Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
In this 2008 file photo, Heber Jovany Peralta, left, and Cesar Peralta of Acacia Landscape haul gravel into a Las Vegas back yard where they’d removed all the grass.
Thursday, Sept. 15, 2011 | 5:59 p.m.
Related
Sun archives
- Lake Mead pipeline vote leads to fall of Water Coalition (6-8-11)
- Clark County to go after money snatched by state (6-7-11)
- Court rules Legislature’s $62 million grab unconstitutional (5-26-11)
- Water coalition leader presses to keep staff on public payroll (3-13-11)
- End of water coalition sought after $860 million pipeline plan halted (3-9-2011)
- Pipeline plan died, so where do the fees go? (3-9-2011)
- Clean Water Coalition will sue state to keep $62 million targeted by lawmakers (3-11-2010)
- Clean Water Coalition balks at localities’ request to return cash (1-10-2010)
- Las Vegas to pull out of Clean Water Coalition (9-15-2010)
- State: Reno wrong to support Southern Nevada in $62M battle (5-27-10)
- Reno sides with Southern Nevada in Legislature battle (5-24-10)
- Governor, Legislature seek to keep $62 million for state budget (3-18-10)
- Gibbons signs budget bill; state draws M Resort lawsuit (3-12-10)
- Clean Water Coalition will sue state to keep $62 million targeted by lawmakers (3-11-10)
- Will a gamer sue the state over part of special session budget plan? (3-2-10)
Sun Topics
Map of Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
601 Nevada Way, Boulder City
The Southern Nevada Water Authority approved a measure Thursday that some say could undermine years of water conservation efforts.
In a 6-1 vote, the Water Authority agreed to allow homeowners and businesses to convert desert landscaping back to turf if a property owner is willing to reimburse the agency for rebates paid to induce the change to so-called xeriscape, effectively reversing a key agency water-saving program.
The Water Authority requested the policy change after a property owner — one of the 5,500 to receive turf-conversion rebates since the program began in 2004 — sought to reinstall turf. Staff did not identify the property owner, and the Sun’s request for more information had not been answered by this afternoon.
Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak cast the lone no vote against the policy, which requires the property owner to pay back the rebate plus interest and an administrative fee.
After the meeting, Sisolak said allowing turf to be replanted sends a mixed message. After years of telling Nevadans they need to conserve, “now we’re sending a message that maybe the drought’s over,” he said.
“We’re encouraging conservation on one hand. Then when people conserve, their water rates keep going up,” he said. “Now we have this: ‘Conserve but put your grass back in if you want.’ It’s all confusing to the public.”
County Commissioner Tom Collins, who also serves on the Water Authority board, dismissed Sisolak’s assessment: “This is America. People have property rights.”
In 2004, the Water Authority embarked on the rebate program, which has saved billions of gallons of water. Property owners are paid a bounty for every square foot of turf converted to desert landscape. The current rebate is $1.50 per square foot. The current policy says conversions have to be kept “in perpetuity.”
Initially funded by the millions collected each year in connection fees, in 2009 the agency started using the proceeds from bond sales to fund the rebate program.
Water Authority Board member and Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Coffin also disagreed with critics of the vote. He said the board wasn’t sending any symbolic conservation message with its decision to allow property owners to reinstall turf.
“It would be symbolic if we got rid of the entire rebate program,” he said. “That’s not what we’re doing here.”
The Water Authority website states that residences use about 45 percent of all the water in Southern Nevada, and 47 percent of that water goes toward outdoor uses, mostly to keep lawns green.
Scot Rutledge, director of the Nevada Conservation League, said he was shocked by the board’s decision, particularly because it comes as the agency prepares to make a case for a pipeline to send water from Eastern Nevada to Las Vegas.
“It goes against every common-sense water conservation policy enacted,” he said. “They just took five steps backward, while they prepare to go before the state engineer for (groundwater permits). It sends a really bad signal.”
Water conservation is undercutting the need for a $15 billion boondoggle. So what does the SNWA do? Rather than dump the boondoggle, they dump the conservation.
Water conservation has saved 1/3 of what we used to use. We can do more and there would be no need for the pipeline thing. Keep in mind that our present debt for water projects is $3 billion, and the pipeline would cost $15 billion, if it ever got built.
Water usage isn't the problem. Population is the problem. The only goal of water conservation is to protect future population growth, to what end? So more people can live with less? No, thanks.
Seems idiotic to me. All these years to change the mindset of residents to conserve water and now do an about face. In 2 years there will be push to conserve and we start all over again. Crazy!
My wife and I were paid $1 per square foot by the SNWA to remove the grass from our back yard and replace it with fake grass. The rebate didn't quite cover the cost of the fake grass, but it went a long way toward it. This decision is quite possibly the most idiotic decision by a public body in Clark County I've seen in a long time. No, wait...it was the bus contract debacle. On the other hand...maybe it was four sitting or former county commissioners under indictment for fraud involving a topless bar. Oh, no...maybe it was the North Las Vegas election that was decided by one illegal vote. Damn, ain't Nevada wonderful?
Maybe if we all start using MORE water, they'll lower our rates!
Wow. Just when you thought you had seen it all, along comes one of the dumbest decisions I've heard of in years. Thank you Steve Sisolak for voting NO to this insanity. Too bad the rest of them don't have any common sense to figure out how dumb this decision is.
At least they'll generate some new jobs when they hire an ad agency to replace the slogan: "It's a desert out there". Water away folks, water away, besides us not so waterwise bureaucrats at SNWA want to justify the third straw and we want that pipeline too!
Lake Mead will rise a projected 25 to 30 feet. SNWA can't allow that to happen and justify a Pipe Line that Cost 15 billion dollars. SNWA and CCSD are Construction Companies they don't care about the residents. If they don't spend it they will have to lower rates and taxes.
When you see a 6-1 reversal in the policy I smell a Republican payoff! There is no reason to reverse a decade of conservation now! You have to follow the money and I hope that the Sun follows the money in this story and finds the reason why we suddenly live in a swamp rather than the desert! Last year the big story was that water rationing would happen if lake mead dropped another 7 feet... now we are endorsing putting grass back? There has to be money behind this.. there is no other explanation!
Expose every one that voted yes and have them justify their voted! also expose their financials to justify their vote!
Do we really look that stupid?????
Correct Gary, you hit the nail on the head. Collins and the other politicians are getting money from potential pipeline contractors. They need the pipeline the way others have needed HOA construction defect lawsuits. Follow the money. Looks like the sod farms have paid to play as well. Lake Mead is rising, and "crony capitalism" is at work.
The water authority seems to be oblivious to the PR aspects of its action. For all practical purposes, the effect of the change on water usage will be the proverbial drop in the bucket - probably not even measurable. And, in budget terms, have an impact just as insignificant. However, having said all that, it's the message sent by the action that matters. The water authority just does not get that its actions have meaning beyond the action itself. This particular action makes it look like the water authority is easing off of conservation efforts. That may not be the intent, but it is the way the action will be seen. The business model may work but the PR damage has more impact.
Collins and others are getting money from construction unions and construction companies and suppliers. The only private property they care about is theirs.
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
I'm curious as to see how they can justify a citation to people who waste water and please tell me the definition to wasting water.
They don't own the property. The water authority's control over the homeowner is contractual. So they can't tell you what to do with your property, but they can recover the incentive they paid you. This is pretty simple and not confusing at all.
Sounds like it's time to replace the Water Authority Board.. Let's start with Collins. Yes people have rights, but you are basically negating a program you spent years pushing for conservation efforts.
Now that they aren't bringing in as much revenue because people are conserving, "let's reverse our decision so we can start padding our pockets again."
And then they want to spend $15 billion to take water from the rural areas.. maybe if they continued to promote conservation instead of going back on allowing grass, they wouldn't need the pipeline.
But they don't care and like to spend, spend, spend.. when it isn't their money. They'll just stick it to us taxpayers, and raise our rates.
Start charging $4/gallon for water then you'll see how fast people will start putting in lawns. Maybe these people haven't noticed but it's a freakin desert.
How do they know if you have replanted your lawn? Do they pay an employee to drive around and monitor who has a lawn and who does not? A plant died in my yard, are they going to give me 5.99 to replace it? It died due to the dripper being clogged...caused by the mineral deposits in my water...which came from the water district!
By getting the rebates back plus interest, Mulroy sees herself in line for a huge bonus.
I appalled at the ignorance of this article and the responses it.
The reason the water district did this has to do with legal property rights and the ability to stop the replanting of grass by the homeowner that got the rebate or a new homeowner.
There is no law that prohibits grass on people property. However, if SNWA did pay someone to remove grass, then the water district helped finance an improvement on that property. This gives them some legal rights to potentially limit grass in the future.
However, to future establish this right, one has to have some consideration and recourse to terminate the legal limitation.
This new regulation gives SNWA a way to limit grass planting the future.
Such disinformation and misinterpretation only increases the ignorance of our society.
I am a little confused about "in perpetuity."
So, until this latest vote, if a homeowner received the rebate for a lawn-to-xeriscape conversion,and then sold the property, was the new homeowner also prohibited from putting in grass?
Now, after this vote, will the new homeowner have to refund the rebate, that they never received, before they can put in grass?
Or does this only apply to the original homeowner?
To ScottNV
"In perpetuity" is a restriction not on the owner, but on the property itself. It's a deed restriction that impacts forever what can be done on that property. That's what the SNWA is paying for when they rebate a property owner for installing desert landscaping.
I think everyone missed the point. They are saying that if you are intent on having your grass back we can't do much about that but you owe us the money we gave you to take it out.
So first it was the electric company, they push us to conserve and then they raise the rates because we're not using as much power. The government here seems to be run by Huey Dooey and louie!
Next SNWA will start demanding more water from Lake Mead, so that the water level falls back to critical. There is a $15 billion project at stake for a severe drought!!
Look at all the contributions they can get when 15 billion is a stake. The Hetch Hetchy aqueduct is obsolete now, the piping of water is a joke. Look at the movie "Chinatown" based on the draining of Owens Valley.
Seems to me, it will require a payment of at least five thousand dollars to get the right to resod your yard. How many people are going to do that?
mred -
You make a good point in comparing the impact of what is happening in Clark County, to what happened in the movie: "Chinatown." No one knew what was going on, no one cared, and on one did anything about it. Growth of private interests was all that mattered, and MONEY was the genesis of the plan.
Sound familiar?
The ($15) Billion dollar plan to drain water from Northern Nevada is a part of a "feeding frenzy" that the SNWA Director, Pat Mulroy, came up with. The idea was to bring water to Clark County for the millions of new Nevada residents that were supposed to be coming. Well, many of them came - and have now - left.
So those who believe that there is no looming water shortage NOW (at least not like it was), are probably correct. But there is still the incessant desire on the part of builders, investors, and politicians - as well as the Water Authority (who WANTS to build the Empire) - to EXPAND our WATER CAPACITY AT ANY COST; whether we need it or not.
Remember the phrase: "Build it and they will come"? Well that may not be true any more in Las Vegas for economic and other reasons that appear in the press daily. In fact, thousands have left town already, and it will take a few years (an S&P 500 study says until 2015 or longer) for this town to recover from its business losses, let alone create replacement jobs for former employees that have been lost.
Las Vegas has been rated as the most miserable city in the nation to live in, having the lowest scoring educational system, the highest drop-out rates, and the highest unemployment market in the entire UZnited States.
So, WHAT CONDITIONS will soon emerge that will bring more people to Las Vegas - and thus, justify the NEED for additional, exorbitant, and seemingly unnecessary construction of NEW WATER SOURCE?
If there is no qualified answer to that question, then Steve Sisolak is correct at wanting WAIT and REVISIT the question of the water development in Clark County.
That $15 BILLION pipeline to steal water from Northern Nevada ranchers (it used to be estimated at $2 Billion) - until another study was done) is an unnecessary "prize" for developers. And Utah is upset about this pipeline ever since its inception - because half of the underground water lies in Utah (and you can't split it into two pieces).
So I hope that the citizens of Clark County, and other affected cities in Nevada, will make their voices known - and ask the Governor and other officials - elected or appointed - to show restraint and logic in this matter of water development.
"Effectively Reversing" the program? Hardly. People would be required to return the money they received, plus about five percent interest, plus a fee for processing. This is not going to result in a "reversal" by any means. In fact, not only would the water authority recover it's funds, they would have also benefited from the water savings for the longevity of the project and the funds would be available to another client.
Not very many people are going to pony up thousands of dollars to put grass back unless they have a legit reason (such as a home going from senior citizens to a family with small kids).
Ask any local landscaper and they'll tell you that when the program went from a ten year contract to a perpetual one, some customers balked. This clause should actually encourage more people to be comfortable getting into the program, but I'll be not even one percent will bail out. I predict a net benefit in program interest now that people know they're not necessarily encumbering their land use for all eternity. Time will tell.
Asking "the Governor and the other official-elected or appointed-to show restraint and logic in this matter of water development," is a bit much, don't you think? This is NEVADA! Look at political history and follow the trail of $$$money$$$ of these people. That is what drives and inspires them solely. They are absolutely UNwilling to consider change in a way that Nevada must now deal with life differently, reverse growth model, population flight, aging infrastructures, looking at models of successful cities to help make policies and decisions. It is asking TOO MUCH.
There should be a building moritorium, no new construction unless it is utilizing previous sites and only IF the project is WATER AND UTILITY SUSTAINABLE FOR LIFE!!!
This is a desert with scarce resources. People need to live accordingly.