resistance to Hydraulic Collapse Pressure (predicted failure point at room temperature — no safety factor included). See brochure on the Selection of PVC Well Casing Based on Hydraulic Collapse Considerations, for additional details. r BOD 1 l _ 4-C • Plain End casing available on a special order basis. • Impact Conditions of well casing 4'/z" and smaller = IC -0 Setting length 5" and larger = IC -1 Wall t r OD napcopipe.com 3 SURE-FIT0 SOLVENT WELD PVC WELL FITTINGS SURE -FIT CAPS FEMALE \\NN......„......................E SURE-FIT COUPLINGS FEMALE X FEMALE Nominal Size : OD (in) Length (in) Part Number 4"* 5.00 3.13 82157810374 4 1/2" 5.40 4.00 82157810435 5"} 6.13 4.25 82157810381 t 6"* 7.30 4.25 82157810398 6 1/8", 6 1/4", 6.9" 7.60 4.25 82157810459 8" 9.30 4.50 82157810404 10" 11.50 5.00 82157810411 12" 13.60 5.00 82157810428 14" 15.00 5.00 82157810503 16" 17.00 5.50 82157810527 ' Molded Cap — base is raised instead of flat. Nominal Size . ' ' 'th (in) 'art " 1 •. . 4" 5.000 9.500 82157690808 4 1/2" 5.563 10.500 82157690952 5" 6.125 12.500 82157690815 6" 7.313 12.500 82157690822 6 1/8", 6 1/41,6.9h1 7.438 14.000 82157690938 8" 9.375 13.500 82157690839 10" 11.625 14.000 82157690846 12" 13.750 15.000 82157690853 14" 14.875 14.000 Contact Sales 16" 17.125 15.500 82157690860 napcopipe.com SURE-FITO SOLVENT WELD PVC WELL FITTINGS SURE -FIT REDUCERS FEMALE X FEMALE X FEMALE X MALE PUMP ADAPTERS MALE NPT X FEMALE i Nominal Size • OD (in) Length (in) Part Number 4 1/2" x 4" FxF 5.54 11.00 82157690969 5" x 4" FxM 6.10 15.15 82157690914 5" x 4 1/2" FxF 6.10 11.50 82157690921 6 1/8", 6 1/4", 6.9" x 6" FxF 7.60 11.00 82157690945 Nominal Size OD (in) Length (in) Part Number 4" 5.20 13.50 82157691010 6" 7.50 15.00 82157691027 Solvent Weld Bell x NPT Thread Note: All dimensions are subject to normal manufacturing tolerances. napcopipe.com 5 CERTA-LOK° - THE NEXT GENERATION IN PVC WELL CASING FROM THE INDUSTRY LEADER Certa-Lok PVC Well Casing utilizes NAPCO's field -proven spline -locking design to form a full strength joint instantly in all weather conditions. No solvents, arc welding, or reinforcement screw attachments are required. Certa-Lok Integral Bell Well Casing. available in sizes 4"-12 ', is supplied with a conventional belled -end joint for even faster assembly. • No couplings required • Economical • Greatly reduced assembly timee • Only one spline to install per joint Designed and manufactured to meet or exceed the requirements of ASTM F480, all Certa-Lok PVC Well Casing products are also listed by NSF International as safe for use with potable water. Certa-Lok is ideal for a wide range of water well applications, including: • Domestic • Municipal • Irrigation • Aquifer storage and recovery Certa-Lok well casing is available in a variety of sizes ranging from 4" to 24". There are many good reasons why most smaller diameter residential systems, and more and more larger public water supply systems, now use PVC as the preferred casing material. • Long Life: PVC is completely immune to electrolytic and galvanic corrosion, so it won't rust or rot like most metal pipe. PVC water inlet screens are also inherently more resistant than conventional steel products to clogging and encrustation, which means the amount of water a well can deliver will not be significantly reduced over time. Certa • PVC's excellent chemical resistance makes it immune to virtually all chemicals normally found in wells. including chlorine -based disinfectants and the highly corrosive acids used for well rehabilitation. • NSF approved as safe for use with potable water. When you combine the above features with the added bene- fits of economy, strength, and reliability, it's easy to see why Certa-Lok PVC Well Casing has become the material of choice among modern well drillers. RAPID JOINT ASSEMBLY You simply can't beat Certa-Lok® for down -the -hole installation speed. The Certa-Lok joint can be assembled or disassembled in seconds — by hand, without any special tools. Follow these simple steps for rapid joint assembly: 1. Clean Clean the joining surfaces and make sure gaskets are clean and evenly seated in the gasket groove(s). Inspect gaskets for damage. 2. Lubricate If lubrication is needed to ease joint assembly, soapy water or NAPCO- approved PVC pipe lubricant can be applied to the joining surfaces prior to assembly. Apply only to the exposed gasket surface and to the tapered end of the casing. CAUTION: To maintain joint integrity, do not apply lubricant to the spline or to the spline grooves. 3. Assemble Insert the casing into the coupling or bell until it seats against the stop. Both sections of the casing should be in straight alignment. This auto- matically aligns the locking grooves for receiving the spline. Insert the spline through the entry hole until it is fully seated. This securely locks the joint, while the gasket is designed to provide a reliable, watertight seal. The joint is now complete — no waiting, no welding, no gluing or threading required. If needed, the joint can be just as easily disassem- bled and reused. IMPORTANT During the assembly process, it is standard practice to use a tight -fitting holding clamp which conforms to the pipe -to -bell transition section in order to provide adequate casing support. Contact NAPCO for suggested source(s) of supply. • napcopipe.com 7 THE CERTA-LOK® DIFFERENCE Certa-Lok PVC Well Casing represents a new evolution in well products, offering distinct advantages that will boost your bottom line. Cost effective — Lower installed cost on an annualized basis compared to conventional casing. Reliable — The Certa-Lok joint has been used for over 40 years in demanding water supply applications. Easy to handle — Weight is much less than comparable steel casing. CONTRACTOR PROVEN "We have been using Certa-Lok casing prod- ucts, now manufactured by NAPCO, for nearly 20 years. These products, in several ways, have saved us time and project costs. We are very appreciative of the Certa-Lok products and look forward to using them for many years to come." Colton Aardal Associated Services Stephenville, TX "We have used Certa-Lok casing for about 10 years now. It is the most cost effective casing material I use. Certa-Lok perforated casing offers higher yield wells compared to steel. Certa-Lok is far more efficient. The longevity and durability of Certa-Lok casing ensures a well that will last for decades to come." Steve Arthur Arthur and Orum Drilling Fresno, CA "I use Certa-Lok because: • Easiest and fastest assembly • Reliable • It is the best on the market. If I didn't think so I wouldn't have used it for so long. • I have been using Certa-Lok for a very long time with no complaints." Frank Glass Associated Drilling Dripping Springs, TX Instant joint — Joint achieves full strength immediately upon assembly in all weather conditions. Weather resistant — Heat, cold, mois- ture, humidity, and wind do not affect Certa-Lok PVC Well Casing assembly or disassembly. Solvent -free, environmentally sound — The environmentally acceptable Certa-Lok joint is ideal for monitoring well applications. "Certa-Lok goes together quicker and eas- ier than any other products on the market. Certa-Lok is a very good value, for a good reliable product. I've been using Certa-Lok for 12 years. No problems with the pipe but if I did experience a problem I know their team would be behind us. Reed Scuby Aqua Tech Drilling Bandera, TX "We have been using NAPCO's Certa-Lok products for all our PVC cased wells for the last 10 years. It is the best in quality and it helps us get the pipe into the bore hole quickly which saves us time and money. This allows us to get the job done in a timely fashion and get onto the next job. I recommend this product to other drillers." Travis Flint Thomas Flint & Son, Inc. Cadillac, MI Adaptable — A full line of Certa-Lok adapters facilitates connection to plain -end PVC casing and threaded casing. Easy removal — Certa-Lok casing can be quickly disassembled and removed from the bore hole without having to cut joints. Reinstallation does not require the use of special solvent weld couplings. w Seta S Certa-Lok — Rapid assembly in all weather conditions without solvent cements. 8 napcopipe.com ENGINEERING SPECIFICATION 1.0 SCOPE This specification covers Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Well Casing which utilizes a spline -lock mechanical joining system. Pipe is produced in nominal sizes 4"-24" and is available in both solid and slotted configurations. 2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ASTM International: ASTM D1784 - Standard Specification for Rigid PVC Compounds and Chlorinated PVC Compounds. ASTM D2837 - Standard Test Method for Obtaining Hydrostatic Design Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Materials. ASTM F480 - Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Well Casing Pipe and Couplings Made in Standard Dimension Ratios (SDR), SCH 40 and SCH 80. NSF International: NSF -61 — Drinking Water System Components — Health Effects NSF -14 — Plastic Piping System Components and Related Materials. 3.0 REQUIREMENTS 31 Materials: Pipe and PVC couplings shall be made from unplasticized PVC compounds having a minimum cell class- ification of 12454, as defined in ASTM D1784. The compound shall qualify for a Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB) of 4000 psi for water at 73.4°F; in accordance with the requirements of ASTM D2837. White pipe shall be supplied, unless otherwise agreed upon at time of purchase. 31.1 Composite Couplings: 58% — 62% volume (60% — 80% weight) 450 yield E -Glass Rovings, Bisphenol-A-Epoxy, Resin, and Anhydride Curing Agent. 3.2 Approvals: Products intended for contact with potable water shall be evaluated, tested. and certified for conformance with NSF -61 by an acceptable certifying organization, when required by the regulatory authority having jurisdiction. Casing, as applicable shall be approved and listed under NSF -14. 3.3 Physical Requirements: Product dimensions, weights, and performance data are summarized on pages 9, 10, & 11. Standard pipe laying length is 20'. Nominal casing size should be selected by the Design Engineer based on required flow performance, pump diameter, and the local installation conditions under which the well will be constructed. 3.4 Performance: 4" through 16" pipe supplied to this specification shall meet the stiffness (crush resistance), flattening, impact, and puncture test requirements of ASTM F480. 3.5 Joints: Pipe shall be joined using non-metallic couplings which, together, have been designed as an integral system for maximum reliability and interchangeability. On small to medium diameter casing, the coupling may be replaced by an integral bell spline lock joint. High -strength flexible thermoplastic splines shall be inserted into mating precision -machined grooves to provide continuous restraint with evenly distributed loading. No external pipe -to -pipe restraining devices which clamp onto or otherwise damage the pipe surface as a result of point -loading shall be permitted. The joining system shall incorporate elastomeric sealing gasket(s) which are designed to provide a watertight seal. Note that this specifica- tion does not cover integral bell pipe with solvent -cement joints. 3.6 Marking: Well Casing pipe shall be legibly and permanently marked in ink with the following information: • Manufacturer and Trade Name • Nominal Size and SDR or SCH Rating • Manufacturing Date Code • NSF® -61-G • NSF°-pw-G, as applicable 0 Only products bearing the NSF Mark are Codified 3.7 Workmanship: Pipe and couplings shall be homogeneous throughout and free from visible cracks, holes, foreign inclusions, blisters and dents, interior roughness, and other injurious defects that may affect wall integrity. The pipe and couplings shall be as uniform as commercially practicable in color, opacity, density, and other physical characteristics. 4.0 SLOTTING Pipe can be supplied with multiple rows of machined circumferential slots, to allow for water entry into the casing. Slot patterns should be specified to provide the required open area and flow rate (taking into account the surrounding embedment material), while maintaining structural integrity of the installed system. Consult the manufacturer for design data and product availability. 5.0 SUGGESTED SOURCE OF SUPPLY Certa-Lok PVC Drop Pipe as supplied by: NAPCO 2801 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 600 Houston, TX 77056 855.624.7473 napcopipe.com 9 CERTA-LOK DIMENSIONS, WEIGHT & PERFORMANCE DATA Certa-Lok Integral Bell Nom. Size D O.D. X W Min. Max. P Depth Bell 4" 4.500 1.313 0.375 0.125 0.145 0.271 3.000 4 1/2" 4.950 3.000 0.375 0.125 0.145 0.271 4.250 5" 5.563 3.000 0.375 0.125 0.145 0.271 4.250 6" 6.625 1.313 0.375 0.125 0.145 0.271 3.000 6 1/8", 6.9" 6.900 1.313 0.375 0.125 0.145 0.271 3.000 L 8" 8.625 3.163 0.500 1 �- 0.135 0.155 0.634 5.000 10" 10.750 3.500 0.500 0.205 0.225 0.634 5.300 12" 12.750 3.500 0.500 0.205 0.225 0.634 5.300 14" 14.000 3.500 0.500 Certa-Lok Coupled Joint Nom. Size O.D. 0.205 0.225 0.634 12.000 Coupling B.O. '. 16.000 16" 16.000 3.500 0.500 0.205 0.225 0.634 12.000 17.400 17.4" ` 17.400 3.500 0.500 0.205 0.225 0.634 12.000 18.701 24" 24.000 3.810 0.750 0.205 0.225 0.634 13.000-FG 25.375-FG 13.000 -PVC 25.800 -PVC O.D. f- B.O.D. I X16-' X W Certa-Lok Integral Bell Nom. • Min. T I.D. Bell ( Casing Weight lbs./ft. r ) Strength Max. Tensile 9 (lbs.) lbs. R.H.C.P. . (Psi) Internal Pressure Max. (psi) Nu Part • 4" 4.500 SCH 40 ' 0.237 3.951 5.063 " 2.09 4,900 152 115 34S0400202100F 4 1/2" 4.950 SCH 40 0.248 4.368 5.563 2.43 4,700 130 130 34S04502021020 SDR 17 0.291 4.272 5.625 2.82 6.300 215 160 34D04502021020 SDR 21/SCH 40 0.265 4.946 6.188 2.92 6.300 111 130 34G05002021020 5" 5.563 SDR 17 0.327 4.808 6.313 3.56 8,500 215 180 34D05002021020 SCH 80 0.375 4.700 6.438 4.05 8,500 329 215 34T05002021020 SCH 40 0.280 5.970 7.313 3.68 8,500 77 115 34S06002021000 6" 6.625 SDR 21 0.316 5.890 7.375 4.13 8,800 111 150 34G06002021000 SDR 17 0.390 5.724 7.500 5.04 10.000 215 200 34D06002021000 61/8" 6.900 SDR 21 0.329 6.137 7.688 4.47 7,400 111 160 ' 34G06902021000 6.9" 6.900 SDR 17 0.406 5.965 7.688 5.44 9.400 215 200 34D06902021000 8" 8.625 SDR 17 0.508 7.450 1 9.625 8.59 17,000 215 I 140 34D08002021000 10" 10.750 SDR 17 0.632 9.294 12.188 13.40 24,200 215 160 34D10002021000 12" 12.750 _ SDR 17 0.750 11.020 14.250 18.79 29,000 215 200 34D12002021000 Max tensile strengths are applicable to both solid wall and slotted Certa-Lok casing and joints. Certa-Lok Coupled (Includes Casing and Coupling) Nom. Size Coupling Casing Weight Max. Tensile R.H.C.P. Max. Internal o.D. Class T Min. I.D. Min. Weight (lbs.) (lbs./ft.) Strength (lbs.) (psi) Pressure (psi) Part Number 14" 14.000 SDR 17 0.824 12.071 22.15 22.09 36.440 215 150 34D14002031000 16" 16.000 SDR 26 SDR 17 0.616 0.941 14.535 13.807 34.40 34.40 19.31 28.86 35,200 35,200 58 150 34116002031000 215 150 34D16002031000 17.4" 17.400 SDR 17 1.024 15.021 26.00 34.16 37,000 215 125 34D17402031000 24" 24.000 SDR 17 1.412 20.687 54.77-FG 47.80 -PVC 64.96 87.500-FG 48,000 -PVC 215 200 34D24002031000 FG = Fiberglass Coupling PVC = PVC Coupling R.H.C.P = Resistance to Hydraulic Collapse Pressure (predicted failure point at room temperature — no safety factor included). See brochure on the Selection of PVC Well Casing Based on Hydraulic Collapse Considerations, for additional details. Note 1: Dimensions in all tables are in inches. All dimensions and weights are subject to manufacturing tolerances. Note 2: Standard setting length = 20'. 10 napcopipe.com CERTA-LOK® ACCESSORIES COUPLING CERTA-LOK FEMALE x CERTA-LOK FEMALE INCLUDES GASKETS AND SPLINES Nom. Size Part Number L B.O.D. 4" 82157707032 6.00 4.950 4 1/2" 82157707179 8.25 5.563 5" 82157717178 8.25 6.180 6" 82157707063 6.00 7.600 6118".6.9" 82157707278 7.00 i 7.840 6 1/8". 6.9" x 6111 82157707285 7.00 7.840 8" 82157707087 10.00 9.854 10" 12.00 12.438 82157707124 12" 82157707094 12.00 14 000 14" 82157707100 12.00 16.000 16" 82157707117 12.00 17.400 17.4" 82157707193 12.00 18.701 24" FG 82157741289 13.00 25.375 24" PVC 82157741326 13.25 25.800 ' Reducing f--- B.O.D. ---1 m REDUCER BUSHING CERTA-LOK MALE X CERTA-LOK FEMALE INCLUDES GASKET AND SPLINE Nom. Size Part Number L B.O.D. 8" X 6" 82157712258 8.25 8.625 10" X 8" 82157712272 10.00 10.750 12" X 10" 82157712296 12.00 12.750 14" X 12" 82157712302 12.00 14.000 16" X 14" 82157712326 12.00 16 000 17.4" X 16" 82157712319 12.00 17.400 B.O.D. i Spline (Nylon) 0 -Ring Size om. •a Number L -, Size Number •a C/S Color Material 4" . S4518RN0 18 .250 RND OR040YMNN .210 Brown NBR 4 1/2" S4518RN0 18 .250 RND OR045IBON .210 Brown NBR 5" 1- S4518RN0 18 .250 RND OR050IBON .210 Brown NBR 1 6" S0624RN0 24 .250 RND 0R060IB0N .210 Brown NBR 161/8", 6 9„ S0624RN0 24 .250 RND 0R069IB0N .210 Brown NBA 8" S0832SN0 32 .313 SQR 0R080YMNI .375 Blue NBR 10" I S1039SN0 39 .375 SQR 0R100WC0 .375 Green IR/SBR 12" S1246SN0 46 .375 SO 0R120WC0I .375 Green IR/SBR 14 S1448SN0 48 .375 S0R 0R140WC0I .375 Green IR/SBR 16" S1653SN0 53 .375 S0R OR160WCOI .375 Green IR/SBR i 17.4" 1 S 1760SN0 60 .375 SQR 0R174WC0I .407 Green IR/SBR 24" S1039TN0 39 375x.625 RECT OR240WCOI .438 Green IR/SBR C/S = 0 -Ring Cross -Section Diameter CERTA-LOK x SOLVENT WELD ADAPTER CERTA-LOK FEMALE X SOLVENT WELD FEMALE INCLUDES GASKET AND SPLINE Nom. Si r' Part Number B.O.D. 4" 82157717031 6.00 4.950 4 1/2" 82157717161 8.25 5.563 5" 82157717185 8.25 6.180 6" 82157717062 6.00 7.600 6 1/8". 6.9" 82157717130 7.00 7.840 6 1/8", 6.9" x 6"' 82157717147 7.00 7.840 8" 82157717079 10.00 9.854 10" 82157717109 12.00 12.438 12" 82157717116 12.00 14.000 1 Reducing f- B.O.D. -i CD THREADED ADAPTER CERTA-LOK FEMALE X FEMALE NPT INCLUDES GASKET AND SPLINE Nom. Size emale 4%F -read Size part Number L B.O.D. 4" 4" 82157810770 6.00 5.470 4 1/2" 4" 82157810909 8.25 5.563 5" 5" 82157810916 8.25 6.180 6" 6" 82157810800 6.63 7.600 6 1/8", 6.9" 6, 82157810862 6.63 7.840 8" 8" 82157810824 10.00 9.854 10" 10" 82157810848 12.35 12.438 12" 12" 82157810855 12.23 14.000 B.O.D CASING & SCREEN CAP CERTA-LOK FEMALE INCLUDES SPLINE Nom. Size Part Number L B.O.D. 4" 82157810619 4.00 4.950 4 1/2" 82157810923 4.00 5.563 I 5" 82157810930 4.00 6.180 6" 82157810640 4.25 7.600 [ 6 1/8". 6.9" I 82157810602 4.25 7.600 8" 82157810664 4.50 9.854 10" 82157810688 5.00 11.600 12" 82157810695 5.00 14.000 14" 82157810701 5.00 15.300 16" 82157810718 5.25 17.400 17.4" 82157810725 5.50 l 18.700 1 �BOD napcopipe.com 11 SURE-FIT0 & CERTA-LOK® SLOTTED PVC WELL CASING NAPCO — the name that contractors have come to associate with the industry's broadest line of high -quality PVC well products — is also the industry leader in high performance slotted well casing. Using new manufacturing technology, slotted casing can now be produced with open areas and efficiencies that rival those of other screens, often at a fraction of the cost. Combine PVC screens with PVC well casing for the ultimate corrosion -resistant, low -maintenance water well! A Size and Joining System for Every Application Slotted casing can be produced in sizes from 2" up to 24" 0.D., in a variety of wall thicknesses and strengths to suit virtually all applications: • Domestic • Irrigation • Municipal • Aquifer Storage and Recovery • Environmental NAPCO also offers a choice of joining systems: traditional Sure -Fir solvent -weld or the contractor -proven, all-weather Certa-Loks' mechanical joint. Slot Width Selection A wide selection of precision -machined factory slot designs (.010"-.125") with closely spaced inlet openings provides for uniform development over the length of the screen and proper stabilization of the gravel pack. Long Life Well rehabilitation costs are minimized, as PVC screens are inherently more resistant than conventional steel products to clogging and encrustation. PVC also outperforms stainless steel in highly corrosive environments, at a fraction of the cost. All screens are manufactured from PVC casing that is listed by NSF International as safe for use with potable water. Single Source for All Your Well Product Needs No more unloading, local -machining, and repackaging required. With NAPCO, the industry's best slotted casing is shipped ready to use — no field fabrication required — along with your other PVC well product needs, including solid casing, drop pipe for submersible pumps, and a variety of fittings. 12 napcopipe.com SURE-FIT0 & CERTA-LOK UNDERDRAIN PIPE Slotted PVC well casing is also ideal for use as underdrain pipe. Applications include, but are not limited to: • Leachate collection systems for solid waste landfills • Drainage and dewatering applications • Mining heap leach projects PVC underdrain pipe is supplied with precision - machined slots, which provide greater intake capacity and continuous, clog -resistant drainage of fluids, as compared to standard round -hole perforated pipe. Slotted underdrain reduces entrance velocity into the pipe, thereby reducing the possibility that solids will be carried into the system. Slot rows can generally be positioned symmetrically or asymmetrically around the pipe circumference, depending upon the application. Outside diameters are generally the same for PVC and non -corrugated polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. However, the HDPE pipe must be extruded with a thicker wall (and therefore a reduced cross-sectional flow area) to obtain a comparable stiffness rating. CALCULATING FLOW IN GRAVEL -PACKED WELL Use this formula along with the outside diameter open area information from the tables to calculate the estimated flow rate per foot of slotted casing: 9Pm Ift of screen Flow Rating = 3,12 x Aopen x Fblockage X Vflow Aopen = O.D. Open area of screen from tables, in2/ft. Fblockage = 0.5 for gravel -packed well, 1.0 for fully open flow. Vflow = Water flow velocity at entrance to screen slots, ft/s. Generally 0.1 ft/s. napcopipe.com 13 SLOTTED PVC WELL CASING & UNDERDRAIN PIPE SPECIFICATIONS This chart illustrates standard manufacturing capabilities only. Not all products shown are routinely stocked — call for availability. Slot configurations not included on this chart are covered under NAPCO's non-standard product warranty. NAPCO can supply a detailed Engineering Specification for any of the products shown, or for special made-to-order products. 1/8" SLOT SPACING Nom. Number of Size OD Slot Rows Class O.D. Open Area (in2/foot of Slotted Casing) Joint Slot Width @ 1/8" Slot Spacing Availability 0.008 i i + '13 i i ' .02 0.025 0.032 0.04 2" 2.375" 4 I Sch.40 SW 3.7 4.6 5.9 7.0 9.3 4.5 I 4 6 Sch. 40 SW 5.9 8.8 4 5" 5.563 6 6 SDR 21/Sch. 40 SDR 17 SW 7.4 11.2 8.5 9.0 13.5 10.3 14.8 16.4 10.0 12.8 15.4 18.7 22.6 23.0 27.4 Number Nom. of Slot Joint Size D Length Rows Class Availability 2" 2.375 10' 20' 4 Sch. 40 3" 3.500 20' 4 Sch. 40 SW 1/4" SLOT SPACING O.D. Open Area (in2/foot of Slotted Casing) _. Slot Width @ 1/4" Spacing I lei � � 0.040 0.050;10.085 0.1.00 0.125 4 2.2 2.9 2.4 3.1 SW 1.9 2.6 3.4 SW 2.8 i_ 3.7 SW 4.3 5.5 SW 3.7 4.6 5.9 4" 4.500 10' 4 20' 6 6 4 Sch. 40 SW, CLIC, 2.5 3.0 3.9 GLIB (SW only) 4 SDR 21, SW 6 SDR 26 3.5 4.3 3.7 4.6 5.6 7.0 4.1 5.0 6.2 7.7 4.5 7.4 9.1 11.4 6.7 7.1 3.9 (SDR21) 7.1 8.0 14.8 17.9 12.2 (GLIB/ (SW only) 9.7 CLIC only) 12.2 14.8 (SDR21) 41 /2" 4.950 20' 6 SW Sch. 40 SW, GLIB, 4 CLIC 4 SDR 17 SW, CLIB, CLIC 5" 5.563 20' idea 6.7 8.2 4.5 5.4 4 SDR 26 SW 2 4 Sch. 80 CLIB. CLIC 11.3 (SW) 25.7 17.1 (SW) 20.7 r 9.2 14.1 (CLIB 11.3 17.1 & CLIC Only) 2.2 4.6 5.6 7.0 6 SW SDR 17 SW, CLIB, 4 CLIC SW, GLIB, 4 SDR 21/ CLIC Sch. 40 6 SW 5.2 6.7 8.2 4.5 5.4 (CLIB.CLIC) 4.5 8.2 (SW), (SW,CLIC) 5.4 (CLIC, CLIC) 6.7 6 SDR 26 SW 10.0 12.3 15.4 18.7 28.0 10.0 12.3 15.4 18.7 22.6 12.3 (SW) 45.2 (SW) 15.1 8.2 19.2 4 10.0 12.3 15.4 Key: SW = Sure -Fit Solvent Weld Belled End CLIB = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell Notes: 1. All dimensions are in inches unless otherwise specified. CL = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint (w/ coupling) CLIC = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell (w/ CLIC spline) 2. Specifications subject to change. Standard manufacturing tolerances apply. napcopipe.com 1/4" - SLOT SPACING (continued) Nom. Size OD Length Number of Slot Rows . Class 4 Joint Availability - 0.008 0.010 0.013 O.D. Open 0.016 Slot 0.020 Area (in2/foot Width ',025 @ of Slotted 1/4" Spacing 0.032 0.040 Casing) 0.050 0,085 0.100 0.125 SDR 17 SW, CLIB, CLIC 12.6 15.4 6" 6.625 20' 6 SDR 21 SW, CLIC CLIB, 12.6 !S� 15.4 (S� 28.2 Sch.4028.2 SW, CLIC CLIB 12.6 19.2 23.4 (SW) SDR 26 SW 15.4 4 SDR SW 10.3 12.8 15.6 17 SW, CUB. CLIC 12.6 6.9" 6.900 20' 6 SDR 2112.6 SW, CLIC CLIB, (SW) 15.4 19.2 23.4 28.2 (Sw) SDR 27.6 SW - - _ I 12.6 1 i SDR 17 CLIB 78.4 8" 8.625 20' 6 SDR 21 SW 21.4 26.7 32.4 39.2 __ SDR 26 SW 17.4 59.6 CL 23.0 28.8 34.9 42.2 64.2 10" 10.750 20' 6 SDR 17 CLIB - SDR 21 SW 23.7 29.5 35.9 43.4 66.0 . SDR 26 SW 1 SDR 17 CL 38.3 46.6 56.3 85.6 20' CLIB 39.4 47.9 57.8 88.0 12" 12.750 Sch.40 SW 37.2 54.7 83.3 93.8 18'8" 8 SW 55.1 20' SDR 21 SW SDR 26 SW 31.5 39.4 47.9 57.8 88.0 14" 14.000 20' 8 SDR 17 CL i 42.1 51.1 61.7 Sch. 40 SW 40.7 59.7 90.8 119.4 8 SDR 17 CL 44.5 54.1 65.3 105.0 16" 16.000 20' Sch.40 SW 139.9 10 SDR 26 SW 47.6 57.9 69.9 106.5 CL 103.6 136.2 17.4" 117.41)0 f 20' 8 SDR 17 CL 44.5 54.1 65.3 99.9 CL (120" slot length) 78.4 _a 24" 24.000 20' 8 SDR 17 CL (180" slot length) 117.5 CL (219.5" slot length) 143.0 1/2" SLOT SPACING Nom. Size Number of OD Length Slot Rows Class Joint Availability O.D. Open Area (in2/foot of Slotted Casing) Slot Width @ 1/2" Spacing 0.032" 0.050" 0.085" 0.125" 4.5" 4.950" 20' 2 SDR 17 12" 12.750" 20' 8 16 16.000" 20' 10 17.4' 17.400" 20' 8 CLIB & CLIC CLIB SDR 17 - CL SDR 26 CL SDR 17 CL 3.7 5.6 I 69.4 78.3 -r- 59.3 Key: SW = Sure -Fit Solvent Weld Belled End CUB = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell Notes: 1. All dimensions are in inches unless otherwise specified. CL = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint (w/ coupling) CLIC = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell (w/ CLIC spline) 2. Specifications subject to change. Standard manufacturing tolerances apply. napcopipe.com 15 1" SLOT SPACING Nom. Number of Joint Size OD Length Slot Rows Class Availability O.D. Open Area (in2/foot of Slotted Casing) Slot Width 4 1" Spacing 0.020" 0.025" 0.032" 0.040" 0.125" 4" 4.5" 20' 3 SDR 21 3 4 Sch. 40 SW SW, CLIB, CLIC SW 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.3 11.9 4.5" 4.950" 20' 3 4 5" 5.563" 20' 4 6" 6.625" 20' 4 SW Sch. 40 SW CLIB & CLIC SDR 17 CLIB & CLIC SDR 21/Sch. 40 SW SDR 17 CLIB & CLIC CLIB & CLIC Sch. 40 SW 2.9 3.6 3.8 2.9 3.8 4.7 3.8 4.2 4.2 2.7 4.3 t 15 3.5 10" 10.750" 20' 6 SDR17 CLIB & CLIC 28.9 Key: SW = Sure -Fit Solvent Weld Belled End CLIB = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell Notes: 1. All dimensions are in inches unless otherwise specified. CL = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint (w/ coupling) CLIC = Certa-Lok Restrained Joint Integral Bell (w/ CLIC spline) 2. Specifications subject to change. Standard manufacturing tolerances apply. CERTA-LOK® PACKAGING & WEIGHTS Nom. Size Class Weight per Foot Feet per Lift Lifts per Truckload Feet per Truckload Lbs. per Truckload 4" SCH 40 2.09 580 28 16,240 33,454 4 1/2" SCH 26 1.87 520 24 12,480 23,213 SCH 40 2.43 520 24 12,480 29.578 SDR 17 2.82 520 24 12.480 34,320 SDR 21 /SCH 40 2.92 460 24 11,040 31,574 5" SDR 17 3.56 460 24 11,040 38,530 SCH 80 4.05 460 24 11,040 43,718 SCH 40 3.68 400 20 8,000 29.040 6 SDR 21 4.13 400 20 8,000 32.480 SDR 17 5.04 400 20 8,000 39,600 6 1/8" SDR 21 4.47 340 20 6,800 30,396 6.9" SDR 17 5.44 340 20 6.800 35.496 8" SDR 17 8.59 280 16 4,480 37,542 10" SDR 17 13.40 80 36 2.880 38,217 12" SDR 17 18.79 80 28 2,240 42,314 14" SDR 17 23.19 120 12 1 .440 32.472 SDR 26 21.03 120 12 1,440 29,491 16" SDR 17 30.58 120 12 1,440 45,590 17.4" SDR 17 35.46 60/40 10/10 1.000 34,430 24" SDR 17 67.70 40 12 480 1 30,720 NAPCO PIPE & FIT TINOS 1.855.624.7473 I napcopipe.com NAPCO 2801 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 600 Houston, TX 77056 ©2020 NAPCO. a Westlake company All rights reserved WW -BR -003 -US -EN -0320.1 NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC CENTRAL WELD FACILITY RAINLIN LAYOUT , Le• Desc Lot A of Recorded Ex- ption No 0805-16-4 RE- • 34 Situate in the S • • east Quarter of Section 6 Towns • 6 North Range 66 West of the 6th P County of Weld State o olorado AO Mr FRO-C&D MAN LINE TIP APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING DRAIN LINES S0.91L1 nmm :) LEAO )n ABOK CRAW Ni( 3[E RPani[CFOR s.PORE duff ."_ W SCREGEO CR/MM1M RAronu RSEW V) µCR�issiR:R aR o•ssr•i ME n4 )00 SUE DRAIN PIPE CROSS SECTION a a e ld EJOI nla7mn r=s) Cl 4760 4750 NGL Water Solutions 124 LLC CENTRAL WELD FACILITY DRAIN LINE PROFILES E05700 OR,I80 I 070 ------ ----- T 4740: _ et et I 472 0.00 .50 1.00 .760 .755 4750 4745_ 4740 O x.50 3 50 4.00 4.50 5.00 I d I po^. ram _ 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 WEST DRAIN LINE 1 = 40 HORIZ 1 = 4 VERT 4750 4745 I I m i Sd ate—�__eV1740 1, • 7.50 6 00 8+50 0.00 0.50 10«00 10.50 11.00 .760 _L_�4755 I 30 l li WAG -7 JS w9 S0)!7 rN t 1 1 1 r�l�` 11 7.00 0.50 3 00 3.50 .03 4.50 EAST DRAIN LINE 1 = 40 HORIZ 1 = 4 VERT II47.s u PERFORATED PIPE 5.00 5.50 6.00 eW. - —]4 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 0 EJW 10/2570050 T.1,0 XO2 EXHIBIT .0 U NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC CENTRAL WELD FA CILITY DRAIWLIWELA YOUT. . Le•. Desc: Lot A of Recorded Ex - ption No. 0805-16-4 RE -.634 Situate in the S. ' theast Quarter of Section 6, Towns • 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th. A., County of Weld, State of olorado 1 la A ti -Sari /arc aFAD AAg4OM Al 1? V • 4/4/ &049n ray -New L P IS •O 3.' ma 1 SW.e11%Y ass it 141134414 I 3_310I n (sly *Mr 5/1/4 sill PSC..e/4r1► !AD P/Pf APAva ' R a IhTR // iW arfZECA4c0Par 1.1 ? Silt ant non AANi9@, !t a 4/I/Sb _� LOT 4, RE -3634 I ./ I r ea I 4eNNNeN� 1Q aG 00•► l/ 00•E so at a,gAe'4••r S 'JO me No 1 if i w er -O'-r Arfw1•e0t Its Ar-JON / La� 40 m=ilN 10 NNrwNI 1G 00x2 a,sser 4- / \S me ATFY AA%Par /t + me As / / INCCMNG SW) RmJNE to b' 'TAW QP•'t, will., -a. -r, 0 O O O O O O s 0 30 I/ CASIV IS A'b Cn n J9Y • i 9n arc fier/I40 APPROS R (tiv - 1/41r19 I- 8 0 0 r a ,'wolf mot I • • • r r r i 5 .04 ....1_.1 .....................1 d a s o I ■ o n -.mtss- •iG S 1X.4IN1 w 5,115.• at ( 17014411/ I• lu. •P1 4• L�7— , 0\ 4014444.411 •(-.340e I' AW -AR9ilarY2-111 v - 44',, \ ) l IC lbC rl 1G Pr .'C�� 1G 00.1 IMP 144 011.1 111\ I I 8 I n PROPOSED DRAT N LINE MP. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING DRAIN LINES %Quad&SI Caw etb. it te1. •M• 101.0 01 wt•M eM 17S' ram Cat a bite 1"-1 1/2" FILTER MATERIAL GRAVEL SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 2 FT ABOVE DRAIN PIPE PERFORATED 12" PVC PIPE SEE PROFILE FOR PIPE SLOPE FILTER FABRIC APPROXIMATE PROPOSED GRADE NATIVE MATERIAL BACKFILL ENCASE PIPE IN SCREENL.) GRANULAR MATERIAL HAVING 100% PASSING 1 1/2" SIEVE AND LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE DRAIN PIPE CROSS SECTION STEEL CASING PIPE MIN 35 KSI STEEL AT LEAST 2" LARGER IN DIAMETER THAN DRAIN PIPE 12" DRAIN PIPE DRIVEWAY CASING DETAIL l•' al ran04 NNwc 'S 0-I • rl • s CONCRETE GROUT OR COLLAR DEPENDING tPON LOCATION SEE PMT • 7 3 YAIMOIr CONSTRUCTION APPROKD rLtat SEALING COSPOUNO (Tip t PRECAST CONCRETE AOa:STING RINGS 2 IAN. 4 MAI NATER 1O4I ANT PRECAST CONCRE *mica SECTIONS CONFORMING TO SPEC ASTM c -478M (0478 ECCENTRIC CONE TOP FOR H > 8 FTt APPR01Eo FLEXIBLE SEALING COMPOWO (DP .CAST-s-PLAa CONCRETE BASE CONGILLSIM. SEE NOTE 'CONCRETE SHALL MEET OR EXCEED Auiaelfsiy ME TROPOUTAN GOARNERENT ENONEERING COu+Ct (KOPEC) SPEOFICATI0NS. ITEM 11- PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRE IE PAVEMENT_ SECTION 11 2. MATERIALS MANHOLE SIZES BOTTOM EINF PIPE ) IA. DIAAMMETER 14 0 12 15" TO 18" 4 FT. N 0 12 21' TO 30 S FT, 14 0 12 36' To 54" 6 FT. 60' a Lager C00T Std m-804-20 *NAPE COICKIE FOR CMANNEUZATIO, NOTE. SLOPE BENCHES AND SOTTO' 4 I reeley iR raw es Ina math= STEPS OLER BENCH Natal RISERS. CONES. REDUCERS. AND FLAT TOPS TO BE PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE (REINFORCING NOT Snow. ) SECTION - BASE 14; 04m•/�'r'� TMs C511.71 • iEAO+ DC ECCENTRIC FLAT TOP MAY BE USED ON SHALLOW MANHOLE w ERT TO OE FORMED OR SNARED MTM 'Rom). TO SEAT rICED CONDITIONS L—DASE MAT BE CAST SOUARE STANDARD STORM WATER MANHOLE DETAIL 6-9 DATE. MARCH 2007 SCALE N.T.S O a g 5s Cretky Cobr I1111Mmmum% S 0 U J p U Q c W W VJ J W 0 Q F J W O 0 Z USR 19-OOXX cc U 9 hi° 80 ' 19lii OMAN. E.JW 19/2172020 scat i4-50' rwO1 G+ S V.,1 Cl 4760 4755 4750 4745 4740 NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC CENTRAL WELD FACILITY DRAIN LINE PROFILES 1 __ _ ___7____T _______________________ E%ISTING GROUND _____ ________ _ ______________ __-_------L-- PROPOSED AOE __ __ T mr I 90 DEG BEND I FL ELEV = 4747 57 90 DEG BEND FL ELEV = 4747 75 I I __- _ 1 i DEFLECT PIPE FL ELEV = 4747 98 I I STA 10+1562 DEFLECTION PIPE FL ELEV = 4748 10 STA 10+9556 12 PERFORATED PIPE it N i I 0+00 0+50 1+00 4760 47551 47501 47451 47401 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 WEST DRAIN LINE 1 = 40 HORIZ 1 = 4 VERT 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 /xN0;PR_____ 4i= _ I I4% I 02x I I I I 1 I L— 1. — _-...� F. -o 1 1 --- --_ -,__ -F-- —o I W _ 12 ' PERFORATED PIPE aw e 90 DEG 20 FL LLEV BEND 47 -- 50 AS I � I 3 STA 3+2141_ _\ I I L__ 1____ 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 EAST DRAIN LINE 1" = 40' HORIZ 1' = 4' VERT 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 9+50 7+50 10+00 4760 4755 4750 4745 4740 10+50 4760 4755 4750 4745 n4740 11+00 a 0 EJW cwaxa 10/28/2020 1 -40 C2 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 4, 2020 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Services SUBJECT: USR19-0060 NGL Water Solutions DJ, LLC The following electronic mail was received by the Department of Planning Services from Ryan Donovan, Esq.. with Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP on Monday November 2, 2020. From: Ryan Donovan <ryan@lcwaterlaw.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 7:33 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>; Doug White <Doug.Whitenglep.com> Cc: Maria Petrocco <maria@petroccolaw.com>; Ryan Collins <Ryan.Collins@nglep.com> Subject: RE: BOCC PLANNING CASES (09/16/2020) This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kim, I offered to keep you posted on our status and that is the purpose of this email. Mr. Leffler's engineer has had an opportunity to review the revised engineering report provided by NGL. His prior comments remain largely unaddressed. As I conveyed to Ryan Collins (NGL counsel, copied here) earlier today, the revised report added more text, but did not further the substantive concerns of Mr. Leffler's engineer. I remain hopeful that we can find an engineering solution to address the risks to Mr. Leffler's water rights, but I doubt it will be resolved by Wednesday as Mr. Leffler's engineer is recommending additional field reconnaissance be undertaken so that the designs can more fully developed. My understanding is that this injection well may not be constructed for several years. Seems to me the parties have time to continue their negotiations because I do think there is a path forward here. Ryan Collins can offer his perspective on behalf of NGL. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Donovan Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP 5245 Ronald Reagan Blvd. Suite 1 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Phone: 970-622-8181 www.lcwaterlaw.com Hello