By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
The Moapa Valley Water District (MVWD) Board of Directors instructed district staff last week to seek a lobbyist to represent the local water purveyor at the state legislative session. These instructions came during a meeting of the Board held on Thursday afternoon in Overton.
The decision was in reaction to some alarming news that district officials had learned in recent weeks coming from the legislature. MVWD General Manager Joe Davis said that it had come to his attention that a certain Bill Draft Request (BDR) had been submitted, completely unbeknownst to district staff, that would have limited the governing power of the local water board.
The BDR had apparently originated from an unspecified sponsor on the Senate Natural Resource Committee, Davis said. Davis was tipped off about the action by Virgin Valley Water District (VVWD) lobbyist Warren Hardy who had noted the BDR in the course of his responsibilities to VVWD.
The VVWD had also been named in the BDR and would have been affected in the same way as MVWD.
The text of the BDR sought to limit the ability of the district boards in adjusting utility rates. If the boards approved a rate increase of 5 percent or more, the BDR opened a path for any ratepayer in the district to file a written appeal of the increase to the Clark County Board of Commissioners. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Commission would be required to hold a public hearing on the increase within two weeks.
In that hearing, the Commission would determine whether the amount of the rate increase was appropriate for the circumstance. “The governing body of the district has the burden of showing that the amount of the rate increase is just and reasonable,” the BDR language stated.
If the Commission found that the increase was not just and reasonable, it could order that it be modified or eliminated. Thus the Commission would have the final decision in the matter of rates.
Davis said that the exact origin of the BDR was unclear. His understanding, though, was that it was instigated by owners of one of the golf courses in Mesquite which had been upset by recent VVWD rate adjustments.
Two years ago, the Virgin Valley Water District Board completed a rate study indicating that the financial and regulatory obligations facing the district required aggressive rate increases. At that time, the board responded with a 35 percent rate increase.
In addition, the VVWD board has been discussing the future of its rates on irrigation shares to major users such a golf courses. These rates are now considered to be well below current market value on water shares. To bring them more in line with current values, board members have discussed a significant increase when the lease contracts for those shares come up for renewal in 2020.
Davis said that these factors likely played a part in the golf course owners in Virgin Valley advocating for the BDR to be introduced.
Nevertheless it was unclear why the Moapa Valley Water District had been included in the BDR language. The MVWD’s last rate adjustment took place in the summer of 2016 when the board instituted an 8 percent increase. But before that, it had been six years since an increase had been made. Instead, during those years, the MVWD board had staved off annual increases by sharply cutting costs in the district’s budget, Davis said.
MVWD board members were incensed that such a measure should be presented as a BDR at the legislature without any consultation or discussion with district officials. They expressed concern that adding the outside government layer of the Clark County Commission into the process of determining the district’s rates would have the unintended consequence of crippling the district’s capacity to make swift adjustments when fiscal needs arose. Such a measure would compromise the fiscal solvency and independence of the district, they said.
Furthermore, it would undermine the choice of the voters in the small northeast county communities, board members pointed out.
“This is a direct assault on the voter judgement of our communities,” said MVWD Board member Lindsey Dalley. “If (the voters) do not feel those board members who they elected to manage the water districts are performing their fiduciary duties then they have the right to vote them out of office.”
Fortunately, district staff with the help of elected officials had been successful in stopping the BDR from progressing through the legislative process, Davis said.
As soon as he was notified of the BDR, Davis said that he began contacting elected representatives. He reached out first to County Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick.
“I got immediate support from the Commissioner,” Davis said. “She told me that there was absolutely no reason the Commission should be getting involved in our business. The very next morning she was on the phone to the chairwoman of the Natural Resources Committee explaining what was going on. They immediately struck us from the bill. And at this point the bill is dead.”
Davis said that he had also contacted state legislators who represent the Moapa Valley communities in Carson City. They had also pledged support in stopping the BDR moving forward.
“The whole episode was eye opening,” Davis added. “That an individual can go in and get a bill submitted, without any discussion with the affected entities, and such a huge change could happen without anyone knowing about it.”
Davis said that it illustrated the need for the MVWD to have representatives at the state legislature.
“If it weren’t for the relationship we have with Warren Hardy, because he knows us and our communities, we would never known about this at all,” Davis said. “He really saved us on this and has done us a great service.”
Davis said that there are currently no less than 19 water bills before the legislature right now. Any one of them could have an affect on the district, he said.
“I think that we need to have a lobbyist at the legislature looking out for our interests,” Davis said.
Davis had brought the question of hiring a lobbyist before the board in the past, but board members had hesitated to do so because of the expense involved. But last week, there was general agreement among board members that it should be more seriously considered.
“Of course, you hate to add to our expense column with something like this,” said Dalley, who had advocated for lobbyist representation in the past. “But experiences like this shows that it is almost an unfunded mandate that we have to do this.”
Board chairman Ken Staton agreed.
“I think we need to sit down with (Warren Hardy) and see what we can work out, for him to help us up there,” he said.
