July 2, 2020 at 7:30 AM - Water Committee Meeting

Rationale:  The Committee heard from the staff on the changes shown on attached document.  The changes are making the variance a 3 year commitment and establishing a deadline of March 15.

Rationale:  Larry Kaspar (Kaspar Tree Farms, west side of Hwy 77)) has applied for an additional well on Section 34-16N-8E, Yutan Subarea, Restricted Development Area.  A review of DNR’s Well Registration database indicates that the only high capacity well within 600 feet of the proposed new well is their existing well, G-122873.  Kaspar has concerns about the continuing dry weather and needs second well for the trees.  He would like to drill the well as soon as possible. Drip Irrigation will be used as the irrigation system for trees with 136 certified irrigated acres.

The Committee would like more information and deferred the decision to the Board Meeting on July 13.

After the Committee meeting, staff had Katie Cameron review the location.  Her comments are shown below with detailed information attached with AEM information. 

Katie's comments: After looking at the 2018 AEM Flight Line data and nearby registered well logs, it looks like the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec 34 T16N R8E would be as good as or possibly better than the current irrigation well in the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 based on the resistivity shown on the App. 1 Profiles as far as the sandstone saturated thickness that is potentially available. As usual there is not a line directly over the land we are looking at but based on the nearby information that is my opinion. It also looks like the logs are reporting the first deep thicker sandstone unit deeper than some of the images might make it appear.

With this additional information staff doesn't see an issue with this new well permit.

Rationale: 

Wells Permits Approved: #

Landowner	Number of Wells	Number of New Irrigated Acres	Type of Well	County	Subarea

 

 

 

 

 

 

The total number of approved permits for 2020 is #

Location of Approved Well Permits for 2020:  Correct as of ####

County	Irrigation - New	Irrigation - Replacement	Stock	Commercial	Municipal	Other	Total
Butler
Colfax
Dodge
Boone
Madison
Platte
Saunders
Total

 

Rationale:  Staff has been setting up demonstration field sites in the Schuyler-Richland Area. There are two fields with nitrogen test strips with different rates of fertilizer.  There will be tissue samples taken with yield results recorded.   After harvest some deeper soil samples will be taken on both fields to examine nitrate movement.  The one field is a gravity field in which soil moisture sensors were installed with a data logger on both ends of the field to track moisture through a 4 foot profile. 
The other field is a pivot with equipment at the present time from Crop Metrics, Metos Company and Phytech.  Servi-Tech is assisting in this project along with Aaron Nygren - UNL extension.  Staff will be discussing the equipment with each firm on a weekly basis.  
The 2019 NET grant had $5,000 in its budget to assist in funding these projects along with an additional $9,600 for soil probes.  Staff is looking at taking some soil samples to analysis the soil particles and possibility a trench to see the depth of the corn roots.

Pictures are attached.  Attached is a quad map showing the geological interpretation, which might explain the possibility for different management even within the area.  Also attached is an quote for $4,300 from EA Engineering which conducted the initial coring in this area.  Staff would like the Committee to accept the contract so the NRD can collect the information from the fertilizer test strips. 

Rationale:  Projects for the Grant:
Cover Crops - $160,000 (40 producer, maximin 80 acres, $50/acre)
Tissue Sampling - $2,000 (200 samples at $10/sample) 
Flow Meters - $350,000 (350 meters at $1000/meter)
Monitoring wells - $100,000 (2 nested sites with 4 inch casing for sampling) 
Field Mapping - $10,000 (10 producers at $1000/field)
High End Soil Moisture Sensors - $20,000 (20 producers at $1000/field)
Committee Suggestions?

The total amount of a NET grant would be $642,000, which would be over 2 years and normally be about 25 percent for the LPNNRD.   The LPNNRD requirement would be $160,500 over a 2 year period.  If the LPNNRD proceeds the Committee will need to set policy for how the cost-share will be distributed.  

Rationale:  Here is an updated version on the obligation for LPN.  At last month's meeting staff inform the Committee that it would be around $43,000.  Shown below is another breakdown which shows LPN portion at $49,000 to do this project.  The difference is DNR could not come up with as much money as anticipated.  This amount will be done over 2 fiscal years and next year's budget is showing $30,000. The Board agreed at last months meeting to participate in a WSF grant with the other 3 NRDs. 

Papio has retained JEO to write the grant with this comment from Paul Woodward:  Marlin Petermann is OK with us going ahead and retaining JEO to prepare the WSF grant for the $9,000.  If we are successful, he suggests splitting this per the Interlocal Agreement and if we are not Papio will eat the cost.
 

Alternative - FULL WSF SMALL GRANT - With Hydrogeo Assessment
NRD	TOTAL	WSF Cost-share	NRD Match	NDNR Funding
Papio	$  180,000.00	$    93,000	$    74,000	$    13,000.00
LPS	$  177,000.00	$    92,000	$    72,000	$    13,000.00
LPN	$  126,000.00	$    64,000	$    49,000	$    13,000.00
Total	$  483,000.00	$  249,000	$  195,000	$    39,000.00
		52%	40%	8%

Rationale:  Staff is going to start the process of collecting information from interested firms to conduct the meter maintenance for the District.  Staff will be looking at a 3 year contract.  Might even consider 2 firms if distance becomes a factor.

Rationale: 

For 2020 we have 686 renewals and 32 new permit applications for a current total of 718.  Inspections for 189 renewal permits have been completed.
 

Rationale:  Recommended Groundwater Budget for 20-21 is attached.

Rationale:  Week of June 22nd, 2020

This week's beach Bacteria and Harmful Algal Bloom results are now posted on the NDEE web page (https://deq-iis.ne.gov/zs/bw/).  
 

Rationale: 

# new wells has been reviewed and approved for decommissioning since the last Committee meeting.

Rationale: 

# wells have been plugged, reviewed, and ready for cost share payment approval this month.

Well Owner	Type of Well	Cost Share Estimate	County
Marvin Kasik	Irrigation	$679.94	Colfax
David L. Grotelueschen	Irrigation	$1,000	Platte
Reznicek Farms GP	Irrigation (2)	$1,204.06	Dodge
Tommy E. King	Domestic	$343.35

 

Rationale:  An agreement is attached from the Flatwater group to start the process of updating the information from 2012 to current.  This data will be used for INSIGHT (An Integrated Network of Scientific Information & GeoHydrologic Tools) to help in determining water use in the basin.  The Committee and Board already approved $10,000 for LPN portion to be put into next year's budget to start this process.  NeDNR was at the Committee meeting but no presentation on INSIGHT.   

Rationale:  As the Drought Plan has been completed and approved, the group is onto the next stage which is doing a desktop scenario with participating staff members.  A complete breakdown of the cost is shown below,  which LPN share would be $2,849.   This amount is included in next year's budget.  A copy of original agreement (attached) states the cost for each NRD could be up to $40,000.  At this time the LPN has spend $26,000 to assist in the contributing match on the initial grant.  This agreement ends in September, with the group looking at a extension to complete and evaluate the desktop exercise.    

The Committee asked what the desktop exercise will accomplish?  This will allow the group to go through a drought scenario for the first time and an opportunity to evaluate each project identified in the plan for this type of situation. 

Notes from Jennifer Schellpeper on the project: 
The cost of the drought workshop scope of work is $39,723. Those costs will be partially paid from remaining grant and consortium funds as well as new contributions from each party, according to the table below. This workshop is called for on page 81 of the Lower Platte River Drought Contingency Plan. Two focused tasks will be carried out at the workshop. The first task will focus on communication among the parties and with the public during a drought scenario, the second task will focus on actual responses of each party member to both a flash drought and extended duration drought scenario.

Remaining WSF funds	$10,768
Remaining Consortium Funds	$3,104
NeDNR Contribution	$11,606
LPNNRD	$2,849
PMRNRD	$2,849
LPSNRD	$2,849
LWS	$2,849
MUD	$2,849
Total	$39,723

 

Rationale:  Staff read the comments from Jovan Lausterer and Dave Miesbach - Groundwater Section Supervisor/Water Well Standards.  Committee then heard comments from the public in attendance:  

• Tile drains are being collected in a holding container and then being pumped at higher flow than a normal tiled field.  The higher volume of water is creating higher flows in Rawhide creek than previously.  As these holding containers are being pumped should they be classified as a dewatering well and required to have a flow meter? 
• The drainage attachment was discussed for liability. 
• It was reported that the extra water ends up in the North Bend Drainage Ditch and is raising the groundwater levels in the area.
• Discussion on cleaning out the ditch and if a BOR permit would be required.  The extra water is putting more silt in the ditch.
• A producer commented that the extra water would limit his ability to harvest his wheat crop.
• Responsibility in keeping the ditch clean was discussed as some of the creek goes through private property.
• A take away from the discussion is that the group would like to keep the ditch cleaned out for better flow.  This is normally the County's responsibility.
• Another take away is they would like a flow meter installed to monitor the flow out of the holding container.  The NRD requires flow meters on all high capacity wells pumping over 50 GPM.  Dave Miesbach commented this would not be classified as a well.  
• It was stated that the NRD is responsible for groundwater and should consider all water sources when looking at managing water.  
• A couple of letters from landowners are attached.  

Attached is some information on drainage laws along with some comments from Jovan Laustwerer on tile drains:

Jovan Comments:
I believe this does fall under the Natural Resource Districts authority as the term "ground water" is defined under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act as "water which occurs in or moves, seeps, filters, or percolates through ground under the surface of the land."  See Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-706(2). 

That being said, NRCS also regulates tiling from the perspective of soil classifications and wetlands.  The county also has authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. 31-101 et. seq.  to regulate this as that statutory section allows the county board to require any "ditch" to be straightened, widened, altered or deepened if it will be conducive to the public health convenience or welfare.   The term ditch is defined under Neb. Rev. Stat. 31-102 to include any "drain or watercourse."   The county would also have permitting requirements if the pool is in the floodway/plain.  The Department of Natural Resources might also be involved in this project if the project is designed as flood plain management under Neb. Rev. Stat. 31-1001.  If the property is in the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city the property owner could also be required to obtain approval for its effort from the city. 

All the above said, I would imagine the NRCS will bow out once they determine that the tiled ground doesn’t run contrary to their wetland conservation compliance.  Most counties aren’t going to want to regulate a project like that when the pooling is used for irrigation purposes unless the pool of water is sizable enough to create a safety concern.  It doesn’t sound like the project is for flood plain management purposes and thus DNR wouldn’t likely care unless we are dealing with a floodway or the project is adjacent to a natural watercourse.  Most cities don’t have zoning regulations that tie up these types of projects unless they are in a floodway/plain.
 
It’s a difficult situation for the property owner though as arguably the project should be run by all the above to make sure they don’t believe its contrary to their regulatory scheme. 

Jovan W. Lausterer

Daryl,
We have looked at the pictures you sent showing the tile drain set up.  Water Well Standards considers this set up similar to tiling around a house.  The tile leads to a sump pit and is pumped to the surface.  We would not consider this a well.  Hope this helps.

David L. Miesbach, P.G.
GROUNDWATER SECTION SUPERVISOR/
WATER WELL STANDARDS
Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
DIRECT (402) 471-4982 / MAIN OFFICE (402) 471-2186
FAX (402) 471-2909
david.miesbach@nebraska.gov
http://dee.ne.gov

 

Rationale:  NeDNR gave a presentation on the annual V-IMP update.