Agency can tap rural water

In a landmark decision, the Southern Nevada Water Authority won almost 20 billion gallons of faraway groundwater for its pipeline on Monday, but it was not quite as much as the agency wanted.

In a 56-page decision described as "measured" and "conservative," the state's chief water regulator cleared the authority to export as much as 60,000 acre-feet of water a year from a White Pine County valley 250 miles north of Las Vegas.

That is about two-thirds of the water the agency was seeking in Spring Valley, and only some of it will be available right away.

State Engineer Tracy Taylor called for staged development of the groundwater, starting with baseline data collection followed by 10 years in which withdrawals will be capped at 40,000 acre-feet annually.

After 10 years, a determination will be made whether to allow another 20,000 acre-feet a year to be pumped.

Though the pipeline has created divisions between Clark County and its rural counterparts for years, critics of the plan did not have harsh words after the decision. They took solace in the fact that Taylor did not grant the water authority's full request, even while General Manager Pat Mulroy described her reaction as one of "a huge sense of relief."

"This was the critical block of water for us," Mulroy said.

One acre-foot of water is enough to supply two Las Vegas Valley homes for one year. When stretched through reuse, the authority's new holdings in Spring Valley could yield as much as 120,000 acre-feet, enough to supply almost a quarter of a million homes.

Spring Valley lies at the northern end of a 285-mile pipeline network the authority plans to build across eastern Nevada to feed growth in Las Vegas.

The pipeline is expected to cost at least $2 billion and carry up to 200,000 acre-feet of groundwater.

The authority had hoped to get the bulk of that water, some 91,000 acre-feet, from Spring Valley, which is bordered on the east by Nevada's second tallest peak and its only national park.

But Mulroy said she wasn't surprised or disappointed by Taylor's "conservative but reasonable" approach.

"The state engineer has essentially awarded us 60,000 acre-feet, which he admits is a conservative number," Mulroy said. "What this says to me is that this (pipeline) project is now a project."

The water authority will be required to protect existing groundwater rights in the basin and allow future groundwater growth and development there.

Taylor also will require a comprehensive monitoring, management and mitigation plan to address any effects from groundwater pumping.

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources spokesman Bob Conrad said Taylor would not comment on his decision because it is subject to appeal in court.

"The decision speaks for itself," Conrad said.

Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid, who serves on the Water Authority Board, praised Taylor's work.

"I think the state engineer was conservative and tried to protect the interests of both the environment and the rural Nevada lifestyle. He did what he could to protect the urban areas of the state, the rural areas of the state and the environment," Reid said. "I think if you can find a compromise to serve all those interests, there's wisdom in it."

Critics of the pipeline also found something to like about the decision.

Bob Fulkerson, executive director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, called it "a victory of sorts for our side" because the authority was granted much less water than it requested.

Less water should make the expensive pipeline harder to justify to ratepayers, Fulkerson said.

"I would like to see how they're going to pencil this out. I guess you've got more money than you know what to do with if you don't care about the per acre-foot cost (of the pipeline)."

Environmental attorney Matt Kenna called Taylor's decision a "mixed bag."

"I think the state engineer sort of split the baby a bit," he said. "Forty thousand is a lot better than 90,000. I think it still leaves room for some serious impacts."

Kenna works for the Western Environmental Law Center, the New Mexico-based firm that represented pipeline opponents during a two-week hearing on the water authority's Spring Valley applications in September.

During the hearing, he and others warned that large-scale groundwater pumping in White Pine County could wipe out springs, rare wildlife and the livelihoods of rural residents.

Several pipeline opponents also tried to link the project to Owens Valley, the eastern California watershed laid to waste nearly a century ago after a massive water grab by Los Angeles.

The water authority's proposed network of pumps, storage reservoirs, power facilities and buried pipes is under review by the Bureau of Land Management, which must sign off on the project because much of it will be built across federal land.

The BLM is slated to release a draft report on the potential environmental effects of the pipeline in summer 2008, with the final report to follow in 2009. Construction of the pipeline soon would follow.

Mulroy said the authority remains on schedule to start delivering water to Las Vegas from across rural Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties in 2015.

By then, the water authority could own nearly all of the private land in Spring Valley.

In separate transactions since July, the authority has snapped up seven ranches in the 1 million acre watershed for a combined price of almost $79 million.

Authority officials have said they plan to keep those ranches operating while using some of the surface water from the properties to offset any effects from groundwater pumping.

Pipeline opponent Gary Perea, who lives in neighboring Snake Valley, said he is taking a "wait-and-see" approach to the engineer's decision.

"I want to see what the Southern Nevada Water Authority's reaction to this is," the former White Pine County commissioner said. "I'm concerned that because the state engineer gave them half of what they wanted, they may be inclined to take some of the surface water from those ranches and put it in the pipeline to make up the difference."

Mulroy said it is telling that people on both sides of the issue seem to think Taylor's ruling favors them.

"If both parties declare victory, it must be a pretty good decision," she said.

Review-Journal writer Mike Kalil contributed to this report.