January 14, 2020

Commissioner Strickland

made a motion to rescind the action by the Nye County Water District Governing Board (NCWD); seconded by Commissioner Cox. Marla Zlotek advised the motion should be made as stated, to rescind the action taken, which was statements of commitment made during that agenda item.

Commissioner Blundo

made a motion to rescind action taken on item 40 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting of December 17,2019; seconded by Commissioner Cox. John Bosta believed during the prior discussion it was mentioned a workshop would be scheduled, which the public was expecting, but it was not part of this agenda item. He then pointed out that Mr. Coache did not mention that the Mountain Falls Water Association had a huge footprint at the top of Trout Canyon.

Commissioner Koenig

explained this agenda item was to correct the Commissioners' action. The workshop could be held after the appeal was heard.

Commissioner Koenig

explained this was an appeal hearing pursuant to Nye County Water District Act Section 9.3. The appeal was received by the Board on December 18, 2019, from the Private Well Owners' Cooperative Association of Nye County. The back­ up submitted of the record below will be part of the record of this hearing . There were ten reasons submitted in the appeal. Commissioner Koenig would read each reason and after each the appellant would present their case. Each Commissioner would be called by name to address the appellant on that reason. The appellant may respond as well as the Commissioner. Once all reasons had been addressed the appellant may submit a closing statement of their appeal. The Board of County Commissioners may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the NCWD. There would be public comment at the end of the item limited to three minutes per person. Appellants Matt Burg and Helene Williams introduced themselves.

Commissioner Koenig

listed the additional back-up as follows : • Nye County Water District Agenda Information Form, item 9, dated December 29, 2019, and the back-up for that item. • Nye County Water District Board minutes from December 29, 2019 . • December 18, 2019, appeal letter and reasons submitted by the Private Well Owners Cooperative Association of Nye County. • Copy of NCWD Act Chapter 542, Statutes of Nevada 2007 .

Commissioner Koenig

said that was the record below. There was also a five-page "Facts Behind the Parcel Fee Increase for Carbonate Aquifer Exploration" dated January 3, 2020, and the rebuttal submitted by Walt Kuver, a member of the governing board, that were not part of the record below.

Commissioner Strickland

made a motion to accept the back-up consisting of all the records as read; seconded by Commissioner Blundo; 5 yeas.

Mr. Burg

read a letter as an opening statement. The private well owners found it necessary to request the appeal because its board of directors believed the residents of Basin 162 were not told how many additional phases the NCWD wanted to develop and the costs. The NCWD did not represent the desires of the people of Pahrump and the majority of the board members did not live within the boundaries of Basin 162. Mr. Burg said the private well owners cared that their community was governed by elected January 14, 2020 5.10:00 - For Possible Action - Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on Appeal of the Nye County Water District Governing Board's December 9,2019 decision to raise the per parcel fee in Basin 162 to $35.00 a year for a minimum of 3 years for funding of the carbonate aquifer exploratory project. The Board may affirm, modify or reverse the decision-Cont'd. officials, not a group of appointed individuals who believed that because they could afford to pay increasing taxes everyone else could too.

Ms. Williams

, Director of the Private Well Owners Association, said she drafted the appeal and the evidence presented.

Commissioner Koenig

read and Ms. Williams responded to each reason submitted by the Private Well Owners Association [see Attachment 1]. In closing, Ms. Williams stated the best evidence that could be presented today was the Nevada State Engineer documented what he believed was the annual recharge of Basin 162 at 16,000 acre feet, increased it to 20,000 acre feet, and then over the years committed 60,416 acre feet of water rights. According to their documents along with every document on Basin 162 the actual pumpage was only 14,348 acre feet, leaving a balance of unused water of 46,068 acre feet. With actual pumpage of 14,348 acre feet not exceeding the State Engineer's annual recharge of 20,000 acre feet, there was a credit of 5,752 acre feet. With those numbers , Ms. Williams stated there was no need for a pie in the sky exploration well to be drilled and therefore no property tax to be collected to pay for the project.

Commissioner Koenig

said pursuant to the Nye County Water District Act Section 9.3, this Board may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the NCWD . Any motion made shall include facts and conclusions from this appeal to support the motion.

Commissioner Strickland

made a motion to reverse the decision of the Nye County Water District Governing Board of December 9,2019, to raise the per parcel fee in Basin 162 to $35.00 a year for a minimum of three years for funding of the carbonate aquifer exploratory project with the following findings of fact and conclusions . The appellant had provided to this Board evidence supported by proof in the record below to reverse the decision of the Nye County Water District Governing Board. The findings of fact and conclusions were 1) it was outside of Nye County 2) stakeholders, and 3) who controlled the water after it was found; seconded by Commissioner Cox.

Commissioner Blundo

said there was a water problem in the community. Everyone talked about the developers and how no one wanted them , but on the other hand many people asked about the new Target or new businesses. He promised if the State ever came in to manage the situation it would be hack and slash job everyone would pay for at the end of the day . January 14, 2020 5.10:00 - For Possible Action - Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on Appeal of the Nye County Water District Governing Board's December 9,2019 decision to raise the per parcel fee in Basin 162 to $35.00 a year for a minimum of 3 years for funding of the carbonate aquifer exploratory project. The Board may affirm, modify or reverse the decision-Cont'd. Greg Dann agreed with Robert Coache. If the NCWD wanted to spend $4.1 million there were better ways to spend it then putting more straws in the ground. There were close to 11 ,000 domestic wells and hundreds of certificated points of diversion . The answer was not more holes escalating the existing water draw down but rather growth control. John Bosta stated his property would not receive a benefit from this fee as Great Basin provided his water . AB29 gave the Board the opportunity to rule on matters of local concern, which was in Nye County, not another county, and local concern could not be ruled by an outside agency like the NCWD or the State Engineer. The NCWD had no statutory authority for a fee, only for taxation , and they had never taxed the town . Mr. Bosta did not think the State Engineer would approve giving permission to drill a carbonate rock aquifer in the same basin putting the straw in the same bowl. He thought the Board made the right decision and hoped they all voted in favor. William Garlough said he was with the County Planning Department years ago and at that time they projected Pahrump to be at 60,000 people with the rate of growth going on at the time, but in 2008 the population decreased. Also, the NCWD was established on the basis they were just a water board to protect the County from SNWA, not to raise fees or taxes . Mr. Garlough disagreed with the fee and said he would not pay for someone to over-develop the County . He suggested the Board stop the manmade lakes at the evaporation rate of four inches a day in the summer months. He also wondered why it was for a minimum of three years rather than a maximum because to him that meant it would double in three years . Walt Kuver, a member of NCWD representing Pahrump, said the appellant listed ten reasons to reverse the NCWD action, four of which were false. Reason 2 was the project was completely exploratory with no significant proof that water existed. Mr. Kuver stated there were many reports over a 50-year period that claimed the water was there, but it needed to be verified if Pahrump was to grow. Reason 3 was taxation without representation . Mr. Kuver stated the Board of County Commissioners represented the citizens with its review of NCWD actions, a board they appointed. Reason 5 was the project would create open-ended funding which would fall on the backs of parcel owners in Basin 162 for future phases. Mr. Kuver stated it was not open-ended funding but rather funding to allow growth while still protecting the domestic wells. Reason 6 alleged this would assist SNWA by giving them knowledge of possible water and set this project up for a future adverse water grab in Basin 162. Mr. Kuver stated the relatively small amount of water in a remote corner of southern Clark County was not of interest to them and the State Engineer would protect Basin 162's potential use of it. January 14, 2020

Commissioner Koenig

addressed each Commissioner by name for comments.

Commissioner Cox

said she had received numerous phone calls and e-mails from people who did not support what the NCWD had done. SB21 was to abolish the water board, but it did not pass. She felt the authority needed to be within the elected body, not the appointed body, because they had no one to answer to. Commissioner Cox stated she would not support this as she felt what they were doing was illegal and she would like to see SB21 come back to abolish the NCWD. January 14, 2020 5. 10:00 - For Possible Action - Public Hearing. discussion and deliberation on Appeal of the Nye County Water District Governing Board's December 9,2019 decision to raise the per parcel fee in Basin 162 to $35.00 a year for a minimum of 3 years for funding of the carbonate aquifer exploratory project. The Board may affirm. modify or reverse the decision-Cont'd.

Commissioner Strickland

agreed there was an over allocation of water . Most of the water now existed in the utility districts so should it be the utility districts creating more water to feed themselves.

Commissioner Blundo

believed there needed to be a call for beneficial use. He felt this was about money , not water .

Commissioner Koenig

said a few years ago there was a focus group that had a great idea for a big development at the entry to Pahrump for 60,000 to 80,000 people with other developments planned around that and he thought it was fortunate that did not happen. He said he would sponsor some agenda items for the Board to go to the State Engineer to do something . The workshop would probably happen with the water board. A roll call resulted in a unanimous vote of 4 yeas to reverse the decision of the Nye County Water District Governing Board of December 9, 2019, to raise the per parcel fee in Basin 162 to $35.00 a year for a minimum of three years for funding of the carbonate aquifer exploratory project with the following findings of fact and conclusions. The appellant had provided to this Board evidence supported by proof in the record below to reverse the decision of the Nye County Water District Governing Board. The findings of fact and conclusions were 1) it was outside of Nye County, 2) stakeholders, and 3) who controlled the water after it was found.

Mr. Hombson

wanted non-biased opinions and decisions. William Garlough knew the Commissioners could dissolve the water board but it needed to be replaced with something to protect the County from the SNWA.

Commissioner Koenig

adjourned the meeting . ATTEST: Ny~ Cot y Clerk I Deputy Private Well Owners Cooperative Association ofNye County Post Office Box 2073 Pahrump Nevada 89041-2073 "Every Drop Counts" January 18, 2019 Dear Commissioners, My name is Helene Williams. I am a Director with the Private Well Owners, and I drafted the Appeal and the evidence presented here today. The reason why the decision of The Nye County Water District Governing Board should be reversed with evidence provided as requested. 1. The Project is outside the Nye County boundaries solely within Clark County. Evidence- The Well Owners concern is, why are Nye County policies or regulation providing for Nye County taxpayers to fund work in Clark County? Cross county projects like this are normally funded by the I\levada State government, where the burden is equally distributed to the state taxpayers, or big development dollars as in Clark County. What happens to the permit to drill in Clark County when water is found and suddenly Clark County decides that the water rightfully belongs to them after lOs of thousands of dollars of Nye County Taxpayers money goes down these holes? No one, not even the Nye County Water Governing Board has control of what happens in Clark County, even throw a Clark County Permit process. Clark County has billions of dollars for water research, Nye County has none, unless the burden is placed on the backs of the local taxpayer. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 2. The project is completely exploratory with no significant proof that water exists. Evidence - The Private Well Owners Organization encourages programs that will reinforcement the protection of Basin 162 and the communities water supply. But, the organization must take a stand in opposing this project as it is completely exploratory with no significant proof that water even exists. At the December 9t h, 2019 Nye County Water District Governing Board meeting they appear to have presented four phases, Geophysical Survey, Exploratory Drilling, Test Wells etc. and Groundwater Flow Model etc. with a $6M estimate. What's next? a minimum of $45 million in cost for infrastructure. 3. The tax is taxation without representation. Evidence - The definition of "Taxation without representation" is the act of being taxed by an authority without the benefit of having elected representatives. The members of the l\Jye County Water District Board are appointed. We are aware that the State Legislature enacted the board by Act, and we have the right to Appeal, even though this board has the authority by act to create this tax, having something shoved down one's throat always tastes bad. Taxation at any time always tastes like a bad pill going down, but when members of one's own community drags up some old project from the past and tries to breathe new life into it, and then advocates it to be the only solution to Nye County water problem, that bad pill doesn't go down but chocks you instead . The way this $30.00 "parcel fee " was proposed by motion was sad to say the least, there are many in our community that $30.00 per year could take away necessities in life such as medication or a doctor's bill. Just because the Board believes that they would have no problem paying this tax themselves and stated so, they were not respectful at the time of their fellow citizens in representing that the tax was of little consequence to the taxpayer. 2 It has come to our attention that approximately 400 properties will be up for auction by the county in the Treasurer's Trust, these properties are held for 3 years or more without tax paid before they sell and go back on the tax roll. At a January 2020 meeting of the BoCC we were all informed that property owners are turning their properties over to the county because of the increasing taxes. 4. This is only phase one of many future phases. Evidence -The Well Owners Concern is that the Project with a never-ending need for water because of increasing development, that not only will Clark County Nevada be a possible location with many well drilling possibilities but that many locations in California Basin 162 could be pursued next. Who knows! This is not a "short-term" project, this is the "exploratory" beginning of a project that has no financial end to it, how many phases will be divided into "short-term" projects to the cost of the residents of Basin 1627 Estimates for the entire project could range a minimum of $45 million and to a possible 100-million-dollar range. No one knows. S. This will create open-ended funding falling on the backs of parcel owners in Basin 162 for future phases. Evidence - The Well Owners believe that this project gives the appearance of a never-ending search for water, if one area doesn't work, then just try another. Not only dig a new hole somewhere but find another old project from the archives. The Water Board makes us believe that the "entire project" is just drilling and exploration, but it is only a single Phase of a project that goes on for years at millions of dollars in cost to the residence of Basin 162. One can't just drill an exploratory well and say we found water at the end of Basin 162 and now we can increase our water use. The real beginning of this project if 3 water is found will be just that, the beginning, after all a pipeline will have to transport the water up hill to the other end of Basin 162 with probably more than one pumping station, after this phase we can all look forward to another phase as in a purification station project and then a re injection project phase. 6. This will do nothing more than to assist Southern Nevada Water Authority by giving them the knowledge of possible water and would set this project up for a future adverse water grab in Basin 162. Evidence - The Well Owners believe that with Clark Counties thirst for water is so out of control they would take legal action to stop this project by Nye County determining that what is in Clark County stays in Clark County, or better yet "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." Clark County may not have had interest in this area to expand their water needs years ago but, their hunger for water for their ongoing development may just drive them to re visit this project, after all they are driving forward with a pipeline all the way from central Nevada. The dollar value of water in this area climbs daily. Water has become liquid gold, to be sold to the highest bidder, it has been a long-time belief to most Americans that what lays under your land belonged under your land and to you the property owner. Greed is moving water to a commodity from the cost of hundreds of dollars per acre foot to thousands, this project gives the appearance of a "water grab" where no water may exist. 7. There was no discussion as to when and if water is found who will have the permits for the water. Evidence - It is our belief that the discussion by the water board in their documentation Page 5 last statement "Stakeholder Cooperative Agreement. To be determined" opens the door to a debate of who can lay claim to ownership . There was no clarification of who the "Stakeholder" may be in multiple agreements. 4 When open ended discussion about Stakeholder finds itself into a project it leads to concern of who is behind the scenes, or what. The term Stakeholder is defined as a person or company with an interest, or financial gain. This should concern everyone about the truth behind this project, one has to remember that the many phases of this project would involve many project developers, not just water purveyors such as a public utility, or mutual water companies, county water district, or a municipality that delivers water to customers. It appears this project is adding a lot more government to our tax rolls, or is the intent to make the existing Nye County Water Governing Board the biggest power player in Nye County?