Senate committee hears SB31 to exempt federal vested-right claims from 2027 filing deadline to avoid litigation

Adam Sullivan, state engineer and principal administrator of the Division of Water Resources, and James Bolotin, deputy administrator, told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources the purpose of Senate Bill 31 is to ensure federal agencies can be joined in future state water-right adjudications without exposing Nevada to predictable litigation.

"This bill is really about the division being able to complete its work comprehensively and without having loose ends with regard to claims from federal agencies," Sullivan said. James Bolotin explained the legal background: the McCarran amendment (cited in testimony as 43 U.S.C. ), through a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, allows states to adjudicate federal water claims in state proceedings once an adjudication is opened. Bolotin told the committee that the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. State of Oregon (1994) held that a statewide filing deadline, removed from a specific adjudication, did not fall within that waiver. Because of that precedent, Bolotin said, Nevada law as written (NRS 533.087 and 533.095) makes the state vulnerable to a federal-court challenge if the Division were to reject late-filed federal vested-right claims after the 2027 deadline.

Bolotin summarized the bill's legal effect: it would exempt federal agencies from the filing deadline so the United States can file vested-right claims at the time the state engineer opens a particular adjudication and thereby be compelled to participate under the McCarran amendment. "This change in section 1 of SB31 exempts the federal government from the deadline to file claims of vested right by the 12/31/2027 deadline currently in statute," Bolotin said. He stressed the change does not "exempt the federal government from participation in the state adjudication process under the McCarran amendment." Instead, the change is intended to allow Nevada to obtain a proper waiver of sovereign immunity and include federal claims in a single adjudication.

Department of Defense counsel Captain Kyle Hoffmeister testified on behalf of the Air Force and the Department of Defense in support. He said the bill "conforms to NRS 533.087 and 533.095 with the principle of federal sovereign immunity consistent with the McCarran amendment" and emphasized that water rights held by the United States are critical to Department of Defense installations.

Opposition testimony came from a range of local governments, ranchers and agricultural groups who argued the bill could give the federal government unequal treatment and that the December 31, 2027, deadline is important to get claims on record. Jake Tibbets, Natural Resource Manager for Eureka County, said his county supports an amendment and wants clarity "related to when federal agencies would be required to file claims and how other claimants would be able to amend their claims when a specific adjudication were initiated by the state engineer." Joe Gild, a rancher and attorney, urged the committee to allow stakeholders to negotiate clarifying language. Representatives of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and Nevada Farm Bureau also opposed the bill, arguing it would create an unfair preference for the federal government.

Those opposing the bill emphasized the policy rationale for the 2027 deadline: government and private claimants alike should identify and document vested claims so all parties "know who's on the playing field." Several opponents pointed to internal BLM guidance and BLM procedures that, they said, already instruct BLM field offices to notify state engineers about water on public lands.

Committee members asked whether the Ninth Circuit precedent would require litigation in federal court and whether, absent the bill, the state engineer could be put in an impossible position of rejecting late federal claims and triggering a court challenge. Bolotin and division staff said the Ninth Circuit decision suggests the federal government could successfully challenge a statewide filing deadline removed from a specific adjudication, likely in federal district court.

The Division and several speakers said they were open to amendments meant to clarify timing and process while still addressing the legal vulnerability described by Bolotin. The committee took public testimony and did not register a formal vote during the hearing.

Votes at this hearing: none recorded.