INTEGRATED WATER PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 03/28/2005 APPROVED MINUTES Call to Order 04:00 pm Las Vegas Valley Water District Lake Mead Conference Rooms 1001 S. Valley View Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada
The Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee (IWPAC) convened on Monday, March 28, 2005 for its eighth meeting. The meeting began at approximately 4:10 p.m. Lewis Michaelson, facilitator, welcomed the members of the committee and those watching via rural broadcasts. A list of attendees is provided as Attachment A. Lewis began the meeting by noting that staff would address a number of committee information requests that were made at the last regular meeting. These include:
INFORMATION REQUESTS Augmentation Credits Gina Neilson, SNWA Engineering Project Manager, presented information regarding the concept and process for receiving augmentation credits. She explained that approval for augmentation credits would require coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and other Colorado River Basin States to address concerns and implementation issues. Walt Kuver asked what concerns might arise with other basin states. Gina said the basin states will consider whether a given resource is part of existing Colorado River allocations. She said that resources such as the pre-Compact rights from the Virgin and Muddy Rivers or groundwater from Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties are clearly not part of existing allocations on the Colorado River, and that augmentation credits for these resources would be more likely to be granted approval. Brent Hardy asked about the timing and process for approval of augmentation credits. Gina said the BOR had considered implementing augmentation credits once before, but that no actions had been taken at that time. She said timing is dependant on which resource is proposed to receive augmentation credits. Dean Baker commented that calculating augmentation credits will not be a simple matter. He noted that some water in the Snake Valley groundwater basin flows into the state of Utah. Gina agreed that a proposal may be complex and explained that accounting considerations would be specific to each resource. Population Projections Gina presented population projections from the Nevada State Demographers Office for Nye, Lincoln and White Pine counties. Peggy Maze Johnson asked if projections for Lincoln County considered growth anticipated to result from the Coyote Springs Investment LLC (CSI) development. Tom Maher, SNWA Resource Analyst, explained that projections from the State Demographers Office may not consider future land use proposals. Ken Albright noted that the Coyote Spring development is anticipated to include areas in Clark and Lincoln counties, with two-thirds of the development being in Clark County. Ken reminded the committee that CSI holds separate water rights and applications, independent of SNWA water rights and applications in Coyote Spring Valley. Allen Kaercher asked if the Bureau of Land Management recently sold land for additional development in the area north of Mesquite. Glenn Zelch confirmed this and added that the population projections seemed extremely conservative considering these developments. John Hiatt agreed and said the committee should consider projections from a different source. Ken Albright reminded the committee that although projections may not capture abrupt changes during a given year, the SNWA updates its water demand forecast each year based on updated population projections. John Hiatt expressed concern that more accurate projections must be provided before a final water appropriation decision is made. Terry Murphy explained that the Nevada State Demographer uses historical data to make projections and does not necessarily incorporate land use projections. She said that while the projections should not be completely dismissed, the committee should understand what information was used to develop the numbers. Peggy Maze Johnson asked Terry if she knew of a source that could provide more accurate figures. Terry said the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) has been a consistent resource, although the estimates have historically been low. She suggested that the SNWA employ a demographer to address the question or incorporate a multiplier to CBER projections to adjust for historical discrepancies. She noted that any adjustments applied to Nevada State Demographer projections should be made by studying land use patterns. Gina said that ongoing changes in population projections underscored the need for flexibility in the planning process. Drought Plan Measures Next, Gina Nielson presented the Drought Plan measures that would need to be implemented permanently to achieve 255 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2010. These measures include:
Gina presented a cost comparison of various seawater desalination plants worldwide. She noted that the unit cost reflects the cost for that local community; it did not indicate a potential cost for Southern Nevada to purchase desalinated water from that facility. Gina also reminded the committee that population projections in California indicate their water demands are expected to increase 1.5 million AFY by 2020. Therefore, any desalination projects in California will be needed to meet local demands. John Hiatt noted that desalination costs are tied to petroleum costs [sic] and are subject to change if the cost of petroleum increases worldwide. A handout was provided to the committee that summarized the capacity and unit cost for several desalination facilities worldwide. A copy of this handout is provided in Attachment D. Resource Cost Summary Gina noted that the committee had been provided a yield and cost summary for all of the resource options discussed at the previous two meetings. The summary includes estimates with and without augmentation credits for the applicable resources. A copy of this handout is included in Attachment E. SCENARIO INTRODUCTION Next, Gina introduced a scenario template and explained that scenarios will be the tool used by the committee to compare combinations of resources to meet projected demands. A copy of this presentation is provided in Attachment F. Gina presented an SNWA baseline water supply (approximately 531,000 AFY). This supply includes Nevada’s Colorado River water allocation, return-flow credits for that Colorado River water, Las Vegas Valley groundwater and reclaimed water. Gina reminded the committee that the current SNWA conservation goal is equivalent to 282 GPCD, resulting in a projected deficit of approximately 424,000 AFY by 2035. Based on direction from the committee, Gina said the scenarios will use a water demand forecast based on achieving 255 GPCD by 2010. Water use at this rate reduces the demand deficit projected for 2035 by 104,000 AFY, or to approximately 320,000 AFY. In this demand projection, the projected deficits for 2015 and 2025 are 111,000 AFY and 234,000 AFY, respectively. John Hiatt noted that the demand projections are based on a population of 3.1 million residents in 2035 and a rate of growth much lower than has been the case in Las Vegas historically. Ken noted that the projections were provided by CBER at UNLV and assume the city will mature at some point, at which time the growth patterns will become more like those of other metropolitan areas in the country. Tom Maher explained that the CBER model incorporates both regional and local trends. He noted that as the city grows, one percent of growth will equal a greater number of people. Gina said the committee’s objective for the formulation of scenarios is to identify and evaluate combinations of resource options to meet projected water demands through 2035. She explained that each scenario will include an overview of the resource options, timeline for development, estimated cost and implementation issues. An example of a scenario overview and timeline was presented to the committee. Gina asked if there were any questions regarding the scenario model. There were none. RESOURCE OPTIONS Lewis suggested that the committee identify which resources should be included in scenario development. He reminded the committee that any resources not included in scenario development will continue to be included in the SNWA Resource Portfolio and will be utilized if or when they are available. Colorado River Options Surplus and Interim Surplus. Brent Hardy noted that the availability of surplus and interim surplus resources is unpredictable. Richard Bunker said that both resources would be utilized if they came available and noted that they are valuable groundwater banking resources. It was noted that it was the unpredictability and unavailability of these resources that had necessitated the need for this planning effort. The committee concluded that these resources would not be included in scenario development. Arizona Water Bank. The committee agreed that the Arizona Water Bank resource should be included in every scenario. California Water Bank. John Hiatt noted that California’s projected increase in demand indicates that the yield of California’s unused apportionment will not be significant. It was concluded that this resource would not be included in resource scenarios. Seawater Desalination. Cliff Marshall cited associated costs and environmental issues as reasons to exclude the desalination resource option from scenarios. In addition, the increase in California water demands also impacts the availability of this resource. John Hiatt noted that the time required to develop this resource is uncertain and that it may not be available during the planning horizon. Allen Kaercher added that obtaining the approval necessary from the California Costal Commission would be a lengthy process with no guarantee of success. Dean Baker said there is no shortage of seawater available if Nevada pursues it. Walt Kuver said that pursuing seawater desalination in Mexico might expedite the environmental process. Ken Albright explained that international water transfer agreements generally entail a lengthy process; however, the SNWA is willing to participate in any potential projects that may develop in the Southwest. Ken said that from an engineer’s prospective, the challenges and uncertainties associated with developing seawater desalination make it impossible to quantify a date or yield for the resource. Lewis observed that some committee members are concerned about the seawater desalination resource being dismissed as a viable resource, while the majority of the committee feels that it cannot be quantified in terms of yield or timing. He reiterated that resources not included in the planning scenarios will still be developed and utilized as they are available. Gina said that the planning process deals with the resources that can be relied on. As a result, the committee agreed that seawater desalination should not be included in planning scenarios. Las Vegas Valley Hydrographic Basin Southern Nevada Water Bank. Brent Hardy noted that water from the Southern Nevada Water Bank is available for timely development with reasonable infrastructure costs. John Hiatt said the estimated yield seemed optimistic, considering that some areas of the valley are presently over-pumped. Gina said that the yield for this resource would be dependent on an annual ruling by the State Engineer. She said that water from the Southern Nevada Water Bank has been described as a “bridge” resource. The committee agreed that this resource should be included in any scenario that required a bridge between the availability of other resources. Las Vegas Valley Shallow Aquifer. John Hiatt said that new technologies are being developed that may allow this resource to be more accessible. He said that he would include the shallow aquifer as a resource, but that the yield would be low and temporary. The committee noted that this resource results from landscape over-watering and that additional conservation will further reduce the yield for this resource. After further discussion, the committee agreed that it would not be included in IWP planning. Augmentation and Wastewater Reuse Augmentation. Lewis noted that according to staff, the availability of this resource is not yet certain. John Hiatt said that the availability and yield for augmentation is dependent on the development of resources not associated with the Colorado River. The committee agreed that this resource should be pursued and utilized if available. Wastewater Reuse. Gina explained that the yield for wastewater reuse is dependant on the demand. John Hiatt asked if wastewater reuse extends resource supply. Ken Albright replied that it does, only if it is from a non-Colorado River source and augmentation credits are unavailable. Terry Murphy asked if the reuse resource costs would remain the same as the current cost. Gina explained that reuse above the present goals would be more costly and that all potential reuse at the current cost has been incorporated into the baseline supply of scenarios. She said that additional reuse over the amount included in the baseline supply would require the development of reuse demand among small users (for example, residential users), which would be costly. The committee agreed that additional wastewater reuse should be pursued in the absence of augmentation credits. In-State Water Resources Pre-Compact Water Rights. John Hiatt noted that this resource involves purchasing existing water rights from existing users on the Muddy and Virgin Rivers. The committee agreed that this resource should be included in planning scenarios. Virgin River Water Rights. Lewis explained that the Virgin River resource options include three alternatives (Lake Conveyance, Surface Diversion and Radial Well Diversion) for developing SNWA’s 1994 water rights. Ken reminded the committee that the lake conveyance alternative potentially involves a 20-year legal process with an uncertain outcome to redefine post-Compact rights on tributaries to the Colorado River. Brent Hardy said that the advantages of lake conveyance seemed significant enough that perhaps this alternative should be pursued until it becomes evident that the legal implications are prohibitive. Allen Kaercher asked if an agreement is in place with Utah regarding SNWA’s 1994 Virgin River water rights. Ken answered that discussions with Utah have taken place in the past, but that no agreement has been formalized. Dean Baker asked if any laws or requirements regulated the Virgin River within Utah. Ken Albright said that the river might be subject to some in-stream flow requirements to maintain volumes for environmental purposes, but that he wasn’t aware of other requirements. He noted that the staff calculations of estimated yield were conservative to account for these considerations. Richard Bunker noted that augmentation credits and tributary rights are issues that are subject to ongoing discussions between the basin states. He said that greater flexibility for these resources may exist at a later date. He reminded the committee that the Arizona Water Bank was not feasible ten years ago. Changes in the environment and political climate have allowed for greater flexibility between the basin states. The committee concluded that the surface diversion option should be included in development scenarios. Three Lakes and Tikaboo South Valleys – Existing Water Rights. Walt Kuver said that the Air Force operations at Indian Springs might need additional water resources at some date in the future. Gina explained that the Air Force obtains water rights independently. The SNWA Three Lakes and Tikaboo South Valley water rights are existing rights that have already been granted to the SNWA by the State Engineer. Richard Bunker said that the SNWA should include all existing rights in planning scenarios. The committee agreed that this resource should be included in all planning scenarios. Coyote Spring Valley – Existing Rights. The committee agreed that this resource should be included in all planning scenarios. Five- and Six-Basin Approaches (Groundwater). John Hiatt noted that applications for groundwater rights have already been filed and that ongoing discussions comparing the feasibility of alternatives requires the inclusion of both approaches in planning scenarios. Gina noted that the difference between the five-basin and six-basin approach is that the six-basin approach includes applications for groundwater rights in Snake Valley. Dean Baker said the project and financing will have been wasted if the water is not available. He suggested that in addition to a financial subcommittee, the SNWA form a hydrological subcommittee to study the availability of water. He said that the committee should invite hydrology experts to present various opinions on the matter. Dean also said he feels the yield and timing of the resource are very uncertain. Ken Albright explained that the appropriation process conducted by the Office of the State Engineer addresses and considers hydrological concerns. He said that the State Engineer will hear testimony and evidence from the National Park Service, other federal agencies, local communities and SNWA to make his decision. The IWPAC process was not intended to replace the hydrological assessments required by state and federal processes. John Hiatt said that it would be derelict to base planning on estimates provided exclusively from one source. He noted that no other opinions had been presented concerning the hydrology of the project and suggested that the committee might hear presentations that addressed the sustainability of the proposed projects. John Hiatt noted that many basins in the west are over-appropriated. Dean Baker added that water tables in Utah and other agricultural areas have dropped over the last 15-20 years. Richard Bunker said the state of basins in Nevada versus Utah varies greatly as a result of differences in water law and the role of the State Engineer. Lewis asked SNWA technical staff how certain SNWA is that water is available in the proposed basins. Ken Albright said that there are various opinions available regarding the yield available for sustainable withdrawal; however, hydrologists and hydrogeologists agree that until a test-pumping plan is implemented to stress the system, there is no certain answer. What is known is that any development plan must involve monitoring and management of the groundwater basins. Ken noted that the State Engineer has required this approach in the most recent SNWA rulings, including the Coyote Spring, Tikaboo and Three Lakes projects. Brent Hardy said that no action is the worst action the committee can take in regards to the five- and six-basin groundwater development alternatives. He explained that the scenario approach to planning allows for necessary discussion and modification throughout the process; if certain alternatives identified by the committee could not occur as planned, the SNWA could adjust on the basis of priorities recommended by the committee – this was the approach taken by the Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee (IRPAC) in the mid-nineties. Glenn Zelch asked about a contingency plan for alternative water resources if groundwater from the Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Groundwater Development project is not available. Ken Albright said it is improbable that no water will be available and explained that contingency plans will address outcomes of a lower allocation, rather than no allocation. Glenn clarified his question, saying that although some amount of water might be available, it might not be a volume sufficient to justify building a pipeline. Ken said that the scope of the IWPAC process includes possible recommendations regarding the order and timing of development, with sufficient flexibility to allow for contingency cases, depending on the general consensus of the committee. Richard Bunker said if the groundwater system is tested and found to be insufficient, then Nevada would be in a better position to ask the seven states for more flexibility on the Colorado River. He added that after demonstrating a good faith attempt to develop in-state resources, Nevada would be in a better position to negotiate such options with the other basin states. Glen Hardy said the process for development of Coyote Spring water rights provides an indicator for other proposed groundwater developments. Existing Coyote Spring rights will be tested for a two-year period before additional permits are awarded. Dean Baker noted that the six-basin approach involves the additional complexity of crossing a state border. He said that the USGS study mandated by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act is not extensive enough to address the issue. John Hiatt noted that the complexity of test pumping might require the SNWA to construct a portion of the pipeline in order to withdraw water from the basin. Ken Albright said that test pumping could occur without withdrawing the water from the basin; once water rights are permitted, a groundwater management plan will monitor the impact of withdrawing water from the basin. Bob Campbell said it is necessary for the committee to include the five- and six-basin alternatives in scenario development. He noted that opportunities to address relevant concerns would continue through the evaluation process. The committee agreed that both the five and six-basin approaches should be considered in IWP scenarios. Additional Conservation. The committee agreed that it should review the implications for additional conservation beyond 255 GPCD as part of the scenario process. Following the sorting of resource options, Lewis said scenarios including the resources identified by the committee would be presented at the next meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE Lewis noted that materials provided by Mark Bird, as noted during the public comment period of the March 14 meeting, have been distributed to the committee. Lewis presented minutes from the February 28 and March 14 meetings for approval. The minutes were approved without changes. Next Meeting The next meeting of the IWPAC will be held on Monday, April 25, 2005. PUBLIC COMMENT Dennis Ghiglieri, Reno Resident Dennis said he had been a member of an advisory committee for Washoe County’s Regional Water Planning Commission (RWPC). He recommended that the Integrated Water Planning committee hire outside experts for independent information as the RWPC had done. Dennis said an outside firm should address a community conservation plan and a conservation subcommittee developed for the IWPAC process. He commended the committee for their consideration of the additional conservation resource option. Dennis said he does not believe the committee is prepared to consider scenarios. He told the committee that Eastern Nevada has no alternative water resource options and asked that the committee consider alternative resource options for Las Vegas, such as seawater desalination. He recommended that a desalination subcommittee be formed and that SNWA hire an individual to work exclusively on pursuing desalination resources. Rose Strickland, Sierra Club Conservationist Rose said the impact associated with the groundwater exportation project makes it a concern to all of Nevada, not just rural counties. She noted that in addition to financial costs, the cost considerations for each of the water resource options should include social, cultural and ecological costs. Rose said some stakeholders had not been represented on the advisory committee, including fisheries, Indian tribes, state and federal wildlife agencies and state tourism. Rose thanked the SNWA for providing broadcasts of IWPAC meetings to rural areas and information to the public when requested. She said that she supports the open and public nature of the process, including the EIS being developed by the Bureau of Land Management. She asked if data developed by the SNWA is available to the public. She also asked if the model for the BLM’s EIS process is available to the public and has been peer-reviewed. Lance Gonzales Lance explained that he works with certificated water rights. He said that individuals have occasionally lost a portion of certificated rights as a result of their efforts to conserve water. He asked who governs these regulations. Lance also asked if water banked in the Las Vegas Valley Aquifer stays in the aquifer for future use or moves out of the system. Lewis said that staff could answer his questions following the meeting. RURAL COMMENT RESPONSES Given the lengthy discussion during the sorting exercise, Lewis said there would not be time remaining at this meeting to review comments received from the rural broadcast locations at the previous meeting. He noted that a copy of the comments and SNWA responses had been included in the meeting summary for the March 14 meeting, which had been distributed to IWPAC members and made available at the rural broadcast locations. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM BROADCAST LOCATIONS Attendees at remote broadcast locations provided the following comments/questions. Responses to these items are included as Attachment G. Gretchen Baker, Baker Resident
Coyote Springs Valley-Existing Rights. Under implementation issues you mention arsenic treatment required for Moapa Valley Water District potable use. Would this test water be put in south of our current intake at Warm Springs or will the test water contaminate our current supply? Dean Draper, Hinckley, UT Resident De-salinization, as mentioned by Mr. Hiatt, depends on a state bordering an ocean granting (selling) SNWA land to build an installation. Then you must build a pipeline across, presumably California, the state, the mountains and the desert. What about this scenario appears in the least bit feasible? Beyond costs, consider the studies and government red-tape to be encountered. Oregon used to have a slogan to this effect: “Thanks for visiting, but hurry home!” Las Vegas and Clark County might have to realize that potential residents ought to content themselves with living on the banks of the Mississippi, Missouri or Ohio Rivers where there truly is water for millions of people – not thousands as is the case in Southern Nevada. Yankee please visit, but go home! Regarding IWP Resource Options, it is abundantly clear an effort is being made to wring blood (water) from someone else’s turnip. IWPAC is definitely identifying water resources as finite. Planning to facilitate infinite growth based on a finite supply points to, at a minimum, a misdirection of reasonable thought and a misuse of energy. At the worst, it is the height of folly performed on a public stage. A moratorium on growth in Clark County is inevitable. The moratorium will be enforced by economics, nature or both. Las Vegas does not have access to millions of acre-feet of water, hence millions of households will simply have to look at visiting temporarily and residing elsewhere. Steve Getz, Overton Resident
My comment is about the resource options. I would argue that the 5 and 6 Basin approach has as many questions and unknowns as any of the other options. I would also argue that it is much more of a risk than desalination. Stop thinking in the short-term and look at the long-term solutions. You are going to put off making the hard decisions until after you have hurt the natural resources of the state. Jim Schlinkman, Baker Resident
Look at the facts, test the facts, adjust to the facts. That’s all the water you have to use for all of us. There were no comments received from Alamo, Ely, Lund, Pahrump or Panaca. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. |