Print View



      From: P MEDINA <cmsutah@q.com> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov> 
      Date: Wednesday - September 30, 2009 8:11 AM 
      Subject: Comments Regarding Pipeline Project 





      The purpose of this message is to voice my opposition to the Utah/Nevada 
      Snake Valley Pipeline agreement.   

      The study conducted by Hydrology of Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, for 
      the 1975 - 2005 timeframe stated that sources of water to the basin-fill 
      aquifers were estimated to average 153,000 (+/- 31,500) acre-feet 
      annually. During this same time ground-water discharge from the basin-fill 
      aquifers was estimated to average 166,700 (+/- 25,900) acre-feet/year. 
      Water levels in 110 wells covering all aquifers dropped an average of 22 
      feet. 



      After 4 years of study and negotiation, Utah and Nevada have released a 
      draft agreement on the management of the Snake Valley groundwater system. 
      The plan divides an estimated sustainable yield of 132,000 ac-ft evenly 
      between the 2 states.  Note that the estimates for the study of the water 
      for 30 years was a +/- 31,500.  That means the actual yield could be 
      122,000 ac-ft.  How do you allocate water that doesn't exist? What happens 
      to the people that have historically used an average 166,700 ac-ft per 
      year?  What plans are in place to cut the needs/usage of water by these 
      users?  How can there be any development in Utah if the amount of 
      available water is reduced?  This appears only to benefit Nevada.  



      The proposal is to take an average yield and split it between Nevada and 
      Utah.  The yield dropped an average of 22 feet per aquifier in 30 years 
      (2,420 ac-ft).  In the 1975-2005 study there is a variable in the numbers. 
       Identified is a +/-31,500 for water sources and +/- 25,900 in 
      consumption.  If the 30 year study contains that much of a variable (20.5% 
      and 15.5%) what has been changed to more accurately reflect usage by the 
      States of Nevada and Utah once the agreement is in place?  What plans are 
      in place to mitigate environmental impacts?  



      I don't understand how the proposed plan will protect current rights and 
      allow development for Utah residents.  It is a one sided arrangement that 
      appears to only benefit Nevada.  



      Please do not approve this plan.  

      Patricia Medina 

      Utah, Davis County Resident