December 14, 2015

Mr. Benesch

replied that he is also a domestic well owner and could be impacted like everybody else. The statement “all water belongs to the people of Nevada” comes directly from the State Legislature in NRS 534.02 (1). The Legislature overruled previous common law that was based upon riparian law which was only in effect for a 2 Nye County Water District Governing Board December 14, 2015 few years. This is his educated opinion but he has no authority to rule on that. Darrell Lacy related that the State has ruled on this law and it has stood up in court. During public comment, John Bosta explained how he was in disagreement with Mr. Benesch by reciting old water law and discussing old cases which he feels are still relevant to current water law. He also explained that the “Mission Statement” of the Water Board was not accurate in that the Water Board does not have power over all waters in Nye County like, for example, bottled water. Kenny Bent gave his opinion defining percolating and artesian water, and related his interpretation of various sections of current Nevada Water Law. He stated that Mr. Benesch’s opinion letter had “no credence.” Mr. Bent’s opinion was that domestic water is excluded from and not under the jurisdiction of current water law. Darrell Lacy related that George Benesch is a specialist in Water Law, has served as Assistant Attorney General for many years and was an advisor to the Nevada Department of Water Resources. He noted that it is important to rely on the opinion of someone that is trained in the law and not rely upon someone that is not. Tim Hafen was disturbed by the previous discussion relating to Mr. Benesch’s legal opinion. Clarifying that if, indeed, all water that is below one’s property belongs to the land under which it resides, then he sure owned a hell of a lot of water when he owned 1,400 acres of land; he must have “missed the boat on that one.” He was in agreement with Mr. Benesch on the legality of the 1939 update to State Water Law. DC Shuey wished to see a scientific map made using federal funds, that shows how much water there is underground in the valley and where it originates. Kenny Bent related that we should not rely on Mr. Benesch’s opinion as he was the water law attorney for the City of Mesquite when the city council was accused of financial illegalities. The case has yet to be resolved in court. Oz Wichman stated that he was very uncomfortable with the nature of the discussion with regard to Mr. Benesch’s creditability. The referenced City of Mesquite lawsuits have nothing to do with the fray in Pahrump. He encouraged the Chair, Greg Dann, to keep public comment on track, and to keep the slanderous comments and references to Mr. Benesch out of the discussion as it is not appropriate and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Greg Dann defended Mr. Bent’s position by noting that Mr. Benesch has been mentioned in the media for his relationship to this case and it puts him on the “radar screen.” In his opinion, those comments were not slanderous since one can read about the case in the newspaper. Mr. Wichman related (again) that this discussion makes him extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Dann felt that Mr. Benesch’s involvement with the case calls for him to question Mr. Benesch’s credibility, even though there have been no charges levied against him.

Mr. Dann

read into the record comments from Wendy Barnett of UICN. She stated that the Water Treatment Plant in question was located on a parcel separate from that of Discovery Park. They lease parcels of land in Discovery Park for discharge of treated, reclaimed water. Nye County has mistaken ownership of these 2 separately owned properties which operate under 2 separate permits from NDEP. NDEP regulates water quality. NDEP and the PUC have already approved the RIB. Greg Dann stated that he does not endorse the letter and he felt that advanced water treatment should be looked as a requirement for all RIB’s. He next read into the record a letter from Dave Caudle. Mr. Caudle felt that RIB’s should not be used in Basin 162 as it is a closed basin; do we really want NDEP monitoring our groundwater?

Mr. Dann

requested that this item be brought back to the board again for further discussion and consideration. Darrell Lacy noted that 3 years ago the Water District received funding to perform a “Community Source Water Protection Plan for Public Water Systems in Nye County” which was completed in November of 2012. He said that there are areas in the valley that currently exceed the acceptable nitrogen levels established for drinking water. Mr. Lacy agreed that there needs to be further discussion by the board about water quality in the valley. He stressed that there is a distinct difference between discharge into groundwater (requiring an injection well) and discharge into RIB’s, both requiring different types of permits. In a RIB the soil does additional clean-up of water as it permeates through the ground. 4 Nye County Water District Governing Board December 14, 2015

Mr. Dann

requested that Mr. Lacy bring back information on UV processing of water.

Mr. Lacy

noted that parcels of land that are referred to in Wendy Barnett’s comment letter are actually owned by the same parent corporation, that being UICN. Jim Weeks suggested that an NDEP representative attend a meeting to discuss the RIB monitoring process especially as it relates to dropping the requirement for a monitoring well. John Bosta wondered if the push for RIB’s was due to the fact that a recharge credit would be given to the basin by the DWR for the return of water to the basin. He suggested that results of groundwater testing by NDEP were being kept secret and that this information should be published on their website. Joe Leising related that he spent the greater part of his career at SNWA doing aqueous geochemistry analysis and noted that there is a ton of free information available out there regarding RIB’s. The City of Tucson uses RIB’s to put treated water back into the drinking water supply. Trace pharmaceuticals attenuate rapidly as they move through the soils and within the groundwater itself. He felt that it was important for Nye County to do more research before proposing an expensive water quality regulation program. Kenny Bent felt that the board should not make any decisions on the proposal at this time. He stressed that there was no information available on the long term side effects from exposure to trace contaminants in drinking water. He went over back-up material that was given to the board and presented his opinions on the issues. He agreed with Greg Dann and warned everyone not to trust NDEP’s water monitoring reports. Herman Lewis stressed that just because there are not many members of the public in attendance, they are still very concerned about water quality in the valley. If you contaminate the sole source aquifer it is all for nothing. Joe Leising related that he has been dealing with contaminants for many years in his scientific studies and he stressed that the amounts that we are talking about are very miniscule. It is not even know if contamination in the “parts per trillion” range are biologically significant over a long period of time. Worrying about degrading the quality of the aquifer, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, is taking it a little too far. Very few contaminants make it through the water treatment process. He encouraged people to do more research as the information is out there. Gregory Hafen, II who manages the Pahrump Utilities water treatment facilities, stated that he too has concerns about potential contamination of the aquifer from industrial wastes and he agreed with educating the public about proper disposal of pharmaceuticals. Darrell Lacy noted that the county evaluated the PU system when they were considering it for purchase, and a study has shown that the water they are returning to the aquifer contains much lower levels of contamination than groundwater found in that area. NDEP has stated that PU is actually improving groundwater quality through the use of RIB’s. The Water District and the BOCC have both supported using RIB’s in the past. Greg Dann requested that Mr. Lacy supply more information to Water Board Members on this issue so that an educated decision can be made. Ken Searles requested copies of the DMR’s from UICN in order to see what deficiencies may exist in their system. 5 Nye County Water District Governing Board December 14, 2015

Mr. Wichman

related that about 90 days ago staff was instructed by James Eason to come back with a list of projects along with budgetary considerations for a span of approximately 5 years.

Mr. Wichman’s

assessment was as follows: 1) The Pahrump Valley “fray” encompasses 99% of what the Water District focuses upon; 2) it will continue to be that way for the unforeseeable future; and 3) until action is taken on the Groundwater Management Plan we will be unable to determine long term budgetary needs at this time. Last year the list of priority action items as determined by the Water Board were as follows: - Lend support to development of the Groundwater Management Plan (done); - Update the Nye County Water Resources Plan (ongoing) - Expand the Water Level Monitoring Program to basins in Northern Nye County (in the process of developing the plan); - Establish a policy on the import and export of water within Nye County and across county lines (pending). 6 Nye County Water District Governing Board December 14, 2015 Regarding the development of an import/export policy; he briefly referred to efforts by SNWA to export water from the Railroad Valley Basin, and most recently, the discussions by this board regarding exportation of water from the Trout Canyon Spring which is in Basin 162 for import to Pahrump. He discussed the work that Levi Kryder had already performed on preliminary research for this proposal. Since Mr. Kryder is no longer with the Water District, this proposal has been on hold. Mr. Wichman was now asking the board if they would like to continue to pursue this project. Again he emphasized that the Groundwater Management Plan could dictate budgetary requirements for many years into the future. Greg Dann concurred with Mr. Wichman’s assessment. Ken Searles related that he was initially concerned about taking water from someone else’s backyard to import to Pahrump, but he was still open to learn more about the feasibility of importation. Mr. Wichman wasn’t really sure if there was enough water available in Trout Canyon to justify the expense. Greg Dann was in agreement. Dennis Gaddy questioned if there was a way to measure the flow from the spring, and if so, he would like to have a rough estimate of the volume. Oz Wichman agreed and that this could be done at minimal cost. Darrell Lacy stressed that the flow rate of the spring varies greatly depending upon the time of the year, and we need to make at least 3 or 4 trips to get a more accurate picture. Frank Carbone related some of the discussions that had been held with Megan Holzer of the Clark County Commissioners Office as the spring is located within Clark County. She was going to follow-up on some of the questions that were asked but that has fallen by the wayside. Oz Wichman briefly referred to the hydroelectric component that was proposed in conjunction with the pipeline from Trout Canyon and emphasized that any water transported to Pahrump was the amount that was left over after residents of the Trout Canyon area were first served. Greg Dann’s primary interest was the amount of water actually making it into to the Basin 162 valley floor aquifer. Direction to staff was: 1) Bring back more information on the volume of water flowing from the spring; and 2) Allow plenty of time to gather the information as this is not a high priority item. Dave Hall volunteered his time to assist Mr. Wichman with collection of data. Ken Searles made a motion to direct staff to continue gathering information on potential sites for water importation (Trout Canyon, Carpenter Canyon, or others sites). He emphasized that we would only be looking at importing excess water, i.e., water that is not designated for a specific use. Dennis Gaddy seconded the motion. John Bosta questioned the ownership of water rights in Trout Canyon and the costs associated with purchase of those rights.

Mr. Klenke

noted that 303 wells were possible candidates for monitoring. Some of the USGS wells may no longer be able to be located due to the amount of time that has passed since they were last visited. He estimated that costs for funding this program on a yearly basis would be around $33,000, although the initial set-up costs for the first year may be around $47,000. These figures were based upon Mr. Klenke doing all of the monitoring work. If someone were hired to assist, then there would be more funding required. Greg Dann questioned whether Mr. Klenke would be able to handle the additional workload. This program is not reflected in the current 2015-16 budget. Oz Wichman suggested that this item be addressed during the next budget deliberation cycle for FY 2016-17. Dan Sweeney agreed with Mr. Wichman. Frank Carbone related that we can get information from CNRWA studies at any time. Mr. Wichman stated we are not intending to duplicate any of the studies performed by the CNRWA. We will be supplementing in areas where data is lacking. He noted that the Lower Smoky Basin is one such area lacking information. Darrell Lacy pointed out that there is grant money available that might help support this program. He would like to receive direction from the board to move forward with applying for those funds. With that, Dennis Gaddy made a motion for the Water District to go ahead and pursue grant funding for the Water Levels Monitoring Program for Nye County. Dave Hall seconded the motion. It was noted that grant money must be matched by the Water District and that the maximum award would be $105,000. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0 in favor.

Mr. Leising

showed how the study was expanded to the south and also noted sub-basins that exist within the valley. Climate grids were established which will help with future studies of climate effects upon basin recharge. He discussed recharge and perennial yield estimates and looked at resource potential. There is enough evidence to hypothesize that there may be more water available than what the State Engineer is reporting. Referring to one of his charts he explained the relationship between the volume of precipitation and elevation, and the effect upon water flowing into the basin. There was a large spike in water levels in wells along the Hwy 160 corridor for the year 2005 that corresponds with the increased amount of precipitation for that year. Seasonal trends are most notable along this confining layer and on the fan. Mr. Leising was able to identify confining layers where production could be increased. He created a 8 Nye County Water District Governing Board December 14, 2015 contour map showing water level trends in the valley. There is a very rapid change in water level trends (increasing) as one goes from west to east across the valley.

Mr. Leising

was able to estimate total pumpage by going one section at a time across the valley. He determined that to be around 16,000 AF per year. The bulk of the pumpage, commercial and domestic, is along the Hwy160 corridor where the majority of the large production wells are located. Domestic wells account for about one third of the water drawn out of the aquifer when using the average rate as determined by the State Engineer at .5 acre feet per year per domestic well. A contour map showed that the density of wells relates directly to decreasing water levels in one particular area of the valley. This area is also located near some known faults and the alluvium changes rapidly from course to fine grained particulate. These factors may play a role in limiting the rate of recharge.

Mr. Leising

explained how the water balance approach is something every hydrologist uses to determine recharge rates. In a closed basin if pumpage is greater than storage, the inflow must be greater than the storage rate to maintain balance. There is an assumption that some water also leaves the basin due to subsurface flows in the bedrock. This is an area that needs further study. In his estimation, Mr. Leising feels that the annual recharge for the basin is more than 20,000 AF per year, but we are stuck with the State Engineers figures at this time. He explained that there have been other studies of the basin that also reflect a higher recharge number. Mr. Leising noted that his numbers do not consider the carbonate layer. In general he feels that there is room for some flexibility in the 20,000 AF number due to establishment of relationships by analogy. There is room for error and reason to keep looking. He can’t prove his theory because the numbers are dependent upon storage levels which are not known.

Mr. Leising

presented a graph showing water balance zones in the valley which were developed using pumpage rates, lithologic data and natural recharge estimates. Using this tool he was able to assume what available water resources might be for various areas in the basin. There is a lot of uncertainty due to the fact that nobody knows exactly the amount of water that is used by domestic wells, noting the biggest effect upon water levels is pumpage. He felt that Carpenter Canyon fan may be a better source for water than Trout Canyon which has Aztec Sandstone formations that would indicate less transmisivity of water. He recommends that the Water Level Monitoring program continue. There is a need to accurately define a usage rate per person for domestic wells. The number of domestic wells in use should also be determined to help in defining the amount of water that is consumed annually in the basin. Some drilling on the fan along with geophysical work will help to accurately assess the status of water levels in that location. This is an expensive process. There was discussion about the drilling of monitoring wells. Staff will take a look at draft results of Mr. Leising’s study and comment before he finalizes the report. Upon questioning by Kenny Bent, Mr. Leising noted that there were gaps in collection of data due to the lack of wells in a certain areas. Also there were many wells included in the study that lack drill logs. As a result, no lithologic data was available for them.

Mr. Wichman

related that he had attended the latest CNRWA Conference where there was discussion about the Legislative Committee that is being formed to study water issues. There will be public outreach sessions, of which one will be held in Pahrump. This committee will be formed during the month of December. There was a lot of discussion about Groundwater Management Plans specific to Pahrump and the Diamond Valley. The State Engineer related that you do not have to be designated as a CMA in order for him to accept a GWMP. Mr. King noted that only water right holders can petition the State. This does not include domestic well owners as they are not water right owners. Discussion of BDR’s regarding changes to water law needs to be addressed during the outreach sessions. During discussion Darrell Lacy noted that just because domestic well owners are exempt from having to pull a permit to drill, does not mean that they are exempt from Nevada Water Law. With regards to the Governor’s Drought Forum, Mr. King noted that a proposed requirement for water metering may only be applied to basins that are in trouble and have no water rights available for appropriation. The Pahrump Basin may be targeted for metering. d. Project Status Report No comments. e. Board Liaison Report I. Dan Schinhofen Absent f. Report from other individuals, groups and or agencies regarding water-related issues: For informational purposes only. None