Put the water pipeline to a vote

THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT IN THE HISTORY OF NEVADA is just around the corner. Our political leaders and business executives are solidly behind a plan to build a massive system of pipelines, wells, and pumping stations that will bring billions of gallons of rural groundwater to thirsty Las Vegas. Something this big, this expensive and this controversial should be put to a vote of the people, especially since the public will foot the bill.

As CityLife readers learned two weeks ago in an excellent article by Andrew Kiraly, the cost estimates for the pipeline project are high and rising. Years ago, local leaders talked about a "one billion dollar" pipeline. During the past few years, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has confirmed the pipeline will cost closer to $2 billion. But when pressed, water experts admit the true cost could be north of $3 billion. Pardon me for being skeptical, but when a project triples in cost before it even gets off the drawing board, I worry about the size of the final tab.

Other experts predict costs will be even higher, like Martin Mifflin, a career hydrologist who has studied Nevada's groundwater since the '60s. He was hired in the early '90s to conduct the very first study of the proposed pipeline project. Knappster recently acquired a rare copy.

Basically, Mifflin and his associates concluded back in 1992 that a massive pipeline project would probably cost around $12 billion. Even if the Southern Nevada Water Authority uses bonds to finance the project -- which is the plan at this point -- the amount that will have to be repaid will be many times the bonds' face value. Water officials think this is irrelevant. If the monthly payment is low, they argue, who cares what the total purchase price is in the long run? I'm not sure that argument will be all that persuasive with the public, but we can find out if we put it on the ballot.

Mifflin believes the water authority could be in big trouble if it builds the project because of economic uncertainties. For instance, if the true cost is higher than anyone anticipates, and if the water that can be obtained is significantly less than what the water authority has projected, then the cost per water unit delivered will go through the roof. As the water authority knows, a jump in the price of water can result in less water being used. (Other water districts around the country use price as a way to force conservation. Las Vegas, by the way, still has some of the cheapest water in the nation.) Mifflin told me that if the pipeline is built, and the price of water rises higher than anyone expects, consumption could drop to the point where the water authority would have trouble financing the billions in bonds.

Water authority figures show the typical residential water bill will rise only two bucks per month because of the pipeline. A hike like that isn't going to cause anyone to stop taking showers. This estimate of two bucks per month, of course, is based on a pipeline that costs only $2 billion and assumes that the water authority will corral all the water it needs from rural aquifers.

Another water expert, former federal water planner Mark Bird, says he thinks the water authority cost estimates are purposely skewed to make the pipeline look cheaper. Bird thinks the total cost will be closer to $20 billion. For one thing, the pipeline will require four pumping stations of 10 acres each. Bird also says there is no allowance for the millions it might cost for environmental mitigation, compensation to Indian tribes, payments to rural governments to gain their cooperation, and a lot more.

The water authority's formidable boss Pat Mulroy reminds us that her organization has a track record of bringing large projects in on time and under budget. Her engineering department, which came up with the figure of $2 billion, is pretty good at hitting the mark on undertakings like this. Yet Mulroy admitted to me there is a lot of spending already underway not included in the $2 billion figure. For one thing, the authority has been buying up ranches in White Pine County, paying four or five times the previous value. The authority has dangled millions more to the county and the city of Ely to get them to back off their opposition of the pipeline. The water authority has a team of outside lawyers working on water applications, teams of engineers working on the pipeline plans and teams of PR folks who are cranking out positive messages about the effort.

What Mulroy can't answer -- no one can -- is how much rural water is up for grabs. Estimates vary wildly. Rural residents don't want to give up any water, of course. They don't believe Mulroy when she promises Las Vegas will shut off the spigot if it causes deleterious effects up north.

This brings us to the other reason the issue deserves to be put on a ballot. Are we the kind of community willing to spend billions to import water from rural areas, against the will of those who live there? For years, we've heard this project is necessary in order to maintain our runaway growth. If we stop growing, we will die, locals have been told. Lately, however, water officials have wisely put some distance between themselves and rampant growth. They now say the pipeline is needed regardless of growth because we must have water security.

The argument is persuasive. Mulroy points out that global warming is a long-term threat to the Colorado River, that we live in a desert where drought is always a threat, and that we need a new water source for the people who already live here. It wasn't that long ago that water officials totally dismissed these same arguments when critics called for slower growth or water conservation. Now, those points are being embraced as a major justification for the pipeline. It's a smart move from a marketing point of view. But there is no question that developers and casino interests want that pipeline built so that the runaway growth and runaway profits don't come to an end. Well, let's put that to a vote as well.

Mulroy said any decision about putting an advisory question on the ballot would be up to political leaders. After all, when the business community wanted a sales tax hike to pay for water projects, it went on the ballot. And when the authority hoped to buy Nevada Power, that also was put to the people. This issue is much bigger than both of those, both in cost and in terms of our what it says about us as a community. And the debate might not be as lopsided as some might think. Mulroy makes some excellent points about the need for a secure water source that would make for a fascinating political debate.

What kind of community do we want to be? What are we prepared to pay? Let's put it to a vote.

George Knapp is a veteran investigative reporter for KLAS-TV Channel 8. He can be reached at gknapp@klastv.com