April 29, 2013

Commissioner Butch

Borasky excused himself from the meeting due to a previous commitment. Commissioner Frank Carbone stepped in as his replacement. (00:33:10) d. Drought Tolerant Landscaping and Measures for Removal of Salt Cedar Trees: Joint incentives based plan for removal of Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) trees. Cheryl Beeman related that the Board had been emailed information regarding where drought tolerant landscaping facts could be found on the internet and that a lot of information could also be obtained from the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Office. Clark County also had an extensive list of drought tolerant plants available to the public. 3 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT April 29, 2013 Currently Nye County Code requires drought tolerant vegetation for commercial and industrial projects but does not require the same for residential properties. Cheryl felt that the Water District needed to get out there and educate the public about the advantages of utilizing drought tolerant landscaping. She also related that she could not find much information about removing Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) and would like direction from the Board on dealing with this issue. Oz Wichman said that a public outreach program could be planned to include a workshop on drought tolerant landscaping. Midge Carver suggested contacting the Tri- County Weed management organization to obtain information about removal of Salt Cedar. Donna Lamm discussed ways to obtain funding for a removal program. Tim McCall suggested that the University of Nevada Agricultural Program could get the Board an updated list of drought tolerant plants and noxious weeds, and that the Water District could put together a pamphlet for realtors to distribute to home buyers that are new to this area to help them make appropriate choices for landscaping. The Board directed Cheryl to present some alternative options to this problem at a future meeting. Oz described how very invasive and extremely difficult it is to remove Salt Cedar. James Eason questioned where and how removal might be required. Impact on water table levels in areas of heavy Salt Cedar concentration was addressed. Due to a scheduling conflict for the Board Room in Beatty, Jim Weeks dismissed himself from the meeting for a brief period of time. Methods of eliminating Salt Cedar were also discussed along with cost implications. Oz felt that contacting Tri-County Weed was one of the best options to take right now and he would try to get them to address the Board at a future meeting. Wendy Barnett, from UICN, talked about how they are offering financial incentives to their customers to encourage conservation both inside and outside of their homes. Walt Kuver felt that the Water District needs to create a “stand alone” water conservation ordinance that includes residential as well as commercial and industrial properties. Cheryl Beeman wanted to bring back the Salt Cedar issue to a future meeting after she gathered additional information. Again, the question of requiring drought tolerant landscaping for residential properties was addressed. Tim McCall was not so sure about making this a requirement as opposed to a recommendation. James Eason wanted the issue clarified before he could vote one way or the other. Steve Osborne related that site inspections are currently conducted for commercial and industrial properties with regards to enforcement of the landscaping code. This does not occur with residential construction. Oz Wichman had concerns that the County could become the “Plant Police.” Lee White expressed similar concerns. James Eason wondered why we were going through this process if there was no means or desire to require enforcement. Cheryl Beeman suggested that encouragement was more appropriate. Funding of a Salt Cedar removal program was discussed. Donna Lamm felt that a “stand alone” ordinance would be appropriate and would raise more public awareness of the problem. 4 NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT April 29, 2013 Cheryl Beeman was directed by the Board to follow-up in contacting the University Agricultural Extension and Oz Wichman would contact Tri-County Weed to gather more information. Following a ten minute break, the Board resumed the meeting at which time James Weeks rejoined the proceedings. e. (01:25:00) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Proposed modifications to Nye County Code Title 17 (Pahrump Zoning Ordinance) relating to the procedures for amending the Pahrump Master Plan including adding a requirement for water impact report. Steve Osborne talked about current requirements for amending the Pahrump Master Plan and stated that the proposed amendment would allow major amendments to be made only once per year as opposed to the four times presently allowed. He also proposed that developer/applicants be required to submit a water impact report along with the other impact reports that are already mandated. Tim McCall questioned the requirement for a water impact report within a utility district. Steve explained the criteria defining a major development that would trigger the need for a water impact report. Levi Kryder discussed how the “Community Source Water Protection Plan” findings may relate to a water impact study within an identified capture area or zone. Tim McCall had concerns about establishing criteria for a water impact study. He felt that this proposal needs to be redefined based upon impact that the development may have on other wells within close proximity. James Eason suggested that Board members get together with Staff to define what the specific criteria may be. Tim suggested including representatives from various utility companies to also get their input. James felt that the original water analysis report filed by a utility district would be sufficient for County requirements. Donna Lamm questioned the proposed frequency of Master Plan amendments and suggested it be at least twice per year. Oz Wichman suggested that before any of the Water Board proposals are brought before the BOCC, the State Basin Engineer should take a close look at the proposals to make sure that Nye County is not violating any State Statutes. Gregory Hafen of Pahrump Utilities felt that language in the proposed water impact report amendment was not specific enough. He also volunteered to assist the Board with developing a revised amendment. It was decided that items needing to be readdressed will be brought back to the Board at the June 24, 2013 Board Meeting to allow additional time for Staff preparation.