MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 11, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Tuesday, March 11, 2003.  Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Tom Grady

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mr. Ron Knecht

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Harry Mortenson

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Robert L. Crowell, on behalf of the Nevada Well Owners Association

Ray Preston, President, Nevada Well Owners Association

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Hugh Ricci, P.E. State Engineer, State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources, State Engineer’s Office

Andy Belanger, Management Analyst, representing Las Vegas Valley Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

Robert Tretiak, Ph.D., Vice President, Nevada Well Owners Association

George Hetter, President, Northwest Citizens Association

Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist, representing the Manufactured Housing Association:

Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County

Thelma Clark, Citizen

 

Chairman Manendo:

Good morning, Committee.  This is Assembly Government Affairs for the listening audience on the Web.  Madame Secretary, will you please call the roll.  [Roll called]  We’re all present.  [Chairman Manendo distributed several sets of minutes for review by Committee members.] 

 

Assembly Bill 213:  Removes prospective expiration of certain provisions regarding domestic wells and temporary permits for appropriation of ground water. (BDR S-654)

 

Assembly Bill 210:  Removes prospective expiration of certain provisions regarding domestic wells and temporary permits for appropriation of ground water. (BDR S-706)

 

Chairman Manendo:

Committee, turn to the agenda.  Our first bill is Assembly Bill 213.  Mr. Mortenson.  Mrs. Koivisto actually has an identical bill, Assembly Bill 210.  We’re still trying to figure out why that bill went to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor.  Please come forward, Mr. Crowell and anybody else.  Mr. Mortenson, Mrs. Koivisto, good morning.

 

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the Government Affairs Committee.  This is a very simple bill.  By the way, my name is Harry Mortenson, Assemblyman from District 42.  A very simple water bill.  I am going to ask Mr. Crowell to describe it to you.  Mr. Crowell is a former chairman of the Colorado River Commission and former president of the State Bar [of Nevada].  With him is Ray Preston, who is the President of the Southern Nevada Well Owners Association.

 

I was told at 5 o’clock yesterday that there will probably be an amendment to this bill.  I have not had the time to study it.  I think that the amendment will have to do with fines.  I am troubled with fines that are imposed by unelected officials.  In the south, there is a fine system for water wasters or excess users, which is imposed by elected officials, essentially the Board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.  In this case it would be, as I read the bill, imposed by an unelected official.  With that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Crowell.

 

Chairman Manendo:

First we will have Mrs. Koivisto, if she wants to go on record.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I’m Ellen Koivisto, Assemblywoman, District 14, Clark County, and I introduced A.B. 210 at the request of a number of well owners that live in my district who feel that they are probably better stewards of the resource than people who can just go to the tap, turn it on, and have an endless supply.  That is my reason for introducing and supporting this legislation. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you, Mrs. Koivisto.  I know it is important for you to go on record, depending on what happens with A.B. 210.  I think it is important that you go on record on A.B. 213, and we appreciate your doing that.

 

Thank you both.  You are welcome to stay there or come back and join the Committee.  Mr. Crowell?

Robert L. Crowell, on behalf of the Nevada Well Owners Association:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.  For the record, sir, my name is Robert Crowell, and I’m here on behalf of the Nevada Well Owners Association, testifying in support of Assembly Bill 213.  As you can see, Assembly Bill 213 probably says more by what it does not say than what it has in it, and I can appreciate the frustration that the Committee may have in just looking at a bill that has a title to it and then a bunch of deletions on it.  So, what I have done is taken the liberty of something rather unusual.  I have handed out a copy of the statute that is in existence now.  [Exhibit C]  It is NRS 534.120 [Nevada Revised Statutes] and that statute is set to expire by limitation on June 30, 2005.  At the same time, I have also handed out a copy of that same statute, as it would look after 2005.  [Exhibit D]

 

The purpose of the bill before you this morning is to allow NRS 534.120 to remain in effect as it is in current law today, and to allow that law to remain in effect indefinitely.  Let me call to your attention what exactly that does in terms of the legalities of it.  As you can see, existing NRS 534.120 that is in effect today has two very important sections.  Those are Sections 4 and 5, and those basically state the criteria under which the State Engineer may require a well to be plugged or require that a well user be connected to a municipal water system.  Those provisions of this law are set to expire by limitation in 2005.  It is those sections of the law that we are asking this Committee to allow to remain in existence indefinitely.  In other words, we want current law to continue.  I would like to turn it over to Ray Preston, who is the President of the Nevada Well Owners Association, to give you the justification of why this law came into existence and why we believe it should remain in existence.

 

Ray Preston, President, Nevada Well Owners Association:

My name is Ray Preston.  I’m the President of the Nevada Well Owners Association, and we operate statewide through affiliates.  Approximately five years ago, I was serving in a different capacity on an association, and it came to our attention that wells were being required to be hooked up, and the cost of hooking up was running somewhere around $18,000 per household, and that was if the water was in front of their home on the street.  Part of that $18,000 was plugging the well and that would run, normally, from $3,000 to $5,000, depending on how deep [it was], and the balance of it was fees and so forth to get the water to the edge of the property.  We thought that was a little bit exorbitant and had several meetings with the State Engineer, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and so forth, and we could not come up with a solution to that.  It put some retired people in a very difficult financial situation.  It affected me personally because I am retired.  So, we came up with Bill 408 [A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Legislative Session].  It gave us several things.

 

First of all, it set up a kind of a time line when this would happen, which is something we never had before, because the original bill says something to the effect that for any purpose or at any time.  There were no specifics.  This bill that we put in actually put into law the State Engineer’s policy and, as you know, policies can change over the years, depending on who is in charge and so forth.  I am a little concerned about that.  That is why we got started and we accomplished quite a bit.  We got that into law and, along with that, we got a grant of up to 85 percent that did not have to be paid back.  We also got some other concessions.  The well would be plugged by the Southern Nevada Water Authority at no charge.  That, of course, created an additional fee that the well owners—In fact, it went to all people who sucked water out of the aquifer—and that fee was $30 per acre-foot per year, and that is what financed the grant.  It was very good.  It also financed some of the recharge, which was good for the well owners.  It was good for everybody.  We think it was great.  It gave an affordable choice for those people who wanted to hook up, because everybody does not look at it the same way, and there were some wells in the different parts of the valley that were not that good.  It gave those people an affordable choice, and that was good. 

 

[Ray Preston continued.]  Since June 1999, when our bill came into effect, there were 148 homes that had been converted from a well to a water purveyor, and each one of them received the 85 percent grant, and that was good.  As near as I can tell from the figures, that took out the well owners pumping approximately 118,800 gallons of water per day that was no longer pumped from those particular wells.  However, the water purveyors, in turn, furnished that water, and some of it comes out of the aquifer, and some of it may have come from Lake Mead.  A total of 87 wells were plugged.  Only five wells were mandatory during this time, which shows it gave a lot of people an affordable choice, and we think that was a “win-win” program for everybody.

 

I know that a number of you live in the [Las] Vegas area, and you have seen the growth, and it continues, and it continues.  It makes the resources, and specifically water, very valuable.  We have been a big advocate of conservation.  Our newsletter, which I believe I passed out to most all of you approximately two weeks ago, shows about one-third of our letters in that particular issue were due to conservation.  I handed out a newsletter, Groundwater Update, [Exhibit E] that comes from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and in the first paragraph it shows that we have done a number of things and that they are 100 percent behind us.  I think that is good, and the State Engineer has said many times that this program is working. 

 

I posted our board just before I came up, and the Nevada Well Owners Association would like to work with the State Engineer and the Southern Nevada Water Authority regarding all water users in the valley.  We think we should all be treated in a similar and equitable fashion.  We think that there should be a bill passed in the next session that would specifically propose water conservation treating all water users the same, because there are a lot of different facets.  We have well owners with 1,800 gallons of water allocated per day.  We have the quasi-municipals that are allocated 1,000 gallons a day.  We have some out in Sandy Valley, and I realize this does not affect that, but some of those only have 300 gallons a day.  The ones on the wells, the permitted wells, the quasi-municipal wells, if they are overusing, there is only one meter—You may have three people on that well that are doing their very best and you may have one water waster.  We have got to get those people educated, but it is a real problem.  In any case, we urge you to pass this bill.  It is a simple bill.  It is good for everybody.  Water is everybody’s responsibility and we will work on that.  First, let’s pass this bill, and then we can direct our full attention to the matter of conservation and education of the well owners and everybody else.  Thank you very much.  If there is a question, I would try to answer that.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

For the record, Mr. Chairman, thank you.  Mr. Crowell, when you passed out two different documents, the big one [Exhibit C] is the present and the second one [Exhibit D] is the proposed?

 

Robert Crowell:

That’s correct.  I’m sorry.  Yes.  It says on the top [of Exhibit C] in bold letters, “Effective through June 30, 2005.”  That’s the current law.  The next [Exhibit D] says, “Effective July 1, 2005.”  You’re right.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

This isn’t actually a copy of the statute; it’s a summary because there are no Sections and subsections.

 

Robert Crowell:

No, that’s a copy of the statute right off the Web site. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, the number 1, number 2, are the Section 1, Section 2?

 

Robert Crowell:

Correct.  Dr. Hardy, while you’re looking at that, it’s Sections 4 and 5 that are the operative sections that are in existence now that will no longer be in existence after 2005, if you were looking at that.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Can you explain why you took [Sections] 4 and 5— What’s in these that you took out?

 

Robert Crowell:

I didn’t take anything out.  The first document I handed you [Exhibit C] is a copy of the statute, NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 534.120, and this is the law that is in existence now, but Sections 4 and 5 are subject, by what we call a “sunset law,” to expire, by their own limitation, in 2005.  Those Sections 4 and 5 of NRS 534.120 go away in 2005, and what the statue would look like is the second page I’ve handed you [Exhibit D] after they go away, and that is actually the law right now.  If you go to the Nevada Revised Statutes, you will find both these statutes there so that you see what is in the law and what is expected to become law in 2005.  We are asking that Sections 4 and 5 of the current law be continued in existence past 2005.  [Ms. Pierce asked for clarification on what is happening in Sections 4 and 5.] 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

If you extend the law, just throw this away.  [Assemblyman Goicoechea held up a document and Mr. Crowell affirmed that was correct.]

 

Chairman Manendo:

Any other questions?  Thank you, gentlemen.  Anybody else speaking in favor of Assembly Bill 213?  Against, we have Mr. Turnipseed and Mr. Ricci who indicated their desire to speak.

 

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Mike Turnipseed.  I’m the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Prior to that, I was State Engineer for 10½ years and worked in the division for 15 years.  First, I’m going to give you a little history of water management in the state; in particular, water management in Las Vegas.  Then I am going to get into the particulars of this bill and how it even came about in the first place.

 

The primary job of the State Engineer is to manage the state’s water, both above and below the ground.  He has been doing that a little over 100 years.  We just celebrated the 100^th anniversary of the creation of the State Engineer’s office two weeks ago. 

 

The first wells were drilled in the Las Vegas Valley about the turn of the century and, of course, they were artesian wells shot way above the casing.  Everybody thought there was an unlimited water supply, and people were encouraged to move to southern Nevada.  The State Engineer had jurisdiction over artesian wells beginning in 1913.  The Legislature gave the State Engineer jurisdiction over all wells in 1939.  A portion of what you have before you, NRS 534.120, was adopted in 1939 to give the State Engineer the ability to issue orders, designate basins, and various other things.  When he designates a basin, it means it is a basin in need of additional administration.  By 1939, it was clear that there was not an unlimited ground water supply in the Las Vegas Basin.  The Las Vegas Springs began drying up, and the State Engineer designated the Las Vegas Basin in 1941, as well as Pahrump Valley.

 

[Michael Turnipseed continued.]  In 1955, the Legislature gave the authority to the State Engineer to issue temporary permits.  Of course, by that time, we had a Colorado River allocation, but there was no way to get it into the valley.  Rather than stop growth in the 1940s, there was a policy decision made by the Legislature at that time to allow the growth to continue, but on temporary water.  That temporary water would be revoked upon service of Colorado River water.  In 1971, the Southern Nevada Water System started to bring Colorado River water into the valley, and the State Engineer began revoking permits.  There were several challenges to that revocation.  In the 1980s, it went to the U.S. Supreme Court twice.  Both times, the State Engineer was upheld in his ability to revoke permits.

 

To date, the State Engineer has revoked over 100,000 acre-feet of water.  Now, keep that in perspective.  Arguably, the recharge, the amount that is replenished by rainfall and snowmelt, is somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 acre-feet per year.  Most of that 100,000 acre-feet of water that was revoked belonged to the Las Vegas Valley Water District.  In 1999, the Legislature took away the ability to revoke permits.  When I first became State Engineer, there was no limitation on 180 feet; there was no limitation that if the well failed— In fact, I think when I became State Engineer, if you were within 660 feet of a water line, you had to extend the line and then hook up.  The whole idea was to wean the valley off of ground water and force development onto surface water, largely Colorado River water, in order to get the groundwater basin back into balance, so that the amount pumped during an average year equals the amount of recharge. 

 

There was also no provision that the well had to fail.  If the water line was within 660 feet of your property, you had to disconnect from the well, plug the well on your own, and hook up to the water system.  In comes the [Legislative] Session in 2001.  The same bill was offered in 2001 and it was killed.  Here we are again with these people wanting to make temporary water rights permanent water rights.  They want the financial aid—albeit, the connection fees have increased largely since the Las Vegas Valley Water District put the second straw in the lake and the new treatment plant.  That was not envisioned when these temporary permits were issued.  They were issued as temporary permits.  Everybody knew they were temporary permits.  Now they want to make them permanent water rights.

 

In the Las Vegas Valley, 98 percent of you are subsidizing the other 2 percent—that’s the quasi-municipal well owners and private well owners—yet they pump close to 10 percent of the water.  They have no interest in conservation.  A lot of them are using a lot more than they were allocated.  You are going to hear that we didn’t allocate them enough.  We gave them everything they asked for.  They have got half-acre lots, all with lawns, pools, misters, evaporative coolers, and everything else.  Some of them are using twice as much as they’re entitled to, so 98 percent of you are subsidizing the other 2 percent that are wasting the water.

 

[Michael Turnipseed continued.]  Had I known in 1990, 1991, and 1992, that these temporary permits were going to become permanent, I would never have issued them.  My predecessor, Pete Morros—all the temporary permits he issued in the 80s would never have been issued.  There was no idea that these temporary permits would ever become permanent.  There would have been no [Nevada] Well Owners Association because there would have been no wells.  All the growth would have had to occur on the Colorado River water, or the lots would have remained empty.

 

You have heard about the cost, probably you will hear about chlorine.  You have heard all kinds of excuses from a few whiners and snivelers.  There is still twice as much water being pumped out of the ground as being replenished.  You are in the worst drought in the history of the Colorado River.  The Colorado River water is going to be curtailed this year by 10 percent.  A heavy reliance is going to be on groundwater this year because of that 30,000 acre-feet of deficit that they are not going to be able to pump out of the Colorado River.

 

I think you should take a close look at turning temporary water rights into permanent water rights.  Everybody in Las Vegas should have to conserve, not just the people that are on a municipal system.  Do not take away the State Engineer’s ability to manage the water in the state of Nevada.  With that, I will take any of your questions. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Are there any fines currently on the well owners if they go [over their allotments]?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

There is not currently.  Mr. Ricci has been working with the [Nevada] Well Owners Association in an effort to compromise on this bill.  I think he will tell you that there was agreement on some fines and some different legislation back in December, but they reneged on the agreement.  I’ll let him tell you about that.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Just a couple of things, and I have to admit, coming from rural Nevada, I did not realize there was such a thing as a revocable domestic permit.  Are those permits in the Las Vegas Valley all for an annual duty of 1,800 gallons a day?  What is the duty on those wells?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

You are talking about two different concepts here, Mr. Goicoechea, Mr. Chairman.  Domestic wells have been exempt from permits since the state law was enacted in 1939, with the provision that you are allowed 1,800 gallons per day.  There was never an effort to force the closure of the single-family domestic well and have them hook on unless the well failed.  The only allowance in the statute that would force this person to hook on would be that the State Engineer can limit the depth of wells anywhere in the state.  We are talking mainly about quasi-municipal wells that were issued for 4 homes, 8 homes, 12 homes.  I think there are not many left that are bigger than 12 homes—possibly a few permits that may be for 24—as well as golf courses, convenience stores, those kinds of things. 

 

To answer your question, a domestic, single-family well under the statute is allowed up to 1,800 gallons per day.  The permit was issued for a quasi‑municipal well, commercial well, golf course, or whatever.  We set an annual duty and the annual volume of water that you are allowed to pump, and in the case of a lot of these quasi-municipal wells, they have exceeded that by, in some cases, two times.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Thank you, Mr. Turnipseed.  Just a follow-up, if I may.  Then, technically, we are talking about quasi-municipal wells that have a temporary permit in place.  [Mr. Turnipseed agreed.]  I guess I was under the impression that we were dealing with more of domestic water and just residential dwellings.  I did not realize that we were talking about—

Michael Turnipseed:

Certainly those people are part of the [Nevada] Well Owners Association, and there was never an attempt to force them off their domestic wells and have them hook up unless the well failed.  When they talk about the 1990 law, the 180 feet came into effect, the financial package came into effect.  That’s when the Groundwater Management district was created in Las Vegas, and then the quasi-municipal well had to fail.  We made those concessions in 1999 and, of course, the sunset provision was in 2005, beyond which we expected to revoke more permits to try to get the balance back so that pumping equaled recharge.  Of course, they want to remove this sunset clause so they can pump forever. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

We heard that 148 permits had been retired.  How many existing revocable permits are there in the basin?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Mr. Ricci will have to give you those numbers since I have not been State Engineer for two years now.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Mr. Turnipseed, I’ve got a question.  You said everyone should conserve.  I cannot disagree with that.  What you are proposing that we do?  You don’t feel that is singling out well owners to conserve while everyone else does what they want?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Actually, it is going to be just the opposite.  I don’t know if they have rolled it out yet, but the Southern Nevada Water Authority is about to roll out a very restrictive conservation plan.  There will be limitations on outside watering.  There will likely be limitations on washing your car in the driveway and letting the water run down the gutter.  We have those kinds of restrictions in the north when we are in a severe drought, and you are going to have the same kinds of things in the south this summer.

 

Your Colorado River water is going to be curtailed by 30,000 acre-feet.  There is no incentive for these well owners to conserve.  They have the same amount of water that they have always had.  All they have to pay is the power bill to get it out of the ground.  They have half-acre lots, they have pools, they have misters, they have water coolers, and in a lot of cases, they are pumping 50 percent more than what they are allowed.  In some cases, they are pumping twice as much as they are allowed. 

Chairman Manendo:

Mr. McCleary, we have somebody from the Southern Nevada Water Authority who is going to come up, and I am sure they will probably talk about that.  Ms. Weber?

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to say that I did a little bit of homework, and I know that I have 20 domestic well owners in my district, which is not many, but I want to make sure that their position is also heard.  I wanted to find out who has access to the meters and how often the meters are read, so that we can make sure that if more water is being pulled out of the ground than ought to be, that it gets to the source, which would be the user.  I’m under the impression that, perhaps, people are not getting access to information to know how much water is coming out of the ground.

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Every permit that the State Engineer issues requires a permit, whether it is a quasi-municipal well, a golf course well, an industrial well, or municipal well.  In the Las Vegas Valley, we have a Las Vegas office, and they are responsible for reading the meters.  That is not the case in the single-family, domestic well, since we do not issue a permit for those.  The only way we can tell how much a single-family, domestic well pumps is by comparing an aerial photo of neighbors where one side of the street is on a quasi-municipal well where we have a meter, and the houses that are across the street that are on a single‑family domestic well have the same size lawn, the same size house, the same size family presumably, same pool, same misters, same air cooler, and so that is how we compare the single-family, domestic well with the quasi‑municipal well that has a meter.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

If I could follow up, Mr. Chairman.  I am just trying to understand how these folks know, if they are on a quasi-municipal well or municipal wells, what their water usage is.  Do they actually know that firsthand, or does that go to a third party and is redistributed, just so that they know what their water usage is? 

 

Michael Turnipseed:

I will let Mr. Ricci answer that.  We produce an annual report.  It has every permit in the valley in it, and it has every meter reading in it. 

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

What you are saying is once a year— It is not on an ongoing basis so that they can see it and manage it, other than a once-a-year type of report.

 

Hugh Ricci, P.E. State Engineer, State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources, State Engineer’s Office:

Mr. Chairman, my name is Hugh Ricci.  I am the State Engineer, and I think the question that Ms. Weber is asking, if you would afford me the opportunity to just go through the proposed amendments [Exhibit F] that I have, and maybe some of these questions can be answered.  Would that be appropriate at this time?  [Chairman Manendo answered affirmatively.]

 

Hugh Ricci:

I will get to your question specifically.  Mr. Turnipseed has gone through as to the history of the revocable permit program, the establishment of NRS 534.210, and then the subsequent change amendment to that in 1999 through Assembly Bill 408 [of the Seventieth Legislative Session].  As he mentioned, there was a consideration of doing away with the sunset clause for this law to expire in July 1, 2005, in the 2001 Legislative Session.  Between that time and now, I have met a number of times with the [Nevada] Well Owners Association and discussed the elimination of the sunset provision.  During those meetings I indicated that I would be willing to keep in place two of the provisions which we have authority to control:  the 180-foot distance that one is away from the any water line, and that the well must fail, which then requires a well rigging with which to repair that particular well.

 

We discussed with the [Nevada] Well Owners Association a way of attempting to—as opposed to conservation—we are talking here as a matter of compliance, not conservation any longer.  We have issued a permit to somebody to extract a certain amount of water out of a well.  What happens when somebody exceeds that particular— It is not a conservation matter of getting them back to there, it is a compliance matter, and we discussed this.  Everybody is going to be very aware of conservation today in southern Nevada because of the ongoing drought.  So, in an attempt, we said, “What can we do to try to force this compliance,” and, obviously, compliance comes through conservation, and we discussed the possibility of a fine.

 

The suggested language for the amendment of A.B. 213 [Exhibit F] that you have before you is to eliminate a part where, “Section 2 of this act expires by limitation on July 1, 2005,” and I will tell you exactly why we did that.  Under Section 3, you will notice that this gives the State Engineer the ability to issue fines along with rules, regulations, and orders.  It says, “has the ability to issue fines.”  Subsection 3(e) describes that any person who is using more water than that which they were permitted to do so could be subject to that fine.  If you will notice, subsection 3 says, “Except as otherwise provided, the State Engineer may . . .”  It says he may require a person to whom groundwater is appropriated to pay a fine for use in excess of the appropriation; it does not say that he will.

 

The three criteria that were imposed in A.B. 408 [of the Seventieth Legislative Session] included the financial assistance package.  As you will notice on page 2 of 4 of the proposed amendments [Exhibit F], that whole portion of the financial assistance package is removed.  I suggested that be removed and placed in another part of the statute, since the State Engineer has no authority or ability to insure that this financial assistance stays forever.  Once that financial assistance goes away, then the State Engineer’s ability, if the law is kept in place with this statute in the water law, the State Engineer would never be able to have the authority to revoke a permit again.  If someone says, “Could we go back to the Legislature and change that?”  Possibly, but I think that this would be better removed and put into place of those people who have the legal authority in which to give that money, and remove it from our statute.  You also see that in Subsection 5(c), which is removed. 

 

[Hugh Ricci continued.]  Subsection 6 [Exhibit F] is one that probably is a very sticky point with a lot of people.  What this does is, if there is a fine imposed, and someone chooses not to pay the fine, this is a means of insuring that the fine would be paid at some time in the future, and that is by putting a lien on a piece of property.  I realize that this is severe, but if there is the imposition of a fine given to the State Engineer, but he has no ability in which to collect it, the whole process seems futile to me. 

 

Subsection 7 [Exhibit F] indicates that, in a basin that has a water authority, that has a ground water management district, such as in southern Nevada, any fines that are collected in this area goes to this fine and is put in the account for the payment for the hookups of these revocable permits, as well as plugging any of these wells.  The state gets no money as a result of that.  It goes right back into the [Las Vegas Valley] Groundwater Management Program.

 

On Page 3 of 4, subsection 9, [Exhibit F] in some instances you heard mention, I think by Mr. Preston, that there has been 140-some of these hookups, some of which had revocable permits.  Under the existing statute, the way it reads today, if somebody is hooked up to the district, we cannot revoke that permit, because that is not one of the conditions under which we can revoke the permit.  This gives us the ability, if somebody is being served by water from the utility, to revoke that permit. 

 

Section 4 [Exhibit F] is the real “meat” of this thing that gets to how these fines would be assessed and how they would be collected.  Section 4 puts into place another amendment to NRS Chapter 533 of the statutes that indicates that we will work with the parties to develop the rules pertaining to the issuance of fines and a process for collecting of the fines.

 

Section 5 [Exhibit F] takes the part that I mentioned out of NRS 534.120 of the financial assistance of not less than 50 percent to the 85 percent, and puts it in the Southern Nevada Water Authority statutes, and indicates that they will pay at least that amount for connection.

 

Section 6 [Exhibit F] now indicates that if this bill is passed, Section 3, which is the amendment to NRS 534.120, and the 85 percent, the financial assistance package, would become effective July 1, 2005, if I have complied with Section 4.  That is a process for the development of the fines, how to impose those fines, and how to collect those fines.

 

[Hugh Ricci continued.]  Subsection 2, on page 4 of 4 of Section 6, is that Section 4, the part dealing with the fines, will expire on June 30, 2005.  So if this legislative body passes these amendments as they are, the present law as Mr. Crowell passed out to you, NRS 534.120, will remain in effect until July 1, 2005, and then this bill would take over the financial assistance package which would go to the Southern Nevada Water Authority and, by that time, the method for collecting fines would be in place.

 

Getting to Ms. Weber’s question of how people are going to know if they owe any money in between this period of time, between 2003 and 2005, we will give everybody what their water use is.  We will develop a procedure of notifying people of how much water they have used and we will not only tell them this just for this year, we will tell them for the past two years.

 

The way that we collect this data is that we read the meter two times a year, once in June and July, and once in December and January.  Since we read about 1,200 meters, we cannot read them all on the same day so there are some staggered periods.  What we do is we take it for a calendar year, January to December, and prorate that over the 365 days and come up with that number as the yearly value for the amount of water in the meter.

 

As Mr. Preston indicated, no, we do not know.  If there are four houses on one well, we have no idea whether they are using that equally or if one person is using 90 percent and the other three are only using 10 percent.  That is not the way the permit was issued.  The permit was issued for that particular well for that particular volume, and how that water is distributed among the parties within that group is the responsibility of them, not the State Engineer’s office.  With that, I will stop and take any questions.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  What type of fines do you have in mind?  What are you thinking about?

 

Hugh Ricci:

We haven’t really gotten that far, Mr. Manendo.  I’m not sure what we would be looking at, whether it would be—I think over the next two years is going to tell a lot because people will know what they have used in 2000, 2001, and 2002.  They will then be able to gauge and say, “What can I reduce it to in 2003 and 2004?” and see if we are really making an effective way of doing this.  If we aren’t, I think our look at the fine schedule would be a little bit different than if we were definitely on a downward trend, and the fines wouldn’t need to be as punitive for that.  I realize that is probably a non-answer, but I really do not have a clue right now.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I have just a brief comment.  At the beginning, Mr. Mortenson said this is a simple water issue and I thought, “Now that’s a contradiction in terms somewhat.”  I’m reminded of what Mark Twain said, “Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over,” and as this testimony suggests, maybe this isn’t so simple, but I did want to say one thing to Mr. Turnipseed.  You and Mr. Ricci have years of expertise.  We appreciate that.  We appreciate the job you do.  We appreciate the diligence you bring to this and the other point of view.  That said, I think we ought to minimize Mark Twain’s observation about fighting over water and focus more on constructive criticism than on characterizing the other side’s motives or behavior, even in the realm of conservation.  I do recognize as we all do here that things get heated a little bit in a political context and, oftentimes, one gets frustrated listening to the other side’s characterization of something, but I think if we focus on the light and less on the heat, we will be better off.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Two questions, if I may.  The first one:  these quasi-municipal water companies, do they fall under any restrictions as a municipal water company would for well testing and so forth?  [Mr. Ricci indicated they did not.]  My second question:  presently does the State Engineer, either through statute or through administrative code, have any authority presently to either fine or lien property?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Mr. Grady, not for overuse of water.  We can plug an abandoned well.  First of all, we issue an order to plug the well.  If the property owner doesn’t plug the well, we have the ability, by statute, to plug and charge those fees back to the property owner.  If they don’t pay those, then we can put a lien on the property.  There are other provisions like that.  We have assessments for surface water distribution.  If those people don’t pay those assessments, we can put a lien on the property.  Those kinds of things.  But, we don’t have in statute today any way to fine for overuse of water.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Just a couple questions.  Say you’ve got four users on one well—whose name is that permit held in?  All four or just one individual? 

 

Hugh Ricci:

That has been a major concern of the well owners for a number of years, and probably rightly so.  When someone files an application, they become what we call the owner of record.  If they sell their property before other people and those transfers are not recorded in our office, the owner of record is still the person who has filed that particular application.  In most instances today, whoever the well users are today, [we] file in those names, whether it be one, three, four, however many.

 

As another result of A.B. 408 [of the Seventieth Legislative Session], the State Engineer was required to file an affidavit with the county recorder indicating that this particular well permit for this particular piece of property was temporary in nature and could be subject to revocation and required to hook up to a utility.  We have done that now since 1999.  Also a result of A.B. 408 [of the Seventieth Legislative Session] was a recommendation that we get with the Division of Real Estate [Nevada Real Estate Division] and change the seller disclosure form.  On the seller disclosure form for any transaction, the only place that has somebody’s name to call is the [Nevada] Division of Water Resources dealing with— You know, it has sewer, utility lines, whatever.

 

When it comes to water, is it a permit, is it a quasi-municipal permit, is it a domestic well.  If you don’t know any of the answers, call this office.  That’s the only place on the seller disclosure form that that occurs.  So, what we’re seeing is, as more and more of these things become more and more of an issue, we’re seeing more and more people get the permits in the right name, whether it be two people or four people.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

This is probably more of a comment, Mr. Chairman, but I think everyone agrees that you can’t be allowed to exceed your permitted duty.  That’s a given.  I don’t care whether it’s quasi-municipal in the Las Vegas Valley or if it’s in Diamond Valley in Eureka, Nevada, or Antelope Valley in Lander County.  You cannot exceed your annual duty.  And I agree there has to be some mechanism in place that would prohibit that.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I just want to be clear about this.  Domestic wells are wells with one user.

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Ms. Pierce, through the Chairman, by statute the definition of a domestic well is a single-family home, lawn and garden, and domestic animals.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

And this bill has nothing to do with those?  [Mr. Turnipseed indicated it did not.]  This only has to do with wells that have more than one—

 

Michael Turnipseed:

I didn’t want to mislead you there.  It doesn’t change the definition of a domestic well.  What it does is, as Mr. Ricci stated, if the domestic well goes dry, and they are within 180 feet of a water line, then they are going to be required to hook up.  Now the financial package is being moved out of the water statutes into the Southern Nevada Water Authority statutes.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

But the rest of this has to do with wells with multi-use—  [Mr. Turnipseed indicated that was correct.]

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

I just wanted to find out, when a temporary permit is issued, what formula is used so that the owner knows what the actual usage can be for that parcel, property, whatever it’s being issued to do?  My understanding is that it may be subjective, but is there some sort of a formula to determine how much water usage can come out of that particular property?

 

Hugh Ricci:

Ms. Weber, most of the ones that we’re discussing today, since Mr. Turnipseed had stopped the issuance of any revocable permits for quasi-municipal in 1992 with his order, we’re discussing most of the ones that were issued between 1955 and 1992.  From the very beginning, those permits for quasi-municipal were granted 1,000 gallons per day per house, which is 1.2 acre-feet per year. 

 

To give you a perspective of what a comparison would be, generally in the Reno-Sparks area, which obviously is a much more mild temperature than Las Vegas, the water use is somewhere between 400 to 600 gallons per day per house, roughly 40 percent to 60 percent of that number.  Carson City would be somewhere in that same range.  At the time when some of these revocable permits were being issued, I say the average—and I have to be careful of what you use as the average—for an average household use in the Las Vegas area was around 700 [gallons per day].  What this did was say that they have up to 1,000 gallons per day to use.  That was the calculation.

 

On any other permit that we issue today, revocable permit, Mike’s [Michael Turnipseed] order in 1992 still allows some permits to be issued, and generally what we will do is ask them what their fixture unit count is, what they are going to do, do they have any landscaping, and calculate it based on that on an average daily basis, and come up with a number for a yearly basis.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

So, every permit can be different?  Every one of these temporary permits?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Yes, outside of the quasi-municipal permits, those were all the same; those were all up to 1,000 gallons per day.  The other permits that are for a convenience store, or for whatever else there may be, yes, they are different; they are calculated differently.

 

Hugh Ricci:

Mr. Chairman, could I add to that?  [Chairman Manendo answered affirmatively.]

 

Hugh Ricci:

Ms. Weber, every application filed in the State Engineer’s office has to be prepared by a licensed water rights surveyor.  There was just kind of a “rule of thumb” that the water rights surveyors would calculate the usage at 1,000 gallons per day per household.  If they had exceptionally large lots, they could have filed applications for 1,200 gallons a day, or 1,500 gallons per day, but these people that are using more water than they are entitled to, in fact, they didn’t.  They filed for 1,000 gallons per day per household, and they are using more than that. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I think one of my big questions through this whole thing is from the time that they were changed to temporary or were approved on a temporary basis—I know you mentioned disclosures after 1999—but how many people knew before, and I think part of what brings that up is back in 1993, when we let you designate where the hole really was, that people built a house, put in a well, sold the house, a new buyer bought the house, and two years later a water line came down the front of it, and they were starting to get pushed to hook on if something was wrong, due sometimes to construction problems, such as casing that would crack.  Anyway, where would any responsibility for that lie for any of that notification from [19]52 or [195]3, clear up to, in the title, deed of trust, contract of sales, whatever?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Collins, from 1955 on through when this 408 [A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Legislative Session] was passed, and for a long time before 1999, obviously you file an application, you get a permit, certain things were required, the well has to be drilled, proof of completion filed, then proof of beneficial use.  In the case of a revocable permit, we stopped short of issuing a permit.  We only notify the owner of record.  That’s the only name we have to notify when these things are coming due, and there was some concern back in 1999 that subsequent owners didn’t know they were on a temporary permit, for example, filing the affidavit with the county recorder and the real estate disclosure form.  I had people tell me in 1999, “Had I known I was on a temporary permit, I wouldn’t have bought the house or I wouldn’t have built the house on the lot.”  Nonetheless, we issued a temporary permit, the permit was in place, it’s always on file if you call and ask.

 

A lot of people move to Nevada, not just in Las Vegas, but even in the north, who have never been on a well before, and they don’t know to look to see if the well permit is cancelled or if the well is on a temporary permit.  So, that is why that language went in there about the affidavit and the seller disclosure form.  But, prior to 1999, you are right, there was no way that we knew who the subsequent owners were.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

May I follow up, Mr. Chairman?  How hard is it to increase an existing well’s cap?  If it’s 1,000 gallons, how hard is it to apply to you to increase it?

 

Hugh Ricci:

Any permit subsequent to 1955 that was a revocable permit was very specific on the terms and conditions of the permit.  This was a temporary permit and subject to revocation when, much like what the statute says, water becomes available from a municipality serving that area.  Granted, not everybody ever looks at all the permits.  My house is on a septic tank, and I know that the septic tank is not going to stay there forever.  Somewhere some of the responsibility has to fall on the buyer.  I’m not sure whether there are a lot of accusations that go against realtors about some of their practices, but as to whether they disclose everything or not, maybe there is plenty of blame to go around for everybody here as to why it got to the condition it did.

 

[Mr. Ricci addressed Assemblyman’s Collins’ question about increasing the cap.]  There have been ways of trying to do this by purchasing a—when Mr. Turnipseed issued his order in 1992, he basically eliminated further issuance of permits for quasi-municipal use under the revocable permit process.  Therefore, there would have to be a purchase of a non-revocable right and transfer it to that location.  That in itself creates a lot of other problems.  Now you have a revocable permit and a non-revocable permit and a right.  What if a well fails?  Will they be able to live within the revocable portion of that water right, because we can revoke the permit that is temporary?  Does that answer your question, somewhat?  [Assemblyman Collins indicated it did.]  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Going back to what Assemblyman Mortenson started to ask about the filing of liens; I also am very concerned with that, if I understand where you were coming from.  If a person gets a temporary permit and builds four houses, or six houses, whatever it might be, most likely that person then leaves, relocates somewhere else.  So, now, if you file a lien, it will be against someone other than the person that originally owned that property, yet there is no notification to the second buyer when they purchase that property that the property is subject to lien.  How can you lien property when the people never signed the agreement?

 

Hugh Ricci:

I’m going to take a stab at that, Mr. Grady.  The way that I envisioned this whole fine procedure to work is that we’re not going to lien somebody’s property tomorrow if they’ve overused water.  There is going to be this whole process that we’re going to go through for the next two years in determining, and we’ll also be able to tell anybody that is using more water than they were appropriated.  They will then have by 2005, five years of use.

 

I don’t know in the process of this whole thing from one seller to another as to how they would know that there could be a possible lien against the property.  What we would do is we would file the lien against the property and whoever is the owner of the property at the time is responsible for it.  I don’t know of any other way to do it.  Somebody has some thoughts on what would be a good way—I think in working with the well owners—and I have made a concerted effort of working with the well owners over the last couple of years—hopefully, a lot of these problems that we have had in the past can be eliminated by us dealing with them and working with them. 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Could you go back to the recharge problem and just briefly describe that again?

Michael Turnipseed:

Depending on whose science you want to believe, we’ve had lots of studies on the amount of available water.  The first was back in the 50s or 60s, with what we call a reconnaissance study and it was a rough estimate, if you will, of how much water infiltrates the rocks off the mountains, and snowmelt off Mt. Charleston, and percolates into the groundwater, and that number was always thought to be about 35,000 acre-feet per year.  Present day pumpage is about 72,000 acre-feet per year.  More modern science with groundwater modeling and computers—there are some that believe that recharge could be as high as 50,000 acre-feet per year.  Nonetheless, whether it’s 35[,000] or 50[,000], it’s still being way over-pumped.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You say 72,000 acre-feet is being pumped out now?  [Mr. Turnipseed indicated that was correct.]

 

Michael Turnipseed:

You’re not talking about artificial recharge; you were talking about natural recharge?

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Natural charge.  Can you tell me about artificial recharge?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Well, beginning in 1989, when southern Nevada was not using their entire Colorado River allocation, they engaged in, first of all, a pilot project to bring Colorado River water into the valley off-peak, and putting that back in the ground.  They treat it as though it were municipal water and put it back in the ground.  It’s sort of a bank account for them.  That’s what they’re going to be relying on in part this year because of their limitation on the Colorado River water.  So, we have a groundwater mound building in the middle of the valley where the greatest amount of pumping had occurred between the turn of the century and 1989.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

How many are we granting in the way of well permits now?  The lien on the houses, when I look at the fines, that would place a lien in the amount of the fine on any real property owned by the person, and we’ve defined person as some kind of entity.  As I see that, it’s not limited to the house next to the well, but could be any real property that’s owned by the person.  The lien itself, or the fine itself, there’s probably going to be a system of fining with Las Vegas [Valley] Water District, and are we going to mirror that kind of fining structure? 

 

My other concern is our goal to get rid of all wells and, if so, the long view of the Colorado River availability and accessibility.  Should there be an act of disruption of any flow, would it not behoove us to have a temporary cap on the well, or lots of wells, so that we have availability in the middle of the desert if our Colorado River has a disruption in its flow uphill to the Las Vegas Valley?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Mr. Hardy, I’d like to answer your first and last questions, and let Mr. Ricci answer the others.  I believe your first question was something about new permits.  Again, a little history.  I believe it was 1989, the Las Vegas Valley Water District was thought to have run out of their Colorado River allocation and it sent shock waves through the developing community, the lending institutions, that maybe the Las Vegas Valley Water District was out of water.  Shortly after that, the Southern Nevada Water Authority was formed combining Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and others.  They’ve done a great job in managing their water and contracting for the remainder of Nevada’s allocation out of the Colorado River.

 

In 1992, I could see where we were going, and I put a moratorium on issuing any new revocable permits.  We hadn’t issued any permanent permits for a long, long time, but I put a moratorium on issuing any revocable permits with three exceptions.  I’m going to have to remember now 11 years ago, but one of them was for small commercial that would use less than a domestic well—7‑Elevens, storage units, or something that would use less than what would be exempted under a domestic well provision.  There were quite a few developers that were in progress, so that was one exception that has since gone away, and reinstatement of canceled permits for these people that had developer—let me give you a little history there.

 

Clark County has taken a lot more liberal view of the land division laws than any of the other counties in the state.  They would allow large land divisions down to 2½ acres, about a subdivision map, to put four or five lots on the 2½ acres with a cul-de-sac, and the well would go in the middle of the cul-de-sac.  That way they could get their setback requirements to get the septic tanks in.  So, a lot of these quasi-municipal wells for four homes, the well is in the middle of the cul-de-sac and the septic tanks are out on the periphery of the lot.  Those kinds of permits were no longer issued after 1992.

 

In the case where the developer filed the application, he got a notice in two years or three years that proof of beneficial use was due, or proof of completion of work, but he didn’t care anymore.  He’d already sold all the lots and built all the houses.  He threw it in the trashcan so there was an exception for those kinds of people, because they were just without any permit at all.  So, those people can refile for the same amount of water they once had. 

 

[Michael Turnipseed continued.]  The Southern Nevada Water Authority has been aggressive, and many of you had a briefing by them on where their next drop of water was going to come from, but they’ve been aggressive in purchasing options on Virgin River water rights and Muddy River water rights.  Hugh [Ricci] has granted additional ground-water extraction in the apex area in Coyote Springs Valley, and many other places up the I-15 [Interstate 15] corridor.  So, they have a plan to—it’s all part of their water resources plan—to provide water to the area on out into the 2020-2030 years. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I’m concerned if there were to be some disruption in an immediate way in a water supply or a pipe.  Would it not behoove us to have wells available so that we could suck water out of the ground in an emergency?

 

Michael Turnipseed:

Absolutely, and they do.  They have all of their pre-1955, non-revocable water rights.  They have their recharge water that they’ve been putting in now for the last 10 to 12 years.  There are about 200,000 acre-feet in the bank, if you will, banked in the groundwater basin in the Las Vegas Valley.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, we have the capability of pumping the water out of the ground in an emergency without relying on the pump station from Lake Mead.

 

Michael Turnipseed:

I can’t tell you about the infrastructure to get it out of the ground, but I can tell you that the water is there for them to take.

 

Hugh Ricci:

Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the two other questions that Mr. Hardy posed.  On Page 2 of 4, subsection 6 [Exhibit F], the lien would be against only the owner of the property and the property to which the water is being served under that permit, not any particular piece of property anywhere that somebody else owns, or the same person owns; I’m sorry.  So, it would only be a very specific piece of property.

 

The [answer to the] other question is, no, this is not a program to try to close all of the domestic wells and all of the quasi-municipal wells in Las Vegas.  This is a manner in which to insure that the revocable permit program does stay on track and will continue to do what it was intended to do when it was passed in 1955.  Because, post 1955, albeit for a few areas which were on the very extreme edges of the Las Vegas Valley, up in the mountains, there were no additional permits issued to anyone except these particular temporary permits.  Others who filed for applications within some of those areas were denied, but we continue to grant these permits based on the provision of the law in 1955.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

And my question on fining?  Are we going to tie that or have we looked at tying that to the water conservation program that Las Vegas [Valley] Water District is doing, or are we going to set up a different structure of fines?

 

Hugh Ricci:

As I answered earlier to Mr. Manendo, I’m not quite sure, but that’s one thing we most likely would look at, is to see what other areas have as far as fines dealing with— There’s a little difference in what we’re dealing with as I tried to mention is the— A utility company bases prices on trying to drive conservation and that’s why I try to make the difference between conservation and compliance.  This is a compliance issue, not necessarily a conservation issue, but we can achieve compliance through conservation.  So, we’ll look at all various things on how to develop these fines.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

One of the concerns was that we had non-elected people coming up with fines, so the State Engineer’s Office, non-elected position, wouldn’t come up with fines.  Las Vegas [Valley] Water District is composed of people who are elected, and so they would be approving some kind of fine structure, and if you tied that to fines, you could tie yourself to something that would be construed as having come from elected people, and you would then become answerable to the people in so doing.

 

Hugh Ricci:

I realize this is something that we have not ventured into ever before, so we will do it with great caution and care.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Just one quick question.  I don’t believe we had an answer.  How many revocable permits are we talking about?

 

Hugh Ricci:

Mr. Goicoechea, in Las Vegas today we have as an approximate number 1,090 total revocable permits, of which 933 of those are quasi-municipal permits.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.  [Chairman Manendo called Andy Belanger forward.]

 

Andy Belanger, Management Analyst, representing Las Vegas Valley Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority:

[Introduced himself]  We support the proposed amendment from the State Engineer.  We believe it is the compromise in concept that we agreed to with the [Nevada] Well Owners Association in November.  We believe that in a period of drought, which is what we are in in southern Nevada, we believe there has to be consistency.  We’re asking municipal customers in southern Nevada to reduce water usage significantly.  We recently convened a citizens’ committee, or will be convening a citizens’ committee within the next few weeks, to discuss drought issues and to discuss what to do if the water supply situation doesn’t improve.

 

What this bill does is say to those people on wells, on temporary permits, that they should comply with the terms of their permits.  We agree with that.  We believe that compliance is the first step toward conservation.  I spoke with the representatives of the [Nevada] Well Owners Association this morning and asked about finding out if the conservation programs that are available to well users and the conservation laws that are applicable to municipal customers can be extended to well users.  We’re certainly willing to entertain that and we’d be happy to work with both parties, the [Nevada] Well Owners Association and the State Engineer, to come up with a compromise for this bill.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Andy, I’ve got a couple things, please.  I understand conservation; we need to.  It’s an issue we’re going to have to address.  I just feel, in this case, we’re imposing it on a select few right now.  My question to you is, you said that this was a compromise that was already worked out with the [Nevada] Well Owners [Association] in November?  [Mr. Ricci indicated December.]  Andy is saying that [the Nevada Well Owners Association] already agreed to these compromises, is that correct?

 

Ray Preston, President, Nevada Well Owners Association:

Ray Preston, for the record.  No, there was mention of fines and so forth in our meetings, but you know, as an association, we have a board that I’m required to go back and report to and say, “This is what they’ve thrown at us.  How do you folks feel about it?”  We represent 1,200 families there in the basin, and I don’t like to take that responsibility on my own.

Assemblyman McCleary:

I appreciate that.  Mr. Chairman, if I could say one more thing.  I’m not comfortable with authorizing the engineers to impose fines without them being stated what they are at this time.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I know there’s somebody in Las Vegas.  Are you testifying on behalf of this bill, for or against?  Anybody else testifying on Assembly Bill 213 who needs to go on record?  Please come forward, for or against or neutral.  Mr. Crowell?

 

Robert Crowell:

I’ll be brief.  Robert Crowell, on behalf of the Nevada Well Owners Association.  This bill deals with more than just families.  It deals with all domestic wells.  I think if you look at Section 5 of the existing law, Assemblyman Goicoechea, you will see that it relates to the ability of the State Engineer to require a domestic well owner to plug or connect the well.  It says that under Section 5, where it says that the State Engineer may, in an area where he has issued a temporary permit, limit the depth of a domestic well, and may require the person proposing to deepen or repair the well to connect to the municipal water system.  A domestic well is defined under subsection 3(c) of NRS 534.120 that you have before you.  I raise that only because this bill does apply more than to the joint well users where there is a permit granted and there are four people on the well.

 

Second, we understand—and I think that Assemblyman Knecht’s words are beneficial—we understand that these issues are difficult, and it’s for that reason that we can’t sit here today and tell you that we agree to have fines or liens placed on our property.  One of the things that we need to educate ourselves about—that’s a topic of a separate bill.  This bill you have before you today that is presented by the well owners, only seeks to continue the law as it is in existence now.  What the State Engineer has asked to do is to implement a system of fines and liens on property.  That’s a different topic, and I raise that because, one, it’s complex, but, two, it requires us to have a fair amount of education.

 

One reason why we’re gun-shy about doing that is that the State Engineer is not subject to the [Nevada] Administrative Procedure Act.  What that means is that there are no rules or processes that other government agencies go through to enact regulations to talk about what these fines or what the liens would be. 

 

There’s no structure to that other than what the State Engineer decides to do.  Maybe that’s good and maybe that’s bad.  We’re not here to argue that.  From our standpoint, it’s difficult for us to indicate that we’re going to consent to a process of instituting fines and liens when we don’t know what that process is, and that’s why we can’t say today that we’re in favor of going along with the State Engineer on his amendment.  That’s not to say that we don’t think that he has great things to say.  We will disagree with the tenor of his comments, but we would agree that the concepts of overusing and wasting water is something we all have a vested interest in protecting.  Whether this bill passes or not, we’re going to work to correct that situation over the next two years.

 

[Robert Crowell continued.]  In closing, I’d just like to say that we’re not doing anything but codifying in this law what the State Engineer has historically done with respect to these wells, when it comes time to either plug them, or deepen them, or ask them to be connected to a municipal system.  Thank you very much for the opportunity of coming back and, again, if this is a separate topic, maybe it should be a separate bill.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Mr. Crowell, I look at the fines and I understand that’s very open-ended, but you know the alternative, at least under Nevada water law, is that he can suspend that permit, and you end up in court arguing whether it should be reinstated or not.  This is the case in northern Nevada; if you overuse your water and you’re out of compliance, you can be suspended. 

 

Robert Crowell:

Assemblyman Goicoechea, that’s absolutely correct.  That authority exists with the State Engineer now, and why he has not done that is a question.  I don’t know if it was asked of him this morning, but that is definitely a remedy that the State Engineer currently has in the law.  There is no request by this group to say to do anything with that authority of the State Engineer.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I would just think, if you’re living on a quasi-municipal system, you’d prefer to at least look at a fine and address that rather than have your water right cancelled.  You’ve got four homes on a well, that’s the last thing you want is have them come out there and say you can’t pump it.

 

Ray Preston:

I’d like to make a couple of quick comments.  One is, as most of you know, we had to take the [Southern Nevada] Water Authority to task and sue them for the list of the well owners in the valley.  We didn’t get that list until June of last year, so we’ve not had a whole lot of time for education.  I think education is the key to this whole thing.  We continually say that we’re on the same page, and I did approach the board again.  As I told you earlier, we’re willing to work out something, and perhaps use the [Southern Nevada] Water Authority’s format for a fine or whatever.  We agree that water conservation is very important, and I don’t know what else we can say.  As you can see, this is a very complex issue when you get away from our bill.  Our bill is very simple.  I think it’s a good start.  It has done good things.  Thank you very much.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I wanted to mention that the grants or the assistance that the well owners get for plugging their well and connecting is not money that comes from the taxpayer.  In the last session or so, the well owners all agreed to pay certain fees every year, and these fees are divided into a couple different categories.  One of these fees pays for pumping Lake Mead water into the aquifers to make up, at least partially, for what is pumped.  Another part of those fees goes into an account which is what pays for the assistance in connection, and a third part of that money goes to education of the public on conservation methods.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 213 and ask that the interested parties work with Mr. Mortenson and Mrs. Koivisto, to see if there’s any resolution at all that can be done this session.  If not, notify me either way within, I’d say about a week at the most.  We’re starting to get a little nervous here with our time lines.

 

Assembly Bill 244:  Eliminates prospective expiration of provisions for protection of rural preservation neighborhoods. (BDR S-919)

 

Chairman Manendo:

[Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 244, and asked Assemblyman Collins and Ms. Porter to come up.]

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, for the record my name is Assemblyman Tom Collins.  I have a bill before you to request that we eliminate the expiration dates on the Rural Preservation neighborhoods.  I believe that Ms. Porter has some proposals for amendments that we could get up here.  She was not able to get them sent up here today, but they would be available very quickly for the Committee.  If you’d allow her to go ahead and address those concerns, I think with considering those amendments then we could pass this bill.  Thank you.

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association:

[Introduced herself]  I wish to apologize to the Committee for appearing before you in sunglasses.  I broke my glasses over the weekend and this is why the amendment isn’t done.  I’m not seeing real well.

 

Mr. Collins and I spoke last night.  To give you a little bit of background, the Rural Neighborhood Preservation law was put into effect in the 1999 Session of the Legislature.  The intent of it was to protect neighborhoods of 10 houses or more that are rural in character and have a rural lifestyle.  The definition in [NRS] Chapter 278 includes such things as the neighborhood has 10 houses or more, and that animals are raised non-commercially on the property.  So, it’s a rural kind of enclave neighborhood and to protect them from intrusion of other land uses.  A.B. 244 has been written in the Statutes of Nevada instead of the Nevada Revised Statutes that we’re all used to.  The books you have in your room are Nevada Revised Statutes, and I didn’t have access to the Statutes of Nevada to prepare the amendment.  The section that we would be amending in Nevada Revised Statutes is NRS 278.177, which is the definitions section.

 

What we would like to do is to clarify and make it crystal clear that these neighborhoods are rural in character and should be protected.  We would add to the definition that the neighborhoods are rural and have a rural lifestyle, and further add in the definitional portion under having animals for non-commercial use, and that 75 percent of the homes within that neighborhood would have horses or livestock as a part of their single-family use.  Of course, those animals would be in accord with the regulations of Clark County.  This law, by the way, only applies to counties over 400,000 in population.  It doesn’t apply in the rest of the state.

 

The reason we want to make that really clear is we have been having some incidents of the Rural Neighborhood Preservation area being proliferated in the valley in areas that are not rural in character or lifestyle.  As an example, many of you who are from southern Nevada would know where my office is on Pecos-McLeod.  It is a highly urbanized area.  It has existed in the valley for probably 40 years.  There were two or three empty lots in the area behind us and, believe it or not, that has been designated a Rural Neighborhood Preservation area.  That’s pretty much a stretch.  I think there may be one house back there that has a couple horses on it.  Other houses that have been built on those lots are as much as 25,000 square feet in the house.  So, the law was being used for purposes other than protecting a rural lifestyle neighborhood, and it certainly was never the intent.  In those cases, it prevents infill development and creates some other problems.  So, by clarifying this and giving the people that really wanted this in the beginning, the protections they should be afforded, by being able to have their animals and so on in their neighborhoods and having special features of this law, I think Mr. Collins and I agreed, by adding just that type of language would make it clear what this law was to be used for.  I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Yes, that’s primarily what we want to do so that we’re not just—and also, I think Ms. Porter might have pointed out—this will not affect any existing Rural Neighborhood Preservation area currently designated such; this would only be where future designations would meet a higher standard.  So, basically we’re just bringing a higher standard to the future residential neighborhoods and not changing at all any existing currently in Clark County.

 

Irene Porter:

Mr. Chairman, if I might.  In Clark County right now, in the unincorporated area of the county, they have actually incorporated into their master plan some fairly significant areas of rural neighborhood preservation, which is also part of the master plan.  Those would not be affected by the changes here, nor any areas that have been currently approved under state law pursuant to state law for rural preservation.  So, everything is status quo for all the neighborhoods that are now projected.  As Mr. Collins said, this would be prospective only for new neighborhoods that are placed under rural preservation characteristics.  I talked to Clark County zoning yesterday and they have a lot of area now under rural area preservation, including in the master plan, and we probably have enough to last 20, 30 years or more already designated.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

The rural neighborhoods that are already there are protected, and this is to preserve [their] future?

 

Irene Porter:

The rural neighborhoods that are already there are under Rural Neighborhood Preservation law.  They would stay as status quo.  This would be prospective for the future that they meet a higher standard, that those neighborhoods would have to be ones that are not just large homes trying to protect their area, but they are truly rural neighborhoods with animals, et cetera. 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

What makes it rural is how it’s designated in zoning?

 

Irene Porter:

What makes it rural is how the definition is in our state law in the Nevada Revised Statutes under Chapter [Section] 278.177.  It is defined as a Rural Neighborhood Preservation area that is comprised of no less than 10 single-family homes.  There are some other criteria within it as well.  The bill, unfortunately, was written in Statutes of Nevada instead of Nevada Revised Statutes, so I couldn’t even find the reference last night on the computer.  I could find it in [NRS] 278.177, but there is a definition in the state law that says Rural Neighborhood Preservation area and that definition outlines what can be designated as a Rural Neighborhood Preservation area.  I believe since Clark County, at least in the unincorporated area, has also done it as a part of their master plan, that there is the same definition in their master plan as well as their ordinance.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Once a neighborhood is designated, then the Clark County Commissioners can’t come in and rezone it for something else?

 

Irene Porter:

If it’s designated as a Rural Neighborhood Preservation area, there are some very specific criteria that would have to be met.  I can tell you I know of one instance where something was changed, and it was down by [Interstate] 215.  I was told this story yesterday.  The Clark County School District wanted to build a school in a Rural Neighborhood Preservation area, and they actually bought some houses and tore them down so that it would no longer be rural preservation neighborhood so they could build the school.  But that’s the only incident I know of that has intruded into those areas.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The Rural Neighborhood Preservation Act expires June 1, 2004, so we do have to pass this legislation or it’s gone, and then we would only be relying on the local governments, whatever they’ve been willing to protect in the hurdles.  But, as Ms. Porter said, we need to pass this.  To put a higher standard on future preservation of neighborhoods is a fair thing to do with the growth and the processes that we go through in developing southern Nevada.  Again, this would not affect any existing property.  Her proposed amendments, rather, would not affect any existing neighborhoods.

 

Irene Porter:

Mr. Chairman, I will bring those amendments either later today or tomorrow, as soon as I can see.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m sure you will.  I appreciate that.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Collins.  Anybody else?

Ray Preston:

Our main objective is water, but most of the well owners do live in rural preservation areas, and we 100 percent support this bill, and also 100 percent of the well owners.  So, we appreciate it.  [Chairman Manendo thanked him for his support.]

 

Robert Tretiak, Ph.D., Vice President, Nevada Well Owners Association:

Yes, Chairman Manendo, I’m Robert Tretiak, Vice President of the Nevada Well Owners Association.  We do want to maintain the rural lifestyle.  I’d like to introduce into the record a letter that was sent by Senator Jon Porter, Member of Congress [Exhibit G], who championed this bill in 1999.  I’ve got a copy for everyone. 

 

I am writing today to voice my support for amendments you are proposing to legislation that I authored and passed during the 1999 session of the Nevada Legislature.  It is my sincere hope that your colleagues will look favorably upon the changes being set forth.

 

As you well know, Senate Bill 391 [of the Seventieth Legislative Session] pertained to land use planning, and among other things, provided for the establishment of provisions to preserve the rural character and density of certain rural areas in larger counties.  It is my understanding that you seek to amend Section 8.2, by inserting “on one side of a rural preservation area” so that the section would read:  “Unless a rural preservation neighborhood is located within 330 feet of an existing or proposed street or highway that is more than 99 feet wide on one side of a rural preservation area.”  This is a necessary clarification that I fully support.

 

You are also addressing another important issue with respect to SB 391 [of the 70^th Legislative Session].  Section 36.8 stipulates that the provisions contained in Section 8 of the act will expire on June 1, 2004.  You are seeking to strike the sunset provision, and ensure that the rural character of rural preservation neighborhoods will continue to be preserved in the future.  I wholeheartedly support eliminating the sunset provision included in the original bill.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any comments or questions.

 

The relevant part of his letter says to Assemblyman Collins, “You are seeking to strike the sunset provision, and ensure the rural character of rural preservation neighborhoods will continue to be preserved in the future.”  We echo that sentiment and we wholeheartedly support eliminating the sunset provision included in the original bill.  Thank you.

 

George Hetter, President, Northwest Citizens Association:

[Introduced himself]  We are a group of residents in the rural northwest section of Las Vegas that goes from basically Alexander Road to Kyle Canyon Road and, on our east side, Rancho Road all the way up to Mt. Charleston Road on the west.  We’d like to go on record as supporting Mr. Tom Collins and his bill as presented.  We’re also well owners in the northwest and we want to go on record as supporting Mr. Tom Collins and his bill.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Since there’s nobody else who wants to speak on Assembly Bill 244, I will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 244.

 

Assembly Bill 245:  Makes various changes regarding conversion of manufactured home park into individual manufactured home lots. (BDR 22‑1080)

 

Chairman Manendo:

We will now open the hearing on Assembly Bill 245.  It’s another [Assemblyman] Tom Collins bill, and you have Mr. Avance with you.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Assemblyman Tom Collins, and thank you for allowing Mr. Avance to come up with me on this.  This is a fine opportunity to improve home ownership and an important step towards providing more home ownership opportunities for Nevada residents.  This bill would allow residents and manufactured home rental communities to purchase the land under their homes, if the community owner chooses to provide that option.  It expands current Nevada law by stipulating that local jurisdictions cannot require a reconfiguration of the property; in other words, changing the size of the lot and the conditions on that lot.  Other states have passed this.  Oregon and California now have this type of land sales community, and Idaho is considering it in their legislation.  I haven’t got the latest information.  They might have already passed it, as their session ends before ours does.  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I’ll turn the time over to Mr. Avance, if you’d allow.

 

Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist, representing the Manufactured Housing Association:

[Introduced himself]  This piece of legislation merely amends and improves existing legislation, and what I’ve passed out to you [Exhibit H] is the four segments of existing law.  The one that you have in the top of your package, [NRS] 118B.180, is the one that this amends.  As Assemblyman Collins said, it requires that the zoning authority for the municipality or county not change the lot size.  Those of you who are familiar with manufactured housing areas realize that right next door to one lot is another lot.  So, if you were going to change the lot size, you would be required to evict every other person or something.  So, these communities are set up in accordance with existing zoning as it was, at least at the time the place was opened, and the request of this legislation then is not to change the lot size.  Zoning officials could have various other things to do with sewer systems or water systems or electric systems to convert from a park setting to individual settings, but this is aimed strictly at the lot size.

 

The second section of the bill changes the time frame in which the resident has to accept or reject the offer to buy his piece of ground from 75 days to 90 days.  That concludes my prepared statement.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Under this bill, Mr. Avance, would that allow somebody who lives in a different lot in the same mobile park to buy a different lot than he’s currently living on, so that he could have a better place that he’s always envied the whole time he’s lived there?

 

Mr. Avance:

I’m sure that would be possible as long as it was concurrent with the person that was on that existing piece of ground.  It allows the person who is currently occupying that space basically first right of refusal, and it would keep the landlord from, for example, offering the lot to the current tenant at $100,000, and when he says I can’t afford that, then selling it to someone else for $75,000.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

What would happen if someone were to buy the lots and it was on a quasi-municipal water system, so to speak, who would have to then pay for the hookups, both water and sewer?  Would this be the individual owners or the sellers?  How is that addressed?

 

Mr. Avance:

Mr. Chairman, it’s not addressed in this, and it’s my understanding that would be a determination by the local governing authority at that time.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Mr. Collins, have you spoken, by chance, with Renee Diamond?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Not on this issue directly, but we have been in several discussions regarding some mobile home issues that have become problems in southern Nevada recently with some contracting issues and so forth.

 

Chairman Manendo:

How about Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners [,Inc.]?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I was leaving that up to you.  You’re the king of that hill.

 

Jim Avance:

Mr. Chairman, if I may.  When this proposal was discussed in the Manufactured Homeowners Association [Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners, Inc.], members of the [Nevada] Manufactured Housing Division were present.  They participated in the discussions on this legislation and, to my knowledge, at that time, did not make any opposition.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Mr. Chairman, I would add that this is kind of a benefit for some folks that move a new mobile home onto a rented lot, and then as they get their income going up while they’re still working and able to pay down that mobile home, it’s giving them an opportunity, if the property owner is willing to sell, that they could start buying that lot and have it bought it by the time they retired, and then they would not be in some of the shape that many of them are in today because of that opportunity not being available.  This allows that opportunity to help some of our folks that are on fixed incomes and retiring and those cases, and this is a very beneficial piece of legislation.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m glad my name is on it.

 

Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County:

[Introduced himself]  I just received some information from our comprehensive planning department [Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning].  Late yesterday, I talked to Mr. Avance, but I did not have the chance to talk to Mr. Collins, and I apologize for that.  We just have a fear involving parks that are in what’s called our “airport environs area.”  When there are parks that are in potential accident zones in, let’s say, Nellis Air Force Base or McCarran [International Airport], or if we ever get out to Ivanpah, that we have a fear that these folks would be selling these lots for continued residential use.

 

In Section 1 of the bill, it precludes the governing board from requiring any change to existing lot sizes, setbacks or other restrictions.  That “other restrictions” is a little ambiguous and gives us a little bit of concern, because we don’t want folks buying something and assuming that it’s going to stay residential when, perhaps, we’re trying to transition it into a safety area, and perhaps someone might buy it for commercial use, and that obviously would be fine for us. 

 

We’d like to ask the Committee for your indulgence in perhaps seeing if we can come up with some language to give some protection in that area for those mobile homes that are in these “airport environ areas.”  We’re actually working on a map right now so that we could identify those mobile home parks that might exist in that flight pattern, as it were.  That’s all I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee, and I appreciate your indulgence.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Anybody else speaking in favor of Assembly Bill 245?  Opposition?  Neutral? 

 

Thelma Clark:

I’m in favor of the bill, but I need to talk to him if he wants to change the language.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Anybody else testifying on A.B. 245?  We will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 245 and we will wait anxiously while Mr. Musgrove works on some type of language to see if there’s a comfort level with the sponsor of the bill.  The Chair is not accepting a motion at this time, but may be soon.

 

Anything else to come before the Committee today?  We had a subcommittee today.  Did you want to talk about it or do you want to wait?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Whatever you want, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Manendo:

We are adjourned.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Pat Hughey

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman

 

 

DATE: