Sunday, Aug. 27, 2023 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Editor’s note: As he traditionally does around this time every year, Brian Greenspun is turning over his Where I Stand column to others. Today’s guest is Pat Mulroy, the former general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. She is currently president and CEO of Sustainable Strategies, a senior fellow at the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law and a member of the Wynn Resorts board of directors.
When I sat down a year ago to pen a guest Where I Stand column, the water situation on the Colorado River looked very different. The previous winter had brought no relief to the drought-stricken region and the reservoirs were threatening to drop to catastrophic levels with the very real possibility that our neighbors south of us could be cut off from river water entirely. The reaction of the states and the federal government was exactly what could be expected in those circumstances … fast, deep and dramatic reductions in use. Tempers flared and lawyers were hired to assert the various legal claims.
Then this winter the basin experienced a rare atmospheric river bringing heavy snows to the Rockies. Reservoirs that had been predicted to fall were now expected to rise somewhat. That was enough breathing room for the states to adopt a temporary solution of remedial reductions until a larger, more permanent solution can be found before 2026.
Everyone realizes that water use throughout the region has to be reduced to a new baseline. But what is a sustainable and economically and socially responsible baseline? The federal government feels it needs to be an elimination of two million to four million acre-feet of use annually. Even at the low end of the range, that would represent a permanent cut in average annual water usage of more than 15% throughout the entire Colorado River system.
Achieving cuts of that magnitude will be acrimonious and painful, and whether over the long term those are sufficient and sustainable will be a function of our ability to predict the full magnitude of what a changing climate has in store for the region.
When I look around the world at what regions are sustainable, two countries immediately come to mind … Israel and Singapore. They have built their future on a three-pronged approach: conservation, reuse and new supplies through desalination of ocean water. They have a keen understanding that conservation and reuse are not enough and that in many instances they can work against each other. If you have an aggressive indoor conservation program, you reduce the amount of water that is available for reuse. And as all important and foundational as conservation is, at some point you will hit a wall, and any further reductions will have unwanted social and economic consequences. What makes these two countries truly sustainable is that they are successfully developing new water supplies. They realize that this third prong is the differentiator that produces true resilience.
Here in the United States, in the largest economy in the world, in a country where we pride ourselves on innovation and achievement, we have become paralyzed. The minute a project is suggested that could add new water to the regional water resource portfolio, it is attacked and vilified.
Usually the first salvo is that it is too expensive … it may cost billions. We’re willing to spend billions on a new airport and billions on new road and transportation infrastructure, but the thought of spending billions on the one commodity that allows us to live here is inconceivable? Each of our hotels costs billions to erect, however, we cannot reconcile ourselves to spend the billions on giving our community true resilience and protecting these investments.
Yes, the next generation of water supply will be expensive, but when the cost of that supply is weighed against the potential loss of some of the world’s largest economies (i.e., Los Angeles) or some of the most important growing regions for our food supply, the costs pale. Of course, in all we do to protect the environment is quintessential, but developing new water supplies and maintaining the environment need not be mutually exclusive. Given the potential risks the region faces as a result of climate change, simply cutting uses is not the answer. We can’t sit on a
two-legged stool.
The fact that we enjoyed the benefits of an atmospheric river, and now the additional water resulting from the first tropical storm to hit California in 84 years, means we have been given an incredible gift: enough time to think thoughtfully about the future of the river, and that means all three prongs of water sustainability.
Southern Nevada has chosen to make itself 100% dependent on the Colorado River, which becomes more unreliable with each passing year. The third prong for Nevada will therefore have to be in partnership with our neighbors, and probably be built on land not under our control. That adds an additional layer of complexity, but given how relationships along the river have evolved, it is not an impossible task. For the river community, however, taking advantage of this temporary reprieve and planning for the entirety of a water resilience strategy has never been more important.
