Laserfiche WebLink
the Criteria and Guidelines to determine these factors. Specifically, the Criteria and Guidelines state “Section II.G. includes methodologies and approaches, assumptions, and presumptive <br /> factors that provide for a streamlined application, review, and approval of the pilot projects. The Board has adopted these methodologies, approaches, and assumptions in this Criteria <br /> and Guidelines document, with public participation, to streamline the process for pilot project application development, review, and approval. The Board’s intent is that the good faith <br /> adherence to these Criteria and Guidelines by applicants, any parties filing comments on pilot project applications, the State Engineer, and the Board will assist the Board’s approval <br /> process and will reduce or eliminate the need for appeal on the technical bases outlined in this document.” Section II.M. Unlike ditch losses, which the Criteria and Guidelines state <br /> may be obtained from a previous change case, deep percolation factors are supposed to be determined using a consistent process. See Section II.G.2.a.ii.2. <br /> B. LAWMA’s position: The Criteria and Guidelines do establish general methodologies, approaches, and assumptions to streamline the process but do not prohibit the use of methodologies, <br /> approaches, and assumptions that have been peer reviewed through the water court process and included in a decree of the water court for the very same lands included in this Pilot Project. <br /> In fact, LAWMA accepted the Applicant’s lagging methodology for those farms that are included in the Pilot Project but that were not included in the Catlin Augmentation Associations’ <br /> decree in Case No. 12CW94, with some suggested revisions to the lagging analysis (see below). LAWMA believes that acceptance of already decreed lagging procedures for the same farms <br /> would not be considered controversial especially as LAWMA and Super Ditch’s experts were both parties to Case No. 12CW94. <br />3. Whether the Applicant should revise the URFs for the Schweizer Farm based on an alternative drain location. <br />A. Applicants’ Position: Patterson Hollow is mapped in Otero County USGS Topographic maps as going through the middle of the Schweizer Farm (the drain is channeled through a culvert <br /> under the county road). Additionally, the drain can be identified from aerials in the middle of the Schweizer Farm. The drain was also mapped as a stream crossing the Schweizer Farm <br /> in Figures 1 and 4, as well as a groundwater drain in Figure 4, of the engineering report in support of 12CW94 dated September 2, 2019. The point identified as the point of accrual <br /> on Patterson Hollow for the Schweizer Farm was identified to be consistent with the Criteria and Guidelines as extending from the centroid of the farm to a point perpendicular to the <br /> drain. <br />B. LAWMA’s position: LAWMA does not dispute that it is appropriate to lag the deep percolation return flows from the Schweizer Farm to the Patterson Hollow. However, Applicant’s Figures, <br /> 6, 7, 9 and 23 show a parcel identified as potential dry-up parcel as the point to where the deep percolation return flows were lagged to by the Applicants. The potential dry-up parcel <br /> where the deep percolation return flows are lagged to can’t be considered dry if there is a live stream running through the Patterson Hollow. This parcel would have to be modified <br /> by reducing the size of the parcel by removing Patterson Hollow from within the parcel. . LAWMA’s suggestion was a minor adjustment to lag the deep