Print View



      From: Beth Anderson <bethbanderson@hotmail.com> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov> 
      Date: Wednesday - September 30, 2009 10:31 PM 
      Subject: UT-NV Agreement 









      Utah/Nevada Agreement for shared Aquifer



      Beth B. Anderson, Callao,
      UT



      General Concerns and comments:

      I am concerned at the starting amount of available
          water in the aquifer.  Does this
          amount take into consideration the amount of water used by plants and
          animals? Wouldn’t it be better to go with a smaller amount, an average 
      of
          the years of study, rather than to assume that the aquifer really has 
      that
          larger amount of 132,000 af? Wet lands, springs, and flowing wells 
      need to be
          addressed even if there are no connections to the “least chub” or 
      “spotted
          frogs”. My father and grandfather drilled 17 flowing wells.  Today 
      only three of the wells still
          flow.  Our meadows are dry that used
          to be irrigated by the flowing wells. The springs are large holes and 
      where
          there used to be water at the ground level, now three feet down is 
      black
          mud. A vehicle can now be driven over most of the meadows where you 
      wouldn’t
          have been able to ride a horse or walk across.The water quality has 
      already changed in the 50 years
          I have lived in the Callao area of Snake Valley.  When I was a child 
      the water from our
          springs and wells were “soft” water, now in the last 20 years the 
      water is
          now very “hard” and full of many minerals. Luckily it still is very 
      palatable.
           Is the water quality addressed in
          this agreement?  Why is the first step to go to SNWA when an “adverse 
      impact”
          happens?  It seems like there needs
          to be more monetary responsibility placed on SNWA for all of the
          monitoring, reporting, tracking of “adverse impacts” and less
          responsibility of SNWA to say whether they accept the monitoring,
          reporting and tracking.  The
          agreement seems to say that “you as a water right holder are 
      responsible
          to do and pay for the monitoring, reporting and tracking of the 
adverse
          impacts.  When you discover an ‘adverse
          impact’ contact SNWA, wait 10 days for them to say…’it wasn’t SNWA’.  
      Then start the complaint process again
          with the states interim committees.” Meanwhile still having losses and 
      “adverse
          impacts” that are getting worse on a daily basis.  Like the cartoon of 
      the fox watching the
          hen house…not smart.The ten years is a good amount of time to get some
          good data.  Will that also limit
          when a claim can be filed against SNWA?Will this agreement help to 
      protect Snake Valley
          when there is a draw down from SNWA pumping in Spring
           Valley?  Dye has
          already been put into the waters of Spring Valley and shown up in the
          springs around Garrison,
           UT.  The valleys are connected and impacts in
          Spring Valley will affect Snake
           Valley.What protections are in the agreement for the Grandfather
          water rights and Diligence water rights? 
          Will the “adverse impacts” be spelled out
          specifically so that SNWA will be forced to abide by them?  What loop 
      holes are in the agreement
          that SNWA will be able to weasel their way out of any responsibility?  
      It would benefit both states if
          definitions of terms used in the agreement are very clear so all can
          understand them.  Not leaving any
          terms to be defined by lawyers and courts.I also agree that we have 
      been given a short time to
          review a lot of information.  If no
          extension is made to make comments, at least have another comment 
      period
          after any changes have been made to the draft of the agreement 
      document. Why isn’t it called what it is “water mining”, since
          NONE of the water taken from the Snake Valley
          will be used for recharge of the aquifer.

                           
      _________________________________________________________________
      Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
      http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009