September 29, 2015

Mr. Wichman

emphasized that during today’s meeting he must have a decision from this committee regarding a recommended and/or prohibited plant list for new landscaping (pg. 21). He discussed changes in language that he made on page 30 in Section M. Gregory Hafen, II noted new language that had been provided by Wendy Barnett that was added to Section H as it relates to allowing utilities to put in backbone infrastructure. There was discussion about organized weed control districts that operate in Nevada. Tri-County Weed Control provides services to both public and private entities. They can provide staff, equipment and chemicals for eradication of weeds that are not generally available at your local hardware store. A reference to this district will be added to page 21 as it relates to prohibited plants. During discussion, it was decided that under the section “Prohibited Plants for New Landscaping,” Salt Cedar would be the only species that is specifically mentioned. References to UNCE’s invasive species list would be retained so the public can do further investigation into that topic. Upon Greg Dann’s recommendation, it was decided that the SNWA “Water Smart Landscapes Program Plant List should be included as Appendix G in the final document. On page 20 it was decided that the statement “this item has budgetary impacts” should be removed since the entire document itself has budgetary impacts. There was discussion about the potential for people to plant turf, then remove it so they could receive payment in doing so. Gregory Hafen, II felt 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee September 29. 2015 that deed restrictions could deal with that problem. Oz Wichman stressed that at the moment this is just a plan. That is why we are calling this Stage One. Wendy Barnett related that this type of program has been very successful in other communities. There was other discussion about at what point in time it may be necessary to begin considering importation of water as an option.

Mr. Wichman

related that, at the request of Jason King, he will be adding language to Section M that discusses the amount of water savings that might be achieved by implementing items proposed in the plan. Also, balancing of water use trends with that of population trends needs be addressed. During public comment Amy Nelson related her experiences with eliminating Salt Cedar on her property. She agreed that this plant should be outlawed throughout the valley and emphasized that vacant lots with Salt Cedar growing presented a major area of concern. Dave Caudle noted that the basin is currently in balance as it relates to population vs. usage, but ½ acre foot per lot may not be sufficient for some of the larger lots. Wade Hinden felt that Nye County should pay to remove Salt Cedar from lands that had been forfeited back to the county in lieu of taxes. Katreen Romanoff felt that growth control should be implemented. Diane Holguin thought that population growth figures included in this document were not accurate. Oz Wichman related that Salt Cedar eradication is an important issue which will require a major commitment and source of funding from the community itself.

Mr. Leising

related that precipitation more efficiently penetrates into the aquifer at higher elevations where the soil is more permeable. Due to the tightly packed soils in the valley floor, precipitation does not readily permeate. For the most part, the valley aquifer is replenished by waters flowing downhill from the mountain. The water level in the valley aquifer will decrease if pumping exceeds the rate at which water flows into the basin from the mountain source. This is referred to as the Water Balance. If the rate of water flowing from the mountain exceeds that which can be taken into a lower basin, water may seep out through faults along the route in the form of artesian springs. Data compilation is now complete and results will be incorporated into the final report. Mr. Leising was unsuccessful in determining whether or not there existed a “sweet spot” on the valley floor. He felt that the fan was more likely to have a sweet spot due to the composition of the soils. One of Mr. Leising’s challenges was to assess whether or not some fluctuations in valley water levels were climate derived. He noted that there was some evidence of climatic trends, most notably in undeveloped portions on the southern end of the valley. He determined that there needs to be a sustained long term change before evidence is reflected in the aquifer. Primary impact on the basin appears to be from pumpage. Distribution of domestic wells has a major impact upon declining water levels in certain areas. In general, if every type of well in the basin were to pump between .5 - .7 AF per year, between 11,000 to 13,000 AF would be pumped annually. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee September 29. 2015 In doing analogies with the Las Vegas Valley, Mr. Leising has determined that there may be as many as 30,000 AF in perennial yield for Basin 162, but he cautioned that these numbers were only speculative. The 20,000 AF established by the DWR is the standard on which to base future decisions. He estimated that the basin is losing around 5,000 AF per year as it flows out of the valley (a reduction in storage). If you count the average of 12,000 AF used by wells annually plus the 5,000 AF in storage loss, that leaves around 3,000 AF per year for other purposes.

Mr. Leising

recommends continuing the various Groundwater Evaluation programs and adding additional wells in order to better assess changes occurring in the basin. There needs to be more information gathered regarding just how much water is actually being used by domestic wells. Averaging .5 AF per domestic well will help keep water levels in balance. More lithologic information needs to be gathered on the wells that are being monitored. This can be captured through driller’s well logs for individual wells. This information can be fed into water models in making more accurate estimations of water flow. He felt that geophysical studies are needed and exploratory wells must be drilled on the fan in order to get a better idea about the characteristics of the alluvium. This was done in the Las Vegas Valley with much success. It cannot be done without funding. Upon questioning, Mr. Leising explained that the 12,000 AF annual usage figure was derived from reports submitted to the DWR over the last 10 years. Greg Dann noted that on page 6 of the Groundwater Management Plan annual pumpage for 2013 is reported at 14,384 AF annually. Mr. Leising noted that his number was based upon net figures which did not include potential recharge from septic systems and irrigation. There was discussion about moving water from the Trout Canyon or Carpenter Canyon fans to help augment declining levels in the central valley. It was agreed that this undertaking would be very expensive but it does have potential. Mr. Leising felt that building water retention/rapid infiltration basins on the fan in order to capture run-off would help to recharge the valley aquifer. It may also be possible to pump treated effluent to a recharge basin the so it can infiltrate into the water supply. There is much more information that needs to be gathered which will require a source for funding. The drilling of wells to evaluate lithography in determining water flows into and around the valley should be considered. He encouraged incorporating volunteer data into the scientific studies. The significance of using sub-basin information to determine the direction of water flow was discussed.

Mr. Leising

presented graphs showing the relationship between years with increased precipitation and the impact upon water levels at various wells.