Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2024

Chief of staff: Governor didn’t mean what he said

Nevada conservation leaders say Gov. Jim Gibbons, during a private meeting last week, questioned the need for a pipeline to bring rural central Nevada water to metropolitan Southern Nevada.

A top aide for the governor, however, said Friday that the advocates misunderstood Gibbons, who was saying that in an ideal world, where states could easily trade water rights, a pipeline would not be needed.

Nevada Conservation League Executive Director Scot Rutledge said Gibbons, during a 45-minute meeting Thursday at the Capitol Building, said, "The Southern Nevada Water Authority is not going to like what I'm about to say."

And what Gibbons said, Rutledge reported, was that he did not think the pipeline was a good idea, and that it should not be built.

Seven conservationists attended the meeting with the governor and two of his staff members, Rutledge said.

Bob Fulkerson, director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a liberal political group that has led the pipeline opposition, also attended the meeting and quoted Gibbons as saying: "I'm not sure a pipeline is necessary."

Fulkerson said he too was sure that Gibbons was speaking in opposition to the pipeline and not just talking philosophically about the situation in an ideal world.

Steve Robinson, deputy chief of staff and natural resources adviser to the governor, said Gibbons' comments were taken out of context.

"If the world were a perfect place and we could do some water trading, that would be an alternative to spending $2 (billion) to $3 billion to build a pipeline - and the Water Authority might think that, too," said Robinson, interpreting the spirit of the governor's remarks.

"He (Gibbons) knows the reality is that the pipeline is the way Southern Nevada is going to have to go to get water."

Robinson did not attend the meeting but said he was briefed about what was said by the governor's staff. Gibbons was in transit and not available for comment, his spokeswoman said.

Fulkerson and Rutledge said that during Thursday's meeting, Gibbons suggested alternatives to a pipeline, including exchanging the rights to water that flows underground from Nevada to Utah for some of Utah's share of Colorado River water.

Yet they said Gibbons immediately dismissed that idea after factoring in the political climate and historical opposition to trading allocations.

Robinson said Gibbons was using that example to demonstrate why the pipeline is one of a very few options - if not the only one - to bring additional water to Southern Nevada.

Robinson said Gibbons has expressed in the past that he is "adamant" that White Pine County's aquifers are protected as well as the lifestyle of rural residents if the pipeline were built.

The pipeline plan calls for diverting about 180,000 acre-feet of water. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or enough to supply one or two typical homes for a year.

The Water Authority contends that Spring Valley and its environment will not be significantly harmed, its existing water users will not be affected and that Las Vegas needs the water to sustain growth.

Opponents, including environmentalists and Utah and Nevada ranchers, say the Water Authority has overestimated the region's available ground water and that taking it will threaten economic growth and the environment. They also stress better water conservation in Las Vegas.

The Water Authority said the issue about whether to build the pipeline to pump billions of gallons southward should come down to scientific data.

"The (water rights) process is very well established," said Water Authority spokesman J.C. Davis, noting that his agency has received no feedback from the governor on the matter but does have the support of numerous Southern Nevada political figures for the pipeline.

"It's based on science. The state engineer has the ultimate authority over granting water rights."

archive