Terry Marasco from Baker, NV, long time activist against the water grab sent me these great points. Send comments to snakevalley@utah.gov

RE: Concerns with the UT NV Water Agreement

August 23, 2009

1. The removal of water from rural areas to urban areas cannot be justified when it negatively impacts the economies, ways of life, and the environment upon which rural economies rely. In this case the rural economies of two states are affected;

2. The stated allocations favor Nevada 7 to 1;

3. The recharge estimate of 132,000 acre feet/year is exceptionally optimistic especially in light of 15+ studies that indicate recharge at 105-110K. The 132K is from BARCASS (USGS) with a confidence rate of only 67%. The conservative approach would be 75K. However, we recognize that the allocations on this scale will have large negative impacts regardless and need to be rethought or eliminated;

4. Most of the negative impacts will be in Utah, and this Agreement does NOT give automatic power to Utah to stop the pumping by Nevada when impacts are detected;

5. The depreciation of rural agricultural economies threatens one of Utah’s most vibrant assets and a secure food supply;

6. This agreement acknowledges that groundwater withdrawals will affect plants, seeps, springs, lakes and flows to other basins thereby depreciating other segments of Utah’s rural economy namely hunting, fishing & outdoor recreation. This Agreement should not be signed until all impacts to rural economies and the environment upon which those economies depend are stated with modeling and any and all current science and should include:

a. Declines to groundwater tables stated in feet at 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 50, 75, and 100 years out

b. Specific areas impacted and declines stated as noted in a. above. The available science is clear that table declines closest to the Nevada wells will be greatest.

c. Statements regarding impacts on “interstate ground-water flow system(s)…” , not just Snake Valley as required by the Lands Bill that set this agreement in place;

7. Damages Process: This agreement places the financial burden and the burden of proof on the Utah rancher, farmer or city/water district. Rather than having Utah as a partner, this Agreement requires that the rancher appeal directly to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. If SNWA disagrees with the damages, the next step is a panel. If the panel disagrees, the next step is the courts at the expense of the damaged Utahn. The State of Utah will not step in to protect its rural citizens financially or otherwise in the agreement. It is reasonable for SNWA to guarantee a $50,000,000 bond to protect rural Utahns in the legal process for enforcement, compensation, and legal fees.

8. There is no guarantee for funding in this agreement for critical monitoring that would detect impacts. If monitoring is not funded (except for SNWA responsibilities: 4 required in this agreement) USGS has 8 that could be dropped and UT has many as well. This agreement does NOT require SNWA to stop pumping if the monitoring is not funded and discontinues;

9. The Wasatch Front already experiences numerous compromised air quality days that affect the health of its citizens. The decrease in vegetation acknowledged in this Agreement, as many studies indicate from the Owens valley groundwater mining experience, will increase air pollution significantly along the Wasatch Front further threatening its citizens’ health, and will threaten Federal Funding for roads if air quality deteriorates;

10. Financial burden for Utahns – this Agreement leaves future Utah citizens highly exposed to financial burdens perhaps for generations. We need only look to the Owens Valley experience where the worst air quality in the US was declared by the EPA. Today, Los Angeles has had to pay $551,000,000 to mitigate air quality there and at least $65,000,000 to restore the Owens River. This Agreement places the entire financial burden of enforcement, compensation, and long-term mitigation on Utahns. It appears reasonable to ask Nevada to post a financial guarantee of at least $1,000,000,000 to protect Utah against future damages; and;

11. The Land Bill does not require an agreement. This Agreement misses a large opportunity to approach water issues shared among these states in new and creative ways that decreases if not eliminates damage to either states’ water resources and economies.

There are alternatives to Utah and Nevada water resource needs that may obviate the need for large-scale projects such as this. Both Nevada and Utah cities use significantly more water/capita than other western cities. If both Utah and Nevada approach per capita use in cities like Albuquerque and Tucson in residential water use, there may be more than adequate water resources instate for growth.