August 28, 2025 at 9:30 AM - Water Committee Meeting

Rationale:  The deadline is September 15th for applications.

Rationale:  There are four applications submitted for review at the Committee Meeting. 

• Kevin Wolfe - SE1/4 14-16-8E, Saunders County, new well variance (West of Leshara)
• Todd Yindrick - E SE 22-15-3E, Butler County, expansion of acres from existing well (East of David City). This tract was approved for an Expansion of Acres Variance with allocation in 2023.  Todd's allocation was 14.30, and he used 12.06 in the first 2 years. If approved, the Expansion of Acres Variance with allocation will lapse.  
• Bryan Hein - NW1/4 7-15-3E, Butler County (2 miles north of David City)
• Bryan Hein - SE1/4 17-15-3E, Butler County (1 mile east of David City) 

Bryan Hein is going through the process of getting the correct permits from David City.  Bryan reported that he has all the permits from Planning and Zoning, but City Council needs to approve.  
 
By Groundwater Rules and Regulations, the NRD is allowed to issue up to 75 Acre Feet of Depletion in the Non-Hydrologically Connected Area (Normal Development Area).  The total of the four applications was 70.302 Acre Feet.     

Rationale:  Both applications were reviewed by Katie Cameron.  Two applications have been received, with one application adjacent to the white area (NHCA) and the other next to the blue (HCA).  In the past, we reviewed these applications in what area they are adjacent to, so we will only be reviewing one application this month.   

• Gregg Fujan - SW SW 29-15-6E, Saunders County (SW of Malmo) Greg has sent his yield history map for this field. 

Comments from Katie with her interpretation attached. 
The SW SW 29-15N-6E, Saunders County... looks to be on a glacial till edge area but maybe a 10 to 20 foot-thick sand and gravel are available around 80 feet + or - .  This area is hard to map the extent of units because of the apparent past glacial processes, and we don’t have many wells (however, each of the nearby wells does show saturated thicknesses of gravel available in the top 100ft). The nearest AEM line is ~800 feet to the west in Section 30 (north-south line L1004700). I couldn’t recommend any specific direction and would reiterate that the yellow hatch estimated areas on the Google Earth map are very rough with question marks on the boundary extents.  Deeper Dakota we don’t know the character, but based on 02-LPN-2015 by Malmo, the variable Dakota units might be interpreted as more sandstone dominant than is actually present (log summary depicted on AEM L504800 profile for reference).

Thanks!
Katie

Section P - Restricted Development Area from the Groundwater Rules and Regulations is attached. 

Staff recommends allowing this variance with the stipulation of Section P from Groundwater Rules and Regulations are followed before a well permit is issued.  

Rationale:  Variance LPN-V-024-0644 was approved for Larry Rasmussen in a restricted area on 10/15/2024.  The site is located in the NW 1/4 27-16-8 and within 1 mile of the Hydrologically Connected Area.  Larry consulted with Katie Cameron on test hole locations and each site did not prove to be able to produce an irrigation well.  He contacted Jesse Korus about utilizing tTem, a version of AEM, but is pulled behind a 4-wheeler.  Larry would like to extend his variance until February 1, 2026, to allow him to do one more investigation with the tTem.  Larry has agreed to provide any information he gathered to the NRD.   
The Committee would like to see what the data shows and suggested having staff notify Committee members when tTem is at the field.  

Rationale:  A draft of the GWMP has been emailed to the stakeholders along with an email blast to 1303 contacts.  Results from the email are shown with the campaign attached. 
The second digital newsletter for the Water Resources Department went out on August 12^th and overall had a good response. This newsletter covered updates to the draft copy of the Groundwater Management Plan, Wellhead Protection Program public meetings, and announcing producer text message alerts. Daryl reported he had a few calls that week regarding the Groundwater Management Plan. We have had 2 people opt in to the text message alerts.

Contacts	Emails Delivered	Open Rate	Clicks to links in Email	Unsubscribes
1,303	1,209	52.36%	298	9

A draft public review copy of the Groundwater Management is attached. 
Shown are the comments from a stakeholder.
"I have reviewed the document and want to congratulate all on a very robust and informative document with great background a clearly defined mission statement with actionable goals and objectives.  Minor issues are listed below."

1. Page 7, 1.5.1.  ‘Sampling area greater than 9 sq miles, unless a well-head protection area’ .  I’m was unclear whether being within a WHP increased or decreased the requirement for sampling. (Can reword) The Committee decided to reword to sample 50% of the high capacity well within a Wellhead Boundary.
2. Section 1.5.4 -  Hurray for you/us?  Good call.
3. Page 13, Fig 8.   May consider replacing brighter with warmer and darker with cooler in describing colors on the map.  Also Permeability...it would help my understanding as it relates to surface recharge if a map could show the range of permeability in inches/hour.  (This would be hard to do with this type of map but can visit with LRE) The Committee decided that permeability is variable and to put in the map might be misleading. They recommend rewording for better understanding. 
4. Section 2.7 ....water level rises and declines changes affect...  Perhaps rephrase as ‘water level changes (rise or decline) affect’?  Please define "dewatering activities" (Can reword and clarify). Committee decided to re-phase the water level change but decided not to define de-watering because of its different uses.
5. Page 30, Paragraph 2 - spelling error ntrual = natural; overtime = over time. (can correct) Will correct
6. Page 31, Section 2.1.5, 7^th bullet.  Spring filed = filled. (can correct) Will correct
7. Page 35, Section 3.2, Paragraph 2.  Consider moving the sentence, "This map also provides a general representation of areas that are more likely to naturally recharge groundwater" to the end of the paragraph to avoid confusion switching from artificial recharge.  May consider exchanging, "This map" with Figure 26.  You may consider taking out the reference to a 1 to 5 scale since it is not on the map and just state from Very Low to Very High as shown in Figure 26. (Can reword and correct) Committee agreed on rewording and taking out the 1 to 5 scale. 
8. Section 3.2 continued.  I would like to see this section expanded to include other "treatment" options that reflect the majority of the land use in the LPNRD (i.e. soy/corn production), such as grassy buffer strips, cover crops, reduced tillage, maintaining crop residues, perineal rotation cropping.  (Discussion with Committee) Committee decide to leave this as is as best management practices could change or new ones are utilized. 
9. Interesting that Fremont used about 3X as much water per person than Wahoo.  Perhaps the difference is due to industrial uses?  What programs are available for industries to reduce harmful artificial discharge and who manages those? (These are the numbers) The Committee decided to leave as is. 
10. Section 3.3, Paragraph 2.  Table 5 and 6 in the text and Table 6 and 7 shown in the legends. (Can Correct)  Will correct
11. In my opinion, Table 8 would be more informative if the gallons used by each category was provided in addition to the break down of type of wells.  For example, Commmunity/Industry is only 1% of wells but may account for a large % of water useage.  (May not have accurate numbers available but can investigate) The Committee recommends leaving as it is because it is a snapshot of usage.  
12. Section 4.1.1, Paragraph 3.  Land use categories could use additional clarification.  Irrigated farmland is 5 and all other is 1?  What about a factory or processing plant or feedlot that discharges into a tributary or over land? (Can Clarify) Committee suggested to clarify
13. Page 44.  HOW do we get neonicotinoids on the list for monitoring? Discussion The Committee recommended leaving this off the list.
14. Section 4.2, Paragraph 1, Line 8,  trave=travel (can correct) Will correct
15. Section 5. 1.3 Objective 3.4,  with thin = within (thin is correct) Will try to reword
16. Section 5.1.4,  Nitrate Risk Too?  Please add an explanatory phrase for this title. (Can correct with more explanation) Will correct and add a brief explanation.

The plan is to hold the hearing for the GWMP on October 13 at 5 pm in the NRD Board Room in Wahoo.  Public notice by State Statue requires 3 consecutive weeks in a row with the last notice 7 days prior to the hearing.  Public notices would be published for the weeks of September 15, 22 and 29.  

Recommend moving forward with corrections being done by the Board Meeting.  Set the hearing date for October 13 at 5 pm.

Staff and LRE have made the corrections to the GWMP since the committee meeting, which is attached as LPN GWMP - Final 11.0. 

An invoice is attached from LRE for $1,552.52.  

Rationale:  Tim Svatora Installed an RO Unit through our RO Unit Cost share program.
We are offering to pay 75% of the total cost up to $800. 

Tim Svatora one RO Unit cost share of $800.                                

Rationale:  The NRD has received a few kits, but a number of producers have not used their wells.  Some producers do not plan on laying out pipes or putting their power unit out by the well.  This might be a year to waive the requirement to collect a water sample from the Water Quality Phase Areas.  The bottles in the kits are good until September 2026, so producers would just keep the kits if they have ordered and paid for them.  If a water sample has been received, the NRD could not charge them for next year's kit.     

Rationale:  DWEE staff will be at the September 28 Water Committee Meeting to give the annual update. 

Rationale: 

For 2025 we have 660 renewals and 42 new permit applications for a current total of 702.  Inspections for 174 renewal permits have been completed.

Rationale:  2025 Irrigation Sampling
-28 out of the 53 Statewide Network Wells have been sampled. All nitrate samples with some pesticide, chloride, sodium, and uranium. 
-10 out of the 53 wells said no to sampling, due to pivots already being winterized, and rain. 
-Potential to sample 15 more wells. 


Data & Analysis
-Further analysis of sample results will be completed in the fall/winter. 
-Analysis will include a district-wide map of nitrate levels, comparisons from historical data, comparisons from a wet to dry year, and other contaminant analysis as needed. 


 

Rationale: 

No new wells have been reviewed and approved for decommissioning since the last Committee meeting.

Rationale: 

No wells have been plugged, reviewed, and ready for cost share payment approval this month.

Rationale:  We are still receiving invoices for Flow Meter Cost Share. 
 

Russell Shonka

4

$                       4,000.00

Rationale:  The LPNNRD has been in the process of filling out a NET grant application for the Source Water Monitoring Project. This project would succeed in the goal of adding more dedicated monitoring wells into the district. This project originally applied for the Water Sustainability fund, but was not accepted. The cost of the total project is estimated at $447,702, with the LPNNRD matching 40% of that cost at $179,081 over a 3-year period, equaling $59,693.67 per year. The Grant is due by September 2nd.

Rationale:  The Village of Mead is applying for the Source Water Protection Grant. The LPNNRD has been assisting in the application process. The total cost of the project is estimated at $45,700 with the LPNNRD cash-match of $5,000 dollars as well as assisting the community in updating the Wellhead Protection Plan, water sampling, and public outreach. 

Rationale:  The City of Yutan is pursuing the Source Water Protection Grant and the LPNNRD is currently assisting with the application process. The estimated total of this project is $48,500 with the NRD putting in a cash-match of $3,000 dollars. The LPNNRD will also assist in water sampling in the proposed project area and helping with components of updating the Wellhead Protection Plan.

Rationale:  This week's beach Bacteria and Harmful Algal Bloom results are now posted on the DWEE web page (Current Health Alerts and Sampling Results For This Week).   
  
Cub Creek Lake in Jefferson County and Bluestem Lake in Lancaster County will be on Health Alert this week after testing high for microcystin.  
 
Branched Oak Lake at Leibers Point Beach, Maple Creek Recreation Area Lake, and Summit Lake all tested above 235 colonies/100 mL for E. coli bacteria.
 
There are 2 beaches on Health Alert this week.

Current Lakes on "Health Alert"
Lake	County	Microcystin (ppb)	Sample Date
Bluestem Lake	Lancaster	>35	8/25/2025
Cub Creek Lake	Jefferson	12.43	8/25/2025

When a lake exceeds 8 ppb of microcystin it will be placed on Health Alert. If a lake is under a Health Alert, signs will be posted recommending people avoid full body contact activities such as swimming, wading, skiing, jet skiing, etc. 
There are 3 beaches with E.coli testing above 235 colonies/100 mL.

Lakes with High E.coli Bacteria
Lake	County	E.coli (MPN)	Sample Date
Branched Oak Lake at Liebers Point Beach	Lancaster	488	8/25/2025
Maple Creek Recreation Area Lake	Colfax	2,420	8/25/2025
Summit Lake	Burt	313	8/25/2025

When E. coli bacteria levels test above 235 colonies/100 mL a Health Alert is not issued. However, conditions are at a higher risk to human health when swimming. Considering the more rapid changes in bacteria conditions, signs are not posted with these higher levels. Although, we want people to be aware of beach conditions and use their own judgment as to whether they use a listed water body.
Have a great Labor Day weekend!

Justin Haas
State Lakes Coordinator
Department of Water, Energy and Environment
245 Fallbrook Blvd., Suite 100
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Direct: 402-471-4224 | Main Office: 402-471-2186