Thursday, June 26, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: H2Whoa!

Two recent letters to the Review-Journal help to summarize why many Las Vegans aren't buying into the Southern Nevada Water Authority's proposal to jack up rates in the name of greater water conservation. In a letter published June 18, Mark Hojnacke says if the water authority is serious about conserving water during the drought, it should stop issuing water permits for new development. And in the June 19 letters, George Appleton questions why, if the drought is such a crisis, "some of us are able to canoe...along a winding lake, or swim from a sand beach in our housing development."

These are very good points. Now add to them the thoughts of Larry Paulson on Page 19 of this newspaper, and you have the makings of a strong argument against the conventional wisdom that if all us homeowners just had more xeriscaping and took shorter showers, Las Vegas would be a better place.

One of the worst-kept secrets in Las Vegas is that the top priority of the Southern Nevada Water Authority is to ensure a water supply for Las Vegas Valley growth. General Manager Pat Mulroy has said this herself. Her primary responsibilities are to make sure the taps flow no matter what and to find new sources of water to keep the growth machine humming.

That mission is being put to the test of late. The Western drought is hitting the Colorado River hard. Just look at Lake Mead--a relative puddle compared with its to-the-brim visage of just a few years ago. The Colorado is Las Vegas' lifeline. Without its nourishment, we'll shrivel and die. Meanwhile, efforts to secure new water sources are iffy, and, at best, long-term projects. With the worst drought in 1,400 years hitting the West and scientists unwilling to even guess how long it will last, Las Vegas needs more water now--not in 20 years.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority, therefore, has a serious problem: If Las Vegas' water supply is tapped out, growth stops--and water authority execs are attending job fairs.

What to do, what to do. Of course! The best and most politically palatable way to increase the water supply is to use what we already have more efficiently--meaning conservation. Nobody's against conserving water, right? The environmentalists love conservation, so even they will back the "war on drought." It's a win-win.

Well, not quite. Because the conservation that the water authority wants isn't applied equally. While officials compel you and me to tear out our lawns to avoid ballooning water bills, man-made lakes and fountains are filled daily on the Strip and in fancy suburban neighborhoods. And while officials urge you and me to shorten our showers and flush less frequently, builders are putting up dozens of new houses and apartments every day--all equipped with showers and toilets.

I'm not a narrow-minded no-growther. It's clear to me that a significant segment of Las Vegas' economy is dependent on continuing growth. It's clear to me that growth has positive effects as well as negative. (Let's be honest: There's no way the Mercury could thrive amid intense competition if the Las Vegas area did not have 1.4 million people.) Where I get off the growth train is when it careens out of control, wreaking havoc in the form of overcrowded schools, budget crises, air pollution, traffic congestion, homelessness and urban blight. It's been this way since 1990 or so. Las Vegas' truly herculean efforts since then to keep up with growth--new schools, new parks and libraries, new streets and highways, etc.--simply have not been sufficient. Even the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and two subsequent wars abroad could not slow the valley's expansion. The latest dismal effect of this anarchic growth is the state budget crisis. In the face of overwhelming evidence, lawmakers seem incapable of understanding that Las Vegas needs more revenue to provide the most fundamental of services (such as an educational system) for the bulging population.

For years, Las Vegas has needed a sensible regional growth strategy under which development occurs at a pace that public services and the water supply can support. Despite reams of rhetoric from politicos espousing roughly this point, it has not happened. There is no regional growth strategy, except, of course, to get out of the way and pray. Until a more sensible and holistic plan is adopted and followed, many Las Vegans just aren't going to get excited about conserving water. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. The Southern Nevada Water Authority's sky-is-falling approach is drawing as many snickers as it is genuine expressions of concern.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER