FONT SIZE | RSS FEEDS EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS POST A COMMENT EMAIL ALERTS
View all blog entries
February 2009
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  
Monthly archives
CityBlog lends its dubious endorsement to these fine Internet products.
It’s not about water. It’s about greed.

Unleash the were-dolphins!
Unleash the were-dolphins!

Reader Dean Baker, president of Baker ranches, writes:

Pipelines built to take the water and the future of rural Nevada to grow the metropolitan cites of Nevada will be the biggest disaster the people of Nevada have ever faced.  It will affect every single person.  Some in Nevada believe cities should get the water.  Las Vegas Water Authority filed on Oct. 17, 1989, about 20 years ago, for the underground water of rural Nevada.

Those of us who look at this project from rural Nevada view it as greed, money, and power, simply versus what is right; right for the environment, right for the future and growth of rural Nevada, right for the state of Nevada, right for food from agricultural production, and right for wildlife.

SNWA and its “Harry Reid Legacy Pipeline” effort to take water from eastern rural Nevada shows a belief only in the growth of the metropolitan areas.

It is clear that the ranching industry is an obstacle to taking water from rural Nevada.  This is shown by SNWA buying the ranches in Spring Valley.  It was for water ONLY.  There is a problem that a less expensive way to kill the ranching industry in Nevada is to stop public land grazing.  The pipeline projects are pushed forward by political power.  This power is pushed by greed and money, with little care for the environment.  This “Harry Reid Legacy Pipeline” of SNWA is the example of the day.

Joe Guild, a lawyer and lobbyists, has worked for SNWA in the Nevada Cattle Industry, getting $126,000 per year plus expenses. This simply is one example of the use of money to establish control and influence.  There have been many highly paid people to show only positive positions and shade any negative information.  It appears federal agencies have had influence from above to make agreements and will have no power to shut off the pumps.  The Las Vegas Sun quoted the head of SNWA, saying that if the state engineer didn’t give them the water they wanted, the state engineer would be replaced. This  creates the real question of who is not being influenced by power and money for the amount of water in the pipeline.

There has been a lack of knowledge coupled with a lack of caring about the impacts of this pumping and pipeline project.  SNWA did not know a large spring existed that has long been used for agricultural production. This sight has a grave yard, 130 years old, at its side.

Just after SNWA brought the ranches, the head of the ranching operation of SNWA said they were going to show other ranches how ranches should be ran.  He believed what he was saying.  There are real questions if they knew what they were getting into buying and trying to run the sheep and cattle ranches.  SNWA lost about a million dollars cash, trying to ranch, last year.

SNWA’s lack of knowledge is that in the end the largest potential loser is Las Vegas itself.  Billions will have to be spent on the pipeline. The biggest question is, “Will there be enough water to justify the billion dollar pipeline or will there have to be more billion dollar pipelines reaching farther into the deserts and meadows of northern Nevada?”

From the top down SNWA has often said they can take the water without impacting the area.  Any knowledgeable person looking at their applications knows there will be significant environmental impacts.  The only reason that SNWA bought ranches in Spring Valley is because of the impacts they know will come with the pumping of water.

There was a discussion with a significant person working to achieve the SNWA water grab, when the expression of “What was Right” was used.  He strongly said that “Right” had nothing to do with this project, only the “Legal Rights” established on October 17, 1989 counted.  Quit talking about what is “right,” it has no relevance to this project.

Is it right that the sending of an October 17, 1989 application to the Nevada State Engineer has more power of what is right than all of the impacts on the environment, wildlife, agriculture food production, and the future of rural Nevada, than an October 17, 1989 piece of paper?  Nevada should look at what is right and work hard to get southern Nevada another source of water, with controlling growth and conservation as other options.

What is right should be the goal, not just greed, power, and money.

Post a comment!
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.
One Response to “It’s not about water. It’s about greed.”

It’s time to reinforce the old western water law of “first in use, first in right” when it comes to the customers of the southern Nevada water districts. The current system of vilifying water uses outside the “officially defined” norm is nonsense and is building a “tragedy of the commons” based on a series of perverse incentives.

If a current water user signs up for turf removal or water smart use there is no real conservation benefit. Perverse incentives include putting that water back into the common pool which is then resold to developers whom in turn create even more demand on an already scarce resource. There is no benefit to the environment as the Feds have already locked up water for endangered species such as the Moapa Dace and the Armargosa pupfish. Less residential water use will not save a single ranch in Rural Nevada as the “saved” water merely goes back into the already overused common pool for sale to more developers.

There are a substantial number of people who believe that taming and greening the desert is both a moral and very human reaction to a hostile climate and that it has a civilizing effect. Many disagree, but if the water is legally obtained and has been put to that beneficial use then the “first in use-first in right” principle should apply. Those who will howl at such a notion should remember a couple of things. First every drop of water going into a lawn or tree is a drop denied the developers for more building which compounds demand on the common pool. Second, if there is a water crisis, it is a crisis of unwise growth further fueled by a feel-good water saving campaign which makes more water available for more growth.

Friends and Neighbors are not dropping like flies due to the lack of water. The danger to the pupfish comes mainly from its keepers, not from lawns and trees. Unbridled growth further fueled by “water savings” imposed on residents will not preserve a single ranch, it only emboldens the Mullroys and Bunkers in their quest to depopulate central Nevada with the neutron bomb of water extraction.

There is a place for growth and a means for residents to participate in the wealth it generates with a simple recognition of “first in use, first in right”. By virtue of buying a water tap of a given size each house has secured a “right” to all of the water it will flow as long as the bill is paid. If, from this day forward, developers had to provide to the water districts, drop for drop, the amount of real water their project would use then a true incentive for water conservation could be developed.

Developers, not the water districts would have to go to existing homeowners and buy the excess first in use rights and that would quickly establish a market value for those rights. The buyer (not the districts) negotiates with and pays the homeowner to tear up lawn (yes, another perverse incentive from my view) and convert to water smart households. The districts in turn, bank a pool of common water for true emergencies when my neighbors and friends really do need a drink. That requires true conservation, not some ginned up PR campaign that puts lipstick on a pig.

It might even slow growth long enough to reassess the insanity of the neutron pipeline. Most importantly it allows individual choice and a very small opportunity to share in the riches of desert water.

.

Written by: Overdone in Overton on Monday, Feb. 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM
CityPics
Community photo sharing
View reader photos and share your own at CityPics