Nevada’s rapid population growth shows no sign of slowing

Friday, March 10, 2000 | 11:09 a.m.

Rapid population, a virtual mantra for Nevada and Clark County over the last two decades, continues, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.

The bureau's numbers, rough estimates based on state and local information along with the 1990 census, show that Clark County grew 64 percent in the 1990s, adding over 600,000 people between April 1990 and July 1999, for a total population of 1.2 million.

Nye County grew by 67 percent, but only by 12,000 people, the bureau estimated.

The state as a whole grew by 50 percent, to a total population of 1.8 million.

Clark County was the third-fastest growing county in the country after Los Angeles County and Maricopa County, Ariz. All of the top 10 fastest- growing counties are in the West. With the exception of Clark and Maricopa counties, all are in California or Texas.

The bureau report comes as data collectors, called enumerators, are starting to fan out throughout the region to gather information for Census 2000, the once-a-decade federal effort to count every person in the country.

The latest numbers -- which show a 65,481 increase in the state and 55,896 for Clark County from July 1998 to July 1999 -- come as little surprise to county and state population watchers.

But the increases illustrate the importance of getting as thorough a census count as possible, said local, state and federal officials. Although the population estimates are used as a general yardstick of population changes, the formal census numbers are what is used to figure federal tax money returns to a community.

In the 1990 census, Nevada had one of the country's worst undercounts. Estimates are that the state lost as much as $200 million in federal funding for everything from public day-care centers to roads.

A study released Thursday by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers projects an undercount of 48,262 Nevadans this year -- a figure that would cost the state more than $22 million, the company said.

Peter Merrill of the National Economic Consulting group said the actual funding losses could be significantly higher.

That conservative estimate said an undercount could hit 26 states, most of them the fast-growing states in the South and West, with a minimum of $9.1 billion in total lost federal revenue. California alone would be hit with a $5 billion loss.

The study and the new population estimates "certainly heighten the stakes" for the county and state, said David Byerman, the bureau's chief liaison for Nevada. "The importance of having an accurate count is paramount."

The federal estimate is generally lower than state estimates. For example, the State Demographers Office in Reno put the population of Clark County at over 1.34 million in July 1999, more than 100,000 over the federal estimate.

The difference between the state and federal estimates would represent about a 7 percent undercount, Jeff Hardcastle, state demographer, said Thursday from Reno. That is triple the estimated undercount in 1990.

The difference between the two figures represents millions of dollars. If the higher state estimate is closer to reality, the potential difference could be over $500 million in the 10-year period until the next census.

"Since they're both estimates, the important thing is for people to respond to the census," Hardcastle said.

An accurate count will help the state, he emphasized.

"More money comes to us, more money and just more clout," Hardcastle said of an accurate count.

Launce Rake covers growth issues for the Sun. He can be reached at (702) 259-4127 or by e-mail at lrake@lasvegassun.com