Nevada lawmakers hear bill encouraging counties to discuss interlocal agreements with tribal governments

Assemblymember Max Carter on Friday introduced Assembly Bill 392 to the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, saying the measure “revises provisions relating to interlocal agreements and contracts with tribal governments” and aims to strengthen cooperative arrangements between counties and Nevada’s federally recognized tribes.

Supporters — including tribal leaders and a government relations consultant — told the committee that many tribal communities, particularly in rural and remote parts of Northern and Northeastern Nevada, lack reliable law enforcement and emergency response and that statutory language encouraging formal discussions would reduce misunderstandings and improve public safety. Former Walker River Paiute Tribe chairman Andrea Martinez said, “AB 3 92 is crucial for tribal governments seeking to establish and maintain effective agreements with surrounding agencies regardless of the leadership in place.”

The bill, presenters said, does not impose mandates to create interlocal agreements. Will Adler, representing Duck Valley and Pyramid Lake Paiute tribes, described the core change in section 1 as a requirement that a county “shall…engage in good faith discussions with the tribal government for the performance of such services.” He emphasized the sponsors’ intent that the change create an “open door” to negotiate cooperative arrangements — for example, cross‑deputization, housing detainees, EMS support or other shared services — without demanding tribes surrender sovereignty.

Tribal chairman Bridal Mason described local conditions at Duck Valley Indian Reservation to illustrate the need for better local agreements. He told committee members that the reservation is remote and that federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) policing resources are thin, saying at one point the reservation had “2 officers that cover from the Idaho border…all the way down to Elko,” forcing long response times when serious crimes occur. Mason said the tribe has existing interjurisdictional arrangements with Idaho authorities but lacks comparable formalized understanding with Nevada counties; those gaps, he said, have produced dangerous delays after shootings and kidnappings.

Committee members pressed sponsors on several details. Assemblymember DeLong asked about the bill’s reference to an “organized segment of a tribe”; Will Adler explained this reflects instances where a tribe’s membership is split across multiple colonies or entities (for example, the Washoe Tribe’s separate colonies). Multiple members queried the bill’s 90‑day timeframe for certain resolution or payment disputes; sponsors said 90 days is meant to provide a cooling‑off and administrative buffer, citing past federal payment delays that have complicated local obligations. On whether the bill creates penalties if a county fails to engage, Adler said the statutory language is intended to require a good‑faith conversation but does not itself prescribe sanctions.

Presenters and questioners also repeatedly distinguished between discussion, direction and formal action. Sponsors noted the bill only directs counties to discuss options in good faith; it does not compel adoption of specific agreements, nor does it change tribal sovereignty or federal jurisdiction. Multiple witnesses said the bill’s principal goals are clarity and sustainability for local interlocal arrangements, not mandating specific law enforcement structures.

The committee heard no public callers in support, opposition, or neutral testimony on AB392 before the chair closed the hearing and moved to the next item.

Looking ahead, sponsors told the committee they are open to questions and technical refinements; no formal vote or amendment was recorded during the hearing.