Bill would require small Clark County water utilities to report annually to PUC on infrastructure and fire-protection capacity

Senator Cruz Crawford introduced Senate Bill 326 to the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure, saying the bill would require certain smaller regulated water utilities in Clark County to submit an annual report to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada on infrastructure adequacy, including the utility’s ability to provide water service for fire protection.

The bill addresses an oversight in current statute that exempts certain small providers from integrated resource planning, general rate case and water conservation plan filings when their annual revenues or customer counts fall below statutory thresholds. Supporters said that, while these smaller providers are nonetheless bound by minimum service standards, they are not subject to the same public reporting and review that larger providers face.

Matt Morris, an attorney for the bill, told the committee the statutory gap affects providers that serve 3,000 or fewer customers or that do not meet revenue thresholds used elsewhere in the Public Utilities Commission rules. Morris summarized the existing framework cited in testimony: providers with more than $1,000,000 in revenue are subject to triennial integrated resource planning (IRP) rules; providers with more than $2,000,000 in revenue and more than 3,000 customers are subject to general rate case rules; and most providers must file water conservation plans under NRS 704.662. SB326 would not change the minimum statutory service standard—NRS 704.660 sub 1 requires a reasonably adequate water supply at reasonable pressure for fire protection—but would require the smaller providers in Clark County to report annually to the PUC on infrastructure and capacity to meet that standard.

Morris indicated the PUC’s biannual report identifies five providers in Clark County; his team believes two of those meet the service-connection threshold that would make the annual-report requirement applicable. Senator Crawford and Morris both said the bill applies only to privately owned smaller utilities in Clark County and would not apply to larger utilities or to governmental entities and political subdivisions that already have elected governance and public reporting.

Assemblymember Dickman asked for a rough count of affected providers; Morris responded with the five-and-two estimate from the PUC report. Assemblymember Gallant asked about the bill’s origin; Morris said developers encountering uncertain or delayed responses about infrastructure adequacy had motivated the legislation, and Crawford noted schools and prisons had been affected when water service was interrupted.

No callers or public commenters registered support, opposition, or neutral testimony beyond the sponsor’s presentation; the committee closed the hearing on SB326 with questions but no formal action recorded in the transcript.

Ending: SB326 was presented as a transparency and public-safety measure focusing on infrastructure adequacy for smaller Clark County water utilities; the committee closed the hearing with follow-up questions but took no vote during the session.