Pattison Sand Company sheds additional light on water request

By Audrey Posten

Pattison Sand Company owner Kyle Pattison led an on-site informational session May 17 addressing the company’s request to dramatically increase water withdrawals at its mining operation near Clayton.

An Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water use permit summary report says Pattison would like to modify a permit to triple its current maximum water withdrawal quantity from 976.8 million gallons per year to 3.7 billion.

The request to modify the permit was the subject of an April 22 public hearing in Elkader, during which not one of the at least 80 people in attendance spoke in support of the water withdrawals. Attendees criticized a lack of notice and information about the water use, and worried about the withdrawals’ 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.

Two officials from the DNR led the hearing, but declined to make a statement or answer questions. Additionally, no representatives from Pattison Sand Company spoke, although Pattison later confirmed he was in attendance.

“I apologize for not talking at that meeting. I should have,” Pattison said on May 17 to the around 15 people in attendance, which included nearby residents and county officials.

Pattison shared copies of the DNR’s water use summary report, which acknowledged there could be potential impacts. It also said, in the agency’s estimation, that “the ability and intent of the applicant to devote a reasonable amount of water to a beneficial use seems evident” and “the requested amount of water use is also justified by law, barring compelling circumstances that mitigate to the contrary.”

In the report, the agency recommended the permit be granted, citing no evidence the permit modification would constitute a waste of water resources or be detrimental to the public interest or interests of property owners. However, the Iowa DNR is continuing to review Pattison Sand’s application, and a written comment period was extended a little over a month, from mid-April until May 27, due to public interest. 

The DNR anticipates making a decision no more than 60 days after the May 27 date, in addition to holding a public meeting to communicate the decision.

Chad Fields, geologist III with the Water Supply Engineering Section of the Iowa DNR who signed the water use permit summary, shed more light on this last week.

“We’ve received a significant amount of public feedback and recognize the need for improved communication regarding this permit.,” Fields said. “Currently, we’re working to schedule a public information open house in the area, likely mid-June. At this event, we’ll share more details and respond to the questions raised during the public comment period. We’re also exploring how to evaluate potential well interference impacts over the next year.”

“While we are still finalizing the logistics for the public meeting and the approach to an environmental impact study, we hope to have more concrete information after May 27,” Fields added.

According to Kyle Pattison, the request to pump additional water is to quarry limestone below the water table.

“There is a massive flow of water in this area and this much water may be needed to dewater the quarry,” he previously explained to the newspaper. “If we did not pump, at times, our rail tracks would be under water.”

Pattison discussed this further on May 17, stating that the natural water elevation in that area is about 617 feet, while the rail tracks are at 627.

“Part of the reason to ask for potential more gallons is to keep our tracks out of the water because they’re 10 feet away from the normal water elevation,” he said.

Pattison said the company’s focus on sand is likely to decrease some, instead handling more rock and diversifying into railcar storage and “handling other products on the Mississippi River and rail and continuing to provide jobs that are a little more stable.”

“Our gameplan is to continue to run the railroad tracks up the valley, up by the shop, so we have continued ability to handle the cars in the volume we ship out of here at a lower cost and/or to ship other products or more aggregate,” he added. “Just to explain the bigger picture, we are, just like you, trying to make a living and find good jobs for the people around us. Right now, we’re employing about 175 people.”

Water from two nearby wells is used for washing railcars or washing the aggregate shipped from there.

Pattison claimed the water the company is pumping would be in the Mississippi within a few days, if not used. 

“What we’re pumping is either going into this operation here or where we’re dumping sand on top of the hill or it’s evaporated when we dry the water out of the sand,” he said. 

Other than water that evaporates, Pattison reported water the company uses goes back into the ground or is pumped into a creek that runs into the Mississippi River. 

“Let’s say, if we pump a billion gallons, probably 50 or 75 percent of that is just going around in a circle because it just runs down into the valley…for the most part, it runs back into the wells and we pump it again. We’re all internally drained,” Pattison stated.

The company said the two wells mentioned are monitored with meters. Employee Carl Orr said it’s tracked monthly, but usage is reported to the DNR only once per year.

“We have a computer control system that monitors our wells we pump. The pump pumps so many gallons a minute or hour, whatever it may be. We keep track of the hours it’s running,” Orr continued.

From past pump tests and observations, Pattison believes draw downs will not impact wells, including their own.

Another employee, Ian Schultz, who manages the quarry operation and lives nearby, said a cone of depression was identified after pumping five days per week, 24 hours per day.  

“The farthest we could monitor that cone affected was about where you see that load out system. Anything beyond that cone, there is no influence from those two wells. We let it shut off over the weekend and it regenerates,” he said. “What Kyle was saying earlier, we’re pumping surface water out of that mined area and we’re also taking any internally drained water from our mining and sourcing that water and recycling that, which then goes back into that cone. So far, what we’ve noticed with our monitoring hasn’t influenced my well, which is about a mile up the road, or any neighboring wells in the proximity.”

“Ian’s well is in the St. Peter formation, and that’s what we’re mining. If there was any well to have a problem because of our mining operation here, it would be his well. We test his well to make sure there isn’t a problem,” Pattison said. “With that, it should cause you to be comfortable that anything we’re doing in the mine isn’t going to impact anybody’s well.”

One attendee disputed this evidence, however, if the well is not in the Jordan aquifer.

“I understand his situation, but our situation is going to be different if you’re pulling way more water out of the Jordan aquifer,” the man said.

“You’re right,” Pattison acknowledged. “That is a different aquifer and I was just giving one example. I was just talking about one potential zone.” 

Another attendee, Kay Vifian, said she’s heard from people from miles around who are having issues with their wells. Some nearby property owners at the public hearing said the same, and accused Pattison of not following through on offers to monitor their wells.

“It seems like people’s concerns need to be addressed before increasing the volume,” Vifian said. “You’re talking about what’s going on right now, but you’re increasing this by triple the amount of water you’re pumping.”

“That’s a good point and I understand your concern,” Pattison responded. “The normal process, if you apply for that, they run it 24/7, 365 so it appears a lot worse than what it is. But they figure you don’t pump as much as what you’re permitted for. Pumping water costs a lot of money. We’re not going to pump any more than what we need to.”

Schultz agreed the “permit is reaching for what we would ever potentially get to.”

He indicated Pattison will be mining for an undetermined period of five to 10 or 12 years through this zone.

“Then we’ll no longer need to pump this water. It’s going to be a minimal influence for a minimal period of time,” Schultz said. “We need to apply for that permit for a worst case scenario if we ever had to withdraw that amount of water. We will, in reality, likely never get there, but there is a chance. That’s why we applied for that size a permit.” 

Like Vifian, others on May 17 said their concern is the potential impacts of pulling extra water, not what’s currently used.

“How sustainable is that?” asked one person. “You’re talking a lot of water per year. Water is not an unlimited source. It’s gotta come from somewhere. If we have drought years, that could change.”

“I’d hate to see us pulling all this out of the aquifer. This is for future generations,” another person added. “Once they’re empty, they’re empty.”

Attendees questioned the possibility of contamination in the water system with how Pattison recycles water. One man said, during times of freezing and thawing, he’s had cloudy water. He noticed it for the first time this spring and planned to have his nearby well tested.

“Anything is possible,” Pattison said, “but if we’re not seeing turbidity here out of what we’re pumping, the chances of us having any impact elsewhere would be pretty small. If you’re down from us, we can certainly look into that. We do the best to minimize the impact we have on the people we have around us and explain what’s going on.”

More of a concern, though, was what happens if someone’s well goes down, as well as who would fund a replacement. 

“Do you have a plan if somebody was to lose a well and it was directly linked back to you?” one person asked Pattison.

Pattison said “there’s tons of reasons on why” people five or six miles away could have problems with their wells. “Anything is possible. One should never speak in absolute terms. There’s always a chance it could be impacted by us, but I’m reasonably confident that the chances of us having an impact on anybody’s well out any significant distance would be pretty small.”

Pattison works 80-hour weeks, he said, and doesn’t have time to take on everyone’s well concerns. Although he did offer for the company to conduct some monitoring or testing for those in close proximity.

“We can’t be addressing everybody that calls in and says they have a well problem. We can certainly participate or help understand or work with the DNR,” he stated. “If we have an impact, we’ll do what we can to minimize that impact. If we did damage or ruin a well, then I guess we would need to replace that well. If it’s 100 percent certain that’s the case, we can look at replacing that well.” 

Pattison concluded the session by welcoming people to reach out with concerns.

“We’ll do the best we can to explain what’s going on,” he said.