This is just one post in the Las Vegas Category

Southern Nevada Water Authority moves to exclude some from the upcoming hearings, while Nevada residents weigh in on Mulroy’s plan

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A conservation group claimed Monday that a Las Vegas water agency wants to exclude ranchers, Indian tribes, local governments and others from full participation in hearings on the agency’s bid for billions of gallons of rural Nevada water.But a spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority said the claim by the Great Basin Water Network has “nothing to do” with what gets presented at the state water engineer’s review of the plan to tap groundwater in Snake Valley, more than 250 miles north of Las Vegas.

State Engineer Tracy Taylor has scheduled a July 15 prehearing conference on efforts by SNWA to pump up to 16 billion gallons of water a year from Snake Valley, which straddles the Nevada-Utah border. The pumping would be within Nevada’s White Pine County.

Steve Erickson of the Great Basin Water Network said more than a dozen groups and individuals from both Nevada and Utah want Taylor to grant them “interested persons” status so they can fully participate in the hearings, but SNWA attorneys oppose the request.

“They want to keep the public out of this process as much as possible,” Erickson said, adding, “And this from an agency that is unelected and unaccountable, and whose books are hidden from view. It’s outrageous.”

The Deseret News has more:

The Water Authority told Tracy Taylor, the Nevada state engineer, in its request for denial that the applicants have not demonstrated the “extreme” circumstances required to be declared an interested person. But applicants Salt Lake and Utah counties, represented by a Reno attorney, are worried that piping water from a basin in the Snake Valley region could turn the area into a “pollution spewing … dust bowl.” The attorney and a Carson City law firm last week filed briefs with Taylor, asking him to decide in favor of the applicants.

Groups that include Erickson’s, conservationists and the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority are fighting the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s claim that applications to for interested person status were not filed in a timely manner.

The second group wrote in their brief to Taylor that the proceedings to decide whether to pump water from the Snake Valley will be complicated “no matter how you cut it.”

“Participation from these parties will certainly not make matters worse, and will only serve to give the state engineer all of the facts necessary to make his determination,” the document states. “Therefore, they should be allowed the opportunity to defend their interests, as only they can do, rather than trust that some other protestant will ‘carry the water.”‘

Read the full text of the San Jose Mercury News by clicking here; full text of the Deseret News article by clicking here.

Meanwhile, reaction from many corners today: Las Vegas resident Jim Scott writes to the Las Vegas Sun:

Is the scheme even economically feasible? Will anyone be able to afford the water when it gets to Las Vegas? Is there a minimum volume of water required to break even or a point of no return? Do Ms. Mulroy and the Clark County Commission understand the “Great Basin Aquifer” is affected by the same drought that is affecting Lake Mead? Or to put it another way: If the water is not there, she will have wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money, but I am sure she will be retired by the time we find that out.

How can a project of this magnitude and cost go ahead without electorate approval as is required, for example, by the Clark County School District? The Southern Nevada Water Authority has a blank check!

Blogger Rick Spilsbury of the No Shoot Foot blog has a lengthy post up today about the Las Vegas ‘watergrab’, giving many reasons why it should not go forward, especially in the face of global warming:

The outlook isn’t good. A 20 percent reduction of the flow of the Colorado River must sound pretty frightening to those who profit off of growth in Las Vegas. But what the media in Las Vegas often ignores is that the drought also effects the Great Basin. That’s right, Las Vegas isn’t the only place at risk. The rest of Nevada is even worse off. And Las Vegas should still care about that.

The valleys of the Central Great Basin may appear somewhat barren. But they are full of life. A study by the Desert Research Institute has shown that the Mojave Desert absorbs comparable amounts of greenhouse to temperate forests. Deserts inhale carbon dioxide at a far greater rate then expected. The valleys of Nevada hold very important ecosystems capable of counteracting Global warming.

If we allow the watergrab, we will allow SNWA to kill off vast swaths of old growth desert. Which, of course, will make Global warming worse. Which, of course, will further complicate Las Vegas’ water predicament. It seems that SNWA doesn’t really care that much about Global warming after all. But they should.

He also points out that the pipeline system is only viable and useful if all components are built; it cannot be built incrementally “as needed”. It will cost billions of dollars, and in some areas, how much water is underground is not really known. More from the No Shoot Foot Blog by clicking here.

July 8, 2008 · Filed Under Las Vegas

Comments

One Response to “Southern Nevada Water Authority moves to exclude some from the upcoming hearings, while Nevada residents weigh in on Mulroy’s plan”

Ray Walker on July 8th, 2008 8:44 am

WaterSource is not necessarily a critic of the SNWA’s well plan. However, WaterSource would like to ask the SNWA to elaborate on its editorial:

SNWA states, “The effect of pumping on the water table is easily monitored and, if unacceptable to the Nevada state engineer, the impact can be mitigated. The ground-water travel time between basins is measured in decades to centuries, ample time to prevent environmental harm.”

So, do damaged parties have to wait decades or even centuries to claim harm ? How can the impact be mitigated ? From what new Source of fresh water will the mitigation come ? Will the SNWA shut-off water to the homes that will soon depend upon and receive the new well water ? Is the SNWA saying they will shut-off domestic water to existing homes if there is damage that is not mitigated ?

“If need be, well fields can be relocated, pumping can be reduced and artificial recharge of ground water can be accomplished (depending on surface water availability).”

So, is SNWA saying that artificial recharge is available ? From what Source ? Hasn’t the SNWA stated there is no other Source available to Nevada ? Wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate a new Source just in case artificial recharge is needed and surface water is not available ?

“People who oppose this project generally point to one of two “solutions”: desalinization or growth control.”

Why has the SNWA omitted and ignored a truely NEW fresh water Source without ever investigating its validity ?

“No community can conserve enough to survive on only 10 percent of its water supply.”

So why is the claim of a new Source of a million acre feet of fresh water a year for Nevada been ignored ?

“We are not the only ones looking for alternatives.”

WaterSource has tried to get the SNWA to investigate the NEW Source for four years. Why claim the SNWA is the only one looking for alternatives ?

“In an era of climate change, no city can afford to rely on a single source.”

Agreed. Why doesn’t the SNWA at least inquire about a new Source?

“How about desalinization, the favorite silver bullet for project opponents?”

For the record, the new fresh water Source is not desalinization and WaterSource is not an opponent.

“I challenge the critics to present a viable alternative that can protect our community in the absence of Lake Mead.”

WaterSource is not particularly a critic of the SNWA wells. WaterSource offers an alternative that could save the SNWA possibly hundreds of millions of dollars and provide an alternative in case the well depletions create damage !

WaterSource (Ray Walker) has clearly accepted Mulroy’s challenge in writing ! Will the SNWA again choose to DIE (Deny, Ignore and Evade) or will the SNWA allow the answer to the very challenge the SNWA made ?

“There are still ground-water resources that can be safely developed for the benefit of Nevadans.”

What if this turns out to be inaccurate and creates damage to water rights and the environment ? Wouldn’t a water insurance Source be a good idea ?

We are not working to draw on Nevada’s ground-water resources because it is easy or inexpensive; we are doing it because unless the federal government is willing to move large volumes of water over long distances into the Colorado River to make it once again a reliable supply, Southern Nevada must pursue this water.

It is well documented that WaterSource has offered the new Source to the Federal Government via the Bureau of Reclamation. Haven’t the Bureau and the SNWA discussed the offer ? If so, why hasn’t the SNWA asked the Bureau to pursue the Source for the benefit of Lake Mead ? Lake Mead generates on average 1800 megawatts a year of electricity for the region. Isn’t this part of the renewable energy package that is so sought after ?

“SNWA entered into an agreement with the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that states they will forever be involved in deciding how much water we pump at any given time, and from where.”

And what is the SNWA going to do if pumping of the wells is detrimental to the interests of these agencies ?….shut off the domestic water supply to homes in Las Vegas or find a Source to mitigate the damage ?….from what Source ?

“Water managers everywhere, particularly in the American Southwest, have come to understand that their communities’ futures depend on cooperation with their neighbors more than ever before.”

Hasn’t WaterSource offered the Source as a viable water solution for St. George ? Isn’t that what it says in the Challenge to Mulroy’s claim ?

“That realization makes Utah’s behavior even more perplexing, given that the Lake Powell pipeline project delivering 130,000 acre-feet annually to St. George will significantly worsen conditions for an already drought-plagued Lake Mead.”

Isn’t Utah entitled to their fair share entitlement from the Colorado River pursuant to the Compact ? Why is this perplexing ? Isn’t the State of Colorado proposing to take another 400,000 acre feet at Flaming Gorge for the Denver area ? Won’t this too deplete the amount of water for Lake Mead ? Wouldn’t the new Source help mitigate these depletions ?

“SNWA realizes this new resource must be used responsibly. In addition to being a moral imperative, our nation’s laws demand that we safeguard existing water users and the environment.”

What if the best laid plans of mice and men require mitigation from resources that don’t exist….or in the words of the SNWA….”depending on unknown surface waters that may be unavailable” ?

“There is no question that this supply is sufficient to protect our community from a catastrophic shortage without harming the environment.”

What if this cannot be accomplished ? What is a catastrophic shortage…having to turn off the water to new developments supplied with water from the SNWA ?

“It is not an issue of whether water is available”

It isn’t ?

but rather how much can be safely used each year and how it is best managed.”

Best managed in the minds of whom ?

“At the same time, Southern Nevada must continue to aggressively pursue conservation, which has been vitally important to extending our community’s existing water resources and which will dramatically extend this new supply.”

…and extend the new developments to be supplied by the SNWA ?

“The era of simple solutions is over; the challenges facing the West in the coming decades are daunting. To meet these challenges, attitudes have to change.”

What kind of an attitude is it that keeps new ideas from being investigated ?

“The future of all of our communities depends on it.”

WaterSource agrees !

Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com

Ever wonder why WaterSource provides easy access for communication purposes via his personal Email and the SNWA does not ?