We're Fracked?!

We've been talking quite a lot about land policies in one corner of Southern Nevada. Yet while we were focused on that part of the state, some huge news dropped in another part of the state. In one corner of Northern Nevada, fracking has already begun.

Wait, what?! Yes, fracking has already begun in Elko County. Noble Energy is now fracking on mostly private land just outside Wells, but it now has approval to frack on some BLM land nearby as well. And thanks to SB 390, the fracking regulations bill passed by the Nevada Legislature last year, it's legal.



It's already been making waves in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas, and elsewhere. And now, fracking is happening in our state.

We've already become familiar with the more upfront dangers of fracking. However, there's an even greater danger that we simply can't ignore.



Noble Energy is fracking for oil. Noble Energy is risking contaminating the entire water supply for that area to extract fossil fuels from the ground. Noble Energy is extracting fossil fuels that worsen climate change.

Remember climate change? It just happens to be the greatest global security threat of our time. And Rural Nevada is already feeling it.

Nevada is already experiencing a rather serious drought. We can't afford to waste water. And we especially can't afford to waste water on extracting fossil fuels that are endangering our future.

Pipeline to Peril

Today has probably not been a good day to hang out at Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) headquarters, unless one happens to be a reporter looking for a good story. Why? Nevada's water powerhouse got hit with not one, but two federal law suits today.

First off, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal law suit over SNWA's proposed pipeline to divert water from Snake Valley to Clark County.

“Enough is enough,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based senior scientist with the Center. “Despite hundreds of pages detailing the unthinkable harm that would be caused by this project, tens of thousands of people signing petitions against it, and setbacks in state district and supreme courts, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and BLM have closed their ears to reason, logic and plain common sense. They need to drop this disastrous water grab.”

The Groundwater Development Project would, by the authority’s own admission, dry up or “adversely affect” more than 5,500 acres of meadows, more than 200 springs, 33 miles of trout streams, and 130,600 acres of sagebrush habitat for sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn as water tables plunge by 200 feet.

The greater sage grouse is an upland bird species, iconic and completely dependent on sagebrush habitat for its existence; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found the bird to warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2010. Its numbers have plummeted by more than 50 percent in recent decades due to fragmentation and loss of habitat (more of which would occur with the Southern Nevada groundwater pumping project). The Fish and Wildlife Service must make a decision on listing the bird for protections under the Endangered Species Act by 2015 under a settlement agreement with the Center.

At least 25 species of Great Basin springsnails would also be pushed toward extinction, and 14 species of desert fish would be hurt, including the Moapa dace and White River springfish. Frogs and toads would fare little better, with four species severely threatened by the dewatering.

Both wildlife and agriculture in the region would be in grave risk if SNWA's Snake Valley Pipeline is allowed to suck water out of the region. That's why local Native American tribes, farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists have all called on SNWA to shelf the costly pipeline and seriously consider less costly alternatives. That's also why a district court judge ruled against SNWA and its pipeline plan in December.

But wait, there's more. The Great Basin Water Network, along with White Pine County, Sierra Club, and other local allies, filed their own suit in federal court against SNWA and its proposed pipeline. Why?

Abby Johnson, President of the Great Basin Water Network, said the project would be “the biggest groundwater pumping project ever built in the United States and it would have devastating hydrological, biological and socioeconomic impacts across vast areas of eastern Nevada and Western Utah. In approving the project and the pipeline ROW [right of way], BLM [Bureau of Land Management] ignored its own science and conclusions that the environmental impacts would be irreversible, irretrievable and widespread. That’s arbitrary and capricious decision-making,” she said.

The Plaintiffs, which also include the Sierra Club, the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, Utah Audubon Council, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Utah Rivers Council, and Salt Lake League of Women Voters, argue that the BLM did an inadequate analysis of the potential for drastic impacts upon air quality downwind of the project area. The drawdown from SNWA’s proposed pumping would dry up springs, wetlands and riparian areas, and public rangelands by dropping the water table by dozens to hundreds of feet, threatening the regional economic viability of ranching and tourism, and jeopardizing senior water rights. “The future of rural communities and wildlife in the massive target zone is at stake,” said Susan Lynn of GBWN. “The $15 billion project will be exceptionally risky and costly for both rural residents and Las Vegas ratepayers.” 

Simeon Herskovits, of Advocates for Community and Environment, the attorney for the groups, said, “All the scientific modeling, including SNWA’s own model, shows that the proposed groundwater pumping will have devastating effects on both existing water rights and sensitive environmental resources throughout a broad region encompassing a number of hydrologically connected valleys. The proposed mitigation plan relied on by the BLM for protection of federal resources is woefully vague and inadequate and has little to no hope of success.” Herskovits said.

Ouch. And it would especially be painful for those people in rural Nevada & Utah whose entire community & livelihood would be thrown into doubt.

But then again, it's already becoming painful for Clark County residents. Remember that SNWA's controversial 2012 water rate increases were deemed necessary in order to pay for construction of the Snake Valley Pipeline. So what has Southern Nevada gotten out of this? So far, it looks like Clark County residents are paying more for their water bills so SNWA can fight multiple legal battles in state and federal courts.

Look, we know climate change has only exacerbated Southern Nevada's precarious water supply. But is a $15 billion pipeline meant to bleed Rural Nevada & Utah dry in order to fuel more exurban real estate development truly the solution? Or would SNWA be better off by backing off and pursuing more efficient & realistic solutions?

Think about it. SNWA has already invested a whole lot in this pipeline. And what has that netted us so far? How much more money can we afford to stuff down the drain?

Feeling the Dry

Feeling dry lately? Haven't we all? It's not a coincidence.

And we're far from alone. Sao Paulo, Brazil's & South America's most populous city, is enduring its worst drought in 50 years. Meanwhile in Iran, the water level of the Middle East's largest lake has dropped 95% in the past 20 years. In Northeast India, the increasing frequency of drought now threatens its famous Tea industry. And coming dangerously close to home, California's epic drought may turn out to be the worst the state has experienced in 500 years as farm crops and urban water supplies throughout the state are feeling the burn (and the dry).

Of course, we're also feeling the dry right here. Rural Nevada has been enduring a rather harsh drought for some time now. Yet as the powers that be in Southern Nevada become increasingly worried about the Las Vegas Valley's water supply, they're renewing calls to build the Snake Valley Pipeline to divert water from an already parched region. Tensions are already mounting high in Nevada and elsewhere in the US, and those tensions show no sign of letting up any time soon.

Yet in some corners of Capitol Hill, the usual suspects want to continue denying reality. And not only that, but they're also trying to prevent meaningful action to take on the increasingly obvious threat of climate change. Some are even going as far as claiming that "Noah's Ark" is "proof" that climate change isn't a big deal.

We wonder if they'd dare to say such nonsense directly to the faces of people who have suffered from recent floods, drought, or other forms of extreme weather as of late. If they need any more real proof of the real danger of the climate crisis, they can take a peek at those fast glaciers of Greenland... Or just notice the interest groups waging epic political battles in California & Nevada over dwindling water supplies.

We're all feeling the dry here. It's why we're now so thirsty. But if we truly want to quench that thirst for the long term, we must look beyond "quick fix solutions" that don't truly fix our long term problems. We must finally deal with what's making us so damned dry (while simultaneously drying or flooding other parts of the world) in the first place.

Change Course

Last month, we got quite the surprise. A White Pine County district court judge ruled against the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in the latest law suit challenging SNWA's proposed Snake Valley Pipeline, the proposal many Rural Nevadans and environmentalists know as "The Water Grab". And to make matters even more awkward at SNWA headquarters, this news came just as long-time "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy was preparing to step down from the post that she molded and fashioned herself.

But now, all eyes are turning to John Entsminger. Why? He's Mulroy's pick to succeed her. And yesterday, he scored tentative approval from the Clark County Commission to take over the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the sister organization of SNWA. (Typically, the head of the Water District also takes charge of SNWA.)

Looking ahead, John Entsminger faces plenty of challenges. Perhaps the greatest one involves the epic Western Drought that's increasingly becoming "the new normal" as
climate change continues to take hold. The Colorado River simply isn't a limitless well. And a few good days of rain just aren't enough to make all of this go away.

So what can be done? Actually, it's already been done. And even more is possible... And probably necessary as well. Of course, we're talking about water conservation.

It's likely cheaper than all the additional construction and litigation that will be necessary to develop the Snake Valley Pipeline. But so far, Entsminger has refused to back away from Mulroy's plans to build the controversial pipeline. It just remains to be seen whether the rest of Clark County will be so willing to stay the course.

Funny enough, even John Entsminger himself has admitted that some changes will be necessary. With so much aging infrastructure and more practical ways to manage water resources likely at hand, does it make sense to charge small consumers more just to build a pipeline that was originally meant to nourish Harvey Whittemore's greatest pipe dream yet? Or is it time to change course?

Pipelines & Pipe Dreams

Last night, we encountered a fascinating surprise. It's another twist in the rather twisted plot of Southern Nevada Water Authority's (SNWA) proposed pipeline to pump water from Snake Valley (and Western Utah) to Clark County. SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy has claimed Southern Nevada needs to prepare for a future without much Colorado River water, but the coalition of rural farmers and urban environmentalists fighting "The Water Grab" have pointed to water conservation programs (including many that SNWA itself once championed!) as less disruptive and less expensive alternatives to the proposed pipeline.

Over the years, SNWA has been able to line up needed state and federal approval to build the Snake Valley Pipeline. But yesterday, a critical element of that equation was taken away. Nevada State Engineer Jason King approved the Snake Valley Pipeline in 2011, but a district court invalidated a key part of that approval yesterday.

[...] Senior District Judge Robert Estes said this "is likely the largest interbasin transfer of water in U.S. history" and that parts of King's decision were "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered him to re-evaluate the amount of water available in the four basins and take another look at the potential environmental damage.

Estes said King approved an excess of 9,780 acre feet of water being drawn from Spring Valley, and the judge ordered King to recalculate the amount of available water to assure there is "an equal amount of discharge and recharge in a reasonable time." King must also reconsider how piping water from Spring Valley will impact the groundwater resources in Millard and Juab counties in Utah. [...]

Rob Mrowka, senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity called the decision a "huge blow to the water authority's plan to suck massive amounts of water out of the Nevada-Utah desert to feed urban sprawl in and around Las Vegas." He continued, calling this a "historic ruling and a great victory for wildlife in Nevada and Utah, rural communities and families, and for the citizens of Las Vegas." He said the water authority now has the opportunity to explore other alternatives to serve the growing needs of Southern Nevada.

While Mr. Mrowka is correct that SNWA now has the opportunity to explore alternatives, it remains to be seen how much more time and money SNWA will spend before considering those alternatives. For several years, Pat Mulroy has made the Snake Valley Pipeline her greatest cause. It was once meant to give life to Harvey Whittemore's latest and greatest exurban masterpiece, Coyote Springs. But now that Harvey Whittemore is claiming residence in a federal prison cell and Coyote Springs has become an electrified ghost town (with a lovely golf course), Mulroy no longer has a shiny new real estate boondoggle development to direct Snake Valley water to. Yet despite the legal and financial collapse of Whittemore's juiced up empire, Mulroy refuses to give up on the pipeline that was meant to fuel his last great pipe dream.

And the drama doesn't end there. Once upon a time, Pat Mulroy was considered Nevada's most powerful unelected leader. But in a shocking reversal of fortune, the Nevada Legislature considered a bill early this year to require more oversight of SNWA on the heels of public backlash over recent water rate increases and accusations of workers' rights abuses. While the bill itself was later shelved, SNWA is no longer perceived to be a political "sacred cow" that's never to be challenged.

What was once meant to be the final regal feather in the cap of Pat Mulroy's illustrious reign as Southern Nevada's Water Czar is instead beginning to resemble a rope (tied to an anvil) that's been leading Mulroy's SNWA into an embarrassing string of scandals and setbacks. Even if SNWA can score a victory in the Nevada Supreme Court (and that's far from certain, considering that court ruled against SNWA in 2010), it likely won't be the end of the legal battles over the Snake Valley Pipeline. And with continuing anger in the Las Vegas Valley over recent water rate hikes (meant to fund construction of the pipeline), SNWA no longer has a strong base of support at home for the pipeline.

We can only wonder when the halls of power atop SNWA headquarters will hear this question being asked aloud: Is it worth it? Is the Snake Valley Pipeline truly worth all this time and money? And is it worth all the political capital SNWA has lost in recent years? Oh, and is it worth the risk it presents to a wide swath of Rural Nevada that depends on Snake Valley water? And is it worth the risk of allowing for exurban sprawl that could later cause logistical woes for Clark County?

Here's another question for all of us to consider: Is it finally time for us to drop the crack pipe that's given us pipe dreams of a pipeline that can magically make the horrors of drought and climate change go away? As of now, this pipe dream is looking like a massive nightmare.

Future on Fire

Is it just me, or does it feel like Nevada is on fire? Up north, the Bison Fire is breaking loose in Douglas County just as the Kyburz Fire near Lake Tahoe is nearing 100% containment.



Meanwhile down south, the Carpenter 1 Fire near Mount Charleston in Clark County actually dropped from 15% to only 10% containment as the massive 20,000 acre wildfire hopped across Kyle Canyon.




And it's not just here. Across the American West, we're seeing massive wildfires scorch the landscape. And as all this record heat and record dryness fuel these massive wildfires, it's becoming even more difficult to deny the brutal reality of climate change. We've already been noticing the parched land as a result of climate change. I guess it was just a matter of time (and incredibly hot weather) before this parched land was set ablaze.

Over time, we've seen growing evidence of human induced climate change leading to bigger and more destructive wildfires. Now, we have horrific evidence right outside our windows. How much longer can we deny reality?

As we keep emitting greenhouse gases, Arctic & Antarctic ice continues to melt. And as that ice continues to melt away at our earth's poles, meteorological mayhem ensues.

So keep this in mind as we see the fires outside. The future is in our hands. Do we really want to let it burn away?

Misrepresentation

It's not easy representing such an expansive district. That's something Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) has had to learn the hard way. And he's especially had to learn as Congress and the nation debate gun safety reform.

In January, Horsford was quick to endorse the entirety of President Obama's gun safety agenda. Later that month, Rep. Horsford even want on "Ralston Reports" to talk with Mr. Nevada Pundit himself on gun safety.

Yet since then, he's stepped back. Sure, Horsford still personally supports gun safety reform. However since taking office, he's been listening to constituents throughout his district to seek their input on the subject.

[... A]nyone who was listening to Horsford in the wake of December’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. — a galvanizing event in the gun control debate —knows Horsford promised to back an assault weapons ban in Congress. The children who had been killed with a semiautomatic rifle in Newtown were the approximate age of his daughter, Ella, he noted at the time.

“I come at this not as an elected official but as a parent,” Horsford told the Sun two weeks before being sworn in as a U.S. Congressman.

But since taking on his elected role, Horsford has repeatedly and noticeably tempered that personal conviction, suggesting his mind is not made up about the more controversial points of gun control legislation, such as an assault weapons ban.

“As a parent I have a personal viewpoint on military-style weapons not being in our neighborhoods,” Horsford said in a recent interview at his congressional office. “As a policymaker, it is my job to listen to my constituents and then vote on the legislation that comes before us to represent the view that I’ve heard from my constituents.” [...]

“Part of what I’ve experienced listening to people in my district, particularly in the rural communities, is ‘respect my right to own a gun. I live in a community where I may not have police or law enforcement protection for 30, 60, 100 miles, and I need to be able to protect myself … and I have the right to do that,’” Horsford said. “And I agree, and respect that right, and have said without wavering that that is a right that we have to respect in this process.”

Horsford tells of some Republican, National Rifle Association-member constituents who he says, once they realize he respects their Second Amendment rights, are willing to talk about getting some of the higher magazine clips and semiautomatic rifles off the streets.

But, he admits, he also has several other constituents for whom “listening to them and then voting for a ban is not going to make them feel any better.”

“I’m honestly, in the core of my job as a public servant, trying to represent the needs of all my constituents,” he said. “I take it very seriously that my job … is to represent my constituents. Not some of my constituents. Not the ones I agree with only. My job is to represent the whole district.”

Indeed, Nevada's 4th Congressional District is quite diverse and expansive. NV-04 stretches from Yerington and Ely in rural Northern Nevada all the way down to Pahrump, then crosses the Spring Mountains and Sheep Range into Clark County, where just over 80% of the district's population resides. And even the Clark County portion of NV-04 is incredibly diverse, as it stretches from exurban Mesquite to minority heavy West Las Vegas and affluent Summerlin.

So Rep. Horsford represents not just a wide swath of Nevada land, but also a wide array of views on gun violence. And he's been doing his best to show respect to all his constituents. Why can't more Members of Congress do this?

And let's not forget, this isn't a one way street. In fact, February's KLAS-SUSA poll showed that 57% of Nevadans support the Assault Weapons Ban while only 33% oppose! And not only that, but the poll showed 71-23% support among Nevadans for a state gun registry and 76-19% support for expanded background checks. Oh, and since then, multiple polls have shown 86% support for expanded background checks for gun purchases!

So why am I bringing this up now? It's important to note just how out of touch Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) is with his constitutents. Instead of talking to Nevadans from throughout the state on what they'd like to see on gun safety, he's making excuses and even using "tea party" talking points as reason to oppose what 86% of Nevadans support.

And now, because Senator Heller is thumbing his nose at 86% of his constitutents, gun safety reform may finally be dying in Congress.

As a policy matter, [Heller's excuse for joining the G-O-TEA filibuster of gun safety reform] is gibberish. Indeed, it's so wrong, it's almost insulting. There's nothing unconstitutional about background checks -- indeed, background checks must be legally permissible, since they already exist without legal controversy. What's more, fearing the creation of a national gun registry from the proposal is idiotic, given that the legislation explicitly bans such a registry. The Toomey/Manchin language strengthens the prohibition against the very registry Heller is worried about.

Also note, as recently as February, Heller called background check expansion a "reasonable step forward." Since then, he saw a poll showing 87% of his constituents support the idea. Then Heller used a ridiculous rationale to oppose the popular policy.

Of course, it's not just Heller who's been irresponsible. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Newtown families yesterday.

And then there are a handful of red-state Democrats who aren't just prepared to oppose background-check expansion, but are also likely to side with Republicans on the filibuster. It's not enough to vote against it; they're prepared to join the GOP in denying the popular measure a vote at all.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), sounding very discouraged, said last night, "I honestly just didn't believe GOP Senators would turn their back on 90% of Americans. I was naive."

That's another thing to keep in mind. Not only is Senator Heller opposing any and all gun safety reform, but he doesn't even want to give these proposals a vote! He's joining the "tea party" backed filibuster on all these measures, even the background checks proposal with 86% support. Why won't he even allow a vote on the bill and related amendments?

Ask that. And remember this. And go ahead & wonder if Senator Dean Heller is actually doing anything to truly represent Nevada.

Free Reign No More (for SNWA)?

On Tuesday, we learned more about SB 232, Senator Michael Roberson's (R-Henderson) bill to subject SNWA's proposed water rate increases to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for final approval. For perhaps the first time ever, SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy's immense power in directing water policy for Clark County, and to a certain extent the rest of the state as well, is being challenged. Mulroy clearly chafed at this last night on "Ralston Reports". And not only that, but she came armed with a legal brief. She's now saying SB 232 is unconstitutional!

(The fun starts at 18:20 in the video below.)



According to Mulroy (and the lawyers she's talked to), SB 232 unlawfully interferes with contracts that have already been entered into. In addition, she was claiming Roberson's bill would strip away local oversight by giving the PUC special master the power to override any water rate decision that's already gone through SNWA's process.

Roberson disputed both of Mulroy's claims. As a lawyer himself, he sounded confident in SB 232 passing constitutional muster. And he said SB 232 is now working its way up #NVLeg precisely because SNWA doesn't have enough oversight. He even brought the last reviews from the cities of North Las Vegas & Henderson, and pretty much declared them proof that the only kind of "oversight" SNWA receives is of the rubber stamp variety.

Toward the end of the show, Ralston stirred the pot some more by evoking the ongoing Snake Valley pipeline controversy. SNWA had been using this as justification for last year's rate increases. In a surprising twist, Roberson actually sounded skeptical about "The Great Basin Water Grab". That seemed so unthinkable in 2010, yet here it is today. Apparently, the economic & environmental costs of the proposed pipeline are finally scaring legislators.

And then, there's this new bombshell from KLAS/8 News Now. Former SNWA employee Debra Rivero recently revealed to investigative reporter George Knapp her horrific experience on the job at SNWA's White Pine County ranches.

8 News NOW

"I kept bringing up, 'Hey, there is unethical stuff going on up here' and the Vegas office didn't seem to want to hear it. They didn't want to talk to me about it," Rivero said.

In particular, she said, SNWA didn't want derogatory information about the ranches to be leaked to the I-Team, especially to reporter George Knapp.

Rivero said the lack of oversight by SNWA meant the ranches operated as a world unto themselves. The result, for Rivero, was horrific. In a blistering complaint filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she described an extremely hostile work environment in which she was harassed, humiliated, and demeaned. [...]

One incident was a turning point. She alleges that Peterson tried to intimidate her with an electronic cattle prod.

"It was a live cattle prod, a live cattle prod, and he held it within inches of my face. When I didn't jump out of the way, I just froze out of fear, he shocked the light bar above me and sparks went flying all over. He just chuckled and laughed and walked away."

She said she reported the incident to SNWA Human Resources director Pat Maxwell.

"And she did nothing. Her answer to me was, 'Well, you need to sit down and figure out what you did to make him so mean to you.'"

Shortly after this incident, Rivero suffered a stroke. A doctor told her to go to the hospital immediately. The White Pine ranch manager drove her to a hospital in Ely, then dropped her at the curb. Less than 2 weeks later, SNWA threatened to terminate her!

This may be the final straw to break the camel's back for SNWA. The agency was seen as ominpotent and infallible for so long. When the "boom times" were here, SNWA raked in the cash from the explosive growth of Clark County. But now that Clark County's population is growing more slowly, the real estate bubble is long gone, and climate change is leading to an extended Western drought, SNWA may have to give up the free reign it's enjoyed for over 2 decades.

#NVLeg Sets Sights on SNWA

In October 2011, we were surprised to see Clark County agree to give Pat Mulroy regular job reviews. Apparently, that's not enough oversight for a growing number of state lawmakers. They want to see more.

Last spring, SNWA faced enormous backlash over its water rate increases. It had been a long and tough slog for environmentalists to get Southern Nevadans to care about the fate of the rural agrarian community and ecosystem of Snake Valley. But when SNWA rammed through a plan to pay for its proposed Snake Valley pipeline by disproportionately raising water rates on working class families and small businesses while bailing out the region's biggest water wasters, Mulroy has been in the hot seat ever since.

So now, we have this.

[Senator Michael] Roberson’s [R-Henderson] bill would require the SNWA to obtain approval from the Public Utilities Commission, a three-member board appointed by Gov. Brian Sandoval, for any water rate increase on business or commercial customers of the utility.

The bill also would require the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a hearing officer to investigate the need for a proposed rate increase and issue a decision approving or declining the rate increase.

“Many in the Southern Nevada community believe the process failed to allow an adequate opportunity for public input,” Roberson said in a statement. “Southern Nevada residents and businesses will likely face future significant rate increases. This legislation will ensure that those rate increases occur in as fair and equitable manner as possible in a completely open process.”

Mulroy testified this past week that there was “massive public outreach” about the rate increases in 2012.

Roberson’s bill has support from Sens. David Parks, D-Las Vegas; Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka; Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas; Scott Hammond, R-Las Vegas; Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas; James Settelmeyer, R-Minden; Joyce Woodhouse, D-Henderson; Joe Hardy, R-Boulder City; and Mark Hutchinson, R-Las Vegas.

So much for that "massive public outreach". SB 232 has attracted broad bipartisan support in Carson City so far. Rural Senators concerned about the impact of the Snake Valley pipeline on their communities and Clark County lawmakers angered over last year's rate increases may very well succeed in the first real challenge to the previously unchecked power of Mulroy and SNWA.

In years past, SNWA was able to cry "DROUGHT!" to silence critics demanding more accountability. That may not work this time. Last year, SNWA actually removed incentives for water conservation. And last November, SNWA reached a historic Colorado River water sharing agreement with several other Southwestern states and Mexico.

Now yes, Nevada is facing a real drought. We have climate change to thank for that. And we can't ignore the challenges that lie ahead with climate change and continuing drought. But really, how does stealing water from one region to fuel unnecessary real estate development in another region help? And how on earth can one justify repealing water conservation incentives?

So perhaps SNWA does need some more oversight. That's why the above mentioned legislators are coalescing behind SB 232. And that's why Pat Mulroy is running a bit more scared these days.

Dry, Bitter Fruit

This morning, I saw something very troubling in the RGJ. It's not even spring yet, and the BLM is already warning Northern Nevada ranchers of the dry summer ahead.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials said it’s possible drought conditions could again force the removal of livestock or temporary closure of grazing allotments on some federal land in Nevada this summer.

The agency’s Elko District Office has released an environmental assessment detailing how it plans to respond to varied range conditions, and has asked grazing permit holders to meet with BLM staff to assess range conditions before turning out livestock.

BLM officials said while recent storms have slightly improved range conditions in a few areas, the entire state remains unusually dry. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, more than 60 percent of Nevada was in severe or extreme drought conditions as of Jan. 1.

Last year, the Elko district worked with ranchers to adjust their livestock operations in line with reduced forage due to the drought.

According to the BLM, forage remains of poor quality, and many water sources are drier than usual, putting more pressure on other water sources by all users, including wildlife and wild horses, and causing long-lasting damage to plants, spring areas and water quality.

“The Elko district may recommend these actions (for ranchers) again this year,” BLM spokeswoman Lesli Ellis said in a statement. “These adjustments could include delaying turn-out, adjusting grazing numbers or in some cases taking substantial non-use.”

I hate to say it, but I told you so. And more importantly, scientists have been warning us for decades on this coming crisis. And now, we're starting to pay the price for past inaction.

In the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice volume has plummeted. And in the same period of time, we've seen far more extreme weather. We can no longer deny the crisis at our doorstep.

This is why climate activists across the country called for an end to the Keystone XL nonsense and a new start on climate action. At least some on Capitol Hill actually paid attention. But ultimately, both protestors and some Members of Congress are calling on President Obama to act if Congress can't.

“Go ahead, start acting on these issues,” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged President Obama in a Friday phone interview with TPM. “[I]f he moves forward in a broad array of measures, that will encourage industry to push the Republicans to legislate. But I don’t think we should have a waiting game for Congress to act or for industries to push Congress. We’ve been in a waiting game for decades … it’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face.” [...]

“The EPA is required to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act,” Waxman said. “They’ve already proposed a rule to limit the pollution from new power plants, and they could also issue regulations dealing with existing power plants, as well as oil refineries. The Department of Energy can issue efficiency standards for household appliances. That would deal with greenhouse gases as well as saving consumers a lot of money.”

In addition, President Obama has the final word on Keystone. He can turn down that boondoggle and get the ball rolling on real climate denial.

When it comes to regulating carbon emissions, the EPA now has the authority to do so. President Obama has been waiting for Congress to do something first. But if Congress keeps doing nothing, he and the EPA will ultimately have to step up.

Again, we're already seeing the real and dangerous effects of climate change. If we fail to act soon, this will indeed become a devastating crisis. If we fail to act, we only threaten our very existence as a human race.

We're already beginning to bear the ugly, bitter fruit of inaction here in Nevada. We can't afford any more.

What the Frack?! (Continued)

Last month, we were shocked to discover that state officials are considering allowing fracking in Nevada. Now, we have more concrete details of what's being considered. Houston based Noble Energy has plans to frack 40,000 acres of public land just outside Wells, and about 50 miles east of Elko, by the end of the year. In addition to this, Noble Energy has secured leases on a total of 350,000 acres of public land in Elko County with plans to frack all of it.

Again, Noble Energy wants to start fracking in Elko County by the end of this year. And it wants to frack even more land next year. If Noble Energy succeeds, get used to seeing this here.





This is the real damage caused by fracking in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and other states where fracking has already occurred. And this is what will come to Nevada if fracking is allowed here. That's why the Center for Biological Diversity is asking the BLM to stop this proposed project. And the Center will likely not be alone in doing so.

“Fracking on these sensitive public lands in Nevada could threaten human health and our spectacular natural heritage,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based ecologist with the Center. “Use of this polluting technology so close to human habitation is fraught with danger, which is why many states and municipalities are fighting to ban fracking.”

Fracking is a controversial form of oil and gas extraction that involves blasting huge volumes of water, mixed with toxic chemicals and sand, deep into the earth to break up rock formations. Fracking has been linked to air and water pollution; one study identified more than 25 percent of reported fracking chemicals as known carcinogens. Other fracking chemicals harm the nervous, endocrine, immune and cardiovascular systems and can contribute to serious health problems in people and animals living near fracked wells.

Fracking has been tied to contamination of surface and ground waters; well water from household taps in some areas can be set on fire because of methane contamination in the water supply. The federal government recently confirmed fracking-related contamination of water in Pavillion, Wyo. [...]

“The area of this proposed project has been identified by the Nevada Department of Wildlife as essential and irreplaceable habitat for the greater sage grouse, a species being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act,” Mrowka added. “The last thing these rare, spectacular birds need is gas-field development in their habitat.”

This is the frightening reality of fracking. And this is why Nevadans must think long and hard about these consequences. Do we want tap water that can be set on fire? And do we want to put our land, our wildlife, and ultimately our people in such danger?

What the Frack?!

It's not very often when I open the morning Las Vegas Sun and discover something truly shocking. Today is an exception. I nearly leaped out of bed when I saw this.

State regulators typically issue three or four permits each year for oil and gas drilling, but this year, they issued 13 by late September. With fracking growing more popular throughout the country, some companies have started to turn their attention to Nevada, said Alan Coyner, administrator of the state’s Division of Minerals.

No company has used hydraulic fracturing in Nevada, but some now want that option in their permits, he said.

Oil and gas producer Noble Energy plans to explore for crude oil on 350,000 acres it is leasing in northeast Nevada. The company, which gave the project a 55 percent chance of success, aims to start production in 2014.

Noble has not received a drilling permit but likely will seek permission for hydraulic fracturing, Coyner said.

So the fossil fuel industry is now looking to bring fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) to Nevada. So what is fracking? And why should we care?

Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. It’s an extremely water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid – typically a mix of water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to cause cancer – are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This fracking releases extra oil and/or gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well.

But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste — all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that is turning our communities into sacrifice zones. Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That’s why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.

Still wondering why fracking is so "controversial"? Watch this and cringe.



Believe it or not, this is the reality of fracking. It really isn't pretty. And it definitely isn't safe. So why are Nevada officials even considering allowing this frightening practice to take root here?

Do we really want this here?



Contrary to the spin you hear from the fossil fuel industry, remember that fracking is extremely dangerous. And because then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from federal environmental regulations in 2005, there's no turning back if Nevada allows for fracking as there's no federal protection from the kind of devastation it brings.

What makes this even more insane is that fracking is a very water intensive practice. And remember that especially Northern Nevada has been hit quite hard by extended drought. Do we really have the water to waste on this?

Why is anyone even talking about doing this? There's just no good reason for Nevada to even consider allowing fracking within our borders.

On top of everything else, fracking means more fossil fuels extracted. And that means more greenhouse gas emissions exactly when we can least afford them. With climate change already starting to wreak havoc on our planet, we just can't afford to continue our gruesome addiction to fossil fuels.

Just this week, a deal was announced for the City of Los Angeles to purchase 460 megawatts of solar energy from solar power plants slated to be built in the Moapa Valley and Boulder City. Nevada has the potential to truly shine with the development of a mean, green, clean economy. So why lose sight of this? And especially why forget this and look at allowing something as dangerous and devastating as fracking?

What the frack?!

All About Agua

Water. We just can't live without it. Yet here in the desert, it's quite the scarce resource. That's why many here in Nevada will be celebrating tomorrow.

Why? Pay attention to this.

Government officials from United States and Mexico have made a Tuesday date in San Diego to sign a landmark agreement to share Colorado River water during times of drought and surplus. [...]

The five-year agreement developed from talks begun before the seven Colorado River states signed a landmark agreement in 2007 to share the pain of shortages during drought and surpluses during wet years. The river runs some 1,450 miles from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the Gulf of California.

The agreement calls for letting Mexico store water in Lake Mead, and for a pilot program of water releases from the U.S. to replenish wetlands in the Colorado River delta south of the border.

The water agencies in California, Arizona and Nevada would each buy water from Mexico over three years. The agreement also clears the way for U.S. entities to invest in infrastructure improvements in Mexico in return for a share of the water such projects would save.

So why is this so important? Keep in mind that 90% of the water supply for the Las Vegas Valley comes from the Colorado River/Lake Mead. Without the Colorado, we simply can't survive.

Also keep in mind that as climate change becomes more of a crisis, the extended drought it's brought to The Southwest will continue. And as that drought continues, Colorado River flow remains low. So more than ever before, everyone who relies on the river for survival needs this agreement... And needs to learn how to survive by cooperating with each other.

Under this new agreement, there will be more cooperation than we've ever seen before. And it will be international.

The pact calls for the [Metropolitan Water District of] Southern California to pay Mexico $5 million over three years in return for 47,500 acre-feet of water. The agencies in Arizona and Nevada [as in the Southern Nevada Water Authority] would each pay half that for about half the amount of water. An acre-foot of water is enough to serve two households for a year.

"It is a significant development on the Colorado River," said Kip White, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation. "It could be one of the most significant things that’s happened since the 1944 Colorado River Compact."

The current agreement is an addendum to a 1944 U.S.-Mexico water treaty.

It would let Mexico continue an emergency program begun two years ago to store water in Lake Mead, the reservoir behind Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. That’s when an earthquake in Mexico damaged its pipelines. Mexico asked the U.S. at the time to let it store water temporarily while repairs were made to irrigation systems.

The agreement also calls for a pilot program of water releases from the U.S. to replenish wetlands in the Colorado River delta of the Gulf of California.

Provisions include Mexico agreeing to adjust its delivery schedule during low reservoir conditions; Mexico having access to additional water during high reservoir conditions; and a commitment to work together on a pilot program that includes water for the environment.

By allowing Mexico to store water in Lake Mead, the lake's water level rises. And even though that additional 15 feet of water will be "earmarked" for Mexico, it actually provides a critical 15 feet of protection for Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) intake pipes collecting water for use in urban and suburban Clark County. And as mentioned above, the agreement will allow Nevada to collect over 23,000 acre-feet of water for $2.5 million.

So at least for now, Southern Nevada has again escaped doom by securing enough water to sustain us. So is this it? Probably not yet... But not for the reason you think.

Remember that in recent months, SNWA has been pushing hard for a pipeline to Snake Valley in rural Central Nevada to pump water from there to Clark County. Earlier this year, SNWA even raised water rates and cut conservation rebates in order to kickstart funding for the Snake Valley "Water Grab" project. And even though local officials in rural Nevada and throughout Utah begged the Nevada State Engineer not to parch them and destroy their ecosystem, SNWA turned up enough pressure to convince him to green-light the pipeline.

But now that SNWA has a new compact for the Colorado River,why should SNWA continue pursuing that Snake Valley Pipeline? Especially with Clark County population growth projected to remain much slower than what we saw in the previous two decades, there doesn't seem to be any more need for it. And as we discussed above, in this era of climate change everyone has to learn to cooperate and properly share water in order to survive.

This new compact for the Colorado River provides hope that people here are ready to do that. We'll have to see if the folks in charge of SNWA can continue applying this useful lesson in more cases.

They Kill Ranches & Rural Nevada, Don't They?

Believe it or not, there is still plenty of wide open space here in Nevada. This is how ranchers continue to survive. But while Rural Nevada is still wide open, it may not be as hospitable to ranchers and their livestock going forward.

Why? Once again, look to climate change.

A large decrease in the amount of grazing allowed on public land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service could help offset stress on rangeland in Nevada and across the West that is being worsened by climate change, scientists said in a report released today.

While much attention is focused on a warming climate’s effects on forest health and wildfires, climate impacts on range used for grazing has received much less scrutiny, said Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus at Oregon State University and lead author of the study.

“Entire rangeland ecosystems in the American West are getting lost in the shuffle,” Beschta said. “If we don’t get recovery under way soon, we may lose that opportunity. The clock is running and it’s running pretty fast.” [...]

Tina Nappe, a Reno conservationist and member of the Sierra Club, said she’s not ready to support widespread elimination of grazing on public land but agreed not near enough attention has been paid to impacts of a warming climate on many traditional land uses, grazing among them.

“There’s no doubt in my mind our current system does not take into account increased warming,” Nappe said. “We’ve know for some time a lot of these uses have to be re-evaluated in view of the fact we are experiencing warmer temperatures.”

These lands across Rural Nevada are now experiencing additonal soil erosion, vegetation loss, drainage problems, decline in water quality, and even disruption in entire wildlife communities thanks to climate change. So obviously, these lands are having more difficulty handling roaming livestock on top of all these other problems. Local ranchers may be furious over this proposed change from the Forest Service and BLM, but what else can be done?

Well, now that we're thinking about it some more, there is something else that can be done. But while it can't stop "land rationing" now, it can prevent this problem from becoming a horrifying crisis that will forbid any more ranching in Nevada altogether. And this is something we can all do now to help.

Right now, a huge swath of America spanning from the outskirts of Chicago to Southern Montana to the Mexican Border to Big Sur (on the California Coast) is mired in an ongoing and increasingly severe drought. And if we do nothing, the climate crisis will worsen, we will experience even more severe drought, and there may not be any land left for ranching in years to come.

This is what scientists have been warning us for several years. And this is what Harry Reid warned us about back in August. Simply put, climate change is no longer some far-away, intangible issue to ignore. Rather, it's threatening all of us here and now.

Global CO2 emissions grew a record setting 2.5% just last year. If we continue at this frightening pace, expect more disaster and even more destruction. However, it still doesn't have to be this way.

So what can we do? We can start by investing in our renewable energy future. And we can start by keeping fossil fuels where they belong (in the ground). And we can start by putting into place the proper regulatory framework to keep CO2 emissions in check moving forward. At this point, we no longer have a choice. If we don't want Nevada to turn barren, we have to take action on climate change.

How The West Will Be Won: How to Score in NV-04

Last week, we opened our new series on critical Western swing (Congressional) districts with a closer look at the always critical ground game in NV-03. Today, we're swinging north to Nevada's newest Congressional District. While this year may be NV-04's grand debut, it combines all the quintessential elements of Nevada's unique demographic and political landscape to create a different kind of swing district.

Below, we'll examine what had made Republicans so dominant throughout much of the district in the not too distant past... And why Democrats are feeling so upbeat about it now.

Perhaps the wildest surprise of the June primary was what happened in NV-04. While Danny Tarkanian managed to win the G-O-TEA primary, he faced a much stiffer challenge from State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) than most pundits had expected. And in perhaps the biggest blow to Baby Tark, his famous last name (his dad is the famed former UNLV
basketball coach, while he himself was a star UNLV basketball player in the early 1980s) fell flat in his home turf of Clark County! Oh yes, Cegavske actually narrowly won the Clark (Las Vegas Metro) part of the district, while Tarkanian ultimately had to count on outsized margins in the Rural Nevada part of the district to put him over the top.

So wait, how did this happen? Let me explain.

Redistricting meant Nevada was set to gain a Congressional District. And ultimately, that resulted in this rather unique district.

NV-04 is an interesting district in that it runs through all the cross sections of Nevada's topography and demography. It stretches from the tranquil rural confines of Yerington and Ely to the bustling urban atmosphere of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. It includes hard hit, poverty stricken neighborhoods, like Pahrump, as well as Nevada's wealthiest neighborhoods, like Summerlin. It includes some of the whitest and some of the most minority-majority communities in the state. And despite the 10% Democratic voter registration advantage, it's a district that both parties are fighting for.

Although 85.2% of NV-04's registered voters reside in Clark County, the rural parts of the district have an outsized influence over the district. Why? They turn out in big numbers, while some of the Clark County areas (in particular, the poorer and minority-majority urban core of the district) tend to produce lower voter turnout. This turned out to be Danny Tarkanian's "Ace in the Hole" in the Republican Primary, and he's clearly hoping it will be his secret to success this fall.

However, there's a reason why Barack Obama (2008) and Harry Reid (2010) both won NV-04 handily. Just take a look above. There are more Democratic voters in the district. And as long as they turn out, Democrats win.

This is what really seems to scare Danny Tarkanian's campaign. After all, why else would Danny Tarkanian so cravenly and clumsily attempt to run away from his own "tea party" approved record? Even Baby Tark himself must be realizing that "TEA" won't be fueling any realistic win in NV-04.

So Steven Horsford has some challenges ahead of them, but they're certainly achievable. While the rural areas vote heavily, the numbers in Clark County are still far greater. Basically, as long as North Las Vegas and the urban core of Las Vegas turn out I'm large numbers, and as long as Horsford can at least keep it close in Summerlin and Northwest Las Vegas, he can win in November.

And that's pretty much how to score in NV-04.

More WTF Crazy in Pahrump

Remember when a few angry Republicans tried to arrest the Pahrump Town Board? Well, the drama is about to get even more out of hand. The Nye County Commission just reversed itself and approved a ballot initiative to essentially "de-claw" the Pahrump Town Board.

Apparently, an "unholy alliance" formed after Town Board Member Vicky Parker made a comment about Nye County wanting to scrap the "more fiscally responsible" Pahrump Board to take all its cash. It infuriated the Nye Commissioners enough to switch their votes and give the Nye County Republican Central Committee what they've been seeking all along, which is to delegitimize and dissolve the Pahrump Town Board.

So what happens if they succeed? Under Nevada law, the current board would be able to finish their terms. But come 2014, the board would be reduced to just an advisory body while the Nye County Commission assumes all fiscal and municipal legislative duties for Pahrump. Funny enough, Pahrump now has 83% of Nye County's population, so theoretically Pahrump may soon have 4 out of 5 seats on the Commission depending on this year's election. However Nye County's seat of government is still 165 miles away in Tonopah, so local government could be even less responsive.

As I had suspected last month, Pahrump is clearly going through some difficult "growing pains".

Not that long ago, Pahrump was just a sparsely populated rural outpost far from any bustling metropolis. Now, it's a town of over 36,000 people that's increasingly looking like an exurb of the Las Vegas metropolitan area that's now topping 2,000,000 people. And now, Pahrump actually has a larger population than (incorporated cities) Boulder City and Mesquite combined.

Fifty years ago, Pahrump didn't even have telephone service! But especially in the last two decades, people have been flocking here seeking a "simpler", more bucolic life. And while there may still be some wide open space now, even that's been changing as more housing and commercial developments are approved. Really, this once rural outpost in the middle of nowhere is increasingly looking like an exurb.

I'm really wondering how Pahrump residents can get the kind of attention their town really needs if their nearest local government has headquarters 165 miles away. At least Nye County has government offices and some Commission hearings in Pahrump, but I'm still perplexed by the possibility of a growing municipality with 37,0000 people ceding that much local control. Just how sustainable is that?

I also find it funny how the Nye County GOPers keep butting in. They always claim they're for "limited government" and "more local control", yet they're now advocating expanding the power of the Nye County Commision and giving them complete control of Pahrump? Are they serious? I guess grudge matches trump ideology out there in the open desert.

Pahrump... WTF??!!

If you ever thought city/town council meetings are incredibly boring, then you've clearly never been to Pahrump.

About 30 members of the Nye County Republican Central Committee led the charge to make a citizen's arrest on three town board members after voting to repeal a town ordinance passed years ago.

Attorneys say Pahrump Town Ordinance 46 is unconstitutional because it restricts power of future town boards, and so they put the issue on the agenda to repeal it. Members of the NCRCC say that is illegal because it should have been put to a public vote. Town leaders voted anyway, and that's when meeting turned to melee.

Bill Carns led the charge, as NCRCC members tried to make a citizen's arrest on board members Harley Kulkin, Tom Waters and Vicky Parker. When Nye County Sheriff Deputies refused, the group tried to make citizen arrests on deputies themselves.

Board Chair Vicky Parker says the group has been disruptive before.

"This is just the first time they decided to arrest us," she said. "It was bullying, it was threats, intimidation, harassment."

At first, this looks like downright lunacy. And to a large extent, it really is. Last I checked, one actually needs to present evidence of criminal wrongdoing to make an arrest.

However, I can also see the real frustration behind this week's melee... And why it was finally unleashed.

Not that long ago, Pahrump was just a sparsely populated rural outpost far from any bustling metropolis. Now, it's a town of over 36,000 people that's increasingly looking like an exurb of the Las Vegas metropolitan area that's now topping 2,000,000 people. And now, Pahrump actually has a larger population than (incorporated cities) Boulder City and Mesquite combined.

Fifty years ago, Pahrump didn't even have telephone service! But especially in the last two decades, people have been flocking here seeking a "simpler", more bucolic life. And while there may still be some wide open space now, even that's been changing as more housing and commercial developments are approved. Really, this once rural outpost in the middle of nowhere is increasingly looking like an exurb.

And I can see why many folks there are becoming frustrated. They went to Pahrump looking for "the libertarian ideal". However, they found a community experiencing serious growing pains.

While the surface issue looks to be an ordinance prohibiting the pursuit of cityhood, I suspect there's more beneath the surface. And until Pahrump residents decide whether they want to save their rural way of life or continue growing into a full fledged Las Vegas suburb, there will likely be more of these problems going forward.

I just find it funny how the Nye County Republican Central Committee is butting into this dispute. They supposedly favor "limited government" and "individual rights", yet they're supporting a measure meant to limit peoples' First Amendment free speech rights. Oh, the irony!

But again, this may not be the last time we see this kind of explosion in Pahrump.

Will Nevada Republicans Put State Interests Above Party Politics?

So he's out. (Federal) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chair Greg Jazcko announced his resignation this morning. And since Congressional Republicans were already making noise about reviving the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump here in Nevada, it's likely that they'll try to shove it down our throats yet again as Congress must now find a replacement.

So this leaves the Republicans in Nevada's Congressional Delegation in a pickle. Do they do what's best for the state by joining the bipartisan coalition to prevent Nevada from becoming a radioactive wasteland? Or do they obey the commands from national G-O-TEA leadership to screw Nevada once and for all?

Mark Amodei has already turned his back on his constituents by supporting efforts to reopen Yucca and start "nuclear reprocessing activities" in our state. Oh, and we can't forget that Joe Heck actually got this toxic ball rolling with his amendment to allow "nuclear processing" at Yucca. What neither of them wants to admit is that even their preferred "compromise" is actually nothing more than a back door for their G-O-TEA colleagues to sneak dangerous nuclear material into Nevada.

Really, it's a shame that Heck and Amodei have sold us down the river to curry favor with the nuclear power industry and House Republican leadership. Despite the fact that even prominent Republicans like Governor Brian Sandoval and Senator Dean Heller oppose nuclear activity at Yucca, they don't seem to care. Instead, they're pressing on and trying to make us swallow the nuclear industry's toxic crap.

So now, we must wait and see if they will continue to capitulate. Oh, and we'll have to wait and see just how strong Heller's opposition to Yucca really is. If his US Senate G-O-TEA colleagues filibuster Jazcko's NRC replacement, will Heller join them? Or will he let that position be filled so the NRC can continue its work? What happens in the coming days will tell us plenty about our Republican Congresscritters' true commitment to our state, the state that they're supposed to represent and serve.

Will Fernley Revive Tax Reform? (?!!)

My goodness, it feels like we've been riding a roller coaster this year when it comes to the whole matter of "The T Word". Ever since the year began, we've seen so many up's and down's with it. First, Kermitt Waters shook things up with his controversial tax initiative. Then, the AFL-CIO made some noise about its own margin tax initiative. Then, Monte Miller's coalition started winning some legal battles.

And then, Brian Sandoval seemingly sucked all the political air out of the tax reformers' room by making his own big move on the 2009/2011 "sunset taxes". But then, a couple Legislature candidates started having some "candid moments" that reignited the conversation. And then last week, Brian Sandoval didn't really have to do anything, as the AFL-CIO's fledgling margin tax coalition looked to be falling apart.

However, is "The T Word" about to cause trouble for Brian Sandoval yet again? And is it about to come from the unlikeliest of places? Yes, believe it or not, the City of Fernley has filed a federal law suit against the State of Nevada and Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall (D) (because she handles the state's finances). Why? Well, you have to read this to believe it.

The city of Fernley has filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada and Treasurer Kate Marshall, alleging it has been shorted on tax proceeds while it has grown during the last decade and a half, raising an issue that could very well affect other municipalities.

The suit is over the so-called Consolidated Tax (nicknamed the "C-Tax") that has been the subject of much legislative wrangling during the last few sessions. It is an amalgam of taxes distributed to local governments.

Here's the nub of the suit: "Despite experiencing population growth of approximately 250% since the C-Tax system was established, Fernley’s current C-Tax distributions are not significantly different from what it received as an unincorporated town in the late 1990s."

The suit lays out stunning comparisons to other cities and says Fernley has been "rebuffed" by lawmakers, who have not given the issue a meaningful vote.

So Fernley is actually claiming that the state is violating both the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (equal protection under the law) and Article 3, Section 1, of the Nevada Constitution (separation of powers) by giving the city only $143,143 of C-Tax revenue last year when other cities of comparable size receive far more. (Elko received $11,015,989, while Boulder City received $7,935,323.) Fernley also argues that the state is violating Article 4 (Sections 20 & 21) of the Nevada Constitution by developing a system like the C-Tax that collects taxes and distributes revenue in an unequal and unfair manner. These are some serious allegations here.

And if somehow Fernley succeeds in declaring Nevada's C-Tax system unconstitutional, then it may set a major precedent... And perhaps reshape Nevada's entire tax code. Think about it. The Nevada Supreme Court already rebuked the Legislature for the infamous Clean Water Coalition money grab in 2009 because it was considered an unequal and unfair tax. So actually, there may already be a precedent at the state level for the federal courts to look at. And if this suit succeeds, then it may end up punching a huge hole in the state budget structure that can't be filled by another gimmick "quick fix".

So what will the Legislature and the Governor do if this law suit "grows legs"? Will Brian Sandoval really be able to push aside all that "crazy talk" of tax reform, after all? If the current C-Tax system is blown up by federal courts, then the state will have to create some sort of alternative going forward.

It's strange. So far this year, there have been plenty of twists and turns that have threatened to kill talk of imminent progressive tax reform. Yet just as all hopes progressive tax reform are about to die, something else emerges that seemingly brings them back to life. Will Fernley's law suit do the trick, just as the Clean Water Coalition law suit forced Sandoval to deal on the state budget last year?

What a Waste, Or Why Southern Nevada's "Water Crisis" Doesn't Have to Be One

Over the weekend, Will Doig wrote this article for Salon.com on the coming Sun Belt water crisis. Across the once fast growing "Sun Belt" of Southern and Southwestern cities, local governments are running into trouble as they're realizing the water is running out... Or is it?

“When I talk to water utility people, one of the things I say to them is, ‘I bet most of you aren’t planning how to manage your water demands with 20 percent less than what you have now,’” says Charles Fishman, author of “The Big Thirst.” “If you don’t have a plan for that, you’re in trouble.”

You’ll find Fishman’s book in the nature section at Barnes & Noble, but it’s really about urban planning. Because the creeping hydro-crisis has nothing to do with “running out of water.” The earth has the same amount of water as it had 4 billion years ago, and it always will. “It’s all Tyrannosaurus rex pee,” says Fishman with a laugh. The water’s recycled endlessly through the clouds, but it’s the way we’ve built that’s made it seem scarce — with industry, farming and cities in places where there’s not enough water to support them, but still demanding more every year.

Luckily, an urban-planning problem can be mitigated with urban-planning solutions, and cities are blazing the trail — including, believe it or not, Sin City itself. Today, Vegas is soaked in “reclaimed water,” water that’s been used once and then purified for another go-round. It waters the golf courses and washes the thousands of hotel bed sheets. Even the pond at Treasure Island, where the nightly pirate-ship battles take place, is filled with water that the hotel’s guests have brushed their teeth with. (It gets run through a treatment plant under the casino.)

But even reclaimed water has a way of vanishing in a place where the sun shines 300 days a year — some estimates suggest Lake Mead loses half its water to evaporation. One solution? Store it underground, says Tom Brikowski, professor of hydrology at the University of Texas-Dallas. “It could work in a lot of places and it’s starting to be done now.” For instance, Tampa, Fla., is trying it out with a method called aquifer storage and recovery, pumping water into the earth when it rains, then extracting it during the drier months.

SNWA - THIRSTY from Kurt Rauf on Vimeo.

Funny enough, SNWA produced that ad years ago. And funny enough, SNWA looked poised last decade to lead the nation in forming innovative and progressive water conservation measures. But now that Nevada State Engineer Jason King has green-lighted the proposed Snake Valley "water grab" from rural Eastern Nevada and Western Utah, SNWA seems to be slacking off in the conservation department as it rewards the region's biggest "water hogs" over small users in Clark County who have been working to conserve water. And now that SNWA is feeling emboldened by recent news, it's raising rates disproportionately on small users in order to fund the Snake Valley Pipeline.

Remember that the Snake Valley Pipeline began as a scheme way to make feasible Harvey Whittemore's proposed Coyote Springs exurban development that he wanted to stretch all the way to Lincoln County. Yet despite all the political and legal fallout over Harvey Whittemore and the budding scandals surrounding him, SNWA still plans to proceed with this pipeline. Why?

SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy has claimed this is all about preparing for the future. Tensions are rising over negotiations for Colorado River water, and Mulroy continues to say Southern Nevada must prepare for the worst, which would be Lake Mead's water level dropping below 1,050 feet. This would force Hoover Dam to shut off its hydroelectric plant, and it would throw Clark County's primary supply of drinking water into severe doubt.

So why pump in water from 300-400 miles away? That's where Mulroy's case gets weak. If Clark County has been able to avoid catastrophe for the past two decades by employing intense conservation efforts, why is SNWA now poised to drop at least some of those conservation efforts? Strangely enough, a smarter option for Greater Las Vegas' future may lie right in the heart of TEXAS.

Yes, you read me right. Let's go back to that Salon.com article for a moment to see how.

[... I]n San Antonio, conserving water is a religion. In the ’90s, the city was sued by the Sierra Club for draining the Edwards Aquifer. The aquifer happens to be the home of the Texas blind salamander, an endangered amphibian. A small culture war ensued, but after a few years of predictable hippies-versus-cowboys animus, something incredible happened: San Antonio became a capital of conservation chic. Low-flush toilets became status symbols, and overwatering your lawn could get a person ostracized. Water consumption dropped from 200 to 130 gallons per person per day. And suddenly, droughts that crippled neighboring cities weren’t affecting San Antonians. “I hate to say ‘big government,’” says [Tom Brikowski, professor of hydrology at the University of Texas-Dallas], “but these regional plans where everyone shares the sacrifice are pretty effective.”

Compare that to Brikowski’s hometown of Dallas, the “water hog” of Texas, where no such stigma exists, and the average resident uses more than twice as much water as a San Antonian. Between 1980 and 1999, as other big Texas cities slashed their water consumption, Dallas’ grew by 35 percent. And now Dallas, like Vegas, is looking for water elsewhere — specifically, east Texas and Oklahoma. “It’s not that they need the water to survive,” one irate east Texan told the Wall Street Journal. “What they want is to destroy our wildlife so they’ll have enough water for their grass.”

Like us, Dallas is looking for water... And now lusting after water found in East Texas and Oklahoma. Yet even as some Dallas officials are whining about ongoing drought conditions affecting the whole State of Texas, San Antonio doesn't seem to be worrying about any drought crisis. Simply because San Antonio made smart decisions early on in turning to conservation instead of "water grab" boondoggles, San Antonio is humming along just fine.

And here's the kicker. Even with drought conditions, Dallas still got 26 inches of rain last year. And even with that drought, Dallas still dumped tons of wastewater into the Trinity River... That the City of Houston is now recycling and reusing for its local water needs!

Wow. What a waste.

So if San Antonio and Houston can work on innovative solutions to water shortages brought on by past suburban development as well as the present reality of climate change, why can't Las Vegas?

Last week, The Salt Lake Tribune posted a stinging editorial rebuking the Nevada State Engineer's approval of the Snake Valley Pipeline. Believe it or not, the water there affects Utah's health, environment, and well-being in more ways than Pat Mulroy is willing to admit.

The trouble with this approach is that, unlike surface water in a river, the effects of underground pumping often are not immediately seen. Plants could die off only slowly. Once the damage is apparent, however, it may be irreversible, and the political pressure to keep pumping water south, particularly after Las Vegas had invested billions in the pipeline project, would be enormous. The complaints of a few ranchers in Nevada and the people of Utah would not count for much. [...]

There’s not a lot of water in the Great Basin to begin with, and it’s not like Las Vegas could give it back to be pumped into the ground again. Monetary damages could not undo the mischief, and there’s nowhere else to go to get replacement water.

If predictions about climate change are correct, and the amount of snowpack that provides groundwater to the Great Basin is on the decline, then there’s even worse trouble.

In his ruling in favor of the water district that serves Las Vegas, Nevada State Engineer Jason King dismissed the objections of people who worry about climate change because no evidence was submitted. However, the scientific consensus for climate change argues against going forward instead of plowing ahead.

We throw in with Utahns who worry about dust clouds enveloping Utah from denuded valleys to the west. We also believe the warnings of Snake Valley ranchers who say that well levels already are falling. Sucking more water from this environment is folly.

So why again is SNWA doing this? It would destroy the ecosystem of rural Eastern Nevada and Western Utah, as well as destroy the livelihood of local farmers and ranchers there. It could harm air quality in and around Salt Lake City. It would cost Clark County taxpayers many billions of dollars when we desperately need money for local schools, parks, transportation, and community services. And it just looks like pure folly when we have better options right in our own back yard (in some cases, literally!).

So why is SNWA doing this? All I see here is waste.