Laserfiche WebLink
5. The acreage tied to well IDs was related to the database of augmentation plan IDs tied to well <br />IDs to develop: <br />• Well acreage and well IDs summarized by augmentation plan ID. This list was organized <br />in descending order of total well acreage (see Table 3 in Results section). <br />• Modeling recommendations for the top 25 plans identified based on this approach are <br />included herein. <br />Plan Operations <br />The following general approach was used to identify plan operations (water supplies and <br />operations) for the largest plans: <br />1. Available recharge and augmentation water rights used by the 25 largest plans were pulled <br />from HydroBase based on a water rights query of transaction list items associated with the <br />plan IDs where the decreed Use contains: <br />• AUG (Augmentation) or <br />• RCH (Recharge) <br />The HydroBase query was checked versus the DWR straightline diagrams that have water <br />rights, including recharge water rights, for the main diversion structures in Water Districts 1, <br />2, 3, and 64. Note the main ditch under which the member wells are located is often decreed <br />as a recharge site along with other ditches and reservoirs. Although data are missing from <br />HydroBase related to well augmentation plan supplies, review of Water Court decrees and <br />applications, and discussions with augmentation plan personnel and Division 1 personnel <br />were used to develop the modeling recommendations for the larger plans. <br />2. Operations, accounting, and the history of the major augmentation plans were documented <br />through review and analysis of various pieces of information, including: <br />• Water Court decrees to identify the wells covered under the plans (demands), the <br />adjudicated sources and infrastructure available for augmentation (supplies), and decreed <br />specifics of plan operations and accounting procedures (operations). <br />• HydroBase query in Step 1. Above was reviewed and compared to information from <br />decrees and plan representatives. The information in HydroBase is a snapshot in time and <br />may lag behind the actual plan supplies due to the dynamic nature of supplying and <br />operating augmentation plans. Division 1 personnel office has been entering information <br />into HydroBase from multiple plans as the substitute water supply plans are approved <br />coincident with a Water Court application filing. <br />• Water Commissioners and DWR personnel were contacted to discuss general plan <br />operations and associated administration. <br />• Summary augmentation plan accounting submitted by ditch and reservoir companies was <br />reviewed and compared to information available in HydroBase and the Water Court <br />decrees. <br />• Ditch and reservoir company personnel were contacted to identify specifics, to the extent <br />they were able to provide such, regarding the augmentation plans covering the wells <br />included in the ditch and reservoir company's plans (see References section). <br />6of16 <br />