Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Antelope Valley Future Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Milbank seeks to reserve Antelope Valley groundwater as staff recommend approval with qualifications
Summary
At a contested hearing, state water staff presented a technical review supporting a reasonable probability that unappropriated water exists in the Antelope Valley aquifer and recommended approval of Milbank’s future-use reservation with standard qualifications; petitioners pressed staff on recharge estimates and aquifer delineation.
The South Dakota Water Management Board heard multi-hour testimony July 8 on the City of Milbank’s application (future-use permit 8990-3) to reserve water from the Antelope Valley aquifer. State staff entered the administrative record and called engineer Kim Drennen to describe her technical review and recommended conditions.
Drennen testified that her updated delineation places the Antelope Valley aquifer at roughly 35,000 acres (up from a historic 28,700-acre mapping), and that she applied a 2.3-inch-per-year recharge figure across that area to estimate roughly 6,700 acre-feet per year of recharge. She said her review estimated average withdrawals (excluding the Milbank request) at about 3,524 acre-feet per year and concluded there is a reasonable probability that unappropriated water is available for Milbank’s reservation (transcribed in the record as “11 20 acre feet per year” for the proposed future-use volume). She noted the future-use reservation does not authorize construction or placing water to beneficial use; any future development would require a separate permit and an unlawful-impairment review when well locations are submitted.
City witnesses described Milbank’s local needs and water-quality reasons for the request. City administrator Steve Pendergrass said the city is experiencing water-quality and wastewater compliance pressures — elevated total dissolved solids, iron and sulfate in existing well water — and is exploring treatment and blending options as well as funding sources such as SRF and discretionary grants. Banner Associates project engineer Sarah Panconin presented a facilities-plan summary showing elevated iron (reported in the record at roughly 3–4 compared with a secondary standard of 0.3) and describing treatment options (aeration/gravity filtration for iron; reverse osmosis to reduce sulfate and sodium) and the disposal challenges of RO concentrate.
Independent reviewers and petitioners pressed staff on methods and data. DGR Engineering’s Matthew Odykovan testified that the Antelope Valley aquifer appears to have distinct northern and southern zones separated by Punished Woman Lake and cautioned against treating the entire delineation as a single, uniformly available recharge area. Counsel and intervenors questioned reliance on older core reports and the degree of uncertainty introduced by variations in irrigation reporting, observation‑well records, and the decision not to estimate recoverable storage.
Acting chief engineer Adam Mathiewitz, a peer reviewer of the staff report, told the board the office compares recharge and withdrawals using "the best reasonably available information" and that statutory guidance (SDCL 46-6-3.1) requires a showing that it is not probable withdrawals will exceed average estimated annual recharge, but allows staff to rely on differing forms of technical evidence when a numeric recharge estimate is not reasonably available. Mathiewitz said the recommendation is for approval with standard qualifications, including notice that future development requires a separate permit and that there are other permits and wells with senior priority within the selected future-use area.
No final board vote on Milbank’s future-use reservation appears in the July 8 transcript; the hearing included extensive cross-examination and testimony that the board may weigh alongside staff recommendations and submitted exhibits when it deliberates.
Why it matters: A future-use reservation gives a municipality a senior priority date to support long-range planning but does not by itself authorize construction or immediate pumping. Petitioners argued that without additional observation-well data or localized recharge studies, the uncertainty about localized availability and potential impacts to neighboring users warrants caution; staff and the city countered with hydrologic mapping, observation-well trends and planning needs.
What’s next: If the board approves a future-use reservation, Milbank would still need to submit separate permit applications and site-specific analyses to place water to beneficial use; if the board denies or conditions the reservation, affected parties could seek further administrative or judicial review.
