[0:00] Regular scheduled meeting of the Southern Matter Water Authority for August 30th, August 20th, Russia, no month, sorry, 2026. This is the first time set aside for public comment, and this is public comment on any items on the agenda. Please state and tell your name for the record. Thank you. Madam Chair, could I ask a little bit of indulgence before you start my time? I want to address something on the minutes in addition to my public comment. Thank you.

[0:28] So before you approve the minutes, I do have one request regarding my public comment from the last meeting.

[0:36] The minutes note that I submitted written comments, but they don't reflect the substance of what I said.

[0:41] Other speakers comments are summarized substantively in the minutes.

[0:44] I'm asking that mine be treated the same way.

[0:47] The fact that I provided a written document shouldn't make my oral comments less visible in the official minutes.

[0:53] So under NRS 2-4-1.035, I'm expressly requesting that the minutes reflect the substance of my remarks, and I would ask the minutes to be corrected before approval.

[1:03] So thank you for that.

[1:06] I'm actually also here on agenda items 5, 6, and 7.

[1:10] In July, this agreement came before you on item number 7, and was pulled on August 11th, the general manager signed it anyway, and today you're being asked to ratify it.

[1:20] We've confronted the question of where administrative authority ends and

[1:24] board authority begins.

[1:25] I think we all remember the septic waiver program that's still kind of outstanding.

[1:30] If management could execute this agreement subject to leader ratification,

[1:34] why it was board approval requested in July and what changed after the item was pulled.

[1:39] But the additional conservation material provided with this agenda raises more important issues to consider.

[1:44] As the WA must attest that absent this agreement, it would have used this water in 2026.

[1:51] Yet the methodology supporting that conservation reaches all the way back to 2002,

[1:57] measuring today's much lower per capita consumption against that baseline.

[2:02] So how much of the 50,000 acre feet, 7 out of out of water 30 now wants to monetize,

[2:07] came from decades of efficiency improvements, voluntary conservation, and

[2:11] an increasingly efficient new development

[2:14] and how much came from mandatory restrictions

[2:16] imposed on existing residents.

[2:19] That distinction matters because saving water

[2:21] through efficiency is fundamentally different

[2:23] from creating available water

[2:25] by taking established water use away

[2:27] from existing residents.

[2:29] One is conservation, the other is a reallocation

[2:32] of who gets use of the resource.

[2:35] Historically, much of that burden was perspective.

[2:38] New development had to become more efficient.

[2:40] Increasingly, the burden has become retrospective, existing residents and established communities are required to surrender existing water use and landscaping to increase additional capacity.

[2:51] And when that reallocation is compelled, while the resulting water is used to accommodate other demands or monetize for 16.25 million, it's no longer conservation, it's actually appropriation.

[3:03] And consider what Nevada is being asked to contribute compared to California.

[3:07] This agreement represents up to 16.7% of Nevada's apportionment, metropolitan's leaving 200,000 acre feet, which is only 4.5% of its apportionment.

[3:18] If California was contributing the same proportion as Nevada, it would be leaving approximately 733,000 acre feet and like made not 200,000, if I could just have another minute, thank you.

[3:29] And California itself says that this water is being left in Lake Mead to help stabilize the Colorado River and protect hydro power generation.

[3:38] Well, that's fine, then the burden should be theirs and a proportional share.

[3:43] Meanwhile, items five and six demonstrate that Southern Nevada can acquire and develop additional resources.

[3:49] And if growth creates additional demand, growth should bear the cost of acquiring the resources necessary to support it.

[3:56] Instead, item 7 asks you to monetize another 50,000 acre feet of conservation for 16.25 million without retaining the ICS credit for that water.

[4:07] Before deciding Nevada has 50,000 acre feet to spare, please look at your own data and ask how those savings were produced.

[4:13] And why Nevada with the smallest lower base in allocation is contributing proportionately so much more than California.

[4:19] Yeah, and I would really hope that each of you will comment on your decisions to to ratify this agreement.

[4:26] Thank you so much for the extra indulgence.

[4:27] Yep, thank you and next speaker, please.

[4:32] Good morning, directors for the record.

[4:35] My name is Scott Millington, the general manager of Muddy Valley Irrigation Company in Moarple Valley.

[4:40] Just I don't want a time to short, just take a minute to talk about agenda item number five,

[4:46] which is the restatement of the water operation and management agreement between

[4:50] between Southern Nevada Water Authority and Muddy Valley Irrigation Company.

[4:53] I know you've been well briefed on the information that's there, and so I'm not gonna spend any time on the contract.

[5:00] I think I'd like to talk just a minute about the history between Muddy Valley Irrigation Company and

[5:05] Southern Nevada Water Authority.

[5:07] Alongstanding history goes back to the mid 90s.

[5:10] We worked on multiple agreements as well as multiple projects on the Muddy River.

[5:15] The Muddy River is fully adjudicated.

[5:19] It's a river that you're probably well aware of.

[5:23] Southern Nevada Water Authority, their owns or controls about 50% depending on this agreement,

[5:29] maybe even a little more about flow, which contributes to your ICS plan.

[5:34] Money Valley works with Southern Nevada Water Authority to help in the documentation reporting of that ICS plan.

[5:40] I feel like this agreement is an integral part of that.

[5:43] But more importantly than just be in a financial arrangement between two entities.

[5:47] the MAPA Valley is a rural community, it's a rural community, agricultural historically.

[5:54] And as the company is owned by shareholders, those shareholders have been in some cases,

[6:03] grateful for an opportunity to lease or sell water at a fair market value.

[6:09] And it has definitely helped the community to do that.

[6:12] We would ask that you would consider an affirmative vote on this action today and realize that there are individuals affected by this, not just the company and like again, not just the financial arrangement between us.

[6:31] We appreciate Commissioner Kirkpatrick in all her efforts that she does in her other role in her other hat for us out in Moapa Valley.

[6:42] I potentially have stayed away from this due to her position here wearing her hat on this and haven't sought her guidance or counsel on this one, but she can definitely attest to the real value that we would like to maintain out in Moapa Valley.

[7:00] and I think this facilitates that.

[7:03] Appreciate your time today.

[7:05] Thank you.

[7:07] Thanks for coming all the way out from the WAPA Valley.

[7:10] Appreciate that.

[7:11] Next speaker please.

[7:14] Good morning.

[7:15] Welcome to the SAMCAS Remnant Incorporate by Reference.

[7:17] The prior comments I made regarding SNWA's

[7:20] on lawful authority regarding these types of actions.

[7:23] These decisions under the law clearly reside

[7:25] with the Colorado River Commission.

[7:28] Unfortunately, the facade of public involvement is the most dangerous threat to the democracy.

[7:33] And in my experience having worked in the federal government, having worked in state government,

[7:38] that's what's happening here.

[7:39] These public comments aren't being recorded properly.

[7:42] They aren't being listened to decisions have already been made, and they're destroying Las Vegas.

[7:48] Las Vegas is suffering higher temperatures, and SNWA is consistently squeezing out a few

[7:54] from the residents to be able to pretend like they're saving water to the rest of the world.

[8:02] Meanwhile, giving away 50,000 acre feet to San Diego for the desolation plan,

[8:07] and then requiring citizens to pay for that water to come back.

[8:11] And now, ostensibly offering to accept a payment of only $325 or

[8:18] whatever the number is, dollars per acre foot.

[8:20] In every other location in the Western United States,

[8:22] If I want to develop, I have to go find my own water.

[8:27] And unfortunately, it appears the S&W is compromised by the contractors it has relationships with and is trying to accommodate growth that this valley shouldn't have to sustain on itself.

[8:37] Those developers should go find the water somewhere else.

[8:40] You likely know many of these legal arguments.

[8:42] You probably anticipated some of them.

[8:45] This is an unlawful taking.

[8:47] This is a redistribution of resources that violates NRS 533-025 because the water belongs to Las Vegas, not to you, and you don't have the ability to wield it like a political tool.

[9:00] It's a resource that's precious and necessary.

[9:02] There are individuals in this audience that come and complain and the SNWA about their water meter or what their water bill and the SNWA or the local partner replaces their water meter and tells them, hey, your water bill is going up.

[9:15] that type of retribution also reflects very poorly on politicians.

[9:19] So I'm going to leave you with a little bit of personal advice because I know several

[9:25] of you are incredible humans.

[9:27] And unfortunately I anticipate this falls on deaf ears for many of you but which is why

[9:31] we'll be litigating these things if you proceed with this decision that lacks authority.

[9:37] But I'll leave you with this personal advice.

[9:39] Many of you know me, you know I don't pick fights unless I will win.

[9:43] you know that I've sued utilities before and I tear down injustice. I don't seek for power, I seek to tear it down.

[9:50] And that's what's happening here. The public will win this fight. Your reputations will be impacted for generations by this.

[9:58] And your seats are in question, which is a pity because several of you are wonderful public servants.

[10:02] But if your decision is led by fear, which is what I think is being peddled by the staff here, that will consume you.

[10:09] If your decision is led by or founded on hypocrisy, that will also consume you, and it's currently consuming Las Vegas.

[10:16] I hope you listen to us, I hope you take these meetings in consideration, I hope you don't pretend like the dius that's elevated above the public that you're sitting on right now somehow removes you from the consequences.

[10:27] I hope you realize that you can't go put your toes in your own grass when you're forcing other people to remove theirs.

[10:34] And I hope you know that this is a time that will be a reckoning for you, thank you.

[10:38] Thank you.

[10:39] Any other public speakers, please?

[10:46] Good morning.

[10:48] Carol Reynolds, agenda item number seven.

[10:52] Will someone please explain to me the board's approval process because I'm confused.

[10:58] If approval was required in the July meeting, what happened between now and then?

[11:03] Will there be a decision today or just an approval of a decision that has already come to pass

[11:08] by unknown means?

[11:09] The public deserves to know by what authority the agreement was signed.

[11:15] What will residents get out of this agreement?

[11:18] They are responsible for the conservation effort that saved what is now apparently considered surplus water that is available for sale.

[11:26] Where will the 16.25 million go?

[11:30] Will there be a transparent accounting of it that is available to the public

[11:34] since we are constantly reminded that SNWA is a non-profit agency.

[11:39] If this agreement goes forward, will there be some measurable future benefit for Nevada that is committed to paper?

[11:47] If this agreement is in southern Nevada's interest, please explain why.

[11:54] Thank you, next speaker, please.

[11:59] Good morning, Diane Henry, HENRY, I agree on item number seven.

[12:06] At your last meeting, the SCIA agreement was delayed to allow for further discussions

[12:13] with the Bureau of Reclamation.

[12:15] The public would like to understand what issues were addressed during those discussions

[12:22] particularly since no changes to the agreement are evident.

[12:27] There's also a significant question regarding the approval process.

[12:32] us. How was the General Manager able to sign the agreement without a public hearing

[12:39] or prior board approval, as Laura and Carol have both mentioned? Finally and most importantly,

[12:49] the public deserves an explanation of how this agreement represents an equitable negotiation

[12:56] for Nevada to give up 50,000 acre feet of our already meager annual Colorado River allowance

[13:05] or 16.7 percent of our allotment. By comparison, California would give up only 4.5 percent of theirs

[13:14] while the upper basin states are required to give up nothing. That disparity is deeply concerning.

[13:25] This is not a good start for Nevada in negotiating this two-year plan.

[13:30] As the review journal editor stated on August 7th, it's absurd that the upper-basin states get off untouched.

[13:37] What is there incentive now to be part of the solution?

[13:41] And the Fed deal also ignores the progress Nevada has made in stretching our meager allotment.

[13:48] Sacrifices need to be evenly applied across the basin.

[13:51] at what point do you draw a line in the sand? That's a very tough question, but bottom line it should not be after too much has already been given away.

[14:01] If legal action is required, dare I say so be it. The terms of this agreement are not at all equitable, nor in Nevada's best interests.

[14:12] Thank you for objecting to this federal plan, which I believe you did on August 13th after it was already signed.

[14:22] I look forward to hearing your individual reasons for ratifying this agreement.

[14:28] Thank you.

[14:30] Thank you.

[14:31] Any other speakers?

[14:32] Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to Mr. Ensmeyer.

[14:37] Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Board.

[14:39] The agenda has been properly noticed and posted.

[14:41] As right for your approval, along with the minutes of your regular meeting of July 16th, 2026.

[14:47] Okay, entertain a motion, Mr. Insminger.

[14:51] Can we just bore the future and this one, put Ms. McSwain's comments in.

[14:58] I know it's on video.

[14:59] I know it's...

[15:00] All these other places that you could do it in it, but just so that we have it or at least touch the paper that she lives. Certainly. We'll address it. Okay. Thank you.

[15:10] That I'd entertain a motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Jones. Any further discussion?

[15:17] CNN, please cast your vote.

[15:27] And that motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Walton.

[15:29] I'm number two, that's the Board of Directors to approve and authorize the General Manager to sign it's substantially the same form as attached here to an amendment to the non-exclusive access and license agreement between the state of Nevada, acting through the Nevada Division of state lands for and on behalf of the state and Nevada Army National Guard and the authority for use of real property necessary to construct, operate, and maintain authority water facilities within the Garnet Valley and authorize payment for a total amount not to

[15:59] to exceed $257,560 for the term of the agreement.

[16:05] This is a necessary easement slash right of way

[16:09] for all of the construction work going on

[16:11] up in the APEX area.

[16:14] A lot of parties involved took a while to get it done,

[16:16] but we're happy to have this one finalized.

[16:19] Okay, thank you.

[16:20] Any comments or questions?

[16:23] Okay, the motion by Councilman Stewart,

[16:26] First, so you know other discussion, please cast your vote.

[16:36] That motion passes.

[16:38] Number three, ask the board of directors to approve and authorize the General Manager to sign an agreement between Hazen and Sawyer and the authority to provide professional engineering services for miscellaneous civil, electrical, mechanical, and control systems projects for a total amount, not to exceed $6 million.

[16:55] This item itself is relatively standard.

[16:58] We have a lot of standby contracts for the sort of engineering support.

[17:03] I do just want to note for the record, and

[17:05] that's disclosed in the support materials that two children of employees of SNWA slash LVVWD

[17:15] were employed by as an insular or work in terms one of them's no longer employed.

[17:19] there were interns with Hazon, so neither one of them worked on any authority or district projects,

[17:25] and their employment had nothing to do with the decision to move forward with this agreement.

[17:31] Okay. Any comments or questions?

[17:34] Not at the entertainer motion.

[17:36] I have a motion by Councilman Black.

[17:40] Seeing no other discussion, please cast your vote.

[17:45] Welcome, yes.

[17:49] And that motion passes.

[17:50] I'm number 4 S the Board of Directors to approve and authorize the general manager to sign an agreement between Jacobs Engineering Group Incorporated and the authority to provide professional engineering services for miscellaneous civil electrical mechanical and control system projects for a total amount not to exceed $6 million.

[18:09] This is substantially similar to the immediately proceeding item just different engineering firm and no children of any employees were employed by Jacobs.

[18:19] Okay. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, I entertain a motion.

[18:25] I have a motion by Councilwoman Diaz. And with no further discussion, please cast your

[18:30] vote.

[18:33] Welcome, yes.

[18:39] And that motion passes. Item number five, I supported directors to approve and authorize

[18:44] the general manager to execute and substantially the same form as the task year two. A second

[18:49] amended and restated water operation and management agreement between the Muddy Valley Eurgation Company and the authority authorize the general manager or his designate to approve leasing the irrigation company shares, execute ministerial documents to effectuate the transactions and pay the associated administrative costs of the irrigation company for an amount not to exceed $3,950,000 for the first year with 3% annual increases thereafter.

[19:16] after. As was noted in public comment by NVSE's general manager, our relationship with

[19:23] the money value irrigation company goes back to the made maybe in early 90s since 2007.

[19:30] We've been able to take the tributary waters of the money in Rogen Rivers, put them into

[19:35] Lake Mead, and take them out of our facilities. It's actually the best block of water in our

[19:42] resource portfolio because those tributary waters under agreements executed in 2007 which

[19:49] were run through 2057 actually says those tributary waters aren't subject to shortage conditions

[19:57] so it's actually even better than the 300,000 acre foot basic apportionment.

[20:01] It's the most valuable water in our portfolio so we're happy that we reached terms for an extension

[20:07] with MVIC and are happy to bring that item to the board.

[20:12] Okay, anybody have any comments or questions?

[20:16] Thank you for working on this.

[20:18] I know it always takes a minute to do.

[20:21] So with that, I'd like to entertain a motion for approval.

[20:25] So have a motion by Councilman Black, no other discussion.

[20:30] Please cast your vote.

[20:34] Welcome, yeah.

[20:38] And that motion passes.

[20:39] And number six, ask the Board of Directors to approve and authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute extensions or amendments for the operation and management agreements for water rights holders on the Virgin River and Muddy Rivers, excluding the Muddy Valley Irrigation Company, authorize the General Manager or his designate to approve the lease of shares, excluding Muddy Valley Irrigation Company shareholders, execute ministerial documents to effectuate the transactions and pay the associated administrative costs of

[21:09] of irrigation companies for an amount not to exceed $5,210,000,

[21:14] representing a maximum increase of 50% of non-lease costs currently paid,

[21:20] 20% for leases of 10 years or less,

[21:24] and 40% for leases of at least 30 years,

[21:27] all subject to 3% annual increases.

[21:31] So the reason this is mixes some virgin river and muddy river,

[21:35] or nomenclature I guess is because the muddy river essentially south of I-15 is controlled

[21:43] by the irrigation.

[21:44] Everything north of I-15 is largely in private hands, and so there's a different arrangement

[21:50] with those private water-right holders, so we take it as one agreement.

[21:54] Now, we have not reached final agreement with the Virgin Valley water district, but because

[22:00] The start of the irrigation company begins actually before the next board meeting.

[22:05] We're asking for the delegation authority that if I'm essentially same terms and conditions that the Muddy River irrigation company has agreed.

[22:15] If the Virgin Valley irrigation company has agreed to the same terms, then we would be able to execute that before the start of the irrigation season.

[22:23] Okay. Anybody have any comments or questions?

[22:30] So, Joe, in other words, we approve of this contract, but it's subject to Virgin Valley accepting this contract.

[22:40] Right? You can think of it as an offer.

[22:43] Right, you delegate, you know, if they accept the offer, you've delegated to me the authority to accept their acceptance.

[22:50] And we move forward.

[22:51] But if there was any deviation from these terms that we thought warranted coming back

[22:58] to the board, then we would, or if they say no, then there's just no deal.

[23:03] Okay.

[23:03] Thanks.

[23:04] And they are aware of that.

[23:06] I do represent Bookerbell, so they are aware of that.

[23:08] Good.

[23:09] Thank you.

[23:10] If there's no other comments, I'll move for approval.

[23:12] Okay.

[23:13] There's a motion on floor by Councilman Stewart seeing no other discussion.

[23:18] Please cast your vote.

[23:19] but can

[23:28] that motion passes?

[23:30] I'm number seven, ask the Board of Directors

[23:32] to ratify the system conservation implementation agreement

[23:35] between the Bureau of Reclamation and the authority,

[23:38] which was executed on August 11th, 2026,

[23:41] and through which the authority will create up to 50,000 acre feet

[23:45] of system conservation water in exchange for $16,250,000

[23:51] in federal funding and authorize the general manager

[23:54] to approve future modifications of such modifications do not viscally impact the authority.

[24:01] We had brought this item previously, and then realized that there were terms and conditions

[24:08] within the agreement that we were not comfortable with in terms of the federal government being

[24:13] able to essentially have carte launch to allocate the water to other parts of the lower basin.

[24:20] Those concerns have now been addressed in this agreement, so we're comfortable recommending moving forward with it.

[24:29] I think the important thing for the board to recognize is we're going to get a record of this decision from the federal government on how they're going to operate the river soon.

[24:41] I mean, it could come down today. It could come down tomorrow.

[24:43] but within, you know, the next few weeks, we will get a record of decision for how the Colorado River is going to be operated

[24:49] at least for the next couple of years and maybe for the next 10 years.

[24:53] And right now, every draft we've seen anticipates Nevada contributing to banks of water that can be used in the state of creation, primarily.

[25:06] So we're probably almost certainly going to be required to make this sort of a system conservation contribution.

[25:15] Anyway, the question really becomes, do we wait for a year or two years when federal funding may well not be available?

[25:23] Or do we recognize that it's the smart business decision to take the federal funding while we can and

[25:30] and still have the water available to us to offset reductions to Nevada's overall allocation as part of these banked resources.

[25:43] Can I share a chance?

[25:45] Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the explanation.

[25:48] I know that several of us had raised the concerns with each the perception of this last time around, and

[25:53] I think all of those concerns have been addressed, and that it is financially prudent for us to take this money,

[26:00] any given that we're going to engage in the conservation that's required anyways.

[26:05] And if there are no other comments or questions, I'll move approval.

[26:08] Okay, any comments or questions?

[26:11] And I live in motion on a fire by Commissioner Jones.

[26:15] Please cast your vote.

[26:22] That motion passes.

[26:25] Number eight, ask the Board of Directors to receive an update from staff on water resources,

[26:29] including but not limited to drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin Conservation

[26:34] Foundation programs and initiatives, activities on the Colorado River and water resource acquisitions and developments.

[26:41] Because our normal schedule is every other month and because we're going three months in a row,

[26:46] we really don't have much of an update hydrologically or

[26:50] conservation wise for the board so I've told Colby to skip the PowerPoint presentation.

[26:55] For today, my update would be kind of what I already alluded to under item number seven.

[27:01] And the federal need a process for how the river is going to be operated, post-2026, is in full swing.

[27:13] I've literally been on five phone calls this morning already, so it's hot and

[27:17] heavy.

[27:18] We're trying to reach an agreement that doesn't require litigation, but

[27:24] we're obviously keeping our powder dry and looking at what the federal government

[27:29] government actually comes out with to make the decisions necessary to ultimately protect

[27:34] this community. So without having seen the latest iteration of a record of decision,

[27:40] it's hard for me to comment beyond that. But just be assured that as soon as we have it

[27:46] in our hands, we'll be reviewing it carefully and be ready to make recommendations to the board

[27:51] as appropriate for what future actions we should take.

[27:55] Okay. Anybody have any comments or questions?

[27:59] Nope.

[28:00] Okay. That concludes your post to the agenda.

[28:02] Okay. The second time set aside for public comment.

[28:05] Anybody wishing to speak on any sort of out of water authority?

[28:09] Item to please come forward and say it's about your name for the record.

[28:20] Yes. My name is Judith Clark and I live here in Las Vegas.

[28:24] And I know when you're sitting here talking about $6 million, $16 million,

[28:29] You know, $900 a month doesn't sound much.

[28:33] And I think you guys think there's not a lot of people out here that are concerned about this.

[28:38] The problem is when you have your meetings.

[28:41] A lot of people work, can't make it at night.

[28:43] We all saw what happened with the septic tanks when we had a meeting in the evening,

[28:48] and people could actually attend them.

[28:50] There was a great turnout for that.

[28:53] I think if you guys would do the same thing you'd see that turnout would be just as good.

[28:57] Fortunately, I'm retired and I can be here, but unfortunately, I'm retired and I'm on a fixed income.

[29:04] Now I thought I had planned my retirement extremely well.

[29:07] Little did I know that it would be my water bill that would put a kink in my retirement plan.

[29:14] Who expects their water bill to go up in one month, from about $50 a month, up to $900 a month.

[29:22] Nobody expects that to happen.

[29:24] I've had to get rid of trees, I've had to get rid of lawns, I've done everything

[29:29] I possibly can.

[29:31] My husband is 90, I'm 70 plus years old and every day I go out and check my meter

[29:37] to make sure that something hasn't been left on because I can't afford these kinds of

[29:43] water bill.

[29:44] And now you guys are getting $16 million.

[29:47] Give it back to us, were the ones that made this happen or part of made it happen?

[29:52] I know we didn't do it all, but when do you start thinking of the people living here in Las Vegas?

[30:00] Again, everybody keeps mentioning the heat. It just gets hotter and hotter. And like I said, we've lost six trees. I've had to take out six trees on my property because of the grass that I had to take out. And I do keep a little bit of grass because unfortunately somebody put a tortoise in my yard, and he needs something to eat. So he gets to eat this little, it's probably four feet by five feet that I keep for him to eat. And I mean, I just wish you guys would have these meetings so people can come and you can really

[30:29] and understand how upset people are about this.

[30:34] Thank you.

[30:35] But, ma'am, if you would like to leave your contact information in your address,

[30:39] how can I reach out to you about the-

[30:43] Your water fill.

[30:45] My address is 3425 Maverick Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 899 108.

[30:51] And do you want my phone number?

[30:53] Well, you don't want to give it publicly, but if you want to give it to someone right behind you,

[30:58] I'll take it.

[31:00] Okay.

[31:00] Are you off of Cheyenne and Rainbow?

[31:03] Yes.

[31:04] Okay.

[31:18] Mr. McSwayne, you can come up.

[31:22] Thank you, Madam Chairalor.

[31:23] McSwayne again for the record with Water Fairness Coalition.

[31:27] Thank you for the indulgence and the comments regarding the meeting.

[31:30] I didn't want to leave the impression that the written minutes that I normally provided have

[31:35] not been included they have.

[31:37] It's just encapsulating my comments and relegating it only to my written comments provided.

[31:43] But it doesn't read the same way when you search.

[31:47] So that's why I'm asking that there'd be a different way of doing it.

[31:51] So thank you for that.

[31:55] I want to talk about AB 356.

[31:58] Director Stewart has repeatedly asked a very simple question,

[32:02] what are the consequences for noncompliance at the end of the year?

[32:06] In fact, that question's actually been asked repeatedly at presentations given by S&WA representatives throughout the valley at different times, and I've been present for those.

[32:15] And as I recall the discussion at the last meeting, Mr. Ensmerger indicated that something addressing this issue would be coming before the board soon.

[32:22] But now, before this board has publicly considered and adopted whatever those consequences are going to be, I was personally contacted about reports that Mr.

[32:33] Ensmerger told Berkshire Hathaway that they'd better get with their commercial customers because people in commercial areas who still have grass are going to have their water shut off.

[32:42] If that report is accurate, we have a much bigger problem.

[32:47] AB 356 states that beginning January 1st, 2027, the Colorado River Water may not be used to irrigate non-functional turf.

[32:54] That is not the same thing as saying that all water service to a commercial property will be terminated.

[33:00] Has a decision already been made about the consequences of non-compliant that has not yet been presented to this board or disclosed to the public?

[33:07] And most importantly, when you say shut off their water, do you mean prohibiting Colorado River water from being used to irrigate non-functional turf as a statute provides, or do you mean terminating water service to an entire commercial property?

[33:20] This is particularly troubling because AB 356 and SNWA's implementation and enforcement of it is currently, as you know, subject to active litigation, including challenges concerning SNWA's authority and due process protections.

[33:34] Against that backdrop, it's even more important that neither the public nor the business community be threatened with an enforcement consequence that has not been clearly identified, legally supported, and publicly adopted.

[33:48] It should not be represented to this board, that the consequences of noncompliance are still coming while simultaneously telling the business community what the consequences of most will be.

[33:59] If that is, in fact, going to be the enforcement policy, then the public deserves to know when that decision was made by whom, under what legal authority and why this board is only now being told that an enforcement policy is forthcoming.

[34:13] And I thank you for your time and I do have my comments written for the record.

[34:18] Thank you.

[34:20] Anyone else wishing to speak on public comment?

[34:22] Seeing no one, I'm going to go ahead and are you coming?

[34:35] Cheryl Purdue, 3201, Plosite Rafael, Las Vegas Nevada 8902.

[34:41] I'm interested in finding out what is being done proactively by the Southern Nevada Water Authority regarding negotiations with the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Land Management about bringing an alternative source of water, an additional source of water.

[35:00] into the Colorado River. You seem to only want to solve this problem by conservation. Conservation is great, but it's not the only answer. And I hear nothing, nothing from anybody in the Southern Nevada Water Authorities Administration or the Las Vegas Valley Water District regarding anything that is being done. It takes time, it takes lots of time, and it takes money. And it should be started. And my request to you is to find

[35:30] Find out if there is anything currently being done.

[35:35] Okay, thank you.

[35:36] We can't have dialogue back and forth.

[35:38] So, okay, anyone else wishing to speak?

[35:41] I could have all the speakers that want to speak come up, so I don't miss anybody.

[35:47] Okay, then I'll make you my last speaker, okay.

[35:50] My name is Laura Weber, W-E-B-E-R.

[35:54] I would like to just request, based on some of the other comments made,

[35:59] that the authority consider quarterly or maybe once or twice a year holding a meeting at

[36:07] a more appropriate time for the general public to participate and give their feedback.

[36:13] Without that, it seems like there are a lot of decisions being made without the general

[36:18] public's comments.

[36:19] And I think to have a greater sense of trust with our water authority and transparency that

[36:25] that our community would really appreciate

[36:27] that you consider that for the future.

[36:29] Thank you.

[36:31] Thank you, see you in no other public comment.

[36:34] I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment

[36:35] and we are adjourned.

SNWA Board Meeting

Transcript