October 28, 2014

Mr. Wichman

related that someone on a domestic well within a service area does not have to hook-up to the utility until their well fails. They are not allowed by the DWR to deepen or make repairs to the existing well. Greg Dann felt that there would be huge resistance from local well owners for extension of utility lines in the valley.

Mr. Wichman

felt that it was now time to begin discussion with the PUC and Jason King, State Engineer, about this issue before many more wells start failing. Walt Kuver thought that managed recharge was the answer to the problem. Judith Holmgren thought that people may start to deepen their wells if they think a utility service may be coming to their neighborhood. Gregory Hafen felt that the county should not get in the way of any expansion of infrastructure by utility companies. There was discussion about creating incentives for people to voluntarily hook-up to a utility system. Gregory Hafen noted that it could be cheaper to hook-up than it would be to rehabilitate a well. The committee was in agreement on this issue. Most members agreed that utility providers should forgive excessively high water bills when water leaks are immediately repaired. Greg Dann felt this should be allowed once to encourage more awareness of consumption. Wendy Barnett related that UICN does not charge for reuse water for irrigation, but there are fees related to the cost of transmitting water to the site where it will be used. Recycling of treated effluent should be encouraged whenever possible as long as it does not add additional costs to regular rate payers. UICN has not done a cost of service study since 2009. It may be updated if there is a dramatic change in usage. Recharge is also an excellent use for treated effluent. For the most part, members agreed that this issue was more appropriately addressed by the PUC. There was not much interest in requiring water users to utilize advanced metering infrastructure to encourage user awareness. It was also very expensive. One member thought that it should be encouraged. There was discussion about the definition of redefining service areas. Wendy Barnett thought that for UICN it would involve annexing properties in areas where pipe was in the ground but the property was not part of their approved service 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee October 28, 2014 area. Walt Kuver felt that allowing people to connect from outside the service area should be part of a larger solution to the water problem. Greg Dann thought that this was a good idea but this action should not jeopardize existing domestic wells either. Gregory Hafen related that this issue also exists within the Pahrump Utilities territory. Public member, John MacLaughlin, felt that properties which were very far away from the nearest pipeline should be removed from a service area and be allowed to drill a domestic well. There was discussion about how that could be achieved. Gregory Hafen felt that it was inevitable that this will have to be addressed sometime in the future. Walt Kuver felt that creating a valley wide utility would not help to alleviate the over allocation of water. Darrell Lacy related that if water were to be imported from an outside source there will definitely be a need for a distribution system that can deliver water throughout the valley to where it is most needed. There will be costs associated with developing such a system. Oz Wichman felt that there was also a need for interconnection between the utility services in the valley to enhance distribution. Darrell Lacy discussed scenarios that may call for cooperation between the existing utility companies. Greg Dann explained that there may come a time when there will be a need to transport water from one area where water is plentiful to another where water levels are declining, especially in the case of large production wells that serve many customers. Wendy Barnett related that this is a very complicated engineering issue. There was agreement that further investigation was needed into the feasibility of such a proposal. There was discussion about not allowing new wells in utility service areas. Wendy Barnett related that ultimately this decision rested with the DWR. She gave an example of a local business located in the UICN service area that purposely located their store so it would not have to be connected to the system due to prohibitive connection costs. DWR did issue a permit to drill a well. Mike Floyd questioned why the DWR does not encourage businesses to connect to utility systems. Darrell Lacy related that the DWR only looks at costs for acquiring water for the applicant and not at the long term impacts on the aquifer. Maybe the county needs to put in place a set of guidelines as it relates to this type of situation. Ms. Barnett suggested that no new non-utility owned wells other than grandfathered domestic wells be allowed in a utility service area. Mr. Lacy related that this committee can have input into new Master Plan regulations by attending public hearings and make recommendations. There were other scenarios discussed about how a property owner might go about obtaining approval to drill a well within a utility service area. During other discussion, Darrell Lacy noted that in the past there was an over dedication of water to some of the smaller lots created during the subdivision process. This water will never be put to beneficial use, but the utility companies are still holding on to those rights. He felt that this was an issue that needs to be addressed at some point in the future. The committee agreed that it was important to build a distribution system that would allow the redistribution and management of recharge water throughout the valley. There was some discussion about banking of paper water rights. Gregory Hafen felt that water utility companies should be banking water for future development. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee October 28, 2014 There was a discussion about ways to preserve water rights without having to waste water every 5 years to prove beneficial use. A system of “banking” should be developed to avoid that waste. There have been proposals presented to the legislature with regards to that issue that were unsuccessful. Oz Wichman felt the term “banking” means different things to different people and recommended tabling the discussion until we define what we really mean by banking. Having water rights on the books that we cannot pump does not get us where we need to be in a management plan. Mr. Lacy felt that banking of water without the ability to pump is the wrong thing to do. It will be very difficult to put something like this in place. There was more discussion about the banking of water rights problem. Wendy Barnett discussed how water rights are banked as part of a development agreement for proposed subdivisions in UICN’s tariff area.

Ms. Barnett

excused herself from the remainder of the meeting.

Mr. Lacy

noted that once the prioritization of topics is complete the list will be streamlined to include only topics of the most urgency. Mr. Lacy will discuss legal issues that may affect the ability to address some of those topics at the next meeting. B. Oz Wichman

Mr. Wichman

noted that approval of the Joe Leising proposal was a major move in the right direction toward development of the Groundwater Management Plan. He discussed the movement by the Water Board toward increasing the per parcel fee in order to fund some of the proposed projects. It was important to keep in mind current budget restriction. C. Levi Kryder None D. John Klenke None .