Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />' <br />' <br />r <br />' <br />, <br />� <br />, <br />Slattery Aqua Engineering has identified three well locations where unappropriated <br />ground water is available in the basin �t locations close enough to the North Fork to be <br />considered for the Compact Compliance Pip�line ("satellite well field"). The net amount <br />of unappropriated water that would be available fipr the Compact Compliance Pipeline is <br />approxirr�ately 7,500 acre-feet, which is not sufFcient for the entire project and would <br />have to be combined with purcha5ing existing rights to designated ground water or new <br />Compact Gompliance Wells. In addition, tMe pipeline distance would be considerably <br />greater than Altemative 2, and the willingness of the landowners to neg4tiat� for well <br />sites and pipeline easements is unknown. <br />The additional pipeline cost of this satellite well field if combined with existing wells <br />would b� less than the estimated cast to acquire existing rights to designated ground <br />water; however, th�re is considerable oil and gas development in the �rea of the <br />sateUite well fteld, which creates uncert�inty in the cost estimates for pipeline <br />construction. In addition, landowner cooper�tion is not assured. Also, there is some <br />concern that the RRCA wvuld not �pprave such a plan, which would then require <br />invoking the Dispute Resatution procedures under the Final Settl�ment Stipulation, <br />which involve arbitration. <br />A variant of the satellite well field eoncept is to amend the GWC rules and regulations to <br />' allow new Compact Compliance Wells with the consent of well owners within three <br />mile� of the new wells. A large landowner h�s indicat�d a will�ngness to consider <br />drit.ling such wells and diverting up fio 1�,0�0 acre-feet per year #rom such wells; <br />� however, the landowner �xpre�sed concerM �bout the impact of such wells on �xisting <br />wells and would want fio be compensated for the imp�ct on those existing wells. Again, <br />it was unknown whe#her the RRCA would approve such a plan. In addition, the impact� <br />' of the withdr�wals would eventually haue to be offset by retiring irrigated acreage. <br />Thus, this was viewed as a short-term solution rath�r than a permanent solution. <br />' 3.6, Pref�rred Alternative <br />AlternativE 2(purchasing existing rights to design�ted ground water and transferring the <br />' historical consurriptive use of those rights to the Compact Compliance Pipeline) was <br />selected as the preferred altern�tive for the Comp�ct Compliance Pipeline because it is <br />the mo�t likely to obtain approval of th� RRCA in a timeframe that would avad <br />' eurtailment of existing water righ� and wells under the Stat� Engineer's proposed <br />Compact Rules. <br />, <br />fJ <br />� <br />' <br />' <br />The preferred alternative is to purchase exis�ing ground water rights located nor#h of the <br />North Fock of the Republic�n River and to change the use of those rights so they �an be <br />deliver�d to the North Fork o# th� Republic�n River in the Compact Compliance Pipeline <br />to � locativn a short distar�ce upstream from the streamflow gag� at the Colorado- <br />Nebr�ska state line. This alternative has a higher inifial cc�st to acquire existing rights to <br />designated grcaund wat�r, but is a long-term $olution for compact compliar�r,� and has <br />�everal advantages. First, it does not require arr�endment of GWC rules and <br />r�;gulation�, and tMe procedures for changing the use af existing rights to designated <br />ground water b�sed on historical consumptive use are e�tablished in the cwrrent GWC <br />7 <br />