Where I stand-- Pat Mulroy: Finding water reserves

Editor's note: In August Where I Stand is written by guest columnists. Today's guest is Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Created in 1991 the SNWA is committed to managing the region's most precious resource and developing solutions that will ensure adequate future water supplies for Southern Nevada. Water ties this community into a fragile and complex relationship with the other states of the Southwest.

IN 1995 the Southern Nevada Water Authority adopted an Integrated Resource Plan -- after thorough review by a 21-member citizens committee. The resource plan proposed utilizing additional water from the Colorado River, including short-term or temporarily available supplies because of flood conditions or nonuse by other states.

Recent news stories -- fueled by Southern California -- have catapulted the issue of using "temporary" water supplies to the forefront. Southern Nevada's access to future water supplies from the river hinges on a sound and reasoned resolution to this issue.

First, let us briefly look at how the river is managed. The basic division of water on the Colorado River is between the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and Lower Basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada).

The original compact between the states gave 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin, divided among them as they saw fit. The rules separating the basins are quite rigid to protect the slower developing Upper Basin states from losing any ability to draw upon their unused allocations in the future because of usage in the Lower Basin states (particularly California).

In the Lower Basin, California was allocated 4.4 million acre-feet of water, Arizona 2.8 million acre-feet and Nevada 300,000 acre-feet (which was all the state of Nevada originally requested). The Lower Basin provided more flexibility for each of the states to temporarily use their neighbors' water until the other state needed the supply. Hence California has had the luxury of overusing the river, averaging approximately 5.2 million acre-feet of usage every year. In fact, much of the growth in Southern California has been fueled by using Nevada and Arizona's unused allocations.

Over the last several years, Nevada and Arizona began using more of their allocated water. Thus California's overusage caused the Lower Basin to exceed its total allotment of 7.5 million acre-feet. Fortunately for California, it happened when the system was full due to high snowfalls in the Upper Basin. The secretary of the interior declared flood conditions (called a "surplus") and allowed California to overuse the river. The other six basin states, however, recognize this cannot continue and have placed significant pressure on California to make major changes within its state to return to an annual use of 4.4 million acre-feet.

As California has struggled with this issue, it has proposed continuing to use "surplus" water for the next 15 years while it attempts to reduce its overall use and eventually operate within its allocation. The risk occurs when we enter a dry period where snowfall is below average in the Upper Basin. This could increase the possibility of drought conditions in the Lower Basin because our reserves have been depleted. Ironically, as a result of an arcane priority system -- created by California -- Arizona, and to a lesser extent Nevada, assume all the risk and absorb a reduction in use first. It is unacceptable for California to maintain the position that droughts will only be felt by Nevada and Arizona, while simultaneously insisting the reserves in Lake Mead be drawn down.

Nevada stands to gain immensely by relaxing the "surplus" criteria. We, too, fully intend to use surplus water. Since that water is not a firm supply, however, it is imperative that we have water set aside to replace it when surpluses run out. That is exactly what we are proposing to do by storing water in underground basins in Nevada and Arizona and acquiring water in the Muddy River and elsewhere.

We recognize the future of the river is based on changed relationships. Had Southern Nevada not recognized the need to change institutional relationships among its own cities, our community would not exist as it does today, nor would we have the quality of life we enjoy.

Yesterday's solutions cannot work any longer. Without such changes, there is certainly no hope of addressing the environmental concerns that loom large on the river and must be addressed. Yes, we are stretching the limits of the river, but we can be successful if we simultaneously stretch the relationships among stakeholders and create a culture that can withstand the challenges ahead.

archive