July 28, 2015

Mr. Wichman

noted that there needs to be an option available for people to connect to a utility in areas where the water table is in decline. Capping wells may help to stabilize water levels in a given area. It is up to this committee to recommend actions that will help to reverse this decline. Redistribution of pumping; incentives to connect to utility companies; continuing to fund the Groundwater Level Monitoring Program; use of groundwater modeling and aquifer storage and recovery are all tools that can directly address this issue. Walt Kuver related that hooking up every lot to a utility is not a solution because, in the end, there is just not enough water available. Wendy Barnett stated that UICN is only bound to provide service in its approved service area. The most heavily pumped areas are not part of any utility service area at the moment. Ms. Barnett explained that the utility company receives a domestic well credit for each well that is connected. Oz Wichman explained the total number of wells versus the actual number of domestic wells in the valley and how he derived those numbers from a well density map. There was discussion about production well locations not being pinpointed on the map. Mr. Wichman related that the pumping inventory on a production well varies from year to year as water rights tend to be transferred between different points of use. Kenny Bent had concerns about production wells drawing too much water that would negatively impact areas of the valley where the water table is falling. Gregory Hafen related that this is where a modeling program can help with formulating a redistribution plan for future pumping.

Mr. Wichman

related that he has incorporated additional information into this draft plan that was not part of the original 13 ideas recommended for inclusion. With that, Gregory Hafen began to go through the draft, page by page, asking for comment from committee members as he went along. On page 4 Wendy Barnett questioned how the 50 gallons/day/capita was derived. Mr. Hafen related that all manners of water consumption are incorporated into that figure and not just household usage. Walt Kuver didn’t think that the 20,000 AF perennial yield figure was accurate because about 8,000 AF flows off of the fan to the south and on to California. Mr. Hafen discussed how a redistribution plan could help capture that water. Rick Felling, representing the DWR, explained how the perennial yield number was derived. In discussing page 5, Oz Wichman explained that RIB’s and recharge basins both serve to put water back into the basin. He noted that Inyo County was removed from inclusion in this document due to the vast complexity of issues surrounding California water. Greg Dann wanted to have the actual pumpage of the basin included in this document so people may get a better grasp of the situation. Wendy Barnett questioned references to the over-dedication of water rights on page 6. Mr. Wichman explained that those excess water rights can never be moved for use in a different project. 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee July 28. 2015 During discussion of items on page 7, Oz Wichman clarified for everyone that certificated water rights and water rights that are in a permit status are equally valid. When a certificated water right is moved to a new point of diversion, the only thing that changes is that beneficial use must be proven at the new location before it is re-certificated. Greg Dann was in disagreement. Christian Bentzen felt that there should be a distinction made between certificated and permitted water rights within the Groundwater Management Plan so we know where “cuts” can be made. Mr. Wichman responded that this was a fallacy and “cuts” are made based upon priority date. Rick Felling from the DWR confirmed that permitted and certificated water rights are treated the same when it comes to regulation by priority. Some certificated rights may have very early priority dates and retain their seniority through time. Greg Dann felt that the law was flawed. Gregory Hafen stressed that this committee was originally formed to define solutions before the State Engineer might feel the need to regulate by priority. Darrell Lacy noted that the number of allocated water rights in Basin 162 is diminishing because the State Engineer is beginning to deny extensions for some permits. Oz Wichman discussed how the “Conservation Credit” would be a useful tool for utility companies to relinquish some of those permitted water rights back to the basin. Referring to page 9, Gregory Hafen stressed that staff needs to expand the table to figure out what the true adjusted over-allocation number should be. Oz Wichman stressed that this project will take many hours of additional staff time to be completed. Kenny Bent was concerned that the minimum lot size required for a septic system was too small. Gregory Hafen related that county code issues will be discussed at a later time. Moving on, Mr. Hafen reviewed changes in language that were requested by the committee for various pages of the plan. Regarding water importation, Rick Felling related that the process was not overly complicated but it seemed to generate a lot of opposition from outside organizations which can make it difficult to move forward. Mr. Felling clarified that Clark County cannot draw water from Basin 162 because it is already over-appropriated. There was discussion about a water importation project proposed by Oz Wichman that is included in this draft plan. Mr. Wichman reminded everyone that one of the priority items suggested by this committee was importation of water into the Pahrump Basin. Noting that this would be a project for the future, Greg Hafen emphasized that it was important to begin a feasibility study now in order to find out if there is any water available to import. Dan Schinhofen felt that it was important to think long term so that there will be water available for future generations to come. Gregory Hafen commented that with regards to the conservation section of the plan, both Darrell Lacy and Greg Dann have been working together to come up with both a preferred and a prohibited plant list for new landscaping. Revisions to the Nye County Code are recommended as a first step in implementing the conservation plan. Regarding the water education section, there was discussion about avenues available to disseminate information to the public. Greg Dann suggested including information about ways one could detect water leaks in their system. There was some discussion about the recommendation to require meters on new domestic wells. Kenny Bent felt this was something that the county could require during the building process. Darrell Lacy thought that the DA’s office may need to be consulted regarding the legality of this proposal. Rick Felling stated that the DWR has never regulated groundwater in the state, but if there became a need, domestic wells can be regulated by priority date. Greg Dann questioned whether people should be directed to water right brokers to purchase additional water rights. Oz Wichman stressed the importance of keeping people informed about their options. He said that the term water “broker” will be changed to “agent” to avoid any potential legal issues. John Guillory explained that a domestic well owner is allowed to add additional water to an existing well, but they will be required to prove beneficial use for the additional water. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee July 28. 2015 During discussion of RIB’s it was noted that this water did not to be treated since the ground acted as a natural filter of contaminants. Oz Wichman discussed the benefits of aquifer storage and recovery in stabilization of water levels in the valley. A feasibility study with cost estimates will have to be conducted. Rick Felling noted that water can be recharged through a RIB. It does not have to be injected into the aquifer. There was discussion about the installation of backbone infrastructure in areas where water levels are dropping. Oz Wichman felt that he needed to reword this section so that the benefits and logistics of water redistribution are better understood. During a discussion of costs, it was noted that grants and special taxing districts could provide funding to implement such a project. The committee reviewed changes to the development agreement section. Wendy Barnett questioned whether developers would be given credit for implementing water conservation measures. Darrell Lacy stated that a development agreement is an ordinance within itself and can come forward with alternative dedication requirements that must be approved by the RPC and the BOCC. He also related how the Master Plan can control growth through regulation of allowable lot sizes. There was discussion about regulating water use through enforcement of CC&R’s. Kenny Bent explained that the valley was already at the breaking point when it came to having enough water for developments that have already been approved. There should not be any new developments approved going forward. Walt Kuver suggested the concept of “staged” growth control which would provide some flexibility in enforcement. Wendy Barnett cautioned about changing the minimal lot size to one acre as it will enable these lots to be eligible for a domestic well. During public comment John Bosta suggested that the Water District had no authority to limit the amount of water drawn from new domestic wells as that would require a change in water law. He also expressed concerns about water being drawn from the valley floor and pumped to the fan in order to fill water tanks owned by utility companies. He felt utility companies were partially responsible for declines in the valley floor aquifer. (See attached.) Joe Leising briefly commented that a water model that is overly complicated will be assumption driven due to its complexity. ASR is possible in this valley but it requires suitable conditions in order to work properly, and water that is recharged must be monitored as it could potentially contaminate the aquifer.

Mr. Lacy

related that he attended the governor’s drought forum last week and briefly discussed some of the material presented there. B. Oz Wichman

Mr. Wichman

noted that he and Darrell Lacy had attended a meeting in Diamond Valley where the state designated the basin a Critical Management Area. Eureka County is now working on a groundwater management plan. There are concerns about the published pumpage inventory which they feel is overstated and citizens requested adjudication of the entire basin. They are using the latest techniques to minimize water usage and are generally supportive of the State Engineer, give him the utmost respect and are in support of the CMA designation. C. Levi Kryder 5 Groundwater Advisory Committee July 28. 2015 None D. John Klenke In response to Mr. Bosta’s observations, he related that the Water District is working with UICN to collect data on their production wells in the vicinity of Hwy 162. He has data going back to 2004 and noted that those wells are not dropping any faster than surrounding domestic wells. In general they are drilled deeper than domestic wells. He has not observed any impact from these wells at this point.