Utah Division of Water Rights
   

Beryl–Enterprise Area Groundwater Management Plan Second Meeting Public Comments Summary And Agency Responses

Revised: October 31, 2007

Cover Letter

Below is a compiled list of submitted questions and comments with agency responses from the second public meeting held August 6, 2007.

Questions/Comments

  Q1: What are the details of the state engineers management plan?
  A1: The state engineer has NOT yet developed a plan. We are still working on the parameters upon which any possible management plan will be based. Discussions are ongoing with the water users to address a number of locally important issues that might be included in a voluntary arrangement or ground water management plan
 
  Q2: What is the meaning of safe yield?
  A2: Safe yield means the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from a groundwater basin over a period of time without exceeding the long-term recharge of the basin or unreasonably affecting the basin's physical and chemical integrity. The state engineer cannot choose between these criteria. The meaning of “or” in this definition is that both conditions must be satisfied. This is a statutory definition and it was arrived at through input and comment from numerous water user entities and the public. Long-term recharge is an average of the yearly recharge values. As an example over a 10-year period the individual recharge values might be 4, 7, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 5, 9, 12 acre-feet for each year respectively. The safe annual yield would be the average of the values or 6 acre-feet.
 
  Q3: Can a management plan be based on a goal other than arriving at safe yield?
  A3: As set forth in 73-3-15 to the state statute, the objectives of a groundwater management plan are to limit groundwater withdrawals to safe yield, protect the physical integrity of the aquifer, and protect water quality. The management plan must achieve all of these three objectives.
 
  Q4: Will the State provide compensation for water rights that are not provide water under the management plan?
  A4: The law does not address or provide means for compensation for water rights that are not allowed to divert under the management plan. The state engineer and water users proposed the issue of compensation to the Water Issues Task Force and they chose not to provide it. The issue of compensation is outside the scope of the current management plan statute.
 
  Q5: The state engineer is ignoring the economic consequences that a management plan would have on the community. What is the purpose of an economic evaluation?
  A5: In adopting a groundwater management plan for a critical management area, such as Beryl Enterprise, the state law requires the state engineer to gradually implement safe yield limitations based on economic or other impacts to individuals or the local community. The economic impact from reducing withdrawals is being evaluated by John Keith, an economics professor at Utah State University. As this economic information is developed we will share it with the public for their review and comments. The challenge is to then use this data to formulate a plan that will hopefully lessen and mitigate the economic impact to the community by determining the time frame for gradual implementation of the plan. The statute dictates that economics shall be used as a consideration to take more time to get to safe yield, not that there can be another objective other than safe yield.
 
  Q6: Are there areas within the management plan boundary that could or should be excluded from the plan because they are isolated from the main body of the aquifer or because certain wells have experienced an increase in water level? The drawdown appears to be localized to one zone in the area. Do withdrawals need to be cut just in the areas that show declines?
  A6: At this time we do not feel that there are any areas within the region covered at the August 6th meeting that are hydrologically isolated from the main body of the aquifer as to warrant any exclusions from the plan. We recognize that some areas in the boundary have not experienced drawdown, but these areas are hydrologically connected to the groundwater flow system. The problem is a result of pumping from throughout the entire area, not just the area where drawdown is most pronounced. Areas where water levels are fluctuating are generally more closely connected to the recharge sources for the basin. Withdrawals in these wells still impact the basin, but their water levels tend to reflect the current climatic conditions rather that the change in the basin storage. We will attempt to address this issue in more detail in future public meetings.
 
  Q7: How will municipal, industrial, mining, irrigation, and domestic rights be handled under a management plan?
  A7: Statute 73-5-15 includes no special provisions or exemptions based on the nature of use of the affected water rights. According to the law the state engineer will regulate all water rights, regardless of nature of use, in accordance with their respective priority date. Water users may mitigate the impact of priority regulation on certain water rights, such as domestic use, by adopting a voluntary agreement. A voluntary agreement would allow priority cuts to be made to the group as a whole and prorate among the water users in the group according to their agreement.
 
  Q8: It has been suggested that there is plenty of water stored in the aquifer and that it can be continued to be mined for many more years. Why not wait and let other unknown future factors mitigate the problem?
  A8: This issue was debated by the legislative Water Issues Task Force as it was considering the groundwater management plan bill. It was determined that Utah, as a public policy, does not want to mine groundwater but rather manage it on a safe yield renewable basis. If you allow mining of groundwater to occur, the question then becomes: to what level? To maximize the economic return, one would divert and use as much water as possible in a short period of time. Delaying the implementation of a groundwater management plan just shifts the problem to the next generation. Waiting to address the problem only makes it more difficult to resolve.
 
  Q9: Can a local groundwater management district be created to facilitate the implementation of a management plan?
  A9: One option that is currently being evaluated by the local water users is the benefits of and the duties for a local special service district that would be able to levee assessments and make payments as water rights are retired. There are a number of issues to address. Depending upon the direction finally taken, it might require legislation to authorize such a district. The creation and regulation of groundwater management plans remains the duty of the State Engineer, but voluntary arrangements approved under a groundwater management plan could be implemented by a created local groundwater management district.
 
  Q10: Is the science accurate enough to predict safe yield and why isn't the problem being studied in greater detail? What sort of data is needed to provide more certainty?
  A10: There are some unknowns and uncertainties in determining the safe yield for the area. Additional data that would improve certainty would be an expanded groundwater level monitoring program, surface water diversion measurements, and groundwater pumping metering. We will develop a plan that is adaptive in its management approach. As new information becomes available or as climatic conditions change, the safe yield will be re-assessed. Water level change will be the primary indicator to identify when safe yield has been achieved in the basin.
 
  Q11: Will the adopted plan be prudent and cautious?
  A11: Yes, we understand the critical nature, economic consequences, and importance of this groundwater resource to the community. We are trying to produce the best solution to manage the resource with the least amount of impact to the individuals and the community. We will be deliberate and cautious as the plan is developed and implemented.
 
  Q12: What is the overall volume of the aquifer? Can this number help determine the time frame for gradual implementation.
  A12: We have not made a determination of that figure, although there are some estimates available. Such a determination is not directly pertinent to calculation of safe yield, but will most likely be required as we consider gradual implementation impacts. Understanding the aquifer extent and characteristics is important information when predicting or analyzing water levels changes.
 
  Q13: Will we allow for a phase out irrigation period to establish perennial grasses and shrubs to help mitigate wind erosion?
  A13: The State Engineer agrees that this is a serious concern. Recommendations regarding the transition from irrigated ground to non-irrigated ground could certainly be addressed in the groundwater management plan and allowances provided. However, the actual transition practice will be up to the individual water user. There currently is no authority in the statute for the State Engineer to require or to regulate transition practices. Under present conditions, if someone sold irrigation water and transferred it off their land, the State Engineer does not have the authority to require reseeding or other erosion control measures. A special district as discussed in Question 9, could perhaps help with this issue.
 
  Q14: How will the available water be distributed under a management plan?
  A14: The statue requires the state engineer to regulate the use of groundwater between water rights in a groundwater management plan according to the priority date of each water right. The only exception is where the water users have subscribed to a voluntary arrangement that allows the group of subscribers to distribute the water allocated to the group according to the criteria described in the agreement. Statute 73-5-15 includes no other special provisions or exemptions that would affect regulation by priority date.
 
  Q15: Safe Yield was evaluated using a five-year period. Will you look at other ranges in years to broaden the scope?
  A15: Yes, we are currently working to refine the safe yield estimate. However, we believe that safe yield as a regulation mechanism should be tied to water level change rather than estimates of recharge and change in storage. Actual water level data will be used to make management decisions. The safe yield estimate only provides an indication of what the eventual long term reductions may need to be.
 
  Q16: Have we verified the USGS water level data and reported drawdown with the local community?
  A16: No problems or inconsistencies with the data from the USGS have been reported to us. If there are specific concerns about the data we would be receptive to the information.
 
  Q17: Can the management plan encourage conversion of water to less consumptive practices?
  A17: Conservation measures could be used to help reduce the basin's depletion of water. If the agriculture community wants to grow less water intensive crops and share the savings, the implementation of such an approach would most likely involve a voluntary arrangement.
 
  Q18: Are the water rights that are precluded from diverting under a management plan subject to forfeiture?
  A18: No, forfeiture only applies to water rights that are not used when the water source is sufficient to meet said water rights. The water rights still exist and if there were adequate water to fill that priority, the water rights could be exercised.
 
  Q19: What is the response time of the aquifer? How much time does it take for the aquifer to show the impacts of reduced pumping or high precipitation years?
  A19: This is a question we are studying and will be reporting on in an upcoming meeting.
 
  Q20: Has the State reviewed the voluntary arrangement from the Escalante Water Users Association and will they encourage and facilitate the process?
  A20: Yes, the State Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is working with the Escalante Water Users Association to adapt a voluntary arrangement to address management objectives, which could then be incorporated into a groundwater management plan.
 
  Q21: What is the reason behind implementing a plan now?
  A21: In 2005 the Legislature enacted the Groundwater Management Plan statute, which directs the state engineer to manage our groundwater resources based upon a safe yield basis. There are groundwater management plans in effect in other areas of the State. The Beryl Enterprise area is the first area for which a groundwater management plan is being created under the new laws. The state engineer's responsibility was not clearly defined in earlier law for what are now termed 'critical' management areas. Leaving this problem for the next generation to resolve only increases the potential for more difficult choices and very serious consequences in the future.
 
  Q22: Will the State issue permits transferring water from the Beryl-Enterprise area to other Southern Utah communities that are experiencing large growth?
  A22: No, by definition as a 'critical' groundwater management area, the Beryl Enterprise area is fully appropriated. A management plan will reduce withdrawals to safe yield, not make additional water available for appropriation or transfer.
 
  Q23: What is the overall boundary of the management plan?
  A23: The general boundary of what the state engineer considers hydrologically connected to the Beryl/Enterprise basin is available as a PDF printable drawing or as interactive map . The management plan area is bounded by the drainage divides except at the west at the Nevada-Utah State line and at the northeast between the Wah Wah Mountains and the westernmost outcrop of the Black Mountains. The management area includes the drainage areas for Shoal, Little Pine, Mountain Meadow, and Pinto Creeks.