Ridenbaugh Press/Water Rights

Nevada State Engineer Jason King on March 26 issued an order declaring off limits any new groundwater appropriations in the Diamond Valley area.

He said that such applications “will be denied,” though he did offer a few exceptions: “Those applications filed for environmental permits filed pursuant to NRS 533.437 to 533.4377, inclusive. Those applications filed for diversion rate only with no corresponding increase in duty of water. Those applications filed for non-consumptive uses. Those applications filed to mitigate senior surface water rights that have been impacted by groundwater pumping under junior water rights.”

That followed up on his earlier designation of the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin, and declaring that within its bounds groundwater is being seriously depleted.

He went on to say, “the Nevada Division of Water Resources estimates the perennial yield of the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin at 30,000 acre-feet annually. … committed groundwater rights of record in the Office of the State Engineer greatly exceed the perennial yield. … the Diamond Valley Crop Inventory consistently shows the pumpage of groundwater within the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin is in excess of the perennial yield. … the State Engineer finds that conditions warrant the curtailment of new appropriations of groundwater within the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin.”

The Nevada Division of Water Resources developed in February a proposal for increasing many of the water rights-related fees it imposes. The increases would require legislative action. From the opening section of that report:

The following pages are excerpts from a bill draft request submitted by our office to the Nevada Legislature that will 1) increase many of the Division’s existing fees and 2) introduce four new fees for services currently provided but not charged. If approved, the new fees will go into effect July l, 2013.

This BDR is an integral part of our biennium (July l, 2013 through June 30, 2015) budget proposal. As part of its budget proposal, the Division is proposing to retain the fees it receives, thereby becoming more fee funded and less reliant on the state general fund. Itis not the intent now, nor will it ever be, to make the Division entirely fee funded. The Division manages all the waters within the state for its citizens and that core function should always have some level of State general fund support.

However, as part of the budget process, a detailed analysis was conducted on how much it costs the Division to provide each service for which it currently charges and it was found that, in most cases, the cost to perform the work is significantly higher than what the Division is charging. Using the beneficiary pays principle concept, it is hoped that by incrementally increasing fees to cover actual costs, and by doing so over numerous biennia, the Division will be able to directly use those fees to support the Division’s activities.

This more stable revenue approach will help the Division to 1) maintain a staffing level that isn’t prone to economic fluctuations, and 2) provide a source of revenue to further enhance programs within the Division e.g. adjudications. The Division views this BDR as an investment in the future management of water in the driest state in the nation.

From the Nevada Division of Water Resources, January 19:

The Division of Water Resources must assure compliance with Nevada Revised Statute § 533.503, which establishes certain restrictions on the appropriation of water in Nevada for stock-watering purposes. Recently, questions have arisen during the course of our work regarding applications and proofs of appropriation of water to beneficial use for stock-watering purposes.

To address these questions, staff completely reviewed the 2003 legislative history regarding the last amendments to this section of the water law. It is clear that the 2003 amendments apply to both public and private land. Additionally, NRS § 533.503 requires proof of entitlement to use the land where the livestock will be grazed and ownership or some legal interest in the livestock. This is required in order to issue a permit and is also required at the time a proof of appropriation of water to beneficial use if filed for stock-watering purposes in order for the State Engineer to be able to issue a certificate.

Therefore, the State Engineer has prepared two different affidavits that a stock-water applicant or permittee must fill out and have notarized when filing an application for a stock-watering right and at the time of filing proof of beneficial use. For your information, copies of these affidavits are attached. Please note that these affidavits cannot be signed by an agent and that failure to timely file the affidavits will result in denial of an application or potential cancellation of a permit.

This requirement for an affidavits(s) is effective immediately and will apply to pending stock-water applications and proofs of beneficial use.

Water supplies in the Diamond Valley part of Nevada have declined to the point is that state Engineer Jason King has proposed an emergency order covering use of water in the area.

A public hearing has been set for January 23 to consider public input on the proposal.

From that proposed order:

WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 534.120 provides that within an area that has been designated by the State Engineer where, in his judgment, the
groundwater basin is being depleted, the State Engineer in his administrative capacity is empowered to make such rules, regulations and orders as are deemed essential for the welfare of the area involved.

WHEREAS, the State Engineer designated the Diamond Valley Hydrographic
Basin as provided under the provisions of NRS § 534.030, by the following Orders:
1. Order No. 277, dated August 5, 1964.
2. Order No. 280, dated August 28, 1964.
3. Order No. 541, dated December 22, 1975.
4. Order No. 717, dated July 10, 1978.
5. Order No. 809, dated December 1, 1982.
6. Order No. 813, dated February 7, 1983.
7. Order No. 815, dated April 4, 1983.

WHEREAS, by Order No. 541 and Order No. 717, the State Engineer declared that within the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin the groundwater supply is being
depleted in portions of the basin. Further, Order No. 717 specified that all applications filed after December 31, 1978, to appropriate groundwater for irrigation purposes will be denied.

WHEREAS, by Order No. 815, the area previously designated under Order Nos.
277 and 280 was amended to describe and encompass the entirety of the Diamond Valley
Hydrographic Basin.

WHEREAS, the Nevada Division of Water Resources estimates the perennial
yield of the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin at 30,000 acre-feet annually.

WHEREAS, committed groundwater rights of record in the Office of the State
Engineer greatly exceed the perennial yield.

WHEREAS, the Diamond Valley Crop Inventory consistently shows the pumpage of groundwater within the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin to be in excess of the perennial yield.

WHEREAS, the State Engineer finds that conditions warrant the curtailment of new appropriations of groundwater within the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin.

NOW THEREFORE, it is ordered that, with the following exceptions, any application to appropriate groundwater pursuant to Chapters 533 and 534 within the designated Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin will be denied.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Those applications for environmental permits filed pursuant to NRS § 533.437 to 533.4377, inclusive.
2. Those applications filed for water from a geothermal aquifer.
3. Those applications filed to increase diversion rate only, with no corresponding increase in duty of water.
4. Those applications filed to mitigate surface water rights, where the State Engineer has determined that unreasonable adverse impacts have occurred at the surface water source.

The Bureau of Reclamation has released for public review a Draft Environmental Assessment on various water conservation projects along the Humboldt River in Pershing County, Nev. The EA will analyze effects of authorizing Pershing County Water Conservation District to spend federal grant funds to upgrade facilities, improve overall water use management and decrease water loss in the Humboldt Project area.

The project is intended to modify and upgrade a number of facilities, including Reclamation-owned Rye Patch Dam and the PCWCD-owned Pitt Dam, Rogers Dam and Rogers Canal. Additional details are available in the EA.

The Draft EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and may be viewed at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=11650.

Nevada State Engineer Jason King on October 3 issued a determination outlining extensive and detailed findings on disputed water rights in the East Fork of Owyhee River in northern Nevada.

It may be one of the most extensive and detailed single such orders Nevada has seen. It runs well over 100 pages, and covers many technical issues as well as numerous legal matters.

The order is available on line.

The mouth of the Owyhee River, which flows into the Snake River, is in Oregon, and the river also flows through southwestern Idaho. Its upper regions and headwaters are in north-central Nevada.

Excerpts from the order of determination of rights in the east fork of the Owyhee River:

A Petition for the Determination of Water Rights of the Waters of Owyhee River and Its Tributaries was filed with the Nevada State Engineer on January 21, 1924, by Henry Winter and Barney Monestario of Whiterock, Nevada. On January 24, 1925, the State Engineer issued a Notice of Order and Proceedings in the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights in and to the Waters of the Owyhee River and its Tributaries, in Elko County, State of Nevada, to determine the pre-statutory vested water rights within said drainage. It was further ordered that the proceedings were to begin on the 2nd day of March 1925. The Notice of Order and Proceedings was sent to publication in the Elko Independent newspaper and was published for five consecutive weeks beginning on January 27 and ending on February 24, 1925.

The adjudication process failed to progress from the 1925 notice of proceedings until July 14, 1989, when the State Engineer issued an Order Reinstating Proceedings for the adjudication of the relative vested water rights of claimants to the surface water and groundwater of the East Fork Owyhee River and its tributaries including the natural drainage areas of said system in Elko County and Humboldt County, Nevada.

The original proceeding was divided into two separate
proceedings. One to include all rights in the natural drainage of the East Fork Owyhee River, which includes Wild Horse Reservoir, all the tributaries and the main stem of the river both upstream and downstream of said reservoir. The other proceeding is to include all rights in the natural drainage basins of the South Fork of the Owyhee River, the Little Owyhee River and their tributaries.

In accordance with the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 533.090 through 533.320, inclusive, the State Engineer also issued a Notice of Order and Proceedings to Determine Water Rights. On August 25, 1989, the State Engineer issued Order No. 1001, the Notice of Order for Taking Proofs to Determine Water Rights setting forth the requirement that all those making claims to water rights in the surface water of the Owyhee River (sometimes called the East Fork Owyhee River), the South Fork of the Owyhee River and the Little Owyhee River and their tributaries in Elko County and Humboldt County, Nevada, including the groundwater in the hydrographic area, were required to file proof of their claims between November 30, 1989, and November 30, 1990.

The notice was published weekly commencing on September 22, 1989, and ending on October 20, 1989, in the Elko Daily Free Press within Elko County, and commencing on July 19, 1989, and ending on August 16, 1989, in the Humboldt Sun within Humboldt County, newspapers of general circulation within the boundaries of the hydrographic system.

On September 5, 1989, the State Engineer sent by certified mail to each potential claimant that could be reasonably ascertained the Order Reinstating Proceedings (Order No. 995), the Notice of Order and Proceedings to Determine Water Rights (Order No. 996) and Notice of Order for Taking Proofs to Determine Water Rights (Order No. 1001).

Pursuant to requests from several potential claimants, the State Engineer extended the period for filing Proofs of Appropriation to November 30, 1991. By letter dated September 4, 1991, the State Engineer again extended the deadline for filing Proofs of Appropriation until June 15, 1992. Pursuant to additional requests to extend the deadline for filing Proofs of Appropriation, the State Engineer extended the deadline multiple times until December 15, 1994.

Field investigations of the hydrographic system, ditches diverting water, and irrigated lands were conducted on May 13-16, June 17-25, July 22-29 and August 19-25, 27 and 28, 1997, May 24-May 28, 1999, June 18 and 21, 2001, July 17, 19 and 20, 2001, and August 20-22, 2001. The field investigators’ observations and measurements were reduced to reports of field investigations. Surveys and their corresponding maps were caused to be prepared and submitted by the claimants to the Nevada Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer.

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 9, 1991, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the United States and the State of Nevada began negotiation of the water rights claimed by the United States for the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. On July 22, 1992, Amendment No. 1 was added to the Memorandum of Understanding. In 2006, the claimants reached a settlement and signed the Agreement to Establish the Relative Water Rights of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and the Upstream Water Users, East Fork Owyhee River (hereinafter the Duck Valley Settlement Agreement). The Agreement was ratified by the United States Congress on March 30, 2009, and was titled Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement (hereinafter the Duck Valley Settlement Agreement).

The Duck Valley Settlement Agreement provides that the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation shall have the right to 111,476 acre-feet of surface water from the East Fork Owyhee River Basin and a right to the entire flow of all springs and creeks originating within the exterior boundaries of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The priority date of the Tribes’ water right is April 16, 1877, and the period of use is from January 1st through December 31st of each year. The Duck Valley Settlement Agreement provides that the Tribes may divert, consume and store their water or authorize others to divert, consume and store tribal water. The Tribes shall have the right to 2,606 acre-feet of groundwater based on all groundwater historically or currently used on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and a potential for additional groundwater if it can be substantiated that more water is available for use. The Duck Valley Settlement Agreement provides that the water right of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation is to be administered on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation exclusively by the Tribes in accordance with a water code to be adopted by the Tribes within three years of the effective date of the Duck Valley Settlement Agreement and by the Secretary of the Interior prior to that time. Use of the Tribes’ water rights off the Duck Valley Indian Reservation is subject to applicable federal and state law.

Pursuant to NRS § 533.140, on April 29, 2010, the State Engineer affixed his signature to the Abstract of Claims and Preliminary Order of Determination. By Notice dated May 20, 2010, the State Engineer provided the Claimants with copies of the Abstract of Claims and Preliminary Order of Determination and informed the Claimants that in accordance with NRS § 533.145 objections to the Preliminary Order of Determination would be accepted until August 18, 2010. The Claimants were also informed that the evidence, maps, plats, proofs of claims and related data were open for inspection from July 19, 2010, through August 18, 2010, in Carson City, Nevada.

Pursuant to NRS § 533.145, objections to the Preliminary Order of Determination were filed by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Doris Widerburg, the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs together with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (BIA/Tribes) and the Upstream Water Users. Since NRS § 533.145 does not require objectors to serve copies of their objections on the other parties to the adjudication, the State Engineer posted the objections on the Nevada Division of Water Resources’ website so that all were fully informed of the issues raised by those objections.

Prior to setting an administrative hearing under the provision of NRS § 533.150, and by several notices dated November 10, 2010, and April 15, 2011, July 28, 2011, the State Engineer indicated that some of the issues raised by the objections could be addressed in writing without the time and expense of addressing such matters at an administrative hearing and provided the objectors with timeframes to respond to said objections. The State Engineer finds that the objections were able to be addressed and an Order of Determination issued using the responses and replies that addressed the objections.

Discussion concerning federal reserved reserved water rights.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) filed Proofs of Appropriation R-07331 and R-08687 claiming an implied federal reserved water right under the Organic Administration Act of 1897 for firefighting purposes with a priority date of November 5, 1906. This claim was filed as one for an implied federal reserved water right from any and all sources, including groundwater, whether named or not, and the quantity claimed is the amount necessary to suppress fires on national forest lands located within the East Fork Owyhee River drainage, which includes, but is not limited to, fire suppression, water at fire camps, road watering and watering pack stock.

The State Engineer’s analysis in the Preliminary Order of Determination was that the State Engineer found nothing in the legislative history and the primary purposes of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 to believe these claims have anything to do with the primary purposes of the reservation. The State Engineer further found that these claims were so unspecific as to source and quantity that they could never be recognized in an adjudication proceeding under Nevada Water Law. The USFS objected to the rejection of these claims and argues in making the claims it is not obligated to meet state law requirements.

The USFS states that the United State Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. New Mexico, found that the primary purposes of the forest
service reservations under the Organic Administration Act of 1897 are for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. It indicates that the Court noted that the key “…objects for which the forest reservations should be made are the protection of the forest growth against destruction by fire and ax, and preservation of forest conditions upon which the water conditions and water flow are dependent.

The objects for which the forest reservations should be made are the protection of the forest growth against destruction by fire and ax, and preservation of forest conditions upon which the water conditions and water flow are dependent. The purpose, therefore, of this bill is to maintain favorable forest conditions, without excluding the use of these reservations for other purposes. They are not parks set aside for nonuse, but have been established for economic reasons. (Emphasis added.)

The USFS argues that this clearly demonstrates that Congress intended to secure sufficient water to protect forest growth against destruction by fire. The State Engineer notes that the USFS did not include the full quote from the case, which is:

“’In the national forests there must always be kept in mind as primary objects and purpose the utilitarian use of land, of water, and of timer, as contributing to the wealth of all the people.’ HR Rep No. 700, 64th Cong, 1st Sess, 3 (1916).” “The water that would be ‘insured’ by preservation of the forest was to ‘be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.’ [Citation omitted.] As this provision and its legislative history evidence, Congress authorized the national forest system principally as a means of enhancing the quantity of water that would be available to the settlers of the arid West.”

Proofs of Appropriation R-07331 and R-08687 state that the USFS claims to reserve any and all sources, including groundwater, whether named or not. The means of diversion is identified as “by whatever means is appropriate, including but not limited to, pumps but water might also be dipped by helicopters. The total quantity claimed is the amount necessary to suppress fires, which includes but is not limited to fire suppression, water at fire camps, road watering and watering packstock.

The State Engineer finds that while suppression of fires certainly supports the primary purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows and furnishing a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States, it must be addressed in light of the fact the same court held that a primary object and purpose was that the forests were to be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder and that Congress authorized the national forest system principally as a means of enhancing the quantity of water that would be available to the settlers of the arid West. The State Engineer finds to determine that every drop of surface and groundwater found anywhere in a national forest is reserved to the USFS with an 1897 priority would defeat the purpose of using the forests.

Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor today announced Terry Fulp has been selected Lower Colorado Regional Director. Fulp has served as Lower Colorado Deputy Regional Director since March 2008.

“Terry Fulp has the depth of knowledge and breadth of experience with the complex and challenging issues involved on the Colorado River to be an effective leader of this major Reclamation region,” Commissioner Connor said today. “The collaborative relationships he has built during his tenure as Deputy Regional Director have prepared him to step into the responsibilities of this position.”

Fulp began his Reclamation career in 1989 and has served his entire tenure in the Lower Colorado Region. During that time, he has been actively involved in Colorado River operations and management issues, working closely with other federal and state agencies and stakeholders. He served as Area Manager of the Boulder Canyon Operations Office, where he led the successful basin-wide effort to develop additional operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead to address the impacts of long-term drought in the basin.

Fulp holds a doctorate in mathematical and computer sciences from the Colorado School of Mines, two master’s degrees, one in civil engineering from the University of Colorado and one in geophysics from Stanford University and a bachelor’s in earth sciences from the University of Tulsa.

Fulp has received numerous awards during his career, including the Department of the Interior’s Superior Service Award. In 2005, he was awarded the Virgil M. Kauffman Gold Medal from the Society of Exploration Geophysicists for his outstanding contribution to the advancement of geophysical exploration.

As Regional Director, Fulp will oversee all Reclamation operations in southern Nevada, southern California, most of Arizona and portions of Utah and New Mexico. On behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the Lower Colorado Region serves as Water Master of the 700 miles of lower Colorado River from a point below Lees Ferry in northern Arizona to the Mexican border. The region also oversees the operation and management of Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams in addition to numerous other facilities.

The seven Colorado River Basin States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) on July 5 submitted an alternative to the Department of the Interior and strongly urge DOI to consider, analyze and adopt this alternative as the preferred alternative for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan environmental impact statement development process associated with the Operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The LTEMP will evaluate Glen Canyon Dam’s operations over the past 15 years and provide a framework for continued operations and adaptive management of Lake Powell and the Grand Canyon below Glen Canyon Dam for the next fifteen to twenty years.

“This plan is important for New Mexico” stated Interstate Stream Director Estevan Lopez. “Use of San Juan River water is an essential resource for northwestern New Mexico and also for the Rio Grande Basin because of the San Juan-Chama project. We are working successfully with everyone involved to carve out long terms solutions.”

In July 2011, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced the initiation of the LTEMP EIS process, which would involve numerous stakeholders. This process would continue to work toward more efficient management of the Dam in compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act while continuing to comply with the numerous laws already governing dam operations (Law of the River) for water supply purposes that are critical to water users in the seven Colorado River Basin States. Subsequently, Secretary Salazar encouraged the Basin States to work with the federal government to develop a States’ alternative. The Department held public scoping sessions across
the West in November 2011 to communicate the goals of the LTEMP process, as well as solicit input from interested States, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties.

The States’ Environmental Impact Statement alternative is a “resource targeted, conditiondependent strategy.” It provides a balanced and integrated approach for the recovery of the endangered Humpback Chub, and the benefit of natural, recreational, and cultural resources in the Grand Canyon. Moreover, this alternative assures compliance with the Law of the River for water supply operations in a manner that minimizes the impacts to hydropower generation at the dam. The States’ alternative relies heavily on structured decision trees, wherein certain scientifically important experiments can be conducted, depending on hydrologic and other resource conditions. The States’ alternative relies on the most current scientific information, and it was developed with significant, and diverse, scientific input. In addition, the States’ alternative received the benefit of input from the DOI agencies and other federal agency involvement.

For the purpose of receiving public comment from all interested persons, the Nevada Division of Water Resources will hold a public hearing regarding the adoption, amendment or repeal of Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling as set forth in Chapter 534 of the Nevada Administrative Code.

The hearing will begin on May 31 promptly at 9:00 a.m. at the Nevada Legislative Building in Carson City and will include the full opportunity to be heard by presenting oral or written testimony and exhibits to be entered into the record. If necessary, a mid-day break will begin at approximately 12:00 p.m. and the hearing will be continued at 1:30 p.m.

As provided in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapters 233B, 534.020 (2), 534.060 (8), 534.140 (6) and 534.150 (6), the Division of Water Resources is proposing to amend the present Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling (Nevada Administrative Code § 534.010 through § 534.500).

The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of NRS 233B.0603:

1) The need for and the purpose of the proposed regulation modifications are to clarify existing language and present new language since the rule was last adopted in 2006.

2) The proposed changes will provide for clarification on monitoring well requirements, provide additional options for water well plugging materials, and require a minor increase in the bentonite solids content of bentonite grout.

3) The potential economic impact on the regulated industry involves a minor increase in cost of materials used in borehole plugging. The immediate and long term economic benefit to the industry involves less expensive options for water well plugging materials, and an improvement in the quality of the product used forborehole plugging. The potential adverse effect to the public, both short and long term, is expected to be minimal. The immediate and long term economic benefit to the public involves less expensive options for water well plugging materials,and an improvement in the quality of the product used for borehole plugging. These proposed changes will offer greater protection of groundwater statewide.

From a commentary by the Goshute Tribe on a recent Nevada water rights decision:

Jason King published a decision today on the most important water rights battle ever decided by any Nevada State Engineer. The ruling could allow for 83,988 acre feet of water to be removed from four valleys in the Great Salt Lake Desert aquifer to send to Las Vegas under a proposal made by the Southern Nevada Water Authority. SNWA had applied for 125,976 acre-feet from these valleys and plans to request more from Snake Valley.

Details on the ruling can be found online.

The Goshute Tribe has been defending itself from the threat of this project for nine years, but with little support from the federal government, which has a trust responsibility to protect the tribe’s interests. On its own, the tribe interviewed almost every one of its tribal elders to document cultural uses and sites they consider sacred within its ancestral landscape in preparation for this hearing. The tribe detailed its hunting and gathering areas, massacre sites, historic villages, burial sites, sacred springs, and more as part of this process. This substantive information was presented to the State Engineer during the six week hearing (see cultural map online which is available for media use), but does not appear to have influenced the decision in any meaningful way.

Tribal Chairman Ed Naranjo stated, “I fear Mr. King’s decision today might literally wipe out our tribe. What is most frustrating though, is that millions of people who will be severely impacted by this project, have never even heard of it. Goshute people never damaged the earth, we never messed with the balance, but others are out to destroy us, and seemingly for only one reason, the almighty dollar.”

Additionally, six Goshute witnesses testified and detailed the Goshute’s strong cultural ties to this area and spiritual beliefs about the importance of water. During this testimony, SNWA’s attorney asked the Goshute witness to explain the difference between Goshute spiritual beliefs, and his own childhood belief in the bogeyman. The were numerous protestants arguing against SNWA’s proposal during the hearing, including the LDS Church, Salt Lake, Millard, Juab, and Tooele Counties in Utah, Great Basin Water Network, and the Ely and Duckwater Shoshone Tribes.
The Goshute tribe has 30 days to decide whether to appeal of the State Engineers decision in court.

Vice-Chair of the Goshute Tribal Council, Madeline Greymountain says, “Las Vegas might believe it has hit the jackpot with today’s decision, but the tribe has no intentions of letting this go without more fight. Goshute People are determined to protect the abundant life that exists in Spring Valley. These natural resources are vital to our existence, spiritual balance and well-being. This land is part of our ancestral lineage. It is as important to our people today, as it was to our past, and will be to our future generations. So we must protect it in every way we can.