Vegas sees needed water, rural counties see ‘fraud’

By Cy Ryan (contact)

Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Carson City — To opponents, the plan to pump water from rural Nevada to Las Vegas is, as one put it, “the biggest public works fraud ever in Nevada.”

But unions, casinos, chambers of commerce and business people argue the applications of the Southern Nevada Water Authority are in the public interest and will support growth that will keep the region’s — and the state’s — economy strong.

Wrapping up the first of two weeks of hearings, the public Friday had its chance to comment on the authority’s plans to draw 39,750 acre-feet of water a year from the Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave Lake valleys in Lincoln County.

Rick Spilsbury of Ely, who told the crowd that his Western Shoshone ancestors have occupied the land for hundreds of years, said his tribe “should not have to pay for Las Vegas’ growth with our water.”

“This water grab is wrong,” he said.

Mark Bird, a professor at the College of Southern Nevada, said the water authority has a “deplorable” record in conserving water, adding that there are plenty of options for it to pursue instead of draining water from rural counties.

But Andy Fegley of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce said the water is important to the growth of Clark County and the water authority has taken steps to conserve water. He read a list of businesses and individuals who back the application, including banks, construction companies and University System Chancellor Jim Rogers.

Glen Trowbridge of the electrical workers union said water consumption has been reduced in Clark County even as its population and numbers of visitors have grown.

Susan Joseph-Taylor, the division’s chief hearing officer, arranged for the Carson City hearing to be televised to Ely, Caliente and Las Vegas to prompt public comment.

Some citizens in Ely and Caliente suggested Southern Nevada should instead tap the water from the Pacific Ocean and build a desalinization plant in Las Vegas.

James Wadsworth, a lawyer who practices in Las Vegas but lives in Lincoln County, called the plan “greed” on the part of Clark County “that will destroy everything north of the line.”

But Danny Thompson, secretary-treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, said taking this “unused water” from rural Nevada would pave the way for continued growth — and the jobs it brings. Clark County is projected to have 3.3 million residents by 2026 and there is not enough water to meet the anticipated growth, he said.

The hearing is expected to conclude this week. Joseph-Taylor will decide later this year whether to grant or modify the applications.

• • •

Failing to register as a sex offender after being released from jail is not a crime of moral turpitude in Nevada, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying failure to register is not cause to deport the offender, overturned the federal government’s decision to deport Reynaldo Plasencia-Ayala to Mexico.

He came to the United States in 1986 and was admitted for permanent residence in Chicago in 1990.

But he later pleaded guilty in Reno to open or gross lewdness, a misdemeanor for which he was sentenced to nine months in jail. Police in Reno later discovered Plasencia-Ayala had failed to register as a sex offender after his release. After he pleaded guilty to that felony in 2004, he was sentenced to 12 to 32 months in prison.

Federal immigration officials began removal proceedings against Plasencia-Ayala in 2006 on the grounds that his two convictions involved moral turpitude. He appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his appeal.

The 9th Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Sidney Thomas, said a crime of moral turpitude must involve baseness that leads to moral outrage. And though a sex crime is reprehensible, failing to register as a sex offender is not, the judge wrote.

“Registration statutes can serve important purposes by helping to prevent future sex crimes,” the court said. “But registration is not itself a socially desirable good.”

The court said the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals were wrong in ruling that Plasencia-Ayala should be returned to Mexico.