Groups to sue SNWA to block Spring Creek monitoring plan
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 14, 2008 at 5:35 amFrom the Ely Times:
Conservationists and American Indian tribes have served a 60-day notice to stop state and federal authorities from allowing Las Vegas officials to disrupt and potentially gravely harm a culturally and environmentally important creek in rural Nevada.
According to PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, the coalition is working to block the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s proposed monitoring station at the Spring Creek Rearing Station near Baker. Conservationists fear that the Southern Nevada Water Authority will destroy a critical fish-rearing station. Native American advocates are concerned that SNWA will disturb sacred cultural artifacts at the site.
PLAN spokesman Launce Rake said SNWA is planning “a network of pumps and pipelines to drain rural Nevada’s water to support urban growth in Las Vegas.” SNWA wants to install water-measurement and meteorological equipment at the site.
“The proposed SNWA groundwater pumping project and pipeline poses a significant threat to rural Nevada and Utah water resources, which sustain local economies, the natural environment and the Great Basin’s fisheries resources,” Rake said in a PLAN press release.
Federal law requires formal 60-day notification of intent to sue for violations of the Clean Water Act. The Great Basin Water Network, Trout Unlimited and the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation (Goshute Tribes) forwarded that notification to SNWA, state and federal officials this week, Rake said.
“Conservationists and American Indians, who were not consulted by SNWA, fear that the Las Vegas agency could permanently damage the Spring Creek,” the PLAN spokesman added.
Read more from the Ely Times by clicking here.
Don’t let thirsty Las Vegas suck the life out of Utah
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 10, 2008 at 6:59 amFrom the Salt Lake Tribune, an commentary by Cris Cowley, who is a physician, a member of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, among other things. He begins his commentary by describing the now nearly dry Aral Sea and the accompanying health problems for the population who lives in the area. He next describes the Owens Valley, and how that has impacted air quality in the region. Then:
The Southern Nevada Water Authority is seeking to remove 16 billion gallons of water each year from the aquifers under Snake Valley and other central Nevada valleys and pump it to Las Vegas to support the relentless growth of “Sin City.”
This plan is eerily similar to the Los Angeles water grab from Owens Valley. The Snake Valley aquifers were filled over millennia, but through shortsightedness, they can be emptied within decades.
SNWA hired hydrogeologist Timothy Durbin to quantify the impact of the proposal on local water tables. His findings never saw the light of day during the Nevada hearings held in September 2006. Durbin no longer works for the SNWA and is now trying to make his findings public. His scientific modeling predicts a fall of up to 200 feet in the water table under Snake Valley, resulting in the loss of local ponds, seeps, streams and vegetation. This scheme could well turn the Snake Valley into another Owens Valley, and the mistake may be irreversible.
Utahns would be downwind of the blowing dust from the Snake Valley. We likely would suffer the health consequences of inhaling this dust, with increased respiratory, kidney and liver aliments, and increases in cancer. Snake Valley residents would pay for Las Vegas’ water grab with their livelihood, and Utah residents would pay with their health.
It is not too late for Utahns to influence the outcome. Let Gov. Jon Huntsman know that you would support him in vetoing this proposal. He has that power.
Read the full text of this commentary from the Salt Lake Tribune by clicking here.
Petitions challenge Las Vegas’ water pipeline
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 10, 2008 at 6:41 amFrom the Las Vegas Review Journal:
A plan to pipe groundwater to Las Vegas from eastern Nevada has drawn its first legal challenge since state regulators began approving portions of the project last year.
Pipeline opponents filed petitions in two rural courts late this week requesting a judicial review of the most recent decision granting water for the massive Southern Nevada Water Authority pipeline.
On July 9, State Engineer Tracy Taylor issued a ruling that clears the way for the authority to pump more than 6 billion gallons of groundwater a year from three watersheds in Lincoln County. When stretched through reuse, the water from Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys could supply almost 64,000 Las Vegas homes.
But in a petition filed Friday in Ely, opponents argue that Taylor dramatically overestimated how much water could be safely withdrawn from the mostly empty valleys and underestimated how much water should be held in reserve to supply future development there.
Speaking on behalf of the petitioners, Bob Fulkerson said the decision was made to seek a judicial review because “the issues on these valleys were so stark and cried out for relief.”
“We’ve pledged to fight this with every tool at our disposal,” said Fulkerson, who is executive director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and a member of the Great Basin Water Network, two groups that oppose the water grab.
A similar petition, filed Thursday in Pioche on behalf of a ranching operation in Lincoln County, specifically challenges the portion of Taylor’s ruling concerning Cave Valley.
Susan Joseph-Taylor, chief hearing officer for the Nevada Division of Water Resources, said the court “might try to consolidate” the separate review requests so they can be heard at the same time.
Water authority spokesman J.C. Davis said agency officials couldn’t comment on the petitions Friday afternoon because they had yet to see them.
Read more from the Las Vegas Review-Journal by clicking here.
Fight heats up for water along Utah/Nevada border; water rulings face legal challenges
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 9, 2008 at 8:07 amFrom the AP & the San Jose Mercury News:
Opponents of a state decision to allow 6.1 billion gallons of water a year to be pumped from three rural Nevada valleys and piped to Las Vegas said Friday they’re going to court to challenge the decision.
Representatives of the Great Basin Water Network and other groups and individuals opposed to the Southern Nevada Water Authority pumping plan said a petition being filed in district court in Ely argues that the pumping from Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys would be excessive.
The petition says state Engineer Tracy Taylor overestimated the amount of water that can be drawn from the valleys, didn’t evaluate impacts on existing water rights and the environment, and didn’t reserve enough groundwater for future economic development in the valleys.
In his July 9 ruling, Taylor reduced an initial SNWA request for more than 11 billion gallons of groundwater a year. That followed a hearing in which the Southern Nevada Water Authority argued that it’s entitled to the water and opponents warned that the pumping could have a catastrophic impact.
Taylor said use of the water in the approved amounts “will not unduly limit future growth and development” in the three valleys, all in central Lincoln County. But before any water is pumped, he wants to see more biological and hydrologic studies. He also said the pumping oculd be halted if it proves to be “detrimental to the public interest or is found to not be environmentally sound.”
The valleys, located between about 75 miles and 125 miles from Las Vegas, are the first to be tapped for SNWA’s massive pipeline project.
More from the San Jose Mercury News by clicking here.
That petition was in response to Taylor’s July 9th ruling on the February hearings regarding Las Vegas’ plan to pump groundwater from the three rural valleys. At the same time, Taylor denied ‘interested party status’ to two Utah counties, who have filed an appeal. From the Deseret News:
Also this week, Utah Association of Counties attorney Mark Ward said an appeal was filed in Nevada state court over Taylor’s denial of Utah and Salt Lake counties as “interested” parties as Taylor moves forward on Southern Nevada Water Authority’s plans to pipe water from the Snake Valley basin to Las Vegas.
Among the biggest concerns at this point are that taking water from aquifers along the border will destroy wildlife and someday create dust-bowl conditions that Salt Lake and Utah counties say will impact their ability to meet federal air quality standards and to provide clean air for residents along the Wasatch Front.
More from the Deseret News by clicking here.
Besides the Utah counties, a number of other interest groups were denied ‘interested party’ status (from the San Jose Mercury News article):
Taylor also rejected the “interested party” status for the Great Basin Water Network, the Wells Band Te-Moak Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Trout Unlimited, Water Keepers, the North Snake Valley Water Association and Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, representing six Nevada counties.
Taylor has ruled that those groups did not file their protests in a timely manner (Deseret News):
Taylor has so far said that anyone applying for interested party status, or as a protestant, should have done so in 1989, when water-share holders would have been notified of plans to eventually tap into water along the border.
Millard County did file in 1989 but did not include the matter of air quality in the issues it wanted to bring forward as a protestant. Attorneys for Millard County this month filed a petition with Taylor asking him to allow an issue to be brought forward that covers its concerns about drying up the Snake Valley region and its impact on air quality.
Salt Lake County environmental policy coordinator Ann Ober said Salt Lake County likely was not notified back then because it was not a water-share holder. But that’s not stopping anyone from appealing. “We think that Salt Lake County has a great case,” said Ober. “We have a responsibility to fight for clean air.”
From Las Vegas’ Channel 8 News, the Goshute Indians, whose reservation lands straddle the Utah-Nevada border, are also filing suit:
The Goshute Tribe served notice that it intends to file a federal lawsuit against the water authority in 60 days. They say the water authority has initiated a reckless assault on the environment. The Goshutes have had a tough time, for a long time and they seem to be saying, enough is enough.
This week, tribal leaders warned SNWA that a lawsuit is coming — one that alleges the water authority has already violated the Federal Clean Water Act by contaminating a fragile spring area. But this is just the first of many legal salvos aimed at stopping the proposed multi-billion dollar water grab in rural Nevada.
“Water is sacred to our people out here, and I don’t think we would ever dream of selling our water to anybody,” said Christene Steele of the Goshute Tribe.
Steele and the other 500 or so members of the Goshute Tribe aren’t going to be asked to sell their water. They’re pretty sure it will be taken, whether they like it or not, just as so much else has been taken from the tribe over the last 200 years.
Last year, the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs dropped it’s opposition, a move that Goshute tribe members say they weren’t consulted about. The Goshute Tribe is one of the groups being denied interested party status, and being excluded from the upcoming hearings.
The Goshutes think that their lives will be sacrificed so that Las Vegas can continue to grow.
“When it’s gone, it’s gone, and we don’t have nothing,” said Clelle Pete with the Goshute Tribal Council. “If that water was taken from us, there are people who have places to go. We don’t have any place to run to. This is our land,” said Steele.
More from Channel 8 News by clicking here.
Water thieves at work in Las Vegas: shades of the Owens Valley versus City of Los Angeles
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 9, 2008 at 7:33 amFrom the Mammoth Lakes Daily News, an article/commentary that doesn’t mince any words about the comparison between Las Vegas’ plan to use rural Nevada groundwater to quench its thirst and Los Angeles’ diversion of Owens Valley water nearly 100 years ago:
It seems hard to comprehend that in this day and age of tons of history on the great water theft in the Owens Valley-accomplished over 100 years by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, that anyone would think twice about it happening again. However, history is replaying an ugly chapter on the Nevada/Utah border.
This week the Great Basin Water Network filed a legal petition in Ely, NV, along with other groups of conservationists, scientists, native American tribes, the state of Utah, and citizens of the Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave Valleys.
The legal action stems from the recent (July 9 ruling) by Nevada’s state Engineer Tracy Taylor, who gave the Southern Nevada Water Authority (the city of Las Vegas) the right to pump 6.1 billion gallons of water a year to Vegas. Taylor reduced the initial amount of more than 11 billion gallons of groundwater a year down to 6.1 billion gallons a year.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority says it is entitled to this water. Taylor has told the media the amounts of water he approved “will not unduly limit future growth and development” in these remote Nevada valleys. And, Taylor also wants more studies done on the hydrologic and biologic values in the region. If it was determined that the pumping was “detrimental to the public interest or is found to not be environmentally sound,” the pumping could be halted.
Yeah, and this line of BS sounds just like the lines of poo LADWP handed the citizens of Inyo and Mono Counties over the past 100 years. How do you know the water keepers of the bigger cities are lying? Their mouths are moving.
This is another historic fight in the making of the “Water Wars” of the West, and the poor farmers, ranchers and residents of Delamar, Cave and Dry Lake Valleys have been subjected to the same kinds of pressures from Las Vegas water miners as the Owens Valley has been–and continues to be.
At stake are groundwater pumping standards, and what type of scientific evidence the city of Las Vegas will put forward to convince the state’s Engineer, Mr. Taylor, that “nothing bad is going to happen if we pump the crap out of the area.”
Similar to the Owens Valley and its distance from the City of Los Angeles–these unique Nevada valleys are located 75 to 125 miles from Las Vegas. This out-of-sight/out-of-mind situation makes the water mining seem invisible to the Las Vegans, who, probably like their counterparts in Los Angeles won’t actually see the devastation unfolding in these Nevada/Utah bordering communities.
Read more from the Mammoth Lakes Daily News by clicking here.
Salt Lake & Utah counties appeal Nevada’s Snake Valley water grab
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 7, 2008 at 11:38 pmFrom the Salt Lake Tribune:
Salt Lake and Utah counties have appealed a Nevada water official’s decision to keep them out of a project that would tap groundwater under Snake Valley and the west desert to feed growth in Las Vegas.
Last month, Nevada State Engineer Tracy Taylor denied the two counties’ request for “interested party” status, saying the counties should have filed a formal objection in 1989 to the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s plans to build a $3.5 billion, 285-mile pipeline project.
In a lawsuit filed this week in Nevada state court, the Utah counties allege siphoning water from an aquifer that lies under the two states to feed Las Vegas would cause vegetation to die. If that happens, winds could pick up the destabilized soils and send them in dust-storm clouds to the Wasatch Front , already struggling with particulate pollution. Twenty years ago, when Las Vegas filed its application in Nevada for the project, little was known about the effects of groundwater pumping on air quality, the petition states.
Opponents say that if Las Vegas takes the groundwater, the water table will be out of reach of the roots from plants that fix the soil, the same phenomenon that led to the destruction of the Owens Valley in California when Los Angeles imported water. Dust storms make the Owens Valley one of the nation’s most polluted places.
All the Utah counties want is to be at the table while Taylor proceeds with the project application, said Utah Association of Counties attorney Mark Ward.
Read more from the Salt Lake Tribune by clicking here.
Nevada State Engineer challenge to Southern Nevada Water Authority: Prove you won’t pump Snake Valley dry
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 1, 2008 at 6:06 amFrom the Las Vegas Sun:
Since the big hearings on Southern Nevada’s plan to take water from eastern Nevada’s Great Basin aquifer began, water officials have been able to avoid presenting scientific predictions about how pumping will affect the lifeblood of that region’s ranchers, plants and animals.
But in July, the state official who is deciding how much of that water will be allocated to the Las Vegas Valley ordered the Southern Nevada Water Authority to run complex, computer-based modeling to develop those predictions about Snake Valley. The results may determine the future of not just urban Clark County, where officials are desperate for more water to sustain unprecedented growth, but also whether the ranching way of life in rural eastern Nevada will continue.
“It has very important implications for all of us” throughout the state, said Launce Rake, a Las Vegas-based spokesman for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a group opposing the pipeline.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority has cast a large net across the Great Basin in search of unclaimed water. It has won water rights from Spring, Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar valleys, and it envisions filling a $3 billion, 250-mile pipeline from the high desert to Las Vegas. But still up for grabs is the water beneath Snake Valley, a rich agricultural region that straddles the Nevada-Utah state line. Because of the location, Utah has a say in the matter.
On the Nevada side, State Engineer Tracy Taylor decides who gets water and how much. In the case of Snake Valley, Taylor is saying — for the first time — that before he makes a ruling, the Southern Nevada Water Authority must present a model of the basin and make predictions of what will happen over the next 200 years of pumping the valley.
The demand caught Las Vegas water attorneys by surprise at a preliminary hearing in July. During a morning briefing over Snake Valley, attorneys for the Water Authority had argued that the final showdown over its plans to import billions of gallons of water each year from rural parts of the state should begin in January. They had been through it all before and wanted to move forward as quickly as possible.
But their momentum evaporated with the demand for modeling. They promptly changed their tune about the timeline. They said the Water Authority couldn’t prepare a model by summer. With that, the state engineer’s staff members said they would likely postpone hearings until fall 2009.
Longtime observers say Taylor’s decision to require a model probably comes from the increasing comfort with, and expertise at, modeling among his own staff. “He has now brought on his staff people that are very competent modelers,” said John Bredehoeft, a retired hydrologist who long lobbied Taylor to use modeling. “Without that (expertise) on his own staff, the state engineer was limited with respect to what the models were telling him.”
Without hydrologists on staff, Taylor could only listen to quarreling experts and weigh their testimony. With the Water Authority’s experts arguing that modeling wasn’t particularly useful as a predictive tool, Taylor seemingly gave little weight to the models done by the protesters, Bredehoeft said. “He didn’t listen to what we said,” he recalled. “The first time I have really seen him take cognizance of the model was in the Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar decision.”
Read the rest of this story from the Las Vegas Sun by clicking here.
Climate change to threaten Nevada water supplies
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 25, 2008 at 6:20 amFrom the Reno Gazette-Journal:
Climate change could come with profound risk to Nevada’s water supplies and at great cost to the state’s economy, a new study asserts. The report released this week by the National Conference of State Legislatures and Center for Integrative Environmental Research concluded that rising temperatures associated with a warming climate could create “profound drought conditions” in Nevada, which was examined along with 11 other states around the country.
“Some of these impacts are already noticeable and it’s certainly not going to get better as climate change progresses,” said Daria Karetnikov, a researcher at the University of Maryland who compiled the report.
By 2100, climate change brought about by greenhouse gas emissions could cause the average temperature in Nevada to increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in spring and fall and by up to 6 degrees in the summer and winter, the report said. The result will be changes in precipitation and evaporation patterns and decreased water availability statewide, the report contends.
Costs could be high. Citing a 2004 study by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the report said scaling back development to manage diminishing water resources could translate into a loss of $18.6 billion in tax revenue and $4.7 billion per year in lost wages. Water-based recreation bringing in more than $1 billion annually could also be damaged.
Some of the most dire impacts cited by the report would occur in the Las Vegas area. The report cites studies by the Scripps Institution for Oceanography indicating there is a 10 percent chance that Lake Mead, the water source for 2 million people, could dry up by 2021 and a 50 percent chance it could go dry by 2050.
Read more from the Reno Gazette-Journal by clicking here.
Snake Valley water hearings won’t happen until late next year
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 16, 2008 at 7:03 amFrom the Associated Press & the San Francisco Chronicle:
The main water supplier for Las Vegas, already allowed to pump more than 19 billion gallons of water a year from rural Nevada, pressed Tuesday for a January hearing on its bid for another 16 billion gallons from a valley on the state’s border with Utah. But opponents of the Southern Nevada Water Authority pumping plan for Snake Valley said they need more time to prepare, and asked state Engineer Tracy Taylor for a hearing delay until late 2009.
SNWA’s application for the Snake Valley water is a key element in its efforts to start delivering rural groundwater through a 200-mile-long pipeline network to Las Vegas by 2015.
The authority’s eventual goal is to import enough water to serve more than 230,000 homes, in addition to about 400,000 households already getting its water. Cost of its pipeline project has been estimated at anywhere from $2 billion to $3.5 billion.
Foes of the Snake Valley pumping include many ranchers and farmers who fear the loss of their way of life, environmental and conservation groups, several Indian tribes and White Pine County which encompasses part of the valley. Other opponents include federal agencies such as the National Park Service which has a park near the pumping zone, some local governments in Utah, and the Central Nevada Regional Water authority which represents several outlying Nevada counties.
Read more on this story from the Associated Press by clicking here.
The Las Vegas Sun adds this:
Opponents at a hearing Tuesday argued that they should have at least a year to do additional studies of the groundwater in the rural ranching valley, and to model how pumping the water to Las Vegas would effect the water table and the environment.
They said a $2 million study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Nevada Reno funded by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which began in April, should be completed before State Engineer Tracy Taylor rules on the pumping plan. The study won’t be completed until fall of 2011, although test wells could begin producing data as soon as spring 2009.
J. Mark Ward ,of the Utah Association of Counties, said that because only a small corner of Snake Valley is in Nevada, Utah’s rural Millard County should also be given time to work with staff from the state’s own Water Resources Division to completely study how much water Snake Valley residents and business on the Utah side are using and what the impacts of pumping on them might be there.
Ward argued the application of the Southern Nevada Water Authority would lower the water table in Snake Valley and degrade the quality of water, affecting existing water rights and threatening springs in the area. He said he also wants to make the argument during hearings – tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2009 - that pumping will degrade the air quality.
And Ward said he wants Taylor to hold a public hearing in Salt Lake City because there is a “lot of interest” in this water case in Utah.
Ward, representing Millard County in Utah, said that state’s Legislature put up $2 million for a study of water available in Snake Valley. He told Taylor, “You don’t have a lot of information about the Utah side.”
The hearings were initially set to be held in January of 2009, but now will be held in the fall of 2009. For the rest of this story from the Las Vegas Sun, click here.
Forces set to resist bid for rural water; Snake Valley — and its ranches, tribes and park — has chance of defeating Water Authority request
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 15, 2008 at 7:21 amFrom the Las Vegas Sun:
State engineer Tracy Taylor has played it down the middle so far, giving the Southern Nevada Water Authority about half the water it wanted from rural Nevada. His two rulings — on Spring Valley and Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar valleys — were called cautious by some on both sides.
Final arrangements are to be considered today for the biggest showdown to date over rural Nevada’s water — hearings to determine whether the Water Authority can take water from Snake Valley. The hearings will provide another opportunity for Taylor to split the difference between the authority’s request and the contention of ranchers, environmentalists and others who argue that not a drop of water should leave rural Nevada for Las Vegas.
But those opponents say that other than sitting atop an aquifer coveted by the Water Authority, Snake Valley has little in common with the valleys that have come before it. “This is not like Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar valleys, where you would be lucky if you could find a couple human beings,” said Simeon Herskovits, an attorney for many of the opponents of the pumping plan. “Snake is dramatically different.”
Snake Valley has a much larger population than Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar valleys combined and has many more existing water rights than Spring Valley.
In Snake Valley, the ears of mule deer peep above the vegetation on fields kept green by pivot irrigation. It’s that irrigation — and many long-standing water rights — that supports a ranching and tourist economy. Because there are existing water rights and a history of pumping in the area, Herskovits said, it’s no mystery what will happen when pumping begins. There are cases “where ground water pumping on a very modest level — really a totally different scale of magnitude than what SNWA is proposing — … have already caused springs to dry up … and lowered the water table,” he said.
And the existing water rights give Taylor, the state engineer, a legal basis upon which to limit pumping from the valley. Although plants, animals and the environment have limited legal rights under Nevada water law, there are stronger protections for senior water rights. “The law requires that (Taylor) protect existing water rights,” said Tom Meyers, hydrologist for the Great Basin Water Network, which opposes the pipeline plan. “The environment does not have an existing water right.”
Read the full text of this article from the Las Vegas Sun by clicking here.
Las Vegas is granted permission to draw water from Cave, Delamar, and Dry Lake Valleys …
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 10, 2008 at 5:30 am
From the Las Vegas Sun:
State Engineer Tracy Taylor is granting the Southern Nevada Water Authority additional permission to draw 6.1 billion gallons of water from eastern Nevada a year for use in the growing Las Vegas area. The authority sought 11.1 billion gallons but Scott Huntley, a spokesman for the authority, said it was “very pleased” with the ruling.
The application to the state sought 34,752 acre feet a year and Taylor granted 18,755 acre feet, about 53 percent of the request.
Huntley called it a “strong ruling” and it will translate into 32,100 acre feet with the re-use by the authority from the return flows.
Susan Lynn, a spokeswoman for the Great Basin Water Network, complained the ruling would hurt ranchers and wildlife areas in the areas south of Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar Valleys where the water will be drawn from. She called it a “very tough decision.”
From the Elko Daily News:
While the SNWA application sought more than 11.3 billion gallons of groundwater a year from the valleys and the ruling allows about 6.1 billion gallons, Susan Lynn of the Great Basin Water Network said, “It’s way too much considering there are a whole lot of downstream groundwater users who rely on that groundwater flow that is going to be intercepted.”
The SNWA project opponents include ranchers and farmers, as well as local irrigation companies, a water board, the Sierra Club, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and White Pine County which borders Lincoln County.
The project is backed by casino executives, developers, union representatives and others who point to water conservation efforts in the Las Vegas area and who warn of an economic downturn affecting the entire state unless the city has enough water to keep growing.
From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
SNWA representatives had contended the water authority met all requirements for the pumping and critics’ disaster scenarios are unfounded.
The Great Basin Water Network opposed the plan, saying SNWA tried to hide evidence that the pumping may harm existing water users and the environment in rural Nevada because there’s not enough water in the valleys for long-term exportation.
Taylor said use of the water in the amounts he approved “will not unduly limit future growth and development” in the three valleys, all in central Lincoln County. But before any water is pumped, Taylor wants to see more biological and hydrologic studies. He also said that pumping will be halted or modified if it proves “detrimental to the public interest or is found to not be environmentally sound.”
Allen Biaggi, the state’s conservation-natural resources chief and Taylor’s boss, said the ruling shows “the strength of Nevada’s water law in balancing the needs of its citizens, protecting existing water rights and protecting Nevada’s natural resources.”
Kay Brothers, SNWA’s deputy general manager, said the water authority recognized the state engineer’s “somewhat conservative” approach to water management in Nevada, the nation’s most arid state, and wouldn’t challenge his decision. “We respect the way he manages the state’s water basins,” Brothers said. “If that’s what he’s comfortable with, so are we.”
So far, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has filed for 125,742 acre-feet, but has only been granted 58,755 acre-feet per year; it is the difference between supplying 428,000 homes and 200,000 homes. However, instead of seeing the pipeline has half-empty, SNWA officials see it as half-full in this article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
Brothers said the authority’s resource plan for the next 50 years was built on the assumption that the agency would not get all the groundwater it applied for in eastern Nevada. “Our planning horizon has always looked at a range, and what we’ve seen so far is in that range,” she said.
By as early as 2013, the authority hopes to start delivering rural groundwater to the Las Vegas Valley through a pipeline that is expected to stretch more than 250 miles and cost between $2 billion and $3.5 billion. Authority officials see the project as a way to supply water for growth in the Las Vegas Valley and insulate the community from drought on the Colorado River, which provides 90 percent of the valley’s drinking water.
Critics argue that large-scale groundwater pumping in the arid valleys of eastern Nevada threatens the region’s wildlife and the livelihoods of its ranchers and farmers.
Wednesday’s ruling drew a tepid response from those most opposed to the project. “We think the decision was sort of a mixed bag,” said Simeon Herskovits, a New Mexico-based attorney representing stakeholders who have protested the authority’s plans to the state. Herskovits said Taylor agreed with some of the concerns raised by the opposition and “didn’t bite” on some of the authority’s more speculative arguments. But, he said, the state engineer failed to address the long-term problems with pumping so much water, though the authority is “locking it in as a permanent supply.”
“There are some things to be pleased about” in the ruling, Herskovits said, “but overall, we are concerned that the outcome was too much water permitted to the Southern Nevada Water Authority.”
… while opponents are shut out of upcoming Snake Valley hearings
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 10, 2008 at 5:21 amAlong with the news of granting water to Las Vegas from the Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar Valleys, Nevada Engineer Tracy Taylor also denied “interested persons” status to several opposition groups, as well as Utah & Nevada officials in the upcoming Snake Valley hearings, as noted in this San Diego Union-Tribune article:
In a related case involving SNWA’s application to pump 16 billion gallons of water a year from Snake Valley, on the Nevada-Utah border in White Pine County, Taylor rejected bids by three Indian tribes, local government entities in Nevada and Utah and others for “interested persons” status in those proceedings.
That ruling, which restricts participation in the Snake Valley hearings scheduled to start on Tuesday, went against the Great Basin Water Network, the Wells Band Te-Moak Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation.
Taylor also rejected the status for Salt Lake and Utah counties in Utah, Trout Unlimited, Water Keepers, the North Snake Valley Water Association and Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, representing six Nevada counties.
The decision sparked editorials published in neighboring Utah papers, such as the Salt Lake Tribune:
Water makes life possible in the desert. If you remove a vast amount of water and take it hundreds of miles away, the loss will have far-reaching effects on arid land, plants, wildlife and the livelihoods of its human inhabitants.
This is a simple law of nature that the Southern Nevada Water Authority wants Utahns to ignore when thirsty Nevada is doing the taking. SNWA officials want us to believe that if they pump 80,000 acre-feet of water per year from an aquifer on the Nevada/Utah line and pipe it 285 miles to Las Vegas, only the Snake Valley area, home to 600 people, would be affected, and only a little bit.
That belief is either naive or grossly self-serving. In either case, Utah officials, including Gov. Jon Huntsman, have a responsibility to see it for the water grab it is and stop it before it starts.
To keep Utah from throwing sand on the project, Southern Nevada water officials successfully lobbied their state engineer to deny the “interested party” status requested by Salt Lake and Utah counties, three Native American bands, the Central Nevada Water Authority, conservation groups, businesses and residents of the valleys. This decision to exclude legitimate stakeholders is troubling.
SNWA argued that these groups should have protested in 1989 when it first applied for the project. But much has changed in 19 years, including knowledge about hydrology and drought. We now know the dangers of what then seemed to be a fairly innocuous idea that may never be implemented anyway.
The Deseret News had this to say:
Nevada’s state engineer needs to give opponents their due. They deserve to have their respective points of view heard in this matter. Aside from sorting out legal claim to this water, conservationists, the National Congress of American Indians and other interested parties have deep-seated interests in the physical, economic, cultural and spiritual well-being of this area. The key to all of these concerns is sufficient water resources.
SNWA, for its part, says its application has been mischaracterized as a water grab. Rather, a SNWA spokesman has said, the authority seeks to draw upon a resource no one is using.
Area ranchers say the underground aquifer holds in check a polluted aquifer beneath the salt desert. Any force that reduces that water pressure — such as pumping significant amounts of fresh water from the aquifer — could subject the remaining freshwater supply to contamination.
Most of those denied “interested party” status are not planning to appeal, reports the Salt Lake Tribune:
Taylor’s other ruling, which Huntley said was relatively insignificant to Las Vegas, means the Wasatch Front counties won’t be granted “interested person” status during upcoming hearings on the SNWA pipeline proposal.
Taylor’s ruling said the counties should have known they needed to protest when the pipeline permit was submitted in 1989. But Ann Ober, Salt Lake County’s Environmental Policy Coordinator, said the counties weren’t aware nearly 20 years ago of the air-quality problems they would face today under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules. “Not only was [our knowledge] lacking, but the EPA requirements have become much more stringent,” Ober said.
Water experts say that the 285-mile, $3.5 billion Las Vegas pipeline could cause the basin’s water table to drop far enough to kill off the vegetation that now holds the soil in place. That could cause dust storms to reach the Wasatch Front and further damage the already-degraded air quality.
The counties don’t plan to appeal Taylor’s ruling. A conservation group, however, may challenge the denial of its interested party application, said Steve Erickson, spokesman for the Great Basin Water Network. Erickson said Taylor’s ruling on the water SNWA can draw from the three Lincoln County valleys overestimates the perennial yield and recharge in the nation’s driest region.
Utah officials had this to say in this Salt Lake Weekly article:
“We’re downwind,” says Salt Lake County Councilman Jim Bradley who brought the issue to fellow council members in June. “I think there is a good chance that taking water out of the Snake Valley over there is going to have an air-quality detriment to Salt Lake County.”
Ann Ober, environmental policy coordinator for Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, says Salt Lake Valley shares an air corridor with the Snake Valley in Utah’s west desert. “If they de-water the Snake Valley, we can expect an increase in particulate matter that will impact the valley’s air quality,” she says. In addition to participation in Nevada’s water hearings, Ober says Salt Lake County has petitioned for a seat at the table as federal officials work on an environmental impact statement for the Las Vegas pumping plan.
Salt Lake County and Utah County each are asking to bring experts to testify at the July hearings, held by the Nevada State Engineer. After the hearings the engineer will decide how much, if any, water Las Vegas gets to take from Snake Valley. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has filed on 16 billion gallons per year.
Snake Valley’s ranchers have complained for years about the plan, saying when Nevada sticks pipes on its side of the border, water will be sucked from under Utah crops. Southern Nevada Water Authority’s response has been that there is plenty of water to go around. The authority acknowledges its pumping might drop the Utah water table, but says Utah’s ranchers will just have to drill deeper wells.
That argument doesn’t hold water, says Mark Ward, an attorney with the Utah Association of Counties, which will represent Salt Lake County in the Nevada hearings. A Utah state scientist has estimated pumping in the Snake Valley could drop underground water levels by 10 feet, below the root system of the greasewood scrub brush that holds the desert floor together. “The groundwater dependant vegetation loss could be vast,” says Ward, noting that, from the 1900s to the 1970s, when Los Angeles pumped water away from surrounding ranching valleys in California, the result was the largest dust source in the world.
BREAKING NEWS: Nevada State Engineer issues ruling on Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar Valleys: Ruling grants Southern Nevada Water Authority 18,755 acre-feet annually of 34,752 acre-feet requested
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 9, 2008 at 11:43 amFrom the Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources:
Nevada’s State Engineer Tracy Taylor released his ruling today on the Cave Valley, Dry Lake Valley and Delamar Valley water right applications filed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The applications are now held by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Taylor’s ruling grants to SNWA 18,755 acre-feet of water annually. LVVWD applied for 34,752 acre-feet annually in applications that were originally filed in 1989.
Today’s ruling comes after a hearing held in February.
Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said that the State Engineer’s ruling demonstrates the strength of Nevada’s water law in balancing the needs of its citizens, protecting existing water rights and protecting Nevada’s natural resources.
“Taylor’s ruling is consistent with state law, is based on the best available science, and it allows for mitigation should environmental impacts occur in these basins as a result of pumping ground water,” he said.
Taylor previously ruled on ground-water withdrawals from Spring Valley and the first day of hearing is scheduled for Snake Valley on July 15.
Read the full text of the news release from the Nevada State Engineer by clicking here.
Agency wants to shut out Salt Lake, Utah counties: Nevada bureau says the counties should have spoken up 20 years ago
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 9, 2008 at 7:00 amFrom the Salt Lake Tribune:
Las Vegas water officials are trying to keep Salt Lake and Utah counties out of the loop during an upcoming hearing on the proposal to take 50,000 acre-feet of water annually from Snake Valley - despite the counties’ concerns that the drawdown could provoke dust-bowl conditions on the Wasatch Front.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority has filed an objection with Nevada State Engineer Tracy Taylor to requests for “interested party” status for the counties, three tribal bands, the Central Nevada Water Authority, conservation groups, businesses and residents. The move appears to be a new, aggressive tactic to push aside Utah concerns about what could happen to Snake Valley vegetation should the water table drop too low, and move quickly on a $3.5 billion, 285-mile pipeline project that would siphon water from an aquifer that lies under the two states for use in Las Vegas.
“All this has happened rather rapidly,” said Steve Erickson, a Utah spokesman for the Great Basin Water Network, one of the groups SNWA seeks to exclude. “They want to keep the public out of this process as much as possible.”
Taylor will review the interested party status applications during a hearing Tuesday in Carson City and decide whether to allow further participation during a subsequent hearing or hearings. But SNWA says that because the applicants didn’t formally object to the project nearly two decades ago, it’s too late to get involved now.
Read more from the Salt Lake Tribune by clicking here.
Mulroy responds to activists’ claims of exclusion from upcoming hearing
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 pmFrom KCPW in Las Vegas:
Activists in Utah and Nevada allege the Southern Nevada Water Authority is trying to bar the public from an upcoming water hearing to determine water rights to a vast underground aquifer spanning the border near Snake Valley, Utah. Not true, says Pat Mulroy, the water authority’s general manager. “Any allusion to, or correlation, to say that this is an attempt to keep the public out of the process is simply not true,” Mulroy says.
A meeting is scheduled to determine the amount of water the State Engineer will let the water authority take out of the aquifer under Snake Valley.
“There is a number that is known of what the State Engineer will allow Southern Nevada take out of Snake Valley,” Mulroy says. “Then all the hyperbole, all the exaggerated numbers will have been whittled down to a number to the one under consideration that the State Engineer will even consider.”
Mulroy says a hearing scheduled for July 15 is an administrative pre-hearing and public testimony over the groundwater project will be accepted at a later date.
Read the rest of this story from KCPW by clicking here.
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 amFrom 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.
Lakefront homes, while lake lasts: Despite glowing ads, Walker Lake may be dying, its fish vanishing
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 8, 2008 at 7:03 am
There is another water war going on in Nevada, besides Ms. Mulroy’s plan to pump water from rural Nevada valleys. Walker Lake, a saline lake in Nevada, has been shrinking and could one day dry up - primarily the result of upstream water diversions for agriculture. And just like in the Salton Sea area, real estate developers are selling ‘lakefront lots’, declaring that the government won’t let the lake just go away. From the Las Vegas Sun:
“Lakefront land sale,” screamed the advertisement, “one weekend only.” The pitch promised migrating loons and renowned Lahontan cutthroat trout fishing on Walker Lake, five hours from Las Vegas near Hawthorne.
What the fine print failed to mention was that this is the same Walker Lake in which the water level has dropped 140 feet in the past 120 years, the same lake that’s so saline every species of fish but the Lahontan cutthroat has all but died off. It’s the same lake that fishermen and loon lovers have been trying to rescue for the past two decades, a lake many have declared dead.
Picture unhappy customers standing at their property lines watching their lifeless lake recede into the distance.
But Nevada Land and Ranches — the company selling one-acre parcels, with lakefront lots going for $149,900 and lots with views but no shoreline for $49,900 — says the rumors of Walker Lake’s demise are much exaggerated. Jannette Shambaugh, who works in the company’s acquisitions department, says part of her job is educating potential buyers because “people say the lake is dying, but it’s not.”
It’s true the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to bat for Walker Lake, working with local groups on federal legislation that would provide funding to buy or lease 50,000 acre-feet of water rights on the Walker River to supplement lake levels. Once the lake level were to rise more than 30 feet, it would take 25,000 acre-feet to keep it up, experts say.
And the Nevada Wildlife Department and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service stock the waters with tens of thousands of fish every year, introducing them into the Walker River upstream of the lake so they have time to acclimate to the lake’s less-than-hospitable environment.
“I just would hate to say something to perpetuate the sense that Walker Lake is dead,” said Kim Tisdale, supervising fisheries biologist for the Wildlife Department. “It is not. But obviously its future is tentative.”
Shambaugh calls the lake “a gem in the desert” and extols the virtues of its sand beach, its rock-free shoreline and its sweeping views. “They are not going to let that lake go away,” said Audrey Kennoch, owner of Nevada Land and Ranches, which is selling 29 parcels along the lake in a subdivision called The Shores at Walker Lake. “With all the government agencies in place, I just would never believe they would let that lake go away.”
Still, the lake recedes to reveal another yard or so of shoreline every year, according to Tisdale.
Read more from the Las Vegas Sun by clicking here. For more information on Walker Lake, click here.
Ms. Mulroy, you issued the challenge… Ray Walker has an answer!
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 7, 2008 at 11:14 amIn the story below, Ms. Mulroy writes in her commentary to the Las Vegas Sun:
I challenge the critics to present a viable alternative that can protect our community in the absence of Lake Mead.
Aquafornia reader and frequent commenter Ray Walker has risen to the challenge:
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED !
My brother and I agree to present a viable alternative that can protect Nevada and the SNWA community in the absence of Lake Mead !
For four (4) years, we have offered Nevada, the Bureau of Reclamation and the SNWA a truly new Source of fresh water that will keep Lake Mead reasonably full. In addition, the Source can provide a primary Source of potable water for all of the endeavors of the SNWA, including an insurance policy in the event their well depletions are proven problematic. Development of the Source will not damage the environment or the water rights of anyone, anywhere. Water from the Source is legally available and economically feasible to develop.
Last year, Nevada’s power company reviewed the Source and concluded in writing that the Source was definitely plausible!
The Source can also provide all of water needs of the St. George area.
Nevada and the SNWA can choose any knowledgeable water attorney and/or water engineers to confidentially analyze the Source and make a timely report to determine if we have met SNWA’s CHALLENGE !
SNWA, we hereby call your bluff ! What’s the bet…. the future of Nevada & Lake Mead ?
Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com
So what do you say, Ms. Mulroy?
The era of simple solutions is over: Pat Mulroy makes her case for the pipeline project to rural Nevada
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 7, 2008 at 7:25 am
From the Las Vegas Sun:
Last Sunday, Emily Green’s depiction of the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s efforts to secure a future water supply for the Las Vegas Valley covered a lot of terrain. There was significant discussion of the presumed dire environmental consequences that would befall the rural areas if but one gallon of those available waters were to leave.
These presumptions ignore the science of hydrology, the environmental safeguards embedded in state and federal law, and the fundamental principles of Nevada water law that further protect the environment and existing users.
There has been a concerted effort for more than half a century to estimate the water resources in these basins that are available for use. In fact, the Nevada Conservation and Natural Resources Department published a series of water planning reports in the 1970s; one of those reports dealt with water for Southern Nevada and identified several valleys where water was potentially available for export to Las Vegas.
Ms. Mulroy then discusses the studies, the projections, and the plans to mitigate impacts, should they occur. And then:
However, the bigger issue was not what was said, but rather what was missing.
Nowhere in Ms. Green’s more than 20,000-word series was an alternative described that protects Southern Nevada’s residents if we lose Lake Mead to drought. We are in the eighth year of drought; Lake Mead is down 100 feet and will drop another 6 feet this year.
People who oppose this project generally point to one of two “solutions”: desalinization or growth control. Let’s take the second one first, because virtually everyone in the valley has an opinion about growth.
Economic repercussions aside — and thousands of people have already lost their jobs in the current economic downturn — let’s assume that not another person moves to the Las Vegas Valley. As it stands, 2 million people call Southern Nevada home, and they rely on the Colorado River for 90 percent of their water supply. If climate scientists are correct and Lake Mead goes dry, there simply won’t be enough water for essential domestic uses, let alone fire protection. No community can conserve enough to survive on only 10 percent of its water supply.
We are not the only ones looking for alternatives. California just declared a state of emergency, and other Western states are scrambling to create secure water supplies. In an era of climate change, no city can afford to rely on a single source.
So what is the solution? Some suggest buying agricultural water from California farmers; but given the dire straits that state is in, California will inevitably take care of its own first. And let us not forget that those farm districts are among the most significant producers of winter fruits and vegetables.
How about desalinization, the favorite silver bullet for project opponents? The Southern Nevada Water Authority is actively working with Arizona and California on projects that will reduce the strain on the Colorad
o River — including desalinization projects in Yuma, Ariz., and Mexico — but lacking a coastline, Nevada would have to trade with its neighbors for any water acquired from desalinization.
In other words, Nevada would use the purified seawater in exchange for a share of its Colorado River water. This works only if there is sufficient water in Lake Mead to exchange, which is anything but certain.
I challenge the critics to present a viable alternative that can protect our community in the absence of Lake Mead.
Ms. Mulroy asserts that the groundwater in eastern Nevada is sufficient to meet Las Vegas’ needs without harming the environment, and that many agencies and organizations will be monitoring the operations and will be involved in the decisions regarding how much to pump and from where. Read the full text of Ms. Mulroy’s article in the Las Vegas Sun by clicking here.
Utah-Nevada water standoff quiet, fierce
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 5, 2008 at 6:08 amFrom the Salt Lake Tribune:
On moonless nights here in the Utah-Nevada borderlands of Snake Valley, the naked eye can see five planets, countless stars and the great swath of the Milky Way. Climb the hill to Great Basin National Park and one can see the nighttime glow of Las Vegas, whose leaders say their sprawling city must have the water under Snake Valley - or wither and die. And they are coming for it, making plans for a 285-mile pipeline to tap the aquifer that stretches from Salt Lake City to Death Valley and take the water south. At the same time, Utah wants to build a pipeline on Lake Powell to suck up Colorado River water and send it northward to growing desert communities before it gets anywhere near Glitter Gulch.
For now, the two driest states in the nation are in a quiet standoff, fitfully negotiating or scuffing lines in the sand. Eventually, though, the outcome of this tale of two pipelines, begun with an agreement struck 86 years ago to share the Colorado and now groaning under rapid population growth and climate distress, could shake the foundations of Western water law.
Read the full text of this story from the Salt Lake Tribune by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
Aquafornia Photos on Flickr
Upcoming Events
Check out the upcoming events from the Water Education Foundation.
Recent Posts
- C-WIN, CSPA file suit to end wasteful Delta diversions, protect public trust resources
- Angelenos heed water warnings
- Indian tribes awaiting Klamath Dam removal
- Whitaker-Bermite facility: The perchlorate cleanup plan is a reality, says commentary
- Suppliers seek approval for the “Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program”
- Salmon-tracking network challenges conventional wisdom
- State panel floats ‘litter tax’ to curb debris along coast
- Delta smelt closer to extinction
- Water settlement knots finally untangling
- Normal rainfall predicted for north state this winter
- Should we recycle urine on Earth, too?
- Who will be Delta’s keeper?
- Increasingly scarce water is the new California gold
- Californians need to worry about food security, says commentary
- Court rejects POWER appeal of All-American Canal case
Aquafornia's Mission
Aquafornia's mission is to educate readers about the complex and often controversial issues surrounding water in California.
Aquafornia is affiliated with the Water Education Foundation, an impartial non-profit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water issues and help resolve water resource problems through educational programs.
Find It
Save / E-mail / Share Aquafornia
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia Exclusives
- Biofuels
- Bottled water
- Climate change & water supply
- Commentary
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Development & Water
- Drinking Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Endangered Species & Wildlife
- Environment & Water
- Events
- General Water Issues
- Grandiose water plans
- Great Green Ideas
- Groundwater
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Species
- Levees
- Monterey Agreements
- National water news
- Oceans and Beaches (all)
- Odds and Ends
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- All-American Canal
- Antelope Valley
- Bakersfield
- Bay Area
- Coachella Valley
- Colorado River Basin
- Imperial Irrigation District & Imperial Valley
- Lake Tahoe & the Sierra's
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles River
- Northern California
- Orange County
- Owens Valley & Mono Lake
- Riverside - San Bernardino
- Sacramento
- Salton Sea