HomeMy WebLinkAbout930988.tiff May 7 , 1903-
Weld County Commissioners
915 loth St.
Greeley, Co. 80631
SECOND REQUEST
Dear Sirs :
Regarding our letter of Nov. 27, 1992 Case #1456 & 1457 .
We have not received our refund check in the amount of $1500. 00.
Your resolution of Nov. 25 , 1992 Item#3 is in conflict with the
copy of the letter from the State Engineer ' s office, DIv.
of Water resources . In talking to Mr. Schurer, he assured me
there would be plenty of water for each tract. The letter
must have been misinterpreted somewhere along the way.
State Law S.B. 35 would of course preempt county authority.
Please forward your refund check, or approve the division.
Thank You,
cc: State of Colorado
Div. of Water Resources
Encl
�
'��E} IL/6 1
xnp ,V^Vn`-'�_ (� 930988
STATE OF cOLOO
-•t)t:FICF OF THE STATE ENGINEER
•
Division c•"Water Resources•
Department 01 Natural Resources �4: • °a�
%
..... -31Sheit'ianitit 3'oorriaia
3 et: ...
Denver.Colorado 8G»03 0.+6
Phone(303:866-3587 ov Romer
FAX 1303)866-3589 Governor
hen ia._zar
f.ec..ti�e director
Ha! S'— son
October 9, 1992 5:ate.iogNneer
MS. Lanell J. Swanson, Current Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley.e.. CO 80631
Re: 3 Farms Corporation Recorded : = ruons/
RE-1456 & 1457
N1/2, NW1/4, Sec.23, TIN, R67W, 6th P.M.
SW1/4, Sec.14, TIN, R57W, 6th P.M.
W. Division 1, W. District 2
Dear Ms. Swanson:
We have reviewed the two referenced proposals for recorded exemptions to split two 80 acre
tracts into tracts of 45.1 acres and 34.9 acres from each 80 acres. The proposed water supply is to
be from individual wells on each tract. According to the information submitted to us. the applicant
indicates there is an existing well on the proposed 34.9 acre tract in Section 23. In reeiewing our
records, we are unable to rid that the well has ever been issued a permit number by .is office or
decreed by the Division I Water Court. We assume this well serves the old emest_ad located in
Section 23. We do nct object to the continued use of this well pro icing is use Bees not exceed
the exempt type uses as defined by statute.
The applicant does not define to what depth the proposed new wells:•Jc'uid be censuucted.
Based on data deveicped for the Denver Basin Rules (Senate Bill 5), the only nc_tr _ tar: source
of ground water at this location would be the Lara hie-Fox Hills aquifer in the a pror.:Y..ate interval
from 500 feet to 790 fee: below ground surface. En both exemption proposals, the applicant is
proposing tracts of less than 35 acres. If wells shallower than the Laramie Fox Hills aquifer were
prc Dosed for these s :lie: uacts, the use of the wells would have :e 1-e i Kited toordin
household purposes inside one single family dwelling and the watering of the user's own
noncommercial domestic animals. The irrigation of home gardens and lawns or other outside uses
would be prohibited. The return flows from the use of these type of wells would have to be back
to the same stream system in which the wells are located.
We would suggest that the applicant consider splitting the two 80 ace tracts in such a way
that all the tracts result in 35 acres or more each. We could then make permits available for each
tract without an existing well, which would allow for fire protection, ordinary household purposes
inside single family dwellings, the watering of domestic animals and livestock, and the irrigation
of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns on each tract. In either case a water supply
would be available for each tract, therefore we recommend approval of these proposals.
Ms. Lane°I J. Swanson Page 2
October 9, 1992
If you have any questions. please con_act me.
Sincerely,
je)A,L41 Cit"4 4404.,
John Schurer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
JS/JWB/3farms
cc: Alan Berryman, Div=ision Engineer
John Bilisaly
Hello