Laserfiche WebLink
percolation return flows to the point of connection with the Patterson Hollow on the east side of the road and would not significantly alter the URF timing. <br />4. Whether the Applicants should use the URFs developed for the Mameda Farm in Case No. 12CW94. <br />A. Applicants’ Position: Applicant’s respond that the Criteria and Guidelines provide specific guidance on the method by which URF’s should be calculated; therefore, it is not appropriate <br /> to use URFs included in Case No. 12CW94 that were calculated using a method that differs from those established in the Criteria and Guidelines. For example, the Criteria and Guidelines <br /> require a specific yield of 0.2 which is inconsistent with values used in 12CW94. Also, to simply lagging the URFs in 12CW94 were developed using “sectors” rather than the farm specific <br /> URFs required by the Criteria and Guidelines. Efforts were made to maintain consistency with 12CW94 when the Criteria and Guidelines allowed. The spoil bank ditch identified in 12CW94 <br /> was used as the point of accrual for the Mameda Farm which is consistent with 12CW94. Table 26 of the engineering report in support of 12CW94 dated September 2, 2019 lists a drain ditch <br /> as the point of accrual for return flows in sectors 7 and 8 which contain the Mameda Farm. <br />B. LAWMA’s position: Exhibit H of the decree in Case No. 12CW94 has unit response functions for the Mameda Farm. It is LAWMA’s position that this URF should be used for the Mameda Farm. <br /> If the Applicants are using specific components of the lagging analysis in Case No. 12CW94 such as the spoil bank then they should use the end results. As it appears now the Applicants <br /> are “cherry picking” data from the engineering analysis in Case No. 12CW94 but only if it benefits them and not choosing the end result. <br />5. Whether or not detailed terms and conditions related to controlling erosion and noxious weeds are necessary. <br /> A. Applicants’ Position: Applicants believe that it is unnecessary and overly burdensome to include more detailed terms and conditions related to erosion and noxious weeds than are <br /> already included in Term and Condition #12 above, and in the existing contracts with farmers for several reasons. First, the Criteria and Guidelines, which are intended to streamline <br /> the process for temporary fallowing leasing projects, do not require more detailed and burdensome conditions related to this issue. Second, Term and Condition #12 is the same as the <br /> term and condition related to weeds and erosion that was approved in the Catlin Pilot Project. Four years of operations of the Catlin Pilot Project have shown that participating farmers <br /> are in fact controlling weeds and erosion. Third, the contracts with the farmers, which were circulated to all parties following the conference, include more detailed requirements <br /> for participants to control weeds and erosion. Fourth, Applicants are already required to submit an annual report that includes information about weed and erosion control. Finally, <br /> the Pilot Project contemplates temporarily fallowing or dry-land farming parcels and leasing consumptive use credits for municipal use in only three out of ten years.