February 23, 2015

Mr. Lazarus

noted that his company has been doing work in Nye County since 1998, and that this model has already been used by the Water District to evaluate pumping effects of the proposed BrightSource Solar Project. Mr. Lazarus summarized the numerous projects that his company has been involved with in Nye County as well as other locations thru-out Nevada. The model provides an easy method to evaluate the impact that water right transfers may have on nearby wells, also referred to as the “shifted depletion effect.” It can be used as an effective planning tool and is easily updated with the most recent data. The model was modified to incorporate DWR comments and suggestions. Using visual aids

Mr. Lazarus

described the boundaries and geology of areas included in the model. The specific yield in different regions of the aquifer was dependent upon the type of geology present. Mr. Lazarus detailed a model that was created for the Pahrump Dairy using pumpage data collected over several years from 4 different monitoring wells in the creation of hydrographs for that area.

Mr. Lazarus

related that the model has been proven to be accurate in predicting water level changes within a couple of feet when compared to actual water level measurements that have been taken. Greg Dann questioned the need for a water model and the cost. Darrell Lacy explained that the Water District already owns this program and staff is available to run it upon request.

Mr. Lazarus

answered questions from the public regarding how the model can show water level changes in the basin. There was comment on who should manage the model. Mr. Lazarus related that a pumping test must be run in an area of concern in order to have a model created for that area. A local well driller offered to provide well drilling data to the Water District, although drilling logs for all wells are published on the DWR website. One member of the public felt that a model should be run for all development proposals going forward. Jay Dixon suggested that the Water District perform timed drawdown series pump tests whenever there was an opportunity, especially in the southern end of the valley. Darrell Lacy related that it was just a matter of time, money and staff, each of which is in short supply. 9. (01:29:53) For Possible Action – Presentation, discussion and possible direction to staff regarding an update on the status of the Nye County Water District Water Level Measurement Program. Levi Kryder and John Klenke presented the 2014 update of the Water Level Measurement Program. Mr. Kryder noted that the program to evaluate water level trends has been in operation for 15 years. Maps presented represent the best data available for assessing water level trends in southern Nye County and managing groundwater issues in the Pahrump Valley. He briefly discussed the geology of the 3 Nye County Water District Governing Board February 23, 2015 valley and noted that none of the wells were located in the deep carbonate bedrock but were all within in the valley fill or alluvial fan sediments. Using a series of maps, Mr. Kryder showed water level changes for different locations in the Pahrump and Amargosa Valley’s within the last 10 years. He briefly discussed groundwater flow models and their usefulness, but noted that they are only as good and accurate as the data that is input. John Klenke briefly discussed fundamentals of the current water level measurement program which encompasses 170 wells that are measured every 2 months. He also addressed the QA standards which are strictly adhered to when entering data. The program was basically a full time job for one person. One member of the public felt that it was critical for the Water District to know where wells are being redrilled because of declining water levels, and that the measurement program should be expanded since it is crucial to obtain more data. 16. (01:58:53) For Possible Action – Discussion, deliberation and possible decision to: 1) approve a Professional Services Agreement with dba MaryEllen C. Giampaoli for $80,000, to update the Nye County Water Resources Plan; and 2) execute the agreement. Darrell Lacy noted that the update of the Water Resources Plan has been budgeted for the last couple of years. The Water District has not had adequate staff available to perform this task, so cost estimates were requested from outside contractors. Levi Kryder noted that the Water Resource Plan update was one of the top priority items listed by both the Water Board and Groundwater Management Plan Committee. Based upon responses from 3 different contractors, MaryEllen C. Giampaoli was chosen to update the plan. Greg Dann felt that this funding should be reallocated to the modeling program. Mr. Kryder reminded him that the Water Resource Plan was not specific to the Pahrump Basin but encompasses the entire county. John MacLaughlin noted that the update has been budgeted since the inception of the Water District and will be used by all communities throughout the county. The existing plan is 10 years old and drastically outdated. Jay Dixon made a motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement with MaryEllen C. Giampaoli for $80,000 to update the Nye County Water Resources Plan and to execute the agreement. James Eason seconded the motion. Upon questioning from one member of the public, Darrell Lacy related that the original Water Resources plan was never funded by the NWRPO and the county is obligated to have a plan as per requirements of the Department of Water Resources. It is well within the budget of the Water District. Mr. Kryder related that the original plan was done under the auspices of the Nye County Natural Resources Department and paid out of the Nye County General Fund.

Mr. King

briefly discussed Senate Bill 81. Under consideration is a proposal that the BOCC petition the State Engineer to accept the Groundwater Management Plan his evaluation and consideration.

Mr. Bentzen

expressed concerns about potential profit to be gained by water right owners in the event of a water crisis. Greg Dann’s claim that the utility companies would like to force everyone to hook-up to their systems was refuted by Wendy Barnett of UICN, a current domestic well owner herself, and Gregory Hafen II from Pahrump Utilities. Mr. Hafen noted that the mission statement for the Groundwater Committee stresses that a “fair and equitable” plan for everyone is the primary goal.

Mr. King

discussed some of the items being proposed for inclusion in the plan. He felt that the water right banking plan proposal from Oz Wichman had some real merit even though it goes against some of the principals of Nevada Water Law: If it helps bring the basin back into balance why not try it? Mr. King stated that there was nothing in the list of 11 priority items that he could not support. 5 Nye County Water District Governing Board February 23, 2015 Greg Dann related that he had reached out to the governor, and a member of his staff told him that he would not be able to speak to the governor about water. It was suggested that Mr. Dann could be allowed to participate in a meeting that would include staff, Jason King and himself but he did not receive a follow-up phone call about scheduling a meeting. Walt Kuver felt that the Groundwater Committee was not close to being done and the 11 items were picked to provide focus for the near term and there was much more work to do. Wendy Barnett emphasized that UICN already requires water users to dedicate much more water than they will need: That is, 1.12 AF per lot which is approximately 1,000 gallons per day when the actual average use is around 250 gallons per day. Pahrump Utilities’ usage is very similar according to Gregory Hafen II. John MacLaughlin discussed the benefits of metering a well. There was discussion about the increase in water allocation requirements by the State from .54 AF to 1.12 AF in a utility district and how that impacts older approved subdivisions. Darrell Lacy related that the Water District may be able to work with the utilities in finding a solution for easing the burden on owners when it comes to purchasing the additional .58 AF. Michael Lach questioned Jason King about moving water rights around in order to prove beneficial use. Mr. King related that one cannot prove beneficial use under a Temporary Permit. That can only be accomplished through a Permanent Change Request Application. He went on to discuss the benefits of a water relinquishment plan proposed in SB 81 and noted that Nevada is not the only state that requires proof of beneficial use. Rick Felling from the DWR noted that the state routinely looks at all Change Requests to evaluate the impact there may be on existing wells in the area. Transfers must comply with water law. Upon questioning, Mr. King noted that the DWR does monitor wells in an area where water rights are transferred to a different location. Greg Dann felt that water education was the most important item included in the priority list and stressed the importance of the DWR calling for proofs of beneficial use from larger water right holders. Mr. King related that this issue is being addressed in Senate Bill 81 with a proposal to limit the number of times extensions may be filed. During public comment there were concerns expressed about the following: The amount of water allocated to small lots in a utility district vs. lots over an acre in size; lack of a clear definition for the term “beneficial use”; the fact that a priority date is not affected even if there is a change in use; how the State Engineer is not protecting the domestic wells by including them in SB 81; proposing a moratorium on development since more water is currently being used than that of the perennial yield; purchasing additional water rights to supplement a domestic well; and the utility companies never extending their water lines as promised years ago. Gregory Hafen noted that Oz Wichman was directed by the Groundwater Management Committee to attend the water law workshops in Carson City to present his banking proposal to the State Engineer after the committee voted to include this in the list of priority items. Mr. Wichman detailed how this concept evolved. Mike Lach liked the idea of not wasting water to prove beneficial use but wasn’t sure about waiving the requirement for water right owners. 10. (03:56:29) For Possible Action – Discussion, deliberation and decision by the Nye County Water District Governing Board regarding support and recommended changes for SB’s 65 and 81. 6 Nye County Water District Governing Board February 23, 2015 Darrell Lacy related that there have been amendments made to SB’s 65 and 81since the board and committee received their information packets. These items are still a work in progress and subject to further change. Jason King related that both bills submitted to this legislative session originated from his office. SB 65 is mainly a housekeeping item with not many substantive changes. SB 81 was written to specifically address Areas of Active Management (Critical Management Areas). There were only 3 individuals present to protest the proposals. All were domestic well owners from Pahrump. Fifteen members of the legislature remained neutral on the subject, with the State Engineer’s Office being the only entity showing support. There has only been one workshop at this time. Mr. King explained items that may be allowed in a groundwater management plan for a basin designated as an Area of Active Management. This includes the water right banking proposal, although that can be modified to include more restrictions. This is the first time that petitions for change are originating at the County Commission level as opposed to coming from a majority of water right holders. Greg Dann did not agree with the banking concept as it allows certain people to be exempt from existing water law, although it has value in removing some water rights off of the books. Dave Hall related that proving beneficial use for large water owners is an extremely expensive endeavor. By relinquishing a portion of their rights they will have the financial ability to use the remaining amount in a more productive manner. Mr. Dann feared that there will be speculation in water rights as they become less available. In answer to a question from John MacLaughlin, Mr. King related that water from springs and artesian wells is included in perennial yield estimates even though it may never flow to the valley floor. Gregory Hafen II questioned why language referring to domestic wells being a part of the solution was removed. Mr. King explained that only new tools required for dealing with a groundwater management plan were kept. Items already established within existing law were removed. What was added was that if water usage was to be curtailed it could not be less than .5 AF per year. This was a concession to domestic well owners that fear their wells will be taken away from them. John Bosta presented a notice of a taking of real property to Board, Committee Members and the State Engineer (see attached). Upon questioning by a member of the public, Jason King reiterated again that most domestic wells are junior in time to senior water rights and if the State regulates by priority alone, most of these wells will be rendered useless all the way back to the priority date of 1948. This is the date that the basin became over-allocated based upon current perennial recharge numbers. Debbie Strickland questioned whether a water right that was relinquished in order to drill a domestic well could serve as a basis for the priority date of that well rather than the drill date? Mr. King noted that this idea has never been tested in court and there were very few wells drilled that had dedicated water. Michael Lach questioned why utility companies are not being asked to relinquished all of their over allocated water rights back to the basin if they are not going to be used. Mr. King related the state could still regulate by priority date within a block of rights that no longer had to prove beneficial use. They would not be exempt from all water law. Jay Dixon made a motion for staff to follow direction from John MacLaughlin to keep working with Jason King and other governmental agencies, and continue to represent Nye County at various meetings and workshops with the legislature. James Eason seconded the motion. Greg Dann questioned what staff will be representing at those hearings. Oz Wichman related that he will be pursuing the water banking concept as per 7 Nye County Water District Governing Board February 23, 2015 direction from the Groundwater Committee. Greg Dann noted that he did not agree with language in SB 81 on page 3, line 33.

Mr. Kryder

related that Joe Leising was present to give an update on the status of his project. Mr. Leising discussed progress thus far: Gridded data sets have been acquired and developed; sub-watersheds have been defined along with entry of precipitation data for those locations; and he has acquired data from the Water District Water Level Measurement program as well as the water level data base from the State Engineer. Thus far he is encouraged by his findings. There appears to be a trend toward rising water levels on the fan which may be a function of climate. A shift in precipitation from summertime to wintertime results in more water recharge to the aquifer. There was other discussion about geology and how it may affect the flow of water into the valley aquifer. Following comment by Greg Dann regarding his discovery of what he felt was an anomaly, Levi Kryder pointed out that there are a few wells throughout the valley 10 Nye County Water District Governing Board February 23, 2015 that have unusually high water levels compared to other wells in the same vicinity. The source of these water anomalies has yet to be identified. IV. John Klenke

Mr. Klenke

noted that those anomalies have already been documented for several years by staff. d. Project Status Report I. Staff No comment e. Board Liaison Report I. Frank Carbone

Mr. Carbone

noted that a budget hearing is scheduled for the BOCC Meeting of March 3, 2015. This may have some effect on future staffing. f. Report from other individuals, groups and or agencies regarding water-related issues: For informational purposes only. None