User profile: timescientist

One question - how is it that many (most?) vocal opponents to this project pretend certainty about what it is that will or will not happen if and when pumping commences, when the truth is that no water rights have been awarded and the very first comprehensive study of the water budget in Spring Valley is currently underway? Saying there is a scientific consensus doesn't make it so, and using such a so-called consensus to jump to conclusions before there are even baselines upon which to base them is not only irresponsible, but nearly criminal. Repeat something enough times, and it becomes true, right? This is why I'm glad the decisions regarding this project aren't in the hands of those who are so easily swayed by emotional appeals and so ready to forego facts and figures.

Re: Launce Re: Timescientst

Again, I believe the relevant point to remember here is that no water rights have been awarded from Spring and Snake - And yes, while some estimates (like the ones mentioned) are catastrophic, let's ask reasonable questions:
-How much pumping, exactly, will cause the "50 to 1600"-foot water table drop? -What and how much data are these estimates based on? -Is this amount of water likely to be awarded to SNWA or is this a worst-case scenario? -Do we have enough information to even know what a worst-case scenario is?
It is certainly effective to toss catastrophic numbers around, but is it good science? Until SNWA submits their data, which looks to be the most comprehensive to date in the area, and until the State Engineer makes a decision based on all of the available information, any talk of biological extinctions and economic ruin is spoken in a vacuum. (And, the State Engineer's Office isn't blind - if it looks like there will be a negative impact to unique flora and fauna, they will reduce any awarded rights to the point at which there is no predicted impact.) It appears as though the conversation here constantly steers away from reason toward fear-derived emotion. Fear of loss, fear of change. Much of Nevada's economy at large relies on the Las Vegas Valley's well-being, and the only real evidence I've seen that a pipeline is bad public policy is that it may negatively affect the pristine "feel" of the practically untouched wilderness out there. -Just like those who opposed developing closer and closer to Red Rock Canyon at the western side of Las Vegas because it (admittedly) sours the experience. Again, it seems like this becomes a Rural vs. Urban conflict more than a true economic or environmental discussion. I don't subscribe to the belief that increasing available water to Southern Nevada benefits only developers - it looks to benefit the entire enconomic system. If we are really concerned for our state, shouldn't we be talking about how construction and infrastructure associated with a pipeline could bring jobs to economically stagnated areas that would benefit from it? Do "confidental predictions" of economic destruction should a pipeline go forward speak to the true destruction of rural economies, or do they speak to the potential passing of rural economies as they shift toward more industrialization? Is modernization a bad thing? And, considering that there is so much protected land in the area already completely off-limits to future development, I pose a counter-question: Is our heritage better served by stifling growth or by encouraging it?

Something (purposely?) omitted by the creators of this classic David vs. Goliath story is this: Any water awarded by the State Engineer to SNWA in Spring Valley, Snake Valley, and others, is legal, (regardless of who grew up in the area or what they're "sure" will happen if pumping starts.) Water in this instance cannot be "stolen" by SNWA. If ranchers do not own the rights to the water they've become accustomed to, then tough luck. (-In that case they're the ones "stealing.") It's not "their" water unless they own the rights to it. Welcome to America. -If they don't like it, they should get together with the ranchers in Wyoming that never took the time to investigate whether or not they owned the mineral rights under their land... and then threw a fit when the rightful owners wanted to drill. So, in short, Pat Mulroy really has little to do with where the real action is. The hammer will fall when SNWA submits their data to the State Engineer on how much water is available in and beneath the valleys. If there isn't enough water beyond the existing rights, the State Engineer's Office won't give SNWA any, period. (And trust me, they know people are looking at the decisions with a fine-tooth comb.) The burden of proof rests on SNWA to convince the State Engineer's Office that their hydrologic data is good and that pumping x amount of water will not negatively affect existing water rights, wildlife, and the environment. --While this whole mess is stuffed with emotional stories, great pictures, political maneuvering, giant buckets, and all the trappings of a good Urban vs. Rural conflict, this is really just a legal rights purchase request. The rest is just razzle dazzle.