Can this really happen to one of Nevada's most powerful (if not THE most powerful!) unelected public officials? Apparently, so...
Though Pat Mulroy's employment contract as the region's water czar has already been automatically renewed through 2014, the Las Vegas Valley Water District's board of directors wants to begin evaluating her performance to avoid potential legal issues.
Hired as the districts chief in 1999, Mulroy has never had a performance review. [...]
Every board member agreed except County Commissioner Tom Collins, who likened good managers to good horses and said that you stay on a winning horse.
"As far as I'm concerned Pat's won the Triple Crown and all the other derbies as well," Collins said.
Board member Chris Giunchigliani, however, said she doesn't believe in automatic contract rollovers.
"I'm a firm believer in evaluations," she said. "This is not about Pat. It should not be. The intent is whether or not our contracts do what is in the best interest of the government and the people we're here to serve."
Of course, Tom Collins has been in the headlines himself recently for some unsavory reasons. But not that long ago, his attitude was pretty much the norm throughout Nevada. But apparently now, Clark County wants to prove it's finally "growing up" and maturing in making county government more accountable. But really, will Clark County take a closer look at what Pat Mulroy has said and done?
Maybe not, since Snake Valley is "out of sight, out of mind" for most in Clark County. However, the ultimate cost (both life and monetary) of the proposed Snake Valley SNWA pipeline will be plain and clear for all to see if approved. Can we really ignore that? And can we ignore possibly superior "win-win" alternatives to it? Even though Pat Mulroy has led SNWA to pursue aggressive water conservation, it's baffling at times to think she may ultimately be remembered most for "The Great Water Grab" that's yet to be determined.
Elko County Commissioner Warren Russell said groundwater pumping will “create real desert areas,” and he called the proposed pipeline “a big sucking monster moving north.”
He also testified he is concerned about the attitude that the water authority could start the drawdown and “see what’s happening” in terms of impacts.
Yvonne Prescott, who grew up in Lincoln County, said the proposed pipeline would have a drastic impact on White Pine and Lincoln counties, and the water drawdown will create a dust bowl.
She also said the counties wouldn’t reap economic benefits because most construction workers would come from Clark County, and neither Lincoln or White Pine has housing for workers.
“I see all negatives for the people, animals and the land,” Prescott said.
Former Assemblyman John Carpenter of Elko testified he has had a lot of time to study the proposal over the years, “and the more you look at it, the less desirable it is.” He also questioned whether the water would at some point come from Elko County.
Assembly Minority Leader Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) even rose to speak of his concern about pumping 175,000 acre feet of groundwater out of rural communities with no chance of recharge. He also asked why SNWA isn't asking California for a pipeline to desalination plants, but the increasing controversy over ocean desalination probably makes that just as difficult for them. So we're back at Square One. To pipe or not to pipe? That is the $3.5 billion question.
Among the 30 participants in the public hearing was Randy Parker, CEO, Utah Farm Bureau.
Rupert Steele, a member of the Goshute Tribe, told BLM officials that the draft EIS does not address the recharge rates of the aquifers if 177,000 acre-feet is pumped out of them per year as proposed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
"Taking water resources away from its source should not be allowed," Steele said. "This will leave a sad legacy of environmental destruction."
Pumping water out of aquifers that feed Utah’s west desert will lead to increased air pollution along the Wasatch Front, said Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon.
"Groundwater drawdown can generate dust and pollution," he said. "We already live in a non-attainment area in Salt Lake County. The federal government has already told us our air is not clean enough."
The BLM’s draft EIS estimates the pumping project would add 24,122 tons of windblown dust a year into the air during the project’s first 75 years.
The draft EIS also estimates that groundwater discharges to surface evaporation and transpiration by plants would be reduced by 28 percent in Snake Valley during the first 75 years of the project.
But [Steve Erickson, of the Great Basin Water Network] said he believes the draft EIS underestimates the impacts of the 306-mile pipeline project that Southern Nevada Water Authority says will cost some $3.5 billion.
Farmers and ranchers in Eastern Nevada and Western Utah depend on their local groundwater supplies to survive. So do hunters and wildlife. So do local Native American tribes. The stakes can't be any higher, and neither can the emotions on both sides.
Rural farmers and suburban Utahns direct their rage toward Pat Mulroy and her plans to steal their water, while Mulroy directs her rage right back at them for wasting so much water in the desert.
SNWA claims this is only about our survival. After all, Las Vegas is right in the heart of the Mojave Desert. Clark County will very soon have 2,000,000 people living here, and even as future growth is expected to slow, we'll still need water to survive. So how can we get the water?
So why is there "need" for this pipeline to rural Eastern Nevada and Western Utah? That's what many are asking, and Pat Mulroy continues to insist that Lake Mead and conservation are not enough. She demands that we prepare for the possible instead of hoping for the probable.
Meanwhile, opponents are quietly content over a draft environmental impact statement finally released by the bureau in June, after six years of input from the Water Authority, residents, tribes and a litany of federal agencies.
The prose is turgid and reserved, but the environmental conclusions are often stark:
• “... likely result in windblown dust emissions due to drying of hydric soils and loss or reduction of basin shrubland vegetation.” People in Utah, downwind, are particularly alarmed by this prospect.
• “... risk of subsidence of the ground surface as a result of the withdrawal of the groundwater.” This means the pumping could cause the ground to sink several feet over hundreds of square miles, causing buildings, transmission lines and roads to be structurally unstable.
• “... risk of invasion by invasive ... species.”
• The pumping could affect surface water, such as ponds, lakes and streams, which would obviously adversely affect the species that rely on that water for drinking, foraging, breeding.
• “Drawdown poses long-term risks to the agricultural sector in the rural areas...”
And is this really the end of it? I doubt it. As climate change worsens and drought conditions reappear throughout America, expect The Water War to get uglier.
Gov. Jim Gibbons and Nevada legislative leaders announced at a news conference in front of the legislative building this evening that a final deal had been reached to close a budget deficit that ended up being about $805 million. But they warned that recession-plagued Nevada still faces tough times ahead.
“No one likes everything in this” deal, Gibbons said. “Everyone had to yield something, and everyone came to the table.” [...]
Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley — who kicked off the session on Tuesday urging the Legislature to reduce the cut to education — said the state also managed to avoid some of what she called the worst cuts to health and human services. But she added that the state’s financial system needs to be overhauled.
“I think we need to tear down the financial structure we have now and start over,” said Buckley, who is term-limited and ending her service in the Legislature.
For his part, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford warned that the “challenge ahead is just as great,” and said the next Legislature, which meets in 2011, could face a 50 percent reduction without new revenue. He challenged “those corporations that were not able to be part of this solution” to be part of the next. It was a reference to the casino industry and other businesses, which flatly refused in a Senate hearing to agree to contributing more to help the state solve its deficit problem. (Nonetheless, the final budget plan includes an increase in the fee for new casino licenses.) [...]
Among other things, the final budget plan includes:
A reduction in the cut to K-12 education from $211 million to $116.8 million.
A reduction in higher education from $76 million to $46 million.
Eliminating a list of proposed cuts to services for the elderly, children and the disabled.
Putting most state offices on a four-day, 10-hour work week.
Cutting state contracts by $10 million.
Avoiding further pay cuts to state employees pay or benefits.
“Sweeping” state boards, commissions and agencies for nearly $200 million.
Raising the per-claim mining fee, based on the number of mining claims a person or corporation has filed. The new fees will be $70, $85 and $195.
And as you can see, there's already talk about 2011. Nevada will then be facing an even scarier deficit, and even a few Republicans are hinting about possible major tax reform in the next biennium.
But anyway, back to this budget this year. While Democratic legislators succeeded in trimming the proposed cuts to education and the social safety net, there will still be painful cuts and difficult decisions to be made.
And in addition to the budget, there's still the water issue.
Lawmakers also seemed loath to allow the water rights bill to push them past midnight.
“If we don’t feel those questions are answered and this bill is the right way to proceed, we won’t,” Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, said while opening a late-night hearing on the water rights bill. “But seriously, we don’t have much time, and we don’t want to make a mistake.”
That bill, pushed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, sought to change a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision that has thrown more than 14,000 water rights into limbo.
Yes, SNWA really wants to use this special session to push its Great Basin Water Grab. As if they couldn't think of a more inappropriate time to demand more of someone else's water to fuel more unsustainable suburban/exurban sprawl, legislators are still planning to take a vote this week on reversing the Nevada Supreme Court ruling that halted the water grab.
So obviously, this special session will be remembered for all the tough decisions made on this year's budget... But it may also turn out to be a foreshadow of what's to come on next year's budget, sustainable development, water rights, workers' rights, and much more.
(H/T to CityLife for getting to it before I could! Also H/T to OC Progressive for the link to MoJo.)
Fortunately, more and more of us are doing more to reduce our carbon footprints. Hell, I certainly know I am! I use public transit whenever I can. I only use home appliances/electronics that I actually need at the given time. And yes, I've bought Energy Star/energy efficient items whenever I could.
But am I doing enough to take care of my water footprint? This recent Mother Jones article really got me thinking. How much water do I use at home? While working? While traveling? And what can I do to use less?
Check out this water footprint calculator. I know I will. I'll also keep trying to do more to reduce my water usage. Not only will it save me money, but it will also help save this planet of ours.
Come on, we live in the Mojave Desert. We can't afford to waste water, as we're quickly running out. Our past ways are unsustainable, so we really need to learn how to live in peace with the desert around us.
