Print View



      From: <ggreathouse@frontiernet.net> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov> 
      Date: Wednesday - September 30, 2009 11:01 PM 
      Subject: Draft Snake Valley Water Agreement 




      Comments on the draft agreement.
      1.  Allowing Nevada to proceed to an additional 36,000 afy in one block is 
      not prudent.  Nevada should have to phase in its water use over time 
      (perhaps in 12,000 afy blocks).  Then hold to that level of pumping for a 
      period of years while monitoring of current wells determines whether there 
      are adverse impacts on senior water rights in Utah.  If there are adverse 
      impacts, Nevada should not be allowed to proceed to developing the next 
      block of water.  The large amount spent by Utah on monitoring wells, would 
      be further justified by their use in determining adverse impacts after 
      each block of water was developed.

      2.  The Agreement contains no hard and fast stop on development if ground 
      water levels do decrease.  With all of the monitoring wells and the 
      current wells and springs that are used productively, there should be some 
      level of decline in spring flows and underground water levels that would 
      require development of additional water by Las Vegas and Nevada to be 
      stopped and if they have developed some of the additional 36,000 acre feet 
      for their pumping of the water developed to be cut back or stopped to 
      protect the senior water users.

      3.  It should be made clear that it is optional to approach the Las Vegas 
      interests for mitigation of damages.  Water users should have the option 
      of working through the States to begin with, if the water user so desires. 
       For instance, if over time it becomes clear that the Las Vegas interests 
      consistently deny any adverse impact and refuse to mitigate damages to 
      other water users, the water users should not have to continue going to 
      the Las Vegas interests for damage resolution and should be able to go 
      directly to the State of Utah for help.

      4.  The method of determining adverse impacts through the offices of the 
      State Engineers of Nevada and Utah is not adequately developed in the 
      Agreement.  The Agreement seems to believe some determination will be 
      reached, but no method of resolving differences in the views of the 
      respective states by their State Engineers is set forth in the Agreement.  
      It would appear that if the State Engineers disagree on impact, then there 
      is no determination of impact and the Las Vegas interests could continue 
      to pump.  There should be a method incorporated in the Agreement to handle 
      differences in opinion between the Nevada and Utah State Engineer.  
      Perhaps a third State Engineer from either Idaho or Wyoming could be 
      brought in to break stalemates or in the alternative an outside 
      engineering firm could be used to ultimately decide an issue on which the 
      Utah and Nevada State Engineers could not agree.

      5.   Senior water rights in Utah should be provided a direct right of 
      action if they feel they have suffered an adverse impact that is not being 
      resolved.  They should not ultimately have to depend on the State of Utah 
      to protect their interests against Nevada.  There are not huge numbers of 
      water users in the Snake Valley, so this should be able to be incorporated 
      in the Agreement without exposing Nevada and Las Vegas water interests to 
      a huge number of lawsuits.  

                        Sincerely,
                         Greg Greathouse