►
From YouTube: 4/5/2021 - 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
C
A
A
Members
of
the
public
can
provide
testimony
and
participate
in
our
meetings
in
a
number
of
ways.
Information
on
how
to
do
so
can
be
found
on
every
meeting
agenda,
as
well
as
on
the
help
page
of
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
Participants
must
register
in
advance
to
provide
testimony
or
public
comments.
A
Written
comments
can
also
be
emailed
to
our
committee
email
address
before
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
a
meeting
committee,
exhibits
or
amendments
must
be
submitted
electronically
in
a
pdf
no
later
than
a
business
day.
Prior
to
the
meeting,
amendments
must
include
a
bill
number
statement
of
intent
and
contact
information.
A
All
exhibits
can
be
found
on
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
We'll
ask
that
public
comments
be
kept
at
two
minutes,
so
we
can
get
through
all
the
speakers
and
get
through
our
meeting
in
a
timely
manner.
It's
particularly
important
right
now
and
members,
please
remember
to
mute
yourselves
when
you're,
not
speaking,
to
minimize
background
noise
and
to
provide
your
name
when
making
or
being
a
motion
and
of
course
we
can
check
our
votes
with
a
yes
or
no.
A
A
E
Thank
you
chawatz
for
the
record,
jan
stinsbeck,
with
the
research
division
of
the
letters
of
carl's
bureau
as
nonpartisan
central
staff.
I
can
allocate
four
against
any
mexicans
before
his
committee
with
that
assembly.
Bill
71
was
hurting
his
committee
on
february
24th,
and
it
makes
any
information
related
to
a
location
of
a
rare
plant
or
animal
species
or
collagen
community
confidential.
E
It
will
also
authorize,
under
certain
circumstances,
the
administrator
of
the
division,
natural
heritage
of
the
state
department
of
conservation
at
resources
to
release
this
confidential
information
for
a
reasonable
fee,
where
two
proposed
amendments
to
the
bill,
the
first
by
the
division
of
natural
heritage,
which
clarifies
the
only
site-specific
location
that
has
considered
credential,
removes
the
term
legitimate
activity
provides
that
a
private
land
owner
where
census
species
or
ecological
communities
occur
are
entitled
to
such
competent
information
removes
the
reasonable
fee
provision
and
instead
references
existing
stature
for
charging
reasonable
fee.
E
This
change
will
remove
the
truth,
first
requirement
for
this
bill
and,
lastly,
adds
a
federal
candidate
species
to
a
definition
of
rare
species.
The
second
amendment
was
proposed
by
clark
county
and
ensures
that
andy's
engaged
in
conservation,
environmental
review
or
scientific
research
who
rely
on
data
maintained
by
the
natural
heritage
program
will
continue
to
have
reliable
access
to
the
data
they
need
to
manage
natural
resources
to
preserve
their
commerciality
attached
to
the
work
session
document
are
both
post
amendments.
Thank
you.
Chairwood.
F
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
I
do
I
mean
I,
I
kind
of
think
I'm
I
think
I'm
gonna
have
to
be
no
on
this,
but
help
me
understand
this.
Maybe
policy
can
or
the
amending
parties
can
so
when
it
talks
about
clarifying
clarifying
only
site-specific
location
data,
that's
to
be
considered
confidential.
F
While
the
information
is
not
subject
to
disclosure,
it
does
not
exempt
the
information
from
qualifying
as
public
record.
It's
that's
confusing
to
me.
So
could
somebody
clarify
that
for
me
that
it's
not
subject
to
disclosure
the
site,
specific
location,
but
it
does
not
exempt
the
information
from
qualifying
this
public
record.
A
B
Hi,
I'm
kristen
zabo
administrator.
F
And-
and
I
understand-
and
maybe
I'm
not
getting
it
right,
but
it
just
sounds
contradictory
unless
I'm
reading
it
wrong
that
I
get
that
the
the
work
that
was
done
to
get
an
amendment
was
to
be
site
specific
and
I
understand
what
what
the
vision
of
natural
heritage
is
trying
to
do.
But
then
it's
not
so
that's
not
to
be
disclosed.
F
A
Hansen
available,
I
would
one
thing
I
would
say
is
yes,
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
amendment
was
to
clarify
that,
specifically,
the
location
data
itself
was
what
was
being
withheld.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
during
the
initial
hearing
around
any
documents
that
that
relate
to
the
information
potentially
being
withheld.
So
the
one
of
the
primary
purposes
of
that
change
is
to
ensure
that
redaction
is
what
would
happen
of
the
actual
location
information
and
not
a
redaction
of
an
entire
document
as
a
piece
or
the
withholding
of
an
entire
document.
G
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
alan
amburn,
for
the
record,
so
I'm
looking
at
the
amendment
that
is
proposed
by
the
agency,
and
so
in
that
amendment
we
see
that
the
information
is
not
subject
to
public
disclosure
and
then
they're
striking.
The
phrase
is
not
a
public
record
for
the
purposes
of
chapter
239,
but
in
the
same
amendment
we
see,
as
the
assembly
woman
pointed
out,
that
the
section
is
listed
in
chapter
interest
239.010.
G
So
it
seems
that
the
intent
is
for
that
exception
in
239.0102
still
apply
to
this
information.
If
need
be,
we
can
provide
clarity
in
that
subsection
too.
We
can
either
do
that
by
clarifying
it's
not
subject
to
public
disclosure,
since
it
is
not
a
public
record
for
under
chapter
239
or
something
like
that,
but
it
might
be
beneficial
to
keep
that
reference,
that
it
is
not
a
public
record,
at
least
that
site-specific
information
is
not
a
public
record
under
chapter
239,
since
the
reference
and
chapter
interest
239010
is
being
kept.
F
I
think
that
helped,
so
I
think
what
the
problem
was
on
on
our
work
session
document.
Is
you
just
read
kind
of
the
summary
of
the
amendment?
Is
that
what
I'm
understanding,
but
if
you've
referred
to
the
to
the
direct
amendment,
is
not
a
public
record
for
the
purpose
of
chap?
Oh,
but
wait,
that's
yeah.
F
A
A
All
right
seeing
none,
I
would
ask-
or
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
past
assembly
bill.
71.
A
F
Oh
there's
been
too
many
bills
too
many
amendments
today
and
other
things
too,
going
on
I'm
going
to
have
to
be
a
no
at
this
point
and
I've
kind
of
got
this
attitude.
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
and
get
me
to
a
yes
still
trying
to
work
through
some
things:
the
public
records
part,
but
a
couple
of
other
things.
So
I'm
sorry
I'll
have
to
be
a
no,
but
I
do
appreciate
the
work
that's
been
done.
A
D
H
A
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
for
the
record
young
sin
inspect
with
the
research
division
assembly,
build
97
with
certain
committee
on
march
29th,
and
it
requires
the
state
and
environmental
commission
and
division
of
environmental
protection
of
the
state
of
power
conservation
as
resources
in
regards
to
certain
chemicals
to
adopt
water
quality
criteria
for
surface
water,
establish
afro
limitations
for
discharges
and
establish
maximum
permissible
levels
in
drinking
water,
and
it
also
prohibits
the
manufacturing,
selling
or
distribution
of
class
b
firefighting
foam
that
contains
these
chemicals
and
prohibits
its
use
for
firefighting
trading,
for
testing
firefighting,
foam
fire
systems
and
for
use
at
certain
airports.
E
E
There
was
one
amendment
proposed
to
this
bill
by
selling
watts,
which
removes
the
state
environment
commission
requirements
to
take
action
on
these
chemicals
rather
price,
ndp
to
form
a
working
group
stated.
Chemicals
defines
the
chemicals
to
mean
a
class
of
fluorinated
organic
chemicals
that
contain
at
least
one
fully
fluorinated
carbon
atom
designed
to
be
fully
functional
in
class
b.
E
Firefighting
foam
prohibits
any
personal
subdivision
or
government
agency
from
discharging
a
class
b
fire
form
that
initially
contains
these
chemicals
in
certain
circumstances,
and
this
should
provide
that
a
violation
of
this
prohibition
as
a
misdemeanor,
requires
a
notification
of
such
discharge
to
ndp
within
24
hours,
charges
that
changes
the
effective
date
to
july
1st
2022
and
removes
international
agency
from
section
25
of
this
bill.
E
A
I'll,
while
mr
stepbeck
or
mr
amber
and
look
I,
I
will
simply
say
that
mr
wheeler
is
that
to
remove
all
the
provisions
in
particular,
there
was
a
provision.
There
were
some
sections
around
setting
water
quality
standards,
those
led
to
the
fiscal
notes.
Then
there
was
a
section
in
the
bill
related
to
regulating
entities
that
store
or
discharge
these
materials,
and
that's
that
regulatory
system
was
what
was
going
to
create
the
two-thirds
all
of
those
are
proposed
for
removal.
In
my
conceptual
amendment,
thank
you.
A
H
F
Yes-
and
I
appreciate
the
work-
that's
been
done-
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
in
the
sense
that
the
idea
that
we're
andy
required
ndp
ep
to
do
a
working
group
to
study
some
of
these
substances.
In
a
way.
I
feel
like
the
bill's
a
little
bit
carp
before
the
horse.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hanson.
I
know
that
ndep
is
on,
although
we
have
moved
to
the
motion
and
away
from
asking
questions,
so
I'd
simply
encourage
you
to
connect
with
them
about
how
the
work
group
fits
into
their
the
already
existing
federal
grant
that
they've
received
to
work
on
developing
an
action
plan
for
some
of
these
substances.
G
A
Yes,
thank
you.
That
motion
carries
I'll,
assign
myself
the
floor
statement
on
that
bill.
Thank
you,
members.
That
concludes
our
work
session.
With
that
we'll
now
move
into
our
bill
hearings.
For
today
we
will
begin
with
assembly
bill
354,
which
authorizes
the
creation
of
water
banks,
we'll
welcome
back
mr
sullivan
to
the
committee
on
natural
resources,
I'll
open
the
hearing
on
av-354.
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
adam
sullivan
and
I'm
the
acting
nevada
state
engineer,
which
serves
as
the
principal
administrator
of
the
division
of
water
resources
with
me,
is
micheline
fairbank,
deputy
administrator
for
the
division
and
we're
pleased
to
have
this
opportunity
to
introduce
assembly
bill.
354.
J
Even
though
they're
not
they're
not
perfect,
why
we
support
these
bills
as
positive
steps
forward
in
solving
the
larger
problem
in
the
long
term.
J
So
what
we
hear
all
the
time
from
irrigators
is
that
this
is
incentivizing
people
to
use
more
water
than
they
need,
or
they
are
being
punished
for
not
using
their
entire
water
right
or
they're
forced
to
sell
off
what
they
don't
use
and
there's
no
really
satisfying
response
to
that.
Except
that's!
That's
how
the
law
is
written
and
you
can
continue
to
file
extensions
to
to
avoid
cancellation.
J
The
the
bills
as
written
were
just
available
for
review
about
a
week
ago,
and
so
as
a
division.
We
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
incorporate
any
of
the
edits
that,
since
we've
shared
our
draft
bill
language
with
the
stakeholder
community
prior
to
the
bills
being
introduced,
we
do
agree
with
many
of
the
concerns
and
suggestions
that
we
heard
and
with
today's
testimony,
we'll
be
including
explanation
or
discussion
of
several
suggested
amendments
that
we
think
are
necessary
for
these
bills.
To
move
forward.
J
So
first
ap
354
is
a
this
would
introduce
a
water,
banking
and
leasing
program.
Again,
this
bill
closely
follows
a
program
that
was
adopted
in
utah
last
year.
The
concept
was
vetted
over
a
period
of
years
in
utah
and
eventually
did
have
broad
support
in
the
irrigation
community,
as
well
as
in
the
conservation
community,
and
it
passed
with
unanimous
support
in
the
utah
legislature.
J
It
was
brought
to
our
attention
several
times
as
something
that
might
be
an
option
or
something
that
could
work
in
nevada
in
utah.
The
concept
was
debated
for
a
number
of
years
prior
being
introduced
before
the
utah
legislature
and,
and
we
found
that
the
betting
that
was
done
in
utah,
which
has
similar
issues,
could
prevent
a
lot
of
duplicate
effort.
J
This
is
one
example
of
a
problem
that
this
bill
could
help
with
again.
The
the
overall
intent
of
the
bill
is
to
think
outside
of
the
box
and
explore
options
to
provide
flexibility
for
irrigators
and
irrigation
communities
as
written.
It
could
be
used
in
both
surface
water
or
groundwater
basins,
but
not
both.
J
It
would
be
entirely
optional
and
there's
no
obligation
for
participation
by
any
community
or
any
water
right
holder.
And
lastly,
there
is
a
sunset
date
written
into
the
bill
after
after
10
years.
So
if
there's
no
interest
or
if
it's
not
working,
then
the
program
would
expire
now
to
walk
through
the
components
of
the
bill
and
some
of
the
suggested
amendments.
C
C
C
The
section
is
intended
to
make
certain
that
other
agreements
regarding
the
leases
or
use
of
water
rights
are
not
precluded
by
the
enactment
of
this
law.
For
example,
many
municipal
water
suppliers
utilize
banked
water,
which
are
water
rights
that
are
held
in
trust
for
the
purpose
of
serving
future
development.
C
Finally,
we
proposed
the
deletion
of
language
that
would
preclude
judicial
review.
C
Finally,
we've
also
provided
a
suggested
amendment
to
include
subsection
e
that
would
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
water
rights
deposited
in
a
water
by
do
not
change
ownership
and
that
the
ownership
of
that
water
is
retained
by
the
holder
of
the
right.
It's
merely
that
the
water,
the
water
bake,
is
essentially
the
leasehold
interest
of
that
rate.
C
It
includes
provision
provisions
as
to
how
a
water
water
is
deposited
into
the
water
bank,
and
we've
suggested
some
proposed
amendments
to
make
this
a
little
bit
more
clear
again.
This
section
also
includes
that
sunset
provision
as
acting
state
engineer,
sullivan
reference,
and
it
also
clarifies
that
the
deposited
water
rights
within
a
water
bank
are
not
subject
to
use
it
or
lose
it
provisions,
I.e,
cancellation,
forfeiture
abandonment,.
C
C
Section
33
further
addresses
the
use
of
fake
water
and
limits
those
uses
in
a
manner
that
doesn't
serve
to
impair
existing
rights
and
we've
provided
some
additional
clarification
to
mere
statutory
language.
In
533-370.,
section
34
includes
language
regarding
certain
operational
requirements
of
the
operation
thing
section
35
specifically
states
that
the
right
of
eminent
domain
is
precluded
from
being
used
against
water
against
bank
water
rates,
and
we
suggest
an
amendment
to
make
that
more
broad
than
narrow,
section
36
includes
certain
reporting
requirements
for
the
water
bank.
C
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
and
I
know
that
you
had
did
have
some
brief
outreach
to
some
stakeholders
this
last
summer.
Unfortunately,
they
didn't
have
the
bill,
and
so
I've
heard
from
my
local
jurisdictions
that
they're
they
weren't
really
able
to
delve
into
this.
This
bill
has
presented
and
received
some
information
from
my
county
that
I
represent
churchill
that
they
still
had
some
concerns
regarding
it.
Although
I
do
feel
that
the
amendment
presented
today
may
be
helpful.
Nonetheless,
there's
still
concerns.
B
So
I
have
some
questions
about
some
specific
sections
on
this
first
off.
I
want
to
acknowledge
for
the
clarity
that
you
could
not
transfer
this
water
from
one
water
basin
to
another.
I
think
that
was
a
huge
concern,
so
thank
you
and
the
amendment
for
clarifying
that
it
must
be
within
the
same
water
basin
and
and
how
many
water
basins
do
we
actually
have
identified
in
this
state.
B
Okay
and
you
use
the
term
water
basin
plus
hydrographic
basin,
is
there
a
difference.
B
So
in
section
25
this
this
provision
looks
like
it's
now.
It
removes
that
user
to
lose
it,
and
I
have
water
rights
and
that's
always
a
concern.
C
So
assemblywoman
titus,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Michelin
fairbait
for
the
record.
I
don't
think
there's
any
guarantees
anywhere
in
statute
for
abuse
of
the
process
under
existing
law.
There's
certainly
ample
opportunities
for
people
to
find
loopholes
and
mechanisms
in
which
to
exploit
their
own
interests.
C
So
I
can't
make
that
guarantee,
but
I
think
that's
certainly
some
of
those
components
that
are
supposed
to
be
incorporated
into
the
water
bank
process.
If
there's
ways
to
strengthen
the
language
within
the
statute,
to
provide
better
mechanisms
to
lack
a
better
term
police
that
type
of
behavior,
we're
certainly
amenable
to
finding
ways
to
do
that,
because
that's
definitely
an
interest
that
we
all
have
is
that
there's
not
speculation.
B
Great
thank
you
for
that,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we're
concerned
about
in
in
this
day
and
age
is
you
know
perhaps
some
hedge
funds,
perhaps
some
companies
that
are
actually
looking
at
bringing
in
water
exporting
water.
You
know
locking
up
water
to
use
for
future
use,
and
so
at
this
point
in
time,
you're
not
aware
of
any
potential
hedge
funds
that
are
looking
for
water
and
and
banking
water
now
and
then
the
last
question
I
have,
if
I
might,
mr
chair
one
more.
B
So
so,
when
somebody,
it
seems,
like
the
the
state
engineer,
may
be
delegating
his
authority
once
the
the
bank
is
established,
because
I
don't
see
where
there's
really,
anybody
can
maybe
establish
this
bank,
regardless
of
whether
they
have
any
water
knowledge
or
not.
So
how
much
oversight
will
our
state
engineer?
Who
should
not
understand
what
or
have
over
this
once
this
bank
is
established.
C
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
titus,
michelin,
fairbank
for
the
record,
so
the
intensive
statute
and
I'm
trying
to
find
it's
a
long
statute.
So
I
lose
the
words
from
time
to
time,
but
it's
really
intended
for
that.
The
creation
of
a
water
bank
has
to
be
put
forth
by
individuals
who
at
least
two
individuals
who
have
ownership
of
those
water
rates.
C
Excuse
me
section
20,
subsection,
1
states
except
is
otherwise
provided
in
the
section,
a
person
or
group
of
persons
who
own
one
or
more
perfected
water
rights
may
submit
to
the
state
engineering
applications
create
a
statutory
water
bank.
So
that's
a
provision
right
there
that
limits
it.
So
it
can't
be
created
by
someone
that
just
wants
to
go
ahead
and
engage
in
the
business
of
operating
a
water
bank.
C
It
has
to
be
an
individual
group
of
individuals
with
water,
multiple
individuals
with
water
rights,
to
advocating
responsibility
under
the
statute
that,
if
that's
not
what
this
does,
this
allows
the
water
bank
to
go
ahead
and
be
created
to
serve
the
individual
needs
of
a
particular
location.
C
However,
the
provisions
of
533
370
and
the
remainder
of
chapter
533
still
apply
to
the
management
administration
of
those
water
rights.
It's
so
in
terms
of
when
waters
is
transferred
from
an
owner
and
deposited
into
the
water
bank.
It
still
has
to
undergo
533
through
70
analysis
if
water
is
being
leased
out
of
the
water
bank
to
be
used
at
a
particular
locality.
C
That
transfer
is
subject
to
a
change
application
that
still
has
to
go
through
our
change,
application,
analysis
and
process.
So
we're
not
advocating
our
responsibility
in
terms
of
oversight
and
management
of
the
water
resources.
But
what
this
the
statute
does
is
it
provides
a
mechanism
to
create
a
localized
process
to
allow
individual
irrigation
manager,
abuse
owners
of
water
rights
to
deposit
some
or
larger
subs
or
holes
of
water
rights
that
are
owned
in
there.
You
know,
and
to
have
that
available
to
be
leased
out
on
an
annualized
basis
to
serve
a
different
project.
C
You
can,
however,
challenges
come
into
place.
For
example,
say
you
have
a
project,
then
I'm
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
you
know
pull
numbers
out
of
the
air
if
you
have
a
project
that
needed
2,
000
acre
feet
of
water,
but
there's
not
two
thousand
acre
feet
of
water
to
available
to
appropriate
in
the
basin,
and
the
only
alternative
way
would
be
to
buy
one
or
more
large
properties
to
acquire
those
water
rates,
and
then
this
provides
a
mechanism.
C
That's
not
existing
in
current
law
for
smaller
deposits,
individuals
as
a
whole,
and
if
in
the
community
wanted
to
support
that
project,
individual
irrigators
could
say:
well,
I'm
willing
to
go
ahead
and
deposit
100
acre
feet
and
I'm
willing
to
go
ahead
and
give
up
200
acre
feet.
In
the
whole,
those
small
amounts
can
complete
the
aggregate.
The
total
amount
needed
for
that
particular
project.
C
So
it's
it
does
provide
flexibility
and
opportunities.
Additionally,
under
lease
water
rights,
sometimes
those
are
under
temporary
change.
Applications
that
doesn't
absolve
the
use
of
or
lose
its
provision.
So
that's
another
benefit
while
that
water
is
being
held
in
the
bank.
It's
not
subject
to
the
use
of
elusive
provisions.
B
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
assemblywoman
titus
and
encourage
you
if
other
members
do
not
bring
up
these
questions
or
they
do
not
get
addressed
to
please
follow
up
with
the
agents
at
the
offline
as
well.
I
believe.
Next
we
have
assemblyman
ellison.
D
D
The
bill
undermines
nevada,
water
laws
and
agriculture
by
creating
a
new
term
higher
and
best
use,
and
you
know
it's
always
been:
that's
always
for
the
best
use
of
the
state
and
what
the
water
is
used
for
by
banking.
This
is
this
going
to
be
for
the
best
use.
J
Assembly
assemblyman,
this
is
adam
sullivan
for
the
record.
I
don't
fully
disagree
with
you
that
that
that
portion
of
the
bill
that
particular
language
that
talked
about
highest
and
best,
you
said
we,
we
strongly
recommend.
D
That
that
would
be
and
then
how
many
aquifers
are
between.
I
don't
know
if
you
know
this
off
top
of
your
head
between,
say
humble,
which
is
winamaka
humboldt
area
up
into
there
to
fernley
is
their
problem,
because
you
got
all
that
that
aquifer
that
goes
into
lublock.
D
J
Adam
sullivan,
for
the
record,
the
the
best
way
to
look
at
that
is
by
the
256
different
groundwater
basins
that
we
described
before
they're,
so
each
basin
is,
is
typically
defined.
J
D
J
D
Yeah,
I'd
really
like
to
have
that
language
that
there's
no
way
that
it
could
be
piped
from
one
aquifer
to
the
other,
and
then
the
other
thing
that
that
I
really
like
to
know
is
if
they
did
bank
and
they
did
sail
long
as
it
stayed
in
the
same
aquifer
for
something
in
the
same
use
like
say
if
it's
a
rancher
farmer
in
lovelock
and
he
wants
to
sell
it
to
somebody
within
the
same
aquifer,
that'd
still
be
allowed,
but
they
just
couldn't
go
outside
of
that
aquifer.
Is
that
correct.
J
Yes,
adam
sullivan,
for
the
record
generally,
a
point
of
diversion
can
be
moved
within
one
aquifer,
but
not
outside
of
that
aquifer.
D
And
then
I
talked
to
some
people
in
utah
and
they
said
for
five
years
that
they've
been
trying
to
do
this
same
thing
and
up
to
this
date
they
still
cannot
get
the
language,
and
this
correct
in
oregon.
I
guess,
is
having
some
of
the
problems
in
the
same
as
the
the
san
joaquin
valley
in
california,
but
utah
says
they
they've
been
working
on
this
for
five
years
and
they
still
can't
get
it
straight.
Is
that
correct.
C
C
I
had
a
conversation
with
members
of
the
utah
state
engineers
office
about
two
and
a
half
weeks
ago,
and
so
they're
they're
they're
moving
forward
with
a
couple
of
the
water
baking
projects,
and
so
it
takes
some
time
to
go
ahead
and
create
the
water
bank
to
get
all
the
legal
mechanisms
in
place
and
then
the
application
ready
and
put
forth.
So
that's
where
they're
at
because
that
legislation
and
the
law
is
new
but
they're
actively
moving
forward
with
with
that
process.
D
Okay-
and
maybe
I
maybe
I
spoke
early-
it
wasn't
that
they
implemented
the
law.
It
was
the
study
that
they
were
trying
to
get
it
to
see
if
it
would
work,
and
maybe
that's
what
they
were
talking
about-
it's
not
actually
legislation.
It
was
trying
to
see
if
they
can
make
this
same
work
or
not
work.
So
that's
just
clarification
that
I
think
I
need
to
find
out
from
them.
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
you
answering
my
question.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
people
out.
There's
got
a
lot
of
them.
H
H
The
question
I
have
is
who
holds
the
state
engineer
accountable
in
this
and
the
provisions
in
this
bill
you
know:
should
they
become
law.
The
way
I'm
looking
at
it,
specifically
in
section
23
and
28.,
there's
no
guidelines,
there's
no
criteria
for
what
the
engineer's
office
has
to
do
here
in
the
engineer
itself,
so
where's
the
accountability,
where's
the
checks
and
balances.
What,
if
you
know,
there's
a
problem?
H
C
So
again,
the
day-to-day
administration
of
the
water
bank
is
not
managed
by
the
state
engineer's
office,
so
the
statute
lays
out
the
statutory
requirements
the
you
know
how
to
create.
You
know
what
we're
required
to
review
for
whether
or
not
to
approve
an
application
for
a
water
bank,
and
then
we
have
our
guidelines
under
533-370.
Even
the
remainder
of
chapter
533,
with
respect
to
change.
C
Applications
to
move
water
in
and
out
of
a
statutory
water
bank
which
are
all
subject
to
judicial
review,
particularly
notable
is
the
fact
that
we've
deleted
or
we're
proposing
in
our
amendment,
to
delete
the
language
that
would
preclude
judicial
review
of
the
state
engineer's
decision
to
grant
or
deny
an
application
to
create
a
water
bank.
So
there's
ample
opportunities
for
you
know
for
those
checks
and
balances
of
judicial
review.
Furthermore,
because
the
statute
lays
out
the
criteria
for
the
establishment
of
the
water
bank,
you
know
really.
C
The
idea
is
that
it's
not
the
state
engineer
doesn't
have
the
particularized
knowledge
of
the
needs
and
the
individual
characteristics
of
the
community
and
what
that
community
needs
with
respect
to
the
creation
of
the
water
bank
and
the
interest
that
they're
trying
to
serve.
And
so
really
the
idea
is
that
we
create
large
statewide.
C
You
know
frameworks
for
the
creation,
but
it's
up
to
those
individual
communities
to
develop
the
specificity
as
to
how
that
water
bank
is
going
to
manage
their
particularities,
how
they're
going
to
do
their
business
and
we
don't
believe
that
we
should
be
in
the
business
of
micromanaging.
That.
H
Thank
you.
The
amendment
does
make
me
feel
a
little
better.
I've
got
to
say
that
you
know
that
there
will
be
judicial
review,
but
only
only
slightly-
and
I
just
got
to
tell
you-
you
guys-
got
such
an
echo
going
there,
I'm
getting
about
every
other
word
or
it
must
be
these
old
ears
thanks.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
here.
I
think.
Actually,
some
of
my
questions
have
been
answered
by
my
call,
the
questions
that
my
colleagues
asked,
but
just
to
visit
the
utah
model
again
and
I
was
on
public
lands,
and
I
recall
just
before
covid
we
had
a
meeting
in
cali
any
and
water
banking.
F
But
you
could
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
that
and
then
before
they
even
brought
the
legislation
they
spent
18
months
with
50
people
representing
lots
of
diverse
stakeholders
in
in
the
in
the
process
before
they
brought
it
forward.
So-
and
this
is
probably
just
more
rhetorical,
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
probably
a
little
bit
premature,
because
I
don't
think
we've
done
those
sorts
of
things
yet
and
also
we
haven't
had
enough
time
to
see
what
what
pans
out
for
utah
any
concerns
about
we're.
A
little
too
premature
in
the.
F
C
Friendly
woman
handsome,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Michelin
fairbank
for
the
record.
You
know,
like
mr
sullivan
stated
in
his
opening
remarks.
You
know
we
are
borrowing
a
lot
of
that
leg.
Work
that
utah
have
done.
They
have
very
similar.
You
know
conditions
as
we
do
here
in
nevada
and
and
so
you
we
felt
that
having
a
optional
opportunity
for
for
communities
to
explore
this,
if
it
was
something
that
they
thought
might
be
useful
and
beneficial
for
them
could
be
helpful.
C
It's
not
a
mandatory
program.
You
know
it's
entirely
optional
and,
as
mr
sullivan
stated
we're
trying
to
create
additional
tools
and
opportunities
to
allow
more
flexibility
where
right
now
we
have
very
little
with
regards
to
you
know
that
being
a
temporary
or
pilot
country
program
in
utah,
that's
how
we've
structured
ours
here!
Utah
has
a
10-year
sunset
provision.
Our
statute,
as
it's
been
our
bill
as
it's
being
proposed,
includes
that
10-year
sunset
provision.
C
Additionally,
we
have
additional
reporting
requirements
to
the
legislative
council
bureau
before
every
session
to
report
on
what's
going
on.
Is
it
going
well?
Is
it
not
going
well?
So
if
it
was,
you
know
a
bank,
you
know
a
banner
prop,
you
know
program,
and
it
really
was,
you
know.
Exceptional
gives
us
opportunities
to
find
needs
and
refinements.
F
F
You
know
nevadans
are
very
particular
about
the
their
state
and
how
they
do
things
not
just
in
regards
to
water,
but
all
other
things,
and
there
you
know
my
my
constituents
that
are
all
along
the
humboldt
basin
might
beg
to
differ
that
their
their
situation
is
very
unique,
compared
to
maybe
those
along
the
wasatch
front
and
who
have
lots
of
tributaries
from
the
the
mountains
that
are
massive
and,
and
so
there
there
are
lots
of
different
things
to
be
addressed,
and
I
think,
having
more
input
from
nevadans
in
studying
this
before
we
implemented
would
have
been
my
preference,
but
we're
here
and
we're
going
to
vet
it
and
appreciate
what
you've
taken.
A
B
C
B
You,
mr
sullivan
and
ms
fairbanks,
for
bringing
this
forward
as
you
and
I
talked
just
the
other
day.
It
was
another
big
time,
educational
opportunity
for
me.
My
two
questions
actually
assembly
member
hanson
had
already
started
to
bring
it
up.
It
is
not
it.
This
is
permissive
language,
and
so
is
there
anything
to
stop
a
a
group
of
individuals
from
trying
to
do
this
without
the
state.
B
C
So,
within
our
existing
statutory
structure,
there's
not
a
good
mechanism
to
allow
a
program
very
much
like
this
to
move
forward.
You
know
we
have
certain.
You
know,
there's
certain
challenges
with
regards
to
the
commingling
of
water
rights
into
a
large
particular
project.
It's
not
to
say
it's,
you
know
patently
impossible,
but
this
is
a
more
streamlined
process.
C
Additionally,
like
we
stated
before,
if
the
provisions
of
use
it
or
lose,
it
wouldn't
be
suspended
in
that
scenario,
and
that's
one
of
the
unique
features
that
comes
with
this
particular
program-
that's
not
otherwise
available
and
existing
off.
B
I
thank
you
and
then
my
other
question
actually
is
very
specific.
I
did
not
understand
the
news
language
under
section
30
on
page
10
of
f.
What
exactly
that
meant
under
the
shall
not
require
otherwise
utilize,
the
contract
water
bank.
So
if
you
could
explain
that
one
a
little
bit
more,
I
was
I
just
got.
I
think
I
talked
myself
out
of
what
I
thought
it
meant.
So
if
you
could
explain
that
area.
C
A
little
bit
more,
I
would
really
appreciate
it.
So,
if
you're
looking
michelin
fairbank
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
anderson,
if
you're,
looking
at
section,
30
subsection
f,
which
I
believe
is
what
you're
referencing,
where
it
says,
shall
not
require
otherwise
utilize
a
contract
water
bank
to
operate
as
to
result
in
the
inverse
condemnation
of
any
water
right
within
the
service
area.
C
What
that
really
needs
is
a
contract
water
bank
is
a
is,
can
only
be
created
by
a
public
entity,
and
so
the
idea
is
to
explicitly
provide
for
within
the
statute
that
that
public
entity
created
water
bank
can't
utilize
the
water
bank
to
constitute
an
inverse
condemnation,
action
or
something
like
that
to
those
privately
held
water
rates.
That
may
have
been
deposited.
B
So,
just
to
do
a
quick
follow-up,
and
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
If
there,
if
that
were
to
happen,
then
all
of
those
private
entities
would
be
alerted
for
the
open
meeting
I
believe
is
mentioned
earlier,
or
would
that
be
the
private
entity's
responsibility
to
find
out
about
those
those
meeting
dates.
A
All
right
seeing
none,
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
on
assembly
bill
354.
as
a
reminder.
In
order
to
provide
testimony,
you
must
register
in
advance
on
the
legislative
website
in
order
to
receive
the
call-in
information,
we're
asking
that
all
persons
providing
testimony
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes,
in
addition,
I'll
be
limiting
testimony
and
support
opposition
and
neutral
of
the
bill
to
20
minutes
for
each
side,
so
that
we
can
get
through
our
agenda
in
a
timely
manner.
A
Lastly,
I
just
a
couple
of
other
notes.
I
asked
that,
to
the
extent
possible,
knowing
that
the
amendments
came
in
today
that
callers
try
to
keep
their
comments
focused
on
the
amendment
that
was
presented.
A
In
addition,
I
just
asked
that,
and-
and
I
appreciate
all
the
members
for
this
as
well
to
this
point-
to
really
focus
on
issues
of
policy
and
not
to
make
assumptions
or
judgments
about
any
of
the
motives
behind
the
legislation,
so
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
broadcast
production
services
to
see.
If
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
in
support
of
ab354.
L
L
L
H
Hello-
this
is
john
hatter.
Last
name
spelled
h-a-d-d-e-r,
I'm
the
director
of
great
basin
resource
watch,
which
is
opposed
to
assembly
bill
54
and
for
all
the
reasons
we've
heard
some
heard
already.
H
But
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
are
concerned
to
us
even
sounds
like
the
the
definition
of
service
area
is
ill-defined
could
extend
across
basins.
We
think
that
it
would
have
to
be
service
area
has
to
be
within
a
hydrographic
basin
to
avoid
complications
down
the
road.
H
The
it
sounds
like
the
parameters
around
the
governing
body
for
each
water
bank
is
not
clear
to
define
the
legislation
that
seems
too
open-ended
and
and
too
much
authority
lies
in
the
state
engineer
to
make
those
judgments.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
more
of
a
public
engagement
around
that
process.
H
You
don't
like
this
issue
of
perfected
water
rights
being
defined.
The
document
is
kind
of
interesting
because,
even
as
of
last
year,
the
lcb
research
division
division
indicated
that
perfected
and
certified
essentially
are
meaning
the
same
thing
which
pertains
to
a
water
right.
That's
been
put
to
beneficial
youth,
so
I
think
that
sort
of
blurs
what
the
meaning
is
there
and
perhaps
its
use
and
other
other
nrss-
could
be
a
problem
overall.
H
We
just
don't
think
that
we're
ready
for
this
kind
of
this
legislation
does
not
lay
out
all
the
details
and
that
the
state
of
nevada
needs
to
evaluate
this
power,
this
policy
of
water
banks
in
a
more
general
way.
H
We
really
need
something
more
like
in
kind
of
a
full-scale
environmental
review
process
of
how
we
would
move
forward
on
something
like
this,
so
it's
premature
not
fleshed
out
enough,
and
it
concerns
us
that
that
perfected
water
rights
is
defined
only
from
the
perspective
of
irrigation
rights
and
moves
water
from
one
type
of
use
to
another
again
great
basin
resource
watch
is
opposed
to
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
mr
hatter.
You
jumped
the
gun
a
little
bit,
we're
still
in
support.
So
with
that
understanding
that
we
we
have
technical
hiccups
that
happen.
Let's
try
and
make
sure
that
we
we
do
support
testimony
first.
So
with
that
we'll
go
back
to
broadcast
production
services
and
see
if
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
ab354.
L
L
L
K
A
L
L
H
K-Y-L-E-R-O-E-R-I-N-K,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
great
basin
water
network,
chairman
watson,
members
of
the
committee,
the
great
basin
water
network
opposes
ab355.
We
appreciate
the
amendments
that
came
late
this
morning.
However,
they
do
not
mitigate
the
underlying
problems
with
this
bill.
This
is
not
a
conservation
measure.
This
is
not
a
banking
measure.
This
is
a
water
marketing
scheme
masquerading
as
something
good.
We
can't
find
one
line
that
ensures
water
will
actually
be
conserved.
We
cannot
find
one
measure
that
would
defend
rural
communities.
H
We
cannot
find
one
provision
that
protects
the
environment,
undermining
the
doctrine
of
prior
appropriation
and
the
anti-speculation
doctrine
is
not
good
policy.
Nor
is
it
the
way
to
get
out
of
balanced
basins
under
control.
I
know
utah
keeps
coming
up
as
an
example.
They
have
no
track
record
there.
Yet,
if
you
want
an
example
of
banks,
look
at
california-
and
let
me
say
there
are
a
lot
of
examples
that
aren't
pretty
from
a
managerial
perspective.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
content-free
nature
of
the
proposal.
There
are
no
definitions
of
what
is
a
satisfactory
bank.
H
There
is
no
standard
of
how
a
bank
will
function
once
the
water
is
in
the
bank.
It
is
out
of
the
control
of
our
state.
Even
with
the
amendments.
This
bill
is
designed
to
strip
water
away
from
agriculture
and
the
environment.
We
don't
know
who
really
wants
this
bill,
but
we
know
that
their
intentions
are
not
in
the
public
interest
they're.
Only
in
the
interest
of
profit.
Please
oppose
this
bill.
Thank
you.
H
Hello,
this
is
john
hatter
h-a-d-d-e-r.
I
had
already
stated
earlier
that
our
great
basin
resource
watch
is
opposed
to
this
bill.
Chairman
watts,
do
I
need
to
repeat
testimony,
or
is
it?
Is
it
kept
properly?
Cataloged.
A
No
we'll
make
sure
to
have
the
secretary
catego
categorize
your
initial
remarks,
his
testimony
and
opposition.
Thank
you,
mr
hatter.
L
K
This
is
patrick
donnelly,
p-a-t-r-I-c-k
d-o-n-n-e-l-l-y,
I'm
nevada
state
director
at
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
We
submitted
a
letter,
along
with
several
of
our
fellow
groups
objecting
to
this
bill
and
those
objections.
Well,
a
couple
were
dealt
with
by
the
amendments
really
have
not
been
resolved.
K
Overall,
this
bill
is
a
water
speculation
bill
that
would
decrease
our
control
over
our
water
water
resources
in
this
state
and
increase
the
ability
of
investors
and
banks
and
scammers
to
speculate
on
our
water
and
from
a
more
technical
perspective.
K
K
Changing
climate
evapotranspiration
rates
are
increasing,
the
evaporation
off
apply
is
increasing
and
in
general,
groundwater
storage
is
decreasing,
and
so
there
is
a
false
premise
that
water
we
tuck
away
in
an
aquifer
today
will
be
there
10,
20
50
years
from
now,
and
that
just
may
not
be
reflective
of
the
climate
drought
reality
we
are
in,
and
perhaps
there
are
policy
mechanisms
to
account
for
that.
K
L
I
I
I
M
M
Earlier
this
morning,
about
a
half
hour
after
I
had
submitted
our
organization's
written
opposition
to
ab354.
I
received
the
proposed
amendments
that
were
proposed
by
the
acting
state
engineer.
I
have
been
reviewing
those
proposed
amendments,
as
well
as
the
proposed
amendments
to
ab356,
which
also
were
included
in
the
emailing
that
I
got
at
10
26
a.m.
M
M
These
proposed
updates
are
noteworthy
and
major
after
wrestling
with
whether
we
should
change
our
opposition.
In
light
of
the
proposed
amendments,
I
came
to
a
conclusion
that
we
should
recognize
our
favorable
reaction
to
the
proposed
changes,
but
still
raise
concern
over
the
process
that
has
unfolded
for
dealing
with
extremely
complicated
changes
in
water
law.
On
the
basis
that
has
been
conducted.
M
We
are
not
going
to
say
that
we
are
opposed
to
working
through
a
thorough
process.
Ironing
out
details
with
remain
as
questions.
We
simply
aren't
at
a
place
at
this
point
in
time
to
be
able
to
move
forward
without
a
more
comprehensive
and
interactive
discussion
line
by
line
and
detail
by
detail
with
all
stakeholders
involved
in
that
process.
N
While
we
understand
that
the
new
amendments
have
improved
things
and
while
we
understand
the
intention
to
introduce
more
amendments
that
will
address
some
of
our
concerns,
we
can
only
evaluate
the
bill
as
it
stands
and
as
best
we
can
incorporate
the
amendments
that
were
dropped
this
morning
into
it
and
as
it
stands,
we
do
not
think
this
legislation
on
balance
protects
the
environment.
We
do
not
think
it
on
balance,
it
conserves
water.
N
This
is
not
legislation
right
now
that
defends
the
public
interest.
In
fact,
it's
at
its
core:
it's
not
even
legislation
to
create
a
water
bank.
The
core
of
this
legislation
creates
a
water
market
where
the
resource
will
be
sold,
leased
and
commoditized
in
a
way.
That's
currently
not
allowed
in
nevada
we're
the
nation's
premier
conservation
organization.
We
know
conservation
when
we
see
it
and
right
now
this
isn't
it.
N
N
This
is
not
a
bill
that
the
sierra
club
wants.
It's
not
even
a
bill
that,
as
far
as
we
can
tell
rural
nevada
wants,
this
appears
to
be
a
bill
that
benefits
the
big
entities
that
view
water
as
currency,
rather
than
our
most
important
resource.
What
we
need
to
do
is
we
need
to
to
take
some
time
to
work
with
the
stakeholders
and
produce
a
comprehensive
plan
that
actually
works
out
rather
than
trying
to
cram
at
the
11th
hour.
N
K
K
If
you
want
to
turn
nevada
into
a
california-style
giant
network
of
pipelines,
ab-354
is
how
you
start
don't
take
my
word
for
it
remember
when
water
asset
management,
a
new
york
city
hedge
fund,
presented
to
the
nevada
senate
in
2017
and
advocated
for
a
giant
network
of
pipelines
connecting
the
state.
This
is
what
water
marketing
looks
like.
This
is
where
we
are
headed
with
ab354.
K
K
K
Eureka
county
appreciates
the
state
engineer's
effort
in
incorporating
change
and
ideas
developed
by
stakeholder
groups
and
will
continue
to
support
those
efforts,
so
we
can
reach
common
ground.
The
utah
water
bank
legislation
took
years
of
stakeholder
engagement
and
many
meetings.
Additionally,
the
bill
came
with
a
specific
appropriation.
K
We
believe
a
similar
effort
needs
to
occur
in
nevada
and
that
has
not
occurred.
The
bills
being
heard
today
are
complicated
and
will
greatly
increase
workload
within
the
division
of
water
resources.
We
do
not
understand
how
the
state
engineer
can
take
on
additional
workload
without
additional
staff
or
requests
for
staff.
A
360
dollar
fee
seems
very
inadequate
to
accomplish
oversight
required
by
the
legislation.
K
Section
20
sub
2,
sub
b,
sub
1
quote
no
discriminant
between
depositors,
borrowers
or
the
manner
of
use
of
banked
water
rights.
We
believe
this
could
allow
the
bank
to
ignore
first
in
time
first
and
right,
statute,
sections,
24
and
29
appear
to
allow
changes
to
the
provision
of
a
water
bank.
Without
a
public
process,
there
appears
to
be
no
user
or
loser
provision
in
sections
25
and
30..
There
should
be
time
there
should
be
identified
time
limits
the
what
can
be
placed
in
the
bank
before
it
is
used.
K
Section
32
supports
existing
law,
brainer,
county
and
air
base
and
transfers.
Yet
this
could
facilitate
or
streamline
moving
water
from
rural
communities
and
rural
economies.
Section
34
and
36
seemed
to
create
a
fox
guarding
the
henhouse
due
to
the
self-accounting
and
self-reporting
of
illegal
water
use
detailed
in
those
sections.
The
written
opposition
identifies
other
issues
with
ab354.
K
L
I
I
I
I
think
that
the
one
of
the
problems
with
the
bill
is,
it
doesn't
recognize
the
existing
joint
banking
agreements
between
the
private
sector
and
the
public
sector,
which
those
three
are
examples
where
you've
got
communities
that
are
growing,
that
didn't
have
the
water
resources
capable
for
them.
They
had
envisioned
that
particularly
washoe
and
lincoln.
I
I
I
I
This
needs
much
more
work
and
I
appreciate
the
effort
that
has
gone
on
with
the
division,
but
it
needs
it
needs
more
work.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you.
My
name
is
david
rigdon
d-a-v-I-d-r-I-g-d-o-n,
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
law,
firm
of
taggart
and
taggart
in
carson
city.
Our
firm
hosts,
six
full-time
attorneys
who
practice
primarily
in
the
area
of
water
law,
and
we
represent
a
variety
of
water
users,
everything
from
municipalities
to
farmers,
to
ski
resorts,
mining
company,
you
name
it.
We
represent
those
interests.
I
want
to
just
join
in
with
with
the
comments
that
mr
hartman
just
gave
with
regards
to
existing
water
banks
that
municipalities
currently
are
running.
I
We
are
very,
very
concerned
about
the
potential
for
conflict
between
this
bill
and
those
existing
water
banks.
We
represent
the
municipalities
and
several
of
those
that
he
just
mentioned
and
that's
a
huge
concern,
but
secondly,
I
wanted
to
bring
up
that.
You
know
we
keep
talking
about
the
utah
legislation.
I
Mr
nathan
bracken,
who
was
one
of
the
primary
proponents
of
the
utah
legislation
recently,
was
invited
in
nevada
to
be
a
speaker
at
this
year's
nevada,
water
resources,
association,
annual
conference
and
present.
This
idea
to
nevada-
and
I
want
to
one
of
the
main
things
that
he
emphasized
in
his
speech-
was
the
need
to
take
things.
Slow,
this
is
not
something
you
want
to
rush
through
a
legislative
session,
as
has
been
mentioned
prior
to
even
introducing
the
legislation
in
utah.
I
We
really
do
appreciate
that
the
state
engineers
attempted
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders,
since
this
bill
draft
has
been
submitted,
but
it's
nothing
like
the
outreach
and
consultation
effort
that
utah
and
gay
center
that
we
believe
we
need
to
have
in
in
this.
For,
for
this
particular
bill
at
that
conference,
mr
brackett
was
asked
by
a
participant
if
we
could
simply
borrow
the
work
that
utah
had
done,
and
his
response
was
absolutely
not
that
the
utah
legislation
was
designed
specifically
for
utah
to
address
the
concerns
of
utah
stakeholders.
I
I
So,
given
that
we
just,
we
would
respectfully
request
that
action
on
this
bill
be
postponed
until
at
least
the
next
legislative
session
to
give
stakeholders
ample
time
to
fully
flesh
out
the
idea
of
water
banks
make
sure
that
existing
water
banks
are
are
protected
and
they
may
be
a
very
good
idea,
but
even
good
ideas
need
some
time
to
properly
germinate
and
make
sure
all
the
kinks
are
worked
out.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony,
mr
ridden
I'll
note
that
we
have
now
gone
over
our
20
minutes
allocated
to
testimony
and
opposition
I'd.
Ask
that
anyone
who
was
not
able
to
testify
please
submit
your
remarks
in
writing.
I'd
also
like
to
draw
members
attention
to
the
written
remarks
that
were
have
already
been
submitted,
as
exhibits
to
further
elaborate
on
some
of
the
folks
who
already
called
in
as
well
as
others.
A
L
L
A
J
J
Conserve
water,
especially
in
the
short
term-
and
it's
also
important
to
draw
a
distinction
between
this
kind
of
a
water
bank
concept
and
a
municipal
municipal
service
banking
program.
There's
nothing
in
this
in
this
bill
that
would
apply
to
or
affect
any
existing
water
banks
that
are
meant
to
provide
municipal
supply.
J
Mean
really
this
bill
is
intended
to
provide
some
flexibility
to
irrigators
in
a
way
that
responds
to
questions
and
concerns
that
we
regularly
get
as
a
state
agency.
It's
a
concept
that
is
being
tested
at
utah.
We
think
it
it
has
merit.
There
are
suggested
there
are
good
ways
to
change
the
language
that
would
address
some
of
the
concerns.
We
would
certainly
be
open
to
those
suggestions,
but
I.
J
A
J
Ready
good
afternoon
again,
chair
watson,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
adam
sullivan.
I'm
the
acting
nevada
state
engineer,
which
serves
as
the
principal
administrator
of
the
division
of
water
resources
and
with
me
is
michelin,
fairbank,
deputy
administrator
of
the
division,
and
we're
pleased
to
hear
to
be
here
this
evening
to
talk
about
ad356.
J
J
K
J
As
a
general
practice.
Division
staff
are
very
cautious
about
about
engaging
in
issues
regarding
market
value
of
water
rights
as
part
of
doing
our
job
and
criticisms
that
we've
heard
about
this
about
creating
an
account
like
this
are
that
it
could
it
could
accelerate
the
cost
of
water
rights
or
create
more
problems
than
it
solves
and
establish
or
create
a
new
value
for
unperfected
water
rights,
and
these
are
these
are
concerns
that
I
sympathize
with.
J
C
Thank
you,
chairman
watson,
members
of
the
committee,
michelin
fairbank,
for
the
record,
walking
through
ab356
so
section
one
section,
two
well
section:
one
establishes
a
new
provision
with
nrs
chapter
533
to
establish
a
program
for
conserved
water.
C
C
Section
9
of
the
proposed
amendment
establishes
parameters
regarding
participation
in
the
program
for
water
and
the
program
would
only
be
available
to
those
with
a
perfected
water
right.
It
would
not
be
available
to
individuals
with
permitted
and
not
yet
perfected
or
otherwise.
Judicially
determined
claims
invested
right,
so
meaning
the
perfected
water
rate
is
one
water
rate
that
has
gone
through
the
process
of
being
certificated
or
a
decreed
pre-statutory
rate.
C
Additionally,
in
this
section
we
include
a
proposed
amendment
in
subsection
1b
that
states
that
would
be
deleting
the
retroactive
application.
C
So
again,
the
bill's
intended
to
have
some
retroactive
applicability
to
in
individuals
who
have
implemented
conservation
practices
and
want
to
participate
in
the
program,
so
the
bill,
as
amended
as
our
proposed
amendment,
is
that
would
delete
the
first,
the
five
years
upon
before
the
date
which
the
person
submits
the
application,
and
it
would
only
be
retroactive
in
participating
in
the
program
for
five
years
from
the
date
that
the
act
becomes
law
so
five
years
back
and
then
a
continually
moving
forward
basis.
C
Additionally,
under
the
subsection
subsection
two
step
part
five,
we
additionally
propose
additional
amendments.
C
The
intent
of
the
word
allocation
is
intended
to
refer
to
the
total
amount
of
conserved
water,
which
is
defined
above
and
to
use
different
words
for
the
the
division
between
the
amount
available
for
future
use,
and
the
amount
reserved
is
intended
to
be
clarified
through
this
proposed
amendment.
C
C
Additionally,
within
subsection,
the
six
there's
a
reference
that
a
board
of
directors
has
to
approve
a
request
if
an
applicant
is
within
a
irrigation
district
later
in
the
bill,
we
have
made
suggested
revisions
to
not
require
irrigation
district
approval,
and
so
we
would
recommend
that
this
section
be
amended
accordingly,
then
continuing
on
to
the
next
page.
C
C
That
is,
that
the
not
the
amendments
are
are
not
intended
to
impose
an
unwelcome
mandate
on
those
irrigation
districts,
and
so
instead,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
make
certain
that
irrigation
districts
are
provided
notice
of
an
intent
or
desire
to
participate
in
the
program
and
have
ample
opportunity
and
notice
of
that
desire,
and
hopefully
there
would
be
an
opportunity
for
communication
and
feedback
without
the
irrigation
district
prior
to
any
application
being
submitted
to
our
office.
C
Section
10
addresses
some
of
the
criteria
for
the
application
into
the
program
in
the
state's
engineer's
responsibilities.
Section
11
requires
notice
and
participation
or
excuse
me
publication
of
any
application.
Additionally,
we've
suggested
a
deletion
of
a
certain
language
that
we
feel
is
not
necessarily
appropriate
for
conclusion.
In
the
statute,
section
12
is
intended
to
incorporate
the
same
protest
provisions
and
set
forth
in
nrx
533
365
to
applications
for
conserved
water.
C
Section
13
sets
forth
the
criteria
for
the
state
engineers
review
of
an
application,
and
again
it's
important
for
us
to
note
that
state
engineer
acknowledges
that
this
program
may
not
work
for
every
water
right
in
every
stream
system
and
that
there
may
be
certain
existing
water
rate.
Excuse
me,
surface
water
decrease
that
would
not
accommodate
this
particular
program.
C
C
There's
no
extension
required
for
a
certificated
right
unless
it's
subject
to
forfeiture
section
15
is
aimed
to
specify
the
specific
minimum
allocation
of
reserved
conserved
water.
Additionally,
if
this
is
amended
to
allow
for
the
voluntary
increase
in
that
amount,
if
it's
so
desired
by
the
applicant.
So
if
somebody
wish
to
increase
their
their
contribution
to
the
basin
or
the
system
they
could
do
so.
C
Additionally,
we
recommend
some
additional
revisions
to
the
statute
to
articulate
that
conserved
water
is
intended
to
go
towards
the
10
percent
reserve
set
forth
in
nrs
533-0241
and
that
it's
not
intended
to
be
available
for
reappropriation
section.
16
has
some
changes
to
make
it
clear
that
if
someone
were
to
elect
to
remove
their
conserved
water
from
the
constipation
status
and
to
use
it
beneficially,
it
would
be
requiring
change
application
to
remove
that
water
from
the
conservation
status.
C
C
Additionally,
we
make
some
recommendations
to
provide
clarification,
language
and
then
to
delete
language
relating
to
promulgation
of
regulations.
We
believe
that
promulgation
of
regulations
would
be
important
for
the
implementation
of
the
program,
but
we
believe
that
the
particular
provisions
within
that
subsection
are
proved
problematic
and
unnecessary.
Section
19,
address
section
19
addresses
some
existing
statutory
law
and
policies.
C
C
C
C
Additionally,
we
had
suggested
a
additional
amendment
to
within
the
change
application
fee
structure
to
include
the
term
or
allocation
of
conserved
water.
However,
upon
further
review,
we
believe
that
that's
not
not
necessary
to
include
any
further
clarification,
because
it
would
take
an
exam
excuse
me.
It
would
take
an
application
to
change
the
point
of
diversion
manner
of
use
in
place
of
use
to
place
the
water
into
the
conservation
credit
program
and
that
same
type
of
change.
C
We
agree
that
there
are
some
who
strongly
support
the
proposal
and
there's
others
who
just
strongly
oppose
it.
There
are
challenges
that
we
see
when
attempting
to
address,
and
we've
tried
to
examine
whether
or
not
those
could
be
simply
done
through
some
proposed
amendment
language.
A
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We
will
open
it
up
to
questions
from
members.
F
F
So,
on
page
three
of
the
amendment,
the
number
five,
I
think
it's
a
section,
the
new
section,
nine,
the
proposed
amount
of
the
conserved
water
to
be
reserved.
The
proposed
allocation
must
reserve
at
least
25
percent
of
any
conserved
water
back
to
the
source.
F
F
J
This
is
adam
sullivan
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question,
assemblywoman
hanson.
So
when
we're
talking
about
back
to
the
source,
essentially,
what
that
means
is
that
that
portion
of
the
water
right
is
relinquished
or
withdrawn.
It
goes
away
and
it's
the
source
being
the
aquifer
that
it's
been
appropriated
from
or
the
river
system
that
it
was
appropriated
from.
So
the
water
right
just
goes
away
and
it's
not
available
for
any
use
and
then
that
that
portion
could
go
to
that
10
reserve.
F
Okay
and
then
a
follow-up
chair,
if
I
could
then
over
at
16
section
16,
a
person
is
required
to
submit
an-
and
this
is
on
the
amendment.
A
person
is
required
to
certification
for
a
permit
to
change
the
place
of
diversion
manner
of
use
or
place
of
use
pursuant
yada
yada
before
placing
any
conserved
water
to
beneficial
use,
is
the
person
and
is
a
new
applicant.
J
Adam
sullivan,
for
the
record,
no,
that
that
person
is
the
owner
of
water
right,
so
that
would
be
if,
if
water
is
placed
into
conservation
status,
a
portion
of
that
would
be
available
still
to
that
water
right
owner
to
be
put
in
place
to
benefit
use
at
a
later
date,
with
a
cost
with
a
change
application.
So
that's
the
person.
F
It's
the
original
owner
of
the
waterway.
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
but
but
the
other
section
25
is
is
relinquished
as
part
of
the
conservation
efforts.
Correct,
that's
correct!
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
So
my
question
is:
is
a
little
bit
inspired
by
the
questions
from
the
past
hearing
you
mentioned
that
oregon
has
been
utilizing
this,
how
for
how
long
and
then
also
did
they
test
it
out
beforehand,
or
did
they
have
conversations
beforehand?
A
long-term
discussion
with
stakeholders.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson,
you
know
I
it
oregon
has
had
their
constipation
credit
program
in
law
for
quite
some
time.
I
don't
have
off
the
top
of
my
head
exactly
how
long
I
could
speculate
going
off
a
very
fuzzy
memory,
and
so
I
prefer
to
just
go
ahead
and
provide
you
a
copy
of
the
oregon
statute.
That
has
been
an
enrollment
date
for
your
for
your
reference.
C
C
B
Thank
you,
and-
and
thank
you
for
that
history
I
think
that'd
be
good
to
get
because
rainfall
in
oregon
is
just
a
little
bit
different
than
I
think
the
rainfall
and
about
it,
as
I
think
all
of
us
know,
then
my
other
question
again
kind
of
inspired
in
a
way
from
the
past
hearing
as
well.
Has
there
been
a
lengthy
discussion
with
stakeholders
so
that
people
can
can
get
some
different
ideas.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson,
adam
sullivan,
for
the
record
we
initiated
stakeholder
conversations
last
fall.
I
was
appointed
into
this
position
in
december
and,
to
the
extent
that
we've
had
time
and
the
ability
with
these
limited
remote
meeting
conditions,
we've
had
as
many
stakeholder
conversations
and
outreach
as
we
as
we
could.
J
We
had
a
lot
of
feedback
handled
a
lot
of
questions
and,
as
I
stated
in
my
very
opening
comments,
you
know
we
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
concerns
or
reservations,
and-
and
I
hope
that,
with
the
the
amendments
that
we've
submitted
and
have
only
just
been
very
recently
available
to
our
stakeholder
group,
as
well
as
as
the
members
of
the
committee
that
we've
done
our
best
to
address
the
concerns
and
reservations
and
really
focus
on
what
the
real
intent
of
this
bill
is.
A
Thank
you.
Next,
we
have
assemblywoman
brownmay.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan,
for
the
presentation.
This
is
a
very
robust
and
complex
topic
for
me.
So,
following
up
on
my
colleagues
question
for
me,
it's
relative
to
due
diligence
and
you've
mentioned
that
there
are
criticism
from
stakeholders
and
I'm
curious
to
know
if
there
is
a
list
or
catalog
of
the
meetings
that
you've
had
with
stakeholders
and
sort
of
what
those
comments
are
to
help
inform
this
discussion
is
there.
Where
is
that
available
publicly
somewhere?
Do
you
have
a
list.
J
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question,
adam
sullivan,
for
the
record.
We
we
have
a
collection
of
our
own
notes
and
our
records
of
of
the
conversations
that
we
have
that
this
is
not
something
that
has
been
made
publicly
available.
B
Thanks
very
much,
I
would
just
add
that,
typically
when,
in
my
experience,
when
making
a
large
policy
conversion
to
this
degree,
it
would
it
has
been
good
practice
in
the
industry
that
I.
D
But
I
it
was
a
question
or
a
statement
made
a
few
minutes
ago,
and
it
says
how
many
inches
of
annual
rain
falls.
Does
oregon
get
versus
the
four
inches
nevada
gets
it's
25
is
huge
and
the
difference
between
the
two
is
night
and
day
so
can
can
you
respond
to
that
question
and
then
I
just
barely
caught
that
and
then
somebody
asked
me
and
I
well.
I
don't
know
I'll
ask
that
question.
J
D
Well,
the
problem
is
follow-up.
Mr
chair.
D
I'm
sorry
we're
all
a
little
tired
today,
but
we're
talking
apples
from
apple
apple
from
oranges.
Here,
there's
two
different
scenarios
here:
if
you
look
at
between
how
much
water
they
have
and
we
have
and
and
what
can
be
banked
and
what
could
be
used
and
what
could
be
held
and
nevada
has
a
hard
enough
time
trying
to
do
what
we
got,
how
many
of
these
aquifers
are
already
closed
basins
and
if,
if
you
know
we're
trying
to
look
at
what
the
other
states
are
doing,
we
can't
use
that
as
a
comparison.
A
Members,
seeing
that
I
have
a
couple
of
quick
questions
on
section
14
of
the
original
bill,
section
15
of
the
amendment,
the
language
has
been
changed
around
the
reserve,
and
I
know
this
was
talked
about
a
little
bit
in
previous
question.
Can
you
discuss
now
with
the
delete
proposed
deletion
of
the
language?
What
would
happen
when
the
reserve,
the
the
total
amount
of
reserved
water
from
conservation
in
a
basin,
meets
or
exceeds
that
10
of
perennial.
C
Yields,
thank
you,
chairman
watts,
michelin
fairbank
for
the
record.
I
think
what
would
happen
is
if
we
actually
get
to
a
full.
Ten
percent
of
a
perennial
yield
reserve
would
be
a
right
opportunity
to
come
back
and
revisit
the
bill
and
explore
whether
or
not
reappropriation
of
that
surplus
would
be
a
good
management
decision.
A
Yes,
it
would
thank
you
fair
enough.
I
think
that
would
be
an
interesting
conversation
to
have.
I
have
another
question
about.
A
A
You
know
they're
able
to
reserve
it
for
their
own
future
use
under
the
proposed
amendment
striking
out
using
it
on
another
property
owned
by
the
person,
and
I
I
could
understand
that,
especially
if
the
property
is
not
adjacent
or
the
ability
to
sell
lease
or
transfer
the
right
to
the
use
of
the
conserved
water,
and
then
there
are
some
provisions
for
that.
Can
you
explain
what
that
what
exact
provisions
are
referenced
and
how
that
would
work?
If
someone
wanted
to
sell
lease
or
transfer
the
conserved
water.
C
Chairman
watts,
thank
you
for
the
question,
so
the
sell,
lease
or
transfer
the
right
to
use
conserved
water
can
be
utilized
in
multiple
different
factors.
One
is,
if
say,
for
example,
hypothetically
the
water
banking
legislation
were
to
become
law,
that
conserved
water
could
be
transferred
into
the
water
bank
and
then
be
available
for
leasing
or
use
out
of
that
water
bank.
C
Alternatively,
just
as
we
have
the
ability
to
go
ahead
and
sell
existing
water
rights
or
transfer
the
and
convey
a
water
right
ownership
that
can
that
could
potentially
happen
under
this
provision.
So
it's
intended
to
not
restrict
the
future
flexibility
of
that
conserved
water
when
that
water
is
taken
out
of
that
conservation
status.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
yeah.
I
know
this
came
up
in
conversations
on
the
other
piece
of
legislation,
but
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarity
here
is.
Is
it
your
understanding
that
these
transfers,
you
know,
first
of
all,
it
would
follow
the
provisions
under
existing
law,
for
example,
if
the
proposed
transfer
was
to
another
basin,
would
would
all
of
the
kind
of
review
processes,
judicial
review
and
and
due
process
follow
along.
C
As
someone
watched
fairbank
for
the
record,
thank
you
chairman
watts.
Yes,
so
nothing
in
this
nothing
in
the
bill
is.
It
operates
to
restrict
judicial
review
due
process
or
those
different
provisions
existing
within
the
law.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
clarification.
It's
not.
It
wasn't
at
least
immediately
clear
to
me
in
in
reading
that
section.
So
I
appreciate
the
clarification
of
the
intent
and
the
last
question
I
have
is
for
section
12
of
the
original
bill.
Could
you
just
explain
a
little
bit
more
why
you
decided
that
to
remove
the
language
and
paragraph
c,
and
also
why
you
decided
to
remove
the
provisions
in
subsection
six
of
section
eight
of
the
original
bill,
why
you
determined
that
those
were
inappropriate
for
inclusion.
J
Adam
sullivan
for
the
record,
so
the
first
one
in
section
12
of
the
original
bill.
That
was
a
that's
referring
to
whether
there
is
a
need
for
mitigation
of
the
conservation
impacts
of
the
application,
and
we
felt
that
was
unnecessary
and
somewhat
controversial
in
that
the
the
provisions
within
subsection,
a
and
b
are,
are
the
appropriate
statements
to
to
have
there.
Under
that
section.
A
J
J
Adam
sullivan
for
the
record,
so
that
that
was
an
idea
that
was
in
the
in
the
application
for
the
conservation
water
and
in
reviewing
that
we
felt
like
that
might
impede
participation
in
the
program.
If
someone
who
was
interested
in
conserving
water
didn't
necessarily
have
a
long-term
plan
for
what
they
had
in
the
intended
use
of
that
concerned,
water,
we
didn't
feel
like.
It
was
a
necessary
component
to
evaluate
the
application.
A
A
Going
through
making
sure
we
didn't
miss
anyone
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
with
that.
We
will
go
to
testimony
on
assembly
bill
356
as
a
reminder,
we're
asking
folks
to
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes,
and
I
will
have
put
in
place
a
20
minute
limit
for
support,
opposition
and
neutral
testimony
with
that
broadcast
production
services.
Can
we
please
start
with
anyone
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
356.
L
L
L
M
For
the
record,
my
name
is
doug
buffleman
d-o-u-g
b-u-s-s-e-l-m-a-n,
I'm
the
executive
vice
president
of
nevada
farm
bureau.
We
are
testifying
today
in
opposition
to
ab-356,
as
we
discuss
the
concept
of
this
proposal
with
our
farmer
rancher
members.
During
our
policy
development
process,
there
was
candidly,
no
one
who
could
imagine
any
type
of
application
in
nevada.
M
H
H
I
think
that
the
incentive
for
any
irrigator
any
serious
irrigator
to
conserve
water
is
his
fuel
bill.
His
electric
bill
well
replaced
priceless
pumping
equipment
and
I'm
pretty
disturbed
that
we're
not
actually
hearing
from
irrigators
today
in
whether
they're
for
or
against.
Therefore,
I
would
give
the
lion's
share
of
credit
to
doug
busselman.
I
think
that
he,
as
the
farm
bureau,
is
probably
engaging
with
more
irrigators
than
any
of
us.
H
I
would
direct
everyone's
attention
to
the
groundwater
management
plan
that
we
did
for
parump,
whereby
we
reduce
the
water
rights
on
the
books
to
actual
pump
issue
and
potential
pumpage
and
closed
a
discussion
of
a
20
000
foot
perennial
yield
and
a
hundred
thousand
acre
feet
of
water
rights
down
to
potential
pumpage
of
about
26,
000
acre
feet
or
a
reduction
of
some
something
north
of
73
000
acre
feet.
H
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments
and,
if
you'd
like-
and
you
have
not
already,
please
submit
additional
remarks
in
writing
to
the
committee
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
I
I
am
the
general
manager
for
the
carson
waters
sub-conservancy
district,
and
although
this
program
is
voluntary,
I
do
want
the
committee
to
recognize
that
this
would
violate
the
alpine
decree,
which
administers
the
surface
water
rights.
So
we
would
want
to
make
it
clear
to
people
that
this
program
does
not
work
on
the
carson
watershed.
I
I
N
N
N
N
We
believe
that
conservation
is
an
important
thing
that
we
need
to
do
as
utilities
and
water
users
and
in
fact,
we
promote
water
conservation,
but
when
the
legislature
comes
forth
and
does
not
give
the
public
ample
time
to
reflect
upon
and
discuss
through
public
hearings,
we
are
against
such
legislation.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
L
M
My
name
is
rupert
steele,
r-u-p-e-r-t
s-t-e-e-l-e
and
I'm
the
chairman
of
the
competitors
of
the
gosut
indian
reservation
and
I
come
before
the.
I
want
to
thank
chairman
watson
and
the
commission
for
for
listening
to
me
today
and
I've
come
forward
and
the
confederate
trials.
Negotiate
reservation
respectfully
request
that
you
vote
no
on
ab356.
M
The
tribes
find
this
to
be
problematic
for
several
reasons.
First,
a
water
conservation
bill
that
allows
for
a
sale,
lease
or
transfer
conserve
water
really
is
not
water
conservation.
It
is
selling
water
which,
when
coupled
with
av-354,
could
simply
mean
a
water
market
where
water
is
being
sold
to
the
highest
bidder.
M
A
L
K
K
Martin,
paris
m-a-r-t-I-n-p-a-r-I-s,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
cattlemen's
association,
nevada
cattlemen,
supports
the
appropriate
management
and
conservation
of
all
uses
water
uses
in
our
state.
However,
we
are
opposed
to
the
original
version
of
ab356
as
written
and
much
like
the
last
bill
have
not
been
given
an
opportunity
to
fully
comprehend
the
changes
made
through
the
amendment
shared
earlier
today.
We
are
fully
aware
that
participation
is
entirely
voluntary.
However,
the
proposal
being
brought
forward
is
too
crucial
and
complicated
to
lend
support
to
without
fully
understanding
the
potential
consequences
and
unintended
consequences
that
could
arise.
K
We
also
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
an
organ-based
template
here
in
nevada
and
what
incentive
an
agricultural
water
right
owner
would
have
to
place.
25
percent
of
their
conserved
water
back
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
state
to
echo
farm
bureau,
agricultural
water
right
owners
already
have
a
strong
incentive
to
to
implement
conservation
and
other
efficiency
measures
on
their
operations
without
a
state
managed
conservation
program,
just
due
purely
due
to
the
cost
that
irrigation
practices
take
as
well.
K
K
K
While
av-356
is
claiming
to
be
a
conservation
bill,
it
is
in
fact
the
conservation
consumption
bill.
For
example,
if
you
have
400
acres
of
irrigation
with
a
certificated
duty
of
4
acre
feet,
implementing
conservation
measures
to
even
if
they
could
get
down
to
the
net
irrigation
water
requirement
of
three
acre
feet.
K
With
regards
to
the
proposed
purchase
program
under
no
circumstances
to
the
state,
ever
state
funds
ever
be
used
to
purchase
water
rights
from
private
water
right
holders.
It's
just
a
pandora's
box
that
should
never
be
opened
a
summary.
My
comments
have
been
submitted
in
writing,
but
I'd
also
like
to
add
a
comment:
that's
inclusive
to
ab350,
354
and
356..
K
After
hearing
comments
today
and
stuff,
it
appears
that
both
bills
have
been
drafted
in
part
to
circumvent
the
forfeiture
statute
as
a
way
to
save
water,
and
I
really
don't
understand
if
that's
the
case,
that
why
not
just
do
away
with
the
forfeiture
statute,
as
was
done
for
surface
water
more
than
20
years
ago.
It's
rarely
enforced
because
of
the
extensions
and
other
court
rulings,
and
so
just
get
rid
of
it.
K
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
mr
cochi.
We'll
go
on
to
the
next
caller
and
opposition.
N
N
While
I
don't
doubt
the
good
intentions
by
the
state
engineer,
it
appears
that
this
bill
is
designed
to
work
in
tandem
with
ab354
and
let's
be
clear
that
that
is
a
credit
to
neither
of
them.
N
N
It's
not
conservation
when
we
allow
entities
to
buy
farms
and
fallow
fields
in
order
to
export
water
or
sell
water
to
a
higher
high
bidder.
This
is
commoditization,
not
conservation
of
water.
So
again,
we
ask:
who
is
this
bill
for
the
conservationists?
Don't
want
it,
it
doesn't
sound
like
the
farmers
want
it.
N
H
H
We
appreciate
the
amendments
put
forth
today
by
the
state
engineers
office,
but
we
wholeheartedly
believe
that
the
elite
that
the
legislation
still
allows
for
the
sale
of
conserved
water,
it
still
legitimizes
speculation,
still
opens
the
door
for
buy
and
dry
export
scenarios
that
would
be
harmful
for
rural
communities
and
the
environment.
H
L
K
You
chris
clark
c-h-r-I-s-c-l-a-r-k-e
speaking
for
the
national
parks,
conservation
association,
chairman
watts,
members
of
the
committee,
the
national
parks
conservation
association
opposes
ab356.
K
This
bill
would
make
the
unsuspecting
reader
feel
like
it's
a
sound
well-intentioned
proposal.
Unfortunately,
deep
within
the
builder
are
dangerous
provisions
that
will
legitimize
speculation
and
allow
for
the
sale
of
water
in
a
way
that
is
currently
not
allowed
under
nevada
law.
K
K
K
A
Thank
you.
I
I
encourage
anyone
else
who
is
unable
to
get
through
to
testify
in
opposition
to
please
submit
your
remarks
in
writing
to
our
committee
secretary
within
the
next
48
hours.
Also
direct
members
attention
to
the
written
remarks
that
have
already
been
submitted
on
this
bill
and
ask
them
to
please
review
those.
If
you
have
not
already
with
that,
we'll
move
on
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
assembly
bill
356.
L
K
K
K
K
K
No
one
plays
on
this
grass,
no
one
walks
on
this
grass
except
the
landscaper
who
sometimes
has
to
carry
equipment
across
lanes
of
traffic
to
mow
it.
It
is
purely
for
show,
and
it
is
a
luxury
our
community
can
no
longer
afford.
In
2020,
the
las
vegas
valley
saw
water,
con
consumption
increase
by
nearly
22
000
acre
feet.
K
This
increase
is
alarming
and
is
a
trend
that
we
might.
That
must
be
reversed,
particularly
in
light
of
the
climate
change
impacts.
We
expect
to
see
we're
asking
the
committee
to
consider
an
amendment
to
ab356
or
another
piece
of
legislation
to
require
the
removal
of
non-functional
turf
within
the
las
vegas
valley
by
december
31st
2026.
K
A
K
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
david
davlich
d-a-z-l-I-c-h.
The
vegas
chamber
would
like
to
testify
today
in
neutral
on
this
bill.
However,
we
do
support
the
snwa's
non-functional
turf
removal
proposal,
as
it
will
enhance
conservation
and
water
use
throughout
the
community
and
ultimately
provide
a
benefit
to
all
community
members,
including
the
businesses
represented
by
the
vegas
chamber.
Thank
you.
I
Good
evening
share
watson
committee
members,
matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association,
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders
have
no
opinion
on
the
bill
as
as
presented
today,
but
did
want
to
call
in
in
support
of
snwa's
conceptual
edition
addition
to
to
the
bill.
Today
is
not
the
the
time
to
prioritize
water
usage
for
purely
aesthetic
reasons.
I
C
M
H
Thank
you,
chair
watts.
My
name
is
jared
luke
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e
government
affairs,
director
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
calling.
H
Support
behind
snwa's
proposed
amended
language
for
their
non-functional
chirp
removal
and,
in
the
interest
of
time,
echo.
The
comments
in
support.
L
A
J
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
adam
sullivan,
for
the
record,
so
just
getting
back
to
the
content
of
the
bill
that
we've
introduced
today.
My
observations
are
that
as
a
state,
we
have
just
a
number
of
complex,
difficult
issues
with
water
supply
and
the
issues
are
very
different,
depending
on
where
you
are
in
the
state
to
manage
it.
In
the
long
term,
we
see
the
benefit
of
having
different
statutory
tools
available,
to
provide
some
kind
of
flexibility
and
and
having
that
supported
by
statutory
guidance.
J
I
would
like
to
provide
just
a
couple
of
brief
responses
to
issues
or
questions
that
came
up
in
the
in
the
public.
Testimony
one
issue
was
that
how
conserved
water
is
fractioned
between
an
amount
that
is
relinquished,
an
amount
that
is
available
to
the
owner
for
later
use
and
that
there's
some
confusion
that
that
to
be
clear
that
that
amount
that
would
be
available
to
the
owner
for
later
use
would
still
be.
J
A
Presentation,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
for
the
presentation
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
356.
A
I
will
take
a
brief
point
of
privilege
as
the
chair,
just
to
note
that
you
know
we
heard
a
lot
throughout
the
conversations
today
about
the
need
to
manage
our
scarce
water
resources
carefully
and
to
look
at
innovative
ways
to
promote
conservation
measures
here
in
the
state,
and
I
think
that
that
is
something
a
conversation
that
will
continue
with
within
this
body.
A
It
will
continue.
You
know
in
the
interim
and
look
forward
to
seeing
those
conversations
move
forward
and,
and
hopefully
have
a
policy
come
before
us
that
continues
to
advance
conservation
within
the
state.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
note
that
while
there
may
be
disagreements
on
the
bills
that
were
brought
forward
today,
it
seems
like
there
is
a
large
degree
of
support
for
for
continuing
to
work
towards
that
direction,
and
I
appreciate
that
with
that
members.
A
We
ask
members
of
the
public
to
limit
their
comments
to
two
minutes
and
not
to
speak
on
the
measures
that
have
been
heard
in
the
meeting.
As
those
matters
are
closed
and
we've
moved
on
so
with
that
we'll
go
back
to
broadcast
production
services.
One
more
time
to
see
if
we
have
any
callers
wishing
to
provide
public
comments.
L
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
members
for
your
time
and
attention
and
letting
me
hold
you
for
two
hours
and
45
minutes.
I'm
glad
that
we
were
able
to
vet
these
bills
and
and
continue
to
hear
as
many
bills
as
possible
in
this
committee.
So
I
appreciate
your
wherewithal
and
that
as
well
as
members
of
the
public
and
others
who
stayed
on
the
line
and
and
provided
comments
either
verbally
or
in
writing.
That
concludes
today's
meeting.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
wednesday
april
7th
at
4
pm.