Third time is not the charm for Pattison water request
By Audrey Posten, Times-Register
For a third time, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has turned down a request by Pattison Sand Co. to withdraw millions of gallons of water from its Clayton property and ship it to western states suffering from drought.
In the most recent application to the DNR, dated April 22, Pattison proposed drilling a well to extract 448.8 million gallons of water each year to export.
The company is currently permitted to pump a combined 2.1 billion gallons of water each year from its wells and the Mississippi River. Another well, noted Pattison, would help them supply the water without going over that limit.
Pattison originally sought to export 2 billion gallons of water annually. The DNR denied that request on Feb. 4, stating that permanently removing that volume of water from the basin did not meet statutory and regulatory permitting requirements.
“The department has determined the application’s requested withdrawal of water will have a negative impact on the long-term availability of Iowa’s water resources,” the DNR added in the denial letter.
In a second request, submitted in late February, Pattison proposed extracting 33.6 million gallons of water, but that too was turned down, with the DNR stating the company would have to apply for a new water use permit.
Pattison is known for mining silica sand, which is often used in hydraulic fracturing, a process that extracts oil and natural gas from the earth. In 2016, a crushing plant was built to produce limestone aggregate material.
The company’s latest plan, which it said would diversify business opportunities and ensure stable employment, would ship water out west via rail car. The water would then be dumped into a man-made or natural reservoir, river or channel and drawn upon and processed as needed.
In the second water use permit application to the DNR, Pattison said it was unsure of how the water would be used or the exact location the water would be used, but the company it has contracted with is in discussions with entities in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and California.
In its denial of that request, the DNR informed Pattison the agency must be provided with sufficient information regarding the beneficial use of water in order to complete the application process.
Pattison attempted to skirt that point with its third request by asking the DNR to waive the statutory requirement that water be put to beneficial use.
The company also appealed directly to Gov. Kim Reynolds and Iowa DNR Director Kayla Lyon, claiming that Pattison’s location in the Jordan aquifer—which cuts diagonally across the state, from northeast to southwest Iowa, and currently supplies water to nearly half a million people—would not affect water levels in other parts of the basin. Water lies closer to the surface in northeast Iowa than in other parts of the state and, paired with the proximity to the Mississippi River, recharges more quickly, a letter to the officials said.
The letter added that Pattison wants to “develop this unique renewable resource that is currently not being put to any productive use... In fact, if not used, this resource is wasted as it moves into the Mississippi.”
Refusing to budge, the DNR, on May 21, issued a notice of intent to deny Pattison’s water use permit application as well as the request for a waiver or variance regarding providing information related to the beneficial use of water.
A letter to Pattison from Iowa DNR Water Quality Bureau Chief Lori L. McDaniel said, pursuant to Iowa Code, the agency cannot “waive or vary any requirement created or duty imposed by statute.”
“Pattison has failed to supply the department with sufficient information regarding the beneficial use of the requested water,” added Iowa DNR Water Supply Engineering Supervisor Mark Moeller in a separate letter. “Without sufficient information, the department cannot conduct an investigation into the beneficial use of the requested water as required by Iowa Code 455B.264(2) and cannot determine if the use of the water complies with the principles of beneficial use.”
Pattison had the opportunity to submit comments in support of its application by June 1.
Moeller closed his letter by stating the DNR has other potential concerns regarding the scenario posed in Pattison’s application.
“However, the department must have enough information to complete its beneficial use investigation before it can determine if those concerns are even valid. The department reserves the right to address those concerns if the need arises,” he said.
