Discussing water with Nevada Farm Bureau

by Leanna Lehman -- In a recent interview with Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President Nevada Farm Bureau, The Fallon Post inquired about the recent changes in water law in Nevada. Of particular concern was AB95 and the potential water metering and restriction during critical water years. Busselmen explained some of the finer points of the Bill that will go into effect on July 1^st. He also clarified some facts about the legislation that had been misrepresented and needed to be addressed. Fallon Post: Do you think metered wells is a bad idea? Busselman:  Nevada Farm Bureau did not oppose the metering that was included as part of AB 95, pertaining to domestic wells.  We supported the bill on the basis that we believe that all water belongs under the authority of the State Engineer and that in the event of a curtailment, domestic wells should be allowed to continue to pump ½ acre foot of water (per year) for inside use.  The metering requirement is tied to this provision. If the domestic well remains in use, after a curtailment order has been issued and applied to domestic wells – the wells would need to be metered to allow for the ½ acre foot of pumping that would be able to be continued. Fallon Post: Some thoughts on the change in law of AB95 - Existing law vs. new law? Busselman:  As I indicated above the purpose of AB 95 is to protect domestic wells in the event that there is a curtailment of groundwater pumping.  We supported the bill on this basis, understanding that many of the domestic wells would be more junior to existing water right owners that might not be required to shut down in a curtailment situation.  Under Nevada water law, more junior water right owners need to stop pumping under severe shortage situations.  Because of AB 95 domestic wells with meters would be allowed to continue to pump ½ acre foot of water (per year) for inside use. Fallon Post: Anything important - what do you want to share about this legislation, concerns about future problems that could arise from the bill? Busselman:  There is a court case before the Nevada Supreme Court on whether the State Engineer has authority over groundwater associated with domestic wells.  Farm Bureau policy supports the authority of the State Engineer over all water.  We’ll have to see how this court case turns out.  If the ruling is such that there is no authority over domestic wells or the water connected, there would not be any ability for shutting down domestic wells in a curtailment situation.  If there wasn’t any curtailment of domestic wells, AB 95 wouldn’t ever apply. There might be problems for existing water right owners if domestic wells and the water that is pumped from the well doesn’t fit within the authority of the State Engineer.  These more junior water rights would basically be allowed to siphon away water that belongs to the more senior water right owners. Fallon Post: Some opponents of AB95 feel the legislation moves the authority over domestic wells from NRCS/DWR to the state engineer. Can you explain the misconception? Busselman: :  Domestic well drilling is currently under the authority of the State Engineer and the issue involves whether the water that comes from the well also is covered by this authority. Technically, domestic wells don’t have a water right and that is one of the elements connected to the court case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  The law indicates that there is a date assigned to a well (along the same lines of the date for a water right) and that the domestic well is provided a “duty” of 2 acre feet of water to be pumped on an annual basis. Farm Bureau policy supports the authority of the State Engineer over all water in Nevada.  That is why we think that it is in the best interest of well owners to have the protections of fitting into the authority of the State Engineer and also being protected by the passage of AB 95. Fallon Post: Concerns about authority of the State Engineer? Busselman:  I’m not sure that we consider there being any results from any legislation this session granting increased power to the State Engineer.  We have had some concerns over the years for whether the State Engineer was following existing law and we have challenged some of the decisions that have come about or were suggested on the basis of whether the ideas followed the limits of state law in regard to the State Engineer’s authority. Fallon Post: There is a lot of concern of water metering and the potential outcomes. Do you think there is some misinformation out there? Busselman:  Over the past couple of sessions there have been those who have misrepresented proposals related to domestic wells.  In both sessions the purpose was geared to protecting the ability to continue to pump domestic wells, even in a curtailment situation.  I believe that there are those who believe that the state water law doesn’t apply to them and their domestic well…or the water that comes from the ground from their domestic well.  That is not a point of view that we agree with. It is unfortunate that those who make the argument that the law doesn’t apply to domestic wells try to stir up a misunderstanding with others that somebody is going to come along and force meters on them and other assertions that aren’t true.  Those who have followed the legislative process closely and participated in the deliberation over legislation might be better sources than those who haven’t and are simply trying to frighten others. Fallon Post: Do you have any comments on the proposed bills that did not pass? Busselman: :  Nevada Farm Bureau was very involved in a number of water bills, perhaps none more than AB 30, which was proposed by the State Engineer to deal with mitigation.  This bill would have allowed for the State Engineer to consider a water right application, in spite of the conflict that it might have caused to existing water right owners, using a 3M Plan (monitoring, management and mitigation) as a work-around to the potential conflict.  We were opposed to this being used and testified against AB 30 in both the Assembly and the Senate committees where it was considered.  After several attempts to amend and change the language to something that might be acceptable, it was agreed that there wasn’t an agreeable outcome.  It didn’t pass and died on the Desk in the Senate, missing the deadline for passage of the Second House. The agreement that was made involves water stakeholders to participate in ongoing meetings with the State Engineer to determine whether solutions can be found to clarify how mitigation and 3M Plans might work.  This would also likely include consideration of what “conflict” might mean and how to determine the degree as well as details for considering other water right applications or more junior water right owners in the context of existing water law and protection for those who are “first in time – first in right.” Doug Busselman is the Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau describes their association as a “grassroots organization that is comprised of county Farm Bureaus and state Farm Bureaus” and has been supporting Nevada farmers for over 100 years. For more information about the Nevada Farm Bureau, click here: Nevada Farm Bureau     Support local, independent news – contribute to The Fallon Post, your non-profit (501c3) online news source for all things Fallon. Never miss the local news -- read more on The Fallon Post home page.