►
From YouTube: 3/11/2021 - Senate 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
And
I
am
here,
thank
you
and
he
reached
forum
welcome
everyone
to
the
senate
committee
on
natural
resources.
Now
for
anyone
who
has
not
participated
in
these
virtual
legislative
meetings,
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
quickly
explain
how
they're
being
conducted
during
the
2021
session.
As
you
know,
the
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
to
the
public,
so
all
meetings
will
be
held.
Virtually
this
means
that
committee
staff
members
and
everyone
else
will
have
to
participate
either
through
the
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone.
A
A
This
includes
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
knowledge
system,
which
places
you
online
to
testify
submitting
written
testimony
to
the
committee's
email
address,
sharing
your
opinion
via
the
legislature's
opinion,
application
on
nellis
and
viewing
committee
meetings
on
ls
or
on
the
legislature,
youtube
channel
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment
during
the
2021
legislative
session.
Members
of
the
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
that
you'd
like
to
participate
in
committee.
Meetings
are
listed
in
several
places
on
nellis.
A
All
you
have
to
do
is
simply
click
on
the
participate
button
near
the
meeting
date
and
time
then
fill
out
the
required
information,
such
as
your
name.
The
agenda
item
that
you'll
look
interested
in
participating
in,
and
your
position
on
the
bill.
Once
your
registration
is
submitted,
you
will
see
a
confirmation
screen
and
you
will
also
receive
the
phone
number
and
meeting
id
just
as
a
note
that,
while
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee
you
a
spot
to
speak.
A
When
you
are
on
the
phone
line,
please
pay
attention
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
which
bills
are
in
the
agenda.
We
only
have
one
today
and
so
just
follow
when
bps
calls
on
you
and
what
which
keys
to
press
to
unmute
yourself,
bpstaff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
A
So
with
that,
let's
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
the
hearing,
so
I
will
now
go
ahead
and
open
the
hearing
on
sb
149.
This
measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
groundwater
boards.
I
believe
senator
gokuchi
was
going
to
represent
the
legislative
commission
committee
on
public
lands
to
introduce
the
bill
and
then
the
presenter
please
proceed
once
you
are
done
so
senator
gorkachew
go
ahead.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
record,
I'm
senator
pete
giacacia
senate
district
19
and,
as
a
member
of
the
interim
committee
on
public
lands,
I'm
pinch
hitting
for
chairman
parks.
He
wasn't
able
to
be
here
today,
senate,
bill
149
was
proposed
to
the
legislative
committee
as
a
bdr
on
september
22nd,
we
received
a
presentation
that
day
from
the
central
federal
rural
region,
regional
water
authority
regarding
its
act
activities,
and
they
also
requested
the
bill
that
we
are
going
to
be
hearing
today.
C
The
bill
is
submitted
and
recommended
by
the
public
lands
authorizes
the
board
of
county
commissioners
to
establish
a
groundwater
board
for
an
area
designated
as
a
groundwater
basin.
By
the
state
engineer,
the
recommendation
allows
the
county
commissioners
to
appoint
the
board
and
also,
in
the
end
they
are
the
only
ones
that
can
really
dissolve
the
board.
C
C
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
this
bdr
was
unanimously
approved
by
the
legislative
committee
on
public
lands.
I
believe
that
mr
fontaine
from
the
central
nevada
regional
water
authority
has
amended
has
an
amendment
to
the
bill.
In
fact,
I've
seen
it
here
and
so
we'll
turn
to
him
and
let
him
introduce
his
his
amendment
and
we'll
go
from
there.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Any
questions.
A
D
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
jeff
fontaine
and
I
serve
as
the
executive
director
of
the
central
nevada
regional
water
authority
and
on
behalf
of
central
battle
regional
water
authority.
I'd
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
helping
bill
this
afternoon,
sd-149
allowing
me
to
present
and
also
to
thank
the
public
lands
committee
for
recommending
the
recommendation
to
draft
this
bill
and
just
by
the
way,
a
quick
background.
D
The
central
nevada
regional
water
authority
is
a
nine
member
county
unit
of
local
government,
whose
mission
is
to
protect
water
resources
in
member
counties.
They
have
will
have
not
only
an
economic
future,
but
also
their
value
of
quality
of
life
and
environment
is
maintained.
D
That
the
state
engineer
is
designated
to
be
in
need
of
administration.
Existing
law
also
states
that
it
is
the
intention
of
the
legislature
that
the
state
engineer
and
the
boards
or
board
be
in
agreement
whenever
possible.
But
if
there
is
a
disagreement
between
the
state
engineer
and
the
board,
the
views
of
the
state
engineer
prevail.
D
D
with
the
enactment
of
assembly
bill
437,
which
mandated
that
a
groundwater
board
be
established
for
the
las
vegas
valley,
groundwater
basin,
and
this
worked
very
well
for
many
years
which
facilitated
throughout
the
dialogue
between
local
stakeholders
and
the
state
engineer
and
really
resulted
in
positive
outcomes
for
the
las
vegas
valley.
Groundwater
basin,
the
bill
or
the
law
was
amended.
Excuse
me
in
1973
to
give
the
state
engineer
discretion
to
establish
and
dissolve
groundwater
boards
and
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge.
D
We
believe
that
preserving
and
managing
nevada's
limited
water
resources
requires
thorough
understanding
of
the
changing
conditions
and
uses
our
state's
groundwater
basins,
which
is
best
accomplished
by
coordination
and
collaboration
between
the
state
engineer
and
local
groundwater
boards
that
have
local
knowledge
and
perspective,
and
we
also
think
that
you
know
that
coordination
and
collaboration
needs
to
be
strengthened.
The
state
is
once
again
experiencing
drought
conditions
and
the
state
engineers
proposed
designating
additional
groundwater
basins
for
for
administration.
D
D
D
D
Section
two
subsection
three
as
a
vice
chairman,
the
groundwater
board
and
section
two
subsection
six
reduces
the
scope
of
the
proposed
actions
for
which
the
groundwater
board
would
provide
recommendation
this.
This
eliminates
the
possibility
or
or
possibly
a
possibility
of
playing
routine
and
perhaps
emergency
actions
such
as
improving
an
attempt
to
go
apart
to
replace
it
failing
well.
This
amendment
also
limits
the
time
for
which
the
groundwater
board
would
have
to
provide
recommendations,
30
days,
which
generally
aligns
with
the
state
engineers,
public
notification
requirements
in
statute.
D
And
lastly,
I
want
to
make
clear
that
the
original
provision
in
nrs
534035
that
states
it's
the
intention
of
the
legislature
that
the
state
engineer
and
the
board
be
in
agreement
whenever
possible.
But
if
there's
any
disagreement
between
the
state
engineer
and
the
board,
the
views
of
the
state
engineer
prevail.
That
remains
in
the
bill.
D
Mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
in
summary
senate
bill
149
gives
boards
of
county
commissioners
and
their
constituents.
They
represent
a
voice
in
the
management
of
water
resources.
They
rely
on
for
their
economic
future,
quality
of
life
and
natural
environment.
Again,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
send
senate
bill
149.
Let's
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
ms
mr
fontaine,
for
that
presentation.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
my
committee
members
at
this
time.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
I'll
take
my
seat
at
the
board.
I
appreciate
it
just
a
couple
questions.
Mr
fontaine
now
section
eight
sub
aid
of
the
build
talks
about
you
know
the
state
engineer
or
any
other
state
agency
shall
make
technical
information
or
whatever
data
available
to
the
extent
they
can,
if
there's
a
cost
incurred
with
that
or
in
the
functioning
of
the
groundwater
board.
I
assume
that
would
go
to
the
the
county
that
created
the
groundwater
board.
D
C
Well,
then,
all
costs
a
function
of
the
board
functioning
on
the
county
level
would
be
borne
by
the
county
as
well.
Yes,
well,
there's
no
test
result
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
Sir,
any
other
questions
at
this
time
from
the
committee
members.
D
Senator
schneider
vice
chair
scheibel
for
the
record
jeff
fontaine,
the
the
state
engineer,
has
the
authority
to
create
the
boards.
What
we're
asking
for
is
the
the
authority
be
given
to
boards
of
county
commissioners
to
create
the
boards
without
the
approval
of
the.
D
D
Vice
church
again
for
the
record,
jeff
fontaine,
this
is
a
this
is
a
recommendation
from
the
central
nevada
regional
water
authority.
Essentially
that
original
water
story
represents
nine
member
counties
and
several
counties
have
expressed
interest
in
creating
a
board.
I
can't
tell
you
today
that
who
those
are
or
whether
or
not
they
would
you
know,
do
that,
but
soon
or
whether
to
do
that
near
future.
But
the
board
recommended
this
request
go
to
the
pub
class
committee,
so
they
at
least
have
the
ability
or
authority
to
to
do
so.
D
C
It
was
a
comment
in
response,
more
than
anything
back
to
senator
scheible,
but
I
am
aware
that
at
least
one
county
did
petition
the
state
engineer
in
in
the
90s
and
was
did
not
in
fact
get
a
groundwater
board
put
in
place.
And
I
think,
as
we
look
back
hindsight's.
A
Thank
you,
senator
guccia,
senator
hansen.
G
Thanks
chair,
I
was
on
public
land,
so
I
remember
a
little
bit
about
this.
One
of
the
main
problems
and
the
reason
the
bill
came
up
is
yeah.
We
had
an
opportunity
to
have
these
boards,
but
it
has
been
exercised
by
the
state
engineer
in
decades
and
there
was
a
level
of
frustration
among
the
counties,
because
obviously
water
is
a
very
big
issue
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
reasons
they
wanted
to
have
this
delegation
of
authority,
but
kicked
back
to
them.
G
G
So
don't
throw
that
comment
out
there,
because
I
do
remember
it
vaguely
on
public
lands.
Public
lands
was
done
kind
of
like
we're
doing
right
now.
So
sometimes
it
wasn't
quite
as
clear
as
I'd
like
to
remember,
but
as
I
recall,
that
was
one
of
the
main
issues.
F
D
For
the
record,
jeff
fontaine
senator
brooks
there.
The
only
reference
in
in
in
our
bill
and
in
the
post
amendment
is
that
the
board
of
county
commissioners
will
appoint
members.
D
D
Well,
under
the
existing
under
the
existing
statute,
there
are
no
specific
requirements
either
for
appointment
to
the
board
other
than
this
under
an
existing
law.
The
governor
would
make
those
appointments
based
on
recommendations
from
a
county
indoor
cities.
D
So
you
know,
we've
got
to
believe
that
the
counties
if
they
were
to
create
this
board
would
would
appoint
people
who
had
an
interest
in
knowledge
and
understanding
of
water
law.
You
know
short
of
sure
specifying
specific
recommendations
or
qualifications
in
the
statute.
That's
you
know,
that's
what
we
did,
but
you
know
if
there's
an
interest
in
in
putting
in
qualifications.
You
know
we
could
certainly
certainly
do
that.
A
Thank
you,
mr
fontaine.
Senator
quick
at
you.
C
I'm
just
gonna
kind
of
respond
again
with
another
one
of
you
would
you
call
it
equatement,
but
you
know
I
and
again
going
back
to
the
particular
county
that
I
I
know
did
petition
the
state
engineering.
I
think
at
that
point
they
even
anticipated
sitting
as
the
groundwater
board
themselves
the
full
board
of
county
commissioners.
C
Again,
it's
just
the
ability
to
get
some
of
that
interaction
between
the
state
engineer
and
and
deal
with
those
issues
that
clearly
yeah
and
agree
with
you.
If
you
weren't,
aren't
careful
and
how
you
select
this
board,
it
can
become
very
political
and
that's
why
I
think
most
of
them
are
really
looking
at
may.
They
might
even
seat
themselves.
A
Thank
you
senator
go
get
you.
I
have
a
quick
question
and
I'll
go
to
it
looks
like
senator
hansen
has
one
as
well.
Mr
fontaine,
I'm
interested.
I
I
understand
how
the
bill
is
coming
forward,
but
I'm
interested
in
and
what
problem
it
seeks
to
address,
but
I'm
interested
in
what
triggered
this
response?
What
problem
did
you
encounter
with
the
governor
appointing
members
of
our
groundwater
board
that
this
bill
needs
to
change
now
like?
Can
you
explain
that
for
a
little
a
little
bit
more.
D
As
chair
for
the
record
jeff
fontaine,
the
the
the
process
as
it
exists
today
is,
is
really
I
think,
unefficient
and
it's
an
uncertain
process
and
and
it
doesn't
really
encourage
a
county
wanting
to
to
recommend
a
groundwater
board
if
the
only
experience
to
date
has
been
that
that
you
know
the
only
request
that's
been
made
is
not,
it
was
not
granted,
and
so
I,
I
think
that
you
know
really
all
we're
doing
here
is
just
is
asking
for
the
counties
to
have
the
ability
to
create
their
own
board,
and
the
process
as
it
stands
today
is
pretty.
D
D
Excuse
me
nomination
of
of
appointees
to
the
board
and
then
even
after
that's
all
finished,
the
governor
can
dissolve
that
at
any
time,
and
so
it's
just
not
really
a
process
that
seems
to
work
and
and
more
importantly,
it's
not
a
process
that
can
be
done
very
quickly.
A
A
Thank
you,
sir
senator
hansen.
Do
you
still
have
a
question.
G
Yeah
thanks
chair
a
couple
things
I
think
you
know
I
represent
some
counties
that
are
exceptionally
small.
Esmeralda
county
only
has
a
thousand
people
in
it,
lander
county,
a
couple
thousand
people
and
the
reason
I
bring
that
up
is
as
senator
koikichiya
brought
to
our
attention.
It's
highly
likely
that
in
some
of
these
small
counties,
especially
the
county,
the
the
county
commissions
will
act
as
their
own
ground
water
board,
but
I
think
the
real
problem
here,
mr
chair,
that
you
were
you
were
trying
to
get
at
for
the
most
part.
G
There
haven't
been
any
ground
water
boards
and
it's
in
law
it's
all
there
and
but
they
don't
exist,
they
haven't
existed
for
decades
and
so
the
process
in
law,
as
mr
fontaine
was
pointing
out,
it
hasn't
been
utilized,
like
I
said
it's
after
feed,
it's
just
it's
there,
but
it
hasn't
happened
and
so
for
the
counties.
My
little
small
counties
and
stuff
they'd
like
to
have
some
say
and
and
as
I
rigged
the
bill,
I
don't
think
there's
anything
in
there.
The
state
engineer
basically
just
can
consult
with
them.
G
They
don't
have
any
veto
power
over
the
state
engineer.
So
I
think
that
you
know
as
we're
looking
at
this.
What
we're
really
trying
to
do
is
frankly,
just
allow
some
level
of
involvement
on
the
grassroots
level
and
get
some
say
in
the
whole
process
and
allow
the
counties
to
have
some
level
of
input,
at
least
on
the
state
engineers
decisions.
G
So
you
know
from,
and
that's
as
I
recall
when
I
was
on
public
lands
listening
actually
I'm
going
to
throw
like
senator
brooks
if
you're
listening,
you
remember,
you're
on
public
lands
with
us,
you
remember
because
we
all
voted
for
it.
It
was
a
unanimous
vote,
I'm
just
kind
of
trying
to
remember
some
of
the
the
dialogue
that
made
us
all
agree
to
to
pass
it.
F
Chair,
may
I
address
that
question
from
senator
hansen
yeah.
I
it's
interesting.
I
was
having
this
conversation
earlier
today
and
there
was
a
compelling
enough
argument
made
that
I
thought
it
it.
It
should
see
the
light
of
day
and
see
what
some
building
would
look
like,
and
that,
unfortunately,
is
about
as
much
as
I
can
recall
from
that
that
public
lands
meeting.
A
Thank
you
senator
brooks,
I
believe,
do
any
so
one
quick
note.
We
do
have
adam
sullivan,
mr
sullivan,
on
the
phone
line
and
I
can
ask
bps
to
pull
him
if
we
have
questions
for
the
state
engineer.
But
do
we
have
any
questions
right
now
remaining
for
mr
jeff
fontaine.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
bps,
can
you
go
ahead
and
see
if
we
can
try
to
get
the
state
engineer
who's
on
the
line
to
unmute
himself.
B
B
A
Hello,
mr
sullivan,
I
wanted
to
pull
you
in
in
case
of
any
of
my
committee.
Members
have
any
questions
for
you
specifically
seeing
that
this
will
impact
some
of
the
responsibilities
that
are
authorized
through
your
office.
Do
you
have
any
remarks
that
you'd
like
to
make
the
members
aware
of
at
this
time.
H
Yes,
thank
you
chair
don
yates.
I
have
I
I
do
agree
with
the
general
stated
intent
of
this
bill
for
additional
coordination
and
collaboration
between
the
counties
and
the
state
engineers
office.
However,
this
is
the
first
time
I've
heard
an
explanation
of
or
any
discussion
about
this
bill
by
the
proponents.
H
In
response
to
the
discussion
that
I've
been
listening
to,
I
I
wanted
to
mention
that
we,
our
office,
has
not
been
approached
with
with
the
recommendation
to
implement
the
statute
as
it
is
as
as
a
current
currently
written
to
meet
this
overall
intent.
So
I'm
I'm
listening
now
for
the
first
time
to
find
out
what
the
what
the
reasoning
behind
this
proposed
change
is.
H
I
I
concur
with
the
previous
discussion
that
the
groundwater
boards
have
only
been
implemented
once
and
that
was
in
las
vegas
in
the
las
vegas
basin,
in
the
1960s
and
early
70s,
and
that
was
the
very
specific
circumstance
in
mind,
and
it
was
a
cooperative
effort
between
the
state
engineer
and
and
the
county
at
that
time,
and
I
can't
speak
to
the
specifics
of
the
proposal
in
eureka
county
in
the
90s
when
a
groundwater
board
was
proposed.
H
But
I
also
concur
that
that's
the
only
time
that
a
county
has
approached
the
state
engineer's
office
with
a
proposal
to
create
a
groundwater
board.
I
I
also
based
on
my
review
of
the
of
the
bill
language.
It
does
appear
to
me
that
this
would
create
new
requirements
on
the
division
of
water
resources.
A
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan.
Do
any
committee
members
have
any
questions
for
him
at
this
time.
C
You,
mr
chair,
adam:
how
are
you
this
afternoon
and
that's
I
guess
when
we
opened
the
hearing,
that's
why
I
was
questioning
you
know
that
the
counties
would
in
fact
be
responsible
for
all
the
costs
encumbered
by
the
groundwater
board
and
and
was
concerned,
as
well
as
to
how
much
you,
as
a
state,
engineer
or
state
agency,
would
have
to
participate,
and
I
tried
to
establish
on
the
record
that
in
fact
that
would
be
the
responsibility
of
of
the
county
to
cover
those
costs.
C
So
I
I
was
hoping
we
had
that
that
piece
of
the
fiscal
side
of
it
covered
and
make
sure
we
didn't
incur
a
fiscal
note.
And
again
the
statute
was
complete.
C
You
know
the
statute
as
it
exists,
and
the
board
of
county
commissioners
in
eureka
did
in
fact
petition
the
state
engineer
and
the
governor
in
in
the
90s
when
we
were
experiencing
problems
in
diamond
valley
and
it
was
denied
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
by
the
state
engineer
or
the
governor,
that
at
that
time
it
seemed
a
little
gray
whether
maybe
the
governor
was
the
one
that
said
you
know
it
just
felt
it
just
failed
to
progress.
So
with
that,
but
I
I
am
supporting
for
this
particular
process.
C
I
I
think
if
it's
the
notification
has
to
occur.
No
matter
you
have
your
your
office
has
to
notify
the
public
just
to
have
to
notify
the
board
of
county
commissioners
you're
already
doing
that
to
a
certain
extent,
and-
and
I
do
think
in
some
cases,
the
cooperation
and
the
interaction
might
be
beneficial.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
senator
gregory,
any
other
questions
or
anything
that
we'd
like
to
bring
forward
for
mr
sullivan
at
this
time.
A
F
Thank
you,
my
question's,
for
anyone
who
can
answer
it
actually,
but
it's
probably
not
mr
sullivan,
because
it's
about
the
build
language
and
so
senator
gokuchi
have
just
brought
up
the
fact
that
it's
not
the
intention
of
the
state
agency,
the
the
state
engineer,
to
have
to
pay
for
any
of
the
requests
and
does.
F
F
Is
there
anything
in
the
it
looks
as
if
section
one
is
deleted,
and
the
proposed
amendment
is,
that
is
that
the
the
piece
of
it
that
we
feel
will
remove
that
requirement
of
the
state
to
have
to
have
more
resources?
Is
that
the
the
amended
leading
section
one
in
the
amendment.
D
Senator
brooks
the
section
one
really
doesn't
relate
to
this
anymore,
because
we're
deleting
that
and
that
had
to
do
with
establishing
a
regional
delegating
groundwater
board
responsibilities
to
regional
water
authority,
which
worked
with
the
entire
the
additional
information
that
could
be
requested
by
a
groundwater.
D
So
I
don't
know
that
this
substantially
changes
that
that's
not
the
intent
to
overwhelm
the
state
engineer
with,
but
you
know
it
is
something
in
there
that
just
you
know
make
sure
that
around
the
board
requests
information.
That's
part
of
the
part
of
the
you
know,
part
of
roles
and
responsibilities
of
their
respective
partners.
Here,
the
groundwater
boards
and
the
state
engineer.
C
Quick,
yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
to
my
colleague
senator
brooks
it's
actually
section,
one
sub
eight,
and
it
says
the
state
engineer
and
all
of
the
agencies
shall,
within
the
resources
available
to
them,
furnish
such
assistance
as
requested.
So
again,
it's
only
within
whatever
resources
are
available,
but
I
I
think
it
clearly
on
the
record.
This
is
going
to
be
if
they're
going
to
get
together
and
resolve
some
of
these
issues.
C
It's
going
to
have
to
be
a
two-way
street,
the
county's
going
to
have
to
help
very
similar
to
what
happened
in
southern
nevada.
The
only
difference
with
this
the
counties
are
going
to
be
able
to
impose
it
rather
than
the
legislature,
which
is
what
they
did
in
61,
but
I
the
only
real
concern
I
have
are
your
concerns,
senator
and
how
we
keep
it
from
getting
political.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
fonte,
I
have
just
one
clarification
question
as
I'm
re-reading
this
bill,
and
I
just
want
to
get
you
to
answer
it
all.
You
can
what
happens
or
how
does
this
build
mitigate
like
the
legal
conflict,
for
instance,
if
the
groundwater
board
recommends
one
thing
on
how
to
manage
the
basin
conflicts,
and
then
the
state
engineer
completely
disagrees
like
what
is
that
process
and
how
do
you?
How
do
you
manage
that
conflict.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
again
for
the
record
of
jeff
fontaine,
so
that
that
is
part
of
the
of
the
working
relationship
between
the
groundwater
board
and
state
engineer
again.
Groundwater
boards
only
provide
recommendations,
in
fact,
under
existing
law,
the
state
engineer
can't
even
take
an
action
until
it
receives
the
written
recommendation
of
a
groundwater
board.
D
What
we're
proposing
is
something
a
little
bit
different
and
what
we're
saying
is
the
groundwater
board
has
30
days
like
most
anybody
else,
including
any
member
of
the
public,
to
prepare
a
recommendation,
and
if
they
don't
do
that
within
the
30
days,
then
they
miss
their
timeline.
But
if
there's
a
disagreement
again,
the
statutory
provision
that
currently
just
today
will
remain
in
this
in
statute.
D
If
this
bill
were
enacted
with
the
amendment
that
the
the
views
of
the
state
engineer
prevailed,
state
engineer
has
the
authority
to
either
take
or
leave
the
recommendations
of
the
of
the
groundwork
board.
This
is
this
is
an
advisory
body,
so
the
state
engineer
has
the
ultimate
story.
C
One
more
comment
and
thank
you
for
your
indulgence,
chair
and
I
I
assume
the
state
engineer
is
on-
is
still
on
the
line,
but
we
we
know
as
it
exists
today.
There's
there's
a
tremendous
amount
of
litigation,
that's
occurring
between
counties
and
the
state
engineer.
C
The
resolution
of
that
in
itself
can
save
millions
of
dollars
in
the
state.
I'm
sorry
I'm
going
to
call
it
call
it
what
it
is
right
now
when
one
county
doesn't
agree
with
where
the
state
engineer
is,
you
know
they
end
up
litigating
in
court.
I
think
we'd
be
far
better
served
having
them
sit
at
the
table
and
negotiate
and
talk
consult
with
each
other
before
they
move
forward
and
end
up
in
court.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
senator
grigorchio,
okay,
any
other
last-minute
comments
before
we
move
to
the
testimony.
A
Seeing
none.
Thank
you
again
to
mr
fontaine
and
to
mr
sullivan
for
presenting
and
senator
good
guccia.
Let's
go
ahead
and
proceed
as
a
reminder.
We
will
be
limiting
all
testifiers
to
two
minutes.
Each
testifiers
are
encouraged
to
summarize
their
positions
and
submit
more
comprehensive
testimony
in
writing.
Bps
is
there
anyone
on
the
line
wishing
to
provide
support
testimony
for
sps,
149.
B
B
I
I
H
B
J
J
W-A-D-E-P-O-U-L-S-E-N,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
chair
and
this
committee
for
allowing
us
to
provide
comments
in
support
of
sb-149,
lincoln
county
water
district
agrees
with
and
supports
the
idea
and
creation
of
local
groundwater
boards
to
help
the
state
engineer
in
understanding
local
concerns
for
groundwater
use.
We
support
the
idea
that
the
creation
of
these
boards
and
the
dissolution
of
these
boards
are
given
to
the
local
county
commissions.
J
This
bill
can
help
in
leading
the
way
of
resolving
mistrust
and
lack
of
communication
that
can
potentially
exist
between
the
state
engineer
and
small
rural
areas
and
residents
in
vast
unpopulated.
Groundwater
basins
link
county
water
district
would
like
to
suggest
an
addition
of
language
for
your
consideration.
J
In
section
two
number
4,
which
states
the
groundwater
board
shall
maintain
its
headquarters
at
the
county
seat
of
the
county.
We
would
like
to
suggest
adding
the
language
or
at
the
headquarters
of
the
county,
water,
district
or
authority
inside
the
county.
Lincoln
county
has
given
lincoln
county
water
district,
the
authority
to
act
in
its
names
concerning
water
issues
in
lincoln
county
as
the
lincoln
county
water
district
headquarters
are
in
a
different
location
than
the
county
seat
and
are
more
centrally
located
within
the
county.
J
The
groundwater
board
would
be
able
to
use
the
facilities
of
lincoln
county
water
district
for
their
convenience,
travel
and
expenses
would
be
less
by
meeting
at
the
water
district's
headquarters,
and
this
would
also
create
a
continuity
of
records
and
meetings.
As
time
goes
on
a
membership
on
the
board's
changes.
J
J
B
K
B-U-S-S-E-L-M-A-N,
I'm
the
executive
vice
president
for
nevada
farm
bureau.
We
are
speaking
today
in
support
of
sb
149
and
the
proposed
amendment.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
being
given
the
opportunity
to
upload
our
more
complete
testimony
to
the
exhibits
for
today's
hearing.
I
think
we
need
to
also
point
out
in
doing
that
that
our
policy
for
designated
basins
came
from
this
past
summer's
experience
of
having
58
different
groundwater
basins
being
proposed
for
designation.
K
The
importance
of
having
appointed
local
groundwater
board
in
place
is
essential
in
our
mind
for
establishing
the
type
of
accountability
transparency
we
believe
that
should
be
provided
for
those
who
are
being
charged
basin
fees.
We
also
see
how
there
could
be
improvements
in
understanding
how
assessment
fees
are
connected
with
the
type
of
work
being
carried
out
in
designated
basins.
K
B
L
Kyle
rowrank
k-y-l-e
r-o-e-r-I-n,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
great
basin
water
network.
We
work
with
rural
governments,
tribes,
conservationists,
farmers,
ranchers
and
others
in
order
to
keep
water
local.
We
ask
that
you
support
this
bill
and
we
also
support
the
central
nevada,
regional
water
authority's
amendment.
L
I
I
list
it
in
a
designated
basin
can
have
major
economic
or
environmental
impacts,
as
senator
goykichiya
said.
Diamond
valley
is
a
great
example
of
why
this
is
important.
Decisions
affecting
the
groundwater
in
a
county
can
have
brave
consequences,
as
diamond
valley,
exemplifies
aside
from
filing
protests
or
submitting
public
comment
at
hearings.
The
current
means
of
participation
did
not
offer
enough
avenues
for
local
governments
to
be
meaningful
participants
prior
to
things
like
litigation.
L
You
know
again,
we
come
back
to
litigation
here,
so
you
know
nobody
knows
their
communities
better
than
county
commissions.
The
spirit
of
sb
149
will
empower
conversations
about
water
supplies
by
bringing
parties
to
the
table
in
a
formal
fashion
and
enable
investigation
about
the
benefits
or
dangers
of
a
given
proposal.
We
urge
you
to
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
B
A
Thank
you.
Next,
we
will
hear
testimony
in
opposition
eps.
Is
there
anyone
online
wishing
to
provide
testimony
and
opposition
to
sb
149.
B
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
donate
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
chauncey
chaodwang
chaucy
spelt,
c-h-a-u-n-s-e-y,
chow
down
spelled
c-h-a-u-hyphen
d-u-o-n-g
and
I
am
with
the
southern
nevada
water
authority.
We
are
the
largest
water,
pure
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
provide
water
to
over
2.2
million
residents.
I
From
our
perspective,
if
we
are
going
to
change
an
entire
section
of
law,
especially
any
law
that
pertains
to
water,
thorough
discussions
should
be
had-
and
I
know
this
is
a
policy
committee,
but
I
would
also
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
mention
it
since
the
state
engineer
mentioned
it,
but
there
seems
to
be
additional
obligations
that
would
be
imposed
on
the
state
engineers
office.
At
a
time
when
budget
shortfalls
and
staffing
shortages
continue
to
contribute
to
a
back
level
of
applications
and
permits
to
be
reviewed.
I
Some
alternatives
to
this
legislation
that
could
be
considered
would
be
that
the
legislature
could
pass
legislation
to
address
specific
water
issues
in
specific
hydrographic
bases
and
counties.
This
was
done
in
lincoln,
county
nye,
county
and
clark
county.
The
legislature
could
also
pass
enabling
language
which
would
provide
the
tools
for
local
governments
to
manage
their
own
resources.
I
These
programs
have
been
immensely
successful
and
resulted
from
the
legislature
providing
us
with
tools
so
that
local
governments
could
solve
local
problems.
We
certainly
understand
mr
fontaine's
intent
and
we
are
happy
to
work
with
them
during
the
interim
to
address
this
issue.
We
just
feel
that
this
session
is
not
the
session
to
be
changing
water
law
when
so
much
else
is
happening
and
we
have
not
had
a
chance
to
thoroughly
discuss
the
issue.
I
appreciate
the
committee
for
allowing
me
to
speak
on
this
matter
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
K
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
david
dazzlich
spelled
d-a-z-l-I-c-h
and
I'm
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
vegas
chamber.
We
also
are
testifying
in
opposition
today,
as
you've
heard
from
our
friends
at
the
water
district.
This
legislation
would
represent
a
significant
change
to
water
policy,
especially
in
clark
county.
K
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
member
of
the
committee
warren
hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n
hardy
h-a-r-d-y.
Given
this
new
system,
I'm
seriously
considering
my
changing
my
phone
number
from
666,
but
anyway
I
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak.
Mr
chairman,
I
hesitate
to
sign
in
in
opposition
to
this,
but
under
the
rules
we
do
have
concerns
with
the
bill
as
drafted,
and
so
I
I
did
we're
concerned,
I'm
representing
the
moapa
valley
and
virgin
valley,
water
district
and
the
bill's
a
little
unclear
to
us
as
the
amendment
on
how
this
would
work
where
shared
basins
between
counties
exist.
E
We
we
certainly
have
that
a
shared
basin
with
lincoln
county
and
and
further
in
in
the
virgin
valley
water
district.
We
also
have
shared
basins
with
other
states
so
again
under
the
rules
signed
into
opposition,
because
we
have
concerns
and
questions
about
the
bill
as
currently
drafted,
but
look
forward
to
the
opportunity
of
working
with
the
committee,
mr
fontaine,
and
trying
to
address
specifically
those
those
questions.
We
we
don't
have
a
quarrel
with
what
is
trying
to
be
accomplished
here.
E
B
B
B
H
When
an
application
to
appropriate
the
public
waters
of
the
state
is
is
is
presented
before
the
state
of
engineering
is
published
within
within
30
days
for
a
period
of
four
weeks,
and
what
this
does
is
it
allows
anyone
to
have
the
opportunity
to
protest.
The
application
prior
to
the
state
engineer,
taking
any
action
any
applicant
or
protestant
is
afforded
the
same
standard
of
review
statewide
in
accordance
with
the
statutory
criteria,
regardless
of
who
the
applicant
is
the
amount
of
water
in
the
application
or
who
the
protestants
are.
H
B
B
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
just
have
one
last
question
and
I'll.
Let
mr
fontaine
do
any
closing
remarks.
Would
the
proponents
of
this
build
be
interested
in
working
with
the
thoughts
that
were
mentioned
in
the
opposition
and
perhaps
maybe
looking
at
alternative
legislation
that
addresses
specific
water
issues
in
specific
basins
or
counties,
or
I'd
like
to
hear
your
feedback
on
that
and
then,
if
you
have
any
closing
remarks.
D
For
the
record,
jeff
fontaine,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
opportunity,
closing
remarks
and
before
I
do
that
we're
always
interested
in
working
with
stakeholders
and
parties,
and
I
know
everyone
on
this
call
who
provided
comments
in
opposition.
So
I'm
happy
to
reach
out
back
out
to
them
to
talk
about
this.
D
D
So
it's
hard
to-
and
I
guess
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
propose
this
bill
is
because
it's
really
difficult
to
have
legislation
to
target
a
specific
basin
when
you've
got
literally
dozens
of
basins
that
are
designated
and
the
whole
point
of
this
is
to
try
to
avoid
those
designated
basins
from
becoming
critical,
which
is
the
next
step
and
difficult
one
to
to
get
out
of.
With
regard
to
my
final
comments,
I
I
guess
I
would
say
this:
is
this:
isn't
changing
the
water
law?
D
This
is
about
changing
the
procedures
in
a
process
to
to
appoint
a
committee.
That's
already
in
state
law
and
in
fact
it
was
clark
county
that
opened
the
door
of
groundwater
back
in
1961
when
it
was
created
by
the
legislature
and
that
groundwater
board
had
far
more
authority
than
what
we're
proposing
in
this
bill
and,
and
it
resulted
in
positive
outcomes
for
the
las
vegas
valley,
groundwater
basin.
D
It
was
a
really
well
run
process,
so
we're
not
looking
for
tools
to
manage
the
basins,
we're
looking
to
have
a
voice
for
rural
nevada
and
to
the
extent
that
everybody
has
a
fair
and
equal
opportunity
to
provide
comment
on
applications
for
water
rights
or
proposed
orders
or
regulations.
That's
absolutely
correct.
The
problem
is
not.
Everybody
has
the
same
opportunity,
because
we
have
areas
in
rural
nevada
where
people
don't
have
broadband
local
newspapers
aren't
as
frequent
and
those
notices
aren't
published
as
as
often
as
they
use
completely
so
yeah.
D
The
requirements
for
public
notification
are
there
and
everybody
has
the
opportunity,
and
what
this
bill
intends
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
those
folks
in
those
counties
and
folks
they
represent
those
counties,
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
input
and
have
a
voice
for
water
issues.
That
affect
their
lifetime
way
of
life.
D
As
far
as
the
shared
basin
comment
is
concerned,
the
way
the
bill
reads
now
and
and
if
it's
not
clear,
we
can
certainly
work
that
part
out,
but
the
groundwater
board
is
established
in
a
county
that
shares
a
basement
with
another
county
that
groundwater
board
would
only
have
authority
to
comment
on
portion
of
the
groundwater
basin
in
its
county.
D
The
the
idea
would
be
that
shared
basins
based
shared
between
two
or
more
counties
those
counties
could,
if
they
chose
to
create
groundwater
boards,
could
have
joint
meetings
to
manage
that
basin.
That
crosses
county
boundaries
on
a
more
holistic
basis,
but
if
not
in
that
individual
county,
they
would
only
have
say
over
the
portion
of
the
basin
in
their
county.
D
I
think
that's
really
about
it
and
again,
I'm
happy
to
reach
out
and
work
with
with
the
opponents
of
this
bill
to
see
if
we
can
come
to
some
resolution.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
C
F
C
C
Board
for
and
in
closing
appreciate
you
hearing
the
bill
for
the
public
lands
interim
committee,
but
I
do
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
senator
guccia.
At
this
time
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb
149..
The
committee
will
not
be
taking
any
action
on
that
bill
today,
but
it
may
bring
it
back
for
a
future
work
session.
Let's
go
ahead
and
move
to
public
comment.
Before
we
close
this
meeting.
I
will
now
go
ahead
and
call
for
public
comment.
Please
remember
to
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes:
each
pps
staff
is
there
anyone
willing
to
provide
public
comment.
B
B
B
A
Thank
you
so
much
members
any
comments
before
we
adjourn
okay,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
again
for
your
collaboration
and
helping
out
today
and
all
the
thoughtful
questions
you
had.
Our
next
meeting
is
thursday
march
18th
at
3
30
pm.
This
meeting
is
now.