[SPARKY12]

Do any residents have any concerns about the area going through a water shortage in the future and maybe rationing of water?

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by SPARKY12

Do any residents have any concerns about the area going through a water shortage in the future and maybe rationing of water?

Could of course happen. If the snow fall in the Colorado River source mountains is bad enough everybody on the Colorado could have trouble. Las Vegas however could deal with the likely cuts with little problem.

If the problem lasted for decades LV might have to do more. But that is not likely.

The more interesting and likely question is how big can Las Vegas grow? It would appear things could get tight as LV goes past 3 million or so. The attempt to import water from northern NV will likely provide some success eventually but it does not appear to be enough water to remove the concern.

[Code Stemi]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Las Vegas however could deal with the likely cuts with little problem.

How do you figure that?

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The more interesting and likely question is how big can Las Vegas grow? It would appear things could get tight as LV goes past 3 million or so. The attempt to import water from northern NV will likely provide some success eventually but it does not appear to be enough water to remove the concern.

There is a tremendous amount of pushback against the Northern NV pipeline proposal. I heard a recent discussion on NPR that said NV water authorities are actually discussing paying the state of CA to build a desalination plant. But Las Vegas residents would not receive water from that plant. Rather, California would decrease its Colorado River water consumption and turn more over to Clark County in exchange. Interesting.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by chahunt

How do you figure that?


There is a tremendous amount of pushback against the Northern NV pipeline proposal. I heard a recent discussion on NPR that said NV water authorities are actually discussing paying the state of CA to build a desalination plant. But Las Vegas residents would not receive water from that plant. Rather, California would decrease its Colorado River water consumption and turn more over to Clark County in exchange. Interesting.

Las Vegas does not draw its full allocation from the Colorado. It in facts parks a chunk with AZ who is storing it in aquifers in AZ. SNWA also has access and rights to large volumes of water from the LV aquifer. That will end up in litigation over how hard they can hit the local aquifer but they will be able to pull 25% to 33% of the Colorado entitlement for a few years at least.

As a practical matter SNWA is correct. They have a right to the water they went after in the terms of western water law. The north can squabble for years yet but in the end LV wins. This battle will in the end be settled by the Legislature which is likely to be Clark County controlled forever. The days the north and their Republican Vegas allies could hold off Vegas in the legislature are gone and unlikely to return.

Paying for California desalinization has been under discussion for more than a decade. It is however not simply a dollar issue. There is immense resistance in CA to any industrial plants being added to the coast line. Desalinization plants however have to be there. The likely outcome is that a deal will be made to build the plants in Baja Norte in Mexico and pipe the water to southern CA.

One could also buy the farmers in S. CA out. It would be cheap but the expectation is CA will not allow any of that water to go out of state.

[ddrhazy]

California won't even build desalination plants for the towns that have a decades long queue for a water meter in areas near San Luis Obispo, they won't ever give up their own water rights for Nevada.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Las Vegas does not draw its full allocation from the Colorado. It in facts parks a chunk with AZ who is storing it in aquifers in AZ. SNWA also has access and rights to large volumes of water from the LV aquifer. That will end up in litigation over how hard they can hit the local aquifer but they will be able to pull 25% to 33% of the Colorado entitlement for a few years at least.

As a practical matter SNWA is correct. They have a right to the water they went after in the terms of western water law. The north can squabble for years yet but in the end LV wins. This battle will in the end be settled by the Legislature which is likely to be Clark County controlled forever. The days the north and their Republican Vegas allies could hold off Vegas in the legislature are gone and unlikely to return.

Paying for California desalinization has been under discussion for more than a decade. It is however not simply a dollar issue. There is immense resistance in CA to any industrial plants being added to the coast line. Desalinization plants however have to be there. The likely outcome is that a deal will be made to build the plants in Baja Norte in Mexico and pipe the water to southern CA.

One could also buy the farmers in S. CA out. It would be cheap but the expectation is CA will not allow any of that water to go out of state.

SNWA only has a right to the water if they show that using the water from the northern counties will not damage the basin that it comes from. So far they have been able to meet the requirements of proof established by the court of original jurisdiction and my guess is that they will never be able. This is not a matter that can be legislated away in Carson City.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by bayview6

SNWA only has a right to the water if they show that using the water from the northern counties will not damage the basin that it comes from. So far they have been able to meet the requirements of proof established by the court of original jurisdiction and my guess is that they will never be able. This is not a matter that can be legislated away in Carson City.

Actually the damaging of the basin is a NV principle. Try Pahrump or the Las Vegas valley. And there are dozens of other over subscribed aquifers.

And the downside needs to be understood. If you take the position that an aquifer is not suitable for more pumping that does not apply only to SNWA. It says no one can pump that aquifer. So you can try and block SNWA but only at the cost of no more withdrawals from that basin.

In truth some of those basins have water available...and SNWA gets it.

And yes it can be legislated away in Carson City. The State Engineer is a State Employee. And the legislature can direct him as they see fit. Virtually none of this is Constitutional so it can all be modified by legislation.

And by the way one of my personal views is the treatment of water in NV approaches a capital crime. The situation in LV, Pahrump, and dozens of other aquifers is criminal. Are you aware the river in LV was shut down because the State Engineer declared the use as non-beneficial? So they deliberately pumped the aquifer to shut down the river and kill the plants along it.

[BBMW]

Now that NV Democrats control the state, stopping LV from raiding Northern NV water sources will be difficult.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Now that NV Democrats control the state, stopping LV from raiding Northern NV water sources will be difficult.

Actually virtually impossible. Only hope is a State Constitutional issue which does not appear to exist here.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Actually the damaging of the basin is a NV principle. Try Pahrump or the Las Vegas valley. And there are dozens of other over subscribed aquifers.

And the downside needs to be understood. If you take the position that an aquifer is not suitable for more pumping that does not apply only to SNWA. It says no one can pump that aquifer. So you can try and block SNWA but only at the cost of no more withdrawals from that basin.

In truth some of those basins have water available...and SNWA gets it.

And yes it can be legislated away in Carson City. The State Engineer is a State Employee. And the legislature can direct him as they see fit. Virtually none of this is Constitutional so it can all be modified by legislation.

And by the way one of my personal views is the treatment of water in NV approaches a capital crime. The situation in LV, Pahrump, and dozens of other aquifers is criminal. Are you aware the river in LV was shut down because the State Engineer declared the use as non-beneficial? So they deliberately pumped the aquifer to shut down the river and kill the plants along it.

I’m afraid that you don’t understand the Judge’s ruling on this matter. We are talking about inter-basin water transfers here, not pumping within a basin for use within the basin like Pahrump or Las Vegas.

The law here is well settled. The State Engineer was told about 5 years ago to come up with an objective test of over withdrawal of water and he has yet to come up with one. OleCapt at the time predicted that the State Supreme Court would overrule the local Judge but they totally backed him up.

The reality is that this matter is totally resides within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of government and as it stands now no bank in it’s right mind would loan billions on a pipeline that could operate for a few years.