arizona water well association meeting saturday, oct. 12...

Arizona Water Well Association Meeting Saturday, Oct. 12

9am - 11:30am

The meeting will be held at:

Clear Creek Associates 6155 E. Indian School Road

Scottsdale, AZ 85251*

Speakers: Marvin F. Glotfelty, R.G. & Jersy D. DePonty R.G AzWWA Technical Directors

Topic: ‘Plumbness & Alignment Study’

*Note: There are two buildings on the property. Clear Creek Associates is the glass-faced building right on Indian School Road. Watch for a small block wall out by the street, with a sign that says “Arcadia Green”. You can park anywhere (disregard the re-served parking signs.) The meeting will be downstairs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REGISTRATION

Name:_______________________________________________________________________________

Company Name:_______________________________________________________________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________________

City:________________________________State:_______________ Zip:_________________________

Phone:________________________Fax:___________________ Email:___________________________

__________ # attending

Fax registration to 480-609-3939 or mail to:950 E. Baseline Rd. #104-1025, Tempe, AZ 85283

2

ARIZONA WATER WELL

ASSOCIATION

Officers

Larry Coffelt, President

Quest Enterprises, Inc.

928-333-4478

Nate Little, President Elect

Arizona Beeman Drilling

480-983-2542

David Williams, Secretary/Treasurer

David E. Williams Water Well

Services 520-682-8853

Gary Hix, Past President

In2Wells, LLC

520-631-7113

District Directors

Dan Shuck, 928-726-5153

District 1( Yuma, Mohave)

Bill Myers, 928-774-8243

District 2 (Coconino, Yavapai. Gila)

Larry Coffelt, 928-333-4478

District 3 ( Navajo, Apache)

Vacant

District 4 (Graham, Greenlee,

Cochise)

Dave Williams, 520-682-8853

District 5 (Pinal, Pima, Santa Cruz)

Ralph Anderson, 480-983-2542

District 6 (Maricopa)

M&S

Jim Sebbens ................ 602-272-7867

Tom Poley .................. 520-834-0400

Technical Co-Directors

Marvin Glotfelty, P.G .480-659-7131

Jersy DePonty ... ……..602-236-2615

Legislative Chair

Bob Way ..................... 928-684-3301

Membership Chair

Tim Collins ................. 602-275-5415

Newsletter Chair

Jan Oster…………636-541-0201

[email protected]

Executive Administrator

Debbie Hanson ......... 480-609-3999

950 E. Baseline Rd. #104-1025

Tempe, AZ 85283

Fax: 480-609-3939

Email: [email protected]

Contact Debbie Hanson if you want to submit content and/or photos for the Newsletter.

Message from the Legislative Committee Chair

DIRECTORY OF ADVERTISERS

2M Company ........................................................................................................................................... 12, 27

Atlas Copco............................................................................................................ 20

Baroid IDP ............................................................................................................. 23

Bill Johnson Equipment Co. .................................................................................. 23

Clear Creek Associates .......................................................................................... 20

Dan McGee Well Drilling & Pump Services ......................................................... 20

Flomatic ................................................................................................................. 30

Gicon Pumps & Equipment ................................................................................... 21

Grand Canyon Pump and Supply ........................................................................... 18

In2Wells, LLC ....................................................................................................... 26

Jentech Drilling Supply, Inc. ................................................................................. 15

Karam Brothers ...................................................................................................... 28

Kelly Pipe .............................................................................................................. 15

Mill Man Steel, Inc. ............................................................................................... 25

Mitchell Lewis & Staver ........................................................................................ 29

National Pump Co. ................................................................................................. 24

Roscoe Moss .......................................................................................................... 22

Schramm Inc. ......................................................................................................... 25

Way’s Drilling ....................................................................................................... 25

Arizona’s Controversial HB2338

By Bob Way

Here are some of my comments on HB2338:

Water rights - Do water rights still stand? Who has the power to change them? Is that

person or persons elected or appointed? If so, by whom? If they take a person's water,

who sets the payment for it, and how do they get paid? And what guarantee do they

have that they will be paid for it?

It is my belief that HB2338 is a pipeline bill to move water around to cities for money.

I am not sure this is a good thought. Perhaps we should look at what happened

in Owens Valley. Los Angeles reaped the harvest while Owens Valley reaped dust.

I am not in support of this bill in any way, shape, or form as House speaker Andy Tobin

and Herb Guenther are. However, I do recognize Arizona has a problem. I think Town

Hall meetings should occur in each town to address the problem so that the people,

the ranchers, the miners, and the farmers get to express their voice regarding this

issue.

It is unjust for natural resources to be taken away from landholders without their

permission, without their knowledge, and without fair compensation.

If you look up HB2338 on the internet and review the Yuma section, it is evident that

the people are already voicing their disapproval with regard to this bill. Here is the link

to an article discussing HB2338: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/

theyre-coming-for-your-water-alert-2668420.html.

Although we are a small group of well drillers, we have a vast knowledge of water and

its impact on the community and state. Talk to your customers and spread the word.

Your Legislative Chair,

Bob Way

Way's Drilling, Inc.

Phone: 928-684-3301

3

My Humanitarian Trip to Nicaragua By Ginger Johnson, Bill Johnson Equipment Company

As some of you know, I had an incredible trip to Nicaragua with HERO (Humanitarian Efforts Reaching Out) in

February, 2013. This was my first experience serving this area of great need and the trip was sponsored by the

local Sedona (AZ) Lion’s Club and Zeiss Laboratories. We saw almost 1000 medical patients and nearly 250

dental patients. The veterinarians treated countless numbers of animals performing field surgery and

vaccinations. We also provided more than 120,000 prenatal and children’s vitamins. We measured people for eye

glasses using our “eye machine”, giving them correct lenses. Our work also included the construction of a kitchen

for one of the local grade schools.

We built a solar cooker project and trained the Nicaraguan women on the construction and use of solar cookers

so they could build more for others in the area. We supplied the tools and equipment as well as some of the labor.

These women are now armed to return to their villages and do the same –

passing it on! We traveled daily to a different area of need to help several

communities in and around Chinandega. This area was devastated by

hurricane Mitch in 1998 and today, 15 years later, they are still feeling the

effects of this disaster. People are living in extreme poverty, suffering from

malnutrition and disease. There are over 1200 people still living at the local

dump. Many of the children living there were born and raised at the dump

and know no other life! We also ventured inland to serve an area at the base

of an active volcano that had never seen any type of assistance. One day

included travel by boat across the estuary bringing much needed help to the

people in that area. We held clinics on the beach surrounded by mangroves,

local livestock and great people. HERO brought all of this support, helping

improve their lives and build more sustainable communities.

I want to thank those of you who donated to HERO and I am looking forward to

our return trip in March 2014. As volunteers, we pay our own travel expenses

but rely on donations such as yours, your employees, friends and neighbors for

medical supplies, food, clothing, vaccinations, vitamins, solar cookers, dental

care, construction projects and much more. I have personally seen the benefits

of making a difference in these areas and every contribution was and continues

to be greatly appreciated, even as small as $5.00! Donations to HERO are tax

deductible and can be made directly to HERO by using the Donate Button on

HERO’s website www.heroefforts.org or mailed to HERO at 70 East Wing Drive,

Sedona, Arizona, 86336. If you’d like to support them in other ways, please

contact me or call them directly at 928-300-0704.

What a great experience – with many stories to tell! But most of all, these

people in Nicaragua are truly beautiful people who greatly appreciated our help

and I am very much looking forward to our return trip in March!

While I was there, the water

system at the Community Health

Center collapsed which again,

emphasized how important our

contributions were.

4

(Continued on page 5)

Plumbness and Alignment Standards – Analysis and Recommendations for Operational Applicability

By: Jersy D. DePonty R.G.1, Shane P. DePinto2, Grant S. Kornrumph3, and Marvin F. Glotfelty, R.G.4

Introduction The Salt River Project (SRP) conducted an evaluation of water supply wells installed in the Phoenix, Arizona area between 2005 and 2013 to assess the post-construction deviation of the completed wells. An increased frequency of plumbness and alignment problems were noted by SRP and other entities during recent years, which prompted this investigation of possible causes. Marvin Glotfelty (Hydrogeologist for Clear Creek Associates) and Jersy DePonty (Geohydrologist for SRP Groundwater Resources and Geohydrology Department) serve as Technical Directors of the Arizona Water Well Association, and this issue was also raised at a meeting of that organization, so a study was initiated to seek resolution of the issue. A primary objective of this assessment is to augment current well drilling technical specifications utilized by well designers (such as SRP and Clear Creek Associates) with a revision of the plumbness and alignment requirements that is achievable, measurable and provides for consideration of practical operating conditions. The plumbness and alignment assessment involved communication with pump companies and pump suppliers with a long history of knowledge and expertise on the impact of a crooked well on the ultimate performance and longevity of pump equipment. The plumbness and alignment data used in this study are derived from recent SRP wells installed between 2005 and 2013. SRP was established in 1903 as the nation's first multipurpose reclamation project authorized under the National Reclamation Act. Today, SRP is the nation's third-largest public power utility and one of Arizona's largest water suppliers delivering nearly 1 million acre-feet of water annually through an extensive water delivery system including reservoirs, water wells, canals and irrigation laterals. SRP owns and operates 263 large diameter (18-inch to 24-inch) water wells in the Phoenix metropolitan area. SRP’s service area is comprised of approximately 250,000 acres (about 390 square miles). Due to the advanced age of many of these wells, SRP replaces several wells each year, as needed. The technical specifications for well installation are prepared by SRP geohydrologists, but the actual well drilling and construction work is conducted by well drilling contractors. Plumbness and Alignment Well Standards This study considered two common water well standards to evaluate plumbness and alignment criteria; the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard for Water Wells (A100-06) and the standard detailed in the Handbook of Ground Water Development (Roscoe Moss Company, 1990). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plumbness standard of 1 degree of deviation per 50 feet is also common, but was not included in this study since it is much less stringent than the AWWA or Roscoe Moss standards, and was not applicable to the wells being evaluated. The AWWA standard is common in the water well industry and is widely used by municipalities, private utilities, industry and consultants. The Roscoe Moss standard provides the primary basis for the plumbness and alignment requirements used in the current SRP well drilling specification. Both of these standards are appropriate for large-diameter water production wells, and are applicable to the use of line-shaft vertical turbine pumps. The typical SRP well is 20 inches in diameter, although 24-inch diameter wells are also installed in highly productive areas. Plumbness and alignment standards are separated into two distinct sections; one for plumbness and the other for alignment. 1.Senior Geohydrologist, Salt River Project 2. Northern Arizona University, 2013 SRP Intern 3. University of Arizona, 2013 SRP Intern 4 . Principal Hydrogeologist, Clear Creek Associates

5

Figure 1. Plumbness and Alignment Concepts

“Plumbness” is defined as the quality of being plumb and vertical, with an orientation toward the gravitational center of the earth. The plumbness of a well is determined by the horizontal deviation (drift) from the center point at the top of the well, to the center point at the bottom of the well. A well is considered plumb if the center does not deviate from an imaginary vertical line (plumb line) running from the land surface to the center of the earth (Groundwater and Wells, 2007). Plumbness concepts are illustrated on Figure 1. The plumbness tolerance in previous versions of the AWWA standard (e.g. A100-97) allowed a maximum horizontal drift of ⅔ the inside diameter of the well casing per 100 feet of well depth, and the current version (A100-06) of that standard was restated to a maximum allowable horizontal drift of 0.0067 times the inside well diameter per foot of depth. It should be understood that the maximum allowable drift is the same in both the previous and current versions of the AWWA standard, and that the maximum drift limit standard is not intended to be applicable on an individual foot-by-foot basis. The current AWWA standard is equivalent to approximately ½ degree of drift from a vertical plumb line for most production well casing diameters. For a 20-inch diameter well, this amounts to about 13.4 inches of drift allowance per 100 feet of well depth. In comparison, the Roscoe Moss standard has a maximum plumbness allowance of 6 inches per 100 feet of well depth, regardless of the inside diameter of the well casing. For a 20-inch diameter well, this corresponds to approximately ¼ degree of drift allowance from a vertical plumb line, only about half of the maximum allowable drift of the AWWA standard for that casing diameter. The current SRP well drilling specification incorporates the Roscoe Moss plumbness standard of 6 inches of drift per 100 feet of well depth. “Alignment” is defined as the state of being arranged in a straight line, or in correct relative position. Alignment of a water well refers to the path a well’s casing and screen takes from the top of the well to the bottom of the well. The primary goal for alignment is to have a straight well in which each casing section is connected to adjacent casing sections to maintain perfect axial alignment (Groundwater and Wells, 2007). Generally speaking, a well may be aligned (straight) and plumb, straight but not plumb (consistent drift), or neither straight nor plumb (non-vertical with inconsistent drift and doglegs) as illustrated on Figure 1. The alignment tolerance in the AWWA standard requires the free passage of a 40-foot long section of pipe (called a “dummy”) with a width no more than ½-inch less than the inside diameter of the well. This “dummy test” requires the dummy to be freely passed throughout the portion of the well where the pump may be set, with no binding or obstructions. This test is intended to determine the maximum degree of misalignment, or doglegs, allowable in the well to accommodate the installation and operation of a line-shaft pump. The Roscoe Moss alignment standard calls for the proper axial alignment (straight line installation with no bends) of a line-shaft pump installed from the center of the well at the land surface to the center of the well at a specified depth. This is referred to as a connecting line (Figure 1). For a 20-inch diameter well, this involves the straight installation of a 14-inch diameter pump. It should be noted that the AWWA standard has an alternate alignment tolerance in lieu of the “dummy test” that also involves an axial alignment evaluation. The alternate AWWA standard uses a pump centerline which isn’t centered at the top or bottom of a well but instead minimizes the distance between the centerline of the line-shaft pump and the well


(Continued from page 4)

6

centerline (similar to a “best fit” regression line on a graph, as shown on Figure 1). For a 20-inch diameter well this involves the straight and unobstructed installation of a pump with a maximum diameter of 16 inches. The AWWA alternate alignment tolerance is slightly stricter regarding the maximum pump diameter necessary for axial alignment. However, the pump centerline method is more lenient than the connecting line method so the net requirements of the two standards are similar, depending on the magnitude and location of doglegs in the well. The current SRP well drilling specification incorporates the dummy test from the AWWA standard and the axial alignment requirement from the Roscoe Moss standard. The relationship between the well centerline (usually measured with a gyroscopic survey), the connecting line, and the pump centerline is illustrated on Figure 1. Table 1 compares the two plumbness and alignment standards and the current SRP well specification for a 20-inch diameter well. Table 1. Plumbness and Alignment Well Standard Comparison for a 20-inch Diameter Well

Well Plumbness Plumbness (also termed “drift”) was the initial focus of this research due to a recent trend of greater drift in recently-installed wells. The increased drift trend is displayed on Figure 2, which provides a comparison between the AWWA standard, the SRP specification, and the measured drift (based on gyroscopic surveys) in nine SRP wells drilled between 2005 and 2013. The wells are labeled “1” through “9” in the chronological order in which they were drilled. As shown on Figure 2, the drift for wells 1 through 5, which were drilled between 2005 and 2010, is approximately 1 foot or less. However, wells 6 through 9, which were installed between 2011 and 2013, have significantly greater drift in the range of 2 feet to about 5 feet. The drift in well 9 was just within the SRP specification and well 8 exceeded the SRP specification by 1.3 feet. To assess the drift exceedance in well 8, three separate gyroscopic surveys were conducted by two separate companies. The gyroscopic survey results were 4.9 feet, 5.5 feet, and 7.7 feet at total well depth. This demonstrates significant variability between the drift results, and the survey variability of 2.8 feet was almost equal to the allowable drift limit of 3.6 feet from the SRP specification. The degree of variability between drift measurements was unexpected and warrants further study. The variability in surveyed drifts may result from technology differences between logging tools of various ages, and may also be due to inherent limitations of gyroscopic survey technology. The accelerometer/inclinometer instrument in these logging tools that measures plumbness of the well is very accurate, with a precision typically within about 0.1°. However, the gyroscopic instrument in these logging tools that measures the azimuthal direction and magnitude is much less accurate in the near-vertical conditions (steeper than about 5°) that occur in water wells.

Well Standard Plumbness Tolerance Alignment Tolerance

AWWA 13.4 inches per 100 feet Dummy test or proper axial align-ment of a 16-inch (maximum) diam-eter pump using pump centerline method

Roscoe Moss 6.0 inches per 100 feet Proper axial alignment of a 14-inch diameter pump using connecting line method

SRP Well Specification 6.0 inches per 100 feet Dummy test or proper axial align-ment of a 14-inch diameter pump using connecting line method



7


Penetration Rate

The drilling rates for the nine SRP wells were analyzed to investigate possible relationships between penetration rate and in-

creased drift. Each of the wells was drilled using the flooded reverse rotary drilling method in an alluvial basin fill aquifer.

There are numerous factors that can cause drift, such as character of the geologic material being drilled, too little or too

much weight on the drill bit, trueness of casing or drill pipe, inadequate collar weight near the base of the drill string, or exces-

sive pull-down force on top of the drill pipe. To assess whether the penetration rate is correlative to well plumbness, the wells

were categorized by similar geology to provide a more representative comparison of drilling rates. The wells were installed by

three different drillers (X, Y, and Z), as shown in Table 2. The average penetration rates for each well were measured using a

Geolograph (penetration rate device) from the base of the surface casing (approximately 40 feet) to total well depth. Average

penetration rates were considered in the depth intervals from 40 to 400 feet, and also from 400 feet to the total depth

(about 1,000 feet), in order to account for variability in geologic conditions. No apparent correlation between drilling rate and

magnitude of well drift was identified for these wells. For example, driller X installed wells 4 and 7 and driller Y installed wells

3 and 9 with similar penetration rates, although the drift of the wells are substantially different despite their similar geology.

Also, wells 1, 6, and 8 were completed by three separate drillers in similar geology, yet showed decreased drilling rates with

increased drift which is contrary to the conventional expectation that increased drilling rates result in increased drift.

Continued on page 8

Figure 2. Gyroscopic Drift Compared to AWWA Standard and SRP Specification

Similar Geology: 40 ft - TD (ft/hr) 40 ft – 400 ft (ft/hr) 400 ft - TD (ft/hr) Total Drift at TD (ft)

Well 4: Driller X 6.1 7.0 5.8 0.2

Well 7: Driller X 5.7 5.1 6.1 4.7

Similar Geology:

Well 3: Driller Y 10.3 8.5 11.0 0.9

Well 9: Driller Y 7.7 3.7 12.3 5.3

Similar Geology:

Well 1: Driller Y 21.7 18.0 24.2 0.5

Well 6: Driller Z 14.1 7.3 19.7 2.1

Well 8: Driller X No data No data 8.9 4.9

8

Well Alignment While drilling rates were not an obvious cause of increased drift in recently-installed wells, it became apparent that shallow doglegs and axial alignment issues were the primary practical operating concerns as the study advanced. Based on discussions with pump companies and suppliers, the impact of a well’s axial alignment on the operation and longev-ity of line-shaft vertical turbine pump equipment is much greater than the impact of a well’s plumbness (drift). For ex-

ample, one pump supplier indicated that a line-shaft vertical turbine pump could operate properly in an aligned well, even if it has a drift angle of up to 30°. Gyroscopic data from the nine SRP wells showed that relatively shallow

doglegs around 200 feet in depth were problematic for proper axial alignment of line-shaft pumps. Doglegs in the borehole will generally result in associated doglegs in the cased well, which will ultimately limit the available free clearance for the pump to be installed. For example, if a 14-inch outside diameter pump is installed into a 20-inch inside diame-ter well casing, there will be 3 inches of clearance on each side of the pump in a “perfectly” plumb and aligned scenario, as shown on Figure 3A. A vertical turbine pump can still operate properly in a non-plumb well, as long as there are no doglegs, provided the motor base at the land surface is shimmed (wedged at an angle) to align it with the down-hole pump equipment (Figure 3B). If the well has doglegs, however, the bearings in the line-shaft of the pump will experience wear and tear, which will reduce the pump life and efficiency (Figure 3C). SRP developed an internal use spreadsheet to evaluate axial alignment using inputs for pump setting depth, well diameter, and column pipe diameter. The spreadsheet uses closure distance and azimuth bearing data measured by the gyroscopic survey of a well to plot the well center-line (Figure 4) in the North/South view and the East/West view. The spreadsheet then calculates the distance from the well centerline to the pump centerline (AWWA standard) and from the well centerline to the connecting line (Roscoe Moss standard) for each depth interval of the gyroscopic survey. It compares the difference between these distances with the maximum allowable tolerance defined by the well diameter and column pipe diameter inputs. If the difference exceeds the tolerance, then the well is out of axial alignment and the column pipe will not be

straight and must bend through that portion of the well. The spreadsheet displays the depth intervals of the well that exceed the axial alignment tolerance with highlighted cells. The spreadsheet is dynamic, in that it adjusts its calculations to accommodate user-defined depths and diameters. This is critical because while several turns in the well centerline to total depth can cause axial misalignment, if those turns are below the pump setting depth then they are much less relevant to practical operating conditions. Figure 4 displays axial alignment plots from the discussed spreadsheet for Well 9 in the North/South view and the East/West view. The solid black line is the well centerline (gyroscopic survey), the dotted red line is the pump centerline (AWWA standard) and the dashed blue line is the connecting line (Roscoe Moss standard).

Figure 3.

Pump Response to Well Alignment

Continued on page 9

Continued from page 7

9


Figure 4. Well 9 Axial Alignment Plots

The two oriented perspectives of Well 9 show dramatically different plumbness and alignment scenarios. In the North/South view, the well is plumb in the first 100 feet and then deviates consistently to the south. It eventually reaches almost 5 feet of drift but due to the alignment consistency, the connecting line, pump centerline, and well centerline are close to each other and relatively straight. By contrast, in the East/West view, the well drifts two feet to the east in the upper 200 feet and then straightens out to an almost vertical orientation for the rest of the well with a relatively small final drift at total depth. This results in a dogleg at about 200 feet and a large spatial differ-ence between the well centerline and the two specification lines. Consequently, relatively high amounts of drift over a large distance can become negligible (e.g. 5 feet at total depth), whereas an appreciable amount of drift in the upper 200 feet can make a considerable impact to axial alignment even though the final well drift was relatively small (e.g. 2 feet at total depth). The impact of a shallow dogleg around 200 feet was also observed in well 1 and well 5. Each of these wells also has relatively low drift at total depth (approximately 1 foot or less) but the shallow doglegs in these wells resulted in increased axial alignment concerns in the lower portion of the wells. The axial alignment analysis of the nine wells drilled between 2005 and 2013 is summarized in Table 3. Total well depth ranged from 640 to 1,310 feet with an average of 988 feet. The pump setting depth 7 ranged from 260 to 580 feet with an average of 372 feet, considerably less than the total well depth. The maximum axial alignment depth determined from the spreadsheet ranged from 310 to 1,180 feet with an average of 681 feet. This is also considera-bly less than the average total well depth but significantly deeper than the actual pump setting depth. This evalua-tion resulted in a determination that all nine pump setting depths are within acceptable axial alignment. The analy-sis for well 9 indicated that it was extremely close to axial alignment constraints, so this well benefited from a shal-lower pump setting depth of 290 feet to accommodate the maximum axial alignment depth of 310 feet. Although well 8 exceeded the plumbness standard, it contained no shallow doglegs and was well within acceptable axial align-ment, which further emphasizes the importance of axial alignment versus drift.

Table 3. Axial Alignment Data Summary for the Nine Recent Wells


Minimum Maximum Average

Well Diameter (inches) 20 24 21.8

Column Pipe Diameter (inches)

8 14 12.4

Total Well Depth (feet) 640 1310 988

Actual Pump Setting Depth (feet)

260 580 372

Maximum Axial Alignment Depth (feet)

310 1180 681

10

Summary of Bounds v. New Mexico

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2013 Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. and Tiffany Dowell

Disclosure: Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. and Tiffany Dowell authored and filed a “friend of court” brief in the Supreme Court of New

Mexico in this case on behalf of seventeen clients, supporting the position of the State Engineer.

Introduction: On July 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of New Mexico released its much awaited decision in Bounds v. State of

New Mexico. Bounds, a farmer with senior water rights, challenged the legality of the domestic well statute (DWS). The DWS

requires the State Engineer to issue a permit for domestic water wells when an application is filed, without any further analysis

or consideration. In short, the court found that the DWS does not violate the prior appropriation doctrine or the due process

clause of the New Mexico Constitution. This summary briefly discusses the main points in the court’s decision.

As Applied v. Facial: Before delving into the case itself, one must understand the distinction between “as applied” and “facial”

legal challenges. Most cases involve “as applied” challenges. In these cases, the complaining party acknowledges that the law

is generally valid, but asserts that as applied to their particular situation, the law violates either the state or U.S. Constitution, or

another law that takes legal precedence. In deciding an “as applied” challenge, court look at the specific facts of the case

before it.

“Facial” challenges argue that the law itself “on its face”, without looking at a particular situation, violates the state or U.S.

Constitution or a superior law. Facial challenges are rare and very difficult to win, since these challenges are only upheld if

there are no circumstances under which the law could be constitutionally applied.

Here, Bounds brought a facial challenge. The court found, in a unanimous decision, that the statute was facially constitutional.

However, the court added an unusual twist. Instead of merely finding the statute facially constitutional, the court further

analyzed the case assuming application of the statute in a fully appropriated and fully adjudicated basin. This addition is

powerful. Going forward, it is likely that for anyone to successfully challenge the statute in an as applied situation, they will be

required to show actual impairment, regardless of the overall status of water allocation in the basis.

Prior Appropriation and the Bounds Case: This case involves interpretation of the prior appropriation doctrine. This doctrine is

used by most Western states to allocate water during times of scarcity. In essence, prior appropriation means “first in time, first

in right”. The first person that establishes a regular use of water for a beneficial purpose has first priority for that water. The

second person has second priority, and so forth. During times of scarcity, water is allocated to the most senior users, each in

their full amounts, until no more water is left. If water runs out before a junior user’s share is given, he or she receives no water.

Facts and Background: Bounds is a rancher and farmer in the Mimbres Basin in southwestern New Mexico. The basin is fully

appropriated and adjudicated. This means that all of the water in the basin has been allocated to users and the order of priority

has been established. Bounds and the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau filed this lawsuit, claiming that the DWS, which

requires the State Engineer to issue a permit for a domestic well for anyone requesting one, is unconstitutional. The lawsuit

claimed several constitutional violations, but the only claims considered in the Supreme Court of New Mexico are claims that

the DWS violates the prior appropriation doctrine and the due process clause of the New Mexico Constitution. In its most basic

form, Bounds’ argument was that if the Mimbres Basin was fully appropriated, all water in the basin is allocated to an existing

user. No excess water exists for new users. When the State Engineer grants domestic well permits, as he is required to do, the

domestic well users harm his rights as a senior water user by taking his water, even though the new users are less senior. In

essence, the Bounds argued that the domestic well users are “butting in line”.

Bounds could not show impairment (that the issuance of domestic well permits reduced the amount of water that he received

under his senior water right), so the case proceeded as a facial challenge. The District Court ruled in favor of Bounds. On

appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the DWS did not violate the prior appropriation doctrine or the

due process clause. Bounds and the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau appealed to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oral arguments were held in October of 2011.

Supreme Court of New Mexico Decision

Introduction : The Supreme Court considered two issues on appeal. First, the court addressed whether the DWS “creates an

impermissible exception” to the prior appropriation doctrine in New Mexico because the State Engineer must issue the permit

when requested, regardless of whether unappropriated water is available. The second issue involved the question of whether

the failure to provide notice to and opportunity to be heard PRIOR to issuance of a domestic well permit violates due process

rights.

Does the DWS Violate the Prior Appropriation Doctrine? As to the first issue, Bounds claimed that since the Mimbres Basin is

closed, no water exists to appropriate. Therefore, issuance of a domestic well permit must infringe upon existing senior water


11

rights in the basin in violation of prior appropriation. The prior appropriation doctrine is part of the New Mexico Constitution,

which provides that “priority of appropriation shall give the better right.” When a Constitutional challenge is mounted, the court

will uphold a statute “unless [the court is] satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Legislature went outside the bounds fixed

by the Constitution in enacting the challenged legislation” (Slip Opinion ¶ 11). The court relied heavily on Mathers v. Texaco, Inc.,

77 N.M. 239, 245-46, 421 P.2d 771, 776-77 (1966), a case cited only by the Water Systems Council brief, and the ruling in Mathers

that impairment cannot be assumed, but must be shown as a matter of fact in each particular case.

The Court found that language in Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution —“[p]riority of appropriation shall give

the better right”— describes how water should be allocated in times of shortage, not to how one acquires a water right or to a

particular permitting procedure” (Slip Opinion ¶¶ 26-27). On the other hand, domestic well permits are administered in exactly the

same manner as other water rights. All water rights in the state are conditioned on the availability of water, including rights under

the DWS (Slip Opinion ¶ 31). Thus, although domestic wells may be administered in a different procedural manner, the water from

these wells remains subject to the prior appropriation doctrine.

In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized another point that the Water System Council brief focused on-- that “exempt well”

is a misnomer. “Today, domestic well permits are more regulated and integrated into the administrative system than ever

before” (Slip Opinion ¶ 32). Domestic wells are not exempt from permitting or regulation, they are merely excused from certain

onerous requirements of the permitting process under New Mexico law.

The court also explained that a host of options are available to a senior water user who is able to show actual impairment, including

a priority call, requesting curtailment of domestic wells by the State Engineer, creation of domestic well management areas, or by

bringing “as applied” legal challenges. The court also pointed to legislative and administrative action that has already been taken to

protect senior water rights holders from domestic wells, including regulations restricting the amount of water allowed to be taken

from a domestic well to 1 acre foot/year and new legislation preventing issues surrounding subdivision developers utilizing

domestic wells. These limitations are discussed more fully below.

In summary, the court found that “[t]he Legislature codified this simpler permitting process as a policy choice, something that the

New Mexico Constitution generally empowers our Legislature to do” See N.M. Constitution art. XVI, § 2 (“[U]nappropriated

water . . . [is] subject to appropriation for beneficial use, in accordance with the laws of the state.” (emphasis added)) (Slip

Opinion¶ 40). Therefore, the DWS statute does not violate the prior appropriation doctrine.

Does the DWS Violate Due Process? The court quickly dismissed the notion that the DWS violates due process rights. Due

process rights only exist where a person has been deprived of property. Bounds was unable to show that the DWS impaired his

water rights. Therefore, no due process right existed here (Slip Opinion ¶ 52).

Caveats to the Court’s Decisionn: As mentioned above, the court emphasized the plethora of laws and regulations that give the

State Engineer authority to limit domestic wells. By regulation, the State Engineer has already reduced the default maximum

allowable diversion from three acre-feet to one acre-foot per year and per well per household. See 19.27.5.9(D)(1) NMAC (Slip

Opinion ¶ 33). Regulations also provide for the creation of “Domestic Well Management Areas,” (Slip Opinion ¶ 34). Domestic

wells are “subject to curtailment by priority administration as implemented by the state engineer or a court.” 19.27.5.13(B)(11)

NMAC (Slip Opinion ¶ 35).

“The drilling of the well and amount and uses of water permitted are subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the courts or

by lawful municipal and county ordinances which are more restrictive than the conditions of this permit and applicable state

engineer regulations.” 19.27.5.13(B)(6) NMAC (Slip Opinion ¶ 38). Senior users also may make a priority call against junior users

if actual impairment or impending impairment is shown. In that situation, an as-applied challenge to the statute can also be made

(Slip Opinion ¶ 45)

In addition, the court recognized two recent legislative enactments. The first requires “either State Engineer approval of sufficient

water or proof of water rights acquired by means other than a domestic well permit, before a subdivision plat may be approved if

water rights have been severed from the land upon which the subdivision will sit” (NMSA 1978, Section 3-20-9.1; Slip Opinion ¶

42). This statute appears to address the “double-dipping” problem, where a landowner strips the property of water rights, then

develops the property using exempt wells.

Another legislative action, an amendment to NMSA 1978, Section 47-6-11.2,

“requires proof of service from a water provider and approval from the State Engineer, or a

right to use water other than by a domestic well, for any subdivision of ‘ten or more parcels,

any one of which is two acres or less,’ before the subdivision can be approved” (Slip Opinion ¶ 43). This provision prevents dense

developments that rely on exempt wells.

Continued on page 14


13

Recommendations The initial goal of the plumbness and alignment study was to develop a revised technical specification for plumbness and alignment that is achievable, measureable, and considers practical operating conditions. Based on the study re-sults, the following plumbness and alignment standards and considerations will be incorporated into future SRP well drilling specifications:

The current plumbness tolerance of 6 inches per 100 feet of well depth appears achievable. The plumbness toler-ance is especially important in the upper portion of the well to avoid shallow doglegs. Exceedances of the plumb-ness tolerance can be waived if the well meets the axial alignment tolerance described below.

The axial alignment spreadsheet developed by SRP will be used in place of a dummy test to determine acceptance of well alignment for line-shaft pumps. Depending on the specific length, shape and weight of the dummy tool, it is possible for a well to successfully pass a dummy test and still contain doglegs or S-curves that will bind a line-shaft pump. Therefore, a dummy test is not considered a dependable measurement method for determination of axial alignment and future reliability of a line-shaft pump. The dummy test may still be appropriate to assess axial align-ment for certain hydrogeologic environments, well diameters, and for wells that are to be equipped with a sub-mersible pump.

To accommodate practical operating conditions, the axial alignment tolerance incorporates the AWWA and the Roscoe Moss standards in coordination with current SRP operating procedures. The axial alignment will be deter-mined with the pump centerline method where the pump is centered at the top of the well. This method mimics SRP installation procedures where the pump can wander at depth yet needs to be centered at the surface to con-nect to the existing distribution piping. The well must maintain axial alignment to the proposed pump setting depth using the proposed column pipe diameter. The proposed pump setting depth and column pump diameter will be determined from aquifer test analysis of the completed well with consideration of the appropriate pump submerg-ence and local water level trends.

If the well fails the axial alignment tolerance, it is assumed that the misalignment in the well may result in prema-ture pump wear, so the drilling contractor will be required to compensate SRP appropriately.

Further Studies and Applications During the course of this investigation, several opportunities for further studies and useful applications emerged. First, the gyroscopic survey tool that SRP currently uses may be near the end of its useful life and will be evaluated for poten-tial replacement in the near future. It is very important to reliably measure the plumbness and alignment of water wells, so additional evaluations will be conducted to assess available logging tool technology and capabilities. This importance was highlighted by the unexpected variability of gyroscopic survey results for well 8 using separate logging tools. Second, the axial alignment spreadsheet developed during the study will be used to evaluate pump setting depths and pump diameters on existing SRP wells. Due to the legal considerations and public responsibility of SRP as a utility, the spreadsheet is proprietary and will be unavailable for non-SRP distribution. However, the conceptual descriptions pro-vided herein should be adequate for other entities to develop similar well evaluation models or analytical tools. In addi-tion to providing a baseline assessment of recently-installed wells, the SRP alignment spreadsheet will be utilized to evaluate existing wells. If an existing pump is determined to be “misaligned”, the spreadsheet will provide an indication of the appropriate setting depth to which the pump can be raised (or the appropriate column pipe diameter reduction) to achieve axial alignment. This will result in less frequent maintenance, reduced costs, and increased reliability for the well system. When pumps are identified as “misaligned”, but can’t be altered due to existing infrastructure conditions, they will be tracked to evaluate whether the magnitude of misalignment should be considered excessive. This data will be monitored over time and used to revise the SRP axial alignment spreadsheet and SRP’s well drilling specification in the future. Third, a small percentage of SRP well sites are equipped with submersible pumps because of large drift conditions in the well. The axial alignment spreadsheet allows these wells to be evaluated so the submersible pumps can be re-


Continued on page 19

14

Finally, the court addressed a portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion that had caused quite a stir in the water law community.

Namely, the statement that “[t]he Constitution’s priority doctrine establishes a broad priority principle, nothing more” (See

Bounds v. New Mexico, 2011-NMCA-011, ¶ 37). The Supreme Court opined that that statement “goes too far” and that the

priority doctrine is more than just an “aspiration, subject to legislative whim” (Slip Opinion ¶ 47).

Conclusions: The Supreme Court of New Mexico unanimously ruled that the DWS does not violate the prior appropriation

and does not violate due process rights. Further, the statute is constitutional even when applied in a fully appropriated, fully

adjudicated basin.

In our opinion, future litigation over the DWS in New Mexico is unlikely. Challengers face the difficult, if not impossible, task

of proving impairment by a single domestic well pumping a small amount of groundwater. The huge cost of litigation, along

with the long odds on prevailing, will shift the focus to the legislature and the State Engineer’s Office. The result may also dis-

courage litigation on exempt wells in other states.

In other states, like Washington and Montana, the battle has already shifted to the legislature and the regulators. In Bounds, the

court made a point of essentially transferring these matters to the Legislature and State Engineer in New Mexico. “We urge our

Legislature to be diligent in the exercise of its constitutional authority over—and responsibility for—the appropriation process.

We equally urge the State Engineer to fulfill its superintending responsibility by applying priority administration for the protec-

tion of senior water users. Our courts remain available, based upon sufficient evidence, to intervene in appropriate cases to

ensure that “priority of appropriation shall give the better right.” (Slip Opinion ¶ 46).

One should also consider the recent regulatory and legislative changes in New Mexico that vitiated many of the largest con-

cerns with respect to exempt domestic wells. The amount of water allowed to be used was reduced from 3 afy to 1 afy, the

problem of “double dipping” was addressed and the State Engineer was granted extensive authority to further regulate exempt

wells in many situations.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico recognized, as the writers here have said before, that “exempt well” is a misnomer. Most

states impose extensive regulation on exempt wells, but regulation that is less burdensome than the regulation imposed on other

water withdrawals. As in most states, the court also reaffirmed that domestic wells are not “exempt” from priority, but merely

administered in a different way.

The unusual decision of the court to consider some facts in addressing a facial challenge strengthened the result for the owners

of domestic wells. However, the court made clear that domestic wells remain subject to regulation and subject to priority. In

conclusion, a unanimous, powerful decision, tempered by caveats that the domestic wells in New Mexico are far from

“exempt”.

Welcome New Member

AMS, Inc., (AMS) has been in business for over 71 years as a leading manufacturer of high quality sampling equip-

ment that is being used in the environmental, geotechnical, agricultural, and remediation industries by consultants,

regulators, drillers, farmers, researchers, and academics throughout the world.

AMS manufactures the PowerProbe™ direct push/hollowstem auger drill rig used primarily for environmental and

geotechnical drilling. They manufacture direct push tooling and expendables for soil sampling, groundwater sam-

pling, soil gas sampling, monitoring well installations, remedial injections, and geotechnical sampling/testing for

use with all direct push drill rigs

AMS manufactures a wide range of hand sampling equipment for environmental, geotechnical, agricultural, and

turf maintenance activities. This equipment can be used for taking soil, groundwater, and soil gas samples from

shallow depths.

Contact Information: AMS, Inc., 105 Harrison Street, American Falls, Idaho, Phone #: 1-800-635-7330; Fax: 1-208-

226-2421. Website: www.ams-samplers.com. Technical Sales Representative: Ryan Anderson, Email address: rya-

[email protected]


16

July 29th & 30th

Membership Meeting & Picnic Thank you to everyone who helped make the golf tournament,

picnic and auction a huge success!

Golf Sponsors:

2M Company

Baroid IDP

Gicon Pumps & Equipment

Grand Canyon Pump & Supply

In 2 Wells

Karam Pump & Supply

Mitchell Lewis & Staver

National Pump Co.

Auction Donors:

Arizona Beeman Drilling

2M Company

Bill Johnson Equipment Company

Gicon Pumps & Equipment

Grand Canyon Pump & Supply

In 2 Wells

Karam Brothers

Kelly Pipe

Mitchell Lewis & Staver

National Pump Co.

Universal Drilling

And thank you to Mitchell Lewis and Staver for providing

the beverages and Gicon Pumps & Equipment for cooking the

hamburger, hot dogs and supplying the salads and

condiments for lunch!

17

On Friday night, July 29th we had a great steak fry at the picnic grounds at Goldwater Lake with our

Membership meeting immediately following. It was well attended and unanimous that we hold our July 2014 Membership

Meeting at Goldwater Lake next year with another steak fry. We hope to see you there! President Larry Coffelt was

unable to attend due to shoulder surgery that day. Get Well Soon, Larry!

More photos on page 20! Watch for more photos in the winter issue of the Well Said.

Service Awards Presented at our Picnic in July

Accepting Awards (L to R): Gary Hix, Immediate Past President; Dave Williams,

Secretary/Treasurer; Nate Little, President-Elect; Tim Collins, Membership Chair

Dave Williams, Secretary/Treasurer (R), presented the

Russell Sharp Award to Gary Hix, Immediate Past President (L)

Dave Williams accepted a Lifetime

Membership Award for Earl Williams

who was unable to attend.

Doug Roberts accepted a Lifetime

Membership Award for Steve Roberts

who was unable to attend

18

When Experienced People and

Quality Products Count!

Grand Canyon Pump & Supply offers you a broad range of the finest brands of pumps, motors, controls and accessories for the water-well industry. Representing the following quality brand names:

Pumps ..............Grundfos, Paco, Peerless, Yeoman’s/

Chicago/Morris and Ebara. Motors ..............Grundfos, Franklin, Hitachi and Baldor Tanks ................Flexcon and Amtrol Cable.................Kalas and Service Wire Controls............Square D, Danfoss, Applied Motor

Controls, Grundfos, Symcom, Franklin, SJE Rhombus and Warrick/Gems

Accessories .....Simmons, Flomatic, Maass Midwest, Baker Monitor, Lakos, Merrill Manufacturing and Rusco

Well Supplies ...Boreline

We offer a complete line of drilling and well supplies through our partnership with Bill Johnson Equipment Company.

Contact us today for all your water-well needs! Two convenient locations to serve you:

Phoenix: 2747 W. McDowell Rd. 602.272.7867 800.526.7608

Tucson: 1870 W. Prince Rd. #41/42 520.292.8011 800.526.7609

19

placed by line-shaft pumps where appropriate, resulting in greatly reduced future pump equipment and maintenance costs, and down time. This plumbness and alignment study yielded results that were unexpected and extremely valuable. The results will sup-port our primary goal of developing a more robust and applicable technical specification for plumbness and alignment in new wells, and it will also enable us to evaluate pump setting depths and axial alignment in older active wells. In-formed decisions can then be made for possible modification of existing pump equipment or the conversion of current submersible pump sites to line-shaft pump sites. Insight realized from this study will enable SRP and other well owners to avoid premature pump wear and unnecessary pump maintenance, which will provide significant cost savings and increased well system reliability in the future. Acknowledgments and Citations American Turbine Pump Company American Water Works Association Water Wells Standard A100-06 Groundwater and Wells, 3rd Edition (Johnson Screens, 2007) Handbook of Groundwater Development (Roscoe Moss Company, 1990) National Pump Company SRP Groundwater Construction and Maintenance Department Weber Water Resources, Inc.

Arizona Water Well Association Scholarship Criteria

The Arizona Water Well Association will be offering educational scholarships of up to $1,000 ($500 per semester) for the son

or daughter of a contractor who has been an association member for a minimum of two years or an employee of said contrac-

tor who has a reasonable relationship with the association. This sum will be paid on applicant’s submittal of proof of registra-

tion at an accredited institution.

Qualifications of the applicant are to include:

Have the support of his/her family. If an employee of a contractor, the owner/manager must also support the applicant.

Acceptance by an Arizona university or junior college.

Full time enrollment and completion of at least 12 hours per semester. The committee will take into consideration any re-

quests for less than a full schedule.

Maintenance of 2.0 grade point average.

The committee will consider requests for trade school or other participation at reduced levels of financial support if such edu-

cation is deemed beneficial to the family’s business effort.

A completed scholarship application, including a resume, a letter of endorsement from the applicant’s

parents or employer and a transcript from the last educational institution attended is required.

For more information or questions, please contact the current AzWWA Scholarship Chair or the AZWWA office. To request a

scholarship application contact the AzWWA administrative office.

Scholarship Chair AzWWA

Fred Tregaskes [email protected]

[email protected] 480-609-3999

480-961-1141 Fax: 480-609-3939

20

2013 Picnic

23

Bill Johnson Equipment Company

21 S. 40th St., Phoenix, AZ 85034

(602)275-5415 (877)275-2532

[email protected]

www.drillingsupplyco.com

Complete line of Drilling Supplies and Equipment New & Used Rigs, Parts, & Tools

Machine & Welding Shop and Rig Repair Rental Tools

Job Site Deliveries Steel Casing, Tricone Bits, Wire Rope

Acker Drill – Alturnamats – Atlas Copco – Baroid - Boart Longyear

Carmeuse Sands – CertainTeed - CME - Crosby - Dixon – Drill King - FMC – Gearench GT Engineering - Jet Lube – Johnson Screens - Monoflex – Numa - Powers Electric Ridgid – Royer – Sandvik – Schramm – Smeal – Stratex - Varel – Western Rubber

If we don’t have it, we’ll find it!

25

Longyear Nominated to International Mining Technology Hall of Fame Boart Longyear announced that founder Edmund J. Longyear is nominated for inclusion in the

International Mining Technology Hall of Fame. “We were excited to hear that Mr. Longyear has

been nominated for this international award. As an early leader and innovator in exploration

mining, he helped set the stage for our industry to grow to where it is today,” said CEO Richard

O’Brien. “Boart Longyear continues to honor his legacy by developing innovative drilling

methods, performance tooling and equipment.”

Longyear is nominated for his contributions to the U.S. iron ore mining and steel industries in the

early part of the 20th century. He founded E.J. Longyear, the company that would eventually

become today’s Boart Longyear.

Edmund J. Longyear

The company said in a release that Longyear drilled his first diamond drill core hole in northern

Minnesota’s Mesabi Iron Range in 1890. His company, E.J. Longyear, developed the wireline-

retrieved Q core barrel, which “revolutionized the exploration business in the 1960s.”

A panel of 200 mining, exploration and processing industry leaders will choose 14 people for

the Hall of Fame from a list of accepted nominations. Inductees will be announced in Salt Lake

City on Feb. 22, 2014. Nomination categories include: safety; exploration; underground

development, production, load and haul, and support; surface production, and load and haul;

software and others.

Longyear is already in the National Mining Hall of Fame in Leadville, Colo., having been

inducted in 1990.

Boart Longyear, based in Salt Lake City, offers drilling services, equipment and tooling for

mining and other drilling sectors worldwide. For more information, visit

www.boartlongyear.com.

An early diamond drill like the above helped Edmund J. Longyear make a

name for himself and his company.

Source:Boart Longyear

26

Ritchie Bros. Postpones Plans for Casa Grande Build Reprinted from Casa Grande Dispatch, Article by MELISSA ST. AUDE, Staff Writer Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc.

Casa Grande will not be home to a Ritchie Bros. auction yard any time soon. A development agreement between the

Canadian-based auctioneer and the city of Casa Grande has expired and the company has postponed its plans to build a new

facility on Jimmie Kerr Boulevard. Chris Holmberg, regional sales manager for Ritchie Bros., said the move is part of an overall

strategy for the company to better align costs with revenue. “We have recently implemented a plan to reorganize some of our

functions within the business to reflect our current strategies,” Holmberg said. “This has resulted in the implementation of

new policies to create efficiencies for our operations, including the postponement to commence construction at our future

location in Casa Grande.”

Several years ago, the company purchased 140 acres south of Jimmie Kerr Boulevard, east of Interstate 10 with plans to

build a heavy equipment auction yard. The final plat for the facility was approved by the city last year. Auctions in Casa

Grande would have drawn visitors from around the world, generating an estimated $20 million in potential sales and

providing about 20 full-time jobs, company officials said. “Certainly we would have loved to have them here,” said Casa

Grande Mayor Bob Jackson. “But I understand the economy isn’t what it was.”

Ritchie Bros. has no plans to sell the property. “Our vision remains unchanged in that Casa Grande is an excellent city for a ll

the reasons we initially purchased the site, and it is our intent to continue to hold the property for the future construction of

our Arizona facility,” Holmberg said. He said the company is encouraged “by the impressive economic development and

partnerships with the city of Casa Grande.”

Jackson is hopeful the company reconsiders its decision to postpone construction in Casa Grande. “Where they are in

Phoenix, they’ve run out of room to expand,” he said. But, he said, should Ritchie Bros. resume plans to build a facility in Casa

Grande, negotiations would start over for a new development agreement between the city and the company.

Ritchie Bros. is a large auctioneer of construction, agricultural, industrial and transportation equipment, operating public

auctions in several countries.

NGWA Unveils 2013 Award Winners The National Ground Water Association announced a slate of winners of the group’s annual awards, which will be presented

in December.

Congratulations to Ronald B. Peterson for top honors! Ron is a longtime NGWA member who receives the Ross L. Oliver Award

for “outstanding contributions to the groundwater industry.” This award was established in memory of Ross L. Oliver by his

family. Ron works with Baroid Industrial Drilling Products in South Jordan, Utah.

One of the recipients of this year’s Awards of Excellence will go to Steve Maslansky, Individual Safety Advocate Award.

Maslansky is with Maslansky Geoenvironmental in Prescott, Ariz.

Among the recipients for this year’s Outstanding Groundwater Project Awards is the City of Phoenix which wins the Groundwa-

ter Supply Award for a project involving aquifer storage and recovery wells.

NGWA will present these awards and others at the 2013 Groundwater Expo in Nashville, Tenn. Read more about the awards

and see lists of past recipients at www.ngwa.org/awards.

30

ADWR has updated Land Subsidence Maps using data through May 2013

Recently the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) began working with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

to collect data through NASA's Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar (UAVSAR) program in Cochise

County to improve data collection and to complement the Department's satellite-based Inteferometric Synthetic

Aperature Radar (InSAR) data. The ADWR has been collecting and processing InSAR data since 2002 to monitor

land subsidence throughout Arizona. The Department has identified more than 25 land subsidence features that

cover more than 1,100 square miles. For more information and land subsidence maps, go to www.azwater.gov.

Arizona Land Subsidence Areas

Scottsdale/NE Phoenix McMullen Valley Picacho/Eloy Fort Grant Rd

West Valley Harquahala Valley Maricopa-Stanfield Kansas Settlement

Hawk Rock Ranger's Valley Tucson Lerida

Buckeye Gila Bend Green Valley Bowie/San Simon

Holbrook Sinks

31

Environmental Review Activities Slated for White Mountain

Apache Tribe Rural Water Project

The Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the White Mountain Apache Tribe, will be

preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the

WMAT Rural Water System.

The Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT),

will be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts of constructing and operat-

ing the WMAT Rural Water System. The project is being funded by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The proposed project includes a dam and storage reservoir on the North Fork of the White River, water treatment facilities,

and a distribution system that would provide water to communities located approximately 180 miles east of Phoenix, Ariz. on

the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including Whiteriver, Fort Apache, Canyon Day, Cedar Creek, Carrizo, and Cibecue.

Input from the public is desired to aid in the identification of key issues and possible alternatives related to the proposed pro-

ject that should be considered in the EIS. Two meetings will be held to solicit public input on the scope of the environmental

review, including alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EIS. The scoping meetings will be held at the fol-

lowing locations:

September 20, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Cibicue Complex Feeding Center, 10 West 3rd North Cromwell Road,

Cibecue, Arizona.

September 21, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Whiteriver Unified School District Office Training Room II, 963 South Chief

Avenue, Whiteriver, Arizona.

Information regarding the proposed project can be obtained by calling Reclamation’s Environmental Resource Management

Division at (623) 773-6251, by e-mailing jharagara(at)usbr(dot)gov, or by downloading it from the Phoenix Area Office website

at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix

Comments can also be mailed to John McGlothlen at the Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, PXAO-1500, 6150 West

Thunderbird Rd., Glendale, AZ. 85306-4001or faxed to (623) 773-6481, no later than October 28, 2013. Questions may be

Florence Copper Successfully Completes Public Consultation and

Review Process and Receives an Amended Aquifer Protection Permit

from ADEQ

In July, Florence Copper announced that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) has completed the re-

quired public consultation and review process relating to the Aquifer Protection Permit (“APP”) for Phase 1 operations at the

Florence Copper Project (“Florence Copper”) site.

The ADEQ permit outlines the safety standards and regulatory oversight required by the State of Arizona for the protection

of water quality at the project site. The APP requires Florence Copper to meet the most stringent health and safety require-

ments during its operation, ensuring the protection of the environment at all times.

Florence Copper would like to thank the members of the public who provided their comments on the initial APP issued in

September 2012 and the hard work and leadership shown by ADEQ staff in preparing this final approval. “Receiving the

final APP for the Phase 1 operations after a thorough public consultation process is good news for Florence Copper and for

the Town of Florence,” said Florence Copper Vice President and General Manager Dan Johnson. “ADEQ is the agency re-

sponsible for protecting Arizona’s water quality and they have done just that with this permit.”

The APP is one of two major operating permits Florence Copper requires to move to the first phase of operations at the site.

Phase 1 operations will consist of a Production Test Facility (“PTF”) that includes a 24-well in-situ recovery well field, a state

of the art solvent extraction/electrowinning facility that will produce pure copper cathode, and associated infrastructure.

The PTF will demonstrate the science and safety of in-situ technology.

Additional information regarding Florence Copper can be found at www.florencecopper.com.

32

Farmers Group Seeks Change in Water Credit Rule

Lawyers, elected officials attend meeting

By MELISSA ST. AUDE, Casa Grande Dispatch

CASA GRANDE — A group of Pinal County farmers is preparing to take legal action against the Arizona Department of Water

Resources if a plan to zero out agricultural groundwater credits is implemented. Farmers Against State Takings its first offi-

cial meeting July 31, attracting a roomful of farmers, growers, community residents and area lawmakers.

“I feel outraged by this,” said Jordan Rose, an attorney with Rose Law Group who has been retained by the farmers. “From a

legal perspective, it’s troubling to say the least.” Rose said the farmers group hopes to have the ADWR plan repealed before

Jan. 1 or at least delay its implementation. Should that not work, she said, the group is prepared to take the issue to court.

Several area legislators, including Reps. Steve Smith and Adam Kwasman, Sen. Al Melvin of District 11, and Rep. T.J. Shope

of District 8 attended the meeting, pledging their support to help resolve the issue legislatively. “This is un-American, un-

constitutional and furthermore, just un-Arizonan,” Smith told the group. “It’s also a direct violation of the ‘five C’s’ on our

state emblem,” referring to “cotton.” He said the four lawmakers would help in any way possible. “We will not rest until this

issue is corrected,” Smith said.

At issue is an ADWR rule modification set to go into effect next year that would gradually eliminate extinguishment credits

held by farmers. Extinguishment credits, also known as groundwater credits, may be sold in full or in part when farmland is

retired and used by buyers, usually developers, within the same management area.

Under ADWR’s extinguishment credit rule modification, although growers may continue farming and do not lose their right

to pump groundwater, their credit allocation factors start a gradual decline next year when they drop from 100 to 94 per-

cent. The reduction continues a 6 percent annual decline until 2054, when they hit zero and farmland is stripped of extin-

guishment credits.

The rule aims to improve the long-term viability of area groundwater supplies and protect the natural aquifer from over-

pumping. “It was recognized that if groundwater use were to continue at rates exceeding natural recharge from rainfall and

streambed infiltration, water levels could drop to levels that would make it economically infeasible to continue farming,” an

ADWR fact sheet about the rule says. But critics of the plan say extinguishment credits have a value and with each incre-

mental drop, the value of farmland declines. By the time credits reach zero, farmland will be valued at the same price as

undeveloped, bare desert land, according to critics.

To avoid losing value of their land, some believe many farmers will feel pressured to sell quickly, impacting the area’s agri-

cultural economy and creating a speculative bubble. “We’re getting calls at the law group now of farmers asking ‘should I

sell my farm?’” Rose told attendees. She said the issue is no different than if the state Department of Real Estate suddenly

announced it would own all homes and that while homeowners could continue to live in those homes, if they were to sell, a

percentage of the sale would go to that department. “How can this happen without just compensation?” she said.

Dick Powell, a Casa Grande City Council member and area businessman, has been an outspoken critic of the rule. “It’s on-

erous, it’s a taking and it’s un-American,” Powell said at the meeting. The group hopes the issue can be resolved without a

lawsuit.

While area legislators have pledged their support, he said the group also will be looking to area municipalities and the coun-

ty Board of Supervisors, hoping for resolutions demonstrating a desire to see the rule repealed. The group also hopes area

residents show support by donating funds or signing a petition available on the FAST website, www.pinalwater.com.

Representatives from the Arizona Department of Water Resources were not at the July 31 meeting. “ADWR has not been

invited,” said Jeff Tannler, ADWR area director of statewide active management areas.

Representatives from the water agency in June attended a town hall-style meeting with area farmers in Casa Grande to ex-

plain the rule modification. Also last month, Tannler was among several ADWR representatives to attend a meeting of the

Pinal area Groundwater Users Advisory Committee, a water panel that serves as a liaison between the agency and local

water users.

At the July meeting, GUAC recommended forming a committee to further examine the rule and determine if it is equitable to

farmers. “We have taken the GUAC’s recommendation under consideration,” Tannler told the Casa Grande Dispatch. “The

department is willing to look at recommendations by parties that still meet the statutory goal of the AMA,” he said.

If the rule is not repealed or delayed, it takes effect Jan. 1.

33

Bill Johnson Equipment Company Expands their Machine Shop Bill Johnson Equipment Company has expanded their machine shop capabilities with the addition of a

Mori Seike SL-8 lathe. It is a two axis high performance universal CNC lathe. Computer Numerical Con-

trolled (CNC) lathes are desired over the older production lathes due to their ease of operation, repeatability,

and accuracy. This lathe can meet a wide range of needs from machining precision work pieces to heavy

duty machining. The slanted bed design provides outstanding rigidity and stability in threading pipe or subs

from 2” through 9-5/8” OD.

It is in the original

building where Bill

Johnson started the

company in 1949. Keep

Bill Johnson Equipment

in mind for your ma-

chine shop work in ad-

dition to the drilling

equipment and supplies

for which they have

been known.

They can be reached at

602-275-5415.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMS Piezometer Groundwater Monitoring & Sampling Kit The AMS “Piezometer Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Kit” was designed in response to our clients’

need for a manually-operated groundwater kit, capable of providing a semi-permanent access point for water

level measurements and shallow groundwater sampling investigations. This complete kit includes every-

thing needed to take groundwater measurements and collect samples to a depth of 12ft., below ground sur-

face. For tough soil conditions, a 1 ¾” regular soil auger, 6 ft., of extensions, and a rubber-coated cross han-

dle have been provided for “pre-augering” a borehole. For more information, contact AMS at 1-800-635-

7330.

AZWWA MEMBER PRODUCT NEWS and SERVICES

34

Atlas Copco Named to Forbes Top 100 Innovative Companies List Reprinted from National Driller

Atlas Copco made Forbes magazine’s top 100 most innovative company’s list—its third year in a row.

“Innovation has been the driving force behind Atlas Copco’s growth for more than 140 years,” said Jim Levitt, president of

Atlas Copco North America LLC. “We are continually looking for ways to be more productive and more sustainable in order to

create value for all of our stakeholders, as well as make a positive impact on society through our innovations.”

The company ranked No. 94 in the index, based on market capitalization as compared to anticipated cash flows. Forbes says

this measure points to a solid return on investment in the future due to company innovations.

Atlas Copco in a release touted other honors. Recently, it was named a “leader” in the FTSE4Good Index, a measure of high

standards in environmental, social and corporate governance practices. The Global 100 list, presented at this year’s World

Economic Forum, included Atlas Copco among the world’s most sustainable companies. The Ethisphere Institute earlier this

year recognized Atlas Copco for its ethical standards.

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index has also included Atlas Copco, and the company was lauded by Thompson-Reuters and

Newsweek for its innovation and sustainability.

Atlas Copco serves segments ranging from compressors and air treatment systems to construction, mining and drilling equip-

ment. The company, founded in 1873, has more than 39,800 employees worldwide, and operates in more than 170 coun-

tries. Atlas Copco in North America operates in more than 109 locations and employs more than 4,500 people in the United

States. For more information, visit www.atlascopco.us.

OBITUARY

Herman Bouwer, Ph.D., of Tempe, AZ, passed away July 28 at the age of 86. Bouwer was chief engineer with the U.S. Wa-

ter Conservation Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was also adjunct professor at ASU and the U of A. His

research focused on in situ measurement of hydraulic properties of soils, vadose zones, and aquifers; characterization of un-

derground flow systems; renovation of sewage effluent by groundwater recharge; effect of irrigated agriculture on groundwater;

and effect of groundwater pumping on streamflow.

Bouwer published Groundwater Hydrology in 1978. He also authored or coauthored a variety of other texts, and was a regular

contributor to NGWA’s scientific journal, Groundwater®. He enjoyed writing about groundwater hydrology and artificial

recharge.

In 1992, Bouwer was a recipient of NGWA’s Life Member Award. In1997, Bouwer received the Arizona Hydrological Society

Lifetime Achievement Award, which honors an individual who has contributed to AHS, the science of hydrology within Arizona,

and/or has received national fame for their contributions in the hydrology field. The Herman Bouwer Intern Scholarship was

created in 2000 to give students enrolled in a hydrology-related discipline at any Arizona college or university the opportunity

to gain practical experience in the multidisciplinary field of hydrology and water resources.

Bouwer's colleagues have expressed their admiration for him, including Floyd Marsh of Sustainable Water Solutions LLC in

Phoenix, Arizona, who had this to say, “Herman was a giant of a man in our profession and his contributions,

Reminder: Don’t forget January 4, 2014 all potable water fittings and piping must meet the federal “lead free”

standard as per the “Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act”. This law is federal and will be administered on a

state level. If you haven’t already done so talk to your suppliers to get more detail and phase out any current in-

ventory that doesn’t meet this new requirement.

Jim McBee We are saddened to learn that Jim McBee, 85, of Willcox died in a fatal car accident Monday morning, Sept 23,

2013, on his way home from Phoenix. The crash happened on Interstate 10, near milepost 188, on Interstate 10

north of Casa Grande. Services were held on Saturday, Sept. 28th at 10am at the United Methodist Church in

Willcox. Our sympathy, thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.

35

Events Calendar

For more information go to www.ngwa.org or call 800-551-7379

Upcoming Events: Sept 18-21 – Arizona Hydrological Society (AHS) Annual Symposium, Doubletree Reid Park Hotel, Tucson; www.azhydrosoc.org

Sept 24-26 - Tri-State Seminar on the River, South Point Hotel Casino, Las Vegas, NV; www.tristateseminar.com

Oct 1-3 - National Rural Water Association (NRWA), KY Expo Center, Louisville, KY;

Phone: 580-252-0629; Email: [email protected]; www.h2o-xpo.org

Oct 9-10 - Int’l Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), South Point Resort, Las Vegas, NV; Phone: 405-744-5175; www.igshpa.okstate.edu

Oct 17-19 - National Drilling Association (NDA), Wyndham Lake Buena Vista Resort, Orlando, FL; Phone: 877-632-4748; www.nda4u.com

Oct 24-26 - California Groundwater Association (CGA), Peppermill Resort, Reno, NV; Phone: 707-578-4408; www.groundh2o.org

Nov 7-8 - NGWA Pillars of Groundwater Innovation Conference, Embassy Suites, Phoenix, AZ; Phone: 800-551-7379; www.ngwa.org;

Dec 3-6 - NGWA Annual Groundwater Expo, Music City Center, Nashville, TN; Phone: 800-551-7379; www.ngwa.org

Dec 2-6 - Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) 119th Annual Meeting/Expo, John Ascuaga’s Nugget, Sparks, NV; Phone: 509-624-1158; Email:

[email protected]; www.nwma.org

Dec 8-9 – Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) 2013 Arizona Conference, JW Marriott Starr Pass, Tucson, AZ; PH: 800-763-3132; www.smenet.org

2014

January - AZWWA Membership Meeting (date and location to be determined)

Feb 6-7 - Mountain States Groundwater Expo; Aquarius Casino Resort, Laughlin, NV; [email protected];

www.mountainstatesgroundwater.com

Do you have an event coming up or know of one?

Arizona Water Well Association

950 E. Baseline Rd. #104-1025

Tempe, AZ 85283

arizona water well association meeting saturday, oct. 12...

Documents