December 3, 2020 at 7:30 AM - Water Committee Meeting

Rationale:  Richard and Kelly Bartek have submitted a variance request to increase the number of acres on well G-072864 without increasing the consumptive use. The well is located in the NW1/4SE1/4 of S10-T13N-R8E, Saunders County. The well currently irrigates 66.85 acres in the same section. The maximum amount of water they would be able to pump in a three year period would be 1804.95 acre inches. They expect to add 60-70 acres across the county road to the south in S15-T13N-R8E.

Rationale:  Committee Discussion

• Committee and Board need to evaluate the funding priority as for the nitrate issues or water use.  
• Need to see if a grant will be received before moving forward
• Need to get the process started and be pro-active
• Need to consider cost-sharing to convert gravity fields to more efficient systems. Coordinate with NRCS with NRD assisting in funding. 
• it is important to get public input but is the timing right. 
• Need more public education.

Staff has assembled information for the Committee to review.   By table below it shows about 2855 meters that need to be installed.

Quote seen at a water conference "If water is not measured it can't be managed."
 

County	# of Meters Installed	# of Meters needed
Boone/Madison	83	190 (187 approx.)
Colfax	136	510 (505 approx.)
Platte	356	415 (408 approx.)
Butler	117	480 (473 approx.)
Dodge	113	510 (504 approx.)
Saunders	222	750 (741 approx.)

If there are any excess funds available some of it could potentially be used to install a broad network of soil moisture monitoring equipment throughout the LPNNRD to monitor in season soil conditions which would help potentially in drought scenarios where an irrigation scheduling approach might be necessary to not extensively deplete the aquifer. The excess funds could also potentially go towards decommissioning wells that are no longer in use. There is potential that the well decommissioning program will ramp up if meters are required district wide. 

1. $2.75-$2.9 million would be needed if we cost shared at $1,000 per flow meter
2. $1.375-$1.450 million would be needed if we cost shared at $500 per flow meter

****The variation in the amounts is solely because of the high volume of wells in the thinner aquifer areas that used for  gravity and pivot irrigation. The exact configuration on each well has variability. There is also the possibility that many wells are no longer used which should be decommissioned. If they are unused wells they either need to be decommissioned or the pump needs to be pulled and the well should be listed as inactive.  There is high volume of wells located in the thinner aquifer areas that are using gravity and pivot irrigation.

Committee Meetings Discussion:

• Is Status Quo good water management? 
• Are Water Flow Meters and/or Allocations the right management tool?
• Is collecting good and accurate data a justification for flow meters?
• Is Water Flow Meters just the cost of doing business?
• Do we need grant money to proceed?
• Starting and Ending Date?
• Grants usually only go for 3 years and normally 2.
• Grants usually are designed for a designated management area.
• All High Capacity Wells including livestock and industrial?

Timetable Discussion from Committee Meeting:

• Year 1 - All wells in Nitrate Management Areas
  • $1000 cost-share for the flow meter and extra $500 for a check valve if needed.
  • Second year $600 cost-share only, with Year 2 in new area would be occurring also.
• Year 2 - Dodge, Colfax and Butler County
  • $1000 cost-share for the flow meter and extra $500 for a check valve if needed.
  • Second year $600 cost-share only, with Year 3 in new area would be occurring also.
• Year 3 - Platte, Boone and Madison
  • $1000 cost-share for the flow meter and extra $500 for a check valve if needed.
  • Second year $600 cost-share only, with Year 4 in new area would be occurring also.
• Year 4 - Saunders County 
  • $1000 cost-share for the flow meter and extra $500 for a check valve if needed.
  • Second year $600 cost-share only, 
• After the fifth year no cost share available and all meters not installed would be required to install at their cost.

LPNNRD could set a date that all high capacity wells are required to have meters during the fifth year.  

Meter Details (this would stay the same)

• Meter Installation handled by Private Companies
• Meter Maintenance will be contracted out with about 1000 meters a year.  LPNNRD would be budgeting about  $75,000 per year.

The purpose of installing flow meters for the LPNNRD is to get a better understanding of sustainable aquifers for future generations.   This will also allow the LPNNRD to be pro-active instead of re-active if water consumption becomes an issue.  A producer can utilize the flow meter on how the well is actually performing and increase irrigation management efficiency.  The Committee recommended to start setting aside funding, like $200,000 a year, into a sinking fund for the purpose of a grant match.

Points to be considered:

Per GW Rules and Regulations
"Assessment of percentage drop will be calculated utilizing the spring readings of District monitoring wells over a consecutive three (3) year period assessed against the 1987 baseline groundwater levels or a more recent baseline year groundwater level."

If we follow the rule above and spring levels 2021 meet the criteria, it would be the Spring of 2024 before the process of installing meters would be begin.  Meters would be installed fall/winter 2024 with allocations potentially in place for crop year 2025.  Could we get 2500 meters installed in a short time span? Would that be sufficient in a multi-year drought?  Would there be enough data to set a sufficient allocation?

If cost-share is given this could be a $500,000 budgeted item for 4-5 years.  That could potentially mean increasing property tax requirement with or without grants.  Also there would be a continuous budget item of $100,000 for meter maintenance.  Another thing that might be necessary is more employees for compliance.and meter upkeep. 

If the Board decides to proceed a hearing would be required.  Do we want public input and should these meetings be District wide?   Logistics of putting on a public meetings at this time?  Groundwater Rules and Regulation change?  Can a hearing be done virtually?

Include other wells that pump over 50 GPM other than irrigation?  NRD jurisdiction for compliance on other wells? Does the Committee want to consider an allocation at the same time like 40 inches over 3 years?

Options:

>To recommend to the Board to start the process of requiring water flow meters on all wells and/or series of wells pumping over 50 GPM by May 1, 2024 with staff applying for grants for assistance and following a time table utilizing management areas and county boundaries.

>To recommend to the Board to proceed on requiring water flow meters on all wells and/or series of wells pumping over 50 GPM by May 1, 2022 within the Water Quality Management Areas and wait on proceeding with the other parts of the District.  

>To recommend to the Board to proceed on requiring water flow meters on all wells and/or series of wells pumping over 50 GPM by May 1, 2022 within the Water Quality Management Areas and areas of the District that reach D2 Drought Stage within a 12 month period.

>Stay with status quo.

Other Suggestions or Options?

Rationale:  As the WSF grant was approved last month with Papio and DNR an interlocal agreement with Papio NRD is attached for Board approval and signature. The total project cost will be $306,000 with $168,000 being funded by the WSF grant.  The LPN share will not exceed $45,200 with the first payment of $22,600 due by June 30, 2021. 

Using the same methodology that was applied to develop the LE NRD’s Framework will provide PMR NRD and LPN NRD with a consistent and comprehensive assessment and deliverable that will include the most
recent data and make it useable between NRD boundaries. The 3D geologic model created from the AEM data will be delivered in a user-friendly platform that can be utilized by the PMR NRD and LPN NRD staff, management, and board members; regulators; producers and other high-capacity water users; public water suppliers; and, the general public for future groundwater quality and quantity evaluations, resource management, and educational purposes.

Rationale:  An invoice for $5,677.00 is attached per contract with LRE/JEO.

Activities this last month included: 

• Completion of the SWB model and discussion on land covers to be applied;
• Corresponding with LPN NRD staff;
• Initial review of the AEM flight lines compared to borehole well logs;
• LRE internal meetings on input layers; and,
• Developed draft prototype tool for future demo.

Rationale:  327 kits have been sent out.

Rationale:  The flow meter maintenance for year 1 has been sent to Tri City to do their annual maintenance. Attached is the schedule of meters to be maintained (2020-2024). 

Rationale: 

2020 is the eighteenth year for this Phase 2 Area. 

Year	Nitrate-nitrogen Range	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen 0 to 8.0 ppm	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen 8.01 to 10.00 ppm	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen 10.01 to 15 ppm	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen greater than 15 ppm
2004	0 to 25 ppm	46.3% (44 of 95)	8.4% (8 of 95)	45.3% (43 of 95)
2005	0 to 25 ppm	47% (44 of 94)	15% (14 of 94)	38% (36 of 94)
2006	0 to 24 ppm	41% (29 of 71)	14% (10 of 71)	45% (32 of 71)
2007	0 to 31 ppm	48% (48 of 100)	9% (9 of 100)	43% (43 of 100)
2008	0 to 28 ppm	53.75% (43 of 80)	7.5% (6 of 80)	38.75% (31 of 80)
2009	0 to 22 ppm	45.5% (41 of 90)	15.5% (14 of 90)	39% (35 of 90)
2010	0 to 35.7 ppm	48.65% (54 of 111)	11.71% (13 of 111)	39.64% (44 of 111)
2011	0 to 26.6 ppm	51% (56 of 110)	6% (7 of 110)	43% (47 of 110)
2012	0 to 28.9 ppm	57% (61 of 107)	9% (10 of 107)	34% (36 of 107)
2013	0 to 25.8 ppm	50% (53 of 107)	9% (10 of 107)	14% (44 of 107)	26%
2014	0 to 22.3 ppm	51% (55 of 108)	13% (14 of 108)	18% (39 of 108)	20%
2015	0 to 32.3 ppm	43% (31 of 72)	8% (6 of 72)	14% (35 of 72)	33%
2016	0 to 35.1 ppm	34% (25 of 74)	11% (8 of 74)	26% (41 of 74)	26%
2017	0 to 23.5 ppm	36% (27 of 74)	15% (11 of 74)	19% (36 of 74)	28%
2018	0 to 30.9 ppm	40% (25 of 63)	11% (7 of 63)	22% (31 of 63)	28%
2019	0 to 24.5 ppm	46% (22 of 48)	10% (5 of 48)	28% (21 of 48)	22%
2020	0.08 to 20.5	33% (19 of 58)	14% (8 of 58)	34% (20 of 58)	19% (11 of 58)

All sample results from Lab have been received and sent to producers.

Rationale: 

2020 is the fifth year of this Phase 3 Area.  Committee discussed splitting the Phase area and moving part of this area into Phase 4.  Staff is hoping that a lot of data will be analyzed in the next couple of months.

Year	Nitrate-nitrogen Range	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen 0 to 8.0 ppm	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen 8.01 to 10.00 ppm	Percent Nitrate-nitrogen greater than 10 ppm
2004	0 to 47 ppm	30% (42 of 139)	10% (14 of 139)	60% (83 of 139)
2005	0 to 120 ppm	31.3% (74 of 236)	10.2% (24 of 236)	58.5% (138 of 236)
2006	0 to 53 ppm	28% (50 of 181)	14% (26 of 181)	58% (105 of 181)
2007	0 to 99 ppm	32% (75 of 231)	10% (22 of 231)	58% (134 of 227)
2008	0 to 46 ppm	28% (53 of 190)	12% (23 of 190)	60% (114 of 190)
2009	0 to 57 ppm	33% (72 of 216)	6% (13 of 216)	61% (131 of 216)
2010	0 to 57.5 ppm	31% (70 of 229)	7% (15 of 229)	62% (142 of 229)
2011	0 to 65.8 ppm	28% (67 of 241)	9% (21 of 241)	63% (153 of 241)
2012	0 to 52.6 ppm	29% (70 of 241)	9% (21 of 241)	30% (150 of 241)	31%
2013	0 to 94.0 ppm	25% (63 of 252)	9% (23 of 252)	31% (166 of 252)	36%
2014	0 to 101.0 ppm	27% (68 of 251)	9% (22 of 251)	27% (161 of 251)	37%
2015	0 to 53.3 ppm	23% (55 of 238)	12% (29 of 238)	25% (154 of 238)	41%
2016	0 to 50.5 ppm	25% (58 of 228)	10% (22 of 228)	26% (148 of 228)	40%
2017	0 to 53.4 ppm	25% (60 of 238)	6% (14 of 238)	29% (164 of 238)	41%
2018	0 to 56.9 ppm	26.5% (50 of 189)	6.3% (12 of 189)	25% (127 of 189)	42%
2019	0 to 39.4 ppm	25% (53 of 209)	11% (22 of 209)	23% (134 of 209)	42%
2020	0 to 50.8 ppm	26% (67 of 257)	5% (14 of 257)	26% (66 of 257)	43% (110 of 257)

All sample results from Lab have been received and sent to producers.  Four water sample bottles were delivered to Mark Horejsi on July 31, 2020.  These have not yet been returned.  Staff has contacted Horejsi several times.

Rationale:  A list of Nitrogen Classes for 2021.

Rationale:  Staff at Lower Platte North assisted with a water sampling event with UNL.  Sampling included Ca, Mg, S, Cl, B, K, Mn, Mo and N.  Attached are the results from all the NRDs throughout the State.  Charles Wortmann - UNL will be presenting at the Committee Meeting to discuss the results.

Charles Wortmann Comments to the Committee

• Inhibitors probably is not the best tool for nitrate leaching.
• Consider incentive program on reducing nitrate applications below UNL recommendations
• UNL is reconsidering manure application credits, as more credits might need to be considered.
• Encourage split applications by analyzing the crop in season.  

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

 

Rationale:     For Committee Information:

Per our discussion, I am sending you this email.

            We potentially have a client that would like to determine whether it is possible to use certain water sources, located in the NRD, for industrial purposes. If it is possible, we would also like to know what actions need to be taken in order to use such sources.
            One water source would be one of the Bellwood Reservoirs. The proposed uses of the source would be for dust control, during project construction. Also, as a backup source for conducting hydrotesting (this verifies construction integrity of the project structure i.e. verifying that there are no leaks). The projected amount of water to be used is approximately 10.7 million gallons. Use would begin approximately on or after 6/1/21 and continue throughout the 2021 construction season. We understand that the NRD has the water rights for the particular reservoir, and that there may be landowners that are using water, from the particular reservoir, for irrigation purposes. We also understand that our client would be responsible for agreements that may be necessary with landowners, to obtain access to the particular reservoir.
            Another source would be an irrigation well. The purposed uses would be for dust control and horizontal directional drilling. The projected amount of water to be used would be approximately 8.3 million gallons. The timeframe for use would again begin approximately on or after 6/1/21 and continue through the 2021 construction season. We understand that our client will be responsible for reaching an agreement with the landowner that has the irrigation well.
            Per our discussion, I understand that this request is something that would be first considered by the NRD’s water committee. We would like for this to be on the water committee’s meeting for January. I would be happy to attend by Zoom if possible, to further discuss this. Please let me know when the January meeting would be and the procedures to attend the meeting by Zoom.
            Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
 
Steve
Steven P. Case
Attorney

Phone: 402.633.1479
Mobile: 402.681.6417
Fax: 402.952.1879
Email address: scase@mcgrathnorth.com

McGrath | North First National Tower | Suite 3700 | 1601 Dodge St. | Omaha, NE 68102