March 28, 2016

Ms. Barnett

presented a PowerPoint, virtual tour of Treatment Plant #3 which was narrated by Bill Coates, Wastewater Operator for UICN. Mr. Coates has over 30 years of experience in the operation of wastewater facilities in the State of Nevada. All aspects of wastewater treatment at Plant #3 were presented. Ken Searles questioned what the minimum requirement was for the distance between a RIB and the aquifer. Darrell Lacy noted that there was more than one RIB at this location in order to rotate usage and allow a drying period as a RIB becomes saturated. Mr. Searles requested more information on the subject of allowable distances. Mike Moran, a supervisory hydrologist with the USGS discussed the results of recent nitrate and contaminant studies concerning general water quality in the Pahrump Valley. A pilot study focusing on domestic wells began in 2012 to quantify the distribution of nitrates throughout the valley: Of the 20 wells sampled, 10% had concentrations above acceptable EPA levels, with the highest levels in the southern end of the valley. In 2014- 15 the study was expanded adding 27 additional wells. All 47 wells were tested for additional contaminants. Nitrate contamination was present in all of the wells. Even with the addition of 27 new wells, the results still showed about 10% were at or near unacceptable contamination levels for drinking water. Findings from the wells sampled in 2012 remained about the same revealing the precision in sampling procedures. By expanding the contaminant analysis it was hoped to better define the source of contamination. Analysis revealed that septic wastes or manure contributed to the majority of contamination. For the most part, fertilizers can be ruled out as the primary source of contamination. Nearly half of the wells showed traces of 55 different compounds that can be traced to wastewater. Overall contamination levels were higher in wells that had wastewater components. There were no fecal coliforms found in any samples. Final analysis revealed that the primary source of nitrate contamination was septic wastewater followed by naturally occurring elements, and finally fertilizers. Mr. Moran discussed other testing that can be done to increase knowledge of contamination sources in the valley. Sampling around the vicinity of the RIB’s could be performed, but it is impossible to determine whether the source of contamination may be from a RIB or nearby septic wastewater. Darrell Lacy noted that nitrate sampling has been done in the Pahrump Valley since the1970’s. There are 3 areas in the valley that are well known to have high levels of contamination and this is why those areas were not sampled. The concern was with the possibility of finding high levels in other areas of the valley. Ken Searles asked if there had been a historical overview with regards to interpretation of the data. Mr. Searles thought that contamination from the dairy may be causing elevated nitrate levels in the southern part of the valley. Mr. Lacy related that it can take 20 years or more for nitrate contamination to make its way into the aquifer as has been demonstrated in studies performed elsewhere. Mr. Moran noted that the deeper the well the less chance you have of encountering contaminants and emphasized that the vast majority the wells sampled showed no signs of nitrate based fertilizers. He felt that analysis of additional wells would be beneficial due to the small number of wells that had been sampled. Ken Searles questioned the validity of the results due to that fact. 4 Nye County Water District Governing Board March 28, 2016 There was discussion about determining the optimal distance between the bottom of a RIB and the top of the aquifer. Mr. Moran related that he can send information regarding that subject to Mr. Searles. Darrell Lacy noted that fully treated wastewater that is placed in a RIB is usually well below the acceptable limits for nitrates in drinking water as determined by the EPA. John Klenke, staff member, showed attendees maps of the Pahrump Basin depicting areas where water samples were taken and testing results. Some of the data included is from studies performed many years ago which helps to give a historical perspective on the issue. He recommended taking additional samples across the valley where data is lacking. Darrell Lacy noted that wells around the former dairy are continuing to be monitored. The source of contamination in wells near the Executive Golf Course is not from nitrate fertilizers. A source has yet to be determined. He noted that nitrate levels in wells near Pahrump Utility RIB’s appear to be decreasing as treated wastewater flows back into the aquifer from the RIB’s. Water on the fan appears to be more pristine than that which is found in the farther reaches of the valley where contaminants have been picked-up as water flows west. The valley floor aquifer is not pristine and Mr. Lacy recommends that people have their own well water tested if they have concerns.

Mr. Klenke

pointed out on the map that there are no heavy concentrations of nitrates in the vicinity of Water Treatment Plant #3. Mr. Lacy discussed water quality studies that have been done in Basin 162 since the 1970’s which includes a source water protection plan from 2012. Requiring larger lot sizes may be a way to alleviate potential contamination from septic systems since well density would be decreased. He identified high risk activities that may be a source of contamination. They should not be placed in a protection area. RIB’s could be categorized as high risk activities and hence the requirement for monitoring wells in the vicinity. Greg Dann announced that, in his opinion, there was no water plan that provides for the protection of domestic wells in this valley. He discussed ordinances in County Code that deal with water quality concerns. The Water District is tasked with protecting water in Nye County. Dave Hall commented that treated wastewater must go somewhere as growth continues in the valley; let’s try to work for an equitable solution that works long term for everyone in the valley which includes utility companies as well as domestic well owners. Joe Westerlund, licensed water treatment operator in Nevada, commented that he was very impressed with operations at Water Treatment Plant #3 and noted that RIB’s are a widely accepted method for disposal of treated wastewater; UICN has admirable plans for the future and is working for the best interest of the public.

Mr. Searles

commented that he would like to see the distance to the aquifer increased by 5 feet. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Greg Dann cast the only dissenting vote.

Mr. Dann

had not composed the letter by meeting time. Walt Kuver suggested that a clear definition of over-appropriated water rights be included in the NRS. He also proposed that an ordinance be put in place to guarantee that septic tanks be pumped on a regular basis in order to prevent contamination of groundwater.

Mr. Dann

explained that he did not agree with the law. His opinion was that regular water rights were not treated as fairly as Municipal rights when it comes to calling for PBU’s. Jim Weeks felt that calling for PBU’s would kill growth in a community since there would not be any water available, especially for new businesses. There was discussion about the rate (2/1) that water rights are currently being relinquished when a 7 Nye County Water District Governing Board March 28, 2016 development is approved. Ken Searles was concerned about the potential for an illegal taking of water rights. During public comment John Bosta discussed the water usage rates of agricultural vs. Municipal and Quasi-Municipal water rights. Oz Wichman asked John Guillory of the DWR for clarification of this issue. Greg Hafen related that there used to be a 30% “haircut” when water rights were transferred from Agricultural to Municipal, but that is no longer the case. In Mr. Bosta’s opinion, Municipal and Quasi Municipal (utilities) water rights are given preferential treatment over agricultural rights. Kenny Bent’s opinion was that the “use it or lose it” concept is not part of Nevada Water Law, the purpose of which is to drive up the price of water rights; Darrell Lacy stressed that we need to complete Table 3 before we can even think about the PBU issue. Unfortunately this will take several months to compile that information. Greg Dann felt that we are losing valuable time by delaying the call for PBU’s. Herman Lewis related that the definition of beneficial use needs to be clarified to avoid intentional wasting of water. Greg Dann noted that there is a movement within the State to abolish PBU law. Mr. Dann commented that he will continue his own pursuit to call for PBU’s even though the Water District has no authority to do so. 10. (07:53:15) For Possible Action – Discussion and deliberation regarding an update on the status of the Groundwater Management Plan for Basin 162. Due to time constraints Oz Wichman suggested that this item be continued until the next meeting. Because John Guillory was present at this hearing, it was decided to allow him time to read the responses from the State Engineer regarding the 5 Items included in the GWMP that were forwarded to him by the BOCC for comment. Mr. Guillory proceeded to read those comments to attendees. (See attached Back-up for the detailed comments.) Greg Dann then announced that this item will be tabled to the next meeting.

Mr. Carbone

related that he did not attend the most recent meeting. The minutes will be provided at the next meeting. c. Staff Reports: I. Darrell Lacy None II. Oz Wichman Having attended the most recent CNRWA meeting, Mr. Wichman noted that Pahrump and Diamond Valley are “driving the bus” on the dialogue for some of the legislative changes proposed in Nevada Water Law. On a personal note, he commented that those 2 basins do not make up the entire State. The majority of the State is not in a “big mess:” Nevada water law is not all screwed-up; and yes there are a few basins that have big problems. The USGS made a presentation showing that current perennial yield estimates tend to fall on the very conservative side. The USGS would be happy to come in and work with local government entities on this issue. He felt that the Amargosa Valley may benefit from a discussion with the USGS as would other Nye County basins outside of the Pahrump Valley. Mr. Wichman noted that he attended the CNRWA Conference Week in Las Vegas and had conservations with Jason King regarding the over-dedicated water right issue. He commented on progress with revisions to the Water Resources Plan that is currently taking place. III. John Klenke 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. John Guillory, upon checking with the State Engineer, confirmed that the DWR no longer requires a 30% “haircut” when water rights are transferred from Agricultural use to Municipal or Quasi Municipal. 9 Nye County Water District Governing Board March 28, 2016