The 82nd Nevada Legislative Session might have had the highest number of legislative proposals dealing with water of any past sessions (there wasn’t any official search of the archives, but there were a lot of water bills this legislative session). Of the total of water-related legislative ideas on the table, there were a high number of very good ones, aimed at addressing some serious concerns facing Nevada.
Unfortunately, most of these solid proposals didn’t make it through to enactment into law. In some cases, legislative concepts receive support from some and opposition from others. The results of these different perspectives aren’t always an end. Throughout the legislative process there are discussions to try to work through disagreements over policy. There’s give and take, as well as breakthroughs that build from the differences to form even better ideas.
There are also times when those supporting a bill can out-maneuver opposition or overpower those on the other side to gain passage. Frequently those who oppose a bill have the advantage and the legislation doesn’t make it by not making it through the numerous hurdles that pop-up and keep it from going forward.
As we saw again in the 2023 Nevada Legislature, passing a bill to gain a change in law is not easy and there are times when even strongly supported legislative ideas don’t make it.
Perhaps one of the best examples of widely supported legislation that didn’t get passed is SB 176.
The purpose for SB 176 was to deal with Nevada’s growing number of over-appropriated and over-pumped groundwater basins. It is estimated that of the state’s 256 groundwater basins, 40 percent are over-appropriated, with more water rights allocated and approved than there’s water to meet those demands. There are also a growing number of groundwater basins which are dealing with over-pumping and declining water tables.
SB 176 proposed to establish a program where the State of Nevada would buy-back water rights, on a voluntary basis, in over-appropriated and over-pumped basins and retire the water rights that were purchased.
Some might argue that the step of such a buy-back program is unnecessary, because under the provisions of a water right the most junior water permit can just be cancelled. Balancing groundwater basins with perennial yield can be achieved by curtailment on the basis of prior appropriations…first in time – first and right.
Others could make their case that the State of Nevada has a responsibility to deal with over-appropriations because of the State Engineer approving additional water rights beyond the amount of available water to meet those rights in a sustainable fashion. Saying “No” in the first place would have avoided the problem now.
At least in public testimony on SB 176, during the hearing held before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, no one made the case that the bill shouldn’t pass because the objective could be met by curtailment. Actually, there were no voices of opposition heard in that hearing.
Those appearing to testify spoke in favor of passage represented a broad spectrum of water interests with advocates of very different ideologies joining together to express the merits of taking this approach in addressing a need that nearly all agree needs attention.
Numerous discussions outside of the legislative hearing room occurred to iron out differences and identify ways to work through the details of setting such a program out. The common agreement also provided for taking the necessary time to develop regulations and arrangements for implementing an operational program. It was understood that actual water right purchases from willing sellers could be something that would likely not take place as much as two years down the road.
The money question was something that was anticipated to be based on matching funds, with federal programs as well as private sector funding being used to stretch Nevada state appropriations for maximum results. It is also worth noting that there wasn’t any shortages of bills that Nevada Legislators spent money on this session…
Sponsor of the legislation, Senator Pete Goicoechea of Eureka noted that the intent for this program wasn’t to provide a golden parachute for those sell their water rights but would at least provide something of a softer landing for those who have made significant investments in their businesses where the water is being used.
SB 176 was re-referred to the Senate Finance Committee after passing from the Senate Natural Resources Committee. That took place on April 18th, with eons of time before the June 5th close of the 2023 Legislature. As an exempt bill there wasn’t any concern over deadlines, except for the end of the session.
There were no shortages of advocates who worked diligently to urge that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Marilyn Dondero Loop of Las Vegas, to schedule a hearing and advance the bill forward. As the session ticked down to a close there were emphatic request directed to the Chair for a hearing.
There wasn’t any reason offered for not holding a hearing or considering the bill, but Senator Dondero Loop didn’t and the SB 176 didn’t go any further.
Other good water bills, similarly, supported by a broad cross section of interests, also failed to pass for similar reasons. SB 112 – dealing with restricting assessments on agricultural water rights in designated basins and providing for improved transparency to require the State Engineer to report how the funds collected through the assessments he acquires have been spent – failed to move out of Senator Dondero Loop’s committee as well.
SB 180, a bill to establish advisory groundwater boards to work with the State Engineer in dealing with designated basins and helping to enhance input through local engagement, passed both the Senate and the Assembly without a single “No” vote. In spite of no opposition the bill died at the end of the Session because there was no resolution between the Senate and the Assembly of a simple amendment added in the Assembly to better clarify the formation of Boards where the boundaries of a designated basin crossed county lines.
There really isn’t a good reason why any of these good ideas didn’t become law. It seems it came down to those who were in charge of the 2023 Legislature didn’t want to allow these bills to pass – and they didn’t.
By Doug Busselman | Nevada Farm Bureau Executive Vice President