Assembly committee hears wide-ranging proposals to change state water-rights permitting process

Assemblyman Rich DeLong, sponsor of Assembly Bill 419, told the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources that the bill seeks to change the State Engineer’s procedures for accepting, reviewing and deciding applications for new water rights and for changes to existing rights, with the goal of improving transparency, efficiency and consistency.

The bill would require the State Engineer to adopt rules of practice and procedure, establish an optional pre-application meeting between prospective applicants and the State Engineer, create a preliminary-determination step before hearings, consolidate statutory deadlines for decisions in one place, and require clearer statements of reasons when the State Engineer chooses not to follow prior administrative precedent. "The purpose of the bill is to improve transparency, efficiency and consistency in the state engineer procedures," Michael Pagni, counsel for the bill presenters, said.

Supporters — including Karen Peterson of the Allison MacKenzie law firm and Wade Paulson, Lincoln County Water District general manager — told the committee those steps would clarify what applicants must provide and could reduce the number of contested administrative hearings and subsequent court appeals. Peterson said the bill "does not favor applicants, give applicants more control in the permitting process, or change the standards to appropriate water or change a water right in Nevada," and described pre-application conferences as a way to reduce wasted expense when an application would be incomplete or unlikely to be approved.

Opponents — including Kyle Roehring of the Great Basin Water Network, Scott Lake of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club's Toiyabe chapter, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe — said the bill would shift the process toward behind-the-scenes meetings that advantage applicants with resources and risk fast‑tracking additional appropriations. Roehring said the bill "is all about granting more applications of water, bringing finality faster, and doing it all faster," and argued Nevada law requires an applicant to show water is available and that the public interest and existing rights be protected.

Nevada State Engineer Adam Sullivan testified in a neutral capacity that implementing the proposed front‑loaded meeting and preliminary-determination steps for every protested application would "approximately double the review time for an individual application" and exceed the Division of Water Resources' current staffing and resources. Sullivan also warned that removing the State Engineer’s exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act (NRS Chapter 233B) would require extensive statutory revisions and could expose prior orders to new legal challenges.

Committee members pressed sponsors on multiple points: whether the pre-application meetings would be open to potential protestants (sponsors said there is no application yet to protest and the meetings are intended to help applicants file more complete materials); who must attend pre-application conferences (sponsors said Basin Engineers or other Division staff could participate); and how the bill’s deadlines and limits on postponements would operate in practice. Assemblymember Considine told proponents he feared that adding more front‑end procedure but shortening timelines could increase workload rather than reduce it; sponsors replied the goal is to front-load issues so hearings focus on a narrower set of evidentiary questions and reduce appeals.

No committee action or vote was taken on AB 419 at the hearing. Assemblyman DeLong closed by saying he wished to continue discussions during the session with stakeholders and the Division of Water Resources.

Ending: The committee closed the AB 419 hearing after roughly one hour of sponsor presentation and public testimony and invited continued stakeholder engagement; no amendments or committee votes were recorded at the hearing.