Laserfiche WebLink
economy we have , with relative abundance of water — but disturbing signs of what could <br />happen were co ming out of Arkansas and S outh P latte — A rkansas in lawsuit with <br />Kansas — lost, S tate E ngineer established strict rules= broad ax approach requiring well <br />pumpers to replace depletions to st ream — when and where it happened? concepts of <br />well aug mentation are not well understo od in SLV — other basins with upstream storage <br />are better set up to deal with this — in S outh P latte, it didn’t take a interstate compact <br />issue, but a substitute supply plan by S tate E ngineer , S upreme C ourt ruled that not <br />appropriate way to run th e river, had to replace depletions when and where they occur! <br />This year! So the farmers had crops in the ground and fertilizer applied, then their wells <br />were hut down. Couldn’t prove adequate augmentation <br /> <br />Sub District (SD) idea came out of this, a group d eveloped idea of G round W ater <br />M anagement Sub District — hoping that local effort would be enough to keep SE from <br />having to administer wells — so idea formed for SD — concept that ground water users <br />could join together as a community to limit use of ground water to protect the ground <br />water AND protect senior water rights — use community and market ba sed approach vs <br />state imposed ground water reg ulation s, similar to Ark ansas and S outh P latte - figure <br />that state would apply same model here requiring every pumper to rep lace when and <br />where depletions were occurring <br /> <br />Some believe that with all the various aquifers (confined, unconfined, Closed Basin), <br />that SLV is very different from other basins with mostly alluvial aquifers . How to apply <br />rules here? W e n t to leg islature for SB 222 — passed in 20 04 - attempted to say, if we are <br />going to be subject to ground water reg ulation in SLV, acknowledge the differences and <br />apply sideboards so that can be some cer tainty and flexibility to how ground water is <br />managed here. <br /> <br />Steve - SB 222 <br /> <br />- re - empha siz ed that this leg islation came out of the SLV as an effort to recognize the <br />uniqueness of SLV’s aquifers — handed out copies of SB 222 <br /> <br />- recall in 1977 — we spent 11 weeks in court, with 41 parties — untold expense! <br /> <br />- things that S tate E ngineer has to do to admin ister ground water are rather draconian in <br />many cases — few tools — if pumping out of priority, must shut off wells until they can <br />replace depletions — never been able to come up with flexibility — Supreme Court has <br />supported the effort – when comes down to administrative actions, S tate E ngineer’s <br />hands are tied — some conflicting rulings by S upreme C ourt making S tate E ngineer <br />unsu re about how to go about ground water management in SLV — not clear cut process <br />or administrative clarity or legal authority f or new round of rulemaking <br /> <br />SB222 takes away confusion — provides clarity — also recognizes the unique geologic <br />and hydrologic and conjunctive use practices here — many times people have both <br />surface and well rights — some on both ends, but gray in the middle — not simple, very <br />difficult <br /> Page 7 of 13 RGBRT <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> October 9 , 2006 <br />