Flush the system

George Knapp, the veteran investigative reporter for KLAS-TV, Channel 8, turned the hose on the Southern Nevada Water Authority last week.

Knapp exposed some profligate spending habits at the water authority, which apparently is overflowing with cash for everything from sprawling cattle ranches to jet-setting lobbyists to deluxe PR campaigns.

"SNWA is practically an employment agency for PR firms," Knapp quipped in the second of two reports, which detailed millions of dollars doled out to Las Vegas advertising and public relations companies.

According to Knapp's findings, the water authority has spent $80 million on several ranches in rural Nevada, and paid higher than market rates for the properties. While the authority's main goal is to sew up the accompanying water rights, they are saddled with hiring workers to manage 4,000 sheep and 1,700 cows. Naturally, the ranches are losing money. Who could expect a bunch of city slickers occupying Class A office space to know the secrets of turning a profit on a cattle ranch?

The SNWA's spendthrift ways are cause for concern, especially in this time of painful state and local budget cuts. But that's just part of the story. The more troubling issue, to me at least, is that much of the PR money is being used to persuade the citizenry that the authority's plan to siphon rural groundwater to feed Las Vegas growth is a wonderful and safe idea.

"Critics point out that water officials don't have much tolerance for contrary opinions," Knapp said. "They're the experts and they figure the rest of us should take their word for it, even if it means using our own money to convince us that they're right."

Indeed, the water authority's overall campaign leaves the impression that those who question the pipeline are either ignorant or wrongheaded. This would include the scientists, environmental watchdogs and experienced ranchers who don't swallow the water authority's "just trust us" message.

"It's all about marketing," says Launce Rake, communications director for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, which is fighting the pipeline project. "I wish it were about the science, because science is the issue here."

One might expect the water authority, as a public agency, to adopt a more objective stance. But the pipeline has become something of a crusade for water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy, her lieutenants and contracted mouthpieces. Some of these folks have been working on the pipeline for 17 years now, and they're not about to see it derailed by pesky scientists and rural worrywarts.

"In the marketing campaign, they say there's no alternative, because there is no alternative that they want," Rake says. "Of course there are alternatives."

If you haven't already identified a troubling parallel, let me say it out loud: Yucca Mountain. For more than 30 years, the U.S. Department of Energy has zealously pursued a high-level nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Reams of studies and expert testimony detailing the dangers of building a dump at Yucca Mountain have not generated a moment of doubt among DOE true believers.

Nevada political leaders' dogged opposition to Yucca Mountain has made it difficult for the DOE to move forward. It's too early to say whether a similar fate awaits the pipeline. Opponents seemed to have the upper hand when the idea first came up in the early '90s. Former Gov. Mike O'Callaghan had something to do with that. As executive editor of the Las Vegas Sun, O'Callaghan wrote numerous columns questioning the wisdom of draining rural aquifers to satisfy Las Vegas' relentless thirst. O'Callaghan's opposition, at least in part, resulted in vocal criticism of the plan in Las Vegas as well as in the hinterlands.

In response to those days, when the tide was turning against the project, the water authority launched its relentless advocacy effort. With O'Callaghan out of the picture and buckets of cash to spend, the water authority's campaign seems to be working. Except for PLAN, you don't hear much these days about Las Vegans who oppose the pipeline.

Except, perhaps, when it comes to the cost. The latest estimate to build the pipeline is $3 billion, although some believe the project will cost considerably more. Considering the severe economic crisis and the fact that Las Vegas is no longer growing, shouldn't we question the wisdom of pressing ahead with the pipeline? Shouldn't we wonder why the water authority, with its $125.5 million annual operating budget and 404 employees, seems to be immune from the slicing and dicing under way in other state and local agencies?

The subject of belt-tightening is expected to come up at the water authority board's Dec. 18 meeting. Knapp, who also writes a column for CityLife, the weekly newspaper owned by the same company as the Review-Journal, issued a challenge: "Someone with some guts needs to stand up to the water authority, demand to see the books and ask some tough questions about how that organization spends its huge pile of money."

As one of the water authority's ranch hands might say, "Damn straight."

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of Las Vegas CityLife, owned by the same company as the Review-Journal. His column appears Friday.