03/14/2005

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
The Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee (IWPAC) convened on Monday, March 14, 2005 for its seventh meeting. The meeting began at approximately 4:05 p.m.
Lewis Michaelson, facilitator, welcomed the members of the committee and introduced several SNWA executive and technical staff that were in attendance to help answer questions. A list of staff and other attendees is provided as Attachment A.

Lewis explained that the committee would complete its review of resource options. At the next meeting, committee members will begin to identify combinations of options that will form resource scenarios. Committee members would also continue to define criteria by which to evaluate and compare various scenarios.

RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Gina Neilson, SNWA Engineering Project Manager, gave a presentation on the resource options that were not discussed in Meeting 6 because of time constraints. A copy of this presentation is provided as Attachment B.

Gina reminded the committee that the overview of resource options includes information pertaining to estimated yield, estimated cost, and implementation issues. Kay Brothers, SNWA Deputy General Manager, noted that cost estimates do not equate to changes in water rates.

Three cost figures were presented for each resource option: (1) estimated project cost, (2) estimated operation and maintenance cost, and (3) unit cost (annual cost per acre-foot). Gina noted that costs associated with SNWA’s current facilities are not included in any estimates. Current facility figures were provided as a benchmark for comparison. The project cost at completion of the 1995 Capital Improvements Program is $2 billion, or approximately $400 per acre-foot per year. Operations and maintenance costs total $150 per acre-foot per year, for a total unit cost of $550 per acre-foot per year.

Frank Martin asked what measures exist to ensure the accuracy of SNWA cost estimates. Kay explained that the estimates will be refined and adjusted as resource projects progress through planning and engineering design. Richard Bunker noted that the Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee (IRPAC) financial subcommittee provided a good example of how the SNWA develops and uses cost estimates. He explained that cost estimates provided to the subcommittee had become more detailed and were refined as the process developed. He said that the numbers presented at the completion of the planning process were very close to the actual costs of the project, which was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.

Gina noted that all costs are expressed in terms of current (2005) dollars. Actual dollar amounts will escalate for projects or phases that are not scheduled to begin for several years.

Glenn Zelch noted that costs for economic losses had not been included in the resource options that pertain to rural areas. Kay explained that estimates reflect development costs under present conditions (including the Lincoln County Agreement) and that to date the SNWA and White Pine County have not entered into an agreement. It was also noted that the estimated operations and maintenance costs for the Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine County groundwater options include the current $6/acre-foot transfer fee mandated by State law.

IN-STATE WATER RESOURCES
The committee then began its review of in-state resources, including surface water and groundwater options. Gina provided an overview of each.

Surface Water Options
Gina noted that the SNWA filed applications for Virgin River water rights in 1989. In 1993, the State Engineer held a public hearing and in 1994 permitted an annual average diversion of 113,000 acre-feet. The permitted diversion location on the Virgin River is at its confluence with Halfway Wash.
Gina added that another potential surface water resource is pre-Colorado River Compact water rights that are currently held by shareholders of various irrigation companies. Pre-Compact rights include resources on the Virgin River that were decreed in 1927 and Muddy River resources that were decreed in 1920. These rights are currently held by the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company. To date, the SNWA has already acquired approximately 7,000 AFY of Muddy River water rights.

Kay explained that there are several ways for part or a combination of these resources to be developed. The SNWA Resources team has identified the following four options as the most viable.

Pre-Compact Lake Conveyance. This option includes the purchase of pre-Colorado River Compact rights on the Virgin River and the purchase of additional pre-Compact rights on the Muddy River. The estimated yield of this option is 20,000 AFY, which would be diverted through existing SNWA facilities at Lake Mead. It is estimated that about 35,000 AFY of water rights are available between the Virgin and Muddy Rivers. Additional information that was provided in regards to the development of pre-Compact rights is summarized in Attachment C. The committee’s discussion in regards to this resource option is provided below.

John Hiatt asked if the state of Utah is under any obligation to deliver Virgin River water to Nevada. Kay said although it has been discussed in the past, an interstate compact for the Virgin River is not currently in place. She noted that the project yield estimates are conservative to account for the possibility of upstream water development.

John also asked about the total amounts of permitted rights on the Virgin and Muddy Rivers. Kay said that they are 18,000 AFY of permitted rights on the Virgin River and 25,000 AFY on the Muddy River. She added that the SNWA has already purchased 7,000 AFY of the permitted Muddy River water rights.

Brent Hardy asked if the pre-Compact rights are available for purchase by the SNWA. Kay said the SNWA already has authority to purchase up to approximately 9,500 AFY of Muddy River rights. She added that discussions have occurred between SNWA and the Virgin Valley Water District concerning Virgin River rights, but no formal purchase has been executed.

John Hiatt asked if the Colorado River Commission views pre-Compact water differently than other resources. Pat Mulroy explained that pre-Compact water was not included in the original calculations of Colorado River flows and is not viewed as system water. From a legal perspective, it is essentially new water to the system. Kay added that, as a result, it may be easier to obtain augmentation credits for this resource. Kay noted that pre-Compact resources are allowed to be used as “inadvertent over-run payback” to reimburse the River for any inadvertent withdrawals above a given state’s allocation. Policies such as this set the precedent for the utilization of augmentation credits.

Virgin River - Lake Conveyance. SNWA has investigated three options for the development of its 1994 Virgin River water rights. One option involves the diversion of water through existing SNWA facilities at Lake Mead. This option would have a variable yield based on actual flows in the Virgin River and subject to constraints set forth in the water rights permit. Additional cost and yield information that was provided is summarized in Attachment D.

Brent Hardy asked if this option is consistent with the current Law of the River. Pat explained that a 1965 Supreme Court decision allows Lower Basin states to divert tributary water above a state’s existing allocation. However, the tributary water is defined as Colorado River system water as soon as it reaches the main stem of the River. A change to Colorado River water law would be required to divert this resource from Lake Mead. Pat noted that such a change would have significant impacts on the relationship the state of Nevada has cultivated with the State of Arizona. In addition, this course of action could re-open the 1965 Supreme Court case and allow the reconsideration of all allocations on the River. Brent Hardy commented that building a pipeline seems to be the only reasonable option for developing this resource.

Virgin River - Surface Diversion. Another option to develop existing Virgin River water rights is a surface diversion that includes an in-channel diversion dam, off-channel reservoir and earthen dam, reverse osmosis treatment facilities and approximately 63 miles of pipeline for delivery of treated water to northeast Las Vegas. This option would allow for a diversion of approximately 71,000 AFY, which would yield approximately 60,000 AFY of potable water. Additional information that was provided is summarized in Attachment E.

John Hiatt asked about the average flow on the Virgin River. Jeff Johnson, SNWA Senior Hydrologist, said that Virgin River flows average 177,000 AFY, but vary greatly from year to year. John noted that flows on the River also vary seasonally within a year, which has a bearing on facilities. Kay said that the variability of flows was a factor in considering facility development and sizing. The off-channel reservoir was sized to balance flow variability with facility unit costs.

John also asked if the project would include two ponds or reservoir areas. Kay said that there would be an approximately 1,100-surface-acre storage reservoir and a 1,200-surface-acre brine disposal pond. She noted that reverse osmosis treatment also contributes significantly to the total operations and maintenance cost per acre-foot.

Brent Hardy asked if treatment concerns include sedimentation caused by the prolonged periods of water storage. Gina explained that estimated cost of sedimentation removal is factored into the operation and maintenance cost for this option.

Virgin River - Radial Well Diversion. A third option for developing existing Virgin River water rights is a radial well approach. This option would divert 30,000 AFY, yielding approximately 28,000 AFY of potable water over an eight-month period. Water would be diverted through radial wells located in a floodplain near Halfway Wash from which the water would be conveyed by pipeline to a reverse osmosis treatment facility. The project would also include approximately 500 surface acres of brine disposal ponds. Additional information that was provided is summarized in Attachment F.

John Hiatt noted that the radial well option would not require construction of a reservoir and that sedimentation concerns would also be minimized.

Frank Martin asked if environmental impact studies had been initiated for the project. Lisa Luptowiz, SNWA Environmental Planner answered affirmatively and explained that SNWA submitted an application for rights-of-way to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2004. The BLM is the lead agency for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement associated for the project. The BLM has hired a project manager and is working to issue a Notice of Intent, which will include a schedule for a series of scoping meetings.

Brent Hardy asked if test wells had been drilled in the Halfway Wash area. Kay said that SNWA is working with the Virgin Valley Water District and Bureau of Reclamation to study water quality and the sustainable yield of the area.

Groundwater Resource Options
Jeff Johnson provided an overview of in-state groundwater resources in SNWA’s resource portfolio. In 1989, 147 applications for groundwater in 30 hydrographic basins were filed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), which were later transferred to the SNWA. In 1992, the SNWA withdrew applications completely from eight basins and partially from two basins. After 1992, water resources were permitted to the SNWA in three valleys, including Garnet, Hidden and California Wash.

Jeff also discussed the 2003 agreement reached between Lincoln County, the SNWA and the LVVWD that divided applications in 13 of the remaining groundwater basins into three categories:

• Category I – Rights retained by SNWA in the Three Lakes and Tikaboo South Valleys.
• Category II – Rights in five basins transferred to Lincoln County or withdrawn from Nye County
• Category III – Rights in four basins shared by Lincoln County and SNWA

As part of the agreement, Lincoln County withdrew all protests on SNWA applications. Jeff noted that the Lincoln County Agreement does not apply to the portions of basins located in White Pine County.

The remaining two groundwater basins, Railroad Valleys North and South, are still part of SNWA’s long-term resource plan, but are not part of the present groundwater development plans.

Current development of groundwater resources includes three distinct projects:

• Three Lakes and Tikaboo South Valley
• Coyote Spring Valley
• Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties

Kay noted that the SNWA has always planned to diversify its resource portfolio. The timeframe for in-state resource development was accelerated to address concerns over the current and future availability of Interim Surpluses as a result of the drought. She added that in-state resources have been part of the SNWA’s resource portfolio since SNWA’s first Water Resource Plan was adopted in 1996.

The summary and discussion of groundwater projects and options for development in Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties is included below.

Three Lakes and Tikaboo South Valleys. Existing water rights will be pumped from nine wells and transported via approximately 25 miles of underground pipeline to northwest Las Vegas. The water will require minimal disinfectant treatment. Kay noted that pumping this resource would require the approval of a water rights change application filed with the State Engineer to move the point of diversion. Additional information that was provided is summarized in Attachment G.

John Hiatt asked why the point of diversion needs to be changed. Kay said that the change would protect the desert game range and avoid pumping near the Air Force bombing range.

Coyote Spring Valley. The SNWA holds 9,000 AFY of water rights in the Coyote Spring Valley. This option involves pumping water from the MX-5 well and transporting it approximately 16 miles by pipeline and discharging it to the Muddy River. This water would then be conveyed by the Muddy River to Lake Mead and diverted through existing SNWA facilities. Kay noted that this proposal is one of many ways to bring the resource into Las Vegas, but is the best option for consideration by the committee. Additional information that was provided is summarized in Attachment H. The committee’s discussion in regards to this resource follows below.

Allen Kearcher asked if this water will be taken from the area of the proposed Coyote Springs Investment development. Kay explained that there are approximately 16,000 AFY of rights held within the Coyote Spring Valley. The SNWA holds 9,000 AFY of water rights and Coyote Spring Investment holds approximately 4,600 AFY.

Dan Stewart asked why diverting Coyote Spring water through existing facilities at Lake Mead is different than diverting Virgin River water through Lake Mead. Kay explained that Coyote Spring water is not Colorado River system water. As a result, it is viewed as foreign water under the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback policy. Dan asked why the operations and maintenance costs were higher than for the Three Lakes and Tikaboo project. Gina said the Coyote Spring project includes the cost of withdrawing the groundwater and pumping the water to the Muddy River, diverting it at Lake Mead and treating it through existing facilities. The Virgin River option only includes withdrawal and treatment at existing facilities.

Dean Baker asked how high the water must be pumped from the groundwater table. Kay said that the total lift from the groundwater table into the Moapa Valley is approximately 700 feet.

John Hiatt asked if the SNWA would be responsible for arsenic treatment of water delivered to the Moapa Valley from the test pumping required by the State Engineer. Kay said Moapa Valley Water District would be responsible for treatment costs. John asked what the level of arsenic is for this supply. Kay said it is 20 parts per billion. It was noted that the new EPA standard for arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion.

Five Basin Approach. Two options were presented for the development of groundwater in Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine counties. The first option includes pumping groundwater from Coyote Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave and Spring Valleys. Water would be transported to northeast Las Vegas via approximately 375 miles of pipeline with three pumping stations. The project will also require approximately 200 miles of power transmission lines.

Kay explained that the estimated yield of this project option (100,000 AFY) is intentionally conservative for IWP planning purposes. Yield estimates for the environmental compliance process are higher (180,000 AFY) to avoid underestimating the long-term effects of withdrawing water from a given basin. The 100,000 AFY yield used for the IWP planning process reflects monitoring and management activities (for example, the amount of water pumped may vary from year to year). Additional information that was provided for the five basin approach is summarized in Attachment I. Discussion from the committee is summarized below.

Dan Stewart asked if the water in the Coyote Spring Valley will be pumped by the MX-5 well mentioned in the Coyote Springs resource overview. Kay said that water from the Coyote Spring Valley above the 9,000 AFY will not be pumped by the MX-5 well. Pat Mulroy explained that the 9,000 AFY has been separated from other potential development in the Coyote Spring Valley because the State Engineer has identified the development of the 9,000 AFY as prerequisite to the approval of other applications. The associated facilities will be sized to the 9,000 AFY permitted by the State Engineer to date.

Peggy Maze Johnson asked why SNWA is confident that there is 100,000 AFY of water available for its use while leaving enough for the rural county needs. Kay explained that the state of Nevada uses estimates published by the U.S. Geological Survey in the 1970’s. Kay said pumping is required in order to determine what volume of water development is sustainable, which makes mitigation, monitoring and management an important part of the development process.

Brent Hardy noted that the State Engineer’s Office hesitated to identify the specific perennial yield of a given basin when a representative spoke to the committee at a previous meeting. Kay explained that the Office of the State Engineer uses the USGS study numbers from research done in the 1960’s. Many studies have been done since then, but the State Engineer continues to use the perennial yields calculated in the older estimates. The State Engineer has set a precedent for monitoring and mitigation requirements as evidenced in his rulings for the Three Lakes North, South and Tikaboo applications. Kay added that test pumping and monitoring is the only way to know what volume is available.

Brent asked if there is a way to adjust for a low estimate by the State Engineer. Kay said that this may be resolved by future rulings on permits that the State Engineer has not yet acted on.

Dean Baker expressed the concern that few hydrologists working on the project are without a conflict of interest. Pat Mulroy reiterated that this is why test pumping and monitoring is essential.

John Hiatt asked where the necessary power would be obtained. Lisa Luptowitz explained that power would be transmitted from the Gondor and Silverhawk generating stations. The cost for these facilities is included in the estimated project cost.

Mark Russell asked if there are sufficient power transmission and distribution facilities to meet the needs of the project. Kay said the SNWA will build enough transmission facilities to meet project needs. Pat added that the SNWA is very supportive of the White Pine County Power Project.

John Hiatt asked if operation and maintenance estimates include the recovery of some power costs through in-pipeline power generation facilities. Gina confirmed that cost estimates account for this.

Frank Martin asked if mitigation costs include reimbursement for economic impacts in rural areas. Pat explained that economic reimbursements included in current cost estimates are based on the $6 per acre-foot interbasin transfer fee required by Nevada Water Law and the terms of the Lincoln County Agreement. The agreement was the culmination of an effort to respond to the needs and interests of the citizens of Lincoln County. The SNWA has expressed an interest in a similar agreement with White Pine County. Pat reminded the committee that the planning process had not fully evolved and that estimates would be refined as the process moves forward.

Six Basin Approach. This option includes pumping groundwater from Coyote Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, Spring and Snake Valleys. This option would require approximately 420 miles of pipeline, four pumping stations and 200 miles of power line. Additional information that was provided about this approach is included as Attachment J. The comments of committee members are summarized below.

John Hiatt asked why the power requirements were the same for the five basin and six basin approach. Marc Jensen said that the miles of power line required is an estimate. The availability of existing facilities must be evaluated before a more precise estimate can be effectively incorporated.

John Hiatt asked Dean Baker for an estimate of how much the ground table had lowered in Snake Valley. Dean deferred to Phil Heckethorn, a farmer on the Utah side of the Snake Valley. Mr. Heckethorn said that the ground table had lowered 10-20 feet over the last 20 years. Dean added that many ranchers in his community have made efforts to use water more efficiently.

John Hiatt asked SNWA staff about withdrawing water when the ground table levels are already lowering. Kay said that localized pumping often leads to local lowering of the water table. Monitoring and test pumping would evaluate the condition of a whole hydrographic basin. Kay explained that managed pumping helps to address the effects of localized pumping.

Dan Stewart asked about the resource contribution of each of the basins within the scope of the project. Kay explained that the contributions of Spring and Snake Valleys make the project economically feasible.

Allen Kearcher asked if security issues had been a consideration for SNWA. Kay said that security concerns had been addressed in the design of all associated facilities, including buried pipelines. She also noted that vulnerability assessments of all existing facilities had been undertaken by the SNWA.

Dean Baker commented that a majority of residents in White Pine County oppose SNWA’s plans to withdraw water. He said he personally opposes the transfer of water because he feels the project will not work and because it is morally wrong. Dean compared the project to the development of surface water in the Owens Valley in California. He said differences between the states highlight the reasons this project will not work, including Nevada’s ranking as the driest state in the nation, snowfall in the mountains to the east of the respective valleys and the lowering of the water table that has occurred in some areas. Dean said that his personal experience leads him to believe that there isn’t enough water and that a more practical and reliable solution can be found. He cited desalination as an alternative. Although it won’t be easy to develop, he said, it is a more logical, long-term solution than sacrificing growth in central and northern Nevada.

Dean said a decision to allow the transfer of water is a question of timing and priorities. He again cited Owens Valley as an example and explained that the Owens Valley transfer might never have occurred if Southern California’s water demands had risen during WWI, when the important contribution of food production in Owens Valley may have deterred development of water for residential use. Dean said no one knows the potential of Northern Nevada or if efficient-use priorities will change. He explained that residents in the northern counties feel that the water is being used efficiently now for hay, dairies, horses and wildlife that depends on running springs.

Dean also said that relying on the “first in time, first in right” principle of Nevada water law would become complex and problematic. He said that endangering local, preexisting water rights is comparable to taking an individual’s property or home.

Richard Bunker said that another Owens Valley could not happen today. He said that he understands the fears of those that live in the rural counties, but that the actions that took place in Owens Valley are illegal today. Richard explained that there are no easy answers to the problems facing the seven Colorado River Basin States, giving Southern Nevada no choice but to pursue other non-Colorado River options.

Brent Hardy said he understood from Richard’s comments that SNWA would need additional resources even if there hadn’t been a drought. Richard agreed, and said that it is not possible for additional water to come from the Colorado River without engaging in 25 or more years of court battles to re-adjudicate the River.

Richard said he firmly believes Lincoln and White Pine Counties can benefit from the development of northern water resources. He said nothing significant can change in these counties without financial backing and improved infrastructure. A partnership with the SNWA has the potential to provide a portion of that.

Water Demand Management
Additional Conservation. A final resource option is additional conservation. Additional conservation would focus on reducing consumptive demands, particularly landscape irrigation. It is difficult to predict what combination of strategies could be required, but additional measures may include more aggressive pricing, greater incentives or additional regulation and enforcement. Gina noted that implementation issues include the risk of overestimating opportunities for conservation or susceptibility to future drought resulting from demand hardening. Other information that was presented is summarized in Attachment J. The comments of committee members are provided below.

John Hiatt said the increase in population will cause demands to harden even without additional conservation. Pat explained that this is why diversification of the water resources portfolio and groundwater storage is so important. Multiple sources are critical to allow a community to replace lost resources with alternatives during times of drought. She added that the current drought did not force California to initiate an aggressive drought plan and conservation measures, because they were able to shift their supply focus from the Colorado River to the State Water Project.

Peggy Maze Johnson asked if the present education strategy includes coordination with the school system. Pat said that the SNWA works with the school system on various levels. Two of these programs include the Water Education Institute that provides teachers with water-related resources and the Youth Advisory Council that involves high school students in addressing water issues in the community.

Lewis asked if there were any additional comments or questions. There were none. Lewis said the next meeting would be used to identify combinations of options that could be used to formulate scenarios.

ADMINISTRATIVE
Lewis reminded the committee about the IWPAC workshops in Ely and Baker, Nevada, on April 1 and 2. Dean Baker encouraged all committee members to make every effort to attend.

Lewis explained that the minutes from the previous meeting (February 28) would be presented for approval at the regular March 28 meeting. The minutes for Meeting 7 will also be presented to the committee at that time.

Next Meeting
The next meeting of the IWPAC will be held on Monday, March 28, 2005.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark Bird, CCSN Faculty member
Mark said he had researched and written a paper entitled Fourteen Water Options for Las Vegas and asked if he could make a presentation to the committee in the future. Lewis asked if he could provide a copy of the paper for staff to distribute to the committee. The committee could then decide if a presentation was appropriate.

Gary Perea, White Pine County Commissioner
Gary said that White Pine residents are very concerned about the resource development project. He encouraged committee members to attend the public workshops in Ely and Baker to meet with residents; many of whom own wells.

Gary also addressed the potential for an agreement between SNWA and White Pine County. He said that he has no interest in signing an agreement prior to knowing what effect pumping will have on their basins.

RURAL COMMENT RESPONSE
Kay Brothers, SNWA Deputy General Manager, responded to questions and comments received from the rural broadcast locations at the February 28, 2005 meeting. Five comments were received, touching on six general categories: growth, indoor water conservation, evaluation criteria, salinity, additional resource options, population projections and administrative matters. The following summarizes the SNWA remarks in response to these items.

Growth
This entire set up is based on an assumption that demand must be met by supply. The truth is that any community, regardless of size, must live within its means. Las Vegas must limit growth. What happens when there are 5 million of you? – Baker

Kay said the purpose of the IWPAC is to provide input and recommendations on how best to integrate in-state resources into the SNWA’s long-term planning in order to meet potential future demands and improve Southern Nevada’s tolerance to the current and future droughts. She said that issues relating to growth are outside the purview of the IWPAC process.

Indoor Water Conservation
Eliminate all water using toilets and replace with non-water using toilets. (Sun-mar, clivus multrom, Jenkins, manure system, Reynolds “solar survival” systems etc.)

Kay noted that indoor water conservation is important, but it does not help extend current resources to the extent of outdoor conservation. Southern Nevada receives a return-flow credit for all resources that are captured through the sanitary sewer, treated and returned to Lake Mead.

Evaluation Criteria
Two comments/suggestions regarding evaluation criteria were received.

Kay said that these suggestions have been added to the committee’s evaluation criteria list.

Salinity
SNWA should work with the wastewater association and Clark County to reduce the salinity of treated wastewater. This can be done by regulating water softeners. The brine discharges from water softeners add tons of salt per day to the wastewater. Salt is almost impossible to remove from wastewater. Action today will reduce the impact on Lake Mead and allow larger amounts of water to be returned to the lake for credit.

Kay explained that the issue of reducing the salinity in wastewater discharge has been brought up by the committee on a number of occasions and will be revisited as the process moves forward.

Additional Resource Options
Is the storm runoff from west valley Red Rock area recharged into the aquifer from the storm reserve west of Summerlin area and are there other runoff sites that could be used to recharge the aquifer in the valley.

Kay said the SNWA does not artificially recharge rainwater into the Las Vegas Valley aquifer. She added that utilizing rainwater is a challenge, given that available technology cannot predict where and how much water an area will receive more than a few days in advance with any consistency or reliability.

Population Projections
Population projections appear to be way off! Reliable up to date projections are vital.

Kay noted that the SNWA utilizes the Center for Business and Economic Research population projections provided by UNLV. These figures are also used by most of the state and local planning agencies, and are updated annually.

Population projections are rarely, if ever, exact, particularly over the long term. This underscores the need for constant reassessment and refinement. The SNWA reviews its resource plan annually – including population projections – and updates it as necessary.

Administrative
Introduce the people representing groups/areas so we know who they are. Get people to speak into the microphone so that we can follow proceedings.

Kay said staff will continue to emphasize the importance of referring to each committee member by name and encourage the committee members to speak directly into the microphones.

WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM BROADCAST LOCATIONS
Attendees at remote broadcast locations provided the following comments/questions. Responses to these items are included as Attachment L.

Jerald Anderson, Baker resident
What is the proposed relationship with Sierra Pacific? Will a complete N-S transmission line be constructed along the pipeline route? What are the extraction contributions to the 5-Basin/6-Basin plan below White Pine County?

Laurie Cruikshank, Baker resident
I will have to keep filling out these forms until I see the core issue addressed: a “manifest destiny” approach to providing water for an ever-growing demand is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I want to hear some serious talk about growth limits. Also, 250 gallons per person per day is arrogant. How about 50 GPP?

Also:

1) Major retrofit of toilets, to non water-using systems.
2) Reclaim all wastewater.
3) Serious control of landscaping water. Re-write the codes and enforce them.

What is the diameter of the pipe on the Snake Valley section? Will there be a pump station in the south Snake Range? The spur looks very close to F.S. land rather than BLM. Is it actually BLM? The spur ends in Snake Valley near a ranch – Big Springs Ranch. What happens to this spring? Will Ricci really “shut-off” the pumps if this spring dries up?

John B. Free, Baker resident
It is totally irresponsible for a city entity to continue to support growth in an area that cannot provide adequate water to support the population. Wake up! Nevada is mostly desert – very dry.

Tonia Harvey, Baker resident
Comparisons with Owens Valley (dried up to deliver water to LA) – Owens Lake, now Owens Dry Lake, causes dangerous levels of air pollution and dust storms. There is no reason to think that this would not also happen in Spring and Snake Valley if Las Vegas pumps these valleys dry.

Denys Koyle, Baker resident
Human mitigation issue – small businesses in Snake Valley have difficulty securing bank loans. If the water is gone, why would a bank loan to this valley?

I question the $1.952 billion figure. It’s only approximate. Cost overruns will be massive! Every project in this area goes over cost – freight distances, time delays because of the distance, etc.

The last 5-6 years of drought worried all of us in Snake Valley. Dust storms caused traffic accidents, property damage and health concerns. Removing water from area will add to these problems. There will be many unintended consequences.

Roberta Moore, Baker resident
I would like a copy of this meeting’s minutes sent to me. I am particularly interested in Dean Baker’s dialogue pertaining to our loss of groundwater in the last 15-20 years here in the Snake Valley. SNWA talks about the above mentioned loss as a result of drought, climate, etc. in the past. They clearly need to consider the future and the possibility of drought continuing. Las Vegas has a thirsty population – but if we lose water to that population, we in White Pine County may end up very thirsty and poor population. Nevada is much bigger than Las Vegas.

Nomi Sheppard, Baker resident
There was mention that the state engineer was using perennial yield information from the 1970’s based on USGS data from the 1960’s. Someone said there were more recent studies of perennial yield being considered for current planning. Could you please either reference those studies, cite sources I might research, or provide copies? Interested in perennial yields for Snake and Spring Valley.

Please send a color version of the groundwater overview slide referenced on handouts pages 56, 58 and larger slides on Clark, Lincoln and White Pine County applications handout pages 60, 61, 62, 63.

There were no comments received from Alamo, Ely, Logandale, Lund, Pahrump or Panaca.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m.