Mitigation Process Might Be Something Worth Adjusting In Snake Valley Agreement
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As we continue to explore the document that embodies the agreement between Utah and Nevada for sharing the water of the Snake Valley, a section involving possible mitigation also involves the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The reason for saying it deals with “possible mitigation” is that the section hinges on whether the Las Vegas-based water authority ends up obtaining water from their applications for permits in the Snake Valley.
Some who read the agreement also would point out that the term “possible mitigation” may be related to the manner in which the agreement deals with whether mitigation would happen or not. In some ways the Southern Nevada Water Authority (the 800 lb gorilla in the whole process) gets to be very directly involved in visiting with anybody who says that they have a problem (adverse impacts of their water rights because of the pumping of the Water Authority). You could easily end up with Farmer Smith, trying to raise his crops, noticing that he just doesn’t have the water capacity that he thought he had before the Authority wells started pumping, having to go through the notification process to tell the Southern Nevada Water folks that he thinks they are impacting his water. The process then puts the SNWA in charge of going out to check out the complaint, figure out if they think that they are causing the problem, and then deciding to offer mitigation actions from the list that is spelled out in the agreement.
This list of mitigation steps include (but aren’t limited to):
In the event that things can’t be resolved between SNWA and those who believe that their water has been impacted – eventually the matter could come before an Interstate Panel, made up of the two state’s water engineers and their designated associates. It seems that this panel has more of a listening role (possibly sharing advice) than any type of “doing” role, because they have “no jurisdiction over claims of Adverse Impacts from SNWA’s Groundwater development and withdrawal in Snake Valley for an Existing Permitted use in Nevada. Any issues regarding claims of Adverse Impacts to Nevada water rights shall continue to be overseen by the Nevada State Engineer pursuant to the laws of Nevada.”
The agreement also spells out a list of considerations to be evaluated by the Interstate Panel if the Adverse Impact is being caused to water right owners on the Utah side of the line.
Those involved in the agreement’s future are looking for input and it would be worth a lot of people’s time to take a look at the agreement and then share ideas for how to make the agreement better (or whatever else you might want to suggest).
The draft agreement and plan may be downloaded at:
http://water.nv.gov/Hearings/waterhearing/snakevalley/documents/Utah-Nevada Snake Valley Agreement.pdf
Written Comments
Written comments about the agreement will be accepted until September 14, 2009. Comments may be sent by email to:
snakevalley@utah.gov
snakevalley@water.nv.gov
Comments may be submitted in writing to:
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Suite 5001
901 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89701
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Utah Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Rights
1594 West North Temple, Suite 220
SLC, UT 84114
As we continue to explore the document that embodies the agreement between Utah and Nevada for sharing the water of the Snake Valley, a section involving possible mitigation also involves the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The reason for saying it deals with “possible mitigation” is that the section hinges on whether the Las Vegas-based water authority ends up obtaining water from their applications for permits in the Snake Valley.
Some who read the agreement also would point out that the term “possible mitigation” may be related to the manner in which the agreement deals with whether mitigation would happen or not. In some ways the Southern Nevada Water Authority (the 800 lb gorilla in the whole process) gets to be very directly involved in visiting with anybody who says that they have a problem (adverse impacts of their water rights because of the pumping of the Water Authority). You could easily end up with Farmer Smith, trying to raise his crops, noticing that he just doesn’t have the water capacity that he thought he had before the Authority wells started pumping, having to go through the notification process to tell the Southern Nevada Water folks that he thinks they are impacting his water. The process then puts the SNWA in charge of going out to check out the complaint, figure out if they think that they are causing the problem, and then deciding to offer mitigation actions from the list that is spelled out in the agreement.
This list of mitigation steps include (but aren’t limited to):
- Redistributing groundwater withdrawals geographically;
- Reducing or ceasing groundwater withdrawals at specific points of diversion;
- Deeping of well(s), repairing or replacing pumps and other infrastructure, and reimbursing for increased pumping costs;
- Providing alternative water supplies;
- Augmenting water supply for senior rights and resources using surface and groundwater sources; and
- Other measures as agreed to by SNWA and the owner of the existing permitted use.
In the event that things can’t be resolved between SNWA and those who believe that their water has been impacted – eventually the matter could come before an Interstate Panel, made up of the two state’s water engineers and their designated associates. It seems that this panel has more of a listening role (possibly sharing advice) than any type of “doing” role, because they have “no jurisdiction over claims of Adverse Impacts from SNWA’s Groundwater development and withdrawal in Snake Valley for an Existing Permitted use in Nevada. Any issues regarding claims of Adverse Impacts to Nevada water rights shall continue to be overseen by the Nevada State Engineer pursuant to the laws of Nevada.”
The agreement also spells out a list of considerations to be evaluated by the Interstate Panel if the Adverse Impact is being caused to water right owners on the Utah side of the line.
Those involved in the agreement’s future are looking for input and it would be worth a lot of people’s time to take a look at the agreement and then share ideas for how to make the agreement better (or whatever else you might want to suggest).
The draft agreement and plan may be downloaded at:
http://water.nv.gov/Hearings/waterhearing/snakevalley/documents/Utah-Nevada Snake Valley Agreement.pdf
Written Comments
Written comments about the agreement will be accepted until September 14, 2009. Comments may be sent by email to:
snakevalley@utah.gov
snakevalley@water.nv.gov
Comments may be submitted in writing to:
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Suite 5001
901 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89701
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Utah Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Rights
1594 West North Temple, Suite 220
SLC, UT 84114
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/18/2009 10:21 AM 
Categories: Water
Tags: Southern Nevada Water Authority Nevada Water Agreement Utah Snake Valley
Categories: Water
Tags: Southern Nevada Water Authority Nevada Water Agreement Utah Snake Valley
Comments