Print View



      From: "Kathy Hill" <kathrynhillster@gmail.com> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov> 
      Date: Wednesday - September 30, 2009 1:58 PM 
      Subject: additional comments 




      These comments are the result of a meeting with members of the Great Basin 
      Water Network.  They express my sentiments exactly and so I enter them as 
      additional comments. 


      INAPPROPRIATE STATEMENTS RE LEGAL STANDARDS (Sections 2.8 and 2.9): 



      Sections 2.8 and 2.9 should be deleted.  They purport to do nothing more 
      than restate existing legal standards in both states.  If this is all they 
      do, then there is no need for them, and they certainly do not belong in 
      the "findings" section of the Agreement.  But, in fact, these sections do 
      not accurately reflect the more nuanced and dynamic nature of Utah and 
      Nevada water law and policy.  Historically, both states' standards have 
      shifted with changing circumstances and understandings of hydrogeology.  
      At the present time, the legal treatment of groundwater drawdown and 
      impacts to senior water rights is more complicated and variable than the 
      simple statements contained in sections 2.8 and 2.9 reflect.  And it is to 
      be expected that in the future, the legal standards and policy imperatives 
      informing these issues will evolve.  Accordingly, there is no place in the 
      Agreement for such oversimplified and rigid legal formulations, and they 
      should be taken out of the Draft Agreement



      Further, the Lincoln County Lands Act requires that the shared groundwater 
      resource be managed sustainably, and given the numerous water rights, 
      livelihoods, and environmental resources at stake, greater protection for 
      Snake Valley under the agreement is necessary.  In order to guarantee 
      appropriate protections to Utah citizens, Utah ought to insist that 
      principles of true sustainability guide the management of Snake Valley by 
      the States.  Such principles would not allow for the drawdown of the 
      groundwater system to the extent of capturing much existing 
      evapotranspiration in Snake Valley, which includes legally protected, 
      economically and ecologically vital subirrigated meadows.





      INADEQUATE MITIGATION FUND (Section 6.4):  



      The provision for a minimum of $3 million in Section 6.4 to fund 
      mitigation effort is laughably inadequate.  For nothing more than dust 
      mitigation impacts from drying out previously most areas of Owens Valley 
      the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water already is locked into about 
      half a billion dollars of immediate mitigation costs, followed by ongoing 
      annual operational costs in the tens, and perhaps eventually hundreds, of 
      millions of dollars.  Since Snake Valley's wind shed includes the Salt 
      Lake City area and Wasatch Front, the dust mitigation costs for increased 
      dust emissions from Snake Valley alone could well run into the billions of 
      dollars.  And other environmental and senior water rights mitigation costs 
      are likely to be in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars as 
      well.  



      So, the Agreement should require SNWA to establish and maintain a 
      mitigation fund of at least several hundred million dollars, and 
      preferably a billion dollars.  Given the scope and gravity of mitigation 
      that may be necessary for Snake Valley, and for downwind Utah more 
      generally, anything less than a fund of few hundred million dollars would 
      not provide even a temporarily adequate sort of cushion or guarantee to 
      Snake Valley water rights holders and Utah residents who will depend on 
      that money when they are impacted.