►
From YouTube: 3/29/2023 - 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
A
Bottle
but
anyway,.
A
Anyway,
it's
good
for
water
day
anyway,
again
welcome
to
everyone
for
natural
resources,
welcome
to
the
audience
of
Carson
City,
those
joining
us.
If
there's
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
and
in
Elko,
also
those
online
some
housekeeping
before
we
get
started.
Please
silence
your
electronic
devices.
If
you
wish
to
testify,
please
sign
at
the
table
by
the
door
and
provide
a
business
card
to
the
committee's
secretary
for
anyone
joining
online.
Please
be
sure
to
mute
your
microphone
when
you're,
not
speaking
to
minimize
any
background
noise.
A
When
testifying,
please
turn
on
the
microphone
and
clearly
state
your
name
and
affiliation.
If
any
for
the
record
then
turn
off
the
microphone
each
time,
you're
done
speaking
as
for
handouts,
please
provide
15
hard
copies
for
members
of
the
public.
Electronic
copies
should
have
been
submitted
to
the
committee
manager
by
noon
yesterday
for
members
of
the
committee,
we
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
during
the
meeting,
even
if
we
don't
agree
with
each
other's
positions.
Also,
please
note
committee
members
will
be
using
our
laptops
to
view
handouts
and
other
documents.
A
Please
don't
view
this
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
We
will
have
two
hearings
today,
we're
going
to
be
going
out
of
order.
Our
first
hearing
we
will
be
hearing
is
assembly,
Bill
387,
which
revises
Provisions
relating
to
water.
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly,
Bill
387
and
welcome
back
assemblyman
watts
to
your
favorite
seat
in
the
whole
building.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
D
D
This
was
yet
another
bill
that
was
recommended
by
The
Joint
interim
standing
committee
on
natural
resources
and
was
referred
to
that
committee
by
the
subcommittee
on
public
lands
following
comments
and
testimony
that
was
brought
forward
during
a
water
focused
meeting.
D
The
subcommittee
on
public
lands
in
Boulder
City,
the
the
kind
of
Genesis
I'll
speak
a
little
bit
about
the
Genesis
of
the
bill
and
how
it's
gotten
to
the
place
it
is
and
the
process
and
then
I
will
walk
through
the
the
bill
and
the
mock-up
of
an
amendment
which
should
have
been
provided
to
all
members
and
should
be
available
on
Nellis
and
then
I'm
glad
to
stand
for
any
questions.
D
So
one
of
the
things
that
that
kind
of
precipitated
this
bill
coming
forward
was
a
conversation
about
recent
Court
decisions
that
had
raised
uncertainty
about
some
of
the
the
elements
of
water
law,
particularly
some
of
the
things
that
were
brought
into
the
question
where
the
use
of
the
best
available
science
in
decision
making
by
our
division
of
Water
Resources
in
in
rendering
decisions
related
to
water
rights.
D
The
ability
for
the
state
engineer
to
manage
groundwater
basins,
which
we
generally
see
as
a
separate
dedicated
basins
with
their
own
perennial
yield,
and
we
managed
to
the
sustainability
of
those
basins
but
increasingly
have
learned
through
additional
science
that,
particularly
when
we
go
into
these
deeper
aquifers
in
those
basins.
There
are
hydrologic
connections
between
them,
but
the
law
and
the
science
aren't
necessarily
aligned
and
really
the
there
was
concern
that
the
statutes
are
unclear
on
the
ability
to
manage
particularly
conflicts
that
occur
because
of
usage
in
hydrologically
Connected
but
separate
groundwater
basins.
D
And
the
third
issue
is
the
conjunctive
management
of
groundwater
and
surface
water,
which
simply
put
is
something
that
we
now
again
know
from
science.
We've
known
this
for
a
long
time.
Springs
are
are
an
expression
of
groundwater
coming
to
the
surface,
those
Springs
can
then
flow
into
creeks
and
flow
into
rivers.
So
there's
a
connection
between
that
groundwater
and
that
surface
water
also
surface
water,
rivers
and
streams.
Those
stream
beds
can
sink
down
even
though
that
water
is
flowing
and
penetrate
into
the
the
groundwater
system.
That's
connected
to
it.
D
So
you
know,
while
the
particulars
may
vary
depending
on
the
geology.
We
know
that
there's
a
connection
between
groundwater
and
surface
water,
but
we
have
surface
water
rights
and
we
have
groundwater
rights.
We
have
surface
water
law,
we
have
groundwater
law
and
those
have
generally,
at
least
within
this
state,
been
seen
as
fairly
separate
things.
D
The
state
has
taken
steps
to
try
and
recognize
and
address
some
of
those
issues
and
those
conflicts
as
they've
been
demonstrated,
particularly
in
recent
times
and
and
again
as
these
things
are
litigated,
which
water
policy
constantly
is
in
this
state.
Some
of
those
things
have
come
into
question,
and
so
what
we
sought
to
do
through
ab387
is
to
provide
some
clarity
and
some
guidance
in
how
the
state
can
and
should
manage
those
conflicts
moving
forward.
D
You
know
these
are
really
complex
issues
that
you
know
really
impact
the
entirety
of
water
law
and
water
Administration
in
this
state,
and-
and
these
are
issues
that
have
come
before
the
legislature
before
and
so
at
issue
was,
and
I've
been
involved
in
some
of
these
debates,
since
before
I
had
the
honor
of
joining
this
body.
D
Those
debates
have
often
been
resolved
with
putting
some
language
in
legislative
declaration,
encouraging
the
state
engineer
to
consider
the
best
available
science
in
rendering
decisions
concerning
the
available
surface
and
underground
sources
of
water
in
Nevada
or
the
legislature.
Declaring
that
you
know
the
the
state
should
manage
conjunctively
the
appropriation
use
and
administration
of
all
Waters
of
the
state,
regardless
of
the
source
of
the
water
and
the
reason
those
things
made
it
into
legislative
declaration
is
because
we
couldn't
agree
on
a
clear
statutory
framework
or
language
for
how
to
do
those
things.
D
So
we
recognize
there
is
a
recognition
that
those
things
are
important,
but
a
legislative
declaration
isn't
the
same
as
statutory
authorization
for
what
the
state
can
or
should
do
or
how
they
should
go
about
doing
it,
and
so
ab387
is
an
attempt
to
try
and
clarify
some
of
those
issues
and
establish
a
real
true
policy
for
the
state
in
addressing
these
issues
and
the
the
overall
intent
of
what
we've
tried
to
do
is
make
that
application
as
narrow
as
possible.
D
So,
first
of
all,
with
the
conjunctive
management
of
surface
and
groundwater,
there
there's
a
little
bit
of
this
bill
that
touches
that
potentially
touches
on
that,
but
ultimately,
really
when
it
comes
to
setting
some
clear,
conjunctive
management
policy.
It's
just
at
this
time,
something
that
haven't
been
able
to
to
reach
some
clear
consensus
with
all
the
all
the
many
stakeholders
on.
D
So
what
this
bill
really
focuses
on
are
the
other
two
concepts:
the
use
of
the
best
available
science,
which
this
bill
seeks
to
as
it
currently
stands,
seeks
to
address
by
taking
the
language
of
that
legislative
declaration
striking
it
out
and
putting
it
in
statute
explicitly
with
the
state
engineer
Shell
at
the
beginning,
so
again,
taking
it
out
of
the
legislature,
thinks
it
would
be
great
if
to
the
state
engineer,
shall
administer
water
law
in
this
way,
and
then
you
know
seeking
to
provide
some
clarity
on
managing
hydrologically,
connected
groundwater
basins
and
there's
been
a
a
lot
of
different
ideas.
D
What,
in
a
lot
of
conversations
we
determine
or
I
determined
was
the
best
way
to
kind
of
move
forward
in
providing
some
of
this
Clarity
is
to
make
it
as
narrow
as
possible,
and
so
what
this
does
is
it
doesn't
touch
really
the
the
organization
of
basins
or
the
organization,
so
the
potentially
re
draw
those
lines
or
to
designate
groups
of
basins
to
be
managed.
D
So
we're
really
trying
to
preserve
prior
appropriation,
beneficial
use
all
the
other
tenets
of
water
law,
but
acknowledge
that
those
don't
just
apply
within
a
groundwater
Basin
that
there
can
be
scenarios
where
somebody
in
an
adjoining
Basin
that
their
use
might
be
up
gradient
of
a
of
a
another
user
in
a
hydrologically
connected
Basin,
and
that
might
impair
that
that
other
standing
right
and
that
in
addressing
those
issues,
we
should
follow
the
same
water
law
process
that
we
have,
if
that
was
to
occur
within
a
single
Basin,
so
that
at
a
high
level,
is
what
we're
trying
to
work
towards.
D
You
know:
I've,
tried
to
reach
out
and
and
share
the
the
overall
goals
with
everyone.
That's
interested
in
water
policy
in
the
state.
I
think
you
see
most
of
them
sitting
behind
me.
Right
now
had
a
lot
of
conversations
gotten
a
lot
of
of
feedback,
and
again
our
these
things
are
tricky.
If
we
had,
if
we
could
have
all
figured
it
out
and
gotten
on
the
same
page,
we
wouldn't
be
having
this
bill
hearing
today
and
so
there's
still
disagreement.
D
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
reach
something
that
everybody
agrees
on.
My
goal
is
to
get
something
that
addresses
as
many
of
the
concerns
as
possible
and
is
is
a
step
towards
trying
to
reconcile
the
hydrologic
realities
that
we
face
with
the
state's
policy
to
make
good
decisions
moving
forward,
and
those
conversations
are
ongoing.
I
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
note,
so
we've
got
a
proposed
mock-up
here
with
apologies
to
the
chair
and
staff.
There
will
be
more
amendments
forthcoming.
D
Probably
we
are
not
going
to
have
this
figured
out
even
with
whatever
Amendment
gets
brought
forward
for
a
work
session.
These
conversations
are
going
to
continue
and
I
just
want
to
be
completely
upfront
about
that,
but
really
appreciate
everyone
who
has
engaged
in
this.
D
That
believes
that
we
need
to
take
action
towards
this,
and
even
if
they're
we're
not
on
the
same
page,
yet
has
really
been
extremely
helpful
in
providing
feedback
and
suggestions
to
try
and
hone
this
in
and-
and
so
this
is
the
what
I
feel
like
is
the
closest
that
we
are
at
this
point
in
time.
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
walk
you
briefly
through
the
the
bill
and
the
amendment
so
section
two
of
the
bill-
references,
groundwater,
Basin
and
Section,
8,
I,
believe
of
the
bill
defined
groundwater
Basin.
D
Those
are
proposed
to
be
removed
in
the
amendment
again.
I
feel
that
that
starts
to
get
into
this
idea
of
designating
entire
groups
of
basins
and
man
and
reshuffling
kind
of
the
priority
with
them
and
from
the
conversations
that
I've
had
I
feel
that
it
is
more
appropriate
to
really
focus
this
in
on
identifying
and
and
resolving
specific
conflicts
when
they
can
be
identified
and
and
demonstrated.
So
the
amendment
proposes
to
remove
those
sections
of
the
bill.
D
Section
three
is
and
section
five
are
what
I
just
referenced
in
terms
and
and
so
members
can
see
that
in
section
five,
we
are
striking
out
the
legislative
declaration
related
to
encouraging
the
state
engineer
to
use
the
best
available
science
and
section
three
takes
that
exact
language
and
says
the
state
engineer
shall
consider
the
best
available
science
and
puts
that
into
statute
so
that
it
is
clear,
Direction
and
Authority
for
the
state
engineer
to
do
so.
D
D
In
the
amendment,
we've
tried
to
simplify
that
a
little
bit
more
so
instead
of
noting
the
existing
rights
of
holders
of
permits,
claimants
of
vested
rights
Etc,
it's
you
know
when
there
is
a
conflict
with
existing
rights
from
any
hydrologically
connected
surface
water
or
groundwater,
or
with
protectable
interests
in
existing
domestic
Wells.
So
again,
we're
just
trying
to
add
into
this
section
of
law
a
recognition
that
there
may
be
a
conflict
with
an
existing
user
right
that
that
stems
from
hydrologically
connected
sources
that
may
not
be
within
the
same
groundwater
basin.
D
So
Section
8
was
what
I
referenced
with
the
the
adding
the
definition
of
groundwater
Basin
or
Basin-
oh
yeah,
in
section
seven.
So
there
was
some
language
related
to
Basin.
That
then
was
being
moved
to
section
eight.
So
again,
we're
still
working
on
some
of
this,
but
trying
to
not
go
and
completely
redefine
groundwater
basins
or
hydrologic
basins.
At
this
time,
and
so
Section
8
is
proposed
to
be
deleted.
Section
9
had
some
conforming
language.
That
would
also
be
deleted
because
the
changes
to
Section
8
are
going
to
be
removed.
D
Section
10,
one
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
the
existing.
What
would
now
be
subsection
two
in
section
10.
I
just
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
that
language
around
all
underground
Waters
within
the
boundaries
of
this
state,
belong
to
the
public
and
subject
to
all
existing
rights,
to
the
use
thereof
as
and
then
this
is
adding
a
reference
to
the
subsection.
One
are
subject
to
appropriation
for
beneficial
use.
D
Only
under
the
laws
of
this
state
relating
to
the
appropriation
and
use
of
water
and
not
otherwise,
and
so
subsection
one
is
seeking
to
at
to
an
extent,
mirror
build
upon
and
clarify
that
by
noting
that
any
appropriation
and
I
will
say
that
it's
my
intent
that
it's
not
only
new
appropriations
of
water,
but
all
all
appropriations
of
water,
of
underground
Waters
and
then
within
the
boundaries
of
the
state,
is
proposed
to
be
stricken
because
we
have
groundwater
basins
that
cross
state
lines.
D
And
so
we
want
to
kind
of
try
and
recognize
that
as
we're
looking
at
policy
moving
forward.
So
any
appropriation
of
underground
Waters
is
subject
to
all
existing
rights,
to
the
use
of
the
source
thereof
and
then
again,
trying
to
clean
up
the
language.
A
little
bit
related
to
points
of
diversion.
Just
saying
that,
regardless
of
where
the
source
is
any
appropriation
is
subject
to
all
existing
rights.
D
If
you
want
to
appropriate
and
use
water,
that's
going
to
be
subject
to
water
law
and
all
existing
rights.
So
if
it
conflicts
with
an
existing
usage
or
right
that
has
to
be
dealt
with
through
our
water,
our
existing
water
law,
regardless
of
what
the
source
is
if
they're
connected.
So
it
doesn't
matter
if
it's
in
the
same
Basin
or,
if
then
they're,
if
they're,
in
different
basins.
D
If
they're,
if
there's
a
connection
and
that
connection
can
be
demonstrated,
you
have
to
deal
with
it
the
same
way
you
would,
if
it
was
in
what
was
within
the
same
groundwater
basin
and
and
that's
what
the
the
rest
of
the
language
is
noting
that
if
the
state
engineer
finds
a
hydrologic
connection
sufficient
and
that
is
so
not
just
a
connection
but
a
connection
sufficient
to
cause
a
conflict
with
those
existing
rights
moving
forward
through
through
the
bill.
D
And-
and
we
took
some
of
that
language
out
because
it
is
a
duplicative
of
of
existing
NRS
and
again,
that's
basically
we're
trying
to
create
a
point
back
to
to
similarly
say
in
determining
if
there's
an
appropriate
water
we've
got
to
recognize.
If
there's
some
connections
that
may
be
leading
to
essentially
kind
of
some
double
counting.
So
we
don't
want
to
go
and
say
that
there
may
be
unappropriated
water
when
it
turns
out
that
that's
actually
being
accounted
is
within
kind
of
a
hydrologic
system
that
may
already
be
accounted
for.
D
But
again
that
would
have
to
be
demonstrated
through
a
process
with
the
state,
the
existing
processes
with
the
state
engineer
and
then
the
rest
of
the
bill
is
conforming
language,
so
I'm
sure
I'm
going
to
have
many
questions.
That
concludes
my
presentation
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
A
Thank
you
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
went
into
this
and
that
you're
still
continuing
to
work
on
it
with
many
stakeholders
can.
Can
you
give
us
with
the
understanding
that
you're
still
working
on
this
can
so
so
the
concern
is:
if
you've
got
the
two,
if
you've
got
two
rights
holders
and
they
kind
of
now,
there
could
be
conflict.
So
can
you
give
us
an
idea?
Put
that
into
tell
us
the
story
what's
going
to
happen
now,
if,
if
there's
conflict.
D
Thank
you
for
that
Howard
Watts
for
the
record,
Madam
chair,
that's
a
great
question
and
again
this
is
tough.
Water
is
scientifically
very
complex
and
between
every
every
region,
every
Basin
has
its
own
quirks
and
the
difficulty
is
trying
to
reconcile
that
very
specific
science
with
also
having
a
policy,
particularly
at
a
Statewide
level.
That
provides
some
a
framework
for
how
these
matters
are
handled
and
provides
some
degree
of
certainty
to
folks
and
that's
at
our
at
a
really
high
level.
D
That's
one
of
the
things
that
we're
struggling
with
is
trying
to
have
some
clarity
and
certainty
and
policy.
So
if
the
police,
if
the
policy
is
too
broad
and
and
provides
too
much
flexibility,
it
creates
tremendous
uncertainty
and
water
rights
while
the
waters
are
are
belong
to
the
people
of
the
state
and
are
managed
the
rights
to
use
those
waters
are
are
a
type
of
property
right
and
they
have
value
to
those
that
hold
them,
and
so
that's
without
getting
into
an
extremely
specific
case.
D
That's
kind
of
the
struggle
that
we're
going
through
is
trying
to
to
balance
that,
but
also
recognize
that
you
can
have
something
on
paper,
but
if
it
doesn't
align
with
the
science,
it's
going
to
create
a
lot
of
problems
and-
and
we
are
in
a
we're
in
the
driest
state
in
the
nation,
in
terms
of
precipitation
and
so
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
a
framework
that
make
sure
that
we
manage
these
resources
in
the
best
way
possible.
To
answer
your
question
a
little
bit
more
specifically,
here's
here's!
D
What
the
here's
the
rub
with
the
policy
is
that
these
are
essentially
in
situations
where
this
occurs,
where
conflicts
occur.
D
For
the
most
part,
we're
looking
at
kind
of
a
zero-sum
game,
there's
going
to
be
winners
and
there's
going
to
be
losers,
and
if
somebody
has
what
they
thought
was
a
more
senior
right,
but
because
of
different
hydrological
connections.
It's
demonstrated
that
you
know
this,
and
this
is
one
of
the
big
issues
with
conjunctive
management
policy.
D
If
a
surface
water
right
is
being
impaired
in,
in
general,
those
are
all
senior
to
groundwater
rights,
and
so
you
have
two
options:
one
create
some
sort
of
mechanism
to
to
assist
the
groundwater
user,
which
basically
is
fiddling
with
the
foundations
of
water
law
or
B.
D
You
have
to
curtail
the
use
of
the
groundwater,
that's
impairing
the
surface
water
and
that's
somebody's
that
that
has
that
has
value
to
that
person,
that's
their
livelihood,
and
so,
when
you're,
looking
at
a
situation
where
the
science
says
somebody's
got
to
lose,
it's
a
it's
a
really
tough
issue,
and
so
that
at
a
high
level
is
kind
of
what
we're
dealing
with
and
what
I've
tried
to
do
is
take
the
do
my
best
to
take
the
most
narrow
and
focused
approach
to
that
possible.
D
So,
instead
of
it,
for
example,
with
combining
basins
which
has
been
which
has
been
proposed,
we
didn't
get
very
far
down
the
line
on
some
of
those
processes,
but
essentially
you're
taking
Basin
a
that
has
its
set
of
water
rights,
users
and
priority
dates
and
base
and
B.
That
has
the
same
and
if
you
combine
them
whoops,
because
everyone's
because
of
the
hydrological
connection,
now
all
those
priority
dates
get
intermingled
and
folks
that
felt
fairly
confident
in
their
rights
before
maybe
less
so
now,
and
so,
and
and
instead
of
doing
that.
D
What
we're
really
trying
to
focus
it
in
is
okay,
identify
and
demonstrate
a
conflict,
and
you
know
the
the
this
that
this
right
or
this
usage
is
going
to
impair
another
and
then
handle
handle
that
the
same
way.
You
would
handle
it
in
an
existing
Basin,
because
we
have
a
whole.
We
have
a
really
robust
framework
for
handling
that,
if
it's
in
the
same
groundwater
basin,
but
once
we
start
to
get
into
these
areas
of
hydrological
connection,
our
statutes
are
less
clear.
I
hope
that
provides
some
some
clarity.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
might
actually
have
two.
If
that's
okay,
thanks
for
the
presentation,
I
think
these
edits
in
which
I
just
was
reading.
E
While
you
did
the
presentation
so
I'd,
hopefully
I've
caught
them
all
I
think
deals
with
it
with
an
issue
and
you
brought
it
up
and
then
that's
the
super
Basin
concept,
which
I
don't
think
was
ready
for
prime
time,
given
a
number
of
issues,
particularly
a
takings
issue,
so
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
you're
you're
the
way
you
describe
the
the
potential
conflicts
and
it's
primarily
in
my
mind,
going
to
be
existing
surface
water
rights
versus
a
junior
groundwater
right
and
the
way
that's
likely
going
to
be
demonstrated
is
through
modeling,
which
gets
to
the
best
available
science.
E
Language
you've
put
in
and
I
I
would
hope
that
in
the
additional
discussions
you
have
that
the
term
best
available
science
is
actually
flushed
out
such
that
we're
actually
not
creating
this
broad
term,
that's
subject
to
interpretation
by
state
Engineers
that
go
as
they
go
forward
that
we
as
legislators
establish
that
policy.
So
thank.
D
You
for
that
concern
if
I
may
address
that
briefly
before
you
go
go
forward.
Thank
you.
Some
women,
Howard
Watts
for
the
record
I,
really
appreciate
that
I
do
think
that
best
available
science
is
one
of
the
main
areas
that
continued
discussions
are
happening
around
I
and
some
of
those
behind
me
all
share
PTSD
from
trying
to
Define
terms
when
it
comes
to
water
law.
D
It
you
know
it's
again,
it's
really
tricky
and
and
again
the
situations
can
vary
so
much
from
between
Basin
to
Basin
and
region
to
region.
But
I
do
understand
some
of
the
questions
around.
How
does
that
get
defined?
How
does
that
get
sorted
out,
but
yeah
I
mean
you
know.
Environmental
soundness
is
in
State
Statute.
It's
not
defined.
There's
a
lot
of
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversations
and
debates
about
how
you
define
terms
so
again.
D
I
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
those
conversations
are
ongoing
and
I
do
understand
that.
But
when
you
try
and
Define
them,
it
also
gets
very,
very
tricky,
and
when
we
looked
at
the
proposed
definition
for
groundwater
basins,
the
only
reason
I
didn't
want
to
go
down
that
path.
So
I'm
not
saying
no
but
I
just
want
to
say
I
I
appreciate
that
concern,
and
that's
definitely
one
of
the
things
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
talk
about,
but
also
acknowledge
the
challenges
when
it
comes
to
some
of
those
things.
E
D
Thank
you
for
that
Howard
Watts.
For
the
record.
You
know
it
is
tough,
but
again
it's
trying
to
figure
out.
We
have
to
manage.
You
know
all
the
waters
as
a
public
resource
and
if
we're
in
a
situation
where
we're
not
sustainable,
everyone
loses,
and
so
the
goal
here
is
and
again.
D
Besides
the
date
attached
to
that
that
water
has
to
has
to
be
put
to
beneficial
use
on
an
ongoing
basis,
so
you
know-
and
and
again
if
we
already
have
a
general
Foundation
of
hey
if
there's
conflicts,
or
it
turns
out
whoops,
we
we
goofed
it
and
because
if
we
do
it
right,
we
should
only
give
out
rights
to
water
that
can
be
sustainably
used,
but
there's
been
some
quirks
and
some
missteps
along
the
way
and
curtailment
and
other
things
are,
are
the
backstop
of
okay
and
particularly
with
surface
water.
D
That
can
be
very
can
be
quite
variable
in
its
Supply,
it's
okay!
Well,
if,
if
the
water
is
not
there,
then
we
start
cutting
off
those
who
are
Junior,
and
so
the
water
right
is
only
guaranteed
up
to
a
point,
and
so
my
I
guess
the
perspective
I'm.
Bringing
forward
is
we
need
to.
We
need
to
have
a
a
holistic
approach
to
viewing
that
and
not
pretend
that
that
that
doesn't
apply
if
there's
surface
groundwater
connection
and
I
would
just
say
to
your
other
point.
I
do
think.
D
There's
also
the
potential
for
conflicts
to
arise
between
hydrologically,
connected
groundwater
basins
as
well
and
and
there
and
again
the
idea
is
that
you
would
you'd
go
back
to
some
of
those
same
things.
So,
like
we
discussed
with
surface
water,
seniority
and
other
things,
that's
how
you
start
to
manage
a
conflict
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
between
two
uses
in
separate
groundwater
basins.
D
If
it's
demonstrated
that
there's
a
hydrological
connection-
and
the
last
thing
I'd
like
to
say
so-
I
mentioned
that
there's
a
you
know-
there's
been
Court
decisions
and
there's
folks
that
have
a
stake
in
some
of
those
decisions
here
and
really
it
was.
This
is
not
not
aimed
at
at
influencing
the
outcome
of
a
court
decision.
D
It's
not
even
aimed
at
a
specific
region.
It's
recognizing
some
of
these
things
that
I
feel
have
been
brought
up
as
very
valid
points
and
in
need
of
clarification
in
our
law,
so
that
we
have
a
better
understanding
of
how
the
state
and
different
stakeholders
proceed
in
in
addressing
these
issues.
E
Thank
you
for
that.
Just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
some
of
the
things
you
just
said
about
potential
conflicts
between
basins
that
have
been
interpreted
to
be
hydrologically
connected
based
on
these
amendments.
Do
you
think
that
that's
something
the
state
engineer
could
implement.
A
B
A
It's
there's
no
problem,
we'll
just
connect
the
basins
and
will
all
be
great,
so
I
have
a
question
but
I
think
it's
more
for
legal.
C
F
Aaron
Sturdivant
legislative,
Council
Bureau.
That
is
a
question
that
I'm
not
sure
I
can
answer
in
a
broad
sense,
because
my
understanding
of
the
bill
is
that
it's
sort
of
perspectively
amending
the
statute
to
require
this
data
engineer
to
consider
best
available
science
going
forward,
and
so
all
water
permits
are
subject
to
existing
rights
already
and
you're
not
guaranteed
that
water.
If
there
is
no
water,
so
we
believe
it's
facially
defensible
from
the
perspective
of
takings
and
and
domain
and
all
that,
but
obviously
on
an
acid
played
basis.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right:
okay
assembly,
member
LaRue,
hatch,.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
taking
on
this
critical
issue.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
water
is
our
most
precious
resource
and
it
is
diminishing
thanks
to
climate
change
and
everything
else
and
I
think
it's
really
essential
that
we
are
updating
our
statutes,
some
of
which
have
been
around
since
the
very
beginning,
to
recognize
the
modern
science
and
the
modern
issues
that
are
going
on
I
really
liked.
G
Your
quote
of
you
know:
if
we
don't
manage
this
property
properly,
we
all
lose
out
right,
and
so
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
protecting
it
for
everyone.
My
question
is:
on
these
hydrologically
connected
basins.
Do
you
know
how
large
some
of
them
can
extend
or
how
many
basins
we
know
are
hydrologically
connected
based
on
what
we've
discovered.
D
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Assemblywoman
Howard
Watts
for
the
record,
do
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we
fully
know
the
extent
of
those
things
that
again
there
is
ongoing
modeling
and
other
science
seeking
to
demonstrate
and
prove
out
some
of
those
things
and
in
some
of
the
work
that
I've
done
in
Pat.
In
the
past,
we've
examined
and
I
should
say:
I've
been
involved,
I'm,
not
a
hydrologist,
but
I've
worked
with
organizations
that
have
done
hydrology
looking
at
interconnections
between
multiple
basins
and
I.
D
Don't
remember
the
exact
number,
but
you
know
less
than
10.,
but
more
than
three
basins
you
know
in
in
eastern
Nevada
include,
and
you
know,
and
again,
including
basins
that
actually
straddle
the
the
Nevada
Utah
border.
D
D
It
was
a
few
basins
that
got
combined
there
and
then
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
a
major
issue
that
I'm
sure
you're
going
to
hear
about
in
some
of
the
testimony
as
well
has
been
what's
known
as
the
lower
White
River
flow
system,
which
is
a
in
southern
Nevada,
I,
think,
depending
on
who
you
ask,
involves
I,
think
five,
five
or
six
basins,
groundwater
basins
and
again
I'm
doing
this
all
off
of
recollection.
D
So
if
I,
if
I
speak
an
error
I'm
off
by
one
or
two,
please
forgive
me
and
and
there's
been
a
demonstration
of
connection
across
those
different
basins
and
then
to
complicate
matters
even
further.
There's
also
a
discharge
of
surf
of
surface
water
expressing
itself
into
Muddy
Springs
Muddy
Springs
supplies
the
muddy
river
muddy
river
flows
into
the
Colorado
River
there's
endangered
species
involved
is
a
very
as
a
very
complex
system
where
all
all
of
these
things
are
at
play.
D
So
sometimes
you're
talking
about
surface
water
and
groundwater,
sometimes
you're
talking
about
interconnected
groundwater
basins,
primarily
lower
White
River
flow
system
gives
you
all
of
those
things.
So
those
are
a
couple
of
examples,
but
again
I
think
and
you'll
probably
hear
from
some
folks
that
the
science
is
still
ongoing.
D
Some
people
disagree
with
some
of
the
models
and
findings
that
have
been
put
out
there
so
far.
So
it's
hard
to
give
a
definitive
answer.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
being
here,
you're,
never
afraid
to
take
on
a
big
one
and
hey
I
shared
my
water
with
you
today,
he's
so
good
at
conserving
water,
that
I
walk
by
his
office
and
his
plants
needed
a
drink
and
I
had
a
pitcher
of
water
and
I
literally
watered
his
plant
so
and
and
I
it
didn't
have
to
be
mandated.
I
did
it
anyway,
so
actually
in
regards
to
the
best
available
science
and
rendering
decisions
who's
going
to
determine
the
best
available
science.
H
D
Pleasure
thank
you
for
the
question.
Howard
Watts
for
the
record.
So
this
as
it
stands
in
this
current
draft,
the
state
Engineers
shall
consider
so
so,
basically,
you
know
the
different
stakeholders
and
participants
in
in
any
proceeding
before
the
state
Engineers
office
will
provide
science.
You
know
the
state
engineer
may
look
at
what
else
is
out
there.
That's
already
you
know
kind
of
a
public
domain
and
been
provided
and
then
take
all
of
that
into
consideration
and
to
to
make
it
really
simple.
The
state
engineer
would
decide
up
front.
D
I
want
to
note
that
again,
if
it's
contentious,
which
most
water
issues
are
it's
going
to
be
litigated,
and
so
the
state
engineer
will
decide
it.
First,
then
a
Judicial
Court
will
decide.
Potentially
a
supreme
court
will
decide.
Maybe
things
will
get
remanded
back
to
the
state
engineer
and
I'm
sure
you
know
they're
very
familiar
with
some
of
these
processes
that
go
around
and
around
and
around.
D
But
you
know
the
state
engineer
would
be
the
the
first
entity
to
make
that
decision.
But
again
everyone
will
be
able
to
plead
their
case
there
and
then
there
is
judicial
review
of
all
those
decisions.
So
that's
that's
how
I
Envision
those
things
being
discussed
and
sorted
out.
G
Hatchman,
a
second
question.
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
a
second
question.
So
there's
obviously
a
lot
of
questions
about
best
available
science.
Can
you
just
speak
to
and
I
know
the
state
engineer
is
here,
so
you
can
probably
phone
a
friend
if
you
need
to,
but
can
you
just
speak
to
what
they
are
using
when
you're
saying
that
they
are
referring
to
the
science?
Do
they
have
scientists
on
staff?
Are
they
just
doing
a
quick,
Google
search?
What
are
they
doing
when
they
are
looking
into
this
science?
Thank.
D
You
for
that
question,
assemblywoman,
Howard
Watts,
for
the
record
and
I,
don't
think
I
need
to
phone
a
friend
quite
yet
and
I.
You
know
I'm
sure
that
the
I'm
sure
the
state
engineer
will
come
up
probably
in
neutral
to
just
be
able
to.
You
know,
provide
some
additional
clarification
and
maybe
answer
additional
questions
that
you
all
may
have.
D
I
I
think
it's
a
whole
range
of
things,
so
assemblyman
De
Long
referenced
models
and
so
that
again
you're
taking
certain
data
points.
You
know
drilling
Wells,
doing
some
pumping
and
trying
to
determine
what
impacts
there
might
be
doing
water
chemistry
analysis
as
well
to
try
and
understand
you
know
where
water
may
be
flowing
and
what
some
of
those
connections
may
be
so
again.
D
There's
you
can
do
a
kind
of
water
level
monitoring
you
can
do
pump
tests
and
and
use
those
to,
and
then
you
apply
a
model
to
that
to
try
and
understand
things
at
a
at
a
higher
level.
D
One
of
the
things
that
I
will
say
for
some
of
the
folks
that
don't
follow
these
things
as
closely
is
you
know
the
the
Baseline
science
that
kind
of
figured
out
the
yield
for
a
basin
were
done
by
the
USGS,
they're
called
Recon
studies,
and
they
happened
about
50
years
ago,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
we're
going
on
and
again.
D
D
In
order
to
in
order
to
meet
the
needs,
then
we
were
able
to
start
harnessing
groundwater
and
a
lot
of
you
know
our
basins
are
developed
really
based
on
topo
maps,
and
we
have
got
all
these
mountainous
regions
in
these
valleys,
and
you
know
you're
able
to
kind
of
look
at
that
and
see
okay.
Well,
here's
where
water
would
come
down
from
and
here's
the
bowl
where
it
sits
and
that
works
really
well
for
shallower
aquifers
known
as
like
Basin
fill.
G
D
D
So
I
will
I
will
say:
there's
there's
a
mix
of
in
the
field
data
points
and
then
figuring
out
different
interpretations
of
that
data
and
and
what
it
means
and
there's
actually
their
efforts
underway
to
update
some
of
the
Baseline
science
that
we
use
within
the
state
to
make
some
of
those
decisions
and
potentially
updating
some
of
that
science,
just
on
its
own,
could
have
impacts
to
the
current
kind
of
water
rights
that
that
that
exists.
Currently.
H
Thank
you
chair
for
another
another
chance.
I
think
we'll
have
a
dueling.
This
dueling
this
issue
out
regarding
the
best
available
science,
I,
think
I.
Guess
it's
not
like
there's
a
bunch
of
angst
with
it
in
section
three
but
I,
just
guess,
I'm
going
to
ask.
Why
do
we
feel
we
have
to
say
shall
consider
the
best
available
science?
H
D
D
You
know
it's,
it's
also
tough
I
want
to
say
you
know,
folks
that
have
a
lot
of
financial
resources
can
they
can
pay
for
lots
of
modeling
and
things
to
try
and
demonstrate
a
point,
and
so
that's
a
factor
of
concern
in
figuring
out
is
the
best
available.
Science.
Whoever
has
the
most
money,
but
on
the
flip
side,
if
we're
not
making
decisions
based
on
science,
is
it
Whoever
has
the
most
money
or
the
most
connections,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons.
D
Why
I
think
it's
important
to
have
this
really
clear
as
to
why
we're
moving
this
around
and
having
that
be
part
of
the
debate,
there
was
a
court
decision
that
said,
that's
legislative
declaration,
that's
not
statute,
nothing
in
actual
NRS.
That
says
what
the
state
shall
do
or
is
authorized
to
do
says
anything
about
using
science,
and
so
there
was
a
court
case
that
that
and
it's
being
appealed,
but
it
flagged
that
hey
legislative
declaration
is
not
statute.
A
H
Exactly
and
just
because
a
lot
has
transpired
since
then,
I
I
get
what
you're
saying
about
things
can
be
political
and
mod
in
modeling,
but
also
so
can
science
we've
lived
through
that
in
the
last
few
years
that
science
can
be
manipulated
or
politicized,
and
so
that
that
was
my
main
thing
is
just
that
I
agree.
We
need
to
base
things
on
science,
but
unfortunately,
even
science
has
become
political.
H
So
it's
not
a
guarantee
right
that
we're
going
to
get
the
best
science
and
and
that
I
guess
is
just
unfortunately,
the
nature
of
the
beasts
of
the
days
that
we
live
in
so
I
do
I
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
get
to
I
appreciate
what
we
tried
to
study
in
public
lands
and,
and
the
interim
and
I
know
you're
trying
to
get
to
a
solution,
and
so
I'll
be
quiet.
So
we
can
hear
from
all
the
all
those
that
have
a
lot
to
to
Enlighten
us
with.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
with
that
ready
to
move
on
to
support
another
question,
okay,
so
what
we're
going
to
do
is
if
there's
anyone
in
Elko,
which
I
don't
think
there
is
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
who's
in
support.
Please
start
filling
up
the
chairs,
all
one
of
you
if
you
are
in
support
in
Carson
City,
if
you
are
in
support,
please
fill
in
the
chairs
as
you
go
and
then
also
so
just
so
we're
all.
A
On
the
same
page,
we're
gonna
go
for
two
minutes
at
a
time
we
will
be
timed:
we'll
have
half
an
hour
in
support
half
an
hour
in
opposition
half
an
hour
in
neutral
neutral
is
you
are
just
providing
information?
It
is
not
support
light.
It
is
not
we
really
like
assembly
member
watts
and
don't
want
to
say
something
nasty
about
his
bill
and
hope
to
get
to
somewhere.
A
It
is
just
providing
evidence
also,
if
you
really
like
the
bill,
but
you're
not
quite
there,
yet,
if
you're
not
quite
there,
yet
with
the
with
the
mock-up
that
we
have
right
now,
that
is
opposition,
please
you're
free
to.
Let
us
know
that
you
you're
99
there
you're
going
to
keep
working
with
assembly
member
Watts,
but
technically
under
the
rules
of
this
committee.
That
is
opposition.
So
please
proceed
that
way.
So
please
go
ahead.
Doctor.
I
Hello,
I'm
Laurel,
Saito
and
I'm
the
Nevada
water
strategy
director
for
the
nature,
Nevada
chapter
of
the
nature
conservancy,
and
we
do
really
thank
assemblyman
Watts
for
working
with
many
people
to
bring
this
bill
forward
and
for
working
on
this
complex
but
important
topic.
We
are
speaking
in
support
of
this
bill.
Nevada's
groundwater
aquifers
provide
drinking
water
and
economic
benefits
for
people
and
also
support
groundwater
dependent
ecosystems
to
rely
on
groundwater
to
maintain
their
ecological
structure
and
function.
I
Most
of
Nevada's
rivers
are
groundwater,
dependent
originating
as
Springs
or
groundwater
seeps,
with
additional
inputs
and
groundwater
along
their
length.
Because
of
this
connectivity
of
groundwater
to
surface
water,
it
is
possible
for
groundwater
use
in
one
hydrographic
area
where
administrative
groundwater
unit
to
affect
surface
water
flows
in
another
hydrographic
area.
I
Ab387
addresses
this
connectivity
between
surface
water
and
groundwater.
By
clarifying
that
the
state
engineer
must
consider
whether
applications
for
water
rights
in
a
specific
hydrographic
area
would
impact
existing
water
rights
or
be
detrimental
to
the
public
interest
in
another
hydrographic
area.
The
bill
also
obligates
the
state
engineer
to
consider
the
best
available
science
and
water
decisions
in
the
state.
So
these
changes
will
enable
the
state
engineer
to
make
science-informed
decisions
about
Nevada's
important
Water
Resources.
I
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
with
that
we
will
go
to
opposition
if
there's
anyone
in
Elko
or
Las
Vegas
in
opposition,
please
make
yourself
known
so
we're
going
to
start
in
Carson
City,
but
we
won't
forget
about
you
in
Las
Vegas,
but
please
go
ahead
and
take
a
seat
in
Las
Vegas
and
in
Carson
City.
Please
fill
in
the
chairs
as
you
go.
K
Thank
you,
chair
Cohen
members
of
the
committee,
Patrick
Donnelly,
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
Following
the
rules
of
this
committee,
we
optimistically
oppose
this
bill.
We
support
the
intent
of
this
bill.
We've
been
working
diligently
with
stakeholders
on
finding
something,
that's
workable
for
everybody.
We
aren't
there
yet
there's
still
wordsmithing
to
be
done,
but
I
would
say.
The
group
is
well
on
its
way.
The
the
bill
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
and
the
amendment
is
the
result
of
unprecedented
collaboration.
K
However,
we're
in
a
very
different
place
now,
assemblyman
Watts
has
provided
a
vehicle
for
this
collaboration,
and
a
diverse
group
of
interests
has
been
working
diligently
to
find
something
that'll
work,
so
it's
very
different
from
previous
quite
adversarial
encounters
around
this
topic
and
so
there's
a
desire
to
continue
moving
forward
and
to
keep
working
on
the
bill.
You
know
I
will
say
this
is
not
about
a
single
case
or
a
single
place.
K
But
if
we
do
get
there,
you
know
if
this
bill
does
pass.
It
really
will
be
a
breakthrough
moment,
I
think
in
the
evolution
of
Nevada
water
law,
because
it
will
be
a
chance
for
many
stakeholders
to
come
together
and
say
this
modest
clarification.
This
modest
change
is
actually
acceptable,
which
has
generally
been
a
blocked
point
in
the
past
so
and
I
would
just
finally
add
this.
Bill
is
not
just
like
for
the
benefit
of
the
environment.
There
will
be
lots
of
winners
and
losers
as
this
type
of
thing
gets
implemented.
K
L
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
Kyle
row
rink
with
the
Great
Basin
water
Network,
we're
in
a
similar
situation
as
Mr
Donnelly.
We
oppose
the
bill,
but
but
we
support
a
lot
of
of
what's
inside
it,
and
we
want
to
thank
assemblyman
Watts
for
his
work
on
this
and
we're
grateful
for
the
committee
for
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
speak
here
today.
Water
knows
no
borders,
there
are
lines
on
maps
and
then
there
are
hydraulic
realities
and
I.
L
Think
what
we're
trying
to
address
in
this
bill
are
the
hydraulic
realities
of
how
water
flows
through
basins.
Again,
these
these
lines
on
basins
were
were
drawn
up
50
years
ago,
and
now
we
know
a
little
bit
more
and
we
know
how
the
water
moves
and
so
I
think
you
know
we're
here,
to
address
conflicts
and
and
to
try
and
limit
conflicts
in
the
future,
and
you
know
I
think
giving
us
a
shot
at
doing
this.
Continuing
the
the
word
smithing
will
be
really
valuable
for
the
long
run
and
in
the
state's
management.
L
You
know
I
think
as
it
relates
to
the
issue
of
best
available
science,
I.
Think
everybody's
always
going
to
be
suing
each
other
over
that
I've
seen
USGS
models
with
plus
or
minus
35
percent
margins
of
air
and
that's
the
gold
standard,
and
so
there's
always
going
to
be
a
fight
about
you
know
what
is
happening
underground.
These
are
strange
mosaics
that
we
can't
see
and
so
I
think.
But
again
this
all
comes
back
to
Clarity
and
that's
what
we're
we're
advocating
for
in
this.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
M
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Christina
erling
I'm,
vice
president
of
government
affairs
from
Nevada
gold
mines.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
come
before
the
committee
and
appreciate
the
work
of
assemblyman
Watts
on
the
issue
of
conjunctive
Water
Management.
As
the
bill
is
currently
written.
Nevada
gold
mines
is
in
opposition
to
ab387.
However,
we
stand
ready
to
continue
working
with
the
committee
on
this
issue.
We
are
willing
to
support
the
concept
of
conjunctive
management
if
it
is
properly
implemented.
M
The
legal
distinguishment
between
separate
management
of
groundwater
versus
surface
water
has
been
applied
for
over
a
century.
This
means
that
a
wholesale
revision
to
the
Nevada
water
law
on
this
distinction
must
be
done
carefully
to
avoid
harming
the
state's
economy
and
creating
unconstitutional,
taking
ab387
currently
does
not
contemplate
which
party
Bears
a
burden
of
proof
for
demonstrating
the
existence
of
conflicts
between
water
right
permit
holders
or
how
the
state
engineer
is
expected
to
arrive
at
best
available
science.
M
Additionally,
existing
elements
of
Nevada
water
law,
including
the
limitations
on
the
definition
of
beneficial
use,
I,
mean
the
state
means
the
state
engineer,
will
be
limited
in
the
implementation
of
conjunctive
Management
in
such
a
way
as
to
cause
unnecessary
harm.
Other
states
have
implemented
conjunctive
management
with
some
success,
but
only
because
they
worked
for
many
years
to
understand
the
issues
for
their
particular
water
basins
and
design
their
state
laws
to
include
alternative
measures
to
meet
the
needs
of
all
water
users,
including
voluntary
conservation,
Aquifer,
recharge
and
water
baking
systems
name
a
few.
M
Only
then,
with
the
proper
tools
developed
can
conjunctive
management
be
implemented
without
harming
water
users
in
the
state's
economy.
The
battle
lacks
these
tools,
and
this
bill
does
not
address
the
shortcoming,
which
leaves
a
state
engineer
with
curtainment.
That's
a
primary
tool.
Ab
387
as
it
stands,
is
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
a
state
with
hydrographic
basins
that
differ
widely.
We
encourage
the
committee
to
take
to
step
back
to
continue
the
conversation
with
stakeholders
on
this
important
concept,
because
the
success
of
this
effort
depends
on
careful
design
and
implementation
of
the
laws
and
regulation.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
Kyle
Davis
today
on
behalf
of
the
Nevada
mining
Association.
We
appreciate
all
of
the
work
that
has
gone
into
this
from
assemblyman
Watts
from
the
interim
committee
on
natural
resources
and
many
people
in
this
room
that
have
been
working
on
this.
You
know
both
before
the
session
started
and
throughout
the
session
right
up
until
well
yesterday
and
we'll
continue
to
work
on
it,
and
we
appreciate
that.
N
We've
been
a
part
of
many
of
these
conversations
and
appreciate
that
that
we
will
hopefully
be
able
to
continue
these
conversations
and
and
to
get
somewhere,
that's
productive
for
the
state
and
so
often
is
the
case
with
water
law
in
Nevada.
Just
as
you
think,
you've
solved
one
problem,
you
realize
that
you
potentially
are
creating
a
new
problem
that
you
need
to
deal
with
and
that's
why
these
things
are
so
complicated
to
figure
out.
N
Nevada
mining
Association
supports
the
comments
that
you
just
heard
from
Ms
erling
with
Nevada
gold
mines
and
many
of
the
point.
Many
of
the
points
that
are
that
were
raised,
but
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
us
on
Moon
watts
and
everybody
in
this
room
to
address
these
challenges,
and
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
Andy
Belanger,
with
the
Southern
Nevada
Water
Authority.
We
support
ab387
and
want
this
legislature
to
work
and
and
do
the
hard
work
to
pass
this
bill
this
session.
We
recognize
it's
not
there
yet
and-
and
we
know,
there's
there's
more
time
that
is
needed
in
order
to
move
it
forward.
But
but
I
can
tell
you
having
been
here
when
the
best
available
science
language
was
put
into
the
statute,
In
This
Very
Room
nearly
20
years
ago.
O
Clarity
is
key.
You
know,
make
the
laws
clear.
Let
everyone
know
what
the
rules
are,
so
that
so
that
everyone
knows
what
we're
doing.
What
we've
done
over
the
last
20
years
is
half
measure
sometimes
and
compromises
that
have
made
it
hard
for
courts
to
understand
what
the
legislature
wants
to
do
so
best
available.
Science
has
been
the
standard
that
the
state
engineer
thought
he
was
doing
for
the
last
20
years.
O
O
Hydrologically
hydrologically,
connected
basins
together
apart,
but
if
they're
hydrologically
connected
make
sure
the
law
says
that
make
sure
it
says
it,
because
if
the
science
is
there,
the
law
needs
to
reflect
the
science,
because
otherwise
you're
just
going
to
get
into
a
situation
where
the
law
is
not
going
to
keep
up
with
it.
So
I
recognize
we're
not
there
yet
I
know
there's
more
to
do,
but
we
appreciate
so
much
assemblyman
watts
work
on
this
issue.
It
needs
to
get
done
and
it
needs
to
get
done
this
session.
Thank
you.
P
Good
afternoon
Joe,
Cohen
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Bryn
Gibson
I'm
here
representing
coyote
Springs,
we're
here
in
opposition
to
the
bill,
even
as
we
understand
and
appreciate
the
intent
behind
the
bill.
Candidly
and,
to
be
honest,
our
basins
in
Nevada
are
are
over
appropriated.
We
simply
do
not
and
will
not
have
enough
water
to
satisfy
everybody's
needs.
Today
or
tomorrow
we
get
that
client
gets
that.
P
The
problem
here
is
that
The
Cure
of
the
bill
doesn't
actually
solve
the
pressing
problems
that
it
upends
over
a
hundred
years
of
well-settled
Nevada
water
law,
adding
tremendous
legal
uncertainty
on
top
of
an
existing
resource
uncertainty.
Changing
long-standing
rules
will
not
ease
our
water
problems
or
fix
the
issue
of
over
appropriated
basins.
It
will
merely
reallocate
winter
water
winners.
Well,
breaking
Bedrock
law
first
in
time
means
first
and
right,
and
this
has
been
a
Hallmark
of
Western
water
law.
This
is
the
rule
of
priority.
P
This
bill
will
radically
reshuffle
the
line.
It
will
not
shorten
the
line.
On
the
contrary,
Decades
of
settled
expectations
will
be
upset
in
a
moment
and
planning
for
the
future
when
we
need
solid
planning.
More
than
anything
will
be
even
harder.
How
can
anyone
negotiate
going
forward
if
they
are,
if
they're
worried
about
the
rules
constantly
changing?
P
A
So
it
is
something
that
we
are
going
to
consider
and-
and
you
know,
move
forward
with
and
do
what
we
think
is
best
for
the
state
and
when
I
say
move
forward
with
I
don't
mean
that
that
was
not
me
saying
that
this
bill
is
necessarily
moving
forward.
That
was
me
saying
we
are
moving
forward
with
the
process,
but
thank
you.
Q
Madam,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Jeff
Fontaine
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
central
Nevada
Regional,
Water
Authority,
and
also
the
Humboldt
River
Basin,
Water
Authority
and,
like
the
others,
we
appreciate
the
committee's
interest
and
assemblyman
Watts
leadership
on
8387
and,
like
many
others
here
today,
we
have
been
participating
in
the
ongoing
discussions
with
with
other
stakeholders
in
keeping
with
the
chairs
rules
and
protocol.
We
are
testifying
in
opposition
to
the
bill
and
the
conceptual
amendment
is
presented.
Q
Ab387
presents
I
think
some
pretty
unique
challenges
in
terms
of
understanding
how
those
impacts
in
predicting
consequences,
as
it
relates
to
at
least
our
priorities,
of
protecting
water
rights
and
Rural
Water
interests.
We
we
support
the
consider
duration
of
hydrologically,
connected
surface
water
and
groundwater
and
managing
the
Waters
of
this
state
and
also
the
use
of
best
available
science
and
has
been
discussed
here
as
well.
Q
Best
available
available
science
is
sort
of
a
difficult
term
to
Define,
but
I
can
tell
you
that,
at
least
from
from
what
I
have
researched
there
are
some
basic
standards
and
parameters
that
we
think
would
provide,
or
have
Merit
in
in
getting
us
to
a
better
understanding
what
that
means,
and
also
I
think,
more
importantly,
to
avoid
future
disagreements
and
litigations,
so
we're
we're
committed
to
advancing
good
water
policy
for
Nevada
and
certainly
committed
to
working
with
assemblyman
watts
and
others
on
this
Bill.
Thank
you.
R
Good
afternoon,
chair
Cohen
and
vice
chair,
Anderson
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Emilia
Cargill
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
coyote
spring
investment.
This
is
a
five-point
summary
of
the
letter
that
we
previously
submitted
one
existing
statutory
structure
in
1968,
the
state
engineer
in
the
government,
indexed
232
hydrographic
basins
in
Nevada.
Since
then,
the
legislature
has
addressed
water
usage
Basin
by
Basin
basis.
Ab387
gives
the
state
engineer
the
authority
to
ignore
Basin
by
Basin
management
that
it
has
been
implementing
for
the
past
50
years.
R
There
are
thousands
of
water
right
holders
who
have
relied
on
the
Basin
by
Basin
process
and
adherence
to
the
prior
appropriation
Doctrine
a
first
in
time,
first
and
right,
number,
two
history
and
justifiable
Reliance.
Under
the
current
statutory
scheme,
no
water
right
holder
would
expect
that
its
water
rights
would
be
curtailed
in
favor
of
a
water
right
holder
in
a
different
hydrographic.
Basin
ab387
would
reject
Decades
of
water
holders,
rights
expectations
and
entitlements
and
effect
does
so
retroactively.
Nevada
water
law
statutes
are
based
on
prior
appropriation
and
ab387
obliterates
prior
appropriation.
R
Number
three
coyote
Springs
coyote
springs's
master
plan.
Involvement
in
southern
Nevada
is
a
perfect
example
of
the
Injustice
in
ab387
in
Reliance
on
its
senior
water
rights
in
Basin
210
coyote
Springs
is
spent
in
excess
of
300
million
dollars.
Installing
infrastructure
Wells
water
treatment,
sewer
treatment.
It
did
so
rela.
R
Excuse
me
it
did
so
relying
on
the
law
number
four,
the
term
Basin
ab387
redefines
the
term
Basin
and
we
support
the
strike
of
Section
8
from
the
amended
bill,
because
we
believe
that
was
overbroad.
Also.
The
procedure
by
which
the
state
engineer
determines
the
hydrologic
connection
is
neither
Define
nor
described
and
were
concerned.
It
will
be
a
fodder
for
future
litigation.
R
Number
five.
The
victims
of
ab387
ab387,
is
an
attempt
to
get
legislative
permission
to
do
what
the
legislature
and
Judiciary
have
previously
prohibited.
The
victims
of
ab387
are
the
Nevada
companies,
Farmers
ranchers
and
individuals
who
purchase
water
rights
with
a
good
faith
belief
that
this
legislative
body
would
not
take
from
them
that
which
they've
already
paid
for
and
beneficially.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
I'm
Jake
Tibbetts
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
Eureka
County,
as
various
interests
started
discussing
and
making
proposals
under
the
bdr
that
became
this
bill.
Eureka
County
held
that
we
should
wait
for
clarity
from
the
Supreme
Court
on
many
of
the
matters
of
this
bill
currently
in
front
of
the
court,
so
that
we
can
collectively
be
more
focused
and
surgical
in
any
legislation.
S
However,
we
recognize
that
others
do
not
believe
the
same,
and
we
have,
in
good
faith,
been
part
of
the
process
to
find
common
ground
or
a
spot
where
we
would
not
oppose.
We
believe
a
lot
of
progress
has
been
made
and
the
conversations
have
been
productive.
Ab387
is
very
improved
from
some
of
the
previous
proposals
that
we've
seen
and
specifically
with
the
amendment.
S
Some
of
the
outstanding
points
were
committed
to
continue
to
work
through
and
you've
heard
on
some
of
those,
but
we
wish
to
see
the
best
available
science
better
boxed
in
and
clear
on
what
it
means.
We
will
note
that
there
is
a
change
in
the
language
from
the
current
declaration
in
the
statute
by
removing
the
term
availability
and
we're
trying
to
weigh
what
that
may
mean
moving
forward.
We
agree
that
the
state
engineer
should
recognize
hydrologically
connected
Waters,
but
only
to
address
clearly
identifiable
or
demonstrated
conflicts.
S
T
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
committee,
members
for
the
record,
it's
I'm,
Steve,
Walker
I'm,
representing
Lyon
County
lion
County,
was
opposed
to
the
bill
is
written,
but
with
the
removal
of
Section
8
an
amendment.
Their
position
like
the
existing
bill
is
quite
dynamic
by
the
way
as
an
old
guy
who
has
worked
extensively
in
Nevada
water
issues.
The
50
year
old
document,
frequently
referenced
today
called
the
reconnaissance
report
were
actually
quite
good.
U
For
the
record
I'm
Doug
bustleman
I'm,
the
Executive
Vice
President
of
Nevada
Farm
Bureau
I,
want
to
also
start
out
by
expressing
my
appreciation
for
being
able
to
be
part
of
the
collaboration.
That's
been
going
on
in
developing
this
bill,
working
with
assemblyman
Watts,
the
state
engineer
and
my
fellow
collaborators
Nevada
Farm
Bureau
is
opposed
to
ab387
Nevada
Farm,
Bureau
policy
states.
We
oppose
the
combining
of
established
water
basins
and
believe
that
management
of
individual
basins
lead
to
a
more
precise
stewardship
of
Water
Resources.
U
The
ability
to
see
and
measure
what
is
happening
under
the
ground
is
highly
subjective.
We
see
that
basins
are
valuable
as
boundary.
References
for
decision
making
inflows
to
a
basin
can
be
measured
and
are
estimated.
Outflows
from
a
basin
can
be
measured
and
are
estimated.
The
science
applies
to
the
Basin
and
allocations
approved,
based
on
that
Space
and
Science.
We
are
also
concerned
about
using
computer-generated
models
and
Broad
brush
applications
of
data
to
address
site-specific
decisions.
U
V
Foreign
here
today,
on
behalf
of
our
Public
Services
Republic
owns
Apex
landfill
in
southern
Nevada,
which
is
where
all
the
solid
waste
goes
from.
Our
franchise,
Solid
Waste
in
Henderson
city
of
Las,
Vegas,
Clark
County,
and
so
we
have
water
rights
to
operate
that
landfill.
It's
critical
and
we
are
in
current
active
litigation
on
issues
that
are
raised
in
this
bill
with
the
state
engineer
that
litigation
has
now
been
appealed
by
the
state
Engineer's
office,
and
so
for
those
reasons
we
remain
opposed
to
the
Bill.
Thank
you.
W
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Karen
Peterson
I'm,
an
attorney
in
private
practice
here
in
Carson,
City
and
I've
represented
visler
water
company
for
many
years
on
water
right
matters
in
Nevada
and
viddler
has
groundwater
rights
and
surface
water
rights
in
Northern
Nevada
and
in
southern
Nevada.
Fiddler
is
opposed
to
ab387
for
the
many
reasons
set
forth
in
Miss,
Timmy
and
Palmer's
letter
previously
sent
to
the
committee,
but
my
testimony
in
summary,
is
and
and
I'm
trying
to
adopt.
W
I
just
saw
the
mock-up
today
during
the
hearing
and
so
I'm
trying
to
adapt
some
of
my
comments
to
that.
But
we
still
have
concerns
about
section
10.,
I
heard
assemblyman
Watts
say
that
they,
the
the
intent
of
section
10,
would
be
to
connect
basins
that
were
hydrologically
connected,
and
we
have
a
concern
about
that
because
that's
exactly
what
happened
in
southern
Nevada
and
vidler
was
part
of
that
group
thither
in
Lincoln,
County,
Water
District
on
water
rights
in
cane
Springs.
W
Thus,
how
those
terms
may
be
interpreted
under
ab387
create
more
uncertainty
under
sections
3
and
10.
The
state
engineer
can
define
a
Water
Resource
by
hydraulic
connection
using
the
undefined
term
best
available
science
and
allow
pumping
that
is
causing
impacts
to
continue
as
an
existing
right.
Another
word
used
in
the
statute
and
require
Junior
rights
not
causing
impacts
to
stop
pumping.
There
doesn't
appear
to
have
been
any
analysis
of
the
impact
of
ab387
on
other
sections
of
Nevada
water
law
under
existing
water
law.
The
state
engineer
can't
curtail
pumping
in
cane
Springs.
W
W
A
X
Thank
you
for
the
record.
I'm
Mike
Reese
I
am
the
vice
chair
of
the
Lincoln
County
Water,
District
and
I'm
here
in
opposition
of
ab387
I
will
be
the
first
one
to
say:
ditto.
We
we've
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
and
and
we're
nodding
our
head
like
yes,
our
big
concerns
is
number
one
is
the
priority.
X
A
lot
of
people
have
invested
a
lot
of
money
and
stuff
into
something
and
planned
communities
stuff
based
on
their
senior
water
rights,
and
that
now
is
in
Jeopardy,
and
that
is
part
of
the
detriment
of
the
bill
as
it
sits
right
now.
I
don't
know
that
you
can
clean
that
up
or
not,
but
as
of
right
now
we
are
strongly
opposed
to
ab387.
Thank
you.
Y
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Leo
drostoff
and
our
firm
represents
turkey
Meadows
Water
Authority,
as
well
as
Nevada
Cogen
I'm,
going
to
focus
my
comments
from
tumwa
and
Richard
will
speak
to
Nevada
Cogen.
We
do
want
to
redo,
extend
our
thanks
to
DRM
committee
and
assemblyman
Watts,
for
what
many
have
described
to
be
true,
which
is
the
unprecedented
amount
of
communication
and
working
collaboratively.
Y
I
think
these
are
very
weighty
issues
and
the
ability
to
rely
on
something
in
statute
to
whether
it
was
a
hearing
or
something
else
I
would
that
people
with
water
rights
would
have
the
knowledge
that
there
would
be
a
place
to
bring
their
concerns
and
it
would
be
tight
and
rigorous,
is
still
probably
an
area
of
the
bill
and
the
amendment
that
we
think
needs
work,
but
we'll
continue
to
work
with
the
group
with
the
many
stakeholders
and
appreciate
your
time.
Z
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
Richard
Perkins,
for
the
record
representing
Nevada
co-generation
number
one
number.
Two
we've
had
a
number
of
conversations
with
someone,
Watson
and
other
stakeholders
and
to
Echo
what
Mr
drozdov
said
continue
to
want
to
work
through
these.
These
issues,
I
think
you'd
have
to
have
been
asleep
for
the
last
30
years
to
not
understand
that
we're
in
a
Water
Crisis
throughout
the
state
and
and
need
to
find
some
solutions.
We
have
over-appropriated
basins.
Z
We
have
all
sorts
of
other
challenges
in
spite
of
the
weather
over
the
last
few
months,
that
has
brought
us
the
precipitation
that
we've
sorely
needed,
but
looking
forward
to
working
with
all
the
stakeholders
and
and
following
the
the
leadership
of
someone
who
wants
to
find
these
Solutions.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
sir,
in
Las
Vegas,
thank
you
for
being
patient.
Please
go
ahead.
AA
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
Bevin,
Lister
and
and
I'm
just
representing
myself,
and
that's
really
important
because
I'm,
nobody
for
background
I'm,
a
farmer
by
choice,
so
I
I
use
water,
I'm,
an
engineer
by
training,
so
I
know
a
little
bit
about
water
systems
and
I'm,
a
water
well
contractor
and
and
licensed
driller
in
the
state
of
Nevada.
So
I
I
deal
with
water
on
a
firsthand
basis
every
day,
I
own
water
rights
and
manage
water
in
two
counties
in
two
separate
basins.
AA
Here
in
the
state
of
Nevada,
I
stand
in
opposition
to
ab387
.,
first
I'm,
not
sure.
What's
we're
trying
to
accomplish
if
the
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
make
water
law
less
functional,
open
the
state
engineer
to
more
lawsuits
to
lose
and
diminish
the
value
and
certainty
of
held
water
rights,
then
this
bill
would
be
a
success.
AA
If
the
purpose
is
to
give
direction
to
the
five
dollar
phrase,
conjunctive
management,
then
the
offering
of
more
subjective
or
undefinable
terms
is
simply
just
a
side
step
and
serves
no
justice
in
addressing
the
questions
surrounding
the
five
dollar
term.
Nevada
has
a
simple
and
Powerful
system
of
water
allocation
using
the
principle
of
Prior
appropriation.
AA
The
office
of
State
engineer
is
tasked
with
administering
the
allocation
of
that
water
under
the
law.
It's
unfortunate
that
for
some
time
that
office
has
been
unable
or
unwilling
to
create
the
necessary
record
to
support
the
actions
that
they
take.
The
best
available
science
is
always
site-specific.
We
have
long
trusted
and
assumed
that
the
state
engineer
is
using
the
best
knowledge
of
water
and
systems
to
set
a
perennial
yield
for
each
Basin
and
allocating.
Accordingly,
the
concept
of
connections
between
sources
has
always
been
a
point
of
interest
in
the
setting
of
perennial
yields.
AA
The
science
needs
to
be
documented,
documented
to
substantiate
the
decision.
Let's
not
change
the
law
with
nebulous
terms
that
lead
to
more
litigation.
You
cannot
ever
write
enough
laws
to
avoid
all
conflicts.
That
is
why
we
have
a
court
system
and
that
court
system
needs
laws
that
it
can
stand
on,
not
lose
its
balance
over
and.
AB
I'd
like
to
this
is
Robert
Kochi,
with
the
water
strategy
group
I've
been
doing
water
rights
and
administration
and
filing
for
water
rights
for
about
40
Years.
First
I'd
like
to
thank
the
southern
Min
Watts
for
the
effort
that
he's
put
into
this
and
how
open
his
office
has
been
to
all
of
us
he's
finally
trying
to
do
something
and
I
really
appreciate
them.
AB
So
if
you've
been
kicking,
the
can
down
the
road
for
20
plus
years
on
this
I
agree
100
with
what
Annie
Belanger
said,
and
we
want
to
I
want
to
piggyback
on
that.
While
we
are
in
opposition
to
the
bill,
it's
you
know,
we're
just
still
got
a
few
sticky
points
and
stuff
I
fully
support
the
definition
of
what
they're
doing
with
the
best
available
science
I
was
with
the
stages
office
for
30
plus
years,
regardless
of
what
you
heard.
AB
AB
Every
water
rights
been
issued
subject
to
existing
rights
and
we
have
60
years
of
water
rights
that
were
issued
before
the
bases
were
ever
created.
They
deserve
to
be
protected
and
there
is
hydrologic
connectivity
just
because
we
have
a
base
and
Boundary
drawn
on
the
map
doesn't
mean
the
sources
are
not
connected
and
they
have
to
be
regulated
and
protect
existing
rights,
which
are
often
senior
rights
because
of
that
and
I
I
use.
We
really
oppose
anything
being
done
about
waiting
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
make
the
decision
I.
AB
Think
every
legislator
in
the
building
will
recognize
that
it's
their
job
to
make
the
law
I
appreciate
something
that
wants
moving
forward
with
that
and
look
forward
to
working
for
with
them
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
AD
This
bill,
along
with
the
amendment
that
was
introduced
by
assemblyman
Watts.
It
adds
Clarity
in
water
law
in
a
way
that
we
believe
is
consistent
with
what
water
law
already
directs
the
state
engineer
to
do
there.
But
there
is
some
ambiguity,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
I
think,
to
to
to
clear
that
up.
AD
I
I
think
it's
it's
very
much
consistent
and
protective
of
the
prior
appropriation
Doctrine
I
also
believe
that
it
helps
align
water
law
with
the
hydrologic
science
and
and
it
this
is
really
essential
for
realistically
protecting
water
security
into
the
future
for
our
dry
State.
Thank
you.
AE
Chris
Mahana
for
the
record
I'm
a
licensed
civil
engineer,
water
rights,
surveyor
practicing
in
the
state
for
37
years,
I've
been
involved
in
legislative
committee
meetings
with
through
ndwr
and
cnrwa
on
this
bill.
We
really
appreciate
the
Sunderland
Watts
efforts
on
this.
It's
it's
sorely
needed,
I
Echo.
AE
What
the
state
engineer
just
said:
we're
testing
testifying
neutral
on
behalf
of
Churchill
County
and
the
trucking
carcination
Irrigation
District,
large
water
users
on
the
the
bottom
end
of
the
Truckee
and
Carson
Rivers
I,
won't
take
any
more
of
your
time.
I've
submitted
submitted
detailed
written
comments
that
are
on
Nellis.
Thank
you
very
much.
AF
AF
We
do
hope
that
the
state
engineer
uses
the
best
science,
not
old
science,
but
we
understand
the
conflicts
and
issues
with
it
and
we're
willing
to
work
forward
to
continuously
try
to
resolve
these
issues
to
protect
our
resources.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
AG
Will
Adler
with
silver
state
government
relations
representing
Pyramid,
Lake
Paiute
Tribe
I
would
like
to
ditto
the
comments
by
Ed
James.
There
same
same
approach
but
we'd
like
to
thank
as
something
to
watch
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Water
laws
complex
and
and
has
a
lot
of
issues.
Pyramid
Lake
was
opposed
to
this
assembly
bill,
but
the
corrections
or
the
amended
version
of
the
bill
has
a
correction
to
section
6
and
section
13
and
that's
brought
Pyramid
Lake
into
neutral
at
this
time.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
assembly,
member
watts.
Would
you
like
to
catch
up
with
semi-member
York,
no.
AC
D
Glad
these
are
recorded,
you
can
watch
them
on
above
one
time
speed,
just
as
a
pro
tip.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
again
Howard
Watts
for
the
record.
D
Yeah
I
really
appreciate
all
the
testimony
that
was
provided
today
and
appreciate
how
many
people
have
been
have
acknowledged
that
that
there
are
some
issues
that
are
in
need
of
clarity
and
have
really
worked
in
good
faith
to
try
and
get
something
done
and
I
am
committed
to
to
keep
working
to
try
and
get
us
to
that
place,
because
I
I
do
feel
that
it
is
important
and
again
really
appreciate
all
those
who
have
who
have
been
involved
in
providing
constructive
feedback
and
sincerely
hope
we
get
to
that
place.
D
I,
do
just
want
to
note
a
couple
of
a
couple
of
things
based
on
some
of
the
testimony
that
came
up
you,
you
heard
concern
about
impacts
to
Priority,
but
you
also
then
heard
other
folks
say
that
this
upholds
priority
and
I
just
want
to
again
reiterate
from
my
perspective
that
this
is
not
meant
to
throw
out
priority
or
beneficial
use
or
any
any
of
the
other
core
tenets
of
water
law.
I
hear
some
of
the
concerns
as
well.
I
know
that
throughout
NRS
we
have
many
references
to
the
hearing
process.
D
The
state
engineer
goes
through
because
anytime
there's
a
conversation
about
a
proposal.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
it
goes
through
the
the
same
transparent
hearing
process
and
that
there's
judicial
review
and
I
also
want
to
make
clear
on
the
record
that
the
the
goal
of
this
and
the
intent
of
this
is
to
again
add
Clarity
and
not
have
anything,
take
place
outside
of
those
processes.
So
this
is
just
providing
some
clarity
to
kind
of
the
boundaries
with
which
the
state
engineer
goes
through
their
decision-making
processes.
D
D
You
know
I
I,
understand
the
the
concerns
that
are
brought
up
by
folks
that
are
involved
in
litigation
and
again
I
just
want
to
say
that,
while
some
of
the
points
that
were
raised
in
in
recent
Court
decisions,
I
think
brought
up
the
importance
of
looking
back
at
our
statutes
and
looking
back
at
some
of
the
frankly
the
compromises
that
we've
made,
because
we
couldn't
reach
an
agreement
on
anything
before
and
and
having
a
conversation
and
reevaluating
that
and
making
sure
that
that
we
have
a
strong
framework.
D
I
feel
that
it's
our
responsibility
to
not
delegate
all
of
these
decisions
to
courts
to
interpret
and
that
we
need,
as
a
legislature,
to
provide
a
found,
a
policy
Foundation
that
knowing
full
well
that
in
these
contentious
issues,
they're
going
to
be
litigated
as
well.
But
it's
our
responsibility
to
provide
a
framework
for
how
the
decisions
go
through
that
process
and
if
we
wait
until
all
litigation
on
a
on
a
water
law,
topic
is
resolved
before
we
try
and
address
it
in
this
body.
D
A
Thank
you,
and
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly,
Bill
387
and
invite
assembly
members
along
to
make
his
way
down
to
the
table
and
then
just
so
we're
clear
assembly.
Member
yurich
and
assembly
member
Duran
have
been
in
Committee
hearing
straight
since
1
30.,
so
yeah.
So
I
was
just
teasing
the
assembly
member
he
was,
he
was
working
hard
and
assembly.
Member
watts
is
off
to
present
another
bill
in
another
committee.
C
In
the
Senate,
so
so
we're
getting
to
that
part
of
session,
okay,
so
and
I'll.
Let.
AC
A
E
I'm
here
today
to
introduce
assembly
bill.
191.
I
have
submitted
a
friendly
Amendment
to
the
committee,
which
you
should
have
and
I
know
that
it
has
been
posted
in
Nellis.
I
will
be
presenting,
based
on
that
Amendment.
The
bill
in
general
seeks
to
provide
regulatory
relief
to
very
small
Municipal
and
quasi
Municipal
Water
suppliers.
E
The
goals
for
acceptable
water
loss
in
water
supply
shall
include
and
infrastructure
water
loss
index
water,
audit
data
validity,
score
operational,
basic
parent
losses,
operational
basic,
real
losses
and
economic
level
of
water
loss.
The
plan
must
also
analyze
how
the
supplier
of
water
will
progress
towards
the
goal
of
acceptable
water
loss
by
manage
water
for
to
increase.
Reuse,
have
a
contingency
plan
for
Drought
conditions,
a
schedule
for
implementation
of
a
plan,
a
plan
for
installing
water
meters,
establishing
standards
for
water
efficiency
for
a
new
development,
establish
a
tiered
rate
structure
and
establish
watering
restrictions.
E
In
addition,
the
plan
must
have
measures
to
evaluate
the
efficiency
of
the
plan
and
the
effectiveness
of
the
plan
for
those
conservation
measures,
an
estimated
the
amount
of
water
that
will
be
conserved
per
year.
E
A
E
A
Okay
and
then
was
this
something
I'm,
not
sure
if
you're
aware
and
I
can
find
out,
but
was
this
a
requirement
that
we
added
recently
in
the
legislature
can
I.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
have
a
question
from
Vice
chair,
Anderson.
AC
AC
When
you
spoke
about
the
education
area
around
it,
has
there
been
any
or
have
you
considered
any
sort
of
discussion
about
what
was
passed
last
session,
where
we
were
able
to
educate
individuals
about
how
much
water
usage
or
abuse
my
opinion
is
used
for
areas
that
are
right
around
traffic
areas
in
in
particular,
where
there's
grass
and
everything
like
that
and
so
I'm
bringing
this
up
to
see
if
you
would
be
open
for
an
amendment
or
if
there
was
a
way
for
us
possibly
to
do
this
discussion
offline,
because
at
this
time,
that
language
is
only
available
for
the
largest
county
in
our
or
the
most
populous
County
in
our
state.
E
AC
Thank
you
so
much
for
letting
me
bring
that
into
the
room.
The
second
question
has
to
do
with
the
decision
to
take
away
on
the
amendment
to
be,
and
that
Providence
is,
is,
does
the
usage
matter
anymore
or
is
that
was
the
decision
to
to
remove
the
use
of
three
acre
feet
based
upon
other
information.
E
The
bill
was
originally
drafted,
such
that
it
was
the
restriction
on
the
need
to
supply
a
water
conservation
plan
was
based
on
the
amount
of
water
used
in
further
discussions,
including
with
the
state
engineer.
It
seemed
a
more
appropriate
to
use
service
connections
as
the
limiting
factor.
A
Thanks,
okay,
but
you
could
have
one
sir
A
supplier
with
one
service
connection,
that's
using
a
lot
of
water
that
we
need
to
get
this
information
on
correct
I
mean
we're
kind
of
presuming
that,
if
you're,
if
you
don't
have
that
many
connections
that
you're
not
using
that
much
water.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman's
along
for
the
record.
Yes,
they
could
be
using
a
certain
amount
of
water,
but
it
would
be
limited
by
their
water
right,
so
for
just
as
an
example.
For
most
of
these,
the
three
examples
I
gave
their
uses
in
in
the
neighborhood
of
single
digit
acre
feet
per
year.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
answering
our
questions
and
and
for
bringing
this
so.
My
first
question
is
under
this
current
language:
could
these
facilities
then
be
allowed
to
ignore
all
conservation
measures
and
and
for
example,
if
they
are
in
Clark,
where
they're
not
allowed
to
have
certain
turf
or
or
recreational
Lawns
or
whatever
the
language
was?
Could
they
now
completely
ignore
that
and
do
whatever
they
want
with
their
water.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
Delong.
The
this
regulatory
relief
would
limit
their
need
to
have
a
plan
for
water
conservation.
They
would
still
be
subject
in
my
mind,
particularly
in
Clark
County,
to
any
land
use
restrictions
that
the
the
county
or
the
city
may
have
on
them.
G
And
they
may
have
a
second
question
chair,
okay.
My
second
question
is
I
I
understand
what
you're
talking
about
these
extensive
plans
and
these
facilities
may
not
need
to
do
these
extensive
plans
that
other
much
larger
entities
are
doing,
but
in
the
interest
of
really
focusing
and
ensuring
we're
only
achieving
what
you
want
to
achieve.
Could
we
not
simply
excuse
them
from
that
one
requirement
without
changing
their
entire
category
within
the
chapter.
E
AH
You,
madam
chair
and
originally
I,
was
looking
at
this,
and
I
was
thinking.
Okay,
so
there's
your
original
bill
before
the
amendment
was
three
acre
feet,
which
is
I,
think
close
to
a
million
gallons,
and
then
you
just
mentioned
six
acre
feet
for
one
which
is
close
to
two
million
gallons.
So
my
my
question
is
taking
out
the
three
acre
feet:
limit,
I,
guess,
I
just
need
some
more
information
on
what
close
to
2
million
gallons
could
be
used
for
if
it's
just
one
one
user
or
one
area
so.
E
The
thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
Delong
the
example
I
gave
was
for
the
Dyer
Elementary
School,
which
is
School
in
dire
Nevada
and
Fish
Lake
Valley
they're
using
water
for
toilets,
probably
some
Landscaping
as
well
as
sinks
and
one
or
two
million
gallons
in
this
in
the
scheme
of
water
use,
is
actually
over
and
over
a
year
is
actually
a
relatively
as
a
very
small
amount
of
water.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
being
here.
When
we
talk
about
how
many
acre
feet,
perhaps
the
Dyer
Elementary
School
has
doesn't
mean
they
use
all
six
acre
feet
means
they're
allotted
that
right.
They
don't
go
over
that
per
se.
Thank.
H
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
question.
You
know
assemblyman's
along
there
are
actually
about
350
suppliers
of
water
that
would
fall
into
this
category.
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
Delong
for
the
record
I
think,
given
that
these
are
such
small
users.
Another
example
is
a
a
7-Eleven
in
I,
think
it's
in
Elko.
They
have
so
few
uses
of
water
that
they're
likely
going
to
be
they're
going
to
see
where
they
have
a
leak.
E
A
Okay
and
then
would
it
make
it
and
and
I
appreciate
that
and
then,
as
we
get
two
up
to
the
14
and
under,
would
that
make
any
difference.
So
if
we
had
one
that
was
14
and
under
with
I
mean
I,
I
guess
I
think
we
just.
We
want
to
save
water
where
we
can
and
we
want
to
conserve
where
we
can
and
but
we
certainly
don't
want
to
make
more
work
for
anyone
that
that
doesn't
need
it.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
seeing
no
other
questions,
then,
unless
you
have
anything
else,
we'll
move
on
to
support.
Thank
you.
Okay,
do
we
I,
don't
see
anyone
in
Elko
or
Las
Vegas?
So
let's
have
people
in
Carson
City
fill
in
the
chairs.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
if
we
have
seen
no
one
in
Elko
or
Las
Vegas
in
for
opposition,
do
we
have
anyone
in
Carson
City
for
opposition.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Patrick
Donnelly
in
this
comment.
I'm
representing
myself.
We
are
in
supportive
opposition
of
this
bill.
We
support
I
believe
the
original
version
was
a
little
closer
with
the
three
acre
foot
limit.
The
chair
raised
a
very
good
issue
about
the
potential
for
large
amounts
of
use
on
the
15
service
connections,
so
I
think
having
that
acre
foot
limit
is
the
best
approach,
but
the
reason
I'm
supporting
this
bill
on
a
personal
level.
K
I
live
in
a
small
community
of
200
people
and
I'm
the
t2
water
treatment
systems
operator
for
our
small
community
water
supply.
The
regulatory
burden
on
Tiny
water
facilities
is
huge,
and
typically
these
are
run
by
volunteers.
These
are
run
by
small
communities
that
are
very,
have
limited
ability
to
respond
to
large
regulatory
burdens.
K
I
think
we
use
just
a
couple
acre
feet
a
year
at
our
community
water
supply,
and
we
would
definitely
know
if
there
was
a
leak,
because
it's
such
a
small
amount
of
water
and
meanwhile
relieving
that
regulatory
burden
on
small
community
water
supply.
This
really
does
make
a
difference
in
them
being
able
to
provide
for
their
communities.
So
while
we
oppose
a
word
or
two
here,
we
do
support
the
intent
of
this
Bill.
Thank
you.
A
AD
Good
evening,
Adam
Sullivan
Nevada
state
engineer
for
the
record,
I'm,
testifying
neutral
on
this
bill
and
and
the
reason
I'm
testifying,
neutral,
is
or
I'm
testifying
is.
Our
staff
are,
are
those
who
are
the
ones
who
receive
and
review
these
plans
and
work
with
those
who
have
to
prepare
the
plans
and
assure
that
people
who
are
required
to
do
so
actually
put
it
together
in
the
in
the
way
that
it's
prescribed.
AD
Water
conservation
plans
are
important
and
valuable
tool
for
small
water
providers
to
be
water,
conscious.
We
he,
as
discussed
already
there.
There
is
a
common
awareness,
I
think
that
there's
a
number
of
very
small
users
that
get
swept
up
in
this
and
are
developing
plans
that
that
don't
provide
a
whole
lot
of
practical
use.
AD
We
agree
that
the
the
proposed
amendment
to
15
connections
is
is
an
appropriate
cut
off.
That
would
be
consistent
with
a
standard
that
ndep
uses
for
small
water
providers
and
it
would
that
which
would
help
in
the
administration
of
determining
who
this
applies
to.
AD
As
discussed
there,
there
are,
there
is
an
awareness,
I
think
among
small
water
users,
there's
awareness
and
other
opportunities
for
water
conservation
that
are
in
place
and
are
realistic
and
practical
that
you
know
that
this
wouldn't
wouldn't
threaten
some
other
examples
that
are
seasonal,
campgrounds
that
get
swept
into
this
that
have
to
provide,
put
together,
plans
that
don't
end
up
being
particularly
practical
or,
as
like,
a
small
restaurant
with
a
gas
station.
That's
another
example,
and
we
haven't.
AD
We
have
a
lot
of
those,
and
so
another
element
here
is
that
by
not
requiring
those
really
small
entities
to
put
together
a
plan,
it's
it
makes
it
more
efficient
for
our
staff
to
be
able
to
spend
their
time
working
on
larger
water
providers,
where
they
really
are
important
and
valuable
elements
to
having
a
having
a
robust
water
conservation
plan.
AD
A
I
have
a
question,
but
I
think
you
might
be
able
to
answer
it
and
we
can
call
up
your
staff
if
needed,
if
so,
for
your
office
not
having
to
review
this.
Would
that
be
helpful.
I
know:
we've
talked
before
about
your
office
and
kind
of
the
burdens
on
your
office
right
now
and
we're
getting
some
nods.
So
yes,
so
so
so
you
would
you
say
this.
Would
this
would
be
helpful
that
that
your
office's
time
would
be
better
spent
doing
other
work.
A
E
Yes,
assembly
members,
along
for
the
record,
just
like
to
say
thank
you
very
much
to
the
committee
for
the
hearing
and
the
questions
and
looking
forward
to
working
with
those
that
had
suggestions
on
potential
amendments.
Thank
you
again.