Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 <br /> November 15, 2024 <br /> qualifications. Mr. Sanchez reiterated that today's discussion will be limited to the <br /> variance request, and not the replacement plan itself. A brief summary of a proposed <br /> project at Ballyneal was provided, and included the addition of a new 18-hole golf <br /> course on the property. The variance requested is related to the water supply for the <br /> new golf course. Mr. Sanchez mentioned the water supply plan for the project will <br /> include a new well or wells, along with well permit no. 21858-FP that will be acquired <br /> for replacement water. A change of water right is planned so that the well may serve <br /> as a replacement source for the golf course. Mr. Sanchez mentioned that the <br /> proposed new golf course is in an area with sandy soils and has not been historically <br /> irrigated. A replacement plan is being sought for two wells, using the historical <br /> credits from 21858-FP upon approval of a change of water right. Mr. Sanchez then <br /> clarified that the proposed replacement plan sought for the project would leave the <br /> replacement water in the aquifer, which is in conflict with Rule 5.6.1.D.1. The <br /> distance between the replacement well and the proposed future wells would be <br /> approximately 3.5 miles. <br /> Mr. Sanchez then read the entirety of Rule 5.6.1.D.1 and the statement of basis and <br /> purpose for the rule. A summary of the purpose for the rule was then made, which is <br /> to assure the deliverability and availability of a replacement source. Mr. Sanchez <br /> questioned how effective applying Rule 5.6.1 .D.1 would be in this case, since the <br /> water would be pumped and then injected into the same aquifer. <br /> Mr. Sanchez described how the cones of depression and impression for the pumping <br /> location and injection location would overlap and cause no net change water levels <br /> inside the aquifer. Therefore, the system is not stressed and there is no test achieved <br /> to show the replacement water supply is available. <br /> Mr. Sanchez also highlighted perceived disadvantages associated with pumping ground <br /> water and injecting it back into the aquifer, which included contamination and <br /> oxygenation. The risks were believed to be minor, but still present. <br /> Mr. Sanchez then proposed an alternative water level monitoring program in lieu of <br /> pumping and injecting the replacement water back into the aquifer, which would <br /> include annually measurement of water levels in the replacement well at the end of <br /> irrigation season. Mr. Sanchez pointed out that his team has analyzed a conservative <br /> required saturated sand thickness in the aquifer needed to provide adequate <br /> replacement water. If the saturated sand thickness reached a critical level, ground <br /> water measurement frequency would be increased, and a pumping test would be <br /> required to ensure 276 gallons per minute could be delivered over a ten month period <br /> through the replacement well. If the pumping test yield could be met, no action <br /> would be taken to physically deliver the replacement water to the place of use. If the <br /> pumping test yield could not be met, the Applicant would comply with Rule 5.6.1.D.1 <br /> and physically pump the water from the replacement well. Mr. Sanchez stated that an <br /> approved variance in this case would still require the Applicant comply with the rule <br /> as written if declining water levels in the aquifer presented a threat to the <br />