Laserfiche WebLink
This project will not permanently dry up land, and will not likely dry up land for more than one or two years at a time. Thus, the concerns regarding weeds and erosion are much less <br /> than these concerns in a change of water rights case that contemplates permanent dry-up. <br /> B. LAWMA’s position: There are no standards established in Term and Condition No. 14 that specify how weed control and erosion protection will be accomplished. The Applicants assert <br /> that this has been included in the individual farmer’s contracts with Super Ditch. The terms and conditions for any approval of the Pilot Project should include the terms and conditions <br /> identified in the contracts with the exception of the Open Fields. The Open Fields section (Paragraph 11.c) states that to control blowing dust the measures may include furrowing or <br /> chiseling the fields. This process will increase the loss of soil moisture thus resulting in a larger deficit that will need to be refilled in the next year of irrigation. Another <br /> method to control dust is irrigation associated with the establishment of a cover crop. If any water is applied to establish a cover crop, then is would be violation of Term and Condition <br /> No. 11. <br />The only method stated for weed control is mowing of the weeds or application of herbicides. Other measures could include grazing upon Super Ditch’s discretion. These standards should <br /> be included within the Terms and Conditions approved for the Applicants’ operation of the Pilot Project so that the Applicants will be obligated to control weeds and soil erosion in <br /> the event that farmer fails to honor the contract. <br />As for dry-land farming, the individual contracts with the farmers do not specifically allow for dry-land farming to occur or any standards that would be applied if dry-land farming <br /> were to occur. The only mention of potential dry-land farming in the farmer’s contract is in Paragraph 11.b regarding Stubble Fields. Even if this paragraph is determined to allow <br /> farming there are no standards to determine “If existing stubble is not deemed adequate”. LAWMA’s position is that the standards determined to be necessary by the Applicant’s experts <br /> and legal counsel who happen to be the same experts and legal counsel for the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in LAWMA’s Case No. 15CW3067 for dry-land farming be used <br /> on any dry-land farming operation under the Pilot Project. It is irrelevant if the parcels are dried up permanently or temporarily. At no time should the stubble be furrowed or chiseled <br /> as this will increase the soil moisture deficit to be replaced in the following irrigation year. At minimum, the following standards should be applied to any parcel fallowed under <br /> the Pilot Project: <br />The dry-up parcel will be planted and farmed without irrigation water, such that it is dependent solely upon precipitation to meet crop water requirements; if other dry-land farming <br /> in the region is producing crops, the farm also is producing a dry-land crop with weeds adequately controlled and with soil erosion from wind controlled in a manner consistent with <br /> state and local law; and minimum crop residue after harvest of the dryland crop is as described below, and the crop residue is left on the Dry-Up Parcel until the Dry-Up Parcel is prepared <br /> for the next rotation of planting; provided, however, that this requirement for crop residue does not prevent a farmer from controlling weeds by mechanical tillage of the Dry-