An individual well's contribution to the stream depletion is dependent on whether other wells are on or off as well as on something called "head."  It is believed that the amount of water in the aquifer can generate pressure on other portions of the aquifer.  As water is removed from the aquifer, there is a decrease in pressure and wells and streams at a lower elevation will be affected.

So, when one wants to ask, "what is the effect my well has on the stream?," the answer is dependent on what the other wells are doing. 

Even so, the Model must have a starting point.  Some assumption has to be made as to what portion of the water pumped from a well will have an effect on the stream.  That number can then be adjusted by the Model to reflect various effects that other wells have.

As we can find no name for this factor, we have given it the name "Well Contribution Factor" (WCF).  We would expect the number to be something like 85% for a well within one mile of the stream and 15% for a well miles away from the stream.

So far, all attempts to identify the WCF for a well or a group of wells has failed. This question has been asked of the URNRD board, the URNRD manager, and the Department of Natural Resources.  We have been asking for this number repeatedly for several months.

"Responses" to this question have ranged from "the numbers do not exist" to "the Model does not produce these numbers, but they could be generated."  At public meetings, DNR representatives have suggested that upland wells might contribute 15%.  However, so far, it has proven to be impossible to nail down this number or even a range of numbers for a well.  

Without these numbers, how are the NRDs going to know what wells to cut and how much?

It is apparent that the URNRD board does not know these numbers, and they have not asked the DNR to give them these numbers.  Hopefully, they will decide to do so.  Without this set of numbers, it is impossible for the NRD board to make an intelligent decision as to how to reduce water consumption in order to comply.  Do they reduce usage for everyone by an equal amount?  If so, by how much?  Or, do they reduce usage for those who live along the stream so that everyone else can continue to use something close to their current allocation?

Unless one knows what the WCF is, then these decisions cannot be made by the local boards, and these boards must instead ask the DNR to tell them what options are acceptable.   The idea that the local boards have any power is a facade.  Unless they know these numbers, then they are simply our neighbors acting as agents of the DNR.

Today, the outside consultants hired by the DNR to put data into the Model are the only people who know what the inputs are.  The person that heads this up is Mike McDonald, and he is located on the east coast.  One is not supposed to talk to him without the permission of the DNR. 

We believe it is important that the local NRD boards have the numbers on which the Model is based.  This allows the boards and the public to verify that the numbers are reasonable.  Our current estimate on the impact of the water reductions show a loss of over $24,000,000 to the basin economy and a loss of 800 jobs.  Any threat of this magnitude should be understood by the community and accurate details carefully reviewed by the boards.

Ask your NRD board member why they and the public do not know these numbers.