Opinion ID: 2823795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 2012 Annual Replacement Planâs Inclusion of Augmentation Plan Wells as Subdistrict Wells

Text: Â¶52Â Â Â Â Â Â Certain irrigation wells located within the Subdistrict operate under judicially decreed augmentation plansâmeaning that some or all of the groundwater pumped from those wells is replaced to the stream or recharged to the aquifer. The Amended Plan does not aim to replace water pumped from wells subject to an augmentation plan: It defines land âirrigated with groundwater pursuant to, and in compliance with, theÂ provisions of a validly decreed plan for augmentationâ as âNon-Benefitted Subdistrict Land.â Â¶53Â Â Â Â Â Â However, the 2012 ARPâs Database of Wells stated that the Subdistrict wells included some wells that were part of an augmentation plan. Objectors contend that the inclusion of these wells in the 2012 ARP violated the Amended Plan and 2010 Decree. We conclude, however, that the inclusion of these wells was warranted and that the Subdistrictâs treatment of them caused no injury to surface water right users. Â¶54Â Â Â Â Â Â The augmentation plan wells in the 2012 ARP were included in the list for purposes of assessing fees; any portion of their pumping not covered by their augmentation plans was subject to fees, and the Subdistrict replaced the injurious depletions due to this pumping as part of the ARP. In other words, the Subdistrict charged farm operators who had augmentation plan wells only for water pumped that was not covered by the augmentation plan and for acres irrigated with water that was not pumped pursuant to an augmentation plan. Â¶55Â Â Â Â Â Â In its brief discussion of augmentation plan wells, the water courtâs 2010 Decree assumed that a well was either part of an augmentation plan or included in the Subdistrict. In reviewing the 2012 ARP, however, the water court found that the augmentation plan wells included as Subdistrict wells actually presented blended circumstances, where a portion of a wellâs pumping was not covered by its augmentation plan, or the lands irrigated used both augmented and unaugmented water, or a farm operator chose to include all wells and land served in one larger farm unit for purposes of determining Subdistrict fees. Â¶56Â Â Â Â Â Â We agree with the water court that the inclusion of augmentation plan wells in the 2012 ARP was consistent with the 2010 Decree and Amended Plan. The 2010 Decree explained that the definition of âNon-Benefitted Subdistrict Landâ in the Amended Plan allows landowners within the Subdistrict to âhave a means to operate their surface water and wells outside of the Amended Plan.â This provision contemplates that a landowner with an augmentation plan may instead choose to keep his or her wells within the Subdistrict if he or she desires. Â¶57Â Â Â Â Â Â Further, the 2012 ARPâs treatment of augmentation plan wells did not authorize increased pumping from these wells or modify the terms and conditions of the decrees governing these wells. Objectors point to language in the 2012 ARP stating that âif any portion of [the augmentation plan wellsâ] pumping is not covered by their augmentation plans, it is subject to Subdistrict No. 1 fees and Subdistrict No. 1 will replace injurious depletions due to their pumping.â But this language simply recognized the fact that some Subdistrict wells withdraw water both through underlying decrees and through approved augmentation plans. The 2012 ARP assessed well owners only for water not covered by an augmentation plan; this language in no way authorized additional pumping or modified the terms of the decrees governing these wells. Â¶58Â Â Â Â Â Â As a final matter, we note that Objectors suffered no injury from the Subdistrictâs treatment of augmentation plan wells. Notably, the 2012 ARP included all pumping from augmentation plan wells for the purposes of calculating total groundwater consumption. Thus, the 2012 ARP slightly overstated net groundwater depletions as aÂ result of Subdistrict well pumping because it did not include all sources of return flow or recharge from wells under augmentation plan decrees to determine net groundwater depletions. Because the 2012 ARP overstated net groundwater pumped, it slightly overcompensated the Rio Grande for Subdistrict well pumping. Thus, the Subdistrictâs treatment of these wells did not injure senior surface right holders.