MEMORAMDUM TG IIMELLIOTI, CFIAIR TTATER POUCY INTE NM COMMiTTEE FROM: JOHNTT]BBS, ADMNISTMTOR ITATERRE SOURCES DIVISION DNRC SUBJECT: HB 83l PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS SUMMARY DATE: 4/ L5/2008 CG JOEKOLMAN As requestedbythe Chairman,the Departmenthas prepared a point bypoint analysisof the changesto staffie proposedin the draft handedout to the Cpmmineeon lvlarch6, 2008. In the future we will try to havea similardocument prepared prior to submissionof any draft proposal. The Depanmenthas been wo*ing *fth MCA 85-2-360through 85-2-369for a year and believesthat the very detailedtext of the statuteslimits the discretionof the Departmentto a point that permit applicant'scosts and risls are unnecessarilyhigh. The Departmentmay alsosee increased costs associarcd with litigationover the detailin the statute.In proposing the changesto thesestatutes, the Department'sintent is to tryand keepthe goalsof HB S31 to protectsenior water right holden andprovide a processto get a groundwater permit in a closedbasin but reducethe detail. Byreducingthe detail,we believethe Depanmentcan be more flexible when facedwith the facts of eachproposed development we can reducethe possibfiry of technicalitiesbeing the basisfor denialof permitswhich will, in tum, reduce the risk of litigation to the applicantand to the Department,and we can make the applicationprocess under theseprovisions more attractiveto rhe developmentcommunity. \fffhatwedo knowis we areseeingveryfewF{B 831 applications andwe are toldthatthe reasonis cost, risk and the easeof using exemptwells as a sourceof drinking water for subdivisions. The following nanativetries to givethe C-ommiueesome pe$pective as to the purposesand reasonswe areproposing the changesro statute. Again I would askthe Committeeto take these amendmentsin the samecontext as the draft reporu preparedby kgislative staff. This is not an official agencylegislative proposal; rather it is intendedto focusthe debateon the permiaingprocess in closedbasins. Changesto 85-2-360: 1. Page1, Line 5: 85-2-32Lis addedtoinclude the MlkRiverclosure. WATERPor,rcy Itvrrnru Couna. DNRC APRIL29,2008 Exnrnrr 1l 2. Page L, Lines 5-10: These changeswould require mitigation in order to consumptivelyuse groundwaterin a closedbasin. The Departmentis coruidering thesechanges because of two facts:C.onsumptive use of groundwaterwill result in net depletion of surfacewater over time, and basinswere closedto new surface wareruses because the kgislature or the Depanmentdetermined that surfacewater Basedon thesereasons, the proposed changeseliminate the statutoryquestions of whether consumptiveuse of ground waterwill causenet depletion(ft *rll) and whethernet depletionwill causeadvene affect (in a closedbxin there is no legallyavailable surface water). By eliminating thesequestions, applicants will know they haveto offset consumptiveuse through mitigationwhich will rrxaketlie processmore certainand eliminateobjections and legalactions to determineif thereis net depletionan#or adverseaffect. 3. Page1, Lines 11, 12: This changeexcludes the non-consumptiveuse of ground 'waterfrom the requirementsof mitigation. The Departmentis seeingan increasein applicationsfor use of ground warcr through "heat pumps" for climatecontrol in buildings. This is a non-consumptiverse of grotrndwater and shouldnot require nxugauon. 4. Page1, Lnes 13-22:Same as lines 5-10 above. 5. Page1, Lnes 23-26:CJarifythat if ).r developa well for the pu{poseof conducting $drogeologictests, the rrseof the well mustcease until a waterright is obtained. 6. Page1, Lnes 27-34:Same as in lines5-10 above. 7. Page1, Lines 37-39: Simplifythe language of the statute. Changesto85-2-361: 8. Page 1, Lines 48, 49: This changebrings the requirementto have a qualified professionalfrom (u)below in orderto simplifyt}e wordingof the section. 9. Page1, Lines 49-55: Thesechanges list the topicsthat our professionalbdro- geologistsneed in a hydrogeologicassessment associated with a ground water developmentto evaluatethe application. This beginsto simplify and clarify the detailof section351. 10.Page 1, Lines 55-58;Line 1 on Page2: Thesechanges pull togethercriteria to evaluatewater quality in the ht'rogeologic assessment. 11. Page2, Lines 1-5: Thesechanges eliminate a long list of differentsur{ace water bodies. Note that on Page1, Line 54 thereis a referenceto surfacewater. Surface water is alreadydefined in nrle 136.12.L0t(6a)lto includethis list so thesechanges areintended to simplifythelanguage of the sectionwhile retainingits pu{pose. L2.Page2, Lines 8-12: Thesechanges are intendedto clarifyand simplifywhat an applicant needsto show in predicting net depletions:the divened amount, the consumedamount and the amount retumed. Ag"in the pqpose of the original languageis maintainedbut the languageis simplified. 13.Page 2, LinesL6-20: This requirement is movedto Page1, Lines 48 and49. 14.Page 2, Lines2L-242 This sub.sectionhas been very difficult for the Depanmentto administeras it may lead an applicantto submit an applicationthat we can not processunder 85-2-3tl MCA criteria. (In other words,if the effectscross the boundariesdescribed in the.existingsub-section the applicantmay ignorethese effectsbased upon this provision. Iio*.rr.r, the Depanmentcould noi ignorethe impactsbeyond the boundaryidentifiedin the subsectionunder 85-2-3tl.MC"\ if it had the potentialto advenelyaffect a waterrilht holderowside of the boundary) Ratherthan dictatingan anificial surfacearea boundary in statute,the Department believesthat the "qualifiedprofessional" should be allowedto define the extentof the influence of ground warcr developmentfor the basis the hydrogeologic assessment. This eliminates potential con{lict between the Depanment, the applicant,and the objecton. 15.Page 2, Lines 25-56: Thesechanges eliminate the specificlist of requirementsfor aquiferproperties and aquiferboundaries. The Depanmentbelieves the "qualified professional"would havesufficient legislative guidance provided on Page1, Lines51 through Page2 Line L, to developa bdrogeologicassessment. These changes would simplify the statuteand eliminat€the potentialfor law suits over technical ovenifhts in an applicationurhile maintaining the purposeof the provisions. 16.Page 2, Lines57,58;Page 3 Lines1-8: Thesechanges clarifythe data requirements prior to submissionto the Bureauof Minesand Geologyfor inclusionin the ground water data base. The Department receives applicationswhere the initial hydrogeologicassessment is in effor. Throughthe deficiencylener process, as well as consulation with the applicant's "qualified professional"these errors are corrected.These changes clarifythat it is the correctedhldrogeologic assessment as deemedbyth. Depanmentthat is senrto the Bureau. Changesto 85-2-362: LT.Page3, Linesl5-21:These changes simplify statute by requiringmitigation of net depletionsnot mitigation of nec depletionsthat causeadverse affect. Ag"itt, thit statute only impacts closed basins and in closed basinsthe Legislamreor the Departmenthas determined that the surfacewater is fullyappropriated. 18.Page 3, Lines 23-58;Page4 Lines 1-4:These changes clanfy and simplifyuthatis requiredin a mitigationplan byeliminatingthe duplicaterequirements for mitigation plan; and aquifer.rgc^harge plans. .Yet th9 changeskeep the. unique water quality requirementsneeded for aquiferrecharge plans in a sep:uatesub-section. 19.Page 4, Lines5-8: These changes are intended to identifyproposalsand actions that can not be considereda "mitigation" pl"r. These mirror a C.oloradostatute excludingthe eliminationof vegetationto reduceconsumptive use and the pavingor covering of land with harrd surfaces aga:r;'eliminating consumptive use as componentsof a mitigationplan. 2O.Page4, Line 11 and Lines 13, 14: This changeagain eliminates the questionof adverseaffect and focuses mitigation on net depletion. Changesto8*2-634: 2L.Page4,Lines 23 - 26:Thesechanges coordinate the acceptanceof the waterright permit applicationwith requireddischarge permits issuedby th. Departmentof EnvironmenulQualicy. However, ratherthan requiring the applicantto haveabeady obtainedthe discharyepermit fiom DEQ before applyrrg to DNRC for a water right (a sequentialprocess that delap the submissionof the water right permit applicationand incrcasesthe overall time fnme for the developer)the changes provide for a coordinatedbut parallelprocess that shouldprotect water qualiryand reduceoverall time frames. It is important to norc that i" (2) Lnes 27-29 the Departmentcannot issue the permit uffil the DEQ dischargepermit is issued. Changesto8r2-639i 22.Page 4 Lines 47,4SzReiterates that onceaquifer rcsdng is completed*y useof the 'watershall cease. DRAFT - H8831AMENDMENTS 3/13/08 I 2 85-2-350. Ground water appropriation right in closed basins. (1) An application J for a ground water appropriation right in a basin closed pursuant to_85-2-330, 4 85-2-336, 85-2-34L, 85-2-343, or 85-2-344 ot administratively closed pursuant to 5 85-2-31-9 or 85-2-321 must be accompanied by a @ 6 hyglg"gggf_"_g!.--eeE_"F_".rc"qo-f_ 7 +*--a net dePletion 8 ef-to surface water_lgreuan!_to 85-2-36L; and must be accompanied by att_gq,lilet 9 recharge or mitigat.ion plan as provided in 85-2-362, if the assessmenL predicts l0 a net depletion to surface water.neeessary: l1 LZt- --uses-non-consumpLiwe Lo the-e9grq"-grg t2 exempt, from the requirements in (l_) above. l3 t4 l5 +e t6 €.H.+- t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 *n--SF-*-*}63? 23 -F )_{b-F-rf the applicant has used the water f or the purpose of conducting 24 t.est:!ng, the applicant shafl terminate the use of