Public information meeting delves into Pattison water use permit

By Audrey Posten

Staff from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Use Program and Environmental Field Office #1, as well as the Iowa Geological Survey, led a public information meeting in Elkader on Aug. 22 regarding Pattison Sand Company’s request earlier this year to dramatically increase water withdrawals at its mining operation near Clayton. 

Pattison would like to modify a permit to up its current maximum water withdrawal quantity from 976.8 million gallons per year to 3.7 billion, which the company said will be used for dewatering and to help it quarry limestone below the water table. The increase is from multiple sources, including the Mississippi River, water pits, surface water ponds and groundwater wells, according to the DNR.

Chad Fields, geologist II with the Water Supply Engineering Section of the Iowa DNR, said last week’s meeting was an effort to provide more transparency after hundreds of individuals and entities expressed concerns about the increase, for which the water use program drafted an initial approval.

Many comments came at an April 22 public hearing, during which attendees criticized a lack of notice and information about the water use, and worried about the potential impact on the Jordan aquifer and local wells and municipalities. People also disagreed with the DNR’s assessment that Pattison’s need for more water is justified, while disputing that a corporation should be allowed to pull water from a public resource without being charged for it.

“The way we were doing the public hearing is the legal way we’re supposed to take information from the public. We’re supposed to receive comments, digest those comments and then issue a permit,” Fields said. “But I realized one of the things we needed to do was explain, answer questions, talk about our program, talk about water use in general and get more of a dialogue going than what that format allowed us to do.”

The Aug. 22 meeting was intended to include a brief presentation from DNR and Iowa Geological Survey staff, followed by an open house format where attendees could individually ask the agencies questions. However, attendees expressed a desire for group discussion, leading to an hour-long question and answer session about the permit as well as area geology and hydrogeology.

Fields said users withdrawing over 25,000 gallons of water per day must obtain a water use permit from the Iowa DNR. Permits are generally valid for 10 years and include conditions on the source(s), volume(s), rate of withdrawal and beneficial use of the water withdrawal. All permit holders are required to submit annual water use reports to the program, detailing the quantity of water withdrawn, the source and water levels. That data helps track statewide usage patterns and supports water resource planning and future development.

Pattison has had a water use permit for about 15 years. Although the latest is currently expired, Fields said the total allocation will remains as it is until a study on the proposed increase can be completed over the next year.

The Iowa DNR Water Use Program has four staff and oversees about 3,300 permits across the state, many of which are irrigation permits. Fields said power generation utilizes the most water, followed by public water supplies. The highest permits range from 20 billion to 30 billion gallons annually.

Permits for quarries like Pattison make up 327—or 10 percent—of the 3,300 overall permits. The largest water allocation for a quarry is currently 5.6 billion gallons. 

In Iowa, the extraction of earth materials for the purpose of making sand, limestone and other goods is considered a beneficial use. Shipping water via railcar, which Pattison previously proposed, does not meet a beneficial use. Fields dispelled concerns the recent proposed increase was tied to that, stating, “no, they’re not going to have the ability to do the water train.” 

As in Pattison’s case, the purpose of a quarry permit is generally for dewatering, according to Fields. Water use is often driven by rainfall. 

“If there is a drought, dewatering actually isn’t needed because you don’t have the water filling up the sand you’re extracting. When we get more rainfall in the area of the quarry, that’s when we see most of the water use, because they want to get that water off site,” he explained.

Ryan Clark, a bedrock geologist with the Iowa Geological Survey, also addressed Pattison’s desire to quarry limestone below the water table. 

“As you go inward from the Mississippi River, the water table in this part of the aquifer comes up a little. They’re trying to bring a railroad essentially from the river level up into their facility. As they work inward and remove this limestone, it’s getting saturated because they’re intersecting that water table. They need to draw that water table down so they can quarry that out. The water they’re using to process sand is after they’ve already removed it from the underground,” he said. “They have the sand processing and then they have this quarrying activity going on at the same time.”

Agency staff said Pattison is complicated, too, in that there’s water movement back and forth in the facility, between wells and ponds. Water is also re-used.

“It all gets aggregated into one unit—3.7 billion for Pattison’s case—but each source has its own allocation too,” said Fields.

Because of the complexity, he said the DNR will utilize the expertise of the Iowa Geological Survey to help the agency understand more of the geology and hydrogeology of the area. 

“We’ll look at the effects of the water movement, the effects of the pumping, any kind of mitigation efforts. We’re going to use their analysis to come to our conclusion on what that permit will be. We anticipate a year for a study to happen,” Fields shared.

Keith Schilling is the state geologist and director of the Iowa Geological Survey, which has been around for 130 years and is now an independent agency at the University of Iowa that investigates water quantity and quality issues across the state.

He said Pattison’s water use is not “in any way, related to a single well pumping that much water out. You get all those different pumping activities going on, rainfall recharge, Mississippi River recharge and subsurface groundwater below. We’ve got all those things to weigh in. There’s a lot of work to do to understand a water budget for a very complex system.”

Pattison is also located within a complex area of  the state.  One of the greatest public concerns was the impact quadrupling water use could have on the Jordan aquifer—which Fields said makes up one-fifth of Pattison’s water sources—and local wells and municipalities. 

According to Clark, the region has other aquifers in addition to the Jordan.

“People are drinking from different units all over the place. Not everybody is drinking the same water,” he explained.

Schilling and Clark also described this corner of northeast Iowa as “unconfined.” Although part of the same Jordan system as the rest of the state, Cambrian-Ordovician rocks at the ground surface mean northeast Iowa groundwater is recharged by rainfall in years, months or even days. The Jordan throughout the “confined” rest of Iowa takes centuries to recharge from an area in Minnesota.

“All the unconfined water is flowing to the rivers and streams. Pattison is getting a large chunk of their water directly from the induced recharge from the Mississippi River,” Schilling said. “Water in Des Moines is really old because it takes a long time to either seep through the confining units [layers of rock] or enter the aquifer from precipitation recharge in Minnesota and travel. This water up here, in this little stretch, is recharged every time it rains and is not tens of thousands of years old.” 

“I feel like we need to be clear that this is rechargeable with rainfall. That is not. And it’s the same aquifer. Groundwater here is not going to flow down to Des Moines,” he continued. 

Through an impact assessment of Pattison Sand Company’s water use and movement at the mine, the Iowa Geological Survey will study how water moves in and around the site, the geological characterization of local aquifers and aquitards, area water levels by local aquifer, an overall water budget, possible impacts on nearby private wells, potential long-term effects on local aquifers, including the Jordan, and broader environmental impacts. 

“We’re going to figure out how much is replenishing back into the aquifer, how much is emptying into the Mississippi River, how much is evaporating,” Schilling said. “We are working with Pattison to try and identify willing landowners in the area who will let us measure water levels in their wells. We’re open to chatting with people.”

The Iowa Geological Survey will also model a cone of depression which the DNR permit summary report said could extend all the way to Garnavillo. With a cone of depression, water flow from the region is induced to flow toward a well—in this case at Pattison. 

“Because the level is lower where you’re pumping, that’s the cone we’re talking about,” Schilling shared. “Cones vary based on the permeability of the aquifer, the recharge to the aquifer, the layers involved. We’re going to be working with the mine to do some pump tests to try to figure that out. There is going to be a cone of depression, guaranteed, but we don’t have the data right now. This is very early in our evaluation process.” 

Fields hopes the study will offer regulatory clarity for the DNR. It could influence permit conditions that guarantee little impact on area wells, rivers and streams.

If deemed necessary, conditions could include trigger levels or protective flows to limit pumping if water levels reach a certain point. Meters could also be placed on pumps “to make sure everything aligns with what is said,” noted Fields. “Certain states require that by law. Nebraska, for example.”

Schilling said the Iowa Geological Survey will not be directly involved in the permitting process. 

“We’re weighing in on everybody’s behalf for the system, the resource itself. We’re not permitters, we’re not regulators. It’s ultimately the DNR’s role, as the regulator, to do that. We’ll give them all the information they need to do that,” he stated.

Schilling said there is no estimated cost for the year-long study, data from which will be publicly available once complete. It will be funded through the organization’s general fund appropriations from the state legislature. 

“We’re not getting funded by Pattison or DNR to do this. Nobody’s paying us,” Schilling explained. “Part of our budget from the state legislature is to work on behalf of the state. I think it’s in everybody’s best interest that we’re involved.”

He mentioned more funding is always needed. Although the Iowa Geological Survey’s recent state allocation was upped from $695,000 to $895,000 annually, and there’s momentum to plan and budget regarding Iowa’s groundwater resources, the state lags behind others. Schilling said neighboring states average $4.4 million in funding.

“There’s a lot of demand for groundwater studies and we can only do so much. If you look at [other states’] groundwater monitoring networks, there are hundreds of wells. We have 50 total. That’s not even close to being enough,” he said.

Meeting attendees commented, too, on the fact only four staff oversee the DNR’s water use program. With the growth of data centers, the need for planning and monitoring is increasingly pivotal. 

District 64 State Rep. Jason Gearhart attended last week’s meeting. A DNR employee himself, he felt it was important to collect information after hearing from concerned constituents. 

He considered Pattison’s water use among the overall state use. 

“For this area, 3.7 billion seems like a lot, but in the overall picture of water usage, it’s a small amount. Quarries play a part, but maybe there are other areas we need to watch more. As we get more and more data centers and other things that require power, we’re going to need more power generating facilities and that’s going to take more water,” he said.

Gearhart is “open to coming up with solutions” and working with other legislators.

“I’m not so much worried for me today. I’m worried my kids, grandkids, great-grandkids. Fifty, 100, 300 years from now, are we desert southwest in Iowa because we don’t have any water?” he wondered. “Water usage is not a left-right, red-blue, Republican-Democrat issue. It’s something a lot of people will support with bi-partisan support. It’s all our water.”