Members may then want to hire consultants,
said Baughman, who serves as the authority's executive
director.
Lesperance said counties need to be aware of
the public relations side of water use. The state has the
impression that Pershing County has enough water to sell
to a mine, while Lander County has enough water to create
a marsh, he said.
Baughman said he's worried there might not be
a chance to respond to the water plan guidelines until
after the Nevada Legislature adjourns. If the guidelines
turn out to be not in favor of the rural areas, Baughman
said he'd like the legislature to adopt Senate Bills 55
and 56.
Baughman said state Sen. Dean Rhoads,
R-Tuscarora, reported both bills have stalled until
legislators see what happens on the state water plan.
SB 56 asks that changes in water policy be as
consistent as possible with plans developed by cities and
counties relating to the conservation of water or
underground water. SB 55 includes language that the state
water plan be designed to protect the identified needs
for water and future development in the rural areas.
Both bills are opposed by the Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Department Director Pete Morros testified at a Senate
committee meeting March 5 that both bills would
discourage the planning process, close the door on
innovative solutions and
|
encourage litigation
and uncertainty.
Morros said coordination with local government
is already established under state law and his agency
hasn't received any complaints over a lack of
coordination with local governments.
At a Feb. 14 meeting, a state advisory board
on water resources claimed the bills provide no
incentives for coordination among local governments where
water resources cross boundaries; that local governments
don't have the ability or expertise to develop their own
water plans; and the bills would make the state plan
meaningless, simply an endorsement of local plans.
"They were adamant that water planning
was the purview of the state,"
Baughman said.
The advisory board suggested some language be
toned down in Senate Bill 55 asking the state coordinate
with local governments, "to the extent
possible," the plan's development. If either bill
moves forward, language should be modified to focus on
coordination between counties and the state, according to
the board motion.
"We recommend the committee withdraw from
further consideration of these bills and that the
Humboldt River Water Authority commit to working with us
on developing a truly excellent state plan," the
advisory board concluded.
§
§ §
|