MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
March 26, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:39 p.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Clark County Senatorial District No.12
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
Gina Rasner, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Andy Belanger, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and Southern Nevada Water Authority
Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, Truckee Meadows Water Authority
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department Of Conservation and Natural Resources
Tom Gallagher, Summit Engineering
Lori Williams, Truckee Meadows Water Authority
Bob Milz, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County, and Chairman, Carson Water Subconservancy District
Edwin D. James, P.E., General Manager, Carson Water Subconservancy District
Gordon Depoali, Walker River Irrigation District
John W. Jackson, Director, Department of Water Resources, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Gerry Emm, Environmental Director, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Environmental Department
Chairman Rhoads:
Committee, I was approached by Pershing County and the Nevada Land and Resource Company, which is currently working on a massive land exchange in Pershing County that is over 200,000 acres. They want a resolution drafted which will then come back to this committee for hearing. Let the record reflect this.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO REFLECT A
LAND EXCHANGE IN PERSHING COUNTY.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 336).
SENATE BILL 336: Makes various changes relating to water rights. (BDR 48‑848)
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Clark County Senatorial District No. 12:
My father and uncle had a situation with circumstances which brought this bill to legislation. A number of years ago they purchased some land adjacent to the business they owned in the North Las Vegas area. As part of their deliberations, they determined there were a number of water rights on it. They investigated and found the water rights in good standing, and made a purchase offer based in part on the fact that those water rights existed. A trailer park was on the land they intended to develop and continue to operate as a trailer park until they could find another use for the land. It was a fairly run down trailer park. They realized there was an asbestos issue and it was going to be too much money to reclaim the project. They closed the property, which had a small motel with the same problem, so they decided it was time to start marketing the land. There was an offer made for the water. They sought transfer of ownership records from the previous owner’s name to their names and received a document from the state engineer saying they were the owners of 57.92 acre-feet of water. They sold the land and the water. When they applied for a point of diversion change, they were told the water had not been used beneficially, which is a point of some contention that meant they actually were only entitled to 17 acre‑feet of water. They made a purchase decision under a false assumption and a set of facts that were not the case. If I had the letter they received from the State engineer, I think you could very clearly understand that a reasonable person who is not a layman would expect that amount of water.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent this from happening again, and to make sure anyone who acquires water rights understands the amount that is designated in the letter of transferring water rights might not be indicative of the actual amount of water they are entitled to use or sell. The bill that appears before you today is going to amend it almost in its entirety. The bill before you today requires a State engineer to notify owners of water that have the appropriation stated in terms of cubic feet per second and transfer that amount into acre-feet. This is really not what we want to accomplish, we want to make sure that individuals understand how the water process works in terms of prior appropriation laws in establishing beneficial use.
The legislation that we are requesting will require the State engineer to notify an individual when a report of conveyance has been submitted. The State must include the language that specified the amount of water in good standing with the State engineer and the amount of water referenced may not be the actual amount used beneficially. Then they may contact the State engineer’s office and get a determination of what the actual amount of water is there, and so that there are no surprises. In addition, I have been approached by the Southern Nevada Water Authority regarding an amendment that really does not have a lot to do with my bill per se, but I think it is an important amendment. This is a vehicle they can use to get out of some problems. I would like to ask Andy Belanger to come up and speak now. I would like to answer any questions.
Chairman Rhoads:
Why have the county population capped at 400,000 or more?
Senator Hardy:
That is a good question. It was in the bill drafting and it is the area with which I have had concern. I certainly would not have any objection to that requirement being Statewide if the State engineer agrees. It is simply a notification in the letter that requires them to make that disclosure.
Andy Belanger, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and Southern Nevada Water Authority:
We have an amendment to this bill to clarify the process of applications for water. The current law states that an application for water has to be acted upon within 1 year by the State engineer. This amendment says the State engineer may postpone action on an application if the application is for municipal use. If the State engineer does not act on the application within a year, the application will remain active until it is acted upon. This is a relatively simple proposal and clarifies traditionally what has happened over the last several years. I have spoken with the State engineer concerning this amendment and he is supportive.
Chairman Rhoads:
Does it take more than a year to get an application through the process?
Mr. Belanger:
Yes, generally speaking.
Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural resources:
As Senator Hardy pointed out, there were circumstances behind this bill. We want to make sure everyone is treated fairly. This bill is going to make us notice after the fact also. The only thing I can suggest, if it could ever be put into the law somehow, is when a person purchases something to see if the water rights exist there prior to the purchase. I understand what Mr. Hardy said about his father’s situation. However, under any circumstance, whether the water right is explicit in the amount of acre-feet in a purchase or not, there are all kind of things that can happen to that water right. It can be cancelled, withdrawn, transferred to another permit, or sold. All kinds of things can happen. All we can do is just make sure we try to get the community to understand that prior to any purchase they should also check on that. We will elaborate in our letter what we are going to do. The other provision identified in subsection 3 of section 1 of S.B. 336 states the State engineer will send to the county recorder by a parcel number the amount of the water rights associated with that parcel. I assume, Senator Hardy, this will be within the bill.
Senator Hardy:
Yes, that is my intent.
Mr. Ricci:
That would be something we would do. The part of the section 5, line 30, referring to population of 400,000 or more, I do not believe there is more than a handful in Las Vegas and possibly in the Reno area. I can think of a few operating off springs. It is almost impossible to say what that duty is until the beneficial use comes in. If it were applied Statewide it might be more of a problem than what we are dealing with in Las Vegas. However, not to say that we will try to attempt to make sure what happened to Senator Hardy’s family will not happen again.
Chairman Rhoads:
Is there a need to take out the 400,000 population cap?
Mr. Ricci:
The way I looked at this proposal, there is a handful in the Las Vegas area which I never looked at to determine how many that would be. I really do not think there is going to be too many left any longer. I think it is going to be too problematic with permits and certificates being reissued for the diversion rate from a spring source.
Senator Hardy:
My intent here is when the State engineer sends a letter to a water-right holder that references the water right, to notify the holder this might not be what is entitled to based on the prior appropriation laws. I support those laws and do not want to do anything to damage those. I believe water-right holders should be notified of what water rights they hold.
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst:
I might add for the committee that working with Senator Hardy on his proposed amendment, when the letter goes out it is Statewide, not just in Clark County. It is on every transfer and sale Statewide. This provision quantifying certain real old rights would just be in Clark County. That is why the rest of the provision is just Statewide.
Chairman Rhoads:
Would anyone else like to testify on Senate Bill 336? If not we will close the hearing on Senate Bill 336 and we will open the hearing on Senate Bill 275.
Senate Bill 275: Creates Western Nevada Regional Water Planning Task Force. (BDR S-888)
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
Water has been a precious limited resource in the State of Nevada, particularly in the fast-growing areas like the western part of Nevada that have seen as much as 15 percent growth rate. This puts a tremendous burden on our water resources and western Nevada. The Carson, Truckee, and Walker River basins supply water for seven counties including Carson City. Although many of these counties have comprehensive water plans for water resources within their boundaries, the plan often lacks consistency and the necessity of cooperation.
The bill tries to provide some consistency within the southern counties with coordination and cooperation between these counties. The bill also provides a proactive approach to a regional water plan, water use, water management, and water storage for western Nevada, which has become very urgent.
Senate Bill 275 creates a Western Nevada Regional Water Planning Task Force to access conditions of our water resource; to review the existing comprehensive water plans; to identify inconsistencies in those plans; to identify areas that need additional planning; and to develop a strategy for the use, management and storage of water based upon future decisions. The task force would be made up of at least 13 members representing local governments, local conservancies, districts, and intertribal councils within the State, the office of State engineer, and the general public. The task force will be encouraged to seek advice about water planning from the water planning commission and relative State agencies. It would also be able to apply for and accept gifts, grants, and donations to carry out its functions. Finally, S.B. 275 requires the task force to meet quarterly and submit a biennial report to the Legislature with recommendations for necessary legislation.
Once again it provides the coordination to a regional approach for the use of our water supplies, management, and storage. I know there are some concerns about the bill but for the most part it is permissive language in some areas to develop a comprehensive plan to look at ourselves as opposed to individual counties as a region, and to come up with a master plan which will basically benefit the western and northern Nevada regions as a whole as opposed to part and parcel within the counties.
Chairman Rhoads:
In the Washoe, Truckee, and Walker area, do they have a regional water commission currently?
Senator Washington:
Each county has their own region and their own master water plan. This bill is not to supercede those water plans; it is to basically look at the water plans in a comprehensive approach and make adjustments as needed. We all share somewhat of the watersheds within the western and northern Nevada regions.
Senator Rhoads:
I understand there is a half-time position included in the bill for $47,000 a year.
Senator Washington:
Yes, I understand there is a fiscal note for a half-time position.
Chairman Rhoads:
What is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 334?
Senator Washington:
I do not know.
Chairman Rhoads:
The other half of this position would be required to accommodate Assembly Bill 334, do you have any idea what this means?
Senator Washington:
Mr. Ricci can answer that question.
Mr. Ricci:
Assembly Bill 334 is a bill introduced by Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons in regard to some domestic well issues within the State and was going to be the other half of that position under this particular bill. I think Mr. Walker would be better equipped to talk about all of the intricacies and dealings of this particular bill. I will remain here to testify because I have some comments about it. I am not sure if my comments might be reiterative of his and I know Mr. Walker has some other things to offer in regards to this bill.
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, Truckee Meadows Water Authority:
I was a regional water planner for Washoe County and a principal author of a regional plan, so I have a concept of what it takes. Our initial feeling on the bill is water is planned on a watershed basis. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that. It is from a practical standpoint, that is typically how water is planned. We do not see this bill as being onerous with the fact we are asked to meet four times a year. We have no concept of the outcomes, the commonalities, or what are we going to be doing. We have tried to point out who is pushing this legislation and proponent. After 2 weeks of working on this bill, I have decided Senator Washington is a proponent of this legislation. I think his heart is in the right place, but before we move to a point where we have a task force, that leaves out major players, which can be fixed. Before we go that far let us try to identify some commonalities on this issue. Instead of moving forward with this legislation, we would propose we use the interim committee represented by natural resources to hold hearings where each affected entity of the watershed brings forward issues to the committee.
The water communities of the Walker, Truckee, and Carson River Basins do not know those issues. We need to identify them. Next session, if there is legislation necessary to get those regional concepts together, we will look at it then. Before we start, we are not comfortable in moving forward without knowing where we want to go with this legislation. We see very little commonalities among the watersheds other than obviously they start in the Sierras from the snow. Each one of them has different characteristics. Truckee River has two surface water treatment plants, two wastewater treatment plants discharging into it. Eighty thousand feet is diverted almost annually for municipal use. There is really no diversion on the Carson or Walker Rivers for municipal use, it is all agricultural use. So what are the conservation commonalities? There is an urban conservation use, home owner use, and agricultural use. We would support moving forward with an interim committee to address the commonalities and where we could go with these issues if we did want to move forward.
Chairman Rhoads:
Are you suggesting the Legislative Committee on Public Lands address this issue?
Mr. Walker:
They already exist and that would be the easiest way to go. We could have hearings on the specific watersheds, as you typically do moving around the State.
Chairman Rhoads:
Mr. Ricci do you have anything to add?
Mr. Ricci:
The group mentioned in section 2 of S.B. 275 will discuss which issues would be common to all of the particular areas and any issues that can be handled, as opposed to individuals.
Chairman Rhoads:
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor or opposition of Senate Bill 275?
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department Of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I have no problem with the issue being referred to the public lands committee to determine if there is a real need. My purpose here is to explain that we have a statewide water planning and development advisory board consisting of 15 members. Clark County, Las Vegas Valley Water District, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, as well as Washoe County, farming, wildlife, mining, and just about all sectors of the water-using public are represented. They have not been very active because of funding. The advisory board had to be cut out of the budget. Nonetheless they exist. Local planning groups are to submit their planning documents to the statewide board including their conservation plans. As far as identifying the water resources, the State engineer knows how much water is available as well as how much is being used. The department does pumpage inventory on the Carson River and Walker River Systems. Those percentages are all published for the public and other agencies to see what kind of water usage went for municipal use, fish hatcheries, or agricultural. There is no doubt about how much water is available and being used, which means there is no need for review as far as any regional planning group. There may be some commonalities between the Walker, Carson, and the Truckee Meadows systems. The water planning has always been closely tied to land-use planning and this Legislature has considered this a local issue. If the local planning group identifies their densities, then it is likely they would have to find the water to serve those densities. This adds another layer of water planning between the local level and the State level. At this point, I am not sure that there is any need for it.
Senator McGinness:
Does the statewide water committee look at the problems of the Carson and the Truckee or is it a more statewide view?
Mr. Turnipseed:
It is a more statewide view. White Pine and Lincoln Counties have their own water plan, which were all compiled into the division of water planning when that division existed. The pure water planning function I transferred into the State engineer’s office so he has a position in the water planning area. The flood planning is also in the State engineer’s office. The small water system grant program now resides in the environmental division, which matches up with the State revolving fund for wastewater treatment plants.
Senator McGinness:
Do you think the State task force would benefit from everyone getting in the same room to discuss these issues?
Mr. Turnipseed:
To date there are not that many trans-basin diversions. Obviously there are diversions out of Lake Tahoe that would normally flow into the Truckee River, but that was negotiated in the 70s with California. There are not very many diversions from the Carson River to the Walker River, nor probably should there be. The Walker system is self-sustaining. We all know there is not enough water to keep Walker Lake healthy. We are working on that with a mediator in two states and seven counties and the tribe. Carson River has its own problems, which you will probably hear from the subconservancy district about how they are planning their water use. Of course on the Truckee River it is largely the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Washoe County, and Truckee Meadows Water Authority in the Truckee River Operating Agreement, which is to help solve some of those drought problems on the Truckee River that is final after 10 years of going through the environmental impact statement process.
Senator McGinness:
Do you think there would be a value of this group getting together.
Mr. Turnipseed:
No, I do not.
Tom Gallagher, Summit Engineering:
I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. I have read this bill several times. I cannot determine what the powers of this task force are going to be having sat through several hundred water planning and commission meetings in various different locations. Are they going to have power to supersede area plans? That is one thing that would be somewhat of a concern to me.
Senator Rhoads:
I do not see anything in the bill that signals that.
Mr. Gallagher:
I am wondering what their purpose will be? If we call it a regional water plan then drawing a line around it, I think Mr. Turnipseed is correct. If we are looking regional, Nevada is not big enough to have it. Reno is not big enough to have six fire departments. I agree with Mr. Turnipseed on the committee reviewing it before we draw a line around something we do not even understand at this level.
Lori Williams, Truckee Meadows Water Authority:
I am the general manager of Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA). We serve 79,000 connections in the greater Truckee Meadows area. Our predominate source of water supply is the Truckee River. We also wholesale that surface water supply to Washoe County utility department. In the Truckee River region we are about 10 percent of the diversions on that. There are other larger players such as the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. If you look at growth and municipal water supplies and those needs into the future, we are the major player of the river. We have just completed a 20 year water plan looking at the future drought supplies and surface water supplies for the community into that 20-year horizon. At this time we cannot support this legislation because the need and purpose is unclear to the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. We would support some type of interim process and meetings in which each of the affected entities and key players in the watershed, and each river system, could participate in an assessment of the situation in that watershed.
Senator Washington recognized there were some key players left out of this legislation including the TMWA in Washoe County and also the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe who are critical about the Truckee River system. We think water planning is best done in a watershed basis. I am a member of the State advisory board on water planning. TMWA has representation on the regional water planning commission in Washoe County, which really looks at all of the sewer, flood control, effluent and water supply needs on the Truckee River. That was formed through State legislation and has been very effective. Washoe County has offered through the regional water planning commission to do joint planning with Storey County on the lower Truckee River issues. I think there is a good process in place to do that.
Federal legislation Public Law 101-618 was the initiation of the Truckee River Operating Agreement. The negotiated settlement on the Truckee River water is also an example of federal key players on a river system working cooperatively to solve issues including providing drought storage for the communities and environmental water for endangered species. Mr. Turnipseed said this has been a very long on-going process. We encourage you to look at the need for this legislation. TMWA invites any of you to come and visit with us. We would be happy to walk you through our water planning process. I know the regional water planning committee in Washoe County would be happy to do the same.
We do not see a lot of common issues for the Truckee Meadows compared to the Walker and Carson River Basins because of the use and needs. The conservation and growth needs are so much different in those basins. However, there may be some commonalities, which may be identified through an interim process that might prove beneficial to getting better at doing water planning.
Bob Milzs, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County, and Chairman, Carson Water Subconservancy District:
We feel we do an adequate job as the guardians of the Carson watershed. After reading this bill and not understanding what this is all about, I want to know what authority this board would have. Our concerns are not with the State, it is mostly with the federal government. All of the above-mentioned rivers run through Lyon County, which we try to manage. Without the end goal in mind of this legislation, we cannot give our support.
Edwin D. James, P.E., General Manager, Carson Water Subconservancy District:
In 1989, we were established by the Nevada State Legislature to deal with the water resources on the Carson River. It is essential that all counties participate in the watershed conservatory issue. A half-time position created will not be able to handle the workload, which comes with dealing with theses types of watershed issues. Developing a regional water plan for domestic, environmental and ranching demands is a difficult balance to strive for with a limited water supply. We believe in working cooperatively with other districts which have very unique needs. If we focus on everyone else’s watershed then we lose focus on what we are to accomplish. Our goals would be to keep our work that we are doing here and other watersheds support their own.
Gordon Depaoli, Walker River Irrigation District:
I will read my written testimony (Exhibit C).
John W. Jackson, Director, Department of Water Resources, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe:
The tribe is concerned over this legislation. We cannot support this bill as written. We do concur with the recommendations from Mr. Walker. We feel that if there is some commonality between the watersheds, this commonality may be identified.
Gerry Emm, Environmental Director, Environmental Department, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe:
In the legislation presented, the tribes are represented by the intertribal council only. This would not be acceptable. If there is a need to move forward with this bill, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, the Walker River Paiute Tribe, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada/California, and the Yerington Paiute Tribe have water rights on each of the different rivers. They are sovereigns and should be represented in this legislation as they are also key players in this issue.
Senator Washington:
I did not realize this bill would cause such a controversy, but nonetheless when you start talking about territory it creates commonality. I think the bill is a good bill, whether or not the committee sees fit to move forward with it. It is unfortunate that even in the great State of Nevada we are a part of the changing face within the State. What we consider to be rural or urban, all of those are part of the change. Within western Nevada we have to consider ourselves more of a region because we share some resources that do have some commonalities on water. Water is an important commodity, whether one area or another should supercede the use of that water or storage of it. This bill put together different entities with their own plans to find commonalities, which would put together one plan so they would not overlap.
Chairman Rhoads:
I will close the hearing S.B. 275 and open the work session on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 2.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2: Urges Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and Congress to take certain actions concerning expenditures of money for restoration of and water developments on public lands in Nevada. (BDR R-675)
Chairman Rhoads:
I received e-mail from Tina Nappy, an individual who suggested some changes in the resolution.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 2.
SENATOR SCHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
The next bill is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 90.
ASSEMBLY BILL 90: Increases limit on assessment for water distribution expenses incurred by State Engineer. (BDR 48-520)
SENATOR SCHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 90.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
There being no further business, I adjourn the meeting at 2:35 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Gina Rasner,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: