January 4, 2023 at 6:00 PM - Water Committee Meeting

Rationale: 

Wells Permits Approved: #

Landowner	Number of Wells	Number of New Irrigated Acres	Type of Well	County	Subarea
RDC Inc.	1	0	Irrigation	Colfax	Schuyler

 

 

 

 

 

 

The total number of approved permits for 2022 is #

Location of Approved Well Permits for 2022:  Correct as of ####

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

 

Rationale:  The committee and staff had a lengthy discussion on nitrogen management and the best options for moving forward.  Staff showed the committee the different options for boundaries with the question of why some years more samples were collected.  The staff does spot checks yearly and extensive sampling periodically.  The staff did extensive sampling work in 2001-03, 2011-12 and 2019-20.  The committee felt staff should do extensive sampling in Summer 2023 and re-discuss boundaries after the analysis is complete. 
The committee discussed health issues and making people aware of the water quality issues in private domestic wells.  Phase 4 could be the long-term solution but short-term options should be considered, like RO units.  This topic will be discussed later on in the Water Resources Agenda. 
The committee and staff discussed soil sample analysis results and discrepancies.   If Phase 4 is moved forward, what minimum amount of nitrogen application will be needed, as producers are supposed to follow UNL nitrogen recommendation equation.  One current soil sample showed 190 pounds of residue carryover in one part of the field while another area was around 42 pounds. A different field with high organic matter showed 140 pounds of nitrogen credits. When staff works with these individuals, what will be the right recommendation?  
The committee and staff discussed a public meeting in February or March with local producers to explain what is being considered would be appropriate.  They thought if producers' wives could attend it would be helpful, so they could understand the situation. 
The committee realized that the reporting date would have to be adjusted, so staff could work with current soil sampling analysis.  A pledge by the producer with a nitrogen plan would put practices on paper, that the producer might be willing to change. 

Shown below are the requirements for Phase Four Water Quality Management Area.  Options 3, 4 and 5 boundaries would meet the requirements for moving forward.  (Options attached)
Section I    Groundwater Quality Management Area - Phase Four

Rule 1    Phase Four Criteria
When levels of nitrate-nitrogen exceed 15.01 parts per million, or levels of other human induced non-point source contaminants exceed 100% of the MCL or LHAL, a Phase Four area will be declared.  Within the same aquifer; boundary setting for Phase Four Areas will be initiated when: water quality analytical results within a minimum 9 square mile area are at identified trigger levels for a minimum of 2 sampling events.  The area must contain a minimum of 10 registered wells and contaminant trigger levels must be exceeded in over 50% of the wells. When irrigation wells are not available, other wells may be used. Initial investigation by the District will be to determine if the contamination is a result of point-source or non-point source pollution. If non-point source pollution is found to be the reason, more intensive investigation for boundary setting will ensue. If a Wellhead Protection Area should be established due to non-point source pollution, the District may set boundaries that are less than 9 square miles.  After the establishment of a Phase Four Area, if non-point source contamination levels should decline, two consecutive sampling events below the trigger levels are needed before the Area could be placed in Phase Three, Phase Two or Phase One.

Rule 2    Continuation of Phase One, Two and Three Rules
A continuation of Phase One Rules as defined in Section E, Rules 1-6, Section F, Rule 2, Phase Two Rules as defined in Section G, Rules 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Phase Three Rules as defined in Section H, Rule 4.

Rule 3    Fertilizer Application On All Soils
Split application of commercial nitrogen fertilizer is required with 80 pounds maximum applied before May 1.

Rule 4    Nitrogen Recommendations
Nitrogen applications must not exceed District Recommendations. Application data may be required to verify the amount of nitrogen that is applied to the field(s) within the management area.

Rule 5    Well Metering
Flow meters are required on all high capacity wells.   

Rule 6    Acre-Inch Allocations
A rolling acre-inch allocation, in 3-year increments, will be put into place by the District and will be based on the aquifer subarea, crop planted, irrigation distribution system, percent decline of the aquifer, water use of the aquifer, climatic conditions, net corn crop requirements, and discretionary factors.

Rule 7    Staff Assistance
NRD Staff will work directly with individuals on Best Management Practices. Staff may spot check fields before May 1 by collecting a soil sample to monitor Rule 3.

Questions?

• Boundaries
  • Is there one boundary we want to start with or does staff do extensive sampling in the whole area in Summer 2023 with the boundary finalized on November 1?   
• Reporting Date
  • Make dual dates of April 1 and December 15 or just have one date in the spring?  This would be just for Phase 4 at this time until rules are changed. All Phases?
  • Changing dates would require updates on the online reporting.  
• Fertilizer Minimum
  • Phase Report 1 and 2 are attached, showing the difference in recommendations compared to current applications.
  • How do we handle the differences as the rules require following recommendation by staff?  
  • UNL Equation?
• Soil Samping Timing
  • Should staff sample a few fields in the fall and then the spring?
  • Will need current soil sample analysis to make recommendations.
• Livestock Manure Application
  • How involved do we want to get?
• Economics?
  • Yield loss and documentation.
• Public Meeting and Hearing
  • Public meeting in February or March with a hearing in October to finalize rules and boundaries.  
• Cost-sharing practices are being promoted.
  • If we start November 1, extending $1000 on flow meters to April 1, 2024?
• Producers set up a nitrogen plan to reduce nitrogen loading. 
  • This has been done in other watersheds to have producers commit to changing practices.  

Motion to move forward?

Rationale: 

2022 is the seventh year of this Phase 3 Area.  This Phase 3 area went into effect September 1, 2015.  The 55 sections of this area first went into a Phase 2 Area in 2004.  The ten sections that were in Phase 2 are now in Phase 3.  As such, the 2020, 2021 and 2022 numbers (at bottom of table) are for 65 sections.

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 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% (69 of 261)	6% (15 of 261)	26% (66 of 257)	43% (110 of 257)
2021	0 to 43.0	25.5% (67 of 263)	8.4% (22 of 263)	24.3% (64 o 263)	41.8% (109 of 263)
2022	0 to 58.5 ppm	23.0% (57 of 248)	6.45% (16 of 248)	29.44% (73 of 248)	41.13% (102 of 248)

 

Rationale: 

2022 is the twentieth 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)	22%
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 to 20.5 ppm	33.33% (20 of 60)	13.33% (8 of 60)	35% (21 of 60)	18.33% (11 of 60)
2021	0.12 to 27.7	40.6% (26 of 64)	15.6% (10 of 64)	25% (16 of 64)	18.8% (12 of 64)
2022	0.13 to 23.0	43.75% (28 of 64)	12.50% (8 of 64)	26.56% (17 of 64)	17.19% (11 of 64)

Rationale:  Attached is a list of classes for 2023.  

Does the Committee want to move forward on issuing Cease and Desist Orders to owners/operators that have let their Nitrogen/Irrigation Certification Card lapse?    The process would be sending certified letters to individuals notifying them of the violation and when the hearing would take place.  

Another option would be changing the rule that a NRD issued card is required to purchase fertilizer.  Jovan commented that this could be a rule that the NRD could implement.  The concern would be enforcement and cooperation with fertilizer dealers. 

The Committee felt that obtaining a Nitrogen/Irrigation Certification Card should be enforced, as this rule obligation by the NRD is not that time-consuming.  The class is a pro-active approach by the NRD to present best management practices that a producer could use within their operation.  There was some discussion about local or state control on nitrogen management.  A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday March 28 for individuals who are not in compliance,  

Attached is a draft example of the letter that was sent out on Thursday, January 5.   

Rationale:  Discussion at the Water Committee Retreat that the 1994 Management plan should be updated and condensed.  Does the Committee want to have an outside firm write and assemble or should staff attempt to do it in-house?  Advantages of having an outside firm is the perception and at public meetings they can facilitate with all parties. The disadvantage is the cost to the District, which could be 20 to 50 thousand.   

The Committee would like a sub-committee of 2 Water Committee members and 2 staff to review the plan for condensing and decide what would be the best action to update.  The Committee will decide on members after new Committee alignments.  

The following items were brought up with no discussion in committee. 
Other items discussed at the Retreat:

• Adjusting Water Quality Triggers levels
  • Considering starting Phase Two at 5 PPM?
• Water Flow Meters Districtwide
  • Allocations?

Rationale:  Attached is an approved application and invoice from Brian Sanderson.  The application allows for 50% up to $750 for Advanced Soil Moisture Sensor Technology.   

Rationale:  Staff explained how meter maintenance worked and with batteries dying in-season made water use accuracy a challenge.  If the NRD was going to cost-share more meters and potentially have other areas with allocations, this could become more of an issue.  Some producers like the convenience of remote meter reading with pivot and nozzle controls.  Idea discussed was to replace batteries with a 2-year rotation instead of 4.  More discussion will occur at future Committee meetings. 
    
Flow meter maintenance and batteries.  The meters with batteries seem to have more issues, with some batteries dying in season, so no accurate reading is obtained.  Either don't allow them at all or require that remote access be given to NRD staff with warning text or email. 

Tri City meter maintenance is scheduled to maintain the meters in the northwest part of the district. They have had a late start due to training new employees and the cold snap that we just experienced.Typically they start right after harvest. Currently in the third year of the meter maintenance cycle. They document and take pictures of the meter and its reading. On mechanical meters, they re-grease the bearings; check if the bearings are still good; make sure the cable isn't stripped or rounded off, it ties into the register and makes the dials/tumblers turn. They make sure the propeller isn't damaged; the magnets aren't cracked or damaged; replace the gasket; no vibrational damage; no water damage. On battery powered flow meters, they simply replace the battery and replace the dry packs.

Site visits are paid by the LPNNRD. $60.00 per mechanical site visit and $75.00 for electronic meter site visit. If the meter is damaged and needs further repair, they can repair the flow meter in the field and that bill is between Tri City and the producer/owner. Currently, on the battery powered meters, the LPNNRD absorbs the cost of the battery and then invoices the producer/owner for reimbursement. At the moment, this isn't a tall task because there are only 100 electronically powered meters in the district. If this number grows exponentially, it would be cumbersome to staff time to track down the reimbursements.

Flow meter reporting: Reporting deadline was December 15th. As of 12/28/22, we have had 750 meter readings reported to us (including livestock). Nearly 400 flow meter readings are still needed from irrigation wells. Postcards were sent out earlier this year in Mid-September, which was suggested last year.  A reminder email was sent out to the producers, who had given us an email in the past.

Municipalities, industries, and livestock that are required to report also have had reminders sent out to them (this list included approximately 175 wells). They have until January 31st to report their usage. 

District Approved flow meter list:

Attached is the current list 

Install requirements on all mechanical flow meters: without straightening vanes, 10 upstream pipe diameters from any bend or valve and 1-2 downstream from any bend or valve. With bolts in straightening vanes, 5 upstream pipe diameters and 1-2 downstream. With in-line flow straightener, 1.5 pipe diameters upstream and 1-2 downstream. 

On ARAD group installs, they should install to the specs of the manufacturer/flow meter manual. 

Mechanical Meters:

Advantages- no power needed; can be maintained; accurate if operating correctly; preventative maintenance once every four years helps to ensure they are operating smoothly and calculating correctly. 

Disadvantages- no easy way of using telemetry or having it tied into the producers' pivot panel so they can connect it to an app on their phone to see how much they are pumping. If it is installed too close to a well head that is powered by an engine it could be susceptible to vibrational damage. If this occurs, relocating the mechanical meter is the only solution to ensure that no more damage occurs and the meter records accurately.

Electronic meters:
Advantages- can use telemetry and the producer can visualize if the pivot/well is operating correctly and they can see how much that they are applying virtually without being at the site.

Disadvantages- Needs power to record data; an unknown is how long the sensor is good for? Is this calculation correct? If using direct power from the pivot panel or another source of electricity, the battery can be used as a back up. Batteries are changed on a four-year basis. I have had phone calls saying their batteries have died; there is no way of knowing what they pumped. If connected to a direct source of power, how are we to know that it was plugged in at the beginning or end of the season? If power is lost in either form, the totalizer will not count or be updated when reconnected. If a well is allocated, it could open a loophole. Electronics and water are not a good combination. 

Staff suggestions for the district approved list:

-McCrometer propeller meter with mechanical register; no battery powered/electric digital screens.
-No on any battery/external powered flow meter; -No to battery powered meters (looking down the road if 3,000 meters need to be installed.) How useful will the information be if a battery dies and we don't know what was pumped, especially in drought years with allocations. If the producer says they are going to use external power and have the battery as a backup, how is the staff going to keep up with these "checkups"?
-ARAD Group & Carlon; for subsurface drip; industrial; livestock (these meters are typically indoors and not exposed to the elements of mother nature. 
-Geyser propeller meter; no digital screens.
- Or if we do allow digital powered propeller meters/sensor meters, they must be powered externally and if they are found not working or fail to report to the NRD that the meter isn't working they could be subjected to a reduction in their allocation. 

Questions for Committee:
1. Prop Meters with mechanical totalizer (McCrometer/Geyser)
2. Prop Meters with Digital readouts (McCrometer)
3. Electromagnetic meters with digital readouts (Valley 3000, Lindsay Growsmart, Sparling)- A water suitability sample will be required to show water quality results before choosing this meter. It needs to have low concentrations of Iron and Manganese and other dissolved solids in order to allow it to be installed. The producer must also allow the NRD remote access to see if the battery/external power is hooked to the meter and for the NRD to see if the meter is functioning. If not reported to the NRD, the producer would get a warning for non-compliance. After that, if the well is in an allocated area, the well could be subjected to a reduction in its allocation. 1",2",3"? 
4. Turbine Meters (ARAD Group and Carlon)- for subsurface drip, livestock , industrial uses. 

Rationale:  Attached is a map showing the results from sampling that NRD staff conducted in the summer of 2022.  The purpose of the sampling is to see if the results can identify why some areas within the Schulyer-Richland Area had lower nitrate results.  The map does have some interesting results with higher uranium and the potential of surface and groundwater connections.   
Dan Snow  - UNL Water Center comments are shown below.  
"It seems likely that several wells close to the river draw on groundwater with active denitrification, while others show iron reduction (possibly releasing uranium).    

Nitrate reduces to nitrogen gas (N2) through the following pathway through microbial denitrification: NO3-> NO2-> N2O-> N2. Detecting nitrite (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O in some wells is a good indicator of active microbial denitrification. 15N in residual nitrate will be enriched (increased) along with 18O during microbial denitrification.

Iron reduction occurs when most of the nitrate is used up and sulfate reduction followed by methanogenesis happens under even more reducing conditions."

Questions for Committee and Board?

The NRD sometimes test low nitrates in a water sample, but finds out later that another contaminant is high.  Should we offer testing for other potential contaminants? Costs?
A state cost-share program for Reverse Osmosis Units (RO) is being offered through NDEE.   One of the requirements is certified laboratory results for nitrates to be eligible.  In the past, the NRD has assisted District residents with obtaining nitrate water sample results.    
Lower Elkhorn NRD is offering cost-share on RO units, if not approved by state program grant.  (attached)   

The committee agreed that staff should continue to assist people with nitrate water sampling for domestic wells and to make them aware that other contaminants might be in the water, even if nitrates are low.  The Committee would like to discuss a cost-share program for Reverse Osmoisis Units (RO) for individuals at budget time.  

Rationale: 

The LPNNRD has received # 1 livestock permit applications from DEQ since the last Water Committee meeting.
The Board did pass a motion to stay neutral on livestock facilities and the NRD responsibility is for the permitting of high capacity wells.  Manure application is usually treated as any commercial fertilizer, where soil sampling and manure analysis are conducted and handled by NDEE.  

Name	Livestock	Type of Permit	Legal Description	County
Rick Wendt	Cattle	Construction	NW1/4 34-19-2E	Platte County

 

 

 Description of permit application
Rick Wendt is expanding his operation from 299 to 3500 head of cattle with an average weight of 700 pounds.   
Attached are comments from LPNNRD.  

 

Rationale: 

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

 

Rationale: 

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

Well Owner	Type of Well	Cost Share Estimate	County
David Proskovec	Irrigation	$737.44	Butler

 

Rationale:  Attached is the RFQ for Hydrological Assessment Geodatabase, which was part of the WSF grant received in November 2022.   This is a step that was overlooked to complete the necessary data to develop the groundwater model. This RFA was sent out or emailed to firms on Thursday, January 5, 2023.

Rationale:  An invoice for $30,000 is attached from ENWRA for dues per contract.  This year LPNNRD is eligible to receive $9150 for well monitoring equipment and test holes. The plan is to unitize this money for equipment in the new monitoring well north of Richland along with updating older data loggers.  A check will be mailed in January.    

Rationale:  The next meeting will be January 17, 2023 at 10 am, planned for the NEDNR building at Fallbrook in Lincoln.  

Attached is the Drought Map from December 29.  What are the thoughts of the Committee on moving forward on drought information or scenarios?  

The committee thought staff should continue to inform people about water conservation.