Print View



      From: Gretchen Baker <c_g_baker@yahoo.com> 
      To: <snakevalley@utah.gov>, <snakevalley@water.nv.gov> 
      Date: Wednesday - September 30, 2009 3:55 PM 
      Subject: comments 






      Comments on UT-NV draft agreement





      1. Sections 2.8 and 2.9 should be either deleted or changed
      to reflect the doctrine of prior appropriation that is the foundation of 
      both
      states water law. In the draft SNWA;s priority date of October 1989 is 
      strictly
      expressed as senior to any that came after. During the public meeting in 
      Baker
      when questioned about SNWA’s priority date members of the negotiating 
      committee
      stated several times “First in time. First in right.”  Confirming that 
      under the doctrine of prior appropriation
      SNWA’s permits would be treated as senior rights to those with later 
      priority
      dates. In section 2.8 the last sentence reads “ Such appropriations 
      necessarily
      impact the existing  hydrologic
      system and captures discharge available to phreatophytes, streams, and 
      natural
      lakes.

       Some amount of
      the water used by phreatophytes is on private land in sub-irrigated 
      meadows.
      While this water may not have been diverted by humans it has been 
      appropriated
      and put to the beneficial uses listed in the draft agreement. The streams 
      and
      natural lakes referred to in section 2.8 have been appropriated by humans 
      for
      beneficial uses prior  to SNWA’s
      applications in most cases by more than a century. The agreement should 
      clearly
      state that these rights are Senior water rights to SNWA’s permits. 

       Section 2.9
      should state that much phreatophytes use occurs in sub-irrigated meadows 
      and
      that these rights will be recognized as senior water rights that will be
      protected as they were in the NV State Engineers Ruling on SNWA’s  Spring 
      Valley applications Where four
      of the applications were denied because of their proximity to meadow 
      springs
      and sub-irrigated meadow. It was deemed likely that they would  cause 
      adverse impact to senior water
      rights. 

      Sections 2.8
      and 2.9 should be deleted or changed to clear up the apparent disparity 
      between
      the draft agreement’s treatment of 
      SNWA’s priority date verses how senior water rights will be treated.



      2. The draft agreement should be broadened to include any
      other  entities that may develop
      water 

      for interbasin transfer. It should not be limited to SNWA
      permits. The wording in the Lincoln County Lands act to an agreement 
before
      inter basin transfers, not just SNWA transfers.



      3. The mitigation fund is very small compared to the likely
      cost in the long term. Owens valley mitigation costs are near a billion
      dollars. 



      4. Section 6 . Identification and  Mitigation of 
      Adverse Impacts to existing permitted uses. 

      In the event of
      an Adverse impact of an Existing permitted use, the burden of proof should 
      be
      on SNWA to prove that their pumping was not the cause. 



      5. The 132,000 afy yield number is not realistic. The data
      was gathered in 2005-2006. Snowpack in 2005 was almost 300% of normal. The 
      only
      years with precipitation and runoff 
      in the Snake valley record are 1952  and 1983-84. 
      Using data from a 30-50 year flood event is unlikely to give realistic
      estimates. 

      The
      transpiration data from greasewoods would not be representative of the 
      average.
      The greasewood were almost completely green in 2005-06. They barely turned
      green at all in the previous 6 years. It’s my understanding that this
      measurement can change the discharge by tens of thousand of acre-feet. The
      agreement should better reflect the uncertainty of the BARCASS numbers.



      6. The agreement should take into consideration the inflow
      from Spring Valley that may have already been permitted in Spring valley 
      as it
      did the outflow to  Fish springs as
      required by the the wording in the Lincoln County Lands act that calls for 
      an
      agreement on the “inter basin flow system” . 



      Thank you

      Craig Baker , Snake Valley resident