Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lake Connectivity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends $46,000 study of Little and Big Wash Lakes connectivity
Summary
The Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission voted April 1 to recommend WRWC funding up to $46,000 for a Phase 1 evaluation by Resource Concepts, Inc. to document historical and current surface‑water connectivity between Little and Big Wash (Washoe) Lakes and to map drainage features and water‑level data.
The Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission on April 1 recommended that the Western Regional Water Commission approve a professional services agreement and a budget not to exceed $46,000 for a Phase 1 evaluation of surface‑water connectivity between Little and Big Wash (Washoe) Lakes.
Jill Sutherland, principal at Resource Concepts, Inc., told commissioners the study’s immediate goal is “to develop some information for regional partners about the surface water connections between Little and Big Wash Lakes.” She said Phase 1 will research historical connectivity, collect and evaluate water‑level data and photos, review water‑rights mapping, and perform limited field work to locate historical and current drainage and irrigation structures.
The consultant outlined a schedule that would begin site research in April and run through September, with field work targeted for late summer and early fall when water levels are lowest, and a summary report expected by the end of the year. Sutherland presented a $46,000 total budget for the Phase 1 scope.
Commission discussion focused on the study’s value for understanding lake interactions and downstream risks. One commissioner summarized the need to “understand how these lakes are working with each other,” saying the lakes “have not been as operable… as they need to be” and that the results will inform any future implementation decisions. Commissioner Chris Mixon said the Pyramid Lake tribe supports the study but asked that future phases explicitly consider potential contaminant mobilization, noting that “future activities… that might involve dredging could raise concerns about mercury movement.”
Chair (speaker not named in the transcript) moved to recommend WRWC approval of the scope and budget. A second was recorded and the motion passed unanimously.
What the Phase 1 study covers: RCI will research historical accounts and mapping of connectivity; collect and evaluate water‑level and photo evidence; review water rights and associated mapping; and do targeted field checks to map drainage/irrigation structures with handheld GPS for GIS overlay and analysis. Possible future phases described by the presenter include new topographic mapping and development of restoration or management scenarios.
Next steps: The commission forwarded the recommendation to the Western Regional Water Commission for action. The consultant and staff expect field work later in 2026 if WRWC funding and scope approval proceed.
Votes at a glance: the commission approved (a) the meeting agenda and minutes earlier in the session; (b) the recommendation to forward the RCI Phase 1 scope and budget ($46,000) to the WRWC; and (c) the nominations for chair and vice chair. The transcript records unanimous approval for the RCI recommendation; individual roll‑call votes were not provided in the record.
