1 / 22

Utah/Nevada Ground-Water Agreement

Utah/Nevada Ground-Water Agreement. Boyd Clayton Utah Division of Water Rights March 19, 2013. Basic Questions. Why an agreement? Why now? Why this agreement?. Federal Regulations NEPA, Endangered Species …. Nevada. Utah.

ceana
Download Presentation

Utah/Nevada Ground-Water Agreement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utah/Nevada Ground-Water Agreement Boyd Clayton Utah Division of Water Rights March 19, 2013

  2. Basic Questions • Why an agreement? • Why now? • Why this agreement?

  3. Federal Regulations NEPA, Endangered Species … Nevada Utah US Supreme Court Equitable Apportionment

  4. Why an Agreement? • Train wreck management future • Limited independent jurisdictions • Overlapping impacts • Competing demand in both states • Limited options • Do nothing and hope nothing happens • Fight (uncertain outcome) • Cooperation (contractual relationship) • Because we can (PL 108-424)

  5. Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (3) Agreement.—Prior to any transbasin diversion from ground-water basins located within both the State of Nevada and the State of Utah, the State of Nevada and the State of Utah shall reach an agreement regarding the division of water resources of those interstate ground-water flow system(s) from which water will be diverted and used by the project. The agreement shall allow for the maximum sustainable beneficial use of the water resources and protect existing water rights.

  6. Why Now? • Because we still can (108-424). • SNWA Pipeline is a significant possibility. • Enables cooperative data collection now. • Additional decisions will be made.

  7. Why This Agreement? LIMITS use of Snake Valley water resources in both states. CREATES a framework for joint management of the Aquifer and prioritiy distribution across state lines. POSTPONES SNWA water right applications before the Nevada State Engineer for 10 years. DEFINES environmental protocol to monitor and protect air quality and sensitive species. PROVIDES a simplified mitigation process for Utah water users impacted by SNWA. LEAVES to the respective states appropriation decisions in their state.

  8. What is Snake Valley’s Sustainable Yield? • Several studies have concluded there is 105,000-111,000 acre feet of sustainable yield • BARCAS suggests 132,000 af existing ET

  9. Proposed Water Division Nevada Utah Category 1-Allocated 12,000 ac/ft 55,000 ac/ft Category 2-Unallocated 35,000 ac/ft 6,000 ac/ft Category 3-Reserved 19,000 ac/ft 5,000 ac/ft Total 66,000 ac/ft 66,000 ac/ft

  10. Section 5.4 Agreement prohibits: • Ground-water mining • Impairment of water quality • Compaction of aquifers or surface instability

  11. Section 5.4 (continued) States agree to re-consult anytime in the future to redetermine available ground-water supply. If withdrawals exceed supply, State Engineers must act to reduce withdrawals by priority. All collected data will be made available for public review.

  12. Nevada agrees to hold SNWA Snake Valley water applications in abeyance for Ten Years. Additional hydrologic and biologic data may be gathered before any decisions are made.

  13. Environmental Agreement • Utah and SNWA enter into the “Snake Valley Environmental Monitoring and Management Agreement.” • Objective #1 is to understand the baseline conditions for biology, hydrology and air quality. • Objective #2 is to provide for a plan of operation and a definitive, binding process for resolving disputes.

  14. Environmental Agreement (continued) Terms of this agreement become a condition of any water application approval made by Nevada State Engineer.

  15. Environmental Agreement (continued) • Counters adverse effects by avoiding problem initially • Minimizes adverse effects • Mitigates for adverse effects

  16. Environmental Agreement (continued) • SNWA agrees to participate with Utah in the “Columbia Spotted Frog Conservation Agreement” and the “Least Chub Conservation Agreement.” • Expands scope of monitoring to adjacent valleys downgradient and requires air quality monitoring.

  17. Agreement protects existing users by: • Creating procedures to identify and mitigate adverse impacts from SNWA withdrawals. • Establishing Interstate Panel to resolve disputes rising between existing users and SNWA. • Maintaining a monitoring and mitigation account of $3 million.

  18. Why or Why Not? Cooperative Nevada/Utah aquifer management with common goals and built-in environmental protections OR Individual state aquifer management agendas destined to inevitable discord

More Related