Laserfiche WebLink
Ground Water Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 <br /> November 15, 2024 <br /> pumping with no associated irrigated acreage, to then supplying water for a second <br /> golf course. Mr. Ladd believes this could affect the Republican River Compact <br /> compliance and setting precedent with other CRP wells that haven't been pumped for <br /> some time, then becoming a new replacement source. Mr. Ladd implied that the <br /> District does not dispute the engineering assumptions and analysis, but is concerned <br /> about the precedent set by this request and the unusual hardship requirement being <br /> met. Additionally, Mr. Ladd highlighted the District's view that a replacement plan <br /> does require a physical replacement of water, rather than through accounting. <br /> Commissioner Pautler asked Mr. Ladd if the District was agreeable to the Applicant <br /> following current rules to transfer water from the replacement well to the place of <br /> use. <br /> Mr. Ladd replied that the District wanted to limit the conversation to the variance <br /> request, rather than moving on to the replacement plan at this time, but did believe <br /> there was a pathway for Ballyneal to replace depletions by transferring water to the <br /> place of use. <br /> Mr. Nicholas Espenan then addressed the Commission as an Attorney acting on behalf <br /> of his client, Mr. Ross Brinkema. Mr. Brinkema is a water user near Ballyneal that <br /> irrigates roughly 500 acres of farmland, and has requested the Commission deny the <br /> variance. Mr. Brinkema believes that his wells would be negatively impacted if the <br /> variance request were to be granted in this case. Mr. Espenan then stated the <br /> protections provided through Rule 5.6.1.D.1 to other water users would be <br /> undermined if the variance were to be granted. Mr. Espenan highlighted the transfer <br /> and recharge associated with traditional replacement plans assure the physical <br /> availability of replacement water in an aquifer. Mr. Espenan believes his client would <br /> incur significant expenses to protect his water rights if the variance were to be <br /> granted, and such protection should already be provided under the rule. Mr. Espenan <br /> also commented that the requirement to demonstrate unusual hardship has not been <br /> met in this case. <br /> Ms. Deb Daniel asked Ballyneal's representatives if the replacement well is located on <br /> land under a current CRP contract. <br /> A representative for Ballyneal responded that the replacement well is located on land <br /> under a current CRP contract. <br /> Ms. Daniel responded that she is not aware of any provision that would allow a well to <br /> be used as a replacement water source if it was located on land under a current CRP <br /> contract. <br /> Ms. Joanna Williams representing Commission Staff addressed the Commission. Ms. <br /> Williams reiterated that the rule in question is intended to ensure a physical supply of <br /> water for replacement sources. Staff believes the most effective way to ensure a <br />