I believe your report should contain the following three statements:

1. Strict priority administration of both ground and surface water does not maximize the beneficial use of both resources.
2. Even the most senior surface water right can benefit from the supplemental supply of pumped irrigation water! Comment: Pumping in early spring for germination before spring runoff begins, pumping in August, September and October for last irrigation of season, and most importantly, pumping of groundwater must be allowed during the drought years when there is no water in the River and the aquifer is still full. Why not implement the recommendations in the USBR Drought report by Kuiper dated 1978?
3. We should not be requiring post pumping depletions back to 1976 when aquifer is full. Where are those cones of depression due to previous years pumping that would deplete river flows? There must be some lowering of ground water levels adjacent to the River in order for there to be depletions!! Because of Sept 2013 floods then no post pumping depletions for pumping prior to 2013!

In regards to #1 above: all wells have a decreed priority date prior to all artificial recharge and also augmentation decrees. How can you say we are now administering in strict priority when groundwater wells cannot pump anything in their own priority before water should be allowed to be diverted by recharge ponds or for augmentation.

How can new wells be permitted, drilled and used to irrigate lands never before irrigated east from Brush to Julesburg when senior wells upstream cannot pump anything in their own priority? I know DWR issued permits (over 40) for new permits. This is not priority administration.

Why doesn't State Engineer perform his required statute duties: prevent waste, maximize beneficial use, invoke retained jurisdiction?

The data appears to indicate the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater can be successfully accomplished on the South Platte River now. Northern and Northeastern Colorado's economies clearly hang in the balance and are dependent upon a strong Ag economy. It also appears that interests in the lower reaches of the river are dependent upon continued return flows which may or may not be available in the future depending upon what happens with front range effluent discharges plus buy and dry activities in the future. Since we are presently formulating a state wide water plan it will be very inappropiate to exclude groundwater use as a part of the plan, but is abundantly clear there are those parties who wish to accomplish that very objective. If the South Platte aquifer groundwater use is ignored and or excluded from the plan for the future of Colorado we are ignoring a huge water asset which is now and will continue to be badly needed for the growth and very likely the very survival of Northeastern Colorado in my opinion. It is my sincere hope groundwater use will be included in the formulation of the Water Plan for Colorado.

I think that it is very important for everyone who reads the HB1278 final report, executive summary and other related summary information, conclusions and recommendations to understand the limitations and constraints of the data used and corresponding analysis summarized in the Appendices. We need to not only understand what we do know as a result of this report and analysis but also understand what we don’t know due to varying data limitations and other constraints. Two examples of such areas include 1) Section IV of the Appendices regarding Augmentation Plan Requirements and Supply and 2) Section III i of the Appendices regarding Observation Well Hydrographs and Section XIV of the Appendices regarding the USGS Analysis of Groundwater Levels.

With the first example many people want to answer the question of "Are we over-augmenting?" The data and analysis utilized for this topic focused on two areas: 1) Annual Augmentation Plan Requirements and 2) Annual Augmentation Plan Supplies. It is understandable that a simplified approach was taken for the purposes of this study to look at this issue because of the complexities associated with fully analyzing this question. However, everyone needs to fully understand the limitations to this approach. These limitations include the fact that both the requirement and supply side of the equation only account for estimated consumptive use from well pumping and Division of Water Resources diversion records to recharge and other augmentation releases. There needs to be an overall awareness that augmentation plans require both the calculation of depletions at the river and the corresponding calculation of replacement supplies at the river. The fact that wells (and other depletive operations) have a lagged effect and do not cause immediate impacts to river flows needs to be noted. These timed effects to the river vary based on several factors such as distance to the river, aquifer soil properties, aquifer boundary distances, etc. Likewise, replacement supplies such as groundwater recharge have similar lagged timing effects on the river except in a positive influx. Because recharge is a "passive" source of augmentation (meaning once it is put into the underground it travels back to the river without operator control) and consists of junior water rights, operators must recharge when they can to cover future depletions at the river. In relation to the timing aspect is the fact that the analysis for this study looked at this issue on an annual basis. It should be noted that augmentation requirements are determined and accounted for on both a monthly and daily basis for past, current and projected operations and river effects. It is very difficult to summarize the over-augmentation question on an annual basis when augmentation plan accounting is much more fine tuned than annual summations. Periodic excesses do occur from time to time depending on the year and timing of recharge operations while very little excess or just the right amount of replacement occur in other times of the year due to either well pumping curtailment or use of "active" water supplies to meet the gap between requirements and recharge accretion supply. Another area not addressed during the analysis of this issue is that many "active" sources of augmentation deliveries such as historic reservoir releases and bypasses from direct flow water rights cause timed depletions to the river because of the historic return flows that need to be replaced from such operations. This negative effect (50% of delivery in many cases) is not calculated as a replacement requirement and is instead counted as a supply. There may be other issues involved with the simplified approach but the main areas of lagged impacts, annual summations, and depletions from "active" sources should be documented and summarized so that everyone understands that the question of "over-augmentation" within the context of this report can’t really be answered until a much more detailed analysis is conducted based on the study of actual augmentation plan operations.

In regards to the second area (Observation Well Hydrographs, etc.), I think people need to understand what timeframe documented water table trends occur under. For example many statements have been made that depth to groundwater has risen in several areas. However, in looking at the data it is not evident that over a long history, (back to 1953) trends of rising groundwater are occurring. Also, the overall data record for monitoring well observations is often sporadic and does not reach back prior to well development in the South Platte Basin where it has been documented that groundwater tables were rising prior to well development due to surface irrigation which in turn caused higher return flows to the river. When summarizing groundwater table trends, the trend and observation period should be noted (ie; last ten years) as well as the fact that periodic trends do not necessarily represent overall historic trends within the South Platte alluvial aquifer.

In conclusion, I understand that there were limitations and constraints to the data and corresponding analysis and I understand that summary statements are going to be made and that these statements and recommendations will probably be the most viewed and utilized portion of the report. Therefore, I strongly urge that the summary statements, conclusions and recommendations fully disclose what is both known and unknown so that people see the full picture. Thank you.

The main analysis for this study is contained in Appendix IV, Augmentation Plan Requirements and Supplies. This appendix needs some rewriting due to contradictions and lack of clarity in definitions. The word "depletion" gets used both for what is occurring at the well and the lagged effect at the river from the CU of the well pumping. The first sentence of the last bullet on page 4-9 states it correctly—the CU at the well from pumping causes a lagged depletion at the river. Correspondingly, net recharge at a recharge site causes a lagged accretion at the river. Other text in this report needs to stay consistent with these definitions that depletions and accretions are at the river after lagging.

The following sentence on page 4-10 confuses the definitions –"For this trend analysis, the lagged timing of the depletions and the call regime is not considered; instead monthly depletions are summed on an annual basis as estimated to require full augmentation". The analysis does not sum monthly depletions but sums CU of groundwater at the wells and this sum of CU is not the augmentation requirement. This sentence confuses and contradicts the actual augmentation situation. The first part of the sentence notes the all important aspect that actual augmentation requirements require lagging and knowing call regime (only out-of-priority depletions at the river need augmentation), but then the second part of the sentence contradicts with first confusing what is summed and then implies wrongly that full augmentation is estimated by summing CU at the wells with no lagging. The next section on page 4-10 will confuse when it states that the summed annual supplies "include lagged recharge" when better stated would be that supplies "include recharge that must be lagged". Again confusion in the first bullet on the top of page 4-15 which states that "Augmentation requirements were determined by summing the depletions from wells..." but it was not depletions summed but CU of groundwater at the wells and such summed CU is not the augmentation requirement.

On page 4-11 under Surface Augmentation Supplies, augmentation wells which are a main additional supply are not listed. It should also be noted that these surface supplies have an additional depletion replacement requirement (i.e., augmentation well depletions and depletions of return flows from bypasses and reservoir releases). This analysis in summing supplies is adding "apples and oranges" which is erroneous; it is meaningless to add diversions for recharge sites TO surface supplies measured at the river. A correct summation as done in decreed augmentation plan accounting is adding the lagged accretions from net recharge (after recharge site evaporation deduction) to the surface augmentation supplies. The last sentence of the last paragraph on page 4-11 notes recommendations will be summarized but such is not contained in Appendix IV.

The whole purpose and intent of Appendix IV and the analysis is unclear. As noted above the analysis does not provide a summary of augmentation requirements because there is no lagging of well effects. A more appropriate title for this Appendix would be "Summary of well numbers, well pumping and CU, and diversions/releases of recharge and surface supplies obtained from DWR HydroBase". Again it is misleading to characterize this analysis as a summary of augmentation requirements. In addition, any standard for augmentation is not annually or decadal but monthly and daily as dictated by decree augmentation plan accounting. Maybe the usefulness of this Appendix and analysis is a cross check on input databases for SPDSS modeling efforts or summarizing the magnitude and extend of the large and good efforts done by decree augmentation plans in developing the necessary augmentation supplies to fully replace the lagged augmentation requirements.

It is important for those involved in this study to understand the details of a specific augmentation plan decree and such a plan is the Lower Logan Well Users Inc-LLWU 2003CW208 which is good you included in Appendix V. As part of that Appendix V, you also need to include the accounting tables that are part of that decree and a recent set of completed accounting tables. I have attached to the email with this Memo those decreed tables and the October 2013 completed accounting form for LLWU. For Water Year 2013, LLWU used recharge supplies, Prewitt reservoir releases and augmentation wells where the summary of net effect (after all lagging) is done at the river both monthly and daily and always assures that the net effect is greater than zero (i.e., when lagged recharge accretions are not enough to offset lagged well depletions, then surface supplies to the river make up the difference to assure full augmentation.) Refer to paragraph 37, 55 and 68 of the LLWU decree for key definitions and terms/conditions on lagging, statues that pertain to augmentation plans and in paragraph 68 on accounting where specifically states:

"...when there is a valid South Platte River call senior to depletions from Member Wells, augmentation wells or recharge wells or senior to Prewitt return flow obligations under this decree, Applicant shall replace all such depletions and return flows on a daily basis." —this language is the key aspect and standard for all augmentation plans dealing with the South Platte tributary aquifer.

In Appendix IV, you recognize other decrees that require no augmentation (i.e., "Coffin Wells") so it is important that you recognize and support other Water Court decreed plans and all their requirements/standards.

A few other specific comments on Appendix IV:
--In Item 2 on page 4-4, should the word "augmentation" before "wells" be deleted?
--Table 4-1 in last entry for smaller plans seems to omit such numbers but puts in a total of all wells instead?
--In 2nd bullet under Comments... on page 4-8 per above discussion "total depletions" should be "CU of groundwater". The writers of this Appendix and the final Summary report need to review all text in light of keeping consistent terminology.
--At the bottom of the Tables, list the decadal averages shown on the Figures.

--On page 4-19 in light of above discussion, any statements on supply and requirements being "exceeded, "balanced" or "greater than" are erroneous and should be omitted. "Greater than" language implies over-augmentation which is wrong--the correct accounting per decree augmentation plans for lagged effects at the river is the only standard for successful augmentation.

An item in the HB1278 scope of work is evaluating "whether additional usage of the alluvial aquifers could be permitted..." Such opportunities do exist and can be accomplished using the Water Court process of filing for a decree augmentation plan. The numerous augmentation plans successfully decreed in the 2000's are working because they developed partnerships among numerous well owners and ditch companies that can provide recharge diversions. These plans have developed numerous augmentation supplies with a very important supply being the expanded use of augmentation wells with appropriate limits. The use of recharge coupled with augmentation wells is an example of conjunctive use of the tributary aquifer without injury. Well owners’ currently not pumping need to partner and not try to "go-it-alone" in developing an augmentation plan because partnerships with nearby ditch companies allow recharge to be maximized. Recharge can be done properly with monitoring so high water tables do not occur. An effort of this HB1278 study could be such an analysis in WD 2 using SPDSS modeling to show such opportunities. Due to more calls effecting WD 2 recharge operations, a lot of recharge needs to be done over shorter periods which will require the cooperation with ditch companies for such larger diversions to recharge.