Until last week, Adam Sullivan was Nevada’s state engineer — the person most responsible for managing water in the nation’s driest state.

That changed when state officials confirmed Sullivan’s departure from the role — an unusual move, given that the state engineer often serves under multiple governors and must have expertise in Nevada’s oft-byzantine set of water laws and regulations. 

So what happened?

In his first public comments since news of his departure broke, Sullivan said he was terminated amid complaints about his decisions, telling The Nevada Independent that there were a number of disagreements between himself, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office and the director of his department that escalated over the last six months. 

“There was pressure to rescind decisions or accelerate decisions, or withhold decisions, or to not attend public meetings,” he said, noting that his dismissal “didn’t come as a complete surprise, but it was a shock.”

He added that he was the first state engineer to be terminated since 1981. 

In the most arid state in the country, the state engineer is a critical role that typically ends in voluntary retirement. Sullivan said that the state engineer’s responsibility, regardless of governor, is to carry out Nevada water law, while understanding and using the best available science in decision-making.

Sullivan is perhaps best known for his involvement in court cases that led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision that established a precedent for the state to manage groundwater along with surface water and recognized the interconnectedness of groundwater systems.

That decision and other court fights demonstrate the enormous pushback the state engineer’s decisions face from developers, mining companies and other entities that want expanded access to water in Nevada.

Sullivan said he was fired by James Settelmeyer, director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, where Sullivan had worked since 2009. Settelmeyer, a former Republican state senator, was appointed to the role in 2023 by Lombardo.

Spokespeople from the governor’s office did not respond to email requests for comment sent Thursday morning.

But during a meeting of the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority last week, Settelmeyer said Sullivan’s departure was a decision made by the director’s office to “go in a different direction.” He said the office was in the process of looking at external and internal replacement candidates.

Sullivan said he was told in a meeting with Settelmeyer and two deputy directors that he was being terminated because of complaints about his decisions, that he was difficult to read and timelines for his decision-making were not clear. 

As far as timelines, Sullivan said he was given the example of the Humboldt River Basin, where depletions in the river are gradually getting worse because of the effects of groundwater pumping. There are conflicts between long-term existing rights known as senior rights and newer, more junior rights. Senior water right holders, who were entitled to certain deliveries, were not getting those rights.

Water law, Sullivan said, gives the state one tool to address that: curtail junior water rights until senior water rights have been made whole. To do that, Sullivan noted, would potentially devastate local communities and economies up and down the river system.

Consternation over curtailment

Water is publicly owned and therefore tricky to regulate. What’s firmly established is a doctrine of prior appropriation, meaning priority is given to water users who have claimed water first in time, also known as senior water rights holders. It’s a system that has been consistently upheld by state statute and the court system.

A new wrinkle developed in 2024, when the Nevada Supreme Court issued its major ruling confirming for the first time that the state engineer was empowered to “conjunctively manage surface waters and groundwater.” Previously, groundwater and surface water were managed separately, leading to issues of over-appropriation.  

The Humboldt River Basin is where Nevada is undertaking its first major, large-scale application of conjunctive water management — the state strategy to coordinate surface and groundwater use — said Jeff Fontaine, the executive director of the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority.

“This requires the development of appropriate analytical tools, numerical capture models, and best available science to determine conflicts, impairment, and effects on surface water rights by existing groundwater permits,” Fontaine said. “We also need to understand what the impacts of curtailing groundwater pumping would be and how individuals and communities would adapt.”

But part of that strategy could involve curtailment, which is challenging to implement and often leads to major pushback when it’s being promoted from bigger water users that are junior rights holders. With the possibility of curtailment being discussed as part of a draft order affecting the Humboldt River Basin, sources familiar with the process who asked to remain anonymous said there was frustration among junior rights holders who wanted access to the water and senior rights holders who wanted to protect their rights.

Sullivan said he and his staff have been holding public meetings regarding curtailment, and working with affected groups and individuals to find ways to potentially resolve the conflict with minimal economic effects. 

There were some, Sullivan said, who were upset about his work, though he declined to give specifics.

At last week’s Humboldt River Basin Water Authority meeting, Settelmeyer referenced the management of the Humboldt River Basin and said it was important to avoid curtailment of water rights. He added that he was asking the governor to establish a blue ribbon commission to address the problem.

“Curtailment is a very drastic step if we have to go completely by seniority,” he said. “In that respect, I’m asking the governor to do just that, then give those informations to the new state engineer and allow him to process those, and maybe we can avoid the concept of curtailing in that process.”

Though discussions had taken place about releasing a draft order from the division before the end of the year, Settelmeyer said the draft order had “flaws” and there needs to be more time to have the United States Geological Survey complete modeling and validate existing models.

“We need to have better science, better information so that we can proceed faster,” Settelmeyer said. “We have to slow down for a little bit, but by doing so, I feel we’ll be able to apply more gas and get to the end quicker than was previously stated. But for now, we need to get that information validated.”

Understanding the politics behind the decision

Notably, the draft order Settlemeyer discussed was not designed to be a final decision, but a “starting point” for public input. A summary of the draft included in last week’s public meeting’s agenda materials noted that it was designed to “help stakeholders understand what curtailment could look like and begin shaping practical, community-driven alternatives before any final decisions are made.”

Still, many water users perceived it as moving in that direction.

Kyle Roerink, executive director of the pro-water conservation nonprofit Great Basin Water Network, said the idea of curtailment via the draft order was likely the nail in the coffin for Sullivan’s termination. Roerink said if the draft order had moved forward, it would have likely been implemented in the next decade.

The firing, he added, confirms many rumblings he’s heard over discontent on long-term water management strategy, including an increased desire for more water than what’s available and a backlog of applications that many interests would like to see approved. 

He described it as a “powder keg” of frustration from various interests, including mining companies and developers.

Roerink said applications and requests related to water rights often require lengthy considerations, and state officials should take the time necessary to work through them. He noted that there have been recent attempts to speed up the process, and there’s open-endedness to water law that can lead to arduous litigation. He said it doesn’t help that the division is underfunded and short-staffed.

One open question, Roerink said, is who will replace Sullivan. If he is replaced with a regulator who is more willing to make appropriations in places where scarcity is a factor, Roerink worries that could be a detriment to the state. 

“I certainly didn’t agree with every decision that he made over time,” Roerink said. “But I think the best way to describe Adam is someone who did have a commitment to making appropriations where there was actually water available, and where there wasn’t going to be conflict with existing rights holders and where there wasn’t going to be harms with public interests.”

Continuing to protect water rights

Daniel Rothberg, a former Nevada Independent reporter who is working on a book about water and power in the Great Basin for Island Press, said the state engineer is one of the most powerful regulators in Nevada. 

The state engineer’s office — responsible for managing water quantity across the state, issuing new water rights, approving changes in how water is used, and enforcing the law when there are conflicts between different water users — has always faced tension between managing water for economic needs and ensuring there’s enough water for future generations, Rothberg said. 

Historically, Rothberg noted that there are more rights to use water than there is water to go around in many places in Nevada — and the state has to figure out a way to get groundwater basins back into balance. 

“State engineers, whether it's been Jason King or Tim Wilson or Adam Sullivan, have all had to grapple with that legacy, to find ways to reduce demand and conserve water to get basins back into balance,” Rothberg said. “Curtailment is the state's statutory option and is always out there, but it's very difficult to implement.”

Sullivan, who served as an administrator for five years and a deputy for three years before that, said his philosophy was to “balance what’s in the public interest for smart growth, making beneficial use of the water resource, but we need to do that in a way that also protects the resource and protects existing rights.”

Roerink added that the tension has led to proposals to shift state law around water appropriations in the past few legislative sessions and Sullivan’s departure could open the door for erosion of public interest protections and undermine senior water rights holders.

Despite disagreements with his decisions, Sullivan said he’s confident in the decisions he and his staff have made. He said he is proud of the division's efforts to advance the hydrologic science that determines water availability, clarifying the intent of the law via court cases and supporting staff professional development. He added that he has respect and admiration for the professionalism and integrity of staff who worked alongside him.

It’s inherent to the position that there will be contentious decisions, he said.

“Water rights issues are complicated and there are no easy solutions,” Sullivan said. “I don’t fault anyone for trying to do what they think is best to protect the public resource. I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished, but we need to continue investing in water science so Nevada can be proactive and well-supported with decisions.”