June 23, 2014

Mr. Kryder

gave a brief update to the GWMP Committee about an idea for the importation of spring water from the Trout Canyon area. Due to destruction of the 2 Groundwater Advisory Committee June 23, 2014 water system in that area during the Carpenter One Fire last summer, the water association in Trout Canyon is looking at the possibility of building a new water pipeline to service their community. The pipeline has the potential to be extended to the Pahrump Valley and bring water to areas where water levels are decreasing. Valley Electric has also expressed an interest in placing a hydroelectric generation plant on line. This could result in a win-win situation for all participants. The environmental assessment will be paid with funds from the Trout Canyon Land and Water Users Association. He explained that additional water rights will probably be needed to be obtained. At this point this plan is just an idea and details will be worked out if it moves forward. Upon questioning Mr. Kryder related that there is hydroelectric generation equipment available that does not impact water quality. Because Trout Canyon and the Trout Canyon Spring are located in Basin 162 there should be no problem with taking water from that area, but political issues may arise since Trout Canyon is located in Clark County. SNWA and Clark County will need to be included in future discussions. Since this would be a private water system, SNWA has no legal authority. During public comment Judith Holmgren had questions about the private well that is currently being leased to provide water to homes in Trout Canyon. John Bosta questioned whether there might be charges by the Trout Canyon Land and Water Users Association to all customers that use water from the new pipeline. Gregory Hafen noted that the water association was a non-profit and not regulated by the PUC. Mr. Kryder related that the association was also in the process of investigating the possibility of drilling a well to service the entire community as an alternative. Greg Dann noted that there will be a lot of permits to be acquired and studies performed prior to getting a project started. It will not be a simple process and will require a large sum of money. The importation of approximately 4,000 AF will not resolve the issue of over-allocation. There was a brief discussion of the cost per lineal foot for the pipeline. Wendy Barnett felt that this proposal should not be dismissed as too expensive at this stage. Walt Kuver said that this was the only viable source of water to be considered for importation due to its proximity to Pahrump. Greg Hafen gave direction to staff to move forward with the investigation of feasibility. Levi Kryder felt that it needs to be given fair consideration and not dismissed before a thorough investigation can be completed. In discussing how to handle the nine pages of suggestions for inclusion in the Groundwater Management Plan, it was decided to rate each idea with a number-grade from 1 to 4. There was discussion of a future workshop where the group can break into sub-committees to enable more thorough discussions of each item being considered for action. It was decided that the committee start going through each item on the list, get everyone’s input and give each a number grade as follows: #0=Delete item from list; #4=for immediate action; #3=10 yr. plan; #2=25 yr. plan and #1=50 yr. plan. There was a brief discussion questioning the perennial yield number of 20,000 AF that was recently endorsed by the State Engineer for Basin 162. Oz Wichman related that this number was based upon a 40 yr. pumping history compiled by the DWR. Greg Dann felt the number was a bit generous. Mr. Wichman also described redistribution of pumpage. Redistribution does not increase the perennial yield. Kenny Bent reminded everyone that the State Engineer did say there was approximately 8,000 AF of the total perennial yield which was flowing unimpeded toward California that needs to be captured. 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee June 23, 2014 The committee proceeded to discuss in detail the following items from a list that was prepared which encompassed suggestions from the State Engineer, GWMP Committee members and the Pahrump Community. Those items were as follows: A. Determine Perennial Yield at full build-out B. Designate separate areas in Basin & determine yield for each C. Promote conservation Within each of these categories there were several sub-topics that were addressed by committee members and assigned a numerical priority rating. Members of the public commented on the feasibility of importing water from other areas of the basin or county. The committee discussed doing a study to investigate what recharge to the basin may be from individual septic systems. They talked about the importance of lowering the gallons per day per capita use, especially as it relates to achieving a sustainable population number. Water should not be restricted but used wisely. Greg Hafen related that offering incentives can motivate people to participate in water conservation programs. There was a discussion about how community parks and lakes provide benefits to everyone in a community and may offset people’s desires to have a lush lawn or pond on their own property. There were many other options promoting conservation that were discussed and given a priority rating. Greg Dann discussed the possibility of having field personnel investigate reports of water misuse or waste that may occur when a broken water line is not repaired in a timely manner. Gregory Hafen related to staff some items they may be able to begin working on or researching: Determine whether there is any significant recharge to the aquifer from septic systems (ISDS); designate separate areas of the basin and determine the yield for each; and continue to investigate options for water importation. The committee will resume their discussion and classification of items for inclusion in a Groundwater Management Plan at the next meeting.