Property owners press Nye County on 'zombie lots,' VR zoning and water-tariff roadblocks
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up FreeSummary
Several Pahrump property owners and callers told the commissioners Village Residential rezoning imposed expectations for water infrastructure that never arrived; callers urged Nye County to work with Great Basin Water and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada to revisit tariffs so long-dormant lots become usable.
Multiple property owners used public comment at the Feb. 3 meeting to describe long-standing problems with lots rezoned to Village Residential (VR) that lack municipal infrastructure and remain unusable.
Patricia Robb — who said thousands of Pahrump lots were rezoned in 2007 — told commissioners that rezoning carried a clear expectation that basic infrastructure, especially water, would follow, but that required infrastructure never arrived. "For years, responsibility has been passed back and forth while these owners continue paying taxes on property they cannot reasonably use," she said.
Caller Andy Lucero urged the commission to work with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) to revise tariffs so property owners can obtain service and develop their lots. Jody Reddington and others argued the county needs a lawful, health‑and‑safety–compliant pathway for starter housing or regulated temporary residential uses where infrastructure is not yet available.
Commissioner Koenig emphasized the legal reality that state law requires water and described permitted sources: Great Basin Water tariffs, community wells or private wells where permitted, but said zoning alone will not resolve the infrastructure deficit.
The county manager said Nye County funded $1.3 million to purchase water rights for Pahrump, but those rights are currently being used at other parks while the county proves beneficial use for the fairgrounds. Public commenters asked the board to coordinate with Great Basin Water and the PUCN to resolve tariff conditions that currently limit development of VR parcels.
No formal action resolving zoning or tariff policy was taken at the Feb. 3 meeting; callers asked staff and commissioners to put the issue on a future agenda and to collaborate with state regulators to create clearer, enforceable timelines and options for landowners.
