Las Vegas: Sustaining Growth or Dry Times Ahead?

Quite an original title, right? Just couldn't come up with something more alliterative.

A number of friends (John Fleck, Michael Dale) alerted me to this story about a 'trigger' that would cause the Southern Nevada Water Authority to initiate its plan to pump groundwater from rural Nevada and pipe to southern Nevada.

If the water level in Lake Mead drops another 23 feet to 1075 feet above mean sea level, then the water authority board will be asked to give its official approval to build the project.

Say what? You mean the board hasn't given its official approval?

Here is what Henry Brean says in his 1 June 2009 Las Vegas Review-Journal article:

The lake trigger is the newest addition to the authority's Water Resource Plan, which plots how the valley's wholesale water supplier expects to keep local taps running amid unprecedented drought on the Colorado.

Board members have already approved the pipeline concept and signed off on ongoing efforts to secure water rights and environmental permits, but they have never actually voted to build the project.

That decision will come if, or perhaps when, the surface of Lake Mead sinks to elevation 1,075, a low-water mark not seen since 1937 when the reservoir was being filled for the first time.

Water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy doesn't know when the trigger point might be reached.

The trigger point has more significance. Brean continues:

Elevation 1,075 is significant for another reason. It is the legal threshold for a shortage on the Colorado River, a federal designation that would force Nevada and Arizona to reduce the amount of water they pull from the river.

Nevada's share of such a shortage would be 13,000 acre-feet a year, roughly the amount used by 26,000 average households. Arizona would be shorted more than 10 times that amount.

The lake level is now at 1098 feet, its lowest since 1965, when Lake Powell was being filled.

The SNWA plans ultimately call for about 134,000 acre-feet to be pumped from rural Nevada. That is enough for about 270,000 homes by 2020. Critics charge that pumping could have disastrous effects on ecosystems and the lifestyle in rural areas, all to fuel growth in southern Nevada. The SNWA contends that the pipeline is not about sustaining growth but protecting the community from extended drought on the Colorado River.

According to Brean:

Water authority officials long have said the pipeline is not about sustaining growth, but protecting the community from extended drought on the Colorado River.

The phrase "not about sustaining growth" is really hard to swallow.

When I was in Tucson at the recent Ground Water Summit, I heard Kenneth A. Albright, PE, SNWA's Director of Groundwater Resources, speak. To my disappointment, he did not speak much about groundwater per se, but about SNWA water resources in general. He said that in SNWA's service area they were planning on 3.6M residents by 2035. That's approximately double the current population.

So a doubling of population in about 25 years is not growth?

What about conservation?

Albright said SNWA's conservation goal was 199 gallons per capita per day by 2035; usage is now about 254 gallons pcpd. Both figures are pretty pathetic, when you consider what other Western USA cities are doing. Just yesterday, I got a Tweet touting that Long Beach just reached 105 gallons pcpd. Seattle is about 102 gallons pcpd, San Diego is about 150 gallons pcpd and Albuquerque is below 175 gallons pcpd. Here are some more Western cities (thanks to Chris Brooks).

So even though SNWA has recently gotten quite aggressive conservation-wise, it could do much better than 199 gallons pcpd in 25 years.

If SNWA is not seeking more water to fuel growth, perhaps it should get the word out to its employees.

And that 'trigger'? It just may be part of a gun pointed at rural Nevada.

“The problem with communication…is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” – George Bernard Shaw

Comments

[dw]

The '1075' level for Lake Mead comes from the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Colorado River System Reservoirs document:
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/rsvrs/ops/aop/AOP09_final.pdf

Another document that briefly explains what the AOP is and the Interim Guidelines:
http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/Projects/Lake%20Powell%20Pipeline/Interim%20Guidelines%20info%20sheet.pdf

[Michael]

Hi, Ron.

I think the 1075' level was established after Glen Canyon Dam was built, and I think it was just an arbitrary level recently set by the SNWA.

[PAUL F MILLER]

It never ceases to amaze me how easily we forget residing in Las Vegas where theatrics, hype, PR, creating the mood, staging … rules and is king … SNWA plays its hand as a manner reminiscent of virtuoso violinist mesmerizing the audience in part with its apparent audacity. I believe much of SNWA successes reflect its boldness while its adversaries contemplate their next cautious move. Living in an environment where caution is often thrown to the wing, why does everyone expect SNWA will react in a conservative manner…?

Given the overwhelming majority population in Clark County as opposed to the rest of the state, there is little doubt in my mind that Las Vegas and therefore SNWA can muster the votes where ever needed in the State Legislature to gain access to the water in northeastern Nevada. On the other hand, Nevada faces resolute opposition from its neighbor to the East – Utah – no slouches themselves in mustering in a moment’s notice formidable political muscle.

And I suspect, though I have no proof, Arizona and California and quite possible New Mexico will play behind the scene roles attempting to undermine SNWA attempt to augment its water plight by the taking of northeast Nevada county water.

Like all numbers the vaunted – 1075 – is for the moment holy grail but should that hallowed number be achieved do not be surprised to see any number of “deals” be proposed to stave off SNWA action.

Just follow the $$$ historically it has pointed to the winner and this could be a most intriguing challenge for the members of the Compact of the River.

[Ron Parry]

Was the 1075' legal threshold set up before or after the construction of the Glen Canyon dam? If it was established after the GC dam was constructed, then it doesn't appear to make much sense since the level in Mead is dependent on how much water is released from Lake Powell.

[Launce Rake]

For SNWA, it is all about theater and public relations. Here's what the story doesn't say: When the "trigger" (which Mulroy is so eagerly anticipating) is reached, suddenly SNWA can start taking 200,000 a/f/y out of rural Nevada, destroying, oh, about 30,000 square miles or so of the Great Basin. It is NOT about replacing what would be lost from any reduction in the allocation from the Colorado River, because that would only be 15K a/f/y or so. It is a ruse.
And by the way, the actual consumptive use by the entire Las Vegas Valley is now about 265,000 a/f/y, and declining, despite the fact that SNWA has slashed funding for conservation programs and staff. This irritating bit of info, for Mulroy, also wasn't in the story. What that means is that even in the face of a mandatory allocation cut, the SNWA still won't have any trouble meeting demand with existing supply.
And one more thing: The SNWA expects to meet the conservation goal of 199 gallons per capita, per day, by squeezing more people into the valley and making those newcomers use less water, not by changing the use and abuse patterns of the millionaires pumping water down the streets of their gated communities. Mulroy herself uses nearly 700,000 gallons annually for two people - and thinks that's just dandy, thankyaverymuch.
A number of organizations, including the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (for which I work) and the Great Basin Water Network (whose board is serve on) are just asking Mulroy and the SNWA board to cut the bull. We will not solve our water issues by spending hundreds of millions on PR campaigns and defoliating the American West.

[Susan Lynn]

Las Vegas has just recently let go most of its "water police" people, indicating that water conservation is not important. They do not practice any indoor conservation. So please tell me whether water conservation is really important to SNWA.

You caught them in their usual "talking out of both sides of their mouth." Thank you for raising the issues.

[Emily Green]

Glad you posted this.

These trigger theatrics are a case of Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Las Vegas Valley Water District, thundering in early June, with some freak showers and lightning and maybe a wildfire or two.

Pat is an accidental conservationist. She came into the Las Vegas Valley Water District and subsequently formed the Southern Nevada Water Authority to do two things: face down California on the unlikely chance that it would wake up nice and give Las Vegas some of the Colorado River water, all the while moving on Great Basin ground water for Las Vegas.

In the twenty years that she's run water in Las Vegas, she did both things. The first unsurprisingly failed, though she had some good innings. The second grab for rural ground water is proceeding as planned.

The "trigger" date completely ignores that there is case with the Nevada Supreme Court over due process for the pipeline's rural protestants, that the BLM environmental impact review in not finished and the last of the key State Engineer hearings to award water for the pipeline hasn't been held.

But thunder doesn't listen.

[Michael]

Dear David and Leif,

Thanks for your comments - much appreciated.

On the same panel with Kenneth Albright were
David Modeer of the Central Arizona Project and Andrew Sienkiewich of SoCal's MWD. With all due respect, I don't think any of these guys "get it" (at least not publicly!) about the water future of the SW USA. More of the SOS.

Leif - thanks for pointing out Brisbane's usage. Makes us in the USA look like wastrels.

[David Zetland]

Wow -- I think you caught them -- twice. First, they are not even NEAR efficient (per capita) and, second, they are expanding. Note that I have pointed out how SNWA makes money from growth here: http://aguanomics.com/2009/05/vegas-accounting.html

(Note that I have "solved" the Lake Mead problem by proposing a PRICE on withdrawals that rises as the lake level falls, but nobody appears to have heard of economics -- let alone the environment -- in the land of "you make $0.95 on every dollar!"... http://aguanomics.com/2009/05/lake-mead-still-draining.html)

Someone has to slap these people and remind them that there's a thing called "reality' out there!

[Leif]

And Brisbane's residential consumption is less than 40 gallons pcpd (http://www.qwc.qld.gov.au/).