Comments for SB 21 March 22,2017
John F. Bosta
P.O. Box 42
Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020
Senate Committee Government Affairs
Room 2125 of the Legislative Building
401 S. Carson St.
Carson City, NV
RE: SB 21
Dear Committee Members,
My name is lohn F. Bosta and I am a lifelong voting Democrat since 1958.
I will not be able to attend the meeting of the Senate Committee of
Government Affalrs Work Session on March Z2,2AL7 at 1:00 pm ln Room
2135. So, I will present my comments in writing for the record as an Exhibit.
Please vote yes to abolish the Nye County Water District.
The majority of the Nye County Board of Commissioners (Bocc) voted
to abolish the water board, Aug. 16, 2016 for agenda item 43 regarding
Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) by Nye County for the 2AL7 Legislative Session.
Commissioner Cox made a motion to prioritize the water district for the
BDR to do away with them; seconded by Commissioner Borasky; 3
yeas. Commissioners Schinhofen and Wichman voted rro. {emphasis
added)
Commissioner Schinhofen, Chairman BoCC, placed Agenda Item 21,
and deliberation regarding S.B. 21
*
Abolishes the Nye County Water District
-
Discussion
to consider the
fotlowing actions: 1) submit a reguest to the Committee Chair to withdraw the bill; or 2) submit a
request to the Legislative Counsel Bureau to request assistance to amend the bill; or 3)take no action,
for the February 21,,2017. Commissioner Borasky made a motion to send to
Legislature to do SB 21 as written; seconded by Commissioner Cox; the vote
was 3 yeas. Commissioners Schinhofen and Wichman voted no.
The Nye County District Attorney said the motion was not on the Agenda.
So, Commissioner Borasky made the motion to take no action; seconded by
Commissioner cox. commissioners Borasky, cox and Koenig voted yea;
Commission Schinhofen and Wichman voted no.
I'm the President of the Private Well Owners Cooperative of Nye County. At the
end of my Feb. 2L,2AL7 testimony I presented to the BoCC 355 signatures on a
Petition to Adopt SB 21 to be included as an exhibit in the record of minutes. A
copy of the petition is attached hereto.
March 22,2Ot7 Comments by John F. Bosta
o,n SB 21,
Page L
On March 6, 2017 the two dissenting Commissioners on SB 21 using
Nye County Letter Head sent their "Minority Oplnion" To Whom It
May Concern:
"I qschtnhofen) w0oted to share the dissenting opinion regarding repealing the
Nye County Water District with you. The other opposing vote was made by
the commissioner with a district that covers all 44 Basins, but is the sole
commissioner over 43 of them."
The Committee should take note that not all of the 44 groundwater basins
contain private ownership of land. Most are within and on Federal land.
Commission Wichman has the following communities within her district:
Gabbs, Tonopah, Round Mountain, Manhattan, Dyer, Current, Beatty,
Amargosa, and Pahrump.
Gabbs, Tonopah, Round Mountain, Manhattan, Beatty, and Pahrump have
Private Utilities for water service using groundwater wells, All of the parcels,
except 75, in Amargosa and the majority of the parcels in Pahrurnp use
domestic wells for their water source
Mr. Schinhofen also makes the following comment: "The Bocc, historicauy, has nor
directed the WDGB. However, in 2016 the BoCC voted on a plan and asked the WDGB to determine
the implementation of that plan. That direction passed the BoCC by a 4-t vote. The WDGB has made
good headway and I hate to see that lost now in the other myriad issues that face our county,"
During the January 19, 2016 BoCC meeting Agenda Item 54 Commissioner
Schinhofen made a two part motion to approve a plan to 1) to send back to
the Water Board to include aggressive water education; adopt a water
conservation plan; educate domestic well owners regarding the option to
supplement their water usage; continue to look at rapid infiltration basins;
create incentives to voluntarily connect to public water systems; investigate
existing and future development agreements; implement changes with the
goal to require water mitigation; fill out the charts; continue the water level
measurement program; and evaluate redistribution of production well
pumping and 2) the things to send to the State would be metering of new
domestic wells; limit new domestic wells to a half acre foot; aquifer storage
and recovery; allow utilities to put in backbone infrastructure with PUC
approval to reach more lots; and a conservation credit program for water
rights; seconded by Commissioner Wichman. Commissioners Borasky, Cox,
and Koenig voted yea. Commissioners Schinhofen and Wichman vote no.
Item 2) sent to the State Engineer has been used for many of the BRDs
which have turned into Bills before Legislature today.
The Final Groundwater Management Plan has never been completed or
adopted by the Water District and approved by the BoCC.
March 2Z,7AL7 Comments by fohn F. Bosta on SB 21
PageZ
Legislative Counsel's Digest: Section B of 58222 sets forth an extensive list
of powers conferred upon the District, including, without limitation: 1) The
power to incur indebtedness and issue bonds; 2) The power to acquire land
and water rights to carry out the purposes of the District; 3) The power to
construct any work for the development, importation or distribution of the
water of the District; and 4) the power to levy and collect taxes to assist in
the operational expenses of the district. The District has only applied No.
4 bV adopting a fee and not a tax!
Sec. B. 1. The District has the following powers a-w. The District has never
exercised the following powers: e, t, g, i, i, k, l, trlr tlr ot gt r, s, and
Ur
Section
1(q )
To cause taxes to be levied and collected for the purposes prescribed in sections
to 12, inclusive, of this act, including, without limitation, the payment of any obligation of the District
during ils organizational state and thereafter, and negessary engineering costs, and to assist in the
operational expenses of the District, until such taxes are no longer required.
81
1
I live in Amargosa Valley, NV. i have two parcels in Amargosa and one in
Pahrump. I have paid a Water District Tax of $5.OO per parcel adopted
by a Resolution for a "fee" on my tax bill for 3 parcels since 201.I- for a
total of $15.00 per year for 6 years. I have never received a benefit for the
fee. A Fee by a resolution is only the intent of District to provide a service and
is not a tax levied by an ordinance. The words "fee" and "Resolution" are not
included in any of the sections in SB 222 which creates the Nye County Water
District Act.
I
have been accused in a court of law of harassing the Water District by their
Legal Counsel for testifying before this Committee on SB 21 to abolish the Nye
County Water Act.
In my opinion this accusation violates my First Amendment Rights.
ly submitted,
{l"h
March Z2,ZA17 Comments bylohn F, Bosta on SB 21
Page 3