Nye County urges state to deny change applications that would send Basin 162 water to Clark County

The Nye County Board of Commissioners voted to ask the Nevada State Engineer to deny three change applications that would have allowed construction water to be moved from Hydrographic Basin 162 to supply solar development. The vote followed more than an hour of public comment by private‑well owners and residents who said Basin 162 is already over‑appropriated and that trucked construction water will threaten domestic wells and local livelihoods.

The motion, made during a lengthy public hearing, instructed staff to recommend denial of the change applications under NRS 533.363. Commissioners said the county’s role is advisory but that the board has an obligation to register its formal opposition after hearing accounts from residents and water‑rights stakeholders. “We urge you and Nye County commissioners to protect our only water source in Pahrump,” read a letter given to the board by the Private Well Owners Association, which represents more than 11,000 well owners in Pahrump.

Speakers at the hearing described Basin 162 as “over‑allocated” and warned the proposed transfers would set a precedent for larger projects that could exhaust local supplies. Doug Blackstock, representing private well owners, said the proposed trucking could use “close to 400,000 gallons over a three‑year construction period” and that export would harm the community’s domestic wells. Kathy of Resource Concepts, an invited technical witness, told commissioners Basin 162 is over‑appropriated though “not at this time over‑pumped,” and noted much of the requested water was for construction dust control and would largely return to the basin.

The board’s recommendation does not bind the State Engineer but is the county’s formal response to the notice. Commissioners also discussed past letters the county has sent to the Division of Water Resources objecting to similar transfers and asked staff and counsel to prepare a robust, legally grounded letter to accompany the board’s vote.

Outcome: The board adopted a motion recommending denial of the applications; recorded vote and procedural record will be transmitted to the State Engineer for consideration. The county will continue to monitor DWR rulemaking and any state action on Basin 162.

What happens next: The county’s opinion will be included in the administrative record the State Engineer reviews when deciding whether to grant the change applications. Residents told the board they expect continued monitoring and future requests for state or legal action if transfers are approved.