Revises provisions relating to water. (BDR 48-338)
The impact of AB387 on state law is significant as it establishes stricter guidelines on how water permits are issued and how the State Engineer must operate. The bill emphasizes the need for scientific assessments to ensure sustainable water management. Requirements for evaluating existing water rights and potential conflicts, particularly in regions with hydrological connections, aim to protect the interests of all stakeholders involved, especially in light of Nevada's ongoing water scarcity issues.
Assembly Bill 387 focuses on the management and appropriation of water resources in Nevada, specifically revising the provisions related to underground water usage. It mandates that the State Engineer prioritize the best available scientific data when making decisions concerning water resources, moving from a model where this was merely encouraged to one where it is a requirement. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that any appropriation of underground water must respect existing rights and requires the State Engineer to consider hydrologic connections that may conflict with said rights.
The sentiment around AB387 appears to be generally supportive among environmental groups and water management advocates, who appreciate its focus on sustainability and best practices. However, there are concerns voiced by some landowners and agricultural interests who fear that the increased regulations on water appropriation could hinder their rights and economic viability. This divide indicates that while some see the bill as a step towards better resource management, others perceive it as an encroachment on their existing rights.
Notable points of contention include how the bill may affect existing water rights holders, particularly those in agriculture or regions dependent on groundwater. The requirement for a hydrologic analysis before permits are issued could lead to increased delays or rejections of applications for new water rights, raising concerns about fairness and economic impact. Additionally, the designation of critical management areas could result in stricter withdrawal limits, threatening the viability of certain businesses that rely on groundwater.