Opinion ID: 2823795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2012 Annual Replacement Planâs Failure to Include a Separate List of Augmentation Plan Wells

Text: Â¶59Â Â Â Â Â Â Although the 2012 ARP included a comprehensive list of Subdistrict wells, it is undisputed that it failed to include a separate list of augmentation plan wells as required by the Amended Plan and 2010 Decree. Objectors contend that this violation rendered the 2012 ARP invalid. 5 Â We disagree. Â¶60Â Â Â Â Â Â The failure to include the separate list of augmentation plan wells was a minor omission. A list of augmentation plan wells in the ARP is but one of the Amended Planâs many requirements. Further, only a small fraction of the 3000 wells pumping within the Subdistrict are augmentation plan wells. Â¶61Â Â Â Â Â Â Moreover, the water court found that the failure was âan oversight caused by . . . unfamiliarity with the ARP process, the complexity of the ARP and the short period of time [available] to create the ARP.â It âwas not an attempt to mislead or hideÂ information but rather was an honest mistake.â Finally, although the water court determined that the failure to include the list temporarily deprived the public of this information, it found that once the Subdistrict furnished the required information, 6 Objectors did not challenge the inclusion of any specific wells. Thus, the Subdistrictâs delay in providing this information did not prejudice Objectors. Â¶62Â Â Â Â Â Â Given the relatively minor nature of the omission and the absence of any harm, we conclude that the failure to include the separate list of augmentation plan wells did not render the 2012 ARP invalid.