ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

March 2, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Friday, March 2, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Ms. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Hugh Ricci, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources

Bob Crowell, Attorney for Nevada Well Owners Association

Elizabeth Pederson, League of Women Voters of Nevada

Bill Brush, Washoe Water Protection Association

John Pappageorge, Nevada Well Owners Association

Julie Wilcox, Director of Public Services, Southern Nevada Water Authority and Las Vegas Valley Water District

K. Neena Laxalt, Truckee Meadows Water District

Ray Preston, President, Nevada Well Owners Association

Robert Tretiak, Vice President, Nevada Well Owners Association

Chris Weiss, Management Services Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Michael Goff, Hydrologist, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Steve Walker, President, Walker and Associates

Edwin James, General Manager, Carson City Water Sub-conservancy District

Assembly Bill 231: Revises various provisions concerning certain wells. (BDR 48-195)

Assemblyman Harry Mortensen, Assembly District 42, stated he had with him Mr. Ray Preston, President of the Nevada Well Owners Association, and had been asked to introduce the legislation at the request of the Well Owners Association. During the Seventieth Session a ground water management system bill was brought before the legislature remediating some of the excess that had occurred in the south. That proposal put a very modest tax on each well, and assisted the Southern Nevada Water Authority in operating an artificial recharge project on behalf of well owners. The money from the basic fees was used to support a program that provided assistance to well owners who had been required by the State Engineer to hook up to municipal water prior to 1999. Mr. Mortenson declared although he was a well owner he did not belong to the Well Owners Association. During the previous summer he had to replace his pump and motor in his well. The cost for that repair was slightly under $5,000 so it was expensive to have a well. Because of the repair he found the water level in his well was much higher than when he had previously replaced the pump several years before. He attributed the change to the water management program that was in place.

Bob Crowell, attorney representing the Nevada Well Owners Association, stated the bill addressed four main issues. The population cap currently in law was removed. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.024 provided a “protectible interest” in certain wells in Nevada counties with a population fewer than 400,000, so the bill would eliminate the cap and make it applicable to all counties throughout the state. There was an advisory study committee appointed during 1999 and “protectible interest” was defined as “protection to domestic wells water supply from unreasonable adverse impacts.” Members of the advisory committee also agreed “it was not intended to limit the state engineer’s ability to regulate and manage the state’s water resources.” In A.B. 231 they were not asking for limitation of the state engineer in managing or regulating the water resources.

Also addressed in the bill was the definition of a domestic well. In Nevada law there was already a definition of “domestic use” but not “domestic well.” He pointed out there were several joint-use wells in Clark County where one domestic well served several families. The bill tried to retain the status quo and provide a “protectible interest” for not only individual well owners, but those joint-use owners as well. The number referenced in the bill was 15 users on one domestic well, but that number could be modified because with that many it could be interpreted to be a public water system under NRS 445. The bill placed a floor on the financial assistance provision. When reading through the bill, NRS 534.120 provided the state engineer could require a domestic well be capped and connected to a municipal system if the well was within 180 feet of the system and a deepening or repair of the well was required. In those cases assistance to the well owner would be available. The floor for assistance was requested to be a 50 percent minimum, leaving the ceiling of 85 percent in place. His understanding was the language was in line with the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s practice. Connection fees in Clark County were high, as a plugging of the well could cost $5,000 and the hook-up to a municipal system could be up to $20,000, so financial assistance in the transition was imperative.

There was a section in the bill, Section 5, which removed a sunset clause currently in statute. The provisions included in NRS 534.120 regarding financial assistance and the footage requirement involving the municipal assistance would “sunset” in 2005. A.B. 231 would remove the sunset law allowing it to continue operating and could only be repealed when it was no longer in the public interest. He added most of the transition from wells to municipal systems had been voluntary. There had been 44 voluntary transitions within the last year and only 9 involuntary.

Mr. Lee questioned why the county designation of 400,000 was being deleted as larger counties had a different set of rules. Mr. Crowell replied provisions of the “protectible interest” provisions currently applied only in counties under 400,000 and by removing the cap all counties would be treated equally.

Mr. Lee asked how the 1,800-gallon designation was monitored or if it was just assumed a home did not use more than that amount. Mr. Crowell felt the state engineers office could probably respond more clearly, because they were technically versed on the issue. His understanding was domestic use was limited to 1,800 gallons a day by law. If there was a non-permitted well it was not metered; however, the joint use wells were classified as a quasi-municipal well and were permitted to appropriate water. He believed those types of wells were required to be metered.

Mr. Lee questioned the insertion of the 50 percent in addressing financial assistance. Mr. Crowell thought during the Seventieth Session the legislature provided financial assistance at a flat 85 percent, but as the legislation went through the process it became “not more than 85 percent” with no floor. Theoretically it could be anywhere between zero and 85 percent, so the 50 percent was a proposal being offered insuring the assistance would be at least 50 percent.

Mr. Lee wondered if assistance in the past was offered at less than 50 percent or if it was just a question of codification. Mr. Ray Preston, President of the Nevada Well Owners Association, interjected the language requested was for a flat 85 percent and through negotiations the association had gotten up to 85 percent. However, under the well owners guidelines, it did say the percentage could be reduced down to 50 percent if there was a lack of money.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she represented many well owners in the northwest and southeast areas of the valley and asked how many permits were issued for the 15-home designation and how many acre-feet of water were involved. Mr. Preston responded on a community well the well itself was metered and each home was permitted 1,000 gallons per day over a year. He was not sure how many community wells existed throughout the valley. The information had been requested but so far he had not received any statistics.

To understand, Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. Preston if the idea behind raising the gallons to 1,800 per day was to put the usage in line with system requirements. Mr. Preston stated they were just asking for all the wells to have the same requirements so single wells and quasi-municipal wells would have the same protection. If someone drilled a well or damaged an existing well that person should be liable for the damage, the same as when other types of damage occurred.

Ms. Von Tobel indicated there were also some large holders of water permits in the northwest, such as Floyd Lamb State Park and the Silk Purse Ranch, and questioned the effect on those entities. Mr. Preston felt it would not affect those permits. He understood the state engineer looked at all the aspects of the area before allowing a large well to be installed.

Mrs. Berman questioned how many gallons a regular homeowner used in a month, as it had been suggested to raise the present usage of 1,000 gallons a month to 1,800 gallons. She wondered if people living in houses on a water system used more water than people getting their water from wells.

Mr. Robert Tretiak, Vice President of the Nevada Well Owners Association, testified he had no idea of the usage by apartment dwellers. He had checked with some friends living in a neighboring housing tract that had eight houses per acre and they used approximately 800 gallons per day. He did not know if that usage was typical, but they were retired so they were probably at home more than those who worked. He was not sure if those figures were typical as his group had tried to get information from the state engineer, but the engineer would not release any figures because of a privacy issue. There was a state water plan published approximately two years ago. The study was done by the state with the resources of U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada State Demographer. He pointed out Figure 5-7, “Domestic Self Supplied Water Use/Person (Gallons per day)” (Exhibit C). In Clark County the number was 192 gallons per day and all the counties fell in line with those figures. In Figure 5-6, “Domestic Public Supply Water Use/Person,” the Clark County figure was 213 gallons per day (Exhibit C). The difference was approximately 10 percent per person per day and took into consideration all housing, whether it was a small or large house, or apartment dwellers. He felt well owners were therefore using approximately 10 percent less water per day than the person on the public water system. On the last page of Exhibit C it indicated that in Nevada domestic wells served about 6 percent of the population but they withdrew less than 0.5 percent of the state’s water. He felt well owners were as conservative as other users and indicated the “Mission Statement” of the Nevada Well Owners Association in which their organization tried to protect well owners’ rights and educate well owners about their rights and responsibilities.

Mr. Neighbors felt if all 15 people were using the wells it would be more than 15,000 gallons per year. Mr. Tretiak replied one acre-foot was enough for a family of four per year, so the presumption was 15 houses would be 15,000 acre feet of water.

Mr. Preston remarked he had a few other issues he wished to address. One issue was the 400,000 cap that had excluded Clark County. The Las Vegas Basin was usually the place discussed, but there were a lot of aquifers in other areas of Clark County, such as Sandy Valley, and he thought those areas also needed protection. Another item, which had been adequately addressed, was the financial assistance issue because the Water Authority had done more than what had been asked of them. If a well failed and the person met a certain “means” test the Authority paid 100 percent of the hook-up fee. There were 53 homes converted from wells in 2000 and only nine were mandatory, the rest of the hook-ups were voluntary. Without the legislation passed in the 1999 session there would not have been all the voluntary conversions giving residents an affordable choice. The hook-up fees ran anywhere from $8,000 to $24,000 and with the 85 percent in place, the range was from $1,275 to $3,500 putting monetary output in an affordable range.

Mr. Mortensen stressed the money spent by the Water Authority to help people when connecting to city services was not money paid by ratepayers. It was a tax that had been paid by the well owner and went back to the well owner. Mr. Preston remarked $30 per acre-foot per year, was paid by each well owner into the “kitty.” There was also a .25 percent sales tax paid for the water recharge as the water district was recharging about 5,000 acre feet to assist the well owners.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the water engineer was aware of where all the wells in the state were located and what the impact was on water tables in other counties. Mr. Preston thought Mr. Tretiak could address those issues. His main thrust was to address the concerns of the well owners. Many of the residents of the state on wells had lived with those wells for years, and needed protection that could be planned for ahead of time.

Mr. Brown questioned if there was any sunset provision on the $30 per acre-foot tax mentioned earlier. Mr. Preston replied there was no sunset clause.

Mr. Mortensen stated there were sunset provisions on the protections. Mr. Preston said that was true but they may be paying into something that they would never realize any benefit from.

Mr. R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified he had worked in state water resources not only in Nevada but the states of Utah and Idaho for over 30 years. He wanted to correct Mr. Tretiak’s testimony, as Mr. Tretiak had never tried to obtain any information from the state engineer’s office. He had requested information from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, but lost in court. The state issued a report every year on each meter in the basin and that was public information, which Mr. Tretiak had in his possession. The sunset issue on protection was a myth, as all permitted wells in the state were afforded protection, including domestic wells. He had no problem with the removing the 400,000 cap, or the financial assistance. There was a Herculean conservation effort in the Las Vegas Valley and he felt the bill was anti-conservation in allowing the 1,000 gallon usage to be raised to 1,800 gallons. Presently, 4 homes were allowed 1,000 gallons per home or 4,000 gallons per day. If the bill passed allowing 1,800 gallons, that would be a total increase of 3,200 gallons per day for those homes.

Mr. Turnipseed added Mr. Crowell had made the statement there was no intent to inhibit the State Engineer’s ability to manage the ground water; however, if A.B. 231 passed it would do exactly that. The first wells were drilled in the Las Vegas Valley about 1908 and were all artesian wells, and there were no studies done at that time to ascertain the impact on the valley. The General Comprehensive Ground Water Law came into existence in 1939. In 1941 the first basins designated by the state as needing additional protection were the Las Vegas Basin and Pahrump Valley. In 1955 the Legislature allowed the state to issue revocable temporary permits. Even though it was recognized Las Vegas Valley was being over-drafted, it was allowed because of the Colorado River allocation. There was no system in place at the time to bring the river water into the valley. Those temporary permits amounted to over 100,000 acre-feet of water, and starting in 1972 Colorado River water was brought into the valley and the revocation of permits began.

In 2000 a moratorium was put in place on any new wells. Several permitted wells in the valley served up to 15 homes and were already protected because of prior rights. Domestic wells did not fall under protection until 1993 when Congressman Gibbons brought forth legislation, due to a drought, and many wells in southwest Reno were drying up. The blame fell on Sierra Pacific Power Company, but because of an extensive monitoring plan on municipal wells all over the state it was found each well owner was over-pumping and drying up their own wells. The larger parcels were trying to keep their pastures green with their domestic wells, causing them to dry up. At that time anyone who pumped a “half-second foot” or more was required to notify all the domestic well owners within 2,500 feet of the well. So in 1992 the state engineer closed the basin to any new revocable temporary permits except those serving small commercial units, which used less than a domestic well.

Mr. Turnipseed added the comment made that well owners used 10 percent less than households on the water system was false. It might apply in the smaller communities, but did not apply to wells in the northwest area of Las Vegas. Metered readings had been taken from homes on the Las Vegas Valley Water District system and compared with metered well usage. It was found the homes on the metered wells used significantly more water than the homes on the system. Currently, even with conservation and replenishment the recharge was between 35,000 and 50,000 acre-feet. The recharge for revocable permits and domestic wells was closer to 72,000 acre-feet per year. Those figures did not include the artificial recharge the district put in. Removing the 1,000 caps was a little problematic for the engineer, but not a large problem. The water level would continue to decline in the Las Vegas Valley as long as twice as much was being pumped out than was being put back in, except in the areas where there had been a recharge program. The recharge program was begun in 1989 and the amount of water that was recharged was tracked by the district and submitted to the state. He pointed out there was a mounding effect in the center of the valley with declining water tables around the edges. The district was given 100 percent credit for the water when they began the recharge program, but the Colorado River had no banking criteria in place. However, once the water was withdrawn from the bank the level would decline even faster in the center than around the fringes. He felt the bill was contrary to water management and conservation and would allow double the amount of pumping from the temporary wells. The whole idea in the past 40 years was to decrease the reliance on ground water and increase the usage of Colorado River water. He felt the bill covered all the items the well owners were not able to obtain in 1999 legislation or from the technical advisory committee.

Mr. Mortensen reiterated when he referred to the sunset provision what he meant was the financial protection sunset was what needed to be removed. Mr. Turnipseed stated he had no problem with removing that as it was a Southern Nevada Authority issue and the funding percentage was up to them. Mr. Mortensen added neither the taxation of the wells or the financial assistance would sunset under the bill. Mr. Turnipseed stressed every permit currently issued was subject to prior rights whether temporary or permanent.

Mr. Mortensen noted there was one essential basin under the Las Vegas Valley and eventually it would be drained so other permanent permits should not be issued. Mr. Turnipseed conceded the agency managed all ground water basins in the state on a perennial yield basis. Only a certain number of permits were allowed until the area was matched by replenishing. The policy in 1955 was to intentionally over-draft the basin knowing an allotment would have to come out of the Colorado River which would someday come into the basin, thus replacing the wells that had been issued temporary permits.

Mr. Mortensen felt the very tiny population using domestic water was being blamed whereas the industrial and golf course users were pumping more than 90 percent of the water. A small number of temporary mom and pop permits were issued in 1955 yet there were 21 additional permanent permits issued for large industrial users and golf courses. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out there were 7,200 domestic well logs in the valley and in the entire program all permanent wells had been mapped by the district but they had only found about 5,500. If those wells were pumping 1,000 acre-feet, that meant the pumping capacity was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 10,000 acre-feet. In addition to the temporary permits remaining, there were about 18,000 acre-feet of revocable permits.

Mr. Mortensen questioned if any of the industrial wells had been taken off the system. Mr. Turnipseed replied the first revocable well permits that were revoked belonged to the district itself, and were in the neighborhood of 70,000 acre-feet of water. Mr. Mortensen stated the district was then given permits that were even larger than the original permit.

Hugh Ricci, State Water Engineer, interjected the permits Mr. Mortensen was referring to were the two permits issued to the Las Vegas Valley Water District as “peaking” permits, and were only to be used as such.

Mrs. Gibbons asked how the bill would affect wells in the Truckee Meadows Water District or Washoe County. Mr. Ricci first responded to a comment from Mr. Crowell. There was a specific definition of domestic well in NRS 534.350. He found it confusing in differentiating between “domestic use” and “domestic well.” As to Mrs. Gibbons’ question about the meaning in Washoe County, he realized the bill would have an impact in other areas, even though they had been discussing only the impact in Clark County. He felt in raising the gallons that could be pumped the bill was going in the opposite direction from conservation. There would be impacts in other areas such as Humboldt and Pershing counties, where there were already critical areas.

Mr. Turnipseed related he had not responded to an earlier question and that was the impact on the larger developments such as Floyd Lamb State Park. There would be an impact because with the cap removed, if one of their wells failed or if the water level dropped significantly, requiring two wells be placed in that area, all domestic well owners within 2,500 feet would have to be notified. He added there was a possibility in that case the other domestic wells would be affected, but it could be they would have dried up anyway. There was a lot of sediment in the southwest wells so the recharged water could not be absorbed because of the tightness of the aquifers.

Mr. Brown questioned if the department had a problem with the removal of the 400,000 cap. Mr. Turnipseed responded there was no problem with that issue. Mr. Brown asked if there was a problem with the sunset on the reimbursement. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out if the reimbursement sunset was removed it was not a problem, only if it was extended to the permits issued.

Mr. Brown asked if there was a figure acceptable to the agency, referring to the number of houses on one well, if the proposed figure of 15 was unacceptable. Mr. Turnipseed indicated when the Comprehensive Ground Water Law was enacted the only use of water exempt from any kind of permitting was the domestic well for domestic use, such as domestic gardening and domestic animals. So for 60 years it had been assumed a domestic well was a single well serving a single family, with one dwelling on that well.

Mr. Brown wondered if under the water law the single well was limited to the 1,000 acre-feet. Mr. Turnipseed responded it was 1,800 gallons per day.

Mrs. Freeman questioned how the interpretation of domestic wells would affect other areas of the state. Mr. Turnipseed declared the only place temporary permits were issued was Las Vegas. It had been contemplated in the Carson Desert in Churchill County, as they had plans to either import water from Dixie Valley or establish a water treatment plant by acquiring rights out of the Carson River. The actuality of that was down the road but the permitting would not even be considered without a sunset clause in place.

Mrs. Freeman stated she could not support the bill in its present form. With all the growth in Washoe currently it changed the concept of water planning. She felt there had to be a better way to address the water concerns than A.B. 231.

Mr. Bache inquired about the various definitions of the wells, and wondered if clarification was needed. He had concerns over the specific definition of a domestic well and what it was to be used for. Mr. Turnipseed replied there was domestic use from springs as well as domestic wells. The 1,800 gallons per day and exemptions for domestic use was in the ground water law, if a person wanted to capture spring water and use it for domestic purposes a permit was still required. He did not feel there was any confusion over the determination of a domestic well or domestic usage in the current statutes. He felt the proposed bill would cause confusion in its present form.

Mr. Mortensen questioned what would ease Mr. Turnipseed’s concern with the definition of a quasi-municipal well in the bill. Mr. Turnipseed answered the definition of domestic use talked about one family usage, including only lawn and garden and domestic animals. Any well with more than one house was determined to be a quasi-municipal well and required a permit. There were municipal, industrial, livestock watering, irrigation, and mining permits issued for single-family domestic wells. No matter how many homes were on one well, anything over one home was considered to be a quasi-municipal well.

Mr. Neighbors noted he had an acre and a quarter of ground in Pahrump and believed there were provisions for a well and a septic under current law. If he wanted to put a domestic well on the property he would hire a well driller who filed an application with the state and asked if that was considered a permit. Mr. Ricci indicated the well driller filed a two-step process. The first was a drill card that had to be filed three days prior to drilling the well. Those three days gave the engineer time to determine if the water system could sustain the property. After approval by the engineer, the driller filed a well driller’s report covering the depth and the kind of casing to be used; so there was no actual permit associated in the drilling.

Mr. Neighbors asked if there was a large parcel in Pahrump with a water permit and a subdivider came in and took over the water permit, could the subdivider build houses or a golf course. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out there were permits for golf courses for quasi-municipal and municipal use and the golf course might be part of the quasi-municipal permitted use, but the total amount of usage would be quantified. Every permit that was issued was limited to a diversion rate of cubic feet per second, and the volume was based on use, whether there were two or twenty houses, including the golf course.

Mr. Neighbors added if he bought a water permit for that piece of land and there had been irrigation on ten acres for cotton, would he be able to use the permit for other purposes based on approval. Mr. Turnipseed replied under statutes if the volume needed changing, there would have to be a change application filled. The point of conversion could be changed and/or place of use and/or manner of use. If the permit was bought from the person using the land for cotton and the buyer wanted to develop a subdivision, the new usage would be considered and a permit could be issued.

Mr. Turnipseed commented under the land division laws it was recommended only 5-acre parcels be considered. The concern was not only with water quantity but also water quality. There was a nitrate problem in Pahrump, as well as Grass Valley near Winnemucca, because of the high density of septic tanks. The county was involved in setting the density of septic tanks but generally if there was an acre of property, a well and septic could be placed on that acre, but in those contaminated areas 5-acre parcels had been recommended.

Mr. Brown stated in Assembly District 22, which included the tip of the state and included many small towns, he was concerned about distribution in a town like Searchlight. He was curious as to the multiple home connections from one well and if those used the current distribution already installed. Mr. Ricci responded what happened when a permit was revoked, in addition to hooking up to the service, it required plugging of the well. Generally wells were behind houses so the hook-up would go from the street to wherever the water system to the house was located.

Mr. Brown knew there had been a lot of two-acre parcels that had been split up with four homes and just one well. He wondered if there was some mandate that each home be tied in separately to a water main at the street. Mr. Ricci explained in his experience every single residence would be separate it would not go to a central system. For health reasons the old wells had to be plugged because when they obtained water from the municipality the water from the well had to be prevented from going into the municipal system. He added Searchlight would not be affected any differently than the rest of the state.

Mr. Mortensen interjected in conferring with his colleagues he would defer to the Water Engineer and agree to strike any definition for wells. The only provisions they wished to keep, and Mr. Turnipseed did not seem to have a problem with, was the cap striking the 400,000 population and keeping the provision that continued the assistance provided to the well owners when they had to hook up to the municipal water system. He reiterated the assistance was paid for by the well owners through a tax on the wells and not by metered users’ money. Mr. Bache pointed out the bill would not be processed during the present meeting, and if there were proposed amendments from the Nevada Well Owners Association he would like to have them in writing so they could be taken up at a later date.

Mrs. Gibbons stated her concern was for Washoe County and they would like to see the July 1, 2005 date eliminated. She wondered how the original bill worked for Washoe County. Mr. Turnipseed replied since 1993 when Washoe County was proposing a new well or multiple change applications into an existing well, they had to notice domestic well owners within 2,500 feet of the proposed well. All applications had to also be noticed in the paper since 1993. He realized the noticing was a little onerous in determining if there were domestic wells within 2,500 feet.

Mr. Ricci interjected there had been two instances where the local water purveyor had done this without any requirement by legislation. One example was in southwest Reno where a municipal well was drilled. The wells on the east side of the valley had a high arsenic and boron content and were required to be moved across to the west side. It was determined the well was very close to a string of about 15 domestic wells. Washoe County subsequently passed an ordinance stating that if a well was within a certain distance of another well, they would subsidize a certain amount of the cost to either deepen the well or replace the pump. The cost decreased as the area of influence went out. Carson City had a similar situation but when requiring hook-up to the municipal system, he thought there had been no charge to the homeowner.

Ms. Von Tobel felt the permitted well owners had to be balanced with those owners having water rights such as Floyd Lamb State Park. If there was to be a notification reporting process and possible expenses, she wanted assurance the state park system became a part of the legislation, as there could be some fiscal impact to the park.

Mr. Ricci interjected he wished to make one comment about the provisions of A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Session and what was required. Part of the bill required an affidavit be filed with the county recorder indicating that the parcel was on a domestic, permitted, or temporary well and could possibly be revoked in the future. Since that date over 200 affidavits have been filed with the recorder. In addition, the Public Lands Committee sent a letter to the Division of Real Estate encouraging the Division of Real Estate and the Division of Water Resources to get together and amend the seller’s disclosure form indicating what type of water system was on a particular piece of property. The disclosure form had been designed for statewide use, so there was now a disclosure that had to be made before the property was sold.

Edwin James, General Manager for the Carson City Water Sub-conservancy District, testified their only concern was the definition of domestic wells and if that language was withdrawn they were in support of the bill.

Julie Wilcox, Director of Public Services, Southern Nevada Water Authority and Las Vegas Valley Water District, stated she wished to clear up some things. There was an interim study on water wells, the result of which was S.B. 159 of the Seventieth First Session, but the technical committee had deleted some of the portions, which were found in A.B. 231. As to the questions about domestic customer use, speaking for the Las Vegas Valley Water District the average usage was about 800 gallons, including indoor and outdoor use. Outdoor usage was highest; however, usage had declined significantly in the last ten years due to conservation programs. The issue of “no rate payer money” for ground water fees was not an accurate statement. Sixty to eighty percent of fees from ground water was paid for by constituents who happened to be on municipal water service. The largest fees were collected from municipal governments. The Las Vegas Valley Water District paid $1.2 million per year, with 230,000 customers hooked into the system. As an example, last summer the district would not have been able to supply the city of Henderson if all of the permits for water were not placed in one pot. In the summertime when demands were high, a portion of the water was supplied in the northwest by a large well. All well owners did pay, but the constituents supplied by the municipal district were also paying a fee through their water rates, as the district was also a well user. The fees were passed on in their bills.

The connection fees were designed by homebuilders and twenty-one other entities that had a stake in the Las Vegas Valley, so the fees were fairly distributed. The fees were high but the district board wanted to assure their constituents they would have at least 50 percent of the charge for hook-up paid for. The district wanted to be able to take care of anyone with a critical financial problem. The interim committee felt comfortable with the intent and integrity of the board and that they would adhere to financial guidelines. She pointed out the committee had worked with financial experts and hydrologists in planning ground water usage, and the district had been awarded the Groundwater Guardian Award for the innovative programs and policies the state engineer administered in looking at the Las Vegas Valley groundwater basin.

Ms. Wilcox thought if the bill passed as written it would throw out all the work and efforts the Las Vegas Valley Water District had implemented and would severely restrict the state engineer. Every ground water basin was different and the concern in the Las Vegas basin was those decisions made in 1955, which were the ones they were currently living with. The constituents of the water district and Southern Nevada Water Authority owned the water rights in the valley and paid for upkeep on the wells, the recharge program, banking of water, as well as the permanent recharge program for the well users. She told the committee by changing the ground rules it would have a substantial impact on all users.

Mr. Mortensen indicated that the water district had lost track of his well and under the water management program they had found his well again. He also supplied them with the location of two abandoned wells. He felt it was a good program, and he understood the district tried to add 5,000 acre-feet additionally each year. If all went well he wondered if there would then be a raise in the valley of 5,000 acre-feet per year. Ms. Wilcox replied the program indicated an increase of up to 5,000 and that was based on the availability of water through the purveyors and what the usage was for each. That water going back into the account was never withdrawn; it was a permanent replenishment.

Mr. Mortensen questioned why the district had not built a pipeline in the northwest instead of pumping it from Lake Mead and then withdrawing it during peak summer usage. Ms. Wilcox stated the water district was in the process of building systems as developments were approved. The individual purveyor systems continued to expand, but the valley resource picture put all the water acquired by the basin in one pot, including ground water. It was cost-prohibitive to do it all at one time.

Mr. Mortensen felt the bill needed reworking but the sunset provision and removal of the 400,000-population cap should be left in the bill. Ms. Wilcox added she had failed to mention the advisory committee wanted to remove all mention of noticing in the bill because of the fiscal impact on the county, North Las Vegas, state parks, and others.

Elizabeth Pedersen, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified they were in opposition to the bill. Their main concern was the ambiguity of the language. The bill would allow a developer to build 14 houses and link to one well, which may not have enough water to support that subdivision on a long term basis. In a case where the well failed, the burden would be placed on the county to find water for that subdivision. There was no provision in the bill to require testing for water quality in the domestic wells. In places such as Fallon where there had been links of contaminated ground water to leukemia or other instances of cancer there was concern over the quality of the wells.

Mr. Mortensen interjected the concern about 15 homes on one well would disappear with the amendment, as the bill changed nothing regarding testing. All the laws requiring testing remained on the books and were not dealt with in the bill.

Neena Laxalt, representing the newly formed Truckee Meadows Water Authority, felt the concerns of the group had been fully addressed by both the definition of domestic water wells and the noticing portion of the bill.

Steve Walker, President, Walker and Associates, stated he represented Washoe County on domestic well issues. On the notification section of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.360, section 3, when he appeared before Senate Natural Resources on S.B. 159 he made a recommendation to keep the 2,500-foot noticing provision because the approval was not given arbitrarily. It had to be determined how the water ran through the aquifer, how much water was available, and the geological makeup of the area. When Washoe County did their water planning they included their domestic wells in each of their hydrographic basins. The demand put on those basins was put at 1,000 gallons per day, as many wells could not support 1,800 gallons per day.

Mr. Mortensen pointed out that although Mr. Walker had not been privy to earlier testimony, they were taking out the domestic well language. The Senate Bill attempted to change the existing state laws regarding notification. A.B. 231 changed nothing in the law. If this bill were to pass, notification would remain the same.

Mr. Walker said the recommendation considered in the Senate kept the notification language in and also requested a municipality be able to use another mechanism other than 2,500 acre foot notification.

Mr. Mortensen requested a meeting with all the people involved so a compromise could be worked out regarding the amendments.

Bill Brush, Washoe Water Protection Association, stated he lived in the county and the association worked with then Assemblyman Jim Gibbons on the original legislation regarding wells. He wanted to go on record as supporting the bill as presently amended, both striking the 400,000 population exemption cap and removal of the sunset clause. There had been comments regarding conservation and, speaking for himself as he was on a well, raising the usage to 1,800 gallons would not prompt him to use any more than he presently did. From his own observation he used about 400 to 500 gallons a day, which was nowhere near the 1,800 that would be allowed.

Robert Tretiak, Vice President of Nevada Well Owners Association, pointed out the mission statement in the handout (Exhibit C). In the coming week they would be starting discussions with the Southern Nevada Water Authority because the well owners realized there was a finite source of water in the aquifer. He apprised the committee that his wife had been born in Las Vegas when the population was 40,000. Presently the population was at 1.3 million, so things had to change to reflect growth. He related that his group had indeed tried to obtain information from the water engineer’s office. One piece of information they had tried to obtain was how much water was in the valley, and how much was actually being used, per person, by those on the water system in comparable houses. Most users on wells were situated on at least one-half acre, some were larger, but landscaping was done mainly around the immediate perimeter of the residence. The only comparisons he had seen were presented in a report issued last summer by the state engineer. It stated people in a tract containing half-acre parcels that were on a public water system were using about 1,300 acre-feet of water per day. There were discrepancies, as the weighted average of 160 homes spread across the development was really 1,460 acre-feet. The 1,800 acre-feet was clearly too low if neighbors on smaller lots were using 1,500 gallons. If residents on acre lots were allocated 1,800 acre-feet, he did not understand the reasoning that one-half acre parcels should only be allocated 1,000.

He added he was on a multi-residential well with two other users and their usage was running under 1,000 year after year. People on the public water system were indeed using more than 1,000 gallons so he felt there was a water conservation problem. They were certainly concerned about public health and he tested his well periodically, so their only intent was to retain the status quo of the multi-residential users. Many of the persons in their group had more than one house on a well for economic purposes. On page three of the handout (Exhibit C) there was a letter from Congressman Gibbons in which he states that he specifically intended to protect the rights of private residential homeowners on wells. It also protected those with a small number of additional residences on one well. Their aim was to protect all well owners whether individual or multi-residential.

Statistically, approximately 30,000 people had moved to the area in the last ten years who bought property with a well in place thinking they would have a stable situation. Now there was the problem of being forced to shut down their well even if it had not failed, and he believed those people should be offered the same protection as those on single-user wells. They were looking for a simple due process for all residential well owners and the assurance that there would have to be a valid reason for the state engineer to shut a well down. In the previous legislation his group thought “just cause” was too vague, and the Senate, in conference with the state engineer, codified what was then the state engineer’s policy. As far as the sunset provision for residential wells, that eliminated the due process provision of the original intent, so they were against removing it from the bill.

Mr. Lee questioned the 1,800 gallons of water provision, as he had some conservation issues as well as quality of life. As he understood there were more horses in the Las Vegas area than the rest of the state. He wondered how much water a horse consumed in one day. Mr. Ricci replied when a permit was issued for stock watering it was allocated at 20 gallons per day per head.

Mr. Mortensen stated many people thought water was free to the well owner and that was a misconception. A well owner periodically had to replace a pump for at least $5,000, paid taxes on the well, and paid for the electricity to lift the water several hundred feet to the residence. It was not cheap. He had never had a pump go out electrically; instead, the blades eroded due to silt buildup in the well so they pumped inefficiently and had to be replaced. People who lived with wells were very conscious of the cost of operating a well and consciously made an effort to conserve. He felt it was accurate to say anyone pumping water from the ground, including the Water Authority, financed the protection afforded those who were forced to connect to the public system.

Ms. Von Tobel noted a lot of issues would be clarified once there was an amendment submitted by the maker of the bill. However, she was a little confused by what the Water Authority wanted retained in the bill. She asked the water district to clarify what a bill would be for someone using 1,800 gallons of water per day versus what the cost of maintaining a residential well would be. Ms. Wilcox replied most of the water used in Las Vegas went to landscaping. It was hard to identify a typical customer, but an average bill would probably be between $26 and $34 dollars per month.

Ms. Von Tobel wondered if that was for 1,800 gallons per day. Ms. Wilcox responded the average was around 600 to maybe 800 gallons per day and she could get the exact figures. Ms. Von Tobel added she would appreciate a breakdown of what the outlay for a pump user was during a year.

Mr. Tretiak interjected he had bills from some neighbors and it fluctuated throughout the year because more water was used in the summertime. There were also various thresholds. For someone using 55,000 gallons in a month, which was about 1,800 gallons per day, the bill was $88.87. For someone using 32,000 the bill was $47, because they were below the threshold, while someone using 98,000 gallons, the bill was $174.00. So the several tiers did not rise arithmetically.

Ms. Wilcox explained the tiers were created to hit the pocketbook, as that was the best conservation program around. She pointed out there was a fourth tier for very large water users such as casinos and golf courses.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. Tretiak if he had a metered well. Mr. Tretiak replied any user with multi-residential permits was required to have a usage meter, which the state engineer read twice a year.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if he had ever gone over his allotted usage. Mr. Tretiak indicated his personal usage was well under 1,000 gallons per day, but he knew other people who used closer to the 1,300 gallons per day.

Ms. Von Tobel wondered if the 1,800-gallon reference were struck from the bill would he have a problem. Mr. Tretiak said the 1,800 gallons and the number of the houses was never intended to give carte blanche for people to add on huge numbers of houses to one well. It was meant to maintain and protect the status quo of those users already on wells. His understanding was the state engineer permitted those who wanted to go over one house per well. Many members would be harmed simply because they were using the same amount of water as those on the water system which amounted to 1,000 gallons per day.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: