October 12, 2015

Mr. Hafen

continued to describe each of the ideas or remedies that were included in the plan. He stressed over and over again that metering was only proposed for new domestic wells, and not for those currently in service. He noted that the entire list of ideas that was compiled for possible inclusion in the plan has been placed in the appendix section of the document. These items may be reconsidered at a future date as elements of the original plan are implemented or not implemented. The current document is just a first step in a long on-going process. Upon questioning, Mr. Hafen clarified that the plan was designed to be Pahrump specific, although ideas from other cities were considered throughout this process. Greg Dann felt that language in Chapter 3 which refers to “beneficial use” was inadequate and it may mislead people. Walt Kuver clarified to Mr. Dann that the language in Chapter 5 deals with using “wet” water more wisely and is not an attempt to limit water usage by domestic well owners. Referring to Table 2, Mr. Hafen pointed out that the water levels in Basin 162 have been declining over the last 10 years. Mr. Kuver explained that in the broader sense of finding a solution to the problem, the amount of over allocated water rights will be addressed at some point so the basin can be brought into balance. We cannot proceed until we know that exact figure. Gregory Hafen, II noted that the Pahrump Master Plan Revision of 2014 also proposes many steps going forward that deal with bringing the basin into balance. Mr. Dann then questioned which “springs” were being referred to in the section dealing with ASR and importation. Oz Wichman noted that he was using a generalized assumption when referring to springs. Mr. Hafen emphasized that feasibility studies must be performed before any project of this sort can even be considered for implementation. Jim Weeks felt that this was a very good start toward addressing a very big problem. Dave Hall commented that we should start immediately with implementing the little things that don’t cost a lot of money and that public education was very important. Oz Wichman clarified that he will be either adding simplified language to Chapter 3, or that it may be in the form of an Appendix that deals with the process of perfecting a water right as per instructions from Greg Dann. This will aid the public in understanding the process. Darrell Lacy related that State Engineer wants to see quantification of water savings and a time frame for implementation of various pieces of the plan. Basically, the final product is an application to the State Engineer for acceptance the Groundwater Management Plan. Mr. Lacy was looking for direction from the Water Board as to what the next steps would be going forward. Greg Dann noted that there is some information still missing on page 9, in Table 3. Jason King stressed that those numbers are “key” to final adoption of the plan. They serve as benchmarks toward achieving a sustainable balance for Basin 162. Oz Wichman noted that it will take many months to get those numbers quantified. There are hundreds of subdivision maps that must be reviewed in the process in order to get a handle on the exact number of water rights that could potentially be developed. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee October 12. 2015

Mr. King

noted that now is the time, while the basin is not being over-pumped, to develop a plan that will accommodate future growth and keep the basin in balance. Mr. King stressed that current water law “hamstrings” what the DWR can do to protect domestic well owners. Most domestic well owners are “junior” to senior water right holders and they can be curtailed by priority date as per the law. A Groundwater Management Plan developed by citizens of this basin is a way to prevent future curtailment of water especially if the community experiences another growth spurt. Be a part of the solution. Greg Dann stressed that we are in this current situation because there was no plan in the past but that the current proposal was not fair and equitable either. Oz Wichman noted that not everybody on the committee got everything that they wanted to be included in the plan and some compromises were made. Upon questioning by Jim Weeks, Mr. Wichman noted the plan must be adopted before we can move forward with budgetary considerations. That will be addressed one item at a time as we move forward with implementation. Gregory Hafen, II related that the Water District has already funded some studies and educational programs that deal with water balance issues in the basin. Dan Sweeney felt that this was a great plan that can be used as a model for other basins in Nye County that may find themselves in a similar predicament. Kenny Bent discussed water that is not being captured in the southern end of the valley and how it is included in the 20,000 AF of annual recharge. Oz Wichman felt that this would be addressed during planning for water redistribution in the valley. Walt Kuver stressed that we need a strong, well- staffed, well informed, adequately funded Water District to go forth into the future and make this successful. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened. Gregory Hafen, II read into the record some written public comment (see attached). A summary of public comment regarding this agenda item is as follows: • John Bosta: There is no budget included for the plan; Jason King has not yet declared Basin 162 to be a Critical Management Area; the State Engineer has no authority over non-artesian wells; the plan should not be based upon future legislation and he denounced the proposed Conservation Credit plan. • Dan Burejsza: Asked what would be considered a new well and why a big business has a right to put in a large lake when we have a water shortage? • Dave Caudle: Had concerns about the proposed watering schedule and why propose a groundwater management plan when the basin had not been declared critical? He questioned the process of purchasing additional water rights by individuals. • Michael Griffin: Questioned if watering of livestock would be limited and felt that people could not afford to pay for meters on their wells. • Katreen Romanoff: This plan was only the beginning of complete control of people by the government; people were angry; this plan favors utility companies and developers; she wants a moratorium on growth and all those paper things should be deleted (water rights?). • Tony DeMeo: There is no prioritization in the plan; the BOCC has been negligent in listening to his recommendations in the past with regards to salt cedar removal and ways to save water because they all they want to do is promote growth; and all of the proposed new regulations are too much to swallow at this time. • Terry Nelson: Suggested there be “tree police” and regulations for the nurseries; there is deception here; put a moratorium on future construction; we plan to maintain our own wells and we don’t need a utility company to take over; and she doesn’t want to see a critical status. • Janice Cullen: Why are we denying businesses while encouraging more people to move here? Do we have a mandate from the State, Federal Government or the UN for them to control our water? 5 Groundwater Advisory Committee October 12. 2015 • Ken McLeroy: Why are you considering limiting water to .5 AF for new domestic wells when water allocations for subdivisions are much higher? How can you justify allowing these subdivisions to be built if there isn’t enough water? • Linda Hatley: Questioned what would be considered a new well? This needs to be specifically addressed in the plan so well owners can feel secure; and we want all of the numbers included in the plan before it is approved. • Mike Hickey: Asked why large water right holders are not held to the same standards as the smaller water right owner when it comes to proving beneficial use? • Dwight Lilly: Why is the moratorium issue always pushed aside? Why is there no BDR sponsored by this board to change water laws regarding beneficial use? • Andrew Alberti: We were lied to about Pahrump having the 3rd largest aquifer in the nation; we need a moratorium on construction; we don’t want the state to manage our water; the local citizens can take care of this; and we need more businesses built to provide jobs. • Carl Jakob: Why don’t we have a moratorium on building instead of placing the burden on current well owners? • John Wulfkulhe: Is there a way to reward people to not waste water in order to prove beneficial use? He liked being able to have a large grassy lawn for his dogs. • Dean Brooks: We don’t need government in here poking around; and the state issued too many water rights so let them take care of the problem instead of putting it on our backs. We need less government, so all board members should resign. • Michelle Pfiester: An economy that is based upon continuous growth is completely unsustainable; we need a reasonable cut-off for growth; and she was not in favor of fracking. • Diane Holguin: Population projections included in the plan are ludicrous; she stressed that the real population in Pahrump is around 22,000 because people have moved away; and we do not want a totalitarian government. • Betsy Lilly: Suggested that water which is wasted to prove beneficial use be put in cement trucks and saved for future use. Oz Wichman commented that even though the basin is not currently over-pumped, water levels continue to decline in many areas of the valley. We are attempting to do a plan now before we reach a critical point and an increasing number of wells begin to go dry. He noted that the Conservation Credit Program is actually the Water Banking Plan that had been proposed and approved by this committee at an earlier date. Jim Weeks continued to have concerns about how the plan would fit into Water District budgeting for the future. Gregory Dann, II related that people can report blatant wasting of water to the State Engineer so that he can investigate and resolve the problem. Oz Wichman was directed to add additional language that clarifies that refurbishment, rehabilitation or replacement of an existing well shall not be considered as the drilling a new well. A new domestic well is one that is drilled upon a lot which has never had a well drilled in its previous history. Jason King related that the DWR has the discretion, according to law, to require a well owner to hook-up to a utility if the infrastructure is within 180 ft. of the property line. Kenny Bent discussed a report, done in 1971, that is included in the appendix of the GWMP, with regards to the amount of population that can be supported by the perennial yield in Basin 162. He agreed that there is a definite problem and a plan is needed, but the current proposal needs some tweaking. He noted that the GWMP Committee is an advisory board which was tasked with bringing a plan to the BOCC and not to the Water Board for their approval and adoption. Greg Dann agreed with the State Engineer that we must have a plan in order to go forward and prepare for the future, although he did not like this particular plan as he felt it was not equitable. 6 Groundwater Advisory Committee October 12. 2015

Mr. Wichman

related that he would not be able to have the missing numbers compiled for Table 3 by January 2016. Before he spends endless hours putting together the numbers for Table 3 he would like to know if the BOCC accepts or rejects the plan. He also noted that the Water Board has a right to review the plan since they will be the group that actually provides funding. Wendy Barnett made a motion to set the next meeting of the Basin 162 Groundwater Management Plan Committee for January 26, 2016 beginning at 9 AM. Lenny Badger seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 6-1 in favor. Greg Dann cast the only dissenting vote. Greg Dann felt that there would be no reason to continue meetings with the committee as the document is basically complete at this point. What are we going to accomplish in January? Oz Wichman related that there was no harm with scheduling a meeting in case the BOCC decides that the document needs further work from the committee. The meeting can always be cancelled if need be.