►
From YouTube: 3/1/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I'd
like
to
call
this
meeting
of
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
will
you
please
call
the
role.
F
A
I
am
here,
thank
you.
We
have
all
members
present.
We
have
a
quorum
today
we
have
one
presentation
and
two
bill
hearings
on
our
agenda
for
the
first
water
water-focused
natural
resources
meeting
of
the
session
before
we
begin
I'll
run
through
a
couple
of
quick
housekeeping
announcements,
as
I
usually
do,
members
of
the
public
can
participate
in
our
meetings
in
a
variety
of
ways.
Information
on
how
to
do
so
can
be
found
on
every
meeting
agenda
for
this
committee,
as
well
as
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
A
You
can
find
additional
details
on
the
help
page,
which
can
be
located
from
a
header
at
the
top
of
every
page
on
our
website.
Participants
must
register
in
advance
and
can
submit
opinion
pools
or
sign
up
to
testify
via
phone
written
comments
can
also
be
emailed
to
our
committee
email
before
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
the
meeting
committee,
exhibits
or
amendments
have
to
be
submitted
electronically
in
pdf
form
to
our
committee
manager
no
later
than
4
pm
the
business
day
prior
to
our
meeting.
A
A
So
with
that,
we
will
go
ahead
and
get
into
our
agenda.
Also,
just
let
members
on
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public
know
we
are
going
to
take
our
bills
out
of
order.
Today
we
are
going
to
hear
assembly
bill
6,
first
and
then
assembly
bill
5,
but
before
we
do
that,
we
are
going
to
start
with
a
presentation
from
the
division
of
water
resources
since
they'll
be
presenting
the
bills.
A
I
just
want
to
remind
members
to
make
sure
that
you
keep
questions
focused
on
the
issues
on
the
presentation
and
then
we'll
have
questions
on
the
bills
as
they
are
presented
so
that
we
can
get
through
the
agenda
in
a
in
an
efficient
manner.
So
with
that,
will
our
presenters
from
the
division
please
go
ahead
and
introduce
yourself
for
the
record.
You
may
proceed
whenever
you
are
ready.
G
G
G
Good
afternoon,
chairman
watson,
members
of
the
committee
again,
my
name
is
adam
sullivan.
I
am
the
acting
nevada
state
engineer
and
which
serves
as
the
principal
administrator
of
the
division
of
water
resources,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
this
afternoon
to
discuss
some
of
the
primary
water
resource
management
challenges
that
are
facing
our
state.
G
All
waters
belong
to
the
public,
a
water
right
to
divert
and
beneficially
use.
The
public
resource
can
be
obtained
and
held
as
a
property
right
and
water
right
can
also
be
lost
through
non-use,
nevada,
water
law
was
established
early
in
the
20th
century
and
while
there
have
been
additions
and
clarifications
since
then,
the
core
procedures
and
intent
have
not
changed
much
since
1913
for
appropriation
and
adjudication
and
since
1939
for
groundwater.
G
This
is
a
more
thorough
list
of
what
we
do
on
a
daily
basis.
We
appropriate
and
manage
the
use
of
nevada's
waters
through
water
rights
administration,
with
the
exception
of
the
colorado
river,
which
is
overseen
by
the
colorado
river
commission
and
managed
by
the
southern
nevada
water
authority
to
serve
municipal
water
for
its
seven
member
agencies.
G
We
are
in
the
process
of
updating
a
state
water
plan
and
drought
response
plan
in
cooperation
with
others,
and
I
will
talk
about
this
more
later.
We
regulate
well
drilling
and
the
licensing
well
drillers.
We
administered
nevada's
dam
safety
program
and
the
floodplain
management
programs
at
a
state
level,
in
coordination
with
federal
guidance
and
local
partners.
G
G
Just
about
2
percent
of
groundwater
use
is
used
by
domestic
wells
that
are
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
water
right
and
statewide.
Groundwater
use
is
approximately
one
and
a
half
million
acre
feet
annually
so
about
a
third
of
our
groundwater.
Supply
is
from
groundwater
resources
and
about
two-thirds
of
our
supplies
from
service
water
resources.
G
As
of
the
date
shown
on
the
map,
and
so
I
need
to
correct
that,
but
it
still
gives
a
good
visual
overview
and
a
good
approximation
of
where,
where
we
stand-
and
it's
also
really
important
to
note
that,
although
this
is
a
valid
and
useful
metric
for
displaying
this
data,
it
doesn't
necessarily
show
where
the
problems
or
the
conflicts
are.
G
Each
basin
has
different
hydrologic
conditions
or
actual
water
use
or
local
groundwater
management
programs
that
are
important
components
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
basin
and
the
so
the
history
of
how
basins
became
over-appropriated
and
how
they
vary,
and
what
the
circumstances
are
also
makes
it.
You
know
it
makes
addressing
this
issue,
it's
important
to
put
all
that
into
context
beyond
just
what
is
shown
on
this
figure.
G
So
before
I
discuss
more
on
on
that
topic,
I
want
to
go
back
and
provide
an
update
on
2019
legislative
initiatives.
G
Secondly,
sb
140
established
a
10
groundwater
reserve
for
all
basins
that
are
not
fully
appropriated,
so
I
should
have
mentioned
that.
Maybe
I
could
go
back
on
this
previous
slide.
All
those
basins
that
are
unshaded
that
don't
have
a
number
are
those
basins
where
the
perennial
yield
exceeds
the
current
commitments.
G
G
G
For
instance,
our
large
municipalities
have
very
effective
and
forward-looking
water
planning
programs,
and
the
objective
here
is
to
be
complementary
to
existing
programs.
What
our
small
staff
can
do
is
provide
it.
In
these
bullet
points,
we
can
offer
review
and
technical
assistance
for
water
conservation
plans
and
water
resource
plans
that
are
developed
by
local
communities
by
providing
a
common
hub
for
data
and
methods
of
analysis.
G
Secondly,
our
staff
are
working
on
a
state
water
plan,
in
cooperation
with
others
and
building
on
existing
work.
That's
been
done
in
nevada
and
in
our
sister
states
the
intent
is
to
have
a
functional
living
document
that
is
data-based
and
addresses
current
needs
for
nevada
and
for
drought,
response
and
planning.
Our
staff
are
cooperating
with
others
to
share
data,
communicate
the
science
and
provide
resources
to
help
prevent
the
worst
impacts
of
drought.
G
An
earlier
peak
runoff
in
the
spring
and
greater
late
season
stress
with
more
reliance
on
groundwater
supplies,
there's
no
easy
path
for
how
to
be
adaptive
and
resilient
to
these
trends.
But
we
can
say
that
the
greatest
short-term
impacts
are
to
our
agricultural
regions,
where
reliable
water
supply
on
an
annual
basis
is
important
for
crops
in
the
local
economy.
G
G
G
A
large
part
of
what
makes
managing
conflict
or
potential
conflict
difficult
is
reconciling
the
strict
prior
appropriation
doctrine
with
the
dynamic
nature
of
hydrogeologic
systems
and
the
effects
of
drought,
where
it's
difficult
to
delineate
exactly
what
constitutes
a
conflict
and
how
to
resolve
it.
Predicting
measuring
and
resolving
any
potential
conflict
is
difficult
to
pinpoint.
G
Water
rights
that
go
unused
for
a
long
period
of
time
can
be
lost
either
through
cancellation
forfeiture
or
abandonment
in
practice.
There's
a
high
threshold
for
implementing
this,
because
for
one
water
rights
have
protections
as
a
property
right
and
secondly,
when
forfeiture
or
cancellation
is
challenged
or
appealed.
Courts
are
reluctant
to
uphold
these
actions.
It's
common
that
a
court
will
find
that
the
state
engineer
followed
the
law,
however,
by
reasoning
of
equity
or
compassion
for
circumstances,
often
overrides
the
statutory
requirements
and
reverses
the
state
engineer
action.
G
G
Secondly,
domestic
wells
are
exempt
from
the
need
to
acquire
and
maintain
a
water
right,
and
they
have
a
protectable
interest
as
the
supply
of
drinking
water
for
homes,
but
they
also
have
a
priority
of
the
date.
The
well
was
drilled
and
they
tap
into
the
same
shared
groundwater
supply
as
other
water
righted
wells.
G
G
First
wanna
write
appropriations
are
made
based
on
a
determination
of
whether
there
is
unappropriated
water
available,
and
the
state
engineer
has,
for
decades
relied
upon
usgs
studies.
That's
the
us
geological
survey
of
water
budgets
at
a
basin
scale
to
determine
the
perennial
yield,
which
is
the
primary
measure
used
to
determine
water
availability.
G
It's
still
good
science
and
often
is
proven
to
be
really
accurate,
despite
the
limited
data
available
at
the
time
that
the
work
was
done.
But
today
we
do
have
a
lot
more
data
and
computing
power
to
conduct
more
accurate
and
up-to-date
analyses
of
water
budgets
and
either
verify
or
amend
the
older
studies.
G
A
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan,
for
the
presentation.
I
I
appreciate
it.
Of
course
this
is
complicated
area,
a
lot
of
different
moving
policy
pieces
and
a
lot
of
conflicts
so
appreciate
you
giving
as
brief
of
an
overview
as
is
possible
on
water
law,
related
issues
to
the
members
of
the
committee.
We
do
have
a
few
questions
and,
first
off
I
will
start
with
assembly
woman,
anderson.
B
I
try
and
wrap
my
head
around
a
whole
bunch
of
different
areas,
so
I've
got
a
lot
of
things
that
I
might
actually
just
be
contacting
you
about
as
well
that
to
get
some
more
clarification
about
it
later,
but
this
question
has
to
do
with
slide
number
six.
In
a
way.
Basically,
the
the
hot
zones
or
red
zones
that
you
brought
up
was
very
it
helped
my
visual
brain
understand
some
parts,
but
for
the
appropriations
for
mining
activities.
How
are
those
handled?
G
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
anderson
for
the
question.
This
is
adam
sullivan
for
the
record.
For
a
point
of
clarity,
are
you
referring
to
mine
operations,
or
are
you
talking
about
the
question
of
groundwater
mining.
B
Thank
you
at
mining
operations,
although,
if
you
feel
like
it,
bring
in
one
more
element
to
make
it
a
really
nice
long
answer
by
the
way
that
was
a
joke
really,
I
was
thinking
about
the
mind
and
operations
themselves.
G
In
some
cases,
mines
that
operate
by
dewatering
re-inject
that
water
back
into
the
aquifer
and
oftentimes
the
the
water
rights
are
conditioned
on
a
requirement
to
reinject
that
volume
of
water
and
only
consumptively
use
a
fraction
of
what's
what's
pumped
and
mining
operations,
especially
the
larger
ones,
are
regularly
conduct
annual
updates
with
our
agency
to
discuss
their
operations
and
their
in
their
water
requirements,
their
monitoring
plans
and
the
results
of
their
forecasted
effects
on
on
the
water
resource
surrounding
their
operations
area.
G
With
regard
to
the
second
question
on
groundwater
mining,
as
a
general
rule,
that
is,
is
something
that,
by
having
a
perennial
yield
standard,
we
as
a
state
nevada,
is
we're
fortunate
that
that
was
that
the
criteria
of
water
availability
was
established
early
on
in
our
history.
We
have
one
of
the
oldest
groundwater
laws
among
western
states,
and
so
it
goes
a
long
ways
towards
preventing
groundwater,
mining
and
long-term
depletion
of
the
groundwater
resource.
G
Now
those
basins
that
you
pointed
out
that
are
red
on
slide
number
six.
This
is
a
comparison
between
the
perennial
yield
and,
what's
committed
and,
like
I
said,
each
basin
has
a
different
story.
Some
of
these
have
a
significant
hydrologic,
supplemental
source
from
surface
water
runoff
at
the
terminal
end
of
a
of
a
river
system.
G
Some
of
these,
like
in
in
southern
nevada,
there's
a
really
active
groundwater
management
program.
So,
although
there
isn't
a
lot
of
groundwater
recharge,
naturally
supplying
the
the
basin
there's,
there's
active,
recharge
and
from
surface
water
sources
and
basin
is,
is
managed
well
for
a
sustainable
supply.
B
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
for
that
that
brought
up
even
more
questions,
but
I
think
I'm
going
to
have
to
do
a
little
bit
more
research
on
it
for
myself,
my
education,
but
when
you
mention
that
there
are
updates
or
there's
working
with
the
mining
corp
the
mining
companies.
How
often
do
those
discussions
take
place?
Is
it
a
yearly
discussion?
G
Thanks
for
the
question
is
assemblywoman
anderson,
again,
adam
sullivan,
for
the
record,
it
depends
on
the
on
the
different
operation
and
the
location
within
the
state.
The
the
permit
terms
dictate
what
those
requirements
will
be,
and
often
there
are
monitoring
plans
that
require
might
be
monthly
reporting.
It
might
be
quarterly,
and
sometimes
we
have
quarterly
meetings
with
the
different
operators,
and
we
do
that
in
conjunction
with
other
agencies
within
dc
r,
so
that
we
could
have
consistent
and
compatible
requirements
and
and
cooperative
relationships
with
those
companies.
B
A
Thank
you
next,
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question.
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan
letter
law
and
water
resources,
or
lack
thereof
here
in
nevada,
is
a
very,
very
complicated
subject,
and
I
think
you
were
able
to
put
it
into
a
very
brief
overview
in
a
very,
very
nice
manner.
I
have
a
question
regarding
cooperative
agreements
and
3m
plans.
You
went
over
the
laws
that
we
passed
and
last
four
sessions.
E
Recently
and,
and
I'm
wondering
the
status,
I
know
you
probably
have
limited
on
what
you
can
share
with
us
on
this,
but
the
status
of
the
diamond
valley
lawsuit
that's
in
front
of
our
supreme
court.
It's
been
my
impression
that
until
that
court,
that
court
challenge
or
that
lawsuit
was
settled
they
our
state
water
engineer,
was
somewhat
hesitant
about
putting
forward
any
more
plans,
as
there
was
a
fight
over
what
we
had
already
passed
and
we
needed
some
clarity:
clarity
in
the
language
on
3m
plans.
Could
you
give
me
an
update
on
that.
G
This
is
the
only
basin
within
the
state
of
nevada
that
has
been
designated
as
a
critical
management
area,
and
the
requirement
for
a
critical
management
area
is
that
within
10
years
the
local
community
needs
to
develop
a
groundwater
management
plan
that
is
approved
by
the
state
engineer
and
if
that
doesn't
occur,
then
the
state
engineer
is
required
to
regulate
by
priority
for
that
base.
G
G
G
So
what
we
are
doing
is
we
have
a
staff
member
in
eureka
that
has
done
a
lot
of
work
to
help
people
update
their
water
right
records
to
install
meters
on
their
irrigation
wells
and
to
report
data
through
our
website
and
keep
really
good
records,
because,
no
matter
what
happens
with
the
groundwater
management
plan,
whether
it's
upheld
or
whether
it
needs
to
go
back
and
be
revised
or
any
other
outcome,
the
continued
collection
of
really
good
water
use
data
out
diamond
valley
is
going
to
be
essential
for
the
long-term
sustainability
of
that
of
the
irrigation
community
out
there
great
thank
you
ahead.
G
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
with
you
started
the
question
with
3m
plans
and
that's
somewhat
of
a
different
issue.
That's
did
you
mean
to
say
groundwater
management
plans
when
you
ask
that.
E
Correct
the
mitigation
and
the
management
plans.
I
understand
that's
what
originally
several
members
of
the
diamond
valley
branches
have
reached
out
to
me
with
concerns
over
that,
and
I
was
just
concerned
about
on
a
broad
sense
of
any
of
your
bills
that
you
bring
forward
not
just
the
ones
today,
but
any
that
you
have
planned.
Will
any
of
them
be
affected
by
the
outcome
of
the
supreme
court
decision.
G
E
Right,
it's
maya!
Thank
you
for
that.
It's
my
understanding.
We
may
need
to
bring
some
more
stuff
forward
depending
on
what
that
is,
some
clarity
in
our
language,
and
so
that
was
my
understanding.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
on
record
that
that
nothing,
that
we
are
talking
about
that
you're
bringing
forward
the
session
is
affected
by
anything
that
comes
out
with
a
supreme
court
decision.
So
I
appreciate
that
that
clarity
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
allowing
me
to
ask
a
question.
A
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Next,
we'll
go
on
to
assemblywoman
cohen.
B
And
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
mr
sullivan.
My
question
is
about
judicial
review.
I
guess
I
was.
I
was
just
kind
of
very
struck
by
by
your
slide,
where
you
referenced
the
judiciary
and
and
maybe
putting
sympathy
above
for
for
junior
holders
above
what
the
law
actually
is,
but
that
just
kind
of
got
me
thinking
about
your
office's
involvement
in
lawsuits,
and
so
can
you
just
I.
B
G
A
All
right,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen,
given
the
topics
of
today's
bills,
I
think
it
is
at
least
safe
to
say
that
litigation
in
this
area
is
not
uncommon.
With
that
we'll
go
to
assemblyman
ellison.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
was
coming
up
that
brought
up
is
mining
and
de-watering
and
if
you
look
across
the
whole
state
of
nevada,
most
of
the
places
like
vegas
and
in
mining
is
into
conservation
and
and
what
they
can
do
to
put
the
water
back
into
the
aquifer
or
to
refine
the
water.
E
So
it's
not
like
they're,
just
throwing
water
out
dewatering
and
just
throw
it
out
on
the
ground
and
let
it
evaporate.
Is
that
correct?
That's
my
first
question,
then.
The
second
question
that
I've
got
is
right
now
we're
doing
a
lot
of
we're
doing
some
cloud
seeding,
but
I
don't
think
we're
doing
enough
to
to
really
put
more
snow
back
onto
these
mountains.
Could
you
address
that
and
how
much?
How
much
does
the
cloud
seeding
even
put
water
back
on
to
these
areas
like
ruby
mountains
and
some
of
these.
G
G
A
E
Yeah,
there's
got
to
be
some
kind
of
amount,
how
much
snow
and
how
much
water
is
into
the
snow
that
comes
into
the
cloud
seeding
if
it's
financially
beneficial
or
not.
So
I
think
that's
something
we
need
to
know,
because
that
goes
back
into
the
aquifer.
Snow
freezes
come
down,
stew,
some
does
the
runoff
and
some
goes
back
into
the
aquifer.
So
I
think
that's
something
we
really
need
to
know
and
not
dismiss
it,
because
I
think
that's
important
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
E
Is
the
misconception
of
the
dewatering
goes
out
and
goes
into
a
lake
and
then
dries
out
in
and
that's
not
true.
They've
got
probably
some
of
the
most
sophisticated
systems
in
the
world
out
at
these
mining
plants
and
how
much
they
put
back
in
and
what
it
goes
into
the
aquifer.
So
I
just
want
to
get
that
on
the
record,
because
there's
a
lot
of
misconception
out
there
that
they,
they
just
pour
it
out
and
it
goes
down
the
river
and
that's
not
true.
E
They
do
a
lot
of
research
and,
and
they
put
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
back
into
the
aquifer
and
where
this
water
goes
to.
So
it's
there's,
not
a
waste
they've
even
reduced
the
hay
fields
out
there
as
far
as
a
pivots
and
use
that
for
calculations.
So
I
just
want
everybody
to
know
that
the
mining
is
probably
one
of
the
best
companies
in
the
world
to
actually
go
back
and
look.
They
don't
even
get
into
the
pit
mine
the
pit
system.
E
So,
but
I
would
like
to
know
about
the
snow
packs
and
and
if
the
cloud
seating
is
beneficial
and
how
much
it
is
and
and
the
cost
per
per
areas,
because
there's
only
three
areas,
I
think
they
do
cloud
seeding,
charleston,
rubies
and
then
the
sierras
yeah.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
ellison,
I
I
know
that
there
has
been
a
state
cloud
seating
program
in
the
past
and
we'll
see
where
we
can
get
some
additional
information
about
where
that's
at
I
know
the
budget
constraints
have
always
been
an
issue
with
that
program
as
well.
A
All
right
hearing-
none,
I
do
have
a
couple
of
I
hope,
very
brief
questions
just
to
get
some
additional
information
out
to
our
our
members.
Mr
sullivan,
could
you
you
we've
already
touched
on
the
issues
in
diamond
valley?
Could
you
very
briefly
give
an
overview
of
the
parum
valley
and
the
most
recent
court
decision
there.
G
Upheld
state
engineer,
order,
1293-a
and
the
substance
of
that
order
was
well.
Let
me
back
up.
Perron
basin
is
a
highly
over
appropriated
base
and
it
has
been
over
appropriated
since
the
1940s
long
before
or
before.
There
was
even
an
estimate
of
the
perennial
yield.
G
Made
the
requirement
that
an
in
order
to
develop
a
domestic
well,
an
owner
needed
to
acquire
and
relinquish
two
acre
feet
of
water,
and
that
was
challenged
overturned
at
the
district
level.
And
then
the
supreme
court
reversed
the
district
court's
decision
and
upheld
order
of
1293
a
so
that
is,
is
a
significant
precedent
and,
like
I
said
in
the
presentation,
provides
important
guidance
for
the.
A
A
We
would
also
mention
public
trust,
but
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
that
briefly
and
see
if
you
could
just
speak
on
that
again,
very
briefly
about
the
higher
standard
under
our
state
law
that
is
in
place
for
any
proposed
interbasin
groundwater
transfer
and
usually
for
any
such
large
proposal,
they
tend
to
be
engaged
in
protracted
litigation
of
any
decisions
is,
would
would
that
be
a
fair
characterization.
G
G
There
are
other
requirements,
such
as
the
requirement
to
that
the
basin
of
origin
still
has
sufficient
water
to
for
future
development
that
the
the
the
destination
basin
needs
to
be
determined
if
a
plan
of
conservation
is
advisable,
and
so
these
are
additional
standards
in
in
nrs,
533,
370
that
apply
just
to
interface
and
transfers,
and
otherwise
the
the
requirements
to
publish
the
the
applications
to
allow
for
anybody
to
protest.
Those
the
ability
to
hold
a
hearing,
those
those
standards
still
apply
to
a
project
of
that
nature.
A
Thank
you
for
that
additional
context.
I
think
that
again,
one
of
the
most
often
discussed
transfers
is
no
longer
being
pursued,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
some
of
that
context
is
available,
especially
to
our
newer
members,
as
those
are
issues
that
that
come
up
from
time
to
time
and
do
come
into
the
legislative
and
policy
arena
as
well.
A
So
seeing
no
other
questions,
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
on.
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
number
six
and
mr
sullivan.
Whenever
you're
ready,
you
can
proceed
with
presenting
assembly
bill
number.
G
G
G
The
state
engineer
has
discretion
to
hold
a
hearing
on
a
protested,
permanent
water
right
application
and
the
review
of
the
legislative
history
or
nrs
533
345
indicates
that
it
was
intended
for
the
state
engineer
to
also
have
the
same
discretion
to
hold
hearings
on
protested,
one-year
temporary
water
right
change
applications
when
the
law
was
drafted.
The
omission
of
a
comma
has
led
to
ambiguity
regarding
whether
a
hearing
is
discretionary
or
required
in
order
to
make
sure
the
law
correctly
reflects
the
original
intention
to
allow
the
state
engineer
discretion
to
hold
a
hearing
section.
G
G
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
yeah.
I
do
I
do
have
a
question
and
when
I
read
through
the
bill,
when
I
got
down
to
line
10
to
15,
actually
16
and
where
it
says
and
hold
the
a
hearing,
that's
you
know
they've
been
taken
out,
but
my
question
is:
is
who
makes
a
final
decision?
If
this
is
a
hearing
or
will
they
get
a
chance
to
have
a
hearing?
Could
you
answer
that?
G
Yes,
a
protestant
if
a
protestant
is
is
a
protest
is
filed,
is
the
decision
of
whether
or
not
to
hold
a
hearing
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
state
engineer
upon
a
determination
of
whether
that
one
year,
temporary
use
of
water
may
be
in
conflict
with
the
public
interest
or
would
conflict
with
existing
rights.
G
So
that
is.
That
is
a
determination
of
the
discretion
of
the
of
the
state
engineer.
So
it's
it's
important
to
notice
that
this
is
a
one-year
temporary
change
applications
and
and
the
intent
of
that
is
to
provide
a
short-term
supply
of
water
for
a
a
temporary
use.
So
that
goes
into
the
consideration
of
whether
or
not
they're
hearing
and
reviewing
the
substance
of
the
protest
and
the
content
of
the.
E
Follow-Up,
mr
chair,
go
ahead,
mr
allison
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
the
second
question
my
biggest
concern
about
this.
It
says
the
protests
change.
You
know
for
the
application
and
the
concern
is,
if
you
look
on
line
12,
it
still
has
in
their
shell,
give
notice
to
the
applicant
so
you're
notifying
that
near
post
in
it.
E
But
my
problem
is
may
shouldn't
there
be
some
kind
of
clarification
in
here
that
says,
if
the
state
engineer
sees
that
that
there
needs
to
be
a
hearing
that
it
shall,
I
don't
know,
there's
just
not
enough
clarification
in
that
one
part
that
actually
could
be
leaving
out
people
filing
for
that
application.
I
don't
know,
but
it
it
seemed
like
there
needed
to
be
some
clarification
into
that
last
part
of
the
sentence.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
allison,
with
that
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
cohen.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
mr
sullivan.
My
question
is
about
the
hearings
themselves.
Can
you
give
us
some
background
about
what
it
takes
to
have
these
hearings?
How
many
are
requested
to
be
had
per
year?
That
type
of
thing?
So
we
get
more
of
an
idea
of
how
this
affects
the
department.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question,
assemblyman
cohen,
so
in
the
in
these
cases
of
protested,
temporary
change
applications,
the
division
has
always
interpreted
and
implemented
this.
The
same
way
that
we
approach
determining
whether
or
not
a
hearing
is
required
for
or
any
protested
application
or
any
application
for
that
matter.
That
is
interpreted
to
potentially
conflict
with
the
public
interest.
G
The
hearings
are
are
are
held
typically
here
in
our
carson
city
office
and
they
are
administrative
hearings
run
by
our
our
hearing
officer,
and
we
provide
opportunities
for
the
applicants
and
the
protestants
to
discuss
their
points
of
view
before
making
a
determination.
G
B
Thank
you.
I
would
appreciate
that
and
then,
if
you
can
just
give
us
a
little
more
information
about
what
it
entails
for
the
office
to
to
have
these
hearings,
is
it.
F
G
Yeah
you
assemblywomancom
I'm
going
to
invite
deputy
administrator
micheline
fairbank
who's
with
us
today
and
I
think,
can
provide
a
more
complete
answer
to
your
question.
H
H
So,
in
terms
of
the
number
of
hearings
we
have
like
state
engineer,
sullivan's
mentioned
that
it's
variable
we're
having
more
hearings
as
we
have
more
contentious
issues
and-
and
we
find
that
it's
appropriate
and
necessary
to
develop
a
very
robust
administrative
record,
because
we
have
more
and
more
of
our
decisions
being
challenged
on
appeal.
So
with
respect
to
what
the
process
is
for
administrative
hearings
and
that
time
frame,
is
we
typically
at
this
point
are
now
conducting
on
average?
H
I
would
say
you
know
one
to
two
hearings
every
month
to
two
months,
so
it's
it's
probably
we're
averaging
between
status,
conferences
and
hearings,
at
least
monthly,
and
the
extent
of
those
hearings
can
be
variable.
For
example,
right
now
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
week-long
hearing.
H
That's
started
today
and
will
be
going
for
the
entirety
of
the
week,
and
we
have
multiple
hearings
that
were
scheduled
for
this
month.
Just
like
any
court
docket.
Many
of
those
hearings
can
be
settled
or
you
know
we
can
get
to
resolution
prior
to
our
office
actually
having
to
have
the
administrative
hearing.
The
process
of
getting
to
the
hearing
really
can
be
variable
as
well.
H
So
in
this
particular
context
relating
to
ab6
we're
talking
about
temporary
applications,
so
a
temporary
application
will
then
get
published
if
those
statutory
criteria
are
evaluated
and
then,
if
that
temporary
application
is
protested
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
protests
and
the
basis
for
the
protest,
we
may
decide
to
hold
a
hearing.
But
what
that
does?
Is
that
slows
down
the
process
because
the
timing
in
which
to
actually
conduct
the
hearing
is
we
have
to
go
ahead
and
notice
it?
H
We
have
to
make
sure
that
it
accommodates
the
availability
of
the
parties
oftentimes
there
becomes
attorneys
involved
and
then
it's
also
dependent
on
our
particular
schedule,
and
so
because
we
have
our
administrative
hearing
section
that
consists
really
of
an
administrative
hearing
officer
and
a
supervising
professional
engineer,
and
then
we
have
some
staff
working
on
various
other
matters
within
that
particular
section.
We
really
have
you
know
one
hearing
officer,
one
staff,
your
professional
engineer,
that
are
the
ones
that
are
primarily
responsible
for
conducting
hearings
as
well
as
all
the
other
responsibilities
of
that
section.
H
So
just
like
many
court
heat
proceedings,
we
go
through
similar
processes
in
which,
if
we
establish
you
a
date,
we'll
have
scheduling
conferences,
we'll
have
free
hearing
conferences,
but
because
it's
an
administrative
hearing
process
it's
much
more
informal
than
you
would
have
in
a
regular
judicial
proceeding,
but
because
we're
seeing
more
and
more
attorneys
involving
themselves
in
our
administrative
hearing
processes,
which
historically
were
more,
you
know
where
we
had
the
applicants
or
the
water
right
holders
or
the
protestants
representing
themselves.
H
Those
hearing
processes
are
becoming
more
complicated
as
well,
so
you
know
so
we're
happy
to
go
ahead
and
provide
you.
You
know
the
specific
statistics
with
regards
to
the
number
of
hearings
that
we're
having
and
those
different
types
of
things,
and
if
there's
other
questions
that
we
can
answer
with
regards
to
our
processes
internally,
happy
to
do
so.
B
Thank
you
and
and
sure,
if
I
could
just
do
a
quick
follow-up
if
we
can
also
just
get
the
information,
because
I
think
what
you
had
said
is
that
you're
just
this
is
what
you've
always
done
anyway.
So
if
we
could
just
get
also
the
numbers
of
of
how
many
you're
not
having
right,
how
many,
how
many
are
being
requested
that
maybe
aren't
being
held
versus
how
many
you're
actually
holding.
H
And
we'll
happy
to
do
that,
I
think
what
might
need
a
little
bit
of
clarification
is.
Are
you
asking
with
regards
to
how
many
times
we're
requested
to
hold
the
hearing
and
we're
not
conducting
the
hearing?
Just
so,
I
make
sure
we're
getting
you
the
proper
information
that
you're
asking
for
okay.
Great.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
that
was
michelin
fairbank
for
the
record
secretary
with
that.
I
believe
we
had
a
question
from
mr
wheeler.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
this
question
is
going
to
be
a
little
convoluted,
but
you
guys
deal
in
water
law,
so
you're
used
to
that.
But
what
I'm
reading
here
is
if
the
office
determines
that
the
temporary
change
may
not
be
in
the
public
interest,
war
may
impair
water
rights,
et
cetera
that
you
may
hold
a
hearing
on
the
application.
It
doesn't
say
anything
in
here
about
an
application
being
contested
and,
more
importantly,
what
makes
you
decide
what
is
and
isn't
in
the
public
interest
if
there
is
no
hearing.
G
H
Thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler,
michelin,
fairbank
for
the
record,
so
the
question
about
what
what
involves
the
public
interest
is
really
a
variation
of
is
variable
based
upon
the
application,
so
the
unique
circumstances
of
the
location
of
the
application,
the
type
of
the
application.
Over
over
time.
We
have
seen
the
public
interests
get
pub.
What
constitutes
the
public
interest
evolve
over
time?
So,
in
terms
of
we
look
at
what
the
very
various
factors
that
may
be
relating
to
a
particular
application,
so
I'll
use.
H
For
example,
we
have
a
particular
area
where
we
have
identified
that
there's
a
limited
availability
of
water
and
there's
certain
change
applications
and
because
of
those
change
applications
could
implicate
impact
or
affect
how
that
water
hydrology
is
being
you
know,
the
impact
of
water
use
in
that
particular
region
were
identified
that
any
change
application
in
that
particular
area
was
likely
to
implicate
the
public
interest.
We
may
also
look
at
whether
or
not
as
we
do
our
initial
review
of
an
application.
H
H
We
may
look
at
whether
or
not
there's
appropriation
over
appropriation
issues,
so
we
look
at
a
totality
of
various
factors
that
may
be
related
to
the
specific
application
to
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
there
may
be
a
public
interest
in
implicated
within
that
temporary
application.
But
again
you
have
to
remember
that
these
are
temporary
applications
and
they're
intended
to
only
be
in
effect
for
one
year,
and
so
that's
another
factor
that
we
may
be
looking
at.
H
Is
this
really
a
temporary
use
a
temporary
project,
or
is
this
temporary
application
an
effort
to
go
ahead
and
get
around
the
permanent
application
process
and
the
publishing
requirements
in
a
permanent
application
that
then
may
make
us
consider
that
it
might
be
appropriate
that
that
could
be
a
public
interest
implication.
So
it's
really
there's
not
a
set
criteria
or
one-size-fits-all
review.
C
H
H
So
it's
constantly
an
evolving
process,
but
we
look
at
what
the
precedence
we
have,
that
kind
of
criteria
that's
been
established,
but
it's
not
like.
We
have
a
specific
checklist
because
again,
each
very
each
individual
application
is
unique
to
the
application,
the
quantity
of
water,
the
location,
the
basin,
all
these
different
factors
that
would
weigh
into
that
analysis.
A
Thank
you,
mr
wheeler.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
division
on
assembly
bill
6.
A
D
D
I
C
Hi
stephanie,
thank
you.
My
name
is
chelsea
c-h-g-o-s-u-I
last
name
hand
h-a-n-d,
and
I
wanted
to
testify
on
behalf
of
great
nation
resource
watch,
which
is
a
reno-based
non-profit,
public
interest
organization,
and
we
are
in
opposition
of
86,
since
it
limits
public
redress
to
the
temporary
change
of
place
of
diversion
manner
of
youth
or
place
of
use
of
water
already
appropriated.
D
A
G
A
G
G
G
Ab5
also
clarifies
that
an
appeal
of
a
decision
of
the
division
of
water
resources
is
in
the
nature
of
a
civil
appeal,
meaning
that
there
is
a
limitation
on
the
introduction
of
new
evidence
and
testimony
not
otherwise
brought
before
the
state
engineer
at
the
at
the
time.
A
decision
was
rendered
with
that.
Please
allow
me
to
briefly
walk
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill.
G
Section
1
subsection
1
specifies
that
determinations
subject
to
review
must
be
any
formal
order,
ruling
or
decision.
That
is
a
final
determination
issued
in
writing
by
the
state
engineer,
acting
in
person
or
through
the
assistant
of
the
state
engineer
or
the
water
commissioner,
which
materially
affects
the
person's
interest.
G
Additionally,
it
has
been
argued
before
the
nevada
supreme
court
that,
if
the
state
engineer
enters
into
a
settlement
agreement
that
such
action
constitutes
a
decision
that
is
subject
to
judicial
review,
this
would
negate
the
whole
intent
of
a
settlement
agreement
which
is
to
resolve
disputes
outside
of
court
expansions
to
the
original
intent
and
nevada's
supreme
court.
Precedence
relating
to
judicial
review
of
administrative
agency
action
hinders
the
ability
of
the
division
of
water
resources
to
perform
its
essential
and
core
functions.
G
The
primary
concern
that
we
heard
was
the
phrase
was
that
the
phrase
which
materially
materially
affects
could
limit,
who
could
challenge
a
determination
made
by
the
division,
because
this
is
not
the
intent
of
the
bill.
The
division
is
proposing
an
amendment
to
delete
the
phrase
which
materially
affects
in
section
1
lines,
2
and
3
and
restore
the
word
affecting
it
is
important
to
emphasize
that
these
provisions
are
not
intended
to
hinder
appropriate
challenges
to
determinations
of
the
division.
G
The
division
recognizes
that
appropriate,
appropriately
exercised
judicial
review
is
an
essential
check
and
balance
to
the
decisions
made
by
the
executive
branch
of
government.
However,
it
is
important
to
limit
those
challenges
to
final
determinations
that
have
a
real
and
substantive,
not
hypothetical
impact
on
the
interests
of
the
challenging
party.
G
Secondly,
section
1
subsection
8
adds
the
word
appellate
to
provide
clarification
to
the
intent
of
the
law
and
to
reflect
the
nevada
supreme
court
precedence.
The
judicial
review
of
division
determinations
is
a
pellet
in
nature,
meaning
the
practice
in
civil
appellate
cases
applies
again
in
recent
years.
The
division
has
seen
district
courts,
expand
the
scope
judicial
review
well
beyond
the
limitations
contemplated
for
matters
that
are
in
the
nature
of
an
appeal,
expanded
scope
has
included
the
examination
and
testimony
of
witnesses
during
oral
argument
and
the
expansion
of
the
record
before
the
court.
G
Lastly,
other
changes
throughout
section
1
are
conforming
changes
related
to
determinations
that
are
subject
to
judicial
review.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
I
am
happy
to
take
any
questions
from
the
members
of
the
committee
and
micheline.
Fairbank
again
is
also
here
to
help
answer.
Questions
from
the
committee.
A
B
We
can
hear
you
now.
Thank
you
assemblywoman.
My
apologies.
Thank
you.
Okay,
I'll
go
back
over
here.
In
section
one
subsection,
one,
it
says
accept,
is
otherwise
provided.
B
H
So
there
is
a
240-day
time
period
for
us
to
render
a
decision
on
a
protested
after
a
hearing
and
it's
after
either
the
last
day
that
briefing
is
submitted
or
the
transcript
there's
some
nuances
as
to
that,
but
240
days
from
the
conclusion
of
that
to
in
a
protested
hearing
matter
with
respect
to
other
matters,
whether
it's
an
adjudication,
whether
it's
like
preliminary
order
of
determination,
those
are
not
covered
under
nrs,
533,
450
and
then
there's
also
no
statutory
time
frames
in
which
for
us
to
issue
a
decision
with
regards
to
other
decisions
that
may
come
from
our
office
that
are
not
related
to
a
protested
application.
H
B
B
A
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
thank
you,
miss
fairbank
for
identifying
yourself
for
the
record
all
right.
Next,
we
have
assemblywoman
anderson.
B
Thank
you,
and,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
of
the
bill.
I
I
do
appreciate
the
deletion
of
the
term
materially,
because
that
was
like
my
first
thing.
What
what
exactly
does
that
mean,
but
I
do
have
actually
two
questions.
The
first
is
in
light
of
the
last
bill
hearing.
B
How
would
this
work
if
both
of
these
bills
were
to
be,
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly,
if
both
bills
were
to
be
successfully
signed
into
law,
then
that
means
that
a
decision
made
from
ab
6
would
never
be
brought
up
again
to
a
court,
or
am
I
misunderstanding
that
so,
if
you
could
possibly
clarify
how
these
two
items
would
work,
if
both
were
successful,.
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
anderson,
michelin,
firbing
for
the
record,
so
our
current
practice
wouldn't
change
if
both
the
bills
were
enacted,
and
that
is
under
the
current
statute.
H
We
interpret
the
statute
with
respect
to
whether
or
not
a
hearing
is
required
on
a
protested,
temporary
application
within
our
discretion,
just
like
we
have
discretion
to
hold
a
hearing
on
a
a
change,
an
application,
a
permanent
change
application
or
a
permanent
application.
H
H
So
wonder
under
the
statute,
there's
a
time
frame
in
which
to
challenge
that
final
decision,
that
final
determination,
and
so
that
would
then
be
triggered
under
nrs
533
450
to
go
ahead
and
initiate
the
petition
for
judicial
review
to
challenge
the
state
engineer's
decision,
so
the
two
of
them
wouldn't
change
the
status
of
the
laws
that
exist
today.
In
terms
of
the
practical
application,
everyone
would
still
have
an
opportunity
to
challenge
that
final.
B
I
think
I
understand
so
thank
you
very
much
for
that
thorough
answer.
So
I
I
gotta
also
be
honest
with
you.
I
have
problems
with
this
bill
it.
It
gives
the
impression
that
the
state
engineers
decision
is
not
open
for
any
sort
of
review
or
a
judicial
item,
and
I
I
have
some
real
concerns.
B
H
H
If
we
may,
thanks
I'm
assembly,
woman
anderson,
you,
we
appreciate
your
expressing
your
concern
and
michelin
fairbank
for
the
record.
The
basis
for
this
bill
is
really
rooted
in
supreme
court
precedent,
so
the
the
idea
here
is,
as
we've
expressed
through
the
the
testimony,
is
that
it's
not
intended
to
prohibit
anyone
from
challenging
a
final
determination.
H
The
idea
is
that
we
need
to
be.
You
know,
challenging
decisions
that
are
actually
final.
It
is
stated
that
there's
been
a
tendency
and
we've
seen
the
you
know:
we've
seen
district
courts
in
the
courts
below
starting
to
not
necessarily
honor
the
supreme
court,
precedence
that
we
have
in
place
and
really
what
this
legislation
proposes
to
do
is
just
really
codify
into
statutory
language.
Specific
supreme
court
precedents,
for
example.
H
You
know
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
recently
is
that
we've
had
a
a
letter
that
was
a
non-determinative
non-final
letter
that
was
found
to
have
been
sufficient
to
go
ahead
and
satisfy
being
a
final
decision,
even
though
that
individual
letter
that
was
issued
by
the
state
engineer
did
not
specifically
and
directly
impact
any
individual
rights.
It
was
speculative
in
terms
of
what
it
proc,
what
it
was
forecasting
or
what
it
was
saying,
but
there
was
no
determinative
issue
before
our
office
to
to
decide
on
and
so
like.
H
I
said
it
was
a
speculative
letter,
but
that
decision
was
sound
even
though
the
supreme
court
precedence
is
there
to
go
ahead
and
be
warranted
for
for
continuing
on
in
front
of
the
courts,
and
it
was,
and
so
what
the
intent
here
is
really
is
to
take,
that
supreme
court
precedence
and
I'm
happy
to
go
ahead
and
refer
to
the
particular
case.
But
we
have
supreme
court
precedence.
That
really
says
exactly
what
we've
offered
to
put
forth
in
the
bill
here
and
if
you'll
just
give
me
one
moment
to
go
ahead
and.
H
But
you
know
one
particular
case
that
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
refer
to
is
pal
versus
state
engineer,
and
it's
a
supreme
court
case.
124,
nevada,
122
and
it
was
decided
in
2008.
in
this
case
actually
was
with,
was
with
respect
to
a
letter
that
was
issued
by
our
office.
H
Supreme
court
harvesting
wrote
that
accordingly,
so
long
as
the
decision
affects
a
person's
interest
that
relate
to
the
administration
of
determined
rights,
so
meaning
as
a
water
right
or
a
particular
interest,
and
is
a
final
written
determination
on
the
issue.
The
aggrieved
party
may
properly
challenge
it
through
a
petition
for
judicial
review.
So
really
what
we've
tried
to
do
is
take
this
very
language.
The
supreme
court
precedence
that
we're
seeing
courts
start
to
erode
and
become
a
little
bit
more.
H
You
know
make
findings
that
perhaps
that
even
an
email
correspondence
that
may
not
necessarily
be
a
final
determination,
those
different
types
of
things
are
becoming
more
likely
and
more
are
becoming
more
challengable.
With
regards
to
individuals
wanting
to
find
a
basis
to
create
litigation
before
we
actually
get
to
a
final
decision,
what
happens?
Is
we
become
then
mired
in
litigation
in
the
process
of
getting
to
a
final
decision
without
actually
getting
to
that
final
decision
or
that
final
determination,
and
so
really?
H
What
we're
trying
to
do
is,
like
we
said,
is
bring
in
and
codify
this
precedence
in
a
manner
that
is
very
clear
that
that
courts
and
the
judiciary
can
very
plainly
read
in
the
face
of
the
language
in
the
plain
statutory
language
that
then
can
go
ahead
and
assure
that
we're
doing
the
best
interest
for
the
state
while
still
affording
those
who
may
not
agree
with
our
decision.
The
opportunity
to
challenge
it.
B
And
I
I
really
thank
you
for
that
detailed
answer.
I
realize
this
is
a
very
difficult
and
she
would
shock
messi
answers
well
when
it
comes
to
water
rights.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
and
I'm
sure
that
we'll
have
some
more
questions
and
other
conversations
around
this
issue
in
the
future.
H
Assemblywoman
blackfish
fairbanks
for
the
record.
So
again
this
doesn't
limit
the
ability
for
somebody
to
challenge
a
decision.
It
just
sets
the
timing
in
which
a
decision
can
be
challenged
that
it's
a
final
determination,
so
the
the
division
of
water
resources
and
our
judicial
review
process
is
governed
by
nrs53
450.
H
Other
administrative
agencies
are
governed
through
the
administrative
procedures
act
under
chapter
233b.
The
state
engineer
is
explicitly
exempt
from
the
administrative
procedures
act,
except
for
the
adoption
of
our
hearing
regulations,
so
we're
governed
by
533
450.
But
again,
this
does
not
prohibit
or
preclude
anyone
from
being
able
to
challenge
a
decision
of
the
office.
H
And
as
I'm
reading
the
bill,
it
seems
like
it
creates
some
completely
new
definitions
for
applicants
into
the
pub
for
the
public
to
work
with
I'm
concerned
about
the
those
definitions
not.
H
I
guess,
and
maybe
I
would
ask
that
you
clarify
the
question,
because
I'm
not
exactly
certain
what
language
you
believe
is
is
limiting
to
the
applicant's
that's
within
the
language
of
the
particular
bill.
As
we
stated,
were
we're
incorporating
supreme
court
precedence
into
the
determination
of
when
or
the
finality
of
the
decision
being
right
for
review
by
the
district
court,
and
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
impact
the
standing
of
anyone.
It
doesn't
affect
the
standing
of
who
can
challenge
our
decision.
It's
just
addressing
the
timing
and
the
ripeness
of
that
decision
for
being
challenged.
H
A
Members
hearing
none,
I
have
a
couple
one
following
up
on
the
assemblywoman
black's
last
question
and
your
response
to
it.
You
know,
I
think
your
amendment,
of
course,
has
addressed
the
materially
affecting
language.
A
You
recently
discussed
the
supreme
court
case
establishing
the
precedent
for
a
decision
being
final,
a
final
determination.
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
what
your
understanding
of
a
formal
decision
would
be
and
what
informal
decision
would
be
so
far?
I
think
the
the
most
often
touched
upon
example
has
been
a
a
letter,
particularly
some
form
of
advisory
letter.
I
know
a
settlement
agreement
was
also
mentioned
in
the
presentation
of
the
bill
and
previously
in
one
of
your
responses
you
had
mentioned,
you
know
preliminary
decisions
or
interim
or
intermediate
decisions.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
michelin
fairbank
for
the
record,
so
with
regards
to
what
constitutes
a
formal
or
is
really
the
finality
of
the
decision.
Formality
is
more
that
it's
it's
something
more
than
safe.
You
know
an
email
from
staff
or
your
correspondence
from
staff
that
doesn't
necessarily
implicate
a
you
know
in
a
determined
right
of
an
individual
that
goes
towards
the
formality
with,
in
with
respect
to
the
finality,
the
finalities
as
you've
identified.
H
Multiple
those
different
types
of
issues
is,
for
example,
a
settlement
agreement
is
really
intended
to
be
final
finality.
With
regards
to
the
litigation
we're
resolving
with
regards
to
certain
letters
that
are,
you
know,
providing
some
you
know
either
speculative
speculation
or
being
advisory.
Those
certainly
are
our.
You
know,
processes
as
part
of
our
offices.
H
With
regards
to
you,
you
raise
the
question
regarding
interim
or
or
those
different
types
of
orders.
You
know
the
title
interim
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
it
would
not
be
subject
to
judicial
review.
There
are
you
know,
interim
can
have
a
spectrum
of
you,
a
spectrum
of
finality
with
regards
to
the
type
of
issues
that
are
being
presented.
H
So,
for
example,
you
may
have
an
interim
order
that
may
issue
a
temporary
moratorium
or
a
temporary
pause
to
maintain
a
status
quo
for
a
short
period
of
time
in
order
to
make
decisions
with
regards
to
water,
resource
management,
a
particular
locality,
and
so
what
you
want
to
do
is
you
want
to
be
able
to
issue
an
order
to
create
a
pause
to
allow
that
a
you
know
that
you
have
that
status
quo.
Maintain
that
you
don't
cr,
you
don't
make
greater
issues
or
or
reduce
it.
H
You
you
don't
want
to
create
more
significant
issues,
because
people
are
afraid
of
a
pending
potential
decision.
You
want
to
be
able
to
go
ahead
and,
have
you
know
a
pause
to
come
to
that
final
decision
to
go
through
administrative
process
to
come
to
that
final
decision,
where
we
may
also
issue
an
interim
order
that
maybe,
for
example,
we'll
talk
about
use
the
10
reserve
bill
from
last
session
sb140.
H
We
issued
that
as
it
as
an
interim
order,
but
in
reality
for
the
purpose
for
the
for
the
time
and
place
right
now,
while
it's
interim,
it's
final
for
it's,
it's
intended
purpose.
It's!
Finally,
determined
what
this
this
water
reserve
is
in
those
particular
basins,
but
it's
interim
because
we
don't
know
ultimately
what
that
final
number
may
be,
because
there's
outstanding
issues
with
regards
to
undecided
applications,
unadjudicated
rights
and
claims,
so
that
one
you
know
is,
is
even
though
it
qualifies
under
an
interim
decision.
It's
really
the
the
process
of.
H
Are
we
at
a
point
where
there's
a
final
determination
that
it's
kind
of
that
bright
line
in
the
sand
that
says?
Okay?
This
is
where
we're
at.
This
is
the
management
process.
So
this
is
the
management
decision,
or
this
is
you
know,
a
decision
that
ultimately
makes
a
long-term
permanent
implication
on
interests
of
those
water
right
holders
of
those
other
interests
that
may
be
existing
in
that
location.
A
Thank
you
for
that
response.
It
does
sound
like
some
of
the
debate
since,
since
certain
certain
orders
or
decisions
may
have
different
impacts
or
levels
of
finality.
A
Some
of
these
decisions
may
still
end
up
being
sent
to
the
courts
to
determine
what
is
what
is
ripe
for
appeal,
but
I
I
appreciate
you
providing
some
clarification
about
that
on
the
record,
I
thought
I
had
another
question,
but
it
is
slipped
past
me
and
in
the
interest
of
time
I
think
we
will
are
there
any
other
questions
for
members.
A
D
D
D
F
Chairman
watson,
members
of
the
committee,
the
great
basin
water
network,
opposes
ab5.
Despite
the
proposed
amendment,
this
bill
will
erode
an
important
check
and
balance
mechanism
from
state
law.
Other
agencies
and
divisions
are
subject
to
similar
appeals
processes
via
the
state's
administrative
procedures
act.
So
we
must
ask
why
do
officials
want
to
remove
this
important
safety
net
right
now,
nrs
533
450,
says
any
person
feeling
agreed
by
any
decision
from
the
state
engineer
has
a
right
to
appeal
to
a
district
court.
This
is
a
valuable
check
on
the
unelected
officials
in
the
division.
F
The
great
basin
water
network
knows
firsthand
how
important
it
is
to
have
the
provisions
of
the
law
remain
intact.
In
2006,
during
the
beginning
of
the
regulatory
proceedings
for
the
las
vegas
pipeline
fight,
we
were
concerned
that
the
state
engineer
was
not
properly
noticing
protestants
as
required
by
law.
We
asked
the
state
engineer
to
re-notice
the
state
engineer
issued
an
intermediate
order
that
denied
our
request.
F
We
then
used
the
law
to
appeal
to
the
district
court
and
ultimately,
our
case
wound
up
in
front
of
the
nevada
supreme
court.
The
high
court
ruled
that
the
state
engineer
was
derelict
in
his
duty
and
denied
nevadans
their
due
process.
Rights
ab5
would
have
likely
blocked
us
from
seeking
justice
for
those
nevadans.
F
Next,
current
law
does
not
require
a
decision
to
be
formal,
and
the
inclusion
of
the
word
formal
would
overturn
the
supreme
court's
decision
in
hal
versus
ritchie.
The
nevada
supreme
court
in
hal
used
the
phrase
final
written
determination
of
the
issue,
as
opposed
to
ab5's
broader
final
order.
Ab5
will
block
access
to
justice.
F
D
C
I'm
a
member
of
the
ili
shoshone
tribe
and
I
oppose
a
b5.
I
believe
that
ab5
will
harm
native
communities
by
limiting
access
to
the
legal
system
and
give
unelected
officials
more
power
over
who
can
appeal
their
decisions
in
the
regulatory
realm.
C
Any
effort
to
limit
a
tribal
government's
access
to
the
justice
system
should
give
committee
members
pause.
A
b
5
will
make
it
harder
to
access
the
court
right
now
we
have
an
inclusive
state
statute
that
has
served
nevada
well
for
more
than
a
century.
There
is
no
need
to
change
it.
We
should
also
look
at
history
to
consider
what
harm
ab5
could
do
in
the
future.
C
C
D
C
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
here
in
opposition
to
ab5
ab5,
is
a
bill
that
will
block
access
to
justice
for
nevadan.
This
legislation
will
undermine
supreme
court
rulings,
introduce
undefined
language
into
law
and
upend
a
standard
of
review
that
has
served
nevada
and
well
for
more
than
a
century.
C
Nrs
533-450
is
a
statute
that
was
at
the
heart
of
the
las
vegas
pipeline
case,
of
which
plan
members
and
staff
played
an
important
role
in
fighting
ab5
language
would
have
likely
prevented
our
allies,
in
that
case,
from
appealing
a
flawed
interim
decision
by
the
state
engineer.
Fortunately,
we
had
this
statute
and
our
coalition
had
our
day
in
court,
indigenous
peoples,
rural
communities
and
the
environment,
and
many
other
nevadans
are
depending
on
you
to
do
the
right
thing
and
oppose
this
goal.
Thank
you.
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
Hello
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ainsley
archibald,
a
I
n
s,
l
e
e,
a
r
c
h,
I
b
a
l
d
speaking
as
coordinator
of
the
sunrise
movement,
las
vegas
hub.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
We
are
speaking
today
in
opposition
to
ab5.
We
believe
ab5
will
limit
access
to
the
justice
system
and
do
harm
to
our
currently
very
inclusive
judicial
review
system,
as
climate
change
worsens,
so
will
our
communal
relationship
with
water.
C
D
C
Hello,
my
name
is
ashley
forman,
a
s
h,
l
e
e,
f,
o
r
m,
a
n
chairman
watts
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
ashley
forman.
I
am
a
volunteer
member
and
co-chair
of
the
sierra
club's
legislative
committee
on
behalf
of
the
sierra
club
and
our
more
than
30
000
members
and
supporters
statewide,
I'm
I'm
speaking
in
opposition
to
bill
ab5.
C
We
appreciate
the
proposed
changes
put
forward
by
the
state
engineer,
but
they
do
nothing
to
quell
our
overarching
concerns.
This
bill
hinders
access
to
the
justice
system
and
hacks
away
at
an
inclusive
statute
that
provides
for
checks
and
balances
on
unelected
officials
at
the
division
of
water
resources.
C
We
support
the
way
that
the
law
is
currently
worded
because
it
provides
nevadans
the
opportunity
to
seek
legal
action
on
impactful
water
decisions
in
the
long
run,
ab5
will
likely
harm
those
who
can
least
afford
to
fight
for
themselves
and
have
the
most
to
lose.
This
would
foreclose
on
the
opportunity
for
folks
to
take
legal
action
on
decisions
that
go
beyond
the
short
term
and
serve
as
a
barricade
to
the
justice
system
for
rulings
outside
of
what's
proposed.
C
In
section
1.,
additionally,
the
bill's
new
undefined
terms
will
likely
undermine
the
supposed
reason
for
the
bill
by
resulting
in
more
litigation
for
the
state.
This
bill
limits
access
to
the
justice
system
and
makes
it
harder
for
grassroots
organizations,
small
businesses,
tribes
and
environmental
advocates
to
protect
water
in
the
courts.
C
This
bill
will
limit
the
public's
ability
to
fight
against
water
grabs
by
reigning
in
who
can
participate
in
the
courts
and
when
water
is
our
state's
most
limited
and
most
important
resource.
Its
protection
depends
on
the
public's
ability
to
participate
in
these
decisions.
The
bottom
line.
There
is
no
good
reason
for
limiting
someone's
access
to
the
justice
system.
This
bill
lets
the
state
shield
itself
from
the
courts:
that's
bad
for
the
environment
and
for
our
citizens.
C
D
I
Thank
you.
My
name
is
jake
tibbetts,
that's
j,
a
k,
e
t
I
b
b,
I
t
t
s
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
eureka,
county
and
speaking
on
behalf
of
eureka
county.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
we've
provided
our
testimony
in
writing
as
well.
Excuse
me,
so
we
won't
belabor.
All
of
that
and
we
point
the
committee
to
that
written
testimony.
I
We
will
just
support
many
of
the
things
that
have
been
said
before
us
related
to
our
concerns
with
the
bill.
We
do
want
to
go
on
record
and
thank
the
state
engineer:
division
of
water
resources
for
working
to
bring
forward
the
amendment
to
strike
materially
from
the
bill
and
also
their
efforts
and
outreach
with
stakeholders,
and
we're
very
grateful
for
that
that
they've
been
doing.
I
I
want
to
note
that
miss
fairbank
mentioned
the
the
intent
is
to
align
and
codify
the
state
in
or
excuse
me,
the
supreme
court
precedence,
but
you
know
that
hell
decision
that
was
referenced.
Ms
fairbank
read
a
sentence
from
that,
but
if
you
read
the
immediate
preceding
sentence
in
that
same
case,
it
casts
the
final
decision.
The
final
determination
on
the
issue
as
being
a
quote
informal
letter,
so
that
letter
was
explicitly
designated
in
that
case
as
being
informal,
yet
it
was
found
to
be
a
final
determination
on
the
issue.
I
So
if
it's
truly
to
find
alignment
with
the
supreme
court
case,
this
bill
does
not
do
that
by
bringing
in
the
language
formal,
even
without
ab5
parties
already
have
a
heavy
lift
to
challenge
decisions
of
the
state
engineer.
State
engineer
is
always
considered.
Prima
facie
correct
the
burden
of
proof
falls
on
the
party
attacking
the
same,
that
is
in
the
statute
in
533
450
sub
10..
I
I
We
put
a
bunch
in
our
testimony
about
the
materially
affected,
but
with
that
amendment
I
won't
belabor
our
points
there.
But
finally,
you
know
we
do
see
opportunities
to
clarify
the
appellate
process
through
ab5
eureka
county
has
been
at
the
center
of
many
of
the
water
matters
that
you've
heard
today
related
to
diamond
valley
and
case
law
and
other
things.
I
It's
important
that
the
judicial
review
of
the
state
engineer
decisions
are
in
the
nature
of
an
appeal
and
we're
open
to
working
on
language
to
address
that
issue.
We're
also
open
to
finding
better
ways
to
outline
how
parties
may
participate
in
judicial
review
proceedings
in
a
streamlined
way,
and
we
remain
open
to
work
with
dwr
to
find
language
that
we
can
all
live
with
moving
forward.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
D
C
F
Hello,
this
is
john
hatter.
Can
the
community
hear
me.
F
Thank
you,
john
hatter,
john
j-o-h-n-h-a-d-d-e-r,
I'm
the
director
of
great
basin
resource
watch.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
ab5,
which
we
are
testifying
in
opposition
to
great
basin
resource
watch
is
a
nevada-based
non-profit
public
interest
organization.
We
have
monitored
mining
and
extractive
industries
in
the
great
basin
since
1995..
F
We
support
communities
protecting
their
air,
water,
land
and
culture
from
the
adverse
effects
of
extractive
industries.
The
availability
and
access
to
water
is
fundamental
to
life
and
livelihood.
F
According
to
the
nevada
nrs
water
is
water,
is
the
public
and
not
its
own
is
controlled
by
the
public
is
not
owned.
However,
access
to
water
is
controlled
by
the
state
of
nevada
as
a
responsibility
to
ensure
equity
in
access.
Any
decision
by
nevada
in
allocating
access
to
water,
water
rights
needs
to
be
subject
to
internal
agency
and
legal
review
by
an
agreed
party,
either
personally
or
in
the
public
interest.
F
F
Ruling
decision
and
final
determination
issued
in
writing
will
be
new
additions
that
will
be
likely
to
lead
to
litigation
down
the
road
because
they
are
undefined.
The
average
citizen
is
already
at
a
disadvantage
to
protect
their
access
to
needed
water
in
the
face
of
large
corporations
with
well-paid
legal
consultants
to
act
on
their
interests.
F
Despite
the
needs
of
individuals,
the
general
public
great
basin
resource
watch
has
seen
how
mining
corporations
have
gained
have
been
gaining
control
over
larger
amounts
of
water
in
rural
nevada,
making
it
more
difficult
for
individual
water
rights
holders
to
protect
their
interests.
85
will
further
favor
these
large
corporations
and
its
ability
to
control
access
to
water,
whether
it
is
an
environmental
group,
irrigation,
district,
rural
county
or
tribal
government.
We
believe
this
language
will
make
it
harder
to
stop
unnecessary
and
dangerous
process
proposals,
so
we
thank
you.
F
D
D
F
L,
l,
I'm
nevada
state
director
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
We
are
opposed
to
this
bill
and
support
the
comments
and
written
testimony
submitted
by
great
base
and
water
network.
I
think
their
analysis
is
probably
the
the
best
one.
I
would
just
say
you
know,
look
at
the
politics
here.
The
this
bill
shouldn't
be
taken
in
isolation.
F
There
was
also
the
proposed
ajr1,
which
would
have
overhauled
the
entire
mechanism
for
appealing
water
cases,
which
is
currently
going
in
front
of
the
supreme
court
for
a
proceeding
there
to
make
those
decisions.
But
basically
you
know:
dwr
loses
in
court
quite
a
lot
and
so
now
they're
trying
to
change
the
law
to
make
that
to
change
that
situation.
And
if
you
look
at
the
politics
here,
we
have
the
environmental
groups,
we
have
water
advocates,
we
have
rural
counties,
we
even
have
coyote
springs.
F
The
the
subdivision
developers
submitting
a
letter
opposed
to
this
bill,
so
the
opposition
is
widespread
and
I
think
it
speaks
for
itself.
Thank
you.
D
F
Hi
good
evening,
chair
watts,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
neil
desai
n.
F
The
senior
program
director
for
the
national
parks
conservation
association-
we
are
a
101
year
old,
nonprofit,
nonpartisan
organization,
advocating
for
the
protection
of
our
national
parks
and
public
lands,
including
the
great
basin
national
park
and
tilly
springs
national
monument.
Let
me
get
right
to
the
point
we
oppose
ab5
and
our
members
do
not
want
their
voices
silenced,
you're
hearing
from
folks
today
and
also
in
submitted
written
comments,
including
ours,
on
the
numerous
problems
that
make
this
bill
fundamentally
flawed
and
unsalvageable,
even
with
the
proposed
amendments
discussed
today.
So
I
won't
repeat
any
of
that.
F
Instead,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
this
bill
in
the
context
of
the
nevada
state
legislature's
priorities
in
the
first
year
since
the
end
of
the
trump
era.
Now
it's
well
documented
that
the
trump
administration
administration
spent
considerable
time
and
effort
the
past
four
years,
undermining
the
public
interest
by
devising
policies
that
limit
access
to
justice,
science
and
facts
that
protect
our
water,
our
land,
our
public
health.
F
D
D
F
My
name
is:
will
adler
w-I-l-l-a-d-l-e-r,
I'm
representing
the
pyramid?
Lake
paiute
tribe
pyramid
lake
would
like
to
add
their
voices
in
opposition
to
eb5
ab5
would
cause
a
large
disruption
to
the
existing
water
law
and
would
be
a
detrimental
impact
to
the
public
process.
Around
water
rulings
in
nevada
ab5
introduces
new
definitions
and
creates
new
precedences
in
nevada's
water
law
that
is
not
of
the
interest
of
the
public.
F
Driven
lake
was
not
consulted
during
the
interim
for
this
process,
but
they
would
love
to
share
their
opinions
with
the
state
water
engineer
on
85
and
other
water
issues
this
year
again,
av5
does
not
seem
to
be
written
in
in
the
benefit
of
the
the
public
good
in
nevada,
and
would
limit
the
ability
to
to
comment
as
well
as
to
other
you
know,
upsetting
precedence
and
definitions
into
the
law,
so
again
we're
in
opposition
to
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
F
Thank
you.
The
opportunity
to
comment
on
85,
I'm
representing
the
central
nevada
regional
water
authority,
which
is
a
nine-member
county
unit
of
local
government
and
the
humboldt
river
basin
water
authority,
which
is
a
five-member
county
unit
of
local
government
and
both
authorities
have
the
mission
to
protect
their
water
resources.
D
F
We
agree
with
any
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
today,
we'll
be
providing
a
written
statement
before
the
end
of
the
the
time
to
do
so,
and
I
do
want
to
thank
the
state
engineer
for
providing
the
amendment.
However,
we're
still
opposed,
and
and
also
acknowledge,
the
state
engineer
for
his
efforts
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders
and
work
through
this
bill,
as
well
as
other
bills.
That
will
likely
be
heard
this
session
as
well.
F
I
just
want
to
mention
that,
and
it
has
been
mentioned
really,
that
that
this
bill
would
affect
not
only
local
governments
like
the
central
nevada,
regional
water
authority
and
the
humboldt
river
basin
water
authority,
but
really
any
affected
person,
and
so
we
should
not
be
really
reducing
the
ability
to
to
challenge
problematic
decisions
of
the
state
engineer,
and
for
that
reason
we
are
in
opposition
to
85..
Thank
you.
D
C
I
l
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
coyote
springs.
Investment
in
coyote
springs
nevada,
and
thank
you,
chair
watts
and
committee
members
for
allowing
me
to
testify
today,
and
I
also
submitted
a
written
letter,
which
is
a
part
of
the
record
as
well.
Coyote
springs
opposes
the
revisions
to
nevada,
revised
statute,
533
450,
as
set
forth
in
assembly
bill
5.,
and
we
do
appreciate
the
amendment.
C
D
F
F
We
greatly
appreciate
the
outreach
that
the
state
engineer
has
been
engaging
us
in
and
while
ab5
has
been
one
of
the
legislative
proposals
that
have
been
included
in
our
conversations,
we
just
aren't
at
a
point
at
this
area
where
we
are
comfortable
in
having
current
law
changed
over
the
past
several
years.
Water
right
owners
have
needed
to
use
the
court
system
to
stand
up
for
themselves
in
protecting
their
rights
in
a
number
of
instances.
They
have
been
successful
in
defending
those
rights
through
the
process
that
has
been
open
to
them.
F
Ab5
seems
to
put
limitations
and
restrictions
on
what
persons
can
do
to
protect
themselves
and
their
interests.
I
understand
some
of
the
perspective
that
the
state
engineers
office
is
taking
and
seeking
to
reduce
some
of
their
legal
exposure
and
have
a
shift
to
a
more
finalized
action
for
being
challenged.
But
we
still
have
to
maintain
that
the
law,
as
they
are
now
give
us
more
assurance
that
the
proposal
for
the
limited
challenges
are
available
to
us.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
share
our
perspective.
A
A
You
very
much
I
will
very
briefly
note
for
members
that
there
are
is
a
coalition
letter,
a
letter
from
white
pine
county
and
a
letter
from
the
confederated
tribes
of
the
ghoshu
that
are
all
uploaded
to
nellis
as
exhibits
and
were
submitted
in
writing
in
addition
to
written
testimony
from
some
other
followers.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
assistance
in
facilitating
testimony
on
the
bill
broadcasting
production
services
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
the
division
of
water
resources.
For
brief,
closing
statements.
G
Thank
you,
chairman
watts.
This
is
adam
sullivan
for
the
record.
G
G
A
Watts,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
closing
statement,
mr
sullivan,
and
look
forward
to
continuing
the
conversations
on
on
this
issue.
Moving
forward
with
that,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
5
and
we'll
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
D
D
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
once
again,
thanks
to
bps
for
helping
facilitate
participation
in
this
meeting.
Thank
you
to
all
the
members
for
their
thoughtful
questions
and
thank
you
to
the
division
of
water
resources
for
their
presentations
with
that.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
wednesday
march
3rd
at
4
pm,
and
this
meeting
is.