The New Water Use Requirements January, 2007 Lyndon Kelley- MSU Extension Water Quality Agent.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Protecting Michigans Water Resources James Clift, Michigan Environmental Council October 23, 2008.
Advertisements

Annex 2001 Water Diversions, Withdrawals, and Uses Jon W. Allan Presented to the Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council 26, February 2004.
Department of the Environment Water Use and Appropriation of Maryland’s Waters.
THE DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE A CHALLENGE FOR THE RULE OF LAW By Professor D E Fisher.
WILLIAMSON ACT AND AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTS WILLIAMSON ACT AND AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTS Fresno County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2008.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services A Clean Water Agency Presented to the Environment Committee November 9, 2010 Information Item Master Water.
Governor’s State Water Law Review Committee Recommendations 1982: Implementation Update David G. Baize Bureau of Water.
0 James Kennedy, Ph.D., P.G. State Geologist Georgia Environmental Protection Division Georgia Comprehensive State-Wide Water Management Plan Assessment.
Recommendations for a Statewide Water Plan By: Ewan Hadgraft Alabama Rivers Alliance Birmingham-Southern College.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water Availability, Water Use, and the Great Lakes Compact Jim Nicholas, Director USGS Water Science.
California Reasonable Use Law: Lessons from the Russian River Frost Protection Litigation PAUL STANTON KIBEL Golden Gate University School of Law / Water.
GAS DRILLING & HYDRAULIC FRACTURING In the Tidewater Region Photo credit: R.W. Dawson.
Kansas Transition from Ground Water Development to Enhanced Ground Water Management Define the Resource Beneficial Use Protect and Control Thomas L. Huntzinger,
Revised Draft Annex Implementing Agreements July-August 2005 Office of the Great Lakes Department of Environmental Quality.
The Compact  Legally enforceable contract among the Great Lakes States  Provided for in the U.S. Constitution  Ratification by State legislatures 
Your Water – Your Future Protecting and Preserving Ground Water via the Highlands RMP Ground Water Summit 2008 The Ground Water Protection Committee Presented.
State of Michigan. Michigan Legislature
Will we be able to source Irrigation Water ? Irrigation is Not Possible Without Water !
Water Use Requirements January 2008 Lyndon Kelley MSU Extension/Purdue University Irrigation Management Educator.
©2002 Institute of Water Research, all rights reserved Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University Great Lakes Protection Fund Project Restoring.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 26 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
Restoring Great Lakes Basin Waters Through the Use of Conservation Credits and an Integrated Water Balance Analysis System Institute of Water Research,
2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Environmental Management Agency Environmental Health Department Report to LAFCo - October 20, 2014.
Presentation to the Workshop Climate Change and Great Lakes Water Levels March 30, 2001 Chicago, Illinois Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D. International.
Tifton Georgia Florida Gulf of Mexico Atlanta Athens Irrigation Association Anaheim Revisiting Farm Ponds for Irrigation Water Supply in the Southeast.
Sector Planning Process Alachua County Commission July 8 th,
Board of County Commissioners Meeting September 22, 2009 PROPOSED FERTILIZER ORDINANCE.
Equus Beds ASR Program – Wichita’s Future Water Supply September 6, 2012.
Community Development Department Neoga Lakes – Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Planned Development (MPD) Rezoning Application.
Water and Wastewater Certification 1 Water & Wastewater Reference Manual.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 15 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
NRCS Watershed Rehabilitation
Permits to Take Water: What you need to know.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 19 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 10 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
CENTRAL FLORIDA COORDINATION AREA Central Florida Water Initiative Central Florida Water Initiative Regional Water Supply Plan Bill Graf Intergovernmental.
Columbia River Water Management Program (CRWMP) Review of Year One Upper Crab Creek Planning Unit Meeting April 17, 2007.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
Georgia’s Water Plan June 17, /09/08 Page 2 Agenda Plan Development Plan Overview.
IRRIGATION LAWS IN MISSOURI Jim Vandike Missouri Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division.
Senate Enrolled Act No. 369 Update Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan.
HEA 1738 IC as amended Water Resource Allocation and Distribution in Indiana IDNR Division of Water.
What You Need to Know about Groundwater Conservation Districts In Texas Tyler December 3,2002 Guy Fipps Professor and Extension Irrigation Engineer Dept.
Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council Final Report Recommendations and Observations February 21, 2006.
Overview of the Current Threats and Water Protection Efforts in the Region Presented by Dr. Jon F. Bartholic, Director October 26-27, 2009 Pilot House,
Local Powers for Land Use Regulation. Local Land Use Powers Land use regulation is considered a residual power –In most circumstances, that is… –Power.
10/03/021 Stormwater Video-conference Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Videoconference October 3, 2002.
Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams Monitoring and Reporting Provisions for Water Rights Victoria Whitney Deputy.
Regional Water Availability Rulemaking Chip Merriam Water Resources Advisory Commission February 8, 2007 Chip Merriam Water Resources Advisory Commission.
1 Water Resources Management - DEQ’s Role in Water Supply - State Water Commission October 1, 2002.
Metropolitan Council Environment Committee Master Water Supply Plan February 10, 2009 Christopher Elvrum Manager, Water Supply Planning Keith Buttleman.
Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Planning. 2 Presentation Overview SCWA/USGS Groundwater Study Stakeholder Assessment Groundwater Management Work.
St. Johns River Water Management District Central Florida Water Initiative Water Supply Plan Mike Register, P.E., Director Division of Water Supply Planning.
High Altitude View of ACF Regional Water Plans.
Metropolitan Council Water Supply Planning in the Northwest Metro Water Availability Technical Focus Group : June 9, 2008 Lanya Ross Senior Environmental.
Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Amendment. Overview Background Statutory Requirements Meeting the Requirements Identified Issues Timetable.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
Growing Smarter Pennsylvania’s Land Use Agenda. Percent of Land Developed in Pennsylvania Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department.
The Crash Course for Municipal Planning Commission Members in Cumberland County 1.
permitting.
OPEN SPACE/ CONSERVATION
Nunavut Water Board Public Hearing
Large scale development groundwater balance
Board of Supervisors May 9, 2017
Drought in Texas Texas Division of Emergency Management
Groundwater Management Area 12: Consideration of the Impact on
Hudson Wetlands Protection Bylaw
Nova Scotia’s Statements of Provincial Interest
The New Water Use Requirements
Overview of Present Tasks
Presentation transcript:

The New Water Use Requirements January, 2007 Lyndon Kelley- MSU Extension Water Quality Agent

Why is water use an issue? Historic water use issues – Great Lakes Diversion – addressed by Annex 2001 –We need to be stewards of our own resources. Michigan was the only state in the Great Lakes region without a water use permitting system. Recent court cases –Nestle case Water use conflicts

Annex 2001 States and provinces will manage their own in-basin withdrawals Basin-wide, resource-based standard –flexible application Each jurisdiction will commit to establishing a program, including thresholds, to manage or regulate new or increased withdrawals consistent with the standard.

New packet of Water Use Regulation for Michigan P.A Water Use Reporting P.A. 177 – Water use conflict resolution P.A of February 2006 Large Quantity withdraw requirements and meeting Great Lakes Annex expectations.

PA 177 Act 177 allows owner of a “small quantity well” to file a complaint with MDEQ (or MDA) if well: Fails to furnish normal water supply Fails to provide potable water Complainant must have a credible reason to believe that the problem is caused by a HIGH CAPACITY WELL

Groundwater Mapping on the Web: Look right, click on groundwater inventory Geology Location and Yield of Aquifers Glacial Yield –This provides an overview of the potential yield for aquifers in various areas of the state. Much of the most heavily irrigated areas are located in zones that can provide adequate resources.

Water use Reporting New Requirements -PA –Require permits for new uses over 2 million gallons per day. –Sets a performance standard for Large scale water users. ( > 70 gallon / minute ) –Where Agriculture fits: > 100,000 gal. a day< 2 million gal. per day. Need to register and report, no permit required

Permit Threshold - 2 mg/d 30 day average, Common distribution system 100,000 gal./day = 70 gal./min. capacity 1 million gal./day = 700 gal./min. capacity 2 million gal./day = 1400 gal./min. capacity 1400 gal./min. capacity at 50% use = 700 gal./min. capacity

Water Use Reporting- PA 148 All water withdrawals with over 100,000 gallon/ day capacity (70 gallons / minute) One or more well combined capacity on same or adjacent property of same owner/operator. Much the same format as 2004 and 2005 report. Addition of GPS location of Groundwater withdrawal. (latitude / longitude) within 25’ One time option to establish a baseline capacity

Agriculture water use reporting to MDA only The rarely used option of reporting to MDEQ was removed in P.A. 33 leaving Michigan Department of Agriculture as the only reporting option for agricultural producers. There is No Charge for Agriculture water use reporting, a $200 annual saving over other sectors.

Static water level Reporting of static water level is no longer required Static water level reporting was moved from a requirement to report to a statement of when available. Static water level records are still a very effective method of monitoring well performance.

Water Use Reporting- location of Groundwater withdrawal. (latitude / longitude) GPS location of Groundwater withdrawal. within 25’ (latitude / longitude to 6 significant figures) Example. latitude , longitude GPS location of withdrawal will allow mapping and analysis of effect on groundwater and stream flow Most hand held GPS unit can provide this information latitude and longitude maybe found for any location identified on aerial map from: gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu Well logs contain latitude and longitude information

Water Use Reporting- location of Groundwater withdrawal. (latitude / longitude) gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu latitude , longitude

Water Use Reporting- location of Groundwater withdrawal. (latitude / longitude) gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu

Water Use Reporting Water Use reporting forms differ from previous years. Avoid old forms.. Forms maybe acquired from the internet at: _1599_ ,00.html _1599_ ,00.html Forms and useful information on the method of estimating water use are available at: Many MSU Extension offices and USDA service center will have form a

Baseline Capacity – 2006 one time opportunity “Baseline Capacity” - Rated capacity of the system as of February 28, 2006, reported as pump capacity in gal/min. Water withdrawal prior to February 2006 are granted a reputable presumption of no "adverse resource impact.”

Baseline Capacity – do not miss this one !!! Increasing a water withdrawal by more than 70 gal./ min. beyond the baseline, constitutes a new water withdrawal, loosing the reputable presumption of no "adverse resource impact” If no “Baseline Capacity” volume is record in 2006, your records will be used to determine a baseline. Most farmers rated pump capacity is far greater than their water use in 2004 or 2005.

Trout streams

PA 33 Prohibit a person from making a large quantity withdrawal that caused an adverse resource impact to a designated trout stream; Prescribe a maximum civil fine of $5,000 per day for a knowing violation this Section - Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) has always had a standard of no adverse resource impact to a water body but the use of this as a standard for water withdraw is new.

PA Trout Stream protection (through Feb. 2008) –Require either Permit for new wells located within 1320 ft of designated trout stream Or Placement of wells 150ft deep (top of screen) And / Or Proof that flow will not be drawn below 50% of the 5 year seasonal low flow

25 Two-year “Trout Stream Rule”  SEC  UNTIL A WATER WITHDRAWAL ASSESSMENT TOOL BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 32803, THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT A NEW OR INCREASED LARGE QUANTITY WITHDRAWAL WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE RESOURCE IMPACT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION UNDER EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: (A) THE LOCATION OF THE WITHDRAWAL IS MORE THAN 1,320 FEET FROM THE BANKS OF A DESIGNATED TROUT STREAM. (B) THE WITHDRAWAL DEPTH OF THE WELL IS AT LEAST 150 ft. (2) A PRESUMPTION UNDER SUBSECTION (1) MAY BE REBUTTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT A NEW OR INCREASED LARGE QUANTITY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WATERS OF THE STATE HAS CAUSED OR IS LIKELY TO CAUSE AN ADVERSE RESOURCE IMPACT.

PA Trout Stream protection eriesOrders_136765_7.htm#FO210http:// eriesOrders_136765_7.htm#FO210 Mill Creek upstream from impoundment (T7S, R12W, S32) to Preston Road (T7S, R12W, S7) St. Joseph Curtis Creek (T7S, R12W, S7)St. Joseph Sherman Mills Creek (T7S, R10W, S28)St. Joseph Spring Creek (T6S, R10W, S19) mainstream to M ‑ 66 St. Joseph Unnamed Tributary to Spring Creek (T6S, R10W, S16) St. Joseph Unnamed Tributary (T6S, R10W, S26) St. Joseph Prairie River (T7S, R9W, S8) MacKale Road upstream to County Line (Mainstream only) St. Joseph Flowerfield Creek Mainstream only (T5S, R12W, S13) St. Joseph, Kalamazoo Sheldon Creek (T5S, R13W, S24) Cass Creamery Creek (T5S, R13W, S23) Cass Little Swan Creek (T6S, R9W, S22)St. Joseph

27 Groundwater Dependent Resources from MNFI gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu

28 Groundwater Dependent Resources from MNFI gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu

PA 33 Beginning two years after the bill took effect, prohibit a person from making a large quantity withdrawal that caused any adverse resource impact. Prescribe a maximum civil fine of $5,000 per day for a knowing violation this Section

What is an adverse resource impact. A Holistic system of defining adverse resource impact that is being discussed is fish species habitats Each water body has a designated fish species User can not lower the flow lower than predicted minimum flow for habitat for fish resource stream is designated for.

What do you need to do a new large capacity withdraw ? Few Agricultural user will need a permit. ( 2 million gal/ day, common distribution system, 90 day average) Through March of 2008 you need to aware of the trout stream provision if near one. All large capacity user need to meet the no adverse resource impact clause for well constructed after February 2006.

What is withdrawal that caused an adverse resource impact. Base flow – low flow period for a stream creek or river all water coming from the ground water recharge rather than surface flow early August most years for most streams

PA33 Existing uses gain standing Establish a rebuttable presumption that a new or increased large quantity withdrawal meeting specified criteria would not cause an adverse resource impact, until the enactment of a water withdrawal assessment tool.

PA 33 Allow a person who intended to make a new or increased large quantity withdrawal for which a permit was not required to petition the DEQ for a determination that the withdrawal would not cause an adverse resource impact; and prescribe a $5,000 petition fee.

PA 33 Prohibit a local unit of government from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that regulated an adverse resource impact caused by a large quantity withdrawal.

PA 34 Transfer the Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council from the DEQ to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Require the appointment of additional members to the Council to assist it in carrying out the additional duties. Adds a technical advisory committee of individuals with specific technical and legal expertise relevant to the Council’s responsibilities.

PA 34 Require the Council and DEQ, the DNR, the MDA, and the technical advisory committee to design a water withdrawal assessment tool to be used by a person proposing a new or increased large quantity withdrawal, to assist in determining whether the withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact.

PA 37 Encourage large-quantity users in a watershed to form a water users committee through which the DEQ could facilitate the resolution of a situation in which a withdrawal caused an adverse resource impact.

PA House added amendments increasing non-agricultural fee to $200 excludes high capacity well with small annual use from reporting requirements ( less than 1.5 million gallon / year ) - high capacity well will register with explanation of capacity to pump > 70 gal./ min but withdraw < 1.5 million gallon in a 90 day period.

Do you have a 70 gallon/minute withdraw that you do not have to report use annually ( less than 1.5 million gallon / year ) Excludes withdraw used for fire suppression. Less than 1.5 million gallon / year withdraw 1.5 million gallon = 238 cows using 70 gallons / day over 90 days 333 beef steer consuming 50 gallons / animal / day over 90 days Withdraw of 70 gallons / minute for 15 contuse days of 90 day

Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council – Act 148 Study sustainability of Michigan’s groundwater use –Should state provide additional oversight of groundwater withdrawals? Monitor Annex 2001 Study implementation of Act 177 –Groundwater dispute resolution

Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council Conservation means that to meet the needs of existing and future users and to ensure that habitats and ecosystems are protected, the use of the State’s water must be done in a sustainable and renewable manner. Sound water-resource management emphasizes careful and informed use of water, which is essential to meet these objectives.

Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council Sustainable use of Michigan’s groundwater resources means: –meeting the needs of the present while not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. –recognizing that sustainable use encompasses environmental, economic, and social systems and their contribution to meeting human needs.