AGENDA HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY Pershing County Community Center 820 6th St. Lovelock, NV 89419
February 23, 2021 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will adhere to the 6-foot social distancing rule and Directive to wear masks or face coverings
Notes: 1. Items on this agenda on which action may be taken are followed by the term "Possible Action." 2. Items on this agenda may be taken out of order, combined with other agenda items for consideration, removed from the agenda, or delayed for discussion at any time. 3. Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate physically handicapped persons attending the meeting. Please call 775-443-7667 in advance so arrangements can be made. This agenda was transmitted by email February 12, 2021 for posting by the Elko County Clerk (775-753-4600), Eureka County Clerk (775-237-5262), Humboldt County Clerk (775-623-6343), Lander County Clerk (775-635-5738), Pershing County Clerk (775-273-2208) and Pershing County Community Center (775-273-7144). 4. Some Members of the HRBWA Board of Directors may attend the meeting via teleconference. 5. For further information or to obtain copies of board materials contact Jeff Fontaine, Executive Director, (775-443-7667) or [email protected]
ITEM
1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman’s welcome, roll call, determination of quorum, pledge of allegiance and introductions.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT – This time is devoted to comments by the general public, pursuant to NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3). No action will be taken on matters raised under public comment until the matter itself has been included on an agenda as an action item.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – Approval of the agenda for the Authority’s meeting of February 23, 2021, including taking items out of sequence, deleting items and adding items which require action upon a finding that an emergency exists. (Possible Action)
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Review and approval of minutes of the November 13, 2020 Humboldt River Basin Water Authority meeting. (Possible Action) TAB 1
5. FINANCIAL REPORT AND QUARTERLY EXPENDITURES – Current financial report and recommendation to approve related invoices submitted for payment to the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority. (Possible Action) TAB 2A and TAB 2B
6. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY AND KATHLEEN LAXALT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DURING THE 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. (Possible Action) TAB 3
7. PRESENTATION ON NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE’S FEBRUARY 1, 2021 NEVADA WATER SUPPLY OUTLOOK REPORT. (Discussion) TAB 4
8. PRESENTATION ON THE COEUR ROCHESTER MINE EXPANSION. (Discussion)
9. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT CONJUNCTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE WATERS OF THE HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN – Presentation by Dr. Michael Taylor, Associate Professor/State Specialist, Dept. of Economics/Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno - (Discussion) TAB 5
10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE NEVADA STATE ENGINEER’S DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ISSUED REGARDING PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE HUMBOLDT RIVER REGION PURSUANT TO THE OCTOBER 20, 2020 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PERSHING COUNTY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE STATE ENGINEER IN CASE NO. CV15-12019. (Possible Action) TAB 6
11. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BILLS AND BILL DRAFT REQUESTS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. (Possible Action) TAB 7
12. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JANUARY 28, 2021 OPINION ON MINERAL COUNTY’S APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA RULING ON WALKER LAKE WORKING GROUP V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT - (Discussion) TAB 8
13. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING WATER RIGHTS FILINGS WITH THE NEVADA STATE ENGINEER – Discussion and possible action on November and December 2020, and January and February 2021 water right filings; previously and newly filed protest letters and comment letters by HRBWA; and State Engineer Rulings and Orders. (Possible Action) TAB 9
14. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PROPOSED REGULATIONS REGARDING HEARINGS BEFORE THE DIVISION, EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO PERFECT A WATER RIGHT AND LICENSURE OF NEVADA WATER RIGHT SURVEYORS (NEVADA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 533). (Possible Action) TAB 10
15. BOARD MEMBER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS – Board members and the Executive Director can make announcements, request information and discuss topics for future agendas – (Discussion)
16. NEXT MEETING – Set date, place, time and possible agenda items for the Authority’s next meeting. (Possible Action)
17. PUBLIC COMMENT – This time is devoted to comments by the general public, pursuant to NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3). No action will be taken on matters raised under public comment until the matter itself has been included on an agenda as an action item.
ADJOURN
Tab 1
HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY February 23, 2021 Director/Alternate Attendance List
Directors County Present Absent Commissioner Rex Steninger Elko ______Commissioner Wilde Brough Elko ______Mr. Craig Spratling Elko ______Commissioner J.J. Goicoechea Eureka ______Mr. Tom Tomera Eureka ______Mr. Carl Slagowski Eureka ______Commissioner Ron Cerri Humboldt ______Ms. Kris Stewart Humboldt ______Mr. Paul Miller Humboldt ______Commissioner Wallace Thomas Lander ______Commissioner Kathleen Ancho Lander ______Mr. Louis Lani (Vice Chairman) Lander ______Commissioner Shayla Hudson Pershing ______Mr. Bennie Hodges (Chairman) Pershing ______Mr. Richard Dennler Pershing ______
Ex Officio Nevada Mining Assn. Amy Sue Race NV Gold Mines ______
Alternates Mr. Mark Hooper Elko ______Mr. Jake Tibbitts Eureka ______Mr. Vince Mendiola Humboldt ______Commissioner Ken Tipton Humboldt ______Mr. Ronnie Burrows Pershing ______Mr. Carl Clinger Pershing ______Mr. Allen Biaggi NMA ______Minutes Humboldt River Basin Water Authority November 13, 2020 Winnemucca Convention Center, West Hall Winnemucca, Nevada
Chairman Bennie Hodges called the meeting of the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority to order on Friday, November 13, 2020, at 10:05 a.m. at the Winnemucca Convention Center, West Hall, Winnemucca, Nevada.
The following members of the Board were present: Rex Steninger, Elko County Louis Lani, Lander County Craig Spratling, Elko County Robert McDougal, Pershing County Ron Cerri, Humboldt County Bennie Hodges, Pershing County Kris Stewart, Humboldt County Richard Dennler, Pershing County Kathleen Ancho (by phone), Lander County
Ex Officio Nevada Mining Assn. Amy Sue Race, Nevada Gold Mines
Alternates present: Vince Mendiola, Humboldt County Carl Clinger, Pershing County Ken Tipton, Humboldt County Allen Biaggi, NMA
Members of Board who were absent: Alternates absent: Demar Dahl, Elko County Mark Hooper, Elko County Tom Tomera, Eureka County Jake Tibbits, Eureka County J.J. Goicoechea, Eureka County Ronnie Burrows, Pershing County Carl Slagowski, Eureka County Paul Miller, Humboldt County Judie Allan, Lander County
Chairman Hodges noted that a quorum of the Board was present. Also present was Jeff Fontaine, contract executive director for the Authority. Other persons attending the meeting included: Jean Black, BLM Ryan Collins, PCWCD Eric Schadeck, NDWR Doug Busselman, NV Farm Bureau Federation Adam Sullivan, NDWR Ann Carpenter, Coeur Rochester
Chairman Hodges noted that, due to hearing limitations of some members, he will be turning the meeting over to Mr. Fontaine.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments received.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Moved by Mr. Tipton and seconded by Mr. Lani to approve agenda as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
-1- ELECTION OF HRBWA CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN: Commissioner. Steninger moved to nominate Mr. Hodges as Chairman for 2021. Motion seconded by Commissioner McDougal and passed unanimously. Commissioner Cerri moved to nominate Mr. Lani as Vice-Chairman for 2021. Motion seconded by Commissioner Steninger and passed unanimously.
MINUTES: Following review of the August 14, 2020, minutes, Commissioner McDougal moved to approve the minutes as corrected by Commissioner Tipton. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Steninger and passed unanimously.
FINANCIAL MATTERS: Mr. Fontaine presented current financial report for posting dates July 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020. Report reflects a beginning balance of $72,334.46. Revenues total $40,000.00; however, a journal entry has been made for Humboldt County assessment of $5,000. Expenses total $4,963.50 for excess revenue Over (Under) expenditures of $40,036.50 (includes the $5,000 journal entry for Humboldt County assessment). Commissioner McDougal noted that under total revenues it should read $45,000 instead of $50,000. Chairman Hodges questioned if website maintenance was going to be an annual charge, and Mr. Fontaine stated that it will be. The website design was a one time charge.
Mr. Fontaine presented invoice from Nevada Authority Management, LLC for the period of July 29, 2020 to November 2, 2020, totaling $3,386.67
Commissioner McDougal moved to approve financial report, as corrected, and invoice from Nevada Authority Management, LLC totaling $3,386.67. Motion seconded by Mr. Lani and passed unanimously.
APPROVAL FOR HRBWA TO JOIN THE NEVADA WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER FOR 2021: Mr. Fontaine presented application for Board’s consideration/approval for the HRBWA to join the Nevada Water Resources Association as an organizational member for 2021. Annual membership dues would be $560 which allows up to six members to attend their annual conference. Mr. Fontaine noted that the members had approved joining for 2020.
Chairman Hodges commented that he feels this is the best benefit for the dollar. He also noted that all the members of the HRBWA could attend; however, they would have to pay a fee. He encouraged members to attend as he feels this is the best conference for water issues there is. Commissioner McDougal noted that the conference for this year will be virtual; however, there still would be a fee involved. Dates are January 18 – 21, 2021.
Mr. Hodges moved to approve HRBWA joining the Nevada Water Resources Association as an organizational member. Motion seconded by Mr. Clinger and passed unanimously. Commissioner McDougal abstained as he is on the NWRA Board.
THE NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROPOSED ANTI-DEGRADATION POLICY: Mr. Fontaine reviewed the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Agency (NDEP), Bureau of Water Quality Planning’s proposed Anti-Degradation Policy dated July 2020 for members’ discussion and possible action.
-2- Allen Biaggi, NMA, spoke to this issue. NDEP was asked by the NMA why these are being considered as regulations currently in place have been working well. They have not received a response from NDEP in this regard. He did note that the NMA is not necessarily opposed to the proposed regulations; they just feel there has not been enough transparency/clarification in this regard. The NMA is watching this very closely.
Chairman Hodges also spoke to this issue, and voiced concerns he has with the proposed regulations. He feels the wrong people could use these unrealistically/detrimentally. Commissioner McDougal also expressed concerns with the proposed regulation, and the impact it may have on the waters of the State.
Mr. Fontaine will continue to participate in the working group involved with following developments etc. in this regard and keep the HRBWA members informed. Mr. Biaggi noted that the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) would be a great member to the working group, and individual counties would be welcome to the working group as well. They do not expect any action in this regard before the end or the year or first part of next year.
LOOK BACK AT THE 2020 NORTHERN NEVADA STREAMFLOW, RESERVOIR AND WEATHER FORECASTS: Mr. Fontaine presented information compiled by the USDA regarding the 2020 Northern Nevada Streamflow, Reservoir and Weather forecasts for members’ review/discussion and possible action. Tim Bardsley, with the National Weather Service, via teleconference, reviewed said information with the members.
Chairman Hodges commented that eliminating the gauge at Imlay could be very detrimental to downstream producers in seeking financing, and requested that they reconsider doing away with this.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMTED TO, BILL DRAFT REQUESTS AND APPOINTMENT OF A HRBWA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: Mr. Fontaine presented current Bill Draft Requests for the 81st (2021) session of the Nevada Legislature as well as recommendation for possible consideration by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands for members review, discussion and possible action. Adam Sullivan, NDWR, also presented overview of bill draft requests from NDWR/State Engineer (BDR 339 and 340). Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, also spoke to BDR 339 and 340, noting that these BDR’s would only apply to agricultural use. Several members expressed concerns in this regard.
Appointment of a Legislative Committee discussed. Last session it was one Commissioner from each County. Mr. Fontaine did note that the appointee does not have to be a Commissioner. Commissioner McDougal noted that he feels Chairman Hodges would be a better representative for Pershing County as he will not be continuing as a Commissioner next year. Commissioner Steninger was Elko County’s representative, and Commissioner Ron Cerri was Humboldt County’s representative. Mr. Fontaine will contact the other two counties for their appointee.
Ms. Stewart commented that she feels the removal of the P.E. requirement for the State Engineer recommendation by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands would be a very poor decision.
-3- PROPOSED ORDERS BY THE NEVADA STATE ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE 58 HYDROGRAPHIC BASINS WITHIN VARIOUS COUNTIES PURSUANT TO NEVADA REVISED STATUTE 534.030: Mr. Fontaine presented information from the Nevada Division of Water Resources regarding proposed orders for Hydrographic Basins within various counties for members review, discussion and possible action. Public comment period is open to December 3rd. Commissioners Cerri and Tipton both commented on Humboldt County’s concerns in this regard, and the effect it would have on agriculture.
Commissioner McDougal reviewed Pershing County’s concerns as well. He feels this is an effort to “dry up” the rural counties.
Commissioner McDougal moved that this Board take a position based on comments made by Commissioners Cerri and Tipton. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cerri and passed unanimously.
UPDATE ON ACTIVE WATER RELATED LITIGATION OF INTEREST TO THE HRBWA: Mr. Fontaine updated members on status of active water related litigation of interest to the HRBWA. Chairman Hodges reported on the Pershing County Water Conservation District lawsuit against the State Engineer. The District had been contacted by the State Engineer with regard to dropping their lawsuit and trying to mitigate this outside the Courts. The District has formally dropped their case, and they will try to mitigate this amongst themselves. The time line for this is 90 days for submittal of a draft order.
WATER RIGHT FILINGS: Mr. Fontaine presented water right filings with the Nevada State Engineer for July, August, September, October, and November 2020, previously and newly filed protest letters and comment letters by HRBWA; and State Engineer Rulings and Orders for members review, discussion and possible action. Mr. Fontaine stated he has been following Application 89932 by Cody Gandolfo, noting that a protest was filed by the Pershing County Water Conservation District.
BOARD MEMBER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Chairman Hodges advised that this is Mr. McDougal’s last meeting, and he has been a very good addition to the HRBWA during the last four years. It was also noted that Demar Dahl from Elko County has termed limited out as a County Commissioner, and will not be continuing as a member of HRBWA.
NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE AND POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Fontaine reviewed items he will research/follow-up on for the next meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 22, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Winnemucca. Mr. Fontaine will make the necessary arrangements and advise the members of the meeting location.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments received.
ADJOURNMENT: There appearing to be no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
-4-
Tab 2A
Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Financial Report 1/16/2021
BEGINNING BALANCE $ 72,334.46
BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES 100-000-32308-000
EUREKA COUNTY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 HUMBOLDT COUNTY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT *See Below JE CITY OF WINNEMUCCA ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $ 5,000.00 ELKO COUNTY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 LANDER COUNTY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 PERSHING COUNTY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
TOTAL REVENUES $ 50,000.00 $ 45,000.00
EXPENSES 100-015-52219-000 $ 50,000.00
NEVADA CENTRAL MEDIA, LLC WEBSITE MAINT $ 1,200.00 NEVADA CENTRAL MEDIA, LLC* WEBSITE FINAL DESIGN $ 1,275.00 JEFFREY A FONTAINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 4,983.17 A AND H INSURANCE INC ANNUAL PREMIUM $ 892.00 NV WATER RESOURCES ASSOC. ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP $ 560.00
*Moved from prior fiscal year
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 8,910.17
EXCESS REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXP. $ 36,089.83 JOURNAL ENTRY FOR HUMB CO ASSESSMENT $ 5,000.00
ENDING BALANCE $ 113,424.29
Tab 2B
February 23, 2021 Inv.# 21-1
Mr. Bennie Hodges Chairman Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Lovelock, Nevada 89419
For Professional Services Provided by Nevada Authority Management, LLC to the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority During the Period of November 3, 2020 to February 9, 2021
LABOR 44.00 hrs.@ $103.00/hr. $4,532.00
Subtotal Labor $4,532.00
EXPENSES
Fed EX copy Nov. 13 Board meeting packets $413.97
USPS mail Nov. 13 Board meeting packets $155.00
Nov. 13 Board meeting sandwiches $186.78
Nov. 13 Board meeting supplies/drinks $52.91
RT mileage Carson City to Winnemucca 361.4 $180.70 miles @ $0.50/mile - Nov. 13
Winnemucca Convention Center rental Nov. 13 $465.00 Susan Harrer Nov. 13 Board meeting minutes $200.00
Fed EX copy Jan. 29 Board meeting packets $385.25 USPS mail Jan. 29 Board meeting packets $186.75 Subtotal Expenses $2,226.36 TOTAL AMOUNT $6,758.36 NEVADA AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT, LLC 400 Bunker Hill Dr. Carson City, NV 89703
Time record for November 3, 2020 to February 9, 2021
DATE ACTIVITY HRS
11/3/2020 Copy 11/13/20 HRBWA Board meeting packets 0.5 11/4/2020 Mail 11/13/20 HRBWA Board meeting packets, post public notices 1 11/11/2020 Prepare for 11/13/20 HRBWA Board meeting, load power points, arrange lunch, coordinate 1 presentations with National Weather Service staff 11/12/2020 Phone call with Deputy State Engineer Adam Sullivan re: HRBWA Board meeting agenda 0.5 11/13/2020 Drive to Winnemucca, participate in HRBWA Board meeting 9 11/23/2020 Prepare draft comment letter to the State Engineer re: proposed orders to designate 58 1.5 groundwater basins 11/30/2020 Finalize and submit comment letter to the State Engineer re: proposed orders to designate 58 0.5 groundwater basins 12/4/2020 Post updates on events and DWR administrative regulations on HRBWA website 0.5 12/12/2020 Post NDWR administrative regulations language and workshop updates on website 0.5 12/21/2020 Coordinate with NWRA on 2021 Conference registration fees and email HRBWA Directors, 1.5 post/update events on HRBWA website, research Sunrise Minerals applications #89446 and #89447 in Basin 72 12/23/2020 Phone calls with PCWCD and Sunrise Minerals/R.O. Anderson Engineering re: applications 2.5 #89446 and #89447 in Basin 72, secure and plan room for January 29 HRBWA meeting and provide email and website update 1/6/2021 Phone call with Jon Benedict, DWR re: status update on Humboldt River capture models and 0.5 water valuation studies 1/8/2021 Review/analyze Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report for January 1, 2021 and post to HRBWA 1 website 1/10/2021 Send letters to HRBWA Board members re: HRBWA meeting date/location change, post to 0.5 HRBWA website 1/12/2021 Phone call with Dr. Michael Taylor, UNR re: economic analysis of water in the Humboldt River 0.5 Basin, Ann Carpenter re: Coeur Rochester mine update 1/14/2021 Post Relief Canyon Mine expansion DEIS availability on HRBWA website, phone call with 0.5 Pershing County Community Center re: HRBWA Board meeting logistics 1/15/2021 Email invitation to Dr. Taylor to present at Jan. 29th HRBWA meeting, email Alex Tanchek re: 0.5 taking minutes for HRBWA Jan. 29 meeting 1/16/2021 Prepare HRBWA 1/29/2021 meeting backup material 4 1/18/2021 Copy 1/29/21 HRBWA Board meeting packets 0.5 Mail 1/29/21 HRBWA Board meeting packets, participate in Zoom meeting with Division of 1.5 Water Resources on bills and bill draft requests (1 hour total split with CNRWA) post updates re: State Engineer Interim Humboldt Order and Water Rights Surveyor regulation withdrawl 1/19/2021 on website 1/20/2021 Review Interim Humboldt River Basin Order and mail to HRBWA Board Members, send 1 introductory email to new Board Member, Pershing County Commissioner Shayla Hudson 1/21/2021 Post and mail 1/29/2021 HRBWA meeting public notices 1 1/27/2021 Cancel 1/29/2021 HRBWA meeting, email notices, post on websites and phone calls 2 2/3/2021 Phone call with Jon Benedict, NDWR re: Humboldt River Basin capture models, phone call 1.5 with Ralph Runge, West Coast Salmon; phone call with Britt Johnson, Sunrise Minerals, LLC; reschedule possible HRBWA meeting dates with Pershing County Community Center and email HRBWA Board 2/4/2021 Watch Humboldt River Modeling Workshop hosted by DWR, prepare and email letter to State 5 Engineer to withdraw HRBWA Protests to Sunrise Mineral, LLC Water Applications 89446 and 89447, phone call interview with Nevada Independent re: SJR1 2/6/2021 Post news and meeting updates on HRBWA website, read 9th Circuit Walker River Opinion 1 Filed January 28, 2021 2/8/2021 Phone call with Doug Busselman, NFBF re: DWR Humboldt River workshop and State 1.5 Engineer's proposed Order, post updates to HRBWA website,send emails re: rescheduled HRBWA February 23rd meeting 2/9/2021 Prepare HRBWA 2/23/2021 Board meeting agenda and backup material 2.5
44.0 Winnemucca Convention Center 50 W. Winnemucca Blvd. Winnemucca, NV 89445 (775) 623-5071
Invoice #: 5080 Date: 16-Nov-20 Bill to: Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Attn: Jeff Fontaine [email protected]
Our Contract Number: n/a Meeting November 13, 2020
WH - 3 Rooms @ $120/room $ 360.00 PowerPoint projector rental - 3 @ $35 $ 105.00
TOTAL DUE: $ 465.00 Gmail - Port of Subs Order Received
Jeff Fontaine
Port of Subs Order Received 1 message
Port of Subs
PORT OF SUBS #170 Order # 935145419 1490 W. Winnemucca Boulevard, Winnemucca, NV 89445 (Note: You do not need Valley View Center, Next to Boot Barn this number to pickup) (775) 623-3089
Payment Method: Credit Card Mastercard x-4151
ORDER FOR PICKUP Order ready at 3:50 PM, TODAY (WEDNESDAY, 11/11/2020)
3 x Classic Sub #6 Sub Medium 8" Sub (3 x $6.99) = $20.97 Wheat Add Avocado Smokey Cheddar Mayo/Mustard Mix Shredded Iceberg Tomatoes Red Wine Vinegar Olive Oil Salt Pepper Oregano 10 x Classic Sub #7 Sub Medium 8" Sub (10 x $6.99) = $69.90 White Provolone Mayo/Mustard Mix Shredded Iceberg Tomatoes
file:///C/Users/ccjfo/Documents/HRBWA/HRBWA%20Invoices/Gmail%20-%20Port%20of%20Subs%20Order%20Received.html[12/21/2020 11:42:11 AM] Gmail - Port of Subs Order Received
Red Wine Vinegar Olive Oil Salt Pepper Oregano 5 x Classic Sub #8 Sub Medium 8" Sub (5 x $6.99) = $34.95 White Provolone Mayo/Mustard Mix Shredded Iceberg Tomatoes Red Wine Vinegar Olive Oil Salt Pepper Oregano 5 x Classic Sub #14 Sub Medium 8" Sub (5 x $6.99) = $34.95 Wheat Swiss Mayo/Mustard Mix Shredded Iceberg Tomatoes Red Wine Vinegar Olive Oil Salt Pepper Oregano SUBTOTAL $160.77 ESTIMATED TAX $11.01 TIP $15.00
TOTAL $186.78
Happy Eating! Thank you for ordering online with us.
Note: Add [email protected] to your safe-senders list so that you are sure to receive our messages. For order or delivery issues, please contact PORT OF SUBS #170 at (775) 623-3089. Order placed at 2:35 PM
file:///C/Users/ccjfo/Documents/HRBWA/HRBWA%20Invoices/Gmail%20-%20Port%20of%20Subs%20Order%20Received.html[12/21/2020 11:42:11 AM]
TO: Jeff Fontaine, Executive Director
FROM: Susan E. Harrer
DATE: November 16, 2020
RE: Invoice for transcribing the HRBWA Minutes
The following is my invoice for taking and transcribing the minutes from the November 13, 2020, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority meeting:
Taking and transcribing the minutes $200.00
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Susan E. Harrer P.O. Box 3 Winnemucca, NV 89446 (775) 761-4314 seh
Tab 3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY AND KATHLEEN LAXALT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This is an Agreement made as of February 23, 2021 between the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (AUTHORITY) and Kathleen Laxalt.
SECTION 1 - ASSIGNMENT
1.1. AUTHORITY wishes Kathleen Laxalt to perform certain professional services (as set forth in Section 2) for a professional fee (as set forth in Section 5) in connection with legislative affairs and assistance to the AUTHORITY'S Executive Director (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) and the AUTHORITY.
SECTION 2 - BASIC SERVICES OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
2.1. The EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT shall monitor bills and attend legislative hearings and meetings that are of interest to the AUTHORITY and represent the Authority in meetings and official hearings with legislators and other stakeholders on matters of interest during the 81st (2021) Legislative Session according to specific direction of the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
2.2. The AUTHORITY recognizes and accepts that Kathleen Laxalt reserves the right and authority, in the event of a conflict of interest and upon appropriate consultation with the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, to restrict her scope of duties to resolve the conflict.
SECTION 3 - AUTHORITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
AUTHORITY shall:
3.1. Provide all criteria and full information as to AUTHORITY'S requirements and designate a person - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - with authority to act on AUTHORITY'S behalf on all matters concerning the Assignment. 3.2. Furnish to Kathleen Laxalt studies, reports and other available data pertinent to the Assignment.
SECTION 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICE
4.1. The period of service wherein Kathleen Laxalt is authorized to provide the services described shall be March 1, 2021 through June 1, 2021 and may be extended in writing by mutual consent of the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and Kathleen Laxalt in the event there is 2021 Special Legislative Session.
1/4 SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
5.1. AUTHORITY agrees to reimburse Kathleen Laxalt a sum not to exceed $2,000.00 for each 30 days of satisfactory work with regard to the Scope of Services outlined in Section 2.
5.2. Kathleen Laxalt shall submit a monthly report of services rendered.
5.3. Kathleen Laxalt’s above charges are on the basis of prompt payment of bills rendered and continuous progress of work in accordance with the Scope of Services.
SECTION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS
6.1. The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated (a) by the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and/or the AUTHORITY for any reason upon thirty days' written notice to Kathleen Laxalt, and (b) by Kathleen Laxalt for any reason upon thirty days' written notice to the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and the AUTHORITY. In the event of any termination, Kathleen Laxalt will be paid for all services rendered to the date of Termination on a prorated basis.
6.2. AUTHORITY and Kathleen Laxalt, and the respective partners, successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are bound by this Agreement to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, administrators, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party in respect of all covenants, agreements, and obligations of this Agreement.
6.3. Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone other than AUTHORITY and Kathleen Laxalt.
6.4. If legal action is brought between the parties with respect to this Agreement, both parties agree to bear their own attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred in such action and not to seek reimbursement from the other party.
6.5. Both parties agree to hold each other harmless from and against all claims other than those based upon the failure to provide benefits as described in this agreement.
6.5. This Agreement (consisting of 4 pages) constitutes the entire Agreement between AUTHORITY and the Kathleen Laxalt and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings between them in respect of the subject matter covered hereby. This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented, modified, or cancelled by a duly executed written instrument.
6.6 Any work product produced by Kathleen Laxalt under this contract is the property of the AUTHORITY and may be distributed, reproduced or used under permission of the AUTHORITY.
2/4 SECTION 7 - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
7. 1 Kathleen Laxalt is a contractor who is associated with the AUTHORITY only for the purposes and to the extent specified in this Agreement, and in respect to performance of the contracted services pursuant to this Agreement, contractor is and shall be an independent contractor and, subject only to the terms of this Agreement, shall have the sole right to supervise, manage, operate, control, and direct performance of the details incident to its duties under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership or joint venture, to create relationships of an employer-employee or principal-agent, or to otherwise create any liability for the AUTHORITY whatsoever with respect to the indebtedness, liabilities, and obligations of contractor or any other party. Contractor shall be solely responsible for, and the AUTHORITY shall have no obligation with respect to: (1) withholding of income taxes, FICA or any other taxes or fees; (2) industrial insurance coverage; (3) participation in any group insurance plans available to employees of the AUTHORITY; (4) participation of contributions by either contractor or the AUTHORITY to the Public Employees Retirement System; (5) accumulation of vacation leave or sick leave; or (6) unemployment compensation coverage provided by the AUTHORITY. Contractor shall indemnify and hold AUTHORITY harmless from, and defend AUTHORITY against, any and all losses, damages, claims, costs, penalties, liabilities, and expenses arising or incurred because of, incident to, or otherwise with respect to any such taxes or fees. Neither contractor nor its employees, agents, or representatives shall be considered employees, agents, or representatives of the AUTHORITY. The AUTHORITY and contractor shall evaluate the nature of services and term negotiated in order to determine "independent contractor" status and shall monitor the work relationship throughout the term of the AGREEMENT to ensure that the independent contractor relationship remains as such. To assist in determining the appropriate status (employee or independent contractor), contractor represents as follows: Contractor's initials
YES NO 1. Does the AUTHORITY have the right to require control of when, where and how the independent contractor is to work? ______
2. Will the AUTHORITY be providing training to the independent contractor? ______
3. Will the AUTHORITY be furnishing the independent contractor with worker's space, equipment, tools, supplies or travel expenses? ______
4. Are any of the workers who assist the independent contractor in performance of his/her duties employees of the AUTHORITY? ______
3/4 5. Does the arrangement with the independent contractor contemplate continuing or recurring work (even if the services are seasonal, part-time, or of short duration)? ______
6. Will the AUTHORITY incur an employment liability if the independent contractor is terminated for failure to perform? ______
7. Is the independent contractor restricted from offering his/her services to the general public while engaged in this work relationship with the AUTHORITY? ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY
______Chairman Kathleen Laxalt
4/4
Tab 4
For the full Report click below: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/nv/snow/
Natural Resources Conservation Service Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report February 1, 2021
Looking across the Carson Valley from Route 50, January 29, 2021 Storms during the last week of January brought snow to valley floors in western Nevada. Snowfall in the mountains increased basin snowpack percentages in the Eastern Sierra from 36-53% of median before the storm to 75-82% on February 1. Other basins in western Nevada saw smaller snowpack increases. Unfortunately, the storm mostly bypassed the Upper Humboldt and other basins in northeast Nevada.
Page 1 Nevada Water Supply Outlook February 1, 2021 SUMMARY The La Nina storm track, which had been focused to our north, finally took aim at California and Nevada the last week of January. This strong atmospheric river storm produced February 1 snowpack percentages ranging from 74-87% of median in the Truckee, Tahoe, Carson, Walker, and Lower Humboldt basins, as well as Eastern Nevada and the Northern Great Basin. It will take another two or three storms of similar size to produce a normal April 1 snowpack in the Sierra basins. Unfortunately, the end of January storm bypassed northeastern Nevada where February 1 snow percentages are 54- 60% of median. Statistically, there is a 10% chance for snowpacks in northeast Nevada to reach normal April 1 amounts. Water year precipitation is 59-84% of average across the state’s main basins. With both snow and precipitation totals below normal, streamflow forecasts are following suit. Most February 1 streamflow forecasts range from 31-81% for the April-July period. The US Drought Monitor published February 2nd ranks 93% of Nevada in severe to exceptional drought. This is due to below normal snowpacks, significant precipitation deficits that stretch back to last winter, low soil moisture and reservoir storage that is less than last year. More storms are needed to reverse these drought conditions and improve Nevada’s water supply outlook for the rest of 2021.
SNOWPACK Despite recent storms, February 1 snowpacks continue to be below normal across the region. Snowpack percentages are 75-82% of median in the Truckee, Tahoe, Carson and Walker basins. Percentages are similar at 74-87% for the Northern Great Basin, Lower Humboldt Basin and Eastern Nevada. Percentages are lowest for the Upper Humboldt, Owyhee, Snake and Clover Valley and Franklin River basins at just 54-60%. The first three weeks of January brought little new snow causing percentages to fall off from those reported last month. On January 25th basin snowpack percentages were just 36-76% of median across the state. An intense atmospheric river storm the last week of January provided a dramatic boost to snowpacks in the Sierra, Eastern Nevada and Spring Mountains. The Walker Basin benefited the most, seeing its snowpack double from 36% before the storm to 75% of median on February 1. The water content of the snowpack increased by between 3 and 10 inches at SNOTEL sites in the eastern Sierra the last week of January. Nine SNOTEL sites recorded an increase in snow water which was the highest ever recorded during the last week of January. The storm overlapped with the end of month manual snow surveys that the NRCS and other agencies accomplish. Some surveys were done prior to the storm and some afterwards. Due to the large differences pre- and post-storm, those data collected before the storm have been omitted from basin calculations and were not used in streamflow forecasts in this report. In northeastern Nevada, the storm mostly bypassed the Upper Humboldt, Owyhee, Snake, and Clover Valley basins. February 1 snow amounts rank in the lowest 10 years on record across much of northeast Nevada. Statistically there is only a 10% chance snowpacks in northeast Nevada, including the Upper Humboldt, will recover to normal April 1 peak amounts.
PRECIPITATION So far this water year, precipitation from October 1 through February 1 stands at 59-84% of average. January monthly precipitation was near to above average in the Northern Great Basin, as well as the Walker, Carson, and Lower Humboldt basins. Monthly precipitation amounts in other basins were below
Page 4 average, adding to the precipitation deficits discussed in last month’s report. These precipitation deficits represent a significant contributing factor to Nevada’s drought status, which as of February 2nd classified 93% of the state in severe to exceptional drought.
SOIL MOISTURE Precipitation deficits and the lack of fall rain before snow started accumulating has left soil moisture well below average in all basins. Record soil dryness exists in the Upper Humboldt Basin, Eastern Nevada, Clover Valley and Franklin River Basin, the Spring Mountains, as well as in the Upper Colorado and Virgin River basins. Dry soils could produce reduced runoff efficiency this spring due to the need to fill the soil profile. Soil moisture graphs found later in this report average data from sensors located at soil depths of 2, 8 and 20 inches for all the SNOTEL sites in a basin. SNOTEL soil moisture data has a short period of record. Soil moisture graphs in this report are based on data since October 2005.
RESERVOIRS Reservoir storage is significantly lower than a year ago. See individual basin information later in the report for storage volumes. Reservoir space means there is room to mitigate flood concerns, but it also emphasizes the importance of accumulating additional precipitation to fill reservoirs for next summer.
STREAMFLOW FORECASTS Most February 1 streamflow forecasts range from 31-81% for the April-July period. Forecasts generally increased since last month. The biggest increases are for streams coming out of the Sierra. Forecasts for the main stem of the Humboldt River saw modest increases of a few percent thanks to better precipitation for tributaries to the north. Streams originating in the Ruby Mountains, such as Lamoille Creek and the Southfork Humboldt, had forecasts decrease since last month. Key forecasts include: Lake Tahoe Rise 69%, Truckee River at Farad 67%, Carson River near Fort Churchill 54%, East Walker River near Bridgeport 79%, West Walker River near Coleville 80%, Humboldt River near Elko 53%, Humboldt River near Imlay 31% and Colorado River Lake Powell Inflow 42%. All of these forecast percentages are based on the 50% exceedance level. Keep in mind every forecast has five exceedance levels. The 50% exceedance is the middle of the road forecast, and it assumes average precipitation in the future. There is, however, a 50% chance of more streamflow occurring if future conditions are wetter than average, and conversely, a 50% chance of less streamflow occurring if the future weather is drier than average. If drier than normal conditions persist in 2021, the actual volumes could be closer to the drier forecasts (70% and 90% exceedances) which are provided in the basin summaries.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Northern Nevada Streamflow, Reservoir, and Weather Forecast Meeting for Water Planning Thursday, Feb. 11 from 2 pm – 4 pm on Lifesize (virtual format). The public is invited to presentations by the NRCS, NWS, USBR, USGS regarding the 2021 snowpack, streamflow, precipitation and reservoir conditions for the Truckee, Carson, Walker, and Humboldt rivers. Join the meeting online: https://call.lifesizecloud.com/7185156 Call in by phone (audio only) +1 (877) 422-8614 Meeting extension: 7185156#
Western Snow Conference, April 12-15, 2021, Virtual Meeting Topic: Bridging the Gap between Research and Operations https://westernsnowconference.org/meeting/2021
Page 5 RANGELAND CONDITIONS The NRCS mission is to provide resources to farmers and ranchers to aid them with conservation. Most NRCS SNOTEL stations are located in the mountains above 6,500 feet. There are a lot of rangeland acres below the SNOTEL network. This section takes a closer look at data from lower elevation rangeland and valley locations which may be more meaningful to the rangeland communities.
Snow Cover: Seasonal snow cover replenishes soil moisture and provides water for plant growth. A useful tool to track the lower elevation snowpack is NOAA’s Modeled Snow Water Equivalent Map. The January 1, 2021 map (left) shows modeled snow water equivalent across Nevada one month ago. Comparing to February 1, 2021 (right), some low elevation snow accumulated. Snowpacks at slightly higher elevations have increased across northeastern Nevada as compared to January 1.
Plant Growth: Warmer than normal temperatures in January, illustrated on the map to the right, have initiated plant growth across the state at low to mid-elevations (~5500 feet). Germination is behind on several annual non-native plants, including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Arabian schismus (Schismus arabicus), bur buttercup (Ceratocephala testiculata), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and annual mustards due to dry conditions. Long-term forecasts developed by the USA Phenology Network predicted that spring leaf out would arrive earlier than normal (https://www.usanpn.org/home). Spring leaf out has already occurred in southern Nevada and wildflowers and shrubs are beginning to bloom in the deserts of southern California and Arizona. Spring is days-to-weeks early in parts of California, Nevada, and Arizona, with some areas east of Santa Barbara being 49 days early.
Page 6 Drought Status: The US drought monitor map from February 2, 2021 indicates that 93% of the state is currently in severe to exceptional drought. The area highlighted in yellow on the right-hand map received a one drought class degradation compared to the map issued January 5, 2021.
Valley Temperature and Precipitation: Table 1 provides a summary of temperature and precipitation data from selected valley climate stations across the state for the month of January. January was a very warm and average to dry month, with all stations recording above normal temperatures and half recording below normal precipitation. On January 31, the maximum temperature for the month at Reno was 63°F, the same high as in 2020. Elko had a January high of 58°F which is 8°F higher than last year. The highest temperature in January was 71°F at the Las Vegas airport climate station compared to the record high of 77°F in 1975.
Table 1. Summary of monthly temperature and precipitation data from valley stations across Nevada January January Departure Departure Monthly Climate Station Temperature from Normal from Normal Precipitation Ave °F °F (inches) (inches) Reno airport 37.79 +4.06 1.3 0.15 Lovelock airport 33.24 +2.77 0.76 0.22 Orovada 31.82 +2.35 1.2 0.14 Winnemucca 34.94 +4.77 0.99 0.11 Battle Mountain 37.68 +8.21 0.42 -0.33 Elko airport 31.23 +7.04 0.57 -0.57 Wildhorse Reservoir 20.64 +1.95 1.11 -0.49 Ely 28.27 +3.20 0.43 -0.36 Eureka 29.27 +1.59 1.11 0.08 Tonopah 33.4 +1.26 0.48 0.09 Caliente 35.06 +2.70 0.18 -0.66 Las Vegas airport 49.37 +2.85 0.2 -0.34 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/summaries.php
Page 7 Snow Water Equivalent Percent NRCS 1981-2010 Median February 1st, 2021
Snake Owyhee 60 54
Northern Great Basin 84 Lower Humboldt Upper Humboldt 87 56
Clover Valley and Franklin 54
Truckee 81
Carson 82 Eastern Nevada 74 Lake Tahoe 76
Walker 75
Percent NRCS 1981-2010 Median > 150% 130% - 149% 110% - 129% 90% - 109% 70% - 89% 50% - 69% < 50% No basin value Watershed Boundaries State Watersheds
N Miles 0 20 40 80 120 160 200 Created 2-03-2021 Page 9 Monthly Precipitation as Percent of Average – Water Year 2021
October November December 2020 2020 2020
January February March 2021 2021 2021
Monthly Precipitation as a Percent of Average Based on NRCS SNOTEL data compared to 1981-2010 average
April May 2021 2021
Page 10 Water Year to Date Precipitation Percent NRCS 1981-2010 Average October 1, 2020 - January 31, 2021
Snake Owyhee 67 59
Northern Great Basin 78 Lower Humboldt Upper Humboldt 84 62
Clover Valley and Franklin 60
Truckee 62
Carson 69 Eastern Nevada 68 Lake Tahoe 63
Walker 73
Percent NRCS 1981-2010 Average > 150% 130% - 149% 110% - 129% 90% - 109% 70% - 89% 50% - 69% < 50% No basin value Watershed Boundaries State Watersheds
N Miles 0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Created 2-02-2021 Page 11 Lower Humboldt River Basin February 1, 2021
Snowpack in the Lower Humboldt River Basin is below normal at 87% of median, compared to 117% last year. Precipitation in January was near average, which brings the seasonal accumulation (Oct-Jan) to 84% of average. Soil moisture is at 31% saturation, compared to 37% last year. Storage in Rye Patch Reservoir is 33% of capacity , compared to 92% last year. Forecast streamflow volumes range from 40% to 85% of average for the March-July period.
Reservoir Storage
92
Rye Patch
33
Previous Year % Capacity Current % Capacity
Page 26 Streamflow Forecasts - State of Nevada Summary February 1, 2021
See appendix for more information
Page 13 Appendix: Interpreting the Streamflow Forecast Chart
The Forecast Chart (below) provides an alternative to the tables (above) used in the basin summaries. The chart displays the forecast exceedance range as a colored bar. The vertical lines on the bar signify the five forecast exceedances.
The numbers above the forecast bar are the five exceedance probability volumes in thousand acre- feet (KAF). Each exceedance forecast’s percent of average can be estimated by looking at the horizontal axis. The green line and number centered above 100% on the horizontal axis represents the 1981-2010 historical average streamflow for the forecast period in KAF.
KAF KAF KAF KAF KAF
225 KAF
In the example above, the entire forecast bar is shifted right of the green bar indicating a forecast for above the average Apr-Jul streamflow of 225KAF. The 50% exceedance is represented by the black line in the green portion of the colored bar. This represents a forecast volume of 420KAF which is ~185% of average. If drier than normal future conditions occur the 70% exceedance forecast may be more likely (375KAF or ~165% of average). If future conditions turn wetter than normal, the 30% exceedance forecast may be more likely (460KAF or ~205% of average). Water users are encouraged to consider the range of forecast exceedances instead of relying solely only on the 50% forecast. In very wet or dry years forecasts may approach historical records. In these cases the period of record minimum or maximum may be displayed. The minimum is represented by a heavy red line, while the maximum is represented by a heavy blue line. The numbers below the red and blue lines represent the volume in KAF and the year it occurred in parentheses.
Users can use additional online features to compare historic forecasts with observed flow here: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nv/snow/waterproducts/?cid=nrcs144p2_037513
Page 39
Tab 6
IN THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
DRAFT INTERIM ORDER
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE GROUNDWATER IN THE HUMBOLDT RIVER REGION WITH REGARD TO THE POTENTIAL FOR CAPTURE OF AND CONFLICT WITH DECREED RIGHTS TO THE WATERS OF THE HUMBOLDT RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
I. BACKGROUND OF THE HUMBOLDT RIVER REGION WHEREAS, the Humboldt River Region is delineated by the topographic boundary of the Humboldt River watershed, extending over 11,000 square miles, including 34 hydrographic basins in eight Counties. Hydrographic basins within the Humboldt River Region are Marys River Area (042), Starr Valley Area (043), North Fork Area (044), Lamoille Valley (045), South Fork Area (046), Huntington Valley (047), Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area (048), Elko Segment (049), Susie Creek Area (050), Maggie Creek Area (051), Marys Creek Area (052), Pine Valley (053), Crescent Valley (054), Carico Lake Valley (055), Upper Reese River Valley (056), Antelope Valley (057), Middle Reese River Valley (058), Lower Reese River Valley (059), Whirlwind Valley (060), Boulder Flat (061), Rock Creek Valley (062), Willow Creek Valley (063), Clovers Area (064), Pumpernickel Valley (065), Kelly Creek Area (066), Little Humboldt Valley (067), Hardscrabble Area (068), Paradise Valley (069), Winnemucca Segment (070), Grass Valley (071), Imlay Area (072), Lovelock Valley (073), Lovelock Valley-Oreana Subarea (073A), and White Plains (074). WHEREAS, the Bartlett Decree was filed on October 20, 1931, in the Sixth Judicial Court of the State of Nevada, establishing relative rights to the use of the waters of the Humboldt River and setting forth the dates of priority and duty of water for existing claims. The Bartlett Decree determined the waters of the stream system to be fully appropriated, and that in an average year there existed no surplus water for irrigation. Subsequent decrees, orders and writs made corrections to the Bartlett Decree, and collectively form the Humboldt River Adjudication. This process was complete by 1938. The most senior decreed surface water right in the Humboldt River system has a priority date of 1861 and the most junior right has a priority date of 1921.1 WHEREAS, Humboldt River flow measured at the Palisade gage is the primary tool utilized for determining and scheduling delivery amounts of Humboldt River decreed rights.2
1 In the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights of Claimants and Aprropriators of the Waters of the Humboldt River Stream System and Tributaries, Case No. 2804, Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, In and For the County of Humboldt (October 20, 1931). 2 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gage 10322500, Humboldt River at Palisade. Draft Interim Order Page 2
Deliveries are scheduled during the irrigation season based on the daily flow measurement at the gage.3 When daily flows at the Palisade gage are sufficient to deliver all decreed rights on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, all water rights irrespective of location above or below the gage are scheduled to receive their full duty of water. When flows are not sufficient to deliver all decreed rights, those rights with senior priority dates are served first. In practice, actual deliveries over the expanse of the Humboldt River Region may be different than exact scheduled deliveries due to a wide range of variables including water distribution and management practices, and climatic variations that affect riparian evapotranspiration rates, streambank storage, and baseflow. Figure 1 shows the ratio of actual deliveries to scheduled deliveries at the Imlay gage, which is the furthest downstream point of diversion.4 The ratio is generally higher in wet years and lower in dry years. Scheduled deliveries for the irrigation seasons were exceeded in all but six years since 1936.
Humboldt River Flow vs. Water Delivered at Imlay
1,000,000 1000% feet -
100,000 100% Season Flow, Acre Season Flow, - % Allocation Received In
10,000 10% 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Figure 1. Humboldt River in-season flow volume (bars corresponding to left axis) at the Palisade gage and water delivery ratio of actual to scheduled (solid line corresponding to right axis) at Imlay from 1936 to 2019. Scheduled deliveries for the irrigation seasons that exceeded allocations occur when black line is above the 100% allocation line (dashed line corresponding to right axis). Conversely, years that did not meet allocations occur below the 100% allocation line (dashed line).5
3 Barlett Decree, the decreed irrigation season begins March 15th downstream of Palisade and April 15th upstream of Palisade, and ends on varying dates depending on location and culture. 4 USGS Gage 10333000, Humboldt River Near Imlay. 5 USGS Gage 10322500, Humboldt River at Palisade; Annual Tabulation of Delivery Records for the Humboldt River Decree, official records in the Office of the State Engineer.
Draft Interim Order Page 3
WHEREAS, during the 2012-2015 period the Humboldt River Region experienced one of the worst droughts since 1902.6 Annual flow at the Palisade gage for that 4-year period averaged 82,871 acre-feet, which is 30% of the historical average annual flow of 287,846 acre-feet for the period of record spanning the 112 years.7 At the headwaters of the Humboldt River system during 2012-2015, upstream of any significant groundwater pumping, Lamoille Creek also experienced its lowest 4-year flow since at least 1944 when continuous flow measurements on Lamoille Creek started.8 By the end of the irrigation seasons in 2014 and 2015 the Humboldt River at Imlay was dry and water was unavailable to allocate to downstream surface water users in the Lovelock area. While this occurred during the unprecedented drought, decreed water right holders alleged that junior groundwater appropriators were capturing surface flows of the Humboldt River and that groundwater use conflicts with the senior surface water rights. In a writ filed in Pershing County District Court in 2015, Pershing County Water Conservation District requested that the Court require the State Engineer to take action within his statutory authority to address the alleged conflict.9 WHEREAS, nearly all groundwater vested claims and appropriations within the Humboldt River Region are junior to decreed surface water rights in the Humboldt River and its tributaries. The most senior groundwater permit has a priority date of 1912.10 Groundwater development began to increase more substantially in the 1960s and has gradually increased in the decades since. Groundwater is now extensively relied upon for all manners of use supporting communities and industry throughout the Region. Groundwater rights were approved over the years by the State Engineer upon findings that unappropriated water was available and its use would not conflict with existing rights or the public interest, given the best data available to the State Engineer at the time. WHEREAS, it is scientifically understood that groundwater pumping has the potential to capture stream flow in a hydraulically connected system, either by inducing greater infiltration losses from the stream channel or by reducing the amount of groundwater that would otherwise discharge as baseflow to the stream.11 Although this principle has factored into numerous State Engineer decisions, site-specific capture data is generally not available to accurately quantify potential conflict pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) § 533.370.12 The potential for hydraulic connectivity and capture by itself does not demonstrate that conflict is occurring or will
6 Period of record for the Palisade gage begins in 1902. 7 For water years between 1902-1906 and 1912-2019. 8 USGS Gage 10316500, Lamoille Creek Near Lamoille. 9 Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or in the Alternative, Writ of Probartion, In the Eleventh Judicial District Courth of the State of Nevada In and For the County of Pershing, (Case No. CV 15-12019), Pershing County Conservation District V. Jason King, P.E., State Engineer of the State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources, Departemnt of Conservation and Natural Resources. 10 Nevada Division of Water Resources’ Water Rights Database, official records in the Office of the State Engineer, available at http://water.nv.gov/hydrographicabstract.aspx. 11 Charles V. Theis, 1940, The Source of Water Derived from Wells -Essential factors controlling the response of an aquifer to development, Civil Engineering, v. 10, no. 5, p. 277-280. 12 See e.g., State Engineer’s Ruling 55, Ruling 790, Ruling 2197, Ruling 2593, Ruling 4036.
Draft Interim Order Page 4
occur in the future, unless it is shown that scheduled surface water deliveries cannot be met, and those unmet deliveries are caused by groundwater pumping. WHEREAS, since the end of the 2012-2015 drought, all scheduled deliveries at Imlay were fully served through the 2020 irrigation season. However, with climate models forecasting a continuing pattern of increasing frequency and intensity of droughts and flood events,13 drought- accentuated natural losses from the river, combined with greater drawdown due to increased reliance on groundwater during drought, may increase the future potential for insufficient surface flow to fully serve decreed rights. Conversely, larger or more frequent flood events may episodically replenish the groundwater system, helping to offset any natural or pumping-induced depletion during drought periods. These long-term hydrologic uncertainties were not explicitly foreseen in the Barlett Decree and underscore the difficulty in developing and implementing management strategies for future administration of groundwater and surface water in the Humboldt River Region. II. ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE THE DROUGHT WHEREAS, a basic tenet of prior appropriation is that if there is not enough water to serve all users then senior right holders are entitled to water before junior right holders. This principle originated at a time when surface water was the only significant source of supply, but it has been preserved in water law to also apply to groundwater. NRS 534.110 provides that where groundwater supply is not adequate for the needs of all permittees and vested-right holders, the State Engineer may order that withdrawals be restricted to conform to priority rights. This is the regulatory mechanism established in statute for the State Engineer to address conflict due to inadequate supply of groundwater or unreasonable lowering of the water table. During the drought period of 2012-2015 there were insufficient data to identify to what extent groundwater pumping was causing the inadequacy of water supply for Humboldt River senior decreed right holders, and to what extent it was the result of natural low flow because of drought. Analysis of the data at the time indicated that curtailing junior groundwater pumping to protect senior decreed rights would result in a nominal addition to flow in the River, but would have had devastating and severe impacts to the communities and economies throughout the Region that rely on groundwater.14 Consequently, no curtailment was imposed. WHEREAS, in the years since the end of the 2012-2015 drought, the State Engineer initiated several measures to improve the available data in the Region and thus provide a sound basis to render defensible decisions with regard to avoiding potential conflict. Among these measures: all non-designated basins within the Region were designated pursuant to NRS 534.030; totalizing meter installation and reporting were required by State Engineer’s Order 1251; field
13 USGCRP, 2017, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., See Chapter 8, page 237. 14 Nevada Division of Water Resources, public presentations on the Humbodlt River in Lovelock, Winnemucca, and Elko, February 12–13, 2015.
Draft Interim Order Page 5
investigations were completed to verify the meter data; the State Engineer enhanced its database capacity to maintain and manage the pumping data in a publicly accessible manner; the State Engineer established a policy requiring water rights for pit lake evaporation; and applications to appropriate groundwater or to change the point of diversion were denied if granting the application would result in an increase in capture that conflicts with existing rights. WHEREAS, in 2016, the Humboldt Working Group was assembled to assist in developing draft regulations to resolve future conflict. The working group members included both surface water and groundwater users representing municipalities, agriculture, mining, and other community interests across the Humboldt River Region. Over the course of the next three years, the group developed a conjunctive management approach whose objective was to protect senior water rights while at the same time maximizing beneficial use of surface water and groundwater. This effort culminated in a set of draft regulations that relied on a combination of augmentation and mitigation through financial compensation to avoid future conflict. However, in the 2019 Legislative session, the supporting statutory revisions lacked unanimous support and failed. Surface water users expressed no interest in financial mitigation in lieu of water. Groundwater users express no interest in being assessed fees for capture that had yet to be quantified by best available science. WHEREAS, in 2016, the State Engineer initiated work with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to develop improved groundwater budgets at the basin scale and to develop numerical groundwater capture models for the Humboldt River Region. These efforts are intended to serve as a basis for determining the effect of groundwater pumping on flows in the Humboldt River and its tributaries. This work will also serve to review the perennial yield values for the Region, first estimated from the early USGS Reconnaissance Series Reports and Water Resource Bulletins, which are the primary guideline used by the State Engineer to determine the availability of groundwater in any particular basin. WHEREAS, while the completion of the Humboldt River Region groundwater model study is expected in 2021, preliminary findings from that effort provide insight into the dynamics of surface water capture by groundwater pumping. These findings indicate that there may be important non-linear, climate-driven behaviors that influence interactions between the surface water and groundwater systems. These behaviors suggest that pumping-related capture of surface water tends to increase during wet years when excess water is available and decrease during dry years when the potential for conflict is greater. Understanding these phenomena is necessary to accurately define both the timing and distribution of capture so that conflict attributable to groundwater pumping can be characterized and quantified. Long-term management will rely on completion of the modeling effort and a process of public review and deliberation to determine best practices that satisfy legislative directives of prior appropriation, beneficial use and the public interest. Until then, interim management described herein must focus on avoiding increased capture caused by new appropriations or changes to existing groundwater permits.
Draft Interim Order Page 6
III. AUTHORITY AND NECESSITY WHEREAS, NRS 533.024 directs the State Engineer “to consider the best available science in rendering decisions concerning the availability of surface and underground sources of water in Nevada.”15 WHEREAS, NRS 533.024 was amended in 2017 adding a new subsection declaring that it is the policy of Nevada “[t]o manage conjunctively the appropriation, use and administration of all waters of this State, regardless of the source of the water.”16 WHEREAS, NRS 534.020 provides that all underground waters of the State belong to the public and are subject to all existing rights. WHEREAS, NRS 533.370 requires that, in review of an application to appropriate water or to change water already appropriated, the State Engineer must consider whether there is unappropriated water in the source of supply, whether the uncommitted groundwater has been reserved pursuant to NRS 533.0241, whether the proposed use or change conflicts with existing rights or protectable interests in existing domestic wells, and whether it threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest. WHEREAS, the State Engineer’s procedures to evaluate applications to appropriate groundwater or to change existing appropriations must be applied in a manner that is consistent and understandable to water right holders and their representatives, and that provide clarity to water users about how to meet the needs of communities and local economies while avoiding conflict with senior decreed water rights. WHEREAS, procedures established herein allow for efficient administration of groundwater rights, with provisions for in-stream replacement water and withdrawal of groundwater permits, when necessary. The intent is to provide the needed flexibility for water right holders without adding to any capture impacts above what is predicted for the existing base right. Over time these procedures will result in a reduction in total groundwater commitments, an increase in availability of surface water in the Humboldt River Region to serve senior priority rights, and a reduced potential for conflict between groundwater use and Humboldt River decreed rights. WHEREAS, these procedures do not restrict the State Engineer from adopting further conjunctive management measures necessary to address capture impacts. IV. ORDER NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the following considerations will be implemented by the State Engineer for the review of applications for groundwater rights in the Humboldt River Region, in addition to those considerations required by NRS 533.370 and
15 NRS 533.024(1)(c). 16 NRS 533.024(1)(e).
Draft Interim Order Page 7
established by previous State Engineer’s Orders.17 As used herein, “capture” refers to modeled capture of surface water of the Humboldt River and its tributaries by groundwater pumping, as simulated by USGS and DRI groundwater models.
1. Applications for New Groundwater Appropriations Applications for new appropriations of groundwater where capture, as a percentage of pumping rate, exceeds 10% after 50 years of continual pumping, may be considered if capture is offset by providing in-stream replacement water or withdrawing a portion of an existing groundwater right. Applications for new appropriations of groundwater where capture is less than 10% after 50-years of continual pumping may be evaluated without the requirement to offset capture. A. If in-stream replacement is used to offset capture: i. Replacement water using a senior decreed water right shall be for a crop-type, duty amount, and priority date that is sufficient to equal or exceed the predicted cumulative capture amount of the new appropriation over a 50-year period of use, as determined by the State Engineer;18 ii. Replacement water shall be sufficient to equal or exceed the predicted annual capture amount of the new appropriation during 80% of the years over a 50-year period, as determined by the State Engineer; and, iii. Replacement water shall be demonstrated to have an existing place of use that can and will be stripped of use. Water used in areas of flooding or other areas that cannot be isolated from the natural or man-caused application of that water will not be considered for replacement water. B. If withdrawal of an existing groundwater right is used to offset capture: i. The amount of the withdrawn right shall be sufficient to equal or exceed the predicted cumulative capture amount of the new appropriation over a 50-year period of use, as determined by the State Engineer; and ii. The amount shall be sufficient to equal or exceed the predicted annual capture amount of the new appropriation during 90% of the years over a 50-year period, as determined by the State Engineer.
2. Applications to Change Existing Groundwater Appropriations Applications to change the point of diversion (POD) of an existing groundwater right will be considered based on net capture, defined as the difference between capture at the
17 Nevada Division of Water Resources’ Orders Database, official records in the Office of the State Engineer, available at http://water.nv.gov/StateEnginersOrdersList.aspx. 18 For the purposes of this draft interim order, the mechanism to be used by the State Engineer to make this determination will be demonstrated in public workshops and available for public review.
Draft Interim Order Page 8
proposed POD and capture at the existing POD. Net capture is commonly described either in terms of a percentage of the pumping rate, or as a volume of captured water, after a specified period of continuous pumping. Change applications where capture at the proposed POD is greater than capture at the existing POD may be considered if the net capture is offset by providing replacement water or withdrawing a portion of an existing groundwater right. Change applications where capture at the proposed POD is less than or equal to capture at the existing POD may be considered on their merits without the requirement to offset capture. If either replacement water or withdrawn groundwater rights are used they shall be subject to the same conditions as for new appropriations (as described in Section 1) but the amount shall correspond to the net capture. In instances where a change application moves an existing POD either to a new location that is upstream of its existing location or nearer to a different tributary, the reach-specific capture impacts to senior decreed water rights who divert their water from those reaches will be determinative irrespective of the net capture.
3. Addressing Future Conflict Between Existing Valid Groundwater Rights and Decreed Humboldt River Surface Water Rights The principle statutory mechanism available to the State Engineer to address conflict among water users is curtailment of junior-priority water use pursuant to NRS 534.110. The State Engineer finds that the data currently available do not demonstrate that curtailment of junior rights could be implemented in a manner that would eliminate potential future conflict without unduly restricting valid existing groundwater rights. This Order provides mechanisms to prevent the increased potential for conflict over time in an effort to avoid the severe and devastating potential effects of curtailment of groundwater rights that support communities and economies throughout the Region. However, the State Engineer is not precluded from ordering that withdrawals be restricted to conform to priority rights when necessary: if conflict due to inadequate water supply is determined to be imminent, and prevention or avoidance cannot be accomplished. The State Engineer may consider the following factors before making any decision regarding curtailment pursuant to NRS 534.110: A. Statutory protections: i. Domestic well protections under NRS 533.024(b). ii. Preferred uses of water in the interest of public welfare per NRS 534.120(2). B. Hydrologic conditions: i. Effectiveness of any curtailment to increase actual flow in the decreed source and thereby avoid conflict caused by non-delivery of senior rights. ii. Drought conditions as measured by available snowpack data, runoff forecast for the season, prior years’ condition and cumulative water deficit. iii. Well location and potential for capture as demonstrated by USGS and DRI models
Draft Interim Order Page 9
a. Capture as a percent of pumping rate within the time frame of potential conflict b. Hydraulic connectivity between a decreed surface water source and a specific well location and screen depth. iv. Storage in surface water reservoirs or aquifer storage and recovery projects and the capacity for this storage to meet scheduled deliveries. C. Active management measures: i. Implementation of Water Conservation Plans developed in accordance with NRS 540.131. ii. Active water replacement plans carried out by groundwater right holders.
______ADAM SULLIVAN, P.E. Acting State Engineer
Dated at Carson City, Nevada this
______day of ______, ______.
Tab 7
2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WATER RELATED BDR'S AND BILLS ( February 5, 2021)
BDR Bill Description Requester Status
123 Revises provisions governing water. Assemblywoman Peters
48-309 AB6 Revises provisions governing an application for a temporary change relating to Division of Water Resources of the State appropriated water. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
C-310 SJR1 Proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to provide that the Nevada Court of Division of Water Resources of the State DWR is not pursuing, Supreme Appeals has original jurisdiction over certain cases relating to water Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Court will conduct a study instead
48-311 AB5 Makes various changes to provisions relating to judicial review of orders and Division of Water Resources of the State decisions of the State Engineer. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
339 Creates a water conservation credit program for irrigation manners of use. Division of Water Resources of the State Bill language expected from LCB Department of Conservation and Natural Resources late February
340 Creates an irrigation manner of use water rights banking and leasing program. Division of Water Resources of the State Bill language expected from LCB Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in late February
48-341 AB15 Revises the membership of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. Division of Water Resources of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
48-462 Revises provisions relating to groundwater boards. Legislative Committee on Public Lands In drafting Requested by CNRWA
48-471 Revises the qualifications of the State Engineer. Legislative Committee on Public Lands Requested Eliminates the requirement for by DCN&R State Engineer to be a P.E.
A.B. 5
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 5–COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
(ON BEHALF OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES)
PREFILED NOVEMBER 18, 2020 ______
Referred to Committee on Natural Resources
SUMMARY—Makes various changes to provisions relating to judicial review of orders and decisions of the State Engineer. (BDR 48-311)
FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on the State: No.
~
EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
AN ACT relating to water; revising provisions relating to the judicial review of an order or decision of the State Engineer; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel’s Digest: 1 Existing law provides that any person feeling aggrieved by an order or decision 2 of the State Engineer that affects the person’s interests may have the order or 3 decision reviewed by a court. The review is conducted as an informal summary 4 review in the nature of an appeal. (NRS 533.450) This bill limits the circumstances 5 in which such an aggrieved person may have a determination of the State Engineer 6 reviewed by a court to require that the determination: (1) be a formal order, ruling 7 or decision that is a final determination issued in writing; and (2) materially affect 8 the person’s interests. This bill also clarifies that the practice in civil appellate cases 9 applies to the judicial review of an order, ruling or decision of the State Engineer.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. NRS 533.450 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 533.450 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 533.353, 3 any person feeling aggrieved by any formal order , ruling or 4 decision [of] that is a final determination issued in writing by the
- *AB5*
– 2 –
1 State Engineer, acting in person or through the assistants of the State 2 Engineer or the water commissioner, [affecting] which materially 3 affects the person’s interests, when the order , ruling or decision 4 relates to the administration of determined rights or is made 5 pursuant to NRS 533.270 to 533.445, inclusive, or NRS 533.481, 6 534.193, 535.200 or 536.200, may have the [same] order, ruling or 7 decision reviewed by a proceeding for that purpose, insofar as may 8 be in the nature of an appeal, which must be initiated in the proper 9 court of the county in which the matters affected or a portion thereof 10 are situated, but on stream systems where a decree of court has been 11 entered, the action must be initiated in the court that entered the 12 decree. The order , ruling or decision of the State Engineer remains 13 in full force and effect unless proceedings [to review the same] are 14 commenced in the proper court within 30 days after the rendition of 15 the order , ruling or decision in question and notice [thereof] of the 16 proceedings is given to the State Engineer as provided in 17 subsection 3. 18 2. The proceedings in every case must be heard by the court, 19 and must be informal and summary, but full opportunity to be heard 20 must be had before judgment is pronounced. 21 3. No such proceedings may be entertained unless notice 22 [thereof,] of the proceedings, containing a statement of the 23 substance of the order , ruling or decision complained of, and of the 24 manner in which the same injuriously affects the petitioner’s 25 interests, has been served upon the State Engineer, personally or by 26 registered or certified mail, at the Office of the State Engineer at the 27 State Capital within 30 days following the rendition of the order , 28 ruling or decision in question. A similar notice must also be served 29 personally or by registered or certified mail upon the person who 30 may have been affected by the order , ruling or decision. 31 4. Where evidence has been filed with, or testimony taken 32 before, the State Engineer, a transcribed copy thereof, or of any 33 specific part of the same, duly certified as a true and correct 34 transcript in the manner provided by law, must be received in 35 evidence with the same effect as if the reporter were present and 36 testified to the facts so certified. A copy of the transcript must be 37 furnished on demand, at actual cost, to any person affected by the 38 order , ruling or decision, and to all other persons on payment of a 39 reasonable amount therefor, to be fixed by the State Engineer. 40 5. An order , ruling or decision of the State Engineer must not 41 be stayed unless the petitioner files a written motion for a stay with 42 the court and serves the motion personally or by registered or 43 certified mail upon the State Engineer, the applicant or other real 44 party in interest and each party of record within 10 days after the 45 petitioner files the petition for judicial review. Any party may
- *AB5*
– 3 –
1 oppose the motion and the petitioner may reply to any such 2 opposition. In determining whether to grant or deny the motion for a 3 stay, the court shall consider: 4 (a) Whether any nonmoving party to the proceeding may incur 5 any harm or hardship if the stay is granted; 6 (b) Whether the petitioner may incur any irreparable harm if the 7 stay is denied; 8 (c) The likelihood of success of the petitioner on the merits; and 9 (d) Any potential harm to the members of the public if the stay 10 is granted. 11 6. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the 12 petitioner must file a bond in an amount determined by the court, 13 with sureties satisfactory to the court and conditioned in the manner 14 specified by the court. The bond must be filed within 5 days after 15 the court determines the amount of the bond pursuant to this 16 subsection. If the petitioner fails to file the bond within that period, 17 the stay is automatically denied. A bond must not be required for a 18 public agency of this State or a political subdivision of this State. 19 7. Costs must be paid as in civil cases brought in the district 20 court, except by the State Engineer or the State. 21 8. The practice in civil appellate cases applies to the informal 22 and summary character of such proceedings, as provided in this 23 section. 24 9. Appeals may be taken to the appellate court of competent 25 jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court 26 pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution from 27 the judgment of the district court in the same manner as in other 28 civil cases. 29 10. The decision of the State Engineer is prima facie correct, 30 and the burden of proof is upon the party attacking the same. 31 11. Whenever it appears to the State Engineer that any 32 litigation, whether now pending or hereafter brought, may adversely 33 affect the rights of the public in water, the State Engineer shall 34 request the Attorney General to appear and protect the interests of 35 the State. 36 Sec. 2. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.
H
- *AB5*
A.B. 6
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 6–COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
(ON BEHALF OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES)
PREFILED NOVEMBER 18, 2020 ______
Referred to Committee on Natural Resources
SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing an application for a temporary change relating to appropriated water. (BDR 48-309)
FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on the State: No.
~
EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
AN ACT relating to water; revising provisions governing an application for a temporary change relating to water already appropriated; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel’s Digest: 1 With certain exceptions, existing law requires a person who wishes to change 2 the place of diversion, manner of use or place of use of water already appropriated 3 to apply to the State Engineer for a permit to do so. (NRS 533.325) Existing law 4 requires the State Engineer to hold a hearing on an application for a temporary 5 change to the place of diversion, manner of use or place of use of water already 6 appropriated if the State Engineer determines that such a change may not be in the 7 public interest or may impair the water rights of others. (NRS 533.345) This bill 8 makes the holding of a hearing on such an application discretionary.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. NRS 533.345 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 533.345 1. Every application for a permit to change the place 3 of diversion, manner of use or place of use of water already 4 appropriated must contain such information as may be necessary to
- *AB6*
– 2 –
1 a full understanding of the proposed change, as may be required by 2 the State Engineer. 3 2. If an applicant is seeking a temporary change of place of 4 diversion, manner of use or place of use of water already 5 appropriated, the State Engineer shall approve the application if: 6 (a) The application is accompanied by the prescribed fees; 7 (b) The temporary change is in the public interest; and 8 (c) The temporary change does not impair the water rights held 9 by other persons. 10 3. If the State Engineer determines that the temporary change 11 may not be in the public interest, or may impair the water rights held 12 by other persons, the State Engineer shall give notice of the 13 application as provided in NRS 533.360 [and hold a hearing] and 14 render a decision as provided in this chapter. The State Engineer 15 may hold a hearing on the application before rendering a 16 decision. 17 4. A temporary change may be granted for any period not to 18 exceed 1 year. 19 Sec. 2. This act becomes effective on July 1, 2021.
H
- *AB6*
Tab 8
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-16342 Plaintiff, D.C. No. WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE, 3:73-cv-0128- Intervenor-Plaintiff, MMD
and OPINION WALKER LAKE WORKING GROUP, Defendant-Appellant,
MINERAL COUNTY, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE; FENILI FAMILY TRUST, c/o Peter Fenili and Veronica Fenili, Trustees; SIX N RANCH, INC., c/o Richard and Cynthia Nuti; MICHAEL NUTI; NANCY NUTI; RALPH E. NUTI; MARY E. NUTI; LAWRENCE M. NUTI; LESLIE NUTI; MICA FARMS, LLC, c/o Mike Faretto; JOHN AND LURA WEAVER FAMILY TRUST, c/o Lura Weaver, Trustee; SMITH VALLEY GARAGE, INC., c/o Dan Smith and 2 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
Shawna Smith; DONALD GIORGI; LORIE MCMAHON; MERLE MCMAHON; CENTENNIAL LIVESTOCK; LYON COUNTY; ANNETT’S MONO VILLAGE; F.I.M. CORPORATION; R.N. FULSTONE COMPANY; JAMES T. FOUSEKIS, Trustee; CHRIS H. GANSBERG, JR.; FAYE E. GANSBERG; TODD GANSBERG; HUNEWILL LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC.; DAVID SCEIRINE; PAMELA HAAS; VIRGINIA LAKE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; MONO COUNTY, County Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du,* District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2017 Submission Withdrawn May 2, 2018 Resubmitted January 21, 2021 Pasadena, California
Filed January 28, 2021
* This case was reassigned to Judge Du from Judge Robert Clive Jones on July 19, 2018. WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 3
Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Susan P. Graber,** and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Tashima
SUMMARY***
Water Rights
The panel affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the district court’s dismissal of Mineral County’s complaint that intervened in longstanding litigation over the appropriation of Walker River Basin waters.
In 1936, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered the Walker River Decree, adjudicating and settling water rights within the Walker River Basin under the doctrine of prior appropriation. The County intervened, and alleged that the public interest and maintenance of the public trust required that water flows be allowed to reach Walker Lake to sustain the fish population and preserve recreational values for the County residents. After the district court dismissed the County’s complaint and the County appealed, the panel certified questions to the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
** Judge Raymond C. Fisher was a member of the panel that certified questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. Judge Fisher has since died and Judge Graber was randomly drawn to replace him. See Ninth Cir. Gen Order 3.2(h).
*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. that Nevada’s “public trust doctrine applies to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation,” but that “the public trust doctrine does not permit reallocating water rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior adjudication.” Mineral County v. Lyon County, 473 P.3d 418, 425, 430 (Nev. 2020) (en banc).
In light of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, the panel held that the district court properly dismissed the County’s public trust claim to the extent it sought a reallocation of water rights adjudicated under the Decree and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation. The panel vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instruction to consider the County’s public trust doctrine claim to the extent it sought remedies that would not involve a reallocation of adjudicated water rights. The panel remanded to the district court to consider in the first instance the County’s arguments that were not properly addressed by the district court. The panel rejected as untimely the County’s challenge to the 1936 Decree itself.
COUNSEL
Simeon M. Herskovits (argued) and Iris Thornton, Advocates for Community & Environment, El Prado, New Mexico; and Sean A. Rowe, Mineral County District Attorney, Hawthorne, Nevada; for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant Mineral County, Nevada, and Defendant-Appellant Walker Lake Working Group. WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 5
Gordon H. DePaoli (argued) and Dale E. Ferguson, Woodburn and Wedge, Reno, Nevada, for Defendant- Appellee Walker River Irrigation District.
Roderick E. Walston (argued), and Steven G. Martin, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Walnut Creek, California; Stephen B. Rye, District Attorney, Lyon County, Yerington, Nevada; Jerry M. Snyder, Reno, Nevada; Therese A. Ure, Schroeder Law Offices P.C., Reno, Nevada; Stacey Simon, County Counsel; Stephen M. Kerins, Deputy County Counsel; Jason Canger, Assistant County Counsel; Office of the County Counsel, County of Mono, Mammoth Lakes, California; for Defendants-Appellees Lyon County, Centennial Livestock, Mono County, and the Schroeder Group.
Bryan L. Stockton (argued), Senior Deputy Attorney General; Tori N. Sundheim, Deputy Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Carson City, Nevada; for Defendant-Appellee Nevada Department of Wildlife.
Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Randy L. Barrow, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Deborah Barnes and Tara L. Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General; Attorney General’s Office, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae State of California.
John Echeverria, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont, for Amici Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.
David R. Owen, Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California; Richard M. Frank, Professor 6 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. of Environmental Practice, UC Davis School of Law, Davis, California; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.
Wes Williams, Law Offices of Wes Williams Jr. P.C., Schurz, Nevada, for Amicus Curiae Walker River Paiute Tribe.
OPINION
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
In 1936, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered the Walker River Decree (“Decree”), adjudicating and settling water rights within the Walker River Basin under the doctrine of prior appropriation. In the ensuing decades, these water allocations have adversely affected Walker Lake, the terminus of the Basin’s water flows. The lake has lost more than half of its surface area and volume, and the lake’s once-vibrant fishing and recreational activities—the lifeblood of Mineral County’s economy and a significant source of County revenues—have been threatened. To address these effects, Mineral County (the “County”) intervened in longstanding litigation over the Basin’s waters, alleging that “[t]he public interest and maintenance of the public trust require[s] that the flows be allowed to reach Walker Lake that will sustain minimum levels for the naturally occurring fish population and provide for the preservation of Walker Lake for the citizens and residents of the County for recreational values, preservation of wildlife, and maintenance of the economy of Mineral County.” WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 7
After the district court dismissed the County’s complaint and the County appealed, we certified questions to the Nevada Supreme Court, see Mineral County v. Walker River Irrigation Dist., 900 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2018), which the state court has now answered, holding that Nevada’s “public trust doctrine applies to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation,” but that “the public trust doctrine does not permit reallocating water rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation.” Mineral County v. Lyon County, 473 P.3d 418, 425, 430 (Nev. 2020) (en banc).
In light of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to consider the County’s public trust doctrine claim to the extent it seeks remedies that would not involve a reallocation of adjudicated water rights. We also reject as untimely the County’s challenge to the 1936 Decree itself.
I. BACKGROUND
We summarized the background of this litigation in our August 2018 certification order:
A. The Walker River Basin and Walker Lake’s Decline
The Walker River Basin covers about 4000 square miles, running northeast from its origins in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California before turning south and ultimately flowing into Walker Lake in Nevada. The first quarter of the basin lies in California, and California accounts for a majority of the 8 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
precipitation and surface water flow into the basin. The vast majority of the water is consumed across the border in Nevada.
Walker Lake is about 13 miles long, five miles wide and 90 feet deep—a large lake by most any measure. But its size and volume have shrunk significantly since they were first measured in 1882. By 1996, Walker Lake had retained just 50 percent of its 1882 surface area and 28 percent of its 1882 volume. Today’s Walker Lake also suffers from high concentrations of total dissolved solids (“TDS”)—meaning it has a high salt content, low oxygen content and a high temperature.
These conditions have drastically degraded the lake’s environmental and economic well-being. The high TDS concentrations have proven so inhospitable to fish species that, according to Mineral County, much of the lake’s fishing industry “has been eliminated for the time being.” Walker Lake’s decline also threatens its status as an important shelter for migratory birds, and it has “drive[n] away the many Nevadans and other Americans who used Walker Lake for recreational enjoyment and economically productive activities.” Although the parties dispute the cause of Walker Lake’s troubles, it seems clear that upstream appropriations play at least some part, together with declining precipitation levels and natural lake recession over time. WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 9
B. Litigation Over Water Rights in the Basin
In an effort to protect and rehabilitate Walker Lake, Mineral County intervened in the long-running litigation over water rights in the Walker River Basin. That litigation began in 1902, when one cattle and land company sued another in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada over appropriations from the Walker River. After considerable back and forth in state and federal court—including a Supreme Court decision holding that the Nevada federal court had prior, exclusive jurisdiction over the action, see Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U.S. 258, 262 (1910)—the case ended in 1919.
Five years later, the United States brought a new action in Nevada federal court, seeking to establish the water rights of the Walker Lake Paiute Tribe. After 12 more years of litigation—bringing us to 1936—that proceeding resulted in the Walker River Decree. The Walker River Decree adjudicated the water rights of hundreds of claimants under the doctrine of prior appropriation.[1] The Decree also created the
1 “Like most western states, Nevada is a prior appropriation state. The prior appropriation doctrine grants ‘[a]n appropriative right [that] may be described as a state administrative grant that allows the use of a specific quantity of water for a specific beneficial purpose if water is available in 10 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
Walker River Commission and the United States Board of Water Commissioners. The federal district court in Nevada has maintained jurisdiction over the Decree and its administration ever since.
In 1987, the Paiute Tribe intervened in the Walker River litigation to establish procedures for reallocating water rights under the Decree. Since that proceeding’s conclusion in 1988, the Nevada State Engineer reviews all applications to change allocations under the Decree in Nevada, subject to review by the Nevada federal district court. It appears that Nevada’s prior appropriation law, which has largely been codified, governs the Engineer’s decisions and the district court’s review. See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370; see also Greg Walch, Water Law: 9 Treading Water Law—A Nevada Water Rights Primer, 6 Nev. Law. 18, 18 (Nov. 1998) (discussing the history of prior appropriation and its codification in Nevada). Next, in 1991, the Paiute Tribe and the United States sought recognition of the Tribe’s right to a certain additional amount of water from the Walker River, under a principle that Native American tribes have superior water rights based on their relationship to the federal government . . . .
the source free from the claims of others with earlier appropriations.’” Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 423 (alterations in original) (quoting Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State, 944 P.2d 835, 837 n.1 (Nev. 1997) (per curiam)). WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 11
C. Mineral County’s Intervention
In 1994, Mineral County moved to intervene in the Decree litigation. The district court granted the motion in 2013. The amended complaint in intervention alleges that “[a]ctivities and businesses attributable to the presence and use of Walker Lake represent[ ] approximately 50% of the economy of Mineral County.” The complaint asks the Decree court, “pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction under . . . the . . . Decree, [to] reopen and modify the final Decree to recognize the rights of Mineral County . . . and the public to have minimum levels [of water] to maintain the viability of Walker Lake.” Mineral County seeks recognition “that a minimum of 127,000 acre/feet [of water] per year to Walker Lake is . . . required under the doctrine of maintenance of the public trust.”[2]
The Working Group—already a party to this litigation as a right-holder under the Decree—supports Mineral County’s position.
2 The Nevada Supreme Court expressly adopted the public trust doctrine in Lawrence v. Clark County, 254 P.3d 606, 607 (Nev. 2011) (en banc). “The public trust doctrine establishes that the state holds its navigable waterways and lands thereunder in trust for the public.” Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 423. In Mineral County, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified that the “doctrine applies to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation” and “to all waters within the state, whether navigable or nonnavigable.” Id. at 425 (emphasis omitted). 12 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
Because of the posture of this case, the Working Group is considered a defendant as to Mineral County’s intervention. But the Working Group “always has supported efforts to transfer water rights for use in Walker Lake . . . and has supported the enforcement of the public trust doctrine for this same purpose.”
In 2015, the district court dismissed the amended complaint in intervention. First, the district court held Mineral County lacked standing to assert its public trust claim. It concluded Mineral County’s claim “was based purely on a parens patriae theory” of standing—i.e., that Mineral County did not assert any of its own interests, only those of its citizens—and that a county lacks the ability to sue as parens patriae.
Notwithstanding its conclusion on standing, the district court also addressed the merits of Mineral County’s public trust claim. It concluded the public trust doctrine may factor into future allocations of water, but that using the doctrine to reallocate rights already adjudicated under the Decree would constitute a taking and require just compensation. Invoking the political question doctrine, the court concluded it lacked authority to order Nevada to effectuate such a taking. The district court also held, without analysis, that Walker Lake is not part of the Walker River Basin under the Decree, and therefore that the WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 13
Decree prohibits allocating any water specifically to the lake.
Mineral County, 900 F.3d at 1028–30 (9th Cir. 2018) (amended order) (some alterations in original) (footnotes omitted).
II. PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL
The County timely appealed. We issued a memorandum disposition holding that the County has standing. Mono County v. Walker River Irrigation Dist., 735 F. App’x 271, 273–74 (9th Cir. 2018). In a published opinion, we certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court:
[1] Does the public trust doctrine apply to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation and, if so, to what extent?
[2] If the public trust doctrine applies and allows for reallocation of rights settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation, does the abrogation of such adjudicated or vested rights constitute a “taking” under the Nevada Constitution requiring payment of just compensation?
Mineral County, 900 F.3d at 1034. In a related appeal, we also held that Walker Lake is part of the Walker River Basin. 14 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
United States v. U.S. Bd. of Water Comm’rs, 893 F.3d 578, 606 (9th Cir. 2018).3
The Nevada Supreme Court accepted certification, rephrased the first question to ask whether “the public trust doctrine permit[s] reallocating rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation,” and answered the question in the negative. Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 421. The court explained that “Nevada’s water statutes are consistent with the public trust doctrine” because they “require the State Engineer to consider the public interest in allocating water rights” and satisfy the three-part test described in Lawrence for determining whether the alienation of public trust property is valid. Id. at 426–27 (emphasis omitted) (citing Lawrence, 254 P.3d at 616). Next, the court held that “[t]he state’s water statutes recognize the importance of finality in water rights and therefore do not permit reallocation of adjudicated water rights.” Id. at 429 (emphasis omitted). The court therefore held that “the public trust doctrine does not permit reallocating water rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation.” Id. at 430. The court explained:
We recognize the tragic decline of Walker Lake. But while we are sympathetic to the plight of Walker Lake and the resulting negative impacts on the wildlife, resources, and economy in Mineral County, we cannot use the public trust doctrine as a tool to uproot
3 In a separate related appeal, we also reassigned “all aspects of the Walker River Basin water rights case pending in the District of Nevada” to a different district judge. United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist., 890 F.3d 1161, 1174 (9th Cir. 2018). WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 15
an entire water system, particularly where finality is firmly rooted in our statutes. We cannot read into the statutes any authority to permit reallocation when the Legislature has already declared that adjudicated water rights are final, nor can we substitute our own policy judgments for the Legislature’s.
Id. (footnote omitted).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 298 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir. 2002).
IV. DISCUSSION
To the extent that Mineral County seeks a reallocation of water rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation, the parties agree that the County’s claim is foreclosed by the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision. Insofar as the County seeks a reallocation of water rights, it appears that “the voluntary sale and purchase of water rights is the only available means to accommodate the needs of current water right holders and to restore Walker Lake under 16 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. the Decree.” Suppl. Br. of Appellee Nev. Dep’t of Wildlife at 4.4
The County insists, however, that this is not the end of the case. The County identifies two legal theories that it says would not require a reallocation of adjudicated water rights. Because the Nevada Supreme Court did not address, let alone foreclose, these theories, the County maintains that we should vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings on these two theories. As we shall explain, we agree in part with the County’s contentions.
A. Challenging the 1936 Decree Itself
First, we reject the County’s argument that we should remand for further proceedings on its claim that the 1936 Decree itself violates the public trust doctrine. The County points out, correctly, that the water rights at issue here were adjudicated in 1936, long before the Nevada Supreme Court, in its 2011 Lawrence decision, first articulated its three-part test for determining whether the alienation of public trust waters satisfies the public trust doctrine.5 Thus, in the
4 Such efforts may have already achieved some success. According to the County, a “substantial portion of the necessary inflows to Walker Lake already is being provided for by the Walker Basin Conservancy’s water rights acquisition program, which involves the purchase of Walker River water rights on the open market and transfer of those rights to instream flow use in order to benefit Walker Lake.” Suppl. Br. of Appellants Mineral County & Walker Lake Working Grp. at 23.
5 Lawrence held that, when “reviewing dispensations of public trust property . . . , courts of this state must consider (1) whether the dispensation was made for a public purpose, (2) whether the state received fair consideration in exchange for the dispensation, and (3) whether the dispensation satisfies ‘the state’s special obligation to maintain the trust WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 17
County’s view, no court has ever determined whether the dispensation of state waters under the 1936 Decree comports with the public trust doctrine, and it is an open question “whether adequate consideration of the public trust occurred in the individual allocative decisions of the Walker River Decree.” Suppl. Br. of Appellants Mineral County & Walker Lake Working Grp. at 14. Consequently, the County argues that this “case must be remanded to the district court to determine . . . whether the 1936 Decree, which merely confirmed pre-statutory prior appropriative rights, violated the public trust doctrine by over-allocating the basin and failing to consider the doctrine.” Id. at 19.
Whatever merit there may be to this novel contention, we are not persuaded that the claim is timely. In Mineral County, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that challenges to a judicial decree adjudicating water rights must be brought within three years:
As part of Nevada’s comprehensive water statutes, which we conclude adhere to the public trust doctrine, the Legislature enacted NRS 533.185 to establish a judicial decree regarding a water right permit. Regarding those judicial decrees, NRS 533.210(1) provides that:
The decree entered by the court, as provided by NRS 533.185, shall be final and shall be conclusive upon all
for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.’” Lawrence, 254 P.3d at 616 (quoting Arizona Ctr. for Law v. Hassell, 837 P.2d 158, 170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991)). 18 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.
persons and rights lawfully embraced within the adjudication; but the State Engineer or any party or adjudicated claimant upon any stream or stream system affected by such decree may, at any time within 3 years from the entry thereof, apply to the court for a modification of the decree . . . .
Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 429 (emphasis in original) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.210(1)). The County has not pointed to any statute, rule, or case law authorizing such a challenge more than 80 years after a decree has become final and conclusive. Because allowing such challenges after so much time has elapsed would plainly undermine the “finality in water rights” that Nevada’s water statutes deem important, see id. at 429–30, the County’s failure to act sooner is dispositive. We therefore hold that the challenge is untimely.
B. Remedies That Do Not Involve a Reallocation of Water Rights
We agree, however, with the County’s second contention—that its public trust claim remains viable because the County can seek remedies that would not involve a reallocation of adjudicated water rights.
The County argues that “the public trust doctrine imposes a continuing affirmative duty on the Decree Court to manage the resource for the benefit of future generations using remedies other than a reallocation of water rights, which is not permitted.” Suppl. Br. of Appellants Mineral County & Walker Lake Working Grp. at 6. Hence, according to the County, this case “must be remanded to the district court to WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 19 determine: (1) . . . whether the continuing duty of the Decree Court to maintain Walker Lake’s public trust uses and values has been violated since the entry of the Decree; (2) if so, what level of average annual minimum flows must reach the Lake; and finally (3) what the proper remedy ought to be.” Id. at 19. Proper remedies, the County tells us, could include:
(1) a change in how surplus waters are managed in wet years and how flows outside of the irrigation season are managed; (2) mandating efficiency improvements with a requirement that water saved thereby be released to Walker Lake; (3) curtailment of the most speculative junior rights on the system; (4) a mandate that the State provide both a plan for fulfilling its public trust duty to Walker Lake and the funding necessary to effectuate that plan; and/or (5) an order requiring water rights holders to come up with a plan to reduce consumptive water use in the Basin as was done by the State Engineer in Diamond Valley.
Id. at 15–16 (alterations omitted). The County maintains that achieving sufficient inflows into Walker Lake “without a reallocation of water rights” is a factual issue “for the Decree Court to address on remand.” Id. at 25.
We are not persuaded by the Walker River Irrigation District’s (“Irrigation District”) arguments that this issue does not warrant a remand. First, we agree with the County that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Mineral County does not foreclose the County from seeking remedies under the public trust doctrine that do not require a reallocation of 20 WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. adjudicated water rights. To be sure, the Nevada Supreme Court assumed that affording effective relief to the County would require a reallocation of such rights: “The Basin does not appear able to meet the county’s needs without abrogating the rights of more senior right holders. The county’s request would therefore require reallocating water rights.” Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 430 n.8. The court, however, did not consider whether other remedies were viable. The court, moreover, squarely held that “[t]he public trust doctrine applies to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation.” Id. at 425. Although the court noted that the public trust doctrine “generally acts as a restraint on the state in alienating public trust resources,” id. at 423 (emphasis added), the court did not hold, as the Irrigation District suggests, that the doctrine acts only “as a restraint on alienation of a public resource.” Suppl. Br. of Appellee Walker River Irrigation Dist. at 13.
Second, we are not persuaded by the Irrigation District’s argument that the County’s argument is a new one and that, “[a]fter over 25 years, Mineral County should not be allowed to change its position.” Id. at 12. Although Mineral County’s motion to intervene, filed in 1994, was granted in 2013, the litigation remains at an early stage. The district court dismissed the County’s amended complaint in intervention at the pleading stage, under Rule 12, and the case has since been on appeal. Furthermore, the County’s complaint is broad enough to encompass the remedies it now seeks, and, even if that were not the case, “[t]he liberal policies reflected in Rules 15(a) and 15(b) permit the demand to be amended either before or during trial.” 5 Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1255 (3d ed. 2020). Under Rule 54(c), moreover, “the district court may grant any relief to which the evidence shows a party is entitled, even though WALKER LAKE WORKING GRP. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 21 that party has failed to request the appropriate remedy or remedies in his pleading.” Id.
Third, we decline to address for the first time on appeal the Irrigation District’s arguments that the County’s proposed remedies “are either unnecessary, or clearly beyond the power of the district court.” Suppl. Br. of Appellee Walker River Irrigation Dist. at 14. To be sure, some of the arguments the Irrigation District raises may have merit. The Irrigation District plausibly argues, for example, that “[c]urtailment of the ‘most speculative junior rights’ on the system for the benefit of Walker Lake clearly would be a direct reallocation of those junior water rights”—action that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision forecloses. Id. at 15. But these arguments have not been developed, passed on by the district court, or briefed on appeal. We therefore leave them for the district court to address, in the first instance, on remand.
V. CONCLUSION
The district court properly dismissed Mineral County’s public trust claim to the extent it seeks a reallocation of water rights adjudicated under the Decree and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation. The County, however, may pursue its public trust claim to the extent that the County seeks remedies that would not involve a reallocation of such rights. The judgment of the district court, therefore, is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Tab 9
Nevada Division of Water Resources
Monthly Report (Highlighted applications are in the Humboldt River Basin)
Monthly Report For The Month of: January 2021 Run Date: 1/16/2021 10:58:51 AM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 21049R42 Jan-11 21049 162 GUZMAN, ELVIN AND EVELYN UG NY 2 0.00596 DOM 23 29S 53E CAROLINA 86559R03 Jan-11 86559 162 GOLDSTEIN, PAUL D. AND THERESA UG NY 2 0.0049 DOM 32 19S 53E 90345 Jan-04 V04091 177 PEARCE, AMBER M. SPR EL 13.44 0.0188 STK 12 36N 61E 90345 Jan-04 V04091 177 PEARCE, LUKE R. SPR EL 13.44 0.0188 STK 12 36N 61E 90345 Jan-04 V04091 177 PEARCE, MERRY S. SPR EL 13.44 0.0188 STK 12 36N 61E 90345 Jan-04 V04091 177 PEARCE, MONTY J. SPR EL 13.44 0.0188 STK 12 36N 61E 90346 Jan-04 11294 183 BLUE MOUNTAIN RANCHES OF UG LI 0.5524 0.00156 STK 36 08N 66E NEVADA LLC 90347T Jan-04 46333 053 BARRICK CORTEZ LLC UG OLD MINE SHOP WELL EU 3 0.0234 MM 34 27N 48E 90347T Jan-04 46333 053 NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC UG OLD MINE SHOP WELL EU 3 0.0234 MM 34 27N 48E 90348 Jan-04 80335 054 CORTEZ JOINT VENTURE UG DW-20 LA 398.1 0.5499 MM 31 27N 48E 90349 Jan-05 133 PAYNE, JACK A. AND RACHEL L. UG CH 640 2.7 IRR 28 19N 37E 90350 Jan-06 85735 054 NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC UG ZEDA WELL #1 EU 6.72 0.0094 STK 16 31N 50E
90351T Jan-07 88789 108 DESERT PEARL FARMS, LLC UG LY 486.36 2.855 IRR 01 12N 25E 90352 Jan-07 179 LEAR RANCH, LLC SPR BECKY SPRING WP 5.98 0.0083 STK 12 25N 65E 90353 Jan-07 53020 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC UG WELL #1 EL 0 0.0343 STK 01 36N 66E 90354 Jan-08 70940 153 MARK MOYLE FARMS, LLC UG P-3 2020 EU 502.72 2.01 IRR 19 22N 54E 90355 Jan-08 78528 087 THOMAS CREEK LLC UG WA 5 0.0238 QM 12 18N 19E 90356T Jan-08 27929 108 UNITED STATES IN TRUST FOR THE UG LY 16 0.089 IRR 16 14N 25E YERINGTON PAIUTE TRIBE 90357T Jan-08 DCTR-3 101 DODGE LAND & LIVESTOCK LLC STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 461.51 0 DEC 33 19N 26E
1
Nevada Division of Water Resources
Monthly Report (Highlighted applications are in the Humboldt River Basin)
Monthly Report For The Month of: December 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:26:01 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 21049R40 Dec-08 21049 162 RUBENFELD, LUKE UG NY 2 0.00596 DOM 01 20S 52E 21049R41 Dec-08 21049 162 PEREZ, JUAN C. UG NY 2 0.00596 DOM 11 21S 53E 41509R03 Dec-23 41509 048 ROCK HOUND INVESTMENTS, LLC UG EL 6 0.052 DOM 29 34N 56E 57915R02 Dec-14 57915 089 RT MERCHANT, LLC UG WA 4 0.1306 DOM 24 17N 19E 82881R01 Dec-28 82881 162 HERRERA, RAMON AND TERESA UG NY 2 0.0599 DOM 19 19S 53E 90286T Dec-01 70438 105 GARNERVILLE WATER COMPANY, UG WELL 10 DO 510 0.704 MUN 03 12N 20E INC. 90287 Dec-03 57429 088 OSULLIVAN FAMILY TRUST UG WA 3.99 0.0139 IRR 03 17N 20E 90288 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER, UG LI 3.9 0.009 STK 17 03N 70E DRY VALLEY LLC 90289 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER, UG LI 3.9 0.009 STK 31 04N 70E DRY VALLEY LLC 90290 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER, UG LI 3.9 0.009 STK 05 03N 70E DRY VALLEY LLC 90291 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER, UG LI 3.9 0.009 STK 13 04N 69E DRY VALLEY LLC 90292 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER, UG LI 3.9 0.009 STK 20 03N 70E DRY VALLEY LLC
90293 Dec-03 201 PAT AND KENA LYTLE GLOECKNER UG LI 1.4 0.004 STK 07 03N 70E 90294T Dec-04 DCTR3 101 STORMS OASIS DAIRY, LLC STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 291.2 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90294T Dec-04 80878 101 STORMS OASIS DAIRY, LLC STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 291.2 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90294T Dec-04 48473 101 STORMS OASIS DAIRY, LLC STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 291.2 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90295 Dec-07 154 WHITE PINE COUNTY UG WP 6 0.45 CON 22 18N 56E 90296T Dec-08 84007 162 U.S. PROPERTY CORPORATION, LLC UG BARNEY WELL B60 NY 58.556 0.081 IRR 12 20S 52E 90297T Dec-08 84008 162 U.S. PROPERTY CORPORATION, LLC UG BARNEY WELL B60 NY 7.792 0.011 IRR 12 20S 52E
1 Monthly Report For The Month of: December 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:26:01 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90298T Dec-08 84009 162 U.S. PROPERTY CORPORATION, LLC UG BARNEY WELL B60 NY 54.543 0.0753 IRR 12 20S 52E 90299T Dec-08 60072 054 NEW GOLD NEVADA, INC. UG LA 253 1 IND 24 29N 47E 90300 Dec-09 127DCR 105 BARTH, RAQUEL STR ALLERMAN CANAL DO 0 0 DEC 23 12N 20E 90301 Dec-09 58531 105 BARTH, RAQUEL UG DO 0 0 COM 32 14N 20E 90302 Dec-09 35801 070 WESTMORELAND LAND HOLDINGS, UG HU 87.2 0.436 IRR 14 35N 37E LLC 90303 Dec-09 35227 070 WESTMORELAND LAND HOLDINGS, UG HU 61.52 0.384 IRR 14 35N 37E LLC 90304T Dec-11 63769 212 BELLAGIO, LLC UG CL 61.38 0.2259 REC 36 19S 61E 90305T Dec-11 67043 212 BELLAGIO, LLC UG CL 55.24 0.1509 REC 36 19S 61E 90306 Dec-14 80973 054 CORTEZ JOINT VENTURE UG DB-35 LA 3484.46 4.813 MMD 08 27N 47E 7 90307 Dec-14 80972 054 CORTEZ JOINT VENTURE UG DB-36 LA 2171.91 3 MMD 08 27N 47E 90308 Dec-16 88580 091 39 VENTURES UG WA 5 0.0142 COM 18 19N 18E 90309 Dec-16 88581 091 39 VENTURES UG WA 5 0.0142 COM 18 19N 18E 90310T Dec-16 88580 091 39 VENTURES UG WA 5 0.0142 COM 18 19N 18E 90311 Dec-16 84533 199 BLUE MOUNTAIN RANCHES OF UG LI 200 1 IRR 21 01N 69E NEVADA, LLC 90312 Dec-16 81899 162 NYE COUNTY UG NY 1.12 0.003 MUN 01 20S 53E 90313T Dec-16 81899 162 NYE COUNTY UG NY 1.12 0.003 QM 01 20S 53E
90314T Dec-18 V06571 035 ELKO LAND AND LIVESTOCK STR COLUMBIA CREEK EL 53.46 0.66 MM 02 43N 52E COMPANY 90315 Dec-18 207 RWD CURRANT CREEK, LLC UG NY 2.6 0.1 STK 19 11N 60E 90316T Dec-18 38126 228 BEATTY WATER & SANITATION UG INDIAN SPRINGS WELL NY 20 0.0648 MM 26 11S 46E DISTRICT 90317T Dec-18 DCTR-3 101 CHURCHILL COUNTY STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 164.21 0 CON 33 19N 26E 90317T Dec-18 47839 101 CHURCHILL COUNTY STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 164.21 0 CON 33 19N 26E 90318T Dec-18 66159 087 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR WA 901 5.575 WLD 07 19N 20E AUTHORITY 90319T Dec-18 70696 087 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 924.13 4.613 WLD 11 19N 19E AUTHORITY
2 Monthly Report For The Month of: December 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:26:01 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90319T Dec-18 69485 087 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 924.13 4.613 WLD 11 19N 19E AUTHORITY 90319T Dec-18 70924 087 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 924.13 4.613 WLD 11 19N 19E AUTHORITY 90319T Dec-18 75335 087 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 924.13 4.613 WLD 11 19N 19E AUTHORITY 90320T Dec-21 25335 088 MONTREUX GOLF & COUNTRY STR GALENA CREEK WA 93.16 0.518 REC 03 17N 19E CLUB, INC. 90321T Dec-21 25334 088 MONTREUX GOLF & COUNTRY STR GALENA CREEK WA 97.865 0.5444 REC 03 17N 19E CLUB, INC. 90322T Dec-22 61418 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCT 1 EL 795 1.1 MM 13 36N 66E 90323T Dec-22 61418 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCW 2 EL 210 0.029 MM 33 36N 66E 90324T Dec-22 61419 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCW 5 EL 350 0.484 MM 15 36N 66E 90325T Dec-22 61418 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCW 6 EL 0.5 0.0007 MM 22 36N 66E 90326T Dec-22 61418 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCW 7 EL 100 0.138 MM 21 36N 66E 90327T Dec-22 61418 187 NEVADA GOLD MINES, LLC UG LCW 8 EL 0.5 0.0007 MM 22 36N 66E 90328 Dec-22 30151 069 LAIRD, JON D. AND HOLLY A. UG SOUTHWEST WELL HU 58.96 0.25 IRR 34 39N 38E 90329 Dec-22 24728 069 LAIRD, JON D. AND HOLLY A. UG SOUTHWEST WELL HU 100.68 0.2472 IRR 34 39N 38E 90330 Dec-22 30151 069 LAIRD, JON D. AND HOLLY A. UG SOUTHEAST WELL HU 1.12 0.1 STK 34 39N 38E 90331 Dec-22 24728 069 LAIRD, JON D. AND HOLLY A. UG NORTHEAST WELL HU 1.12 0.0028 STK 34 39N 38E 90332 Dec-22 22617 069 LAIRD, JON D. AND HOLLY A. UG NORTHWEST WELL HU 1.12 0.37 STK 34 39N 38E
90333 Dec-23 9039 173B RWD CURRANT CREEK, LLC UG NY 2.57 0.006 STK 18 09N 58E 90334 Dec-23 63514 212 BILLS SUBTRUST FBO OSCAR UG CL 17.5 0.0245 COM 23 19S 60E MUNOZ GILCREASE 90335T Dec-24 V09103 100 HEINZ HOLDCO, LLC UG WA 546.54 2.5 CON 33 21N 18E 90336T Dec-24 V09103 100 HEINZ HOLDCO, LLC UG WA 546.54 2.5 CON 28 21N 18E 90337T Dec-24 76292 083 CITY OF FERNLEY STR TRUCKEE RIVER DERBY DAM ST 250 0 IRR 19 20N 23E 90337T Dec-24 76292 083 FERNLEY-CITY STR TRUCKEE RIVER DERBY DAM ST 250 0 IRR 19 20N 23E 90338 Dec-28 213 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UG CL 241.09 0.333 QM 24 28S 65E
3
Monthly Report For The Month of: December 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:26:01 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90339T Dec-29 DCTR-3 101 TCID STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 66.71 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90339T Dec-29 DCTR-3 101 TRUCKEE-CARSON IRRIGATION STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 66.71 0 IRR 33 19N 26E DISTRICT 90340T Dec-29 88604 058 OSTLER, ALAN UG WELL 16-7 LA 40 0.187 IRR 16 25N 42E 90340T Dec-29 88604 058 OSTLER, NATHAN UG WELL 16-7 LA 40 0.187 IRR 16 25N 42E 90341T Dec-30 77003 054 KLONDEX GOLD & SILVER MINING UG PORTAL WELL LA 8.96 0.0125 STK 22 30N 47E COMPANY 90342 Dec-30 043 HG WUSTHOF RANCH, LLC STR RIGHT BOULDER CREEK EL 0 3 PWR 32 36N 60E 90343T Dec-30 38126 228 BEATTY WATER & SANITATION STR NY 0 0.0645 MM 26 11S 46E DISTRICT 90344 Dec-30 5174 207 DOUGLAS CANYON PROPERTIES, SPR GRANITE SPRING WP 0.942 0.0013 STK 16 11N 60E LLC
4 Monthly Report For The Month of: November 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:29:51 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90226T Nov-03 63769 212 BELLAGIO UG WELL 1 CL 61.38 0.2259 REC 36 19S 61E 90227T Nov-03 67043 212 BELLAGIO UG WELL 5 CL 55.24 0.1509 REC 36 19S 61E 90228T Nov-03 76254 212 NEW YORK - NEW YORK HOTEL LLC UG CL 16.879 0.1 QM 36 19S 61E 90229 Nov-03 68408 131 BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY UG PHOENIX PW-15 LA 200 0.2763 MM 08 30N 43E 90230 Nov-03 100A BONE, DELLIS SPR WA 1.045 0.00144 STK 17 22N 18E 90231 Nov-03 100A BONE, DELLIS SPR WA 1.045 0.00144 STK 05 22N 18E 90232T Nov-04 88625 229 MOTHER LODE MINING COMPANY, UG PW-2 NY 46 0.1166 MM 04 12S 48E LLC 90233 Nov-04 208.5DT 091 TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 8.75 0.051 MUN 31 19N 18E R AUTHORITY 90234 Nov-06 623DTR 083 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 10.207 0.1136 IND 18 19N 21E COMPANY 90235 Nov-06 61736 083 WALTHAM ROAD INDUSTRIAL, LLC UG ST 100 0.357 MUN 33 20N 22E 90236T Nov-06 9039 173B RWD CURRANT CREEK, LLC UG NY 2.57 0.006 STK 18 09N 58E 90237 Nov-06 176 LIND RANCHES, LC UG EL 600 2 IRR 02 31N 59E 90238 Nov-06 176 LIND RANCHES, LC UG EL 6.72 0.0094 STK 02 31N 59E 90239 Nov-06 176 LIND RANCHES, LC UG EL 900 4 IRR 22 31N 59E 90240 Nov-06 176 LIND RANCHES, LC UG EL 8.96 0.0125 STK 22 31N 59E 90241 Nov-06 38493 089 SECTOR NINE, LLC UG OLD WASHOE #4 WA 0.5 0.0069 MUN 23 17N 19E
90242 Nov-09 212 LITTLE MINION, LLC UG CL 2 0.1 COM 19 23S 61E
90243 Nov-09 10940 212 MICHAEL, CRAIG UG CL 3 0.006 QM 07 22S 61E 90244T Nov-09 80195 212 HARBAUER, PAUL UG CL 1 0.0019 QM 02 19S 59E 90245 Nov-09 80195 212 HARBAUER, PAUL UG CL 1 0.0019 QM 02 19S 59E 90246 Nov-10 85222 083 APPLE, INC. UG WA 285.6 1.249 QM 30 20N 22E 90247T Nov-12 76719 070 CYANCO UG HU 133 1.34 IND 06 35N 37E 90248 Nov-12 193 BATEMAN RANCHES, LLC UG WP 4.54 0.25 STK 28 26N 70E
2 Monthly Report For The Month of: November 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:29:51 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90249T Nov-13 71660 150 COLVIN & SON, LLC UG NY 279.63 1.17 IRR 06 11N 50E 90250T Nov-13 71660 150 COLVIN & SON, LLC UG NY 652.47 2.741 IRR 06 11N 50E 90251T Nov-16 78246 162 12-3-14 CORP., LLC UG NY 0.5 0.002 COM 34 19S 53E 90252 Nov-16 78246 162 12-3-14 CORP., LLC UG NY 0.5 0.002 COM 34 19S 53E 90253T Nov-18 DCTR-3 101 BEHIMER, SAMUEL & CLAIR STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 63.455 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 DCTR-3 101 NYGREN, AMY STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 DCTR-3 101 NYGREN, DENVER SCOTT STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 DCTR-3 101 NYGREN, SCOTT LEWIS STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 52551 101 NYGREN, AMY STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 52551 101 NYGREN, DENVER SCOTT STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90254T Nov-18 52551 101 NYGREN, SCOTT LEWIS STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 135.905 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90255 Nov-18 243DTR 091 SMITH FAMILY TRUST UNDER STR TRUCKEE RIVER WA 4 0.02 DEC 14 19N 18E TRUST AGREEMENT 90256T Nov-18 65411 131 BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY UG DUVAL 4 LA 800 1.105 MMD 09 30N 43E 90257E Nov-19 212 LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AND UG GWE-6 CL 32.6 0.045 ENV 09 21S 61E VISITORS AUTHORITY 90258E Nov-19 212 LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AND UG GWE-7 AND 8 CL 64.48 0.089 ENV 09 21S 61E VISITORS AUTHORITY 90259T Nov-19 DCTR-3 101 ENOCH TRUST STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 40.495 0 IRR 33 19N 26E
90260 Nov-19 59228 101 A & A DAIRY UG CH 65 0.25 COM 08 19N 29E
90261E Nov-20 072 FLORIDA CANYON MINING CO. UG MW-C WELL PE 20.5 0.035 ENV 03 31N 33E 90262T Nov-20 87754 101 SOUTH FORK FARMS, LLC STR TRUCKEE & CARSON RIVERS CH 33.25 0 IRR 33 19N 26E 90263 Nov-24 50723 216 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING UG CL 88 0.32 MUN 29 18S 63E BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF THE LATER DAY SAINTS 90264 Nov-24 50724 216 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING UG CL 162.55 0.92 MUN 17 18S 63E BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF THE LATER DAY SAINTS 90265 Nov-24 50725 216 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING UG CL 65 0.302 MUN 29 18S 63E BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF THE LATER DAY SAINTS
3
Monthly Report For The Month of: November 2020 Run Date: 1/10/2021 7:29:51 PM APP NO. DATE CHG BASIN OWNER NAME SRC DESCRIPTION CO DUTY DIV MOU POINT OF DIVERSION RATE SEC TWN RNG 90284 Nov-30 83479 033A WINNEMUCCA FARMS, INC UG HU 361.96 0.9436 IRR 18 44N 37E 90285 Nov-30 051 JAMES J. WRIGHT RANCH, INC. UG EL 6.72 0.0094 STK 31 39N 53E
5
Tab 10