Senate Bill No. 108–Committee on Natural Resources

(On Behalf of Legislative Committee on Public Lands)

February 4, 1999

____________

Referred to Committee on Natural Resources

 

SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing applications for use of water. (BDR 48-922)

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.

Effect on the State or on Industrial Insurance: No.

~

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted. Green numbers along left margin indicate location on the printed bill (e.g., 5-15 indicates page 5, line 15).

 

AN ACT relating to water; revising the circumstances under which the state engineer may postpone action on an application to use water or reject an application for an interbasin transfer of ground water; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1-1 Section 1. NRS 533.370 is hereby amended to read as follows:

1-2 533.370 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS

1-3 533.345, 533.371, 533.372 and 533.503 , [and this section,] the state

1-4 engineer shall approve an application submitted in proper form which

1-5 contemplates the application of water to beneficial use if:

1-6 (a) The application is accompanied by the prescribed fees;

1-7 (b) The proposed use or change, if within an irrigation district, does not

1-8 adversely affect the cost of water for other holders of water rights in the

1-9 district or lessen the [district’s] efficiency of the district in its delivery or

1-10 use of water; and

1-11 (c) The applicant provides proof satisfactory to the state engineer of:

1-12 (1) His intention in good faith to construct any work necessary to

1-13 apply the water to the intended beneficial use with reasonable diligence;

1-14 and

1-15 (2) His financial ability and reasonable expectation actually to

1-16 construct the work and apply the water to the intended beneficial use with

1-17 reasonable diligence.

2-1 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection [5,] 6, the state engineer

2-2 shall [either] approve or reject each application within 1 year after the final

2-3 date for filing a protest. However:

2-4 (a) Action [can] may be postponed by the state engineer upon written

2-5 authorization to do so by the applicant or, [in case of a protested

2-6 application, by both] if an application is protested, by the protestant and

2-7 the applicant; and

2-8 (b) In areas where studies of water supplies [are being made] have been

2-9 determined to be necessary by the state engineer pursuant to NRS

2-10 533.368 or where court actions are pending, the state engineer may

2-11 withhold action until it is determined there is unappropriated water or the

2-12 court action becomes final.

2-13 3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection [5,] 6, where there is no

2-14 unappropriated water in the proposed source of supply, or where its

2-15 proposed use or change conflicts with existing rights, or threatens to prove

2-16 detrimental to the public interest, the state engineer shall reject the

2-17 application and refuse to issue the requested permit. [Where] If a previous

2-18 application for a similar use of water within the same basin has been

2-19 rejected on [these] those grounds, the new application may be denied

2-20 without publication.

2-21 4. In determining whether an application for an interbasin transfer

2-22 of ground water must be rejected pursuant to this section, the state

2-23 engineer shall consider:

2-24 (a) Whether the applicant has justified the need to import the water

2-25 from another basin;

2-26 (b) If the state engineer determines that a plan for conservation of

2-27 water is advisable for the basin into which the water is to be imported,

2-28 whether the applicant has demonstrated that such a plan has been

2-29 adopted and is being effectively carried out;

2-30 (c) Whether the proposed action is environmentally sound as it relates

2-31 to the basin from which the water is exported;

2-32 (d) Whether the proposed action is an appropriate long-term use

2-33 which will not unduly limit the future growth and development in the

2-34 basin from which the water is exported; and

2-35 (e) Any other factor the state engineer determines to be relevant.

2-36 5. If a hearing is held regarding an application, the decision of the state

2-37 engineer must be in writing and include findings of fact, conclusions of law

2-38 and a statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings of fact. The

2-39 written decision may take the form of a transcription of an oral ruling. The

2-40 rejection or approval of an application must be endorsed on a copy of the

2-41 original application, and a record made of the endorsement in the records

2-42 of the state engineer. The copy of the application so endorsed must be

2-43 returned to the applicant. Except as otherwise provided in subsection [6,] 7,

3-1 if the application is approved, the applicant may, on receipt thereof,

3-2 proceed with the construction of the necessary works and take all steps

3-3 required to apply the water to beneficial use and to perfect the proposed

3-4 appropriation. If the application is rejected the applicant may take no steps

3-5 toward the prosecution of the proposed work or the diversion and use of the

3-6 public water [so long as] while the rejection continues in force.

3-7 [5.] 6. The provisions of subsections 1 [, 2 and 3] to 4, inclusive, do

3-8 not apply to an application for an environmental permit.

3-9 [6.] 7. The provisions of subsection [4] 5 do not authorize the

3-10 recipient of an approved application to use any state land administered by

3-11 the division of state lands of the state department of conservation and

3-12 natural resources without the appropriate authorization for [such a] that use

3-13 from the state land registrar.

3-14 8. As used in this section, "interbasin transfer of ground water"

3-15 means a transfer of ground water for which the proposed point of

3-16 diversion is in a different basin than the proposed place of beneficial use.

~