Hal Rothman proposes a super regional water authority composed of members from rural Nevada and Clark County to best represent the interests of all sides

Sunday, Oct. 8, 2006 | 7:43 a.m.

Now that the hearings about the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plan to build a pipeline from rural Nevada to Clark County have come to an end, we should pay attention to the inevitable jockeying for position that is sure to follow.

A process is under way, beneath the radar of most of the public. For almost 20 years, a gradual shift has been ongoing: Water that was historically used for agriculture and ranching is increasingly going to Western cities.

Called reallocation, it has become common throughout the West and has already taken place in Nevada. Reallocation is so pervasive that the real question is no longer whether water will be transferred from rural to urban use. The debate concerns the terms of the transfer, how rural communities that cede water will derive fair and valuable benefits from it.

Although rural interests see the Southern Nevada Water Authority's effort as an unbridled water grab, their point of view is simultaneously hysterical and grounded in the reality of life in rural Nevada. I admire them for defending their historical interests, but I cannot agree with their point of view.

Rural Nevada has always detested the Silver State's cities even as the urban parts of the state pay the bills for the hinterlands. Clark County routinely generates almost 80 percent of the state's revenue, and that money is spread throughout the state like lubrication. If Las Vegas dried up, the rest of Nevada would be in a world of hurt in a hurry.

But acrimony is useless. Maybe there is a better way. What if we were to expand the concept of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the idea that we are all in this together, beyond the county line? What if White Pine County could be brought into a newly created super regional water authority, governed by a set of binding principles? This might allow for better discourse as well as creating a situation that allows everyone to have a piece of their cake and to eat it, too.

Such a system might change this discussion. Under a new set of terms, a fairer system could result. A baseline could be established, with the use of water evaluated in legal, economic, social and environmental terms. Prior commitments and legislatively mandated uses would come first. This would allow for the fulfillment of federal mandates, make allocations for environmental and other kinds of legislation, and guarantee water for wildlife refuges, Native American communities and others.

After these mandatory allocations, the rest of the water could be divided by participating stakeholders, who would decide the economic viability of proposed uses according to locally determined standards set in a regional framework.

Once this water was divided, it would generate income. The proceeds could be split between those who gave it up and the entities that administered the process. In that way, two social goods would occur: The people who gave up the water will be fairly and justly compensated and be able to go forward with their lives. We would also have the resources to maintain existing infrastructure and to expand it to meet new demand, allowing economic growth to continue.

Nobody should be forced to give up their water. Nor should anybody be able to stymie economic progress for their own selfish purposes. There is a happy medium, and we can achieve it. We must sit at the table and negotiate with a clear understanding of every stakeholder's needs and wants. As the region grows, this question will become more acute. Attacking the real issue now rather than later puts us ahead of the game.

The solution is simultaneously revolutionary and painful: A fundamental reallocation of resources must take place. We are an urban society that produces its wealth in cities and enjoys its leisure in open spaces. That fact will not change.

A super regional water authority will not take all the water from White Pine County. In fact, what I propose will probably take less water from farmers and ranchers over time than the existing process. Former Interior Secretary James Watt once remarked that he believed that administrative changes were more permanent than statutory ones. If he's correct, then rural Nevada is in greater danger now than it would be if a new arrangement that created seats at the table for every stakeholder governed Nevada's water.