South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District

TO T}tE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
oF THE sourn inucrcE MEADows GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT -coulrv DISTRICT
oF wAsEoE' STATE OF NEVADA
NoTIcEISI{EREBYGfvENbytheCountyClerkoftheCounryof
wasboe, State of Nevada, thar a special meeting of the Board of rrustees of the south
TnrckeeMeadowsGenerallmprovemerrtDistict(STMGID)hasbeencailedbythe
chairman rtrereof and will be held ar the commission chambers of the washoe county
Adminisration complex, Building A, 1001 EastNinth sEeet', Reno' Nevada at 3:00 p'm'
on Tuesday, Aprit 18, 2006, for the Purpose of discussion and possible action regarding
rhe following item:
Domestic weil Mitigation claim made by Richard and Theresa
Shannon for well locared at 5841Morrnt Rose Highway' Reno' Nevada 8951I (APN:
150-260-35),includingfindingsandrecommendationsoftheWashoeCountyWe}I
Mitigation Hearing Board and recorrmendations of the STMGID Local Managing Board'
ThismeetingwillbeheldinadditiontotheusualTuesday,Aprii25,20Q6meeting-
A\'IY IIARVEY
Clerk and

April 10,2006
South Truckee
Meadows
General
Improvement
District
(sTMGrD)
Local
Managing
Board
TO:
Board of Trustees
South Truckee Meadows Generalmprovement District
Bob Larkin, Chairman
Bonnie Weber, Vice Chairman
Jim Galloway, Trustee
David Humke, Trustee
Pete Sferrazza, Trustee
Steve Cohen
Chairman
Gerald Schumacher
Vice Chairman
Ellen Allman
Secretary
Lisa Cady
Member
Birnie McGavin
Member
Steve Cohen, Chairman, STMGID Local Managing Board
Gerald Schumacher, Vice Chairman, STMGID Local Managing Board
Ellen Allman, Secretary, STMGID Local Managing Board
Lisa Cady, STMGID Local Managing Board
Birnie McGavin, STMGID Local Managing Board
Katy Singlaub, County Manager
Michelle Poch6, Assistant County Manager
Amy Harvey, County Clerk
John Sherman, Director, Finance Department
Ron Steele, Fiscal Analyst II, Finance Division
John Rhodes, Deputy District Afforney, Civil Division
Melanie Foster, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division
Steve Bradhurst, Director, Department of Water Resources
NOTICE
The Board of Trustees of the South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District will hold a special meeting on Tuesdayo April 18' 2006. The meeting
will be held at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, Administration Building,
1001 East Ninth Street, Reno, Nevada.
Administration
c/o Washoe County
Dept. of
Water Resources
4930 Energy Way
Reno. NV 89502
(775) 9s4-4600
FAX 954-4610
SBiPOAT

AGENDA
SOUTII TRUCKEE MEADOWS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT (STMGID)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Bob Larkin, Chairman
Bonnie Weber, Vice Chairman
Jim Galloway, Trustee
David Humke, Trustee
Pete Sferrazza.Trustee
COUNTY CLERK
AmyHarvey
Washoe Countv Commission Chambers - 1001 E. 9th Streef Reno, NV
April18,2006
3:00 p.m.
NOTE: The Washoe County Commission Chambers are accessible to the disabled. If you
require special arrangements for the meeting, please call the County Manager's Office, 328-
2000, 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Pursuanto NRS 241.020, the agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting has been posted at the
following locations: Washoe County Administration Building (1001 E. 9'n Street), Washoe
County Courthouse (Court and Virginia Streets), Washoe County Central Library (301 South
Center Street), Washoe County Department of Water Resources (4930 Energy Way), Sparks
Justice Court (650 Greenbrae Dr.), Galena Market (19990 Thomas Creek Road), Galena High
School (3600 Butch Cassidy Way), Steamboat Post Office (75 McCabe Dr.), and South Valleys
Library, (15650A Wedge Parkway). The agenda has also been posted on the internet at
http://www.washoecounty.us/water/stmgid. The meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m.' April 180
2006, in the Commissioners' Chambers, Administration Building, 1001 E. Ninth St', Reno,
Nevada.
Supporting documentation provided to the Board of Trustees for items on the agenda is available
for review to members of the public at the Washoe County Water Resowces Department (4930
Energy Way, Reno, NV 89502).
Unless otherwise indicated by asterisk (*), all items on the agenda are action items upon which
the Board of Trustees mav take action.
3:00 p.m.
1. *Determination of Quorum.
2. Approve agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting of April 18, 2006'

Board of Trustees Agendafor April 18, 2006
3. Consideration and possible action on the recommendation of the STMGID Local
Managing Board regarding Richard and Terri Shannon's claim for well mitigation
(APNrs0-260-3s).
4. *Public Comments: Two-minute time limit per person and limited to items not listed on
the agenda. Public comment of two minutes per person will be taken on action items on
the agenda.
5. *Board, LMB, and Staff Comments (limited to announcements, requests for information,
statements relating to items not on the agenda or issues for future agendas.)
6. Emergency ltems.
7. Adjournment.

SOUTH TRUCKEE MEADOWS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT (STMGID)
DATE:
TO:
Sra.rF Rnponr
BOARD MEETING DATE: APril 18, 2006
April 10,2006
Board of Trustees
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
FROM: Paul Orphan, Engineering Manager, Deparhraent - of Water Resources
g54-46i4,porphan@washoecount),.us
{/r4>"
THROUGH: Steve Bradhurst, Director, Department of Water Resourceslf-Vfi
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on the recommendatioil of the
STMGID Local Managing Board regarding Richard and Terri
Shannon's claim for domestic well mitigation (APN150-260-35).
Finance-Ql
DAff-
RiskMgt. D/A
HR_n/q_
Other_p4_
SUMMARY
On March 16,2006,the Well Mitigation Hearing Board (WMHB) made a finding
(Attachment A) that the STMGID Production Well #6 (PW#6) caused 32 feet af
unreasonable drawdown in the Shannon domestic well, and therefore recommended that
STMGID reimburse 67%o of the mitigation costs. The cost of the hook-up fees to the
Washoe County's water system is $8,352.80.
County Priorities/Goals supported by this item: Preserve and Enhance Our Quality of
Life - Effectively plan and manage use of our natural assets including water, air and open
space. The Department of Water Resources will manage and protect regional water
resources in a sustainable, cost-effective maruler.
PREVIOUS ACTION
SfVtCn aAopted a well mitigation policy (Attachment B) that considers each well
mitigation claim individually. fn" policy calls for a claim for mitigation to be first
submitted to the WMHB. Then the WMHB recommendation is submitted to the
STMGID Local Managing Board (LIvIB). The LMB reviews the claim and WMHB
reconrmendation and forwards a recommendation to the STMGID Board of Trustees.
BACKGROUND
On Novemb er 7,2005, the Shannons submitted a reimbursement claim against
STMGID's PW#6. On March 16,2006, the WMHB determined that there was an
unreasonable drawdown in the Shannon well to the extent of 67Yo due to municipal
pumping. (See minutes - Attachment C). The Shannons attest that 48 feet (37'
documented) of drawdown was caused by STMGID PW#6. The WMIIB finding stated
that 10 feet of drawdown from the production well was reasonable,that 6 feet of
drawdown was attributable to drought and other domestic well pumping, and that32 feet
was attributable to unreasonable municipal pumping.
Item 3
Page 1

STMGID Board of Trustees Meeting of April 18, 2006
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The Shannons have decided to hook-up to the County's municipal water system rather
than deepening their domestic well. The hook-up fees are $8,352.80. Sixty-seven
percent of this cost is $5,596.38. Budget authority is located in cost center 674310'
RECOMMENDATION
tt is recommended that the STMGID Board of Trustees consider and take possible action
on the recommendation of the STMGID Local Managing Board regarding Richard and
Terri Shannon's claim for domestic well mitigation (APN150-260-35).
POSSIBLE MOTION
Should the Board wish to implementhe recommendation, a simple motion to approve
would suffice.
SB:JMC:PO:lr
Attachments
cc:
Kathy Garcia, Comptroller
Jim Jeppson, Risk Manager
Ron Steele, Fiscal Analyst II
Jerry McKnight, Finance and Customer Service Manager
Ted Rolfs, Fiscal Compliance Officer
Wendy Bennett, Accountant II
Item 3
Page2

Attachment A
WASHOE COUNTY
"Dedicated To Excellence in Public Seruice"
www.co.washoe.nv.us
Washoe County
Well Mitigation
Hearing Board
4930EnerryWay
Reno,NV 895024106
Tel: (775) 954-4600
Fax: (775)9544610
Board Members:
Roger Jacobson
Pete Morros
Karen Rosenau
Greg Pohll
David Carlson
Legal Counsel:
John Rhodes
March 17,2006
Mr. Steve Cohen, Chairman
South Truckee Meadows GID Local Managing Board
c/o Washoe CountyDepartment of Water Resources
4930 Energy Way
Reno, Nevada 89520
Re: Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board Findings of March 16'2006
On March 16,2006, the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board evaluated the
mitigation request of Richard and Theresa Shannon, 5847 Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno, Nevada.
The Board acknowledged that the domestic well at this address is adjacent to the South
Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID) water utility service area.
The Board made the following findings:
The total drawdown in the domestic well is 48 feet. A reasonable lowering of the static
water level due to municipal pumping is 10 feet. Unreasonable lowering attributable to
municipal pumping at STMGID well #6 is 32 feet (67% of the total lowering) and the
remaining 6 feet (I2% of the total) is attributable to drought and other domestic well
pumping.
According to program documentation, Board determinations are forwarded to responsible
municipal water purveyors, domestic well owners and the Regional Water Planning
Commission. Negotiation and final agreement on any mitigation measures are between the
water purveyor and the domestic well owner. Please be advised that the program
acknowledges the Nevada State Engineer's statutory authority and the parties' rights to
refer the matter to the State Engineer at any time.
Please contact me at 954-4657 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jim Smitherman
Water Resources Program Manager
cc:
Richard and Theresa Shannon
STMGID Board of Trustees
Regional Water Planning Commission
Nevada State Engineer
Steve Bradhurst
Jeanne Ruefer
John Rhodes Item 3
Page 3

Attachment B
POLICY FOR THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR
DEEPENING DOMESTIC WELLS
SOUTH TRUCKEE MEADOWS
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID) recognizes that the groundwater
resources of the South Truckee Meadows are shared with domestic weil owners. If the Washoe County
Wett Mitigation Hearing Board determines that the long-term pumping of a STMGID ptoduction well
has causid deleterious water level decline in a domestic well, STMGID may compensate the owner a
portion of the cost of deepening the well. The compensation will be for the drilling and construction cost
only. The STMGID Board reserves the right to pay equivalent costs of well-deepening or an alternative
water supply source.
The policy is:
1. A claim for reimbursement must lirst be submitted to the Washoe County lVell Mitigation
Hearing Board The Hearing Board must make a determination that a STMGID production
well has deleteriously impaired the pumping rate and duration of the impacted domestic well.
2. STMGID will be responsible for up to 100 feet of well deepening unless conditions warrant
otherwise as defined bv STMGID.
3. Costs associated with the replacement of pump, pump column, electrical cables or other pump
material will be the responsibility of the domestic well owner.
4. Each claim for reimbursement will be reviewed independent of previous claims and will include
the age of the well and its method of construction.
5. STMGID will only compensate for the well deepening below the bottom of the existing domestic
well.
6. The well owner may be required to sign a hold harmless agreement releasing the District against
any future claims by the owner.
7. This policy does not apply if the well is illegally drilled or located improperly.
8. Pursuant to N.A.C. 534.315, if a public supply water main is in reasonable proximity, the
domestic well owner will be required to hook up to this water main.
Approved by Local Managing Board on November 21,2005.
Approval by Board of Trustees on December 20,2005.
P:\STMGID\LMB\LMB Agenda ltems\2006\04-17-06\#7 ShannonVttach B well deepening-doc
Item 3
Prge 4

Attachment C
Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Thursdav. March 16. 2006
Members Present
Pete Morros
Roger Jacobson
Members Absent
Karen Rosenau
StaffPresent
Jim Smitherman
John Rhodes, Legal Counsel
Public Present
Theresa Shannon
Birnie McGavin
David Carlson
Mike Widmer
Jeanne Ruefer
Richard Shannon
Greg Pohll
Paula Valentin
Gail hockish
Michael DeMartini
DETERMINATION OF QUORIIM - Chairman Jacobson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
There was a quorumpresent. He introduced the newest Board member, David Carlson.
APPROVAL OF THT AGENDA - Mr. Morros made a motion to approve the agenda as posted. Mr.
Pohll seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the December 6,2005
and the February 7, 2006 meetings were submitted for approval. Michael DeMartini referred to the
December meeting and reported that he had reviewed the minutes and tapes, which he added were very
difficult to understand. He referred to page 2, paragraph 4 and other paragraphs and requested that he be
referred to as an individual. He referred to a comment and clarified it should say "Mr. DeMartini stated
that his concern is that when the Board was recommended for approval by the RWPC to the BCC...".
He next referred to page 3, paragraph 4 and referred to the comment, "some exhibits that showed
wastewater use on some one-acre lots was less than 0.2 acre-feet per year". He stated that he would like
to see more detail in the minutes and offered to provide his comments in writing in the future.
Chairman Jacobson clarified that the minutes are a sumrnary of what occurred at the meeting; they are not
meant to be a court record or verbatim. He added that the intention is that the final recommendations are
captured accurately. Mr. Morros suggested that if anyone requires more detail than the minutes provide,
they could borrow the tapes from the meeting. Mr. Morros made a motion to approve the minutes of the
December 6, 2005 and the February 7, 2006 meefings as submitted. I{r. Pohll seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
PIIBLIC
COMMENT
None.
Item 3
Page 5

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 2 of 12
BUSINESS OF TIIE DAY
1. Review and possible approval of revised criteria and procedure for determining what
constitutes a reasonable lowering of the water level, and what constitutes an unreasonable affect
on a domestic well caused by municipal uses, and possible direction to staff.
Chairman Jacobson reported that this item had been postponed until Mr. Carlson could be present. John
Rhodes distributed handouts. He apologized for not providing the documents in advance and summarized
the details. He referred to the "Role of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board" and explained it was created
as a result of the workshop held during the October meeting with Hugh Ricci, State Engineer. The three
main points of the Board's role are:
r To hear and consider evidence regarding whether there are unreasonable adverse affects on a
domestic well caused by municipal pumping
. To determine the portion of the total lowering of the static water level caused by municipal
pumping that is reasonable and if applicable, to consider what portion is considered
unreasonable considering what portions of the total are due to drought, other domestic wells,
other permitted pumping and other causes
o To make findings and provide recommendations to the water purveyor as to the percentage of
unreasonable adverse affects beyond a reasonable lowering of the static water level that is
atbibutable to municipal pumping
Mr. Modes next referred to the o'Factors to Consider", which he explained are factors determined by this
Board in organizational meetings as items to be reviewed in terms of evidence. He next referred to
"Analysis", which he prepared as requested by this Board to provide assistance with defining what is
"reasonable". The next document is entitled, "Forms of Motions" that could be used by the Board. Mr.
Rhodes explained that it is a revised document that the Board has not yet seen.
Mr. Rhodes referred to the handout on motions and explained the changes that were made. He explained
that the Role of the Board is the document that needs approval; the remaining documents are to provide
informational assistance. Mr. Morros stated he would be comfortable adopting the document as a
guideline rather than being locked into it. Mr. Rhodes clarified that the document had been approved by
this Board previously; however, the document was revised based on the workshop with the State
Engineer. He added that the document could be adopted as a guideline if desired and the name could be
changed to "Guidelines of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board". Chairman Jacobson stated he thought the
document was a good modification.
Mr. Morros stated he would never be comfortable with identifoing specifically by number the
unreasonable lowering of the water table. Mr. Morros made a motion to adopt the guidelines as general
guidelines while allowing the Board to make independent judgments on each case. Mr. Carlson seconded
the motion.
Theresa Shannon stated she is speaking as a member of the public and added that in the past she
represented domestic well owners through a group called the Mt. Rose Well and Water Protection. She
reported that she is an applicant on tonight's agenda. She stated she is not uncomfortable with the
language; however, she was concerned that the policies of this Board (even though it was approved well
over a year ago) are still in the process of being defined on the very night that a decision would be made
on her particular issue. She stated she hoped there would be some consistency and added that if you read
through the minutes, it appears that the policies regarding mitigation have changed almost monthly. She
went on to say that she hopes if this document is adopted, that the Board finds medium ground and is able
to use the guidelines consistently on a case-by-case basis.
Item 3
Page 6

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 3 of 12
Mr. Pohll agreed and added that consistency is the main reason behind the guidelines. He added that it
would help the Board to determine what their role is and to form their opinions. Mr. Morros stated he
agreed with Ms. Shannon's comments and feels it is time to "tighten the screws down" and try to be as
consistent as possible. He added that he has a lot of years of experience but it can still be confusing.
Chairman Jacobson stated he felt the policy has always been the same; however, the way the factors have
been considered has changed from the beginning. Mr. Morros stated the hardest issue is "What is the
reasonable lowering of the water table?" Chairman Jacobson stated it would be appropriate to review the
guideline document prior to any motion being made.
Chairman Jacobson called for the vote on Mr. Morros'motion, which carried uranimously.
2. Hearings on applications for well mitigation, including possible decision and direction to staff:
a. Wendy Pierce, APN 049-090-12'15992 Mt. Rose Ilighway
(Utility Service Area: Washoe County Department of Water Resources)
Wendy Pierce was not present. Chairman Jacobson requested this item be tabled and move to the second
applicant as he wanted Ms. Pierce to have an opportunity to speak to the Board. This will appear at a
future WMIIB meeting.
b. Richard and Theresa Shannon, APN 150-260-35,5847 Mt. Rose Highway ptility
Service Area: Washoe County Department of Water Resources and South Truckee
Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID)
Jim Smitherman gave an overview of the packet information for the Shannon's well. He reported that the
Groundwater Data Center (GDC) had developed a summary. The original well was drilled in March 1980
to a depth of 297 feet, with a static water level of approximately 248 feet below land surface. The well
had 49 feet in the casing at the time of conskuction. There are two homes serviced by the well.
According to the Assessor's database, the primary home was built in 1963 and the second was built in
1982. In 1988, the Shannons were granted a special use permit to convert a mother-inlaw unit to a
detached accessory dwelling. A meter was installed on the well and the Shannons were regulated to not
use more than 1,800 gallons per day by Statute as well as the Washoe County District Health Department
and later by the Community Development department.
Mr. Smitherman reported the permit from the Health Department stated that the well owners would allow
the State Division of Water Resources to read the meter, although when he contacted them, they stated
they had no record of a request to read the well meter. He stated that in March 2002 McKay Drilling
performed a pump test on the well. The static water level was measured at 263 feet below land surface.
The well was pumped for one hour at 9.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and the pumping level in the well
dropped three feet to 266 feet below land surface. The static water level in 1980 was recorded at248 feet
below land surface. He summarizedthatthe total drop in the static water level was approximateb 15 feet
in22years, or an average of 0.68 feetperyear.
Mr. Smitherman reported that included in the packet was a document titled, "Richard and Theresa
Shannon Supplemental Information", which includes service records and a letter from Washoe County'
Mr. Smitherman reported that in the Govemment Lots, very few wells were drilled before the 1980s. The
GDC located a well log for an irrigation well located at 5852 Mt. Rose Highway, which is approximately
2,300 feet north of the subject properfy. The irrigation well was drilled in 1959 to a depth of 120 feet in
volcanic and granitic sand. The static water level at that time was 98 feet below land surface and an
Item 3
Pzgel

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16, 2006 Page 4 of 12
adjacent well was 148 feet below land surface; therefore, from 1959 to 1989 the water table dropped
approximately 50 feet, or approximately L66 feet per year.
Mr. Smitherman stated that the water table in the subject area has fluctuated over time and was declining
during the thirty years prior to construction of STMGID well numbers 5 and 6 and Tessa wells I and 2.
He added that most of the welis in the Government Lots were drilled between 1985 and 1995, many of
which were drilled in bedrock. The average static water level for wells drilled in bedrock in the southern
portion of the Govemment Lots in the early 1990s was approximately 240 to 250 feet below land surface,
which is consistent with the information on the applicant's well.
Mr. Smitherman reported the Tessa wells began service in 2003. He added that the hydrograph for Tessa
I shows no decline and the hydrograph for Tessa 2 shows a fluctuation in the pumping level.
Hydrographs for STMGID wells 5 and 6 between 2002 and 2005 show pumping level fluctuations in the
water table, with a decline of approximately 19 feet in number 5 and 7.5 feet in number 6. He reported
that STMGID 6 is the closest production well to the subject well, which is approximately 3,100 feet to the
northeast. Tessa 2 and ArrowCreek 3 wells are also within one mile of the subject parcel.
Mr. Smitherman reported that the applicants claim their well failed in August 2005. The applicants also
stated that at that time, their pump was lowered to the bottom of the well but they were still unable to
pump water. Mr. Smitherrnan continued that in August 2005, the static water level in the well was 284
feet below land surface and the total depth of the well was297 feet for a saturated thiclness in the well of
13 feet.
Mr. Smitherman next reviewed the general information for the subject area. There are approximately 530
domestic wells in the Government Lots, of which approximately 45 have been converted to municipal
water in the last three years. The average metered home in the area uses approximately .84 acre-feet per
year. Septic system recharge for the area is estimated at .22 acre-feet per year. The State Engineer's
office estimates a total water use for domestic well owners at I.l2 acre-feet per year. The total amount of
water withdrawn by 490 domestic wells using that estimate is 548.8 acre-feet per year. The same number
of homes estimated by using a .62 acre-feet estimate equals about 303-304 acre-feet per year.
Mr. Smitherman reported that monitoring wells in the Government Lots that appear to have the highest
rate of decline are located closer to STMGID 6. The Melarkey well, which is located close to STMGID 6
has been measured since 1989 and shows an average decline in the water table from 1989 to 2002 of L67
feet per year. He reported that two of the wells that show a decline in the water table of less than one foot
per year (similar to the Shannon's well) showed an increase in the water level during the years with above
average precipitation.
Mr. Morros asked about two homes being served by a single well. He added that State water law requires
a permit if more than one single-family dwelling is to be served by one well. Ms. Shannon reported she
would address that issue in her comments.
Chairman Jacobson stated that in general he prefers to see for example 0.84 as opposed to .84 because it
is sometimes difficult to read the copies. He also recommended rounding the number of feet rather than
using decimals. He referred to the comment that the applicant was required to not use more than 1,800
gallons per day although the meter had not been read. Mr. Smitherman explained that there was not a
requirement that the meter had to be read. He clarified the permit was issued by the Washoe County
District Health Department.
Mike Widmer, Hydrogeologist with Washoe County Deparknent of Water Resources (DWR), stated he is
representing the water purveyor, STMGID. He noted that Birnie McGavin, a member of the STMGID
Local Managing Board was present if anyone had questions. Mr. Widmer stated in his opinion the
Item 3
Page 8

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 5 of 12
Shannon well was affected more by drought than municipal pumping. He distributed a memo (and
apologized that is was not included in the packets). He reported that the State Engineer's office had
provided precipitation data. He referred to the first graph, which shows four curves, the first three of
which are average precipitation volumes from three different gages for the period of 1970 through 2004.
The fourth curve calculates the five-year moving average. He explained the other graphs, of which the
goal was to show the water level measurement data from the past. He summarizedthat the water levels
were very representative of the annual precipitation in the form of groundwater recharge. He explained
that the final graph is the SNOTEL data, which he stated showed excellent correlations befween
groundwater levels and precipitation.
Mr. Widmer distributed another document that will be included in the record that shows water levels for
the First Aid Well, the Timberline Well and the Schuerman well (which is a domestic well located across
the street from the Shannon well). He summarizedthat he thought the graphs show good correlation
between the three wells, which he feels are totally related to drought conditions. He added that he thought
the Schuerman well was similar to the Shannon well although it is 40 to 50 feet deeper. He went on to
say that using the Schuerman well measurements he compared it to the Shannon well and synthetically
reproduced a curye that could represent water levels over a four to five-year period for the Shannon well'
He summarized thathe felt that most of the decline in water level in the Shannon well was related to the
precipitation levels and not municipal pumping.
Discussion ensued over the location of the monitoring wells in relation to the subject well and the
municipal wells and associated water levels. Chairman Jacobson stated he was not sure how to handle the
new information that Mr. Widmer provided as it was different from what was presented in the packet.
Chairman Jacobson asked the applicants to state their case. Ms. Shannon distributed copies of her
comments for the record and then reviewed them for the WMHB. She stated there were some minor
word issues in the County summary that she might take exception to. She stated that they are living
without running water in their home. She explained that water supplied to her well prior to the first
required recording of their comrnunity well agreement filed with the County Recorder even though
recorded in 1980, does not mean that it only began to exist at that time. The agleement called for its
provision of water to several homes; the number changed each time a new home dug its own well and
became self-sufficient.
Ms. Shannon reported that copies of all documentation were included in her packet. She agreed that the
well was drilled in 1980 to a depth of 297 feet, with a static water level of 248 feet with two homes using
that water source, prior to current legislation that says that two homes cannot be served by the same well.
She added that the well had 49 feet of sustainable static water supply at the time of construction. She
went on to say that all the systems on their property were brought into conformance when they purchased
the home and it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners July 13, 1998. She continued that
per that order, a meter was installed on her well, which indicates usage of .58 acre-feet annually since it
was installed. She reported that the meter indicates a total usage of 1,146,550 gallons, which equates to
4.09 acre-feet over the entire seven years, which equates to .58 over the seven-year period being used by
both homes. She added that number does not take into consideration the septic recharge of .22, which
would put their actual usage at .36 acre-feet taken from the aquifer. She summarized that her property
with the two homes has used less water than the average home countywide'
Ms. Shannon mentioned the resale value of the water when she signed the well credit form and asked
what it really means. She reported that she has already signed and had notarized the well credit form and
provided copies, although it was signed provisional that they would actuaily receive the water' She
ieiterated that her property has two homes, yet she is allocated for private domestic use of 2.02 acre-feet'
She stated that issues have come up this week with their local Citizens Advisory Board (CAB)
representative that say that since there are two houses on one parcel, the allocation could be for 4.04 acre-
Item 3
Page 9

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 6 of 12
feet. She added she has not had time to research that issue with the State Engineer's office. She went on '
to say that water rights are currently selling for up to $80,000 and the water purveyors in the area are
buying them. She urrca if it only takes a dedication of .62tobuild a subdivision home, doesn't that mean
ttrat oir county is going to be a6le to serve three more homes with the signing 9f
tl,rat well oredit form.
She asked doisn't that mean that there would be an additional $180,000 with the hookup fee for each
home bringing in an additional $16,000 plus the charges for water use at approximately $60 per month.
She asked by selling the water and hooking her up, doesn't the County stand to bringln close to $200'000
plus a *otrthly residual of close to $240 pir month for water usage. She stated she thinks this more than
covers the infrastructure oost to bring them water'
Ms. Shannon referred to monitoring well statistics and stated they have numerous times requested to have
Washoe County DWR regularly r"ud h"r meter as part of their monitoring program. She quoted within
many letterr pttrrid.d in ttre pactet and STMGID Local Governing Board minutes,-they were declined to
have their meter read by D-wR and STMGID. She quoted a DWR Hydrogeologist, "Our office is
currently measuring Mafy Schuerman's well across the street from your home. This well provides us
adequate information ott tit" water level in your immediate area." Ms. Shannon stated that it was further
substantiated on April 16, zOO2 in a letter containing data thus far on all the monitoring wells in their
area. The letter reassured them that they would not be held umesponsive for a lack of properly
documented well readings when the mitigation time came. She added that along with Schuerman,
Stephens, Melarkey, Quinn, Shepard, Nixon, Hunt, Kitchen, Brokaw, Rummler, Moassessi, they expect
to be mitigated.
Ms. Shannon referred to the County's report and stated she assumes that if they approved mitigation, they
proved a deleterious impact on those domestic wells. She added that later she would provide a map
showing that those wells circle her properly. She referred to the County's report, which states "Water
levels have declined over twenty years ten to twenty feet. Several other neighbors were on the monitoring
system, such as Mr. Kitchen." She stated that the August 20,2001 STMGID minutes state, "It is the
domestic well owner's responsibility to continuously monitor their wells but that only 10 to 20%o actually
do this." She stated she thinls that since 1995, she has paid just about every other year to have their well
monitored in order to come to this meeting prepared. She added that in addition to monitoring, the meter
should prove what water they have been t sittg- She explained that they believe that DWR and STMGID
had an idequate sampling of their area and accepted their declination to monitor their well. She went on
to say that of the wetts tttat failed, 15 of the 16 have been mitigated and paid for well failure. She stated
that per the STMGID minutes, Mr. Dowling was declined due to "moving too quickly" without following
the correct steps to be mitigated. She added that the minutes also said, "He had not waited to have his
well fail." She stated that there was a ruckus at the meeting over discussion of whether a well owner had
to actually wait for his/her well to fail before requesting mitigation.
Ms. Shannon stated it is highly dishessing to have a final sunmary for their mitigation hearing, which
cites statistics for wells in a parameter including areas of their aquifer, which are responding to pumpage
completely different from their area. She addedthat in the old Government Lots there are not 530 homes.
She iead hom the packet, "There are approximatdy 26 wells measured twice a year in the Government
Lots.,' In 2001 a DWR point person .nt-itt"d a list to the STMGID Local Managing Board showing 40
wells that were thought io eventually need to be deepened or replaced due to impact from STMGID well
6. She stated that tire statistics being used are in a completely different hydrobasin when Callahan Ranch
is iumped with the oid Government tract. She explained those wells tend to be 30 feet deep and have a
complitely different reaction to pumpage. She added it is upsetting to see those wells cited rather than
those agreed-upon during negotiations for their specific area when this Board was created.
Ms. Shannon next referred to a diagram of where their home is situated in the center of the monitoring
and ..the wells which have been miiigated". She stated that the STMGID Board compiled a list, which
shows 30 of the approximately 40 homes affected by STMGID 6 pumpage. She added that in further
Item 3
Page 10

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006
PageT of12
meeting minutes, it has been stated that her well was situated in the middle of the wells and it was left off
because the driller's logbook did not have any record of their well. She stated they were led to believe
that after providing all the records of the well and statistics of all their neighbors, it would be the same
used to mitigate their case. She continued that she believes the County has put forth valor attempts to
deal with budgetzry impacts and administrative prices caused by all the pumpage in the South Truckee
Meadows regarding private domestic well owners once they learned that the actual mitigation policies
were going to have to be revised. She stated the policies have been changed so often that there has never
been a sense of reliability of relief to the impacted well owner. She stated the only reason some of the
well owners have been able to continue to live in the area is the belief that truth will prevail and that right
will be done and that there is fairness in government.
Ms. Shannon refened to a chart that shows that from 1980 to 1994 their well had sustainable recharge and
a static water level of 248 feet over a fifteen-year period in and out of drought times. She added this
shows that they had a sustainable water supply that was recharging with a zero rate of decline in their
well. She reported that most of the increase in private domestic wells in their area took place during that
period (prior to 1995) of time with little or no affect on her static water level. From 1994 to 2005, she
reported that her well lost a documented 48 feet of static water level while during the same period;
STMGID 6 increased their pumpage seven-fold. She stated that caused a rate of decline in her well of 4.8
feet annually over the last ten years. She went on to say in2004, the budget was approved and the Phase
2 extension to the Govemment Lots was approved.
Ms. Shannon reiterated that up until 2004, she was a member of the Groundwater Task Force and it was
their belief that when the STMGID Local Managing Board approved the acceptance of the bid to bring
the pipe to their home, that their job was done. She stated that they were told there was no need to
reapply since the County knew they wanted water. She added that her packet included a copy of a letter
from Mr. Widmer stating that it had been approved.
Ms. Shannon reported that to date, their out of pocket expenses are $850 to trench, $306 for sand, $6,400
for the refitting of the well abandonment, $145 for the permit to the Health Department, the cost for
lowering the pump fwice, the loss of rent because they lost their tenants in December when they no longer
had water. She stated they were led to believe they would have water within a week or two. She added
the Counfy is asking that they pay $8,352.80 to hook up to the water system. She went on to say if the
pipe had been provided in 2004, that hookup fee would have been substantially less. She stated that
living without water from December 4,2005 to March 16,2006 is priceless. She summarized that the
total expenses to be mitigated are $22,936.03. She included what the fan looked like when they moved to
the property in 1995. She stated the lawn for their rental is gone and now rock. She added that they
survived droughts for thirty years prior to STMGID 6 going in. She stated she would be happy to
entertain any questions.
Chairman Jacobson stated the Board appreciates the Shannon's issue and clarified that the WMHB's
charge does not relate to the hookup fee but rather the impact from the municipal well. He asked what
her fifteen neighbors had done to hook up to the system. Ms. Shannon clarified they were mitigated; they
may have deepened their wells.
Mr. Morros asked if they could defer a decision to the next meeting in two weeks due to the additional
information received tonight. Richard Sharu:on stated that they have been without water for three months
and would like a decision tonight. Ms. Shannon added they do not have the money to hook up and stated
this Board's decision is critical as to whether they receive mitigation. Mr. Rhodes clarified that this
Board makes a determination of responsibility for unreasonable drawdown based on municipal pumping,
not mitigation amounts. Ms. Shannon stated she believes the equipment has been sitting at the end of her
road with the pipes pending a decision by this Board. Mr. Rhodes stated that the equipment moving in
Item 3
Page 11

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 8 of 12
has nothing to do with the decision of the WMIIB. Mr. Smitherman stated he checked with the engineer,
who stated they were waiting for the weather to clear and the connection fee in order to proceed.
Mr. Morros asked Mr. Widmer if there was a resolution. Mr. Widmer stated the issue as he sees it is,
"Has there been any municipal impact from STMGID 6 on the Shannon well?" He added that based on
the information on the water levels and the Shannon well, it needs to be determined what drawdown is
due to STMGID pumping, what is a reasonable lowering due to municipal pumping, and whether drought
has played alarge part in affecting the private wells.
Chairman Jacobson refered to the data provided by the Shannons tonight and asked if Mr. Widmer feels
the information is consistent with that of other wells in the area. Mr. Widmer stated he would like to see
the actual water level measurements that were taken. He added that having very little experience with the
Shannon well, that a pump contractor has the means to measure water levels; however, they would need
to physically pull the pump out of the casing a few feet in order to get a probe down. He added that a few
years ago, he'd sent someone out to measure the Shannon well that was unable to get a measurement but
he was unsure why. He stated it is his opinion that there are four representative water levels that have
been taken on the Shannon well. He stated he would refer the Board to the measurements taken by
McKay Drilling. He added that the four measurements would include the first one from 1980, the April
2001 level of 252 feet, the March 2A02 level of 263, and the July 2005 level of 285 feet. Ms. Shannon
stated the last level was296 feet when the pump was lowered to the bottom of the well (later in 2005).
Chairman Jacobson referred to the pump test that showed the well pumping 9.5 gallons per minute with a
drawdown of three feet. He stated that it is a pretty good well to do that, especially if it is located in
bedrock.
Mr. Widmer stated he finds it difficult to believe the well would have dropped another 11 feet in a couple
of months because in the Schuerman well, which was measured recently, the water level had acfually
increased.
Mr. Carlson asked how much impact should be seen from STMGID 6 and if a cone of depression had
been studied for impact. Mr. Widmer stated that DWR does not normally run that particular calculation.
Mr. Carlson asked if we could go back and run those numbers in an effort to clear up some of the
questions. Mr. Widmer stated he hesitated to do that because STMGID 6 is in the alluvial layer and the
Shannon well is in the hard rock aquifer.
A ten minute recess was heldfrom 7:49 p.m. to 7:59 p.m.
Chairman Jacobson referred to the well log, which indicates that the material at the bottom of the well is
brown clay and granitic boulders. Mr. Carlson explained that you could argue the case either way as to
whether the well is located in fractured bedrock/volcanic or alluvial material.
Mr. Morros referred to the Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 534.185 regarding more than one home being
connected to a domestic well and stated there is a waiver. He read, "The State Engineer shall upon
written request and receipt of a written agreement between the affected properfy owners waive the
requirements of this chapter regarding permits for the use and development of trnderground water from a
well if the well existed on July 1, 1983 or prior to that," He added it is to be used solely for domestic
purposes by not more than three single-family dwellings and each does not draw more than 1,800 gallons
of water per day. He stated he assumes that under the Statute, the agreement was between the Shannons;
therefore, if they decided to sub-divide the property he recommended they make sure to enter such an
agreement with the new owner. Ms. Shannon explained that she was told she did not need to get a waiver
and summarizedthatthey had followed all the legal processes.
Item 3
Parge12

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 9 of 12
Ms. Shannon requested that Board members review page 35 of their application packet where the gravel
pack for the well is discussed. Mr. Carlson explained that water was hit at 250 feet and the well was
perforated at 257 feet. He stated that the well should have been drilled deeper than 300 feet. Ms.
Shannon stated that in 1996 and 1997 she spoke with DWR about the depth of the well and how long it
would last. She stated she was told it depended on the history of the well from 1965 to 1980. She stated
she reviewed it with DWR staff and the assumption was that 50 feet of water in the well was pretty good.
Mr. Carlson stated their well was probably one of the first wells drilled in the area and as more wells are
drilled in the area, 50 feet was probably not deep enough.
Chairman Jacobson stated that the diagram shows the pump at 11 feet from the bottom of the well' Ms.
Shannon explained that was an early diagram and the new handout she provided shows the pump had
been relocated to one foot from the bottom of the well.
Mr. Widmer requested going back to the hard rock issue and stated some of the other well logs indicate
that they were in volcanic rock/fractured bedrock. He added that Ms. Shepard redrilled her well, as did
Mike Dowling. He stated the volcanic layers could vary in depth because they were formed by lava
flows. Chairman Jacobson summarized that whether the Shannon well is in fractured bedrock or not,
STMGID 6 is located in the alluvium.
Mr. Pohll referred to page 74 inthe packet and the Kitchen well and asked Mr. Widmer if they could use
the information from the Theis equation as a calculation of drawdown since it is three parcels away from
the subject well. Mr. Widmer stated in this case he would be uncomfortable using the equation due to the
different materials. Mr. Carlson referred to page 97 and the Schuerman well and stated that the test on
that well shows that there could be more alluvial material than what is thought for the Shannon well area.
He summarizedthat the Theis equation could be applicable.
Mr. Widmer suggested that Board members could refer to Figure 2 on page 2, which shows the
determinations made by the WMHB at prior meetings. He referred to the Melarkey, Meyers and
Rummler wells, which are in close proximity to STMGID 6. He reported that recommendations for
mitigation on those wells were 100% of the drilling costs or hookup fees. He added that on the
Minnaberry well, this Board recommended that 75% of the drilling costs be reimbursed. He went on to
say that south of the Shannon's property is the Winnard property, for which this Board recently found
there was no unreasonable drawdown due to municipal pumping. Ms. Shannon stated that she would like
to include documentation that the Stephens have been mitigated; however, they are not listed on the map.
She added that Mr. Quinn was paid in full but not shown on the map. She clarified they were mitigated;
however, Mr. Widmer stated they did not come before this Board. Ms. Shannon then reviewed her
handout, which showed all the wells in her neighborhood that were mitigated through STMGID' She
summarized that 14 people around their property have received some mitigation.
Chairman Jacobson commented on the pumping from STMGID 6, which stayed pretty level until about
1995, when they started increasing the pumping notably in 1996. He stated it looks like it then started to
affect the private wells. He added that the aquifer was not rebounding like it should have been. He stated
the calculations showed potentially 20 feet of drawdown (1982 to 2002) and although STMGID does
have the right to some drawdown, the impact looks to be above what it should have been.
Birnie McGavin referred to STMGID 6 and a State Engineer's report from February 2002, which goes
into detail on the well. He stated the report could probably answer any questions. Ms. Shannon made a
comment that the document was included in her packet. Mr. McGavin reported that the State Engineer
summarized at the end of the report that the well is only being pumped at about 70% of what the water
rights provide for and essentially, it is not being overpumped. Chairman Jacobson stated there are two
definitions of what constitutes overpumping; one that pumping is not exceeding the water right, the other
being the impact to the local area. He added that this Board's charge is to determine the impact to others
Item 3
Page 13

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006
Paee 10 of 12
from municipal pumping. Ms. Sharmon clarified that she only referred to the report in her packet;
however, she did not include it. Mr. Morros stated that the report is four years old and things could have
changed since that time.
Michael DeMartini reported that procedurally in the past Mr. Smitherman would present the summary of
information on the case; the water purveyor would then spealg followed by the applicant, and then public
comment. He stated he thought Ms. Shannon's calculations were very acctrate and conservative' He
mentioned her earlier comment regarding 2.02 acre-feet versus 4.04 based on there being two homes on
the well. He added that the consumptive impact would be 0.14 acre-feet of water, which is very small as
far as her well is concerned. He stated these are the fypes of numbers he comes up with in his studies,
which makes the 500 acre-foot domestic well impact that staff mentioned or 303 acre-feet could possibly
be only half that number or 150 or so. He added that when a person is looking at relative impacts, they
need to consider the possibility that the actual domestic wells are using much less water.
Mr. DeMartini commented on the supplemental graph submitted by Mr. Widmer tonight and stated that in
reviewing the five year moving average, in looking at the peak levels the groundwater levels dropped
rather than responding to the increased precipitation levels in 1999 as they did in 1984. He stated he
thought it was important to examine why the groundwater levels responded differently.
Ms. Shannon summarized that it is important for members to remember the earlier mitigation decisions,
which included the charts and the hydrological impacts. She stated she hoped the Board would be able to
conclude their thoughts faster based on that history. She added that her hope is that the Board would find
in her favor. Ms. Shannon again referred to the letter from the State Engineer and reported it was an
outcome from a meeting between domestic well owners, the State Engineer, and DWR to encourage the
State Engineer to define what is a "reasonable lowering of the water table". She explained that he
declined to define that as a general rule and instead stated that it had to be decided on a case-by-case
basis. She added that he did acknowledge there is a problem in the subject area.
Chairman Jacobson referred to the letter and a comment that the State Engineer noted he has concluded
that recent drought cycles and other groundwater development has contributed at least ten feet of static
water level decline in the eastem Sierra range front.
Mr. Carlson referred to the attachment to the letter from February 14,2002, which projected water level
drops based on pumping from STMGID 6 and stated that it shows scenarios using one set of criteria of
19.5 feet, another showing around thirty-something feet of drawdown to a worst case scenario being 55 to
60 feet of drawdown. He added that the State Engineer probably used it as his guesstimate. Ms. Shannon
stated they were not attachments to the letter; they were in addition to the letter. Mr. Rhodes stated the
letter referenced the at|achments on page three and on the signature page.
Chairman Jacobson stated it does not matter what attachments were included with her letter but that it
provides information for the Board to make decisions. He added that he is looking for a motion to
determine whether there is some impact to the subject well to start the process. Mr. Pohll asked if they
could discuss numbers without a motion, to which Chairman Jacobson replied yes.
Mr. Morros stated he would like to make some calculations and then put that in the form of a motion. Mr.
Pohll stated we should determine the impact from STMGID 6. He estimated it at 15 to 25 feet from 1982
through 2002 fromthe pumping of STMGID 6. He referred to the graphs on drought presented by Mr.
Widmer and stated he thought Figure 8 on page 15 might be a good representation of the drawdown
without the drought. He reiterated that the drawdown at the subject well, based on pumping from
STMGID 6, looks to be approximately 15 to 25 feet. Ms. Shannon reiterated that the drawdown in their
well did not begin until 1997 and continued to 2005, during which time they lost at least 45 feet of water
level. Mr. Carlson reported that an average should be determined. Mr. Widmer added that the water level
Item 3
Page 14

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006
Page 1l of12
measurements reported by Ms. Shannon have not been verified by supporting documentation. He added
that four measurements are confirmed. He also stated that historical water level measurements from drill
logs in the area have shown declines since the first well was drilled in the 1960s, which has previously
been discussed by this Board.
Mr. Morros asked what is a reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal pumping in the
subject area, to which Mr. Widmer stated in his opinion anywhere from 20 to 30 feet was reasonable'
Chairman Jacobson stated that he sees a fairly notable increase in the activity of STMGID 6, which he felt
resulted in extra drawdown. He added that his motion for reasonable drawdown would certainly not be
more than 10 feet. Mr. Rhodes referred to the NRS and referenced the condition of each appropriation of
groundwater and quoted, "the right of the appropriator relates to a specific quantity of water and that right
allows for a reasonable lowering of the static water level." He summarized that pumpers are allowed a
reasonable lowering based on the amount allowed by their permit; however, the Board is basing that
decision on the amount being pumped.
Mr. Pohll made a motion to determine a reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal
pumping in this matter is 10 feet (or 20%). Mr. Morros seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Morros clarified the total drawdown is 50 feet or better. Chairman Jacobson asked if any portion of
the remaining amount (40 feet or 80%) of lowering is attributable to other causes (drought, other domestic
well pumping or other permitted pumping). Mr. Carlson recommended that 2o/o of the 50 foot drawdown
is due to other private domestic wells. Chairman Jacobson stated he did not feel the drought and recharge
had much affect on the water level decline and suggested assigning a number of 5Yo.
Mr. Shannon asked if the drought were going to be factored in, wouldn't there have to be a downward
trend, versus up and down. Chairman Jacobson stated there has been a slight downward trend from 1980
to present.
Mr. Widmer stated the utility objects to the 50 feet of water level decline in the subject well. He added
they calculated with actual measurements 37 feet of decline since the well was drilled in 1980.
Chairman Jacobson closed the public comment period. He stated that based on the percentages assigned,
lt is 27%o. Mr. Morros stated the well log shows a static water level of 248 when it was drilled in 1980
and it is now down to 297 feet. Mr. Widmer stated he does not see any water level measurement that
recognizes a static water level of 297 feet. He reiterated the last measurement made of the Shannon well
was in July 2005, which was at 285 feet. He added that since then, the neighbor's well showed an
increase in the water level. Mr. Carlson rounded it off to 50 feet of drawdown. Ten feet (20%) is
considered reasonable based on STMGID 6 pumping. The Board then agreed that 2Yo of 50 feet is due to
private wells and 5% is due to drought. The remaining amount is 73o/o.
Mr. Morros made a motion that the amount of drawdown attributable to municipal pumping is 32 feet of
the 48 feet (67%). Chairman Jacobson summarized we began with 50 feet of total drawdown at the
subject well. We then agreed that 10 feet of that drawdown is considered reasonable based on municipal
pumping,leaving 40 feet of unreasonable pumping. Mr. Pohll disagreed. Mr. Morros statedthat 10 feet
of the 50 feet would be 2Ao/o of the total drawdown. Chairman Jacobson suggested that we use a total
drawdown of 48 feet. Mr. Pohll stated that when STMGID 6 came online the subject well level decreased
from252 to 296 or 297 . Mr. Pohll stated that two different time periods are being considered.
Chairman Jacobson explained the earlier discussion that drought was attributable to maybe 2%o and other
domestic well pumping was 5olo. He stated the remaining number would be what is considered
unreasonable lowering attributed to STMGID 6 pumping. Mr. Pohll reiterated that he thinks that number
should be in the 15 to 25 foot range, with the remaining number being attributable to drought, domestic
Item 3
Page 15

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 12 of 12
well pumping, decreased irrigation and other factors. Discussion ensued over the numbers and previous
mitigation hearings.
Members agreed to base their recommendations on a total drawdown of 48 feet. Chairman Jacobson
stated that in subtracting the 10 feet, which is considered reasonable, the remainder is 38 feet. Mr. Pohll
recommended that 18 feet of that amount be considered due to drought, other domestic wells in the area
and other factors, leaving 20 feetattributable to STMGID pumping. Chairman Jacobson stated he did not
see documentation of 18 feet being atfibutable to other factors, such as drought. Further discussion
ensued over the numbers.
Mr. Morros made a motion that the unreasonable lowering of the water table, taking into account the
amount attributed to drought, and other domestic well pumping is 32 feet. Mr. Carlson seconded the
motion. Mr. Morros clarified his motion; 10 feet is considered reasonable lowering, leaving 38 feet, then
taking off another 6 feet for drought and domestic wells, leaving 32 feet of lowering of the water table (or
67%) considered unreasonable lowering. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Scheduling the next meeting of the Well Mitigation I{earing Board, and possible direction to
staff.
Chairman Jacobson reported the next meeting is scheduled for April 4,2006. Mr. Smitherman reported
there are two applicants, Wendy Pierce and one other.
BOARD ITEMS
None.
STAFF ITEMS
Mr. Smitherman reported that a representative of the geothermal plant would be invited to the next
meeting.
Mr. Rhodes asked for clarification that both sets of minutes @ecember and February) were included in
the motion for approval, which members agreed was the intention'
ADJOtIRh[MENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Niki Linn
Recording Secretary
Item 3
Page 16

SOUTH TRUCKEE MEADOWS GENERAL IMPROVEMEN].
DISTRICT (STMGID)
Board Meeting Date: APril t7,2A06
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
STJBJECT:
April7,2006
Local Managing Board
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
Paul Orphan, P.8., Engineering Manager
Steve Bradhurst, Director, Department of Water Resources-
Provide staff Direction and Possible Recommendation Regarding
Terri and Richard shannon well Mitigation (APN150-260-35)
SUMMARY
ffiitigation Hearing Board (WMIIB) has made a finding (Attachment A) that
the STMGID production welt #6 (pw#6) has caused 32 feet of unreasonable drawdown
in the Shannon domestic well and therefore has recommended that STMGID reimburse
670/of themitigation costs. The cost of the hook-up fees to the washoe county's water
system is $8,352.80.
County Priorities/Goalsupported by this item: Preserve and Enhance Our Quality of
Life - Effectively plan and manage use of our natural assets including water, air and open
space. The Departnaent of Water Resources will manage and protect regional water
resources in a sustainable, cost-effective manner'
PREVIOUS ACTION
STMGID has adopi6ld a well mitigation policy (Attachment B) that considers each well
miti gation request individually.
BACKGROUND
dN"""*b"t ?J005, the Shannonsubmitted a reimbursement claim against
STMGID's PW#6. On March 16,2o06,the wMIIB detennined that there was an
unreasonable drawdown in the Shannonwell to the extent of 67% due to municipal
pumping (Attachment c). The shannons attesthat 48 feet (37' documgnted)9f
drawdown was caused by STMGID PW#6. The finding stated that 10 feet of drawdown
from the production weli was reasonable,that6 feet of drawdown was attributable to
drought *d oth"r domestic well pumping, and that3} feetwas attributable to
unreasonable municiP al PumPing'
Item 3
Page 17

STMGID LMB of APril t":,:yi
FISCAL IMPACT
The WMFIB has recommended that STMGID pay 670/of the costs for mitigating the
drawdown in the Shannon well. The Shannons have decided to hook-up to the County's
municipal water system rather than deepening their domestic well. The hook-up fees are
$8,352.80. Sixty-seven percent of this cost is $5,596'38'
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended 6it-m" STMGID Local Managing Board provide staffdirection and a
possible recommendation to the STMGID Board of Trustees as to which altemative
should be pursued
POSSIBLE MOTION
Should the Local M[-aging Board agree with staff s recommendation, a simple motion to
approve the recommendation would suffice'
SB:PO:MW:lr
Attachments
Item 3
Page 18

ATTACIIMENT.A-
WASHOE COUNTY
"Dedicated To Excetlence in Public Sevice"
www.co.washoe'nv'us
Washoe CountY
Well Mitigation
Hearing Board
4930EnegrWaY
Reno,NV 89502'4106
Tel: (775)954-4600
Far (775)9544610
Board Members:
Roger Jacobson
Pete Morros
Karen Rosenau
Greg Pohll
David Carlson
Legal Counsel:
John Rhodes
March 17,2006
Mr. Steve Cohen' Chairman
South Truckee Meadows GID Local Managing Board
c/o Washoe County Departnent of Water Resources
4930 EnergY WaY
Reno, Nevada 89520
Re: washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board Findings of March 16' 2006
OnMarch16,2006,theWashoeCountyW-ellMitigationHearingBoardevaluatedthe
mitigationr"qorrt otRichard and Th#sa Shannori llggzMt' Rose Hwy' Reno' Nevada'
The Board acknowledged that tn" ao-",ti" *ar at this address is adjacent to the South
Truckee Meadows Generalroproo"*Lotbirttirt (srMGID) water utility service area'
The Board made the following findings:
The totar drawdown in the domestic we'l is 4g feet. A reasonabre rowering of the static
water level due to municipal puu ping it ro unreasonable lowering attibutable to
19"1
municipal pumping at STMGID *1u"+o is 32 feet (67% of the total lowering) and the
lgpaining6feet(|z%ofthetotal)isattibutabletodrougltandotherdomesticwell
pumping.
Accordingtoprogramdocumentation,Boarddeterminationsare-forwardedtoresponsible
municipal water pu*"yorr, domestic'iveir o*"ro Regional Water planning
T13:
. commission. Negotiation and fillal agreem*t-o-" any mitigation measures are between the
water purveyor JJ th; domestic *r11'o*rr"r. Please be advised that the program
acknowledg", tU" N*"aa State E"dt;J; 'tutotory authority and the parties' rigbts to
refer the matter to the State Engineer at any time'
Please contact me at 954-4657 with any questions or concerns'
:KW
Water Resources Prograrn Manager
ce:
Richard and Theres" Sttaonoo/
STMGID Board of Trustees
Regional Water Planning Commission
Nevada State Engineer
Steve Bradhurst
Jeanne Ruefer
JohnRhodes
Item 3
Page 19

ATTACI{MENT
-B-
POLICY FOR THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR
DEEPENING DOMESTIC WELLS
SOUTH TRUCKEE MEADOWS
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The South Truckee Meadows General Improvement Disftict (STMGID) recognizes that the groundwater
resources of the South Truckee MeadowJare shared with domestic well owners. If the Washoe Coanty
Wett Mitigation Hearing Board determines that the long-term pumping of a STMGID production well
has causid deleterious-water level decline in a domestic weII, STMGID may compensate the owner a
portion of the cost of deepening the well. The compensation will be for the drilling and construction cost
Ldy. The STMGID Board ,"rou"r the right to pay equivalent costs of well-deepening or an alternative
water supply source.
The policy is:
1. A claim for reimbursement ntust frrst be sabmitted to the lYashoe County Well MWation
Hearing-Board- The Hearing Boird mast make a determination that a STMGID production
well has deleteriously impaired the pumping rate and duratiop of the impacted domestic well.
Z. STMGID will be responsible for up to 100 feet of well deepening unless conditions warrant
otherwise as definedbY STMGID
3. Costs associated with the replacement of pump, pump column, electrical cables or other pump
material will be the responsibility of the domestic well owner.
4. Each claim for reimbursement will be reviewed independent of previous claims and will include
the age of the well and its method of construction.
5.
STMGID will only compensate for the well deepening below the bottom of the existing domestic
well.
The well owner may be required to sign a hold harmless agreement releasing the District against
any future claims bY the owner'
7 . This policy does not apply if the well is illegally drilled or located improperly.
8. Pursuant to N.A.C. 534.315, if a public supply water main is in reasonable
domestic well owner will be required to hook up to this water main.
the
Approved by Local Managing Board on November 2I,2005'
Approval by Board of Trustees on December 20,2005.
C:Doc-uments and Setings\trose.WAsHoE.00lvpcal SettingslTemporary Intertet Files\OlX24A\well deepening 12-05 FINAL APPROVED I 2-
20-05.doc
Item 3
Page 20

ATTACHMENT -C-
Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Members Present
Pete Morros
Roger Jacobson
Members Absent
Karen Rosenau
Staff Present
Jim Smitherman
John Rhodes, Legal Counsel
Public Present
Theresa Shannon
Birnie McGavin
David Carlson
Mike Widmer
Jeanne Ruefer
Richard Shannon
Greg Pohll
Paula Valentin
Gail Prockish
Michael DeMartini
DETERMINATION OF QUORUM - Chairman Jacobson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m'
There was a quorum present. He introduced the newest Board member, David Carlson'
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - Mr. Monos made a motion to approve the agenda as posted. Mr'
Pohll seconded the motion, which carried unanimously'
REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND AppRovAL oF MINU'TES - The minutes of the Decembet 6'2005
and the February 7, 2006 meetings were submitted for approval. Michael DeMartini referred to the
December meeting and reported that he had reviewed the minutes and tapes, which he added were very
difficult to understand. H; referred to page 2, paragraph4 and other paragraphs and requested that he be
referred to as an individual. He referred io u-ro--"nt and clarified it should say "Mr. DeMartini stated
that his concern is that when the Board was recommended for approval by the RWPC to the BCC"'"'
He next referred to page 3, pangraph 4 and referred to the comment, "some exhibits that showed
wastewater use on ,o*" orr"-*re lots was less than 0.2 acre-feet per year". He stated that he would like
to see more detail in the minutes and offered to provide his comments in writing in the future'
Chairman Jacobson clarified that the minutes are a summary of what occurred at the meeting; they are not
meant to be a court record or verbatim. He added that the intention is that the final recommendations are
captured accurately. Mr. Morros suggested that if anyone requires more detail than the minutes provide,
they could borowthe tapes from the meeting. Mr. Monos made a motion to approve the minutes of the
December 6, ZO05 arra iire February 7, 20i6 meetings as submitted. Mr. Pohll seconded the motion,
which earried ruranimouslY.
PIJBLIC COMMENT
None.
Item 3
Page2l

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 2 of 12
BUSINESS OF TIIE DAY
1. Review and possible approval of revised criteria and procedure for determining what
constitutes a reasonable lowering of the water level, and what constitutes an unreasonable affect
on a domestic well caused by municipal uses, and possible direction to staff.
Chairman Jacobson reported that this item had been postponed until Mr. Carlson could be present. John
Rhodes distributed handouts. He apologized for not providing the documents in advance and summarized
the details. He refened to the "Role of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board" and explained it was created
as a result of the workshop held during the October meeting with Hugh Ricci, State Engineer. The three
main points of the Board's role are:
r To hear and consider evidence regarding whether there are unreasonable adverse affects on a
domestic well caused by municipal pumping
o To determine the portion of the total lowering of the static water level caused by municipal
pumping that is reasonable and if applicable, to consider what portion is considered
unreasonable considering what portions of the total are due to drought, other domestic wells,
other permitted pumping and other causes
o To make findings and provide recommendations to the water purveyor as to the percentage of
unreasonable adverse affects beyond a reasonable lowering of the static water level that is
attributable to municipal pumping
Mr. Rhodes next referred to the "Factors to Consider", which he explained are factors determined by this
Board in organizational meetings as items to be reviewed in terms of evidence. He next referred to
"Analysis", *tti"tt he prepared as requested by this Board to provide assistance with defrning what is
"reasonable". The next document is entitled, "Forms of Motions" that could be used by the Board' Mr.
Rhodes explained that it is a revised document that the Board has not yet seen.
Mr. Rhodes referred to the handout on motions and explained the changes that were made. He explained
that the Role of the Board is the document that needs approval; the remaining documents are to provide
informational assistance. Mr. Morros stated he would be comfOrtable adopting the document as a
gUideline rather than being locked into it. Mr. Rhodes clarified that the document had been approved by
this Board previously; however, the document was revised based on the workshop with the State
Engineer. He added that the document could be adopted as a guideline if desired and the name could be
changed to "Guidelines of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board". Chairman Jacobson stated he thought the
document was a good modification.
Mr. Morros stated he would never be comfortable with identiffing speoifically by number the
unreasonable lowering of the water table. Mr. Moros made a motion to adopt the guidelines as general
guidelines while allowing the Board to make independent judgments on each case. Mr. Carlson seconded
the motion.
Theresa Shannon stated she is speaking as a member of the public and added that in the past she
represented domestic well owners through a group called the Mt. Rose Well and Water Protection. She
reported that she is an applicant on tonight's agenda. She stated she is not uncomfortable with the
language; however, she was concerned that the policies of this Board (even though it was approved well
orrt u y"* ago) are still in the process of being defined on the very night that a decision would be made
on her particular issue. She stated she hoped there would be some consistency and added that if you read
through the minutes, it appears that the policies regarding mitigation have changed almost monthly. She
went on to say that she hopes if this document is adopted, that the Board finds medium ground and is able
to use the guidelines consistently on a case-by-case basis.
ftem S
Page22

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 3 of 12
Mr. pohll agreedand added that consistency is the main reason behind the guidelines- He added that it
would help the Board to determine what thlir role is and to form their opinions' Mr- Moros stated he
agreed wiitr tvts. Shannon's comments and feels it is time to "tighten the screws do-gvn" and try to be as
clnsistent as possible. He added that he has a lot of years of experience but it can still be confusing'
Chairman Jacobson stated he felt the policy has always been the same; however, the way the factors have
been considered has changed from the beginning. idt. Mottot stated the hardest issue is "What is the
reasonable lowering of the water table?" druirtn* Jacobson stated it would be appropriate to review the
guideline document prior to any motion being made'
Chairman Jacobson called for the vote on Mr. Morros' motion, which carried unanimously'
Z. Hearings on applications for well mitigation, including possible decision and direction to staff:
z. Wendy Pierce, APN 049-09 0-l2,15gg2Mt' Rose Highway
(Utili6 Service Area: Washoe County Department of Water Resources)
Wendy pierce was not present. Chairman Jacobson requested this item be tabled and move to the second
applicant as he wantedMs. Pierce to have an opportunity to speak to the Board. This will appear at a
future WMIIB meeting.
b. Richard and Theresa Shannon, APN 150-260-35, 5847 Mt. Rose Highway (Utility
Service Area: Washoe County Department of Water Resources and South Truckee
Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID)
Jim Smitherman gave an overview of the packet information for the Shannon's well. He reported thatlhg
Groundwater Data Center (GDC) had developed a summary. The original well was drilled in March 1980
fo a depth of 29i feet, with a static water level of approximately 248 feetbelow land surface' The well
had 4g feet in the casing at the time of construction. There are two homes serviced by the well'
According to the Assessoi's database, the primary home was built in 1963 and the second was built in
Igg2. In 1988, the Shannons were granted a special use permit to convert a mother-inlaw unit to a
detached accessory dwelling. A meter was installed on the well and the Shannont *T-e regulated to noJ
use more than 1,800 gallons-per day by Statute as well as the Washoe County District Health Department
and later by the Community Deveiopment department'
Mr. Smitherman reported the permit from the Health Deparknent stated that the well owners would allow
the State Division of Water Resources to read the meter, aithough when he contacted thern" they stated
they had no record of a request to read the well meter. He stated that i+ lutq.! 2002 MicKay Drilling
performed a pump test on the well. The static water level was measured at263 feet below land surface'
The well was pumped for one hour at 9.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and the prrmping level in the well
dropped three feet io 266 feet below land sr.riface. The static water level in 1980 was recorded at248 feet
below land surface. He summari zedfhatthe total drop in the static water level was approximately 15 feet
in22 years, or an average of 0.68 feet per year'
Mr. Smitherman reported that included in the packet was a document titled' "Richard and Theresa
Shannon Supplemental Information", which includes service records and a letter from Washoe County'
Mr. Smitherman reported that in the Government Lots, very few wells were drilled before the 1980s' The
GDc located a weli log for an irrigation weil located at 5852 Mt. Rose Highway, which is approximately
2,300 feet norftr of the subject property. The irrigation well was drilled in 1959 to a depth of 120 feet in
volcanic and granitic sand. ft it"tir water level at that time was 98 feet below land surface and an
"
Item 3
Page23

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 4 of 12
adjacent well was 148 feet below land surface; therefore, from 1959 to 1989 the water table dropped
approximately 50 feet, or approximately 1'66 feet per year'
Mr. Smitherman stated that the water table in the subje ct areahas fluctuated over time and was declining
during the thirty years prior to construction of STMGID well numbers 5 and 6 and Tessa wells I and 2'
He added that most ofitre weils in the Government Lots were drilled between 1985 and 1995' many of
which were drilled in bedrock. The average static water level for wells drilled in bedrock in the southern
portion of the Government Lots in the early 1990s was approximately 240 to 250 feet below land surface,
which is consistent with the information on the applicant's well'
Mr. Smitherman reported the Tessa wells began service in 2003. He added that the hydrograph for Tessa
-f*
I shows no decline and the hydrograph T"su 2 shows a fluctuation in the pumping level.
Hydrographs for STMGID wells i *a o u"ttreen2002 and 2005 show pumping level fluctuations in the
*ut", tubi", with a decline of approximately 19 feet in number 5 and 7 '5 feet in number 6. He reported
that STMGID 6 is the closest production *"11 to the subject well, which is approximately 3,100 feet to the
northeast. Tessa 2 and A:rowbreek 3 wells are also within one mile of the subject parcel'
Mr. Smitherman reported that the applicants claim their well failed in August 2005. The applicants also
stated that at that time, their pump was lowered to the bottom of the well but they were still unable to
pump water. Mr. Smithermun ,orrtirrn"d that in August 2005, the static water level in the well was 284
feet below land surface and the total depth of the well was 297 feetfor a saturated thickness in the well of
13 feet.
Mr. Smitherman next reviewed the general information for the subject area. There are approximately 530
domestic wells in the Govemment Lots, of which approximately 45 have been converted to municipal
water in the last three years. The average metered home in the area uses approximately .84 acre-feet per
year. Septic system recharge for the area is estimated at .22 acre-feet per year. The State Engineer's
office estimates a total water use for domestic well owners at l.l2 acre-feet per year. The total amount of
water withdrawn by 490 domestic wells using that estimate is 548.8 acre-feet per year. The same number
of homes estimated by using a .62 acre-feet estimate equals about 303-304 acre-feet per year'
Mr. Smitherman reported that monitoring wells in the Government Lots that appeat to have the highest
rate of decline are located closer to STMGID 6. The Melarkey well, which is located close to STMG-ID-9
has been measured since 1989 and shows an average decline in the water table from 1989 to 2002 of L'67
feet per yqar. He reported that two of the wells thai show a decline in the water table of less than one foot
per year-(similar to ihe Shannon's well) showed an increase in the water level during the years with above
average precipitation.
Mr. Morros asked about two homes being served by a single well. He added that State water law requires
a perm:it if more than one single-family iweliing is to be served by one well. Ms. Shannon reported she
would address that issue in her comments.
Chairman Jacobson stated that in general he prefers to see for example 0.84 as opposed to .84 because it
is sometimes difficult to read the -opies. He also recommended rounding the number of feet rather than
using decimals. He referred to the commenthat the applicant was required to not use more than 1,800
gail;ns per day although the meter had not been read. Mr. Smitherman explained that there was not a
Iequirement that the meter had to be read. He clarified the permit was issued by the Washoe County
District Health Department'
Mike Widmer, Hydrogeologist urith Washoe County Department of Water Resources (DWR), stated he is
represanting the wateip*i"yo., STMGID. He noted that Birnie McGavin, a member of the STMGID
Local Managing Board was-present if anyone had questions. Mr. Widmer stated in his opinion the
Item 3
Ptge24

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16, 2006 Page 5 of 12
Shannon well was affected more by drought than municipal pumping. He distributed a memo (and
apologized that is was not included in thJpackets). He reported that the State Engineer's office had_
proviJed precipitation data. He referred to the first graph, which shows four curves, the first three of
which ar" urnerag" precipitation volumes from three different gages for the period of 1970 through 2004'
The fourth curve calculut". th" five-year moving average. He explained the other graphs, of which the
goal was to show the water level measurement data from the past. He summarizedthat the water levels
were very representarive of the annual precipitation in the form of groundwater recharge. He explained
that the -frnal graph is the SNOTEL data, which he stated showed excellent correlations between
groundwater levels and precipitation'
Mr. Widmer distributed another document that will be included in the record that shows water levels for
the First Aid Well, the Timberline Well and the Schuerman well (which is a domestic well located across
the sheet from the Shannon well). He summarized that he thought the graphs show good correlation
between the three wells, which he feels are totally related to drought conditions. He added that he thought
the Schuerman well was similar to the Shannon well although it is 40 to 50 feet deeper' He went on to
say that using the Schuerman well measurements he compared it to the Shannon well and synthetically
reiroduced rtr*" that could represent water levels over a four to five-year period for the Shannon well.
Hi summari " z.ed thathe felt that most of the decline in water level in the Shannon well was related to the
precipitation levels and not municipal pumping'
Discussion ensued over the location of the monitoring wells in relation to the subject well and the
municipal wells and associated water levels. Chairman Jacobson stated he was not sure how to handle the
new iniormation that Mr. Widmer provided as it was different from what was presented in the packet'
Chairman Jacobson asked the applicants to state their case. Ms. Shannon distributed copies of her
comments for the record and thJn reviewed them for the WMHB. She stated there were some minor
word issues in the County summary that she might take exception to. She stated that they are living
without running water in their home. She explained that water supplied to her well prior to m: fu{
required ,""ordirrg of their community well agreement filed with the County Recorder even though
recorded in 1980, does not mean that it only bigan to exist at that time. The agreement called for its
provision of water to several homes; the nurnbeichanged each time a new home dug its own well and
became self-suffi cient.
Ms. Shannon reported that copies of all documentation were included in her packet. She agreed that the
well was drilled in l9g0 to a depth of 297 feet, with a static water level of 248 feet with two homes using
that water source, prior to current legislation that says that two homes cannot be served by the same well'
She added that thi well had 49 feei of sustainable static water supply at the time of construction. She
went on to say that all the systems on their properly were brought into conformancg_when they purchased
the home and it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners July 13, 1998. She continued that
per that order, a metei was instalied on her well, which indicates usage of .58 acre-feet annually since it
was installed. She reported that the meter indicates a total usage of 1,146,550 gallons, which equates to
4.09 acre-feet over thl entire seven years, which equates to .58 over the seven-year period being usedty
both homes. She added that number does not taki into consideration the septic recharge of -22, which
would put their actual usage at .36 acre-feet taken from the aquifer. She summarize'dthat her properfy
with the two homes has used less water than the average home countywide.
Ms. Shannon mentioned the resale value of the water when she signed the well credit form and asked
what it really means. She reported that she has aJready signed and had notarized the well credit form and
provided although ii was signed provisional that they would actually receive the water. She
ieiterated "opi"r, that her ptop"4y has two homes, yet she is allocated for private domestic use of 2.02 acte-feet.
She stated that iisues have come up this week with their local Citizens Advisory Board (CAB)
representative that say that since there are two houses on one parcel, the allocation could be for 4.04 acre-
Item3
Page 25

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006 Page 6 of 12
feet. She added she has not had time to research that issue with the State Engineer's office' She went on
to say that water rights are currently selling for up to $80,000 and the water purveyors in the area are
buyrng them. She uirca if lt only takes a dedication of .62 to build a subdivision home, doesn't that mean
tnat oL county is going to be aLle to serve three more homes with the signing of that well credit form.
She asked doesn't that mean that there would be an additional $180,000 with the hoolarp fee for each
home bringing in an additional $16,000 plus the charges for water use at approximately $60 per month'
She asked by ielling the water and hooking her up, doesn't the County stand to bring rn close to $200,000
plus a -orrtirly resibual of close to $240 per month for water usage. She stated she thinks this more than
covers the infrastructure cost to bring them water.
Ms. Shannon referred to monitoring well statistics and stated they have numerous times requested to have
Washoe County DWR regularly tod h"t meter as part of their monitoring program. She quoted within
many letters prbrria"a in ine pattet and STMGID Local Governing Board minutes,-they were declined to
have their meter read by D-WR and STMGID. She quoted a DWR Hydrogeologist, "Our offrce is
currently measuring Mari Schuerman's well across the street from your home. This well provides us
adequate information on tir" water level in your immediate areal' Ms. Shannon stated that it was further
substantiated on April 16,2002 in a letter containing data thus far on all the monitoring wells in their
atea. The letter reasswed them that they would not be held unresponsive for a lack of properly
documented well readings when the mitigation time carne. She added that along with Schuerman,
Stephens, Melarkey, Q,ti*, Shepard, Nixon, Hunt, Kitchen, Brokaw, Rummler, Moassessi, they expect
to be mitigated.
Ms. Shannon referred to the County's report and stated she assumes that if they approved mitigation, they
proved a deleterious impact on those domestic wells. She added that later she would provide a map
,ho*ing that those wells circle her property. She referred to the County's report, which states "Water
levels have declined over twenty years ren to twenty feet. Several other neighbors were on the monitoring
systenr, such as Mr. Kitchen." She stated that the August 2O,2O0l STMGID minutes state, "It is the
domestic well owner's responsibility to continuously monitor their wells but that only 10 to 20Yo actually
do this." She stated she thinks that since 1995, she has paid just about every other year to have their well
monitored in order to come to this meeting prepared. She added that in addition to monitoring, the meter
should prove what water they have been *i"g. She explained that they believe that DWR and STMGID
had an adequate sampling of their area and accepted their declination to monitor their well. She went on
to say that of the *"tis ttiut failed, 15 of the 16 have been mitigated and paid for.rygll faiiure. She stated
that ier the STMGID minutes, Mr. Dowling was declined due to "moving too quickly'' without following
the coneci steps to be mitigated. She added that the minutes also said, "He had not waited to have his
well fail.,' She stated that there was a ruckus at the meeting over discussion of whether a well owner had
to actually wait for his/her well to fail before requesting mitigation.
Ms. Shannon stated it is highly distressing to have a final summary for their mitigation hearing, which
cites statistics for wells in a parameter including areas of their aquifer, which areresponding to pumpage
completely different from thiir area. She added that in the old Government Lots there are not 530 homes.
She iead from the packet, "There are approximately 26 wells measured twice a year in the Government
Lots.,' In 2001 a DWR point person submitted a list to the STMGID Local Managing Board showing 40
wells that were thought io eventually need to be deepened or replaced due to impact from STMGID well
6. She stated that thE statistics being used are in a completely different hydrobasin when Callahan Ranch
is lumped with the old Governmentract. She explained those wells tend to be 30 feet deep and have a
completely different reaction to pumpage. She added it is upsetting to see those wells cited rather than
those agreed-upon during negotiations for their specific area when this Board was created.
Ms. Shannon next referred to a diagram of where their home is situated in the center of the monitoring
and ,.the wells which have been miiigated". She stated that the STMGID Board compiled a list, which
shows 30 of the approximately 40 homes affected by STMGID 6 pumpage. She added that in further
Item 3
Page26

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2005
PageT of12
meeting minutes, it has been stated that her well was situated in the middle of the welis and it was left off
because the driller's logbook did not have any record of their we1l. She stated they were led to believe
that after providing att-ttre records of the weli and statistics of all their neighbors, it would be the same
used to mitigate th"i, She continued that she believes the County has put forth valor attempts to
"ur".
deal with budgetary impacts and adminishative prices caused by all the pumpage in the South Truckee
Meadows t"g*aing private domestic well owners once they leamed that the actual mitigation policies
were going to have to be revised. She stated the policies have been changed so often that there has never
been a sense of reliability of relief to the impacied well owner. She stated the only reason some of the
well owners have been able to continue to live in the area is the belief that truth will prevail and that right
will be done and that there is fairness in government.
Ms. Shannon refened to a chart that shows that from 1980 to 1994 their well had sustainable recharge and
a static water level of 248 feet over a fifteen-year period in and out of drought times. She added this
shows that they had a sustainable water supply Aui was recharging with a z-ero rate of decline in their
well. She ,.port"d that most of the increase in-private domestic wells in their area took place during that
period (prioito 1995) of time with little or no affect on her static water level. From 1994 to 2005, she
reported that her weil lost a documented 48 feet of static water level while during the same Ptlgdl
STMGID 6 increased their pumpage seven-fold. She stated that caused a rate of decline in her well of 4'8
feet annually over the last ten y;a;. She went on to say in 2004, the budget was approved and the Phase
2 extension to the Govemment Lots was approved.
Ms. Shannon reiterated that up until 2004, she was a member of the Groundwater Task Force and it was
their belief that when the STMGID Locai Managing Board approved the acceptance of the bid to bring
the pipe to their home, that their job was done. She stated that they were told there was no need to
reapply since the County knew they wanted water. She added that her packet included a copy of a letter
from Mr. Widmer stating that it had been approved'
Ms. Shannon reported that to date, their out of pocket expenses are $850 to hench, $306 for sand, $6,400
for the refitting of the well abandonment, $t4S for the permit to the Health Department, the cost for
lowering the pump twice, the loss of rent because they lost their tenants in December when they no longer
had water. She stated they were led to believe they would have water within a week or two' She added
the County is asking that they pay $8,352.80 to hook up to the water system. She went on to say if the
pipe had been proJded in Zboa, that hookup fee would have been substantially less. She stated that
living without water from December 4, ?jOOi to March 16, 2006 is priceless. summarized that the
lhe
total-expenses
be mitigated are522,9t36.03. she included what the fan looked like when they moved to
the property in 1995. Jhe stated the lawn for their rental is gone and now rock. She added that they
survivei dioughts for thirty years prior to STMGID 6 going in. She stated she would be happy to
entertain any questions.
Chairman Jacobson stated the Board appreciates the Shannon's issue and clarified that the WMHB's
charge does not relate to the hookup fei but rather the impact from the municipal well. He asked what
her fifteen neighbors had done to hook up to the system. Ms. Shannon clarified they were mitigated; they
may have deepened their wells.
Mr. Morros asked if they could defer a decision to the next meeting in two weeks due to the additional
information received tonight. Richard Shannon stated that they have been without water for tl[ee months
and would like a decisionlonight. Ms, Shannon added they do not have the money to hook up and stated
this Board,s decision is critiial as to whether they receive mitigation. Mr. Rhodes clarified that this
Board makes a determination of responsibility for unreasonable drawdown based on municipal pumping,
not mitigation amognts. Ms. Shannon stated she believes the equipment has-been sitting at the end of her
road with the pipes pending a decision by this Board. Mr. Rhodes stated that the equipment moving in
Item 3
Prge21

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,20a6 Page 8 of 12
has nothing to do with the decision of the WMIIB. Mr. Smitherman stated he checked with the engineer,
who stated they were waiting for the weather to clear and the connection fee in order to proceed.
Mr. Morros asked Mr. Widmer if there was a resolution. Mr. Widmer stated the issue as he sees it is,
,,Has there been any municipal impact from STMGID 6 on the Shannon well?" He added that based on
the information on the watei levels and the Shannon well, it needs to be determined what drawdown is
due to STMGID pumping, what is a reasonable lowering due to municipal pumping, and whether drought
has played alargepart in affecting the private wells.
Chairman Jacobson referred to the data provided by the Shannons tonight and asked if lv[r. Widmer feels
the information is consistent with that of other wells in the area. Mr. Widmer stated he would like to see
the actual water level measurements that were taken. He added that having very little experience with th!
Shannon well, that a pump contractor has the means to measure water levels; however, they would need
to physically pull the ;"-p out of the casing a few feet in order ta get a probe down. He added that a few
y.-, ugo, heid sent someone out to measure the Shannon well that was unable to get a measurement but
ir" *ur-.ro.*e why. He stated it is his opinion that there are four representative water levels that have
been taken on the Shannon well. He stated he would refer the Board to the measurements taken by
fuf"f"V nriUiog. He added that the four measurements would include the first one from 1980, the April
2001 Gvel of isz feet, the March 2002level of 263, and the July 2005 level of 285 feet- Ms- Shannon
stated the last level was 296 feetwhen the pump was lowered to the bottom of the well (later in 2005).
Chairman Jacobson referred to the pump test that showed the well pumping 9.5 gallons per minute with a
drawdown of three feet. He stated that it is a pretty good well to do that, especially if it is located in
bedrock.
Mr. Widmer stated he finds it difficult to believe the well would have dropped another l1 feet in a couple
of months because in the Schuerman well, which was measured recently, the water level had actually
increased.
Mr. Carlson asked how much impact should be seen from STMGID 6 and if a cone of depression had
been studied for impact. Mr. Widmer stated that DwR does not normally run that particular calculation.
Mr. Carlson asked if we could go back and run those nurnbers in an effort to clear up some of the
questions. Mr. widmer stated hohesitated to do that because STMGID 6 is in the alluvial layer and the
Shannon well is in the hard rock aquifer.
A ten minute recess was heldfrom 7:49 p.m. to 7:59 p.m'
Chairman Jacobson referred to the well log, which indicates that the material at the bottom of the well is
brown ciay and granitic boulders. Mr. Carlson explained that you could argue the case either way as to
whether the well is located in fractured bedrock/volcanic or alluvial material.
Mr. Morros referred to the Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 534.185 regarding more than one home being
connected to a domestic well and stated there is a waiver. He read, "The State Engineer shall upon
written request and receipt of a written agreement between the affected property owners waive the
requirements of this chapter regarding permils for the use and development of underground water from.a
well if the well existed ln luly t, ti83 or prior to that." He added it is to be used solely for domestic
purposes by not more than three single-family dwellings and each does not draw more than 1,800 gallons
of water pir day. He stated he assumes that under the Stahrte, the agreement was between the Shannons;
therefore, if they decided to sub-divide the properly he recommended they make sure to enter such an
agreement with ihe new owner. Ms. Shannon explained that she was told she did not need to get a waiver
and summarizndthatthey had followed allthe legal processes.
Item 3
Page 28

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board March 16,2006 Page 9 of 12
Ms. Shannon requested that Board members review page 35 of their application pagket where the gravel
pack for the weil is discussed. Mr. Carlson explained that water was hit at 250 feet and the well was
perforated at 257 feet. He stated that the weli should have been drilled deeper than 300 feet' Ms'
shannon stated that in 1996 ard 1997 she spoke with DwR about the depth of the well and how long it
would last. She stated she was told it depended on the history of the well from 1965 to 1980' She stated
she reviewed it with DWR staff and the assumption was that 50 feet of water in the well was pretty good'
Mr. Carlson stated their well was probably one of the first wells drilled in the area and as more wells are
drilled in the area, 50 feet was probably not deep enough'
Chairman Jacobson stated that the diagram shows the pump at 11 feet from the bottom of the well' Ms'
Shannon explained that was an early diugrurn and the new handout she provided shows the pump had
been relocated to one foot from the bottom of the well'
Mr. Widmer requested going back to the hard rock issue and stated some of the other well logs indicate
that they were in volcaiic rJck/fractured bedrock. He added that Ms. shepard redrilled her well, as did
Mike Dowling. He stated the volcanic layers could vary depth because they were formed by lava
in
flows. Chairman Jacobson summarized that whether the Shannon well is in fractured bedrock or not,
STMGID 6 is located in the aliuvium.
Mr. Pohll referred to page 74 inthepacket and the Kitchen well and asked Mr. Widmer if they could use
the informatio' aom *rJ Theis equaiion as a calculation of drawdown since it is t}ree parcels away from
the subject well. Mr. Widmer staied in this case he would be uncomfortable using the equation due to the
different materials. Mr. Carlson refened to page 97 and the Schuerman well and stated that the test on
that well shows that there could be more alluvial material than what is thought for the Shannon well area'
He summarizedthatthe Theis equation could be applicable'
Mr. Widmer suggested that Board members could refer to Figure 2 on page which shows the
-2,
determinations made by the WMHB at prior meetings. He referred to the Melarkey, Meyers and
Rummler wells, which are in close proximity to STMGID 6. He reported that for
-recommendations
mitigation on those wells were 100i/o of the drilling costs or hoolarp fees' IIe added that on the
Miniaberry well, this Board recommended that 75% of the drilling costs be reimbursed- He went on to
say that south of the Shannon's property is the Winnard property, for which this Board recently found
there was no unreasonable drawdown due to municipal pumping. Ms' Shannon stated that she would like
tq include documentation that the Stephens have bein mitigated; however, they are not listed on the map'
She added that IW. q"ir" was paid in n ft but not shown on the map. She clarified they were mitigated;
however, Mr. Widmir stated ihey did not come before this Board. lvf' S$r-r::on then reviewed her
handout, which showed all the wells in her neighborhood that were mitigated through STMGID' She
summarized rkat l4people around their properly have received some mitigation.
chairman Jacobson commented on the pumping from sTMGID 6, which stayed pretfy level turtil about
1995, when they started increasing ttre pompirrg notably in 1996. He stated it looks like it then started to
affect the private wells. He added that tft" ai"ifer was not re.lgrmdine like it shoul{ have been' He stated
the calculations showed potentially 20 feet of drawdown (1982 to 2002) and although STMGID does
havE the right to some drawdo*o, ih" impact looks to be above what it should have been'
Birnie McGavin referr-ed to STMGID 6 and a State Engineer's report from February 2002, which goes
into detail on the well. He stated the report could probably answer any questions' Ms' Shannon made a
comment that the document was included in her packet. Mr. McGavin reported that the State Engineer
summarized at the end of the report that the well is only being pumped at aboyt 70o/ of what the water
rights provide for and essentially, it is not being overpumped' Chairman Jacobson stated there are two
definitions of what constitutes overpumping; oo" that pumping is not exceeding the water right, the other
being the impact to the local area. He added that this board's charge is to determine the impact to others
Item 3
Page29

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Boar4 March 16,2006
Page 10 of12
from municipal pumping. Ms. Shan:ron clarified that she only referred to the report in her gagket;
however, she didnotinclude it. Mr. Morros stated that the report is four years old and things could have
changed since that time.
Michael DeMartini reported that procedurally in the past Mr. Smitherman would present the summary of
information on the caie; the water purveyor would then spealg followed by the applicant, and then public
comment. He stated he thought Ms. Shannon's calculations were very accurate and conservative. He
mentioned her earlier comment regarding 2.02 aqe-feet versus 4.04 based on there being two homes on
the well. He added that the consumptivaimpact would be 0.14 acre-feet of water, which is very small as
far as her well is concerned. He stated these are the types of nurnbers he comes up with in his studies,
which makes the 500 acre-foot domestic well impact that staff mentioned or 303 acre-feet could possibly
be only half that number or 150 or so. He added that when a person is looking at relative impacts, they
need to consider the possibility that the actual domestic wells are using much less water.
Mr. DeMartini commented on the supplemental graph submitted by Mr. Widmer tonight and stated that i1
reviewing the five year moving auJtuge, in looking at the peak levels the groundwater levels dropped
rather than responding to the increased precipitation levels in 1999 as they did in 1984. He stated he
thought it was rmportant to examine why the groundwater levels responded differently.
Ms. Shannon summarized that it is important for members to remember the earlier mitigation decisions,
which included the charts and the hydrological impacts. She stated she hoped the Board would be able to
conclude their thoughts faster based on thit history. She added that her hope is that the Board would find
in her favor. Ms. Shannon again referred to the letter from the State Engineer and reported it was an
outcome from a meeting betrveen domestic well owners, the State Engineer, and DWR to encourage the
State Engineer to define what is a "reasonable lowering of the water table". She explained that he
declined to define that as a general rule and instead stated that it had to be decided on a case-by-case
basis. She added that he did acknowledge there is a problem in the subject area.
Chairman Jacobson referred to the letter and a comment that the State Engineer noted he has concluded
that recent drought cycles and other groundwater development has contributed at least ten feet of static
water level decline in the eastem Sierra range front.
Mr. Carlson referred to the attachmento the letter from February 14,2002, which projected water level
drops based on pumping from STMGID 6 and stated that it shows scenarios using one set of criteria of
19.3 feet, another strowing around thirty-something feet of drawdown to a worst case scenario being 55 to
60 feet oi drawdown. He aaaea that the State Engineer probably used it as his guesstimate. Ms' Shannon
stated they were not attachments to the letter; they were in addition to the letter. Mr. Rhodes stated the
letter referenced the attachments on page three and on the signature page.
Chairman Jacobson stated it does not matter what attachments were included with her letter but that it
provides information for the Board to make decisions. He added that he is looking for a motion to
determine whether there is some impact to the subject well to start the process. Mr. Pohll asked if they
could discuss numbers without a motion, to which Chairman Jacobson replied yes.
Mr. Morros stated he would like to make some calculations and then put that in the form of a motion' Mr'
pohll stated we should determine the impact from STMGID 6. He estimated it at 15 to 25 fent from i982
through 2002 from the pumping of STMGID 6. He referred to the graphs on drought presented by Mr.
Widmer and stated ne inougtriFigure 8 on page 15 might be a good representation of the drawdown
without the drought. He riiterated that the drawdown at the subject well, based on pumping from
STMGID 6, looks to be approximately 15 to 25 feet. Ms. Shannon reiterated that the &awdown in their
well did not begin until tiiZ and continued to 2005, during which time they lost at least 45 feet of water
level. Mr. Carlson reported that an average should be determined. Mr. Widmer added that the water level
Item 3
Page 3O

Minutes of the Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006
Page l1 of12
measurements reported by Ms. Shannon have not been verified by supporting documentation' He added
that four measurements are confirmed. He also stated that historical water level measurements from drill
logs in the area have shown declines since the first well was drilled in the 1960s, which has previously
been discussed bY this Board.
Mr. Morros asked what is a reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal pumping in-the
subject area, to which Mr. Widmer stated in his opinion any',rhere from 20 to 30 feet was reasonable'
Chairman Jacobson stated that he sees a fairly notable increase in the activity of STMGID 6, which he felt
resulted in extra drawdown. He added that his motion for reasonable drawdown would certainly not be
more than 10 feet. Mr. Rhodes referred to the NRS and referenced the condition of each appropriation of
groundwater and quoted, "the right of the appropriator relates,to a specific quantity of water and that right
allows for a reasonable iowerin-g of the static water level." He summarized that pumpers are allowed a
reasonable lowering based on the amout allowed by their permit; however, the Board is basing that
decision on the amount being pumped.
Mr. pohll made a motion to determine a reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal
pumping in this matter is 10 feet (or 20%). Mr. Morros seconded the motion, which carried rmanimously'
Mr. Morros clarified the total drawdown is 50 feet or better. Chairman Jacobson asked if any portion of
the remaining amount (40 feet or 80%) of lowering is attributable to other causes (drought, other domestic
well pumpin! or other permitted pumping). Mr. Carlson recommendedthat2o/o of the 50 foot drawdown
is due to otrrer private domestic wells. chairman Jacobson stated he did not feel the drought and recharge
had much affect on the water level decline and suggested assigning a number of 5o/o.
Mr. Shannon asked if the drought were going to be factored in, wouldn't there have to be a downward
trend, versus up and down. Chairman Jacobs6n stated there has been a slight downward trend from 1980
to present.
Mr. Widmer stated the utility objects to the 50 feet of water level decline in the subject well. He added
they calculated with actual measurements 37 feet of decline since the well was drilled in 1980'
Chairman Jacobson closed the public comment period. He stated that based on the percentages assigned,
it is 27%o. Mr. Monos stated the well log shows a static water levei of 248 when it was drilled in 1980
and it is now down to 2g7 feet. Mr. wi*dmer stated he does not see any water level measurement that
recognizes a static water level of 297 feet. He reiterated the last measurement made of the Shannon well
was in July 2005, which was at 285 feet. He added that since then, the neighbor's well showed an
increase in the water level. Mr. Carlson rounded it off to 50 feet of drawdown. Ten feet (20%) is
considered reasonable based on STMGID 6 pumping. The Board then agreed tlmrt 2% of 50 feet is due to
private wells and 5% is due to drought. The remaining amount is13oh'
Mr. Morros made a motion that the amount of drawdown athibutable to municipal pumping is 32 feetof
the 4g feet (67%). Chairman Jacobson summarized we began with 50 feet of total drawdown at the
subject well. We then agreed that 10 feet of that drawdown ii considered reasonable based on mturicipal
pumping, leaving 40 feetof unreasonable pumping. Mr. Pgtlll disagreed. Mr. Morros stated that 10 feet
of the 50 feet would be 20% of the total drawdo*t. Chuir-* Jacobson suggested that we use a total
drawdown of 4g feet. Mr. pohll stated that when STMGID 6 came online the subject well level decreased
from252 to 296 or 297. Mr. Pohll stated that two different time periods are being considered'
Chairman Jacobson explained the earlier discussion that drought was attributable to maybe 2o/o and other
domestic well pumping was 5%. He stated the remaining number woll{ be what is considered
unreasonable lowering utt iU,rt"A to STMGID 6 pumping. Mr. Pohll reiterated that he thinks that number
should be in the $ t; ZS foot range, with the rimaining number being attributable to drought, domestic
Item 3
Page 3l

Minutes of the washoe county well Mitigation Hearing Board, March 16,2006
Page 12 of12
well pumping, decreased irrigation and other factors. Discussion ensued over the numbers and previous
mitigation hearings.
Members agreed to base their recommendations on a total drawdown of 48 feet' Chairman Jacobson
stated that in subtracting the l0 feet, which is considered reasonable, the remainder is 38 feet. Mr. Pohll
recommended that 18 fiet of that amount be considered due to drought, other domestic wells in the area
and other factors, leaving Z0 feetatfibutable to STMGID pumping. Chairman Jacobson stated he did not
see documentation of tS feet being attributable to other factors, such as drought' Further discussion
ensued over the numbers.
Mr. Morros made a motion that the unreasonabie lowering of the water table, taking into account the
amount atbibuted to drought, and other domestic well pumping is 32 feet. Mr' Carlson seconded the
motion. Mr. Morros clarified his motion; 10 feet is considered reasonable lowering, leaving 38 feet, then
taking off another 6 feet for drought and domestic wells, leaving 32 feetof lowering of the water table (or
67%f considered unreasonable lowering. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Scheduling the next meeting of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board, and possible direction to
staff.
Chairman Jacobson reported the next meeting is scheduled for April 4,2A06. Mr. Smitherman reported
there are two applicants, Wendy Pierce and one other.
BOARD ITEMS
None.
STAF'F ITEMS
Mr. Smitherman reported that a representative of the geothermal plant would be invited to the next
meeting.
Mr. Rhodes asked for clarification that both sets of minutes (December and February) were included in
the motion for approval, which members agreed was the intention.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Minutes submittedby:
Niki Linn
Recording Secretary
Item 3
Page32

h4arclr 76-2406
\\'ashoe Coung,
Departn-rent of
Water ftesourees
.1930 Eneicv \\/av
Reno. N\r 89501-.1.I05
Tel: {?7-s) S5.4- .j600
Far: (71-q) qj4-4610
TO:
FROM:
Jim Smitherman
Michael WiO*", tbN
SUBJECT:
Comparison of precipitation to groundwater levels, Mt. Rose alluvial fan
I would like to share some data with you that illustrate tire coffelation between
pr""ipitatioll and groundwater levels. I recently received precipitation dafa that staff from
[tt" dtutr Eogitteei's Office put together and compared tb grorgdwa]er levels of the Mt.
Rose alluviuT fan area. I would like to use this ^data
to piovide a basis to support the
*urno" Co""tV Utiiity Division's claim that the recent .itot$t lut gytry reason to be
factored into diicussions and recommendations of the Well Mitigation Hearing Board.
The first graph shows a Zl-year record of precipitation from thlee ar-ea precipitation
gug"r, Re;o,'Glenbrook and Tahoe City, ptotied alainst the three sites' five-year trailing
|r:"tig". It is apparent that precipitatibn- gages corr-elate -well
with each other, as you
would'expect. T'G use of a 5-year iverage tEnds to reduce the noise in the data.
The next three graphs plot this precipitation 5-year moving auetage tlt" ?gqqtl.
Timberline and piist'Aid inonitor w6[s. Vou will note the additional curve (solid black
ii""ii, an attempt to synthesizewater level measurement data to the precipitation back to
1970. Also note that ihe fourth graph plots the First Aide measurements to Mt. Rose
SNOTEL data.
If you have any questions or if I can provide you any other information, including the raw
data, please do not hesitate to contact me.
attch
MCW
c: Steve Bradhurst
Jeanne Ruefer
Paul Orphan, P.E.
Dan Dragan
Department of
Water Resources
Item 3
Page 33

6^"oe
Ạ OOC
% a o3i
8E
"v
t%t
,(5€
[8
6=
"%2
%,
o^L
"zo o
%€ co
""e, I
""r,
%
%
%
+r,
,.q,
+ o

'.1')
of)
NN
e
(teel)rolEn ol tndeg
99.un/a
tovnr
76.Uof
66-ta|f
O6-unn
g
(E
o
o
{r,
E cLo
q6
^E=
E-
=.Y
E<
(! +r
,f,
L
io >.cr
trE
o.=
gF
o
|t,
(g
o
0)
J
L
co)
.96
E= '6-
';i c
o
EE
o-d;
Eu
5<
'4, 6
o.=
EL!
rl
+*
ll
g6vof
p6-tthf
76-tnla
06-Uor
eevnr
fr
gg-rrnt,o
b0-unr
de-uq.
gg.arl\
tr o o
g1vq,
e4ury,
s o(o
sssSs
ERHBE
i.uer"^o ro i. rn s gur^o-nt uollqldloard lEuot6eu
Item 3
Page 35

o
ar)
'r)
cr)
qe*83E
ts'
;€
(lEag) relEM ot qtdef,
fu-unn
h-,
gg.uh/\
(!
(!
o
o
I
E cLo
9E g=
A- a>
lp E<
(E +r
tL
50
>lt
rFE
o.=
gF
o
.9,
L
G
E o 96-UDr
4-,
%w,
nr.un^
E
bg-uDll
es-qU,
Oe-unr
gq'th?
9q-Uof
e

90-anf
bo-(rnr
eo-uar
0o-(Jr,f
- OocU)
o)
o
t
E
o
iI
(!
r!
o
o
E{J
cto
q6
E>
a-
=p -<
(! rr
dl-
=o
>tt
E.E
sF
o o
(g
aa
tr o o
96-(rnr
96-(hf
b6-(rOf
4-,
96-tth?
gg-tthr
fl o
^(!
vg-uor o
2g.thr
4-n
gg-ttO/1
g1-ttof
9q.ttOlr
pq-Uof
71-ttnr
gq.aDli
s o(o
s
o$
ssSf
RB83
(e6ereny.rrt 9 6u;loul) letous esou ll,I
G n*'n
s
Item 3
Page 37

I-
0)
L
og
?
o
?F
q-
o
F -
o
t- L(ga.
tr ō
O
6002/ vV4
8007,17,v17,
Ljjzlzv17,
900zlzllz
900zlzl.lz
v007,levrc
tjjzlEl17,
z00ztEllz
l)jzltVz
000zlvllz
666VlVl,lZ
866VlVllZ
L66VVltZ
966l19llz
966l.19wz
v66ll9llz
t66ll9llz
z66Vl9llz
t 66llgvz
066V19llz
686V9llZ
886llLllz
LS6V LLIZ
9g6U Lllz
986ll LVZ
vSiugllz
tg6vl9llz
ze6llgllz
oo o o o o
N $ (o @
t
f.
t
q)
o
-o
F
f
t
(E
tra
9E
o5
-C \-?
o
a
o
N
o Nc{
(g) rale^ ol qldog
Item 3
Page 38

(o
Ọ
J
O
O
L
o
(E
rF,
-
e
ōFē(6
ro
O
o
N
a
@
N
LO
E aE
o
@
E
o
cl
$
O oc{
(o
a
a-
*r
o
'ict
e o -(g
tr0,
G-
F
F
- L
oE
!t
N
o
oN
o)
o
c
(g
o
+,
a o
I
)
o ]
- (J
n
o
F-
o
t-
L
ct
CL
F F
-
o
O
o
c{
o)
s
o)
o)
o)
(o
N
SEssERFEEEHB
'N
dt ni c.l c'l N
(U).relern
ol qldap
h"l c'l e{ N c{ cr)
c (r
E
o)
o
o
a
I
+ I
Item 3
Page 39

Summary of WeIl Mitigation information for Richard and Theresa Shannon
1. The original well was drilled in March 1980. The well was297 feet deep and
the static water level in 1980 was approximately 248 feet below land surface'
The well had 49 feet of water in the casing at the time of construction.
2. There are two homes serviced by one well. According to the Assessors
database, the primaryhome was built in 1963. The second home was buiit in
1982. In 1998, The Shannon's were granted a special use permit to convert
the mother-in-law unit (second home) into a detached accessory dwelling. A
meter was installed on the well and the Shannon's could not use more than
1800 gallons per day. There are no recorded readings for this meter.
3. In March 2002,McKay Drilling performed a pumping test on the well. The
static water level was measured at263 feet below land surface. The well was
pumped for one hour at 9.5 gallons per minute. The pumping level in the well
dropped tbree feet to 266 feet below land surface.
4. The static water level in 1980 was recorded at248 feet below land surface and
the static water level in 2002 was recorded at263 feet below land surface'
The total decline in the static water level for this well was approximately 15
feet in 22 years. This is an average decline of .68 feet per year. There are no
other service records for this well.
5. In the Government Lots very few wells were drilled prior to the 1980's. The
Groundwater Data Center located a well log for an irrigation well located at
5852 Mt Rose Highway. This property is approximately 2300 feet to the
north of the Shannon's property. The irrigation well in 1959 was drilled to a
depth of 120 feet in volcanic and granitic sands.
6. The static water level in 1959 was 98 feet (measured in the irrigation well).
The static water level within a well with similar lithology adjacento the
irrigation well was 148 feet below land surface in 1989. From 1959 to 1989,
the water table dropped approximately 50 feet. This is equal to an average
decline of approximately 1.66 feet per year. The water table in this area was
declining prior to constuction of the STMGID production wells #5 and #6
and Tessa Wells #l and#2.
7. Most of the wells in the Government Lots were drilled between 1985 and
1995. Many of these wells were drilled in bedrock. The average static water
level for wells drilled in bedrock in the southem portion of the Government
Lots in the early 1990s's was approximately 240-250 feet below land surface.
8. The Tessa wells began service in 2003. The hydrograph for Tessa #1 shows
no decline. The hydrograph for Tessa #2 shows a flucflration in the pumping
level due to increased a:nounts of pumping. Hydrographs for STMGID wells
#5 and #6 between the years 2002 - 2005 show pumping level fluctuations in
the water table with a decline in the water table in STMGID #5 of
approximately 19 feet and the decline in STMGID #6 of approximately 7.5
feet.
Item 3
Page 40

g. STMGID #6 is the closest production wells to the Sharuron's property. It is
approximately 3100 feet to the northeast. Tessa #2 andArrowCreek #3 are
aiJo within one mile of the Shannon's parcel. Tessa #2 is approximately 4000
feet south and went into production in 2003. ArowCreek #3 is
approximately 470A feet to the north.
10. The Shannon's claim the well failed in August 2005 The Shannon's also
stated that, at that time, they had the pump lowered to the bottom of the well
and were still unable to pump water.
11. The Groundwater Data Center did not receive any supporting documentation
or informaticin from a driller or pump supply company regarding the August
2005 lowering of the pump.
12. There are 530 Domestic wells in the Govemment l,ots and Callatran Ranch
area. Approximately 45 homes have been converted to municipal water in the
last 3 years. The average home on metered water in the Galena Tenace
Estates uses approximately.S4 AFA. The soil types are the same and the
amount of natural vegetation and landscaping is proportional between the
larger lots and the 1 acre lots.
a. If the .84 AFA averagewater use in Galena Terrace Estates is assumed
to approximate domestic well usage and septic system recharge of -22
AF.A is asromed, net water usage per domestic well in this area is
estimated tobe .62 AFA. The State Engineers Office estimates total
water usage for a domestic well equal to 1.12 AFA. The total amount
of water withdrawn by 490 domestic wells in the Government
Lots/Callahan Ranch area at 1.12 AFA is equal to 548.80 AFA. The
total amount of water withdrawn by 490 homes on domestic wells
using approximately .62 AFA totals approximately 303'8 AFA'
13. The monitoring wells within the Government Lots that appear to have the
highest rate of decline per year are located closer to STMGID #6. One
domestic well, near STMGID #6 (Melarkey Well), has been measured
since 1989 and shows an average drop in the water table from 1989 to 2002
of 1.67 feet per year. Two of the wells that show a decline in the water table
of less than 1 foot per year (similar to the Shannon's well) also show an
increase in the water level during the years that had above average
precipitation (1995-
t 999).
Iterir 3
Erge 41

Groundwater Resource Data Center
Washoe County Well Mitigation Program
APPLICANT
Richard and Theresa Shannon
5847 Mt Rose llighway
Reno, NV 89511
WELL MITIGATION MARING BOARD
January 3, 2006
6:00 - 9:00 PM
Washoe County Department of TVater Resources
4930 Energy Way, Reno, Nevada
Community Meeting Room
Item 3
Prge 42

zF( Lg
Groundwater Ressu rce Data Center-Weil Mitigatio n Prog ra m
Well Mitigation Request Form
A. Aoplicant Inforrnation
rn F'?%-er* \qa1+
flen"
Address.. -f .
Pi.\s ica-\ '. 6e41 nfr
Requffi Reimbursement Amounh $ {,OOO -z
oftre mitigation requesbd
C-s\s' \. tJe,il
Identiff water PurveYor and paftiailar wdl
impact on your well. g1-yy1$ \ D.s("
youE-tieve is causing unreasonable
B, Well Information
be used in the determination of vou,r reouest'
Total
atthe time the wellwas
of Well
Groundwabr Resource Data CenterWell Mitigation Prcgram
Welt Mitigation Request Form
Page 1of 2
Item 3
Page 43

indude iha fioitor"ring inforrnation if availab{e.
and Maintenance
Levd Data and Meazurement of Total Well
and Resits
Test Dab
C, Othbr Information
If you do not tmre any d the docrxnents li#d abve or have additjonal infunnatton
yoir f,inf will be us*it in your mi[gation requesq flease indicafie below. Additional
D. Contactlnfurmation
grbmit well miEgation request dourmenB b:
GRDC-Well Mi6gation P rognm
€30 Ensgy Way
Reno, tW 89502
Telephons 954-4550 '
Fac 95,14610
Gi'orndtrrcbr Resure Data GnEF.frye[ !fidgatson Prograrn
Wdl llidgnHon Request Form
Paga 2 of2
28.
Item 3'
Page 44
^[[ a
L4VU

Table of Contents
LOCAL INFORMATION
WELL INFORMATION
PRODUCTION WELL INFORMATION
MONITOR WELL INFORMATION
t.
10.
14.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figures
Location Map
Domestic Well Locations
Drill log for 5847 Mt Rose HighwaY
Parcel Map 150-25
Parcel Map 150-26
Replacement Welis and Well Deepening
Production Well Locations
Potentiometric Surface Difference Map
Monitor Well Locations
1.
2.
4.
6.
1
q
10.
15.
16.
Tables
Table 1. Pumping Records for STMGID Municipal Wells
Table 2. Pumping Records for Tessa Municipal Wells
11.
11.
APPENDD( A. DATA SUPPLIED BY APPLICANT
APPENDX B. DRILL LOG INFORMATION
Item 3
Page 45

LOCATION
INFORMATION
The appiicant's domestic well is iocated in the Truckee Meadows hydro basin in the
Government Lots. The Government Lots are located north of State Route 431 (Mt Rose
Highway) approximately 3.75 miles west of the junction of State Route 431 and US 395
(Figure 1).
Figure I
Item 3
Page 46

Richard and Theresa Shannon frled a mitigation request on their domestic rveli located at
5847 Mt Rose Highway, Assessor's plcel number 150-26A45 (Figure 2)' The
Govemment Lots w-ere land patents recorded by Bureau of Land Management between
1957 ndl965.
Figure 2.
Item 3
Prge47

\4'ELL INFORMATION
The Shannon's provided infomration about the properfy easements, deepening costs and
several additionil documents concerning their mitigation claim. Al1 this information is
located in Appendix A of this packet. According to the Washoe County's Assessor
information database, the primary residence was built in 1963. Watel service to the
primary residence *ur ptouided by a single well that serviced a total of 7 homes in the
borr"*-.nt Lots. Theiesa and Richard Sharuron supplied information that referred to a
water easement agreement drafted in 1971 for the 7 homeowners (page 18 of 68 in
Appendix A). The Groundwater Data Center was unable to furd any infonnation about
this older well that serviced these 7 homes.
The Shannon' submitted a hand written well detail of the domestic well located on their
properfy. This infomration was provided to Theresa and Richard Shannon by the
prwious homeowners, Ken and Sharon Bumett (page 13 of 68 Appendix A)' The
origi"ut well on this property was drilled in 1980. The Groundwater Data Center located
the-original drill 1og foi this weil, drill log number 20853 (Figure 3). The information
providJd to the Shinon's was very similar to the actual drill 1og. The Shannon's well
detail had no record of the original static water level at the time the well was drilled and
the report states that there was 100 feet of perforations in the casing. According to the
drill 1og, the total depth of the weil was recorded at 297 feet, the static water level in the
well in 1980 was rectrded at248 feet below land surface, and there were actually 40 feet
of perforations in the casing. This well had approximately 49 feet of water in the well
when it was drilled.
The Washoe County Assessors information records one home constructed in 1963 and
the second home ionstructed in 1982. Theresa Shannon states that both homes
functioned on the one well &om 1980 - Lgg6 with minimal draw down in the well (page
12 of68 Appendix A). Both homes were on the property when the Shannon's purchased
it in 1995. In 1998, the Shannon's were granted a special use permit by Washoe County
Community Development to converthe one home classified as a mother-in-law unit to a
. single detached ur"rrrory dwelling. Both homes would be serviced by the one well on
this-property. The permit stated that, 'the applicant shall install a meter on the existing
wetl^and p".tit thJ Nevada DMsion of Water Resources to read and record the meter
annually. If the water exceeds 1800 gailons per day, a second well will be required'.
the pernait also addressed the leach fiild for this property, which wa.s uqtersized and
needed to be enlarged. The terms of the permit were met and the Certificate of
occupancy for the second home was granted on october 14, 1998.
Mrs. Shannon states in her documentation (page 72 of 68) that the pump needed to be
lowered in 1998. The pump was'set at286 feet below land surface according to the
infomration supplied by Ken and Sharon Bumett. There is no documentation as to how
much the pump was lowered in 1998. Theresa Shannon also states that 'Far more rapidly
and seriously than experience during the prior 20 years and the life of the well it
experienced substantiuidt"* down from 1997 to 2005'. Mrs. Shannonotes that in the
3. Item 3
Page 48

ij! iiiTE* J l\' !s I{i l{ oF -}Y-iTtrp- F-ES'3 UqCt;5
rj a]*.,i ts:a'--cl] r--'{ris coF Y
ir qi;!i--v!: El-i- D nii'l.Ea'S (]OF\j
ff:iEE 'iF }EV'1'fiA
lf,i*/ig3*N SF -.u'"Ot* F"ESp.}{JTCES
,.
WELF, I}RJ.T-"LERE REn]ftX{E ini,
Ples.c€, ertmplcle Eiiis Forui iri its ei!d:5tf}' ,Fi
sE?,'teei ugH EIfiY
icstia.-.,9#.A 53-"-
@,
:--'1{!-li0u BURtl t:lT
c\'",).'R....-4g.!..ar,
?n.c;1.,e
(-.A'nrv
J.,
'TYPE 5, T1'}E WELL
OF \VORI( 4-. PROPOSED USE
Cable g RotanxE
i.lew Wel[ :'E]
Recoadition tr
Domcstic 6 Icrigadoa tr Tcat D
Orbcr E
ili'r
n+L!? -
It{unjcipal I Industrisl E Stock tr
LTTHOLOGIC
LOG
l..lat!FEl
I
Srata
_t
Frod
I
: rr l]1- San0-v Di6etct
b: cl
-.----.-isches
---inchx
..-----*..---.---,---.f.et
'-''"--""-"""""'l*t
q
.g/ATER
LEVFL
D&sc $li{,rted--.,
Drte tomp[oted-..-.--.-.
a
esePR*q
i-2--Sn ro

summer of 2005, 'rhe rvater rvent below the pump setting and tb.e pump is now placed at
the bottom of ih.e well. The bottom of the v/ell is 297 feet below land surface. No
documentation for the lowering of the pump in 2005 was supplied to the Groundwater
Data Center.
In March 2}02,the Shannon's contracted with McKay Drilling to perfomt a pump test on
their well. McKay Drilling recorded the initial static water level for the well prior to the
pump test at 263 ieetbelow land surface. McKay pumped the well for one hour and the
pr*pi"g level in the well declined a total of 3 feet to a depth of 266 feet. On the invoice
ior t1. p"-p test submitted by McKay Drilling, Theresa Shannon noted that the water
level in the well went from an original static water level of 13 feet to 263 feet in 2042.
According to the original driil 1og, the static water level in 1980 was recorded at248 feet- "
If the static water level in 2A02, recorded at263 feet below land surface, then the 1980
water level are considered, a decline of 15 feet in 22 years is indicated. This is an
a\erage decline in the water level of .68 feet per year. No other water ievel
measurements were submitted by the Shannon's for this well. Washoe County attempted
to measwe the well rn 2002, however no measurement could be collected at that time.
The Groundwater Data Center has no record of any meter readings for the well located at
5847 MtRose Highway.
Theresa and Riohard Shannon are requesting reimbursement for the total oosts to install
the physical connection for municipal water service from the meter to the home, well
abandonment, removal of the holding tank associated with the existing well.
Additionally, they are requesting the purveyor waive all connection fees and all costs
associated with the conniction of the homes to the STMGID water system. They
estimate that the costs range from $9,000 - $20,000. A11 of the documents and costs were
provided by Theresa and Richard gfuannon and are located in Appendix A. STMGID is
unable to service the Shannon's parcel due to restricted access across Forest Service land.
The Shannon's two homes will have to be servicedby the Washoe County Deparhent of
Water Resources Utility Division.
The Grogndwater Data Center located information on parcels adjacent to Theresa and
Richard Shannon's parcel. Included in Appendix B is the original drill log for the well
drilled in 1980 at S-\ry Mt Rose Highway €igure 4) and additional drill iogs for wells
located nearby. The first well, log number 19484, is for a well located at 15875 Mt Rose
Highway, APN 150-250-32 (Figure 5). The original well on this properfy was drilled in
March lg7g. Itwas drilled to a depth of 310 feet and the static water level was 200 feet
below land surface. The well was replaced in October 200l,log number 85074, and the
total depth of the well was 445 feet and the static water level was 154 feet below land
surface. The existing well was abandoned in 2003. The second drill 1og, log number
39205, is located at:5475 Mountain Ranch Road APN 150-250'35 (Figure 5). The
original well was drilled in April 1992. \\e depth of the well was 310 feet and the static
*aier level was measured at238 feet below land swfac e tn 1992. The third weIl, log
l.
Item 3
Page 50

wt/a coi
sEc 26
49-04
| 52-43
3a
th! H d ttf, WEhor Cornty Asr$or for
posrs only. lt dols not cprwrt I sjr€y ot
a
F:::
t---
i- - -':
J:
ii zJl:
1-\
tl
tl
r--r
f
>+
--.1
| -r.j
tt
{t:
IL
I
;sz€Ggr
L$l
I
'lfiA I PARI I
It t99ill PM tsdl
1 PARA
iPM3t73
,-_-|
I rsczeot
t5G280-20
a!
lrsu___i
;Ani;---l'
PORFAR2 i
FM242O i
r5G25G2r I
L22t i
I
i
15G280-08
UT
1E025&.19
ilI
_[0[D___i
PORPAS 2
w24m
t5G28$28
un
_nqng$g_____Dd$Y__ -MD--------." At'
IAR I
PM t38l
n
16S2CS2!
ut!
sw 1/4 sEcTloN 26, T18N - R19E
PAfi C
ru t389
PARA.I
PM 15Zt
r6G28G2a
15G2€G2t
LET
n.et
w
oK
PARD
PM 1389
a
/z
nx
15G260€0
{ r0{
| 52-43 *TfH.':ffi
i
160.25G0?
w
IARA I
ru11?4 |
t60.280-l? !
I
t tn|
.l
I
PAFE
PM ll?t
I
I
r6s2otrrs I
L!3!
--ir!r---
150-10
t5&28G11
u!
t5eat0-4tt
L!!
I
I
EASBGTJT
'E----1
I
.T PARA :
I
^l *ttt i
I
i 15S260-00 |
I
I ",La i
1 tl
II
I
IIII
i/
\\/
I
I I t6s28&16
lw
I
II
t6G28032
i 5-u
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
'tco-26e3t
w!
i PARB
iPMrl6o I
i t'",f" il
il
L------J
Ll!
l5s28L3il
w
I
15C26G38
u!
i
I
-l
I
I
I
180.26G11 r
ut! I
I
I
______)
PARA i
PMr4or
i
. 15G280-te r,
:Lili,
'i
lpane
I
I
I
I
I
I
I FMt404 |
I rsGz6&rr I
i* i
L-----.--l
I
tl
| ,,t.. I
i PARA I
i PM207s i
it 15s260€6 |
,t. ztw I
rl
ll
L--.-.,t--J
ll
I rs*za"ac I
tt L!!
I
ll
tl
I
I
I
I
Thb rns $Bvbusly shown ofl
C€NTN
sEc 26
l-rrnT---l
iruzoze i
it t5G2so€4 l:
il z- li
E
i-l'ip:::jr
J
o
150-25
s 1A COi
sEc 2l
344- rs/ET 0/65
;tmri;i;tit$'nd;nitin;cancv }ffneafwadnecounlyrssessol Nenda-Bobuty|,,ltlhftown l,?$#,1'g'ff#"*bha'rsthBn2Esn
| 50-26
I
1'-3W
fi
Figure 4.
6.
Item 3
Page 51

50-26
cffTm
g
>:
ol
s t4 cod
sEC2l.
150.250.1 |
5.000 w.
------,1
I
I
I
I
I
tEs2EFlZ :
I
5.000 oc. q,
l'
I
-____-J
I
I
16G28q30
1,000 cc.
;l tso-zsost
ii 4J560 tl
;*- -,;;--
fisGEElf
il 't
1J560 tl
JJo.t!
IleRA "''to
I PM 2l lil
:l ree6e$r
i 85169 tt
I
urrr
iPAR!
iPM21r4
I rsoesou
1 85215 sl
r! dthr WaSlo! Coun8Asssorf[
odv, lt dors not |lpns!il | s,rNsy ot
las to tlx srffEhncTdthe accl,ncl
J
o
,J;,,1
tril ac. 3
,,r--] 16G250-08
5,000 tt.
tB025G0
J.000 tt.
-----aT
;PAB'! A i
iPM2287.t i
t
/pmzl
i
puzPt
| 1FG26r0l1
I lo ro, )"
:il.
'PEoll
't.l8e ufi
ll
lt-" l--*t
r
I
I
I
i
I
I
15S2B&29
I
5.000 oc.
I
I
I
r------
I
I
I
I
| 15G250.35
5.000 cc,
sE 1/4 SECTIoN 26, T18N - Rl gE
__Jfii.a8tr_
PARA
PM 2130
t5s25G1E
2.500 n.
PAR I
PM 2139
15S25&.|8
2.500 oc.
f-----
-l
I
I
r5c2ES28 ! I
1,500
I
I
I
I'G2ES27l
2.500 t. I
I
I
------ -1
150.2E0.0?
5.000 tc.
o
E
16S25tr17
5,000 oc.
=
ec, i
v,
I
I
I
i
15G250€6 |
s.000 oc. i
I
I
I
I
ItoJl{ulil.i
800[ 1,52
4
u
F
o
1E&2E0.28
5.040 oc,
r l5G2F0-3?
I
1 5.000 oc.
I
I
I
I
i PARz
IFM2096
I 180-280-08
| 2.5t! oc.
I
t--..^
I pnnr
I Pr42os5
I
I r5S25S05
| 2-512 oc.
I
L-------
LOT 1
PM 2449
1EG25GI8
1.506 oc.
| rcrz
I PM2/t4g
I
i lrs250.rs
| 2,t!9 cc.
I
15S25G0{
5,001 oc.
__ultl____
t50.25G2t
2.500 oc.
160-280.20
'2.500
oc,
t----------------
I
I
I rsozsors
| 5.00e oc.
t'
I
i
I
I
i__ruerr
rooeroro
| 5.000 tc,
I
L___rurlu__
r
I
I
I
I
I
1BG2ES39
L0A0 oc.
I rE&zE$sB
l 5.000 tc.
! ROAD
| 50-10
}ffrce of W adne0onrty Issesoa llevada - frohert W. lhftow an
1E0.25G03
5.000 tc.
t5G25SZ2
5.000 oc.
ROffi IARll|
tEF6S2|
5,000 ct,
tEGZ'o4l
J.00J oc,
PARA
PM2840
i
i
r5G250.01
l:
2.5J1 oc. 1
!
FffiS* gi
i *"**, i!
2.526 oc: !
---i-n-r--i'
Fl

number 42738, rffas in driiled in June i993 and is located at 5925 Carl Dr., APN 150-
250-33 (Figure 5). This well was driiled to a depth of 320 feet and the static
''rater level
was 240 f..t brlo* land surface in 1993. There are two additional drill logs for wells
drilled in 2001. The first we|l, 1og number 84231, is located at 15925 Mt Rose Highway,
APN 150-250-34 (Figure 5). Th. well was drilled to a depth of 498 feet'-The static
water level in Augusi2001 was measured at284 feet below land surface. The second
dri1l 1og, log number 84232, is for a deepened well located at 5795 Carl Dr', APN 150-
250-31-(Figure 5). The original drill log was not located by the gloundwater data center'
1'he deepeied drill log, shoivs a depth of gtO feet and a fural depth of 500 feet. The static
water lJvel in this wJi was 274 feet below land surface in September 2001. AIl of these
dri1l logs are located in Appendix B.
Additional drill logs located northeast of the applicant in the Government Lots show a
north to south downward gradient in the staticiater table. The oldest of the drill logs
was an irrigation weil locited at 5852 Mt Rose Highway, APN 150-250-06' This well
was drilled in 1959 and was 120 feet deep. The statio water level in i959 was
approximately 98.5 feet below land surface. A domestic well at the same address was
drilled in 1990. The drill log number for the domestic well is 34189. The depth of the
well was 250 feet and the staiic water level in 1990 was 173 feetbelow land surface. The
last drill log is log number 43133. This drill 1og is for a well located at 5837 Stephens
Rd, ApN t5O-ZSO--tg. This well was drilled in iggg. The well is 295 feet deep and tbe
static water level in 1993 was 204 feetbelow land swface.
Most of the wells in the Goven:ment Lots were drilled to depths gteater than 200 feet'
Within the Govemment Lots, the wells in the northem portion had an average static water
level in the late 1980's of approximately 150 feet below land surface. The wells located
further south, closer to the Mt Rot" Highway, had an average static water level between
240-270 feet below land. surface. The Shannon's well drilled in 1980 had a static water
level of248 feet below land surface.
Ir{ost of theweils inthis areawere driiledbetween 1985 and 1995. The average static
water level near the applicant in the southern portion of the Government Lots in the early
1990's vras approxi*ut.ty 240-250 feet below land surface. Two of the wells that were
drilled or deepened in 2001 had static water level measurements recorded at
approximatety ilS-Zts feet below land swface. The static water level in the Shannon's
wJtt io 2002 was approximately 263 feet belo'w land surface. Some of the wells in the
Government Lots have declined on the average of 35 feet from 1990 to 2001 depending
on the location of the we1l. This is equal to an average overall decline in the water table
of 3.18 feet per year. Other wells have declined at a rate of less than one foot per year'
The only dril1 log available for this area prior to 1970 is the irrigatiol well located at
5g52 Mi Rose Hi-ghway, ApN 150-250-06. The static water level for this area prior to
1970 was tOO feet below land surface. Within the Govemment Lots, the
GroundwatJi "ppro*ii*trty Oat" Cenier was unable to located any drill logs or historical records that
have static water levels recorded hig[er than 98.5 feet below land surface'
8. Item 3
Page 53

hr the past 10 years, 13 ivells have been deepened or replaced in tire Government Lots.
Five of the wells that have faiied in this area have been plugged and the homeowner has
hooked up to the municipal water system. The locations of the deepened wells are
mapped in Figure 6.
jtw
: (i/F
Ht tr{.
Lt\rr,\
H\E]
I Richard and Theresa Sbannon
| 5847 Mt Rose Highway
GOVERNMENT LOTS
REPLACEMENT WELLS AND WELL DEEPENINGS
MqJorSt|€eA O Domeatcvlbll lsatlon3
Deepad tlbUs t PFduc0on Wbll LGaUms
RedffitUHls
STMGND l,tr&r Servlce Customet
Departrnent of \A/ater
Resources 6ar
wnsnoecousrv \;f
NEVADA F<
.s tulrub i !'
b.M.&
miF,"@
kifr
Figur 6.
9.
Item 3
Page 54

PRODUCTION W-ELL INFORI\{ATION
-within
There are 3 production weils located approximately 1 mile of the applicant's
property. The closest production well is -Sf\zICm #6, approximately 3100 feet away'
The other two wells are A:rowcreek #3 and Tessa #2. Tessa #2 is approximately 4000
feet southwest of the Shannon's parcel and Arrowcreek #3 is approximatqV 4700 feet'
northwest of the applicant. Othei wells in the area over 1 nrile away are Tessa #1 and
STMGID #5 (Figure 7).
ffi-ffi
wrt Rose *s---'i
=-an*W,#[$irel# RosE *4
a
L.]
South Truckee Meadous
PRODUCTION WELL LOCATIONS
A1
M4dstFC6
IW
irl$gdilWbllt
r Dom€tevvt l lGtloE
. Prcdu(fimvlrcllo€ationl
E|G**@@dwffi
Department of \nFater
Resources rf,il
WASHOECOUNW !+,"
NA/ADA
dB@E
hxd.@
m*d
l:r
Figure 7.
10.
Item 3
Page 55

STMGID -wells #5 and#6 began water service in i989. The STMGD rvater system h.as
a totai of 9 wells. Both STMGID #5 and#6 were drilled in December 1988. The water
rights for STMGID #5 are equal to 539.52 AFA. The water rights for STMGID #6 arc
equal to 1479.46 AFA. The water rights for Arrowcreek #3 are equal to 437.38 AFA.
The Tessa wells were drilled in 1999 and did not start pumping until 2003. The
summarized pumping records for the STMGID wells, Tessa wells and ArrowCreek #3
are located in Tables | &,2.
fable 1.
Pum ping Records For South Truckee M eadows M unicipal W ells
W ell #4 W ell #5
AF ANNUAL AF ANNUAL
YEAR PUMPAGE PUMPAGE
1985 0.14 0.00
1986
16 .32
0.00
1987
49.44
0.00
1988
37.40
0.00
1989
32.65
4 .51
't990
42.77
120.39
1991
36.40
78.74
1992
32.61
129.08
1993
64.60
75.09
1994
120 .'t 5
199.95
1995
158.97
126 .07
1996
143.67
222 .34
1997
124 .'t 6
219 .31
1998
120 .25
233.30
1999
72.51
345.12
2000
58.27
450.38
2001
23.30
407 .73
2002
26.25
384.31
2003
30.73
344.92
2004
13.07
286.83
W ell #6
AF ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.89
116.70
49.01
230.68
153.52
447.42
297 .97
534.55
621.45
549.43
785.83
837.67
1081.78
988.72
950.98
1145.87
W ell #7
AF ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
7.30
4.60
6.00
6.28
7,80
9.46
18.07
32.86
27 .17
23.02
38.43
11 .25
18.98
25.25
39.65
Table 2.
Pumping Records For Arrowcreek Municipal Wells
fessa #f Tessa #2 Arr #3 Total
AF ANNUAL AF A,NNUAL AF ANNUAL AF ANNUAL
YEAR PUMPAGE PUMPAGE PUMPAGE PUMPAGE
1998 0.00
1999 0.00
2000 0.00
2001 221.43 22',t.43
2002 336.75 336.75
2003 11 .43 103.21 313.34 427.98
2004 1.58 18.78 316.70 337.06
11.
Item 3
Page 56

In 2004 the Tessa wells pumped a total of 2A.63 acre feet. As of Novembet 21,2005 tiie
Tessa production wells pumped a total of 284.A5 acre feet' Tessa well#2 pumped 255'30
acre feet and Tessaweti+t pumpea 28.75 acre feet. As of November 21, 2005' STMGID
#6 pumped a total of 878.68 acfe feet and STMGID #5 pumped a totai of 357'56 acre
feet.
Static water levels have been monitored on the Tessa and STMGID production wells
since 2002. The water levels are recorded as either the pump was on or off' These values
have been put into a single file and graphed below to show the changes in the water table
at the production wells.
Tessa #1 (West)
-+-Tessa #1 (lNest)
o
o
o
(5
E
IJ
a!
u,
cc
360
,-t-
"-..
"-t*
-t. ^"t. ^"t. ,-t. *.-t.
.,"t* -"e
"-t-
^"t-
-"t-
"-t"
12. Item 3
Page 57

Tessa #2 {East}
*+*Tessa #2 (East)
100
200
300
400
500
600
oe{,.ne-. "--".-.
.e-os"ed --"^o-. --os5,-. ot,'.$ -"-"* "--- ^--- --os5,tu.
Date
STMGID #6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
o.r'${,$,'$a$^ $.,'$'"_t"r$"r$$^${'$"r'"llr$('$

sTi*GD#5
**.*STMGID #5
FNc\r$rcrc!c!o)(f,cqq€€
383.Q-e333tE-F
*sgg."s?E*..sgBgEF
-Egg
ss3
_€gg
sE$
|f)
:<
Nf9
NS
ro
€€€
3.EE
MONITORING WELL INFORI\{ATION
Detailed groundwater level studies in the South Truckee Meadows began tn 1977 with a
study by-th" USGS covering the southem end of the Mt Rose Fan' Since 1991' the
Washoe County Deparfinent 6f Wut* Resources has conducted a regular well monitoring
progam. Cunentiy, 120 weils are measured two times per year. I" ft9 Mt- Rose Fan'
changes in the groundwater level of 20 feet due to variations in natural recharge have
been documented. A twenty-year potentiometric surface difference map (Figure 8)
shows how water levels have chaoged since 1982 in the South Truckee Meadows
(Felling, 2002). Water levels have generally declined 10 to 20 feet' The well on the
iU*ooo', parcel is located between the -10 foot contour and the -20 foot contour' The
water level in this well actually declined approximately 15 feet in the 20 years of record'
Theresa Shannon submifted u iirt of p*".ls thut were approved for STMGIDs mitigation
progr* (page 50 of 69). The Rummler and Kitchen rcllt *et" appro191l-for-mitigation
because both wells had experienced more that 30 feet of decline since STMGID well #6
went on line in 1989. This is consistent with STMGID's mitigation policy' The
shannon,s well is not part of the monitoring program set up by Washoe county
9e
Department of Water Rlsources. The only available documented information is that the
*ier level in their well declined approximately 15 feet from 1980 to 2002'
t4. Item 3
Page 59

Figure 8.
15.
Item 3
Page 60

There are approximately 26 we1ls measured twice a year in the Government Lots.
Several of fie weils have been measured by Washoe County since the late 1980's'
Hydrographs for the wells measured more than 10 years are available in this packet. Two
of t6r weis that have been measured for long durations of time are designated monitoring
wells and the rest are domestic wells (Figllre 9).
Figure 9.
16. Item 3
Page 61

Many of the long term monitoring wells have the sa:ne trend in tire Govemntent Lots
area. The hydrographs show a continual decline in the water table from start date to
present. The averigJ arop in the water table in the past 14 years is approximately Il2 a
foot to 4 feetper year depending on the location of the well.
Kitchen Domestic Well
270
280
^ 290
.9 300
(!
=
9 sro
€ 320
330
(o cO
t
o)
o
in Water Eevation - 32.3' in 15 Years = 2.15 Feet per Year
N
v c{
F
o(\
o,
s
N
g
o No
Kitchen and Brokaw domestic wells were both deepened and reimbursed by STMGID.
There is no additional data avaiiable for these wells.
Brokaw Domestic Well
190
(o
({)
N
o
v
c!
F
N
{
s
N
v
(o
o
N
200
^ z1o
I 220
o
3
.9 zgo
€ z+o
250
Change in Water Eevation - 53.6' in l5 Years = 3'57 Feet per Year
t7.
Item 3
Ptge 62

E o o 190
Meiarkey Dornestic We[!
160
f; rzo
= o!
ieo
200
Change in water Elevation - 44-15 ' in 'l6.5 years = 2.67 feet per )tear
STMGID MW#6
O
N
o
90
110
g 130
S rso
=
z 170
E
€ rgo
Change in Water Elevation - 102'8f in 17 Years = 6'04 Feet per Year
STMGID monitoring well #6 was measured in April 2005 before heavy use in the
srunmer due to inigation for lawns and trees. The static water level in April 2005 was
measured at L47.15 feet below land surface. This represents the recovery of the well for
2004 pumping, the actual static water level in this well dropped approxinaately 44.95 feet
in 16.5 years or 2.72 feet Per Year.
18.
Item 3
Page 63

Chanrpelovier Domestic We El
110
t-
00
f-
tr)
o,
c{
s N
l\
N
o,
rf
.

Dewns Domestic Well
200
$
.o
$
@
cf)
F
cr)
-
N
N
N
O)
I
C.l
o
NO
U\
-o)
-F
-
N
210
220
f, zso
tE
7 zqo
o
e
Eq 250
o
E
260
270
Change in Water Elevation - 12.1in 20 Years = '61 Feet per Year
200
210
o 220
;
€ zso
Murray Well
E 3E B3 Fg BE aE Bs BE PE g
=
: 240
E
€ zso
260
Change in Water Etevation from 1989 to 1995 -16.62' in 6 years = 2.77 feet per year
Change in Water Elevation from 1989 to 1997 - 5.56 in 8 years = .79 feet per year
Neither of these homeowners have not requested any mitigation for these wells-
20.
Item 3
Page 65

The wells in ihis area fluct$ate in their anrou:rts of decline over the years. The wells that
were measured near STMGID #5 appew to have a higher rate of decline than the wells
that are farther from this well. Mrs. Melarkey's weil has been measured every 1-6
months from the time that STMGID #6 began production. The first 12 years of
measnrements showed a decline in the water table of 20 feet. This is equal to a drop in
the water table of about I.67 feetper year. Based on the irrigation drill log from 1959,
the water table was around 100 feet. Mrs. Melarkey's well was approximately 148 feet in
1989. The average drop in the water table before STMGID #6 came on line was about
1.6 feet per yezu.
The two wells that show a decline in the water table of less than one foot per year
@owns and Munay) also show an increase in the water level during the years that had an
above average precipitation (1995 - 1999). The last four years of measurements have
shown a sig;ificant io"r.ase in the rate of decline in the water table. The rate of decline
may be relited to, eithei or both, drought conditions and increased a:nounts of pumping
from STMGID #6 since 2000. The increase in precipitation from 1995 - 1999 appears
to have recharged some of the wells in the southern area of the subdivision. The
hydrographs foimany other wells in this area appear to have the water levels remaining
-during
constant wet years with the exception of the Kitchen well located closest to
STMGID production well #6.
21.
Item 3
Page 66

APPENDX A
Item 3
Page 67

fv'lr. Dan Dragon
RHtrEIVHD
J,{0U X sr 2CI05
or".$fffiEP#[6[tQ6rembe r 12, zoas
W.C.D. of Water Resources
PO Box 11130
Reno Nevada 89520
Mr. Dragon,
We are requesting that the County proceed with connecting our property at 5847
Mt. Rose fiwy. fJtne STMGID water line which was recently completed up Carl
Drive which is where our home is located.
As you are aware, STMGID has committed to providing and funding all aspects
of connecting our homes to the STMGID water main system and the proper
abandonment of our existing wells at no cost to the homeowners rather than
deepening our domestic weils. Since 1999 we have worked with STMGID and
the bept. of Water Resources to insure that- Since our well has been impacted
by both STMGID #6 and Tessa Wells: lf we could and were to deepen our well
(not feasible) it would not be further adversely affected by the same impacting
wells. We believe that there is substantivevidence that the same impact would
take place and lowering our depth would be a waste of a great deal of money
and effort.
Per your written correspondences it is our understanding and expectation that
STMGID will:
o Installthe physical connection fron the new water meter at
the edge of our property to our home.
o Properly abandone our existing well per all State and Local
ordinances.
o Remove the holding tank associated with the existing well.
o Waive or cover any and/ or allfees and or all costs
associated with the connection of our homes to the STMGID
water system and all expenses associated with the proper
abandonment of our existing wells.
We are bringing this matter to your attention at this time because our well's
pump has been lowered to the very bottom of our well within the last two months
and we are experiencing lack of water to our home. We are making you aware
that time is of the essence and we are no longer able to wait for your connection.
We do not believe that we can 'Wait for Spring" as has been suggested by your
department. We are concerned that our well will go completely dry given the
County's most recent water level report indicating that the ground water level is
decreasing at an exponential rate and the newly constructed homes added to the
system will become occupied rapidly increasing demand prior to spring.
Item 3
Page 68
n'2
L)'
i ,s-L Aq

we requesthat you confirm in writing reeeipt ef tl'ris request, provide an outline
of the process to be follcwed, and a timeline for the completien gt^tf is.g1UeavCIr'
Through out the process, please use the following address: PO BOX 19277
-Nevada
Reno 89511- rai* 775.831-1833 or Telephone : 849-3873 to
correspond with us.
q$rtuf cc't.,g.,'\-'
Richard and Theresa Shannon
Item 3
Page 69
2 ,"JLt g

GroundwaterResource.DabCenter-Wel|MitiEationFrogram
Wetl Mitigation Request Form
A. AoPlicant Information
Address.. rr
'
rn F'?nf,eo*
[en"
City, State' ZiP 12eru0
\qa++
p '.
l"r,s ica-\ 5e 4l rnr
@ounu +
-. , ,r
If reimbursement ls not requesteO, state the nahlre of the miti'
-JafloflieciuEilii_cr-
iaenHfy water purveyor anO paftianlar well
impacton Your well. fr'fR6 \ D+(o
f-iGiieve is caGng unreasonable
B, Well Information
IMPORTAT\ff: f,re information v-ou Drovide to the well Mitiqation Hearind Boad will
L-Eli thE?etermination of vour request'
The
)llowing information is reggileq.. .. - - i
ffisrewdlwasdrilledt
e.*z:
ffi...-.-
f'""
e r+v
ffiperminr/te\ .- .... l.-.
Observationrs on \tVell Constructlon ang (.onotuon L t t.
Groundwater Resource Data Center'Well Mitigation Program
Welt Miugation Request Form
Page 1 of 2
Item 3
Page 70
+ -f. ("9

Include the foilowtng ir'furnration if availabie'
( Oreck
ffiiaFon ana uann'er'afe
G (Xher Information
=,,o rr{r{iri-nal infon
Ifyoudonothweanyofthedocurnents|istedaboveor|aveadditionalinfiormation
vo.r thinkwll be r*frrlil vgur.gnie=u; **t"t ' pr"tt"incicate below' Additional
I'"'l;;;L-iuacrtea roi settion c
'
ffiesrdoarmen*ro:
GRDC-Well Mitigation P'rognm
4930 EnergYWaY
Reno, lW 89502
Td+hone: 954:4650
Fac 95414610
GiorlnfiraEr Resouree Data CenteF'Wett FfitigaHon ProEnrn
ui"rilmUg"tion RequestForm
LQ,
Page 2of 2
W-
. Item3
'Page 71
.l f I ttl
4 c( taD

41
'|L.1
':!
tr:
/au
g, t'l l./
LrJ Lrl
cr oT-l -i
.J7 [j't LJ -
Lbb
4rJ
('J
O=.
$)
'\.
,=
u?
i.
t--
!\
i*
gEga g=3sg ?HHH-2=hBhHE Ea.} E
limlllr'i:ffi
iri:Fil,i
ui
c]
lY
.:1:il
:,t
i*
ii{
iti
i
i:.!:?::T:l
iii;it':i
*:'ff
r:4F.*
ftff
'H#
.i;i..
h t
i{#
,i=1Is
*li,8
!
lq I I
F
i.Fl.+ i i.il
:'r'"{i?:'
:r+'

Well Construetion Permit Applieation
Washoe Counfy District Eealth Department
1001 East Ninth Street
Reno NV 89512
Q7s) 328-2434
Permit#
Fee paid
Date
Initid
PropertY owner's name:
Mailing "dAr"ssF
Home address:
-1-7
Homephonenumber: 6-
g'+q"3613 Workphonenumber:
Address of well sife:
{L€.e-
Nearestcrossstreettowellsite: Ci+'r\ gt
i'}1f' Z\+rrc-}\
tl'
GeograPnrcal area'. :
> 3l-t_L_zJ__
L/qs
Type of well:
Use of well:
Well drilling comPany (must include):
State contractor's license uumber:
Business license number:
Any state waiver, county variance or special conditions?
If yes, attach a copy to this.appli".do?' ,,? ?€-a
Applicant:
zurui$
t u'Jcl(
i 6-i
v., X
No
rl
u,, !t [n{
Plot plan
i;; ;"pi"t of the plot plan must be attached to this application'
]f,n
\( c.-
H-713.5;l
.r\.r
Pt\ cV*-*
' v - E--
L*trrp,lf/ ce=+ e-
9[e\t'l-e^"t
o.,;f;ip"
A..P'^)^q ovf u/atl
cc

l{OV ST,3005 L5:37 I"!CI{AY
82?5953
T*rva 4
&4GKAY trRlt-LgfllG, lru*'
Lie'14170, limit s350,000 &AS-SGS?
,SfarfCA rd Fsm Drittiag G*ntralf s*-ner=**t rttu
$chedule #{
fhis agreement made and entered into this 1l clay of frlcvernber ZS05
by and betneen steve McK-ay of McKay Dritting. lnc., (DrillinE Contractor) and
Tertl$harnnon of (Purcfuser)'
WITNESSETH:
A. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
L The PurDhassr herEbY efigases and ernploys the Ddlling ContractOrwho agfees fOr gnd in
consideration ot 11re termi p-*iitiont, conOitibns, anO agreenlents herein contained' and for the
pti"r t'"*i. listed for tfre wi,* specified, to attemptto drill a well lvells) 0n that certain lard
'rrilned by or under the iegat of Purchaser- The legal clesaiption of the prCIpelty where
"oni*r
fre work will occur is;
2. The ssid well shall be sPecifically located as follows:
Parcel # t..
:t,
rwell shalt bc i00 asspecified in Part B of thisAgreement except
as hereinafter set fodh in this peregraph; ThisAgreirnerrt will be cortsidered csmplete vrhen:
a. Sufiicittlt weter is obteided; , .t
b. Puruhaser requesb that drilling be stoffi;
c. The Drilling Contractor fras CrNed to.gfna*imum deiln of 500 feet
'rt i*"{i
rl, At the discf,Ftion of irilrnng iltt"S#, he leels thet continiratlbn oldrilling operations
wqutd be impractical. ."{*' : ti
Upon reaching the\wel{'s nt"Xffi'u* depth or at any time.prior as set fortfr in a through d ebove'
Drilline Contra-ctoi ihAUri"piiiiffi"g and remove his casi* materiats afi{ propertv and be entitled
'+'
t0 $ZSiperfoot es cornpensaliott- tli
4. The weltwill be termirlsted at or above the top of the gfiund in cot{ipfiance with State
regulations with casing of
The nominal diameter ol thp weff shaf. be: 5" '*
g*i:*
E. purc*reser hereby grafits Drifting Corrrectorg+ecuiily irrttiFest in thc msterislsnd equiprnent
il*irh;q bJ fne Oriffing Contractor, to sectre$ayment'if all money whefl due, and agrees lhet
Dritling Cofttrector nai'afiii*eAiet provide! ny.iqw irr.th evenl of the Purchasels deiault on peyment.
Furdrar", aA6'SSuiomegf remain personal pruperty and do not becon6
fixtures "gt=-"Jitiit;iiuu"iry .," " :1,'i -,:. i
-ii
B, The Dritling Contratto=
s. ls an independcnt coptra6or and 191 an employee.or agent of Purcheser'
b. Shgtl determine the.-Sri.re, nranneii'ineans and method of doing worL
c. $ha1 tumish aff faffi.loi$ and jn%chinerr necec$ary to cany out his pflIt of lhis contract'
,,td;;llft;;1gfi"
*rr un*ddr this ctinlrad cliligently and in good wprkmanlike rnanner'
O, Agrees'that ttre prircfreser En{ not be responsible in case of any acpident or injury i0 Persons
or employees i" *n"Ld"n *tA tn. drilling opergtions, antl turther agrcgs to cnny tlw
neces$ary insurance to cover such situations'
u. ng** t" sive the Purchaser hannless fiom any and all iiens for msterial srtd labor supplied
by the Ddlling Gontrador.
l, Agree3 to keep an accurale rccord ot the chnrs{:ter Of all strata pessed through in the
iriliirig. rf".toievels. 0f ;$ing us6d, of pedorations mad€ (if any), and of the size and location
of any and other rnaterias and equipment installed, and to turnistr the Purdraserwi$ a copy of
seft€ upon cornPletion,
g. Wenints ttratne well (wells) shall be servjcea$y straight,.round,.all within generelly AC'
cepted tolerances, ano ofiun size, so ss to allow nL institation and openation of pllnOinq ugyip'
rint Ooign.d tor a nole of that nominal diameter. The pump and other equipmenl instellecl by
Drlllhg tuntrsctor are covered by rnanufacturere wananties ivtrictr ere suPflied t0 Furehaser.both
bafore sele and st the time of insiellatiod and Drillirrg contrsdor malces no wansnties other than set
ftrrth in vrnitirrg in lftis contracL
$eller-
Purchaser-
t

l{Ctr 07.2005 L5:37 b{CKAY s2?5863
Page 3
I H?I#lilJ,i,?rhat he has rsil righi and aurhoeity ro eliter into rlris conrracr and Lo aurhcrize
,6u pdtttng Coiltrsctor to drllt upon the sbove descrlbed lsttd'
b. Does hereby grani to tne Driitirrg Contrador, his offlcers, agents and employees' iull right
to ingness and egress to ana imm'iai4 BreviOuiyit""tiU-l lind,ferihe FurFgse sf peformifig fhie
contract and doing su*r acts i*cidenialthereto Jr *ui *uronably be necessary in connection with
::*,ffiT;f;Xllff;" charse to the Drurins. Dgnk'dT:=',:L'J:":."i,-tle dritr site and its
Frcximity, as the Drilling i*ir*totmay losire fli pG. O-*pt. maehirtery' and the storege of
maierial and equipmeni wtrictr may be required unO"i 6tit contract' and save the Dritling Contraa
tor hermless in the evert of accidentsl damage to **p=. buildings' trees' fenceg' walks or grty other
property upon aolaceni;;;il;ir crops, uuitoingr, t,ir*;, fences, walks or any otber ProPerty upon
::l#::{{ildfrii^o.r':':1.":;Tr.g.r:ffi
'nork, ar.ougd il#[#$lf;
anrl e.bout the :'ffi dnll l"#xtf
sfte al sucn :il',lflill,fll,,.
Pr,'etr] I'rru '
oitfre noir during the progds of the
ilh;;;;;r-tl',e D'ttifi;-#tteJo, *rv contra{or shal-f rtot be called
*tf=*-ruS*b'iirinq
upon fo remove the sartle until conrpletion ol the wglt$i
ffi #,t.Tf; ?Hlff ;,Jiffi ffi l''fl-l'Frffi'Tlt{}i"F';gft ffiffi #ffi :'vT'er
or picked by the otvner orrvner in
T coniulttill
conjundion withJF Drilting corltraLtor' ano]glgunttrtrg
1t*rgt"-"^Tl1s^:fl'#flL,."-"#-En-*-ii t'J.iii;;;;;
t/'JrrlrErbfvl
finds * necessery io *Jil,T'#;il"dlJiiiifi{!-*itji't'onJitionn, rhe pdd#h"iii[b'e ar the same
rate as herein rnerrri".;l]}'tl;'ire-i"'tr;"piiti n* ru price rorlhe.new?oa'ifion and the hole'
the move shatl be treated as s.llew fibie f6iall purposes' I ne.urlrrng
suggesrions as he ceem*JftifiAt*"gilbtiion ttl* tn* vgvpoint Bd sanitation fsncem$ and to be in
comptiance *,n ,".p*iifti.;d''1ff#{;;il;;;i;ns,gfourg'Ens
or recommendations' Anv
rhemoveshaube,"*ilJT"i'##iilldiitry+-=-i::,flg;g**:g^**J1[";"9
,rrtirrne made by r{$:"i{t:titJf-Fnllg*ffisgfuosuooestions ortrr and shalrnot be
f#*;;i,-J:#;f,*l'*,',X1't$tr.t:ii:li#$fffi {!f":,-s(10}da,eorpurcr,asers
detEul in payment as herein above provi@d, #titiiil'iiilhi unq etryoion to go upon the premisee
wtthout guitt of trespass and re{aim ang*;ffigdrffimaierists instatpa b'r'the Drilting Contraetor
in the hole, incluclins casins. lt is specili-c'arrt'F#i#;'ii';i;i^-n-::1:ll^g::*1t--:?lt"tHitl-iJfi
the hole by the Drilling Contractor shall be ;;;;i p*p"t y unatlached to the realty until
tully pald for as herein Provlded,
Lrffi:fiffi;lrup"rirrt* n"guratiorrs ttt" sost of the abafldofftrerilwitlbe the PurchaseCs
res Ponsibi I'ttY.
"iJ
6. ft is Understood and Agreed by Eoth Parties: ,.! .L- -..*,
e, That neither cen telt exactly whet will be fourrd undemeeth the surfac€ of the earth and
thst the work of the Drilling Gontractor hereunder is subject io those conditiong rrhich he nray Frnd
undemeatfi the sudace: therefore:
i. The Driilirrg contra#iflel not egtet to fird ordevelop vrster' nor.

:?1r\17.i-i ?flnq ",4.?J
-LI1UV
qtFLvwJ 4r.4
$cr.aY
8275s63 Paqe 2
b. Thathe *tading date shail be A.S.A.F. This date [s an approximaie deie an!y, it beirrg
egreed that if the d'ritting eguipmeni necessary for the work hereln conternplated is' without
fault of the Drll[ng conir"Aor, detained 0n od]er j0b5, then the Drllling Eontrador shall not be responsible
or lieble tCI t* Purohaser for any damages of any nature ocoasioned by any de{ay in
cornmencing peffqrm8nce hereunder. ln tie eventhe commFntrFment of performane by. .
the Drilling Contractor is so OetayeO for a perioi ot thirty (30) days, thc Purchaser may' at his option'
terminate this contrect by giving written notice to the Drillin0Csntractor on the day next succeeding the
irtf Ori of ne aforeseid pirioUl anO neitfier party shall in stch event be liable tc the other tor eny
demages of snY nature whatsoeuer'
c. That if the performance of any of the Drillinq Contractot's obligations hereunder is materi*lly
h*mpered, intlrrupted, deleyed, Lr intedered wittt try recsoJl qf fir9, c*suelty, lockout, strike'
labor corrtlitioils. unavoidsute accloent. riot. war twhether declared or undeclared), 8ot 0f God
or bV the enac,tmertt 0f any Munisigal, State of Fedeffil Ordhrance or Layv' or by the issuance of any
exetxrtive or judiciet otdiioi aioie, whether Municipal, $tate or Federal, or by any other legally
constituted public authority.
by any other czuse beyond the reas.onable control of the Dritting
Contrador, then during tni'continuance of any such eyenl, the Drilllng Sgflractor' at his sole
option, shall be relieved of the performance of his obligations herunder.
d. Thet this egreement shell iniure to the benefit 0f End be bineling upon the helrs, legal
representatives, successolE and assigns ol the padies respectively'
e. Thst this instrument contains the irrtire agreement between the ptfies hereto and that no
wBffanty, exprcss 0r irnplied, repEsetltation, prorni$e, tlstentent or
irrUucar;eil rnade by uittto p*tty hereto sr by any agent or cmplqyee bf ehher
party, which is not contained
inis written Agreement shall be binding or valid'
i. I'toti"e td Purchsser You are entitled to s coPy of the coritrsct you signed'
Purcheser-
$eller-
3;::t
? 6q

i+OV tr?, ?005 15:37 !{CKAY
tz I SvoJ
qlrge 1
B. I4IORK AND ESTIMATED FRICE Ten'i Sherrrnofl 2005
Guttdrfler **PPiiee
1. Well end purnP*nnit.'-.-.-.-.
We eart not'dee'pin the *del[, if theFe is n*et*|, eet ifl the rt€[t'
2, Test dtilling.estimated feet at
pFr fooL
wel! tteepenmg lrilted S minimurn'100'
i-WAidrilting Atf estimated depth {eet at $34 perfoot
Well drilling MUD estimatecl deptl l$0 iect at $SE per foot
brttllng efter 600' lncr6eses $? P*r foot every 1&b'to ?00'. Afier ?0r tr |ncrEEEA $l Per loor every {0S'"
lf we heve tq switch to muql , the wett i: bitted as a mud hole lrom 0 feet to battom
4. Well casing
$e.OO Per foot {or 5"
5, Facfory peffomted PiPe 20 feet @ $18.00 Perfoot for 5-
Screen is $45.$0 Per foot tor 5"
6- well developing and surging 3 hours €l$tG0'00 Fer hour
?, Retrack hcmmer is $900, After the first z-hours it is $300 per h0ur.
There is rlo grlfiranty thnt the Iinner cail be Fulled'
8- Buim or dem- if needed
3d
9. Chemtcal and bacterlologlcal lsboratory test
10. Remove & reinstallPumP
*_
tt. Mud OrillinE:
&$'€
Fortable mud pit (SET UP), required for rnud tlritling. $1,0s0'00
McKay to supply 5 bags of mud per'hundred teet. ---*r'
Anything over that, $10.00 per bag. Diamopd sesl; $75 per bucket'
14. Well abandonment is $18.o0 per foot
14. lf we have to use en air pedorator' $1000 rent S" $275 per hour'
15. Mobilization and demobilization '6i. ,:F;
Gustc,iltEr reepomiblc for dl rpst il*urred for att dfrripnnnt f,Eies! urrU egresE
16. Other water+upply equipnrent and instsllefion
17. Area cleanup. inclrrcting dritl fuidts anl pfbOuct;od weter.
18. Bsckhoe uort
All wells should be chlorinated before using.
1g. Total eslimated cash priee (finel price depende upon actual depth)
Do'wn Payment
en eguiprnent move in
12 lf drilling rate stov{s
12 feet en hour or less due to formation corrl{itiorrs
or lost cireulation houry rate SZ?$-00 per hqrr plus footage' .ji
tf formatiort requircs cenEntins, t*t.-ElU{F,t0o/6 & hourly rate'
. ' '
,-
ts. weitsest
lf well reguires 100 sesl i
lf well seal requires PunrPhq
s0,s0
$o
$fi,4S0
included
included
irtcluded
tru$tolTlgfE exBense
$ ItlfA
$900.00
€ ${,000:00
':
irtcluded
!:5rr:.'
1!.,=
. _..
${'50[.oo
$ NIA
custemefs expen$s
$ N/A
sg,g00-0s
$4,4oo.oo
Estimsted Balance Due
$4'400'00
Intercst et the rete of 20% per annum is due upon all amourts not paid within 10 days
tnt invoice is rentlerecl. lf legal actton is neeessary to collect a delinquent account,
"d* purchaset agtees to pay ressonable Efiomefs fee and coud eost'
brining Contractor Purcheser Item 3
Page77
-date
2"r
JCe
ta ort{
D

Attachment
DIAGRAM OF WELL
$ Detalls from Prior ovdners '
$ Provided in 1995 as part of the purchase of Property
$ Contains from PAST OWNER'S
$ Documentation prior to1982 lost due to forest fire burning the home'
ATTACHMENT 1.4
PERM|TDRAWN|N1980ToREBU|LDTHEWELL
ATTACHMENT 1.B
This'TypicalWell Construction" diagram provided to the RWP commission in 2002
depicts the same construction metndOs Obing used in a typical well and our well' ThiS
well was buirt to standards eontinuinjro be rised in today's normal construction. There
are not anv depiiiabte differencis. The physicalwellwith proper maintenance
shauld last the life af the hame.
PRaPERLYPLANNEDGR)WTHWITHF1RETH)|JGHTANDSTUDYWjULD
HAVE EITHER PRETAXED TO ANTICIPATE AND MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL
DAMAGEI on xdi iui rne pnooicrroN wELLs tN AN ARFA so FRAGILE tN
POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY. PNWETE DOIITESTIC WELL OWNERS IN OUR AREA
ilPECTED THAT PROTECTION FROM THEIR GOYERNMENT PRIOR TO
APPROVING THE -NEW PRODUCTION WEILS" PLACED 'N SERYfCE AND OR TI+E
APPLICATION OF WETENRIGHTS TO THE PRODUCTION WELLS.
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED DOCUMENIS SHOKY THAT THERE WAS
t

were not reqr.Iired to rnove out of easernents. The piaceri'rent of 'rhe weils required and
inspecfed by prior giu****nt agencies were grandfaihered in'
The weil was buirt at this time to meet the cunent known demands for vuater and be
completely up to date as to reason"or" of water usage on the alluvial fan
"ipuctations
i"iif," rii" otine home'
The PRIoR owner verbally cjted contaciing sierra Pacific who owned the first
',i
production weils and was tord they to t"ri" good forty years if he went to
"*p""t"a
this depth. At th; iir"-ii *as giu"n=;?;;ry
"-""T"t". Lnd a new pump, piping, and
wiring system was put in. t13 *"1'OrJoiO"O
"''tuOy Oy a gub3onir?:tot demonstrating
there was an *"r"hiiat 'endless J;p';;;tel in tfi" So' Truckee Meadows Water
Basin.'
our well functioned serving two homes from 1980 to 1996 with minimal drawdown
whieh recharge during good w.at9iV""r=. The domestic well's average drawdown
durins rhis periodlieo&E*""*oeo n{Jrl;nJ;f""t ioi inr"" vears' tt besan to decline
rapidry in 1997_1b6';Jri"s continu-ei t"i"eiov o"Jin" sinie that rirne in conjunction
with the increase of pumpag" nrst.iiom diftnblO'*ell #6' Prior to 1997 when the pump
was lowereo tnspriJr ownei coula'ie"o tn" well dropping a line. In 1997-1998 it was
crear the pump nliilri"'iil;;: after this it was n"L"Jr"ry to pulr.the pump eact'r time
to read the well due to constructio":F; il; rapiorvlnJseriou"ty than experienced
during the prior 20 years and theliie'oi tn" well ii experienced substantial drawdown
from 1997-2005. ln these nnaf moitnu-oiZOW-ZoOS witn the pump^3ge from Tessa
wells combined with the continualitrain trom tne pumpage of- STMGI? # 6 it began to
fail. In the summer of 2005 it agaii w;nt belory tfie p'imF setting and the purnp has now
been placed in" tartnest poinl po"iOi" in the Uottom u:tn" *6tt' W" are in need of
water suPPlY "t immediatelY'
ATTAGHMENT l.D
WATER QUALIW TEST['!G --
LATEST IS IN 1995 B'i.ENENT BA6ili iTTENC WERE THREE TOTAL
Item 3
Page 79
34. rz4t

fr -i- "," *.
ug l_&"$L
:wdAli*Lh-,W!4&\ [Puff^ W--k"q't 1tt'M-Waa't
{1^pU lrt*w, X,* //S r
-{l# fio?-z/u/r,a St4? ,n*Rou-. }+-"?
r##ry;
a.
,k
- -T
ryffi
a86'%w
, /ilfkqtu ,
ffifrH
-lrk. / /'
l.tl | //'fu'ffir#
[|f\,, -fu.*i8,6ffi,
n,4
fill-J
f .o.n
^ I'.^;r- ,l 'tt'tt tY
*t-/i^ .
Qti*4ff
6" @-l&'Ln Y " v -
-L-.-
9,m' {3,1*,,4
, ---r'l |
#lortW\^u.y_*,
i 44P,W
fu"*\,.? tut*r,pfu-\
t
5k4r^ )

FR0M i4:Kav Drilti-ns 8ZE53B5 03-ZS-IE 12r57Pt4 T0
---Ksy frrt$fu4, fne
2290 Pisnesr Dfive
Reno, Nevffia 89509
002]'825-8692
Fw,82e5365
Ernail w a er@ nte rt*Tnn ewfl
fn]etwet: qserc.intercwnm'co4wler .,."-.
Se ft tng Norllrr,m Neve&l Eincq I 964
Ltc. ill4170,#72763
T
Date gngi*ffiz --
h^\'o a vDekd.dqo-<
Nerne- Ketr & Shatort Burnett
Address 5847 Mt. Rose Reno,lW 995l I
Phone 84q-3873
Well Cap Freesure tenk - Popoff - Fretsure Geuge
frs1A
Pressure swltclt -
8453824 i73 P.3/3
rd a-tr.^q- 't g. !o u)afr^ J
vbzt * ffi&
Tft*'I'^ uwJe'6
Well Depth 297
F:[ow Test:
fhos
9:45
10:00
l0:15
l0:30
10:45
Water Level
261 static.
265
266
?fi6
266
Gallons Per Minutc
l0
9.5
9.5
9,5
9,.5
3r-.
Item 3
Page 81
t1*l

. IE|LC#ErEnolFesfiaEFglFCllEoltgf
?l.^l
FdsrF. lt35
te6sdlaii lBtftt$tt tr€ tG
1. Ptsgtttf Lftla{ a Ati('!6b't
z sEr*rg=€rrsrar+ ts tr@
3- !r'|r.rEFd-Fr.tiF-Gr
t Hrrtui
5.eqE
a ErciraiF!1h
zarnrbild DE
oril'tm t ??2-z{z{
'' -^
O-udtenwF@
neoJS
Lrtcststa
tdlh'r
- -- -- --==-::=:
*.*!*
'+'9"-Fe++-
)--f ." =

GROUND
SURFAGE
GRAVEL PACK
WELLCASING
_AULFEB
.slAl!-clry4lEiffL-
WELL SGREEN
WELL BORE
Item 3
Page 84
ffi$fg'iliJ::4$
TYPICAL WELL CONSTRUCTION

208{31
€
F
'g)
.

iI.:
.'{.{t I
tii
i.F c?.
qr{
f
a €r
}f
ea
1
2
t!
'l .l
il
6l
al I
rl
9
10
It
L2
"'.
t4
l6
L7
18
19
a
zl
n
a
e4
e5
26
n
a
a,
s
3l
3
A L OCFETRAI'
mFrtstilldtlii
tmoa.g.'
t'ot$ltn|lDlpm
rrcmhwl-BSF
luto rEvaDl rtsol .
(t!tt !!t{!zt
CHABLES D. I4ANLEY end SH$RON I ' MANLEY:
ii,;:tiiZo-cifiSltwlll of the swlrl.{-qr the SEL/A
. S;;. ze',i.- iaN.' {' rse-, }Pg&M.
Exeeptiug thErefrom tlre Bouttrl r'JJ-' :
i : Wrt. H. ROEINSON:
T#Ei7t"-t tt'JllEil4 or the SEllof.rhe swl/4
s;;-. -26,-T.- ie H. , f,. is P- , MDB&M'
. . TOM BROWNELL and NORlii!{ B_RO-W{ELL:
fi;:'E?Ilii in. sel/a oiit'. Ne-V-+-or ihe swL/4
. S;;-td,-T. i8 N., iu tc E-, MDB&M'-'
WHSREASy rtrere is presently owned by Granrcrd and siruated
upon *retr said tracl of land a cenain well, eguipment and water system used
ia.'connection therewirh and wirh which Graumrs for a price have been
funiishtng rraEer to each and all of the above-nated Grantees for domestic
usesatthei.rrespectiYgandabove-describedindividualtracLeoflaud'asd
WHERE.A'S' rbe GrEntors are legotiaiiag the sale of ttreir said
Froperty'to another but, nevertheless, inrend to make euch sale and conveyance
drerefor subject to aDd r.s"rvLg
upon the ternra ind canditions hereinafter snted;
dd rhrougtr no fautt of Gra$tore, the'n Grandre are
redpcnrsibility aud llability m turnish same'
'J
such'water rtghts unto each Graatee
NOVf ; THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the
,teirng,. eonditlons sod mueral covesaflts of the Parties hereinafter coaeined'
TEIE CRANTORS AGREE aq follows:
To rnEirateid Bald well, eguipment and water system
*faLa.A within the eonfinee oi thetr eaid traet qf 1and"
2. To turaieh each of Eaid Eraateea water es in ttre pa'et'
inrajoofy ae long ss seid wetl contains water'
THE GRANTEES AGREE as follows:
If and wheo the well becomes
l. Ttrat tbey wt{ esg| Pay unto Grantore for such waEer as
te avat[ebte che suir of TWE|.VE DOLLAP\.S ($12. q0] Fet mogth' due and pay-
-'i'
eble on the.ftrst day of each ani every.month hereefter e'nd thie Agree-
"P.t:1
meff iE rerinlnated aE hereinaftei stated. : .: . ' , :' . ''
'*l...-
relieved of anY and*all
..: .: .i
ir
$
!!
fi
ii
It
F(
;,
i!
fr
li
ll
-' Item3
Page 86
t1+6t

wscer EyBtem off Grentorei satd rract of land.
3. ThEt in the event & Grantee si.nks his own welL,'then
$rle Water Easement Agreement vill terminate aE to hiro.
PARTiES ae followe:
. IT LS MUTUALLY COVEb{ANTED AND AGREED BY THE
: . ' 1. That rhts Water Easement Agreerneat shall continue irr
tuIl force and effect and shall termineEe abSolurely the 4d da. y o! June' 1972.
L is dxpresely understood and agreed thet from and after sald ternination
date Graators! EheLr Bucceesors and assigas shalt be reli.eved of.all responsibi.li.cy
or liabiliii
them.
trom furnishing such water to said GraEtees or either of
.2. Ttat this Water EasAmat Agreement shall be
reCorded [n the records of said Counry of Washoe; and the covenanta herei:r
contatrted shaLl run with ttre land and be binding upon and iq,rre !o the betefit
of the succ'essor€, beirs and +sstgps of the Parties herero.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partiee bave hereunp set *reir
bends as of che year and the day hereinabove wrltten.
'Erbari &ry.a NeweY |
tr
Annte E.
'r" D. grxErEii
' HrfrrmrdF
'
|mad.6r
amtn'|llruEa
tlrtmir*r4qilE
'ltr16
rttlel rtacl
(tt!l tgl.lell
Ore.Qubn
li.t
*l l--
Lo
-'Page ._. Ifem3
87
of 6

3-'
e z.
$ U.
{
.,,
@
a9
,rf */aiJ't
. Wm. tL
D*
-q
€-
crr
Hr
En!
s
a cl
6
r)
:.. Item 3
Page 88
:. . LQ.
> -l Fl'v"
vl
,
'-1)

*i ro..-.lt:-=-.*o--;:"::iu*ori--1i'----S*1"'t'i-*'t'"' tt ;'*€
r I
srere oF NEvADA ]' ss.
z ! C6xJIffY oF wAs#tqe*- )
3 I On rhis .-
of May, t971. personelly eppeared beforl
Afr.,
F,", t Notary Public, TOM BROWNE'LL and I'IORMA BROY{NELL' who
5 | echowledfed-ilrat,fhey
executed the ebove in$Eumeilt'
l
7
10
11 --I
l:t
a €
.t-l
rF{
!.c
C',
.!rf
rf,l
-
11 I
.14fi
15[
t6 [ .*-
Fl .
17 I
181
iAraElcr !, BogBlful
lLr.'.l tsr€ L '|at { l4f/$l
Er Erdt
Ra-ii-E#CAt{'l.H!
z^I 4+azc.
-
Norary Nocarv Public
1e
ul ;
19
'?pN
+ i
zl
2.1
'o I
Yj | -
us84Al
d!r's:-t{il,E:iFr} }
:l - "'*ivHml
;l :lPts"J;o;$
:.
E
. sl
.':'311
'&,
L D. EEHETRAS
Faer6'fr
!m alt'g
' m6!6&t!lur'
. iiarffiilLnnmff
i rcraticralrcrspl
i' tttt lruoer
.Item 3
Page 89
zz46g D

l
Ge.ear
E!.qsmi E ,qBORAEGRSE'S> AF{c"
Et*vtRoNuexreu Senvtces / CeariF'iED W;'y- rfr/eree AfiAI-Ysls
1.479 S.'Weus AvE, RENo' NV 89502
ii oz)- szs-c822' F xx (7 oz) 32;3-49 68
Narne:
TERRY ANDERSON
Addreas: 5847 MT. ROSE'F{V\ry
Crty:
Tebphone:
Authorized bY:
RENO, NEVADA
$ampled: 0&1&95 Submitted:03'16-95
Source:
tlo. of Sarnples:
DOMESTIC WELL
Sampled bY ( )Client
ONE
GBL Control No. 039+0M
{X} GBL
co3
HCO3
.cl
s04
NOIN03
F
sio2
TotalAn'ton
Meq. Ratb
AIk (as GaCO3)
0.0
191.2
1.0
3.1
4.3

ATTACFiMEN TWO-
2.A MAP OF PROPERTY
rAKEN BY rF{d wC assrsoRs oFFICE
STARINDICATESHoPEFt-jLPLACEMENToFWATERHooK-UP.
ATTACHMENT TWO A
US EASEMENT FoR P'WEN. CNfrliO?ON iNOILCT 1191 WHICH STATES
THE Usage is for a particutal,eo*91nil; tii, to' "n'"o" within this project for as
long as the power Co' hotds the easement'
ATTACHMENT TWO B
_
rHts sHows sIERRA PA;Fil;Bnr'roortlrr'rc THEIR EASEMENT'
ATTACHMEN TWO C
THIS SHOWS NEVAfr ;?IL.NEAN'DONING THEIR EASEMENT'
The county workers in various departments are. to state that our property has a
F:]l
33, easem"n, or,-"ii ,lALr tii r"9:. fnit it not true' These easements were
abandoneduring the 1980's to tgbO;s' We have on numerous occasions shown this
paperwork to "otfLilts" telling u, ou"'-nltl' tocateJin easements"' Or' that our
"'"
homes are ittegal. We have done il" Oifig"ry. th*t" homes conect and up to
Pdk"
comptiance
"no *"r"!i"nGo ou|. nilr spl"iar use Permits on July 13' 1998'
These documents were included in the purchase gjour property theyshow the dates
tn'" 1980's and 1990's
they were nreo witn'washoe coun,v'ti#';;;
"ffdil;irb
prior to our ownershiP'
IreU 3
Page 91

u g-"8ffiftF * mTgk
/ l{u
10
;a
1s
.THCMAS CREEK.
EASEMENT\
;)
:T/
:"--l
I
:4r */
I
-,1 I
7,\ I
'/l I
n0 | I
F)
7i
i'
!!- i-
---J
+ r)
l/tq
/)
\(\
I \l
ie)
t s.ooo I
io" I
rEI
Z',
il @ is
I t-rtti
"7 t'oo *--rils,rs--- I
Hre
i@
I I ,-x!-oti
It
ll
lr
"t7;;;''\'
I pmrroo !
ii @'\"rlE
-i
z.leo
gl
I t7!-la I
i Fnne I
I ptutteo ^ t
-i
I
'll'rt l*
dDAl 1tD{-
@l@
z.soo | ?J!!-
r __-]
_--------l
ri @
hh
g
L, l
TAIN
Hurl
@
5.000
*DA
(ilt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
\/i
5.00a i
II
.l
1
I
,2?.60 |
r0l.tl
PARA
ll
____Bo3U__
I l
i
'"'Trbe
i
=@i=
2.s00 i
I
I -JD,!l-r
i pane !
CEf.ITER
c=l ?A
I
I
IIIIIIlI
I
II
t
i*'6t"4,
| ?-WL I
-rl
r------'l
: PARB I
I enazozs i
ii ^@ i:
"'rHD?fls
I
t ns-ss I
iPARA
: PM2079 r
+i -{Pa i=
=r (.ifl lv
l\-/l
| 2,500 I
---'uTrTt---
I
I
IIIII
I
rl-l
=
a
E
(J
3o*-tw ssr A"ea
F - E.
E WV
t--f E E
E@w
A-3-
@
L
[)
I
1'= 300'
;F
lE
:.lr
ul
-i
'1i
r-i
T
ri
pA
D
vl
HPrL
@
5.000
HDA
@
5.000
HDR
@
1.000
s
I
:
5
r JZl.'l I
T_\9_r_)l
?r ---\.
This area prariotslY shovm on --
NOTE
s 1/4COR
SEC 26
4 [.
- -----^a'- 6r ^Fr;n rrrErEE Q elrr|v.lN lN FLLIPSES
REMAPPEDFROM
BOOK4g PG 4
Item 3
Ptge92
[Or.*nby LS/BT5/65 [
n^x
\ro
-l

Item 3
Page 93
/s
2G d/o.
I\

Item 3
Page 94
46?"
.a

fl?4416
4-l15 csnn
,{
co
.

. I
.. :.: ..r q i .;i:.i iii-i .
j I ir. ;l
I +,ir ir;it,,:i,;l.;;tfi1+i,iltii
.,:
i . j'r
:.. : " .. -.ii.
'. .-;i.:
. .i::".,i,': -:,.:. -'.,:."
' '.
..
.i, . .
i ' ,. i,ii:,::j i
' '.
' -' '
..-ijgF:'
. ' . i., i' .-ijgF:' '
1. :' i. .. t.:i.'-'.tf-:;hii"!
.,rrJir4t{r,.
. ... :. .. .,:r|'.ti.!.;ii;jr,:
',". ,.,i
'
- , ..,i
,i:i:-*F.li ijf&Bir fl
t,-{.ii.,. - ,
.::;.,.." ;;t+i*i
,
.:."t:,ili;:.1 ..
i :/;i",... -
i:.'ir^S.:: .rr .
,r4,fu;iili;,
lirr:;it ,
,fi'.b*r'.,;
'lj.t:a,.i.i:.
,
.'l'.i"ir-l'
'
7774476
.
,tr;t'i*^i'.t"..^,n" /V t ;
I i"d oFFtcut REcoBDs 6 rt
IYASHOE COUNTY. NEV. T :!.

A-1t
' l( ..:
I r' r{:
- '.
Qurrcrs,rll
', 4"",
..,tili;€'.,, :, ;il. i,i
": . rr '' : .
=ri#iili , r, 'lia t' :
',',,.
'!.'i. ; .'1 1':
..:,,;;.. .',1i'1 ' ', i,i{. :' -
ffi$it;rtr,' " t"',,'i3.i90"'*tlgLij*:l:r ParEv does herebv
,;
ffil*r9" ",,a q'it'iT"ifit""t"-t'li.;p11n;;' or' t!9 underlvlng ree"
ii;$ffi*rty, or Eh"'ri"' o"t;,;"]t"t'
and.prlvileBes in and
EeqtJlru rye! uJ t , 4--
"rr
:.""Fi'#irsEerlv t$entv-thr"? .f 23:oo),0'f.1e,5 of chat cartain chircviir$gt*1;;t;"
",
;" "", l- *nu' n"o
" ;ilfili i, "",".e1
E arcn g Ehe
three|.(33. 00.) toos. 49".",.?r."ii]*. v*j'--*,--.i:'--J:-l ' -
*"ffi*tff;rti" or Parcel $..as,,il?* q",tl" ofricial -p,Iat'
of GLenn
I !s E
).ts..D
*rffiltr
T'Sl';ir;r", riril" il' '""o'q. fi, 'tt= .rrrce
lor th" Recorder l;
-l[*: aasi*.''.. .':':" --.'ri
fithe.County of Washoe, SEaEe of Nevada' on January 15' 1987'
.@-
.9.
.J
o-
co"
F

lr,
9-
CO
ls'
tD
c..,
Item.3
Page 98.
'.,j i",'b

-"' 'r,
",t
;
;tt''.q
2
.i
eri
LQ
,'..: t'
:1i
,..,;ir
';:'iJ
t'M.
i'ri5l
'. lfe
,F,,&
ij.-!a
"-T{f

^f r,
ATTACHMENTHREE
A FINAL ORDER FOR SPECIAL USE
On JulY 13, 1998'
ATTACHMENTHREE A
A LETTER FRoM THE HEA,Lin oeer (Part of the Final order w.c'c')
Requires the installation of a meter on tn" well' we are to allow the Nevada Division of
Water Resources to read and recori'ihe meter annually' Wg them to
lqY-"-tequested
comq and do this. They have delegateJtnat to the county. wcwR has declined,
Stating, "thathey nav6 all the'6"t";-in"V nee-o; to-mitigaie any poteltial damages from
rocar "monitoring weils" and that tnev ml'nitir*rKitch6n's weil which is the closest to
*i*.; iSfMGld local minutes-1999-2001- Mr' Wdrnere')'
ATTACHMENT THREE B
Mr. \Mdmere wc Hydrologist *"r oy tn" wc Board of commissioners to read
"r["J
my meter anO weti.'hesultlng nu"t tni= f"tt"-t addressing that they already had enough
.monitoring wells" in my area and *orfO not need the Jata"' Letting me know that I can
direct future qr"rti*r?or well reaOing dat" to tn" 'Groundwater Task Force"
ATTACHMENT THREE C
We paid to have a driller test our *"fi- O"tpite having the meter installed' The results
showed us again there had been
oi water and we needed to find out
"lildd;,tppaqe
where the water was going since ** il"r" ndi uuing it on site. The question became
;thT" was water soins to come from if thev drie.d.y: !l,b1'1l-T3,11o-if*,:i?fl:10"t
us? At tllis time tnev Qenlqt arteysrru o"- -'' "o "-' "- '
;i;es
!+u-!=!:.n?.ie,fl;$B+e:L levelwas going to go
down some 60+ over a ten year perioi- nn"n it hadn't done that during its last twenty
years prior to that. we were u"ry *n."t"a 35 fs- how deep would we have to go?
Even the production welts they had used to suck our water outfrom under us began to
go dry and they nal to lower tit" pr*pt. (STMGID 6 was failing Saddlehom well was
distressed)
Item 3
Page 100

F'INAL ORDER
Washoe CountY
Department of
'CommunitY
DeveloPment
1001 ENirftSt,BldgA
Post Ofrce Box I 1130
Rsno,NV 895204027
TeL ?02-328-3500
Fa* ?02'328-3648
July i3, 1998
Richard and Theresa Shannon
5847 Mt. Rose HigbwaY
Reno, ItV 895II
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shamon:
As filed with the Departoirent of community Developmen! at its resular meeting of July 2"
.1998, the washoe county Board of Adjusml# *iaitiorirriy appr-wed (9 conditions) the
following:
Special Use Permit Case No. SPB4.7'98: To convert an existing mother in laq
u*t uoitt p;o, to"iq6il"';;"t".hra **rtoty dwelling. The oropertv is locatect
at5847Mt. Rose i{ighway. Thg 2.5 is desifuated Higb Densrtv Rural
";;;*t
in the Southwesr TrJckee'Meadowl At;; F*ru' srdted -iAPN in portions of Section
26, T2 8N, Rt gE,'ffiil W;rh"; a"*b,, lG;"d".
t I 5 b-260-3 5 )
The conditional approval for the special use permit was based on the following fi:rdings:
1. That tbe proposed use is co':isted with the action proErarns' policies' standalds
and maps of-th, co*prehensive pr'" *a,n. SouthweJ Truckee Meadows Area
Flan;
Thattheexistrngstnrctureisphysicallysuitedforthesite,as.le}tastheS'peand
iurersity of fu proposed use as i secold a-*ili"u ',init. In a'ididor" si"e conce:'s
are adequately aaaresfrTy tur prqr"iry *oatio* of approval, and the
"rtuE
il*;ffifrw*uol-co*tv
i"a tnt State of Nevada;
That tbc issuaace of tbe permit-will- not.be sjpfganlv dryT,t:t"l to the public
health irl that tbe site is alieaay qg"t]gpS *J"*iU U" improved in accorda:rce with
ttttq"lt**tt of the Disrict Health Deparunent;
That the iss'ance of tbe permit will no-t be significantly to the public
*H*"d
safety or welfare. Lnprovements to th9 tank as well as installation of a
"pfr'
water meter for the t#"a'a*tUi"g*iU i**t public health;
Thattbepfoposedusewillno!.beinjuriolltoadjacentP.t"pe::ordetrimentalto
thecharacterofthesurroundingareaslnceooo,witructuresoradditionsare
proposed; and
That the Board members gave reasgned consideratign t9 the info;rration contained Item 3
withinthe st"trrepoi rod-iofgrmation received during the meefing' Page 101
1L- - t rwfbQ

5 t. r f.0
Richard and Theresa Sba-nnon
R-e:, SFB4-7-98
iuly 13, 1998 - ?ageZ
As no appeals have been filed in- 4: tu:
in the Washoe Countv
P?ti,9d,n?ll1*i^
il;fi;tcode, ths decision by the'Board of Adjusrnenr is final.
Yours truly,
rr c*o*!*(-
W. Dean Diederich, AICP
planning Manager and
Acting Secretary to the Board of Adjusfrnent
WDD/CDR/rna (58798)
Attachments: conditions, Disffict Health Departrnent letber dated May 14, 1998
xc:RustyNasb"DA'sOffice;JudyRamos,Assessor's-oF""iiol"Faullner,chief
Appraiser, A";;r;";t cjm"q r"rti-'so"ti"t, utility Divisioq Engineering
Division; T;l; Mtadows fit" ptot""tioo pittti"t;- Reeionat Jlansportation
commission,
p.o. Box 30002, R;",-Irv igszo; soutuwJst Truckee Meadows
CitizenAdvisory Board'
Item 3
Page 102

DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Dtsrntcr HEnnn DePAKTMENT
May 14, 1998
-r€rVED
R E t., '- '
Current Planning Program $A\ t *T
...nc
ffi;t:*fl***tyDeveropmentDepartment ,J$R[\*WS-,",'
Bryan W. TYre, P.E'
SIJBJECT: Richard and Theresa Shannon
SPeciaI Use Permit #SPB4-7-98
E98-077 :
This Deparfinent has reviewed the reflrenced proposar-with regrd to sewage disposal, domestic
water supply, solid waste, vector ,";;i;;;ei quatity *J tit pollution' Approval by this
ii.e-tt*!t is sutject to the fotlowing conditioss:
l.TbeapplicantshatlinstallameterontheexistingwellaodpermittheNevadaDivisionof
water Resor:rces to read and record the meter *"o"uv' If water usage exceeds an
averageoflS00gallonsperday,asecondwellwiltberequired.
z. The existing leach field serving the a,qartrnent is inadequately sized- The field
-gT3g:
. shall b, ,"tL;H^r'rirr"i'J"& *il0ieet'ro_ng. This work requires a septic svstem
repair p"*it ilo- the Washoe iounty District Healtb Department
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingtheforegoiog,pleasecontactmeat32S.T430.
BWT:sw
cc:
Richard and Theresa Shannon
5t'
1001 EAST N|NTH STREET / P.o. BoX 1 130, RENo, **lr
s'j] |7a2| ger.-2400 FAX ,2'r'
"#fti
ff 63

c;
I IIIII
'€
oO
tr
HE
=oO
a)
o
o
(ll
3
*h o)
E
d 3*
U9
oa
k2 LJ3
HE
U4
Fg
tsEl
iE9
tll 6
o-g
o
o
L. I
g)\
Er
|(l.
(J
O1
*-1"
1l
0l
()l
3l
1l
5
g
E Or
ot
a
-q,
G'
tJ\
.E
q,
U
.9
F
I
51
*l
t-ltnl
i.:
q)
c 3
o
t)
(,)
a)
L
Ẹo
4
's.;
q)
E
a
I
q)
o
-o (6
s,
-c {^t
|{{\
o\
> u
ro
Ut
ut
?'
z{
IlI
Zr
4.
co ac
IrI
A.
q)
'1.
\ll
o\
I
J
d ql
dt
0l
t-l
I\I
\JI
el
E
tl
k
..9-
+El
q) "
(d
t
I
E =aca
u (D q)
-d
a
r+
r-l
\f
c\l
tf)
co
,>r
Eg'
i
(uttt
('J=
d>
trl9
L.=
€P
co
h
=8
rI cI
ot c\
OFD
€e
{6 5E
;
o,
E! €
EI
Etl
EI
E:il
EI
GI
GI
o
e
o
IE
o cl
E
EI
*
E!E
EI
EI
EI
EI
Ffr
ffit.
€5t
ffil
E
Eltl
Egl
HI
Item 3
Page 104
.E
0) (6
-o
ts tnr6
(o gr
z ..E
c g
E. -'"
L. :-6- =.
a) crt .l)
A tr E
cD ist
c
iQ) i-o
io. r't
ruelfi
l.
5q-
--) nIA

- /-ii
Address: 5847 IvIOI]NT ROSE Inf SWTM
irocation:
Parcel No: C49-040-44
OccuPancY:0028
Zot:.in.E:
Area: C
Sewer: SEPTIC
Special Use:
Variance No:
M.P'R' No:
APPTJICA}TT
OWNER
j
\ I
NJ r"'-
Use Code:
v, , -., il ,"i ,'i
*iJ i ll l-'{-''- 'l
'
.-.+, 1
+?'b' "
"
Water: WELL
Census z 434
# Units: 0O1
# Bldgs: ooL
SHANINON RIC}IARD & TI{ERESA
Eeal MoIINT RosE I{Y, RENo NV 895L1-
SIIANNON RTCHAR.D & TIIERESA
le& Moi.ilcr RosE HY, RENo rw B9sl-1
Permit No: 98-43L3
TYPe: BLD-R'ES
CategorY: RSAD
Applied:
Issued:
Status:
To ExPire:
08/05/teel
PESIDING
Phone; 849-3873
Phone z 849-3873
* * ***** ** *** * *** * ** * ****** * ** * ** ** * *** * *** * *** *** ** ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *** * **** *****
Permit DescriPtion:
TWo sroRy eiiiii--irousE
colrirERsroN L BR/]-BATH
VALUATION:
Factor Sq. Feet' Valuation
occupancY
firPe
34.t9. 958 29 ,676.92
il7;-:;eiidential
Dwelling
Total Valuation:
29,676.92
Tabl-e Date z l.j-/20/1992
TABIJE Vef,UetfONt 29 ' 6'76 '92
+':"xtL+'t-*'k-t-*t'*****t-t-*l-t*-*-tL*'**********
*************t**.*****\******.********-*a****i*
^ :-:-'::';;.:--- * *=*1i*= 316 . GB Calculated Fee: ee6 's7
FEES: Building Fee' ' ' ':
Electrical Fee' ': 33'gz edditional Feest '00
'42'37
Plumbing Fee' " ':
58.25 TOTAT', FEES 996 '51
Mechanical Fee": >6'''o
"
'00
n"i""p"ctions..':
' parrments: .00
R1 -- ^1^^^1, Eraa l-8 B . 34 1
Pa)rments :
;I;;-G""i r"". .,
1q9'11 <
part< Tax Fee. . ' - :
297 '0o
.,^r.artrr-E: TITT]=-
aq6.57
nn BALANCE DUE: 2>c
;;;r";i;n Fee-. -: 'oo
nn
Renewal Fee. -. ' '':
' vv
,cF-\ nn \IA]TIDATED BY: P'f
;6;;t Fee lREsl '
ImiacL Fee (CoM)
' oo
Item 3
Page 105
&0.
zsole s

-, -:].',l. Ja
C'1..ATE ELECT-RIC
-ilt I 5lL('.EF; =rn'L
Pr-ioi'.lE l'lg'
'|i{2.
?itr};5-t ??23
-l ct.{ ),
'
l--i-'at
:'!'
a-
t?87 BEiss Gi
t*-tl*t
-}i".Y, EdV S$?0{ -
FH...rr *o! roe-sss'?'933
L}CEf{SES B*F{FEO EI'BSUREil
F{V LlC6r i+'ifi'!
v,rsRK ro EFlggi$tryF si
SHEI'f i'l{: 1 of 1
Fpirfl 1_?5-9s
FR#F#s4
FtAIvtE
*---

A^ NEg
rs ro o^r*ff*fl"ffFflTJff$ff *oou A coRREOr DEerstoN
;'s ro *ETHER ro "DEEPt5?fi;f=;ffik#,Eft"*-p
we 'qrrEh4FrED ro
ANACHNNENT FOUR A
*wHO |I|IPACTS wHo?",MAPs -^'- tt
This became a tono telqfhirv,prr"r'ii":ring; rllit edi houo a w'9ek for several
months. We ream;d of the tnel ex.stiiiie'1J1"1i9i^*,tilt'tu"ounding us' $ince we live
on a faurted nssurtaLa of volgani"tai we came to JJr'"u" that cones of depression
from these sunoundns piody{?.1,^dil;;fO corraps'Joi tltiouuly re reroute water
Sourcesundertheground.negativ*ilii*p"aingourwatersupp|y.
ATTACHMENT FOUR B
The prans for some 275 more subdivisions in our area in the ftrture with \rvaterightd for
homes not even buitt came to rio11 and we became il;;;ilJin n" bng drawn out
bat e of existing homeowners asN'iii u" r*p*"t*itv n"* growth during the
"Resional pran uiii]e: sinru rt 'ii*=";;';;;ars Lbardins oul aquifer were not
readiry ava*abre 5.i **pi"t" tn"'iu*uers crrang"i ;;? seJmeo rirb once a week as
to how muctr actuai wateiwe !a!, *ft;ith" impa&.*ouiO t" *ft?t the resulting
'
"nO
impacr to our *;iffiil;1". on" tninE *"-"-JJ"r ur.ii';"i" dine to build more wells
and pump n'g; amount of water from under our Tan'
"
the South Truckee Meadows
The out come was this s'irnulatg$.d3*qgyfloj':ot
showing tne impiA vnicfr tatce ptace * iJ**=ii" **11."' W" have since
Ao^uld *iu#
committed to a?ar higher.AFn uuiii'o,irtnere tore, it =""rn* crear there is no reeson
for a private oom*uiif w*lt owner to deepen a well in this area'
ATTACHMENT FOUR C
we asked our representatives.to ini"rpr"r tne.new llw p'ot""ting.9Yl*"t"t suppty and
tet us know.if th&" un"=."ny 9i"'."
li f*o*r"r uuy= i*1*"ting *it"r supplies and
aquifers_
", *"rIJ, iri i"oirloual frivate domestic well.
ThislistwasprovidedbyMr.WdmereHydro|ogistofWCWRwhenaskedbythe
srMGrD Board how many no*#ioi,r,ih;"" io uJr"**e""sed in the tuturre in our
area. we were tord thatwe *";ffi;; tni= rirt o"ii"r"iney had no record of our
well. Even though qe h.ad prwided it on numeto":offitions ano the permit had been
iluunJv nled ini98o when drilled'
we were dumbfounded to reatize our Govemment we trusted to proted dnd serve us
was sud

Z
H t\
1 l\sl
HHRE
6e*R
s.H
ul
A-
J
-.l
c4
EE'\
Ele
\nF.F
'
Item 3
Page 108
r'r r r.--f f^{

JehEr & Patti F'4lnaberry
58?1 Mt Rose HighwaY
IlltR&e#5
fvfiRose #3
iljit aose'*e
/V
h/
O
Sosth Truclr-ee Meadoxs
2002 Potentiometric Surface Contour F#ap
S
E
FaEdBilndltlE
cmtorlntrml5oFld
D!$rnldlaDDbngwatlt
Prolbrdouwetb
APPrhdtb PFPclty sl$ tooo Fost Bus'r
s,:3ta$ngtt t"lortre-
4Ie J6' 2@5
r:
il#tuddcdt9ffiddkffi6
ffilffiGoPl|@dtdn:B
ddB. 16 t.@ntW.E:-.
*ffi**#ff'Fffi
+
NOTTOSCALE
Deoartment of Water
Reiources ffi
I,|ASHOE COUNTY Eaf
NB/ADA TT*1
ffiEiFrd$ry
tawasE RRwaasE
ot9ssH$
l:!ii.: '.'jq
.'lY,,
Erc
Figure 3 #. -i
-rh,-s
-f h,-s
*a rya 1\ ft P a€-F lt-rtrb' r'-' ' t-#
I --*:l:t .m'ff- #
'ro^o!^l
fe+eo-ute-ils
\ei-:X'r-- \i- t--'' ,ff,f:*t
g hD*-jE aiei-r,-f ifiae-{' F^lt
t,i
+'Yn1{oii)b+
Item 3
J- n lso r*ii,i
' -L-:,"1
-l *L,g
rt\'t H-{ '
4 746y.
F " 1/, \r- ^_,tt^ij
^^nP-r(Yrl lltl

I
JJ
o/
-
{
('
trts.
(o; o
+: o,
.E
.E
o-9o
o
ai o( x'tX
o( 6uLrJ
oiEt
E.: ;.rc 7l ('):
F; h! 3o
(/)i6!
qi 9i
.*l trl{J- I th
ol 6l
(, o( 6',
(rl 3rft'
o
U): @
c 5i
-o
.E -l c
cu.
(!. a
o;'6.
'5
tL
=
._-
U
;:li
,=
c ;='
5r'>
'm
r.i4
-=
r
J', X
.Y
1!
i
:-
)0
l3 ' ;iii il
L-C
nE
i'J
tV i'*
=w
-\f ;F
I-
IE l-l
io
r=
r
't
iE
)u
'ta r3
:I
-il
ll
F
HI
3Ei
6
E
.\+
*
c v
(-!
t]
+
d'
€
/t,
gd
{sa
c- \J
F3
\4 \r1
H
8&
i('?vg
l.+(.
ILJ,
r \Jisl
i \-..,-
EY
f,*
EC
Esl
*,Y
fis-
Ss)
*E;
HF x
Fy€
B
2+
tt+
,7'.
? t')
i4
i.
+dtefl3
rag6it0
IJ
t.,
N
t.
t
T
(

vj'I. hi
John & Patti Minaberry
5871 llt Rose Highway
A*.*tfitlarL't
GO\TERNI{ENT "WEU- LOTS
REP LAE EM ENT WEiiS A.I-!O DEEPENI NGS
sRc€
flr/
r,tot*sn-*
EESI *crs.dwrtE
@
ReP|lcds*Wdls
c DooEtlswEs LoGfqE
6
FEdrtJon
NddrsEnsh*Iglag=
WaB Itdqi
xs*;ffi'sm
wciaesd4""1"1-: -
il5fri*.**to*
d!r:*hbFrn@
b+rmcerrc
*
T.IOTO SCALE
Department of Water
ResouEes 6,-5e
WASHOFCOUNTY .siatz"
[I6fAFf ryr
g_*'%
.:!riil
ffim* ;'*
Frgure 5.
11.
Item 3
Page 111

q
:t
E
lT
t\{
Itr)
l=1
5p
t&
I'L
I
Ig (D
L+
$
r.
4
rtlIitc
}19.";l-'
t
'-:r'
-i.:&
i:.i _.,l
z.
fil
!t
$G-
'.
o E
fg
F
e
9rn
^=EE
HFJS
ryrr'-
4?g
FS E
L/v
eE$
'*'&
qL"-5.
Lg
t-
tft
..f *
,*t 3
t;liE8n ll
:EE Eb
39!se
tilii
;EtIi
^t>tA=i
3?o e
$
=lJ
E€gEA r*!
gE-EE5
It
-tllt\
vfr
II
Fb
Item 3
Pagelli

fitu?v
,oer')
,ta
r
qi
:\
I
I
II
I
|,'l
3l
o:l
E']
tg]
o
i= ,o
'..:< ';o
1l':l
t-
o
rt
o
e {r
=
EI
EI
=l
El
tri
>o
EI
3
{E
o
o
.g
6
FT I
lf
g^cl
r5
t-
E (}.
€
o
!
Ei
T=
-@
3:
gE€
- P-t
E=c
=gEE
gPE
*58
:. E
€EE
Ee=.
EEe.
EEE
-*EE; sE?=
EEe€
33E+
:!s:
e59E
P s:*
E-EEtr
EEEg
EEEE
ti€c
E E!€
U o=
z
.:i
'l5lr
ffi
H
-Lt l
t3
F\
l
.n
\JI
\f*
,:
g
G-
\t,
\*)
fi
f
J, co
i;*
-) {-
-
4 te
/'l
*t, .
r')
\-./

47*f6x
-.__js srJ r,ffiE{Ereg F d#c"
J290 -t"isrceer ilrive
Reno, Nevad* 8P509
{7il2}823-8692
Fm,83e5365
Enu,ilwaefi]jnlrlw,rutaowt
InleW: aseasJnlerr;wEr*,corw-funter . -.- - .-
,Scnrrng ftrorlAera ffeps&I S;npe l9rt0
t.tc. ili,4170,#72163
.: .r x . . ln :. \^)

e$ti \
A F *Ec'ul€
s8 y B

HAR-I3-gZ 0F:39 FR0[{-HS BSR fiFi eE4-46$0
T*F,86 F.0l1Ut F*1TI
W1lhot COEEIy
Dr4ertmeot of
WEtrr FsousEes
4t30 ftlrlywst
RcI4 Nv EBro?4toF
Td.tn5t95i-ffi
.Psr: t??*) Yjr4eld
ld*rcb 13,2002' '
Th*eSa gfiealon
POBsx 19277
Reco, HV g95ll
SIIBIECT; ,, Domesricweil monitcriag .
J
Dca lvts. $natno4
On rle fifth of Macb rs per ],iour request, Rick Felline from our office anemuted ro
measiue_your doaesric well. I had *ked hiq rc fiy t6 cqnracr you UeforeUaii[ tui
EpPareaflY he *as unshle rc do so. Rick nsed e Eleei tapa iE voui oanesriJGiisda
was uaable ro get- a rcadiug. This was eitlg because *ii watjr level was temilrhrn
rbe steel F.e gr because -rLe steel tape arcountered an obstnrctim rrctr * i til"i
are$or' This is a freguerr.rlcurrcoci with domesric weus-arfbe[eui-Rick gfoG;;;
to.y-ourh.asbaod- I-m srrre that Fjck used ercy 'Ee rre ra get a r.rdng, frciifo* 'til
will not be atteupting !0 measure your well in rire firnue. -
Since Bruc.e Pt"K"v hes beea able p Euasue ycur well ir rhe psst" I woutd
reconmead that. you eoartiaue to use Bnrce to minitor yo* l*"1!. '*ri om"* i,
c'rrrcrnly p.eenuing h48rty. Yheuewran's wetl scross &e sdeet frsm yoqr home.
u'ell provrdes
ftis
us adequate infornraEion on rbe warer level la ]roqr iwrlediat.F Rree
If ynu have any questions, Fleace do not hesitae to courscrse €r (T?f) gs4465s.
MiebaelWiduer
Hy&ogeotogisr
MC\v
#3 6:q' ,
Item 3
Page 116
4.q * 6g

HMEN7 iffi Fi
. ATTA6
#*
' APFRovALoT n nhiiresnoru FRoGRAM
APROVALS OF PAYMENT TO PARCELS WITHIN PROXTdITY AND
-CIOSE
ETVNTIONAL SIMILARIW TO T'ilFiNCTI' WITH SIMILAR IMPACT'
Rummler
Kitchen
This well was cited as the one that -t'1Q.1+9^t:"::t'ie
oftlirJ-.:il.-fiLr?'iJtrr; St"tr u".ksround on Mr- Kitchen's well'
A.r!.rrr|.r EI,,/$A qarl ? 87
impact to mv well bv Mr'
Heika
MurraY
Ronko
ShePPard
StePhans
Turk
MelarkY
Brokaw
Quinn
Nixon
RYan
Savage
Rua
ChamPelovier
Velardi
Mcneall
MYers
Minnaberry
Wnnard (Pending)
Brokaw denied
Dowling denied
Schuerman (UPcoming)
Geniusz- Tessa Well lrnPact
Item 3
Page 117
't,4 "
I C't
rn
4,n el bb
JvIT
t)

.rrs

:G@PY
Tfern 16
SouthTruckee
Meadows
G€neral
Improvenrent
District
(sTMGrD)
Local
Managing
Board
Gerald Schurna&er
Chairman
August 10,2004
VIA:
SIIBJECT:
LocalManegng Board
South Tnrcfee tot"Jo*r General Improvement Distict (STMGID)
Michael Widmer, HYdrogeolod't t$'"d
Paul C. OrPban, P. E-, Engineering Mnzeer6?4ra
-l fut)^
Steve Bradhurs! Director, Deparhe'nt of Water Xex;owcerfl p/
Iocal Managing Board Agenda Item
Approve *a oto.-end that tbe Board of 'Trustees approve a
domestic well deepening reiEbulsemetrt of $8,772'85 to BiIl and Pat
Kitchen
BarryWinzder
ViceCtairman
BiruieMcGavin
SecretarY
EeidiOleson
l\fiember
'lVilliamVance
nde,n*rcr
RECOMMENDATION
The Engineering Manager recommends that the Local ldnnnsin$-Board. approve lrnd
recommend that tbe Board of Trustees approve a domestic well deepeninq - -
reim.bgrse,ment of $8,77i.gS to BiU aod b"t fircrco' APN 150-260-18, 5655 Mt Rose
Ifi.gbway.
BACKGROI.IND
domestic well
STMGD FW#6 and$iqfeet
Theweil has more fhan 30
mouitoredthis well since 1989.St"ffb"tit"* thtt PW#6 bas caused more than ?0
feet ofwater
ustng
y PIIEPIn9
Mr. And Mrs. Kitchen subnitted invoices for $11,846.41. staff'recomnends that
ig,ZiZSS be reimbursed- The additional costs were for new trenching a tr€-s' PlMp
and related o**G tu"t ao not quali$ for reimbursement per STMGID policy'
Administration
doWashoe
CormtYDePt'of
\ilaterResources
,1930Enerry\llbY
Reno,ItV89502
(??1lIJfI
FISCAT IMPACT ,
Sufficient cash exists in the STMGID operations accounto pay tbe reimbursementItem 3
. Page 119
-I
11,
',5Lq*{tr.To

ft /^?

I\[O}.{M ORING WELL ${FORMATIO N
Detailed gror:ndwater level str:-cies j:r tbe south Tnrckee Meadows began )nl9'i7 wrth a
st[dy by the uscs covering tu" ,ootil* end of'the Mt Rose Fan- washoe county
increased. t5e coverage to include w"[, ;;; ;;rr tlg south rruckee Meadows in
""titt
lggz- since 1991, tf,, w"rto. couotv}rp*rt*ent of waierResources has conducted a
resular well monitoring program. crJ;;:;;";;iv
198 wells are rneasured two
tiies per year. I" th, Mt {ose Fan' ;[!; io tn" gro-undwatet level of 20 feet due to
variatioss in naruar recbarge uu.r, il# Jo"u-rol"d. A turenty-year- gqtentiometric
south
surrace difference map Ehows ryy' d' ]ili*:{*f:*,i#:tlt:';"rff
il***:"ff;#;:fftt#iliHd;il;;";*erarvEecrinedl0toZ'reeL
s
rrcducc m=;a- f-Jge-dec-Ene oliEr gFthcr![-l res
:-j-:-=-dt ='*-'- t-J*-tl-t*d't= * t}'it =o#o
A
Dsort'lrerrtcf
,ffi
BiarRrsouEls
Feet
fro rn
mifrqn'*istn
Br"".d rlea'e-inq
*ll e f -
Tnk*n
Figure 10. Item 3
Page 121
20' '" -fezl7oh'en7f
t e-=P i k- a.- " q"^.":*-
I
t d - *' -O.., R qJe, t t ie ;rrrlgan-r-*q-cl sto e-
s a b>at ** t o-*i.rmd u"r i:[_j-t t''t- f [

Thgreareapproximaialy26weilsgeasuredtwiceayearintheGoveri:mentLots'
Several of tbe v,reils have been *.r"*Jity *usho" Co;ty si:ree ibe' laie 1980's' Two
of the wells that uur" i""omeasured rJ"rig i*J"* of t#e are ciesignated moitoring
wells and the rest are domestic wells (Figure 1i)'
^r2:!':.=;i!
Lif:.rri!3rr
Govemment Lots
MONITORWELL LOCATIONS
/
EErtEootltt6
S
H![sdftFdtsirfltd'
6 fr$ir,ra rfcnfchg u"IB- teisvd!4 @0
?. ttd.t|tllt $4idftD $'f}3' Srs|r.lt fEEOsttOtE
A
@w
fr*#Fffi* 9"
Deoartment of Witer
@BEsry iii '
HffifP-
*i1]
oue
\rJ e-L\
Figure 1{.
is
21.
rlel+
?-1.
s
[e*-O n
-r-?
a*1o.\ r- '. { -
Item 3
Ptge122
Cq"A6

oI
JE
833
depth to'water (fr)
HgHH
|\}
S'
gl
h}
O
+ B/1111987
1028/1995
4Fir
o
rF
J
@ --
:
4119EOA1
\ .'
a (
4
{
.r
/t\
\2
I
a
Item 3
10/10/2006 p"g" rzs
?!,
c
5
k'
sG'-#

?n
€\
4T
:b
\a\
7.*
IF
SD
I
1 q
F}
dePth to water {ft}
(,,)9?qcrlIgts\
Egd885o
I$ FJ
cD tJ|
c)(>
o a=.
3 0)
o
F
3 3o
o
fr
3 3_
il1111987
5,ftn994
1131/1 993
10128/1995
o.
712411998
4t1ei2001
.:
1l14lzoo4
r
A
H o
J
Item 3
pzry3el24
10110/2006
o
Et
J
st
rl
J
nl-
-
J
3
o- = q
&
=
c
r-,] A6'

i-'te-i l{ 'n
South Truckee
Meadows
General
bnprovement
Bistriet
(STMGID
Loeal
Managing
Board
5*l-216 $ghnrnacher
Ctrairman
Bar"rYWinzeler
VieeChairman
BiraieMeGavio
SecretarY
IIeidiOleson
I\der&€r
WilliamVance
Merdler
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Srarp Fsroer
BO.{RD r"frst$lC DATE: JTILY 77'7804
Juty 13,2004
Board of Trustees
South Tnrckee Meadows Geueral bnprovement Disfrict
Yfrv*
JobnM. Col1ins, Manager' Utiliby Serviceq
paurorphan,rgrniem.?Y?:::^Ty,ry!]xerwe"';:;
I3l+H
.E4urr_zryer-*--
'6cP
g {ra{C F
gi ++si q,ilgmban@m ail' co'washo e'nv
"FpsteveBradhurst,
Director, Departnent of water Resources N $J-
THROUGET:
Aep**I\'ti9=h?'lH"il'!";i:'-if
leerovl ltti:,n?gtlelK4 '"qt"':"i}'i -;il
SUBJECT:
" f ?'f *;iffif#:::E:H#y1
flose HiEtway (A-PN
;ffi;ttt. *tll deepeuing located at:o^^
iiuieursl, in the of $7'870'00'
"tioot
SU\4N4ARY
rhesouthrruckeey"d:*^G:11*.Hil"gf,#:5"1ff'f"X*il*'"ff "
Reimbursementof Costs forDeepen:ng
;;;;;r,
Local Managrng il;;l; zi'zoaa and Julv 19' 2004 n
glven for this reimbursement'
approvalwas
gI\4/ACM_N/A_
Fio"oc. 45
DA-4-
RiskMel.ff
I{R-N/A-
Other-N/A-
CountyPriority/Gouf'opPol*O]H,i'"*:Planning:Manageandprotectregional
water resources 'o u 'o'iuioable' cost-effective mallner'
PREVIOUS ACTION
on october 73,20alJhe Board. of Trustees approved the Policy for the Reimbursement
of costs for Deepening Domestic ii"iliil""h"u). zooo' the Board of
.since
Tnrstees Uas
"pprovfffiu, io*"rti, *"U;;;p';"idtri*b*tt-euts
for the South
TruckeeMeadowsGenerallmprovementDistrict.
BACKGROI.IND .:
Administration
c/oWashoe
CountYDePLof
WaterResources
4930EnergtlilaY
ReaorlW89502
(77$ 95445S0
onApril2s,2o04lvlr.IleikftacontactedtbeDeparmentofWatelResourcesaboutt]re
condition of his a"Jrtir-*.if, locate{ in the "&vemmqrt l-ots" at 5605 M' Rose
-s
Hi glway (ApN r s o-i?i- i s j. - rrryu""1 ilttdd enior Hvdro geo 1o grst with the
Deparlmen! i"rri;"e t#war d;c zowTa concuaea ttiat water level
""
declines rru o""#;i;rhtr ;;t t" ",,ffi;irhtttJ'
!"1'
rc' Heikka proceeded with
the deepening oir,i, *;r-and request.Jtrr"trr" south rnrckee Meadows General
rtem 3
. Page 125
68

STI'.4GD Boarti of Trustees N[eetiag of iuiy Z7 '2004
?aee2 of2
I:aprovement District leimburse tbe $7,8?0.00 cost of deepening the vrell' staff
o".*.uoe"A,nL,;.ii"ilLig"!A-aq,Tiotlrgt"li-i5L&etb*"u09**"tPt-l""d
;""i1"* *ttl*nti:rue frone STMGD #6 puaplng'
Mr. Heikka'* o""Uy *ighbor is Bili Kitchen' whose $/ell water level has been
measuredbystarrJ;'fi t'rn"oPfit"lt:::f,n":1"::*:::";"i#:l#ff "
T:trJi$Ji,lTJd;;. ii i, ,rrr, opi"ro" tnuit feer or more orthe decline
""oty
Mr.Heil&a,swelli'a".t"tn'p..,*pi"gofSTMGIDProductionWell#6and
tberefore the Heikka request meets STdCil *Jr a"tp*i"g reimbursement criteria'
Backup ts this itr*"*!" found in attachJ Local Managing Board agenda items'
._
FlscAL ri\'r8ACT
sufficient cash exists in the STMGID operations aocounto pay the reimbursement'
RECC[4]!@NFATISN
The Local Managrng Board recorn:neads that the Board of Trustees approve Michael
Heilka,s request roii.i*t*rement fo, u Jo*"stic weil deepening located at 5505 Mt'
il"* meh*.v (APN tio-zOO-ts), in the amount of $7'870'00'
POSSIELE MOTION
should the Board agrcewith stafrs recommendation' a possible motion would be:
..Approve Mchael fi"iH."', req*est flioi*u*t"*ent for a domestic well deepening
located ar 5605 Mt. Rose Highway (APNG0-260-15), in the amount of $7,870'00'"
SB:JMC:PO:Ird\ff:sr
c: KathY Garcia' ComPtoller
Jim JePPson" Risk M"nager
Ron Steele, Fiscal AnaiYsttr
JerryMcKlligbt Finance and Operations Manager
TedRolfs, Flscal Compliance Officer
WendY Bennet! Accountant Il
'
P : I S TM GIDI Tr aste sAg en daltemslC uni-II-I nterlo c olWeeling
9i
Eq */
Item 3
Page126
T4
r6

The cbange in tbe. static rnater level from 1959 to i990 when tbe domestic well vras
drilied was approxmately ?5 feet. rhe iJu ioi, *at"* *:aitue water iabie &opped"lS
il; 31 v#s ru =;::*:t l,.jd;;#[F.*:J:t*H ffi:I&T
;*Hffiili::?nffiHffi1?"u
*ug". washoe"countv D eparment or vrater
Resor:roes *-*,t"i-*U"'r*iric water b; fJhis sarne domestic well at 5852 Mt Rose
giglway in octobei ioo+. The staiic *J"i rt""r in October 2004'was 223'85 feet below
land surface. Tbe change in th9 LUr' to* 1990 to 2004 is approximatety 50'85
Y"t"-t
feet in 14 years. The;rater table in '!t- ;; declined * *"'"g" of approximately 3'63
feet Per Year since 1990'
The other drill togs for fhis area include drill 1og num-ber 50191' This &ill log is for a
welt tocated
"t sdil"M;R;; t{i$;v, APN iio-zso-03 (Fig*e a)' This weil was
deepened in 199tio a a"p* 9t
Z{|i#'U"fo* hnd surfaee' fhe static- water level in
1995 was 131 feet iel,ow land ,*f"";:-TL;"*gi""r atiU tog is not availab-le' The last*
drill log is log nuoaU"r+f 133. Tbis a'itt tog is ?o1a *tU ili"t"a at 5837 Stephens Rd'
ApN 150_250_r9.*{-his *"ir ** dd'"d in t-ggs. The wet is 295 feet deep andthe statrc
water level in i99i;; 2A4 feetU"f"* f*a sr:rface' The static water levels show a
general decline over time in tbe *"^ Jru u" of the deepeaed weil
"*".ption
Most of the wells i:rthe Government Lots were drilled to depths-gr:*t: {t* 200 feet' lt
would appear mta" *"rs in the *"u o"u, the appticants uua gs]ro' feet of water i:r the
well casing at th; ti-, oi*ortntttt;;' I"{"Jof ihe wells in tbis area were drill between
1985 and 1995. Tbe majority ot*ie-weUs are less At* iO V"ars old'^ The3vera*e static
water levels in the late 1980's *"n. 150 feet btl#I*d surface' The only drill
"ouoa
log availabt" r* trri* area prior to rg7-0 i- the inigation well located at 5852 Mt Rose
Hig[way. ru. ,t"ti" *uto t".r"t f* rb; ;;J";t tgzo was probably 100feetbelow
the land surface'
f"*:'"f L:-J:,tr'#fff:ffi :uT"#Tqpf jHr-'*T"JiHffiLli*:
-i"
iffi :"*y,"#H#::iil";E'f,'*'F*.r':::::"H,"-3;,ffig
Ant area that have had #t w9ils
rn the past 10 vears, 13 weils F:.P*^d::ryTt.":j?:T:*,f$j"Tff#J:lfrf;
Centerjoqq
ifu-to* of the d*P="d*tlltg
-F \"Ji 5 I
l^* f 1.tf
G- hi tlte,r
i v1^-t u& i-o
""*.b*^
PDd
inFi
- + Yj
Lar-,.t i
O Lt saAE_+ '
\o ts*-i
10.
Item 3
Pagel2T
e 0 *ft"(

static water Levels have been eonitored on the sTIvfGID production weils si:rce 2002'
The water levels'*" o"o'aed as o'0"ll as wbether or not the pu:rp is on or off' These
values have been put into a single fle ; *."nnra t: tbe change in tbe waler table
:9*
at the production *"U Aig*. b;. -I.n" **!trt" pumpTg records' drill lcgs' static rvater
level tables for the irodu"iioo o'.il, *"rJ*t; Mi,o]*,,y's are locafed in Appendix C'
ST}IIGID T5
g 200
J
5 3oo
G
3
=
!D 400
EH EEEEEffi=EngegE
$s
REE
STIIIGID F6
3
I c
B
o
o
100.
't50,
200
250
HEEgE
EsEE
SEES
Datr
Figure 9.
----
| --c-srMGlD#6
I
#f'6]t
(" til"lt_l
-J rP
E E

1h€O}WT SRTN G WELL INF ORIVIATION
*;"J#l;*"r"Y'#n:"ff#"i',if ,*"i"n'#*ffi 3ii';';,fr:f ffi i*;:ff T
sinceleel,thewashoeco'untvD.-p*:-'ll,f^Y'T1*?:T:TJff"ffi|r;"1;*';ilfi
ff H;ff "ffi :Tlff H'#]--tr'i*?'I'lioT"[1":f":*l*:#*Un*:*;
*ffi YJ"ffi:ffi ;:ffi
*ff
"Lff"?^y:{*tt"'"$1"S5;Hffi fffiH:
rss:T5KT!L:i:l.ii"ffi:"*r,+:}H",g,r*;'"l "'#1f v'
notgagfi- n'*g-P.
\+c,r---- ri^-^ .x
A
rn€s *1c- *-*"f,. E ucj^- as m''{n-4
'
T

;4 n\,.+1 u*"T" u*- "fh,s-^.ij*.,{; k-e i-r F
o$!*' , .! ,^&41'^.,.*
rlf
*l"e-s44* '
't'
'7uia
Thereareapproxitaately26-ll,elislaea-qwedtwiceayear-intheGovelExtentLots.
Several oi the weils have beea *"**JJU' WasUo" Corlf' sfurce
"be late 1980's' Two
of the we1ls thath#;;;basurea qt-f"ie a*utt* of are designated nonitoriag
"#"
wel1s and the rest ase domestic wells @igtlre 11)'
4 '
fvL.
lP
Government
Lots
MONffOCWELL LOCATIONS
/\/
hr*lEdr'fiE
. &
DcrEF dftodftintwr&
t99a
O Feddldbldodtdtigvr&'Llstyffi
d, Rcfd.ddd ltslt'orbt w€tr3' llrstrd lGffittatffi
{g|
fEdD&nwe
[ffif:8'.*
@ffiW
I;+r--4
Departrnent af Water
H:m*
Figiure 11.
21.
;'-
Tf-
Item 3
Page 130
L1 ,!-69

e 4 "{"CK
a n*c-I*-r*'J/.-^ :l:fi I,"J' iE zt "0.*?
+J et\* { \'nj1
ao*US"-; -*q"
*;'#;;";P-i'4i}\+'i1'Y
tu
Tbre long term mo*i'."'"! t=*.
rT4 '"]W:
fU. gttpb" for all of dre moni'uor:::g wel
show a conti:rual declioe in rhe water sturt a4e"il?i"* zoo+' The average A'':il
"b;;;;
drop in the warer ,rti, ln rhe pasr to ,ril'i *nto*i*"t"rv ll2 afootto 4 feetper year' ; ** .
4WllSge
140
MelarkeY DorneSic
g14rzo01
5/18/2004
150
|I
o
rg
160
|
I
170 II
180
190
Change in Water Eevation
- 46'85' in 15 Years = 3'12 feet per year
= o
@
cl
1I31/1e93
200
210
?20
sTnfiGID F.fiw#6
10/28/1995 71?.411998
1t14l2OO4 10/10/2006
Change in Water Elevation
- 66'9 ' in 16 years = 4'18 feet per year
9F
6
B o
-ro
o
tl
,,
Item 3
Page 131

{iichen'rffeli
o
(!
7
o
o
:Et
sI1 1'1 SB7
280 ,
9RE
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
1028/1995 7t2+11s98
Change in V\bter Eevation - 32'3'in 15 years = 215 feet per year
MurraY domestic well
41192OA1 1t14t2c,c4 10/10/2008
.Tfu
//
t\
u-l e- Lt
c[ose={
+.c>
P!-yre=el
W\t n8-"
-t-.9
1?J8188
205
1a8tg1 1?J7t92 1?J7193
12l7tg4
1w195
210
2; 215
622.0
rE
> ?25
-- o
73Q
9ot
240
245
Ronkos Domestic We[l
1028/1995 712411998
1t141?oo4 10/10/2005
lo
o
o
6
a
o
o
tt
|ft
ct
c\I
ro
c{
o d)
rrl
(D
Change in Water Elerration
- 33'4 in 14 years = 238 feet Per year Lq4bg
o
24.
81.
Item 3
Page 132

25. Item 3
. Page 133
w
^ r/
G6*Lab
The welrs is this area flirctuate i:e their amo'nts of decpe over years' Tbe *rells that
"he
-ffere measo-a *"*-slMGID #6 -pp-;;;;;a hi-ehe1t-i- -t decbne tban the weils
that are farrber fi."* rh;;;[ ditfi##; ;tid*
9;;; t**ured every 6 months
fron the time that in rcp +e u"g* pii"'"d"i n" first 12 years of aeasuremefls
showed a decti:re * d;;", tabt:of #H;-il* it atop in the table -water
"q;-t"l
equal to abo*t tel'iJro-, V"", g^an" *",.. table was *""ta i00 feet ir 1959 and the
water table was t+8 feelin 198t then $rat ";;t"g; atip T the water table
"pp;;*;"r"'y
;i;;"srMcrDou-;ff :13;:tT,sjl:ffi S{::ni;ffi t.
ffi'"
ff-";;;a;;E"i*t?qq9'
i gsq6r99g.=T', ffi pr""#d;'fi;i
the warer rable as ,#"'Jrur-*""irdri"J;r#
soutn of tbe Govemment Lots'
g9i-. r q ee did not appear to inctease
rur .arr*" Terrace Estates zubdivision
Th:.ffi" a'pears to have a ru''1t !&v vr *--
WATER QUALITY
There are Do known sipificant water quaiity problems in the Government Lots'

Board of Tn$tees Agenda for Special Meet'rlg on Gctobar 9'2041
2:00 p.m.
*1. Roli Call
z.ApproveareimbursementofSI32T2.00tolgs]eySheppardforredrillingadomestic
w-eli at 1592;ffi;' R"t" Highwav leru $a-zsa4q
*3. pubiic cornments *d oir"*sion thereo n (trree ndnute time limit per person dnd limited
to items not listed on the agenda)
,r4.Board.andStaffComments(Iimitedtoannouncernentsorissuesforfuareagenda)
5. EmergencY Items
6. Adjourn
unless otherwise indicated b_y asterisk (*), ali items on the agenda are action items upon which
the Board of Tnrstees may take acuon'
P : E TM GID\has teeB a ar dA gm'daslt 0-9 -0 I Sp eeialMtgAgatda
CT;
o t-
Item 3
Page 134
Lt *{b6

fo.
t|l'
o
a6a'
as
sE
=4.
$g
o?
3g
ts5
5
6
Etr
o-
ie -q(!l
c
EFE
'
{4
'ttlr
E
EC
Ei/
Hi'E*
E;EEE
iEi83 -g,igii
EsEEi
i+=:l
G#766
iAits

A}PENDD( B

wFsIE-DrvrsioN oF TilATER REsoURcEs brars u' rrsrry--
JifiiFl.a;erns
sNr-wsLL
t. owNER.....
co*v^--
DRILI,ER'S coPY
sraTE sF NEYA}}A qqnce:e13Y
I
FEV[S''N oF *ATER RESstrR^cES I Loe
vr!&urvrr v-
sErr DRILLERS REPST ft
Ptease cornpleie this fotm in ttg enfirqry
'fS'
I j***-""-" "- " """ " ' """" " "' "' "'
.'i
Nr.-.-gi_8-__5-3....-..,....--..--
..,, i-"i [ ..eennitNo._-
ql.*+.:*:i-1--.9*r"-*r^9:!'v-"IF"Yj'-"8"e-7'-0'1"-
-l!-i+i:"alaa5.yft3sfgil:::'--;:::-:--:;:;-:':-"-"::-1t:t;trt:;;::-::: -:viiiiji::--:;*o
;;;i;_4i*#1.4*sIs.4F*-.i.?............r.'..--1.9.---.'-'....''.....N
TYPE OF WORK
New'ffell 4l
Recooditiou tr
Deepen tr
IXTHOLOGIC LOG
tr
1. PROPOSED USE
Po-oti. E Irrigation D Test tr
*Jana g Industrial tr Stock tr
5. TYPE WELL
Cable ! Rotaatsfl
Otber [
/\ir
Matqrrrl
Soil
te Bldrs-sano
c'l a
for
wat
Gravel Pacted: Yes:{f No t-l
Gravet packerl fros-.--'--'--'-'']"5Q-tt"'
to-'--29?--"'--'--tet
'':*-"--*---
Fro--------------*'Jcet
!--1 ia to--*----*-" -----------.Jeet
:---
WATBR LB\EL
Static x,ater level------?3&'---'Feet
below laad surfacc'--'-"-"''-'--'-
;il--.:-..*-------------ao--'- G'P'M "w'lt'h'-d'n-'-*"""---------
Water tcnlterature---*"*"o F Quality-'-'-"::::-*-
1
(D
G.P.
WEIJ- TEST DATA
10. DRIiTERS CERTIFICATION
This weil wag ddtled uoder my eopcrvision aod tho rcport is tflrc to
the best of mY kaowledge'
AddrEsc..--.--*
G,P,M.----.-...'.'.---'.. ----'::1:::= BAILER TEST
Signed-r-r.-il
Drarr dovn------Jeet ----hours
Draw down .....-..-Jcct ,---.."hours
Draw down.--.""-'feet ---.*....bsurs
USE IDDTTIONAL ETTEET8 IT I{ECEESATT
L.
*,--- wAYtrE DRr-I-IlL9r....I{.9:-.-*-...
Name-..-.----.-
..,--- P. o ^ Box lli?9..13.'-:..i.:.Y.19.1-...9?.?l-- --.'-
. 140\,
Nevads coatractof's license nunber-----'-
Nevada drille.r's liccoss nunber "'2"A"1""""""' "
o*n
@

G<
:vEfiTp-DrvrsroN oF wATER xr:gdlthlis
CAI{ARY_CI,IE}NPS COPY
PTNi(-\9ELL DRN.LER'S CS"Y
'e ,. o**"*d#ss QttJrvlu-
ST'ATE SF NEVA&A
DIVTSION OF l.ryATER
WEI,L DRILLEE.S
Pleare conplete thie forn iitr lts
'
NewWell
Deepen
TYPE
X tr
OF WORK
Rccondition
Other
IJTIiOLOGIC LOG
tr
tr
4. PROPOSED USE
Domestic 4 Irrigation tr Tegt D
Municipal tr Irrdustrial tr Stocl D
5. TYPE WELL
Cable ft RotarY.H:
Othcr tr
sloFTo fd' wsLt- eoNsrRUcrIoN
pium-ut"rhobt-?.(f:----....--.inchesTotaldeptb-Sl'-O*".--tnt
iffhes
Frm
------8----*lnt
9. WATER LBVEL
'A
Static wats larcL/'O-Q----Feet below land surfuce------.-
w"to'eJp.""toofuzlz-'
F QualitvAcr'oD
W3,LL TEST DATA
Datc comlilctcd-
F__, "2?- $29-
10, DRILLERS CERTMCATION
Tbig well war drilled uadcr my supervision aud the report i8 truc to
thc best of my kaowlcdgs.
x"'",fu grQ-ffi ltlt"aafusz*.r&r.:'tt.Le*-/.[k
Puap RFM
G.PTd"
N&ada contractor's liccnsc vr/-frf-L-
"n
G.P.M.-.--
G.P.M........-.--
BAILER TEST
Draw down-..-....,..Jeet -.---.-hour
Xhaw down-.-*-.Ject ---.hou$
Draw down-.-.,.,--.Jcet .,.-...-..houn
p.,"..3--:*#-.2.2..
U8A ADDMOI{AL gHEETS Itr ICE|CEESATX
Item 3
-Puge'13tr-
s17r €i'

wASfroE# wL030152
STATE OF I'IEVADA
D|VISION OF WATER RE$OURCES
WELL DRILLER'S REPORT
1. OWNER
$nrr-rr.ro
ADDREss
ffitj ill
Date started
Date completed
Russ Quinn
15E75 Mt Rose HwY
ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION
2. Location sw 1/4 $e 1A sec 26 T t8N R 19E Washoe county
PERMIT NO.
PARCEL NO. 150.250.32
SUBDIVISIONAME
-===========-5=========================-==================a=============================s
3. WoRKPERFORMED | 4- PROPOSEDUSE | 5' WELLTYPE
NewWell Reptacr Recondltlon i Oor*Uo lnlgation T"'t I CaUto Rotary RVC
Deepen X Abandon other I MunicipaUtndustriat Monhor --t]:1----l---]T--====T:=====Sl
===:::::===;::==::==========-===a====-================================================
6. LITHOLOGIC LOG | 8. - WELL CONSTRUCTION
E -,rL ^---i n {A^l
l===================lj=:::;:=;;========= i Depth Dritled
:ntontti 'l i i li sst4 lnches 0 feet 310 feet
-.t-r - {a=l
-.-J.{-. *l-. .-l- ----+-.i ---l- . -
l' { 0
i i i i oi c19lry.9,qqH:?",'
I | | | A^UFnttlE
o isir" o.D. I WeighuFt. I WallThickness
From To
dUmpedneatcementtOsuffacel | | 0lSEe().U. lWelgnvrt'lYYarrrrrrehr'e9g I "vrl I '
I I I i 0i(lnches)'l (Pounds) I (tnches)
'
lq9:!ll::t
i i i oibrya" 12's4 188 +11t2 310
tt ll0
PerTimHunt I I I I 0
R-390 0 | Perforations::
O I TyPe Perforatlon Factory
0 i Size Perforation 3132 r 3"
0 i From feetto feet
o i From feet to feet
i i i oi From feetto feet
i i i oi From feetlo l":l
o i From feet to feet
0
cD E i i i i oi $urrace€-eal.LIEs No sealrvpe:
6 't 'l I i i ol Depthof Seal3t0feet
xNeatcement
= L b i i i i oi PumPed cementGrout
l-jj q t2 i f I I 0l xPOUred conoreteerort
l:,:. o- ',i
i i i t 0l GravelPacked: Yes No
'J I | | I
[.: rn :.i i i I I 0l From 310 feetto 0 feet
* : '2 i i i i 0l============================E::::-:=
.'r .5 I | | I Y I
:lt = iI i r I r gle WATERLEVEL
feet -*-pegJlc-1tjj
0 feel
Materiat waterl Fr.rn I ro I rni"ti HOLEDIAMETER(BITSIZE)
str.ti I I n*l Ftot,--^ l:
; i j-. -i oi --inohes --{eet -'feeth-o!eplqschip.-c.--.
i r I I oi inches feet feet
U = H i I i I i i oistaticwaterleveS00 feetbelowlandsurface
V ersrrvrrsrer retevvli
5 i i i i otArtesianflow 0 GPM 0 P's'l'
| |
I
't^t
i i I I 0lwaterTemperature cold DegreesF Quality
================================
10.
DRILLER'S CERTIFICATI ON
7-15 -03
7-15 -03
7. WELLTEST DATA
TEST METHOD: Bailer PumP
GlP.M.
Draw Dc$rn
(Feet Bald|r Static)
x
Alr Lift
Tnre OouIE)
Ttlis Mre[ was ddlled undef rfiy supewision erd the rePort is tsw to the
b€t of rny l$o\nledge.
Name McKaY Drilling' Inc.
2290 Pioneer Drive
Reno' NV 89509
NV Contractors No. 14170
l.W Dritlefs Llc (on site) l261Ti
;;
Date 7-30 -03
NT NO 45830
-
,'i-., qtot2
By driller performtng aatual drilling on site or co$tractor
Item 3
Page 139

wAsHoE# wL010177
STATE OF I'IEVADA
DIVISION OF WATER RE$OURCES
WELL DRILLER'S RFPORT
1. OWNER Russ Quinn
ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION
MAILING ADDRESS 15875 itt Rose Hwy
Reno NV 89511
2. Location sW 114 aE U4 Sec 26 T 16N R 1sE Washoe County
PERMIT NO.
PARCEL N0. 150-250-32 SUBDIVISION NAME
================================================================
3. WORK PERFORMED 4. PROPOSED USE 5. W ELL TYPE
Nen Wetl X Rapbce Reconditlon X Domestic
lrigation Test Cabte X nAary RvC
Abanclon Othel
Municipal/lndustrhl Monltor Stock Air Other x Mud
6. LlrHoLoclc LoG | 8.
WELL CONSTRUCTION
============$================s============= I Dgpth Dfilled 443 feet DePth Cased 443 feet
Msterial Waterl From I To I nr*-l
HOLE DIAMETER (BIT SIZE)
stratal I I nessl
From To
Fill top soil, boulders.
I g___L_qq-l--59.1
. feet .... E0
_..J ...
.- -.._1.1-_.. __ ."inshea..-a
feet
I I150 | 0l 81t2 inches 50 feet 443 feel
Sand, pee gravel,
195 145 |
inches
feet feet
0l
CASING SCHEDULE
Fractured rock, sand.
t95 235 100 lSize O.D. I WeighUFt. I WallThickness I From I To
(lnches) | (Pounds) | (lnches) | (Feet) | Feet
Drilled blind.
295 45
55/8
12.94 188 +1 llT 443
'
jj:.:
'-)
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date started 9-21 '01
DstB completed 10-3 -01
Th'rs
==============--==============================
7. WELL TEST DATA
TEST METHOD: Baller PumP x Air Llft
G.P.M.
75
Drsw Oorvtl
(Feet Below Stat'ro)
Time (hours)
2.5
================================== 3==========:
Perforations::
Type Perforation
Slze perforation
From 372
From
From
From
From
Factory
3/32 x 3"
feetto 432
feet to
feet to
feet to
feet to
Surface Seal X YES No
Depth of Seal 50 feet
PumPed
x Poured
Gravel Packed: X Yes No
From 50 feetto 443 feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
feet
l=====================-======================
Seal Type:
Neat Cement
x Cement Grout
Concreie Grout
' WATER LEVEL
Statlc water leve154 fdet below land surface
Artesian flow 0 GPM 0 P'S.|.
WaterTemperature cold Degrees F Quality
10, DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION
r{rdltirds drilled under nry supeMsim and the rcport ls tue to th€
bcst of rny knowledgc,
Name McKayDrilling,Inc.
2290 Ploneer Drive
Reno, NV 89509
NV Contractorc No. 14170
NV Drillefs Lic
Slgned
i oatb 10-10 -ol
By driller perlonnlng sctual drflllng gn sile or contrector
3==
[==============-======================I*gE
Page 140

Ql^
wr{ITlr,-DrvrsxsN OF WATER RESOURCES
CANARY-CLJENT'S COPY
rTNT_WU.I, I'RILLER'S COPY
PRINT OR TYPE QNLY
l*i"'T"*il;,,
Elraft
547
;.;ffir.-----1tr--',.---1il--
v' s' -.lf =;rj
PERMIT No.--fra'n;
E New Well
E Deepen
ied rock
:nrl
frac
STATE OF'HEVADA
DrvTsrol,r oF wArER REsouRcEs t ihTi;
WELL DRTLLER'S REPSRT
Please cornplete this form in its entirety in
*iitr uns 534.170 snd NAc s34'340
"";;;;;";
r,A NOTICE
onsonYd'ffffii!'!ffi8'6
895II
WELL TYPE
WORK PERFORMED
4. PROPOSED USE
E cautc El norarY D nvc
D Rcolacc D Recondition El Domestic ! l"icf i* E ::-": Ei eir O ottrerndustrial
D Monitor tr S19t!
! Abandon ! other- ----
WELL coNSTRUcrIoN -rA
LIII{OLOGIC LOG
nrilrca-- 4-0-*-'Feet oepru cased--i}9--Fcet
Sir: O.D.
(Inchcs)
Eot-e nu'urrER GIr sI7'E)
From
To
:uif,::mS"'-"i:iihl;:
CASINC SCHEDULE
'Wcigbt/Ft. Wsll
Frcm
(Fcct)
Perforations:
Type
Size
tsfom.._;#- !1n f^d
Frorr-290-.--*'--feet
to--J*il--_
From-.--- ----fc* to --feet
*il""-t-, ,HJ," ! No
ttll3i;.".*,
Depth of Scal--lYi-..- 6ce*eot Otout
placement Mctbod: Q eurnped
E Concrote Grout
trl Poured
Gravel Packed,:,.,,., El Ycs
? i-: 310 _rccr
Datc srartcd-----ff-
Datc
WELL TEST DATA
TEST METHOD:
c.P.M.
__. tg.-\?
Air Lift
Timc (ItouE)
'l;ild Nevada contractor's liccnsc numbcr 117\2
byiil statc contracror's Board-'i:':i-
Ncvada driller's license number ftf-,,--
'--di*isoo 1*ud 9I
orwaEr Rcsourcci' the on-sItp odler-
112
"€
WA1ER LI]VSL
218- fect bclow land surface
i,o,l, r,u,", l"n"r
Artesian flow -- ----- -G'1,*{;;;;---P's'l'
.r:=- 1=-r3rslr,eg9_"f elupJftY--Y:-=:-
PN.TUIEX'S CERTIFICATION
10, DruLLErs '
Thisweltwasdrillcdundcrmysupervisionandthereportistructothc
best of mY knowledgc'
naa*.r-3'9: Jea-99L I*-
FaIIon, Ilv 99199
USE ADDMONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY
roxa

|l,
TEIITE_9IVISIGN
OF WATER EESOURCF^S
hliffi;:lHT".5$'?'oo"'
PRINT OR fiPE ONLY
DO NOT WRITE ON BACK
MAILINC
,.- ioao",n"
PF,,RMIT NO
lvlarty
sw --v.-lE-'L
CTATE OF'NEVADA
FWTSIGN OF iqATER' RESOURCES
INTELL DRILLER.'S REFORT
Please complete this form in ils entirefy iu .-
NR^s s34.1?o and NAC s34'340 NOTICE OF INTENT
"*;;;;;l'rh
Scheuerman
ADDRESS WELL LOCA
coa Dr
s'"'* zo
WORK PERFORMED
a New Wcll D Replacc E Rccoudition
il E ebanaon D other.-
LITHOTDGIC
LOG
59 [.Qarl_Dt-
Rose
E Domestic fl Irrigation D test
E il""ii"p.'rt"ousnial D uo-nitor. E sock
5. TfELL TYPE
E cabte EknotarY tF*5lvc
D eir u other-=:*--'
*'
l"o* o*"u--i-i{*.F91 L?f,'I'3jl*--9?-9*--'*'
with
semL
oulders
Lders
Wcishl/Ft'
(Po-uods)
tffrll Thicknss
(lnchcl
To
(F@o
Garse
sands &
Sizc Perfqglion- 2' I --)' +-
Emm---.4i1----.*.--fect
JUU -feet
iffi_-_:
Srr.to. S"uf, Et Vc.s ,p
No
Depth of ScaL.-----_-..*
Placement Method: El PumPed
Li Poured
Seal Type:
f,tNcat Ccment
El Cement Grout
D Concretc Grout
.,1
Gravel ?acked:-, E Yes [l no .)1-t
;;-:_J!-.*@
ONNTSN'S CERTIFICATION
10. ut(tLl-r:K o eENrr' 'v t"v ' '
Datc
Da|e
1
6/7le3
WELL TEST DATA
TEST METHOD: D Bailcr E tumP
DnwDom
G.P.M. Bdw Sutlc)
:El eir lin
Time GIdB)
Thiswellwasdrilleduode'mysupervisionandthcrePortistnretotbe
.. 625 SPrCE rSLAI{DS DR SUrIE-.L--
Addrcss --------;iil;i;-
SPARKS, NV 89431
Nevada contractor's liceosc number
issued bY Se S*t" Contractor's
L529L
1511
USE ADDMONAL SSEETS TT NECESSART
,Ifiern&'
Prge142

wasHo'r 6931
1. OWNER Lesley sheppard
srArE oF NE'ADA
rrllfUfr'fe ADDRESS 15925 Mount Rose Hwy
Rcno NV
Z. Location sW 1it sE '!/4 Sec ?E
T 18N R ttE
t, rffffifr"st
DlvlsloN ON oi Ur wnien VVA I c'rr REsouRcEs rsEevunvLv ' -
,;'* i
-ff
--. \
Wf f-f- DRILLER'S REPORT
r Pnnnirf$o'e
I. Uasln. F+tv '. '
NOTICE OF II.ITENT'+IB' 4,
ADDRESS A,T wELL LocATloN r59zs MduqRose
AuuKtrub A I vvELL Lvvn ' 'v! r - q"".f
Washoe County
bEc'r'rr PEP.MIT hrr'r ttO.
PAP.CEL
PAu.(-trL l'10. |.lU' 150-250-3+
l?u-:Jv-r-
SUBDtVlslol'l I'[A'ME
t================s=====

H#fu:ffihl?Hffi.-ouRcEs
PRIHT ORTYPE ONLY
DO }IOT WRITE ON BACK
STATE OF I{EVADA
DMI$lCtr{ CIF WATER RESOUR.CES
WELL DRILLER'S REFORT
Pleese c*npldethis form tn its entirdy in
*;ro--;-$tf, Nis ssa'rzo hlAc 534'340
"t'd
LcgNo...,
Permii NE.
Basiil
NOTICE OF INTENT
A' '- t ADDRF'' AT *ELL L'.ATEN 5795 carl Dr'
El. owHee Mik€'Dowling
- - ---' - I
vMTuHGADDRESS 5795 Carl Dr.
_-l-_
nN6rWdl
EDoepon
WORKPERFORMED
DReplace ln'econaliot
Deuanaon Llohet -
LITHOLOGIC LOG
pERMrrNo,
_yrcffi#-4-
;.'- *ELL co*srRusrlA" -^^ Feot
i"ptr omreo
ffieree(BrstrE)
Ea*
To
e,!q-
r'*'"" --iio l*1
50o :3
_ t*,]l"- t_t
s'€E O.o.
lnches
--#
Feet r@1 --
CASING SGHE9ULE
W,*5' | *"['lHS*'
Foet
Frcm
(F6e0
Grqvel Pacl€d: []ves filNo
Fetb
From
WATERLEA'EL
Sls$cwaletfclel 2L4-"
.-G,p.ir.
ht bslo r hnd lurbc€
OsErbrisd 9lt{t200l'
oar csnpteteo gttcxzoot
, ----------.
7,
!trLl-rFlrlll!--
TESTIJETHOD: lgdl"r EPUnP
Draw Dovrn
G,P.l[ Geet Sdox
Bnrrui
Time (Houfs)
HameEnrceltiacKaYJueL-Welk?endceJoc'
Cot*rfclof
Address 1600.ML Ro.ee-tlWy..
Cdtrta|or
Beno,-t{Vl9!11-*--'
-#Sffn$il'ffiiil*'rl*
*ffio"e,"111[Tr'J$ffi &HSH'*TF'*
17.19
ffiFler.-stte;rs
qq
FNEcEssA'RY
Item 3
Prgel44

i r\l\
WETTE-DTVISION OF \ryATER RESO{JBCES
CANANY-CLIEM'S COPY
PTI{K_\T'EI.L DRILLER'S CT}PY
oR TYPE
q;"*
1. owNER---
MAILING
ADDR
ONLY
KEN NIXON
i. rccnrto N..-'--.-Nl{-.---- vo -."'-'Sx'-"' t/o scc ""
PERMTT N o. --*.i,&.i.ifi
Rcsortce$
Ncw Well
Decpen
TYPE
d
tr
OF WQRK
Recondition
Other
UTHOLOGIC LOG
STATE GF NEVADA
BIVTSION OF WATER RESOUR.CES
WELL DRILLER'S REPORT
Pleaec complete thls form in its entirety
NoncE oq
ADDRESS AT WELL t,ocA
O
tr
-l-i-.llF-u..-..-...I/sn!9---'--"r*-'=-'-::':.
#u''-t.*P
.County
5. TYPE WELL
v
Cable E RoarY E
odrcr E Air
&
WELL coNsTRUCTloN rEn
J,*or, -'-'
tn"n",
9^5/8
[otar
agg,trr=f3*-reet
u - )u rE'
__19-in"h*
-inches
I
4. PROPOSED USE
oo-oc, 6 lrrigation tr Tcst tr
Mudcipal D lndust'ial n-----jg-
c"ri^r."Il'25d'-s!ec1Jegrle-':er-crt:e$50-**-
Weight per foot- ' "*--Thickness--'--
Fm
T-^
sollle c
zone,
ro1'ln c
f zooe, anL
nr_c
own to black
ilrr.o.J' v"t E No tr Tvpc---c9[l9rrt-glo'ut-
Depth of scd+**'---*---50'..*-._-f""t
:"*lo'":1'--Y 6 {d o--.r*, .o-_
Gravel Packed ftom.-*-/-\
250 .s""t
DaE
Dat€
o-1 -
19....-.
l9-_
WAI'ER LEVEL
io,i" *oo, 1*"r 11? - - -- feet belorp land surfacc
;;;--- --2=l .. o.p't't'-----_----rs''
Flow.---*?T-----
n.l aar
water temperanrreJ9r-o'-'r QuilV--
IO,
DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION
ft'l$ wiil was drilled under my suporvision and Sre report is truc to thc
.1
WELL TEST DATA
BAILER TEST
Ncvada conrractor's license
""f,lT*ro-_?E_a9--
issued bY drc Sotc Contract(
Nevadr conraaor's &iller's number 908
";;;
t tht Division of water Rcsourccs*-
923
Item 3
145
USE ADI'MONAL SEEETS IT NBCESSARY

\ f)\.
WIIITE-Dr1TSION OF WATER E.ES@UF.CES
CAI.IARY-CLIEM'S COF'1
FINK_WELL DRILLER'S COPY
PRINT OR TYPE ONLY
DO NOT WR,ITE ON B.ACK
STATE OF NEVADA
trIVmICIN OF WATER RESOTIR.CES
WELL DRILLER'S REPORT
Log
FErmir No
Ptessc comptctc this form il its entirety in
accordance with NRS 534.170 and NAC 534.340
NOTICE
AT WELL LOCA
r{}f3
2.LocArIoN-fUE-'r,--^.5*E:us'"..-A-6-r--13-....-d)s
PERMIT NO.
Water Rcsourc
ffi",
Well
tl Desr
WORK PEMORMED
E Reotace E Recondition
fl Abandon E othcr-
LITHOLOGIC I.OG
5Jh-o.-

o
3, TYPE OF WORK
New Well 6 Recondition tr
DeePeu El Other tr
I.TTHOI'GIC
lop soil
?rown cl
Votoanic l.' i:ranite bo
cercr:tei Y/oigttE
'ooul'lers
rite
olconlc & granite
ienented lr./bronn c
.',or:e fine sand
jjireai:e of dark br
:'iofi zoner rig j{eter
"/olcanic
& GraEl!e-bo
g./'cigie: E:'a're:l- lt
brou'n i n color
\:^ a'+ .r ^h a
irani. i-.e &
r::i->leq tonether
LOG
4. PROPOSED USE
Domestie8 Irrigation tr Teet
MuaicipalO Industrial tr StocL
Ceble tr
Other g
Rotary E
air
WELL CONSTRUCTION
itorn"*, hole...-'----6--'-""'.-'inches Total depth""'5-? 5"-*"'feet
Casing recoril- -------""""'ie5-
Weieht Per fooL-*'--.'--"
Disrlotsr Fr('r 'I;.
' I
'-"-"'feetl
-'-'inchcg -..*-*-:*"tg'lt'
d;T---
Surtace seah Yes gl No El lvPe----'-'-'T87-*--;:-;'-'
pE.F w-- -
+tJ. ? fDr
Depth of seal-------.'-'-
GravetPac;Led: Yes fitr ].19 F 7,?..
il;
;acrea t,o'--.*--...i'.Li"?""'--'reet to"*---'/i::'-'-reet
WATER LEVEL
Water trmlrerature----c-gld.-' F
Quality-*"""--;------'--'----'
Datc complctcd-
LZ---LJ*E-J,"'-
WELL TEST DATA
t9--...
19*'
10. DRILLBR'S CERTIFICATION
ThiswellwasdrilledoadermyrupervisionandtherePortistrueto
the bEst of mY kaowledgP.
N.-*.-..-13-S.I-E --FlLiii:'IJi 9-JI'9''---"""""-""'--""'-"--""'-
PTEDRPM
eaar"ss......]L:.-O-.'.-
Nwada costractods licenss number---..--"Llf'9'AJ"'"--""-
Nevada driler's liceosc nurrber-'-** "*''-2'?L"'
G.P, M........-..--.----*::::::=:=
BAIIJB, TEST
Dras donm.*..Jcct
DrBrY dowtr------.Jcct
Draw down--.Ject
-.--.hours
-.---.bours
--.-.-.--hours
UsE AI'DNTOilAL SIIEETT IA NE]DE88ARY
\02.
oot
@F

Richard and Theresa Shannou
Supplemental Information
December 28,2005
Washoe County
Department of
Water Resources
4930 EnergyWay
Reno, NV 89502-4106
TeL (775) 95e1-4600
Far (775) 9544610
Richard and Theresa Shannon
PO Box 19277
Reno,NV 89511
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shannon:
The Departnent of Water Resources has reviewed the application packet you submitted for
a hearing with the Washoe Counfy Well Mitigation Hearing Board CWI,fiD). We ask that
you provide clarification and backup information on a few issues. In yow phone message
to Steve Bradhurst on Decemb er 20,2005, you provided information that we were not able
to verify with the information supplied in yow packet. We are requesting clarification on
those items as well.
Department of
wWaterResources
Ouestions from the Shannon Information Packet
1. In your information packet (Attachment 1C), you stated that the pump was lowered
in 1998 and again in the surlmer of 2005. Ws were unable to locate any
documentation from a driller or pump company to verify this work. Work of this
nature typically provides water-level measureme,nts that would be valuable
information for the WMIIB. If you have this documentation available, please
provide copies for considerationbythe WMHB.
2. In.Attacbnient 3C from your packet, you state that the water level has dropped 60
feet in the last 10 years. According to the well log dated March 25,1980 (attached),
the well had 49 feet of water in the casing whe,n it was driiled. In your
conversations with Washoe County staff, you conveyed that your well was
measured by a well driller for six years in a row. It would be helpful to have this
measrusment information.
3. Page 14 of the 68 pages you submitted is a pump test report with a hand written
note stating
'by 2002 we had gone from water at 13 feet to water at263 feet, a250
foot drop." Do you have any water level measwements to support this statement?
4. Attacbmed 34 states that tbe Washoe County Board of Counfy Commissioners
CBCC) asked Mike Widmer to read the meter on the Shannon's well. We could find
no documentation from the BCC to verifrthis request. Do you have any
docurne,:rtation to support this statemelrt?
5. Attachmelrt 5 lists 24 homeowners you describe as having received approval of
palmre,lrt from the water purveyor for either well deepening or hookup to the water
system. A search of our records show 14 of the 24received some form of
reimburseme,lrt, either for well deepening or connection to the municipal system'
Six on your list have appeared before the Well Mitigation Hearing Board 0M\4HB),
two of which were denied reimburse,ment and ttre other four were granted some
reimbursement either for hookup orwell deepening. Of the remaining eighteen, ten
received some reimbursement directly from the South Truckee Meadows General
Improve,mentDistrict (STMGID) priorto the formation of the WMHB. The
rernaining eigbt (8) were either denied reimbursement or have not appeared before
the WMHB. rtem 3
Page 148

Richard and Theresa Shannon
December 28,2006
PageZ of2
Ouestions from December 20. 2005. phone messaee to Steve Bradhurst
1. In your December 20,2005,phone message to Steve Bradhurst, you stated that you
could not deepen your well blcause it had already beelr deepened in 1996- We
could not find *y iofor-ation in your packet to verify the well had besr deepened.
We searched the i.trevada Division of Water Resource records and could not find
verification of the deepening of your well in 1996 or anytime in the 1990's- Can
you provide information refarding the dee,pening of your well il 1996?
Z. efso, in your phone message youitut"d a neighbor drilled a we11,450-feet and it
was dry. Our search of Nevada Division of Water Resource records could not
verify a +SO-foot well that matched your description. Could you please specify the
address and approximate date the well you are referring to was drilled?
Steve Bradhurst reported to me that you informed him you were unaware you had been
scheduled for the January 2006 WMIIB meeting. In the past you wrote asking me to
oufline the procedure foi the WMIIB process. I responded with a letter to you dated
November tg, ZOOS (attached). The first paragraph of that letter states "This letter is to
acknowledge receipt of your application for review before the Well Mitigation Hearing
Board CWfrrtml. Your case wilt Ue placed on the agenda for the meeting in January 2006.
Usually the meeting is the first Tuesday of the month but may be delayed {ue
to the New
years bay holiday.- You will receive notification and a packet of information at least a
week before the meeting."
Based upon your requesto have your case heard by the WMHB as soon as possible, we
had anticip#a scneauUng yol]r case for the January 3,2006,hearing date. However, in
light of yow comments to lune Davis yesterday wherein you voiced your concem with the
amountf ti-" yoq your legal counsal and hydrologist would have to review your agenda
packet material, togJhrt *itn tn" additional information requested in this letter, I urill
schedule yo* uppli"ation for the WMHB meeting on February 7,2006. A copy of your
agenda packet mat"riul is enclosed wifh this letter for your review in advance of the
fibruary 7,2}A6,hearing date. If you disagree with my decision, please contact me as
soon as possible
Please call me at954-4653 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
A-^o.t*.N-".-
Dan Dragan
DDjd
Attachments
Steve Bradhurst
Jeanne Ruefer
Jim Smitherman
Item 3
Page 149

Terrri and Richard shannon PO Box 19277 Reno NV 89511
APN 150-260-35 775.849'3873
Response to euestions from our Packet in Letter of December 28. 2005 From Water Resources
1. (Answer) Data missing regarding pump lowering is prior to my purchase. I have supplied ample data showing
the original well permit isiuea to the Burnets on g-26-1980 | have supplied the copy of the original drawing of my
well which from the prior owner Terry Anderson. This owner may have done the work himself as I watched him
work on this prior to my buying the property. The electrical went out to the pump.not long after this when I owned
the property resulting iir eruciNlc fay'doing the eiectrical-f1.e_s (receipt attached). I have and you may contact
either Wayne,s or Burroughs for any other iiformation, WCWD staff during meetings when this issue was raised
pDW owners were assured by Board members and staff that a particutar PDW owner need not have all their
individual information since the determinations oi irpa"t would be based on the monitoring wells in.the area' We
requested to be on the monitoring program- that request was denied as UN necessary due to sufficient data base
afready existing. The data on thJ original well log ,i,orr a static water level of 248'which by 2o02had only gone
down io 263' which is a lowering of 15 feet over a 22 year period.
euestion 2&3. (Answer) At thls level of decline with both houses existing on the well I could surmise that at the
current level of natural decline surviving droughts (several times during th-t period) my well would last at least
another forty years. This information was aslieo and verified verhallruh"-l.ly9nt to DWR to get the permit
waiving in 1gg5 to lggg and placed the mandatory meter on my wellihat DWR has been unprepared to read"'
We were very shocked when many of our neighboring long, term surviving PDW's began to go dry contradicting
the advice wL nao Ueen given. This is what plompted our involvement to curb the impact'
As documented attached we were at 250'of water in 1995 which went to 263' by 2002 and then the well needed
to have the pump reset from ZBI' totne uoitom in August of 2005 (receipt enclosed)at which time we formally
notified the DWR that we needed to either redrill sinc6 it had already been deepened or hook-up to the approved
three years earlier pipe extension of STMGID. Since, we were a*are of the rapid decline due to the combined
impact of srMGlD 6 and rESSA 1&2 on our pDW. We knew we could not trust our water source availability and
stability any longer for a pDW and needed to hook up to the system. This was further demonstrated during the
process by the following factors: 1. Growth and the issuance or furtner permits to. bu.ild have in no way abated off
our water source. Rather, there is thousands more AFA expected to be pumpedin the next 10 years- much of this
from the very production wells which have impacted us. furtner the permeation for our water source is being
seriously impeded by the diversion of creek waters and the growth using ground water and not returning it to the
Galena Fan Aquifer through natural orainafe. z,The DPW iroduction weils have experienced strain larger than
the original planners enviJioned at the beginning of this proce-ss and their own wells have failed causing lowering
of pumps and deepening of their o*n produ"tioi wells. i. Drillers having to go to depths of 400+ feet to find viable
water (at this time?) How long will that last at what cost to pump? 4. Th; data provided by the Eco Logic and
DWR reports indicates that pbw in this region will have to be hooked up due to impact from production pumpage
within the next twenty years Uy the statistiJs used for the report of production pu.mpage' These numbers have
been accelerated byihe increise in allowed pumpage since the report was made'
euestion 4 (answer) the minutes for these iorririion meetings are available you. at the County website'
.t'o
Question 5 (answer). we submitted accurate information alon! with copies. of the minutes of any appropriate
board (at the time of the mitigation) which mitigated with the neighboring well owners- We remind you that the
Mitigation Board has not been in existence torine duration of this issue. ln some instances this information was
available at the Local STMGID Board Minutes or The Governing Board Minutes, or if one did even further
research it would show that the county mitigated on an individual basis through other approval means on a case
by case basis. As we understand it th6 prip"*" of the NE_UTRAL MITIGATION BOARD is to determine if
hydrological impact exists. This was why Private Citizen Representation of Domestic Well Owners was not
invited to be on the board. The board was to consist strictly of hydro geologists to determine water availability
impact- not determine amounts of mitigation or policy'
Sincerely,
Terri and Richard Shannon
Item 3
Page 150

WASHOE COUNTY UTIUTY DIVISION
4930 ENERGYWAY, RENO, NEVADA 89502
l.n
\"'\;(
. It
ffi wnren , fl sEwER sERvlcE npPLlcATloN AND AGREEMENT
_ tl t\ . tt
.-*--+ ' /\ i t'e i\ f-t c , r r' r i.kti r\J- in il '-t+ e'ftutl
"Jlr-l'.;
lt\,t(l(i\t-tc-
e { ( r'
. . .,1 .._r^_,_^..rAF,
wAsHoE eorlr,ri i, nur.uy requested bv Applicanr T9-9::::::.t:tjltl^T*"j.":j,1il,,tJ1f;'ii
*lJffiBXf
ffi3,f5,f;3Hl.Tl'*i13ff3H.[ffi:ffi'6iil.:'^"^'r:.'^':i'itlx*i*
::lrTiif; :'di?,i".:Tt':JJu{i:ix'"f'ri+x#isiinryi:#:::,:r:*:yf
y':SfitVf&6Edbi\ry.el'lgiq#l*ru:ifggf e+nffi [;.gg
+T1"'"ri{'^
3"^1t?l'$:'?!TE#,"'l'fi,8:ffi1:',i:ffi;"idrt'iit'fy^*;i::t?.T:I:it
DMISION, 4930 Energy W€y' Kero' j)""n1u1' [2, I rrs vve'rrt '- ';;6ner
in tniE Apptieatioll.are swom to
piJmio.-i"rservice piirposis...{3)-1t11*T-"lf:tt*,*|]1T:rnnriara civitand **uilftii.!| in"ruoins
f."f;'jf :ff;HTffl
n*:;-J?';iffi:l;;;;*oi"-ti:^"ry:i-ll-"'",1$il1T*fl"R
li1*
3:#:';H,ffi*en:iift[:XTJ,':tffiX]#'lilllt=dili
Applicant and Orner and the County' "il;ildiv'
constitutes a contracthetweenthe
t
_F
i,i
dj
NAME OF APPLICANT
SERVICE ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
APPLICANT EMPLOYMENT
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
FROPERTY OWNER
OWNER ADDRESS
""*.+rz' t *,n : j''-
APPLICATION DATE
DoES THts pRoPERTY cuRRENTLY HAVE A wELL Sves
I t'to
PHONE
BIRTH DATE
PHONE
'.
than APPlicent)
'roin oFHce usBoNlY
ACCEPTANCE DATE
ACCEPTED BY
AMOUNT OF DEPASIT
SERVIEE AREA
ACCOIJNTNUMBER
CASHTCHECK
REFUND DATE
NQTES
K wEu ABANDoNMENT PERMIT REcEIPTElcneor FoR DoMEsrlc wELL
P€ILLI ]G'APruCANON.DOC
Item 3
Page 151

Theresa A and Richard A Shannon
5947 Mt Rose HwY.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 19277
Telephone: 849-3873
Parcel# 150-260-35
Reno Nevada 89511
Email: rolv001 @truin,qom
February 17,2006
Fagetwo of our:Application forWater Setvice
?r{,.:*};''
We will not ne'[oopeo up uitiil we pay $8305.20 to our Gounty'
As you knowwe have been without anywater iri our'.well since November 2005
;;tilg ;l"ss otrenis in our second ftot" of more than $5,0ffi' We have been
waiting for the enension of yourwater lineto be available to our parcel' w9
must hooR up to your e{ension tfrrougn the STMGID service due to the facts that
we are not able t" &#n oui weil an-d to redrill is not financially feas.ible in our
area. (Neighbors nbt findingwater 35M00 feet and your own wells are
having water sour@ "* issues)'
It is clear that the production wells (sTMGlD 6 ) will-be. drawing the overall water
table down to a Oegrl" iu n"u" a ;deleterioui" affect [per Mike Wdmer your
hydro geologistl on1tn" ",
tri""t" Oomestic wells in our particular area' Studies bY
Mr. Widmer and ecO logt" have shown that the in the future to the point where
u"ry t"*t healthy private domestic wells will survlve'
The Water Mitigation Board will determine if oWell Mitigation" approved P.Y th"
Gqverning Board .i siurein will help us. negardless of the outcome oJ this
board (to determine ("impacf,J We aui tnuto-ttowing due to financial hardship.
The estof $8,350. to hook-up to the STMGID lVst9t Charged Uy !l*
Department of Water Resources creates an unduefinancial hardship oli uS
We will have the additional costs or our side of the property line created by the
deteteiious affect of dr:awdown by our counties water pump age.
we will/have paic:ovJr tn" p"tunexttws mohths $85O' to trench the land to
accepthe hook+rp, fi,300 to abandon the well, over $1,170' for piping supplies
to hook+.rp,g1,b00. to re plumb to accepithe pifed water costs ry1d-1b^out
$200'
in permit fees foryour service, lmpacted costs on 6ur side was $8,020'
The total actual required amount of money is-$-16,370' to get the water to our
home. We requesiy'o, *"iu* your fees ($3,SOS.ZO1 allowing usto hook-up to
your system. We niilf iign the wetl cre6ii tgiuing you access to then apply water
usage to two more new-homes in the areiJ and wewill give you a@ess to our
easEment to seMce the people on the other side of our property. ,1
We spent over $7,8gfn fee! to'aur countv t""tla V"tu.39:-?!nii'g ffie prcperty up to
standards andan a1l{rtioriat 8,9Nton ury;eing wrwellOelyouiadvisement-atthetime
we were ftordq ttlurliild last anathet 4d years by the same ffiff/,
'
Ji;{,..r'r, ('{t &r'o\[ .--
Please consider t[r;q reqqest" We need water to our home'
Sincerely,
Richard and Theresa Shannon
-\-
Item 3
Page 152

when recltded, rolum to:
Wa$hoe Counly Depadment ofwater Resouroes
4gStlEnergyw€y
Reno. NV 8*-5O2
f LEAgq$G llor ErAi|tIp. $ESL sl-q*$eg4$rsE
franx our*melxE eLAcK eeggeas
CREDIT FOR DOMESTIC WELL
t.t"+ er'.t f*[ol-.l}"ti5
NTYASSESSO.R'SPARCELNO: ?" tit4- i 4O '-
A,TER COMPANY S.ERVING EOUSE OR LOT:
ON SAME ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: j
DRILLSR'S LOG AVAILABLE: -:l
TEDATETORBOOK-IIF:
'r
DRILLER WEO WILL PLUG WELL: i1\ i
.TEWELLPLUGGED:
r f*.*i l.iz-i-l t)a r\r u vt 54 5 /
I l{i> --? ltr-, * ir.lJ 6"1
MrilingArllrtrr
CitY, sJab ZIP
i =i%/
ggnaiurc
Name (Prlat)
)**
LaVO.NNE $CFIEFFLER
Notary.Publh - Stat€ ot Navada
lfpoirtmenl Rsctdad iin $rashoe.County
llo:9$3922$2- Erykes Janualy lq 2008
scrlbed md svorn to bcforc me . R,
Ff oayot M.at'c&- '!o tr{e-'
PI]BIJC
tmdr$ of udercomltany Purrtyorto scrve sddparrel:
Compeny orPurveYo.n
ol Water Rerourcet
-dayof
.. iA -(ll ^. .-i^'L'qi**-
.2ll-
Item 3
Page 153

BEcEIFI 7 6159
I'JA$i'l0E C0'
IIlSTRICT
I HEALITI DEPARTMENT OF RENOSPARKS.WASHOE C,OUNTY
HHAITH IIEFfiRT, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMEI{TAL HEALTH SERI/ICES
1001 Easl Nintr $reet ' PO. Bo( 11 30
H1TTAF! 145'00
IHECfi 145'00 Reinspec'lion Fee
fi{i'iw,, .g?
Swimming Poot/SPa Permit
SWS Permit
Dale:3 /i lo u
I +q*-s}+e
Foodseryice EsL Permlt
HoteWlolel Permit
lrwasive Body Decoration Permil
Lab Fee
Tempoary Foodservice Permit
Test Hole Fee
VARIANCE FEES:
Foodservice
SWS/Wells
Loan Fequest Senice Charye
Property
Phn Heview - Foodservice Est
plan Review . Hotel/l/tobl
Plan Review - Swimming
Poot/Spa
Hffirailer Park Permlt
Waste Release Pennit
Wasb Hauler Permil' Solidll-iquld
-
q tlc-n ds'Y) fh.11 '' i
1{ffiWAiP';r';ir
*r,
/.{0- 2,6o
l+gx'
cash f--l crrlr*lY--R
Money Order I
H.71S89 (R6v. 1289)
-7\
L-qS--
,o^ "rrL-{--L----
&J
ff+? 0E/S101St TllT*L 145.#J No' @

.
KENIff C. GUTNN
Gooenor
.}.SV,L
Lv
--:ii,7,r
,aOV.r.*{
I^''
1 ,?-o t
Yt.
Attachment 10
STATE OF NEVADA
@
R. MICTIAEL TURNIPSEED. P-L
DiEctot
HUGH RICCI, P.L
State Engineer
DEPART},GI{T OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DTVTSION OF WATER RESOURCES
123 W:. Nye [ane, Suiie 246 l:
. Carcon City, Nevada 8970ffi818
(775) 687-4380 ' Fax 17751687-6972
http ://ndurr.state.nv. us
February 14.2002
' i ''
:' ,':';'
'
Theresa A and Richard A. Shannon
P O BOX 19277
Reno, Nevada 8951 I
Re:
Your letter of concem regarding domestic welts in the Southwest Truckee
Meadows, Washoe CountY, Nevada
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shannon:
I have revieweO your letter of August 29,2OO1and I want to commend you on
the focus and energy you t"u" shown in iesearching the lrVdroloSV
of the Mt' Rose Fan'
I understand your -cielr motivation is to find somelotutions to the issues of declining
;;ft*"dr levels in the local domestic wells. You have raised many questions for
&arifir"tion and I will attempt to answer them the best way I can and I will also address
the suggested actions that may be pursued by this office'
\Afithin a designated area such as the Truckee Meadows Groundwater Basin' the
State Engineer is be The Stiate
Engineer is authorized and
orders as maY be
essential for the wetfare of the area involved, (Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) S
si+.rioj. inis omce is continuing to examin" of n" information available regamiihg
the condition of the groundwateresource in your "il area.
ESTIMATES OF RECHARGE
The average annuat natur:al recharge to the Truckee Meadows Groundwater
Basin is estimated at 27,000 acre-feet of waler. Twenty-six thousand (261000) acre-feet
of this is said to ocanr in'the west side of the valiey as a rcsult of infilhtion of
pi""ipit"Uon in the Carson Range. This potential recharge e9tiry3je.1vas generated
from the relationship between elEvation and precip'rtation, a method that has long been
used in evaluating groundwateresources in Nevada and elsewhere- ln addition to this
estimate, r""ff"rgJ has also occuned historically due to the. infilfatign of applied
i"ig"Uon't tei aiO some seepage that occurs @1ntilUer and the system of ditches'
The water infiltrates
and northeast, wnere it rltit"t"ty is discharged to the vatley floor. This underflow of
grounO*ater througlt the Mount F{ose Fan area is probably on thg. o.t9"t.of at least a
fiirJ or nis (8,600 icre-tlet), tint" tnit t"pt t"ntt
"t"" "boi
Item 3
Page 155

Teni and Richard Shannon
February 12.2O0?
Page 2
Carson Range above the Truckee Meadows, where the precipitation and recharge
originates.
Another general method of estimating this nafurat underflow from annual
rechai'ge is obtai-ned by multiplying ihe pie

Terri and Richard Shannon
February 12,2002
Page 3
2001). The.maximum to date and total for last yeal (2001), of groundwater pumped from
this well was 1082 acre-feel The last permit for this location was approved on tularch
ZZ 2OOA. for the 565 acre-feethat broucht the total to 1,488 acre-feet. The amount of
nf- The total
cumulative groundwatei pumped from this well is approximately 5,700 acre-feet of water
over the twelve-year period of 1990-2001.
I ha're attached a summary sheet of the STMGID pumpage data that was
compiled frorn records submitted bi the operator. I have also atiached an abstract of
active groundwaterights NE NE in section 26 STMGID #6, the area of concem. lt
should be noted that one permit (51332) has been removed on this abstract, as
compared to the one that you presently have, as the conect location for that well is in
section 19 and the database has been updated.
poMFSTtC WELL RIGHTS
Under the appropriative system of water rights in Nevada, and in most of tHe
westem states, a waier'right is e!+abrished on a phority basis, i.e., first in tile. first.in
right. This means that thoie w
r first, established the
ffi ie ri' ;; h;.' d*e or the pa rti cu lar- wit; ;; ht" g1.w? shee-c-ou tW
ly*PJ"Y,9.
acquired and later transfened to these locations have
earlier. These priority dates remain in effect on
when the water was originally diverted and beneficially used.
Neyada Revised Statrbs (NRS) section 534.020 provides in part, that all
underqQglld uat?ru!'vrtr!!.ilg.bou:nddries d,f tre sateFf.ong to the oublic. and are subjedtr
appropnaoon ror oeneficial use only undFfiffi oTEG sraFredf@fte appropriation
and use of water and not otherwise. h otrer words, a stab water right permit is requiredlo
appropriate water from a welt for any purpose. Domestic us.e of \^ta!9l fi''om a w:ell
l.:. onry.?
fuw exemptions to tl'ris rule. A person must have a wateright p-ermit to use water trom a well
for any other purpose, gtherthan domestic use.
NRS 534.013'.Domestic use" defined. "Domestic use" or "domestic purposes"
extends to culinary and household purposes directly related to a single-family dwelling,
including, without limitation, the waterinb of a famity larden and lawn and the watering of
livestoc[ and any other domestic animats or household pets, if the amount of water
drawn does not exceed the threshold daily maximum amount set in NRS 534'180 for
exemption from the application of this chapter.
or
f,to z 4,F- I
NRS S34.lS0Applicability of chapter to wells used for domestic purPoses;
registratibn and plugging of wells used for domestic purPoses.
1. . . . this cfraptertces not apply in the matter of obtaining permits for the
development and use of underground water from a well for domestic PurPoses
where the draught does not exceed a daily maximum of 1,800 gallons.
Domestic wells are therefore exe
--Demit Domestic wells are a 'given' in the staMe, for the crafters of the law prou0eO
'ffiryone
has the right to have a wellwherever a dwelling could be established.
Item 3
Page 157

Ten'i and Richard Shannon
February 12,2OA2
Page 4
The legislafure further crafted language in the statute that prwided some flexibility
for the Stite Engineer to grant p"-It io appropriators later in time, even where the
proposed later appropriatio.-ns may cause the water level to be lowered at the point of
Civersion of the'prioi appropnator, "...so long as any protectible- interests in existing
ccmestlc weils as set fcrih in NRS' 533.024 and ihe riEhls of holders of existing
appropnations can be satisfied undersuch expr.ess conditions." (NRS S 534'110 (5))' lt
nlrtn"i established as a specific condition of each appropriatiol of grourldwater that the
right must allow for a reasonable lowering of the siitic water level in a particular area
(NRS S 534.110 (4)).
The State Engineer czrn approve permits, to divert water not previously- appropti"t".9
and generalty up to the average annuat replenishment even if water level declines will
occui, as tong'as everyone can get tniir ryatel -
withorX -=^--
-gc"lil":
And that is where we are now. The addition of new language in the 2001 statute, as
a resutt of SB 159, and in response to real @ncems about what protections were
pt*iOi by hw for domestic weil owners, the State Engineer is directed to include an
bxpress condition of a permit for municipat or public supply well operators' t!3t Pumpage
'...-ay
be limited or prohibited to prevent any unreasonable adverse effects on an
within 2,500 feet of the well...'(NRS S 534.110 (5))'
. The State Engineer is cfrarged with determining the extent (if any)3f water level
impacts on dorneitic well users-that are caused by Fublic supply *!?, -T:n
the State
Engineer must use his discretion to determine ufiether the- vlatef level' impacts are
"reisonable". The State Engineer must then decide whether the rights of existing
domestic wetl owners, in fr" sarne way as the rights of hglders. of existing
appropriations, can be satisfied under suci, express conditions. The intent of this
Ujistdtion was to attempt to establish the rights of some domestic well owners as not
unlike those rights of the prior appropriators.
The State Engineer cannot analyze 'rl're impacts pupfic supply wells may have.on
.domestic wells in a vacuum. ThA age.'ahd'condifronlof doriibstic wells, including
conosion or breaks'in Wetl casing, andlhe qapacity or limitation of perforations across
tne saturated iniervai, to csnfinle to produie witer without excessive drawdowns,
""*"infy must be judged and weighed as carefulty as we examine the effect of the
pumpage of thq public supply wells.
To some there certainty remain sorne questions regarding what priority dates are
associated with domestic well owners but generally, a! in westem states law, those
priorities for domestic users may be determiried to bi when the diversion and.use of the
dornestic well water wai first istablished. The intent of 'fie legislature aPpears to be
obvious with the inclusion of the word "existing" before domestic well, that only those
using those wells for domestic purpose can be considered
Item3
Page 158

Teni and Richard Shannon
February 12.240?
Page 5
STATIC WATER LEVEL CHANGES IN THE AFEA
I have re,riewed ait of ihe daia submitted by the Washoe County to date. I have
already discussed the amounts of water pumped since 1990 and I find no grounds to
dispute any of the data. Neither do I have any reason to believe that the water level data
submiited by the Counhy is less than accurate. l understand that it may appear that the
'operator is guarding the pump house" but this office must rely on some element of .trust
in monitoring and reviewing all sorts of pumpage and water level data all over Nevada.
It is not realistic that this office be staffed to the extent that would be necessary to
closely read fiow meters and water levels all over the state. I will commit to increasing
_-some level of verification in these areas of concem, as budgets will allow.
It is in the best interest of the operator of any well field to
water levets and pumpage. These data are used constantly to calibrate """ur"[monitor
the groundwater
model that is in place for any operation of this'magnitude. The,more data input to the
comptrter modelqenerallv, the more useful a tool it becomes for groundwater managers.
I have closely examined the water level data submitted by Washoe County, and
have reviewed the accompanying memo dated August 30, 2001. lt is apparent that a
trend in water levels declines became evident on a regional basis as early as 1987. This
decline continued at a steady rate of about 2 feet per year (at least 16 feet total) until
1995 when, in the two monitored wells closest to the rElnge front, and the wells least
likely to be impacted by pumping, the water levels rose qapidly in-resp-g11se to ? very wet
cycti Of wiirfers of tggSth';orgh- 1998, and ibcovereO ti;-niartt-tfie tge6 i6vel. Since
1998, it appears the range front wells are again on the decline on the order of-ahout 3
(ee!_t€r yeat (at le_ast nine fe
WELLS-that was submited by the well field operator.
"F
x,
It is essential to c.onsider the background or preexisting condition that may have
been in place prior to the start of the pumping of STMGID Well#6 in 1990. lt is dfficult
to find water level data that is reflective of the annual recharge conditions and that is not
impacted by pumping. The wells known as Timberline and First AiC (on the Carson
Range Frcnt) ai'e probabiy ihe besi iniicators as weil as the STMGID [/[W#3, with the
firsfRiO well the best of those three. I have also included a graph of water levels from a
wetl that this office has monitored for many years on nearly a quarterly basis. The graph
is from a well in Lemmon Valley on the north side of Peavine Mountain and well above
the valley floor. The graph demonstates both large changes in water levels throughout
each year and the trend in drought and high water
that recent
ht cvcles and other qroundwater development has
ftnge
PROJECTED WATER LEVEL IMPAGTS
This ofiice has projected water level declines at various distances from the
STMGTD Well # 6, and they are based on a number of assumptions. lt is assumed the
confined aquifer is an idealized orie, infinite in areal extent, and isctropic and
homogenous throughout lt is also assumed that water is derived solely from storage
and that no recharge occurs. Incorporated in these estimates are the aquifer.hydraulic
conductivity or transmissivity (T) and the aquifer storage coefficient (S) that were
obtained from the flow testing conducted on the STMGID Well # 6. These values
Item 3
Page 159

Terri and Richard Shannon
February 12,2OAz
Page 6
represent the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer in the vicinity of the well, are a
result of the flow testing, and are reported as fansmissivity T = 42,000 gallons per day
per foot and the storage coefficient S = 0.042.
STMGID Well # 6 was completed entirely in the alluvium that overlies the
volcanic bedrock, and these vatues may reflect more unccnfined conditions than
confined. The values are higher than what can be estimated ftom specific capacity data
on the domestic well logs in section 26, probably the result of limited flow testing time
and methods on the domestic welts. The lower vatues for thetransmissivity derived from
the domestic wetl logs is probably also due the effects of partial penetration, wfiere
verticat flow gradients are created in the vicinity of the pumping well, and due to the fact
that many are completed in the Tertiary volcanic bedrock
The effect of the assumptions of course is to ignore the known faults that trend
generally north and that may tend to impede the lateLl flow of groundwater. Using a_
lower vitue for fanEmissMty maf be riioie rediesentative of the overalt flow capacity of
the rock, especially over the long tirne.. For the purposes of these projections, a
transmissivity of about 20,000 gallons per day per foot is used, and a storage coefficient
more representative of confined conditions of 0.0001 is used,
Conversely, the assurnption of no recharge tends to over estimate water level
declines, and these estirnates ignore the known g:roundwater flow through the area and
the leakage that rnay be derived from etsewherqin the rock, For projections over long
time however, this -omce believes these estimated water tevel impacts are realistic,
assuming that no groundwater underflow is captured
Tiie first scenario desqibes the operation of the well over the last twelve years at
an average annual flow rate of 475 acre feet per year, this rate derived by dMding the
total water produced from the well by twelve years. This is equivalent to producing the
well round the clock at 295 gallons per minute (gpm). The next scenario uses the
average flow rate from the well from the last six years and projects this continued use at
735 aire feet per year (456 gpm). Next is the totat permitted flonrv rate from this well of
1,488 acre-feet per year (923 gpm).
The water levet declines at various digtances from the producing well are
tabulated and graphed in the attactred sheets. The radius of 50 fq{ represents the
drawdown immeOiitely adjacent to the STMGID Well ft6 and ffil'Ts
tocated. Then draMowls at distanes of onequarter mile, 2,500 feet and one mile are
tabulated and are shown graphically as wellas in tabularform.
The projected water level declines are the greatest at the producing well and are
everywhere les!. I water level dectine of about 17feet at the end of 5 years is indicated
ai a radius oi 2,500 feet at tlre ov:rall average rate of 475 acre-feet icr the past 12
years. lf the welt is produced at the cunent total perrnitted rate (1488 acre-feet per
year1, a water level dedine of about 52 feet may be expected at that distance after five
yearJ. Again, these water tevels assume that no grcundwater underflow is captured a-nd
ihat all Gter produced is frorn storage. Tfre estimaies are intended for comparaUve
purposes based on the information to date.
Item 3
Page 160

Terri and Richard Shannon
February 12,2002
Page 7
FUTURE ACTIONS
As I indicated before, t will commito increasing some level of verification of
water level and flow meter readings in these areas of Joncem, as budgets will allow'
Due to the preliminary nature of the projected waler level estimates' and due to
the fact that very tow values ?or T and S weie used, I will defer a final ruling at this time
as to whether the actuat or projected water level dectines within the 2.500 foot radius are
reasonable or unreasonable. Ona case-by*ase basis; however, l-am fully prepared to
consider atl of tn"- il# regarding a specific well within the 2,500 foot radius, including
the age. and condition of he well itself.
The State Engineer will be requesting that Washoe County provide a specific
time table regardin! ihe availaUility of'the gr[trndwater model results, a cunent water
level elevation (potEntiomekic surflce) t"i.
"= well as a rime table regarding cunent
plans for additional groundwater development jn the.area' In close contact with this
office, they have indicated that they are'analyzing water level data on a regional basis
and are looking rfn" potential eifects of Turther developing the well fietd in this
area. "loi"fy
I hope that I have addressed your concems and I took forward to working with all
of the parties involved, with the focui on solutions to what are very solvable problems' lf
you have any questions please call me atT75S87'4037 or send a fax to T1ffi87-697Z
', /1:
Hhrltkg
Attachments
Cc:
Washoe County Departnent of Water Resources/
WashoeCountyDeparfnentofComprehensiveP|anning

l9
lol
lo)
ls)
iN
lo,
f-
co
o
O)
?CD@
aqq
@O-
OlJ'r
fF
ID
q
.0
O
scr)
-\
ro('
r- e)
;(o
so
O)(o{
l-tr)NO
l'- |-- e.l O
(D (')
F l-- l.() F
qq-q
roro9
c{F
(o@to
q-o?o
NtO
t l'-
O, I
ool
riol
:(e I
33
|
N(D(oI
*l
aqel
co o o)t
>€o
>e,
DF
+r0
to-
-CD
+o
-ag
Nco
to)
NF
OF
orD
+l\
QC)
ar:t
g)
cc
\ cc
(D
@to
u?q
C\I
(?) (\l
:fO
c"d
c,t rf,
*H II
o(o
Dro
+t\
DtD
!to
ci
+
C'
@
B
o uJ
E
uJ
tu
o
:)
tr
F
F
f
o
u>
vt
z
o
(,
l!
o
lD
z
9
!
E
=
o
IIJ
o-
=
o.

'i
U)?
..-
-J
.?
z
;
: .=
6
h
5
=
l-f
=
vFd
J
D
f
v
!
/:
v t-l
2a h :
1. Iva.=
ctl lt q
,Ua
E- u ;.
F < = .+
lAt=
-; t :
=I t :
A 'jr f! itr
>2 6 7
oFa X ir
-r-z
!4 ;i
- -
'H
>f-i..=
= < J' =
1-=
AL)A
=rt=
-?F
.-t
'7
{
.6
E
'€
rl
U
q
I
= o.
'ct =
6
ci\
.=
10
I
E otr
.5
z
'
E
I
E.
z
.;ti
rl;li
,jiiii
:i,:i',
':!: i::i
liliiii
:rl
. : rii
:i,Z', ;
i : iL'
zl
i ; zr
'r't !
i i i>i ! | i|lti ,. i
! I io! | :
ii,ii;
,:::
;i'ii:
.!irl
;iiiii
',7t l>! ;>l i:
;tl iL! .,_t it-: tr
ii' lfi iei lal ,2i,
I
i*i iZi !siieieiAi
i
lrl lJ: iJt !,
, i8i i8l i8i il
!
I
I
i€l i'eiEi iZl I ifl iBiiEi
iH: iHi
iHl iai i'i
:6'. iii :61 I
I
,ti F; Fi i
l-l
!-l
;V:l rr/!l larrl Fl iti l;l i
I
!t I
iaisiei ln ll 'li"il'ii' iEl iFi iFrl iEl iEl iE
et !
i',i'ii'ii'
tl
tl
tiiilt tl
liiiiii lilili
itrtii
it
Item 3
Page 163

'# ,k
,!:
#"#,
#,
e *3"
s;%
E ;dt
E t"$
,r;
. oe_'n
#"
F" '#,
*
ooo
o.qq
ooo
(p) aupep le^alrqE/vl
c{
Item 3
Page 164

EB
:l
I ffi
I
s9
::-
4'
{)
>.
g)
u,
c)
1u
Fl
I
TJ
q)
lu
rt,
3
U'
E
cl
L
o
I
L
l(
E'r
(,
E
Fr
V)
t
1'
L
DO
Frr
Item 3
Page 165

#r
E
I
.E LIet
cr
TefsT ees efioqs lseJ uT 'Terte-I JstPll Jo efnlTXTH
loElnc!Er@n
EEotfiEFI\
il$1
ili{dr.ld
lr? E? Kl rst Ft ln rt
I
L
-|
rL
E
o
a
L
t
lr E
fE
r{
tr
ET
cl
cl
ql
C'
IE
r{
EI
C}
ql
=
G
qt
rr
.ct
-l
C'
rr
C}
llt
Et
ET
-t
r{
E
-l
F
.EI
trr
G'
E
ET
trt
=
E lt? cg lft o ult
gltt\lmtr'lftf
e3E#ns noTag xaal uT rTerra-l Je?sH-FunoJg
c!
E
CD
s{
lft
gt=
gP
;
F
Etr E
sr Gl
gH F
Et
HB fr dE
a
fie
gH E
H{ cr
FfP.i
5e
Irf trt
g
Hfr {
EF
crf,
Hg)
F{
Eif
€
g'
d
Item 3
Page 166

TION : STMGID WELL #
*iT WELL TEST. PROJECTED WATER LEVEL DROP
**
Standard The's Non-Equilibrium Equalion
CooPer-Jacob Straight Une Approximalion
w1u02
p. 113
lkg
{Y"
te f'{t
TIME
1l
2
5
1o
15
30
60
90
120
180
240
300
365
548
73t)
'to95
tB25
sEEq
9475
7300
9125
toESI)
AVtr9AGEFLOW RAIE 199G'2002
dqzs.t u AF/YE'€.s0,704.s q
Drawdown (ft) Drawdorn (lt) Drawdoiln (ft) Drawdown (ft) DrawdoMl (ft)
t=l n @ @ r=1 @
3023 17.02 I
|
'.
sr.4o
18.1e I
I
7.14
I
32-es I
&69 | I
34.11 I
34.80
3s.97
37.14
i.
37.82
3B3l
I
38.99I
39.48
)
3936
|
ito.19
1e.74 |
2o.el
I
215e
I
?276li
23.s3
I
| 24s2
zsto
zs.zs
o-n
. 26.6s
| 26.e8
4p.-57I
zzit
41.36I
42:04| . zl.d4
4?s
29-m
u-a7 30.87
u.76
3155
4524
3e0'l
45.62 tu41
45.93 3e'72
za.rs
MDIUS FBOM WELLVARIED
s.8g ]
to54
1lJl
. 1ZB8
1e57
14.O5
14.74
$.n
'1 5-50
ls.ss
15.62
17.10
17:t9
18-65
19.82
2050
' 20.99
2136
21,57
3.82
4.99
6.s3
7.70
8.39
9.58
10-73
11.41
11.e0
12.58
.13.07
13-45
1&78
1,1.46
1/t.95
.'is.e3
16.49
17.66
18s5
18.&1
1921'
ilil
s87 |
2.04 |
821
'839
MULTIPLY SFD BY7.4805 TO OBTAIN IGPD/FT GPD/I
:
.938
10.d6
10.9
10.92
,1125
11.9/t
1L42
13"i1
13.97
. ' ' 15-1'l
la82
1631
16.69
1&9S
\*-. rrrdft. /
DlSTAl.lCE, r(ft) =
STOMTMTY' S =
TBANSMISS.,(SFD),T =
FLOW RATE (CFD)'Q =
:==::<
1 so 1,320 2Foo 5,280
o.oool 0.000{ 0-0001 0-0001 0.0001
2,674 2,674 2,e;i4 2,674 2,674
56.705 56,705 56,705 56'705 56J05
Coo'per-Jacob Semilog method torr Theis Sglulion
Badfus trom ProducingWell 'ts Varied
25.00
.+-
-.-
tt''
a't"t--
o
9 zo.oo
B o
E
I 15.00
,"'-'
o
10.00
Trne (days)
Item 3
Page 167
drsidoln = rc{4sDl.({.5j.12-h(F?sy{4Tt)D
values atr besi lor stt€l rand b|g lk8€ I

*
wElJ#6
WELL TEST. PROJECTED WATER LEVEL DROP ***
Standad Theis Non'Equilibtium Equatton
oa1ioT
p.a3
tkg
NME
I
2
5
10
15
30
60
90
1n
't80
24
300
36s
548
7g
1095
1825
3650
547s
7300
9125
TOTAIIEBMNTED WATEF DUTY
-'7t15 AF|YR @\87.686.7 cfD
Dnwdoun (ft) Drawdom (ft) Dnwdorrm (ft) Drawdown (ft) Draradown (ft)
@ r=1 @ r=5o @ r=1 @ @
46.75
4855
s.95
52.75
53.81
5s.62
57.43
58.49
5921
60.30
61.05
51.63
6?-14
6320
63.95
65-0l
q6.34.
68.1s
6921
69.96
70.9
71-42
26.3(t
28.t3
3053
32,C3
33.39
3520
37.01
38-07
38.82
39.88
40.6[]
4121
41.72
12,78
4353
4459
45.n
. 47is
48.79
.. '1954
.50.12
50.60
FADIUS FFPM WELL VARIED
924
11-O5
13-44
1525
16.31
18.12
1s.92
20-b8
?1.73
?279
-a"v
24.12
21.U
?570
26AF
n.fi
'18.84
30.65
31.70
32.rt6
3304
3351
5-90
7.71
10.11
11.91
lzn
11.78
1qss
17.65
18.40
1'9.46
20.2l
?o'-79
21.&
2.36
.4.11
21-17
.255'
?Es7
. N.12
: zg-m
, 30.rb
zno
3.81
620
8.01,
9.07
. : 10.88
.12.C9
'
., . ti.zs
.!450
'.1 1556
.'163..1
:' 16.89
i, 17.'o
: .' 18.46
'i..
r92t
'
.. 21.6q
,,..: nil
.?1.47
4+
E.8A
2628
MULNPLY SFD BY 7.4805 TO OBTAIN { GPD/FT
DISTAI,ICE r(ft) =
STORATIVITY. S =
TFANSMISS-,(SFD).T =
FLOW BATE {CFD),Q=
:::::
I 50 1,@O
0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
2674 2.674 1674
87,6C1 87.687 87,687
2,500
0-0001
5,N
0.0001
2674 2674
87,687 87,687
Cooperrlaoob Semilog nethod icr Theb Solntion
Radus trom Poctr.rcing Well is Varied
60-00
50.00
.*-ttn
o
g
tt0.O0
E
E 30.00
E 3E
o 20.00
.- -/u'
.a'
-J'
t"'''
1'-'J"i
*'--
'.
{-''
"'O
t
5#
10.00
0-00
10 ldt 1000 10@ 100000
Itrne (days)
Item 3
Page 168
clras',rloo,n j (o/(4f,T,)'(45f nn(t^?€X4nll Velres arE best t6snd rg|d lorig tirlg t

LOCATION : STIiGID WELL * 6
.** WELL TEST. PROJECTED WATER LEVEL DROP
*"
Standard Theis Non-Equilibdum Equa$on
CooperJacob Straight Line Approximation
0a1aoz
p.3ts
tkg
TIME
,il
*l
30r
60
90
120
180
240
300
365
548
730
' Drawdowt (ft)
Drawdov,tn (tt) Drawdoutn (lt) Drawdown (ft) Drawdown (fr)
@r=1 ft @ r=1 @ @
94.69 | s3.3? 18.71 11.e6
|
4.06 |
98.3s I
l
*.''
10320 l
I
I
z3a iees I
.l ,7-nl
'6r.83 272
p.47 | 12.58
'I
|
|
106.86 6..10 30.89 24.13 , 16.23 I
|
109.m 57.ef 33.03 24.8 tist
I
112.tt
7131 r be.ss 2S.94 ?2:04
116.33 71.97 ..f0.36 3A51 " ?s30
118.48 n.ir
1LW., 3$7s ''''?x,sl .'z?Bi
'c7.q
120.00 78.63 a.o2
1?2*14 80.78 4g:17 39./+l 3151
123.66 8230 47.59 40.94 . 33"b3
''
124.U
8a4E aiaz. *tz u.Lt
125.88 . u.52
49.$
.'43.15 ,.. qa5
128.03 86.66 seoS as.bo .t,t gi.lg
'68.r8
12954
'55.71 53-57 46.62
"t I sa.gt
:+a.gs
1095 131.69 90.32
- 4t.os
'..43.7.6
1g?5 13439
981.02
58.41 .. 51.66
t:1t.iz
36C) 138.ds
e6.69
6208
s532
5475 140.19 98.83 .6422 ' 57.47 , 4956
7300 141:7? 100.35 6s.74
58-99 .'51'oa
9',|?s 142.W iorss
66.92
' 60.17
.52.%
'
10950 1i|ll.B6 10250
67-89 . 6t:13
53.23
TOTAUEBMTTTED WATEB DUTY
zle ) RADIUS FROM WELL VABIED MULTIPLY
SFD BY 8Y7.4805 TO OBTAINGPD/FT
r.€a.s-ls Arrvn o 12,619.s cF
VARIASLE INPUT:
DISTAIICE T (ft) =
STOMTIVIW, S =
TMNSMTSS-,(SFD)J=
FLOW RATE (CFD)'Q=
t 50 1,320
0.0001 0-0001 0.0m1
2674 2,674 4674
1Tt,6m 1Tt,820 1n,6n
2500 s380
0.0001 0.0001
4674 2,674
1?;7,e,20 1Tl,6n
r20.00
Cooper.Jacob Semtrog method brThe's Solution
Radrus from Producing We[ is Varied
r00.00
t""'+'O'l*}
o
80.00
E 60.00
E
; oo
.a''1'-
-.a
-tt'
ji"'
4{l.00
20.00
-a''
-zS"
-**
000
10 100 1o@ 10000 100000
Time (days)
Item 3
Page 169
drarrdmar = (O44Cfrfl-05lan(.f SX4DI Vdue€ dc best tor stns! t and long linre I

WASHOE COUNTY
'Dedicated To Excellence in Public Service"
www.washoecounty.us
Washoe County
Well Mitigation
Hearing Board
4930 Energ5r WaY
RenqNV 895024106
Tel: (775) 9544600
Fax (775) 9544610
Board Members:
Roger JacobsorL Chair
Pete Morros
Greg Pohll
Karen Rosenau
David Carlson
Legal Counsel:
John Rhodes
Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16.2406
The Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board $MHB) was created by the
Washoe County Board of Commissioners (BCC) on September 14,20A4. The Board
held its first hearing on November 17,2004. To date, the WMHB has held three
administrative meetings and 12 hearings, during which 23 cases were reviewed and 20
determinations made. ln 12 cases the WMHB determined that municipal well
production did not cause an unreasonable lowering of the water table at the applicant's
well. The WMHB found tha! in 9 cases, municipal well pumping was partly
responsible for an unreasonable water table lowering at the applicant's well. Two
determinations were deferred to the water purveyor (Meyers and Melarkey) and one
case was denied a hearing because the applicant's well was producing adequate water
(Riker).
Name:
Address:
Area:
Rebecca Volle
12705 Valley Springs Road
Whites Creek Estates
Hearing Date: 217106
Determination: No unreasonable drawdown due to municipal pumping
Purveyor: STMGID
Post Hearing No purveyor action necessary
Status:
Name: Kurosh Moassessi
Address: 12755 Valley Springs Road
Area: Whites Creek Estates
Hearing Date: 217106
Determination: No unreasonable drawdown due to municipal punping
Purveyor: STMGID
Post Hearing No purveyor action necessary
Status:
Item 3
Page 170

Washoe County Well Mitigation.Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16, 2006
Name: Robert J. Watters
Address: 5565 Tannerwood Drive, Reno, Nevada
Area: Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
Hearing Date: U03t06
Determination: There have been no unreulsonable adverse effects on this domestic well
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
caused by municipal pumping.
Washoe County
No purveyor action necessary
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Detennination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Mr. Bob Phillips
I1505 Overland Road, Reno, Nevada
Lemmon Valley (northeast)
12t06t05
A reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal
pumping is 10 feet Q3% of the 43-foot total water level lowering).30%
of the total drawdown is attributable to unreasonable municipal
pumping and the remainder (47%) is attributable to other domestic well
pumping.
Washoe County
County DWR has met internally and is making a mitigation offer to the
applicant.
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Detemrination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Scott and Susan Smith
475 Oregon Blvd., Reno, Nevada
Lemmon Valley (northeast)
r2l0610s
A reasonable lowering of the static water level due to municipal
pumping is 10 feet (14% of the 71-foot total water table lowering.30%
of the total drawdown is athibutable to unreasonable municipal
pumping and the remainder (56%) is attributable to other domestic well
pumping.
Washoe County
Washoe County DWR met and negotiated with the Smiths. The County
believes that by securing grant funding to reduce the connection fee by
approximately 50%o, it has provided reasonable mitigation. The Smiths
were notified bv letter dated 2121106.

Washoe County Well Mitigatiott Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16.2006
Name: Deanna Winard
Address: 15950 ML Rose Hwy, Reno, 89511
Area: Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
Hearing Date: Illl5l05
Determination: No unreasonable decline due to municipal pumping
Purveyor: Washoe County & STMGID
Post Hearing No purveyor action necessary
Status:
Name: Barbara Halen
Address: 15920 Thompson Lane, Reno, 89511
Area: Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
Hearing Date: 9ll3l05
Determination: Unreasonable decline due to multiple factors; i.e., domestic well
ptrmping, municipal pumping, climatic change (particularly drought) and
specific problems with the construction and performance of the well.
The Board finds that, of the total drawdown, approximately one third is
attributed to County municipal pumping.
Purveyor: Washoe County
Post Hearing The purveyor declined any reimbursement as the municipal impact was
Status: minimal (8 feeO. Purveyor considers this to be a reasonable lowering.
The applicant was informed by telephone.
Name: John and Patti Minaberry
Address: 5871 Mt. Rose Hwy Reno, NV 89511
Area: Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
Hearing Date: 812105
Determination: There is an unreasonable adverse affect on the subject well and 75% of
the impact is related to STMGID 6 (or municipal pumping)
Purveyor: STMGID
Post Hearing STMGID Local Managing Board, on9ll9l05, recommended that the
Status: Board of Trustees reimburse 70o/of the well deepening costs, STMGID
Board of Trustees approved LMB recommendation on70125105-
Applicant referred matter to State Engineer on 11/0705.
Page 3 of 7
Item 3
Pagell2

Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16, 2006
Name: Scott and Pamela Stahl
Address: 15866 Fawn Lane Reno, NV 89511
Area: Mt Rose/CallaharVGalena
Hearing Date: 715105
Determination: No unreasonable decline due to municipal pumping
Purveyor: Washoe County
Post Hearing No purveyor action necessary
Status:
Name: Marvin Spiker
Address: 12935 Valley Springs Rd., Reno, Nevada 89511
Area: Whites Creek Estates
Hearing Date: 715105
Determination: Due to the special circumstances in looking at the drawdown and
contours, the Board finds there is unreasonable drawdown due to
municipal pumping. The Board clarified that it is unreasonable to the
extent of about 60%.
Purveyor: STMGID
Post Hearing STMGID Local Managing Board discussed mitigation onlIl2ll05 and
Status: it was explained that the Spiker reimbursement request had been delayed
until the WMHB makes a recommendation on surrounding neighbors.
Name: Chet Geniusz
Address: 15345 Cherrywood Dr., Reno, NV 89511
Area: Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
Hearing Date: 6114/05
Determination: Pumping from public supply did not cause an unreasonable drawdown
Purveyor: Washoe County
Post Hearing No purveyor action necessary.
Status:
Name: Ramsdell Familv Trust
Address: 7299 Franktown Rd., 155 View Crest Ct., Reno, 89511
Area: Washoe Valley
Hearing Date: 513105
Determination: No unreasonable adverse effects on well caused by municipal pumping
Purveyor: Washoe County
Post Hearing No pwveyor action necessary.
Status:
Page 4 of 7
Item 3
Page 173

Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16.2006
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Monte D. Geidl
9885 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV 89506
Lemmon Valley (southeast)
715105
No unreasonable adverse affect on this well due to municipal pumping
Washoe County
No purveyor action necessary
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Bruce & Eileen McNeall
4760Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno,8951l
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
4tst05
l5o/o to 20Vo fromthe water purveyor for municipal impact to the
applicant's water level
Washoe County & STMGID
STMGID Local Managing Board on7ll8/05 denied any reimbursement
as their policy states the WMHB must find unreasonable drawdown.
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Rosemary Melarkey
5849 Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno,895ll
Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
4t5t05
STMGID offered to negotiate direct costs for hook up & abandonment
STMGID
STMGID Board of Trustees on 06/08/05 approved connection to
STMGID system waiving all fees and paying well abandonment costs in
lieu of well deepening reimbursement
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Thomas Meyers
5853 Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno, 89511
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
4tslos
STMGID offered to negotiate direct costs for hook up & abandonment
STMGID
STMGID Board of Trustees on 06/08/05 approved connection to
STMGID system waiving all fees and paying well abandonment costs in
lieu of well deepening reimbtrsement
Item 3
PagelT4
Page 5 of 7

Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16.2006
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Ronald A. Squatrito
15465 Callahan Ranch Rd., Reno, 89511
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
31U05
No unreasonable lowering of water table
Washoe County & STMGID
No purveyor action necessary
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Keith L. Jorgensen
5605 Englewood Cir, Reno, 89511-901
I
Mt Ro seiCallahan/Galena
3lUls
25Yo dueto municipal pumping,25yo
50% drought
Washoe County & STMGID
WCDWR referred to State Eneineer for reasonable
deterrnination
due to other area domestic wells;
drawdown
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Kay Nyswonger
15446 Callahan Ranch Rd., Reno, 895 I I
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
3/r/05
No unreasonable lowering of water table
Washoe County & STMGID
No purveyor action necessary
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
John Riker
15920 Cherrywood Dr., Reno,8951l
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
3^/0s
No determination made, well still producing plenty of water
Washoe County & STMGID
No purveyor action necessary
Page 6 of 7
Item 3
Page 175

Washoe County Well Mitigation Hearing Board
Status Report
March 16. 2006
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Kenneth & Denise Sims
15280 Cherrywood Dr., Reno 89511
Mt Ro se/Callahan/Galena
3lt/05
No unreasonable lowering of water table
Washoe County & STMGID
No purveyor action necessary
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Russ Price
11600 Overland Dr., Reno, 89506
Lemmon Valley (northeast)
rut7t04
50% domestic wells; 50% municipal wells
Washoe County
WCDWR refened to State Engineer for reasonable drawdown
determination. WCDWR paid to have well cleaned out and pump
lowered. Well silted-in immediately after cleanout and seized pump.
WCDWR concluded that the well has water, but is constructed such that
silt is not prevented from entering the casing and damaging the pump.
Additionally, WCDWR is extending water service to Overland Dr.,
which should be in place by fall of 2006.
Name:
Address:
Area:
Hearing Date:
Determination:
Purveyor:
Post Hearing
Status:
Janis Rummler
5675Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno, 89511
Mt Rose/Callahan/Galena
tur7l04
Major impact by STMGID #6 well; minor amount
from Arrow Creek
#3; local domestic well impact extremely low
STMGID
STMGID Board of Trustees on0ll25l05 approved Janis Rummler's
request for reimbursement for a domestic well deepening located at 5675
Mt. Rose Hovy in the amount of $5605.97
Item 3
PrgetT6
Page 7 of 7

Groundwater Resource Data Center
Washoe County Well Mitigation Program
General Information Packet
Callahan Ranch
Galena Terrace Estates
WELL IVIITIGATION HT'ARING BOARD
Washoe County Department of Water Resources
, 4930 BnergY WaY' Reno, Nevada
CommunitY Meeting Room
Item 3
PagelTT

Table of Contents
SOUTT{ TRUCKEE MEADOWS TIYDROGRAPHIC SETTING
LOCALGEOI.OGY
CLIMATOLOGY
RECIIARGE AND DISCHARGE
cnienar- vICINITY GROUI.IDWATER AND WATER USE INFORMATION
WATER RIGHTS FOR PRODUCTION WELLS
WATERQUAIITY
l.
1.
,)
7.
13.
16.
Figures
Figure I
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
2002 Potentiometric Surface Contour Map
Domestic Well Locations
DigtizedAreas of Grass andNonNative Strubs
Accumulative Growth and Water Usages
Water Senrice Lines
6.
8.
10.
12.
15.
Table 1.
Table2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Tables
Climatology Data
Heppner Subdivision Water Usage
Galena Estates Water Usage
Water Rights
.,
9.
13.
APPENDD( A.
APPENDD( B.
PRODUCTION WELL INFORMATION
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Item 3
Page 178

SOUTH TRUCKEE MEADOWS HYDROGRAPHIC SETTING
The South Truckee Meadows is located on the western edge of the Great Basin in the
Basin and Range Province. North to south tendi:rg mountains andvalleys that formed as
a result of extensional tectonics and uplift characterized the Basin and Range Province.
Tectonic activity began in the mid Tertiary and continues, to a lesser exten! to the
present day. .
LOCAL GEOLOGY
The geology of the area has been well studied and is described in detail by White et al-
(1964), tho-proo and White (1964), Tabor and Ellen (1975\, Silberman et aI. (1979),
go"h;n and Rogers (1983), snd Bsnham and Bell (1993). The Carson Range borders
the Truckee Meadows to the west- It is cored by Cretaceous granodiorite of the Sierra
Nevada batholith and Tertiary andesitic flows, breccias, and tuffs of the Kate Peak
formation. East of the valley, the Virginia Range is composed primarily of Kate Peak
andesitic volcanics and Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks. To the
soutb, low hills'of granitic, volcanic, and metavolcanic rocks form a topographic and
hydrologic boundary between the Tnrckee Meadows and Washoe Valley. The south
Truckee Meadows is partially enclosed at the northem margin at Windy Hill and the
Huffaker Hills, where flow-dome complexes of the Kate Peak formation rise above the
valley floor.
These same granitic, volcanic, and metasedimentary rocks form the bedrock basement of
the valley. fUr Ut Rose Fan is a pediment. Alluvial deposits are relatively thin and the
bedrock basement slopes roughly parallel to the land surface from the range front to t}e
valley floor. Sertiments on the fun at" high energy fluvial and glacial outwash deposits
derived from the Carson Range. They consist of poorly sorted sands and gravels with
few clay lenses and common cobble to boulder-size clasts of andesitic and granitic
Sediments attain a maximum thickness of approrimately !!0
feet just north
"o-poritioo. of the Mt Rose Highway, but are generally between 300 and 500 feet thick On the east
side of the valley, sediments derived from the Virginia Range are poorly sorted sand"
gravel, and clay skeam deposits with cobble and boulder-size clasts of andesitic
lomposition. Flroodplain deposits of sandy clay cover the valley floor, and are underlain
by fie Tertiary Truckee Formation, a weakly indurated sequence of sand and clay
lucrustrine and alluvial sedi.ments @onham and Bell; 1993; Bonham and Rogers; 1983).
Sediments in the eastem and central portions of the valley are estimated to be less than
500 feet thick (Skalbeck, 2001).
l.
Item 3
PrgelT9

CLII{ATOLOGIC DATA
Tbe western Regron climate center at DRI has been collecting long-term precipitation
data of the climatic divisions of Nevada- The NW regiol for Nevada is mostly data from
stations located in washoe county. The data in this packet is from the Northwest Nevada
Precipitation ladex in Table 1.
Table l.
YEAR PRECIP % of AVE
1895 8.11 94
1895 11.46 133
1897 8.94 104
189.8 5.44 63
1899 9.85 115
19OO 8.19 95
19Ol 10.03 117
1902 8.38 97
1903 7.78 90
1904 11.1 8 130
1905 5.16 60
1906 14.19 165
't907 '1
12.52
46
t9o8 5.54 64
1909 11.04 128
1910 5.77 67
1911 9.10 106
1s12 7.39 86
1913 11.37 132
1914 10.16 118
1915 7'30 85
1916 10.5 1 122
1917 5.89 68
1918 8.54 99
1919 6-32 73
1920 8.94 104
1921 7.87 91
1s22 9.18 107
1923 7.43 86
1924 5.48 64
1925 9.43 110
1926 6.72 78
1927 7.39 86
1928 5.11 59
1929 6.18 72
1930 8.30 96
1931 7.1 0 83
1932 6.41 75
1933 6.76 79
1934 7.1 5 83
1935 8.18 95
1936 9.22 107
1937 8.83 103
1938 11.94 139
1939 6.67 78
1940 12.7 5 148
1941 10.94 127
1942 9.03 105
1943 10.3 1 12O
1944 9.99 116
DEPARTURE CUM
-0.492
2.8 5I
0 .3 3 B
-3.162
1.248
-0.4',| 2
'l .428
-0.222
-o .8 2.2
2.578
-3.442
5.5 8I
3.91 I
-3.0 6 2
2.438
-2.832
0.4 9I
-1 .2 12
2.768
1 .5 5 8
-1 .3 0 2
LI0I
-2.7 12
-0 .0 6 2
-2.282
0.3 3 I
-0 .7 3 2
0 .57I
-1 .1 7 2
.-3.122
0 .8 2 8
-1 .8I2
-1 .2 12
-3.492
-2.422
-0.3 0 2
-1 .5 0 2.
-2.1 9 2
-1 .8 4 2
-1.452
-0.422
0 .6 't 8
0.228
3 .3 3 I
-1.932
4.1 48
2 .3 3 I
0.428
1 .7 0I
1 .3 8 I
DEPT
-0.492
2 .3 6 6
2.704
-0.4 5I
. 0 .7 9 0
0 .3 7 I
't .8 0 6
I .5 I4
o-762
3 .3 4 0
-0.1 0 2
5 .4 I6
9.404
6.342
I .7I0
5 .9 4 8
6 .4 4 6
5.234
8.0 0 2
9 .5 6 0
L2 5I
1 0.1 6 6
7.454
7.392
5.1 1 0
5 .4 4 I
4.71 6
5.294
4.1 22
1 .0 0 0
't.828
-0 .0 5 4
- 1 .2 6 6
-4 .7 5 8
-7.1 I0
-7.482
-8 .9 I4
-1 1 .1 7 6.
-1 3.018
-14.470
-14.892
-14.27 4
-t 4.0 4 6
-1 0.7 0 E
- 1 2 .6 4 0
-8.492
-6 .1 5 4
-5.7 26
-4.0 1 8
-2.6 3 0
2.
Item 3
Page 180

YEAR
1945
1946
't I47
1948
949
950
951
I52
1953
1 9 5.4
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
970
97',l
972
973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
981
982
983
s84
985
986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
P R E C IP
1 1 .16
B .2 0
3.91
6.7 5
6 .0I
9.8 4
LI2
10.22
6.10
5 .4 6
8.44
7.53
B .6 3
9 .3 3
5.0I
7.9 5
7.84
9 .9 5
1 1 .31
10.27
1 0.8 3
5.18
9.41
7 .9I
1 3 .4 5
1 0.2 0
1 0 .6 3
7 .1 4
L3 0
7.2 1
9.9 6
7.48
I .2 6
9.31
9 .0I
1 0 .3 0
9.81
13.10
1 6 .3 6
8.12
7 .1 1
I .2I
8.5 5
6 .5 9
7 .6I
6.24
7.94
6 .4 9
L36
7.23
12.80
1 2 .0 0
7 .9 3
1 5 .0 2
5 .4 5
I .2 6
5 .7 6
5 .6 2
6 .5 6
I .0 8
Yo
OfAVE
130
95
45
78
71
114
'1 04
119
71
63
98
88
100
108
59
92
91
116
131
119
126
60
109
93
156
119
124
83
108
84
116
B7
96
108
106
120
1't4
152
190
94
83
96
99
77
89
73
92
75
97
84
149
146
92
175
63
' 96
67
65
70
94
DEPARTURE CUM
2 .5 5I
-o.402
-4.692
-1.852
-2.522
1.238
0.31 I
1 .61 I
-2.502
-3.1 42
-0.1 6 2
-1 .072
0.0 2I
0.7 z8
-3.5 12
-0.6 5 2
-o .7 6 2
1 ,3 4I
2.708
1 .6 6 8
2.228
-3.422
0.8 0I
-0.622
4.8 4I
1 .5I I
2.028
-1.462
0.6I I
-1.392
1 .3 5 8
-1 .1 2 2
-0.342
0.7 0I
0.478
1 .6 9I
1 .2 0I
4.498
7.7 5 8
-0 .4I2
-1 .4I2
-0-322
-0.0 5 2
-2.0 12
-0.9 1 2
-2.362
-0.6 6 2
-2.1 12
-0.242
-1 .3 7 2
4.198
3.9 9I
-0.6 7 2
6.4 1 I
-3.152
-0.342
-2.842
-2.982
-2.042
-0.s22
DEPT
-0.07 2
-0 .4 7 4
-5,1 6 6
-7.01 I
-9.5 4 0
-8.3 0 2
-7.984
-6.3 6 6
-8.8 6I
-12.010
-12.17 2
-13 .2 4 4
-13.2 16
-12 .4I I
-16.000
-16.652
-17 .4 1 4
-16.0 6 6
-13.3 5I
-1 1 .6 9 0
-9.462
-12.884
-'t2.076
-12.6 9I
-7 .8 5 0
-6.252
-4.224
-5 .6 I6
-4.9I I
-6.3 8 0
-5.022
-6.144
-6.4I6
-5.778
-5.3 0 0
-3.6 0 2
-2.394
2.1 04
9.8 0 2
9.3I0
7.8 8I
7.5 6 6
7 .5 1 4
5.5 0 2
4.5 9 0
2.228
1 .5 6 6
-0.5 4 6
-0.7I I
-2.1 6 0
2.0 3I
6.0 3 6
5 .3 6 4
11 .7 82
8.6 3 0
8.2I I
5.4 4 6
2.464
o.422
-0.1 0 0
3.
Item 3
Page 181

INCFIES OF PRECTP ITATIO'{
o(rrda
.'.
4.
Item 3
Page 182

RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE
Groundwater recharge to the Mt Rose Fan is estimated to average between 9,000 and
15,000 aselfeet p.iy"ut (Jamison and Ruefer, 1991)- Three methods were used to
recharge: Mucey Eakin, Arteaga-Durbr:l and a method based on cross-sectional
"rii-"t,
area of creek canyon -o,tttr. Lrigation was estimafed at 4.0 feet/year for alfalfa and 2'5
feeUyear for pasture. For modeling purposed, 25o/o of trlgation watel was assumed to
,"*h the aquifer. Evapohanspiraiion was estimated at 0.0116 feetlday (4-2 feetlyeat)
with an extinction depih of six feet. The ET rate was modeled as varying linearly
betweer zero and six feet. Widmer (1991) estimated 9,280 aqelfeetper year of recharge
to the Mt Rose Fan from the mountain block underflow, irrigation, and stream
infilratioq and septic sYstems-
The hydrology of the South Tnrckee Meadows is similar to the other valleys in the Basin
and Range. Groundwater recharge is sourced primarily in the mountain block'
Additional recharge is obtained through infrltration along streatns, canals, and inigated
lands. Direct pr"iipitrtion on the valley floor averages less that one foot' and provides
little or oo'r""f"rge to the aquifer. Potential evapobanspiration rates are on tbe order of 4
feet/year. wateiis lost from the aquifer by extaction wells, evapohanspiratiorl and
discharge to Steamboat Creelc
water level contours show that groundwater flows generally northeasterly, from the
_and
Carson and Virginia Ranges toward the center of the valley (Felling, 2002) Figure 1'
Numerous faults of Quatemary a+e are present in the alluvium, which to a greater or
lesser extent will imiede grounJwater flow. North trending faults strikc across the
d.irection of flow, *d -r likely to have a more significant effect on flow than northeast
trending faults. The Steambo"i HiUt act as a ba:rier to groundwater flow in the alluvium
due to the lower coaductivity of crystalline rocks that make up the hills. The flat
hydraulic gradient at the valley floor indicates that little groundwater is lost through
gnderflow to the nortb but rather is lost by discharge to Steamboat Creek and tbrough
evapotanspiration.
3.

RcEe #5
tr'ffi
/V
Galena Terrace Estates
2AO2 Potentiometric Surface Contour Map
ParEd Bomdlrl6
ccnb$lilcntJ3oFc€
g H[Ft tlloDldhtvthIt
o
F'Dr'|ldmwltE
sOURCg V{rrtr Cory DcAltliiri olf b RetE
Frfr|! Rcpdt - Jtdt 2@
Oro.rdrnbrlad St !8, Sqtd| Tr&*49 freadorc. Wh$€ Cqnty, Nsd.
bEtr*-oiFntEfid!ffi
hh'EDrFffidtdmd
ffi.lrt&Ft6-.ryr6
RffihdEffiJffFTfu
..;btuhhbbBaEP6d
+
NOTTO SCALE
Department of \Afater
Resources ffi
WASHOECOUNTY \iry
NF/ADA H{
1El0 B|mrlttt'
RGI6dlon
cr9rE+.8D
Figure 1
6.
Item 3
Page 184

GENERAL VINICITY GROTINDWATER & WATER USE INFORI\4ATION
For purposes of this information packe! the Callahan Ranch Area includes the parcels
ootti and south of the Mt Rose Highway shown in Figure ?. he Callahan Ranch area
includes the Govenrment Lots north of Mt Rose Highway, parcels along State Route 431
from STMGID Production Well #7 to Fawn Lane, and Galena Terrace Estates. The
average size parcel is approximately 1 acre in the Galena Terrace Estates. The lots
adjacento Galena Tenace Estates range from 1 acre lots to approximately 5 acre lots.
According to the Washoe County Assessors database, there were approximately 530 total
domestic wells in the Callahan Ranch area before the Washoe County water system
expanded service into this area. There are 17 residences that were fonnerly on domestic
wells that are now being serviced by Washoe County.
A small number of parcels that are recorded as having a domestic well do not have a
dwelling. These lots are currently vacant. There are approximately 508 dwelling units
in the Cuttutr* Ranch area that are on a domestic well. State Law allows each domestic
well 2.02 acrelfeet amually. The Nevada Division of Water Resources estimates a
domestic well actually uses 1.72 aqelfeet annually.
Table 2. Sr:rnmarizes water use data for the Heppner Subdivision in East Lelrmon
Valley. .Some of the customers in this area are on a meter but pay a flat rate while ottrer
customers pay ametered rate for the amount of water they use. The customers who pay a
flat rate use approximately twice the amount of water as compared to the customers who
pay a meterJrate. Metered data from Hidden Valley water system shows that the
average household uses approximately .94 Acre Feet Annually.
Lemmon Valley Water System
Table 2.
2003 (gallons)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTALS
Average Metered Rate ConsumPtion
5988
7222
7302
8421
11126
21368
19739
17971
15912
11457
6703
5557
138766
(0.43 acre feet)
Average Ftat Rate Metered Consumption
8384
7156
7730
9309
19220
51660
52818
45575
37020
27409
10151
7322
283754
(0.87 acre feet)
,f
Item 3
Page 185

Soutlr Truckee Meadows
DOMESTIC WELL LOCATIONS
A/ nairsnllB .
ffiHlil*t*rH,ffi
FEa $bthoaolunvAwDd.rdcwtolo€.iloE A Flodurdilw'nloElotr
h:bdd.*dDd-ffi
imi.EFFff-rdrhfl
ffi-.trek6lnrryrc
ffildF#ffFFfi
tsLbhbhhrry
DrdJWl@
t
NOTTOSCALE
Department of Water
Resources ffi
WASHOECOUNTY W
NEVADA M(
ffiffi?..
Er9r3a€
i-iH["{
b|g

The Groundwater Data Center summarized data for metered honaes in the Galena Terrace
Estates Subdivision There were 45 homes with metered service'data for the year 2004
and 42 homes with metered service data for the year 2003. The total amount of gallons
per household was summed and divided by the total number of homes in order to
calculate an average amount of water used. Gallons were then converied to acre feet for
each home. The average annual amount of water used per household in the metered area
of Galena Terrace Estates Subdivision is .84 Acre Feet (Table 3). The soils tlrougbout
this area are well-drained soils, on mountainous uplands.
Address ofMetered
Table 3.
G alena Terrace Subdivislon W ater Consum ption
ilt etered W ater U ses for Years 2003 - 2004
Wetl
15320 CHERRYW OOD DR 8951
15340 BRUSHWOOD WAY 8951
15341 BRUSHWOOD WAY 8951
15342 BRUSHW OOD W AY 8951
15345 BRUSHWOOD WAY 895'I 1
15346 BRUSHW OOD W AY 89511
5347 BRUSHWOOD WAY 89511
5348 BRUSHW OOD W AY 8951
5349 BRUSHW OOD W AY 8951
5350 CHERRYW OOD DR 8951
5352 BRUSHWOOD WAY 895I
5356 BRUSHW OOD W AY 89511
5358 BRUSHWOOD WAY 8951'I
5360 BRUSHW OOD W AY 89511
5440 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
5480 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
5520 CHERRYW OOD DR 8S511
15540 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
15560 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
15600 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
15620 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
15625 CHERRYW OOD DR 89511
15795 CALLAHAN RANCH RD 895'I 1
5200 cEDARW O O D DR 89511
5210 CEDARWOOD DR 89511
s220 c EDARWOOD DR 89s11
5220 SHAWNA LN 89511
5225CEDARWOODDR89511
5225 SHAWNA LN 89511
5230 CEDARW O O D DR 89511
5230 GOLDENROD DR 89511
5235 CEDARWOOD DR 89511
5245CEDARWOODDR89511
5245 GOLDEN ROD.DR 89511
5245 SHAW NA LN 89511
s2so ceolRwooD DR 89511
5250 SHAWNA LN 89511
5255 SHAW NA LN 89511
5260 GOLDENROD DR 89511
5265 GOLDENROD DR 89511
5275 CEDARWOOD DR 89511
5290 GOLDENROD DR 89511
5590 W INTERGREEN LN 89511
5794 TANNERW OOD DR 89511
5808 TANNERW OOD DR 89511
Average am ount of W ater Gonsum Ption
Average am ount of W ater Gonsum ption
(Gallons)
(Acre Feet)
Total
2003
15 3,00 0
44200 0
208000
48000
248000
30000
24200 0
265000
6 9,00 0
288000
354000
152000
291000
349000
147000
551000
264000
398000
528000
547000
21 4000
493000
74000
287000
112000
323000
59000
298000
25000
262000
89000
24200 0
200000
356000
877000
203000
461000
214000
719000
77000
99000
227 000
27 3,452
0.8392254
2004
108,000
438000
233000
42000
211000
190004
43000
27 2000
291000
61,000
316000
340000
266000
356000
273000
155000
578000
282000
356000
539000
601000
2240 00
477000
68000
392000
123000
371000
189000
298000
43000
128000
123000
118000
332000
219000
255000
972000
177000
373000
215000
716000
80000
110000
24'1 000
238000
27 6,2.89
0.8479309

The landscaped area around the homes is rouglly equal between the metered customers
and the homes that are on domestic wells. fhe squar" footage of landscaping associated
with each home is very similar between the metered water customers and the one acre
lots on domestic wells @igure 3).
Galena Tenac€ Estates
DIGITIZED AREAS OF GRASS & NON NATIVE SHRUBS
7ar/
/\{
raertocoaat
tt*r-tlr
E dltEltcda|E.id hx.t€&tb
@l
hrqbour*oodqntrt,fo'tLf
4Emu
|-:bdd-blfrlaffi
-lr--dd.dtdn!-
ffi!.*l-FrE+
iffii-tdffFa
tuHihfiW
ffidbhd
+
NOTTOSGAI.E
Deparunent of Water
Resources &
*ASHOECOUNTv
NEVADA
@bEE
idlde
'6i|K
q&p
1!F*:{
!S+-\:
lc!':..F.rij
bh
Frgure 3.
10.
Item 3
Page 188

Most of the parcels in the Mt Rose Fan area that are on domestic we1ls are also on septic
tanks. Data supplied by the Lemmon Valley Waste Water Treafinent Plant and the Reno-
Stead Waste Water Treahent Plant show that the average flow from a bome with a
family of four is .22 AFA. Therefore, if the recharge from septic tarfr;s (-22 AFA for a
famili of four) is subtracted from the total water consunption of .84 AFA, the estimated
net consumption for each household in this area is approximately .62 AFA'
The Groundwater Data Center qeated a graph tluit summarizes the water consumption
data for the 508 homes and the year that thry *.t" built (Figure 4). The highest grourth
rate for the Callahan Ranch area occurred between the years 1974 and 1980. State Law
allows a domestic .well2.02 AFA of water consumption. The State Engineers office
estimates the average amount of water used by a domestic well owner is acfually 1.12
AFA The total amount of water used by the metered water customer in the Callahan
Ranch area equals .84 AFA. As explained above, the net a:nount of water consumption
per household is estimated to be .62 AFA. If the Groundwater Data Center assumes that
a domestic well owner uses twice as much water as a metered customer as demonstrated
in the Heppner Subdivision, then the total water consumption would equal l-68 AFA.
Subtact thi recharge of .22 AFA from the septic tanl(s the net water consumption per
household for this areawouldbe 1.46 A-FA.
Water Use for the year 2002 was compiled by Eco:Logic Engineers for the Washoe
Counfy Deparhent of Water Resources and is expressed as Gallons per Capital per Day
by Area (Fig,rt. 4). The water system that services the Mt Rose area delivers water in a
higher amonnt per capita than most of the other areas in the Truckee Meadows.
11.
Item 3
Page 189

By Growth in South Truckee Meadows
Accumulated Acre/Ft of Water Use
-+ Accumulatiw 2. O2AF/home
1016.00 AFA
-eAccumulatirc 1.12 AFiHome
568.96 AFA
Accumulatirc 0.84 AF/Home
426.72 AFA
-:+- Accumulative 0.62 AF/Home
314.96 AFA
+Accumulatiw 1.46 AF/Home
741.68 AFA
0.00
.-"." e* c ."e c -dPrl-C c C C .r"" C ^ge *rS..*
Borth byYear Built
"** "at" "-"" "a&
Comparison of Gallons perCapita per Day by Area
6
o
o
g
CL
6
(,
o
EL
|'
e
E
o
700
600
s00
400
300
200
100
0
"cftp{""\$$:.5$"t";,$"$ff
Gallons per CaPita per Day by Area - 2002
Source: ECO:LOGlC, 2003 and TMWA. Data represents year 2002 consumption only.
Figure 4.
12.
Item 3
Page 190

WATER RIGHTS FOR PRODUCTION WELLS
The complete pumping records and drill logs for the Production wells in the Galena Fan
are located in Appindix A. All Water Rights associated with the Production wells are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4.
Water Rights For MuniciPal Wells
M ount Rose Production Well #2ll
35147 - Filed on March 17.1978 from Base Right 28424
2.8424 - Filed on June 13, 1974
Mount Rose Production Well #3 @sg5 : Tot"lAFA' 1893.64 Ac
ffi7,tste
28246 - Filed on June 'l 3, 1974
from Base Right28426
irom Base Right 51326
51326 -Tiled on Sept2'1. 1987 from Base Right35455
15455 - Filed on May 22,1978
trl|ount Rose Production Well #4 @FA-56.25AcrelFt
ffifrom
28427 - Filed on June 13,1974
Mount Rose Production Well #5
iotal AFA - 2089.485 Acre/Ft
Base Right28427
,62259, 63328' 63329 and 6446
ffi3from
BaseRight57749
577as - Filed on June 11,1992 from Base Right 3t 805
35865 -FIiEd on August 23,1978 from Base Right 35279
35279 - Unsure of Filing date.
t8926 -Fned on July 16, 1993 from Base Right 35 48
f 5148 - Filed on March 17,1978 from Base Right 28425
28425 - Filed on June 13, 1974
;0710- Filed on December 16, 19 3 from Base Risht 58807
Se80Z - FileO on Mav 4, 1993 from Base Right 35152
35152: F'rled on March 17, 1978 from Base Right 28430
28430 - Filed on June 13,1974
ffis, 1996 from Base Right35148
ffi7,1978 from Base Right 28425
28425 - Flled on June 13, 1974
03328 - F-led on August 15, 1997 from Base RigN 42645
42645 - Filed on October 14, 198t
ffis,'1997
from Base Ri9ht41571
13.
Item 3
Page 191

tvtount Rose Production Well
Table 4. contt
ffitAFA- 1830.53 Acre/Ft
' F'rled on July 29, 1999 from Base Right 35150
o4 lssq xE!!?912
ZgqZl - Filed on June '13,1974
Ot ZOZ - fi6a on ntay 31 , 1995 trern Begg-Right 47129
ffiie8g
from Base E!9!! t!1€
- Fifed on June 13,1974
ffi , 1995 from Base R'rght 47130
ffi 5, 1983 fro!! te!e8!g!$g] !q
ffifromBaseRishL?q1Z
on June 13,1974
ffi
2ooo ftom Bae Right 47129
129 - Filea on August 5, 1983 from Base Right 35149
ffiEfromBaseRight2M26
28426 - Filed on June 13,1974
66654 -Filed on August 9, 2000 frql lgE
ffi8,
1989ftom Base Right49324
g3A - Filed on February7, 1986
Tessa Production Well #2
- 61269, 61270, 65960, 65961, 70261and 70262 z
ffimBaseRight47131
ffis,
1983from Base Right35151
ffigz8 from Base Right 28429
28429 - Filed on June 13,1974
1270 - Filed on 31 , 1995 from Base Right 47132
7132- Filed on August 5, 1983
713ilFileA on August 5, 1983 from Base Right 35151
- Filed on June 13,1974
7132 - Filed on August 5, 1983
Item 3
Page192

Washoe Counfy Deparhrent has been expanding the water system in the Galena Terrace
Estates. Approximately 45 homes in this arca akeady have water service from tbe Mt
Rose Wells and the Tessa Wells (Figue 5). Approximately 15 of these homes were
previously on wells. Expansion of the water system will continue as demands and firnds
b"co-e available. The next phase for expansion is to put a new iine the length of
Tannerwood Dr.
MT ROSE #5
r,/lT.RosE #3
MT ROSE *I
Callamont #2
ra{6ffi
W*|fu
a Don.dcw.l lrldoDl
e
haud4wdll.*E
GALENA TERRAGE ESTATES
WATER SERVIGE LINES
brbdd#J-ffi
rdb-6#*-Dr
ffi-rE-4tE*
ffiiddfrfff
F*bbh*
H&16
+
NOTTO SCALE
Department of Water
Resources ffi
WASHOECOUNTY
NEVADA
ehEst
r4bdE
@aw
lg6g
.rliif
;l+'.fi
Ld-it:i
bh
Frgure 5.
15.
Item 3
Page 193

WATERQUALMY
The Callaban ranch area has approximately 500 homes on septic sewer. Most of the
bomes that are on wells are'also on a septic system. Washoe County Deparbaent of
Water Resources has been collecting routine bacteia samples on the production wells
since 1998. These samples are all absent in total coliform, fecal coliform, and e-coli.
Washoe Counly Department of Water Resources also collects water qualify samples on
productions wells. Mt Rose wells 2 and 3 had elevated nitrates starting in 2000. Nitates
were also sampled on some of the domestic wells in the Galena Terrace Estates. Some of
the shallow wells showed elevated nitrates. The spreadsheets with this data are located in
Appendix B. District Health Deparbaent is aware of the increasing nitrates, however
they have not taken any action at this time.
Item 3
Page 194

A}PENDD( A
' Item3
Page 195

Pumping Records For STMGID Municipal Wells
STMGID Production Well #7
NDWR Drillers Log # 25246
Date Of ComPletion 'APril 4,1984
Total Depth = 240 Feet
Water Rights - 46958' 58806 : Totaf AFA - 41.44 Acre/Ft
WELL ID
STMGID #7 May - Dec 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
A,F
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
7.30
4.60
6.00
6.28
7.80
9.46
18.07
32.86
27.17
23.O2
38.43
11.25
18.98
25.25
39.65

'#"-ffi#arER
EEsouEcEs
O o*toN
srAEE oF'NEVADA
#
oF waTER BEsoTtRcr
*1 WELL DBtr,LEBS REPOR:r
5fr,*6tO
;; comPtete 6is form ir itr eufbe.tY
,4 r'J
'r/" ed"
6*,fro"
oliFrcE I]CF -olu'Y
w"xo*252ik-=--
TTPE OF WORK
/ Rttooditioo
Ncw Wdl P ' Other
Deepcs tr "
LTTHOI'GIC
I'OG
tr'
tr
5. TY?E VJET'
Cable f1 RotarYfi
Otbcr g
r>
aate
Wai&t Pct
-ff1
ffi:;
- --iuOce
-
^6o
in&es
itcbrs
s** *"1 Yes[ -PA
Depth d
Nod
"*tr
Gravel ParJoil:
Gnvel 4r*ed
Pedu'atims
.
TYPE
' Sitze
Fro
1! +*t
-------tez.t
TD
,
/EO ,od
ffi
€;rl
€-r'
.tsr
fIE
r a:i
'j
- .+;-
-r.:?"s:.f.'
WAXER ISTEL
*=
o* t-v:_jW
watct' tcupnmtnrc-
;. DR'rILE''s 'EBmSAI?I
3eThis wc-II qras drilleil Y&r
rny srPlrvili-oD aail thc FPort is tr
PageL9T

Pumping Records For Mount Rose Municipal Wells
Mount Rose Production Well #2
NDWR Drillers Log # 15663
Date Of GomPletion - June 19' 1976
Total DePth =200 Feet
Water Rights ' 35147: Total AFA - 1413'02 Acre/Ft
AF
ANNUAL
WELL ID YEAR PUMPAGE
Mt Rose#z May - Dec 1990 13.7
1991 25.1
1992 2.9
Aug - Dec 1993 0.7
1994 0.0
1995 0
1996 26
1997 0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0
2001
0
2002
0
2003 0
2004
0
Item 3
Page 198

,. ,! /')
[t)cfl E A)
F1r-R'r-"
DI\TS}ON OF \I'ATEFI I-:LST}L'!F:TLS
ftELL DRILLERS REPORT
Plcesc complett th.h fora ln its catire$
L LOC TtoN-./u-{
-PERMIT NO-_- -#-
5. TYPE OF WORIC
NcwWeIt {
Dcapcn D
Recooditioo
Otbcr
tr
tr
4.
PROPOSEDUSE
Domestic D Irigarioo D
Muuicipal p}--lndustrial E]
Test
Stocl
5. T}?E WELL
Cable fii--ou:--'
Otbar I
Mrtcrid
IJTHOLOGIC I-,OG
*lls lr,.- l'ro I g'
SELL CONSTRUCT]ON
Diamctcr t olr----.d-..-..--..---incb:s Total d:pth.. A.{1{:.-- r:
-_..-.-iachas
Sr:rface *rl: Ycs g-No g r y?r
Deptb of rcal
Gravcl paclcd:
Gravd
Ycs
paclcd hoa-.
D }iot'
^._---__-_Jcct
FF
Perfo'aliour:
Tpc
Sizepct'orEtiqo.-.-
Fraa---ACG---*-set
Froo--.---.._--.**---.
Jcet
Fro-*------ - - fcct
Emm
Froru.--...------..-..*.-_
I-E
frrr
Jeet
G^ ,/ p/"
tD..-*----*---**----
to---*----.---.-
f-''
f.t
Th'rs rdl urrs drill=d undcr my nrpcrvisiou and t.be rcpor.t ir rnr. ts
tbc bcsr of my tnowlcdgce.
i.r.{ERLEvEL
t0. DRILLERS CERTIRCATION
Drr:Dorl I rrurHsnrrPuap
BAILER TEST
Drae dcrra--Jer
Dras dowa--fed
Drae. dcer:--.-Jsr
N cvada coD t..astor's Ii ccnsc uumbe r -.-U /-3*2 -
NcvsCa Crillcr'r licro.r: nurnb:r.
/.f .(
Stetic *'atrr trrrt---/:!
rcct bclo* la.u,d nrferc-
Florr* - --.-, G-P.Ii---.-
warrr rcmp

Pumping Records For Mount Rose MunicipalWells
Mount Rose Production Well#3
NDWR Drillers Log # 35074
Date Of Completion - December 21, 1990
Total Depth=223Feet
Water Rights - 35149, 55565 : Total AFA ' 1893.64 Acre/Ft
WELL ID
Mt Rose #3
vrnn
May-Dec 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2042
2003
2004
AF
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
16.98
5.93
110.10
126.33
179.13
168.91
221.94
212.89
72.62
105.69
144.31
140.06
140.60
117.09
118.90
Item 3
Page 200

#!l;ili''"T.l:iisii..,:ouRcEs
PRINT OR TYPE ONLY
MAIIING A
STATE OT'NEVADA
DIVISIO}{ OF WATER RESOURCES
WELL DRTLLER'S REPORT
Please comptete this form in its entirety
*-.".--i?'-6-djd't'Aer)-
Permit No.
Basi
NOTICE OF
ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION@
PERMIT NO.
6.
TYPE OF WORK
New Well g
Recondition
Decpen D Othcr
Matcdal
LITIIOLOGIC LOG
D
tr
Subdiv'rsiot
5. TYPE WELL
Cable D RourYSl
Other D
WELL CONSTRUCTION
"
Toal depth-Z3-ieet
Diuneter-32----jnches
?7 inches
-i,,
tF.
Datc
1.
' l9n-
6 ?r =.-. 1990-
WELL TEST DATA
Perforadons:
'-
iyp. P"tforation
- !ffild
Size perforatio" fl-to t
* n 710=----feet
f.
Fro#to
rr#
Fro#
-
g- wATER LEvEL
at "'
ii# -"uifla"
Wateremperanrrc--(If,F,-"F au"Ig
s't'
feet below land'surfacc
10.
DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION
riri, .,""u was drilled unda my supervision anil the report is tnre.o the
best ofnry lrrowledge'
Nevacla conuactor's Utt*""lHS
issued bY thc Sute Conr oW
Nevada.confactor's ^';iJJ;
driller's-oumber .'?

Pumping Records For Mount Rose Municipal Wells
Mount Rose Production Well#4
NDWR Drillers Log # 17113
Date Of ComPletion -MaY25'1977
Total Depth = 235 Feet
Water Rights - 35150: Total AFA - 56.25 AcrelFt
WELL ID YEAR
Mt Rose #4 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
AF
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
30.3
44.6
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Item 3
Page202

trll'tsrO\; OF t ATfri Brsoili'r:( sT4Tr. or \TvAnL
v*"
DI\'IS}O\ OI- T\'ATLI| IiI.5I'LTRCIS
I\ELL T}RII-LERS ITEI'ORT
Plc.usc complck {his loro [n lts eotirert
orrit? 1'SI. o\1'r
New Well
Dccpcu
TEE
E
D
OF TVOR.K
Rrcondition
Othcr
5. LITHOLOGIC LOG
-__--_
l.{rtcrid
t \4'rrc: i
S:rB'r
D
D
Fra-
: Jo
Domcstic tr
lrtunicipal D,
l. owNER--.----f;r..--.jla l'eneY*Ne-v'-
Los r.. o...-.i.-.? . J.l - J ..----.
--_-
Pcrrit No.-.?. .€./ 9''7---- ---
B asin-......-.-....
TlriElnBl
PROPOSED USE
Irrigatioo tr Tcsl
Industrial D Stoct
D
D
5.. TYPE WEI=.
Cable Jf1 Rotar-r
ODcr P
8. WELL CONSTRUCT]ON
Diamctcr bole-------...-8---.-----iacbcs Totaj dcpt'b-" ""?3'5"_'
Casing rccord
\\,eight pcr fooL.-.----.-
..---.--.----.Thjcloass.'----]-E
--
E-avel
.,"y
- ad-:aalef---
'
tt= j-
-+FayeL-=r'al€+5r
E -frnj
?'l ( i ??
Dcpt! of
Gravcl packcd: Yes g No E
G ravet pacLed fron.------"-"Jcet
to--"--'-'-'-'----l
n
Pcrforations:
Type pcrf reti- *---f -e-9--!9IY-
t"-irt -60 -G.^P-yco'untercd---.-f*]
- f f-:--'
::::=lb
TEST DATA
hBEp RPl.t I Gl:Y. i Drn'Dorrr I Af trr Hourr PUEIP
9. WATER LEVEL
gr rti g walir level-.---.-,.-------.---.--f cet bclow leld surf acc-""'- --
Flow--.-.--.-.-
.--.--""'G'P'M
S'arcr rempcrangc--.-.-._'_.' F. QuaLrf----.--.
10. DRILLERS CERTMCATION
This wcll rms drilled undcr my supcnisioo and tbe rcPon b rs
tbc bcst of urY tnowlcdgc.
N au,c--MABCIN-DSILIIliG-re.
A d drcss-.L3-!*.0-!ftf'J.9* -E
BAILER TEST
Dran' dcs:D--.-.-- J*t
Dra* dcsr...-.... .-J*t
Dras dcut.... ---...-fcc;
N cvada c€tnuaEtdr's licenrc auabct--'l'6p
1Afr,6
N e vad-a dril I r.r'r li ctus rusrb--r - --'- " "! "/-' A' :-
sign'd---.---
Date----*-.
Item 3
Pase 2E-

Pumping Records For Mount Rose MunicipalWells
Mount Rose Production Well#5
NDWR Drillers Log # 35075
Date Of Completion - December 11 ' 1990
Total DePth = 802 Feet
Water Rights - 58870, 58925, 60710, 62269, 63328, 63329 and 64461:
Total AFA, - 2089.485 Acre/Ft
WELL ID
YEAR
Mt Rose #5 1 991
1992
1993
1994
1 995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
200/l
A,F
ANNUA.L
PUMPAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.09
207.18
306.92
387.65
497.83
2M.77
341.39
448.59
Item 3
Page 204

1+'HITE-DIVISION OF \{',ATgR RESOURCES
CANARY_CIIE\*T'S COPY
PINK-\'''ELL DRTLLER'S COPY
PRIJ{T OR T}'PE ONLY
.MAILING
NEVADA
RESOURCES
REPORT
in its entiretY
Permit No
DRESS AT WELL LOCATION-.lY@
rt
NOTIiE OF INTENT NO..1528&*_
TYPE OF WORK
New Well g
Rccondition
Deepen tr Other
LITHOI-OGiC I-OG
D
D
4. PR.OPOSED USE
Domestic D lrrigarion tr Test D
Municipal El Industriat D' Stock D
5. TYPE WELL
Cablc D Rorary)€
Othcr E
8. WELL CONSTRUCTTON
Diamerar-32-inchcs
Toral dcpth-fl02-:feet
77 inchcs
\TBtrC-EIIE-
Surhcc scal: Yes FX
No D Type
\W tElENl-
Depth of s-'l lCn - feet
Graval packed: Yes E No tr
Gravel pacted from fl f'eet to ': R!'yl fe*
Perforations:
Typc perforatio
Sizc perforario
rro#ro
Fro#to
f#to
Fro#to
fpn
feet
7ff1
f""r
feet
feet"
feet
Datcs
'-Darc
:
"- comulerc,r lFFLffiR 11
WELL TEST DATA
' l9-s'
; l9-S.
WATER LEVEL
Sraric water tevel
?4d rdt betow land surfrce
n"*--+fa--G-P"'t\{
}{A P's'L
Water rernperarure-CEEf,*oF Qualiry
'..
t0. .r--- : DRILLER'S ien#rcenoN ' ':' ::"-'-
This well was drilled under my supervisiou and tlre rcpon is mre ro rbe
ba{ of rn-v knowlcdgc-
Pump RPM G-P.M. I
Drarv Dowr
l.ievada conEactorrs tccnse number
' issued by thc Stae Contractor's Boara
t t' I I t - rn
Nevada contractor's driller's number
.^+
issuedbyr}reDivisionofWarcrResourccs-..!-1Df+
G.P.T[
G.P.M.-_.-
'G.P.M---
BAILER TEST
Draw down----Jeet
Draw dova-----Jeer
Draw dowl---Jeet
--bours
----ious
-bours
USE ADDTNONAL S}IEETS IF NECESSARY

Pumping Records For Mount Rose Municipal Wells
Mount Rose Production Well#6
NDWR Drillers Log # 78770
Date Of Completion 'February 3' 2000
Total Depth = 755 Feet
Water Rights - 65364 : TotatAFA'1830.53 Acre/Ft
AF
ANNUAL
WELL ID YEAR PUMPAGE
Mt Rose #6 2000 0.0
2001 0.0
20a2 221.4
2003 118.2
2004 104.3
Item 3
Page 206

ff '$!i:,ii"*$;iss!'ill,**ou*'*
PRII.{T OR TYPE ONLY
OO XOt IYRITE ON BACK
MAILING
&(1, _l\.v 9-z-r r. ,-
LocArroN -yy=r"1--s"I^ t"'.;';t;i'l,
.'.
EJ New Well
D Deepen
WORK PERFORMED
Ll Rcplace E Recondirion
El ,rrbandon tr o,lttt..--
lvhterial
LITHOLOGIC LOG
MolrEREcx--#4-
A /f. n'o s.c
STATE OF NEVADA
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
WELL DRILLER'S REPORT
Please completc th'u form t" iq :*t:t:{ i". ."
*ittr XRS 5!l'170 l ru and anq l'iAC rr.5L 53J'340 J5-r'w
NOTICE oF INTENT No.__aa€!._u_4__
""*.lnn".
ADDRESS AT wELL LOcAIoNJRO'S'L-'STREHI--IAKE
:nwnvl--aNn-SOpDEAnX - =-_-----:-
g
ffi;
*(O
i. PRoPoSED usE
D Domcsric E lrrigation E Ttt'
Affi;:';;*ndustriat Dtuol;tot B sttr
I
oFPqE gFqolilY
I ', x" --ji-K-fJ-g-
I Pcrmit No. -
I
l;asi-
WELL CONSTRucrtoN
pri11.,, .755--- o"J- D.P6c#
INTENT No.:a23.=62--
5. WELL TYPE
E cable D RourY E nvc
Et eir El orhcr-
HOLE DIAMETER (BIT S[ZE)
From To :
^-,
38,rn=h:s-*Fca-----l-Feet
?trn
S'Ee O.D.
(lnchcs)
$/eiehlFr.
(Fdun&)
CASING SCHEDULE
Wall Thictncss
0nchas)
Fmm
(Fe0
To
(Fet)
t'n?frt"f;*rario
Sizc ocriorario
e,"ffito
Fro#
Fro#ettora-ti^
Fro#
F.o#
Surfacc Scal: El Y.s . El No
D:othof534 100'
Placcment Method: E fumPcd
D Pourcd
Gravel Packed: E[ Y.s E llo
r'"f"t"--Jg+ruL*
l4u
-fect
feet
t--'
Scal TYPe:
F Ncat Cement
D Ccmcnt Grout
E Concrete Groul
Date comPl
WELL TEST DATA
TEST I'IETHOD: E Boit.t E rumP
G.P.II.
Drrr Dos'n
(Fcct Bclot Sutic)
E[ e.ir lirt
Tirn (Hoursl
oruLlen's' cERTrFlcATloN
10. lJKtLLcla J LEn I r'
This welt was drilled under my superv'sion and the repon is tnrc to the
best of mY hno*ledge'
Na,nc----LA.Ng -EXPI,oRt*o#l# D'R I Lt I'NG
Nevada d;illcr's liccnsc numbcr issued by thc
Div'rsion pf 1*hur'Rcsgurccs. tbe gn-site driller
Addrcss-J-:9' -P'OI-S27*mm .:-
_ -. ELFOr- NV- 898q2-
Nevada contnctor's license number
issued by S. Sr.r. Contrrctor's Boarrl#
0i.21-PJS-
PERlvttT I"O-
--21'lt8rr*-
0r conlilctor
UsE ADDTTIONAL SHEETS IF }{ECESS.{RY
,g*::
@
D."T'

Pumping Records For Tessa Municipal Wells
Tessa Production Wett #1
NDWR Drillers Log # 78529
Date Of ComPletion - August 20 , 1999
Total DePth = 795 Feet
Water Rights .61267,61268, 65958, 65959, and 56654 : Tota| AFA .359.68 Acre/Ft
WELL ID
Tessa #1
2000
2001
2002
2003
2AO4
AF
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
1.6
Item 3
Page 208

ieee r" oF lI
l*ffifrffi*
d
L
4\ -l
-a
t'il
FEIlri ox' Tt?E Olit.f
ilo nm E'RrtE oN BAcK
}r{AIIJNO ADDBSSS
P r.-' J
,.lrur- t-'tl( F I
TATE OF NEVADA
Dr\ilSION OF WATER RESOURSES
WELL DRTLLER'S REPORT
Plcosc cornpletc thir lorm in i*- TtIg-L
J* NRs s3{'1?o NAc ss,,3ta
"".oil-ti*
"od
TSSSa -ru- I V'ou)
. orrl;EFnv!p--9
L"og No.
PcrmitNo----
NOTICE OF
Ar wEtt r,ocrnory-Li
395 oa l4ouat Kgl-9-
4r>)o
J
g
H
H
PERII4IT NO
D.
B Ncr.'Wetl
El Oecpaa
SIORK YERFORITEiP
E R"pl.". Q ruconuitio"
tr.ebsndEn LI otblf,
Mrtldd
LITBOLOCIC LOG
!r!trt
SuEr
1. PROPOSSD USE
E Domotic
E lrrigadon E Tcer-
E -r'i*iolp"rn"a*u"t E uunr
3l2a O.D.
Qmb.r)
E smr
CASING SCHEDULE
Wslt ThbbEE!
gbchB)
WELL T}?E
D caute D nor"rY E rvc
D ..jr E Othar-
fmu
(FE!0
To
trEe0
€
#
Frorn--Tr*l
i==ru
Fron - -_.---ici
_ _ fFri
gurface Sesl: IXI Yes El Xo
'l
Deor.! of $-qt OO I
Plaecmeor Met}rDdl E fotfg
D Poured
GrevelPecbd:. El Y"s
DNo
lo
h--
t^
-^----
'--
..----feet
Srsl TYPe:
D N.u Ceoot
E Ccmcot Grsut
D Coacrcta 6rout
?qq r*
WELL TESI DATA
TEST METIIOD: O gailcr Furnp
o,?-M.
Dnr Deql
Fcrr Bda, SE
Air Lift
Tine (gEut:)
te 99
le-99
9. WATER LSVEL
belov had mrface
l,',i. *rr" lnr
artcsieo flow ' G'P'M' - P'Si'
Waer wrnperaurc-T---a"dtqY
10. DRILLER'S Dtu"lJEr CERIIEICATION
pon iu mre ro rhc
This ,relt wu driled under ray supervision and tbe rc;
ben of mY knowtedga
n-*
Layne Chrisreose-n--9o:r-paoy -
I{ood.Land, cA-9-:-E9.5
.ffiTxS:HHHl"f*
oo r e r' 01
' Ne;vadr drlller's liccnsc arrmbcr issucd by r}e
' 'bi"-itioo
or wtEf R'esourees' thc oo-sitc drilleri
6*>9ll
USE A.DDITIONAL STIEETS IT NECESSART
p6:l
@

E.II OF II
rE-DrwSIoFt or gf,TEB RlESoUtcEs
Ax.Y4EJE!.rg COrC
7:itBJ- DRILLEI.'S col{
}TT OB TYPE ONLY
NOT WRITE ON BACK
ILING
STATE OF }TEVADA
DTYI,S[ON OF IYATER. RESOURCES
WELL.DRILLER'S REPORT
Plcese completc r.Lb lgrra'm ita autirety h
eccordaoce wkh l{RS sec.I70 ud l{AC 5J1'3cJc
AT $/ELL
NOTICE OF I}.ITEI{T NO-
1
J
l
New Tlell
lil/ORK PERFORJYTED
tr ntpl""" E Recondirion
fl eu-anoon E otrer-
MrrErid
IJTHOLOGIC LOC
0.. PROPoSED'USE
D Dooestic E tnie"tior ! f*
g -tq;;ip"lr1"u*"i"t tr uo-niu tr soct
WELL T']'PE
D c"ute E Rotary tr nvc
tr air D otber-
WELL CONSTRUCTION
Dritted-Jcct
D;ptb Cased------Jeel
HoIE bI.AMETER GN SEE)
PrDE
To
Sizc O.D.
(lDchssl
clcirbt/n
F;undd
CASING SCI{EDUIJ
rilin Tl&ttt!,
tlttcberl
Prorr
fFe4
Perfontioos:
TYPe
Sbc pcdoratiou-
Fror*--*---Jtet kr fFGt
Sprn -- bct - 'fod
Fm#st
Fro#et
--,fu
Surface SesI: El Yes D xo Scal Typa
E xcgr Crmcot
Depth of
fl cement 6rorn
Placrarnerrt Mcthod: E frxopa
D Cungtctc C'rotrt
D Po"ra
Gravel Prched: B Yqa E No
frtt-
WATER LEVEL
fFet
H
'r
WELL TEST DATA
TEST METTIOD: D B:ilg tr nmp
G,P.M.
DntDo}l
(Fca EclDs Stsdcl
D .A,ir un
nrbc (tlDuE)
no@d.9"1 -
CoDrBcIDr
1{oodl*d..--CA J5595-
t9-
t9_
Yy'eErtEflperanrre-oF
aEUrY
IO.
DRIL!,ER'S CERTTFICATION
Thfu u,Dlt lras drilled uultr nt suPervision urd 6e repon is tnrc to tbc
besr of my tnowledgc.
Nsnrda cootraclor's liccnrc number
nnt or nl
issued by 6" Str. Conmctor's Boar{-q
lln'ade driller's licexe llE llurllDcr numbcr lssueq issucd by uJr the uE
? 1 | ?
Divisioo of Ressurc*. tbe on-r1. driiler..'-:-
3
Page 210
USE ADDMONAL SIIEETS IF I{ECESSAI'Y

Pumping Records For Tessa Municipal Wells
Tessa Production Well #2
NDWR Drillers Log # 79967'
Date Of Completion'October 13 , 1999
Total Depth = 725 Feet
Water Rights - 61269, 61270,65960, 65961, 66655, 70251and 70262 =
Total AFA - 550.90 AcrelFt
AF
ANNUAL
WELL ID YEA,R PUMPAGE
ffi zooo 0.0
2001 0.0
2002 0.0
2003 103.2
2OO4 18.8
Item 3
Prge2ll

EEIITE_DTVISIOH OT WTTEN. E.ESOURCES
cAr{AxY-€LlE{T'3 COPY
PII{K-TTELL DNII.I.En'S COPY
PRINT OR TTPE ONLY
DO HOT WRITE ON BACK
STATE OF NEVADA
DTVISTON OF \ryATER RESOURCES
WELL DRILLER'S REFORT
Please complete this form in its eltirety in
rccordance tdft I{RS 534.170 and ltAC 534.3411
Pu) -t (9 rT,sn Pts-
I,og No.
yol*uo.'
'7 91 U'l
G.s
\,{AiLING
io Box L2926
I. WORK PER-FORMED
E Neu Wcll El ncpUce D R.econdition
D ueepen D Abandon tl ooer-
UTHOI-OGIC I'G
4. PROPOSED USE
E Domestic E lrrigarion D ta*
E uu*cipaniausuiat D Monitor E stoct
WELL T'I'PE
E cablc tr notary ts nvc
EJ,q.ir E otber-
8. wELL coNsrRucrloN
oep*tr orinca---7J,Lfeet Depth C'sed 715 eeet
HOLE DIAMETER (BIT SIZE)
SASD
ERA
Szc O-D.
(tDchcr)
Weigh/Fr
(Pounds)
Fnra
(ftct)
To
(Fcc$
VOLCANIC
\5
Perforatiotrs:
TyPe
Sizc
Pro#to.
rtoGt
Fro#
Fro#
Fro#
540+ct
Tl0reet
Surface Se.il: El
Deptb of e-,r 157 | Yes DNo Sel Typa'
D Neat Cerrent
E Ccment Grout
Ptacement Mcthod: EI fumpeO
D Concrete
D Po.t a
Grout
GravelPacted, EYo BNo
Fron 0 teer ro 735rra
9. wATER I.Eir4^^
Sratic *aterg*"#bdow
laad srhce
Arteian flow. :M. P.S.l.'
Water terrperatrrc-oF
Onality
atc sta
ate coropl
WEIJ, TEST DATA
TEST METTIOD: D aatr E rurrp
G.P-M.
Dnw Dryr
(FEcn Bdory SEds)
,
E air Lin
Tirr (lloon)
10. DRIITER'S CERTIEICATION
This well war drill.ed undcr my supcrnision aad $c rcport is tnre to The
besr of rry Lnowlcdge.
ea
woopl,ar{p._cA 95695
Costracts
Nerzda contraclot's license uumbcr nn r 6 r A
issued by the 0019101
statc co"-tr"ct";:;-;*d
Nevada driller's license nurnbcr issued by the
3
D"I. APRTT, 17.
2NDO
USE ADDITIO}TAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY |D}.6, i'L-

APPENDIX B
Item 3
Page 213

System Name
lvlt Rose
lvlt Rose
lvlt Rose
lr4t Rose
tvlt Rose
Nft Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
MtRose
lvlt Rose
Mt Rose
[/lt Rose
lfr Rose
htlt Rose
MtRose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Nft Rose
lvlt Rose
Mt Rose
bft Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
lvlt Rose
Mrt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
MtRose
MtRose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
MtRose
MtRose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
lvlt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
MRose
Well Narne
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
tvlt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
Mt Rose 2
MtRose 2
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
lvlt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
lvlt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
lvlt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
'DS
PWS lD Date (mglt NitraJe Nitrite Ammonia
soJoar 6/10/2004
s'1
5'2

Mt Rose
Mt Rose
kft Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rose
Mt Rosd 3
Mt Rose 3
lvft Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
Mt Rose i
lvft Rose 3
Mt Rose 3
303042 411411999
3030-02 1112611997
3030-02 10/17l1996
3030-02 1/4/1996
3030-02 1230/1994
3030-02 5/19/1993
3030-02 3/13/1993
3030-02 1/10/1991
164
1M
162
6.7
0.8
2.6
0.4 0
0.8
2.9
3.1
Item 3
Page 215

. wHrTurrlrs
EI^ECTRICAT SffiVgtr
380 Frwort Bc4*e€rd #19
SFARKS- T{EVAOA 8€'431
ui. #17@
-eiszY:er€?ga
FAX {tsz) 331{tit57
{;+"';,.o'*
''..:t '',-*' l-L,-iiji:Yii-i'
i-i il
3 L882
qzsl n on"*onx n ooxrRRcr n exrnn
5r o &la-45}"
DATE COIJIPLEIED
Work ordered bY
Signailre
ffirtr'hV*,

i:-;:?
-:-
:.:-;-:.: :-.::r.:-:i.:-'; ---:-:..-]-.-.:i-:'-..--.:j
f--w
.tst,!
Bruce MacKay Pump & WeIl Serviger Inc"
1600 Mount Rose Highway
RENO, NEVADA89511
:I,STOMER'S ORDEA NO H9ME Ft'for\E
'J€fftt
l7o2l851-15OO
Ktlrro-
#lq -3873
tsrr.L t{J .5
-i L;
a
.t.
,-
..f"-.Ji
SAannbn
{,,
f-; i- .".
-)
Ret NcG 315ru2893
INMOIGE
Ne 70,G81
l/sft7
uffivs ffi. F}IONE
. :i"
tua 6
'''
fh^itiez- , cfl q/'55: ?onnoaf
,OB NAJVIE AND LOCATJON
8&Lt? A fn*,Q.le-Hu, rt-s^o #?9/ /
qArEvutffBlEr
//
FLJttlF SETTING I
PFE SF D
//
stEaot +qij
' 4/+uF
va\dal- *a,F2
Jill-lhur'r.er
eq8-4/a
sTAllcwArERlPUtvFFlctEt/ELl GFM UIRE *-TYPE P[A[FilOTL
€i{*a
rlrc*- 4 lat
c03t &&8'z 7a7F
- f-c/7 /:7-q7
'/z €&5 lzt &{
PLEASE PAY FROM THIS II\IVOICE
TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT
9po-l .!ry{t -tgl11r Q gev in til within I o da!6, buyer aerees ro pay a
Ffl.lAt{cE cHaRcE oF 216 pER MONTH, 24%pER ruVnUHA, ruU5 iny
other collection costs incurred.
lOuioment to remairi fie property of Bruci MacKay pump & Wetl
Service; lng" until such time as,said equipment and 6bor iipaid for.
Ttere is a S25,ff) charee for rebrned checks.
q
'a5
8'
i@
o[ lhe ahcn e @itaDed worls
'J-_.
Item 3
Page217
6

JUSIUMHS OruH N9 r|rJw?F'tJNel!/.t+
.,?cl4: t'P??
KaJ t,
lr4tGttANl{5
flo,r' n
/t7 ni //
FEI-P.ER'
-+t
lprnt Shnnn,ah /
5 t{7 A- .fi/}, Pote /Ju-+ :.. .,. -i- Eti
6L,o ar u d?sl /
,J._""-:" ' :
PHONE.
.rh u{2
;i6\Ftt tttl.z
€4ctF
Z.* l-=
Ji /t 4/,te//rr a fi.21/2
1ryllff&%*ql rTffiil ,Hfi,lyl BW,+ zh=,a
lrruEwruslF|ryrcu.
DESCRFnON.OFWORIC
!'*L,
v-l
._
Jit
ffi u[RE$-1tpg '
in
I D,itl
t
I
PIJUPMooEL
kp,p tii lr*
Ne ?075
at

t -Y-
- b
.1
", -r-.-. '!
,
l/:
-.. .-,i
v
To R*rr{ ca! NEBS CUSTgM-prlnSng reflie ToLL FREE r-8m"8a8.Elt ,VEBq bB. Pet€tbo@otl Ng 03454 ief. t'lo: G 315702893
Bruce MacKay Pump & WeIl Service;-Inc.
1600 Mount Rose Highway
RENO, NEVADA 89511
BILL TO
'
-f'
I€f ft . ;>fifittitol
lto2l 851=1600
-F"/a'
HCIME PHONE
qgq'| rt /11+,Rorc
\/c tn\/- 2154, &??-z*zS
I
INV@[GE
Ne T834.
tt / lt /qi tll(t fr
TwL
ru6
T€M
lrd/
ADJRESS'
ARRTVE JOEI'
8**
LEAVFJOB
7;ffi
ffilvE snuF
ioBffiLocAnqN
}DESCRIFTION OF WORIC
P|,,MFDIGIS/ELI.' . GPM. WNE *-TYFE
r'G
MrDEr=
?"uMF
LJ#
f^l I a.i Llmn 6A
LABOR &TBAVEL:
PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE'
'TERMS:
DUE UPON RECEIPT
Upon bq/e/s failure to p4, in full within 10 d4|s, buyer agrees b pay a
rinmcE clnRcE of 2% PER MoNTH, 24% Pfr Al'lNuM, PLus anv
ofrer qollection costs inqrred.
Equipment to remain the property of Bruce.MacKay Pump & Well
'Senice,.lnc. unlil'such lime as said equipment and labor is paid fur-
There.b a 525.00 charge for r€tumed checks.
I hemby a*norladge hs edkiladotycorplefion
of th€ aborD dascrlbod utotg
__i____
-_-

i. -.--- '
" --':: ,
Ti
i-
P
".o*e MacKay Pump & WeIl Service,Inc. [NV@[GE ]
'
..I
1600 Mount Rose Highway
RENO, NEVADA 89511 Ns 8607
17021851-1600
Shaa nrv:r
t rtrf $q; tl
DEscRfPnoN"""*Tnsirrii
l" Floae *t*f+p it *-/
iisers
au'e* esl,)oj'P
'' ''
LABOR &TRAVEL:
vPv.r
wr6
HRS. @-/HR
PLEASE PAY FROM THIS TNVOICE
TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT
,r {ailrra *n nav in Crll .!;+hin tfl '|*re }nnrar aomac tn
niuence CHARGE oF z% PER MoNTtt, 24l* PER AllNurl. Pl-Lls aru
odrer collection costs incurred.
Fouiomant to remain lfie orooertv of Bruce MacKav.Purnp & Well
Seruice, lnc. und slrch tirne as seid equipmert and Jabor C paid for.
Therc'rs a S25.0O charge for retmed checks.
TUTAL
LABOH
TOTAL
MATERIAI_S
TAX
TOTAL
AIIIOUNT * *x6, B
I h6r€by adooudadgB lhe saliEhciory cot|Flddl
d rhs abore descrbgd lYodc
Item 3
Page220
,zAr
(tr\
v

-ri
Bruce MacKay prrrnp & Well Servieer hrc.
1600 Mount Rose HighwaY
RENO, NEVADA 89511
l7o2l851-1600
INV@[GE
Ne 8785
Terr"r sl'wnn
DESCRIPTION OF IIVOR|C
€ruict
€e wA
LABOR &TRAVEL:
HRS. @-/
HR.
PLEASE PAY FROnI THTS IT{\'OICE
TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT
n lrt nror +n
vFvr. vsrv.
FNANCE CTiARGE ff ?% ftR MONTH. 24% reR A'{M,IM, PLUS ANY
other collection cosis incuned.
Equipment to remain the property of Bruce MacKay Pump &Well
Service, lnc. und soch time as said eguhment and labor is paid fs.
There is a S25.OO charEe for retumed checks.
TOTAI:
LABOH
TOIAL
MATEHTAIS
TAX
TOTAL
AMOUNT $
I hsreby adsFu,ledg€ tlg safstactory com9lglion
ol lhs aborts alsscribsd notk
t______:--____-_
Item 3
Page22l
7:
la)
\y

:. :
i;'
Bruce MaeKay Pump & Well Servicer lnc;,"'
1600 Mount Rose Highway
RENO, NEVADA 89511
(77518s1-1600
DATE OF ORDER
?/ z /ot
*]otl/lEFrs9**N: vt,ORK FHONE TECHNICIAN.
JtrP
'BILL TO
, ! ef trV bt4qn n an
. !# -t
INVOIGE ..
t:;
i'"
:;:.
r F .l
fhTi ilos e #,rtY'
AP
::.:!
i..
i_i.
'::.'. ;i...
ARRIVE SHOP ...
t:5a
i 1.-
rli
i':...
WELL SIZE/DEPTH --. I PtFiP SETI${G | ... FIFE st4E
b:tt Z+7 :l: $*tt
.l
=tT"JEi*
l', 6e!.t.
I ffi?F* 1..
T #.9#n ew,f-!vt^*
P.o*P M.DEL
|
-"'* " "::
DESCRIPTIONOFWORK: - ,t t ! -''. J
,--
tlo *i4 # {}e
nns. e-lzd-trrnn.
P!EASE PAY FROM THIS II\'\IOICE
TERMS: DUE UPON REGEIPT
f,i Seil*. fu seenitv pumoses. retalns tiUe O'Oescrbea eoods mtil FAID N ruLL li case of &rrds deFarlt in
.i.-.oanni:nt Sdler drhb'agert! rray take.oossession of,-and rcmoe descrbed goods.tom Butre/s prcmises
.'ri Willrn.t ritiqr .e" E+,er uuahda d riilt.cf adbn fq tespess dam€es c-dier cause resulting fror.n
"
id.repossesslon.
..
_..: f,,
r_..
ItieEry ac*noxteoge lhe saushclofy completion of the abov€ de.scrbed wotlq
and agfiBe to lhe tsfmE ard cdduonq setbrlh above.
Item 3
Page222

DS2#69t
iaffi
ss-T-54b3
A! -4
rirrg l{orl&anr lgermda'$acs I t60
,il1t7t.*2t 63
ffilh#:
v.Jlcsp _ Frs{}
Wdt,rrWk 2s7
-€rer'& d-ot4o-r'j.E'W
Prcss:re e\Eilch -
T1-/^lt^ oJ-elt*'
Flo*Tenn
ISne
9:45
10:00 '
t0:15
10:30
10'45
Urt€rL€FreI
?5! stlts
265
w
?fi6
266
CntlogPerErfinrttE
lo
9.5
9.5
q.5
9.5
Item 3
vryez:a^:.,
@

FROi'| libKav 0r illing 8265365
s3-29-10 l2:5DPl4 I0
8,193824
*73 P.L/3
J
llcl(,AY DHLUNG' INC'
*qrr -E-iutrrcuELkanfifl?o
g|Itnc' Pmf sdlr I gctYbfr
2290 Flonoot Dtit'E
, F3no,Net'sd86e509
IrrttolcE No.
I$VOICE DATE
TA)(PAYSR ID
Ftono(??UE {t32
Frr(|?El|e+Ce6r
00002075
a3/29102
88-b146113
bn lr'.:
'."1F.' *i*n.'6 Sharon Burnett
" ' F*Q. BPx 1927?
. lRsbor,' !w 895'rl
s}llP
TOc
584? [rt.
Rerror lW
Rose EwY.
9951X
1,0
1.0 hour ilcw LesL
l 00, oo
100 .00
kr n
2 7+'
MESSAGE:
trnl:
$€7r
@
ve rtr*c
80$€1F03S or netaasa
ffi*llJ F 9$A ,fO

R@der FEfr NEBS cusTlgM'-printlng
'
seryice r €oGsB8-63 n
n Jt.t r..i
rlu-"rd.
o*uu *w.Gbs.@m
"$.,{"-y(n, ""
/l ..c
Ret. No: G 233612705
Bruce MacKay Pump & Well Service, Inc.
1600 Mt. Rose Hwy, Reno,'Nevada 89511
775-851-1600
NV Lic.#23095
CUSTOT/IERS ORDER NO. HOME PHONE
INVOIGE
Ns 19231
& 23096 CA Lic.#595616 -1/ r t/as 7 / /t/o9
WORK PHONE TECHNICIAN
tq ?- q*72
,I{FF
LEAVE SHOP
*l"e.rr,,
Shannnn
n

BRUCE MACI(AY
PUMP & WELL SERVICE, INC.
1600 bTT. ROSEHIGHWAY
RENO, NEVADA 89511
(77O 8s1-1600
STATEMEITT
CUSTOMER NO,
SHANNOT
STATEMENT DATE
8t1712005
PAGENUMBER
1
lVls. Terry Shannon
Shannon, Terry
P. O. Box 19277
Reno, Nevada 89511
PLEASE DETACHAND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT
AMOUNT ENCLOSED: $ .-
Aecou nt Activity fiom 3l I I 2005 th rou g h 8 17 l2OASz
DATE I TRANSACTIONWPE INVOICE NUMBER CHARGE PAYIUENT I BALANCE DUE
3/1/2005 Beginning Balance
7l18l2OO5 Charge - lowered pump 19231
Totals:
$0.00
s132.23
$132.23 $0.00
$0.00
$13223
Cunent 31€0 DAYS 61-90 DAYS 91-120 DAYS OVER 120 DAYS TOTALDUE
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
vn.23
Item 3
page226
( f

.|600
Mt. Rose Hwy.
Reno, NV 89511
February 17,2006
Bruce lvtacKay
Pump & WeIt $ervite,lnc'
professional"
NV Lic. #23095 & #23096'CA Lic. #595616
"Your complete water systern
Office: (77s) 851 -l 500
Fox: (77s\ 851 -1602
Terry & Richard Shannon
P.O. Box 19277
Reno, NV 89511
RE: 5847 Mt. Rose Hwy. Reno, NV
Terry & Richard,
We are pleased to submit the following estrmate to abandon domestic well and
furnish trttiogs to make connections at each end of customers I.25" poly wlter lin- e
from County-water meter to house main line. Remove pressure tank from closet in
house and connest the house lines together.
2 mancrew 5 to l0 hours @ $135.00 perlhr $675.00 - $1,35'0.00
lMaterials $300.00 to $500.00
Abandon 6" X 297' damestis well @ 914.50 per/ft. $4,306.50
Trencb, sand and installation of sand for trench, poly water line, and back filling of
ffench by customer.
Well abandon permit by others,
If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely z I
n#7ii"t-
Item 3
Prge227
l>

Pumping Recordb For Mount Rose MunicipalWells
Mount Rose Production Well#6
NDWR 'O"t" Drillers Log # 78770
Of ComPletion 'February 3' 2000
Total DePth = 755 Feet
Water Rights '65364 : TotatAFA - 1830'53 Acre/Ft
YEAR
2000
2001
2002
. 2003
2004
AF
ANNUAL
,AGE
0.0
0.0
?21.4
118.2
104.3
GAL
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
0.00
72,139,000.00
38,528,000.00
33,981,000.00
CU FT
ANNUAL
PUMPAGE
0.0000
0.0000
9,644,984.3000
5,151,193.6000
4,543,259.7000
Item 3
\>
-t1 Ptge228

Richard and Theresa Shannon
P.O. Box 19277 775-849-3873
Reno Nevada 89511
We||MitigationSummaryFinatVersionMarchll,2a06
1. water had been supplied by well onthis land prior to the first required recording of our
community welt agreement filed with the County Recorder'l fhe agreement called for
it's provision of water to several homes- the number changing as each home dug it's
own well and became self su*icient. As each home created.a water toul'.tl-1..,-
agreement would fall aside to allow for the remaining homes to have a water provlslon
agreement.
Current well 2 was drilled in 1980. The depth of the well is 297' with water a static
water level at 248',with two homes using the water source' well had 49 feet of
watersustainab|estaticwatersupplyattimeofconstruction.
All of the systems on the shannon property-were brought into.99f9tru"ce upon the
2.
Shannon's purchase and app.roved via ttre Final orderlf the WCBC final order July 13'
;9#.i-p;r-thi, order m"i", was installed on the well.a This meter indicates a usage
;H #X. ;iniJ'ir wett " within tne z.oiArA allocated to the propertv which is also
substantially betow the state water Engineers average usage of 1'12 AFA; WC
carcurated average usage of .g4 for our"areand/or the Garena Estates example of '62
AFA. The meter lndicales a total usage of 1,146,55! Oal =.to 4'09 AfA or '58 over
the 7 year period for all water useO ny"bot homes' Taking into consideration our
septic recharge 22far our septic which indicates an actual usage of '36 AFA taken
i*,L in" Our property rvith two homes has used less water than the average
"quifut.u.
iTffijilY#,1ii.e resate vatue or the water when we sisn our well credit rorm7'
?
-domestic .^
our property has 2 homes yet we are ailocated for private use z.oz AFAsl. to
our understanding. There ,o*"lourtocat C-AB.Rep.) that t"v it.
is.actually 4'04
"r"
since there are two homes per the state water Engineer's office' water rights are
currently selling for up to $80,000 and the water purveyors in our area are buying them
as fast as they come on the market. lf it only takes a dedication of '62 to build a
subdivision home doesn'that mean that oui county will be able to serve our homes
and 3 more with the signing of the well credit form? Doesn'that mean that our county
will be at the u".y i"tti"n iOOitional $180,000 and the hook-up fees for those homes
bringing in an additional $16,000. plus the charges for the actual water used at approx
1on
June 8,1g71book 549 page 104' Copy provided'
2 per driller log 20853) Copy provided'
t bopy provided.
. ;;;i 6t pnoto of meter reading provided_at the end of this document'
" Meter was installed 918/98. There were 7 years of full usa,ge and 3 months in 1998 with one month less in
2005.. \Mth a reading of 1,146.550 gailons irom tne time oiinstallation until the time of failure on 1213/05 our
actuar usage for both homes during this time was 4.g AF over seven yearsjor two homes. lf you divide that by
7 it equals .58 AFA. And if you count recharge our usage was negligible' ' This uses the calculation of 43'560
cu ft. = 1 afa and that 6.428512 gallons equal 1 cu' Ft'
llfinat order & receipt for meter copy provided)
, Sioned provisionally to be in effect at time oi'actual water provision. Notarized copy provided'
t CJov provided of ad in big nickelt
F;##J copy ot Letter frim Hugh Ricci State water eng, Citing this'
,o These stats are listed on the (non tetterhead) summary of facti provided by WCWR to our Mitigation packet'
Item 3
Prge229

$60.00 per month? By selling the water from under our homes and hooking us up"'
doesn't our County stand to bring in close to $200,000. plus a monthly residual of
close to $240.00? | believe this should more than cover the infrastructure costs to
bring us water.
4. Monitoring and Wells STATS.
We requested upon numerous occasions to have the WCWR read this meter regularly as
part of ttreir monitoring program.ttWhich within many letters and STMGTD (Local &
'Governing)
minutes anO we were declined by WCWR and STMGID. This is best
summarized in a letter from WCWR Hydrologist responsible for the monitoring
documentation, "Our office is currently measuring Marty Scheuerman's well across the
street from your home. This well prouider us adequate information on the water level in
your immedjate area." This was further substantiated on April 16,2002 in the letter when
he sent all the data thus far for the monitoring wells in our specific area'"
This letter reassured us that we would not be held unresponsive for a lack of "properly'
documented well readings when mitigation time came.
'3Along with Mr. Schuerman - The
Stephens, Melarky, Quinn, Sheppard,Nixon, Hunt, Kitchen, Brokaw,
Rumrnler, May61z61{1sper the counties report on page 54 of 68 water levels have declined
over 20 years 1}-z}feet several other neighbors were on the monitoring system. The
August iOtn 2aOl minute say, "... it is the domestic well owner's responsibility to
continuously moniior their weils, but that only 10-20 percent actually do this." We not only
monitored our well we had a meter on it to prove what is used. We believed that WCWR
and STMGID had an adequate sampling for our area and accepted the declination to
monitor our well. Of these wells- all ihat-haue failed 15 of the '16 have been mitigated with
and paid for well failure. Mr. Dowling was decline due to "Moving too quickly" without .
following the correct steps to be miiigated. The STMGID minutes reflecthat he was told
he had not "waited to have his well fail'.16. lt is highly distressing to have a final summary
for our Mitigation Hearing which cites statistics from wells in a parameter including areas
of our aquiier which are iesponding to pump-age completely different than our area. The
wells and statistics are in a different hydro-basin rather than citing the "agreed upon
during negotiations of the Mitigation Board inception" monitoring wells that are in our
speciic aiea.'7tu
t, Copy of Letters from WCWR April 16, 2002. Reflected in WCBCC minutes from 1999-2002 as well as within
4 meetinos of the WC STMGID Local Board Minutes 2001-2003'
j1 copv Jt oist< provided.
,, Wlthin the minutes and tape of the WCWR and State Water Engineer Meeting held at Galena High School
when a member of the public asked, " What if we don't have all the documentation of our well?"
to Maitoza STMGID PnM Page2;Sheppard 1 Olgl2OOl page 37; Meyers 612812015;Heika7l27l2AO4 Page 2'
Rummler 1112312A04;1urk6l25t2o02; Page 43 of 68 shows previous reimbursement deepenings Stephens,
Brokaw, Quinn, Rua, Ronkos Page 45 of 68 Nixon, Hunt, Melarky, Kitchen. One refusal Dowling.
tu" There are approximately 26 wblls measured twice a year in the Government Lots." Page 55 of 68 per
WCWR. Water levels generally declined in our area 10-20 feet over 20 years.
16 Minutes provided- this caused concerns for PDW which is anothereason the Groundwater Task Force was
convened to begin to create a "neutral" system for PDW owners to follow for mitigation'
tTThis criteria-nd issuewas a primaryissue listed by Private DomesticWellownersduringthe minutes.and
tapes of the Groundwater Task Force. lt became a primary reason for the dual recommendation of a public
access and input data base as well as a mitigation board consisting of Private domestic well owners as well as
hydro-geologists.
tdMafproviled . ^ -,!L^^
byWCWRto STMGID Local Board -red dots and additions have been made by us of those
voied'to be approved in the meeting minutes of the STMGID Local Board all noted parties minutes were Item3
Page 230

'I
_r. l
i
'I
I
t
I
I
I
., a.
1
I
=1r,tP.&$
ttErrs I''g'lt{GIII fouduelien usd .Huurtq {Y4ll4tt $elEci+d lholgtic*elk
W.g.#
provided in our packet. lnclusive of the minutes showing that the Nixon property was hooked up waiving fee's
and the Copy attached.
'" Copy attached.
Item 3
Page 231

Throughout our County's valor attempts to deal with its budgetaryl lmpacU Administrative
Crisisiegarding privafe Domestic Well Owners throughout the years the actual Mitigation
policies have changed so often that there has never been a true sense of reliability of
relief to an impacted PDWO. The only reason that some of us PDWO's have been able to
continue to live in the area is the belief that that truth will prevail, the RIGHT will be done
and there is fairness in government.
The chart below.shows that from 1980 to 1994 our well had a sustainable rechargeable
static water level of 248 feelover a 15 year( in drought out of drought) period of time. This
shows we had a sustainable water supply recharging with a -0- rate of decline in our well-
As a matter of fact, most of the increase in new (documented by county) private domestic
wells in our immediate area took place during that period of time. With little or no affecto
our static water level.
From 1994 to 2OO5 our well lost a documented 48 feet of static water level. While
during that same period of time STMGID # 6 increased their production pumpage from
50,02-3,000.00 to more than 373,370,000.00 a more than 7 fold increase- This caused a
rate of decline in our well of 4.8 feet annually over the last 10 years attributable to
srMGlD # 6'
ii-n;;il ,\di;;
---- -lpncr-
| ;;i-"=il;;;;;7'ner,rr
- --
,.- i96o' 297 ' 248' s:
Y!-ry---€[-wstt-Q!t![W-?re+Itr1-][€e'-""{*rreqee--s1ut9!Pl--uJ-----
--::*Jee-r-.
:-H:-" - -Ni : -.*?:"q:-::-
-2AB --"----- 9,- ---l'P-'qo-ogg
,---- tgeA.-
oj 50,023,000.00
'rgsidr- .--. ------h7^ -248', -- - --
---:1ee7 --*-tw:-*-"-*-
0 -q.qggr9-o-[F
-
r52:--- +--_4P:g!o.O!
zoal;-------
'--ffi----
--* -2w: zw:----z6t-* Trlli_aigl_,qq0,"0."9,
- -' io;,t z1-{,szq@.99-
,* -"tbot - '"--- *_-rls'' -- *-ZTECtual.ilt-ul9
i
unk;wn:
2005 297 296
-11
Total level decline
-48 feet of water.
ln 2004 the budget was approved and Phase 11 extension to the Government lots was
approved on thJagenda ior February 27th 2AO4.
'o Maps showing our hook-up were
distributed. We were told there was no need to "reapply" since our County certainly knew
we wanted water. We would never have run out of water and lived without water for 5
months if this had been done when we were told it was accomplished.
to Copy of map and minutes attached. Letter from WCV/R attached.
Item 3
Page232

*ur crat cf 6:o*k*t ex6:*r'i*e* to date are:
Trenching
$ 850.0021
Sand
$ 306.0022
Refitiing : F i ping :'fi/el I Abondonment
$6,400.0023
Health Permit
145.C024
Lowering of Pump 8!17145
132.2925
Loss of Rents
6,750.0CI26
Hook Up requested fees
8,352.80- We request You waive this
and get us water. PLEASE!lll
Living without water 12l4lA5 to 3/16106 PRICELESS!
Total expenses to be mitigated
$22,936.03
Please remit ASAP and get us water!!!!l!!!!l!!!!!.
Sincerely,
Richard and Terri Shannon
This is what odr area looked like 10 years ago when we bought.
Figure 23. P,lltJ/ial larrs h[rder the mautttahts at the ,-]u'tlEt* rf
skea.rn chani'Elo and rnntain mcretly roarse-grained sedirneriis.
Mountain- How could a reasonable citizen expect this?
Plants are brown! Lawn is rock. This is our rental.
iEgbq&j.4i;rair:i.;-.1,!!,;:::i;".. I :' "
:r"'ri4re
This is aur home. Our Chickens and dogs are fed with bottted
wabr. aur pipes are laid we are ready the water is a mere 300
feet away- get us water -We are told itwould take I day!
li Copy aitached
^^ Copy Attached
:] Copy Attached
il Copy Attached
1] copy Attached
'" Copy atiached
Item 3
Page 233

Lt.-*{-
(-,-\
>>J- rvLG t tS
Theresa and Richard Shannon
PO Box 19277
Reno Nevada 8951 1
775.84s-3873
Dept. of Water Resources
l-
V
od- {D
W\r; i,.r- t e t'1
RECE.I VED
MAR 09 2006 0^b i\ eJ +D
*t HfiffiffiW,*r* eac n Lrnr>
March 9, 2006
Tn

mitigated with in an impartial manner. Primarily, allthe data that had been
freJenteO by the many entities during the pasffouryears the WCRWC, WC
Commissioners as the STMGID Goveming Board, the STMGID Local Board and
the Groundwater Task Force was being either ignored, re'written or simply
discarded. The facts were being distilled into a partial presentatign.of reality of
i*p".t causing PDW owners tobe denied the mitigation. I was distressed to be
told that the board was not sticking to the function of determining
'Hydrological
irp"A, on an impartial basis- but iather, was in fact making determinations and
decisions outside of that scope based on information whicl'r was not pertinento
f,VOrologiol impact and at times even making "policf decisions or
recommendations.
I choose not to become further involved due, to the fact that I knew that I needed
to do my best to save money for the inevitable wellfailure at my own home-
My wellwas a healthy well, with new electrical lines, good healthy water and flow
anO tne flow was test,ed on a regular basis. lt was a legal well. I bought the
;r"p;rty jnd had gone throughhany steps to bring it up to conform3nce which is
bne reason the eniire well issue was so "demanding" to us. We had already
dealt with our county trying to make sure all was 'perfect with our home- In
doing so we had been ;veibally told not ten years ago thewgll would last the
sam6 ZO4O years it had before. lt was particularly GALLING to know that this
"reassuran@" was not true. lt became a life changing, consuming problem as to
where our home was going to get water- and would we survive living in our home
to see this haPPen.
Our well recl'rarged and remained consistent in its water supply from_,it's inception
in 1980 to approx. 1995. Sometime during this time it was 'redrilled" and the
pump reptaceO (l have the pump book) by the prior owners to provide fortwo
hombs not one iiving off the water supply and to provide for long term future
water stability- (they were building the second home and apparently preparing to
sell the prop6rtyl.wb have provided the originalwellog and all receipts we could
find regarding this inclusive of three main items we were provided at our
purchale- lwhen we went to WCWR- in the beginning and were reassured).
1. A map of where all the lines were placed with a diagram of the well.
(Provided in our packet.)
2. A test of the water determining it to be of great quality. (ln our packet).
3. A flow test showing the depth and reassuring depth and flow had not
cl-ranged substantialty over the existing 15 years of the well.
\Mth this knowledge we reptaced all the electrical lines to the pump, moved the
pressure tank to a closet, and re-plumbed many of the lines at our initial
purchase in order to service our water supply to be of the highest maintenance.
We OiO all this with no knowledge of any "water issues' in our area. We did this
so that we could have a mortgage consistent-for 30 years. (Receipts tumed in).
Item 3
Page 235

(ln 1995-1999 we had many surging problems with our Power Provider due to a
iaulty transformer whicl't may have attributed to the following)
Suslainable water level is betwen 242' and 248' dropping historically
only 6' during droughts over a period of trme_bgtween 1980 and 1999.
Neirly 20 yelrs and only ever dropping the Q
feet. We believed our
watersource to be sustainable for another 40 years aS we were
reassured.
In 1997 we had the wires go bad to our well. (Receipts turned in)
In 1998 we had a wire go bad at the well. (Receipts turned in)
ln 199g we had a metei installed on our well per WC Commissioners requesto
get our permitting into conforman@. ($825. Receipt turned in).
In 2001 we had a bleeder go bad and replaced it' (Receipts turned in)
an3l29t2O02 after going through a long process of attempting to get the meter
read, or become part otlne WC monitoring program we paid !o fgve 9ur
well
read. wcwR sent a worker to read it who stated they couldn't. Yet, the paid
drillers could with no Problem.
2(n2- We were no longer at 248' but had lowered a rapid rate of only 3
years to 266,. ThE inirease in decline would dramatically shorten the life
of our well. A drop of 78' of water in 3 yearc is three times what we
dectined aver a neiar 2O year period of time. (Receipts tumed in)
Conespondingly STMGTD lti tocated in ctose proximity to our PDy
increaid n's plumpage from approx-o-&N in zou' to pumpage of
4,543,259.7O0b cubic-feet. Annual pumpage. This well was competed on
Fehruary 3,20(n at a depth of 755 feet which would draw off the same
water sippty. (Receipts tumed in) page 77 ot SMGID Minutes- and STMGID
Map showing distance to our well.
Between 2OO2 and 2OC4 Even the STMGID well had to lower its own pump due
to the water declination. \Mrich shows that with all the "planningfl which goes into
the production well being drilled it even did not initially account for the
honendous deleterious iffed the drawdown would inflict on the aquifer' (Stated
by the WG hydrologist in the STMGID Minutes.) Wfren re@mmending slowing
the pumpage from this well and (rest) the well-
By 7/2005 the water in our well had droppd from 266' to 285' and
atditional drop of 19 feet of water over a 3 year period. This is a total
dectine of 37 ieet over a 7 year period. The impact of STMGID # 6 is very
clear.
Item 3
Page 236

tn August 2(n5 we lowered the pump and notifrd wcDwR that we needd
watei ln November we applied for mitigation. On December 4, 2(n5 we ran
out of water comptetely. We tost our tenants that wee;k and have
experienced a $i,ggO i month toss of income. We have lived without water
for four months. We are being totd to turn in $8,UNt+ or we will not get
water. We are paying a driltei$6,(Nn + b prepare our property for hook up'
we have paid $SOO* for sand to filt a 375 foot trench required to hook up on
our side-of the land, we have paid $ASO. To have that trench dug, and we
have paid $145. To the hstth Department for a well abandonment permit.
This is a total of $7,295 we have alrady spent out af pocket.
We do not have the eash to give WCWR $8,N0+ and get reimburcd. We
neexJ to have the well abandoned or we will be taken to court by the
Washoe @unty Halth Dept. Please reimhurce us for what we have
already outkyed and waive our fees so that we can have water today- They
are taying the pipe in front of our home and we could have water by next
week it your board taks emergency action-
We have provided minutes which show:
1. That other members of our neighborhood were hooked up without
having to udo the work on their side of the hook-up" or outlaying funds.
That other memher of our neighborhood was hooked up waiving any fe*.
2. That other members of our neighborhood were reimbursd for all their
expenses.
That other memberc of our communityr were not left without water or loss
of income for 4 months and hook ups were completed in a far more timely
fashion.
g. That the map and proposal and bidding process tor the line ertension
was appnoved and on frre "books'with maps providd to us in 2002.
4. We ask you to consider the financial hardship of loss of rental income
totaling morc than $5,ON) as part of the '\raiving of fees"; that we have
spent $l,ZgS mare out of pocket tokling cosfs of $12,295 to date.
Our County requirtng an additional $8,352.80. Prior to delivering us water
that is in i pipe in frant of our home is tudicraus when your production well
suckd the water out of our well and you sold that water to other water
users.
PLEASE GET THEWATER IN MY HOME.
S'NCERELY,
TERRI AND RICHARD SHANNON

Theresa & Richard Shannon
P.O. Box 19277 Reno NV 89511
5847 (Carl) Mt. Rose Hwy.
849-3873
Presentation to STMGID
Local and Managing Board
Agenda's April 16, 17, 2006.
Summary lncludes:
Pages 1-15 of Summary of entire process with all documents embedded.
Copies of Receipts embedded.
Transcription of WCBCC and STMGID "Mitigation" Board Minutes
Request:
We have asked that the STMGID Local and Managing Board
approve our mitigation as they have the neighbors surrounding
US. GET US WATER!
whv?
Because Mitigation Board found STMGID 6 to have impacted us at 660/0.
Because Seldom if ever has any mitigation request been scrutinized to the
degree ours has.
Noi a mitigant required to "Provide' so much proof-requested by WCWR.
We have lived since 12l5t2OO5 without water due to our County's lmpact.
That is:
140 showers taken somewhere other than at home each person.
280 times boiling water to wash and rinse dishes.
20 weeks of hailing laundry and payinV $15.00; while machines sit
idle.
140 days of watering domestic livestock with hottled water.
280 times of using bottled water to brush your teeth.
Thousands of attempts to wash hands in sinks without running
water,
Christmas, New Years, Richard's Birthday, Grandchild Alysha's
Birthday, Grandchild Angela's Birthday, GrandchildTaylor's
Birthday, Daughter in Law Mollies Birthday, All fhese celebrations
affected by no running water!!!
The tenants moving- 3 months info a 2 year lease right before
Christmas! When our next door neighbor fook less than 1 week to
hook upl Why should we have expected longer time frame?

Exhibit A
Fhurc ?3. Allullalhm bodd be mq/nlains d he out8b 0l
stratn channeh ad contah ms1y coarPgrahed $dlnsrh
3
: jj ri*
ufrmtRcHAsE No IDEA srMGtD UNDEROURHOME
WEHAVENA
4
o6r,"H?'li,3ri"#K#iyftttf fSSfwithout any impacr !g-oyr wer rrom Drousht, new Private Domestic wells'
6 ourwell,s water level stayed atz+tfeet to 2S?feetfor more than 30 years'
7I9
From 1960 to 1995 "on=i"'te,ntit1
we had a reliabl
Water had been supplied by well on this land
well agreement was filed with the County Rec
10 homeJ. Obviously, since our home and the otl
11 since 1960 the well existed prior to County ret
12 the agreement would fall aside to allow for the
13 agreJment. Cunent well2 was drilled in 1980'
14 wlter levelat 248'with two homes using the u
15 sustainable static water supply at time of conl
16 sustainable water drawdown' This recorde d
17
EXHIBIT D -,.-- EXHIBIT E
1g
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WATER AGREEMENT
1on
June 8,1971 book 549 page 104. Copy provided'
2 per driller log 20853) Copy provided'
3 copies provided.
] copy provided.
" Copy provided.
Item 3
Page 239

I
33
34
35
36
37
38
The Meter was instailed on our weil on grls/rggg. This meter has measured atr use of warer by both
homes from that time until the well went Jry in1ztstzoos. The total use of water measured in gallons
during that time is 1,461 ,5fy'.4gallons. our attoweo and allocated use per NRS is 4'599'000' 'we have
used ress than 30% of the afiocated or water for both of aur homes during the lasl
"iiiii
seven years..
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EHIBIT J
.*h
/_-
td-rl
e8
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
: - ,:*,
I{:r.,#r-iE::-:'J-1i*
i:FF:i:i::i':':i::
==l=;1!r:'-!-)t=
- +-:}r-:: "'t'-"'
5:'--.:ij3-':--
r|'
ry -;-,t--f rnrnt rlmoe for 7.4 Years
had suruive4 without substantive change it
concurrently.
AUIBITM
ftg 50
51
52
53
g6
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
sHows Moutrohtna wELLg KlrcHEN ts IHERE
@lnqtrarce(AER,AGE')
sttows onop ot JvrtQscrrrre,r, w' qed wb'^--',
AND SCllltERMAwrs irofl
The washoe County Commissioners were wamed by severaistudies that if they proceeded to pump
in this particular area it could have n"g"tiu" impaA' Studies ordered by WCBCC'
EXHlBlr P EXHlBlr " o EXHllBlr P
€t;mt:E*
'"' '
. ir: i:
:.::5+f+rE;::
ai:
_ '!;_:!l
ii -i:; ::i:
:',1,::ili:'ili:=
f'.#rg::":;::r'- -:::l:i
-1" ;;, :; 1"ll
_ if i i'-]
"ll-lai"'
-':=:l
-':-:l-:i:-"T=-i::':''::-'
: :;r
as the area of Fawn Lane"'
Item 3
Pzge240

oz+
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72 EXHIBIT Q
ffi+#Hffi*ffi -
.d!s,;q-'rr..{ I -.-*rd*
di.dct- E?r t
'St |6.
EXHIBIT R
^ir#.T,:""Jffiff'fs,:g
"*:'i'ffi,il'g&ffiliH#l'q
ffi#ffiffii
^
Hi,f1#'ii*5;rn:"3.ti#;;ilx,;fi'15i9
rdd!Lol
llr..,';ili.i; ii.li.rii*r- - m.a t olm. I !4 h.'sr d'F@ rdd .-
-{ ;;;--.r'tu'b'*m
rh 4!#.r ra, s
dddtd drlr '
.. o.'-a ''+ dil
li*aiiiiJiiii;-.u 'a risd d b tn k.-d{
*-d' -!
-;'*d -roE - '4urry
"*'
"rt
t.r -Er.lq.dUb '# M
t- rrd.htu.|sffililhddldt.||e'r
':5C.:3"T.;UF'*-dor'dEd'lq'E
11
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
i;;iai.FEq'F
' Tisa*:*;-
{N!,'bd-sd,!.,@
**;;..j.*s:.':l:;
STMGID WOULD DEEPEN 50' NEXT YEAR
yffis;n1ffi:f#Y#R{*i's"'?f"ff#
w"?Hr".ted uponumerous o"lTlion, to have the wg.)l[.l:Xq^tT'-T:$1?"s:':i'.?irKB"
their monitori.g;;;g;#JG-;;iiiled to make this requestwithinmanv letters and STMGID
(Local& Governing) minutes a1d ye were JeOineO by WCWR and STMGID' This is best
summarized in a letter from wcwR Hydrologist responsible for the monitoring documentation'
.our office is cunentry measuring n/I"riv s"n"u"*"n'" weil across the street from your home'
This well provides us adequate intormition on the water level in your immediate area'" This was
further substantiated on April ro, zo6'z N tn" r"tt"r when he sent ail the data thus far for the
monitoring wells in our specific atea' t
ln 2000 a memo to commissioners from steve Bradhurst stated, "lt is anticipated that two to three
domestic wells per year will br
These costs may be $5'000 to
$1O,OOO pr fiscal year. lt is v€
impact; however' based upon
curTently available informatior
ual domestic wells that may need
to be deepened. sufficient fu
authority exists in Key org 6737''€
The washoe county commissloners asked a "Groundwater Task Force" to examine the issues
about Ground water in the south r;ckdMeadows. The result was to the citizen's knowledge a
Mitigation Program that was approved'
One primary reason private Domestic Well owners stayed involved and kept questioning the
numbers is due to what is happening tigni nowl The cost analysis w-1s s! far off it is outrageousbecause,
the facts were availaOfe aiO JuUt,tt"O back in ZOOf io 2OO2' Private Domestic well
owners knew the numbers were off on costs for the amount of wells projected impacted' and
actual rePlacement costs.
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT U
pri|16,2002.ReflededinWCBcCminutesfrom1999.2002aswe]|aswithin4
rr,""ti,igi of the wc STMGID Local Board Minutes
' 2001-2003.
CooY of Disk Provided.
I lrlemo of Oa6ber 15, 2OOO' part of STMGID Minutes'

4
,, -i .L -tt-i ,lt-'!.':":'--.i".;,,,rr;.a-
'!iJ
'/'a:":'
.-:.'i"r-':,ad;-l-g!-'t'j:L-
:L*'+'
{i.Irr ili rrl ltrssru.J
tiLtr lrrnrK i\fi Gx: tt'?!5J f' tf I t"r d i1'r i :
, -.!..1\ ?. - ! | :,r -isi ik rd ,+-- L.-' i: iJl hj." Ff c { !+!-zL- ir- --
..,.,rr',t.r"l r-_1. r.al .a.kT.;gEtl:!r (,fla! '6r'Jl'rLrl:lr:lr lrr J
..*:-.-.i x,sr, - | '.'. '.t l$141+rtir'rll?'r"iall it'r !'"'r
itllr qr, liii;l; li t:il+ tlr r'il i' lr'l &J
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
-!,'alatEr)r':
nlt].a-! r'
:r?G7ti r: ', tf; Jrrrn' t:Y. l{! ! lli'
la!iit.fsr.l..,-..
1tl:
|
This | 1ll5 ltiLtitl letter lEclDDlJl reassured s us that we would not be held unresOonsive for a lack of "properly"
documented well readings when mitigation time
lcument.
^
1"-'.n'"
EXHIBITW
'-ii
r'lt'1'
ia'
, Jl,
ffiPHAtl$ iYE$ :zmruq
110
111
fl ltt tsri
lbrt 0ll ll{hlr
F20 feet over 20 Years'
Item 3
Pege242

5
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Per the counties own reports water levels hav
Hydrologists own reports there was a 10-20 foot <
2001 minutesay, "...it is the domestic well owne
12This is wellwithin the 2'02 AFA allocated to
the property which rs a/so substantially belov
of 1.12 AFA;WC calculated average usage c
the hearing.
ENilB'TY
ras used less water than the average home
t Board Heaing shows actual usage a
ion makes the ictuat usage less than during
13?
132
131
1EE
EXTI'B'T Z
Year th. WellDePthWater Level increastECcreaseSTiIIGIP PUMPAGE
{ q8n 297 248 0
1988 297 248
() 1,592,000.OO
1994 297 248 0 50,02;t,u99.u!
1995 297 248 0 97,090,000,0c
1997 297 252 4 zuzr+v.},uuv'uu
2001 297 252 0 592 +or.ugLr.uv
2002 2s7 263 ^11 322,165,000.00
2004 297 ltl9,;'/u,uuu.uu
2005 297 285 -22puMpnce ururc
2005 297 296 -11puMpRce urur
TOTAL LEVEL DECLINE 48 OF WATER
12
Meter was installed 9/8/98. There were 7 yearc of ful
2005.. V\frth a reading of 1,461,564.4 gallons from the t
actual usage for both homes during this time was 4.9 A
7 it equals .74 fCA. And if you count recharge to the aq
This uses the calculation of 43,560 cu ft. = 1 afa and thl
131Final
order & receipt for me{er copy provided)
Item 3
Page243

137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
We believed that WCWR and STMGID had a
The chart shows that from 1980 to 1994 our t
level of 24Steetover a 15 year( in drought out of
sustainable water supply recharging with a -0- ra
As a matter of fact, most of the increase in nt
wells in our immediate area took place during tht
static water level.
From 1994 to 2005 our well lost a documented 48 feet of static water tevel' While during
that same period of time STMGID # 6 increased their production pumpage from 50,023,000'00 to
more than 373,370,000.00 a more than Z tofO increase. Tfris causeO'a rite of decline in our well
of 4.8 feet annuari-ovei tne last 10 years attributable to STMGID # 6'
BITAA
158
159
160
The drought was found
EXHIBTT BB
@
by your mitigation Board to play only a 10olo paft in the impact'
vvAstslcDE COt N-rY
'Mbotod To Etdtdco tn Pubk Ste6'
\r. s.d. coh.n. CltdtF n
iJ.i,''iii-.i.. il";as^ GrD I c'r Mon!€rdF Bodd
Jo w""re contv fplndctr otq'rd F.euEoi
4O3O f,ncry W.Y
Edo. Nc'trJtr ret20
R.: w$Uo. Cotnry w.lr MltlFrlon H'ctlrg Eo&rd FlDdtnB' 6f Murth t6' 206
w'll MlllStlb Hqrlna B6td dthrnrdl Ur'
iili"iJJi iii"";, dcri.tr.d .nd rh'; sr'arren] snaz vr' r'i'.rtq'.Fcno' N*06''
on M!rcb | 6- 2fft, rh. w.ih@ Cdudv
fr! tu.nr .cwlde tt'.t,tJii'-*Ji u' ,tor inl"
io 'dlEcnr b thc $6vu'
(sTMGD' "oc*G rvddr urllilv tcfticc @tr'
TEcr* Mcdddr O""-"r wp'e"-.ii ol'r'lci
trc Bod !F!dG rhc fol16{na rDdbF:
t'sonrhl' lowGrDE otdro .Etc
fd
nr..or.t dEvdM In (h! dotdrlc e'll l! -u''-*"ql' A
bwdtB lrtih'rablc ro
w^'.r
nsnfcro.,
rp.l du. ro du'i.iD'r
p6pbs !t c:MGF
r",.pt'e'i'
*'rt'r6
i-o " ili
ii'li-i-t-ri'ii of th' 6i'l l#'rnB) nDd dr'
.d6lnlns 6 f.d (12% ot u'. ,arl ri-"iii'l'Jr orc"Ur e6d olr'5r donddc w(rl
io
Plcu @!r!d ntc 'r ts"ol? wllh noy qtr'irln'
sl|'€!rclY'
h< E;"+_
VJts-rocmtwnlE
Ro.ouEc PFI''D M'D!'rcr
161
Fi'hdd !d DoE! shrrunxl
sruODEdof
Trutt{'b
tGSlonrl w'F ?ltnalni'_'6drnrin''o{
Na,.d. Sh.. Enah4'
stdc Brdh$nr
i*?"1'l""fi,"
,o Minutes provided- this caused concems for PDW whiclr is another reason the Groundwater Task Force was
convened to begin to create a "neutral' system for PDW owners to follow for mitigation'
Item 3
Pzge244

I
164 increase
165 lt is highly distressing to have a final su
166 from wells in a parameter including areas ol
172 #6ll The Kitchen Well is the monitoring well
173 determine our mitigation over the years"' v
174 STMGID Minutes from 2001 show Mr' F
175 asked for clarification regarding the waiver
176 "100 feet of deepening now would not be st
177 of the waiving of the hook-up fees since he
178 reported that his wellwater level has been
179 concem that he has been unable to obtain
180 outside the 2,500 foot radius' Mr' Orphan 1
181 policy only requires one bid, and that a wel
182 preciude reimbursement for deepening if tf
183 When Mr Rua inquired that the 50 feet
184 within six months a plan for remediation wt
185 govemment lots would hopefully be approt
186 Construction could begin' Mr' Rua enquire
187 capping ' allthe wells in the govemment lot
188 The STMGID board then stated that th
189 allowed by the Stiate..'" which was then pt
190 filing a protest againsthe further increasir
191 STMGID 6. In his letter and during his met
192 Water Engineer has stated that no matter
193 the water if it does not deleteriously impac
194 unreasonablY.
195 lt also prompted a letter from Washoe
196 him to make a determination of what "reas
197 declined recognizing that Private Domestir
198 and each impact would be considered on
199 This set of questions is why the Washr
2OO determine the impact pumpage of the futu
2O1 Truckee Meadows.
202
203
204
205
15
This criteri and issue was a primary issue risted by Private Domesticwellowners during the minutes.and
tapes of the Groundwater Task Force. tt Oecame a primary reasgn for the dual recommendation of a public
aooess and input data base as weil .s a miiig;iidr;;rd c'onsisting of Private domestic well owners as well as
frydro4eologists.
.o Map provided bywG\rvR to srMGlD Local Board -red dots and additions have been made by us of those
voted to be approved in the meeting minutes of the STMGID Local Board all noted parties minutes were
provided in our packet. lnclusive or tne minutet showing that the Nixon property was hooked up waiving fee's
and the Copy attached.
lt June 6, 2003 copy Provided. Item 3
Pa;ge245

14
206
z86
7?E
dornestic wells in So. Truckee Meadows
ExHlBlr DD
ffi
xHlBlT EE
*-'az*r"*r.'lFfi
ffi -'i#Iil:f l"l:;Hiii'ft1#S*#i35#F'"";*ii'r"*;r*'-""'-
by Eco r_"gi"
"h;ffiE'ir
fiE o;fru n"+! 'itlp".iii'i"t"r * wourdeteteriouslv impact all private
i.T:,.$.FSJJ-
711
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
F]
-
.';:!idrptz.
) a4,a-Ftalked
about in the tr/tt. Rose Hwy area that one area !
with annual precipitation recharge like the ones you sl
udonntn category. I thank you for this additional inform
Because in that area I dont see with three wells arout
that point forwad the discussion retumed to the drout
deliberation and each time it was voted down''" This t
EXHrBrr FF
mgfl+,lg+l, "
&:=riF,1'Sflir.ll'i"'iafi,is:;il'#,:fi
EXHlBlr GG -
G
rn'#rMfrr
F@rdFFq
'.Jrx w,""u
Lli E iil.*'-
:.J-,;;---,; ,n ,it' ". *a ,; -
d'
,.'"-l*wir.-'-u,s
*@-"!?.
- ^.-.;;;-",a, i h ri F
it"tr:iffik.qli'#if#u*r.
EEM
'|d'.fr*|rfi,d4
nil,lr5t**1.g"ru*;"s":
#*,ffiSf;S#,'*trlli
ffi
tnFn@
ffi
fiet!b-f
.J"*rwpdd.r'.F4
1r|6Mhd*ct.ld
d'b'&*D
fllE
77t
LETTER FROM STATEWATER ENGINEER 2I14I2OO2
sdrFd-r*
Ta=g;tH;ffi*-*'-
F;ndc...wG
IJF*rJr*.*"*atno
'6bdF'*d
ffi=";"'"*::=.:issl;r
ts We have included a typed transcript of the majority of the meeting. Tape lost last fifteen minutes.
le Transcribed minutes from tape provided.
Item 3
Page 246

225
227
228
229
234
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
tr,ere,vas:i,e argur'leni :'fougr,t'ciln li:ai it'* r1'&*' an lllegal seil ;ue io nevinq iwo
hcmes. This was coriecte,l by bo[n a board i'nembrer in the nrinuies arrcj the appiicant'
TheStateWaterEngineerhadc|arifiedthisin2002per
.,NRS.
534.180 Applicability of chapter to wells used for domestic FurPoses; registration and plugging cf wells
used for domestic PurPoses.
1. ...This chapter does not apply in the matter of oMalning permits for the developrnent and use of
underground water from d w{U tor Oom"iirc purposes ivtrere the draught does not exceed a daily
maximium of 1,800 gallons'"20
And was not neeOiO by the Shannon'since they owned and retained both homes on
one parcel and the well had serviced both those homes prior to 1984 orland the
shannon ownership. Any application for a waiver would be signed between the
applicant and the applicant creating a moot point.. Further several members of the
mitigation board pointed out that thi metered and documented water usaoe provided
substantial proof that the drawdown was not due to usage on the property:'21'
EXHIB]T HH
.-il
TtL
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
COST PER HOME ESTIMATE CHART- THESE PRICES HAVE DC
for the remaining 29 unoccupied, build-able lots v
$12O,OOO from hookup fees' An additional benefi
flow problems in the upper ' ' zones of Saddlehom'
EXHlBlr ll
EXHlBlr JJ
72 t 5
3 4
E=_r:.-
\._-/l
MAFFunusxED
I
tN 2004 sHowlNG NEW PIPE
LETTER PIPE APPROVED AND COMING
20 Februarv 12.2OO2 Letter from State Water Engineer- provided copy.
2t Tapes o? the hearlng held by State Water Eng. Contain this information.
Item 3
Page241

10
255
256
257
258
259
260
26;1
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
The board inspected maps furnished by Paul Orp
He stated that the line from the Tessa wells to the
made by WCWR Hydro- Geologist Mike Widmer;
could take one of three forms: 1. the pumping of t
production well owner could pay the cost of deept
owner could be hooked upt o a municipal system'
This statement is a primary motivationalfacto
South Truckee Meadows to take action and prote
According -and to those Minutes of the 2001 meeti
construction pumping in the area in question
drilled in 1964. PWo/o and PW 6 went into produt
hydraulics. This included an illustration of a "con
diawdown effect on domestic wells as a function
stated that the prediction of drawdown effects in
difficult by the geology of the area. He then shol
histories of a number o f wells in the area that ha
and Brokaw wells. He then reported that staff w
assessing the drawdown problem in the area wit
assisting owners with remediation' In contrast<
mandates from the State Engineer. He stated tl
have dropped three feet in one year, almost unif
foot drop in the water tiable, Mr. Widmer projecte
would need to be deepened within the next two
$3,500. perwell each for 100 feet of deepening'
23 more wells to be deepened' This would enc<
Mitigation Board.
oactive stance with Siena Pacific's failure to
affected by one of its production wells' a position
J that the domestic wellwater level declines of
o extensive fracturing in the volcanic layer
cussions further subitantiate the findings of your
22
STMGID minutes oci. 15, 2001
23
srMGlD minutes od. 9, 2001.
24
STMGID minutes Aug. 20, 2001. Item 3
Pege248

44 tl
304 EXHIBIT KK
;XHiBIT LL
\
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
List compiled by those to be mitigated with in the Government Lots'
In August of 2OO4 Ms. Melarky and Mr. Meye
and we stopped monitoring the mitigation progral
day our well went dry. We saw the letter they se
approved- it would only be logical that we would
time in an appropriate mannel PRIOR TO HAVING THEIRWELLS GO DRY!!!
EXHIBIT MM
3t AUAS 2OO4
Ivk. Do DragE
vGb@ coustY Dclrffi@t df sro@ Rcfficd
P-o. Bor 1113O
Rem N-v 4952()
Mr.Dtaaa
!/a .$ raqudiEg tbs ib. Cost,r ptDca.d *itb @EEEtftB oE !om€' 5849 €d-5e53
M; R*. ilry., ; rto grr*oroiia lb. lbd w r@dlv @loPlct'd t+) MDtd@y
way.
k tEE cr r.lc STDTCIID bE @itEd b Frcpidia'Dd fidi4'l1 t5Fe4 of
;#i;;iJJt--o tlo srruoo wrrcimrln avm @dtbo Pmrraabodoan@t
o1 * 6;a;ng wolL d @ €d b tbd b@B iltla tu d+E6g @ @o
sEUe
P6 yN wrt6 @ErsIFDd@,it it or rsdffi'llE3 Dd 6q*rt6 rbd STMGID
will: '--a
IDrhU 6o FbtEfdf @16 Eoe tbo rrcw @ ffi G lto Gdgp of @
Fofffi4EoElr@s
'g-_*fv
ft-
ntaaobod ffi didi!8 qou! r 6tt gd6 6!d LFcal ordie€
iqiiei.to toldlDa.@tq stocidod eirh tbt ddatb8 eollt ' "- -
-w"rrc
"- e
;;* uty-"oar& A"s !Ed/s .ll @G a56d!bd witra dro o@dl@
-
"u
.f t*- G in sralioo w eyrta od dl opao Bso€ldo t wtlh 6c
progtt "* aouarem of dr EldDS rclls
vc @ tdDgiDI lhlt EdE b !'oE ffilto'q d$tE qTD
wo .E tul]/
e|E
orm"a.i -- *ant giig, ty glt@ fba cort/t Fol@t wtq lwor FPdt
iod,.Gc tle O. grud @ towol tt dooaCD3 er E €q'oDE$ar @
q'c #tbaf@ffiflq foedrfqr -ra FoodPtof tbtt Fqrst'Fssidq @ oEliF otr@
iJ;=-G:t"-f.f it*"a .tta . raoue to mplaio of rti- oraavc' Tb't*ld
6;Fea ;i;'rrir.L t o oe* b'rr @b6d6@ mai+ drc abwo
EG.
Rcq'acrfdly.
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
RlgidEyMdrfc/Y
5a49 LIr Ro& Hwff
Ram lilV 8951I
-rhoEs'y'qgil
:.

324 EXHIBIT NN
Mr Oan DFqon
AECEIVED
NOV | 4 m05
,*. 5i",ffiEf"'43tneerra mbpr 1 2. 2oos
W C D, of WtG. Re6our*3
PO Box 11130
Rcno Nevada 89520
Mr.
OFgon,
Hr"Ef"f; fi l;:iXn,llyL'+?3io"liL"fr ffi *'T,iT;"":":fg?''":!ff ;'ts?SJ'?;2""7
Oavo wntoh l; whor€ our hom€ lC lootbo'
tu you rra ryeE. STMGTD ha3 @mmitbd lg Provlding ers fundlFg 6ll arpeoB
of codn€ctlng ou, hom-" to tto-giMoro wai -!ln
snd lhc prop6r
Ebdndonment ol ou. oxlBflng !;oiis -6L* coet ro ttro homeown6r6 rcther thcn
"iHJ
"tlen
dspanlng ou. domoitlc wcl'".
19gg we hovo wotkod wlth STMGIo and
thc o@t. of wrt.t nrrct.o-" tJiiiJi"i-ticr:-5rti"io''iw€lr ha3 b6€n lmpoct6d
bw both sTMGtD ffi .ns I ooe; wtrrl ti we ooul.l 6nd @G to deePen out wcll
r;ot fcErtbtc) ft wourd noi oo r,jx-tiiio.r'i""t;tr;c(ad. by tho 3am@ lmpacdnd
;etlu. w. Flleve lhrri thtp 'l'i'ildtitiin*-i-iaeirce tnai rtre eemo lmpact rculd
iitiiir-*-"-"t iowglng our aepin;culd ba q @ote of t gt€et do6l of moncv
and 6tud
Pcr yout wlnon corcspondoneo lt 14 our unctlrBFndln0 Bnd exFcEtlon th't
STMGTD WII:
pltyolc.l connodlon {ron tho ncw walcr Ineter et
o tnsbll th€
- FffSffiJ#iii:%""?.11"?'l'oTlii";cr art sroro and Lo@r
ordin-n@6.
- amovo rno holdlng lank uEoclattd wlth tho oxlEtlng rcll'
;[:y!,:'":";a:,gjg#"":'"' j'"':?? jrsJ;S:'e"ffi srv-g'o
-*"iiJ"i.-
a[ cxPanctt 's-oclalcd wlth tho ProPGr
Ebchdonmonl ""a of out oxlttlng wcllB.
w. ar. bdnglng lhl. man.r lo your aflorrtlon at lhlt tlmo . bFi.uto our walt''
oump hat bcon lMfr to ut" J-J'w-riLiiJii'i:iliriiralt wmn tlre ItFt Mo months
:;;-;;'-";;;.donclng lack of w;t.r lo out ho|ff' \A/G oro mDklns vou nwareiri"-t
ir-. i" in. eo.rie anct s ar' no loneg-r ablc lo.Elt fc' your @nhcotlon'
\Nc do nd balltw "r thd wo oan 'wolt for spanig'6G hoo bcsn ougc|ssted by-vour
&;;n;;il we !€ con@tDc

,l .J
331
Iuhr. ,,* r#A. lo ilorruP (
336 EXHIBIT RR
EXHIBIT SS
EXHIBIT TT
rl
I.
EXHIBIT UU
1,,
i
337
338
Item 3
Page 251

382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
9e5
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
Our expenses are:
Trenching
$ 850'00?!-rXHter W
sand
$ 306'0027-EXHlBlr xx
Refitting:Piping:Well Abondonment
$4,306.0d8^-ZXUlAf ZZ
Health Permit
14s'Oc,9-EXHlBlr FFF
Lowering of Pump 8t17l}5
^
132.n:.0 rxnlgtt Hnn
Re-piping to home $1,600.0031 EXHIBIT \ M/
TRENCHTNG AND REMOVE PR TANK $2,300.0032 ^ EXHIBIT Ann
VAULT AND METER MOVE AND REUSE $ 825.00
33 EXHIBIT JJJ
Sand to filt trench (additional)
99.83 il^-EXHIBIT DDD
sand to fill rrench'(additional) 99.83
3S-eX-SRNKTNG Nor up yEr
eRESSURE TANKREM FIXED (LOWES) 44.% ^-sEXHlBtT CCC
PERMIT BLDG. DEPT.
28'OO il -TXNIBT III
NEVADA BLUE FOR PERMIT 9'76 ..38EXHIBIT GGG
NEVADA BLUE FOR PERMIT
3'22 3l- exnlelr GGG
PERMIT FEE
21O.OO € TXHIeT TEE
COst of Water while Sour@ compromised 560.00 ($28'oo x 20 weeks)EAcH wK
GROC BILL TOO MUCH TO EMBED.)TOO LONG
Loss of Rents
Hook Up requested fees
part of settlement.
Liuing without water 12t4tOS
6'750'oo4t- copv oF BRoKEN LEASE
8,352.80-We request you waive as
to 3/16/06 PRICELESS!
Total: $ 25,666,80
660/o= 16,940.88 Due the Shannon's
credit for waiving hook-up 8,352.80 Pay direct or waive
Balance due the shannon's 8,587.88 Remito shannon's
Please expidite paymento the Shannon's and hook-up to water fee waived'
Sincerely,
Richard and Terri Shannon
412 EXHIB]TW
EXHIBITVT'W
s coPY AfiAcHED
s coPYAttRcHED
s coPYATTAcHED
s coPYRfiRcHED
37 coPYATTAoHED
* coPYATTAcHED
o coPYATTAcHED
4 copYRrrRcHED
ot copy attached

4tr
376 EXHIBITW
R|cIUnD Sttrr{Hox
TH'TES A Sr|^Nl{Or{
mFhsi6
?14 i@H*
EXHIBIT XX
RAINBOVY ROCK, INC,
21gl
--flJ-*/oQ*wf,
tr 4tfr'
cCn()
-f4}-4
EXHIBIT YY
EXHIBIT
REffiA!ffiTOH
IHEEIA ErutsOT
B@,d
dll{all
!@"Tf;
L?.r,-dF
EXHIBITTZ
*W-
].lq /:4tg
, t* 11.0O@
dltt'.
wreEff -
ECDlftUffi4bs
*'3.:!at#'
Tj
ftffiAsmd
ffitlal f,ilxtrcl
-:-!a/a4-'ffi,:
21e6 =.;:==*--
&',*"
368
@r*
EXHIBITBBB
Cp
n|-t-/ .-.
EXHIBIT CCC
LEhE' :
EXHIBIT DDD
.rf)rr.-a7r!
RArfllOW ROCK, l{C
a1:-': l:: *i" -
.et! rr srrrilr r.r(.9
IEADAl|NI
t@1ffi
3r-8,-
4n1
:lfilR'r'r/r?'t'
illt lfluil l|tc lt llll
. :::
..orr M it tnr ./o !. 2! 6
. .dh ,a-ro .
dorr r-ilr. aE mrlti
nr.e Ffl frrd .4rr
aoril 'r- 6nr.4 rny
llt
lfDlll
It# ----I
|
.r^
Q.sd
EXHIB]T FFF
- 16159
r"--1."
"'*"*r.rwci
nrotcr drF r..nrr
EXHIBIT GGG
,l
ltll to
"-5i:-/t---+
ag
3g? EXHIBIT III
EXHIBIT JJJ
e_
=*-
W.sb@ Cornty
n@'tffdrflnaEgr
EEIE
gif;-,.
385
Item 3
Page 253

1
2
345678I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
This was taken word for word from the tape made by applicant. Any loss of Names or such is unintentional as
transcription is an art. The new board Member's name was not available at time of transcription.
March 16, 2006 Well Mitigation Board Meeting Transcription
Prepared by Applicant Terri Shannon
Meeting opened at approximately 6:10 PM with the Chair and three additional members presento create a
qroruli. Mr. Rhodes b.R. for Wlshoe County sat in the center to advise the panel. Mr. Smitherman and the
Secretary sat at a table at the side of the panel for technical support.
The following was not taped as the meeting start was abrupt and the machine was not on. lt is summarized as:
1. Official opening of the meeting.
2. Review and discussion regarding the acceptance of the agenda. Then a motion was made and carried to
accepthe agenda.
3. Review and discussion regarding the past minutes. After public comment by Mr. Michael De Martini as a
private citizen making s"u"rilcorrJctions to the past minutes the board held discussion, made a motion and
accepted the minutes.
4. Review and discussion regarding the "Role of the Mitigation Board" paper presented by the D.A.'s office-was
held. A motion to accepthiJas a jrio"tin" was made and passed. Review and discussion regarding the form,
" Findings Report of the Mitigation Board" was held. There was public comment- The board held extensive
discussion which inctuOeO th-e points, "lt is important to use this form as a guideline and tool not an end where
;
with all".(Mr. Morro Board member). lt is important to remember that we are here to look at each case
individually with ail of it's 'anomalies" (board member) and the idea was expressed that it would hopefully lend
to some..consistency in findings" which had been mentioned in the Public Comment.- A motion was made to
use the form as a tool to report its findings in a guideline fashion and passed'
5. The board called for the first applicants on the agenda who were not present. A motion to table the first
mitigation for a future date was made and passed.
6. Shannon Application for Mitigation'
The Shartnon Apptication for Mitigation was calted and the applicants came forward- Mr. Widmere was fo
representne W[ter purveyor- SiUAD. ft was explained that the summary in the packet would be
piesented by Mr. Smitherman (which was prepared by WCWR);then the Water Purueyor would present
their "case" and the then applicant would presentheir case'
Mr. Smitherman read the Washoe County Summary of facts into the record. (Attached inseft ttem A')
The remaining portion of the Shannon Mitigation Hearing is summarized from Tape:
Mr. Widmer: "1 have prepared a graph model showing the drought impact on the Shannon Well. I believe that
most of the decline in the Shannon well is from the drought."
He then proceeds to provide three pages of graphs to the board and applicant, as well as some members of the
public (attached insert item B).
Mr. Widmer:..So, very good correlation between the Schuerman's water leveldecline and the water level decline
in First Aid Timberline which I believe are entirely related to the drought. The final graph then is because.we
didn't have determinated water level measurements from the Shannon well, but, because they are completed in
fairly similar depth as the Shuerman being 40 to 50 feet deeper than the Shannon well' But, because they are
Item3
1
Page254

J Ootn essentially drawing from the same aquifer they are comparable. So, I made some comparisons between
J actual measurements in the Shannon well and the Shuerman well and then synthetically reproduced a curve
1 tnat could represent a good approximation of water levels over a four or five year period of the Shannon well.
2 RnO there are some yellow dots there if you see that there are three of them and those are actual
3----measuremenlsjnthe-Shannotrare-il-and-(Bruce Mc Kay h a d ta ken
4 basic information and there is a good basis for my first remarks that I think that most of the water level decline in
5 tne Shannon well is attributable to drought. "(014)
6
7 From a Board Member: " Hello-Could you please show me where those are- I can't see them. Could I request
I tnat in the future you not use yellow as it is not showing up. Please.'
I
0 Mr. Widmere: "l am sorry the machine does that automatically- lwilltry not to in the future' "
1
2 Board Member "Could you help me the first packet I receivedoesn't have this". And, I can't get proximity of the
3 wells we are discussing. The First Aid doesn't have those Highs right? "
4
5 Mr. Widmere: "lf you were to look at figure 2 page2." lf you were to look at the Tessa #1 well and follow the Mt.
6 Rose Highway to ihe west you can see the big well is the second blue parcel on the North side of the Highway-
T . the seco-nd oitniro. The Timberline monitor well is on the North side of the highway is probably off the margin of
B the map."
I
0 Board Member: "l see in figure 9 that on the North side of the Highway it says "monitoring well. I can't see if it is
1 tne Timberline or First Aid. "
2
3 Mr. Widmere: "Probably the First Aid."
4
5 Mr. Demartini " I am having some trouble because when I look at the figure 9 you refer to I see monitoring wells-
6 I can't tell if these are what you are referring to. I wonder if that is one or the other that you used the data from?
7
I Mr. Widmere: "Probably the first one."
I
rQ Mr. De Martini: Yes, well on Figure 9 neither one of those wells are showing here. However, if you look at the
r1 Kitchen well you have data on ii and it paints a different picture that what you are showing us which is why I was
t2 wondering?
r3
t4 Board Chair: "lf you look for example at the Kitchen well it is very close to where the Shannon well is located.
15 Either that or the data that is missing in the one long stretch is different than the picture I am looking at with the
fG Kitchen well. The data you prepared for the Kitchen well shows that if this had followed the same pattern you
17 have used now you woutO have seen at least a rise in the water level during that same period of time. This data
18 is complete brought up from basically 1989 to 2004. The same thing is true with the Brokaw Well it doesn't
|9 show any rise.
)0 So, when I look at the data you are presenting tonight I am thinking that the well in question falls into the area
)1 we had classified as, " Doesn't show precip recharge area". We had classifieduring those prior meetings' As
12 opposed to the ones you are showing us tonight which we clearly all agree does show the affect of recharge. I
)3 nbb tnoughthat theiiwell (the Shannon's) was sitting in that area classified as, 'Doesn't show annual precip
14 recharge; area. Tell me what is wrong with that assessment? I am not saying that this couldn't be the case. But,
)5 it seeml like their well is sitting in the area we have talked about in the past as not showing the (with a slight
)O timeline) impact of recharge.
,7
)8 Widmere: "The Kitchen well is significantly closer to STMGID 6 and the chances are I think that they are
)g between the Kitchen and Melarky well although the Melarky well was the closesto STMGID #6.
t0
I 1
t2
l3
t4
Board Member: "1 am looking at figure 9 page 16 and it looks to me like Brokaw is the closesto STMGID 6.
Mr. Widmere:
'Give or take a bit it looks the same.
Item3
Page 255
2

115 Board Member: "To me that looks the same. The Brokaw is the closest, Murry is a bit closer. In looking at the
116 Kitchen, Brokaw and the Melarky well none of those show any indication of the change in water levels related to
117 the precip highs and lows like you were showing us on the data from the additional handout you gave us'" (037)
118 Mr. Widmere: "l think if anything you will see the Melarky hydrograph showing during the wet years showing the
119 general flatness of the curve. But, it has no significant rise in water"'
-12
121 Mr. Widmere: "lt shows no significant rise in water levels."
122 Board Member:"Like I said my initial notes on this case before I got the additional data from you indicated that I
123 thoughthis was - I look at as two regimes here that we have talked about.in the Mt. Rose Hwy. area that 'one
124 area where there are wells that do show a deflnite impact with annual precip recharge like the ones you show us
125 versus the ones that don't. I put this well in the "don't" category. " I thank you for this additional information-
126 although I am not clear how it applies exactly. Because in that area (l don't see) with three wells around it I do
127 not see the same pattern as you are presenting. "
128
129 Mr. Widmere:" Well it is flat... look at the end of it though.."
130 Board Membe/' I see that and I am wondering if you have a hydrogeoligist measuring that; that was having a
131 little trouble that day. You know it is just one point. (045)
132 Mr. Widmere:" Well that reading was in 1997 during a wet period.
133 Board Member: The graph shows a bit of increase right after the 1996 event. But the next one really does show
134 it. But, it doesn't follow through on a curve as I can see it. I am not sure I would use this when there are the
135 Kitchen, Brokaw and Melarky wells that we have good readings on right before, during and after.
136
137 The Chair asked if there were any other questions for Mike at this time. (052).
138
139 Other Board member stated they would like to reserve their questions for later.
140
141 Board Chair: " At this time lwould like to request our applicant to make comments... Are you Theresa the one
142 making comments?"
143
144 Applicant Theresa: " Yes, and I have written my comments as well so that in fact board members can do as they
145 did with their comments and take notes and follow along. I would like to suggesthat you hold your questions
146 for the end as I am nervous.
147
148 Board Chair: " lf it makes you feel any better I am nervous too looking at the size of this documentation.
149
150 Applicant Theresa:: " I hope that I have made enough for everyone to be able to read from and if there aren't
151 enough for the back of the room- | would hope that perhaps Water Resources can make a few if needed'." " Um
152 I would like to say that there are just a couple of weird things I take exception to in the WCWR summary and I
153 hope t have addressed them in our summary (Attached item C insert). We would like to apologize for any odor
154 that may prevail... however, we would like to point out that we are living without water. No Running water in our
155 home. Water has been sustained in our well and on this land prior to the required recording of well in our packet
156 and you will see that there is a footnote to see exactly where that is. That will be true with all the footnoteso
157 that you will be able to go through your packet and find the recordedocumentso the fact that our well was
158 onlyiecorded in 1980 doesn't mean the well didn't exist prior to that but the requirement for record may have
159 come into existence at that time.
160
161 1. The agreement called for it's provision of water to several homes- the number changing as each home
162 dug it's own well and became self sufficient. That was the idea of a community well. As each home
163 created a water source the agreement would fall aside to allow for the remaining homes to have a water
164 provision agreement. The entire agreement we were required to sign upon buying our property is
165 included within our Packet.
166 The Current well 1 was drilled in 1980 according to the State Water Engineers records. The depth of
167 the well is 297'with water a static water level at that time of 248'with two homes using the water source
168 prior to apparently the current legislation that requires one well for each home. To our understanding
169 we do not need a waiver- we are not supposed to have to do that and that was clarified for us at the
17O October Meeting with the State Water Engineer at the Galena High School held by STMGID when that
1 per driller log 20853) Copy provided.
Item 3
Page 256

1 issue first came up The Well had 49 feet of water sustainable static water supply at time of
7 construction
3+5
7
8
9012345678901234'$
r$
rf
r$
r$
r0
l1
t2
r3
t4
t5
l6
t7
t8
|9
2. All of the systems on the Shannon property were brought into conformance upon the Shannon's
ourchase and it was approved via ti're Finai order of tne WCBC final order^July 13'
provided a copy of this.' Per this a meter was on our well. a usage
4This
of .5g AFA since it was instatted. is well within the 2.02 AFA allocated to our property which is also
substantially below the State Water Engineers average usage of 1.12 AFA; WC calculated average
usage of .gi for our area and/or the Gaiena Estates exampte of .62 AFA. This meter indicates a total
,r"!e of 1,146,550 gal. = to 4.09 AFA or .58 over the 7 year period for all qater used by both homes'
Taking into considerltion our septic recha rye .22 that the-county allows for for our septic which
indicates ari actual usage of .36 AFA takerifrom the aquifer.s. Our property with two homes has used
less water than the average home county wide.
3. iaiu"i"i'r uuout the resale value of the wbter when we sign our well credit formoTwhat does that really
mean? . Our property has (and I included a copy of the signed and notarized well credit form'we have
already done'that-provisional
we are actualiy given water). Our property has 2 homes yet we are
allocatld for privaie domestic use 2.02 AFA now that is tt to our understanding. This week there are
some (our local CAB Rep.) that say it is actually 4.04 since there are two homes even though it is only
one parcel per some one at the Siate Water Ehgineer's office which I have not had time to research'
Water rights are currently selling for up to $8O,O0O and the water purveyors in our.are are buying them'
lf it only takes a dedication of .62 to build a subdivision house in our hydro basin doesn'that mean that
our county will be able to serve our homes and 3 more with the signing of the well credit form- when
they are maxed out of their actual available water? Doesn'that mean that our county will be at the-very
least an additional $1g0,000 and the hook-up fees for those homes bringing in an additional $16,000.
plus the charges for the actual water used -i appto" $60.00 per month? By selling the water and
hooking us up... doesn't our County stand to Uiiirg in close to $200,000. plus a monthly residual of close
to $240.00 a month for water usage? | think this r"nore than covers the infrastructure costs to bring us
water. That is it for moneY
4. Monitoring and Wells STATS.
We reouested upon numerous occasions to have the WCWR read this meter regularly as part of their
rt"it"li"g ;iog;5r.ttf wittquote within many letters which have been provided to y9! in your packet and
STMGTD ir-b"a] & Governing) minutes and we were declined byWCWR and STMGID. This is best
summarized in a letter trom-wcwR Hydrologist responsible toi.tne monitoring documentation, "Our office is
currenly measuring Marty Scheuerman's we-ll across the street from your home. .This
well provides us
adequaie information on ine water level in your immediate area." That letter was included in your Plcke-t'
This was further substantiated on April rc,2002 in the letter when they sent us all the data thus far for the
monitoring wells in our area.
tt
This letter reassured us that we would not be held unresponsive for a lack of "properlf' documented well
t2Along
readings when mitigation time Game. with Mr. Schuerman - The Stephens, Melarky, Quinn'
'copy provided.
t Copy of photo of meter reading provided at the end of this document.
. M;[Jr;;; init"rr"o 9/8/98. There were 7 years of futt usage and 3 months in 1998 with one month less in
2005.. With a reading of 1,146.550 gallons irom the time oflnstallation until the time of failure on 1213/05 our
actual usage for both homes during lnis time was 4.9 AF over seven years for
two homes. lf you divide tlqlOV
i it equalslsg AFA. And if you recharge our usage was negligible. . This uses the calculation of 43,560
cu ft. = 1 afa and that 6.428512 "ou-nt gallons equal 1 cu. Ft.
s(Final
order & receipt for meter copy provided)
.'sig;"d frovisionatiy to be in eneit-ai time of actual water provision. Notarized copy provided.
t Copy provided of ad in big nickel-
I provideO copy of Lefter frorn Hugh Ricci State water eng. Citing this.
t inlr" ri"ir L?" iirt"o on the (no-n tetterhead) summary ot tactJ provided by wcwR to our Mitigation packet'
rc'a6t;il;tt"ir'i.r wcwR Aprit 16, zo0l. Reflected in wcBcc minutes from 1999-2002 as well as within
4 meetings of the WC STMGID Local Board Minutes 2001-2003'
t' Copy of Disk provided.
t, wi[riin in! miiutes and tape of the wcwR and state water Engineer Meeting held at Galena High school
when a member of the public asked, " What if we don't have all the documentation oJ our well?"
Item 3
Pzge257

21O Sheppard,Nixon, Hunt, Kitchen, Brokaw, Rummler,Maitozal3la We expecto be mitigated with. Per the
211 counties report on page 54 (and on each one of those I included in the footnotes the dates that mitigation
212 was approved) and I would assume if the County approved mitigation they proved a deleterious impact on
213 those domestic wells. Later in my notes here you will see a map that shows that those wells circle my
214 propertv. I would assume that our county just didn't pay people. Per the counties report on page 54 of 68
215 their own report says that water ieveti nave Oedtined over 20 y_esrs 10-20 feet several other neighbors were
216 on the moniioring iystem. Such as Mr. Kitchen. The August 20tn 2001 minutes of STMGID say, "...it is the
217 domestic well owner's responsibility to continuously monitor their wells, but that only 10-20 percent actually
218 do this." I think that you will find that since 1995 we have paid just about every other year to have our well
219 monitored to come to this meeting prepared. We not only monitored our well we had a meter on it to prove
220 what is used. We believed that WCWR and STMGID had an adequate sampling for our area and accepted
221 the declination to monitor our well. Of these wells- all that have failed 15 of the 16 have been mitigated with
222 and paid for wellfailure. Mr. Dowling was declined due to "Moving too quickly''(that is within the STMGID
223 Meeiing Minutes) without following the correct st_eps to be mitigated. The STMGID minutes reflect that he
224 was told he had not "waited to have his wellfail".15. Which was a raucous meeting at STMGID because
225 then there was a huge discussion about wether a well owner had to wait for the well to fail before going on
226 to mitigation. lt is highly distressing to have a final summary for our Mitigation Hearing which cites statistics
227 from wells in a parameter including areas of our aquifer which are responding to pump-age completely
228 different than our area. In the Old Government Tract there are not 530 Homes. Page 16 says " there are
229 approximately 26 wells measured twice a year in the government lots." In 2001 there is a list made by the
230 point person ior WCWR which shows 40 wells that were thought to need to be deepened or redrilled due to
231 impact from STMGID #6. The wells and statistics that are being used in a different hydro-basin such as
232 Callahan Ranch and those wells tend to be 30' deep and have a completely different reaction to the
233 pumpage. lt is upsetting to see them citing those wells rather than the "agreed upon during negotiations of
234 ine Mitigation Board inception" monitoring wells that ar.e in our specific area and that is reflected in the
235 letters from Washoe County included in your packet.'""
236
237 5. Below is a diagram of our home situated in the center of the monitoring and (132-TAPE)'Wells which
238
have been mitigated with" allof whom were shown to have been deleteriously been impacted. ln 1991
239
when asked bythe STMGID Board how many "government lot homes would be affected and need to be
240
mitigated with WCWR compiled a list and tnat tiit is in my packetl8. This list showed 30 of the
241
appioximately 40 homes being affected by STMGID Well #6 pumpage. In further Minutes of Meetings it
242
been stated that our well situated in the middle of all these wells was left off because the Drillers log
243
book didn't have any record of our well. We were led to believe that after having provided all records of
244
our well the statistics and information used to substantiate the mitigation of our neighbors - it would be
245
the same statistics and information used to substantiate payment of our mitigation.
246
" Maitoza STMGID 12t7lO1 Page2;Sheppard 101912001 page 37; Meyers 6128120A5;HeikaTI27l20O4 Page 2;
Rummler 11123120O4;Turk612512A02; Page 43 of 68 shows previous reimbursement deepenings Stephens,
Brokaw, Quinn, Rua, Ronkos Page 45 of 68 Nixon, Hunt, Melarky, Kitchen. One refusal Dowling.
tt" There are approximately 26 wells measured twice a year in the Government Lots." Page 55 of 68 per
WCWR. Water levels generally declined in our area 10-20 feet over 20 years.
ls Minutes provided- this caused concerns for PDW which is another reason the Groundwatet: Task Force was
convened to begin to create a "neutral" system for PDW owners to follow for mitigation.
tu This criteria and issue was a primary issue listed by Private Domestic Well owners during the minutes and
tapes of the Groundwater Task Force. lt became a primary reason for the dual recommendation of a public
access and input data base as well as a mitigation board consisting of Private domestic well owners as well as
hydro-geologists.
t7 Map-provided by WCWR to STMGID Local Board --red dots and additions have been made by us of those
voted to be approved in the meeting minutes of the STMGID Local Board all noted parties minutes were
provided in our packet. Inclusive of the minutes showing that the Nixon property was hooked up waiving fee's
and the Copy attached.
tu Copy attached.
Item 3
Page 258

ffi
rrllffi
iii;.i
I ''-'
:f;:i"*;
,l: 1";:i
ri#.,'i
?',:.
lr:::
[***,
d#
'
[';i'i
.t
::: r
:l:1-:
l.. tlrt.';,t I {i
w,
,7
8I
;0
;1
;2
;3
't4
i5
;6
i7
i8
;9
i0
;1
i2
i3
i4
i5
I believe that our County has made valor attempts to dealwith its budgetary/ lmpacU Administrative Crisis
caused by all the pumpige in the South Truckee Meadows regarding Private Domestic Well Owners. Once
they learned throughoutlhe years the actual Mitigation Policies have changed so often that there has never
been a true sense of reliability of relief to an impacted PDWO. The only reason that some of us PDWO's
have been able to continue to live in the area is the belief that that truth will prevail, the RIGHT will be done
and there is fairness in government.
The chart below shows that from 1980 to 1994 our well had a sustainable recharge and a sustainable static
water level of 248 feet over a 15 year( in drought out of drought) period of time. This shows we had a
sustainable water supply recharging with a -0--rate of decline in our well. Each Statistic is actually taken off
a documented item in your Packet.
As a matter of fact, most of the increase in new (documented by county) private domestic wells in our
immediate area took place during that period of time which is also documented in the minutes from our
County. With litfle or no affect on our static water level. Most of the Private domestic wells were put in prior
to 1995 in this area.
Item 3
Page259

266 From 1gg4 to 2005 our well lost a documented 48 feet of static water level. While during that sameperiod
267 of time STMGID # 6 increased their production pumpage from 50,023,000.00 to more than 373,370,000'00
268 a more than 7 fold increase. This caused a rate of dectine in our well of 4.8 feet annually over the last 10
269 years. We need to look at the last ten years to really see what happened. And that is attributable to
zJL ____ STMGID # 9- in our-humble-o-pqlq!-
271
272
O-la : Z-IJ\J\): 4e r t
Z-t \)
274 2oo5 297 296 -11
275 Total level decline 48 feet of water.
276
277 In 2004 the budget was approved and phase 11 extension to the Government lots was approved on the
ilA -genoa(which
ii included in your packet) for February zlth 7091.
That is.the pipe to our house' up until
2Zg tnin I nao been a member oithe Groundwater Task Force that is where this board and the data center were
28O incepted.
281
2g2 lt was our belief in 2004 when the Local Board approved the acceptance of the bid to bring the pipe to our
2BA home that our job was done. That pipe was coming. The map showing the pipe is identicalto
il" TnuP,1-^
,g4 oeing oistributeo tnis year for the current approved oid. tnere was going to be water to our house' '" Maps
2AS snoriing our hook-up were distributed. we were told there was no need to "reapply''since our county
ig1 certainf knew we wanted water. I had been a pain. we would never have run out of water and lived
287 without water for 5 months if this had been done when we were told it was going to be accomplished'
288
Zgg lncluded in your packet is a letter from Mr. widmer letting us know the bid had been approved and the pipe
29O
291
292
2g3
was coming. That letter is in your packet.
our out of pocket expenses are by the graciousness of Mr. Bowling only $850. because I was trying to hand
igq trench the 375 feet on our side otine pfuperty line for the pipe for water. $306. for sand, although I must
ZgS now order another 6 yards to sand in ihe'trench. The refitting and the well abandonment will be $6'400' We
296 have already taken out tn" Health Dept. permito abandon our well for $145. There is a copy of all that in
,01 your packet. Th" lo*"ring of our pump - it wasn't-lowered just once- it was lowered twice and that is why
2gA *u ruy come up with a different figure as to how far our pump went_down' The loss of rent - you see we
,gg p"y oui Mortgaje by renting out thl second and obviousiy on 12t4112005 by the graciousness of Water
SOO iRuiour"", we lost our water and our tenants when our water went away. Realistically we never thought it
301 would take this amount of time. You know our next door neighbor had water in 3 days' We never
SOZ envisioned that water would be 300 feet away from my home and I would not have water within a week or
303 two. Yeah. (in response to groans from the crowd and board.)
304
305 We are being asked by the County to pay $8,352.80 to hook up. lf this pipe had been.provided back in
306 2004 when iiwas first approved tiat hboi< up fee was substantially less. The cost would be substantially
307 lower. Living without water from 12t4 until March 16, 2006 | would like to tell you that is-priceless- | couldn't
g0g list anything-there. The total expenses to be mitigated are $22,936.03. I have included for you what our fan
30g looked like when we moved in in 1995. I have inituoeo for you that we were right below this beautiful
gi O mountain with snow all year that reminded me of my family home in ltaly. And the lawn on the rental home is
tt Copy of map and minutes attached. Letter from WCWR attached'
Item 3
Page 260

1
2
3
4
5
o
7
I
I
0
1
2
3
4
5o78I012345678901
gone it is rock now. We haven't wasted water--- that water was taken from under us. We survive droughts
for 30 years prior to #6 going in without any problem or affect on our well. The other thing to take into
account is that if you look at an arial map and where our home and STMGID #6 is that the well is situated in
a gully which at night I believe when the snow is melting I can actually hear the underground water running.
Ihetegt !q!ha!_thq
sql iq elfgqteQ!y_ST-MGID_#6_; it s_ogs |shtpgsllhe llitchels thgn qgst us to STMGID
*6. So thinga aie netei Abing ib Ue'6(uai. i hope thaf my footnotes and summary hblp to make things
simplier as t,o why all that paper is in our packet. lf you have any questions I would be happy to entertain
them. (tape 190)
Board Chair:. Thank you for your testimony. We certainly appreciate your situation here. I guess we are in
a bit different situation than looking at the hook up or not hookup our charge as you saw earlier does not
relate to that particular part. But it does relate to the impact from ..... what I guess I don't understand
because I guess we have heard these situations come up before... is that what you are saying a lot of your
neighbors were already hooked onto the system.
Theresa : (interrupting) Mitigated. Deepened, they may have hooked up or they may have had to drill a new
well. Mitigation has come in many forms.
Chair: Okay. We don't know exactly how many were hooked up vs. deepened"
Theresa: That depended on impact. We don't know if they chose to deepen...if they chose to drill a new
well..or if the power lines made a situation where a new well was needed. Many times they were told a pipe
would not be available prior to 2004 so people were deepening'
,2
,3
,4
5
.6
7
8
.9
;0
i1
t2
i3
i4
;5
;6
;7
iB
i9
i0
;1
i2
i3
i4
i5
)o
i7
Chair: So the nearest pipe is about 300 feet away you say.
Theresa: The letter from the county is included which shows us at about 300 feet away.
Chair: So it already is running to your street...where is it exactly?
Richard Shannon: lt runs up Mt. Ranch Rd. to Carl and is at the end of Carl which is one parcel away from
US,
Theresa: There is a map in your packet that shows it. lt is the same map that was used in 2004 to get the
bid for expansion 11 of the pipeline and has gone out to bid again this year.
Richard Shannon: This pipe will go from Mt Ranch along Carl to Melarky.
Board member Morro: When is our next board meeting? There is a lot of information here and I am not
sure we can deliberate now. Are we going to go back to the Regular Schedule?
Mr. Smitherman: I think that it is three weeks.
Theresa Shannon: You realize that means we would be without water for three weeks?
Board Member Morro: Wellthis is a lot of information and I am seeing it for the first time tonight.
Board Chair: I am concerned about delaying if we don't have to. What I am still unclear about is the
procedure.
Richard Shannon: We will be without water for another three weeks'
Chair: I don't think what we do here will affecthat. We just make recommendations we are not in the
position to tell people to hook you up.
Thresa: Your decision is critical to this.
Chair: I know but we don't get people hooked up.
Item 3
?age26l

368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
Theresa: Well yes but your decision is critical and I would get this clear on the record. The fact is that we
are being told that unless we pay $8,352.80 they are not bringing that pipe to us. And as you see in your
packet we are out of money. We don't have it. That equipment is sitting at the end of the road. I find it
ludicrous that in our County and that in our United States the equipment would sit at the end of the road
wa,i!!r,rg fo1 your decision. In my opinion that pipe would come down the road hook us up a1d Jhen w9 would
find out who needs to pay for it and settle the matter. But, The reality is that'we bre beinQ-tolil that unless
we can pay the money they will bring it down the road and by pass our hook up. Unless we can prove
impacthey are not going to give us water hook up. I don't have $8,350 and we have made that clear.
Mr. Rhodes: They are waiting for a decision from this board. That is an entirely different matter. They are
deciding the impact on your well caused by Municipal Pumpage. Then that decision - you take that to the
County. There is no correlation to what the water purveyor does. This board makes recommendations to
the water purveyor based on what it finds is the impact at your well.
Theresa: In this case that decision determines weather or not I drink water, can do my laundry, can flush
my toilet, or take a shower tomorrow. That equipment has been sitting at the end of the road for a week
with the pipes waiting I believe for an answer from this board.
Chair: I didn'think that we were in that position.
Mr. Rhodes: " and I don't want you to think that you are."
Theresa:
' Well if we are not can we have clarification from staff? From the County''
Chair: I understand.
Mr. Rhodes: The county told you what their requirements are for Hook-up"
Theresa: "$8350.80 which I do not have and which you impacted me. "
Mr. Rhodes: " That may affect your ability to hook up but that has nothing to do with the equipment moving
in. I don't want the issues to become confused. "
Theresa: I am confused and I am not understanding your answer.
(tape 214)
Mr. Smitherman: Mr. Chairman. I spoke with the contractor and he says they have been on hold due to
weather.
Chair: So if the weather clears they will start the trench?
Smitherman: I can't say that because I understand the hook up fee has not been paid.
Chair: Okay. Now I am concerned.
Mr. Widmere: The issue here is not politics between Mrs. Shannonand Water Resources it is simply " What
has been impact if any from STMGI"D # 6 and the Shannon well?"
Mr. Rhodes: " That is the issue before you tonight."
Mr. Widmere: " With that all the information that I see that is related to water levels and the Shannon well.
From the packethere appears to be four water levels taken. The first one when the well was drilled in 1980.
Mc Kay measured three water levels in April of 2OO1 , March 2002 and July of 2005. Relating that to the
Schuerman well I believe the rest of the data shows it is the drought. The question that the Chair brought
up about why other wells in the area are not responding the same as the Schuerman well and I don't know
why that is. That would mean it has to be related to a hard rock aquifer which I believe most of these wells
in the Upper Government lots are drilled into. That is allthat I have been trying to tell you. But, the issue
here is what has been the Municipal impact on the Shannon wellfrom STMGID #6 and the
Drought and I believe there has been some recently. lt is our position that weather these droughts. That
drought has affected wells in these upper Government Lots. Secondly, you have heard that it has been
determined by this board and other wells that have gone through the mitigation process that 50% of
drawdown in domestic wells is acceptable. For example the Minnibery well which you can compare to the
Kitchen well helps to make a determination of impact from drawdown from STMGID #6. So, I see evidence
available by comparison. I think you are in a position to make a determination tonight. (tape 232)

3
7
3
I
l
1
2
3
+
5
67I9012345
o
789012345678o
0
1234
o
78I01234567BI0,1
Board Member: "One of the things I hadn't seen until tonight was the line by line comparison of the well
reading of the Shannon well as compared to the pumpage of STMGID #6."
Mr. Widmer: " I would like to see verification of those readings of the Shannon well a pump contractor has
Ihe means to mdke a water level medsurement. lf they haVb to pull the pump to get past the feW feet to get
a probe down because quite frankly I sent a intern out to try and measure the Shannon well a few years ago
and this person mechanically inclined and could not get a measurement. I don't know the reason why. I
can't tell you why that is. But, it is my feeling that there are four representative water level measurements
that have been taken on that well.
Board: The one that is different is the last measurement.
Widmere: According to this chart. I haven't seen any. I See the very first one in 1980. Then the next one
for 2001 which is in the information
the packet. Then, the March 2002 is in the packethat is before a
static water fevel taken before a one hour pumping test. And then another measurement in july 2005 of 285.
I don't know about this other 2005 when it dropped another 11 feet in December.
Theresa: That is also included in your packet showing they then lowered the pump to the "bottom" of the
well. lt says bottom of the well.
Mr. Widmere: And that reading was 285.
Theresa: No you are looking at the one before in August of 2005. After that they came and took it to the
bottom of the well. The bottom of the well is at 296 feet.
Chair: So they pulled the pump.
Theresa: Yes to lower it. Yes they pulled the pump every time.
Chair: and there was basically no water in the hole.
Theresa: yes. They lowered the pump to the bottom. Then there was no water we sucked air... dirt not
water.
Chair: From the pump test they did earlier at least from my notes here lt looked to me to be a fairly good.
Well. There was somewhere around what 3 feet of drawdown during the pump tests. For one hour 9.55
and dropped 3 feet to me at least at this area at this rate in bedrock makes it a very good well. lt was a
healthy well so this well would not be like some where they were at a very low yield and they were pumping
at a high rate then went dry- this well was healthy, at least at the early stages in 2002.
Mr. Widmer: So I find it hard to believe that in a span of a couple of months the level dropped enough
especially 11 feet - we measured the Schuerman well recently and the water level came up. I am at a loss
to explain how the Shannon well could have lost 11 feet especially in the fall.
Chair: That is why I was stating that this well is a healthy well. lt wasn't showing much drawdown when
tested in the past.
Mr. Widmere; I would suggesthat 296 feet is where the pump is at.
Chair: Yes but if the well is dry and they pulled the pump out and didn't measure any water in there.
Theresa: We wouldn't be living without water unless the well was dry.
,2
i3
Chair: " There are only a certain amount of standing feet of water. lf you turn a well on very quickly it may
drawdown below your pump.
Theres: Yes, I understand. But, the history of our well is that it has been a healthy well not having these
problems.
Richard: We believed and hoped we would survive longer and prayed that the last few wet years would
help us to recharge.
Item3 10
Page 263

484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
524
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
Chair: You are in an area where in my mind at least during the last few years the aquifer has ceased to
replenish. And in this well I didn't see that evidence. Sometimes you can't overcome hydrology. Have
any measurements been looked at since this December time frame.
- Theresa: I h-Ven-t puf $300.lntoliavlng sorneb-ne eirrne-oUtErTd}-d|ETfiipafd measu-sure a drywe=ll-lf1h-A
is what you are asking.
Chair: That's right. Your document states that the pump is set right at the bottom.
Theresa: Yeah. And, now we can't. In preparation for the pipe we have had the pressure tank removed.
Richard: I have not pulled the pump. But, in hopes that perhaps there was recharge I did about four or five
times go and turn on the system to see if I could get water in the tank. The pump was still sucking air. I was
trying to let the well recharge naturally to see if it could recharge. My attempts over the last weeks didn't
get me any water.
Chair: and as far as you know the pump is set to the very bottom of the well.
Richard: yes. lt think there is a short gap because you don't want to dry dirt if it works. But, clearly if there
were any water in our well we would have used it prior to removing the pressure tank.
Chair: We don't have our well expert here tonight. She was playing hooky so we have to pretend like we
understand the operations of a well.
Mr. Widmer: STMGID 6 is entirely in alluvium and the calculations on storability for alluvium are very
different.
New Board Member- and it looks like you are saying that these wells are mostly completed in bedrock not
in any kind of an alluvium? Yet, if I look at these charts the State Water Engineer provided it appears like the
well is responding the opposite.
Mr. Widmer: Well I believe that is the case for most of the wells in the upper Govemment tract.
Richard: I think we might have something different in our paperwork. Just one minute. (Paper shuffling).
(Tape 271).
Chair: The board members are asking for a short break. So let's take a five minute break. Then we will
recover our thoughts and we will reconvene in 10 minutes.
(Tape one ends at the break.)
Meeting reconvened (Tape 221 back side).
While break was still on Applicant asked the chair what the last question was to prepare for reconvening.
He reminded the discussion was abouthe soil content or typography the well was drilled in. The applicant's
answer is given in part as:
Chair How many of the neighbors wells are no longer pumping from the aquifer in your area?
Theresa: "That's a great question. lnstead of as has been claiming that the pumpage has increased by
Private well's it has decreased in our particular area. There are less people pumping not more people.
Look at the map here's Tessa and here's STMGID #6. Each time they began initially or increase pumpage
from each of these wells there is a corresponding affect on the levels of the neighboring private wells.
Chair: Can we get the meeting back to order (realizing folks are still talking in the audience and around
him.)
Theresa: You wanted to address the make up of the land is that corect?
Item 3
Page264
11

Z
]
I
t
chair: Yes.
Yes Sir. I will find the documents. That would be on the wetl drillels reports. Let me find the right one.
i Chair: We left this with a question as to what the material was like where the water source is derived, I
- -
Z lliink on page ft-Zwha[T See Rere ir5'llie Sh-an-non-welflogWhiehaislntereSting b-Lifl-e]m-natf Suielt hrelps me
3 too much. lt says brown clay and granitic boulder.
I t am not sure that is representative- it appears that depending on how the driller was drilling we were getting
) some granitic cuttings coming up with brown clay involved.
I
2 Richard: In great experience in working and digging and because our land is not flat it is sloped we have for
3 instance a rock in our back that is the size of a Volkswagon. lt is pretty much granite, boulders and dirt.
4 That is what lwould call it.
5
3 Theresa: And then in the area were the well is it goes into sand. Because the well is situated in this little
7 gully it is in an almost creek like sand but of course the well is 300 feet down and things change.
3
9 Chair: Yes 300 feet down and it appears that you are in a more bedrock like condition at that point.
D
1 goard Member Morro: Let me clarify something on more than one house on a domestic well. I went back
2 and did some research in my water law and in NRS 534.185 There is a waiver, the State Water Engineer
3 may with a written request and receipt of a written agreement from the owners waive the requirements from
4 this chapter for the use development of underground water. The well existed and was used prior to July
5 1983. lt is used by and solely for the purpose of more than one but not more than three single family
6 dwellings.
7
8 Theresa: May I respond?
I Morro: (continuing) and each of those dwellings does not draw more than 18,000 gallons of water per day.
0 Now I assume that under section 1 of this statue this requires an agreement. And, since you own more than
1 one home you don't need an agreement. You would be making an agreement with yourself. lf you ever
2 decided to sell the home; lf, you are only one of the dwellings you would need the agreement and waiver.
3 So if you ever do sell you might need it. I don't know that you have to have it now since you would be both
4 parties to the agreement.
5 Theresa: That was addressed in the hearing we had with the State Water Engineer Hugh Ricci.
6 Morro: Well, that isn't done by the State Water Engineer it is done by the Statue.534.185. lt is up to Hugh
7 Riccito enforce this statue.
B Theresa: Yes, we went to the hearing through the Groundwater Task Force in Oct. of 2004 because this
I issue kept being bantered about, that "our well was illegal". This is not our first mitigation hearing. During
0 that hearing and time I offered to go get a waiver and I was told that wasn't necessary . that I didn't need to
1 tnat I was not breaking the law. I had gone through allthe proper steps to bring my home legalwhen I
2 bought it in 1995. We went through all the processes. We came to Water Resources and they signed off.
3 We spent a great deal of money to bring our property up to current conforming statues.
4
5 Morro: I understand that there is no question with that now. The reason that he probably told you what he
6 did is because you have two homes and the well existed prior to 1983 and the current law. The statue is
7 directed at two homes on one parcel and as long as you only draw 1,800 per day the well existed prior to
B 1983.
I
0 Theresa: Thank you.
4
tl New Board Member: To go back to the issue of composition. The well logs show ... down to five feet then
rl from five to I feet it's got brown clay. Then it goes to boulders. lt seems that sometimes when you are
tQ drilling boulder, lt may be that when they were drilling they came to alluvial material.
i5 Richard: lf you look at the geo physical studies of that area they call it the alluvial fan.
rO Theresa: if you look at page 13 of our documents, when I negotiated buying the property. That is were the
17 other reading or measurements of our well. The numbers have changed. This is the detail along with the
rB warranty of the new pump installed- which I have with me. This is the detailthat back then when I was so
t9 naive about wells I thought was very detailed that they (the prior owners) had provided at the sale. lt does
12
Item3
Page 265

600
601
602
603
-605 604
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
have some notes about gravel packed entire depth and concrete seal. I don't know if this helps you. This is
what we have. (tape 270)
Mr. Widmer: I don't know why this the first time we see these documents.
Theresa: That is not true. I actually came to Water Resources in 1996-1997 during the permit process' lt
Was the firsf time f came into the-bUildin-0-' I Wbn-t-do-Wd all$e-Corriclois to a room ilack-iil th-e corner dver
there and as I was being asked to get a meter and get an initialing off on it from every department in the
County on my final order. I asked just that question. "How long will this water source last?" I asked that
question because I still hadn't finished buying the property. So I asked the Department of Water Resources
because I was under the delusion at that time that the Department of Water Resources was also sort of like
there to protect Private Domestic Well owners and provide service to us... and not just to create beneficial
use water. So, I asked " How do I determine how long will this depth to water last? And the answer lwas
given was to look at the history of the well. And the person sat down and did figures at the desk. We
looked at the readings from 30 years from 1965 to 1980 and we hadn't drawn down. So, the natural
assumption was that near 50 feet of water was pretty good. We had never gone down more than 4 or 5 feet
during a thirty year period. Now, how ignorant was that because the freeway ended at Pink Scolaris there
was no Galena High, we had no idea all of that was coming. How ignorant was I not to be aware all of that
was coming. This brought us to the whole regional plan and all the water usage development that was
going to take place.
New Board Member: I think that your water level should have lasted looking at the data.
Theresa: Thinking about it there is actually less private domestic wells drawing from that part of the aquifer.
And , they haven't put in more private domestic wells since 1995. The huge majority of development has
been through water systems.
New Board Member: What I am talking about is that looking at the history 50 feet is enough if you have a
good producing well and the records show you did.
Theresa: I know what you are saYing.
Chair: I think looking at the diagram of the well is what they did was to put the pump 11 feet off the bottom.
Which would mean that even though you may have a few feet of water in the bottom of the hole your pump
can't reach that.
New Board Member: lt may be that a dry well for you is284-286 feet as opposed to if they had set the pump
another 11 feet down. lt may be that in reality there may be a little bit of water in the bottom of the hole'
Buq the water is not usable to you; because, the water isn't reachable by pump. This could answer the 11
foot drop all of a sudden. The driller may have realized by really pushing it down to only a few feet off the,
bottom he would put you in danger of damaging your pump making it unserviceable. Have you thought of
doing that?
Theresa: The reason that we applied for mitigation in November prior to the well going dry was to offer the
County the opportunity to ask and make any tests needed while we still had water. We were prepared to do
that. Now in preparation for water pipes we have removed the pressure tank and all the equipment to test
that.
Chair: Well we were just trying to answer Mr. Widmer regarding that last 11 feet of water.
Theresa: However, after that diagram that you are looking at the pump has been lowered. Please be sure
to look at the chart provided because that reflects the readings made by Both Mc Kay's. The pump was
fater lowered to "bottom" and,we had no water. We at 20A2we were at 263.
Richard: I spoke to him the last time he was out and he said that the pump was set at the very bottom or
about a foot above. Because he moved it down and he didn't get any good water so then he placed it at the
position up just raised lt up a foot.
Chair: So it may have recovered a bit but we don't know because we can't read it right now. This happens.
Mr Widmere: ihairman I would like to get back. In looking at the drill logs and what the wells are drilled in
the logs indicate to me that they are in fractured rock. ln view of what the drillers have written I see this.
Somsof the drillers do a prefty good job of writing their detail in the drillers log. Look at Mike Dowling he
redrilled and he started at 310 and mind you there are lava flows and in between the lava flows there could
be several layers of material.
Item 3
Ptge266 13

7
I
I
0
1
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01234567II0123456
,7
New Board Member: I am showing in the logs you mentioned there in some kind of alluvium and then they
go into volcanic. Of course the Nixon well is close to the Shannon well. Their log doesn't show what you
are describing Mike. In looking at the production well that you are talking about here alluvium at the bottom
and this indicates to me the small producers may also be in alluvium. This well the Shannon well was a
good producer- | don't think any of us have any question about that. However, Mike, it looks like there could
be an iSSUO iegbiding lithology herd arid that there-might be Sorile qUdStiOn With yoUr daleulatidns hgre.
Regarding your point earlier.
Mr. Rhodes: I was just going to point out that perhaps this is the time to use the forms you approved earlier
in your packet regarding the impact. See page 74 . This was a modeling exercise with item 13 copy on the
top.
Mr. Widmere: lam uncomfortable with this interpretation.
Chair: This map shows drawdown potential it was done by you - is this your primary concern?
Theresa: Would you explain that to us because I am not understanding what is being said-please. I
always assumed that we would be compared to Kitchen and Brokaw because the County had stated that
their wells were the closest to ours in proximity to STMGID 6 and composition.
Chair: I think he (Mike) didn't disagree with that. I think that the (new Board Member) said that running the
theis equation when you go from fractured bedrock and that the equations are not really valid when you do
that. They are an approximation but you loose something and the question really is ......and you had a point
....(new board member).
New Board Member: lf you look at the Dowling well they went to 325 feet and they hit volcanic material. I
doubt if the driller was being exact. We have a case here that is close to the shannon's.
8
I
r0
r1
t2
r3
t4
r5
r6
t7
r8
r9
l0
t1
t2
t3
t4
f5
)6
t7
t8
)9
012
'3
i4
Chair : Let's assume that ... we are trying to look at the numbers that Greg Pohl brought up here of 20 feet
being acceptable drawdown. And we will go back to that in a little bit. Let's suppose that you had alluvium
through the whole thing and the other scenario you had fractured bedrock. My guess would be that the
drawdown would be faster if you go across the interface. The fractured bedrock would actually show an
accelerated drawdown than if you had alluvium there. But that this would be a conservative estimate of the
drawdown at their well.
New Board Member: Show me the alternative when you did the other calculations (directed to Mike
Widmer).
Mr. Widmer: I don't have that. I believe that these wells are in fractured volcanic. When I tested that on the
Kitchen well your find storitivity value of 50% but.....
Chair: So between those two wells there is an interface in the model that you ran? What type of lithology if
any did you enter?
Mr. Widmer: We take these in a case by case basis. So in the interest of moving on. They are in fractured
volcanic. You could refer back to figure two page two. Look at the domestic wells that this board has made
a determination on. There are three domestic wells close that are shown. Myers and Rummlers and there
was 100% of drilling or hook up fees that were mitigated.
Chair: I am sorry which are those?
Mr. Widmer: There are three close together. From North to south they are Melarky, Myers and Nixon I think
STMGID paid to hook up. Next is Minniberry where they recommended paying the drilling costs to 75%.
And to the West is a lot Rummler paid 100% of drilling was reimbursed. And there is Richard and Theresa
Shannon and to the right is the Winard property where there was no unreasonable drawdown attributed to
that. There is that option available. I guess I am not allthat enthusiastic about using the theis equation in
this particular area. By the way that equation does not account for recharge.
Chair: ln my opinion that (recharge) is not what we are seeing in this area.
Theresa: On this Mitigation Map I would like to include the fact and in my speech I included the Stephans
have been mitigated with and they are not on this, Mr. Quinn was paid in full he is not on this.
Item 8
Pzge267
14

715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
Chair: Did they come in front of this board.
Theresa: No They were mitigated with.
Chair: Do you have a copy of this?
Theresa: Certainly. They are on the handout I gave you in Red.
unatr: I nts ts naro to reao.
Theresa: I understand these were hard to impose on the County provided map and make clear copies.
Let's start on the left hand side. That would be Kitchen right there, Hunt above them, then Brokaw,
Sheppard, Quinn, Shannon, Winard, Dowling. Then Stephans.
Richard: Dowling was'denied not because of a mitigation problem but, he chose to drill deeper without
following their system or waiting to dry up. No matter what. So he never went through the process as it
were.
Theresa: Melarky, Champoliever, Rua, and Ronkos, I just wanted to say that there are 14 people that have
been mitigated with.
Richard: They pretty much surround us.
Theresa: That is right. So we never envisioned that geologically there would actually be an argument.
Chair: Okay let's go back to the Shannon well. At their rate of pumping they were doing pretty well with
their pumping and their drawdown up until around 1995 then the county put in the production well and
increased it's pumping pretty dramatically. lt looks to me like it has stressed the aquifer in a way that it
hasn't been stressed before and it went into a new regime. My concern is that that well is being pumped too
hard in that particular location. lt seems clear that in your particular area although it is not being pumped
too hard it is still having some impact. lt looks like from other wells there at it seems that we were granting
between 75To and 100% and certainly the maps show there is a pretty good cone of depression from that
well. lt encourages me to say that I would expect impact at this particular location. I don't think speculation
that there is only 20 feet of drawdown at this location. In the worst situation as far as the drop in water level
in your well. I realize that STMGID has a right to pump to do some drawdown. Can we take some Public
Comment at this stage since we are scratching our heads anyways.
My name is Mr. Bemie Gavin representing the STMGID Local Board: as to what - well it goes into great
detail and anwers most of your questions on STMGID 6. I have broughthis paper from the State Water
Engineer that basically goes into great detail regarding STMGID well# 6 as to what is the allowed pumpage.
Chair: I am not going to read 16 pages real quick is there a quick. ls there a some help that you mn give us
from this?
Theresa Shannon: That letter was included in my packet.
Chair: I guess we already have that. I didn't notice it in my original reading. ls there any summar you can
give us on this (speaking to Mr. Cohen).
Mr. Cohen: I believe the letter lets you know that STMGID is found not to be overpumping.
Chair: There are two definitions of over-pumping- to my understanding. One is that you have a water right
to pump a certain amount. The other one is the impacthat pumping has in the local area. Our charge is
not to worry about what your pumping right is as I understand it. lt is to determine what your pumping
impact is.
Mr. Cohen: I understand that but I think this tells you things about what you are talking about.
Theresa: Just one minute and I will find the original of that letter- it seems to look different than what is
being presented.
Paper shuffiing.
Theresa: I had originally included the letter but this letter looks different. I apologize I must have referred to
it instead since it is part of public record. lt was the response to the hearing that we had.
Chair: I hadn't seen it either. Yes, that is what it does is to summarize that the pumping is at 50 feet per
year. And they haven't quite made that yet - the highest I saw was 11 AFA. But, it goes on to say that there
is some usage of the lateral flow of groundwater so there may be condtions here that can also affect how
that flow and cone of depression works.
Theresa: Are we still on public comment or should I speak?
Chair: I stitl had one more public requesto speak and' I can't seem to find the card. lt got into my papers- |
apologize. Ah here it is . I have two cards here. Michael De Martini.
Mr. De Martini: One I would like to say that the procedure about a year ago before your.arrival Mr. Chair
was determined that Mr. Smitherman would go first with the summary, then the water purveyor and then I
would speak next in line as the Representative of Private Domestic Wells from the Regional Water Planning
Commission- then the applicant but prior to the deliveration.
Item 8
Page 268
15

3
4
5
o78I012345
o
7B901234567I9012,3
i4
i5
ro
t7
r8
r9
0
1
2
3
4
5678I
:0
,.1
t-2
r3
t4
l5
r6
t7
l8
l9
!0
I have a couple of quick comments. I felt that Terri's calculations were very accurate and conservative' I
want to point out that (and most people probably caught it) on paragraph two of her letter she gives a .44
total calculation that would be a very small impact as far as her well as she stated. "These are the 500 foot
domestic well impact numbers that staff is using are highly over stated. lf anything they would be only half
that. And, if you consider the possibility those domestic wells are using much less water than the staff is
SLigOeStinE. lh ieviewing the flve year moving average there are a couple of peaks in Michael Widmer's
charts that I would like to point out. First it is difficult to review this material during the meeting. However
looking at graph two and on that graph. He is showing the First Aid water station as the red in this graph.
Well I think that during about 1983 there is a peak shown for the five year moving average and on the
following graph there is a peak measured at the first aid at 1988 and the water levels seem to lag
consideianly behind this.. And yet if you look at 1990 you will find a similar increase in precipitation and the
water levels did not respond. And so I wonder what the cause is that the groundwater levels dropping.
Chair: Yes I see that the graphs can be deceiving since the groundwate response seems to lag
considerably. Theresa did you have a comment?
Theresa: I am sorry | wasn't prepared. I would like to say and sum up to refocus. lt seems to me that it is
important to remember that although there are statistics you are here to deal with I guess the reason I kept
citing the earlier mitigations is that they included these charts. They included what we understood to be
impact hydro logically. And, I would hope that you would be able to conclude your thoughts based on the
fact that ihere is that history. I am encouraged by the fact that you have read the Kitchen material and in
there it did say that All of these past mitigations are in the back of the packet. I would encourage that this
board will find in my favor.
Chair: I am at the stage where I am looking for a motion from the board'
New Board Member: (to Theresa) can you expand on the letter- is it addressed to you?
Theresa: I will try to respond about- to the letter presented I would like to give a little history- since that is not
really hydrologically based and I tried to alleviate such in trying to limit the material I submitted from the
room full of documentation I have. Other than the numbers and water I tried to stay focused. That letter was
the outcome from a hearing that we had with the State Water Engineer- Hugh Ricci. Were we were, being
the private domestic well owners and water resources with different points of view were both pushing for the
State Water Engineer to define for us what the "reasonable lowering" of the water table was. What
happened was that he declined to do that as a general rule or making any one statement that "this is what it
was" and basically came back to the premises that you had to do it on a case by case one by one
hydrological .
Chair: Guestamate
Theresa: Yes, Guess ta mate. And I believe that it must be reasonable in that particular area. He does
acknowledge that in our particular area there seems to be a problem. lf you read through it, I believe that
this is the letter where he does that.
Chair: He does note in here one number though if you look at page five at the top. He does note that "l
have concluded that recent drought cycles and groundwater development has contributed to at least 10 feet
of static water level decline in the eastern Sierra Rangefront." So he does give one number there. That is
highlighted in this report. He lumps things together that we as a board cannot lump together. That is pretty
nice. But, he does give us that one number here to work with.
Mr. Rhodes: You have a copy of this don't you.
Theresa: Yes, I have it here in my binder- | have the original. I didn't think you wanted me to copy this entire
binder (Huge) for youl
New Board Member: Mike I see here that on this letter there is a chart with three scenarios for drawdown
numbers. He gives us some samples based on ..... do you Mike know where the original input for these
came from?
Theresa: Who gave those numbers? That chart is not part of my letter?
Those must be some addition to that letter.
New Board Member: This is a seven page letter.
Theresa: No. our letter ends on Page 3 and it is the original.
Several Board Members at once: Yes, I do see where the page numbering is different. And then there are
attachements behind it.
Theresa:What date is that letter?
New Board Member: I see several dates Feb. 12 and then 14th well it looks like it was redone with
attachments.
Theresa: No. I have the original letter hand signed and it had no changes or attachments.
New Board Member: Okay- well I think that these may be valuable guidelines to use.
nemS
Prge269
16

831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
BB2
883
B84
885
886
887
BB8
Theresa: That is not the letter I got and those attachments have been done at a later date- they were not
part of my letter. They were done at a later date.
Mr. Rhodes: Just for clariflcation those attachments were referenced in the second paragraph on page
three.
Theresa: I have a copy of what that pumpage data is and that pumpage data is not the charts that you are
referring to. That is a different chart entirely. I have that chart in my packet. lt shows what STMGID#6
pumps. lt is right there- pointing to it in the packet. That chart you are looking at is made this year.
New Board Member::lt runs from 1990 to ... Can we run some numbers from this that we have.
Theresa: Yes. Just so we know it is not from the letter and I don't know that it is from the State Water
Engineer.
Mr. Rhodes: Either way it is a piece of information.
New Board Member: This is a valuable piece of information for us where they have run pumping scenarios
where they show there could be quite a bit of drawdown.
Mr. Morro: Weather it was attached to the letter is immaterial as long as it done honestly.
New Board Member: lt shows what the pumping and the drawdown would be in different conditions over 5
to 10 years I think we can utilize this tool - it goes from 20 feet to over 50,000 feet. I am assuming they ran
them correctly. We can argue back and forth as to how accurate they are.
Mr. Widmer: Mr. Chairman.
New Board Member: I am seeing that it went over a very wide range of values.
Mr. Morro: I wonder what assumptions were used.
New board Member: lt seems to take in account recharge and certain conditions between the two wells.
Mr. Morro: Yes, and this map here that is attached to the letter shows the location of all of those wells.
Theresa: Oh, I don't have any of that since it wasn't part of the letter I got.
Chair: I would like to entertain a motion from one of you guys.
Mr. Rhodes: Here is where wherever you would like to on there you can use the form. You would determine
weather you think there is an impact or not. Then, how many feet due to the different portions of impact.
You have to say that it is... then what it is. Then we go from there.
Due to some discussion between board members the Chair: You guys huddling isn't good.
Mr. Morro:We are trying to form a motion for you Mr. Chairman.
Greg: Can I have the floor- I don't think we can talk numbers without a motion.
Chair: I think Greg is asking for the floor.
Greg: I thihk we should talk numbers. I think there is 20 feet of drawdown.
Chair: Do you have anything to substantiate that? I would talk about that in the abstract. But, I think first we
must determine if there was an adverse impact from STMGID 6. and then what you think the impact is.
Chair: Do you have something to add to that?
Greg: Well I think the first thing is that there is only 2O feet of drawdown. lt is impossible to do that. I think
the drought may be filtered out. I don't think there is a good representation of the drawdown without the
drought.
Chair; So you are saying that the 15 feet of drawdown would be normal for drought. Yet, it looks like in their
welf we saw a more rapid decline after 2002. But, I hear your comment.
Greg: To take that further I know that using the theis equation we would see things differently. I mean we
are talking about numbers .....
Chair: Precisely these drops are higher than that figure.
Greg; According to the statistics they went down 20 feet.
Chair: Okay let's say they have "some" drawdown.
Greg;Well lam confused. Go ahead and take a motion.
Richard: lsn't there a rather simple comparison from before 1995 when there wasn't any drawdown inclusive
of droughts; and STMGID 6 isn't pumping at all. And then if you look at after 1996 when STMGTD 6 began
to pump.
Greg: Yes but the problem is that you haven't determined what the drought drawdown is.
Richard: Yes we have the well went through drought and non drought and maintained sustainable water
level at 248 feel.
Greg: Your point is well taken but there had to be drawdown prior to STMGID 6 being turned on.
Theresa: Our chart in tonight's presentation shows you the readings and there is no drawdown. Our well
remains stable right up to 1997. Then when STMGID 6 pumped between 1997 and 2005 during which time
we didn't loose 15 feet of water we lost at least 45 feet of water.
Richard: You are trying to average something when the only affect was the last five or six years. lf I have a
huge drop in a small period you can't go back over 20 years and average it.

i9
r0
t1
12
r3
t4
,5
6
7
8
I
0
1
2
3
4
Theresa: Right, when you do that it belitfles the affect.
Chair: We weren'trying to do that.
New Board Member: That is a very important fact though that we must consider.
Mr. Widmer: I don't know that there are measurements that supporthis. That data should be provided.
Theresa: Each measurement is provided in our packet.
Mr. Widmer: There are only four water levels in your packet. Four.
Theresa: The only reason there are more than four entries on the chart is because correspondingly there
were increases of pumpage on STMGID 6 so there needed to be a line for each of those. The rea-dings are
accurate. The water level of our well is right there. Pointing and reading 252,252,263. lt is clear and
substantiated with the receipts in the back of our packet. (tape 390)
Mr. Widmer: I also wanted to recall that we have discussed some of these water levels from the drillers log.
And the water level decline has been acknowledged by this board at previous hearings has been a decline
of water level. In fact I have heard up to 20 feet being acceptable.
The tape turned off at this point. However, the applicant does not dispute the outcome that the Mitigation
Board mailed to applicant with their findings.
Item 3
Pzge2711g