"The water grab is doomed"

by George Knapp

"In the end, it all comes down to this: For the proposed rural groundwater project to be necessary, the Colorado River must run dry.

The mighty Colorado, which has flowed long enough to carve the Grand Canyon one grain of sandstone at a time, longer than there have been humans on the planet, must run dry for the water grab to make sense and for its proponents to not look like idiots or crooks.

The specter of a dried-up Colorado River has emerged as the last refuge for water-grab backers. It's become their Maginot Line, the place they've holed up with all of their soldiers and will make their final stand. But as with the actual Maginot Line, the world is quickly moving beyond the water grab and is no longer frightened by the saber-rattling.

What's most amazing to me is these are the same water officials who, 25 years ago, outright scoffed at predictions about climate change and extended drought. At the time, they would have done anything to keep the growth machine humming, so they ignored very specific, scientifically supported evidence that climate change was not only possible but likely. Now, they have not only embraced climate change, they are making out with it in the back seat. Because it is all they've got.

When I read the banner headline article in the Sunday newspaper, I thought, now there's an example of public service, and by that I mean the act of servicing a public agency. On the day before water-grab opponents were to begin testimony before the state engineer, the newspaper gave a huge swatch of ink and space to Southern Nevada Water Authority boss Pat Mulroy, and allowed her to take a pre-emptive shot at what she presumed would be the arguments from those who think the groundwater plan will be a disaster. That's a pretty sweet deal for a public official to get from a newspaper -- the chance to answer arguments before they have been made.

The main thrust of this PR release was that proposals for desalinization plants on the Pacific coast can never solve Nevada's water woes because there are sooo many problems with this futuristic Star Trek technology, plus California will never go along with it, plus it's really expensive, and um, it uses lots of energy, and it puts too much salt back in the ocean and ... the biggie ... it would still leave us dependent on the Colorado River, which we all know could go dry any day.

The SNWA really does have a lot of nerve talking about desalting plants as if it knows anything about the topic. Here's what the newspaper did not bother to ask -- what studies has SNWA conducted on desalting technology? What projections or cost estimates has it done? How many conversations has SNWA had with water officials in California about whether such a plan might work?

As of one year ago, SNWA had zero papers written about desalting plants, zero cost estimates and had never had formal conversation with anyone in California about any of this stuff. They don't want to know about the desalination option because it might provide an alternative to the water grab, a project they have already squandered more than $100 million on and are more than happy to spend billions more pursuing.

A few weeks ago, California water officials were in Ely for a conference of the Central Nevada Water Authority, made up of counties in Nevada, California and Utah that are opposed to the water grab. The Californians explained that desalinization is not a far-off technology. There are 15,000 plants operating around the world right now. California is operating four right this minute, and somehow they have managed to conquer the terrible environmental problems mentioned by SNWA. Know what else the California guys said? That they are aware of no talks whatsoever between SNWA and their counterparts in the Golden State regarding how to trade California's river water for ocean water that had been desalted in plants built by us.

California water agencies figure that a desalting plant can be built for about $400 million. Four such plants could provide more than the amount of water that would be taken in the grab, without sucking rural Nevada dry and for less than half of what the pipeline will cost. California is preparing to build more, whereas in Nevada, we are preparing to spend billions on a solution that might last 10 years.

The other big news at the Ely conference concerns a July ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court. It quietly ruled that counties have the right to essentially overrule the state engineer when it comes to water projects that might destroy the environment. It was a case that started in Washoe County, but the reverberations were felt throughout the state. It means, for instance, that little White Pine County can tell SNWA where to stick its pipeline.

If the state engineer approves the removal of some rural groundwater, the real battle will begin. It will be fought in state and federal courts, in lawsuits filed by national environmental groups with deep pockets, in lawsuits filed by rural residents, and in lawsuits filed by county governments. Twenty years from now, there will still be court battles under way, and Las Vegas water officials will still be hiding behind their Maginot Line.

Instead of waiting 20 years to start on a permanent solution, SNWA should begin talking right now to California officials about desalting plants. Launch a study, get some cost estimates. And in the meantime, institute meaningful water conservation rather than crowing about the modest gains of voluntary turf removal. (Oh, that's right. Conservation won't work because it still leaves us dependent on the Colorado, and we know what that means.)

The Colorado won't run dry anytime soon. And that pipeline is never going to be built."

George Knapp is a Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter for KLA Channel 8. Reach him at gknapp [at] klastv.com.



http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2011/11/03/opinion/knappster/iq_48530248.txt