Print View



      From: "Marion Klaus" <marionklaus@comcast.net> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov>, <snakevalley@water.nv.gov> 
      Date: Monday - August 24, 2009 2:07 PM 
      Subject: Comments on the draft agreement for managing Snake Valley 
      groundwater 




      Dear Mr. Styler and Mr. Biaggi:



      I appreciated the opportunity to attend the informational meeting in Salt
      Lake City about the proposal to divide Snake Valley water between Utah and
      Nevada and I have the following comments.



      1)  Mr. Biaggi mentioned that more precipitation is falling as rain 
instead
      of snow and that the melt is occurring much earlier than it previously had
      in the mountains that supply water to the Snake Valley.    After the
      meeting, he clarified his remarks to me by adding that how this will 
affect
      Snake Valley ground water is yet to be determined.  These variations are
      evidence of climate change, which is critical to consider in any such
      proposal to divide water.  Temperature is expected to increase in the
      region, but the effects of precipitation variables for groundwater,
      vegetation, and wildlife are not as clear.  Nevertheless, with hotter
      temperatures, vegetation and wildlife will likely need more water, not 
      less.
      The same is true of the public who depend upon their prior claim to use 
the
      water in the area for their towns, homes, and agricultural interests.  As
      presented, nothing exists in the proposal to account for changing needs 
      that
      may occur as a result of climate change variables.  Contingencies need to 
      be
      in place to plan for changes in ground water supplies as a result of 
      climate
      change and increased need due to higher temperatures.  I believe that all
      planning documents constructed at this point in time need to include
      consideration for climate change effects, or at least that renegotiation
      will occur when effects of climate change become more apparent.



      2)When Senators Reid and Bennet negotiated the language making this 
      proposed
      allocation and management agreement necessary between the states of Utah 
      and
      Nevada, representatives of the Goshute nation were not invited to the
      negotiating table.  But, because they were left out of and not represented
      during the negotiations does not mean they should be left out of water.
      Their needs should also be factored into the document allocations.



      3) Please alter the language in the Agreement to state that if conditions
      are, at any time, found to be unacceptable to those with prior claim to 
the
      water, the engineers WILL make an executive decision to discontinue water
      removal until such time as ground water can recharge.



      4) The agreement as presented stated that biologic and hydrologic data 
      would
      be monitored "as budgets allow".  What happens if money is not available 
      but
      the need exists and the drawdown is causing problems?  It may take a very
      long time for ground water impacts to show up and by the time that they 
do,
      it may be too late.  As one member of the audience said, "You can't drink
      dollars and you can't breathe dust!"



      5) Most of the negative impacts of SNWA will be in Utah and this agreement
      does not give automatic power to Utah to stop pumping of groundwater by
      Nevada when impacts are detected.  You may have divided the existing water
      supplies equitably as they currently exist, but Utah is not adequately
      protected either for drawdown or climate change impacts.



      Marion Klaus





      Marion Klaus, Ph.D. Biology

      2730 Forest Spring Way

      Salt Lake City, UT 847106



      801-467-2946