MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 27, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:20 a.m. Tuesday, April 27, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Pete Ernaut

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Jim Gibbons, District 25.

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Michael McStroul, Silver Lake Property Owner's Association; Mr. Richard Cascio, Lemmon Valley Property Owner; Ms. Audrey Cawthorne, Washoe Water Protection Association; Mr. Gene Evans, Washoe Water Protection Association; Ms. Delna Campbell, Verdi Property Owner; Ms. Katherine Jerome, Palomino Valley Homeowner; Ms. Helen Weintritt, Palomino Valley Homeowner; Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Mr. Ralph Elvik, Alpine View Homeowners Association Water Committee; Mr. John Howe, Resident of Silver Knolls; Mr. Tom Davis, North Valley Concerned Citizens; Mr. Ned Eyre, representing himself; Mr. Phil Lehrman, Alpine View Property Owner; Mr. Barry Bouchard, President, Lemmon Valley Association; Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer; Mr. Ross de Lipkau, Las Vegas Valley Water District; Mr. Jim Aho, City of Yerington; Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 461 - Provides for protection of domestic wells from impairment.

 

Assemblyman Jim Gibbons, District 25, testified AB 461 was legislation which was prompted over a number of years because of problems observed between private well owners in Washoe County and the encroachment of development and the ever-pressing need for additional water resources by water purveyors, including utility companies.  Mr. Gibbons pointed out it had been a long-standing problem which many private well owners felt had been long ignored in the state.  He thought AB 461 attempted to address some of those concerns and issues with regard to the private well owners.  Mr. Gibbons indicated AB 461 essentially did four things; 1) It recognized domestic wells as a beneficial use and appurtenance to property rights and yielded a protectable interest; 2) It required written notice to the surrounding property or well owners to a distance of 2,500 feet whenever an application for a commercial well was submitted to the State Engineer; 3) It provided mitigation requirements for adverse damages resulting from the commercial well operation in the area; and 4) It addressed the limitation to Washoe County with regard to requiring an inventory and register being kept of domestic wells.

 

Mr. Gibbons reviewed the changes to AB 461.  He distributed a list of expenses incurred by individual property owners when a commercial well was drilled and began pumping (Exhibit C).

 

Mr. Gibbons stated Nevada was one of the largest growing states in the nation and as the growth impacted the urban areas, well owners who had been in the area for 15 to 45 years felt they had been abandoned by the government because domestic wells were not recognized by the State Engineer as a vested property right and could be taken away whenever another source became available to them.

 

Mr. Gibbons felt homeowners had property rights protection in all aspects except for domestic wells.  He said, "The current statutory scheme for protection of domestic wells is beneficial use and even under the current statutory scheme beneficial use is the highest use that is allowed for appropriated water and, therefore, I think domestic wells should be allowed to have that same status and the same standing when considered against all other uses, including commercial uses which might be municipal, agricultural etc.  It is my opinion that without this bill the current statutes are unconscionable inasmuch as they fail to recognize individual property owners' rights."

 

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Gibbons to give an example of a commercial well.

 

Mr. Gibbons replied a commercial well would be anywhere from 12 to 18 inches or larger in diameter with a high horsepower motor.  It would sometimes go to 1,500 feet in depth, and pump 800 gallons a minute which would equate to 1.1 million gallons a day compared to the 1,800 gallon limit on a domestic well.  Mr. Gibbons stated the commercial wells could significantly draw down the upper surface water table.

 

Mr. Michael McStroul, Silver Lake Property Owner's Association, testified in favor of AB 461 (Exhibit D).  He added if AB 461 was not passed he felt the committee would be condoning the continued overdraft of water resources.

 

Mr. Richard Cascio, Lemmon Valley Property Owner, testified he depended on his well in Lemmon Valley, and if the county decided to do commercial drilling in the area it would affect his well.

 

Chairman Garner asked if the county had drilled in the area in the past.

 

Mr. Cascio replied he was not sure if the county had drilled or not, there had been drilling in the area but he did not know for what purpose.

 

Chairman Garner questioned if there had been any experience in the area where people had lost water from their wells.

 

Mr. Cascio replied they had.

 

Chairman Garner inquired if Mr. Cascio knew if the water loss had come about as the result of a commercial well being drilled or if it was from the drought.

 

Mr. Cascio stated he was not sure.

 

Ms. Audrey Cawthorne, Washoe Water Protection Association, indicated her support for AB 461, testifying she lived near where a commercial well was scheduled to be drilled but the Association had been able to discourage it.  She introduced Mr. Gene Evans.

 

Mr. Gene Evans, Washoe Water Protection Association, testified in favor of AB 461 (Exhibit E).  He stressed the bill would correct quite a few inequities in the water law insofar as domestic well owners were concerned, most of whom were in Washoe County.  Mr. Evans pointed out water was Nevada's most precious resource.

 

Mr. Evans felt the most important thing in water law where the domestic well owners were concerned was contained in Section 1, subsection 2.  He said over the years the water laws primarily addressed water rights, and state engineers over the years had looked upon domestic water wells not as a "water right," but as a "right to water." 

 

Mr. Evans explained every well owner in the state paid a property tax on their well, in Washoe County of the more than 7,000 wells, a $3,000 add-on to the property tax was administered by the assessor.  He stated if a property owner did not have a well, that assessment would not apply.

 

Ms. Delna Campbell, Verdi Property Owner, testified she had a domestic well and became quite concerned whenever she saw a well-drilling rig in the area.  She indicated she would be in very serious financial condition if her water source was jeopardized to the extent she would have to redrill or seek other water sources.  Ms. Campbell felt AB 461 would give her and other property owners a sense of well-being and recourse.

 

Ms. Katherine Jerome, Palomino Valley Homeowner, testified she had been a property owner close to agricultural wells since 1978.  She stated one well first went temporarily dry during the 1981 watering season and permanently dry during the 1982 watering season, at which time she had to have a second well drilled for $5,000.  Ms. Jerome said Washoe County had been doing water studies and last year found her static water level had dropped 23 feet from the time it was drilled in 1982, and during the course of watering season had dropped an additional 13 feet.  Ms. Jerome remarked there had been a new commercial well drilled within the past week one mile from her property which had started pumping the previous day.  Ms. Jerome stressed the evidence showed the draw down of her well had started before the drought.

 

Ms. Helen Weintritt, Palomino Valley Homeowner, testified when she had purchased her property it was with full knowledge it had a well and was part of the reason she had purchased it.  She said it was obvious to her the only way to be safeguarded from the problems the west had with water was to own her own well.  Ms. Weintritt stated she was in an area with 40-acre minimum lots and it would never be feasible for a water system to be installed in the area, so those wells needed to be protected because if the wells went dry, the value of the property would be nonexistent.

 

Mrs. de Braga questioned if any of the 40-acre plots were irrigated with domestic wells or planted to pasture.

 

Ms. Weintritt replied her property was native brush and not irrigated and of the approximately 300 residents only about 50 had pastures which were irrigated by certificated water righted wells.

 

Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, testified for the record the Sierra Club was in favor of AB 461 and was particularly pleased to see "notice" as one of the requirements.  He remarked he felt the citizens of the state should not have to read the legal notices every day to be protected from encroachment of a right to access to water.  Mr. Johnson said, "There has been harm in areas of Washoe County that encroachment of urban development within the county where there is rural lifestyles, permits for development have been approved dependent upon improvement districts that will cause significant draw down in the water table from commercial wells without due consideration of the impacts upon the individual well owners."

 

Mrs. Lambert asked if a property owner could tell if an application would be made in their neighborhood from the notices in the newspapers.

 

Mr. Johnson replied he thought it would be extremely difficult for a person reading those to be aware it would affect his property.

 

Mr. Ralph Elvik, Alpine View Homeowners Association Water Committee, testified in favor of AB 461 as there were approximately 85 homes in his area, and a water study since 1987 showed them to be at the upper limits of regeneration.  He stated if there were any commercial wells drilled in the area it would lower their water table.  Mr. Elvik pointed out there was increased development in his area and if commercial drilling was allowed their wells would soon run dry.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked if all 85 homes in his area used wells.  Mr. Elvik indicated they did as there was no other water available, and there was no pasturing or other types of watering used.

 

Mr. John Howe, Resident of Silver Knolls, testified in favor of AB 461 and indicated the residences in his area ranged from one to ten acre parcels, with 400 homes on domestic wells.  Mr. Howe felt AB 461 would afford protection to people who would not be able to afford new wells if a drawdown occurred due to commercial pumping.

 

Mr. Tom Davis, North Valley Concerned Citizens, testified in favor of AB 461 (Exhibit F).

 

Mr. Ned Eyre, representing himself, testified he was a rancher in strong support for AB 461.

 

Mr. Phil Lehrman, Alpine View Property Owner, asked committee to amend page 3, line 33 to include those counties under 100,000 population and gave his wholehearted support of AB 461.

 

Mrs. Lambert clarified AB 461 applied to the entire state except for Section 5 and asked if the inventory in Douglas county would be beneficial or would the protections in the rest of the bill be sufficient.

 

Mr. Lehrman replied he would defer that to committee discretion.

 

Mrs. Augustine questioned why Clark County had been excluded regarding inventory of domestic wells.

 

Mr. Gibbons replied the purpose of AB 461 was to avoid a failure to take recognition of domestic wells.  He explained Clark County had suffered great impact over a period of years due to over-drafting because of the failure to recognize everyone was tapping into the aquifers, including domestic wells.  Mr. Gibbons said Clark County was excluded from the inventory process simply to avoid the fiscal and financial impact it would create for the State Engineer.  He said Washoe County already had records of domestic wells which dated from October of 1978.

 

Further discussion ensued.

 

Mr. Barry Bouchard, President, Lemmon Valley Association, indicated while he personally was not on a domestic well, AB 461 would benefit about 80 percent of his membership.  He reiterated past testimony.

 

Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Bouchard discussed conjunctive use of water.

 

Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, testified AB 461 had some good points but was somewhat unworkable as written.  He stated he had no problem with the amendment in Section 1, subsection 2, and the notification by a potential applicant of all the property owners within 2,500 feet would pose no burden to his office although it would create a burden for the applicants.  Mr. Turnipseed indicated he was unaware of how the 2,500 foot distance had been arrived at, as the cone of depression in a well drilled in a fairly poor aquifer would reach out much less than 2,500 feet; however, a well drilled in a highly productive aquifer would reach out as much as a mile, depending on the amount of water pumped.  Mr. Turnipseed objected to lines 24-25 on page 2 as it would cause him to have to hear all protested applications, and if a new application was filed in Lemmon Valley, Spanish Springs Valley, Golden Valley, Las Vegas Valley, Carson City, or Truckee Meadows, he would deny them up front without a hearing as no permits had been approved in those valleys for many years.

 

Mr. Turnipseed indicated he had approved change applications and those were noticed in the paper no matter what size well was involved, and everything but a domestic well required a permit.

 

Speaking of Exhibit C, Mr. Turnipseed said he could not tell if those wells went dry because of the drought or pumping of a commercial, municipal or industrial well.  He pointed out a lot of Californians moved into the state who had never been on a well before and tended to drill a well, hit the water table, go five more feet and quit. 

 

Mr. Turnipseed commented all well logs had been filed in the State Engineer's office since 1978 as well as in Washoe County; however, they were not platted in a geographic sense and they did not have very good log data for domestic wells drilled prior to 1970.  He stressed if he was to keep a register of all the wells in Washoe County, he would need two or three more people just to get the process started.  He did not know how many domestic wells were actually in Washoe County but knew there were several thousand.

 

Chairman Garner asked if Mr. Turnipseed could provide him with estimates of the fiscal impact for keeping the register.

 

Mr. Turnipseed indicated he could do that.  He continued, saying, "The section of Chapter 534 that would allow me to force somebody to get off a well to hook onto a municipal water system allows that to happen if the cost of hookup is less than $200, and there are no municipal water systems in the state that have a hookup fee that is less than $200, so that law is fairly ineffective, much to the joy of many of these people because they don't want to get onto a municipal system anyway."

 

Mr. McGaughey queried if there was any criteria which would dictate the depth of a well beyond the surface water.

 

Mr. Turnipseed answered in the past 2-3 years they had been instructing the counties through the building permit process to advise people to go at least 50-100 feet beyond the water table, but other than that, they had very little control over the depth of domestic wells.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked if it should be an area to be addressed to impose some sort of criteria upon well drillers and well owners.

 

Mr. Turnipseed replied it would be different in every valley but a minimum of 50 feet would be judicious.

 

Mr. McGaughey inquired if the State Engineer's office would have the ability to put regulations of that sort together.

 

Mr. Turnipseed indicated he had greater leverage with the well drillers, and he could possibly put some advisory language in the well driller's rules.

 

Further discussion ensued between Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Turnipseed regarding Exhibit C.

 

Mr. McGaughey offered a possible solution to the problem of funding positions to keep a register of wells, he felt a small fee on the domestic well owners might be enough to pay for those positions and asked those present if they would comment to committee at a later date on how they felt about it.

 

Extensive discussion ensued between Mr. Turnipseed and committee members.

 

Mr. Turnipseed pointed out the language on line 28, Section 6, subsection 5 should be changed as it was not possible to widen a well, it could be either deepened or replaced, but not widened.  He also had a problem with the definition of a commercial well as stated in Section 6, subsection 8, as a commercial well was defined by orders, rulings and court decisions, and he suggested if the language was to stay in the bill it should include the definition of commercial, industrial and municipal wells as they each had a separate definition.

 

Mr. Ross de Lipkau, Las Vegas Valley Water District, testified in opposition to AB 461.  He pointed out NRS 534.180 exempted domestic wells from the water law and AB 461 would bring, in part, domestic wells into the water law.  He felt the 2,500 feet notification could prove to be a disaster to the applicant, as the word "applicant" meant all water right applicants, it did not mean commercial wells as defined on the last page of the bill.  Mr. de Lipkau said in a populated area such as near the airport in Carson City, there could be thousands of homeowners who would need notification.

 

Mr. de Lipkau reiterated several points made by Mr. Turnipseed.

 

Discussion ensued between committee members, Mr. Turnipseed and Mr. de Lipkau.

 

Mr. Jim Aho, City of Yerington, gave brief testimony in opposition to AB 461 (Exhibit G).

 

Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, raised a concern regarding the fiscal impact AB 461 could have and stated it was listed as having no fiscal impact on local governments and wanted to go on record as saying, "This is kind of one of the middle of the road issues for us, we are not against it, we have questions of it, the Nevada League of Cities supports the important domestic well issues and we have served on interim legislative committees supporting water and water rights in Nevada.  We do question as has been asked already, how the overworked and understaffed water engineering department engineer's office can manage such a bill as this if this legislation is aimed at only one area.  Hopefully, there is some manner within the water engineer's office that it could be explored and solved without new legislation.  If new legislation is enacted, we feel it should cover the entire state and not one area."  Mr. Grady discussed possible amendments as suggested by Mr. McGaughey on the depth of domestic wells, would they require the same testing as other wells, and could the number of domestic wells have an adverse effect on the municipal, commercial or agricultural wells.

 

Chairman Garner concluded there was a significant problem on domestic wells and the rights of well owners and stated the committee would continue to address the problems.  He indicated he would establish a subcommittee to work on AB 461, but would not appoint a subcommittee until a later date.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 461.

 

Chairman Garner requested committee introduction on the following bill draft request:

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1915 - Allows state public works board, upon request of board of trustees of school district, to waive requirements of submitting certain plans for approval that relate to school buildings.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-1915.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

April 27, 1993

Page: 1