Here's the latest on the Las Vegas 300 mile pipeline drawn out from the Snake and Spring Valley aquifers further north. Similar to the opposition against the peripheral canal of CA, NV residents came out in full force at a recent SNWA board meeting to voice their opposition to the SNWA's pipeline madness..
"BREAKING NEWS: The much vaunted “up or down” vote on the proposed Great Basin pipeline that General Manager Pat Mulroy reportedly demanded of her board at the Southern Nevada Water Authority today descended into a long, polite and more than a little bit bizarre political retreat. Rather than confront her board to commit to the pipeline, as it was reported that Mulroy would do by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mulroy instead asked it for permission to do what she was doing already: Cooperating with the ongoing US Bureau of Land Management environmental review process and hammering out a Snake Valley monitoring agreement.
Why the damp squib, or as board members called it, the “misunderstanding?” The normally accurate R-J reporter Henry Brean may have invented a non-existent showdown*, duly followed up on by its editorial pages and those of the Las Vegas Sun. Or someone might have pointed out to Mulroy the unseemliness of demanding that her board approve a project that has not yet been cleared under the National Environmental Policy Act. Or Mulroy might actually have thought better than to dare her board vote on a project that as yet has no fixed price tag.
At any rate, at 12.57pm, the Board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority voted unanimously to approve these two motions to do with the proposed Great Basin pipeline:
7. … Direct staff to proceed with state and federal permitting processes, fulfill the requirements of stipulated agreements, and complete the necessary biologic and hydrologic monitoring efforts to support these activities.
8. Authorize the General Manager to execute, in materially the same form, the Agreement for Management of the Snake Valley Groundwater System among the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the Authority, and the Snake Valley Environmental Monitoring and Management Agreement between the State of Utah and the Authority.
Selected quotes from more than 40 public comments, along with remarks from the Board, may be found at “Pipeline, what pipeline?”
*UPDATE: Henry Brean writes: “The board members made a big show of saying that today’s vote was not on whether or not to build the pipeline, and technically that is correct. However, had they voted today not to continue with the EIS [environmental impact statement] and permitting process, the project would stop. And not merely the part of it in Snake Valley, but all of it since the EIS concerns the entire pipeline right of way. Of course, no one expected them to do anything other than exactly what they did, and I think I made that clear in my reporting leading up to today’s vote. The tone of your blog post suggests otherwise, though. The implication is that I and the R-J mislead people. I, of course, strongly disagree with that.”
This post, which began live during the board vote, has been updated repeatedly. Last update: 6.30am August 21, 2009"
above article found @; http://chanceofrain.com/las-vegas/las-vegas-blinks/#more-6003
"Pipeline? What Pipeline?"
"IF August 20th in Las Vegas proved anything, it’s what can happen when a publicity stunt backfires.
What had been hyped by a local newspaper and Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, as an “up-or-down” vote on the Las Vegas pipeline project soon gave way to embarrassed disclaimers from members of the SNWA board. They were ”not voting upon starting to build a pipeline” assured director after director but rather “voting upon continuing a process to pursue environmental permits.”
The meeting room was packed with Nevadans there to beg the SNWA board for mercy or sing the praises of White Pine County, the place of springs and seeps that SNWA’s proposed 300-mile pipeline would tap most heavily (photos above). After 20 years of pursuing the pipeline project, SNWA general manager Pat Mulroy has the stomach to face down pudgy-cheeked, cap-in-hand octogenarian ranchers whose family farms her pipeline will surely dewater. But yesterday in Las Vegas, her relatively new board did not. Mulroy won her “up-or-down vote” to keep on doing her job for another day, but the 40 speakers from the estimated 300 protestors present won hearts and minds.
Mulroy, who along with her deputy Kay Brothers took the floor first, gave a 45-minute presentation of her Water Resource Plan. The gist: the drought on Colorado compels Las Vegas to build this pipeline. It has to be shovel-ready when Colorado River shortages kick in.
Then for nigh on three hours, members of the audience took to the microphone, some for the pipeline, most against it. These are quotes from some of the 40 people given three minutes each at the mike.
“Albuquerque is down to 80 gallons per day. Las Vegas is at 250. Take that 250 gallons and make it 80 and avoid pipelines and dams.” – Snake Valley hotelier Terry Morasco
“I wish I could show you Antelope springs. It is a pond, it is dry now.” — Gary Perea, County Commissioner, White Pine County, home to three of five valleys currently targeted by Las Vegas
“I’m afraid [for] the 23,000 working men and women of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council and our families.” — Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross from Ward 6, the fastest growing sector of Las Vegas
“As I understand it, you don’t need a political showing for your staff to continue with their environment permitting … I’m just asking for no vote today, no political showing on something that is unnecessary.” — Scot Rutledge, Executive Director, Nevada Conservation League
“You guys are used to looking at Lake Mead. The [Great Basin] aquifer is a very different animal from that. It’s very risky.” — Robin Bell, resident of Ely, Nevada in White Pine County, the target for the majority of Las Vegas’s pumps
“The fact is you don’t turn a spigot and the water comes out unless you do all the long terms plans.. we think it’s critical and crucial that this be approved now. We’ve seen millions of people move to the valley and we’ve consumed billions of gallons less.” — Tom Warden, Howard Hughes Corporation General Growth Properties division
“It strikes me as frankly amazing that this board would feel comfortable with the question of approving a massive project like this without any reliable cost figures.” — Clark County Assemblyman Joseph Hogan
“…29 miles of streams, five kinds of trout, 5,000 year-old bristlecone pines and 40 cave systems …I manage them for you. They’re a national treasure. ” Andy Ferguson on the features of the Great Basin National Park, whose adjoining valleys will be the sites of the heaviest pumping
“My family has lived in this state for six generations. One thing we are standing on [in Las Vegas] is an oasis of hidden water. It’s available through water conservation.” Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada pointing out how retrofitting of toilets, taps and indoor appliances could find the water that Las Vegas needs within the city, not in rural Nevada. “Brisbane, Australia is down to 38 gallons per capita per day,” he said. Las Vegas is at 250.
“As a board, you have a responsibility that you should stop wasting time and money on a pipeline that will not produce the water.” — Snake Valley Rancher Dean Baker
“There is no surplus water in Snake Valley and when you start pumping the water table is going to go down. I have for 36 years worked with that water. I know what it will do, I will know what it won’t do.” — Snake Valley rancher Cecil Garland
“I don’t understand why you want a 10-year delay on Snake Valley when supposedly there’s an emergency.” — Susan Lynn of the Great Basin Water Network founded to oppose the pipeline
“I don’t want to live in a dust bowl and I’m frightened.” — Margaret Pense, Snake Valley resident
“Myth: we will only develop the pipeline when it’s absolutely necessary. … If you’re Harvey Whittemore in Coyote Springs, ‘absolutely necessary’ is yesterday.” — Launce Rake, former environment reporter of the Las Vegas Sun, now spokesman for Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, on the politically connected Lincoln County land developer Harvey Whittemore whose plans for a vast desert city north of Las Vegas depends on the pipeline project being built
“Why are we still watering the lawns?… why do we still act as if there is no emergency unless it is about voting for this pipeline? It makes no sense to me.” — Henderson resident Steve Rypka
“The groundwater decline [caused by the pipeline] is likely to amount to 20 to 30 the times the decline that has occurred in the last 12,000 years.” — James Deacon, biologist and Professor Emeritus, University of Nevada Las Vegas
“It’s my understanding that today’s vote is not to build the pipeline. I don’t know if there’s a misunderstanding or if people are just emotional … It’s incumbent upon us and staff to pursue everything. One thing is important. There is a neighbor sitting here. I am very concerned about the jobs situation. This project would create thousands of jobs at a time when we desperately need them… Clark County is the economic engine that drives the State of Nevada. … It’s important that there’s reciprocity when Clark County’s in need as well … I’m particularly impressed by the respectfulness that has been shown.” – SNWA director and Clark County commissioner Steve Sisolak
“We’re not voting on whether or not to build this pipeline today. We’re voting on whether or not to continue the environmental impact studies. I do not believe we know everything we need to know … What we’re talking about here is a really important, central feature of what the rest of our lives are going to be.” — Boulder City councilman and SNWA director Duncan McCoy
“If we vote in favor of this, our political futures are toast. We have political targets on our backs.” – Boulder City councilman and SNWA director Duncan McCoy
“How polite you’ve been … Today’s vote is not on final approval to begin the pipeline. Rather it’s a vote to continue to pursue permits and environmental studies in order to be able to proceed … I hope the pipeline is never needed.” — SNWA director and Las Vegas City councilwoman Lois Tarkanian
“There are some things that I’d like to see us pursue further. Are those 80 gallons from people a reality? Does our public really know what they use? … We’ve done a good job [at conservation], I think we can do better.” — SNWA director Susan Brager
“The importance of water is not lost on us.” — SNWA vice-chair and City of Henderson councilman Steven Kirk
“We have been to Ely and to Baker [in White Pine County, target of the pipeline] and we will come again and it’s a beautiful place and it’s a beautiful part of Nevada and thank you for being willing to visit with us.” — Shari Buck, chairperson, SNWA board and mayor of North Las Vegas
8/20 UPDATES: Click on the highlighted words for August 20th board meeting reports Channel Eight Las Vegas Now, Las Vegas Review Journal, a fuller R-J report and results of R-J Clark County poll. Channel 5 (local Fox news) has a slightly misinformed TV report with an on-line poll about the project. Comment period on the UT-NV Snake Valley has been extended in Utah reports the Salt Lake Tribune
8/21 UPDATES: from Aquafornia, news service of the Water Education Foundation: Click on the highlighted words for an update from the Ely Times in White Pine County. The SNWA board meeting is covered in the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal looks at rare and endangered species in the path of the pipeline.
8/22: UPDATE: for a visit to the Snake Valley Ranch of Cecil Garland by Salt Lake Tribune columnist Peg McEntee, click here.
article found @; http://chanceofrain.com/las-vegas/pipeline-what-pipeline/
Click here for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, proponent of the pipeline plan; http://www.snwa.com/
Click here for the Great Basin Water Network, the group formed to oppose it; http://greatbasinwaternetwork.org/
Chance for public comment in writing;
(NOTE: Comments need not be limited to Nevada residents! Anyone who cares about our shared ecosystems in the desert, the future of Great Basin National Park and other natural resources should feel free to question the logic of SNWA's proposed pipeline. Any suggestion of novel techniques for water conservation besides the pipeline would help SNWA managers realize that there are many other options beside the pipeline.)
Comment period on Snake Valley Utah-Nevada Agreement Extended to September 30
Comment period on Snake Valley Utah-Nevada Agreement Extended to September 30, 2009.
Get a copy of the agreement: http://naturalresources.utah.gov/about-dnr/snake-valley-groundwater-agreement.html http://water.nv.gov/
Written comments about the agreement will be accepted until September 14, 2009.
Comments may be sent by e-mail to:
snakevalley [at] utah.gov
snakevalley [at] water.nv.gov
Comments may be submitted in writing to:
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Utah Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Rights
1594 West North Temple, Suite 220
SLC, UT 84114
Snake Valley Agreement
c/o Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
901 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89701
UTAH: Tammy Kikuchi, Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, office: (801) 538-7326, cell: (801) 918-1290;- tkikuchi [at] utah.gov
NEVADA: Bob Conrad, Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, office: (775) 684-2712, cell: (775) 636-7959, bconrad [at] dcnr.nv.gov
visit site @; http://greatbasinwaternetwork.org/fray/fray_display.php?id=27