February 24, 2014

Mr. King

did not know how the 2 AF figure was established. The perennial yield figure was based upon data gathered over the previous 60-70 years. The recharge figure hasn’t really changed; it is just the analysis of data that is changing. One public member suggested putting in to place some legal protections for domestic well owners. Mr. King stated that the bottom line is the priority date of the water in question. Senior water rights have priority over domestic wells. Senior water right holders in the valley have yet to complain about over-pumpage by domestic well owners, although it might become an issue. The DWR has always had the right to dictate water usage in Pahrump even without AB419.

Mr. King

went on to discuss forfeiture and cancelling of water rights as well as filing for extensions to prove beneficial use. Cancellations can be rescinded due to unforeseen circumstances by an appeal, but the priority date is changed to the date of the appeal 3 Groundwater Advisory Committee February 24, 2014 Forfeitures can be appealed in district court where a decision by the DWR can be reversed. He related that water rights are real property and can be bought and sold separately from the property on which they were used. Transfer of ownership must be filed with the DWR. The connections and differences between ground and surface water rights were explained. Since there are no surface rights in the Pahrump Basin it is of no concern to valley residents. The general purpose of the DWR is to only allow appropriation of water up to the amount of the perennial yield. The Pahrump Valley was over-appropriated well beyond the annual perennial yield. All of the 256 basins in Nevada have an estimated perennial yield established, of which 25 are designated or over-pumped.

Mr. King

discussed criteria that may be used when reviewing an application for the appropriation of new water. The transfer of water from one basin to another was discussed with regards to being environmentally sound and as it may impact future growth in the area that is losing its water. Upon questioning from Dave Caudle, Mr. King noted that an inter-basin transfer of water may occur when water is no longer allowed to be appropriated within the basin that has a water shortage. He related that the DWR does not get involved with regulating growth of communities. He noted that limiting the number of filings for extensions could become a component in a groundwater management plan. Mr. King agreed that domestic well owners should be included in making decisions regarding the future of water in the basin. Upon questioning from Greg Dann, it was noted that Engineer’s Office sets its own policy with no interference from the Director or Governor of the State of Nevada. Greg Hafen thanked Jason King for taking time to attend the meeting.

Mr. Kuver

wishes to have a finished product in place by October 2014 so that it will be an important topic for discussion during the November election season. He stressed that the committee fully understands all aspects of the problem at hand and have open-minded discussions and debate. Details of the 3 work paths were presented along with related scenarios. Mr. Kuver suggested that a water use budget be established that would cover how water is allocated for future growth. A sustainable population growth figure must be addressed along with associated ordinances which may become contentious. He suggests that a work plan must be approved by the Nye County Water Board, County Commissioners and the State Engineer’s Office. The public may also have input. There were no comments from committee members. Greg Hafen related that one of the goals should be to avoid legal problems. He felt that other committee members may want to also present their ideas on this subject. There was no public comment. 4 Groundwater Advisory Committee February 24, 2014