Assembly committee hears bill to authorize local advisory groundwater boards

The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony on Assembly Bill 3 63, a bill that would authorize counties to establish advisory groundwater boards and create a formalized relationship with the Nevada Division of Water Resources.

Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, told the committee AB 3 63 would allow counties or groups of counties to request that the State Engineer appoint a seven‑member groundwater board to provide written advice on reducing overpumping and on other local groundwater management concerns. "AB 3 63 authorizes the county to establish a groundwater board that is advisory only and whose experience and knowledge can help prevent over appropriated basins from becoming over pumped and over pumped groundwater basins from being depleted or curtailed," Fontaine said.

The bill would: let a single county or multiple counties jointly request formation of a board; have the State Engineer appoint seven members using criteria tied to priority and quantity of water rights; allow boards to include a nonvoting county appointee; set four‑year terms; require boards to hold public meetings subject to Nevada's Open Meeting Law; and specify that board members serve without compensation. AB 3 63 also removes state funding for local groundwater boards and includes language that a State Engineer decision not to follow a board’s recommendation "is not subject to judicial review" and that disagreements between the State Engineer and a groundwater board are not admissible in proceedings that challenge the State Engineer's decisions, language Fontaine read into the record.

Why it matters: the Division of Water Resources' Basin Status Assessment Map Series indicates many Nevada basins are overpumped or over‑appropriated. Fontaine said the state cannot staff or fund the detailed, basin‑level work needed in every basin and that locally led, community‑based approaches could help avoid the most drastic administrative remedies such as curtailment of pumping.

Committee members and the State Engineer raised operational and legal questions during the hearing. Adam Sullivan, State Engineer, testified in neutral and said the bill raises questions about how formation would proceed and what the Division would be expected to do. "It's a little bit unclear to me if it's meant to be a cooperative process or if it's meant to be directed by the county," Sullivan said, noting the draft language both suggests a county request and in another place appears to direct the State Engineer to establish a board when a request is submitted. Sullivan also flagged concerns about agency capacity if many boards form, representation of water rights holders who do not live inside a basin, and the presence of unused water rights that could undermine local conservation efforts.

Supporters that testified included the Nevada Association of Counties and Eureka County. Vincent Guthreau, executive director of the Nevada Association of Counties, said the bill "enables a community level discussion on these critical matters" and would help form partnerships to address water management in an arid state. Caleb Cage of Eureka County said his county supported the measure.

Opponents and stakeholders who asked for changes included the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Las Vegas business community. Andy Belanger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority said his organization opposed AB 3 63 "but not in opposition to the concept of groundwater boards," and urged leaving board creation and funding to counties so that local entities could levy fees and craft tailored solutions rather than involving the State Engineer in appointments and fiscal responsibility. Nick Schneider of the Las Vegas Chamber asked the committee to consider including a water policy expert on boards so recommendations would be grounded in technical science.

The Great Basin Water Network's executive director, Kyle Romerink, testified in neutral and urged continuing the stakeholder conversation; Romerink later indicated his remarks were closer to support.

Committee members asked whether a cap on the number of boards or sunset provisions might address Division staffing concerns. Sullivan said a defined cap could help the Division prepare and prioritize work but that prioritization criteria would need to be developed. Fontaine and members discussed that Section 10 of the draft sunsets a groundwater board after four years unless the county requests and the State Engineer approves another four‑year term; boards also may dissolve by majority vote.

No bill vote was taken in committee at the hearing. After the testimony the sponsor and witnesses indicated willingness to meet with members to refine language addressing representation, the appointment process, agency capacity and the interplay between locally led efforts and available statutory authorities.

Votes at a glance - Assembly Bill 29 (motor vehicle fuel labeling): The committee voted to do pass the bill during a later work session item. A motion to do pass carried unanimously; Assemblymember LaRue Hatch made the motion and Assemblymember Watts seconded. The committee assigned floor statement duties to Assemblymember Hanson. - Assembly Bill 86 (logging/forestry language): The committee moved to amend and do pass the bill during the work session; the motion passed unanimously. The motion was made by Assemblymember DeLong and seconded by Assemblymember Watts.

What’s next: The hearing on AB 3 63 closed after testimony and the committee proceeded to its scheduled work session. The sponsor and multiple members indicated they will continue stakeholder discussions and may return amended language on the bill in future committee action.