March 24, 2014

Ms. Cordova

explained that the PUC only regulates utility companies that are for profit and has very little oversight over co-ops or government run utilities. The PUC does oversee service territories so that multiple utilities are not duplicating services in the same area. A utility must also plan to be able to provide service to anybody that wants service within that service area no matter where it is located within that area. The PUC works with utility companies regarding resource planning issues. To insure that 2 Groundwater Advisory Committee March 24, 2014 companies are not operating in the red, the PUC helps to regulate rates while considering costs that a customer can afford to pay. Historical data is also used when adjusting rates. State law says that rates must be just and reasonable, and improvements must be used and usable. Other issues affecting rates were also discussed. Utility companies make a profit on charging for the cost of facilities as they are entitled to a return on their investment. Companies are required to adhere to local, state, federal and environmental laws. As a result it may be necessary for the utility company to come to the PUC to request a modification of their tariff in order to meet these regulations. Rule 9, deals with the extension of utilities. If water lines are to be extended, then the cost will be passed on to the entity requesting the extension. Ms. Cordova talked about a creative approach that was used to help a small trailer park deal with the replacement of aging, unsafe gas lines and how it was financed. Walt Kuver asked if there were any regulations that were tied to actual water availability. Ms. Cordova related that the PUC takes direction from the State Engineer. The PUC makes sure that there will be enough water available for full build-out of a project as per the State Engineers requirements. Since water is an asset of the utility company, the utility must have permission from the PUC to dispose of rights as they were purchased with rate payer money. The PUC does not deal with individual ownership of water rights. In response to a question from Greg Dann, Ms. Cordova answered questions about tiered rates. The PUC has been encouraging tiered rates as it is effective in promoting conservation when customers are charged for the amount that they actually use. Historical information related to usage should be considered when setting those rates. Upon questioning, she reiterated that the PUC does not oversee public utility companies and that they are regulated by local governing agencies. During public comment, John Bosta, commented on the utility service areas of UICN. There are numerous lots in Pahrump that have no water service. They are within a UICN service area, but there is no infrastructure in place and they are smaller than one acre so a well cannot be drilled. How will UICN address this problem? He also felt that UICN has been making untrue statements regarding their water sources.

Mr. Kuver

suggested that an evaluation of outside water usage be conducted by using satellite imaging to monitor landscaping throughout the valley. An expanded water metering program by the Water District could also help to evaluate actual water consumption of domestic well users. Gregory Hafen suggested that Water District Staff give a presentation on the Water Supply Appraisal Investigation Report for the Pahrump Valley that has already been conducted so that the committee has a better understanding of the current water situation. He suggested that committee members look at the section of the Master Plan where the amount of water needed to support certain population numbers is addressed both with water conservation and without. The DWR website also has a lot of useful information available. Greg Dann questioned whether water importation would be necessary if a controlled growth plan was implemented. In order for the community to grow he felt that water importation was necessary. Walt Kuver said that the issue of allowing more domestic wells versus growth within utility districts needs to be addressed. We are not in a crisis situation at the moment so there is time to evaluate and plan for the future. There are still many more lots approved for development that can be supported by the current amount of water that is available. Darrell Lacy suggested that the committee carefully review proposed changes to the Master Plan that deal with water requirements. The Master Plan is they key driver as to what the future population of the valley is going to be. Members have an opportunity to comment on the Plan by attending the public hearings being held. Dave Caudle reminded everyone that recommendations made by this committee can have an impact upon the effectiveness of the Master Plan. During public comment, Tim Hafen, local utility company owner and developer, related that water level monitoring on the Manse Fan has shown that there is at least an 8,000 6 Groundwater Advisory Committee March 24, 2014 AF perennial yield from that area alone. He questioned how the DWR could estimate that there is only another 4,000 AF available from the valley floor without recapturing water that runs off into California. In his opinion there already existed a perennial yield of 20,000 AF if not more. He also related how a moratorium could negatively affect the local economy. John MacLaughlin suggested that a true forensic audit be performed on the water rights in the valley regarding who holds them and where they are being used. He wants to make sure that water rights are not being “stripped out” from already approved subdivisions and moved elsewhere. He also wants to insure that utility companies are not holding water rights in inventory for lots that already have a well and happen to be located within a utility service area. Wendy Barnett, as a representative of UICN, would like to provide information related to these concerns at a future meeting. Donna Lamm related that the water table is dropping in the southern area of the valley where she resides. Judith Holmgren discussed how the work plan could be adopted. Dwight Lilly felt that a moratorium is a responsible way to pause for a moment while a management plan is being developed. Greg Dann noted that the DWR is in the process of putting together the information that John MacLaughlin requested to be compiled.

Mr. Lacy

related that water issues are a major topic of concern throughout Nevada. He noted that SNWA is willing to come to a future meeting and give a presentation on water reuse. A good analysis of how water is used in the valley will help to determine future needs. Also, the updated DRI Groundwater Flow Model will be ready in a few weeks for presentation to this committee. Mr. Lacy felt that all of the goals Mr. Kuver addressed in his work plan may not be able to be completed in such a short time, but Water District Staff will be available to support the committee as needed. B. Oz Wichman – Diamond Valley Report Due to Mr. Wichman’s absence, Darrell Lacy briefly talked about the situation in the Diamond Valley which is similar to the scenario that occurred in the Pahrump Basin in the 1970’s and 1980’s. They are currently over pumped and a plan must be developed in order to avert a disaster. He related that some of solutions proposed to remedy the problem might be considered as a “taking” of private property, and this committee needs to be very careful as it moves forward with a plan. C. Levi Kryder

Mr. Kryder

related that he is responsible for all of the technical and groundwater studies that have been done by the Nuclear Waste Office and for the Water District as well. He stressed that he would be happy to present to the committee any of the information obtained as a result of these studies.