South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District

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