December 8, 2014

Mr. Lacy

discussed volumes of water needed to support different population levels. With conservation and beneficial reuse of effluent, the basin may be able to support a population of up to 120,000, but not the 300,000 as projected in the current Master Plan. In an attempt to control growth, regulations must be careful to avoid a regulatory taking by removing the economic viability of a property owner’s land. The property owner must be fairly compensated for financial loss by the government agency involved in the taking. 2 Groundwater Advisory Committee December 08, 2014 By approving development projects, we are essentially granting more water entitlements. The Water Board is considering solutions that would require increased relinquishment of water for new development proposals. This would help to offset the issue of over- allocation in the valley.

Mr. Lacy

related that the issue of water that has been over-dedicated to existing subdivisions must be addressed at some point. Development of infrastructure, lower density development standards, conservation programs, reuse of effluent and ASR projects were all important components in the development of a Groundwater Management Plan. The County can also incentivize low impact development. Some water entitlements will automatically expire with time if not put to beneficial use.

Mr. Lacy

stressed that there needs some specific discussions with this committee on how to handle “zombie subdivisions,” that is, subdivisions that are approved but will never be fully developed on their own. There were several other options discussed that dealt with limiting water entitlements or in some cases, eliminating them altogether. By creating incentives water usage can be lowered. Some entitlements can be curtailed through zoning modifications, although the new Master Plan will not change anyone’s zoning at this time. Growth and land use development, among other things, are the responsibility of the county and not the DWR. Growth should pay for itself. Implementation of the revised Master Plan will have an impact on what the future population growth is for the valley. In response to a question from Walt Kuver, Mr. Lacy noted that not allowing a domestic well to be drilled on a qualifying lot may be considered a taking if there was not a viable alternative available. The committee proceeded to discuss in detail the following items from the previously prepared list, beginning where they left off at the October 28, 2014 meeting. Those items were as follows: K. Development – The committee felt that development agreements need to be thoroughly reviewed and there must be stricter development guidelines as they apply to water requirements. Darrell Lacy related that development agreements do have expiration dates. Zombie subdivisions were again the topic of conservation. Public member Judith Holmgren related that 20 years may not be a long enough time frame to allow for development of a valley wide water and sewer system. She felt that there needs to be a considerable increase in population in order for it to be financially feasible. All were in agreement that wet cooling solar plants should not be allowed, and existing domestic wells operating “legally” should have grandfathered protection. No one wished to see population limited to 50,000. Alluvial fan water was considered to be a priority source of water for the valley and should be included as an important component in a valley wide pumping distribution plan as water levels appear to be rising in that part of the aquifer. Oz Wichman felt that once results of the Leising Proposal are presented, there needs to be a re-examination of management of the sub-basins. Just because water levels are rising on the fan does not mean that the water is getting away, as ultimately, the water will work its way down to the valley floor. Because the BOCC and Water Board previously rejected development of a county owned utility it was not considered to be a high priority. Darrell Lacy thought that a wholesale delivery system may be something to consider for the future as it may relate 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee December 08, 2014 to ASR in areas of the valley where water levels are dropping. Greg Dann felt that there is a need to consolidate the fragmented systems that are now operating separately within the valley in order to expand service to people that cannot afford to deepen their wells. Most members were in agreement with these concepts but in general did not rate them as a high priority. All agreed that high consumptive water use for commercial development should be discouraged by increasing the water relinquishment rate required per each acre foot used. Dan Harris, member of the public, felt that agriculture should be exempt from this discussion. The county cannot prevent farmers from using their water rights. Only the State has that authority. Open space, parks and golf courses shall be considered high consumptive users depending upon the amount of turf grass grown Mr. Harris felt that the committee was overreaching when it suggests restricting agricultural use of water. Greg Dann felt that existing agricultural uses should be protected, but new agricultural projects should be restricted. Wendy Barnett had a problem with people wasting water to prove beneficial use, but noted that this practice cannot be curtailed under current regulations. Darrell Lacy suggested putting together a BDR in an attempt to have the laws changed by the State. The committee was in favor of requiring increased water right relinquishments for new development proposals. This issue is currently being addressed by the Water Board and staff. Lenny Badger questioned relinquished amounts versus the actual consumptive use which is usually much less. Darrell Lacy noted that at this time the most important issue is to just get some of the over-allocated water rights off of the books. There was some discussion about requiring additional water rights in order to drill a domestic well. Kristian Bentzen wondered if this could be considered a taking due to the increased expense to the property owner. It was noted that this occurs in the case of older approved subdivisions with undeveloped lots that do not meet the current relinquishment requirements. Darrell Lacy related that as long as there is a solution available to the property owner it cannot be considered a taking. It will just require a larger financial investment in order to drill a well. It was agreed that new development should be encouraged to take place within a utility service area. (Lenny Badger left the meeting at this point.) There was discussion about the benefits of high density versus rural density developments as it relates to domestic wells and utility connections and the amount of water used by each. School programs that teach water conservation were considered important. Joining of adjacent lots to create one big lot thereby eliminating a second domestic well should be encouraged and incentivized by reducing the costs of going through the reversionary map process. The committee adjourned to break for lunch. Mike Floyd was unable to attend the remainder of the meeting. M. Water Rights – It was decided that retirement of water rights through purchase shall be a high priority item. Wendy Barnett related that UICN would have to go through the PUC to be able to sell water rights. Monies received from sales must be returned to the rate payers. The removal of PBU requirements would have to be handled through the BDR process at the State level. Oz Wichman felt that this was a bad plan as it leads to speculation in water rights for monetary gain. He felt there was a possibility that some kind of plan to bank water rights on the county level may be a valid option. The county has no power to call for Proof of Beneficial use by water right owners nor can they limit the number of extensions allowed to prove beneficial use. Only the State Engineer has that authority. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee December 08, 2014 Darrell Lacy related that the State is beginning to get serious about this issue and is starting to cut down on the number of extensions allowed. By doing this the total number of water rights on the books is starting to shrink, albeit, very slowly. Kristian Bentzen felt that it may be possible to set up some type of process in which the Water Board could confront “water wasters” and find solutions to remedy their situation. Wendy Barnett related that we should support efforts to reduce repeated extensions of time by getting involved in discussion with Jason King, the State Engineer. Oz Wichman noted it would be wise to work with him to toughen up language concerning extensions, and Mr. King could present this the State in the form of a BDR, possibly during next year’s legislative session. Mr. Wichman will contact Mr. King to explore language that would make it more restrictive to file extensions in Basin 162. He felt that

Mr. King

would be very receptive to this idea. Mapping of water rights and where they are being used would be a huge undertaking and the results would be valid for a short time as water rights get shuffled around for various reasons. It was noted that the DWR is in the process of mapping where water rights are being used. Greg Dann felt that the DWR website was difficult to navigate. The committee was in support of efforts being made by the DWR. There was some discussion about the requirement for totalizer meters at wellheads which pump permitted and certificated water. Also discussed were fan water rights and their potential usage. But until the Leising Report is complete there cannot be further discussion of that topic. There was some discussion about the buyback of water rights by the Water District. Creating and enforcement of new development code language was also debated. Gregory Hafen requested that the Planning Department work at cleaning up the existing code as it now exists. Oz Wichman noted that there is a fund that was established for the purchase of water rights by the Water District. Those rights were intended to be put to beneficial use and not to be relinquished back to the basin. N. Other Establishing different levels of crises along with definable triggers and a course of action was discussed. There was debate as to whether or not the basin is currently over-pumped. After the Leising Study is complete there will be more information available to aid in determining whether a crisis may exist. Greg Dann related that monitoring water levels can also help to determine the potential for a crisis. He felt that there was a need to add more Water District staff to manage implementation of the Groundwater Management Plan. Darrell Lacy related that the State could also add additional staff that would help to monitor activities in Basin 162. Finding the funds to increase staffing was an important piece to be considered. There was discussion about controlling growth in the valley. Walt Kuver felt that this was inevitable as the valley is overdeveloped. Wendy Barnett agreed and emphasized that we need to grow wisely. Boulder City controls growth by limiting the number of building permits issued each year. Gregory Hafen did not agree with the concept of growth control and felt that other measures that are put in place with implementation of the Groundwater Management plan will be sufficient. Public member, Kenny Bent felt that more emphasis should be placed upon static water levels since they can be used to establish “trigger” points for an action plan. There was general agreement that the DWR needs to identify parcels in their data base with an APN number or GPS coordinates but it was not considered a priority item. 5 Groundwater Advisory Committee December 08, 2014 Funding will be addressed at a future meeting when the priority item list is finalized.