Chat with Chic, November 28, 1986

Chat with Chic A Report from Washington FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Pete Kelley November 28, 1986 (702) 885-9111 CHAT WITH CHIC A very interesting report crossed my desk the other day, put out by the Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey. It prefaced its study with the simple statement that "Nevada is surface-water poor" and that in most parts of our state, surface water is a precious resource, which is already fully appropriated. Statewide annual precipitation averages about nine inches, the lowest of any State in the Nation. Average annual precipitation ranges from four inches in some low-altitude valleys to about 16 inches in higher areas. But in some of the higher mountain reaches, precipitation may exceed 30 inches. Interesting to note is that 81 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in the state are from surface sources. Statewide, ninety percent of the surface-water withdrawals are for irrigation, five percent for municipal water systems, and five percent for self-supplied industries. About 400,000 people in Nevada rely on surface water for their freshwater needs. The report was particularly interesting to me in light of legislation that was introduced during the past Congress and which will be reintroduced when the new Congress begins its deliberations in 1987. And that concerns a bill which has generated a lot of controversy around the state during 1986 and which involves two entities of the federal bureaucracy. I refer to the bill which would have transferred about 500,000 acres of Nevada land now administered by the Bureau of Land Management into the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. There was a strong positive feeling about the swap at the state level and justifiably so. But the measure did not pass, even though it was a "down to the wire" issue in the last Congress. And why did it not pass? Simply because of the insistence of some that water rights in the acreage involved be under federal instead of state jurisdictional control. None of us, particularly those from the West, could go for something like that, largely because the extreme impact it would have had on many within our states whose water rights now are administered by the states, as they should be. It was another example of federal versus state control and thankfully, there still are a few of us in Congress who feel very strongly about Nevada's water rights. The timely USGS report says in part: "Surface-water and ground-water resources are managed by the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, under the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the State Engineer, collects data and conducts hydrologic investigations. Water laws in Nevada are based on the concept of 'first in time?first in right'. The concept has proved to be effective and in the State's interest." And I say: "Amen to that."