Nevada committee hears bill to formalize interlocal agreements with tribal governments

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs held a hearing on Assembly Bill 392 on a proposal to codify procedures for interlocal agreements between Nevada counties or municipalities and tribal governments.

Assemblymember Max Carter, sponsor of AB 392, told the committee the bill ‘‘is about setting up guidelines for interlocal agreements between municipal entities and tribal institutions.’’ He said the measure grew from concerns raised by tribal leaders and local governments during interim work.

The bill’s tribal backers described two main aims: to protect tribal sovereignty and to provide predictable procedures when either party is not meeting contract terms. Andrea Martinez, former chairwoman and tribal citizen of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, said cooperative agreements are “vital for ensuring the safety and well‑being of our citizens, particularly in rural Nevada,” and warned that ‘‘instances of negligence and inaction can undermine these important partnerships.’’ Will Adler, representing Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and Duck Valley Shoshone‑Paiute people, told the committee the bill would ‘‘document in AB 392 what is the structure in several tribal relations today’’ and make the existing, informal practices clearer and more widely usable.

Provisions highlighted in testimony include an acknowledged 90‑day orderly cancellation or cure period if either side fails to perform, language intended to prevent counties or local entities from demanding that tribes ‘‘surrender part of their sovereignty,’’ and a requirement that counties at least hold good‑faith discussions with tribal governments about services such as emergency medical services, detention, policing co‑operation or social services.

Senators asked several practical questions. Senator Allison pressed on the capacity of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) coverage in rural regions; Will Adler said some BIA regional offices cover vast areas with very limited field staffing, increasing the need for cooperative local agreements. Senator Neal questioned the bill’s definition of “good faith” and whether it altered contract law; Adler and Carter said the explicit definition was added after Legislative Counsel Bureau input to ensure the phrase would trigger a first‑step conversation rather than mandate outcomes. Lawmakers also discussed fiscal uncertainty: Neal noted a fiscal office could not determine the financial impact because of sovereign‑immunity considerations and asked whether the bill would place payment duties on tribal governments; Carter and tribal speakers said the intent was not to waive sovereign immunity but to create predictable timelines and guardrails that address county concerns about delinquent payments while protecting tribal autonomy.

Assemblymember Carter reported a friendly amendment submitted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to exempt water utilities from the bill’s application; Chauncey Chatto of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and Leo Dralstoff of Truckee Meadows Water Authority testified that the amendment resolved their concerns and put them in support of the amended measure. Chatto explained the concern: without the amendment, sovereign‑immunity issues could complicate the ability to collect remittance for water service from a tribal customer with an outstanding balance.

No committee action or roll‑call vote was recorded at the hearing. The bill’s sponsors said they welcome further technical amendments; proponents urged lawmakers to move the measure so tribal governments and county agencies have clearer, standardized pathways to negotiate service agreements.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on AB 392 with no recorded vote and invited additional witnesses; the record includes the friendly amendment exempting water utilities as posted on NELIS.