Revises provisions relating to master plans. (BDR 22-397)
AB 96 revises Nevada’s land-use planning laws by requiring certain local governments to include a heat mitigation plan in their master plans. Specifically, counties with populations of 100,000 or more must incorporate a heat mitigation plan into the conservation element of the master plan, and the bill defines the contents of that plan. The required measures include access to public cooling spaces, public drinking water, cool building practices, shade over paved surfaces, and other strategies to reduce heat impacts in the community.
The bill also specifies that, for counties with populations between 100,000 and 700,000, any partial adoption of a master plan must include the heat mitigation plan, alongside existing required elements such as conservation, housing, population, and aboveground utility plans. For counties with populations of 700,000 or more, the bill leaves in place the requirement that the master plan address all listed elements, now including the new heat mitigation component through the conservation element. The measure takes effect on July 1, 2026.
AB 96 amends NRS 278.150, 278.160, and 278.170 to make heat mitigation a mandatory part of master planning in Nevada’s larger counties, currently affecting Clark and Washoe Counties. It expands the conservation element of a master plan to include heat-related planning measures and requires local planning bodies to consider cooling infrastructure and shade strategies when adopting full or partial master plans. The bill does not create a new funding mandate for local governments under NRS 354.599, and its requirements apply beginning July 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, as reflected in its passage in both chambers by clear margins. The Assembly passed it 29-13, and the Senate passed it 14-7, suggesting majority support but not unanimity. With no committee transcript provided, the available record indicates a policy consensus around addressing extreme heat through local planning, while still leaving a meaningful minority opposed or unconvinced.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of state-imposed planning requirements on local governments, especially in the largest counties that would need to incorporate heat mitigation into their master plans. Opponents may have been concerned about added planning burdens, implementation costs, or state direction over local land-use decisions, even though the bill expressly avoids triggering the local government mandate provisions of NRS 354.599. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have viewed the measure as a practical public-health and resilience response to extreme heat, emphasizing cooling spaces, drinking water access, shade, and heat-reducing design standards.