MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY SUBCommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

April 25, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 25, 2001.  Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs.  Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mr.    David Humke

Mr.    John Marvel

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.    Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr.    Douglas Bache

Mr.    David Brown

Mr.    John Carpenter

Mr.    Jerry Claborn None

Mr.    John J. Lee

Mr.    Harry Mortenson

Mr.    Roy Neighbors

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Bob Crowell, Nevada Well Owners’ Association

Julie Wilcox, Southern Nevada Water Authority

 

With three members present, the meeting convened as a subcommittee. The hearing on S.B. 159 was opened.

 

Senate Bill 159:  Makes various changes concerning protectible interests in domestic water wells and appropriation of ground water. (BDR 48-309)

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a memorandum with bill summaries (Exhibit C) and commenced testimony on S.B. 159. During the interim, there had been a legislative study on municipal and domestic water wells, and S.B. 159 was one of the recommendations from that study. Ms. Eissmann explained the study had been authorized by the 1999 Legislature with the passage of A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Session. It was undertaken by a Subcommittee on Public Lands.

 

In addition to authorizing the study, A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Session directed Senator Rhoads to appoint a technical advisory committee of twelve, comprised of water well owners, water purveyors, holders of water rights, and rate payers. That advisory committee met monthly for six months, and all meetings were open to the public. Identification of water well issues and recommendations to address those problems were the principal tasks of the committee.

 

Ms. Eissmann stated 31 issues had been raised, and 12 had been selected as action items for additional consideration. From that process, five specific recommendations were drafted, including three legislative matters (i.e., S.B. 159, S.B. 161, and S.C.R. 5).

 

Ms. Eissmann directed the subcommittee to Exhibit C and summarized the intent of S.B. 159.   The bill would expand the applicability of the law relating to protectible interests in domestic water wells. Under current statute, well owners had a protectible interest in all of Nevada’s counties, except for those with populations over 400,000 residents.  The proposed legislation would extend that protectibility to all counties, regardless of population.

 

Although the term “protectible interest” was not defined in statute, Ms. Eissmann explained there were references to it in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.024 and Section 1 of S.B. 159. In way of background information, a person generally did not have to obtain a permit to drill a domestic well to serve a single-family residence. As such, the well owner did not receive a water right in the traditional sense. The term “protectible interest” was coined to describe those domestic wells that required protection from a new, larger well that might infringe on their water supply. That action was added to statute in 1993 with the passage of S.B. 19 of the Sixty-Seventh Session.

 

In summary, Ms. Eissmann stated the advisory committee had determined that well owners in Clark County needed to be protected, as did the well owners in the rest of Nevada. Because the definition was vague, the advisory committee had devoted considerable time to discussing the phrase “protectible interests” as it pertained to the State Engineer’s ability to manage the state’s water resources. The definition drafted by the technical advisory committee was  “protection of the domestic well water supply from unreasonable adverse impacts such as the lowering of the water table by larger production wells.” It was not intended to limit the State Engineer’s ability to regulate and manage the state’s water resources.

 

The bill, S.B. 159, had been amended in the Senate to address funding available to well owners in Las Vegas who were required to abandon their wells and connect to municipal water. There were three conditions currently in statute under which the State Engineer was authorized to revoke a temporary permit for a domestic well and require that person to connect to a municipal supply. The Senate had amended the language on financial assistance to read “from 50 percent to no more than 85 percent of connection costs.”

 

Bob Crowell, representing the Nevada Well Owners Association, resumed testimony and stated his concurrence with the synopsis of S.B. 159. He added the bill reflected a compromise, and he urged the passage of the bill.

 

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the process of a well owner relinquishing his well and the compensation he would receive. Mr. Crowell replied it was covered in Section 5 of the bill. A domestic well owner could be required to cap his well given three circumstances. The well owner must be within 180 feet of the new system, financial assistance must be available, and the well must be repaired. The financial assistance was up to 85 percent of the connection costs, estimated at $20,000. In response to Chairman de Braga, the reimbursement for connection came from the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

 

Julie Wilcox, representing the Southern Nevada Water Authority of the Las Vegas Valley Water District, offered to clarify. The connection charges were set by the purveyors and different entities, such as the Southern Nevada Water Authority. There were 59 applications now being processed. Only four had been mandated to hook up, with the remainder choosing the option.

 

Chairman de Braga recalled hearing testimony about subsidence of the valley floor in Las Vegas and the requirement of well owners in that area to close the wells and connect to municipal supply. She asked if residents were generally satisfied with the equity issue, especially when mandated to cap the well. Ms. Wilcox explained that connection fees varied depending upon the size of the home. Recent applications were charged approximately $9,000 to $11,000. Criteria to evaluate grants had been developed, and most had been approved at the 85 percent level. There was sufficient money in the fund to cover the program.

 

Mr. Crowell added the bill contained a sunset clause of 2005. In the years ahead, all parties would scrutinize the success of the law to determine if the law should be extended beyond that point.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked for clarification on the financial assistance. Ms. Wilcox stated her agency issued a check for 85 percent of costs to hook up to the system. The money was a grant and was not required to be paid back. She explained the board was committed to the bill because the ground water fee that was enacted in 1999 had a provision to fund the program. Regardless of the presence of a sunset clause, it was their intention to continue the program for as long as possible.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if well owners were forced to hook up to municipal systems.  Ms. Wilcox explained the ability to connect was the purview of the State Engineer, keeping in mind that all three conditions had to be met. The well owner had to be within 180 feet of the municipal supply, he had to be given financial assistance, and he would need a drill rig on the site to pull the pump and casing.

 

Assemblyman Marvel recalled that years ago an attempt was made to force well owners to connect to municipal water due to the subsidence problem. The state lost in court.

 

Ms. Wilcox explained when the program was established, there was opinion that nobody would subscribe to the plan; however, more than 50 well owners were on the list waiting to be connected. There were areas in the northwest area of town that had a sediment problem in well water. Assemblyman Marvel asked if that was the area where homes were slipping off their foundations. Ms. Wilcox replied “no.”

 

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 159. Seeing no out-of-town guests, the hearings on the remaining two bills were postponed. The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                               

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

 

DATE: