Print View From: Ken Hill To: CC: Boyd Clayton Date: Tuesday - September 29, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: comments RE UT-NV-SNWA agreements Please accept these comments concerning the draft UT-NV-SNWA agreements. Please consider them in further negotiations to improve the agreement. Ken Hill Partoun 550 HC 61 via Wendover, UT 84083-9604 --- === General === --- --- general --- Too much of this agreement is couched in vague terms. Terms should be changed to be as specific as possible while retaining flexibility to respond to unforeseen or developing conditions. This water export proposal is one sided to the extreme. Southern Nevada stands to gain only benefits while Snake Valley stands to gain nothing but negative impacts. All phases of this agreement should be slanted toward safety. Any allotment of water should begin low and gradually increase if safe. Upon any unacceptable impacts should trigger stopping the pumps until it is certain the pumping is not responsible. All funds required to monitor and otherwise implement these agreements, including staffing by either party, should be paid by SNWA or its successors. The funding should be without strings attached. This applies to the TWG and Management Committee staffs. This also applies to any expenses of the Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team in the exercise of their appropriate duties. --- future drafts open to public comment --- All future drafts of the agreements should be open to public comment for at least 30 days. --- public scrutiny in implementing and readjusting agreement --- The negotiations have taken place in secret. As a result, the agreement is not as good as it could be and public confidence in the agreement is weak. To avoid this problem in the implementation of the agreement, public scrutiny must be mandated and maintained. Data will be publicly available and so should the decision making based on the data. Otherwise stakeholders will not be able to discern whether the TWG and Management Committees are properly and adequately addressing issues. Just as the monitoring data will be public, so too the meetings and decisions of the Technical Working Group, the Management Committee, and any other entity created by this agreement be open to public scrutiny. Meetings should be open to public attendance, including conferencing hook ups (including video, phone, and internet) so people at remote sites such as Garrison, EskDale, Partoun, Callao, and Ibapah can attend without having to travel hundreds of miles. Within 7 working days of any meetings of the TWG and the Management Committee, minutes should be published on publicly accessible web sites. --- delay because of unresponsive GRAMA request --- The comment period should be extended because a GRAMA request for documents underlying the agreement was at first denied then granted a few days before the ending of the comment period -- and even then the documents were not immediately released. This has had the effect of denying possibly crucial information needed to properly evaluate the agreement. The comment period should be extended an additional 30-60 days to allow for proper analysis of this new information. --- snwa drops out of SV -- UT stuck with an agreement --- If SNWA bails out of the project, is UT stuck with an agreement with NV RE water available? The agreement needs to address this possibility. --- No Goshute input --- The Goshute Tribe in Ibapah, Utah, has stated that no one contacted them about their interests in these agreements. This is the same kind of treatment they received from the Department of Interior when they were not consulted about the Spring Valley stipulated agreement. Signing of this agreement should be postponed until such consultation with the Goshute Tribe can be completed. --- funding --- Just as SNWA is guaranteed a portion of federal land sales in southern Nevada, Snake Valley should be guaranteed a portion of the value of water transported in the pipeline for necessary monitoring. Monitoring should not be left to the resources and inclination of either the Utah legislature or the SNWA board. --- vague definitions --- Many parts of the agreements are vague and prone to making discussions go on too long. Word like "may" or "strive" should be "will". It reads more like a memorandum of understanding than a contract or agreement. Words or phrases like "harm" and "acceptable impacts" need to be defined so they mean something specific both now and when the current negotiators are no longer in office. Also, comments by negotiators indicate they intend certain conditions and outcomes that are not spelled out in the agreement. For example, negotiators have said Utah will be a closed basin which will mean new impacts have to be the result of SNWA pumping. But the agreement does not reflect that. It should -- by imposing triggers to respond to the impacts obviously caused by SNWA's pumping. --- === UT - NV agreement === --- --- findings 2.8 and 2.9 --- Utah's concept of safe yield and Nevada's concept of perennial yield are explained in "findings". But Nevada's concept is more aggressive in allowing more drastic drawdowns and destroying more vegetation. There should be more detail in the Utah section, including discussion of the 'root zone exception' as outlined in the excerpt below or in other language as appropriate. Furthermore, an additional definition should be included to explain the differences between UT and NV water law and the ramifications of those differences in this agreement. This is important because UT citizens are being handed off to function under NV water law and its implementation under the NV Engineer. And, of course, the agreement needs to include language ensuring that Utah residents do not get shuffled to a system of laws that are less concerned with environmental damage (NV) than the laws they would normally be under (UT). All the agreement sections dealing with Utah residents' relationships with NV water law need to be examined and carefully worded to ensure Utah residents' rights are not being curtailed and to ensure that changes in NV water law do not diminish Utah water rights holders. GROUNDWATER CASE LAW AND LEGAL ISSUES IN UTAH presented before the TASK FORCE STUDYING WATER ISSUES OF THE UTAH LEGISLATURE by John H. Mabey, Jr. October 21, 2004 b. “Root Zone” Exception In 1949, the Utah Supreme court excluded the water in soil that sustains the beneficial plant life on a landowner’s property. This “root zone” water is considered part of the soil owned by the landowner and is not public property subject to appropriation. Riordan v. Westwood, 203 P.2d 922 (Utah 1949). --- changes in NV water law --- Since Utah water rights holders will be subject to Nevada water law, the agreement needs to specify what happens when any changes to NV water law occur, either by legislation or legal decision. Otherwise, Utah residents could find themselves in a position where their legal rights are diminished relative to other Utah citizens. The agreement needs to ensure that changes in Nevada water law do not harm Utahns in Snake Valley or diminish their rights. --- duty values need to be specified --- Duty values should be specified, particularly the duty for exporting water from the basin. --- recital about interbasin flow --- Since BARCASS underlies much of the agreement, especially in estimating discharge of 132,000 afy, there should be a recital added indicating that BARCASS also estimates interbasin flow from Spring Valley to Snake Valley as well as other interbasin flow throughout the regional flow system. If SNWA is allowed to pump Spring Valley and thereby interrupt the flow into Snake Valley, they will be given double water rights for the amount that is interrupted. The agreement should take that into account, but does not. Because interbasin flow is not considered in this agreement, the allocated water amounts in this agreement are skewed to favor NV and SNWA. --- recital reinforcing NV water law RE interbasin exports --- A recital should be added. The Final Agreement should acknowledge that Nevada law requires the State Engineer to take environmental conditions and potential for economic development of the host basin into account in decisions related to interbasin transfers. The Final Agreement should hold Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) responsible for negative impacts on the environment, economic potential, or senior water rights holders in Snake Valley and in any other basin that might be contributing to the water available in Snake Valley. --- agreement area is too narrowly focused --- Public law 108-424 specified an agreement that factored in the regional flow system, not just Snake Valley. Therefore, this agreement is insufficient. It does not take into account interbasin flows as estimated in BARCASS. --- spring valley as stand-alone --- Even if Snake Valley does not become a target basin, BARCASS indicates an interconnection between Snake Valley and Spring Valley, among other interconnections in the regional aquifer system. The agreement does not cover that, contrary to the specific wording in public law 108-424. The agreement must specify what mitigation will address interrupted interbasin flow whether or not water is exported from Snake Valley. Additionally, not accounting for interbasin flow in the agreement could mean SNWA getting more water than deserved. If they get Spring valley water that diminishes recharge into Spring Valley -- without having that amount deducted from any Snake Valley water rights -- that will be the equivalent of getting that amount of water twice. PUBLIC LAW 108-424 Section 301 (e) (3) 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. --- 132 k -- too much --- Should start much lower and increase if safe to do so. Not start high and try to pull the plug later, against great political and economic pressures. USGS is rethinking the discharge numbers and is planning a further study. They admit BARCASS probably overestimated discharge. It is irresponsible to maintain the high BARCASS numbers. Additionally, the split between the states is unrealistic in light of the historical use and natural discharge in Snake Valley -- which favors Utah. Basing a split on recharge flies in the face of traditional water apportionment, including the Colorado River and the rivers feeding Walker Lake. It is contrary to federal equitable apportionment standards. The amount of supposed available water comes from evapotranspiration over the whole of Snake Valley. But there is no way Callao ET can be realistically captured from Baker without totally unacceptable negative impacts. Therefore, the amount of "available ET" is unrealistic and should not be used in this agreement. Finally, interbasin flow from Spring Valley into Snake Valley, as estimated by BARCASS, is not factored into this agreement at all. This grossly favors NV and SNWA by drastically skewing the allotments in NV's favor. --- 1.4 -- order of beneficial use does not imply priority --- 1.4 “Beneficial Use” means the use of water for one or more recognized purposes including, but not limited to, municipal, domestic, irrigation, hydropower generation, industrial, commercial, recreation, fish and waterfowl propagation, and stock-watering; it is the basis, measure and limit of a water right. This should be changed to ensure that the list of beneficial uses in not a prioritized list: 1.4 “Beneficial Use” means the use of water for one or more recognized purposes including, but not limited to, and in no priority order: municipal, domestic, irrigation, hydropower generation, industrial, commercial, recreation, fish and waterfowl propagation, and stock-watering; it is the basis, measure and limit of a water right. --- BARCASS disconnect --- BARCASS is being used for some key factors such as discharge estimation but another BARCASS finding is being ignored: interbasin flow. If one is accepted, so should the other. The agreement must mandate monitoring to determine if Spring Valley pumping interferes with interbasin flow from Spring Valley into Snake Valley. Any interference must be accounted as a severe impact and charged against SNWA water rights in Snake Valley. Such interference should be cause for immediate cessation of pumping in both Spring Valley and Snake Valley. --- Block 2 Utah water designation --- The designation of 'block 2' water based on a cut off date of 1989 is inappropriate. Utah water rights holders filed applications in good faith without any notification their rights would be junior to Nevada water rights. Utah water rights applicants in 1979 would have had no expectation of Nevada rights being senior to theirs. The situation would have been the same in 1989 in Utah. This agreement is supposed to protect water rights holders but if this provision is allowed to stand will, in fact, abrogate the rights of many Utah water rights holders. This could be grounds for law suits against Utah and the agreement. --- block 3 waters -- reserved water --- In most other similar situations, reserved waters are generally used for something other than future development. --- verification of current water rights allocations --- Accurate inventories, particularly in Nevada, are needed to insure that the basic water rights allocations are correct. This needs to be verified as it could affect the division of water between the states. They should be published in detail in an appendix. As Ronald Reagan said many times, "trust but verify." --- 3rd parties --- 8.4 Nothing in the Agreement is intended to provide any contract for the benefit of third parties, and no such persons or entities shall have any cause of action as against the States arising from this Agreement... This seems overly optimistic and non-binding on any Utah citizen who is damaged by any misconduct or negligence in the implementation of this agreement. The mere fact of its inclusion will not prevent a 3rd party from acting in his/her best interest, including legal action. --- Utah Snake Valley Research Team and Advisory Council --- Systematic liaison between the TWG and Utah's Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team has been established in the UT-SNWA agreement. Similarly, systematic liaison between the Management Committee and the Snake Valley Advisory Council should be included in the agreement. --- === UT-SNWA agreement === --- --- 1. statement of intent --- 1. Statement of Intent. In order to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties agree, as more specifically set forth in this Agreement, to 1) establish monitoring plans to determine the hydrologic, biologic and air resources of the state of Utah which may be affected by SNWA’s development of Nevada state groundwater rights within the Snake Valley HB, 2) set out a process to define, subsequently review and, if necessary revise, early warning indicators of sufficient scope and diversity to indicate effects to the hydrologic, biologic and air resources caused by SNWA’s groundwater development in Snake Valley, and to 3) establish reasoned and effective management response mechanisms to counter the effects through, initially, avoiding the actions leading to the effect, secondly, minimizing the effect, or thirdly, mitigating the effect. In order to accomplish these tasks the Parties agree to utilize the following tools:... This should be reworded to specify that the list of tools includes the following tools but is not limited to them. This would allow for such issues as climate change which may or may not fit into one of the enumerated established models and plans. --- funding the agreement(s) implementation --- All funds required to monitor and otherwise implement these agreements, including staffing by either party, should be paid by SNWA or its successors. The funding should be without strings attached. This applies to the TWG and Management Committee staffs. This also applies to any expenses of the Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team in the exercise of their appropriate duties. The bills should be sent to SNWA for payment. --- 2.3 operational period --- 2.3. Operational Period. “Operational Period” shall mean the time period beginning immediately following the export of any groundwater by SNWA from Snake Valley and lasting for so long as SNWA holds Nevada state groundwater rights with a point of diversion within Snake Valley. SNWA could conceivably cease holding Nevada water rights without cessation of the pumping. If SNWA were to enter into an agreement with a subcontractor, for example. Or if SNWA were to sell or otherwise transfer their water rights. The agreement needs to apply to whoever may succeed SNWA for as long as anyone has water rights to export water from Snake Valley. --- maps are not accurate or complete --- The agreement references map (Figure 1 - Utah/SNWA Agreement Monitoring Areas). The map is not accurate. It depicts phreatophitic areas as hardly existing. But whole sections of the bottom land of Snake Valley contains greasewood so thick it is hard to walk through. Other aspects of the map may also be inaccurate. The map needs to be completely updated and resubmitted to public scrutiny and comment. Basic and details maps of soil compositions throughout the basin should be added to maps in order to better determine the number of air quality stations needed. The agreement seems to reflect a theory that the soils are consistent throughout the basin, which may not be true and which may require multiple air quality stations. --- appendix 1 > 1.1 > sentence is convoluted --- appendix 1 > 1.1 > sentence is convoluted I think the first sentence of appendix 1, 1.1 needs fixing. The first comma is unneeded. The phrase "for the purpose of providing an early-warning indication as to whether, in combination with the hydrologic monitoring component, SNWA groundwater development in Snake Valley is causing adverse effects" does not make sense because of a misplaced comma. This sounds like snwa's pumping and hydrologic monitoring may cause adverse effects. I have supplied a fixed version. Does this need to be in a written comment? ---original version ---The intent of the biological monitoring considered here, is to collect a suite of ecologically informative data, at Key Areas of Biological Concern (KABCs), for the purpose of providing an early-warning indication as to whether, in combination with the hydrologic monitoring component, SNWA groundwater development in Snake Valley is causing adverse effects. --- better (if accurate) ---The intent of the biological monitoring considered here is to collect a suite of ecologically informative data, at Key Areas of Biological Concern (KABCs), for the purpose of providing an early-warning indication, in combination with the hydrologic monitoring component, as to whether SNWA groundwater development in Snake Valley is causing adverse effects. --- operational period --- 2.3. Operational Period. “Operational Period” shall mean the time period beginning immediately following the export of any groundwater by SNWA from Snake Valley and lasting for so long as SNWA holds Nevada state groundwater rights with a point of diversion within Snake Valley. The agreement responsibilities and obligations need to be binding on anyone who may become successors to SNWA or who may be engaged as sub contractors in any phase or aspect of the water withdrawal process. --- 10 year starts after spring valley pumping --- 6.7 Nevada agrees to hold the SNWA Applications in abeyance through September 1, 2019, to allow additional hydrologic, biologic, and other data to be collected in Snake Valley for use by the Nevada State Engineer and for use in other processes. Prior to September 1, 2019, the Nevada State Engineer will not hold a hearing or grant a permit pursuant to the SNWA Applications. BARCASS, upon which key elements of this agreement rely, predicts large amounts of interbasin flow from Spring Valley into Snake Valley. Due to the real possibility that Spring Valley pumping will interfere with interbasin flow into Snake Valley, the 10-year abeyance should begin when Spring Valley pumping begins in order to better study whether interbasin flow is occurring. And upon good evidence that interbasin flow is being interrupted, any drop in Snake Valley recharge must be charged against any water rights NV has awarded SNWA in Snake Valley. --- monitoring for ground cover closer than Gandy --- Appendix 1 -- section 1.2 In the phreatophytic plant community south of Gandy Salt Marsh, a sufficient number of permanent transects will be established and annually sampled to track composition and cover at the alliance level. This is not specific enough as it could imply that the only phreatophyte monitoring is directly south of Gandy Salt Marsh. Phreatophyte monitoring needs to be done all up and down Snake Valley, but particularly in tier 1, close to the well fields. The section should be reworded: In the phreatophytic plant community south of Gandy Salt Marsh and extending to the southern end of Snake Valley, a sufficient number of permanent transects will be established and annually sampled to track composition and cover at the alliance level. --- Bonneville Cutthroat Trout --- Bonneville Cutthroat Trout are not being monitored as part of these agreements. They should be. --- 8.2 monitoring in operational phase --- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, SNWA’s contributed funding of the ecological model during the Baseline Period shall be limited to $500,000. Any funding commitment for ecological modeling during the Operational Period is subject to appropriation approval by SNWA’s Board of Directors. === There presently is no ecological model for the Spring Valley biological monitoring. We will be meeting in October to select a committee of experts to help us (the Biological Work Group) choose what ecological model to use. Then it will take at least a year for that model to be developed with the Spring/Snake Valley data. The Stipulation called for exploring the use of an ecological model, but didn't say that one had to be used. The NPS thinks it's necessary in order to see effects before they get up into the park and cause impairment. At this point, all the Stipulation Parties seem to see the usefulness of an ecological model, but it's not certain that there will be one, especially since they can be expensive. Gretchen --- snwa monitoring funding limit : .5 M --- 8.2 Ecological Model. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, SNWA’s contributed funding of the ecological model during the Baseline Period shall be limited to $500,000. Any funding commitment for ecological modeling during the Operational Period is subject to appropriation approval by SNWA’s Board of Directors. This should be tightened to require SNWA's continued funding if the TWG and Management Committee decide it is necessary. SNWA's board should not be in a position to veto important funding. --- stopping the pumping --- 6.5 The Interstate Panel shall determine whether an Adverse Impact has occurred. In the case of the occurrence of an Adverse Impact, the Interstate Panel shall determine the appropriate mitigation. The determination of the Interstate Panel shall be administered by the Nevada State Engineer. The process for any challenge or review of an order of the Nevada State Engineer shall be determined by the laws of Nevada. Some specific triggers need to be established that, if met, would stop the pumping while determinations are arrived at. --- 8.2 -- delivery of waters --- 8.2 Should any claim or controversy arise between the States; (a) ... (d) regarding the delivery of waters herein provided; the signatories of this Agreement, or their successors, ... This is vague and undefined. In a meeting at West Desert School, Boyd Clayton, Mike Queally, and Walt Donaldson could not answer what this meant. Either (1) this should be deleted or (2) it should be clarified to say what it means and then be subject to another round of comments -- since we are not in a position to comment on such vague and undefined language. --- 3.2.2 consensus --- The TWG shall strive for consensus in all determinations and recommendations. Consensus is fine, but can be time-consuming, almost a veto. The agreement should contain language that forces SNWA and Utah representatives to strive for reasonable but limited lengths of time. If a negative impact is the source of discussion about which consensus building is sought, the likely source of the impact should be stopped while consensus is coalescing. --- 3.2.2 - 9 --- 9. If appropriate, oversee development and use of a regional ecological model to track biotic community response to SNWA’s groundwater withdrawal from Snake Valley Strike 'if appropriate'. Why would it not be appropriate to track biotic community response via a regional ecological model? --- 4 monitoring objectives --- 3) include certain water quality parameters that may be affected by groundwater development within Snake Valley; and, 4) include certain air quality parameters that may be affected by groundwater development within Snake Valley. The word 'certain' in water and air quality parameters should be made more specific. --- 5. Management Response and Operation Plan. --- 5. Management Response and Operation Plan. 5.1 Creation of Operation Plan. Prior to the beginning of the Operational Period, the Management Committee, upon the recommendation and advice of the TWG, shall approve an initial written Management Response and Operation Plan (“Operation Plan”). The Parties recognize that the scope, terms and conditions of the initial Operation Plan will necessarily be based upon the data available at the beginning of the Operational Period. This description needs to be clarified. It reads like the operation plan will be created prior to the beginning of the operational period based on data available at the beginning of the operational period. The cart is before the horse. --- 5.1.1 --- 5.1.1 The Operation Plan shall include: 1. Identification and definition of early warning indicators for effects to hydrologic, biologic and air resources in the Area of Interest; This should specify that acceptable levels of drawdown will be determined in this phase. --- 5.1.2 --- 5.1.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, nothing contained in the Operation Plan shall mandate or otherwise require that any specific management response action be implemented based upon an early warning indicator or otherwise. The task of initiating any and all management response actions shall be within the sole discretion of the Management Committee. This seems like an anti-off switch. The management committee has an effective veto. Even after 3rd party arbitrators make suggestions, the management committee can veto their implementation. --- 5.2 --- As part of the determination, the Management Committee shall take all necessary steps to ensure that management response actions are: 1) scientifically sound; 2) can be engineered and implemented in a reasonable manner; 3) are implemented in a timely manner. How can anyone in Snake Valley find comfort in this statement when the amount determined as natural discharge and the 50/50 split in allocation of that inflated amount is far from scientific or reasonable. And the only thing timely about this process is the rushed comment period. point 2 seems like a plea for cost-effectiveness so SNWA does not have to spend too much. This should be made more specific and stringent and binding. --- 5.3 missing 'of' --- 5.3 Good Faith Effort to Finalize Operation Plan. SNWA and Utah shall in good faith pursue the creation the Operation Plan as set forth in section 5.1 should have 'of' between 'creation' and 'the' --- 5.3 final payment --- Final payment to the third party shall be conditional upon completion within the allotted year All costs associated with the monitoring and other implementation of this agreement should be SNWA's responsibility without giving SNWA the ability to use this financial obligation as a lever to control or manipulate. --- 8.2 sufficiently resolved hydrological model --- The Parties agree that regional ecological model may be a useful tool in evaluating and predicting effects of SNWA groundwater development when coupled with a sufficiently resolved hydrologic model. This should be more specific and as accurate as possible. --- 8.2 funding for ecological model after baseline period --- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, SNWA’s contributed funding of the ecological model during the Baseline Period shall be limited to $500,000. Any funding commitment for ecological modeling during the Operational Period is subject to appropriation approval by SNWA’s Board of Directors. Funding for an ecological modeling should not be left to the discretion of SNWA board. They should be required to pay for this if the TWG and management committee so order or a 3rd party group decides upon failure of the management committee to reach consensus. --- 10 NV Engineer proceedings --- The wording should clarify that this, as everything else, is binding on SNWA's successors, subcontractors, or anyone else exporting water from Snake Valley using water rights originally applied for by SNWA and/or their predecessor. --- 12 Funding --- All costs associated with the monitoring and other implementation of this agreement should be SNWA's responsibility without giving SNWA the ability to use this financial obligation as a lever to control or manipulate. All funds required to monitor and otherwise implement these agreements, including staffing by either party, should be paid by SNWA or its successors. The funding should be without strings attached. This applies to the TWG and Management Committee staffs. This also applies to any expenses of the Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team in the exercise of their appropriate duties. --- 13 dispute resolution process -- conflict of interest --- Agreement should specify how conflicts of interest are to be determined. --- need for experience-based input in monitoring plan --- The agreement should specify that the creation of monitoring plan(s) must include fact-finding sessions with Snake Valley residents to verify that scientific theories about monitoring realistically conform to observation by residents who have much more onsite experience in Snake Valley. For example, the main map indicates only a few small phreatophyte areas but residents could easily point to large areas of phreatophytes throughout the length of Snake Valley. Residents in every Snake Valley community and farm should be systematically interviewed and allowed to scrutinize monitoring plans for accuracy and reliability. --- 13 dispute resolution process --- The recommendations reached by the dispute review board should be considered binding until overturned by higher authority. The pumping or other likely source of negative impacts should cease until proven they did not cause the source of contention. --- ==== biological monitoring ==== --- --- invasive weeds --- As the water table drops and phreatophytic plants die off -- which is the discharge the agreement says will be captured -- invasive weeds may very well become established throughout Snake Valley, leading to negative ecological and economical impacts. The phreatophytic and other monitoring should be very extensive and specifically include monitoring for invasive weeds. The agreement says avoidance is the first strategy, and that philosophy also should be applied to monitoring and avoiding invasive weeds. --- 1.2 tier 1 biological monitoring --- In the phreatophytic plant community south of Gandy Salt Marsh, a sufficient number of permanent transects will be established and annually sampled to track composition and cover at the alliance level. To avoid a narrow interpretation, this should be changed to read "In the phreatophytic plant community south of Gandy Salt Marsh, EXTENDING TO THE SOUTH END OF SNAKE VALLEY, a sufficient number of permanent transects will be established and annually sampled to track composition and cover at the alliance level." This also should include monitoring for invasive weeds that may replace dying phreatophyte communities. --- === hydrologic monitoring === --- --- 1.1 hyrdologic monitoring costs --- The capital costs of establishing the hydrologic monitoring network shall be shared as stated in Sections 1.1.1 and Table 1.1. All funds required to monitor and otherwise implement these agreements, including staffing by either party, should be paid by SNWA or its successors. The funding should be without strings attached. This applies to the TWG and Management Committee staffs. This also applies to any expenses of the Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team in the exercise of their appropriate duties. --- 1.1.1.3 funding maximum of 3 new wells --- 1.1.1.3. New Monitor Wells SNWA shall install up to three (3) new monitor wells should the TWG determine that the “existing” monitoring network outlined in section 1.1.1.2 is insufficient This is one of the few places in the agreement that is specific. Three wells may not be enough. --- 1.1.1.4. Groundwater Production --- 1.1.1.4. Groundwater Production As stated in Section 1.1.1.1, SNWA shall continuously record groundwater production rates and volumes in all SNWA production wells. The State of Utah, through the Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWRI), shall record all groundwater production data on groundwater production wells in Snake Valley, Utah used for irrigation, mining, and municipal and industrial purposes. At a minimum, these records shall report monthly production totals and the duration of pumping during the reporting period. Why does this section specifically limit this to Utah wells? Nevada wells other than SNWA's also should have the same requirements. --- 1.1.1.5. Springs and Surface Water - costs --- 1.1.1.5. Springs and Surface Water SNWA and UGS shall work cooperatively to establish monitoring sites at the selected springs and diffuse groundwater discharge areas listed in Table 1.1. The Parties shall share in the capital costs of establishing these monitoring sites as provided for in Table 1.1. All funds required to monitor and otherwise implement these agreements, including staffing by either party, should be paid by SNWA or its successors. The funding should be without strings attached. This applies to the TWG and Management Committee staffs. This also applies to any expenses of the Snake Valley Aquifer Research Team in the exercise of their appropriate duties. --- === appendix 3 - air quality monitoring === --- --- 1.1 2nd paragraph --- An air quality monitoring station shall be located within the Utah portion of the Tier I Due to the variation of soil types, this should not be limited to one station. --- 1.1.1. Tier I Air-Quality Monitoring --- 1.1.1. Tier I Air-Quality Monitoring SNWA, in consultation with the TWG, shall locate, construct and instrument a monitoring station for air quality and meteorological data within one year of the beginning of the Initial Period. This station shall be located in Utah at a site representative of the Snake Valley airshed and operated continuously for at least 5 years prior to and for the duration of the SNWA groundwater withdrawal. This should be longer than 5 years prior to pumping. This should be for 10 years after pumping begins in Spring Valley because of interbasin flow, as per BARCASS. Also, the duration is not long enough. It ends when pumping stops but the effects may continue to degenerate for several years after. The agreement should include some specific air quality and all other monitoring and mitigation obligations beyond the cessation of pumping. --- radioactive particles --- The southern part of Snake Valley has been identified as having suffered negative effects of nuclear testing in southern Nevada. There could be significant amounts of radioactive particles bound in the soils that could be disturbed if vegetation dies. These particles could contribute to unhealthy air quality. This should be included in the air quality monitoring plan. --- === missing appendixes === --- --- appendix 4 agricultural impacts --- There should be another appendix specifying monitoring for agricultural impacts. --- appendix 5 -- socio-economic impacts --- There should be another appendix specifying monitoring for socio-economic impacts. --- appendix 6 -- list of all costs implementing agreement --- The agreement should have an appendix listing all costs identified in the agreement and who is responsible for them. SNWA should be responsible for all capital and operating costs. --- appendix 7 -- detailed water rights inventories --- There should be an appendix with detailed water rights inventories for both Utah and Nevada. Accurate inventories, particularly in Nevada, are needed to insure that the basic water rights allocations are correct. This needs to be verified as it could affect the division of water between the states.