For legislation to retire water rights, political support is ample. Funding, not so much.
After years of setbacks, a program that would authorize the sale and permanent retirement of water rights over the next decade in order to reduce groundwater overuse in the driest state in the union is moving forward.
But a sketchy economic outlook and accompanying reduced state revenue estimates means a funding source to implement the program might have to wait.
Assembly Bill 104 would establish the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program, which would allow willing landowners to sell their water rights back to the state through the year 2035. The bill would direct the state engineer to permanently retire those rights from future allocation to address Nevada's dwindling groundwater supply.
Last week, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources heard the bill, which will need to pass through the committee by Friday to move forward. The bill passed the Assembly unanimously last month.
Legislation to create a voluntary water rights retirement program was first introduced in 2023 by former Republican Sen. Pete Goicoechea, but stalled in the Legislature.
For more than a year, lawmakers, conservation groups, mining interests and local water managers worked together to craft the bill's language and ensure its passage, an effort reflected by the bill's bipartisan passage in the Assembly and wide support.
'Establishing a water rights retirement program in statute would be simply a step forward in our state in addressing over-appropriation and over pumping,' said Democratic Assemblymember. Natha Anderson of Sparks, who chairs the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and presented the bill to the Senate panel last week.
During the hearing, representatives from several rural counties spoke in support of the measure, including officials in Washoe, Humboldt, Eureka, and Churchill counties.
'It's a really, very well thought out bill that has lots of support, and we just appreciate that this bill is before your committee,' said Jeff Fontaine, representing the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority and Humboldt River Basin Water Authority.
Several conservation groups also spoke in support of the legislation, including the Great Basin Water Network, the Walker Basin Conservancy, the Nevada Conservation League, and the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition.
Assembly Bill 104 builds on a pilot program launched in 2023 that used a one-time allocation of $25 million in federal funds to purchase groundwater rights from private Nevada landowners in over-pumped and over-appropriated basins.
More than 22,500 acre-feet of groundwater were retired under the pilot program — enough to cover annual water usage for about 45,000 homes — at an average cost of just over $1,000 per acre-foot.
The pilot program proved more successful than anticipated, attracting offers from water rights holders to sell a total of $65.5 million in rights in a matter of months — about $40 million more than available funding.
Despite wide support, the establishment of the voluntary water rights retirement program has faced some difficulties during this year's legislative session.
One drawback discussed during the hearing was the lack of any funding to implement the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program, if passed.
A bill with similar language was introduced in the Assembly, but faced challenges due to the addition of a fiscal note as lawmakers face challenging budget cuts.
'While we don't have any money to fill the coffers right now, if we build it, they will come,' said Kyle Roerink, the executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, which was part of the working group that shaped the bill.
'What we are asking you all to do is, let's build this statutorily. Let's figure out ways to get the money,' he continued.
The bill authorizes the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to apply for and accept any gift, donation, grant, federal money, or other source of money for the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program. If established, the program would be administered by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Groundwater is vital in Nevada, where it supplies about 30% of the state's total water use, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, in many rural communities, it's the primary or sole water source for homes, farms, and ecosystems.
Prior to the 1960s, Nevada experienced relatively minimal development of groundwater sources. Now significantly more groundwater is extracted than is returned to Nevada's aquifers each year.
As a result, more than half of Nevada's 256 groundwater basins are over-appropriated, meaning the volume of water listed in the rights exceeds the amount of actual available water.
A little more than half the groundwater withdrawn is used for agriculture with another 30% used for mining operations.
Mining and farming representatives agreed Nevada's dwindling groundwater supply is an issue that must be addressed.
During the hearing, Doug Busselman, the executive vice president of the Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in support of the bill. The Nevada Farm Bureau was part of the working group that helped develop the bill.
'Nevada Farm Bureau also has a policy which supports a voluntary purchase of water and retirement to bring basins back into balance,' Busselman said.
The Nevada Mining Association was also heavily involved in the creation of the bill, and helped present the bill during the Senate hearing.
'We all know groundwater is a critical resource in Nevada, and it's facing pressures like none before, including an increasing population base in Nevada, climate change and the need for reliable and up to date resource information,' said Alan Biaggi, a representative for the Nevada Mining Association.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Eric Swalwell rejects Michelle Obama's 'when they go low, we go high' message, vows to 'bury' Republicans
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., dismissed former First Lady Michelle Obama's famous "when they go low, we go high" mantra on Saturday, instead threatening to "bury" Republicans "below the Capitol" during a redistricting fight. On "CNN Newsroom," host Omar Jimenez brought up Obama's old mantra after asking the congressman whether there were concerns that "fighting fire with fire" in redrawing congressional maps could backfire on the Democratic Party. "No, when they go low, we're going to bury them below the Capitol," Swalwell said. "That's what we're going to do, because this is about protecting democracy. And right now, as you see, D.C. has been militarized, and we were weak as Democrats." Swalwell called recent efforts by Texas Republicans to redraw the state's congressional districts a "grab for power" by President Donald Trump to make sure Democrats lose in the upcoming midterm elections. He argued that fighting fire with fire was the only way "to protect the most vulnerable" and defend democracy. "We have paid the price for our weakness in the past, and we can't be so weak next time we have power," Swalwell said. "Gavin Newsom is making Donald Trump react to him with the lawsuits with this new map to match what's happening in Texas. And the way I see it is, either we're on our heels, and the most vulnerable are on their heels reacting to Donald Trump, or he's on his heels reacting to us." Newsom has proposed a controversial initiative that would allow for mid-decade redistricting, aiming to eliminate five Republican-held seats in response to GOP-led map changes in Texas. However, such changes are currently prohibited by the California state constitution, which mandates nonpartisan redistricting through an independent commission. Newsom and California Democrats are pushing for a special election later this year to obtain voter approval to bypass the constitution. Swalwell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Swalwell is the latest in a long line of Democrats who have appeared to abandon the "when they go low, we go high" mantra in favor of harsher and sometimes violent rhetoric. Michelle Obama also amended the phrase in a 2020 DNC speech. "Let's be clear: going high does not mean putting on a smile and saying nice things when confronted by viciousness and cruelty," Obama said in 2020. "Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountain top. Going high means standing fierce against hatred while remembering that we are one nation under God, and if we want to survive, we've got to find a way to live together and work together across our differences."


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Mayor Eric Adams deserves credit for his stunning housing wins
It's odd how little credit Mayor Eric Adams gets for his relentless, steady and successful drive to get more housing, including more affordable homes, built in New York City. In under four years, he's arguably done more than his predecessors achieved in the previous two decades, winning changes that will make a huge difference in the long term rather than offering empty promises of instant miracles. The latest: The City Council just OK'd Adams' plan to rezone Midtown South, opening the door for nearly 10,000 new housing units, 2,800 of them affordable, in an area that was largely zoned for (outdated) industrial uses. Advertisement Some of those units will come from converting commercial space to residential, an obvious next step for older, vacant office buildings. All told, Adams' rezoning push starting in 2021 has cleared the way for 100,000 new units to be built across the city, with 30,000 more on the way if the City Council approves his plans for Jamaica and Long Island City. Advertisement That's more housing gained via zoning changes than added in the Bloomberg and de Blasio years combined. Another unheralded gain, from years of steady effort and deft alliances: getting the Legislature to lift the floor-area-ratio cap of 12, which arbitrarily restricted the height of residential buildings. Between the mayor's massive City of Yes package, which the council approved last year, and other efforts, including the preservation of about 134,700 existing units, City Hall counts the number of units added to or kept in the Big Apple's housing supply under Adams at about 426,000. Yes, that includes the totals from proposals that still need to go through the approval process — and a good chunk, like those enabled through rezoning, won't be fully realized for years. Advertisement It doesn't help when lefty ideologues sabotage projects like the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, which would offer 6,000 new units, because they'd rather have no new housing than let any market-rate apartments get built on public land. But the mayor's full-court press means he's already changed the city's long-term housing landscape for the better even if some plans fall through — and he could do even more in a second term. We know: 'Methodical' doesn't match the Adams' image, but perhaps that's because so little of the local media pays attention to day-in-day-out reality; it's so much easier to fawn over, say, Zohran Mamdani's flashy promises to freeze rents. Advertisement Even though the mayor's strategy, unlike Mamdani's, works. Freezing rent on rent-regulated apartments would force more landlords to abandon their buildings altogether or allow units to fall into disrepair, making the city's housing situation worse. Meanwhile, Adams is dramatically boosting supply, which will organically push rents lower over time. In a city where hysterically anti-development progressives constantly do their best to thwart common-sense housing fixes, Adams' success in ushering in lasting change is stunning. And though the fruits of his labor will take time to fully appear, generations of New Yorkers will benefit. As the mayoral race exits the summer 'silly season,' perhaps voters will start to realize who's actually delivering the housing solutions New York needs.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Texas state senators take first step toward redistricting
State senators in Texas launched a public hearing Sunday on a bill to redraw congressional voting districts in the state, a move that could win Republicans five more seats in the House if the GOP plan works perfectly. The public hearing is a required step before a bill can advance for a vote on the state Senate floor, Nexstar's KXAN reported. Democrats fled the state earlier this summer to prevent Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republicans from having the legislative quorum necessary to pass legislation. But Democrats are expected to attend the new special session after garnering attention with their walkout, and triggering more redistricting efforts around the country. 'We did exactly what we said we needed to do, and that is bringing a spotlight on this issue,' State Rep. Josey Garcia (D-San Antonio) said in an interview with KXAN one day before Abbott called the second special session. Most notably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is spearheading an effort to change district lines in his state to make up for any potential losses for Democrats in Texas. Democrats released their proposed map on Friday evening. Newsom (D) is vying to hold a special election this fall on a ballot measure that would suspend the state's independent redistricting commission until the end of the decade in an effort to keep up with Republican gerrymandering. Newsom has stressed that bypassing the commission, which Californians approved back in 2008 and 2010, would be temporary, and that redrawing the lines would only be triggered by redistricting in red states. 'They do five seats, we do five seats,' Newsom has said. KXAN reported that Texas House leaders expect that the House will have enough members present Monday to conduct legislative business. GOP State Sen. Phil King told KXAN that the new mapy would be legal and will perform better for Republicans in the state. 'We heard a lot of testimony that the current map had a number of districts that were not compact, were not close together, were not tight, in in their in their design, and in this map, listening to that testimony, we applied it, and this map also is much more compact than the current congressional redistricting map.' The proposed changes target five districts in areas around Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, creating Republican-leaning seats. The Texas push was directed by President Trump, who has also been pushing other states where Republicans are in control of government to look at redistricting to gain Republicans seats. The states considering such options include Missouri and Indiana. Trump was impeached twice in his first term after Democrats regained control of the House. Because the GOP has a very narrow majority in the House and the president's party typically loses seats in the midterm elections, the possibility of Democrats regaining the House majority is a real possibility in 2026.