January 25, 2016

Mr. Dann

felt that the back-up material submitted by staff was inadequate. He talked at length about information that he had found on the internet regarding ASR and injection. Darrell Lacy explained to Mr. Dann that he was trying to compare “apples to oranges” in this case: RIB’s are not direct injection into the aquifer but serve to provide a means to percolate treated water through filtering soils back into the water table. Mr. Lacy felt that we probably need to spend more time explaining to everyone the difference between ASR with direct injection, and how RIB’s function. Dan Schinhofen commented that there is at least 50 feet of filtering rock and soil through which the treated water must travel before it reaches the aquifer in that area.

Mr. Eason

explained how the old ponds on the golf course have to be cleared of build-up and updated to meet current standards. Only about 125,000/day gallons of treated wastewater will be disposed of in the RIBS’s. The other 525,000 gallons/day are to be utilized for irrigation at the golf course. Daniel Burejsza questioned why chlorine was used to treat wastewater. James Eason noted that this is a State requirement for both wastewater and drinking water. Mr. Burejsza discussed how RIB’s are not allowed in certain areas of Delaware. He felt that RIB’s should be backed by bonds to protect citizens for cases of RIB failure or if UICN files for bankruptcy. Upon questioning James Eason related that all water testing is done by the State. Greg Dann felt that the State should not be trusted. He questioned if there were any health risks associated with RIB’s. Darrell Lacy related that yes, but only if a RIB was located in a wellhead protection area. This project is at least ¾ of a mile away from the nearest well. Mr. Lacy noted that UICN is now required to submit results of lab tests on water samples from the treatment plant directly to the Water District and those tests are passed on to Water Board members. Nye County also has the authority to gather samples and have testing done if they chose. The PUC agrees that pharmaceuticals are not of concern since soils are one of the best filters around to eliminate them from the water. He also noted that a long term research project on the subject may be relevant, but who is going to pay for this?

Mr. Lacy

stressed that septic systems do contaminate water in the aquifer as water flows both up and down through the soil. Percolation tests are required for every ISDS Permit. These tests show the rate that wastewater will percolate down into the soil. It is illegal to have a system that only percolates water up for evaporation. We do have problems in portions this valley with high concentrations of nitrates coming from septic systems. Amargosa Valley is currently addressing the problem of nitrate contamination from septic systems by requiring larger lot sizes for development. Septic systems are a real problem for the Pahrump Valley. RIB’s are a proven method of safe wastewater disposal. There are already several of them in this valley. It is expensive to test water for the presence of pharmaceuticals; averaging around $2,000 per sample. If the Water Board wishes to pursue testing it is their prerogative, but it will be a great expense to the public. He emphasized that the RIB’s in question are not located within a wellhead protection area so NDEP does not require a monitoring well. Ken Searles requested that a tour of the wastewater plant be arranged for members of the Water Board so they 4 Nye County Water District Governing Board January 25, 2016 may get a better idea of the treatment process. UICN representative James Eason agreed that a tour would be very beneficial.

Mr. Sweeney

questioned why the Water Board should continue with the plan when there were apparently so many people against its passage. He also expressed concerns about the amount of funding that may be required for its implementation. Oz Wichman felt that it may be upwards of one half million dollars just to perform some of the preliminary engineering reports, but there is no way to estimate future budget requirements without them. Mr. Sweeney also questioned what would be the source of funding. Being from Tonopah he wondered if he should be involved in making decisions that would have no direct effect upon the area that he represents.

Mr. Wichman

felt that he could have the detailed summary ready in time for the next WB meeting. Greg Dann would like to have copies available to the board well in advance of the meeting so that members have a chance to thoroughly review the material. John Bosta demanded that the Water Board call for Proof of Beneficial Use by the State Engineer for all water rights. In his opinion the board has the authority to call for PBU’s and that the State Engineer does not want to do his job. Dave Hall questioned if this could be applied to the entire State. Greg Dann emphasized that the State Engineer has discretionary powers when it comes to calling for PBU’s. Mr. Bosta was of the opinion that the State Engineer does not have discretionary powers. Dwight Lilly felt that what we have is a partial plan because not all of his own personal concerns were being addressed. Greg Dann related that no one in this room has any power to call for PBU’s and Mr. Lilly should have understood what transpired at the BOCC meeting before coming in here and complaining about the status of the GWMP. It was noted that no employees or representatives of the Water District were involved with the recent Governor’s Drought Forum. Greg Dann emphasized that this is the first time that the Water Board is actually addressing individual items included in the plan, and stressed that there is a completely new set of members from when the plan was first suggested 2 years ago. Dwight Lilly’s opinion was that there is no need for a plan since the State Engineer can call for PBU’s at any time and the Water Board has the authority to demand that he take action. He charged the Water Board with failure to protect his water rights and noted that they were on the side of certain special interest groups. Mr. Dann strongly stated that this Water Board does not deserve those comments. John Bosta again was of the opinion that the Water Board and BOCC should call for PBU’s from the State Engineer as it is in their authority. Amy Nelson commented on the BOCC’s decision to have the Water Board “fix the plan” and expressed her confusion over what had transpired. Oz Wichman commented that he was a bit confused himself and that he would meet with Dan Schinhofen to get things clarified in time for the next meeting. Daniel Burejsca wanted clarification about the 2 to 1 relinquishment for new development. Greg Dann explained how this helps to balance the water budget. Mr. 7 Nye County Water District Governing Board January 25, 2016 Burejsca still didn’t understand the concept and went on to demand a call for PBU’s. He feels that the plan is a legal mess and discussed how to petition the State for a Grand Jury investigation into the development of the GWMP. In his opinion the whole plan was developed to promote unregulated growth in the valley by special interest groups. Jim Ross felt that if the State Engineer refused to follow the law then we need to consult with the Attorney General and have him do something for us. Katrine Romanoff commented on the recommendations included in the GWMP, some of which she feels are not in the interest of the general public. She accused Dan Schinhofen of trying to rush the eight items back to the Water Board for review. Kenny Bent suggested that the 2 items sent to the State were in preparation for the 2017 Session of the State Legislature and discussed some his findings while researching the history of water law in the State; beneficial use is the central issue. Dave Caudle’s opinion was that the State Engineer cannot declare the basin a CMA until it is proven that we are pumping above the perennial yield; most of the items in the plan benefit the developers and utilities; and what the BOCC sent to the State was ammunition to get BDR’s ready for the next Legislative Session in 2017 in order to take over the water. Tina Trenner felt that we can find the answers to all of our problems in the US Constitution, and water rights that utility companies own belong to the people and should not be banked. Herman Lewis was happy that the Water Board was allowing the public to talk and express their concerns; he agreed with the call for PBU’s for utility companies; and he suggested that utility companies dilute treated wastewater with potable water and put it in public water systems for household use. Gary Babzycki commented that we need more current data on which to base decisions; that there may be a larger volume of water in the aquifer than current data suggests; the “Grace” measurement program from NASA might be used as a tool to measure aquifer levels; and we must plan for growth as it is inevitable, otherwise the town will”‘dry up and blow away.” During discussion the Water Board decided to seek counsel regarding the possibility of the Water Board calling for PBU’s on water rights, and have that opinion ready for discussion at the next meeting. There was no action taken on this Agenda Item. It will come back for discussion during the next meeting where it will be clarified for board members and the public.

Mr. Lacy

reported that the DWR will be holding hearings regarding possible designation in the Clayton Valley in Hydrographic Basin 143, and Alkali Spring in Hydrographic Basin 142 which covers Esmerelda and Nye Counties. Oz Wichman will be attending to represent the Water District, but everyone is welcome to attend. Darrell noted that recently about 300 AF of water was relinquished back to Basin 162 by the Focus Group for failure to prove beneficial use. He will be reviewing Change Applications submitted by Pahrump Utilities, Inc. Greg Dann noted that UICN is also in the process of filing Change Applications for approximately 700 AF. 8 Nye County Water District Governing Board January 25, 2016 II. Oz Wichman

Mr. Wichman

discussed his findings regarding the volume of water flowing from the Trout Canyon Spring. After tracking down flow measurements that were taken by Levi Kryder, Mr. Wichman related that Levi measured roughly 400 gallons per minute coming from the spring. That is enough water to irrigate about 135 acres. After servicing private interests at Trout Canyon, there appears to be insufficient water to justify the cost of importation to Pahrump. Mr. Wichman also related progress that is being made for the upcoming Basin Health education class which is scheduled for March 16, 2015 in Tonopah at the Convention Center. III. John Klenke

Mr. Klenke

related that he has modified some of the cost data that was originally presented to the board regarding a water level monitoring program proposed for northern Nye County. Oz Wichman commented that funding for this program would be discussed during the next budget deliberations for FY17 beginning in March. 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. Joe Leising related that the “Grace ” measurement program suggested by a member of the public as a way to measure the amount of water in the aquifer was not accurate in highly topographic basins like the Pahrump Valley. It works better for very large, geographically broad basins. Mr. Leising noted that the public’s demand for water chemistry analysis comes at a price and he suggested that perhaps the Water District annual fee needs to be increased. There is a need for a minimum baseline analysis of water quality in the valley. Ken Searles reiterated that we need a baseline analysis even before RIB’s can be authorized. He also conceded that there was an extremely low amount of contaminants that might end up in the aquifer from treated wastewater, almost to the point of asking “why even bother to test.” We need to know where we are to begin with before we can evaluate the potential impacts from treated wastewater. Mr. Leising commented that waters in an aquifer are not pristine since bacteria are always present to some extent. He noted that research has shown the presence of biologicals in treated wastewater is so low as to be almost biologically insignificant. We also need to determine the quantity of water used by septic systems in order to determine how much untreated wastewater may penetrate the aquifer. Ken Searles questioned at what level some pharmaceuticals may be considered significant to cause harm. Mr. Leising talked about attenuation or degradation of some pharmaceuticals by the soil.