Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goldfield water dispute surfaces as county approves engineering contract for treatment plant
Summary
At a Feb. 3 Esmeralda County meeting, residents and commissioners raised alarms about a development agreement that may prioritize mining water rights over Goldfield’s supply; the board approved a $268,752 engineering contract to expand the town’s water treatment plant and noted a Centerra information session Feb. 11.
Esmeralda County commissioners on Feb. 3 approved a $268,752 professional services agreement with Shaw Engineering to design and support construction of a Goldfield Water Treatment Plant expansion, even as residents and commenters pressed the board about a development agreement that several said grants a mining company superior access to town water.
The contract, paid for from an awarded Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan of $1,612,512, was described by County Manager Joe Dunn as the next step to move the treatment project into design and construction oversight. "This is the next step for us to move forward on the treatment plant," Dunn said during the presentation.
Why it matters: minutes and public comments on file with the board state that Esmeralda County holds roughly 572.55 acre‑feet per annum of permitted water rights while Gemfield Resources (a subsidiary associated with Centerra Gold) has been reported in those comments as holding vested rights exceeding 938 AFA. Residents told the board they worry that the development agreement could leave the town without guaranteed water as mine construction advances.
Public concerns and a planned session: Joe Dunn told the board he had heard from residents about fencing at the alkali ponds and read notice that Centerra Gold LLC will host a special water information session at the Goldfield elementary school gym on Feb. 11. Natalie Colunga, who announced tourism meetings in the public‑comment portion, also encouraged residents to attend outreach events.
Board action and voting: Commissioner Zakas moved to approve the Shaw Engineering agreement and Commissioner Perez seconded; the motion carried with the recorded outcome "all in favor." The minutes show similar unanimous support among the three commissioners for the contract approval.
What remains unresolved: Public comments read into the record included a multi‑page submission by Kirk D. Fowler recounting local basin history and referencing past Nevada Supreme Court cases; that submission urged caution in interpreting past permit filings and called for including "conjunctive management" and specific application references in future arguments. The county has not altered or rescinded the development agreement during this meeting; the minutes record the public concern and the county's vote to proceed on the plant engineering contract.
Next steps: The Shaw contract authorizes design and construction management work; the county and project engineers will proceed to the next phases of planning. Centerra’s Feb. 11 information session was announced as a separate public forum for residents to raise water questions directly with company representatives.
