Most Recent Articles and Comments:

Monday, July 14, 2008

Where are the Environmentalists?

 

 

State Water Engineer Tracy Taylor agreed to allow the Las Vegas Valley Water Authority to pump 6 BILLION gallons of water a year from rural Nevada to quench an overheated Las Vegas. Did you hear that? SIX BILLION GALLONS A YEAR from our farmers and ranchers AND pristine Nevada desert! LVRJ

 
 

Where are the environmentalist protesters? Where are the discussions on fish, turtles, rabbits and plants that will be destroyed with this water drainage. I don't understand how all the all this can happen without hundreds of lawsuits filed by US Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Club, Forestry Services and even Indian Reservations! This doesn't just effect the farmers and ranchers.

 
 

Every time a farmer wants to move a water right permit from one field down the road a mile to another field HE OWNS he get hit with 100 lawsuits from these groups. Now LVVWA is moving billions, and piping it a couple HUNDRED MILES there is not a peep from US Fish and Wildlife. Can someone answer where these people are on this?

 

Posted by Preserving Rural Opportunities in Nevada at 8:51 AM

Monday, June 2, 2008

Water to the FRONT

 

In both the LVS and LVRJ papers you will find articles on water usage in Las Vegas and the pipeline proposal.

Vegas seems to think this is a done deal. Vegas seems to think that all it will take is a little more negotiation and water will come GUSHING from White Pine and Lincoln Counties to serve Las Vegas' growth. All that SEEMS to be left is a small deal with Utah.

PRO Nevada appreciates the farmers and ranchers who cashed in on the thirst of Vegas by selling their acre-feet of water, but PRO Nevada stands against pumping the water to Vegas for billions of dollars. That's right BILLIONS of dollars. As we said in a previous post Las Vegas can build a desalinization plant in Mexico for $250 million, with no annoying California environmentalist whackos stopping it. Why use up water that farmers, ranchers and miners already use in mid Nevada when you can trade desal' plants for water out of the Colorado? It is like driving 50 miles to see a movie that is playing in your back yard FOR LESS MONEY! Why is the Vegas Water Authority even messing with northern water? It is more expensive, it is expendable as opposed to the ocean of water in Mexico, and it is more environmentally sound.

Kudos to the ranchers and farmers who cashed in on LVVWA's stupidity but, seriously Vegas, get your head out of your ass.

 

Posted by Preserving Rural Opportunities in Nevada at 8:20 AM 0 comments

Labels: Environmentalism, Farming, pipeline, water

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The SUN is softening!

 

The Las Vegas SUN has softened a bit. Their editorial today shows a crack in the door of their unwavering and staunch support of the LVVWA (Las Vegas Valley Water Authority) plan to build a pipeline from Northern Nevada to serve a thirsty Las Vegas and drain the rest.

They still aren't FOR the desalinization plant but the say it could be a "long term solution" which is more than they have ever giving the project before. So we at PRO Nevada give a cheer for the SUN. Baby steps, baby steps, maybe next week or next month they we START to consider the damage that will be done to the Northern Counties by this mult-billion-dollar scam. But baby steps are good.

Couple of things for them to consider:

Here's a quote "But desalination is certainly not a short-term option, given the expense of building and operating a plant, not to mention the environmental issues associated with desalination." TELL ME, what do you consider short term and long term? Years? Decades? Desal' plants are in operation NOW and the technology is there, it is as simple as building a factory. The pipeline is no less than 5 years away IF it happens, probably more like 10 years away once they cut through the permits and environmental impact studies. So which is short term and which is long term?

Here's another quote: "The process requires a tremendous amount of money, and environmentalists note that the demand for more electricity means more power plants, which come with their own set of costs and environmental issues." NOT near as much money as this crazy pipeline, in fact we could build EIGHT desal' plants for the price of this pipeline. (See previous post) It would demand electricity and that is the only REAL issue the SUN is addressing.

Next quote: "Trying to build a plant in California would be a difficult — and expensive — task." That is definitely right as rain. BUT why build in California? Mexico is just as happy, if not happier, to have American dollars spent on a number of desal' plants, give more Mexicans good jobs AND as I stated in the previous post, the "brine" is a commodity that can be sold, NOT dumped back into the ocean. (even if that drop in a VERY LARGE bucket would make any difference)

So PRO Nevada is proud of the SUN for taking these baby steps. We hope they will learn to walk on their own soon.

 

Posted by Preserving Rural Opportunities in Nevada at 10:45 AM 0 comments

Labels: pipeline, Recycling, water

Friday, March 21, 2008

Desalinization Desmalinization

 

The Las Vegas Sun took time out of its busy schedule of panning everything Republican and conservative to pen an article on Desalinization, even giving it a title "Desalinization Gets a Serious Look"

Unfortunately they didn't give it that look. Clouded by the unassuming smoothness of Pat Mulroy at the Water Authority and by Californian environmental groups they gave desalinization as an option less than a paragraph in the article. The rest of the time they praised the pipeline, lamented the possibility of dead fish, and crooned about the impractical if not impossible.

They did end it on what I am sure they consider a positive note with a PRO Nevada quote from Launce Rake "“This is a country that put a man on the moon, a country with enormous intelligence and financial resources. We can do this if we have the political will.”

While I am sure Launce meant well and was probably misquoted or taken out of context like the Sun tends to do but desalinization is NOT the equivalent of a moon shot. A desal' plant is the equivalent of building a factory, happens all the time and everywhere. The issue continues to be the amount of POWER needed to make it worth the effort. Unlike the moon shot, the technology is there and waiting.

For a mere $250 million we (meaning Nevada) can build a plant in Mexico and get the credit towards drawing more water from Lake Mead. Okay, $250 million is not chump change but compare that to the LVVWA plan to spend $2 billion on a pipeline (which will probably grow to $4-5 billion by the time there are done) we could build EIGHT DESAL' PLANTS for that!

Many Desal' plants already have alternative energy sources using waves and wind to power the process. Environmental groups complain that the salt goes back into the ocean and kills fish due to its high concentration. 1st that is a literal drop in the bucket and 2nd that salt can be a commodity for some entrepreneurial desal' plant operator.

So check out the article but keep the pressure on Mulroy and her friends in the Sun to push the Desal' plants as a legitimate alternative.

 

Posted by Preserving Rural Opportunities in Nevada at 9:19 AM 0 comments

Labels: alternative energy, pipeline, water

December 17,2007

Good news for the Water Authority and BAD NEWS for Rural Nevada!

The LVRJ had an article telling Las Vegas that the Water Authority can manipulate numbers to get more water credit from the proposed pipeline planning to drain White Pine and Lincoln Counties of their water. Article.

In 2012, just 4 years from now, the LVVWA will have spent over $3 billion to get 100,000 acre feet per year. Currently Vegas gets 300,000 from the Colorado. PLUS the Water Authority will get the credit that gets recycled back into the Colorado after used and cleaned. A great deal for them but bad news for Rural Nevada.

The deal is 100,000 acre feet. 1 acre foot is the amount of water that would cover one acre in one foot of water. That is HUGE! Most people don't have a concept of an acre any more so how about this? 1 acre is 43,456 square feet. The average Nevada home is about 2000 square feet so your house could be filled with water over 21 feet deep! I hope you have a two story! So if one acre foot is a 2000 square foot, two story home filled with water you average filling up your house twice a year (two acre feet a year). The water authority wants to take 100,000 of these 2 story homes PER YEAR from White Pine and Lincoln Counties!

Good news for the Water Authority of Vegas BAD NEWS FOR RURAL Nevada!

Here's an idea Pat: let's get people to use LESS WATER, Oh sure, LVVWA is promoting using less but let's face it: THEY MAKE MONEY OFF YOUR WATER USE! It is kind of like Nevada Power encouraging your to conserve power. Yea right!

PRONevada.org

Wow, talk about help from an UNFRIENDLY source. We at PRONevada have been panning the Looney Environmentalists in their crazy battle to KILL Nevada's rural economy by attempting (failing so far, read news) to save the Pupfish and now they come through with the 2 1/2 inch long Chub to stop the water pumping!

Jun. 21, 2007 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal PUMPING PROJECT: Little fish entangles water plan Groups warn of threat to species By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Graphic by Mike Johnson.   A small fish that swims in a half-dozen spring-fed ponds and marshes in Utah should be protected from a plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to pump groundwater "for runaway growth in Las Vegas," conservation groups said Wednesday. The water authority maintains that it can preserve the species and pump the groundwater responsibly. The conservation groups and the Confederate Tribes of the Goshute Reservation filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the shiny, 2 1/2-inch-long least chub for protection as a threatened or endangered species. They cited the water authority's plans to pump up to 30,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from Snake Valley, which straddles the Utah border in central Nevada. "Of great concern for this species is future water withdrawals from the Snake Valley aquifer that are currently proposed to support human population growth in Southern Nevada," reads the 58-page petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Great Basin Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the tribes and the Sierra Club's Utah Chapter. In a statement Wednesday, they said the least chub "has been reduced to just six fragile wild populations, three of which occur in the Snake Valley, where planned pumping of water for runaway growth in Las Vegas is a serious threat to the tiny fish's survival." The petition describes other factors affecting the least chub, including non-native mosquito fish, livestock grazing and farming. But the greatest concern is the water authority's proposal to drill nine pumping stations in Snake Valley. "The best science available so far tells us that groundwater withdrawal proposed in Snake Valley could potentially cause significant drawdown of the Snake Valley water table, with repercussions for all aquatic species and wetland systems that rely on consistent spring discharge," the petition reads. "Repercussions in this case for the least chub could be catastrophic." A spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority said his agency's record for protecting species and the environment will prevail in persuading the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the least chub's survival won't be impacted by groundwater pumping. "The short answer is that there are already safeguards because of our agreement with federal agencies prior to pumping that should be able to protect that species," said the spokesman, J.C. Davis. "Our commitment has been to protect that and other species, and that's what we're going to do," he said. "It shouldn't affect the viability of developing groundwater in Snake Valley. We have always developed water resources in an environmentally responsible manner. "We have an awfully good track record for environmental stewardship," Davis said. He said the water authority is "years away from pumping." In the meantime, safeguards to ensure monitoring and certain flow rates in the Snake Valley will become part of the Bureau of Land Management's environmental impact statement for the project. In addition to Snake Valley, Davis said the impact statement will cover planned groundwater pumping in Spring Valley, Cave Valley, Dry Lake Valley and Delamar Valley. Even if the least chub becomes listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act, Davis said the water authority would work out preservation measures through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "At the end of the day, development of these groundwater sources and preservation of wildlife species are not mutually exclusive," he said. Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist for the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, Ore., said the petition should be a wake-up call for authorities in the Las Vegas Valley that they need to practice additional conservation measures and set limits on urban growth. "At what point does Las Vegas stop sucking up water from other places?" he asked. "How far will Las Vegas go to get water to keep growing?" "We hope the petition will make them seriously consider the wisdom of groundwater pumping from the area," Greenwald said. Davis said the idea behind pumping groundwater in White Pine County is not so much to increase growth in the Las Vegas Valley but to ensure that the existing population will have a backup water supply should the drought continue along the Colorado River. "The groundwater project is as much about protecting the people who live here now as it is about developing water supplies for the future," he said. The amount proposed for pumping from Snake Valley, up to 30,000 acre-feet, is enough to support 60,000 homes, not counting what are known as return-flow credits, or the amount of treated wastewater returned to Lake Mead from use of that water. Conservation measures targeting water used for the urban landscape have been effective, he noted. From 2002 to 2006, the valley's population increased by 330,000, but water consumption decreased by 18 billion gallons. The gain was made by water agencies convincing customers to use less water on landscaping and getting credit for returning more treated wastewater to Lake Mead. Don Duff, a former federal fisheries biologist and president of the Great Basin Chapter of Trout Unlimited, said the least chub is a cold-water species left over from ancient Lake Bonneville as it dried up thousands of years ago. He said he fears groundwater pumping in Snake Valley will compound the effects that today's drought is having on springs vital to the chub's habitat. Massive pumping proposed by the water authority, he said, could lower the Snake Valley aquifer by 40 feet to 50 feet between the first and second decade after pumping begins. As it stands, stream flows at 2 cubic feet per second to 10 cubic feet per second are three times less than they should be this time of year. "It's getting to be pretty critical from a scientific standpoint," he said by telephone from Salt Lake City. "The risk in the future is that groundwater pumping could draw down that aquifer so that all the springs go dry and the wild populations are lost."

What is your LIVELIHOOD WORTH?

May. 14, 2007 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal ONGOING DEBATE: What's the water worth? Critics, backers dispute costs, benefits of proposed pipeline By HENRY BREAN REVIEW-JOURNAL In the parched Nevada desert, the value of water can rarely be reduced to a simple economic formula. The cost of a water project divided by its yield will tell you only part of the story. Consider the proposed pipeline to Las Vegas from six groundwater basins across Eastern Nevada. Critics insist there isn't enough water available in rural Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties to justify spending at least $2 billion on the project. Backers argue that Southern Nevada can't afford not to build the pipeline, regardless of the cost. The debate gained momentum last month, after the state's chief water regulator cleared the Southern Nevada Water Authority to eventually export as much as 60,000 acre-feet of water a year from a White Pine County valley 250 miles north of Las Vegas. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, which is almost enough water to supply two average Las Vegas homes for one year. Pipeline opponent Bob Fulkerson said the ruling "throws the project into doubt" because the authority was guaranteed access to only 40,000 acre-feet, roughly half of the water it was after in Spring Valley. "I'd be interested in knowing what they're smoking if they think 40,000 acre-feet is enough to justify a multi-billion-dollar pipeline," said Fulkerson, who is executive director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. "It really calls into question their credibility." Authority officials had the opposite reaction to the ruling, declaring the water they got more than enough to move forward. "We have a project. It's viable," Deputy General Manager Dick Wimmer said. "I wonder if we can afford not to do it. That's the question. I don't believe we can afford not to." Wimmer isn't alone. Jeremy Aguero is principal analyst for the Las Vegas-based financial consulting firm Applied Analysis. In 2004, he helped author a study, commissioned by the water authority, that warned of economic catastrophe should Southern Nevada try to solve its water problems by restricting growth. Aguero said the cost of the pipeline should be weighed against what could happen if it isn't built. "The value of that water is more than just the ability to sell it. It's the ability to maintain jobs and a healthy economy," he said. That becomes especially important when you consider how much Southern Nevada contributes to the state's economy. "As goes Clark County, so goes the state of Nevada in a lot of ways," he said. Fulkerson dismisses that as typical pro-growth rhetoric. "Their reckoning is that if one drop comes down that pipeline to enable us to build one more house, it's worth it to them. That's an exaggeration, but it's basically their thinking," he said. The folks living at the northern end of the pipeline have their own way of measuring the value of water, Fulkerson said. "You just have to go to Snake or Spring Valley to the see the seeps and springs are already drying up. That's a huge cost to the people living out there. For them, it's not just the cost of an alfalfa field. It's the cost of a heritage," he said. "There's a lot of things these damned economists can't ring up at the cash register." Longtime Spring Valley resident Kathy Rountree couldn't agree more. "The value of the water to us is it's our life. It's that simple," she said. "If this place dries up, we're dead." Some believe Southern Nevada faces a similar plight. Water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said the ongoing drought on the Colorado River has dramatically increased the need for an alternate water source like the one the pipeline would provide. "The decision of whether or not to build it is not exclusively an economic one," Mulroy said. "Yes, it's going to cost more money. The dynamic has changed. The cheap water, the water we could get for three nickels, is gone." The valley gets about 90 percent of its water from the Colorado River. That supply is essentially free -- the only cost is the energy and infrastructure required to pump it from Lake Mead -- but it is also under threat by drought and mounting demand for water across the West. Besides, Mulroy said, the water authority's new holdings in Spring Valley actually amount to a lot more than 40,000 acre-feet. When you include the other groundwater rights the authority owns there and stretch the full amount through reuse, Spring Valley could yield as much as 120,000 acre-feet, enough to supply almost a quarter of a million homes. "That's what the real block is," Mulroy said. And unlike the banks of water the authority has secured in Arizona and elsewhere in recent years, its new groundwater rights in Spring Valley never expire, Wimmer said. "These are long-lived, permanent assets." That's exactly what Abby Johnson is afraid of. The Carson City resident protested the authority's groundwater applications in Spring Valley back when they were filed in 1989. She has since bought a home in Snake Valley and serves on the board of the Great Basin Water Network, a group dedicated to fighting the pipeline. Johnson said the project will serve to only encourage more unsustainable growth the Las Vegas Valley. "Whether it costs $2 billion or $4 billion or $8 billion doesn't seem important to them," Johnson said of the authority. "It seems like money is no object and water is the object." The preliminary cost estimates for the pipeline have not been revised since 2005, but authority officials concede that the final tab could rise well above $2 billion. How high the cost might go is almost impossible to guess, Mulroy said, because the authority does not yet know how much water it will be granted or exactly where that water will be. There is also no way to know for sure what construction materials will cost several years from now, when work begins on the pipeline. "Until those questions are answered, we can't develop a refined estimate," Wimmer said. "Why keep throwing out numbers for people to get excited about?" "It won't be real until we get ready to build it," Mulroy said. Authority officials have yet to decide how to pay for the pipeline. But the authority has decided that the project is within the agency's means. At present, the authority funds large capital projects through a mix of revenue streams. Approximately 57 percent of the money comes from connection charges paid as new homes and businesses hook up to the valley's water system. Sales tax revenue accounts for another 28 percent of the pie. The remaining 15 percent comes from water rates and reliability surcharges paid by customers. Mulroy acknowledged that customers could see their water rates go up as a result of the pipeline project, but she said it is way too soon to speculate on how large a hike might be required. Whatever it is, she doesn't expect it to be anything the community can't handle. "Of course we can afford it. It's not a matter of afford," Mulroy said. "At the end of the day, it really gets down to how the community protects itself. It's a value judgment the community has to make."

A great article on water history from the Sun

DRY SPELL, BEHIND THE SCENES

How west was won, with Nevada water

By Emily Green
Las Vegas Sun

Nevada turns Colorado River warfare on its ear, by giving thirsty rival states an out

It was friendly, too friendly. As April came to a close and May breathed a spring furnace over the Mojave, rivals from seven Western states and the Republic of Mexico met in Las Vegas to present a 20-year austerity plan for managing the drought along the Colorado River.

In wetter years, the states would have fought over rights to every last drop from every last Colorado River tributary. But as they gathered in the Florentine Room of the Tuscany Suites, all but Mexico had already agreed to the compromise.

If proof were needed of climate change, the good behavior from this crew of sworn enemies was it.

The Colorado River is in realignment, its supplies are dwindling, and for reasons as freakish and unpredictable as the American West, Southern Nevada is at the center of the shift.

Just what happened among the seven states in the Florentine Room that day is a tale of power, cleverly exercised. To understand it is to understand water in the West, and how a gambling metropolis with the smallest allocation of Colorado River water came out not only as peace broker, but the apparent winner in the worst drought of the past 100 years.

When taking to the stage to snatch triumph from the teeth of disaster, it helps to know the host. It helps even more to be the host.

The Colorado River Commission of Nevada hosted the gathering of the seven states. But not so subtly in the shadow stood a co-host: the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the agency charged with keeping water running in a certain desert city.

The Nevada commission and the Water Authority were a study in mutual admiration. George Caan, executive director of the commission, introduced Water Authority General Manager Pat Mulroy, the keynote speaker. He called Mulroy a "leader, a visionary and advocate for the protection of our natural resources," not to mention "Nevada's most valuable resource on the Colorado River."

As Mulroy took the stage, she had a message for the delegates concerning the water austerity plan they were forwarding to the Interior Department.

"I am convinced that next week we will have all the signatures on the documents," she said. "You know why: We cannot afford to fail. Not a one of us has 20 years to go to court" to battle over water rights.

Her audience had long been headed that way. You might say they live that way. Their warring factions are no strangers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Soothing them now took finesse.

So the unlikely love fest began with what amounted to encounter therapy for malcontents as representatives from the seven states took their seats on the stage.

The floor went first to representatives from Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah.

Under the Colorado Compact, those northern river states are collectively guaranteed 7.5 million acre-feet of water a year, or enough in urban terms to supply 15 million households.

For the better part of the past century, every year they have let 1 million, 2 million, 3 million acre-feet of it flow south unused on the understanding that one day they would need it.

Runaway cities, including Las Vegas, sprang from the surplus, a behavior the northerners regard as wanton. In the words of Don Ostler, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, "We're not saying that we're smarter than you are, but we plan our growth."

At the conference, each northern delegate delivered the same message. The days of surplus are over.

"Utah intends to use all of the water that is allocated to us," said Dennis Strong, director of the Utah water resources division.

Wyoming is going to flood irrigate and no southern region with more people than farms is going to tell it to stop.

New Mexico has a duty of social justice to the Navajo.

Colorado will keep its water (as soon as its voters have the wit to pony up the bond money to pay for the water-catching infrastructure).

Under the Colorado Compact, which governs water allocations, the southern states and the unplanned cities of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego and Tucson are also guaranteed 7.5 million acre-feet a year. But if the drought worsens, as shortages click in, that could be as low as 7 million.

In one of the worst-case scenarios modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation, in as little as six years, Arizona could face losing 480,000 acre-feet of water a year. Under Arizona's drought plan, it will come first at the expense of farms and underground water banks. To put it in perspective, that's enough for 960,000 households.

Nevada could lose 20,000 acre-feet, or enough for 40,000 households.

California, however, wouldn't take a hit because it has senior rights on the river. Hence the source of abiding warfare among the southern states.

Because of a congressional deal in the 1960s, when surpluses were the rule, Arizona thinks it has been shortchanged. The state agreed then to take the first shortages on the river in exchange for California's backing of the Central Arizona Project, a vast canal from Lake Havasu City to Tucson.

Now that those shortages are bearing down on the south, California is immune until the Central Arizona Project runs dry and a Nevada intake in Lake Mead draws air.

That leaves California quite sated and smug. So when, at the conference, the Californian ventured that "some of the chips have to be taken off the shoulders," the Nevadan fidgeted and the Arizonan's eyes bulged.

But there was little more spoken of the looming shortages, particularly dry times ahead for Arizona.

Nevadan heraldry was beating in the wings.

After state delegates left the stage and the man from Reclamation finished a PowerPoint presentation bearing some painful water math, Nevada came on with a story of triumph wrenched from adversity.

Yes, Southern Nevada may be losing 20,000 acre-feet of river water a year , but in presentation after presentation, the Water Authority touted its plans to bring Las Vegas a projected 200,000 acre-feet of new water.

This would come from the Groundwater Development Project, a scheme calling for 285 miles of pipeline, three pumping stations, buried storage reservoirs, two electrical substations and 265 miles of overhead power lines marching from the unspoiled heart of White Pine County south to Las Vegas.

Thus the conference morphed from discussion of shortage on the river to new plenty for Las Vegas, a fresh supply that will not only let the city grow, regardless of what states up river think, but will also take heat off the river as it does so.

If it seems odd that the Colorado River Commission should be devoted to a ground water project, it helps to meet Caan, the executive director and tireless Las Vegas booster.

To Caan's mind, Southern Nevada may have missed a California -size share of the river when it was divided up originally, but ground water now offers the state an opportunity to catch up.

Moreover, the plan is consistent with the advantages other southern states enjoy. Southern California has alternatives to the river: the State Water Project and Los Angeles Aqueduct. Arizona has its massive canal and deep reserves of ground water.

Las Vegas, however, has some dwindling springs and is 90 percent dependent on the Colorado River, and water managers say that credit line is maxed out.

The normally genial Caan was so vehement on the subject at a lunch two weeks before the conference that he stabbed the air with his fork as he declared : "California has done for itself. Arizona has done for itself. Now Nevada is doing for itself!"

And part of that doing was this very conference.

With Caan booking the speakers, the list included a Southern Nevada Water Authority ground water engineer, its landscaper and its hydrologist. From Caan's staff came a lawyer and two resource analysts.

Opponents didn't make the playbill.

"We had requested equal time and didn't get it," said Susan Lynn of the Reno-based Great Basin Water Network, which is fighting the ground water plan. "The conference was so scripted by SNWA that we didn't bother to attend."

Environmentalists weren't completely shut out. Jeff van Ee of the Sierra Club was there to speak after dismal turn out at a film he had made opposing the plan.

In enemy territory, he was so depressed by the time the microphone reached him that the best he could do was mutter vaguely about the good old days when Las Vegas was sustained on spring water and traffic was tolerable.

If the conference made the pipeline seem a foregone conclusion, it is not there yet.

State Engineer Tracy Taylor last month issued the first permit to remove ground water from only the first of five valleys. The entire plan also has yet to emerge from a Bureau of Land Management environmental impact study.

For opponents of the plan, this offers fresh opportunity for scrutiny, which they say the ground water plan needs and won't pass. They are regrouping behind the Bureau of Land Management, one of the last federal agencies with the power to stop the pipeline.

But the opponents have been dealt what might prove a political coup de grace.

The peace that Nevada brokered with six other states on the river was made over the pipeline plan.

Instead of relying on the Colorado for 90 percent of its water, a Nevada with a pipeline would see its river draw fall to 60 percent. That soothes an anxious north. At least one ballooning southern city, the driest, the thirstiest and the most cash-rich and canny, wouldn't try to seize northern water.

Thus the river and Nevada's pipeline may be two sources of water, but in the words of conference shadow host Mulroy : "They couldn't be more linked. We wouldn't have a basin states agreement were it not for the ground water application."

So as Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado signed off on their cover letter to the Interior secretary for the new drought plan for the river, they might as well have signed a petition for the pipeline.

Thus, the not-so-subtle subtext of the conference was: It's not just Nevada asking for permission to build a pipeline, it's the entire West.

Boil it down and the West backed a plan with the Nevada pipeline built into it for the simple reason that , in a time of staggering loss, there was the prospect of some relief.

The beauty of it was that there were no losers, at least on the river. Those were miles inland, in the valleys of White Pine County, where even before pumping has begun, they can sense the ground water slipping from beneath their feet.

Las Vegas Water Authority gets 20 billion gallons from Northern Nevada!

So what is wrong with reporting your actions? Water District fights it!

The Southern Nevada Water Authority argued Monday against a bill calling for more disclosure of information about a proposed 250-mile pipeline that would draw water from rural Nevada to thirsty Las Vegas.

While proponents of Assembly Bill 325 said the agency has not been forthcoming with information on the massive project, a water authority representative said the agency won't release information until it knows that it is accurate.

The bill has bipartisan support, with most of Nevada's rural Republicans and Las Vegas Democrats as sponsors. It requires SNWA make monthly reports on its investigation into the feasibility of water rights transfers to commissioners in affected counties, the state engineer, the U.S. Department of Interior and to the public upon request. State Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Las Vegas, prime sponsor of AB325, said there's a "fear and loathing" about the pipeline that would run from White Pine County in eastern Nevada to Las Vegas. He said the concern could be dispelled if independent researchers are able to review data the water authority uses. "This is public money that is building this pipeline and I personally believe the public has to have access to the data," said Mortenson. The bill is "not intended to hinder the Southern Nevada Water Authority's exploration of resources in White Pine County. This is just intended to shed some light on the process." Mortenson said he was open to the suggestion that the reports be made quarterly instead of monthly.

Andy Belanger of SNWA said the bill may not be needed since the agency already is subject to Nevada's public records law and requirements of the state water engineer to exchange data. "We are concerned about providing information that has not been quality controlled, quality checked prior to its release," Belanger said. State Engineer Tracy Taylor testified existing law allows him to request any information. He also took issue with language that would require the reports go to the U.S. Department of Interior. "Water administration is a prerogative of the state. We must not allow unnecessary federal intervention into Nevada water law," Taylor said.

The Nevada Conservation League, Sierra Club, and Advocates for Community and Environment supported the bill, along with former White Pine County Commissioner Gary Perea and Dean Baker, a rancher in the Snake Valley on the Nevada-Utah line. "There are examples where they simply didn't know what they are doing," Baker said of SNWA. He also said a neighbor let the U.S. Geological Survey test a spring, but when he and the neighbor sought the results they were told SNWA was paying for the test and the results couldn't be released.

The Assembly Government Affairs Committee also reviewed three other bills on water: AB331 encourages water conservation and requires water companies devise a plan that outlines how their rates will encourage conservation; AB296 allows agriculturalists to lease water rights for up to 10 years for wildlife and restoration purposes and AB285 requires the state water engineer to republish notices on water leasing applications if a decision is not made in five years.

Mulroy steps it up ... again!

Arizona enters the fray

Dec. 11, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Arizonans draw line on water pipeline Isolated area wants state to stop water sale to Mesquite By HENRY BREAN REVIEW-JOURNAL BEAVER DAM, Ariz. -- Along the short stretch of Interstate 15 that dips into Arizona on its way from Nevada to Utah, it's easy to feel cut off from the rest of the Grand Canyon State. But residents of the isolated northwest corner of Arizona are calling on state officials in faraway Phoenix to protect them from an unprecedented plan that would pump groundwater across the border to feed growth in nearby Mesquite. Almost 400 anxious Arizonans crowded into the multipurpose room at Beaver Dam Elementary School last week to hear more about the proposal by Arizona company Wind River Resources. Opponents of the plan promised to pack the house again early next year, when the Arizona Department of Water Resources is expected to hold a public hearing in the Beaver Dam area before deciding whether to allow the interstate water transfer to go through. The fight dates to March 2005, when Wind River Resources filed a rare application to export groundwater from Arizona for use in another state. Arizona never has granted such an application. Wind River wants to sell water to the Virgin Valley Water District, which services the Mesquite area. The company also wants to piggyback on the district's water system, using it to deliver water back across the border to supply development on another part of the so-called "Arizona Strip." The water in Wind River's pipeline would be pumped from wells on property northwest of Beaver Dam and piped the roughly 10 miles to Mesquite. But residents in Beaver Dam and Littlefield, Ariz., on the south side of I-15, worry that the project could lower the water table and leave their wells sucking air. "They can't take this water into Nevada without having a negative impact on Arizona. There's just no way," said Bob Frisby, whose Beaver Dam Water Company serves about 1,000 customers on the Arizona Strip. "It will dry us up." To Beaver Dam resident Nikki Stoddard, the Wind River application is a "test case." "If Arizona allows this, it's going to open the door" to others who might want to buy land on the Arizona Strip and try to sell their groundwater to Nevada." Jack Riley, who owns several thousand acres along I-15 in Arizona, warned that any groundwater piped to Mesquite could wind up in Las Vegas, where it would be worth tens of millions of dollars more than it is right now. He said the exportation proposal is "absolutely ridiculous, repugnant, outrageous. There's so many adjectives you could use." But Wind River Resources spokesman John Michael said the water the company plans to tap is in a different aquifer than the one that feeds the wells in Beaver Dam and Littlefield. In fact, Michael said, the groundwater Wind River is after actually flows west into Nevada anyway. "And it's important to note that not a drop of this water has ever been used before," he said. Michael accused Frisby and Riley of whipping up opposition to the Wind River project to protect their own interests. He said Frisby wants a water monopoly on the Arizona Strip and Riley wants to increase the value of his land along I-15 by scuttling growth elsewhere in the area. "What the town ought to be is very wary of those two I think," Michael said. "The people in town don't understand they're being manipulated yet." The water fight belies the ties between Beaver Dam residents and their counterparts in Nevada and Utah. The community literally splits time with its out-of-state neighbors. The clocks there are set on Nevada time for half the year and on Utah time for the other half, thanks to its location just inside the Mountain Time Zone and its refusal, like the rest Arizona, to observe daylight-saving time. To get to Beaver Dam from almost any other part of Arizona, you must drive through Nevada or Utah. If you need to buy groceries, go to the hospital, check out a library book or haul trash to the dump, count on a trip to Mesquite or St. George. Before and after last week's informational meeting, dozens of people lined up to sign petitions against the water deal, and most of those in attendance wore stickers advertising a Web site called NoNevadaWaterGrab.com. A banner along I-15 directs passing motorists to the same Internet address. Stoddard is part of the group that established the Web site. She is also the one who went around Beaver Dam last week, putting up hand-lettered signs on yellow poster board that implored everyone in town to attend the meeting. "The general consensus is, nobody wants this," she said. The feeling is different down the road in Mesquite.Mike Winters has been general manager of the Virgin Valley Water District since it was formed in 1993. He said the offer from Wind River could provide for growth in and around Mesquite for a long time. Under the proposal, the amount of water piped annually from Arizona to Mesquite would increase incrementally over the next 40 years from about 1,000 acre-feet to as much as 14,000 acre-feet. Winters said the per acre-foot price of the water would start at about $200 and increase over the life of the deal to about $400. One acre-foot of water is roughly the amount used each year by two Las Vegas Valley homes. For now, Winters said, his agency is operating on the assumption that Arizona officials "are not going to give us any" of the Wind River water. "If they do, it's a plus for us. If they don't, we're going to continue to drill wells and find the water we need," he said. The district delivers about 5,500 acre-feet of water a year to its 18,000 customers. Its service area covers more than 310 square miles in Nevada and Arizona. Winters said the district owns the rights to some 12,000 acre-feet of water, enough to support up to 40,000 people. Some predict Mesquite's population could top 40,000 in as little as four years, though Winters doesn't put much stock in such estimates. "I've almost quit looking at those projections because they're changing them so often," he said. The Arizona Strip is also growing, particularly Beaver Dam, Littlefield and Scenic. According to some estimates, the area is home to 4,000 to 5,000 people, many of them retirees or ranchers. Michael said Wind River Resources is developing its pipeline in cooperation with a property owner in Scenic, where some 5,000 acres are available for development. Wind River's application does not specify how much of the water pumped to Mesquite could wind up in Scenic, just across the Virgin River and the state line. Like a lot of things in Nevada and Arizona these days, that question most likely will be answered by growth.

Delay and Distract - it's working for Yucca

Elko is told their water is safe, what does that mean for the rest of us?

Elko County residents told their water is safe from Las Vegas' thirst

By Launce Rake <lrake@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Elko County residents have long suspected that Las Vegas has designs on their water. Today, those residents can rest at least a bit easier after the Southern Nevada Water Authority board adopted a resolution promising to leave Elko County alone. The resolution, passed unanimously Thursday, promises that the Water Authority will not apply for ground water in Elko County, buy ranches to acquire existing water rights or obtain land and water through eminent domain or gifts.

The Water Authority has asked the state for the right to take more than 115,000 acre-feet - more than 32 billion gallons, or about a third of what it now takes from Lake Mead for nearly all needs in and around Las Vegas - annually from White Pine County, Elko County's neighbor.

The agency also has purchased three ranches in White Pine County with thousands of acre-feet of surface and ground water rights. The Water Authority also is working to develop rural ground water sources in Lincoln and northern Clark counties and deliver the water to metropolitan Las Vegas through a 250-mile network of pipelines. The agency has argued that it needs the water to diversify the community's near-total reliance on the Colorado River and to keep pace with ongoing urban growth.

Residents of Elko County and its communities of Elko, Carlin and Spring Creek have been concerned that the Water Authority would seek water there, too, despite agency officials' repeated denials of any such plans. The resolution passed Thursday will not completely erase those fears. Under state law, the Water Authority board cannot "bind" or restrict a future board from overturning the resolution. Still, the vote was welcomed in Elko County, which already has considered and supported the resolution. "It will help alleviate some of the fears that we have here," said Sheri Eklund-Brown, an Elko County commissioner. "It is only as good as the board's word and our word ... I'm very happy to hear they did approve it unanimously." Eklund-Brown said Elko County residents would fight any effort to appropriate water for Las Vegas. Her county's water is needed up north, she added. "We have a much more populated county, more opportunities for growth and future needs than maybe some of the rural counties do," she said. "We are very strong politically. And we have a very outspoken citizenry that is not afraid to stand up for (its) rights."

Elko County District Attorney Gary Woodbury said he believed the intent of the resolution was to limit the county government's protests against the Water Authority's ground water development plans. He also noted that the resolution was a promise that could be retracted by the authority's board in the future. Water Authority attorney Chuck Hauser agreed that is possible, but said that the resolution nonetheless provides some comfort to Elko County.

The resolution calls for the authority to spend $300,000 to $500,000 to build two monitoring wells in White Pine County to ensure that the ground water development program does not affect Elko County's water supplies, Hauser said. The reason the resolution is important, he added, is that the entire state needs to cooperate on water issues. "We are trying to develop this as a statewide resource project," Hauser said. "You take the wishes and concerns of the outlying counties into account."

The authority has tried, largely unsuccessfully, to win support for its White Pine County plans from White Pine residents. Hauser said those efforts are in hiatus as State Engineer Tracy Taylor considers the Water Authority's applications to take 91,000 acre-feet annually from White Pine's Spring Valley. The state engineer held contentious hearings on the applications in September. Protesters argue that the Water Authority should seek to conserve more water in Las Vegas or curb growth before looking to rural Nevada for more water. Despite Thursday's action, Susan Lynn, coordinator of the statewide nonprofit group Great Basin Water Network, is dubious about the authority's long-term commitment to Elko County.

"It's probably very short term since they can't constrain future decision makers as a group," Lynn said. "It's a nice promise. "My sense is that the appetite for water is insatiable; they're always going to need more unless you fundamentally change the paradigm."

This pipeline stretches like a weed sucking anything North of Vegas dry ...

Southern Nevada Water Authority has just announced a coming price increase for Las Vegas. Perhaps so they can buy more of the ranches in Lincoln and White Pine?

LVRJ Article

I think this Bob guy has hit the nail on the head!

Oct. 30, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal LETTERS: How much will pipeline really cost? To the editor: In your Thursday article, "Groups criticize water agency," J.C. Davis, spokesperson for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said the cost of the water authority's proposed pipeline project "would not cost more than $3.6 billion." But during the past month's hearings before the state engineer, water authority representatives repeatedly put the cost of the project at $2 billion. In a meeting in May 2005, Cary Casey, the water authority finance director, said of the project: "So we're really talking about $5.5 billion." All of these contradictory numbers simply underscore one of the major points we are making in our newly released report: The cost of the project is a moving target. The water authority needs to release a complete budget for the pipeline. Businesses have to have budgets, and surely the authority must have one for this massive project. As a public agency proposing a public project, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has a responsibility to make the costs public. Bob Fulkerson LAS VEGAS THE WRITER IS DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE OF NEVADA.   There is no doubt that we need to conserve more water in Las Vegas. Outside agencies believe LVVWA should focus on that more than a $3 billion pipeline. Oct. 25, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Groups criticize water agency Conservation lags in LV, report says By LAWRENCE MOWER REVIEW-JOURNAL Christina Roessler, an independent contractor hired by Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, presented a report Tuesday critical of the Southern Nevada Water Authority's effort to import water from White Pine County into Southern Nevada. Photo by John Gurzinski.   Organizers of two water conservation groups Tuesday released reports critical of the Southern Nevada Water Authority that compared water trends in the Las Vegas Valley with those in two other Southwest cities. The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and Western Resources Advocates also criticized the water authority's plan to build a pipeline to import water from central Nevada to Las Vegas. "The Southern Nevada Water Authority has dominated this debate for far too long," PLAN Director Bob Fulkerson said. Fulkerson and others compared the Las Vegas Valley with Tucson, Ariz., and with Albuquerque, N.M., two Southwest cities with less than half the population of the valley. The study by Western Resource Advocates, "Water in the Urban Southwest," found that single-family homes in Las Vegas are less efficient than those in Tucson or Albuquerque.Western Resource Advocates is a nonprofit with offices in Colorado and Utah.PLAN released a report critical of the water district's effort to import water from White Pine County near the border with Utah that said Southern Nevada should concentrate on conservation efforts instead.Christina Roessler, a contractor hired by PLAN to study the project, said the specifics of the project were vague, including how much it would cost. But J.C. Davis, a spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said Southern Nevadans had the right to use the more than hundreds of thousands of unused acre-feet of water in White Pine County."If we didn't have another body move into this valley, we would still need to secure our in-state resources," Davis said. He said the project, which would involve hundreds of miles of pipeline and several treatment plants, would not cost more than $3.6 billion, or more than $2 per month per household. The Nevada Department of Conservation and Water Resources has yet to approve the water rights, Davis said. If the state approves it, the federal government will examine the project and take into account the effect on wildlife and the aquifers themselves, which hold millions of gallons of water, Davis said. He also said criticisms of the conservation efforts of Las Vegans were unfair. The water authority has not allowed new homes to have turf in front yards, and only half of backyard landscaping can be grass. He said the water authority has managed to pull up more than 75 million feet of turf in a rebate program to replace the areas with desert landscaping.Western Resource Advocates said the water authority should adopt a steeper tiered pricing scale similar to Tucson's, which increases dramatically as the consumer uses more water. They said the city has seen rate increases deter water use. Davis said rate increases are part of the equation but can hurt people on fixed incomes. Educating the community, as the water authority plans to do with a million-dollar ad campaign that will roll out next week, is an area that needs more attention, he said. Davis said the valley has become more water-efficient in recent years and is moving toward Tucson-like levels of per-houshold water consumption. "I think that we are definitely moving in that direction," Davis said. "By and large, our residents are very supportive of water conservation."

We are even getting National Attention!

Vegas reaching for rural water Updated 10/19/2006 9:01 AM ET

AP A water agency official has warned that Las Vegas has run out of options for water unless plans are approved to pump ground water south from rural Nevada.       By John Ritter, USA TODAY BAKER, Nev. — Rancher Dean Baker picks his way through greasewood and sedge to a shallow dirt depression that was once a small pond fed by a natural spring. Both have been dry for years, casualties, he says, of pumping that draws underground water to the surface to irrigate fields and water livestock. Over a half-century, agriculture's needs have lowered the water table, Baker says, but it's nothing compared to what may be in store for this arid, sparsely populated, mile-high desert near the Utah border. The Southern Nevada Water Authority wants to pump vast quantities of groundwater from rural eastern Nevada valleys and pipe it 250 miles south to Las Vegas, the nation's fastest-growing major metro area, a tourist mecca with a limited water supply strained by population and prolonged drought. After hearings last month, a decision rests with State Engineer Tracy Taylor. More hearings on plans in other valleys are pending. The water authority aims to build a pipeline by 2015 and pump nearly 30 million gallons a year from 19 wells in Spring Valley alone. At stake, ranchers say, are livelihoods and a delicate ecological balance on a landscape cursed with at most 8 inches of rain and snow a year. "If they pull the water table down enough, this will be a dust bowl," says Baker, 66, whose family has raised cattle in Spring Valley since the 1950s. "It will completely change the economics of agriculture. It will also change the life of the 40 head of antelope that stay in that alfalfa field." Those concerns are unfounded, water authority officials say. Nevada law prohibits impinging on existing water rights, says general manager Pat Mulroy. "It's emotion," she says. "It's regionalism. It's rural vs. urban. It's fear-based. Protecting that environment will always be of tantamount importance to us." Scarce resource Since early settlers, water has been the West's scarcest and most valuable resource. Towns pumped water, just as ranchers did. Rivers, lakes and streams have been dammed, drained and diverted for decades and now offer little extra supply for expanding urban centers such as Salt Lake City, El Paso, Albuquerque, Phoenix and Tucson. Now groundwater is the target, even if, as in Las Vegas' case, it'll cost $3 billion or more to get it and benefit one region at the expense of another. "This is symptomatic of issues going on all over, particularly the Southwest," says Jeff Mount, director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis. "When you look at it on a bigger, multigenerational scale, we're basically mining these groundwater basins at rates that can't be sustained. When the water's gone, it's gone." Farms and ranches consume 80% of Western water supplies yet generate less than 1% of states' gross domestic product, says Hal Rothman, a history professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "The real question isn't whether water will be transferred from rural to urban use," he says. "The debate is over the terms of the transfer, how rural communities that cede water will derive fair and valuable benefits from it." Opponents of the water authority plan say it's one more instance of water flowing uphill toward money, like Los Angeles' notorious "water grab" from the Owens Valley in the early 1900s. That diversion — basis of the 1974 movie Chinatown— allowed L.A. to grow but dried up a productive farm region. "The parallels are stark," says Greg James, former director of the Inyo County, Calif., water department in the Owens Valley. "They're looking to build a pipeline, pump groundwater, and they're already acquiring ranchland." State water laws and federal environmental regulations wouldn't permit a repeat of Owens Valley, but ranchers want a guarantee that if the land suffers, the pumps would be shut down. Otherwise, "by the time we see the effects of pumping, it will be too late," says Gary Perea, a Democratic commissioner in White Pine County. The Mormon Church, based in Salt Lake City, owns water rights in Spring Valley and has asked the engineer to withhold approval until a U.S. Geological Survey study is finished next year. The authority built a computer model to predict effects on the water table but didn't run it. When it was run by a National Park Service hydrologist, it showed a 150-foot drop over 75 years. Mulroy calls those results "hypothetical." John Bredehoeft, a hydrogeologist who testified for opponents, says "it would have been detrimental" to the authority's case. Time is short, Mulroy says. The Las Vegas metro area — population 1.7 million, 20,000 new homes a year — relies on a share of Colorado River water stored in Lake Mead for 90% of its supply. Seven years of drought have lowered the lake to half its capacity. A year like 2002, when the river ran about a quarter of normal, "would invoke a crisis," Mulroy says. Reducing demand The water authority is spending millions of dollars to entice homeowners to replace irrigated lawns with drought-tolerant plants — 70% of water consumption goes outdoors. A system captures, treats and returns water from indoor plumbing to Lake Mead. Opponents say tougher conservation measures, including raising water rates as cities such as Tucson have done, could save as much as the authority plans to take from Spring Valley. "That penalizes people who can't afford it," Mulroy says. Ranchers may think Las Vegas should slow its growth, but that's a political non-starter in go-go southern Nevada. At the area's current growth rate, rural groundwater is a stopgap measure at best, says Matt Kenna, a lawyer with the Western Environmental Law Center representing opponents. Many people believe that if the engineer rejects a water transfer or awards an amount too small to make the pipeline economical, the authority will ask Congress for a bigger share from the Colorado River. When the river's flow was divided among seven states in 1922, Las Vegas was little more than a crossroads. Nearly a century later, 400 farmers in California's Imperial Valley still get 10 times more Colorado River water than Las Vegas does.   Posted 10/18/2006 11:11 PM ET

So now we find out of cahoots between the feds (Interior Department) and the SNWA!

Feds failed to inform tribes before pulling water protest

By Launce Rake <lrake@lasvegassun.com>, Las Vegas Sun
Las Vegas Sun

An agreement that swept away federal protests to the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plans to take billions of gallons annually from a rural White Pine County valley is raising objections from American Indians.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was among the Interior Department agencies that signed the stipulation withdrawing their protests to the plan to drill wells and pump water from Spring Valley. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, one of more than two dozen American Indian governments scattered throughout Nevada, said the bureau failed to advise the tribal government of the agreement before entering into the stipulation with the Las Vegas water agency Sept. 10.

"By supporting SNWA, the federal government is, as usual, completely ignoring the trust responsibility that it has to protect Indian tribes and tribal resources," said Ed Naranjo, vice chairman of the Goshute Reservation. "The federal government has also intentionally violated its legal responsibilities to consult with Indian tribes when taking any action that may affect Indian tribes."

The Goshute Reservation is about 70 miles north of Spring Valley, on the Utah-Nevada state line. The tribe has fewer than 500 members, according to Naranjo.

He said his concern is that natural resources, particularly water, are the tribe's most valuable resources.

The agreement between the Interior Department agencies, which included the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, came a day before the start of a two-week hearing before the Nevada state engineer's office.

The Water Authority, arguing that the water is needed to supply continued growth and to blunt feared effects from Western drought, has asked to take 91,000 acre-feet a year - about 30 billion gallons - from Spring Valley. The authority now supplies Las Vegas and its suburbs primarily with 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water it takes every year from Lake Mead.

Catherine Wilson, acting regional Bureau of Indian Affairs director, predicted that the Water Authority pumping will have few effects on the Indian lands and that in any case, the federal government should go along with what looked to be inevitable.

" ¦ The state engineer will likely rule in favor of SNWA and grant all or part of its requested amount of water unless there is overwhelming evidence that impacts will occur to existing water users, the proposed use will be detrimental to the public interests or there is no unappropriated water available," Wilson said in a Sept. 8 letter to the Goshutes. "With limited available data it is difficult to make a convincing case opposing the applications based on the above considerations."

The authority argued in the state engineer's hearing that Spring Valley can support the ground water plan without significant environmental damage, but has agreed to a still-unspecified program of monitoring and, if needed, mitigation.

Opponents to the ground water plan, among them environmentalists and White Pine County ranchers, argued that there is not sufficient water to support the authority's request without causing environmental damage.

The state engineer has to weigh the technical arguments and make a decision on how much water to take. His ruling is likely to take several months.

When the federal agencies announced the agreement with the authority, Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Pat Ragsdale said the water resources of the Goshutes and Ely Shoshone, another White Pine County tribe, would be protected.

"The terms of the agreement and associated monitoring network will ensure that any potential impacts from ground water pumping will be detected and addressed well before the impacts reach either reservation," Ragsdale said.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs letter to Goshute Tribal Chairman Rupert Steele acknowledges the lack of consultation.

"BIA apologizes for not being able to consult with the tribe on the stipulated agreement and 3M (monitoring, mitigation and management) Plan before it was approved," the letter said. "The timing of the hearing and the negotiations on the stipulated agreement limited BIA's ability to do so."

Naranjo, who testified against the Water Authority plan during the state engineer's hearings, noted that the Interior Department and the Las Vegas agency conducted negotiations over a period of months - the Interior Department said six months in a Sept. 11 news release - and could have consulted with American Indians during that time. He said the federal agency was legally required to consult with the tribe.

"They had ample time to consult with us," Naranjo said. "None of the tribes, as far as we know, was consulted."

Representatives of the Ely Shoshone, about 30 miles northwest of Spring Valley, and the Duckwater Shoshone in northwest Nye County, about 75 miles west, did not return Sun phone calls seeking comment.

Wendell Peacock, Bureau of Indian Affairs regional spokesman, said his agency will have ample opportunity to consult and comment with the Water Authority's independent but parallel process to win federal approval for the larger network of pumps and pipelines. The environmental impact study on the project could take another two years, he said.

"The Southern Nevada Water Authority cannot convey any water until it receives a right-of-way from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management)," Peacock said. "This process is just beginning. Nothing is cut and dried."

Peacock said neither the Goshutes nor any other American Indian group asked to be included as signatories on the agreement, and that all are miles away from Spring Valley.

"For that reason alone, that could be the reason the BIA wasn't knocking on their door over these projects," he said. "The impact to the tribes doesn't look like it will be more than minimal."

Naranjo said the Goshute Reservation's business council will meet Friday to discuss the federal-Southern Nevada Water Authority agreement and how to respond.

He said the issue should have been avoided:

"In the past, water litigation with Indian tribes has cost the federal government, state governments, local governments and tribal governments billions upon billions of dollars, which could have been avoided with a simple phone call."

This is NOT going away! Get your support to those who are standing up for rural Nevada!

Both sides hope for water decision to flow their way

By Launce Rake <lrake@lasvegassun.com>, Las Vegas Sun
Las Vegas Sun

Contentious hearings on the proposed transfer of billions of gallons of water from rural White Pine County to the Las Vegas Valley ended Monday, but it could be months before State Engineer Tracy Taylor decides how much, if any, water Las Vegas will get.

For both the Southern Nevada Water Authority and its allies, and those opposed to the massive pumping and pipeline plan, the arguments in Carson City were just a prelude.

Ken Albright, Water Authority ground water resources director, noted that the agency has four other basins in its overall plan to divert 180,000 acre-feet of water from rural Nevada to metropolitan Las Vegas. The 91,000 acre-feet it hopes to take from Spring Valley in White Pine County, however, is the linchpin to the authority's plan.

An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or enough for one or two typical family households for a year.

In testimony before the state engineer, which lasted two weeks, authority representatives argued that Spring Valley could support the withdrawal of the water without significantly harming the environment or existing water users.

The agency also argued that Las Vegas - and by extension, the economic framework of all Nevada - must have the water supply to augment the drought-threatened Colorado River, which provides nearly all of the urban supply, and to provide a dependable source for continued growth.

Opponents, mostly environmentalists and ranchers from rural Nevada and Utah, argued that the Water Authority exaggerated the availability of water from the region; that the withdrawal would threaten the rural areas' economic growth and environment; and that Las Vegas has viable alternatives, including conservation.

Taylor has to navigate tough technical and political terrain to make the decision, which is not expected to come until next year.

Albright said approval of anything less than the requested 91,000 acre-feet would drive up the cost to import the water from White Pine County, but that he could not say what would constitute enough, or too little, water to make the plan work.

"That's a billion-dollar question," he said. "I don't think there's a go/no go number."

Any additional supply could be critical - and is getting more valuable.

"We're really concerned about drought," Albright said. "We're concerned about drought relief. So that's something we have to weigh."

Although anxious to get the state engineer's verdict, authority engineers and staff have plenty to do in the meantime. A pre-hearing agreement with the federal government to monitor and mitigate any environmental effects opens a suite of work.

"I think we're relatively comfortable from the biological standpoint, but that's not to say we're 100 percent," Albright said. "We really want to figure out how we can develop the water in a safe and environmentally sound manner. And to do that, we need a whole lot of data."

Interior Department agencies struck the 11th-hour deal with the Water Authority that removed federal protests to the Spring Valley applications.

Diana Weigmann, the Interior Department liaison to the Water Authority, said federal agencies also have much to do. A biological work group and technical review panel must be set up, along with an overall monitoring program.

The federal agencies also must determine how to fund the oversight program and how much it will cost.

Plan opponents - and they are legion - also are not resting.

Bob Fulkerson, director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a liberal political group that has led the opposition, said his group will launch a campaign this month to tell Clark County residents that the ground water plan could cost billions more than the $2 billion estimated by the Water Authority.

"We're going to be laying out, in laymen's terms, what the project means for Las Vegas and what the alternatives are," he said. "We want a conversation with residents on whether this is a good path to go down."

The opposition also needs to ready arguments for additional hearings on plans to draw water from other parts of White Pine and Lincoln counties, Fulkerson said: "This is just the first hearing, the first phase."

And both sides also are looking toward a federal environmental approval process independent of the state's. A draft federal environmental impact analysis could be open for public comment in early 2008.

Matt Kenna, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center who represented the opposition during September's hearing, said that even the debate over the Spring Valley applications could extend well beyond the state engineer's decision.

A court appeal from either advocates or opponents is "definitely possible," he said.

"I don't say it's an absolute certainty, though. If he (Taylor) comes with a decision that's down the middle, maybe both sides would be happier not going to court. It's possible."

A court challenge could take years to resolve.

"Ultimately, there probably is some amount that could be withdrawn without affecting the environment," he said. "The question then becomes: Is that enough water to justify building a pipeline?"

Pat Mulroy says Snake Valley has "VAST" amounts of water available for pumping into Southern Nevada. (picture R. Marsh Starks, Las Vegas Sun)

Las Vegas will run out of water in 7 to 10 years according to the Las Vegas Sun article. There is no doubt Las Vegas WANTS the water in the rural White Pines and Lincoln counties and there is also little doubt that they have the "juice" in Nevada and with our politicians to start pumping. What is in doubt is:

 -  their promises to STOP pumping if the environment is impacted

 -  their concern for farmers and ranchers along the way

 -  the damage in construction of a billion dollar 200 mile pipeline

Mulroy is putting the pressure on the state's engineer Tracy Taylor saying she will be the first engineer to doom Las Vegas construction. PRO Nevada understands that Las Vegas WILL get the water it needs. So what is left for rural Nevada to do? First, we can fight the inevitable, a microcosm of the Yucca Mountain battle, delay the project with suits and studies for so long the Water Authority has to come up with other options. Second, we can make them pay dearly for the water. While farmers and ranchers are getting rich selling their farms and water rights to Las Vegas, the town governments and people should also feel the largesse. While there is a danger of what happened in CA repeated here we don't think it would happen again, but you never know for sure before it is too late. It will be interesting to see what the rural population decides to do and which side of the debate they come down on. BUT the PEOPLE should decide not a few powerful individuals, that is PRO Nevada!

Nye County Commissioners make a play for Rural Water

According to an article in the Pahrump Valley Times the Nye County commissioners are filing for water rights in Northern Nye County. These are new filings, they are RE-filing for these rights with the hope of having those rights to provide Pahrump with water.

Everybody who knows what they are talking about as far as water is concerned recognizes the fact that Pahrump is OVER-ALLOCATED in its water usage. This is due to amazing growth in the last year but even more due to the fact that people in Pahrump refuse to be regulated. So the county commissioners have nothing to do BUT seek more water for Pahrump. According to the article the other reason they are making a play for the water is the fact that "if they don't, Las Vegas will." Stated very succinctly by outgoing Commissioner Trummell.

If the Nye County Commissioner's water play is for the purpose of keeping Nye County Water in Nye County and for the benefit of Nye County that would be PRO Nevada. If their intent is to suck the rural communities dry in favor of Pahrump that is definitely NOT PRO Nevada. We will have to wait and see which way they go.

They are buying up the place!

The Las Vegas Valley water district is buying up more and more water rights and more and more land attached to them in White Pines and Lincoln. Here is the map provided by the Las Vegas Sun

Now we at PRO Nevada are ANTI-Screwing Rural Nevada. and we really, truly, honestly believe this whole deal would be bad for White Pines and Lincoln Counties (Check out previous posts) . It is great to spend billions of dollars on building this pipeline and employing rural Nevadans to do it but ... long run ... water is the new gold in Nevada and it is like Vegas is pulling that gold right out from under our Rural Counties.

This pipeline project is NOT PRO Nevada!

___________________________________________________________________________________