Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002883 <br /> <br />a real practical problem in Nevada. We had a heck of a time getting <br />the legislature to appropriate the money to match the federal grants <br />that were already available in lots of cases. <br /> <br />In the development of the National Water Policy during the very later <br />stages just before the President actually announced it, we saw some <br />drafts. And Guy Martin got madder than hell at me when I mentioned <br />this in the last State Engineers meeting. He said it was something <br />that had been corrected. In that draft there appeared something to <br />this effect -- that if these planning monies, $25 million, were made <br />available for states, the states in their planning reports would have <br />to address a lot of things. Two of the things they would have to <br />address are instream flows and groundwater management. The text of <br />that proposal was essentially that if the states receive a grant, they <br />in turn will submit a report acceptable to the federal agencies in <br />regards to instream flows and groundwater management. Well, to me <br />this was an undue string attached to those grant monies, and Guy Martin <br />was quick to point out to me that that had. been deleted from the <br />National Water Policy as it was finally announced. But this is the <br />kind of thing that frankly we are concerned about. <br /> <br />We found out just recently about the emphasis on groundwater in the <br />National Water Policy, and really I have mixed emotions about thie. <br />Because very frankly in a large portion of the State of Nevada we are <br />not issuing any more groundwater permits, not only for irrigation but <br />in lots of areas we are not issuing any permits for human consumption. <br />Right here in Las Vegas we have issued permits through the years which <br />are revocable, and I'll mention that in a minute. For example, in the <br />Reno-Carson City area we are just flat not issuing any more permits. <br />For the emphasis on proper groundwater management and the thrust that <br />is being put on the prohibition suggested by groundwater management <br />in the National Water Policy, in one sense,would be very supportive <br />of the position we have had to~ake during the past. <br /> <br />In that vein I can see how this would be helpful to us. I am a little <br />concerned, though, abou'j; whether this authority should shift from the <br />state to the federal government. For example, let's say that this <br />National. Water Policy was in effect 20-25 years ago. Well, 25 years <br />ago Las Vegas Valley right here had reached the point where all the <br />groundwater available on a perennial yield basis was being used -- <br />25-35,000 acre-feet. The legislature at that time, recognizing that <br />together with the Colorado River states we were going to get a chunk <br />out of Lake Mead and the Colorado River, decided that they would give <br />the State Engineer the authority to issue temporary pemi ts to' appro- <br />priate groundwater which would be subject to ratification when that <br />Lake Mead-Colorado River water came in. And we did that. Since 1955 <br />we have been issuing revocable pemits; and now that the water supply <br />project is on line and delivering water, we are in a position to <br />actually revoke those groundwater pemits. It has been a very effec- <br />tive w~ to provide for the growth and development of Las Vegas <br /> <br />C-21 <br /> <br />