Nevada, Utah officials battle over water rights

Friday, April 8, 2005 | 11:07 a.m.

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

An old-fashioned water fight is brewing between Nevada and Utah over a proposal by Southern Nevada officials to tap groundwater to quench the rapidly growing thirst of Las Vegas.

The problem: The aquifers in question are under east-central Nevada but also run under Utah's west desert. And ranchers, environmentalists and political leaders on this side of the border are raising red flags about the potential effects of such a project.

"We're quite concerned," Millard County Commissioner Daron Smith said this week. "Water is the lifeblood of the West. There aren't many of us out in this part of the state, but the water situation is critical for those who live and work here. All of the studies done say that any pumping along that aquifer will have a real negative effect on the groundwater wells. So we're nervous."

The groundwater development plan from the Southern Nevada Water Authority centers on the Spring and Snake valleys, near Baker and Great Basin National Park in White Pine and Lincoln counties. But the aquifer system that feeds the valley also runs under the Utah side, roughly from Iron County in the south to Tooele County.

The water authority hopes to perhaps double the amount of water Southern Nevada now takes from Lake Mead, the source of 90 percent of the drinking water for the urban area, with new surface and groundwater supplies. The cost of the bringing just the groundwater to Las Vegas could total $1 billion, but water authority officials believe there is enough water to allow the population to continue growing for decades.

In addition to the potential impacts on desert farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and anglers also are worried about what the project might do to the headwaters in the Deep Creek Mountains, and larger water bodies, such as Fish Springs, home to a national bird refuge.

"The folks in Southern Nevada say that it's not going to affect this area, based upon the (groundwater) recharge," said Don Duff, president of the Utah Council of Trout Unlimited, and a retired aquatic ecologist. "But nobody knows what the recharge level really is. I don't think they have the science to make those decisions."

Not yet, anyway. Two environmental studies are under way -- one by the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Desert Research Institute, the other by the Bureau of Land Management's Ely Field Office -- to assess the impacts of the project on existing groundwater inventories and address the proposal to build a pipeline from Clark County to groundwater development sites in Lincoln and White Pine counties. The environmental studies are expected to take two to three years to complete.

Eastern Nevada officials and ranchers also have expressed misgivings about the project, for largely the same reasons as those in Utah. Dean Baker, named a Nevada Outstanding Rancher of the Year in 2003 by the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, serves on the water authority's Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee, a group the agency convened to help make decisions about what water sources should be tapped to supply Las Vegas' future needs.

Baker has been outspoken in his criticism of the project, calling it immoral and saying it could dry up wells throughout his part of Nevada.

Those concerned about the impact in Nevada have an ally in Carson City. Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, has introduced a bill that would make it more difficult for the water authority or others to bring water to Las Vegas. Her bill is opposed by the Guinn administration.

Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, says any concerns raised at this point are premature -- and in some cases unwarranted.

"We're committed to do this in a way that there's not a negative impact," she said. "But we also know that there's water in that basin that can be safely developed."

Utah officials say the last thing they are looking for is a water war with their Great Basin neighbor. But they also say they will protect the state's interests -- and are not without leverage. Language in a congressional bill authorizing rights-of-ways for the project requires agreement by both states before it can proceed.

Kay Brothers, water authority deputy general manager, said officials with both states have already discussed the groundwater issue, but more meetings are likely within the next several months. Like her counterparts in Utah, the last thing the water authority wants is a water war, she said.

A big part of the water authority's effort is a public information campaign targeting the ranchers and farmers on both the Nevada and Utah sides of the state line.

"We've already had some public meetings in Baker that brought in quite a few people from Utah," Brothers said. "They are concerned, obviously. They don't understand the way the state (Nevada) allocates water ... They fear that if we take any more water, it will harm them."

Those fears are misplaced because the Nevada state engineer would only approve water extraction that would be sustainable, without significant negative impact on existing users, Brothers said, echoing earlier public pronouncements from the agency.

Brothers said the water authority officials already know their counterparts in Utah well thanks to ongoing talks about the future of the Colorado River. Approval from the Utah officials, she said, is "very doable."

"We need to sit down in the future and talk about this," Brothers said. "We have a good relationship with Utah. I don't think there's going to be a war."