. . . Cedar Valley Water

54. St. George News video and article on Mayor Garth Green's $14 million water infrastructure investment.
53. 19 Apr 2021 Conversation with Paul Monroe, General Manager at CICWCD, before a presentation he gave to the community leaders:

• Roice, "Did you receive my email on Safe Yield?"
• Paul, "Yes."
• Roice: "Surprised you didn't respond."
• Paul, quoting me: "It is just a model, and we all know all models are wrong." Time for meeting to start.
• Roice's thoughts since this conversation:
  Models, like the incorrect 21,000 Acre-Feet of annual inflow into the Cedar Valley Drainage Basin, are being used, along with the current drought, the falling of Lake Powell, and the possibilty the dam will not be able to generate power, to scare the public into paying for the Pine Valley Pipeline.

• 95% evapotranspiration gives 22,552 acre-feet of inflow into the Cedar Valley Drainage Basin, or about the 21,000 acre-feet the the State Engineer claims;
• 90% evapotranspiration gives 45,103 acre-feet of into the Cedar Valley Drainage Basin, or about the 42,000 acre-feet the CICWCD and USGS 2005 report claims;
• while 80% evapotranspiration gives 90,207 acre-feet of inflow into the Cedar Valley Drainage Basin, and creates significant questions about the basis of the State Engineer's Ground Water Management Plan.

MODELS MATTER, ESPECIALLY WHEN USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES!

• 210111_State_Engineer_GWMP.pdf
• 050900_Summary_USGS_Report_2005-5170_Hydrology_and_Simulation_Ground_Water_Flow_Cedar_Valley.pdf
• 210225C_CVDB_Rainfall.png

• Response from Keith Brown at U-DOT, saying he received my e-mail and will share it with "our Engineering Geologist".

• Utah Division of Water Rights Map of Water Rights: https://maps.waterrights.utah.gov/EsriMap/map.asp
• Mineral Claims Utah: http://www.mylandmatters.org/Maps/ClaimsUt/GetMap
• Utah Mineral Resources: https://geology.utah.gov/apps/blm_mineral/
• USGS TopoViewer: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.01/-100.06
• Nevada Mining Claims: https://data-ndom.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/mining-claims

• Click to download Cedar_Valley_Water_sm.mov & Link to YouTube copy of movie
• 191104_Cedar_Valley_Water_Issues_and_Solutions+low_res_movie.pptx PowerPoint with movie

• 1946 - 460000-DOI-report_Geology_and_Groundwater_Resources_Cedar_and_Parowan_Valleys.pdf
  • 1946 - plate-01 Index Map
  • 1946 - plate-02 Physiograpic Features
  • 1946 - plate-03 Geology Map
  • 1946 - plate-08 Wells with Logs
  • 1946 - plate-09 Well Sections based on Drillers' Logs
  • 1946 - plate-12 Hydrographs of six wells NW across Secions 27,21, 17, and 8, T.35S.R 11
  • 1946 - plate-13 Cedar Valley Groundwater Contours April 1, 1940
  • 1946 - plate-14 Cedar Valley Groundwater Decline Groundwater April 1 and Sep 15, 1939
  • 1946 - plate-15 Cedar Valley Decline Groundwater Apr 1 and Sep 15, 1939
  • 1946 - plate-16 North-South Profile Center TPS 34 and 35 S, R11W, Water Surface 1932, 1936, 1939
  • 1946 - plate-17 Cedar Valley Equal Depth to water below land surface Sep 1939
  • 1946 - plate-18 Cedar Valley maximum area of Artesian Flow, Sep 1939.
  • 1946 - plate-19 Hydrographs of five wells where seasonal fluctations of static level from artesian wells
  • 1946 - plate-20 Parowan Valley Hdrographs of 4 wells along north-south line through pumping district
  • 1946 - plate-21 Parowan Valley Hydrographs of 6 wells remote from development
  • 1946 - plate-22 Parowan Valley highest and lowest artesian-pressure surfaces March 1940
  • 1946 - plate-23 Parowan Valley highest artesian-pressure Sep 1940
  • 1946 - plate-24 Parowan Valley sells and springs decline March 15 and Sep 10, 1940
  • 1946 - plate-25 Parowan Valley highest artesian-pressure 1940
  • 1946 - plate-26 Profile along south boundary of T33S showing highest Piezometric Surface Apr and Sep 1940
  • 1946 - plate-27 Parowan Valley Water Districts
• 1966 - USGS 15 - Water from bedrock in Colorado Plateau
• 1974 - Hintze - Utah Geologic Map
• 1974 August - Ground-Water Resources of the Parowan - Cedar City Drainage Basin
• 1978 August - Seismic Acquisition Parowan Valley
• 2011 May 12 - Brian Head Town Deep Well
• 2014 Aug 25 - Enoch Quartz Monzonite Well
• 2015-Map-270DM - Panquich Geology
• 2015-Map-270DM page 63 - Major Faults around Parowan Valley_Panquich-Geology
• 2017 - USGS-5033 - Parowan Valley Water Resources
• 2017 - USGS-5072 - Groundward Model Southwest Utah
• Parowan Valley Area 75 with IG Overlay
• Parowan Valley Terain Map
• Mother City Rock Church

• Lake Bonneville did not reach Cedar Valley
  (the wet conditions of this geologic time did reach Cedar Valley).
• Seismic Acquistion in Parowan Valley
  (from Roice Nelson's book New Technologies in Exploration Geophysics, 1983, Gulf Publishing).
• Cedar Valley Outcrop Geology with Mobil Seismic Line Locations
  (Roice Nelson was the geophysicist in charge of this seismic acquisition for Mobil Oil, 1978-79).
• Seismic cross-sections show valley fill goes thousands of feet deeper than water wells
  (0.2 seconds two-way travel-time is about 800 feet, the depth of most of the wells in Cedar Valley, this section is 3.0 seconds, or 15 times that deep).
• Topographic cross-section south-end of Cedar Valley
  (across Blow-Out Pit interpreted in PowerPoint).
• Topographic cross-section center of Cedar Valley
  (Arco well to Woods Ranch interpreted in PowerPoint).
• Topographic cross-section north-end of Cedar Valley
  (across Mobil seismic line 711 interpreted in PowerPoint).
• ParowanGapBooklet.pdf
• 140600_ParowanGap_Project.pdf
• 140000_Land_Fissures_Cedar_Valley.pdf
• 0508_Hydrogeology-Groundwater_Flow_Iron_County_Utah.pdf
• 041000_Ground_Cracks_Western_Margin_Parowan_Valley.pdf
• 020000_Geology_Cedar_Valley.pdf
• 010900_East_of_Cedar_Canyon_Cretaceous.pdf
• 980400_geology_hydrogeology_Cedar_Valley_Drainage_Basin.pdf

• Questions:
  1. "The science from these experts" (is this political opinion or is it science) "is telling us that the only reliable long term source of water that we have access to is the Pine and Wah Wah valley water." (This definitive statement is not seen in any of the comments!) "This is the only source that will provide a new source of water for this valley." (Gary Player and Roice Nelson, scientists with proven track records in industry, disagree. This appears to be a political opinion, and as such deserves to be challenged. If there are no other options, and if the decision was already made, why was there a call for proposals?)
  2. When Brent Hunter started to hand the handout given to the Board to Roice Nelson Thursday night, why was he stopped? What is in the handout to the Board, which is not in the attachments to the second above referenced e-mail from Kelly Crane? Is this public information, or is it political positioning? Why were there only 4 attachments to the initial e-mail from Kelly Crane? It is impossible to not think there is political positioning, based on how this "public information" transfer happened.
• Attachments, in the order of the second e-mail (with comments underneath each link):
  1. 2015-09-17 Cover letter.pdf
     • Why were Gary Player and Roice Nelson not invited to participate in the meetings with the experts?
     • It seems appropriate all notes on meetings with experts be made available to the public.
     • The Salt Lake Tribune article below states that the West Desert is a "25 years" solution. Did the word "sustainable" came from a recent e-mail to Paul Monroe from Roice Nelson? It is nice to see the word used, especially as this must become the goal.
     1. West Desert Pipeline:
     • There is no question the West Desert pipeline is of long-term sustainable benefit to the Cedar Basin, however, there is a need to solve a 9,000 acre-foot per year over production of old (Lake Bonneville) water in Cedar Valley.
     2. Aquifer Recharge:
     • The Aquifer Recharge option is critical, and it does not provide new water, it is recharging the aquifer so it does not collapse.
     3. Aquifer Balance:
     • Aquifer Balance will help the aquifer stability in the short and the long term, and, as stated in the cover letter, does not provide new water.
     4. ARCo Well at Three Peaks:
     • Player & Nelson are not convinced the ARCo Three Peaks well is connected to the valley aquifer.
     • Age dating on water in the valley and from the well at New Harmoney into the Quartz Monzonite demonstrate these are different aquifers.
     • It is nice to see the sustainable word used again. However, if Player & Nelson are right, the quartz monzonite aquifer, over 50 miles in length, is much more sustainable than any existing or planned water extraction project.
     5. Quichapa Creek Well:
     • Again, the age dating of the Quartz Monzonite well in New Harmony refutes the idea this well will be connecte to the Cedar Basin fill aquifer.
     • If Player & Nelson are right, extracting water here would keep the water from draining out of The Great Basin.
     6. Cretaceous Well at Sheepherder's Cabin:
     • It is possible this well woul impact springs in the area. Proper measuring and monitoring will prove or disprove this supposition.
     • Player & Nelson do not believe the Cretaceous up Cedar Canyon is connected to the Cedar Basin fill aquifer. The Huriicane Fault separates these basins. The fact all wells in the southern portion of The Great Basin are under normal hydrostatic pressure implies there is leakage from this basin to the Grand Canyon.
     • It is possible there is water from the Cretaceous entering Cedar and Parowan Valley near Summit, where the Cretaceous rocks are on both sides of the Hurricane Fault. Age dating of water will help determine if Creatceous water is reaching Cedar or Parowan Valleys. Because of hydrostatic presure, it is more likely droping down the Hurricane Fault and along the large faults can be seen on satellite maps to go to the Grand Canyon.
     7. West Well:
     • This was submitted by Kelly Crane and has not yet been evaluated by Player & Nelson
     8. Reservoir:
     • This was submitted by Kelly Crane and has not yet been evaluated by Player & Nelson
     • Player & Nelson only submitted 3 of 9 outlined proposals, at the recommendation of David Miller, County Commissioner, so as to not overwhelm the system. One of those unsubmitted plans is for a reservoir up Cedar Canyon. It now seems appropriate to compare this proposal to the reservoir turned down during the evaluation.
  2. 2015-8-21 Player & Nelson ARCo well Three Peaks w comments.pdf
     • Note the comments edited and supplied by the CICWCD staff do not come up when pdf is brought up as a 100% pdf display. So they are copied below, with first pass responses in ():
     • The fracturing within this is only on the very surface of these formations (wrong) and the likelihood of large water volumes within them is very slim (based on what?) and if a large volume of water was found it would most likely be finite in nature (wrong) and would deplete quickly as the wells proved for the Iron Mines just south west of the proposed well (please share this data).
     • The individual lacoliths are formed individually and are not equally fractured. (Based on what?) The same conclusion cannot be drawn between the granite structures in the Cedar Valley and the well that the Church drilled in the New Harmony area within the ash creek drainage. That well is located at the confluence of multiple fracture systems and has the drainage from the north end of the Pine Valley mountains. (The same kind of fractures are seen at the surface at Three Peaks Park. This appears to be supposition.)
     • This project as proposed would not be a new source of water (Disagree, as described above.) and would be quite expensive to develop since the water would be pumped from depths approximately 2,500 feet deep.(Pumping costs are production costs, not development cost. The key is to test the hypothesis with an existing well.)
     • In addition to having challenges of pumping from such depths the well casing is small and you would not be able to pump more than 500 gpm from this size of well.(Again, this is a test of how much water can be extraced from the fractured quartz monzonite.)
     • From a water rights perspective this water would come from existing water rights within the Beryl Enterprise basin. This would not be considered as a new appropriation of water since the basin is closed and has been for some time. (This is new water for Beryl also, the well is on the boundary of the two basins, the water could be diverted either way, the key is to test for a new source of water which has a different age and a different hydrostatic pressure than any water in the Cedar Valley fill aquifer or the Beryl Valley aquifer.)
  3. 2015-8-21 Player & Nelson Cretaceous Well at Sheepherders w comments.pdf
     • This was an interesting discussion with the UGS and USGS and water resources hydro geologists.(Too bad Player & Nelson were not invited.)
     • The water that would be withdrawn from this location would most likely be connected to springs in the area and would have a direct effect. (Possibly. However, the 20-40% porosity of these rocks implies water is moving down and out of the system and needs to be captured. Wells and springs must be measured and monitored to answer this question.)
     • The geologic formation at this location is not in the same formation as the Brian Head well. This geologic zone is below Brian Head and a conclusion cannot be made that the formations would yield the same volumes of water. (The current well is the top of the Cretaceous base of the Paleocene, and the new well is in the mid-Cretaceous. This is a similar related package of rocks. Measured porosity and permeability is similar.)
     • The only way that water rights could be changed to this location as a point of diversion would be to acquire the most senior rights in Coal Creek and dry up agriculture and transfer them up to the location. (Is there or is not an overallocation of water in Cedar Valley? Would those who face losing water rights transfer them, as was done for Brian Head, or not? Is this subtrfuge to keep from solving water over production sooner?)
     • After pumping to the surface placing the water into coal creek as a conveyance method would be a poor use of water. (Cheaper than a pipeline.)
     • Utilizing this water for the district would require a pipeline which would be an expensive way to convey water. (Wrong.) In the event that there is excess runoff water it would then be passed by and hopefully recharged into the aquifer. (What?)
     • The cost of infrastructure and pumping does not equate to virtually free water. (A $150 million dollar pipeline is free? Once the Cretaceous water is proven, and it is proven producing it does not dry up springs, Player & Nelson propose deviated wells be drilled above the landslide area off of the old road up Cedar Mountain, empting into Coal Creek. There would be no pumping cost (gravity drainage) and with turbines in these holes they would become a SUSTAINABLE energy source.)
     • This example well is not at all in the same formation as the proposed well would be in. (It is a bit deeper, and has better porosity and permeability.)
  4. 2015-8-21 Player & Nelson Quichapa Creek Well Re-Entry w comments.pdf
     • This project will affect the overall system much the same as the arco well re entry project. (It is proposed to test the Quartz Monzonie, and not in the Beryl Valley Aquifer Water Rights Area.)
     • The supposition that additional water is existent at these lower depths is incorrect. (Based on what? Science or conjecture?) The water from these lower depths would be connected to the existing aquifer that we currently draw water from. (Not true. Check the age of the water.) The infiltration rates discussed in the Fractured Quartz Monzonite Aquifer are not realistic and are an over simplified method of determining recharge. (Nelson has worked several oil and gas fields tied to natural fracture permeability. The issue is the water moves a long distance, the oil and gas cones out, the water comes and comes and comes.)
     • The Quartz Monsonite is formed from the lacoliths that are essentially big bulges of granite that have surfaced in a bulge in different areas where the soils above allowed. (And as they cooled, they fractured. The fractures are an untapped water reservoir.)
     • The fracturing within this is only on the very surface of these formations (Based on what science?) and the likelihood of large water volumes within them is very slim (Based on what science?) and if a large volume of water was found it would most likely be finite in nature (Based on what science?) and would deplete quickly as the wells proved for the Iron Mines just south west of the proposed well. (Again, please share the data.)
     • The individual lacoliths are formed individually and are not equally fractured. The same conclusion cannot be drawn between the granite structures in the Cedar Valley and the well that the Church drilled in the New Harmony area within the ash creek drainage. That well is located at the confluence of multiple fracture systems and has the drainage from the north end of the Pine Valley mountains. In addition to having challenges of pumping from such depths the well casing is small and you would not be able to pump more than 500 gpm from this size of well. (Since comments are repeated, see comments above.)
     • From a water rights perspective this water would come from existing water rights within the Cedar basin. This would not be considered as a new appropriation of water since the basin is closed and has been for some time. (If it is demonstrated to be a different age and to have a different hydrostatic water pressure, it is a new source of water.)
  5. Recharge w comments.pdf
     • No time to comment before trip.
  6. Reservoir w comments.pdf
     • No time to comment before trip.
  7. W Desert w comments.pdf
     • No time to comment before trip.
  8. West Well w comments.pdf
     • No time to comment before trip.
  9. Balance w comments.pdf
     • No time to comment before trip.

Topography displayed on a seismic interpretation workstation, highlighting interpretation of major faults, which are draining water from the southern end of the Great Basin into the Colorado River, creating an area which is below normal hydrostatic pressure. (click on image to expand)
;
See also Formation Pressure as Potential Indicator of High Stratigraphic Permeability, Rick Allis, Utah Geological Survey

Image from 2006 movie showing topgraphic differences to do a pipeline from the MX aquifers to Cedar vs. from Lake Powell.

Notes:

• The "..." link typically takes you to the directory above.
• If there is an image, clicking on the image typically takes you to the next page.
• Clicking on the titles takes you to presentations.
• The blue bar above goes to a process map called the Knowledge Backbone^SM, which is modified from a KB set up for oil and gas exploration, and which can be revised to be related to specific processes, like water, city, or university management.
• The blue bar below goes to a mapping index called the Infinite Grid^SM, which can be revised to be tied to local geological and geophysical and biological frameworks. These blue bars are a motif used at this web site, which web site has not been upgrated for several years.