Laserfiche WebLink
center pivot systems. Currently, three irrigation wells are adjudicated for use on <br />the Salazar Ditch Ranch - Case No. W -1730, Well No. 1, Well Permit No. 21589 - <br />F; Case No. W -1730, Well No. 2, Well Permit No. 19564 -RF; Case No. W -1730, <br />Well No. 3, Well Permit No. 21590 -F — two of which are apparently tied to the <br />center pivot systems. As such, for these procedural reasons alone, approval of a <br />SWSP by the SEC is premature. <br />Costilla County has not been satisfied as to the following components of <br />BMRI's SWSP: <br />(a) The means of quantifying historical consumptive use <br />( "HCU ") for purposes of BMRI's claim of historical use credits under the proposed <br />plan. For example, BMRI contends "because BMRI will be pumping the wells to <br />store excess consumptive use credits and also to irrigate land under the west <br />pivot, BMRI proposes not to exceed the historical diversions of 695 ac -ft per <br />year..." The 695 ac -ft per year number is not an agreed upon sum, and subject <br />to review of the underlying data that has not, as of yet, been supplied. Further, it <br />is not clear what "pumping the wells to store" means. <br />(b) The impacts of pumping Salazar Ranch well rights on <br />surrounding streams, including the Rito Seco, have not been evaluated. The <br />analysis will apparently be made part of an amended BMRI engineering report. <br />(c) The means of exchange of Salazar Ditch water rights, <br />including the Salazar Reservoir rights, upstream on the Rito Seco, is not clear as <br />to scope and mechanics. Also, because the Rito Seco is a losing stream <br />between the West Pit area and the Salazar Ditch headgate, the potential for <br />injury to downstream adjudicated rights may occur. <br />(d) The TMF is a lined facility. Introduction of additional waters <br />for irrigation purposes into the facility should be accomplished in a manner that <br />will prevent waters from escaping the containment area as such area is outside <br />the point that recapture wells can be utilized. <br />(e) Whether or not BMRI intends to seek anew junior storage <br />right on the Salazar Ranch and, if it does, how such storage right is incorporated <br />into the plan. <br />(f) Which existing rights will be utilized as alternate points of <br />diversion for Salazar Ranch water rights. <br />Overall, the contentions in Bruce Lytle's January 2011 engineering report <br />need to be further clarified, evaluated, and understood. Costilla County needs to <br />have the ability to review the underlying documentation relied upon by Mr. Lytle <br />to support his report. A request for production of documents was submitted by <br />Costilla County to BMRI on May 19, 2011 as to background information used in <br />the report, which has not yet been produced. (See Exhibit B) <br />6 <br />