Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2015

Currently: 87° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Water Authority board member wants projects reconsidered


Steve Marcus

A barge that serves as the working platform for a Vegas Tunnel Constructors crew is shown during construction of the the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s “third straw” at Lake Mead Tuesday, May 10, 2011. The crew is blasting a 60-foot shaft for the third straw intake tower.

Map of Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

601 Nevada Way, Boulder City

Click to enlarge photo

Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak

By some estimates, Lake Mead could rise more than 50 feet by the end of the year, enough to make up nearly half the 120-foot drop that has occurred during 11 years of drought.

Another two or three years of heavy snowfall on the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains, and the melted runoff that feeds the Colorado River could get the lake back where it was before the drought.

Despite this, water officials appear reluctant to even contemplate hitting the pause button on the multibillion-dollar projects prompted by the drought and the region’s once-robust growth — a $700 million to $837 million “third straw” to draw water from deeper in Lake Mead and the $1.2 billion to $3.5 billion pipeline to send water to Las Vegas from eastern Nevada.

Indeed, only Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak, a member of the Southern Nevada Water Authority board, says it’s time to discuss tabling the costly projects.

“When (the third straw) was initially approved, we were in a different time and place,” Sisolak said. “Since then, development has come almost to a halt.

“I’m not saying that I don’t want to move ahead with the project, I’m just saying that in the current economic climate, it might be prudent to take a breath, step back and evaluate just what our options might be moving forward.”

Not only are the rising lake levels and decline in growth reasons to give the plans a second look, he said, but also the effect the costs will have on residents’ pocketbooks.

By the end of the year, the Water Authority is expected to consider issuing a $500 million bond to finish construction of the third straw.

That project, the largest undertaken by the Water Authority, developed as the Southwest drought deepened. Two intake pipes jut into Lake Mead, drawing the water for homes and businesses in Southern Nevada. But with the lake dropping so fast, the fear was that the uppermost intake would soon be left sucking air, above the waterline.

So the Water Authority got approval to build the third, deeper intake, that would draw water as the lake level fell.

Sisolak said he simply wants to “be honest about this and tell people if we keep going this is what your water rates are going to look like.”

To make that clear, he requested a study, being done by Hobbs, Ong & Associates, to examine rate structures under several scenarios.

“We’re trying to figure out how to do it in the least painful way,” said Guy Hobbs, whose report is due in November. “We’re modeling out what we expect (the Water Authority’s) revenue and expenditures to be, and on expenditures that includes capital debt.”

Also being calculated is potential growth in five, 10 and 15 years. During decades of growth in the Las Vegas Valley, the Water Authority relied heavily on connection fees, paid by developers, for revenue. With growth far from what it was, “we need to re-evaluate that structure,” Hobbs said.

Another component of his report is how rates will look with, and without, construction of the pipeline to rural Nevada.

The Water Authority, however, doesn’t see the third straw as something that can or should be put on hold.

“We look at it as a long-term project that provides some insurance to Southern Nevada,” Water Authority spokesman Scott Huntley said.

But Huntley sounds less definitive regarding the Water Authority’s other big-ticket item.

If constructed, the pipeline to tap groundwater in rural Nevada could stretch about 300 miles and include 400 miles of lateral pipes. It would be large enough to transport 220,000 acre-feet of water a year, enough to supply 440,000 households.

Rural Nevadans have united to fight the project, which they view as a water grab that would doom the region’s environment and economy. Pumping could lower groundwater tables 10 to 200 feet over 200 miles, according to a new federal report.

Since at least 2004, the pipeline has been considered by many to be the Water Authority’s holy grail and it has spent heavily on the project. In 2006, it paid $37 million for 11,800 acres beneath which flows the valuable groundwater.

Despite those expenditures, Huntley said the pipeline plan is “completely speculative.”

“It would only come before the board for construction if we have water shortages,” he said.

But not every Water Authority board member sees it that way, including County Commissioner Tom Collins.

“Look around the country, reservoirs are going dry,” Collins said, making particular note of areas of Texas in drought. “If we can get water from central Nevada for 35 years, it will take at least that long to get through all the bureaucratic hoops to get desalination plants built. But when they’re built, we can wean ourselves off that pipeline.”

“But the pipeline needs to be built.”

If that’s so, Sisolak said, he wants ratepayers to know what’s coming, because billions of dollars in debt will likely fall — at least until the economy turns around and development resumes on a large scale — on the backs of households and businesses.

“My worry is for the ratepayer. Are we going to see monthly bills double, triple?” he said. “People are doing all they can to conserve water already. How high are their rates going to go up? ”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 10 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The casino industry, which runs the state and are pulling the puppet strings of the politicians, view running low on water as a threat to their wallets. So now they want to take the water away from the ranchers, farmers and 'little people' of Nevada to enrich themselves.

    See if you can stop it.

  2. construction costs are not going to get cheaper than they are right now. infrastructure needs to be built to accommodate future growth not to play catch up. don't wait until the bridge collapses to build a new bridge. it's always more expensive to do things on the back end than up front.

  3. Whenever one reads the words of Tom Collins, you get the strong feeling he is brought and paid for by special interest. I never read about him fighting for the common man or woman, only big Nevada special interest. Sisolak on the other hand is always asking questions, as he should as an elected official. But Collins, much bark-no bit, not for Nevada residents. A look at Collins track record would tell the truth!

    Then again, it seems all elected officials of our time has corruption as an earned character trait

  4. Real savings would have occurred had the second straw been built to draw from lower down in the lake. We would then have no need of a deep third straw. But the LVVWD did not heed the warning when they planned the second straw. This third, deep, straw is the result of faulty cost-benefit analysis long ago.

    Stopping and restarting a project costs money. We've had one (very) wet year in the Colorado drainage in the midst of a long drought. Let's say we stop the project. If we don't get another very wet year, do we then restart it? That takes time. Then we get another wet year. So then we stop it. Then the drought returns and then we restart it -- again? All this stopping and starting will not be free. And the cost of being wrong is that Las Vegas dies. Without a deep water intake, when the lake level falls below the lower of the two existing intakes, the recharge of the wells can supply enough water to sustain a population of less than 5,000. (Historically, a population of less than 5,000 caused the water level in the wells to fall significantly.)

    The real cost-effective long term solution to our water problem is to build desalinization plants on the Gulf of California and bring the water here via aqueduct. This is economic and well within current engineering capabilities.

  5. Build the deeper straws and leave the pipeline alone. Robbery does not become us.

  6. The Third Straw is a good idea. We need to protect our access to the Colorado River, which is now and will always be our primary water source.
    The cost for the Water Grab, however, is nowhere near " $1.2 billion to $3.5 billion." Independent analysts hired by SNWA now put the cost at more than $15 billion! This will triple people's water bills. SNWA is trying to surpress or ignore the actual costs, but you can read it and weep on page 35 here:

  7. BTW, the SNWA has estimated that the pipeline would generate 900 construction jobs. That comes to about $17 million per job.

  8. I agree with those who've said we need to act now rather than wait for a prolonged drought. Look at what Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and other "dry" surrounding states are doing with water infrastructure - they're preparing for the future too. And, I think it's disingenuous for the opposition to this project to claim more study and time is needed. This issue has been appropriately studied and weighed against other options. When it comes to construction, this is just about the only area where we want excess capacity. For, it's not a matter of if we'll use it, but when.

  9. But not every Water Authority board member sees it that way, including County Commissioner Tom Collins.

    "Look around the country, reservoirs are going dry," Collins said, making particular note of areas of Texas in drought. "If we can get water from central Nevada for 35 years, it will take at least that long to get through all the bureaucratic hoops to get desalination plants built. But when they're built, we can wean ourselves off that pipeline."

    Yeah, right. That will never happen. Once the pipe is in the ground, the economics will never allow any weaning from it. It is about pumping water from the rural counties for as long as the water lasts.

  10. Thanks, Launce for the url for the complete text of the report.