Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence VERBATIM T1R.A4SCBIPr (more or lessl) of Item 6, Unfinished Business E C E I V E D Possible Action. re Trout Creek Well Mitigation Agreement December 4, 1978 Board Meeting `� a � i:�! prepared by Pat Sutton, Director TR UC,KEE DONNER P.U.D,, from her tapes„ January 25, 1979 �y-- t�ite2--�zrtzoxltcErcr y�-r_cmarks by President Haass explaining the item and calling attention--to the revised draft just rec-eived by the Board.: JINi THOMPSON x First of a.1.1, you have copies of the new agreement. There were no changes an Page 1 at all from the form that was distributed last Friday. -0n page 2, I ma.d.e a slight revision in Paragraph 41 to loosen -the language of that paragraph a bit, and the reason why that was done was because on our final review of the agreement in our office, there was some concern that simply committing the District to a.dogt by contract a Negative Declaration might not be the; wisest course of action. So I added a new phrase to allow flexibility in case there is any public comment the District would want to consider in connection with that action. And the new words that were added are after the word "shall" xh.ich is on the 3rd line there. So the new phrase is "shall consider and, subject to compl.iaaice with all applic- able provisions of the California Environmental. Quality Act and the California Administrative Code, sha11 adopt a Negative Declaration." That allows for that flexibility which we thought would be desirable. Paragrapt' 3 was rewritten very slightly as a result of the Water Committee meeting today, and the changes that appear on the third to the last line, where it says in the draft that you had that was dis- tributed 'last week, would say that "the information necessary for the District's hydrogeologist to form an independent opinion as to suitability and probability of a production well has been made available." This one now says "will be made available." Infor_zration has been available but he wants to Jnsure that the a.gxeement says that it will continue to be made available. That change is agreed to and made. I think that the next few paragraphs of this are pretty similar to what was in the g•ior mitigation agreements. By that, I mean Paragraph 1+, Paragraph 5. which recognizes the earthquake hazard potential and agrees to address that in the design of the well and. -to the extent to do what should be done - feasible to do it - to incorporate as indicated such features. Pt_krasSraph.s o and 7 and 8 and 9 are all quite similar to what's been previously before you with respect to the Sanders #1 Well. And Para,Tra.ph In addresses the Trout Creek crossing, and ag2_in, that Is quite similar to what's been of the prior agreement. Ane., Doug, I know you've had some concern about that, and I wanted to call that pwovision to your :attention because I want to let you know that we have taken into account the fact that there is a need to protect the quality of the crater in that location, and that we will address the sensitiv._ty of the crossing in the design, and of course comply with the requLrements of Fish & Game and the Lahontan rater Quality Control Board dur.-ing the consts-uction work there. VEERBATIM TAAPdSCRIFr qq� December 4, 1978 Meeting O` re Trout Creek. Well.. M.Iti.gationi Agreement FROMx Sutton January 25, 19719 page 2 The next provisions are the part that's been substantially - I think are where the real substance of the agreement were and there are also some things we worked on and refined a bit today as a result of o-,= discussions with your Water Committee and also with Dan and Bill .fork. The - I would like to explain to you what basically we're getting at here. Tile introductory language is stating that there are basically two criteria which we're Interested in developing data, with -respect to yield,for; first 250 gpm requirement, and the second criteria is the amount of.credit as -to the long-term yield of the well to be taken into account a.s against that 4000 gpm obligation. The reason why all this language is in the agreement is because there are times when these determinations have to be made. The first determina-- tion as to the 2,50 gpm, we want that made at the outset so we're not In ra great commitment of funds, and so that determination, as the agreement is written, is made on the basis of the initial pump test rating. The second commitment, If the initial pump test rating develops good information. and if both pasties are satisfied with it, perhaps there's not a, need for doing anything further toward. rating it, but this agreement provides that on the request of either party at the time of acceptance of the well, that a production experience rating report may be prepared and used as the basis for determining the long--term credit. Wither you or we, feel that would be more desirable and worth that effort. In either case, the format for the development of the report provides for all the information being made available to the District's hydrogeologle consultant for his review and concurrence with the report and its conclusions, or for his report back to you if he doesn't concur„ If there's a difference of/16otetween the experts, we have provided a means of .resolving it= first, by agreement, or, secondly, if that can't be done, through an arbitration - through a mutually agreed -- upon arbitxatox, an independent expert. In addition, in the inttal pump test ratting phase, there is, as I think you can see, quite a bit of involvement here in Subpa_ragrapns 1 and 2 for the - where the District will have the opportunity to comment on the development plan, first of all, which will be a scnematIc type of thing, and, eeco.ndly, on the test procedures. Quite .frankly, there's more comment there than I would have liked to have seen, but we've rushed this out and your Committee was uncomfortable with anything less, so this was put in. In addition, you'll note that - and this was the change that was made today -- that we retitled this report. from just an "initial pump test rating report" to an "initial pump test .rating and water quality report." And, while the 1w1or draft of agreement has specific pa.ra- graph dealing with water quality, after talking to Bill and Dan today, It was decided and a concensus was reached among a.1.1 the experts, that the best way to handle that and the most flexible way of handling It would be to include that as an item in the initial report, and the data a.gai.n made available, and. whatever appropriate steps are indicated, If any, would be taken into account, and threshed through at that level, VERBATIM TktA ISM9117r' 93 December 4, 1.978 .Meeting re 'Trout Creek Well Kit ;gation A.greemment FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 3 The balance of the ag7ee:inent - there's an arbitration provision which I -think I: touched on briefly. It's quite a simple provision and says that 1f the:^e's a dispute, a technical type of dispute, which can't be resolved, between the hydrogeologists, that it would 'be arbitrated and that decision would be binding. And there's a change mLtd.e In that provision today. The former draft provided that the losing party would bear the costs of arbitration. We decided, at - your Committee's request, that it would be perhaps more appropriate If each party bore its own costs and they split the costs of the arbitrator. Now that's perfectly acceptable to us, us being Dart. .And then I added an Inta•oductory phrase to Paragraph 13. just to keep our drafting history straight, so it didn't conflict with that pro- vision in Paragraph 12. .And that, basically, is it. We do have a detailed agreement. And I hope in reading It, you understand what our philosophy was in. pre- paring It, and that you find it to be in line with what your intentions are as we 1_I as ours. PAT SUTTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not ready to take action on this, receiving and having not yet revi.esred it until this evening. I also have some questions based. on the previous draft I received through Dart. JIM I-AASS: Play we hear the que;bons - -so we get it all out now. So it'll save some time in the future. SLTTTaN t Okay, on the first page :_n the third Whereas of the draft, you - now all - I don't know, THORTSONi It's the same, Pat. S'Ey fON: from the way you went tlu ough, what was changed. You know, we had one draft. then we got your draft last week, which was considerably different, and then we got another draft tonight, and I don't know how It differs from your_ last draft. TIiOMPS(li: Well, you should. The easy way to tell is that there's a difference In typing - and S[Tr'rCN & HUBER brief indistinguishable comments THOMF:SON: Okay, I can identify, I can identify for you where 'those. . .are. SUTTOII: That would help, if you could call attention to THOMPSQN: All right, let me do it. BUTTON: It doesn't ratter: you -tell me if it 's been changed. If one of my questions is not necessax-,f because you've already changed it, then you can let me Imo,:, okay? T130IqY`3ON: All right, if it's on tae first page I haven't changed it. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT December 4, 1978 Meeting xe Trout Creek Well. Mitigation Agreement FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 4 SLTTTCUz Okay. In the third Whereas, I think there there should be an additional two words there where it. says "the so-called Trout Creek site has been selected 'by Dart'as -the next site for exploration, installation and development. In the second Whereas, the transmisslon facilities that're referred to are simp]-y those from where the . well is located to the Phase I -- Pipeline, or what? I mean, I don't know what the transmission facilities are. What are they? THOMPSON: Where are you? SUTTON: That's in the fourth Whereas, where it refers to transmission facili- ties. I'm not sure what that means. On the second .page, now exploration of the Trout Creek Site was not changed, is that right? ROBERTA HUBER: Was. THOMPSON: Which - where are you? Three was changed. And the words "7,rill be made available" were substituted for the words in your draft "were" or "was made." There's a change in tense which I can po+_nt out to you, if you'd like. "Has been made," those are now "will be made." SUTTON: There's no implication that the District has had (rest of question Is indistinguishable because of interruption) THOI-FR30N: That's correct. There's certainly no dispute that the District has had - or that Bill :.ork has had information made available to him„ but the change was made to address itself to remove that implication that's complying. ..(indistisiguis-,hable word or two) . There's another change on this page. On Page 2, Paragraph 1. It was made -today, by me, before we got here. There's been a new phrase put In there. MAASS: The CEO phrase. THOMPSON: The C:EQ�i phrase. If you'd like the language that was put in there, It now reads "The District, based upon the environmental assessment y=epared by the District Engineer, and upon this agreement, the Dis- trict shall consider, and subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of CEQA"and the California Administrative Code, shall adopt a Negative Declaration." SUTTON: I have a. question mark on the last - on the bottom of the page - ,just from the standpoint of the implications of that whole paragraph. THOMPSON: Okay, what's your question. SUTTCh�Ts Okay, I 'm not quite sure of what the Implication is of "upon completion be conveyed to the District for operation and ma.intance in accordance with the above noted agreements." We heard November. 20, or maybe it was November 6, anyway there was some discussion about when is 250 gem 250 gpm„ And we also heard that the agreement didn't provide for how It would be decided, and it appear, this agreement may provide for it, and I think this isn't adequate from the standpoint. . .(Indistinguishable word or two) . I don't want somebody shoving Paragraph 14 under my face at a later time, w-i-;.h 220 gpm. I mean, I thins it should be expanded to, you know, include some provisions of this agreement which control,, YF.RBli IM TRANSCRIPT December 4, 1978 Meeting re Trout Creek Well 1,11t1gation Agreement FROM: Sutton Tanuaxn- 25, 1979 page 5 THOMPSC i: Yes., Remember now, Paragraph 11 expressly recognizes that the production well must equal or exceed 250 gpm as a minimum yield in accordance with the 1973 Supplemental Agreement. Now that ties into the language here in Paragraph 4, which also says "in accordance with the 1973 Supplemental Agreement." So that's there. SfTTTON: But I think there should be a little bit more to it, referring to Paragraph 11 maybe. On Page 3 under Paragraph 6, I wonder if the week: should be that specific. THOMPSON : Where is this? SUTTON: On the pump testing. In Paragraph 6. (indistinguishable. comment) THOMPSON : Well.. these are unchanged from all the other . . . (indistinguishable) for the other well. KARL KUTTEJ,: Dan, question. Didn't we have an agreement with Sanders #1? DA`I COOK: Yes, we did. KUTTEL: It's never mentioned in this. COOK: No, this does't make reference to the Sanders I agreement. KtTTTEL: None at all, right? COOK: No. KITTTEL: Should It not be? COOK: No, I don't -think so because the Sanders I agreement didn't provide for ongoing .- it was "we'll do these things as necessary for this particular installation.. Now, in this particular agreement, we've embodied. almost whole clause those portions of the Sanders .agreement and we've duplicated those, as it relates to testing, and, in this case, the prior and past bore (indiztinguishable word or two) Now, in addition to that, we provided for a zrritten narrative outline type thin; of what's going to happen., and, in addition to that, which you'll get . . . (indistinguishable), we've provided for an analytical work program which says with the information we gather from this work, program we'll be preparing reports that address these 3 separate chapters. And we'll have the oppo:-tunity to participate in the preparation of that. So, for the Trout Creek Well, we'll all know what happens newt, what the sequence is going to be, what the development program will be for (indistinguishable), what the results that we anticipate from that entire development activity, and it'll - the results - will be In written form in conclusion by hart that it's good for 250, that it'_> good .for 9121ong-torn, whatever their conclusions are. And will have the opportunity to participate in the development pro- ;ram, and anal the analytical analysis, and all the raw data. and in the final analysis then, we'll make a recommendation to you that he agrees, or cti sagrees, with P.a.rt's conclusions. N'FIRBATIM TRANSCRIPT December 4„ 1978 Meeting re Trout Creek Well Mlitlgation Agreement FROM:: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 6. This, in my opinion, is a much better agreement for the District than was Sanders #1. It takes all the good points of Sanders #1 and expands -them, in my judgement. KUTTEL: There was agreement with . . . on the [dorthside Well. COOK: No, there was none. KUTTEL: None. H13BE.R: We'ze progressing, slowly. COOK: Well., that's not really true. The Northside Well was a byproduct of the 1973 Agreement, and so rather than . . . (indistinguishable) KITTTEL: On the 1973? COOK% The 1973 Supplement was the basic fabric that designated the Northside well. and how it would be accomplished. So, ,yes, Karl, there was. But it was not as specific as this KITTTEL: Okay, the next question is who wrote this thing up? MUSS I The first draft came frori you, right., Dan? COOK: Well, the first four drafts (_laughter & comments) . Yes, the first four drafts came from me and then we've, of course, had various meetings during the course of (indistinguishable) it's been expanded from an eight paragraph agreement to an eight page agreement. SUTTON: We also lost a well, I think, too. THOMPSON i That's right. SUTTCX7: We lost a well, Sanders #2 or something. THOMP SON: We didn"t lose it, we deleted it. SUTTOti: The Jtily agreement was on Sanders II and III. COOK% Right. And so this particular draft is the result of a meeting we had about a week ago - or 10 clays ago, I guess - where we all kind of put our heads together and marked up that fourth draft. Jim (Thompson) took that draft we were working on at that time back and rewrote it. And today the Committee, consisting of Jim & Roberta, Bill Nork and myself - and Milt of course - revrrote that draft and produced the one which you have: before you with the red "R.^ THOP4PSUT: That's 7-.3,ght. COOK: The one with the red "R" as of 5:30 tonight. THOMP`ON: Basically, Kas-1, the part that I wrote and D,an's work, I wrote the first cut of Paragraph ;#1_l, and the succeeding paragraphs to that, down throu&i the arbitration paragraph. Then the changes that were made .as a result of today's meeting occur in Subparagraphs 3 and 4 in Paragraph #11, and, particularly, the change that was made is the matter of water quality, which you can see, in the prior draft was Its own paragraph, was moved into a subparagtth of Paragraph #3. V�"F�B.-�'CIi�I Tt19idSCR:LIrt� December 4, 1978 :%eeting ! re Trout Creek Well. Aitlgation Agreement FROA: Sutton January 25, 1979 Page 7 All the experts' thought this would be the most appropria-:e Way of handling that - that problem - would. be to address It at tha onset and in the context of this agreement and format - as to the initial work. So that change was made today and all of the changes that occur in the text, the only change that occurs in the text of, that Subparagraph 3 & 4 is that I changed. the name of the Report. Where It said - the prior draft where it said "Initial Pump Test rating," It now says "Initial Funip Test Rating and 6later Quality Report." Just to keep history straight that its - that the subject of the Report Is broader. KITI'TEL: Okay. Another question is, Dan, down on Trout Creek there, those houses not hooked up to the sewer? COOK: That 's cox-rect. KITi'TFL: Whatt will that do to the sealing off of the well. how these COOK: Okay. That 's one of the things of concern. There's a g'lacla.l outwash material there of some 84 feet in depth. The well standards that, apply say you've got to go to the first impervious layer of 50 feet - 50 feet deep - that magie number that theoretically is a must. I 'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about it in 3 decreases (? difficult to decypher). You're talking about -c.he glacial outwash that that goes to the 50 foot, or to the 84 foot dimension . One, there's septic tanks; two.1,tha.t's a recharge area into Trout Creek; and three, there's . . . (indistinguishable word) The opportunity if that glacial outwash is similar to the glacial. outwash materials over here at the TSD plant . (iridist.) very porous - high void ratio - and you don't get the filtering, if you will., that you do in a fine grain soil. And that's the reason that this water quality thing has come to the front, and we propose to isolate, by zone, 'below the 50 .foot seal down to the 84 foo-c.. It.'s a high water-bearing zone, but it could be contaminated, it could have high concentrations of materials that would be unacceptable in the water. supply. So we lx apose to test it for quantity, and test it for quality, as part of the Work Program. And it will be analysed specifically in the Report -that defines the suitability of the well, both in terms of quantity and of quality. And in the event that that zone is found to be bad,, or to be detmlmen.tal to the overall use of that well, then it will'_ be sealed off, clear down; in this case, it would be the 50 feet outside the casing and then the 34 feet with a pressure grout from inside through the entire gravel pack, so the sanitary seal would. be From the surface, which is levee high, not original ground. high, down to the 84 foot line where the totally impervious . .. (Indistinguishable). SUTTON: What would. the -water quality standard be based on? It doesn't specify in. this agreement.. In the other one, It said "Federal Water k-4ualit.y Standards," which aren't very high. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT' December 4, 1978 Meeting re Trout. Creek Well Mitigation Agreement FROM: SU]1=14 January 25, 1979 ]Page 8 COOK: Well, that's your problem . . . (indist.) Pardon? SUTTON. They aren't very high. THOMPSON: Well, they are very high. SUPTON: They aren't as high as what we're used to drinking. THOMPSON: They may not be as high as what you're used to drinking, but they're the things that SUTTONI Well, what quality? This doesn't say. This doesn't say what standard will be used.. COOK: Well, this was the discussion this morning - •this afternoon.. For Instance, some parameters in the Safe Drinking Water Regulations that apply are very high in relationship to what our current water supply Is. If' you take the analysis we have on our ground water, total dissolved solids as a for instance, based on all the analyses we have to date, the average .. .(indist.) is 124 pans per million. You cc7ul.d have as many as 500. Sulfides, you can have 50, ours runs In the neighborhood of 4. I didn't like the Federal sequence being In there, and to say that it has to be exactly equal to that which we've had in the past was not quite right either. So we put it into Paragraph 8 here on Page 6, because there it's built into two separate parts of the early goings one,the Work Program; two, the Analysis. The result . . (indistinguishable word or two) SUrTON: But what's it say? It doesn't say anything. It says you'll get a Report describing the water quality of the well in each of the three zones, but, when you get them, what's going to happen? HUBER: When you get the Water auality Report we can say "This doesn't look like anything we're drinking and we don't want it." UNRECOGTJIZED VOICE: Yes. (I think it•was John Sharp, but I 'm not positive.) SUrTON:. But you can't. You won't be able to say that unless it's here. HUBER: I know. I understand that SUTTC9V: And they're going to com:an.d they're going to tell you that it's it's -the greatest (? difficult to decypher) water. HUBER: Don't get mad at me. SUIT ON: I 'm not mad at you, I 'm mad at them. THOMPSUd: Well, ycu sh.ouldn't be-. Because if you want to take the prior draft 4*►A sign it as is, that"s fine with me. There were changes that were ... (indistinguishable) SUIT ON I I dldn't .say I wanted to sign the prior draft, you put words in my mouth. THOMPS(X1: Well, a711 right. Well VIMBATIN TRIUISCIITT December 4, 1978 Meeting re Trout Creek Nell Mitigation Agreement 3� FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 9 K=EL: Wait a minute. Hold on a second here. Let's go - you went a step ahead of me, Pat. I want to ask you - let's say if we're going to seal off the 84 feet, pack it and all, grout it and whatever is necessary, you think there is a chance to seal it really off, Dan? COOK: Yes. KUTTELs You mean none of that ... (indist.) infiltration will come down to that.well_? COOK: Yes. KUTTEL: How about you, Mr. Nork? BILL NORK: How would it get down, do you think, through the gravel pack, you think? KUMU.: No, on the side of the gravel. NORKI Oh, that, would happen no matter how the well was constructed. So even if you had a cement seal, I think that - I don't know of concrete, seal that adheres to earth materials worth-a-hoot. So there's always a little open space. KU1'TEL: That's right. NORK: It sticks pretty well to casings, but it doesn't stick too hot to earth materials. KUTT'ZL: Okay, let's say we got 2 or 3 septic tanks right near you know, ,and that ground is so bad down there, so porous you know, whatever you call it, so loose, so . . . (indist because of interruption) THOMPSON: Now you're assuming a hell of a lot of facts that aren't in evidence here. KUTTEL: No. No. gait a minute now, hold on a minute. T'HOMPSON: Yes, you are. ISL7I``TEL: Mr. Thompson, I .made a statement here, not too long ago, I was against both sites, and I had my reasons for it. In my field of work, what I do. I had my reasons for it. Said there because dumber Two is going to 'be a poor well site for dry. The Trout Creek Well I objected to and nobody asked me why. And I didn't even explain why, you know„ I said Number One, the yield i- poor, you know; Number Two, the quality down there I question quite highly. If you look back. THOMPSCN: The question is fine. The statement that there's something; wrong with it Is not fine. It isn't appropriate. Because the d.-Lta isn't in yet When the data is in, then are'll know what we're tzllcing about. • V E:KiliA7"11� 1tA:1�(;itl t':i`December 4, 1978 Meeting. �D f re Trout Greek Well Aii.t:igation Agreement FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page "lO KUTTELs The only thing is, what I 'm asking now, Dan, is - let's say if the well has to be sealed o££ down to 80 some-odd feet, whatever, and then we start test-pumping and Daxt gets the water quality, and the water quality didn't come up to the health standard, we'd have to turn the well down, right? COOK: That's correct. KUTTELs Is there a provision here? COOK: That's exactly what this provides for. KUTTEL: It does provide for it? COOK: In my opinion, it does ,provide for It because it requires a. specific; set of circumstances be followed and the information generated, upon which you'll make a judgement. THOM.PSON: The purpose of the agreement is to provide water for drinking water source. If we can't do that, we haven't fulfilled what this agreement is all .about.. But, if we can do that, we want to take advantage of all. of the water that we can. And that's why this is written this - SUTTON: It won't necessarily be the same quality as what we .. .(indist.) KUTTELs The only thing is, what I 'd like to outline to you, Air. Thompson, is don't came c.:rying on my shoulder if it turns out bad. THOMPSW s Yeah, okay. KUTTELs Don't ewer go squawk to me one minute because I 'll say "Wait a minute here, you tried to sell me something here and I don't want to buy it to begin with, you know." 7HOMPS(w: That's all I'm asking ... (indist.) KI=FL: You be real nice to me then and say "Hey, Mr. So-and-So, I like you take this well over and it's going to bring 219 gallons a minute and we want you to take It over." I says "Oh, ho, forget it now. This is it." I 'm going to stay firm then, you know. THOMPSON: What we're asking you for is the opportunity to present to your technical people the *zchnical data. which will indicate, one way or another, which of the acquifers that that well. is in are capable of producing water that's fit to drink. 'That's what we're about here. And. if „-ie don't do it, then there isn't - we haven't accomplished the purpose of the agreement. If we do do It. then we expect that there not beai..probl.em with having that well accepted by the District. HUBER: Okay, .Zino. KU.TTIg!J,: See;, the tiling is here, :.Later on you may come and say "Now vfe're in this thing together." VERBATIM TRANSCRI]P 9 December 4. 1978 Meeting ��r re 'Trout Creek Well MItigation .'%greeme.:at FROM: Sutton January 2.5, 1.979 page 11 THOMPSON: Well, we've tried .. . (indistinguishable word or two) KUTTEL: Not me, anymore, after that. THOMPSON: Okay, we've tried to put in here provisions for dealing with that with any dispute. KUTTEL: Yeaht See, I 'm only in together so far. THOM:PSON: Well, I wzderstand your concern. -I don't - I 'm not belittling your conces:-n. I just want to be sure that the - that the - that the agreement is permitted to provide the decision to be made on the basis of the data. That's what we're doing. KUTTEL: Right now, one little example, you're taking a hellva chance doing this like that. Even going to Trout Creek. Because we know for a fact, down at Verdi is sewer water coming out of some springs. And we don't know where it's coming from. It's pure sewer water coming out of the spring areas now. And even treated, nothing . . . (indi-st..) MAASS; Well., we're off the subject there. KUT'TZL: No, no. That's what I mean is - what I mean is that seal involved. THOTLFSON: I can tell you some places where it isn't coming from. MAASS: Roberta had a comment. HU.BER: Just an the comment of Jim's (Thompson) saying that the obligation is to pr_^ovide water "fit to drink," quote, unquote. Okay, Sacra- mento water is fit to drink, but I won't drink it. And I don't want to have water, quote, unquote, that's fit to drink but is unpalatable to people who are used to the water we've been having. And I wait it spelled out in this -4greement, and I 've said that before. You guys went. out in the backyard there and came up with this, but I don't agree with it. NORK: I guess I 'm as responsible for throwing out that paragraph as anybody. But my fear was it put down some rea.1,real stringent limits and levels and guidelines that you may end up, if .it doesn't quite meet those but it still locks pretty good, you might end up accepting the well In spite of the paragraph, rather than in compliance with it. And, so, I. think if the question of water quality is one where - the opinions you're expressing now influence my view of the water quality; that may be an area wfie-ra we are going to disagree on the acceptance of the well. SUTTON: Then we're going to go to arbitration, and the arbitrator is going to tell. us that it meets the Federal Standards. NORK: Not necessarily. THOMPSONs No, this doesn't talk about the Federal Standards; your people didn't want that. So it's not there. surrON: Then, I ., (Indistinguishable) VERBATIM TRANSCRIT-T �1, December 4, 1978 Meeting re Trout Creek Well Mitigation Agreement PROMS Sutton January 25, 1.979 page 12 KUTTF.L: The -thing is now, number one, we try to get away. from chlorination completely here, we don't want chlorinated water. This is our standard here. SUrTON s Except the, T onint Springs when it has a problem, and the Sou'thSide Springs when it's got a. problem. KUTTEL: Yeah, I kaiow. Sure, we got problems. a., SUTTaT: We don't- need any more problems. MAASS: Okay, Doug, you were waiting. DOUG HATCH& This may be a procedu._al thing because I am used to doing business a little different here. But in 10, it speaks to notify Fish & Game and Lahontan Water Quality Control Board 2 days prior to construction. Is there a point where - I assume that design is going to go by you. COOKS Yes, and it goes by these other agencies at, the same time, in the approval. process. HATCHs Thank you, SUTTCNs Can we get back to 6 for a minute. What about - this is the observa- tions & asial.ysis of water level relationships - what about analysing up and down stream on Trout Creek from the well? THOMFSONs We talked about that. today. What - probably be more appropriate for ... (indistinguishable) NORKs My 'belief was that, depending what time of the year it is, suppose there is some snow melt; two warm days would change the characteristics of Trout Creek; you'd never know where you stood. And if that 2 days happened to be the 2 days when testing was occurring, and you used Trout Creek data alone as a guide and it was warm, it would appear that pinnping the well created water in Trout Creek. And we know that's not goi..ng to be the case. SUI:TON s That would. never occur to me. NORK: No, what I 'm saying is if you monitor Trout Creek as to how much is flowing before the test starts, and then during the tests, but Trout Creek picks up water because of snow melt, you'd never see it. SUI'TONs But Fre"re still in the same position we were in a short tire ago, which Is: the testing can take place during the high recharge cycle, too. That particular problem that you're speaking to wouldn't necessar..ily be a problem if we were testing in August, or September, or October. NORK: Well, I suppose you could pick a time when there was no water in Trout Creek. VERBATIM TRAPdSCRIPr I.iecember 4, 1978 'Meeting., �9/3 re Trout Greek Well Pliti..gation Agreement FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 13 SU170I4 s Well, you know, we've been fighting a lot with Dart, a month ago, about winether or not - when wells should be tested. And we never resolve.'. that problem, and this agreement does not resolve that problem. In fact, it hangs our hat on the initial pump testing. THOMi SON: That's not correct. SUrra"T s Well W' THOMPSM s What this agreement provides is, that, at your discretion, you can request., .at the time of" acceptance, that a production rating report be prepared. And that's to deal with the problem which you are now describing. SIP1"rODI: By our hydrologist. Which we would expect to be involved in any recommendation whether it was in this agreement or not. Is that right? THaMPSON: Well, I don't know as I understand that. The way the Report would be prepared would be that the District would do 2 things, It first of all would. have responsibility for collecting the broad data over the next 12 months, it world go over an annual cycle including the times of high water and the times of low water. .And during that period of time, the Distzlet not only would collect data but it would also have an. obligation to operate the 1.xodu.ction well in such a manner that the data that was collected was meaningful. And I don't know exactly what would be involved 1n doing that, but I suspect what would be involved would be to actually shut down on some of the other water sources and to utilize this well to determine what it, would do. And, during that, and that's something that would be done with the concurrence of the expert people that axe involved with this thing, Bill and John and I'm sure Dan, would all be involved In that. Okay, at the end of that time, a report would be prepared by John. And that report, and the data that it's based on, would be available-Sar B111's review and. his concurrence or his non-consurrence, and he would report to your Board, and tell you what hIs opinion of that data and John's .report Is. If there was concurrence, then that would be the ..rating for the Trout Creek Well for purposes of determining the amount of credit against the 4000 gpm requirement. If there was a dispute among the two of them, they meet and try to resolve that dispute. If they can't resolve it, then .1t could be arbitrated. And. I think we've done really a complete job of providing the mechanism for protectin€; you from the kind of concern that you have and . . . (end of that side of that tape) I 'm. not .sure. Dan's the draftsman of these - and I don't rs:ow. John, maybe you can respond to that. I don't know whether it should be you or (Indistinguishable) C:OOKs Six Is -the, observation Ln the well of water level. re.lationshIps, and It, is contained there. Seven is. the substitute water for Shane. YER:RATIt1 TRANSCRIP?' /> Dece,,nber 4, 19'7S Meeting re Trout Creek Well Mitigation Agreement FROMS Sutton January' 2_5, 1979 page 14 SU1`TON: And In fact, Shane - Is this the one where Shane won't be pumped at all., they'll be provided water by surface piping during the test . pumping? What about Prosser Heights, what about Northside during this? They're going to be being used. I don't Pmow - I can't - I don't understand it. COOKS Northside is included in the test pumping, the same as Shane and Prosser and Sanders I. THOMPSCN-. And Northside is also referenced in Paragraph 8 in the second portion. COOK: And there will be a - :Jell_, we have had 4 which we grill have this time, If this outline of this - the entire procedure that we've undertaken, It will specify what the relationships of the pumping will be. And if we can sati5f'y the District's total commitment from Donner C-r-eek, for instance, and SouthSide, then the Northside can be shut. down. But we don't have a suitable-forever•-regardless-of-when alternate source for the community supply such as we have for Shane. So, if' we use Shane as the monitor during this example, we can have one observation well that's completely without influence. At best, we'd like to have Shane, Northside, and Sanders I without influence. But the development program and the analytical analysis that is provided here will specify that sequence. surTOI7: I also have some serious problems with the use of arbitration. And I think that this Board really ought to retain the contractual right of determining whether or not the well will or will not be accepted. And, so,. those are the problems I have with the agreement. KUTTZM: The only thing, what bothers me here is water quality - why do we want to .mix our water like that . (indistinguishable) so much chlorine in it. Is there a possibility that we get 4skib3:1ne the standard for water wells here, for the community here? COOKS Yes, you could. KUTTEL: You Im.ow what I mean, we want it to our local standard here.. Not to San Jose or to New York or whatever. COOK: We don 't have an existing standard, we have some historical. background. If you wanted to adopt a set of numerical standards that would apply, then you could do that. The concern was that if we adopt a. set of numerical standards, that maybe you aren't KUTTEL: That wouldn't be standard_ in front of the judge? St3TTON: Well, you could adopt something like the Northside Well, you know, components of water qua3.ity on any given day . . . (indistinguishable) THominOIJ: Well, sure. The difficulty, Pat, with doing that - it's not very a realistic thing to do because ground water itself can vary greatly In area. If you have a well over here that has certain water quality chara.ete:r.Lstics, maybe water in the next block is equally good water but is different. And If you start putting down a bunch of numbers, you may find that there's no difference at all in beneficial uses. VL'RWTIM TRAINSCRIFT 3�9 December 4, 1978 Neeting re Trout Creek Well tviitigation Agreement FROM: Sutton January 25, 1979 page 15 You may find there's no difference at all in tastes and adors,, you may find. there's no difference at all in any perceptible. way, but the water SUr`TON: I know, Jim, they dz-ink water in Reno from the Truckee R1.ver. THOMPSON: No, t.ha-t's not what I'm talking about. S'UTTON s I 'm not sure that I like the way K112TELs I don't ii ke to put numbers either. THOMPSON: Yeah. SUrTON: that this has been set up from KUrTEL: I know that, you can't. THOMPSON: Yeah. SUT'TON z the standpoint of how it will be interpreted later. THOMPSON: So the suggestion that was made was to collect the data and. then to put it into the format of the report and comment process so that we can come out not with an abstract discussion 'but a concrete database from which to work. And to - and to allow - whatever that data Indicates should be done, to be done. That's the intent here. That's what we're dealing with. You've got to recall, this whole agreement is based - is, based upon supplying drinking water. That's what it's for, we know that. MAASS: Karl. =TELs There's a difference in drinking water because Os Butterfield told me out here "Karl, you can drink that water now, it's coming out on the other end." Fine. I took a sip and he took one too, but I don't want to use it in cooping everyday. -- THOMPSON: No, I know. KUTTE;L: This is what I 'm trying to tell you. THOMPSON: I understand. KUTTEL: You understand what I-'m talking about here? This Is what worries me more than anything else. Because the Hill, years ago, they applied for water from the Tiqzckee.-Donner P„U.D. because they had their own systera before';; the 3'omp any used it for drinking water, no matter how much chlorine they put in it down there. I know it, I worked down. at that mill, 20 years ago, I put the pipeline in. They had a problem down there even with wells. THOMPSON: If there's a. problem, it should show up in the kind of data which Is collectable. KUTTEL: Well, this is the thing, .. „ (indlatinguishable) Vr-MBATIM TRiV-TSCR1Pr 319 December 4, 1978 Vee-ting re Trout Cx-eek Well. 1�'iltlgation Agreement rRUs11 Sutton page 16 January 25. 1979 HUBZR: The only problem is you will have spent several hundred thousands of do" l.ats and then say "we can't throw away this kind of investment." MJTTr L: The problem is„ do we want to take over a treatment plant? No, with out wells, you know, we have more of therm yet, you know. You follow me, what I'm telling ,yoga? TtiOVIPSUT: But, by the same token, there - I would assume that the District would want to accept any water which is appropriate. K=EL: Equal or. better than the Narthslde Well.. THOMPSGO 110. Which is appropriate for - which can be used for the same purposes that the 1;orthside Well water can be used for and without abjection from the people who are going to drink it. That's it, isn't it? KUTTEL: That'^•, exactly - this Is exactly - the people already object to it. HUEER: (indist.inguishable ccmmen.t including ,'...Sanders, which we don't have.") THOMPSON; No, that's not quite the same thing. See, you may have water_ in your system that has a cY O-tde level of 4 and the water in this well might have a chloride level. cf '10. The threshold of taste for chlorides In- distilled water is ESQ. Tl,.ey - they might not be equal, but there Isn't any difference. That's the kind of thing I 'm getting at. SSTI'CY: A rose Is a rose THOM "SCU: That's true. That's why this kind of provision is difficult to write in the format we did in Paragraph 12 of that prior draft, and that's wiry we handled It the way we did in this draft. KUTTHL; Can you put in "equal to the Northside 'dell?" SUrTON: I think:. we THO1IPS(M No, Katl, you can't. 10U'I"1EL: Or better. SUT'TO1: should. refer THOMPS-ON: It's not appropriate to do that. It'd 'be SItTTCV: this agreement to 'Mr. Marron's office. Iris No'? Why is it appropriate then for the Federal? To get involved the Federal? I don.'t -grant them here. THOMPSaii Why? Because that's an objective standard that is gener_a11y recognized for the protection of the beneficial uses of dunking waster.. That's why I put it in. And when there was objection to that, we took it out. SIM, ON: We had no say in it. THOMPSCO: Well, you dori't. 'That's true. vERBRrIM T;RANSGRIPT ,) .December. 4, 1978 3 re Trout Creek Well. 1-litigation Agreement FROM% Sutton January 25, 1979 page 17 SurrON: I would like to ask whether the environmental impact assessments for Sanders Production "Wells Sites II and III, dated June 5, 1978, Is -the latest document of the environmental impact assessment and negative declaration for this project. COOK% No, it is not. SUITONx Well, it's the last one I have cause after that we got into the agreement in July, acid we squelched that: because they decided to do . the production holes without any environmental. process. Now, has this been updated and only applies to the Trout Creek Well? MAASS: Three meetings ago, Dan? COOK: Yes. MAASS: It was in one of your packets. SUTTONt Part, of the Engineer's Report? MAASS. Part of -the Engineer's Report. There were 2 or 3 documents I believe. I forget exactly. COOKS That one Pat referred to referred to both of them, the November one refers only to Trout Creek and it does riot refer to Sanders II Well. MAASS: November 6 it might have, been, or October 23. It was 2 or 3 meetings ago. It was within the Engineer's Report. KUT'TEL: I would like to make one phone call - to talk to my attorney. SUTTON t I think we should refer the agreement to Mr. Marron's office. KuTTEL: Before I go any further. SUT'TONI I would so move. THOMPSONz I'd a.ike to point out to you that we are at a point now where delay is beginning to become a serious problem for us. The - it's - I thl,nk this thing has arrived at this time to come to a determination one way or another. Frankly, had you undertaken an environmental Impact report some time ago, probably you could have been through with that by this time. So. SCTTT0,X t You wo:.ild still need the mitigation agreement probably, wouldn't you, Jim, regardless? THOMPSON: I don't. know. There are a number of things in here that I think are desirable subjects to address. I'm not complaining about the agreement; I 'm not saying that. But I am saying that it's time to do it. And we've done a lot of work on it. If there are matters of substantive concern that haven't been resolved and we need more time to resolve them, well then we should take it. But, if there aren't, then I think that it's time to :reach a decision. UTTON. Then why don't you make the motion then, Jim? (rhompson) HUBER: I'll second Pat's motion. vERBATV-1 `rRxgsc'.RiP:i 1 3 December 4, 1978 re Trout Creek :jell IvIl .:i.gation Agreement F OM: Sutton January* 25, 1979 Page 18 MAASS: Then we have a motion referring the document to Mike Marron. HUBER: Since he's going to be up on next Monday. MAASS% Okay, have it ready by next Monday. HUBER: Can we have an answer by then? THOMPSON: Are we to understand that the Board will act on this next Monday? HUBER: Well, wF're meeting„ MAASS: We could. SUTTON: It's - really -.you knew, there are some substantial legal questions that . . . (indistinguisba.ble) MAASS: Well, all I 'm saying is 'could' or 'could not. ' 'This Board can act on anything it wants anytime it wants, and it can delay anything it wants, which it seems to do anytime it wants. So I can't answer that, Jim.. Your guess is as good as mine. Roll call vote on the motion, please. (The .Secretary called the roll and the vote was: Hatch, ,yes; Huber, yes; Kuttel, yea; Sutton, yes; and Maass,, yes.) SLITTON: Jinn (Maass), can I just ask a question? Was the District represented by counsel at all in anything about this 141t1gation Agreement? HUBER: No. SUTTOU& No. Okay. I 'd like the: record to show that. THOMPSON: I 'd :Like the record to also show that the District can be represented by anybody it wants to -• that's perfectly fine with me. I will be happy to work with your counsel. If you're implying at all that there is anything Improper about the negotiations that have gone on here, I 'd like to object, in the most strenuous terms. I'd be very happy to meet with anyone you want. But you have got to tell me "who" and "when," and you've got, at some point, to make a decision on some of these things.. This business of just everything is delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed has just got to stop. SUTTON: I would request that Mr. Thompson's complete statement appear in the Minutes so there is no misunderstanding about it. He has requested It, but I would repeat that request. MAASS: Okay, we move to Item. I, Prosser hell. (At Mr. Cook's request this item was delayed until. the Engineer's Report.) THOMPSON: May I ask one further thing before we go on? Do you want to meet, or do you want me to meet with your attorney before the next meeting, or are we going to go through this whole whirl (? hard to decypher) again? . VFMA m TP.ANSCRIFT 1 ' December 4, 1978 Meetiitg re Trout Creek. Well. _Mii:lgation Agreement FROM. Sutton January 25, 1979 gage 19 MSS: Why don't we get hack to you tomorrow, okay? SUTTON s If I could answer, Jim (!Maass), from my standpoint, since I precipi- tated. his statement a few minutes ago. I was not implying that Dart had. done anything improper. I do believe that this District should protect itself by raving some attorney re�*iew an agreement as complicated as this one. And that was why I made the motion to refer it to Ilr. iiarron, and I didn't intend to cast aspersions upon Mr. Thompson or on Dart. And I don't think it would do any good to meet with them. You know, Jim (Thompson), we should have something back saying ";lea$," or "you should do something different here," or whatever. THiDMPSOII s I don't quaz-rel with that. Maybe I over-reacted. 1C[flSQ,s The only thing is, I'm glad we went through the papers here. We find out what we're doing here, you know, what's going on, you know. You k osa what I mean? THO.�SF'SCS�Ss What I 'd- like to do, if I can go on just a little bit further, if you have some comments that you want to make on this agreement, maybe one more shot at it, why don't you as a Board communicate those things to your attorney, back to your Commaittee, or to both. And let us, get together with them at the earliest opportunity and gat this thing you laiow, finished up. It's just KUTTF-L; 'dell, anyhow, this is what I said, like to speak to the attorney- and find out what's going to happen here with this item and another item, you know. T.HOMPSC14 s Okay? 16TAASS: In light of all this T'm going to declare a recess.