Precious water: Nevada lawmakers have decisions ahead on conservation bills
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Why should some mining companies and geothermal energy projects get a pass on rules surrounding groundwater extraction? That's the basic question behind a bill in the Nevada Legislature, one of several proposed laws surrounding water issues this session.
Assembly Bill 109 (AB109), dubbed the 'water application fairness bill,' challenges a loophole that allows some companies to escape regulatory reviews that come in the permitting process. 'Consumptive use' of water gets a fresh look in AB109. The bill doesn't go along with the thinking that nothing has really changed if the water is returned to where it was removed.
'Yes, you can return water to the source after it's pumped. But that pumping throws off aquifers. And it unstabilizes and unbalances aquifers. And so even if you return ever drop, you can still have major impacts on an aquifer and water can go in different directions and go to different places,' according to Kyle Roerink, executive director of the conservation-minded Great Basin Water Network.
'And so then you're harming springs, which are surface expressions of groundwater and you're harming the overall stability when you pump large quantities, even if it's returned,' Roerink said.
He said AB109 fixes that, simply by requiring the permit and ensuring no one is exempt.
Union workers written up, fired for using sick days; Nevada lawmaker moves to close loophole
Democratic Assem. Selena La Rue Hatch is sponsoring AB109.
'During my work with the Interim Natural Resources committee it came to my attention that there was a loophole in Nevada law that may need closing. As we all know, as the driest state in the nation, our water is precious and limited. Therefore, under our current laws, all water used in the state must be put to beneficial use,' La Rue Hatch said Friday.
'To ensure this, all water uses must be reviewed by the State Engineer to ensure water is available, existing water rights will not be harmed, and the water will indeed be put to beneficial use while protecting the public interest. Unfortunately, there are some select industries who are not subject to this review and are able to use the waters of Nevada without this critical oversight,' she said.
'My intention with this bill is to ensure that all industries go through this same process and that our water is protected. This bill brings clarity to a confusing section of statute and ensures parity for all water users while protecting the water that we all hold so dear,' La Rue Hatch said.
Farmers and companies involved in hard-rock mining have to apply for groundwater permits, and this bill would remove exceptions for geothermal projects and new mining methods — including some lithium mining techniques.
Groundwater is serious business in Nevada. A number of endemic species live in springs that could dry up with overpumping, and 10% of the Las Vegas valley's water comes from wells, even if all you ever hear about is the 90% that comes from Lake Mead.
A fiscal note for the bill indicates there are about 450 active geothermal projects across the state.
Albemarle, the company that operates the only active lithium mine in the U.S. at Silver Peak, west of Tonopah, states on its website: 'We carefully measure water withdrawals and continuously monitor groundwater systems, both freshwater and brine, to confirm there are no adverse impacts to the nearby water resources.'
Roerink calls it 'the most important water bill that we can pass this session' and points out that it protects wildlife, property rights, due process, the public interest, and even mining companies by ensuring their competition has to follow the same law.
Another piece of legislation is the first proposal of its kind in Nevada.
WATER CONSERVATION PLANS: AB134 would create a beneficial use that is a 'non-use' — a strictly conservational use, Roerink said. The bill goes beyond protecting springs for wildlife, and it's about more than fallowing fields to save water temporarily. He's concerned about the risks if water 'profiteering' takes hold in Nevada.
'We're an organization that's really cautious about true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool Nevadans who make a living off their water. We want to make sure that we're protecting those interests as well as being conscious that there's going to be less and less water to go around in the years to come,' Roerink said.
He sees AB134 as a way to limit conflict over water in communities. The Great Basin Water Network sets out these concepts for what the bill would do:
Protect the conserved or saved portion of their right from use-it-or-lose-it provisions in the law for entities that make demonstrable investments in water conservation practices.
Prohibits entities from 'conserving' the entire amount of a permitted, certificated, or vested water right. This prevents abuse from speculators.
Offers alternatives to buy-and-dry proposals that take water and people off the land, invite invasive weeds, and upend rural community dynamics.
Makes provisions voluntary and limited for up to 10 years. Renewals would be allowed after the terms of the Water Conservation Plan expire.
After a Water Conservation Plan expires, a water user could resume putting that water to use again for non-conservation purposes.
The proposal respects the principle of 'enlargement,' which means another water user couldn't use the 'conserved' or 'saved' water that's flowing downstream.
EXPANDING EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES: Based on an existing program from 2007, AB9 could provide a way to expand conservation programs while putting safeguards in place to prevent speculative uses of water rights. Roerink sees it as a 'halfway' step that might be more acceptable to lawmakers. The bill is still in its formative stages, but it's expected to get a bill hearing next week.
WATER OMNIBUS AND CLEANUP: AB104 renews the effort to retire water rights, buying back those rights from individual users across the state. That was happening with the use of COVID money, Roerink said, but it was completely through administrative channels with no framework under state law. This bill would set up that framework, but it does not request any funding for buybacks. This bill is also scheduled for a hearing next week.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Around the West, politicians are writing more bills than ever
Who knew there were this many things that had to be fixed? The legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington are over. Depending on your political perspective, the benefits — or damages — will be felt for years to come. One thing that isn't in dispute? Lawmakers couldn't help but introduce a record number of bills in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Washington may also be added to that list, depending on what happens in the second part of its biennium. In Idaho, lawmakers introduced nearly 800 pieces of legislation — the highest mark going back at least 16 years. Less than 50% of the legislation actually made it across the finish line. Higher numbers are expected in Idaho, as lawmakers now individually introduce and approve every state department budget, rather than just one large state budget. Still, the numbers are staggering, not only for lawmakers who work at the state capitol, but also for citizens who try to follow the session and be involved in the process. Making it more challenging in Idaho is the sometimes minimal lack of notice regarding hearings for bills that have been introduced. We've recommended that lawmakers commit to a Rule of Three to allow citizens more time to be engaged. In Montana, lawmakers also hit a record of 1,761 bills introduced, with a little more than half being signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte. Montana's joint Rule 40-40 'allows members of the Montana Legislature to request an unlimited number of bill or resolution drafts before December 5. After that date, a member may request the Legislative Council to prepare no more than seven bills or resolutions. Unused requests by one member may be granted to another member. The limits do not apply to code commissioner bills or committee bills.' In Wyoming, which divides sessions among general session years and budget years, lawmakers also hit a record of 556 bills introduced. But only 31% became law. Washington state lawmakers were by far the least productive, passing only 19.5% of the more than 2,000 bills they introduced. And they're not done yet, as Washington works on a biennium and lawmakers will return next January to continue increasing the number. Passing legislation certainly isn't a contest. And this column is in no way an encouragement to increase the across-the-finish-line percentages. But it is worth pointing out that introducing legislation takes time and resources - resources that are provided by taxpayers (so perhaps a new state rock shouldn't be high on a lawmaker's list). More bill introductions also make tracking your elected official's work more difficult. Some states, including Arizona, California, New Jersey, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana and Montana have sought to restrict how many bills a legislator can introduce each session. Do all states need a rule that limits a lawmaker's appetite for more and more legislation? Maybe. But we'd rather see a self-imposed diet. Chris Cargill is the president of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free market think tank based in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and eastern Washington. Online at
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The end of the 2025 Louisiana legislative session is approaching
We've seen many bills debated in the legislature. So far, Governor Jeff Landry has signed into law six bills from his tort and insurance reform effort, which he says will lower insurance rates.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jackson County legislators could finally end 6-month budget freeze. What to know
After nearly six months without an active budget, Jackson County legislators are seeking community feedback on Monday as they may finally be reaching a compromise to get something passed. The half billion-dollar budget has been held in flux since the beginning of the year throughout months of infighting between members of the legislature and County Executive Frank White, who vetoed the proposed budget in its entirety on January 9. Now, the legislature will be voting on its latest round of edits to the plan on Monday. Monday's meeting will kick off with a public hearing regarding the budget before legislators vote on the proposal. However, a double final vote — on whether to approve the proposed amendments, then whether to pass the budget — will not take place until the legislature's next meeting, at the earliest. The legislature typically meets weekly on Mondays. All meetings of the Jackson County Legislature, including Monday's hearing, are open to the public. Legislators initially voted 5-4 to approve this year's budget for the first time at the very end of last year, on Dec. 31, before White vetoed it. In a letter to the legislature sent the same day of his veto, White called the proposed budget legally and fiscally irresponsible. He criticized its proposed increases to the legislature's own operating budget and its proposed cuts to public safety, arts and corrections staff. 'This budget, as amended, does not reflect the values of Jackson County,' White wrote. 'It prioritizes political gamesmanship over public safety, economic stability, and the well-being of our residents.' Months later, county legislator Charlie Franklin introduced a further amended version of the budget, with over $11 million in additional appropriations included to be allocated to various county agencies. That's what legislators will be voting on on Monday. The proposed amended budget would put additional money toward the public safety and parks departments, as well as toward county administrative offices and the legislature itself. While some of the extra money would be allocated from the county's 2025 general fund and other budget categories, more than $10 million would come from taxes collected from marijuana sales. In the months that legislators and White have remained at an impasse over the budget, multiple county agencies and services — including the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office, the Parks and Recreation Department and dozens of tax-funded programs — have been unable to access the majority of their funding. Some 'emergency' funding has been released on a case-by-case basis to maintain the day-to-day operations of municipal organizations or satisfy specific grants and contracts. For example, before Monday's meeting, the budget and finance committee will vote to advance an ordinance releasing funding for renovations at Jackson County's family court, and to fill a two-year contract for food services at the Jackson County Detention Center. In the months the budget has remained frozen, tension between the county executive and the legislature has continued to build. Four members of the legislature sued White in February over his budget veto, and three legislators wrote to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in May, asking for an investigation into White's conduct. Meanwhile, an effort to recall White is in full swing, with organizers gathering more than half of the signatures needed to put a recall vote on the ballot. The recall effort primarily stems from voters' frustration with how White, along with county assessment director Gail McCann Beatty, set property tax values on real estate during the 2023 assessment cycle. Whenever it is passed, the budget will remain in effect through December 31, 2025.