Public Workshop Moapa Valley Community Center Jason King, P - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Public Workshop Moapa Valley Community Center Jason King, P .E. S tate Engineer July 24, 2018

1

Topics

Impacted Area & Why We Are Here Water Law and Water Management Lower White River Flow S ystem (LWRFS ) Management Options

2

Impacted Area

3

4

LWRFS

• Coyote Spring Valley
• Muddy River Springs

Area (MRSA)

• California Wash
• Hidden Valley
• Garnet Valley
• Black Mountains Area

(northwest portion)

Why A Are W e We He Here? e?

5

− >40,000 acre-feet in committed groundwater rights in the LWRFS − Two year carbonate aquifer test of 10,200 acre-feet annually caused unprecedented

− decline in high altitude springs, and − decline in groundwater levels

Why A Are W e We He Here? e?

6

− 5-year recovery data since the aquifer test shows water levels are relatively flat

− 5-year pumping from carbonate wells has averaged ~7,000 af

− Based on the aquifer test, subsequent data collection and current development pressures, it is critical that a management strategy be implemented

Why A Are W e We He Here? e?

7

More C Complicati tions

The LWRFS is the ONLY LY region in the state where, because of the close hydrologic connectivity between basins, our office has determined that all the basins need to be managed as one.

Water Law and Water Management

8

Nevada Water Law

−Prior Appropriation

−First in time, first in right

−Priority Date

−Date application filed for new appropriation −Date domestic well completed −Date pre-statutory right first placed to beneficial use

9

Nevada Water Law

App pplication Pe Permit Ce Cert rtificate

10

Nevada Water Law

−Beneficial Use

−The basis, the measure and the limit

• f the water right.

−Use it or lose it:

−Cancellation −Forfeiture −Abandonment

11

Managem emen ent Tool

• ls f

for

• r O

Over- Appropriated B Basins

−NRS 534.110(6)—Regulation by priority (“curtailment”) −NRS 534.110(7)—Critical Management Area

−Approvable Water Management Plan −Or, after 10 years, curtailment

12

Managem emen ent Tool

• ls

−NRS 534.030— Basin Designation −NRS 534.120— Orders and Rules for Designated Basins

13

Sta tatutory Dire rective ves

−NRS 533.024(1)(c)—Best available science −NRS 533.024(1)(e)—Conjunctive management −NRS 534.020—Groundwater management

14

Perennial Yield

State Engineer’s estimate of PY is used to help determine the amount of groundwater available in a hydrographic basin.

15

Perennial Y Yield

− The maximum amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn each year over the long term without depleting the groundwater reservoir. − The goal is to not

• t approve more groundwater

rights and the drilling of domestic wells than the basin’s perennial yield.

16

Gr Grou

• undwater M

Managem emen ent

−Basin-by-basin basis

(but remember, the LWRFS consists of 5+)

PY

Committed Remaining Resource

17

Prior

• r A

Approp

• priation
• n

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Cumulative Duty / afa Priority Date

Perennial Yield Cutoff Date

18

Surf rface and Underground

NR NRS 5 533 33 −General provisions

−Adjudications −Appropriations

−Focused on surface water NR NRS 5 534 34 −Groundwater specific −Well drilling −Domestic wells −Designation

19

Conjunctive M Management

NRS 533.024(1)(e) “It is the policy of this State…[t]o manage conjunctively the appropriation, use and administration

• f all waters of this State, regardless
• f the source of the water.”

20

Lower White River Flow System (LWRFS)

21

22

LWRFS

• Coyote Spring Valley
• Muddy River Springs

Area (MRSA)

• California Wash
• Hidden Valley
• Garnet Valley
• Black Mountains Area

(northwest portion)

Carbonate a and Al Alluvial Aq Aquifers

Carbo bona nate A Aquifer − Old (~400 million years) sedimentary rocks composed of carbonate minerals − Limestone and dolomite − Much of the bedrock and mountain ranges of Eastern Nevada are formed from carbonate rocks − The rock itself is almost impermeable but fractures or solution cavities can be large and highly productive Alluv uvia ial A Aqui quifer − Young (<5 million years) unconsolidated material deposited by flowing water − Sands/gravels/clays − Valley floors are generally composed of alluvium, forming the aquifers for most shallow wells. − Variable permeability depending on composition Our ur o

• ffice di

did d NOT di disting nguish be h between aqui quifers whe hen n issui uing water r rights!

23

Early Water Resource Studies

• Eakin (Bulletin 33, 1966)
• Estimated water budget

for the WRFS

• Inflow to MRSA 37,000 af
• Subsurface outflow nil
• Rush (Recon 50, 1968)
• Local recharge and water

budgets in the LWRFS

LWRFS Carbonate Aqui uifer

In the 1980s and 1990s, water managers in Nevada were hopeful that the carbonate-rock aquifer system in the LWRFS would provide a new, abundant source of groundwater that could be used to address Southern Nevada’s water shortage.

25

LWRFS Carbonate Aqui uifer

− Because the prospect of the LWRFS carbonate was great, nearly 100 water right applications for over 300,000 acre- feet were filed in our office. − July and August 2001 hearings on water right applications.

26

Or Order 1169 and 1169 and 1169A 1169A

−March 8, 2002

−Order 1169 −Hydrographic Basin Nos. 210, 215, 216, 217, 219, & 220 −Groundwater applications held pending aquifer test

−April 18, 2002

−Ruling 5115 added Basin 218

27

Or Order 1169 and 1169 and 1169A 1169A

−November 15, 2010

−Aquifer test begins

−December 21, 2012

−Order 1169A −Test completed on December 31, 2012

−25½ months

−Report filings by June 28, 2013

28

Or Order 1169 and 1169 and 1169A 1169A

−Participants in the Aquifer test

−Southern Nevada Water Authority/LVVWD −Moapa Valley Water District −Coyote Springs Investments, LLC −Moapa Band of Paiutes −Nevada Power Company

29

Pumping Areas

−5,300 afa in Coyote Spring Valley −10,200 afa total carbonate pumping −3,700 afa alluvial pumping

30

Moni nitoring Si Sites es

79 monitoring wells

 carbonate  valley-fill

11 springs and streamflow monitoring sites

31

32

Aquifer Test

33

Aquifer Test

Water er L Level els v vs. Hi High A Altitude Springflow

34

• Springflow mirrors water

levels in carbonate aquifer DECREASI ASING NG W WATER LEVELS DRIVES ES D DEC ECREA EASING SPRINGFLO LOW

Water Levels Warm S prings flow

Aq Aquifer r Te Test Results ts

−Reports provided to the State Engineer

− Southern Nevada Water Authority − U.S. Department of Interior Bureaus

− Fish and Wildlife Service − National Park Service − BLM

− Moapa Band of Paiutes − Moapa Valley Water District − Coyote Springs Investment, LLC − Great Basin Water Network − Center for Biological Diversity

35

Analysis o

• f 1169 results

ts and data

36

− What does 1169 aquifer test results tell us about limitations on pumping from a conflict/threat perspective? − State Engineer focused analysis on correlation between pumping and spring flow

EH-4 is 2,000 ft from WS W

Aq Aquifer r Te Test Results ts

− Unprecedented decline in high-altitude springs − Unprecedented decline in water levels − None of the parties to the aquifer test reported that additional pumping in the central part of CSV or MRSA could occur witho hout ut conflict with existing rights or dace habitat − Interpretations of results – not entirely in agreement − Demonstrated that the LWRFS basins are very well connected

37

Remember,

38

− >40,000 acre-feet in committed groundwater rights in the LWRFS − Two year carbonate aquifer test of 10,200 acre-feet annually caused unprecedented decreases in spring flows and water levels

St State e Engin ineer Ru Rulin lings

29t h of January 2014 6254 6255 6256 6257 6258 6259 6260 6261

39

St State e Engin ineer Ru Rulin lings

−The basins to be jointly managed −Denied all pending applications in the LWRFS—NRS 533.370(2) more than 300,000 acre-feet

−No unappropriated groundwater −Conflict with existing rights −Threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest

40

Curr rrent Es Estimated Water B Budget

41

Tot al S upply 50,000 afa or less INFLOW: S ubsurface groundwat er inflow 47,502 Local Recharge 2,998 OUTFLOW: Muddy River st reamf low 33,700 Muddy River S prings Area ET 6,000 Calif ornia Wash ET/ S ubsurf ace out f low ~10,000

Joint Management

Priority Pool

219 218 217 216 215* 210

42

Trends since the end of the aquifer test

43

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

Jan-13 May-13 S ep-13 Jan-14 May-14 S ep-14 Jan-15 May-15 S ep-15 Jan-16 May-16 S ep-16 Jan-17 May-17 S ep-17 S tream flow (cfs) Pumping (monthly rates in afa) Alluvial pumping Carbonate pumping Warm S prings West

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10/ 22/ 1919 10/ 22/ 1922 10/ 22/ 1925 10/ 22/ 1928 10/ 22/ 1931 10/ 22/ 1934 10/ 22/ 1937 10/ 22/ 1940 10/ 22/ 1943 10/ 22/ 1946 10/ 22/ 1949 10/ 22/ 1952 10/ 22/ 1955 10/ 22/ 1958 10/ 22/ 1961 10/ 22/ 1964 10/ 22/ 1967 10/ 22/ 1970 10/ 22/ 1973 10/ 22/ 1976 10/ 22/ 1979 10/ 22/ 1982 10/ 22/ 1985 10/ 22/ 1988 10/ 22/ 1991 10/ 22/ 1994 10/ 22/ 1997 10/ 22/ 2000 10/ 22/ 2003 10/ 22/ 2006 10/ 22/ 2009 10/ 22/ 2012

Thousands of Acre-Feet Priority Year

Exi xisting A Appropriations i in the L LWRFS

Order 1169 Carbonate Pumping Cutoff Date 10/ 20/ 1981 3/ 31/ 1983

44

Muddy dy River

− Fully appropriated under the Muddy River Decree − Most senior priority water rights − Hydrologically connected to the alluvial fill aquifer

45

Not to Scale

More C Complicati tions

43

2006 M Muddy R River M Mem emorandum of

• f

Agreement ( (“M “MOA”) ”): R Reducing Groundwater P r Pumping

− Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated the Aquifer Test in Order 1169 and Order 1169A may affect the Moapa dace − Agreement to implement conservation measures in advance of Aquifer Test − ESA’s Biological Opinion analyzed the impacts of 16,000 acre-feet

• f groundwater pumping on the Moapa dace’s habitat and

established “Trigger Ranges” that require pumping to be slowed

• r ceased at various sites if water flow fell, as measured at the

Warm Springs West flume, below certain levels needed for the Moapa dace

44

16,100 afy of compliance In-stream Flows at Warm Springs West <3.2 cfs

S NWA MVWD CS I

9,000 afy

Tribe

4,600 afy 2,500 afy <3.0 cfs <2.9 cfs <2.8 cfs <2.7 cfs 8,050 afy combined 6,000 afy combined 4,000 afy combined 724 afy 0 afy 2,000 afy 1,700 afy 1,250 afy Meet and discuss with FWS / HRT

Restrictions during Pump Test

• nly

MOA tri riggers

S

• urce: S

NWA

What d does this m mean for r Water Users?

−ESA-based enforcement actions could require long-established water users to obtain take permits that give up all or a portion of their water for the benefit of the Moapa dace. −Water users that cause direct harm to the Moapa dace are potentially subject to harsh civil and criminal penalties from the federal government.

46

Related I Issue

− Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) sent our office a letter in November 2017 − Coyote Springs Water Resources General Improvement District (CSWRGID) − Subdivision map approval

50

State E Engineer’s R Responsibility as it R t Relates to S Subdivisions

−NRS 278.335(1)—Tentative subdivision map approval −NRS 278.377—Final subdivision map approval

48

THIS PLAT IS APPROVED BY THE S TATE OF NEVADA DIVIS ION OF WATER RES OURCES OF THE DEP ARTMENT OF CONS ERVATION AND NATURAL RES OURCES CONCERNING WATER QUANTITY , S UBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE.

State E Engineer’s R Responsibility as it R t Relates to S Subdivisions

49

Related I Issue

In responding to the LVVWD letter, our office considered:

• Aquifer test data and analysis
• Recovery period data
• That under the MOA, a self-imposed curtailment

tied to spring flow triggers may limit water supply in the LWRFS

• Requirement to protect senior water rights

50

Related I Issue

−State Engineer’s May 2018 response addressed LVVWD’s specific question relating to the sustainable development

• f groundwater for an entire project

−Based upon that question presented, the State Engineer cannot justify approval of subdivision maps based on junior priority water rights without the identification of

• ther water sources for development

−Triggered litigation

54

What is “our” goal?

55

Opt ptions

− Use existing expertise

− Hydrologic Review Team (HRT) currently collecting data and interpreting pumping effects on the Muddy Springs and the dace

− Establish a working group consisting of HRT members and other interested parties to begin drafting regulations for a conjunctive use management plan − Establish groundwater pumping thresholds and monitor springs

56

Opt ptions

− Identify other sources of water, i.e. interbasin transfer of other groundwater or surface water − Support stakeholder developed groundwater management plan − Reduce active groundwater rights

− Curtailment, relinquishments, cancellation, forfeiture

57

58

Stakeholder and Public Input Next Meeting

59