State engineer proposes AB 26 to modernize dam‑safety statutes; committee hears neutral comments
Loading...
Summary
State Engineer Adam Sullivan told the Assembly Natural Resources Committee AB 26 would update NRS chapter 535 to match modern dam‑safety standards, streamline plan submittals and inspection procedures, and clarify liability protections and federal‑jurisdiction exemptions.
State Engineer Adam Sullivan presented Assembly Bill 26 to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10, proposing updates to Nevada’s dam‑safety statutes (NRS chapter 535) to align state law with industry standards and current practices, and to clarify the division’s inspection and approval authorities.
Sullivan told the committee the division currently regulates 658 dams in Nevada and categorizes them by hazard (high, significant, low). He said the dam‑safety group performs roughly 200 inspections per year, reviews about 15–20 modification or new‑dam applications annually, and aims to ensure emergency action plans exist for all high and significant hazard dams.
Major changes proposed in AB 26: Sullivan described several types of statutory updates in the bill. Among them are (1) clarifying that dams not meeting simple height or capacity thresholds may still be jurisdictional if they create high or significant hazard (for example, small dams in series); (2) allowing digital submittals and removing triplicate plan submission requirements; (3) clarifying land‑access language for inspections and streamlining notice procedures to owners; and (4) adding liability‑protection language for staff performing inspections, emergency response or enforcement actions consistent with existing chapter 41 protections. Sullivan said removing the phrase "authorized agents" from that immunity provision would address concerns raised in committee and is a likely friendly amendment.
Funding and program capacity: Sullivan said dam‑safety work is funded in part by FEMA’s National Dam Safety Program grant and by a dam‑storage fee collected from non‑agricultural reservoirs (the fee currently flows to the state general fund). He said the division is interested in restructuring fee receipts to better support dam safety programs and owner assistance and suggested additional statewide engineering risk assessments could be done with dedicated funding.
Federal jurisdiction and exemptions: The bill clarifies that dams under federal jurisdiction (for example, Bureau of Reclamation or Army Corps of Engineers) are not subject to dual state oversight while they remain federally regulated; committee members asked whether FERC or other federal entities should be explicitly added to that list. Sullivan acknowledged those agencies could be added by amendment but noted federal exemptions raise public‑safety considerations about response and local coordination.
Public comment and reactions: The Great Basin Water Network registered neutral testimony by phone raising concern about any moves to add explicit FERC language because of an ongoing controversial project in White Pine County. The Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter’s director delivered neutral remarks in person; both organizations said they remained neutral on the bill as written but would scrutinize amendments affecting federal‑jurisdiction dams.
Ending: Sullivan closed by reiterating AB 26 aims to align statute with existing dam‑safety practice, not to expand regulatory authority, and committee members signaled possible technical amendments (removing "authorized agents," and clarifying federal exemptions) for future consideration. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
