Nevada committee hears bill to extend temporary conservation of agricultural water, with safeguards against speculation

Assembly members held a hearing on Assembly Bill 9 on Feb. 25, 2025, a measure that would expand the circumstances under which an agricultural water right holder can temporarily convert irrigation rights for conservation purposes without risking forfeiture.

The bill, presented by Assemblymember Selena LaRue Hatch of District 25 and Kyle Roehring of the Great Basin Water Network, would amend existing Nevada statutes to extend the initial maximum period for specified temporary non‑pumping conversions from three years to five years and add multiple procedural and substantive safeguards intended to limit speculation and ensure conservation outcomes.

Supporters said the change is intended to let rights holders take non‑pumping conservation actions — for example, to improve flow, rejuvenate aquifers or provide for wildlife — while preserving their underlying water rights. "We are trying to find a mechanism by which individuals can maintain their right while also engaging in responsible practices," said Assemblymember Selena LaRue Hatch.

The bill’s amendment requires applicants to specify the "expected conservation purpose to be achieved through non pumping," limits where the program can be used to basins for which the State Engineer has issued certain orders, and adds provisions that the program cannot be used to perfect a water right or to skirt other extension limits. The amendment also allows the State Engineer discretion to deny applications and clarifies what happens if an entity stops participating in the program.

"Temporary would mean that someday we would think that the water would go back to beneficial use," said Kyle Roehring, explaining that the initial application would be for up to five years and that applicants could seek additional extensions under existing statutory procedures.

Witnesses from environmental and agricultural groups largely supported the amended bill. "Nevada is the driest state in the nation; we need to be strategic and creative," said Olivia Tanager of the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter. Doug Busselman of the Nevada Farm Bureau said his organization’s policy supports conservation and that the amended language addresses concerns his members raised.

Opponents and neutral witnesses urged caution. Adam Sullivan, Nevada State Engineer, testified in neutral and said he found the introduced bill workable but expressed "significant concerns" about the recently filed amendment. Sullivan said the amendment, as presented to the committee that day, "significantly" broadened the program in a way that could invite speculation and administrative difficulty. He warned that if certificated irrigation rights could be put into a protected non‑use status broadly, the State Engineer’s office might have little statutory basis to deny applications, potentially increasing "paper water" and complicating future basin management.

Jay Dixon, representing Water Strategy Group and other entities, recommended a narrower statutory change to grant the State Engineer authority to approve temporary change applications for specified terms (citing prior draft language proposed in 2023) instead of the current amendment’s approach.

Committee members asked proponents and the State Engineer to meet to refine language. Assemblymember DeLong and others requested follow‑up discussions before the committee advances the bill.

No committee votes were recorded during the hearing; proponents and the State Engineer agreed to continue stakeholder work to address administrative and anti‑speculation concerns.

The hearing on AB 9 concluded after public comment from several county and conservation representatives that the amended approach had been circulated among stakeholders and that some counties and regional water authorities support the changes with further refinement.

The record includes a mix of technical statute citations used in testimony to describe limits and safeguards for where the program could apply, and committee counsel, committee members and witnesses agreed further drafting talks would be needed before a final committee action or amendment is adopted.