Water board considers turning off tap for new LV homes

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 | 11:14 a.m.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority staff is studying a controversial question in a time of rising water rates and use restrictions: how cutting off permits for new homes would affect the community.

Both no-growth advocates and those who say such a policy would be a disaster agree on one thing: Southern Nevada would be a profoundly different place.

The issue has come to the front burner as critics of rate increases and use restrictions have focused on growth as the culprit rather than drought, which water agency staffs say is forcing the moves.

Next Tuesday the Clark County Commission, acting as the Las Vegas Valley Water District board, will consider rate hikes of 4 percent to 40 percent for residential users and water restrictions in response to four years of drought and the loss of unlimited "surplus" water from Lake Mead.

Two days later staff is scheduled to suggest to the Southern Nevada Water Authority board, made up of elected representatives from area governments, that the agency convene a panel to look at the economic impact of cutting off water.

A similar study in October 1992 found that unemployment rates of about 4 percent at that time would triple to 12.5 percent, a "Great Depression level." The loss of tens of thousands of construction jobs wold force "outmigrations, early retirements, withdrawals from the labor force and other actions people must take in the face of the total absence of job prospects," according to the study.

The study predicted that employment and population levels would settle at 10 to 15 percent below the levels that otherwise would exist. Retail employment would be 20 percent less and sales tax revenues to state and local agencies would also drop by about 20 percent.

The study said those impacts relied on a best-case scenario. In a worst-case scenario, employment and population would do what it has never done in Las Vegas -- decline.

Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was one of the three people who prepared the 1992 study. He predicted a similar impact on the economy today.

Another effect would be on the price of housing for sale or rent for those who remained, Schwer said.

"What it would do is drive up the price of housing," he said. "You will increase the cost of living and change the relative incentives of living here versus some place like Los Angeles."

Elected officials on the water authority board and on most government boards throughout the region have consistently rejected the idea of a moratorium or halt to growth. County Commissioner Myrna Williams said the impact would be devastating on the construction industry, the state's second largest employer.

"Look at all the people you'd put out of work," she said.

The Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation pegged the total number of construction jobs two years ago at more than 66,000, about 10 percent of the total work force of 720,000.

One of the loudest voices to shut off the water to new development has been Ken Mahal, president of the Nevada Seniors Coalition and a member of the water authority Drought Citizens Advisory Committee, a group charged with recommending steps to take if the four-year drought gripping the Colorado River basin reaches "emergency" status.

Mahal said Southern Nevada, already at the limit to what it can take from Lake Mead, is simply running out of water. Conservation measures under consideration by local government agencies don't address the real problem, which is growth, and instead put the burden on those now living here, he said.

"No matter what we do to save water, what good will it do because they continue issuing endless building permits?" Mahal said. "That makes no sense at all.

"The economic impact is that we might not have 7,000 or 6,000 people a month coming here anymore looking for jobs," he said. "Let nature take care of itself."

Mahal frequently spars with water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy and her staff. He said the cost of new residential water connections is about $35,000. Water authority staff put the figure at $3,500, about equivalent to what home builders actually pay -- and still one of the highest levels in the West.

The Southern Nevada arm of the national Sierra Club has also weighed in on the debate over growth and water. While the organization has long argued against uncontrolled growth in the region, the group does not agree with Mahal's conclusions.

"It's not even the number of people, it's how much water we use," said Jane Feldman, chairwoman of the local group's conservation committee. "Some people say we've got to stop growth, there's now way we can keep bringing millions of people to the middle of the Mojave Desert.

"But the water district and the water authority can't stop growth," Feldman said.

What her group is advising is much deeper conservation efforts -- and to encourage conservation through doubling of water rates for all users.

"That's how we assign value in our culture," Feldman said. "I had a $10.51 water bill last month. Three people live here. That's with a swimming pool and a yard. That's ridiculous.

"These rates are just minuscule."

Mulroy said Tuesday that the problem is not growth, but waste. Conservation efforts focusing on residential water use, which represents 65 percent of all water usage in Southern Nevada and of which nearly two-thirds goes outdoors, can succeed without gutting the local economy, she believes.

Mulroy pointed out that in a home that does not use any water outdoors, there is almost zero water actually consumed. Water that goes down interior drains in kitchens and bathrooms is returned via sewers to Lake Mead, where the water authority can claim "return-flow credits."

For every gallon that goes back to the lake, the authority can take another gallon out for use without stretching the allotment set by the federal government.

"There is a difference between the number of housing units and water consumption," Mulroy said.