From: Jennifer Hanson <hansonj@nidwater.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 4:04 PM
To: Dianna Suarez <suareztribe@yahoo.com>; pfw@nidwater.com
Subject: RE: Comment for the Plan for Water Hydrology TM Historic Data

Hi Dianna,

Let’s setup a meeting and we can go through all of your concerns. I think a large part of your concerns regarding demand and reduction will be addressed at later stages in the process.

Do you have any availability next week?

Jennifer Hanson, NID General Manager

From: Dianna Suarez <suareztribe@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:31 PM
To: Jennifer Hanson <hansonj@nidwater.com>; pfw@nidwater.com
 

Subject: Re: Comment for the Plan for Water Hydrology TM Historic Data

Dear Jennifer Hanson and Greg Jones,

I was disappointed in many of your responses to my submittal of unanswered questions from your previous technical memos regarding the hydrological analysis of NID supply and demand, copied directly from your public documents.  The original memos produced a lot of controversy.  NID promised to address these issues in the Plan for Water.  Sadly, instead of addressing these issues and revealing where they are located within your Plan for Water documents, or even when they were discussed, your response evades the issues and projects a condescending and hostile tone precipitating a major breach of trust regarding the model outputs.

The relevance of these issues come from the fact that you plan to use this disputed data in your future modeling of supply and demand for planning projects that impact a community far larger than your customer base.  The contrast between the invitation for participation and response to public comment is stark. I have worked with environmental documents during my professional career and answered many public queries.  This is one of the worst public responses I have seen.

I have attached an abbreviated response to response.  Responses are in green.

In conclusion I hope that NID continues to move toward transparency despite the arrogance and hostility that comes through in some of these responses.  The lack of definitive growth values, lack of raw water measurement capabilities, and troubling intent of NID to “conduct the analysis however they want” creates significant doubt as to the validity of any outcomes from your model.  Program level documents are a long-term process that deserves the open-minded pursuit of comprehensive results, not manipulated data leading to a predetermined outcome.  True collaboration comes from a welcoming of new ideas and responses that invite brainstorming ideas from all directions toward a common goal. 

 It is notable that NID plans to use the Plan for Water as the lead-up document toward their water rights application naming Centennial Dam as the project that will impound the 56340x State Water Right.  I recommend that the NID Board withdraw the 56340x Water Right Application or face credible doubts about data manipulation and breach of trust regarding the model outputs.

 Sincerely, Dianna Suarez