At the Oct. 15 meeting the planning director presented an inventory of active development agreements and an estimate of associated water demand if all currently approved but unbuilt dwelling units were built.

Staff summary and method
Planning staff listed active residential development agreements and their remaining approved dwelling units. Examples cited by staff: Mountain Falls South (5,160 approved single‑family units remaining under one development agreement), GPS Pleasant Valley (new agreement replacing a prior Pleasant Valley agreement), 9 of a Kind LLC (Indian Road, 448 units approved), and others. When staff totaled active approvals that still could be constructed under current agreements the number was 7,653 dwelling units.

To estimate water demand staff used a planning figure of 200 gallons per person per day (the groundwater management plan target rounded to 200 gpd) and an average household size of 2.42 persons. Multiplying 7,653 dwellings × 2.42 persons × 200 gpd × 365 days produced a water estimate of roughly 4,149 acre‑feet per year. Staff said the calculation was a simple projection to illustrate scale and that specific projects would have project‑level water studies.

Public comment and commissioner concerns
Public commenters and several commissioners raised concerns about the uncertainty in recharge and pumpage numbers and about public services to support large population growth. Maryann Hollis, who attended the water‑board meeting, told the commission the water board is preparing a report and pursuing grant funding for recharge projects; she said projected population for buildout could reach 80,000 and urged attention to services and infrastructure. Linda Clark and other residents said they worry buildings are being approved too quickly, citing traffic and emergency response delays on Highway 160 and local roads.

Commissioner discussion
Commissioners pressed staff on which development agreements were expired (staff said expired agreements with no recorded lots were not included in the 7,653 total) and on exceptions: staff noted Ashanti Ridge had a recorded subdivision with mapped lots and therefore its lots remain valid despite an expired development agreement. Commissioners and staff agreed there is uncertainty in basin recharge estimates; staff cited recent figures in the range of roughly 15,000–16,000 acre‑feet annual pumpage and described a DWR (Nevada Division of Water Resources) estimate of potential recharge that some participants referenced as 20,000 acre‑feet if certain capture projects were implemented.

Staff cautioned that the 4,149 acre‑foot figure is an illustrative total based on basic assumptions and that project‑level water‑use and water‑rights analyses would be required before building permits are issued. Commissioners asked staff and the water district for continued, more granular analysis before policy changes are considered.

What residents said
Residents asked whether well owners’ rights would be affected and whether a moratorium should be considered; caller Amy Nelson said well owners “will not stand for having our rights removed to accommodate some other building.” Other commenters urged consideration of emergency response capacity, school capacity and law‑enforcement staffing if buildout proceeds as many developers envision.

Next steps
No action was taken—the item was informational. Planning staff said they would continue to coordinate with the water district, collect more evidence on pumpage and recharge, and track development‑agreement statuses. Commission members said they want clearer, project‑level water accounting and continued reporting on funding for recharge and capture projects.