Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 December 14, 1979 <br />• • <br />In view of the recommendations made by Mr. Hart which became the <br />basis of the application for anon-consumptive well, we are startled and <br />dismayed at Dr. Danielson's statement. <br />Our feeling and rationale on the well application is that the 3. 1 acre <br />feet which is estimated to be consumed by evaporation in the process water <br />system for a masonry sand operation on a 65. 2 acre tract can be equated to <br />a domestic exempted well on a 35 acre tract where irrigation of 1 acre of <br />lawn and garden would produce approximately the same amount of irrigation <br />consumption through evapotranspiration. In view of the comment in the memo <br />about possible denial of the application, however, we are pursuing several <br />alternative water sources which would be adaptable to a pian of augmentation. <br />If, in fact, it is determined and Superior is so advised by the Ground Water <br />Section that consumption of process water by evaporation is more than <br />minimal and does not qualify as a "non-consumptive" operation, then we <br />propose to submit a definitive plan of augmentation which will be acceptable <br />to the State Engineer's office to enable a well permit to be granted. <br />Consumptive use of water by evaporation when extraction of sand is <br />made be Low existing groundwater levels is recognized and discussed in the <br />Last paragraph of Exhibit G of the report. In addition, paragraph 2g of our <br />Letter of November 14, 1979 to you addresses the water surface area question. <br />If you have further questions about the operation, we will be happy to <br />provide additional information to you. <br />Very truly yours, <br />A. R, PFEIFFENBERGER AND ASSOCIATES <br />.v <br />A~~~ nberg r, P, E. <br />ARP /pd <br />Enclosure: WeLI Application <br />cc: Mr. Keith W. Merilatt <br />