Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado Springs/Super Ditch Pilot Project - State Engineer's Determination <br />December 6, 2019 <br />Page 13 of 15 <br />Meeting. The summary may include a recommended additional term and condition for Board <br />consideration. <br />E2, URFs: Whether tagged deep percolation factors should be calculated according to the Criteria and <br />Guidelines, or according to the analysis in Case No. 12CW94. <br />Determination: The Applicant should rely on factors vetted during the Water Court process in Case No. <br />12CW94 where applicable for specific farms. For farms not included in Case No. 12CW94, the analysis <br />provided by the Applicant is acceptable. <br />E3. Whether the Applicant should revise the URFs for the Schweizer Farm based on an alternative <br />drain location. <br />11!11!111111111! ililill!lllil iiiiiiiiii I I1!111! lilill!l 111 1111111 1 Jill I Jill 111 !111 1! 111 111111 111111 11 1 !1111111 11 <br />Determination: The Applicant should rely on factors vetted during the Water Court process in Case No. <br />12CW94 for the Mameda Farm, <br />B5. Whether or not detailed terms and conditions related to controlling erosion and noxious weeds are <br />necessary. <br />Determination: The State Engineer agrees with the Applicant's position on this issue, that the agreed <br />upon terms and conditions and contracts with participating farmers are adequate and appropriate <br />primarily due to the fact that Otero County has not asserted any issues with compliance under the 2014 <br />HB-1248 Project under the Catlin Canal. LAWMA's comments and proposed additional conditions may <br />be appropriate for future projects in other county areas or under different ditch systems to the extent <br />that more restrictive requirements are desired by the county(s) in which the project will operate or by <br />the ditch company under which the project will operate. <br />B6. Whether or not there must be a term and condition stating that "there shall be no renewal of this <br />temporary lease/fallow project after the ten year term. Any continuation of this operation must first <br />obtain Water Court approval under the resume- notice procedure." <br />Determination: Such a condition is not required by statute and is not necessary to prevent injury or <br />impairment to interstate compacts. As required by statute and the Criteria and Guidelines, the CWCB <br />Board would review any future Pilot Project proposals. Parties to this application may reach their own <br />agreements about future project proposals. <br />B7. Whether or not tagged return flows must be replaced upstream of the location of the tagged return <br />flow at all times. <br />Determination: Lagged return flows are to be replaced above the nearest downstream calling water <br />right downstream of the location where return flows historically accrued. Such an operation prevents <br />injury to vested water rights and issues with the interstate compact. <br />B8. Whether or not the terms and conditions clearly delineate how exchanges under 05CW96 may be <br />used. <br />