Minutes of the Meeting of The s3

of 21 Revised June 20, 2006

MINUTES of the WATER SUPPLY COORDINATING COUNCIL May 17, 2006

Herein are minutes of the meeting of the expanded State of Delaware Water Supply Coordinating Council (the Council), held on May 17, 2006, in Conference Room 220 A & B, second floor of the Kent County Administration Building, 555 Bay Road, Dover, commencing at 2:00 p.m.

Present were: Kevin C. Donnelly, Stewart Lovell, Scott Andres, Bruce Burcat, Kris Connelly, Joseph DiNunzio, Gerard Esposito, Jay Guyer, Jen Gochenaur, Ed Hallock, Rich Heffron, Richard Kautz, Bruce Kraeuter, Andrea Maucher, Kevin Mayhew, Nancy Trushell, Dorothy P. Miller, Arthur Padmore, John Rudd, Joanne C. Rufft, David Sayers, Roy Simonson, Victor Singer, Susan Skomorucha, John Talley, Jon Urbanski, Gary Woulard and Jeanne Reid. Kevin C. Donnelly chaired the meeting and Jeanne Reid recorded the minutes.

ADMINISTRATIVE – CHAIR

 Call to Order Kevin Donnelly called the Council to order and welcomed the members. Changes to the minutes of the meeting of January 26, 2006, were agreed and the minutes were approved by a vote of the members.

 Welcome & Introductions Kevin reminded all present to sign in and asked for a round of introductions. Members were reminded that information regarding the Council, such as minutes, reports and other publications, is available on the State of Delaware website at http://www.delaware.gov/egov/calendar.nsf/. For information on WSCC or other Division of Water Resources meetings in the past or future, click on a Future/Past link in the left-hand margin. Select “Water Resources” in the Agency/Board drop-down box and

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 2 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 click on the “GO” button. For current water meetings, just omit clicking on the Past/Future link. Additional information on the Council, including annual reports, can be found on the University of Delaware Water Resources Agency website at the following link: http://www.wr.udel.edu/publicservice/govwscc.html and on the Water Supply Section website at: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Public/WSCCIndex.htm.

Handouts available to Council members included copies of the following: the Draft Agenda for the WSCC meeting of May 17, 2006, minutes from the WSCC Meeting of January 26, 2006, the Final draft May 15, 2006 of the Ninth Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, the Delaware Geological Survey Analysis of Water Conditions for May 15, 2006, and a letter from the City of Newark to DNREC Secretary John A. Hughes, dated March 30, 2006, regarding details of their water conservation plan and certification of water supply.

Kevin directed members that the focus of the meeting would be on the Ninth Progress Report and the Water Supply Self-Sufficiency Act (Title 26, Chapter 14) regarding demand numbers. He added that, under Section 1405 of the act, the non-jurisdictional water utilities (Newark and Wilmington) have a requirement to submit two things to the Council, on or before July 1, 2006: (1.) a consumer water-conservation plan and (2.) a certification of adequate supply. Plans must be applicable to the water utility service area provided by the non-jurisdictional water utility in the drought-sensitive area of northern New Castle County. He noted that one of the most important business items of the day was the Council’s review of the plan submitted by the City of Newark, as outlined in their letter to Secretary Hughes on March 30, 2006, in order to give the city time to revise it, if needed, before the July 1, 2006, deadline. Kevin asked Roy Simonson to summarize.

UTILITY CERTIFICATION PROCESS - WSCC

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 3 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006

Roy Simonson spelled out what Newark does to comply with the Legislature’s request to get water-conservation information out: advertising in the city newsletter (several times a year); advertising on the city website (year-round) and on the city’s access cable channel (up-and-running with banner notices); and by direct mail (enclosed in any bills, etc.). He said that Newark has adequate supply numbers, and that wells can provide backup if needed. He added that the reservoir is full, and Newark is now running the Curtis Plant on the reservoir as a test, which is going well.

Kevin called for any questions. Stewart Lovell asked if there is any intention on the part of the city to re-institute a conservation rate-structure. Roy replied that they were not intending to at this time. Stewart said he remembered the city discontinued it because of their capital project rate increase. Roy said there was still an element of rate increase for the block rate, just not as dramatic as before. He promised to get back to the Council on that question. Stewart suggested that Newark submit that fact as part of their package. Dorothy Miller asked if all of Newark was getting reservoir water now or were some parts still getting water from United Water. Roy responded that there is still some United Water at any given time and more likely in the southern part of the city. He added that in the northern part it is most likely reservoir water. Bruce Kraeuter asked if the well field table showed normal operations. Roy said that in an emergency they could push their wells for a period of time. Bruce asked if Newark would include a history of their submissions, with their maximum gallons-per-minute (GPM) rates. Roy said he was not exactly certain about how long they could run at these levels – the city’s equipment capacity produced a certain amount of water, depending on conditions of the aquifer, and some wells would draw down faster than others. He said the city could not sustain it, but believed the higher numbers were within what is provided in the city’s well permits. Bruce Kraeuter said the text suggested that the public rates were significantly less than the city’s maximum, and Roy agreed. Nancy Trushell asked how the GPM numbers correlated to numbers on the table, and Roy replied that they were between normal and high levels. Nancy asked if there would be a logical explanation matched to the table.

Joe DiNunzio asked Roy several questions. He wanted to know if the 4.9 million- gallons-per-day (mgd) demand projected for 2009 was the number that the Council said last time around, if 5 mgd for 75 days calculated out to the 375 gallons needed over the period, if the city’s operating plan was to have a full reservoir (318 million gallons), and – if they did not have any flow from the stream - how the city would meet the 4.9 mgd demand with wells or reservoir or both. He added that he would like the plan to more clearly reflect that the city was more than capable of meeting the demand, which was not easy to see. Stewart requested that Roy check what aquifer, Columbia or Potomac, Well # 10 was tapping. He pointed out that Well #10 is listed in the table at a depth of 153 feet, but the DNREC permit has it listed as a Columbia well, which would mean the depth was not correct. Roy stated that the city information on that well was limited and he would verify depth. Stewart mentioned that Joe Dombrowski had told him in the past that the well was about 60 feet deep. John Talley said he had a listing with full information and would get it to Roy.

Kevin referred the Council to the Self-Sufficiency Act, Section 1405 (on reporting requirements for non-jurisdictionals water conservation plans and certifications of adequate supply) and Section 1406 G (on water conservation regulations, specifically the requirement for non-jurisdictionals (Newark and Wilmington) to submit their water- conservation rate to the Council with a proposed, scheduled implementation plan for informing and educating the public to the extent they have this increasing block rate in effect. He told Newark and Wilmington that they needed to memorialize that implementation schedule and plan when they send in their amended plans, based on the current discussion.

Sean Duffy said that, on April 1, 2004, he sent Kevin the City of Wilmington’s plan to adopt a seasonal rate - which would be in effect from June 1st to September 30th each year – and proposed an increase by a rate approved by the Council. The rate for more than 10,000 gallons per quarter, in effect since January 1, 2005, only applies to water consumption above the first 10,000 gallons. Customers who consume 10,000 gallons or less per quarter will continue to pay the facilities charge only. Kevin requested that Gary

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 5 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 work with Kash and Sean to send something to the Council, so the city could be checked off.

Joe DiNunzio asked Kevin if the Self-Sufficiency Act applied to the City of New Castle. Kevin explained that the City of New Castle was exempted because they had a customer count of 5,000 or less customer-count, and “with 5,000 or fewer customers you are off the hook.” He added that this law is new to both jurisdictions and non-jurisdictionals, and the Council wants to be sure that no one is out of compliance. John Talley asked if this law applied to only Newark and Wilmington, but not to Dover. Kevin said it applied to the drought-sensitive areas above the canal, which is Newark and Wilmington. Kevin then stated that Roy could presume that he has the endorsement of the group.

Nancy Trushell asked if the Public Service Commission (PSC) would comment. She said the PSC is reviewing United Water’s submittals, and asked if non-jurisdictionals have to meet the same standards as United Water. Bruce Burcat replied that it was a completely different certification procedure for jurisdictionals versus non-jurisdictionals, and that the PSC looked at filings in a certain way. He added that the PSC, since 2004, has an extensive process to look at all submittals in detail, with the same distinction in the statute between the way the commission looks at purveyors versus non-purveyors - two different agencies with different charges. Nancy clarified that she was not questioning the difference in the procedures, but wanted to know if the level of detail was the same. Bruce said that the PSC staff spent weeks and months looking at different filings and required a lot of information and an independent review as well.

Kevin took a minute to review the law for the group for non-jurisdictional certification requirements, as follows: Certification must be executed by the governmental officer responsible for the operation of the non-jurisdictional utility; the same official shall provide documentation of each source of supply and the volume of water available from each source; the supporting materials and documents must demonstrate for the projected year that the volume of supply from non-jurisdictional water supply sources shall be adequate to meet or exceed the projected demand; beginning with the reporting year of

2005, in addition to certification of adequate supply certification, each non-jurisdictional shall also certify that none of their sources of supply, used during a drought of record, rely on out of state contracts or purchases with other water utilities, except for minimum purchase obligations under contracts in existence on April 1, 2003, between Delaware water utilities and non-Delaware providers; the Council shall review the water utility certification of adequate supply and the supporting materials and documentation, and notify non-jurisdictionals if they need additional documents to support their certification.

Victor Singer commented that the Council should not forget that what the Legislature was after in this legislation was to assure that there was a lot of warning of any situation of there being “skinny margins” between actual supply and supply needed in case of a drought situation. He added that, with a large excess supply, it would not be necessary to agree on estimates. But if the supply were close to balance, then, for design certification, it would be appropriate to look in detail at “iffy” estimates. He said there were different standards for “iffy” vs. excess situations. Kevin asked if Nancy had any thing specific in mind with her previous question. She said that she did not; it was just a general comment. Kevin said it was not unreasonable for anyone to expect that the Council has the duty to review these submissions, maybe not exactly to respond in the detail that the PSC does, but to be able to say when we were done that we reviewed it, to stand up and say if we have the supply in Newark and Wilmington necessary to meet a drought situation if it should occur in recent years. Kevin asked Roy if he would take back the group’s comments from today and submit an amended plan to Kevin electronically and a hard copy to him and to DNREC Secretary Hughes. Kevin said he would get the version to all in lieu of a scheduled meeting in June – if it everyone was comfortable with an electronic review – and approve Newark’s plan this week. Then a meeting could be called for June to consider Wilmington’s plan, to approve it for submission by July 1st. Joe DiNunzio asked when Wilmington’s report will be available. Kevin said that, to be fair to Gary, he was not sure he could answer that now. Victor said that they could distribute the “e-version” and ask everyone for a prompt response. Bruce Burcat asked if the Council’s certification process had no specific time-frame. Kevin stated that, according to his reading of the law, the July 1st date was the deadline for the submission

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 7 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 of the plan, but there was no mention of a time-frame for approval. He said they could be flexible and schedule a meeting later in July at a convenient date. John Talley said he needed a minimum of a week to ten days before the next meeting; Kevin agreed. John asked if he could get his comments to Kevin before the meeting or to the submitter. Kevin said he preferred to defer to Roy and Gary, but would like to meet sooner than later, and have them show up with changes made to get approval at the next meeting. John agreed. Kevin said that if Newark will do the submittal revisions electronically, a hard copy will be sent to all for review. He asked Gary to see how long it would take him to provide their plan. Kevin said that, if he could send both to the group at the same time, the next meeting could be set for later this summer, on or before mid-August. There may be a question of a drought this summer and it would be best to approve plans before any drought, as Kevin stated he was already getting questions from the media asking about the plan.

John Talley said that the monthly demographic projections for 2009 should be consistent with the Eighth Report approved last month. 2006 was the first report year and was projected to 2009, and 2009 will be the second report year. Non-jurisdictionals should have no out of state contracts for sources of water supply by 2009. John asked what was the projected time for Newark to bring their two additional treatment plants into operation. Roy said he expected them to be up and running by next year or the year after that, that by “2007 we should be well into it.” John offered his opinion that Newark could meet most of their demand with surface water and let the wellfields rest. Kevin asked Roy if he would do the Newark submission and asked Gary if Sean and Kash could do the Wilmington submission for the next meeting. He stated that the next meeting would be in the morning at a more convenient time, if at all possible.

Kevin said that he had received the latest version of the NCC supply and demand update – also known as the Ninth Report - last night. In Jerry’s absence, Kevin asked Stewart to review it for the group.

NINTH PROGRESS REPORT – WRA

 Southern New Castle County Supply & Demand Update Stewart stated that a small working group (himself, staff from the University of Delaware Water Resources Agency and officials from both Tidewater Utilities and Artesian Water Company) had met to work on revisions of the report. He said he received the revised report back this morning, so had had a limited review time, but saw that more corrections would be required. He stated that the report is not done yet, “not ready for prime-time yet.” He added that the report has incorporated a significant revision of descriptions of aquifers in the state, and has revised the Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity (CPCN) process. He said the “bottom line” was that the biggest revision that would be needed was a drastic overhaul to the southern New Castle County (SNCC) irrigation demands. He said he felt that the demand was “grossly overstated.”

Victor Singer commented that he did not see any mention of aquifer storage in the Executive Summary. He said that it may be in the text, but that he felt it should be in the summary as well. He said that it would be better if we are eventually going to sell that, we could do it by “shock value” later when it was necessary or do it gradually with a “soft-sell”; he preferred the soft sell. He said politics came into play, that most of the Council was aware that the big objection in SNCC to aquifer storage is the notion that NNCC is going to “suck their aquifers dry”. He said this group is betting heavily on aquifer storage being in the cards for SNCC as development increases, and that it is going to pan out. He said he felt that it was much superior to taking large areas of land and putting pockets on it. John Talley agreed that this was an important point, that if there was going to be aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in SNCC, the group needed to think about using projected surface water value rather than groundwater. He commented that surface water treatment plants are already important in the northern part of the state. He said it has been about ten years since the Delaware Geological Survey (DGS) looked at the demand pattern in SNCC. Since then, he said the DGS has learned a lot about the hydrology and geology of New Castle County, thanks in large part to data from Artesian Water Company’s deep wells. He said that the DGS could take another look at the

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 9 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 groundwater availability, in terms of availability, quantity and quality in SNCC and northern Kent County. He added that it was to the point now that theses areas are hard to separate and there is not a whole lot of water there. He said water will have to be moved from north to south and south to north, and DGS will have to take another look at the availability of water in the shallow and deeper aquifers in SNCC and northern Kent County before the Council could seriously think about ASR. He ended by saying that he thought it was worth discussing.

Kevin said that, having not sat in on a working group discussion, he did not know to what extent the group was focused on ASRs as a method of choice for guaranteeing enough supply in the future for SNCC. He added that he did sit in on the initial meetings, and that resulted in the Council requesting - almost three years ago now - an analysis by the WRA of the water supply and demand situation in SNCC. Kevin said his expectation was that this report would attempt to answer - using conservative assumptions - whether or not there is some sort of supply situation “just waiting to happen” for SNCC. He said he felt the clear answer to that was “No!” He said there is adequate supply, even under the most conservative assumptions, in SNCC. Kevin commented that he looked to Stewart and the representatives from the utilities around the table as to whether or not the group would agree to focus on storage methods as part of the message of the Ninth Report. He said he thought not, and, although he was open to discussion, he doubted it was needed at this point. Victor said he did not know if it is needed at this point either. He said he felt that, in a 15- to 25-year time-frame, and in view of systems being built which had a 60- or 70-year life-span, the Council ought to look a little beyond.

Kevin stated that he was pleasantly surprised at the lack of frictions regarding the Artesian pipeline under the canal. He said he had expected it to be a huge deal, and it was almost a non-event. He said give Artesian Water credit for managing it. He said the Council and workgroups have a higher degree of credibility now in responding to these issues. Victor said he heard it pretty regularly at the land-use level! Joe DiNunzio commented that there is a glancing reference in the fourth recommendation of the Executive Summary to aquifer storage and recovery. He said the workgroup agreed that

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 10 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 the Council had to recognize that, over the next 25-year time span, as part of a finished corridor system, we are building an integrated system. Joe said that “we are not moving much, as some people may think, water from south to north; no need for that, this report proves that, there is plenty of water south, all the way to 2030.” He added that he thought the group was being repetitive, since he thought the report has answered, in terms of today and through 2030, that demand and supply are not an issue, as far as demand being met by the supplies available. He added that he also thought that the group should address the aquifer storage and recovery as one of the options that is part of the good management and planning that “we don’t want to lose sight of.” Joe stated that there was no real reason, from his perspective, for making a big issue of it in this report. He stated: “It needs to be mentioned, and, as we move down through the years, it may pick up greater recognition as you start approaching that real need, that hurry. I know that United is working north of the canal at a site, we have our sites north and some others identified that we don’t need yet north, the day will come when we’ll have them south, I am sure.” Victor suggested that this ought to be said in the Ninth Report.

Stewart said he had trouble conceptually, from the technical standpoint, with the idea of it. He stated that he was not saying the group should dismiss that as a possibility, and particularly down the line, if ten years from now, as identified in the projections, calculations are a little bit off and there is going to be (maybe) a deficiency. He stated that he doubted that, because the methodology is so conservative, as it was in NNCC. Stewart added that, again, conceptually, ASR south of the canal is such a “different beast” than the systems north of the canal, primarily because of the geology. He said that, at depth, in wells in the zones where you would store water, the aquifer (the Potomac) is much more homogenous and consistent, than it is north of the canal. He explained that north of the canal Artesian is able to take advantage of a particularly very high yielding portion of that aquifer, and, with its ASR system, it allows them to pump huge amounts of water, as opposed to a well in the Potomac south of the canal, which is going to pump pretty much the same rate as any other. Stewart stated that this means that the same design principal cannot be applied to SNCC. He said that an even more fundamental question it kind of begs is: “Where is the water going to come from?” unless

Artesian’s pipeline under the canal were to be used. He added that then that makes it different from what United is proposing to do, which is kind of a conjunctive-use project where they take their excess capacity, treat their surface water and then store that in the ground. He said that considering using ASRs south of the canal, “I have trouble getting my hands around it.” He added that there have been other things that have been talked about that the group might be aware of as well, which is injection of treated wastewater. Stewart commented that to him, that has its own set of problems.

John Talley said that he just wanted to reiterate that the group cannot look at this as just southern New Castle County. He added that New Castle County is growing north to south, and Kent County is growing from Dover north. John stated that, in that area from Cheswold to Townsend, the utilization of the Potomac may be restricted because of brackish salt water. He added that it may be restricted to fewer aquifers, some of which are pretty heterogeneous, and may not yield large quantities of water. He said that there is the Rancocas and the Mount Laurel, the Columbia, the Magothy, and really, Artesian has a few wells in it, but it is an area where we are going to have to look at and evaluate the availability of groundwater in those areas. He added that Artesian and Tidewater and whoever else is involved may have to use water from New Castle County to truck it to Kent County, and they may have to pump water northward from Dover to the northern portion of Kent County. He said it has to be looked at as an entire system. He said that you can’t isolate just SNCC proper, especially when you talk about integrated systems.

Joe DiNunzio said that he understood that the next charge for the Council is the Kent County area, and that the group will want to look at Sussex County also, according to the statute. He said: “Interestingly, John, if you want to comment, it may not happen in my lifetime, but, since Delaware is not that large, a pipe will eventually run the length of the state. What you are suggesting is basically the same. Eventually! The state is such that that is possible; you can’t forget that”. He said when that when you talk about brackish water, etc., there may be, but none of us will know until we start exploring. He said there may be a way to keep the salt at bay by using an ASR mechanism as well. Joe commented to Victor that, back to his earlier point, this report at least does owe the

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 12 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 mention of that option, but it is not a large part of the story. Victor said he was not suggesting it be a large part of the story, he was suggesting that perhaps it was time for a soft sell on the start. Joe said he did not know at this point what was said on ASR’s beyond the Executive Summary.

Kevin said that, for the sake of the discussion today, there are some revisions needed to the document. He said that: “We have some of the players on the working group sitting around the table.” He asked the group to take a look at it from both the acknowledged changes that they thought they would see and have not yet seen, and then take appropriate questions about the characterization and reference to ASR, based on all the technical issues heard, and the concepts just shared with each other. He added that, hopefully, all that will be reflected in the next version, which he hoped would be the final version. He said it needed to get done, “one, one way or another.”

Joe DiNunzio stated that he had one other matter within the Executive Summary. He said that there continues to be in the draft the recommendation on change to the CPCN process. He said that Artesian continued to object to that on two grounds: (1.) Specific duties as listed in the statute for this Council, more specifically in Section 1306, do not include anything more than looking at supply and demand analysis in designated areas. He commented that he thought the Council was reaching far outside their purview. He stated that these are matters that the Legislature has reviewed repeatedly over the years and arrived at the conclusion effectively. He commented that he did not think they have asked us to look at that issue. (2.) The other is that he is not convinced that the claims made, as they were listed in the earlier draft of the report, are actually substantiated by the facts, that there is really an issue with the current process as it exists, that will effect there not being regional systems being developed. He said Artesian’s view is that we are developing regional systems, and doing it effectively. He added that there is the way the statute operates, working within the landowner choices, which the legislators say they prefer for this process. He said he was still a little bit confused over the comment before about how there might be overuse of the resource without a change in the CPCN process. He said: “I am befuddled by that comment, so I put it that on the table just to note our

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 13 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 continued objections.” Joe asked for a vote on whether this recommendation should remain in the report. He said that, if for some reason the Council does not see it the way he saw it, he wanted the ability to put in Artesian’s dissenting view, as an addendum to the report. Stewart commented that he was “looking forward to that.”

John Talley said he thanked Joe for bringing that to the Council’s attention, because that way, when the next draft comes out, and people look at it, they will see that in the recommendations and they will think about that, because that will be a contentious issue. Kevin stated that he wanted the deal on the table. He said he appreciated that, and would be happy to serve as the referee and make the final decision. He asked Jerry and Stewart to go into their workgroup on this issue and come back to the Council at the next meeting. Kevin asked John if he could give a report on water conditions, despite not having been asked to prepare a formal report for this meeting. Kevin also mentioned to the Council that both New Jersey and Pennsylvania have declared statewide drought watches, the lowest level. He said that they do not have the ability that Delaware has, a least in the northern part of the state, to monitor both demand and supply real-time.

WATER CONDITIONS REPORT – DGS

John Talley told the group that the latest reports have been fairly dry. He said that February, March and April were about 65-70% statewide, and so far for May, we are about 90%, which is fairly near average for May. And, as Kevin said previously, our surrounding states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have declared drought-watches, Pennsylvania on April 11th and New Jersey on the 8th. He added that Maryland is in normal conditions; they haven’t had a drought. John referred the Council to the handout on which he put the outline of the table of the water conditions and the WSCC report of the drought operating conditions.

John continued, stating that, for precipitation, the 12-month average is about a little over 8 inches below normal. He said that would put us in a drought scenario by itself, but

“fortunately we are a smart group and we don’t go by one thing, we go by lots of things.” He said that the 6-month average is about 3.6 inches below normal. He commented that the DGS does not have a 6-month threshold indicator. He said the 12-month total in NCC is 84%, at Porter Reservoir, it is 83%, and the 3-month is down about 60-65%. John said for streamflows, the report has as a drought-watch a 30-day moving average of 85 mgd. He added that a 30-day moving average on the Brandywine from April 15th through May 14th is greater than 250 mgd. He said that today it is 196 mgd, so we’re still in really good shape. John stated that for the White Clay Creek at Newark the 30-day moving average drought watch is 19 mgd, and for April 15th to May 14th it was at 50 mgd, and it is at 40 mgd today, “so that’s not too bad either.” He said that for the combined flow at the White Clay Creek at Stanton, both the Red Clay and the White Clay, the 30- day moving average is about 110 mgd, the trigger is 42 mgd. He said that this morning it was at 84 mgd, so we are still in good shape. John stated that, regarding groundwater, the primary groundwater observation well near Ogletown was around 12.16 feet, so it has quite a ways to go before it is at drought-watch. He added that the DGS water conditions index, our other indicator, is about 6.5. He said that suggests that it is quite a bit above drought-watch. John stated that, for reservoir levels, Hoopes is full, Newark is full, Octoraro in Chester County is full and New York City reservoir is full, to give a basin- wide perspective. He said that all three reservoirs are spilling up there in New York City. He stated that the salt front is about 7 miles above where it normally is, but “with the rain we’ve had in Pennsylvania the last few days, I am quite sure that the salt front is going to be down fairly well.” John summed up by stating that, all in all, things have been dry the last few months, things are still in pretty good shape. He said that all the work we’ve done together, increasing our supplies, the reservoir capacity we have, and the Stanton operating plan, monitoring and so forth, he thinks we are still in pretty good shape. He said we were probably pretty far from a drought-watch. John told the group: “Good work everyone keeping track of the situation.”

Kevin told John that these numbers were useful to him and asked if he could provide the summaries of these to the Governor’s Office, because they were very interested in this. Kevin said that he thought this report would be a good way to keep track of the various

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 15 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 ways the Council is watching the situation. Kevin stated: “We’ll arrange - I promise you this - before we convene the Drought Advisory Committee - conference calls with the utilities and interested parties (Ed, John, Jerry, us, both public and private utilities) so everybody knows what is going on. He added that whatever is developed will be used to manage the information flow to the Secretary and the Governor.

Susan Skomorucha asked how often John pulled all this together. John said whenever it seems necessary, that is, if things are relatively normal, not often. He said that if someone wants a report, the DGS can do it. He explained that members could do it themselves, for example, by using all the information on stream flow data that is on the internet. He said anyone could do their own 30-day moving average, and, if anyone wanted to know how to do it, DGS could show you. He said it was very easy to do, just by downloading it into excel. Kevin requested that John do the report twice a month, and this month, about the middle of the month, on or before Memorial Day. He said he would like to share the report with the Governor’s Office before the holiday. John said he would ask Stephanie to do that. Kevin said he would like to be able to tell the Governor as we are going into a holiday that there was not going to be a drought declared the day after Memorial Day! Kevin said that every couple of weeks it would be good to tell Governor how things stood, and, especially with neighboring states having declared a drought watch, it would be nice to reinforce where Delaware was. Dorothy said the DGS report had a nice layout - brief and concise. John asked if everyone would like to get a copy of this every two weeks, the group said yes, and he agreed to mail this out every two weeks.

Nancy Trushell asked if the river salt front was at its normal location on this report, River Mile 64, or if that location stays the same or varies by season. John said this was normal for the season. Stewart said it moves a lot. Victor said that you can say that is the normal location for May. John said that in the summertime, with its evaporative low-flow, a major precipitation event can push the salt line 5-6 miles in a couple of weeks. Susan asked if river mile 71 is pushed back or forward from normal. Kevin said the line is measured from the mouth of the bay on up. John said that the salt front information is

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 16 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 also on the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) website. He said it will say “position of salt front” and if you click on it, it will give you a map of the Delaware River from Trenton all the way to the Delaware Bay, with all the river miles on it, and will highlight where the salt front is. It is updated weekly on Fridays, and that is a 250 ppm isochlor. Go to www.drbc.net.

Stewart wanted to mention a final note to the group that, although the focus is primarily on northern NCC conditions, he has noticed a discrepancy in precipitation slowly increasing from north to south. He said the official station in Georgetown is now 8.5 inches below normal on calendar year. He added that, although things are fine on the north end supply-wise, and that really is relegated to public water supplies, downstate there is an agricultural issue with the very dry soil conditions. He said he thought conditions are a Palmer Stage 2, which is moderate. Kevin commented that conditions have been dry for the second, maybe third year in a row – they have been dry for awhile now. John said that the group had to be careful though, because he thinks that the Georgetown station has problems. He explained that the 12-month precipitation at Lewes is reading only 2 inches below normal, and at Dover it is only ½ inch below normal, while the Georgetown station consistently reports less precipitation than Lewes and Dover. He added that it is also consistently less than reported by some of the Delaware environmental observing system stations down there. John suggested that the group look at several stations, rather than the Georgetown station exclusively. He said: “There is something weird about that. I don’t know how they can be consistently lower month in and month out; I guess it’s possible, but not likely.” Richard Kautz asked if it would be appropriate to add downstate data to this report, and if the problem with the Georgetown readings is ongoing, how could it be fixed. John said the Georgetown observation station was run by the National Weather Service. Kevin suggested that maybe the Council could write them a letter. Victor suggested they may need a recalibration. Kevin said maybe some input from the federal delegation may perhaps help. John said that, with respect to the DGS Water Conditions Report, if it is going to be sent out every two weeks, the water levels for the shallow readings for Db24-10 groundwater monitoring well will not be read every two weeks. He said that was going to be read once a month, since the level would

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 17 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 not change that often. Kevin said that Rich was right, that in order to encourage downstate participation with this group, it would be nice, to the extent possible, to add some downstate information so that the Council can reflect that statewide responsibility. Kevin then asked the utility reporters as a group if they had anything new and if their demands were up or not.

NNCC UTILITIES’ REPORTS

 Artesian Water Bruce Kraeuter reported that their demand had been up slightly, then basically normal, and that they had good groundwater levels.

 United Water Susan Skomorucha reported that their production was up slightly, but pretty much on plan. Kevin offered to help with their discussions with the refinery, if needed.

 New Castle Jay Guyer reported that New Castle was normal at 4 mgd.

 Newark Roy Simonson said the ribbon cutting for the reservoir would take place this time next week. Kevin said he was looking forward to it, as he had been there for the ground breaking.

 Wilmington Kevin noted that Gary Woulard had stepped out and said that they were working on raising the reservoir. He said that they would reaching out to some of the resource agencies just to confirm the issue of raising the water level at the north end of the reservoir, and that there were no federal resource issues at stake there. Nancy asked when the revised Parsons Report on the Hoopes study would be out. Stewart said that

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc Page 18 of 21 Revised June 20, 2006 two weeks ago he was told it would be done within a week! Kevin said they had their reports mixed up. The question was when the revised Parsons Report - that the city contracted for – would be ready. What Stewart said was a week ago he was told it would be ready in two weeks, so it is imminent. Stewart offered to send it to Nancy as soon as he got it. She said she was only curious, just wanted to know what the timeline was. Gary returned to the room, and Kevin told him that he had mentioned in Gary’s absence that Wilmington was continuing to work on raising the reservoir level, and asked if he had anything else to add. Gary said no. Kevin then asked Stewart to report if there was anything new on the “groundwater front.”

GROUNDWATER MODELING STUDY – DNREC

Regarding the modeling study, Stewart said that there was “light at end of the tunnel.” He added that he had sent some of the group an addendum report, just released by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), in order to get their review and comment on it. He said this is the addendum report to the calibration report that the Corps produced about a year ago. He commented that they spent this past year doing a refinement using some additional data that was provided by Artesian Water from some of their observation wells. He said that this was very good, because it was able to cure some problems with the model that the Corps was having because of calibration issues. He stated that now the calibration is very, very good for such a huge model. Stewart asked for the preference of the group as to how to go forward with this, could they just give him a simple review and comment back on the addendum report, or, for everyone’s satisfaction, would they rather have a meeting of the project team before the Corps goes forward. He said his sense was that everyone was OK with just doing a review and comment, and that if the group gave him feedback within a week, he would forward it to the Corps. He said that then they could be “off to the races” and do a simulation run, which should only take a couple of weeks. He said the Corps will spend most of their time producing graphics and tables as the output from the simulation. He said there is not much left for them to do at this point but finish it up. Stewart added that it was probably the best news he’s had in years!

Kevin asked if everyone was comfortable with that approach, and if there was any other business. An informal polling of the group indicated all present agreed to a simple “submit comments approach.”

OTHER BUSINESS

To summarize, Kevin said he was looking forward to getting an amended submission from the City of Newark and a submission by the City of Wilmington, per the Water Self Sufficiency Act. He mentioned again that the deadline by statute is July 1. He asked Gary to let him know if Wilmington needed more time. Kevin said he preferred to send both submissions out for review at the same time. However, he said if Gary needed more time, and Roy’s was ready right away, he would send Roy’s out right away. When the reports are sent out, Kevin said he would include some dates for scheduling the next meeting in late July to early August, so the group could do the review and do the appropriate reactions. He added that the technical group was going to work on finalizing the SNCC supply and demand report, getting an update done which incorporated the comments that the group shared today. Stewart said that he has circulated the addendum report to the calibration report from the Corps. He asked again for a last call for any comments or revisions, and then it will go to the Corps.

NEXT MEETING

Kevin thanked the group for allowing him to schedule this meeting. He said that they would probably not have an afternoon meeting again, if it could be avoided.

The next meeting of the Water Supply Coordinating Council will be held sometime in late July or early August. Dates will be sent out to the members before July 1 for their input and agreement.

ADJOURN

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

WSCC Meeting Attendance List May 17, 2006

Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control……...……………………………...... ……………………………………………….…...Kevin Donnelly, Stewart Lovell, Jeanne Reid Office of State Planning Coordination…………………………………………………………… Department of Agriculture………….…………………………….………………………………. Public Service Commission.………………………………...... Bruce Burcat, Andrea Maucher Delaware Emergency Management Agency………………….………………………………….. Division of Public Health……………………………....…….……………….…….…Ed Hallock Division of Public Advocate………………………………….…………………Arthur Padmore Delaware Geological Survey………………………..….………….…John Talley, Scott Andres Water Resources Agency, University of Delaware.….……...... Delaware River Basin Commission….………………..…………..………………..David Sayers Governor’s Office………………………....……………………...……………………….………. New Castle County……………….…………………………...………………..………………….. Kent County………………………………………………………………………...Kris Connelly Sussex County…………………………………………………………….…….………………….. City of New Castle Municipal Svcs. Cmssn. ……..…………………………………..Jay Guyer City of Newark……………………………….……………………...……………..Roy Simonson City of Wilmington…………………………..……...…………………………….Gary Woulard Artesian Water Company……………………………………………………………………….... ……………………………………..……...Joseph DiNunzio, Bruce Kraeuter, Joanne C. Rufft Tidewater Utilities………………………………………………….………...….Gerard Esposito United Water………………………………………….…...Susan Skomorucha, Nancy Trushell Southern New Castle County Alliance……………….…...... Sussex County Association of Towns...…………………………….……………...……...……… Delaware League of Local Governments……………….…………………………...…….….….. Delaware Rural Water Association.……………………..…………………...…………………... National Association of Water Companies, DE Chapter…...……………………………….….. Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce…………………………………………….………… Sussex County Chamber of Commerce………………………….…………...….Richard Kautz Delaware State Chamber of Commerce………………………………………...…Rich Heffron New Castle Chamber of Commerce……………………..…………..…………….……………... Delaware Nursery & Landscape Association...……………………...…………………………... Delaware Grounds Management Association…………………………….……………………... Delaware State Golf Association...………………………….…..Kevin Mayhew, Jon Urbanski Delaware Nature Society.……………………………..………………………….Jen Gochenaur Delaware Farm Bureau………...…………………………….….……………….……………….. Center for the Inland Bays………………………………...….………………..……………...….. State Fire Marshall’s Office………………………………………………….……….John Rudd Civic League of New Castle County……………..….………………………..……Victor Singer Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys.………………………………………..Dorothy P. Miller

04d9aa40968bcd8b94ff96ab3e72f4e5.doc