Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears bill to repeal obsolete Fort Mohave Valley regulations
Summary
Representatives of the Colorado River Commission asked lawmakers to repeal legacy regulations tied to Fort Mohave Valley land that are now obsolete after earlier statutory changes transferring land administration to Clark County.
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on AB1, a bill to repeal legacy regulations adopted decades ago under the Colorado River Commission that governed development in the Fort Mohave Valley near Laughlin.
Eric Witkoski, executive director of the Colorado River Commission, told the committee that the commission’s regulatory authority over the Fort Mohave Valley was superseded by legislative action in 2007 and subsequent cleanup in 2009, but that the old regulations remain on the books and are therefore ‘‘obsolete’’ and need formal repeal by the Legislature. He said Legislative Counsel had advised that because statutory authority to amend those rules was revoked in 2009, the Legislature itself must remove the regulations listed in the bill.
Why it matters: AB1 is a cleanup measure to remove conflicting or outdated administrative rules related to land disposition authority previously exercised by the state agency. The Fort Mohave Valley parcel references and prior acts cited in the panel’s history underline the need to reconcile administrative rules with current law.
Testimony and record
Witkoski provided a brief statutory history: Congress granted Nevada an option to purchase acreage in the Fort Mohave Valley in the 1950s; the Colorado River Commission adopted implementing regulations in the 1980s; and later legislative acts — including a 2007 statute and an AB 554 cleanup in 2009 — transferred rights and removed statutory authority. Witkoski said the bill lists the specific obsolete regulations for repeal and that the commission has no objection to the Legislature removing those entries.
No members of the public testified for, against, or neutral on AB1 at the hearing, and committee members asked no substantive follow-up questions of the witness about land-use or water-service constraints; Witkoski said operational questions concerning water service and improvement-district funds are matters for the Southern Nevada Water Authority or local improvement districts, not the commission.
Ending
The committee closed the hearing on AB1 after testimony from the Colorado River Commission and no public comment.
