Opinion ID: 1929178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Availability of Water

Text: As for the second, or water availability, factor, the director found that it appears a supply developed from sources in Wyoming would be sufficient to meet the needs of Ponderosa Ridge. While costs may be a factor in rejecting that alternative ... Lerwick's remarks ... and Malm's testimony ... suggest Ponderosa Ridge has not thoroughly explored all the possibilities.... Ponderosa Ridge has sufficient financial resources for that purpose.... The record reveals that a supply of water is necessary for Ponderosa Ridge's planned operations and that there is no body of surface water in the vicinity of its premises. However, the record also establishes that a number of sources of ground water exist other than the source proposed in the subject application. Ponderosa Ridge has purchased the superior right to use the first 300 gallons per minute of continuous waterflow from the Malm 3-1 well. In addition, it has purchased, if Malm Ranch Company finds using the effluent water is no longer economical, the right to use the Malm 3-1 well at 950 gallons per minute or 180 acre-feet from the Malm 33-1 well. In addition, Lerwick testified that Ponderosa Ridge could negotiate to use water from the Anderson No. 2 well to flush and water the latter's facilities. Moreover, Ponderosa Ridge has not applied with the Wyoming state engineer to drill or change the use of any well to flush and water the facilities. Nonetheless, Ponderosa Ridge argues that [t]he requirement of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality for a capture well makes it not only necessary, but much more efficient, to have the well downgradient from the lagoons. Use of the Malm 3-1 well, a mile upgradient, or the Anderson No. 2 well, three-fourths of a mile upgradient, as proposed by the protestersf] expert, Vincent Dreeszen ... would obviously require pumping a great deal more water to provide a cone of depression that would intercept contamination from the lagoons, than would the location chosen by Ponderosa Ridge.... Brief for appellant at 31-32. However, Vincent Dreeszen, a ground water consultant, testified that either the Malm 3-1 well or the Anderson No. 2 well would provide a capture zone for the entire project. The decision of the director concerning this second factor is supported by competent and relevant evidence.