Friday, July 18, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.
The region needs to consider growth, its cost or restrictions, and the cost of finding new water sources to slake the thirst of that growth, political leaders decided Thursday.
The board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority took the first steps toward a full study of those factors, but not until after the elected representatives from the county's governments staked out various positions.
The seven-member board is made up of one representative each from the city councils of Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Boulder City. Also on the board are three members of the Clark County Commission.
The board members are struggling to respond to the worst drought in the modern history of the Colorado River, a drought that has sent Lake Mead water levels plummeting and one that some fear could threaten the source of 90 percent of the region's drinking water.
The water authority board authorized $50,000 to go to Hobbs, Ong and Associates, a local financial analysis firm, for preliminary work on the study. The board will look at the proposal in more detail Aug. 21.
If the full study gets approval from the board, the next step would be to assemble a panel of local economists to study the issue. The study ultimately would be reviewed by another panel of economists from outside Las Vegas, water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said.
So far, the board members and local governments have responded to the drought by enacting water conservation measures and raising water rates, but a vocal group of concerned citizens has charged that the water authority and other government agencies are subsidizing growth on the backs of ratepayers. They argue that stopping all growth now will keep the water flowing to their irrigated lawns and the numbers low on their water bills.
But some political officials, aware that the construction industry directly employs about 70,000 people in Clark County and is second only to gaming in economic clout, aren't eager to embrace a "go-slow" or stop to growth.
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman told his fellow board members that people should not get the idea that the water authority wants to stop growth because of the study.
"There's an undercurrent out there suggesting that water and growth are interconnected," Goodman said. "We believe that growth is good. If there is not growth, there is stagnation.
"I don't think the public should ever get the impression that we support a no-growth policy."
Some of Goodman's colleagues finessed the issue. County Commissioner Mark James said the study has to go beyond looking at "a catastrophic work stoppage" and investigate the effects of a graduated slowdown in the rate of growth -- a growth rate that still, in percentage terms, leads the country.
Nevada had a 4 percent increase in the number of homes over the last year, most of them -- more than 20,000 -- coming in Clark County. As in previous years it is the greatest percentage growth nationwide. The national average is 1.3 percent.
"What is the impact on the economy of a 'slowage' in growth rather than a stoppage?" James asked. "I just think we should have all that information. It would make us better decision-makers."
A 1992 study commissioned by the water authority found that the results of a simple cutoff would be very dramatic. The study said local unemployment rates could triple to a "Great Depression level" of more than 12 percent, and tens of thousands of would-be homebuyers, workers and consumers would simply leave the region.
The new study should not just look at growth and the availability of the water resources to new homes and businesses, but other factors as well, James said. Among them: What would happen if a catastrophe, such as the drought, continued and actually cut the amount of water available from Lake Mead?
"What would we do?" James asked.
Mulroy told the board members that the study could be anything they wanted.
"Obviously, this study is a blank sheet of paper," she said.
But Mulroy said the issue is not one of running out of water, but of how much residents should pay for those resources.
The pattern for metropolitan areas throughout the West, she said, is to gauge the level of growth, then find the funding to acquire water to supply the new customers. Ultimately, the water authority will always be able to find water, Mulroy said.
"There is always the ocean. That is out there."
The idea, part of the water authority's long-range plans, is to build desalting plants on the Pacific Ocean and deliver that water to Southern California. The Water Authority could then take an equivalent amount of water from Lake Mead, and Southern California would forgo taking that water from the Colorado River.
But like other long-range plans, desalting plants on the Pacific would be expensive. Mulroy said the cost would be about $900 to $1,000 per 326,000 gallons. The cost for the water authority for Lake Mead water is about 50 cents per 326,000 gallons now, before treating and delivering the water.
"We need to feed that into the equation to see how much are we going to spend to get the additional water," James said.
County Commissioner Rory Reid said it is important for the water authority to look at all of the facts and to have an updated study. He predicted that the issue of water resources would become a focal point for the burgeoning slow-growth movement.
"We're going to start a debate here today that will go on for a long time in our community," Reid said.
Reid and James said the region's political leadership and community need to understand how to develop in a sustainable way.
Goodman, however, said the water authority board needs to be careful about how the discussion is framed.
"Water is available. It may be a matter of cost, but it's not a question of running out of water," Goodman said.
One of the key industries that would be affected by any cutoff in new water connections is residential development. Monica Caruso, spokeswoman for the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, said her organization is following the debate with interest.
"We're pleased that the water authority takes this seriously enough to bring in a panel of experts to look at this," Caruso said.
But as the home builders have said in the past, Caruso emphasized their basic point: People are not moving here because homes are being built.
"People move here because there are new jobs, new rooms and new casinos," she said. "If we stop building homes, where will they live?"
archive
