May 15, 2017

Commissioner Dan

Schinhofen asked if the biggest area of drawdown is in an area with the highest concentration of Domestic, Production, and Agriculture wells in one square mile, then is it true; by redistributing wells, would it help to stabilize the water levels. Oz replied, yes. Water is a shared resource regardless of its purpose. In reference to the Shaw Report, Ken Searles stated; the option of drilling wells for redistribution would only slow the speed of the decline. Darrell Lacy reminded the Board that redistribution of pumping is not the only option of conservation. Oz stated the thing that Shaw brought to the table in the modeling effort is to make great strides in understanding the need to start defining the Carbonate Aquafer. Dave Hall reiterated the importance of the Shaw study to identify and analyze the cost versus benefit. Oz stated, the important measure that Shaw has uncovered, is a cost of preserving water per AFA (including engineering cost for redistribution) compared with the cost of purchasing water rights (without the engineering cost) may prove to be a better option cost wise. Oz concluded to say “we are not going to engineer our way out of 100% of this problem”. Paul stated the price of the Deep Carbonate Aquafer is 66.5 Million Dollars which is reduced from 68.9 Million Dollars due to an error that was recognized by Oz regarding the miles of pipe. Paul reviewed the 3 different well location options and continued on to explain Figure 7-1: Which is an option of Proposed Flood Basins for Conversion to Infiltration. Paul proposed 8 Storm Water Detention Basins east of Hwy 160 for infiltration back into the ground. Paul stated that the soil east of Hwy 160 has soil conditions that would be favorable for infiltration of 500 AFA. Oz asked Paul to talk about the speed at which storm water must enter the Infiltration Basin versus a RIB (Rapid Infiltration Basin) for treatment of affluent. Paul explained the term Infiltration Basin is used loosely and in his opinion there is no difference from an Infiltration Basin and a Rapid Infiltration Basin. Paul said, the state has criteria on what they determine to be Rapid Infiltration Basins associated with wastewater, but in his mind whether you are infiltrating storm water or wastewater the point is that you have to get it into the ground as quickly as you can, adding if it sits there, it evaporates and accumulates May 15, 2017 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD salt and metals. Paul stated there are certainly differences between storm water and wastewater; wastewater has a fairly consistent quality that you can rely on whereas the first flush of storm water is filled with sediment which plugs the basin and presents challenges to keep clean, incurring additional cost. Paul stated the cost to build the Detention Basins just for storm water is 65 Million and the cost to convert Detention Basins to Infiltration Basins increases the cost approximately 30% to about 85 Million Dollars or about 39,000 Dollars per AFA. Paul explained the three major private utilities in Pahrump that own and operate five Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP). Table 8-1: Identifies the amount of affluent that was treated at the WWTP in 2016 and the estimated flow per customer. Table 8-2: Shows the treated effluent at these five facilities is either infiltrated or reused at land application sites. Page 8-3: Shows the estimated current and future return flows to the groundwater, resulting from infiltration and land application of treated WWTP effluent. Page 8-5: Shows the estimated current and future return flows to the groundwater, resulting from infiltration and land application of treated Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) effluent. The calculations explained by Paul thus far, aid in filling in Table 3, (reuse and recharge potential) of the Groundwater Management Plan. Figure 9-1: Existing Municipal Wells and 2016 Production if Utilized. Paul explained Aquafer Storage Recharge and Recovery is limited in Pahrump because of the lack of surface water. Figure 9-2: Proposed Water facilities to recharge Manse Spring to a Reservoir. Paul explained the proposal of how to get the outflow of Manse Spring back into the ground by putting in an Infiltration Basin and stated that Manse Spring is currently being used for agriculture. Based on the 50 year average recharge rate of 600 AFA, the cost versus benefit is on the order of $3,170 per AFA, plus the cost of the land, spring, and water rights. The cost of this project is 1.9 Million Dollars, and does not include easements, permitting, right of ways, or water rights. Table 10-3: Page 10-6, Water Rights Commitments Summary for Current Conditions. Table 10-4: Page 10-7, Water Rights Commitments Estimate for Future Conditions. Oz explained this table is with the expectation of future growth over the next 50 years, at the same pace of past growth which would almost double the population, assuming the same lifestyle. Oz stated this table is a more expanded and detailed version of Table 3 of the Groundwater Management Plan. Line 3 will be removed and line 5 will be adjusted. The result of this table has determined the Perennial Yield is 20,000 AFA and the Net Potential of Over- Allocation to be 25,600 AFA which has a discrepancy of 5,600 AFA. In review, Oz feels that with more water conservation efforts and the relinquishment of water rights; the amount of AFA on line 6 will grow, in turn causes the Net Potential Over- Allocation number to shrink, closing the gap between perennial Yield and Over-Allocation. Dan Schinhofen asked Oz how he came to use the amount of 1.5% annual growth. Oz recalled the effort to determine the population projection in the Water Resources Plan Update by looking back at the Division of Water Resources in conjunction with the Department of Planning and what they projected and plotted year by year. May 15, 2017 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD That tracking revealed a population growth of just over 1%. Oz replied with consideration to the boom and bust over the last 20 years, the population growth has averaged 1.5%. Oz stated the population growth has to be reviewed periodically and is a critical component in the 50 year planning cycle of water resources along with development agreements. Ken Searles asked Oz if he had any idea of what changes might be made to the relinquishment of water rights. Oz stated when the Final Shaw Report is finished, we have to go back to the Groundwater Management Plan section by section and either eliminate, pare down, or take action on measures that are feasible while taking a look at development agreements and county code. Oz stated more communication with the State Engineer, Jason King would be valuable, for the purpose of reevaluating and adjusting the rate of over dedication when a subdivision map is filed and also determine the rate of forfeitures over the last 20 years. Oz, referred to the water conservation portion of the Groundwater Management Plan and Dan Schinhofen concurred with Oz, that limiting landscaping for new homes to desert scapes which require little water, this would greatly benefit water resources. Figure 10-1: Simulated Drawdown in a 50 year at 1.5% growth with combined Stormwater and Manse Spring Recharge, Pahrump Fan Pumping Redistribution, and Southern Highway 160 Wellfield Pumping redistribution. Paul explained that Figure 10-1 is a combination of the proposed options as stated above. The table illustrates the projected drawdown and does not solve the problem but it does slow it down. If you consider the no option alternative, in the next 50 years there would be 3,000 to 5,000 domestic wells in the Pahrump valley that need to be deepened at the cost of 45 to 75 Million Dollars with the cost being comparable to the Hwy 160 alternative. Figure 10-2: Simulated Drawdown for No Action with 1.5% Growth and with AR and Pumping redistribution to Highway 160 Wellfield. (Central Pahrump) Paul explained this illustration show approximately 25 feet less drawdown than the do nothing option in 2065. Figure 11-1: Existing Domestic wells, Municipal Water System Boundaries with Proposed 24-Inch Transmission Main Inter-Connect. The cost of this option is approximately 26 Million Dollars. Table 12-1: WWTP Effluent Total Nitrogen Discharged. (Waste Water Treatment Plants- Water Quality) Paul stated, with the focus on Nitrogen and Pharmaceuticals in wastewater, Table 12-1 shows all the utilities are successfully removing total nitrogen in all cases to well below the limits set by NDEP. Figure 12-2: Estimated ISDS Effluent Total Nitrogen Discharged. (Individual Sewage Disposal Systems-Water Quality not regulated by NDEP). This table shows the estimated amount of total nitrogen currently discharged into the environment from ISDS systems which is not an insignificant quantity and has the potential to increase nitrogen levels in the underlying aquafer. 12.3 Pharmaceuticals Paul explained the presence of pharmaceuticals is an area that would not ordinarily be looked at because it is an area that is deserving of a lot more research and we are unsure of the impact. Trace amounts of pharmaceuticals are present, but are 1000 times May 15, 2017 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD less than a Minimal Therapeutic Dose and unlikely to pose risk to human health because of the substantial MOE or margin of safety between the concentrations detected and the concentrations likely to evoke a pharmacological effect. Paul further stated that testing should be conducted to reveal common items because 1000’s of Dollars can be spent on one sample and you have to target what is reasonable. Ken Searles expressed concern on the lack of pharmaceutical testing and the unknown levels that could cause harm by exposure. Page 13-4, and 13-5: Conclusions and Recommendations: Paul stated the recommendations suggested are not ranked in order of importance, but will be ranked in the final report. 1. Refine the Desert Research Institute Groundwater Model. 2. Mapping the physical locations of domestic wells to the parcel it is located on. 3. Nye County to purchase the Manse Springs Water Rights. 4. Install Infiltration Basins at proposed locations. 5. Refine the Hwy 160 Wellfield in conjunction with the Stateline Deep Wellfield. 6. Explore the extents, and ability to capture the Deep Carbonate outflow. 7. Nitrate Sampling Program. 8. Update Table 3 of the GWMP and watch population growth at 3-5 year intervals. Paul concluded his presentation by thanking everyone for the opportunity to work with the Water District and their efforts of data collection and analysis associated with the report. Dave Hall thanked Paul for the report and noted it was valuable to add the Groundwater Management Plan at the back of the report because the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Department can use it as a tool to provide direction. Dave also reminded everyone to forward any comments to Oz so they can be incorporated in the report. Oz stated that Shaw’s contract is expiring on June 30 2017 and asked that all comments are forwarded to him within the next week to provide Shaw with ample time to amend the report as necessary, and incorporate them in the final report. During public comment Walt Kuver reminded everyone that all the modeling and data figures are set at 1/2 AFA for domestic well usage. During Public comment Kenny Bent thanked Paul for the wonderful report that was easy to understand and covered areas that needed to be discussed. Kenny added that it was one of the best days interacting with the Water Board and was happy to see more realistic numbers come out of the study. Kenny also talked about the topography of the land and the best possible option discussed in the report. Oz stated that he called the office of the Nye County Recorder and checked on recent water rights sales in the basin, and the 3 year average cost is around $3,000 AF. Oz stated by order, the designation between the floor and the fan went away, in regards to water rights marketing there is no longer a distinction, therefor water rights can be moved. Oz added, the oldest Water rights are going to command the top end of pricing. During public comment, Herman Lewis stated that he learned so much from the Shaw Report and said the best he can do for early1960 priority date water rights is $5,000AF and would like to know where he can get certificated and documented Water Rights for $3,000. Herman also asked Oz what happened to relinquished water rights, and if the State Engineer, Jason King replied to the letter sent to him. May 15, 2017 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD Ken Searles clarified; he was the one who posed the question to the State Engineer regarding the dedication or over dedication of water rights to the parceling of property and added at one of the previous Water Board Meetings, Oz stated that the State Engineer responded that he was still looking at them. Oz stated that he has had numerous discussions with the State Engineer and he continues to gravel over it. Herman Lewis stated concerns over it not being in writing. During public comment John Bosta voiced concern over the sale and transfer of water rights that virtually has no water due to over allocation. John stated the State Engineer cannot justify how he has gone from 90,000 AF of water rights to 60,00AF. John said we need to proceed with caution and the order of 1970 should be included in the Shaw Report. (Written comments have been submitted and received for inclusion to the Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2017). During public comment Gregory Hafen II thanked Paul and the Nye County Water District for the extensive and well written report. Gregory referred to Ken Searles comment (on figure 6-2, page 6-4) regarding drilling wells in Clark County, stating he did not believe it is an issue in Las Vegas and historically our wells were in Clark County until the County line was moved then the water rights that were attached to those wells were used in Nye County because the farm was in Nye County, yet the production wells were in Clark County. The issue now, is to acquire water rights and be able to move into those areas and pump back into the community. Ken stated what he was trying to direct attention to SNWA looking to draw water and import from other areas like Railroad Valley where they have more water on the fan still remaining and Clark County with their political clout would make it difficult to execute the Pumping Redistribution effort offered in figure 6-2. Gregory stated that Railroad Valley would be an inter-basin transfer where the proposal that Shaw offered is not an inter-basin transfer, it is within the basin and within the state that is regulated by the DWR so you are not transferring outside the basin. Dave Hall thanked Gregory for all the time his company dedicated to the Shaw Report. During Public comment Dwight Lilly stated that he isn’t sure if any headway was made in the Shaw Report because it seems that whoever has the longest straw wins in the end. Dwight commented on the conflicting interests involved and the strain that population growth will put on the available water resource. Dwight stated the main issue he is concerned about are Pharmaceuticals and pollutants getting into the aquafer. Joe Westerlund stated that when Shaw Engineering was hired, it wasn’t for him to come in and ask for 200 Million Dollars to fix the problem, the idea was that he identify projects that would be able to take place to start remedying some of the problems, and the only way you do that is to set up different projects and put a price on them. This is step one of a plan.