Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006 | 7:34 a.m.
The state engineer has reaffirmed his responsibility to examine environmental issues in a decision affecting a rural ground water export plan coming up for crucial hearings in September.
State Engineer Tracy Taylor, in a 19-page decision, largely rejected an effort by lawyers for the Southern Nevada Water Authority to limit consideration of environmental issues in the hearings, scheduled Sept. 11-29 in Carson City. Taylor also rejected a Water Authority motion to exclude consideration of the effects on recreation and "scenic values" the ground water pumping and exportation could have.
The Water Authority and its opponents - which include federal agencies, residents of rural eastern Nevada and western Utah, the Sierra Club and the Western Environmental Law Center - are dueling over the plan to pump water to growing Las Vegas from White Pine County, 250 miles north of the city. Authority officials say the supply is critically needed to augment the drought-threatened Colorado River, now the source of more than 90 percent of the water used in the Las Vegas Valley.
Southern Nevada's urban communities now depend on about 300,000 acre-feet taken each year from the Colorado River through Lake Mead.
The September hearings will cover applications for 91,000 acre-feet annually, more than half of what the Water Authority wants to bring south each year. Agency officials and opponents agree that the applications, all for the Spring Valley southeast of Ely, are critical to the overall plan.
Taylor, responding to the Water Authority's motions on environmental issues, said he did not want to prejudge evidence and arguments that opponents plan to enter during the hearings. Environmentalists and residents of the rural area have argued that the ground water plan could affect native plants and animals, including animals that move in and out of Great Basin National Park to the east of the Spring Valley.
"The applicant moved to exclude all testimony related to species and environmental concerns," Taylor said in the decision released Friday. State law, however, "requires the state engineer to consider whether the proposed action is environmentally sound as it relates to the basin from which the water is exported."
As with the issues of recreational or scenic impacts, "the applicant is requesting the state engineer to prejudge the evidence before it is even presented and finds he will not do so and denies the request to exclude."
Mat Kenna of the Western Environmental Law Center opposed the Water Authority's motions to exclude testimony on the environmental impacts.
"That was probably the most important aspect of the ruling because SNWA's motion was to try to have the state engineer ignore evidence of environmental impact," Kenna said. "There is no doubt that withdrawing 91,000 acre-feet would have a dramatic impact."
The law center submitted analyses by hydrologists who argue that the Water Authority plans to "mine" the rural area's ground water in an unsustainable way.
In his decision, the state engineer also rejected the Water Authority's request to dismiss, prior to the hearing, the National Park Service's claim to senior water rights for Great Basin National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assertion that the pumping would possibly hurt migratory birds or endangered species.
But the Water Authority found some comfort in the decision.
J.C. Davis, an authority spokesman, said the agency's goal was only to limit examination of environmental issues within the context of the September hearings, not limit a review of those issues altogether.
Davis said Taylor's agreement in the decision to focus on "hydrologic issues," or issues affecting the water basin, is consistent with the Water Authority's request. He noted that the state engineer said he would not consider potential impacts on air quality from the ground water plan.
Davis also noted that the state engineer said in the decision that he would not try to duplicate the ongoing effort by the Bureau of Land Management to gauge the environmental impact of the ground water pumping in a separate, parallel study.
"Our assertion is that we want to avoid duplication of environmental studies," Davis said. "We are not trying to limit environmental discussion, but we want to make sure it's conducted in the appropriate venue.
"There are three weeks to cover a lot of ground," he said. The state engineer's decision allows him "to focus on the issues that are immediately relevant to the water rights and adjudication process."
In the decision, the state engineer gives federal agencies five days to present evidence or arguments on the ground water plan.
That time may not be needed.
The Water Authority and federal agencies - BLM, Park Service and Fish and Wildlife - are in ongoing discussions that could lead to a truce.
"The federal agencies who protested the applications are in discussions with the Water Authority on a potential stipulation," said Bob Williams, state director for Fish and Wildlife. The stipulation could probably include long-term monitoring program for Nevada wildlife.
There is no deal yet, however, Williams said.
"The discussions are under way, and we've exchanged documents," he said. "We are optimistic that we can reach an agreement."
archive
