PROJ00506

• Contract/PO #: C153824
• Contractor Name: Preisser, Rodney J.
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 17
• County: Lincoln
• Bill Number: SPL
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

"

~

"

and after severe summer rainstorms for flood irrigation of grass

lands. There is some portion of these lands which are sub-

irrigated by unadjudicated water. Mr. Brogden, objectors'

~

expert, measured these springs once 1n late June or early July

I

of 1973 and found them to be flowing 5.2 ofs. He estimated he
measured 80% of the total spring yield. He testified that if

I

these sprinKs were kept whole, the historic water supply of the
, - . r _.\;,~'--
rest Of the'objeotors would not be adversely affeoted, as the
_______...~.'..... _"~_"=--,""",,"~""~'''''''_~''_''''._'__'4'__:' ,'._, ""~.".~. _'" . .......... ....... .......~_..":'. ~~. -:.-:- _ ..._

irrigation practices have been suoh as to supply other surface
- .--"'~'""""~...-,:",,,",.--,.-..-_........._.~.._.._....,....... '''._,-. ..-.-"'......

I

I

rights on Steel Fork by return f10ws.from these springs. This
testimony.was supported by the testimony of another objeotor,
Mr. George Reid, who supervised the irrigation of the Smith lands

for many years and who owns lands immediately downstream from

I

Smith Cattle, Inc.

17. The e~idence of objectors through their expert

I

I

witnes's, Mr. Brogden, is that there is a total annual supply of
7lGG acre feet from groundwater recharge avai1ab1e.to supply the
requirements of objectors, who irrigate approximately 6700 acres

of land by' intensive application to an unspeoified acreage, or by

I

I

flood irrigation of grass lands in times of high surface runoff,
either. in the spring runoff period, or after .heavy summer rains.
To meet thi.s testimony, applicants offered the testimony of their

I

expert witnesses; Mr. Palos and Dr. Bittinger, that Mr. Brogden,
in his computations, did not include the surface runoff of the
basin, amounting to approximately 9,000 aore feet per year, and
included only a portion of the annual' recharge of the groundwater.
That the true annual recharge to the groundwater in the basin would
'be approximately 21,000 acre feet using Mr. Brogden's figure of
1.3 inches of infiltration or 18,000 acre feet, using 1 inch.

I

I

I

Thl's testimony J given on rebuttal, ""as not controverted by

objectors.

I

,
18. It is not necessary for the Court to reconcile these

discrepancies, as -it 1s apparent from Mr. Brogden I s testimony that

I

he focussed only on the pOSSible adverse effect on the operation