Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado Springs/Super Ditch Pilot Project - State Engineer's Determination <br />December 6, 2019 <br />Page 14 of 15 <br />B9, Whether or not Super Ditch's engineers must submit supplemental engineering related to whether <br />the results of the LET are consistent with 12CW94, and why any 12CW94 results are not being used, <br />Determination: The Criteria and Guidelines specify use of the Lease Fallow Tool with specific <br />assumptions. As there isn't any specific injury identified by the commenting party, no additional <br />analysis related to case no. 12CW94 is required, <br />B10. Whether or not a term and condition must be added stating that 46Super Ditch must lease enough <br />space in Pueblo Reservoir to assure that the requirements of the 10CW4 Decree are met, prior to <br />exchanging water into Pueblo Reservoir," <br />11. Whether or not additional terms and conditions relevant to the decree in 10CW4 must be added <br />to address stepped exchanges, <br />Determination: <br />terms and conditions that apply to exchanges pursuant to case no. 1 OCW4 do not appLy. <br />012. Whether or not additional terms and conditions need to be added related to delivery of return <br />flow water. <br />Determination: The Engineers believe condition nos, 7 and 19 delineate the distinction between <br />Consumptive Use Credits and excess delayed return flow amounts available for exchange and later <br />release to maintain historical return flows. Return flow water delivered through augmentation stations <br />that is stored may not be used for any purpose other than replacing Pilot Project return flow through <br />the Pilot Project approval, CS-U may seek separate administrative approval whereby a different <br />source of water is physically provided to replace return flows and a like amount of stored return flow <br />water (typically in Pueblo Reservoir) takes on the character of the water that was used to physically <br />replace return flows, <br />E13. Whether additional terms and conditions need to be added to address the potential high <br />groundwater issue. <br />Determination:Basedmemos, the Applicants <br />November 27, and additional water level data collected by w (see Attachment B), water levels <br />the Pilot Project lands are deeper than 8 feet below the ground surface in most cases. Based on Tab <br />D, there is little to no groundwater consumption by alfalfa and native grass to meet plant wat <br />requirements at groundwater depths of more than 8 feet. Some of the parcels on the Schweizer far <br />located closest to the canal, as described in condition no. 11, may have <br />varied seasonally but were less than 8 feet at times, based on Levels measured at nearby monitori <br />wells. Water levels on those specific parcels may have averaged about <br />parcelsConsidering the crop mix evaluated by the applicant, which was 52 percent alfalfa and native gra <br />with the balance from other more shallow rooted crops, combined with limited groundwater data, it <br />reasonable to assume that 15 percent of the HCU from those parcels was contributed by groundwa <br />rather than applied surface irrigation water. If and when the applicant requests to fallow the specif <br />