AquaPedia Case Study Database - User contributions [en]

ASI:Formation of the SNWA: Cooperation in Demand Management

2013-05-20T17:01:03Z

Margaret:

{{ASI
|First Contributor=Margaret Garcia
|First Contributor Link=http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Margaret
|Reflection Text=The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was formed out of the water crisis that stuck the Las Vegas Valley in the late 1980s <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. In the late 1980’s, the opening of the first large scale resort casinos in the city, such as the Mirage Casino, sparked unprecedented growth in population, tourism and in water demands <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The structure of water allocations put neighboring cities in competition for water resources and gave no incentive for conservation or cooperation. The Nevada Colorado River Commission’s policy for allocating to municipalities water was based on the amount used in the previous year <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. This encouraged wasteful practices as each municipality was primarily concerned with maintaining its ability to grow <ref name=“Weiss 2001”> Weissenstein, M. (2001, April 9). The Water Empress of Vegas: How Patricia Mulroy quenched Sin City’s Thirst. High County News. Retrieved from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/200/10404</ref>. In an extreme example, Boulder City uncapped its fire hydrants to ensure that it would continue to receive its full allocation <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>. Another obstacle to cooperation was the system of priority rights governed the priority of allocations when supplies ran short; this meant that water could be flowing in the streets of Las Vegas while Henderson ran dry <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>.

In the late 1980’s the municipalities of the Southern Nevada began to come up against their water supply limits and realized the need to work regionally to control water demands <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>. An external study, completed by Water Resources Management Inc. (WRMI) in 1991, found that at the current usage rates the Las Vegas Valley would exhaust their ground and surface water supplies by the mid-1990s <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The WRMI study recommended a more cooperative approach to water management <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. While discussing the WRMI study over dinner, employees of the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), Henderson and North Las Vegas utilities developed the idea of creating a regional super-agency to carry out WRMI’s recommendation for cooperation; they agreed to pitch the idea to the leadership and it was approved <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>.

The five water suppliers and two wastewater purveyors of the region (Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, LVVWD, Clark County Water Reclamation District and Big Bend Water District) came together to form the Southern Nevada Water Authority <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. In order to regionally manage water, the five suppliers combined their water rights and got rid of the system of priority rights <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. In the authority all member agencies have equal power regardless of size and each of the water suppliers has veto power over decisions affecting the group <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. This consideration assuaged the fears of smaller utilities of being dominated by the LVVWD. Each utility ran its own operations but infrastructure, conservation and planning were implemented by the SNWA regionally <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Each municipality and county covered by the SNWA is also required to follow the agreed upon conservation standards. The agreement that the seven agencies entered into when the SNWA was formed was unprecedented in the Western United States; five water purveyors gave up their priority water rights, one of the most fundamental concepts in western water law <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. Success in forming this agreement can be attributed in part to the gravity of the problem as according to the WRMI report serious shortages were only a few years away. However, key personalities that inspired trust and confidence also played a role. The first head of the SNWA, Walter Fite, was replaced with in the first year because he approached the problem with an attitude of division and competition; he was replaced by Patricia Mulroy who developed trust within the member agencies through transparency by, for example, sharing proprietary hydrological information from the LVVWD with the all of the agencies <ref name=“Weiss 2001”> Weissenstein, M. (2001, April 9). The Water Empress of Vegas: How Patricia Mulroy quenched Sin City’s Thirst. High County News. Retrieved from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/200/10404</ref>.

SNWA initially allocated water to member agencies based on a formula for growth potential recommended by WRMI but growth within the city of Las Vegas outpaced all projections <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The result was that some agencies were short on water supplies while others had more than they needed <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The SNWA, deciding that a more flexible allocation scheme was needed, decided to rid of agency allocations altogether and rework the distribution system so that water was delivered based on demand <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. This was a profound departure from traditional western water management; although the need for a more efficient allocation scheme certainly contributed to the decision, it is not clear why the SNWA members were able to reach an agreement to abandon priority rights while most western cities and farmers guard these rights intensely.

The ability to cooperate enabled a regional approach to conservation which contributed to a substantial decrease in per capita demands since the early 1990’s. In addition to aiding regional management, coordination enabled Southern Nevada to speak with one voice and better negotiate with other stakeholders on the Colorado River. Shortly after its formation the SNWA was able to negotiate the use of Nevada’s remaining Colorado River allotment and return flow credits <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Then, in 1995, SNWA became the agency acting on behalf of the state of Nevada for Colorado River negotiations replacing the Colorado River Commission of Nevada because the SNWA had become the major water delivery agency in the state <ref name=“Ott 2010”> Ott Verburg, K. (2010). The Colorado River Documents 2008. United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Lower Colorado Region, United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Upper Colorado Region. Government Printing Office</ref>.

The formation of the SNWA stems from the stakeholders recognition of their interdependence. As evidenced by the crisis in the late 1980’s the stakeholders need for cooperation, and therefore their willingness to cooperate, increases in proportion to the stresses on the system <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. Examining this case through the values, principles and tools framework, the underlying value in the formation of the SNWA is to provide reliable supply and enable regional growth. The principle is that regional cooperation and coordination is the most effective way to accomplish this; the SNWA is the tool used to implement coordination and cooperation.
|Reflection Text Summary=The formation of the Southern Nevada Water Authority stems from the stakeholders recognition of their interdependence. This case demonstrates that stakeholders need for cooperation, and therefore their willingness to cooperate, increases in proportion to the stresses on the system. It also demonstrates that good leadership was instrumental to the success of the Authority in controlling water demands and acquiring water supplies.
|Perspective=Academic
|ASI Type=Analysis, Synthesis
|Case Study=Water Competition & Cooperation in the Las Vegas Valley
|ASI Keyword=
|User=Margaret
}}

Water Competition & Cooperation in the Las Vegas Valley

2013-05-14T21:23:09Z

Margaret:

{{Case Study
|Geolocation=36.16369,-115.190398
|Population=30
|Area=637000
|Climate=Arid/desert (Köppen B-type)
|Land Use=urban
|Water Use=Domestic/Urban Supply, Other Ecological Services, Recreation or Tourism
|Water Feature={{Link Water Feature
|Water Feature=Colorado River
}}
|Riparian={{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Nevada (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Arizona (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=California (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Colorado (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=New Mexico (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Utah (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Wyoming (U.S.)
}}{{Link Riparian
|Riparian=Mexico
}}
|Water Project=
|Agreement={{Link Agreement
|Agreement=Colorado River Compact
}}{{Link Agreement
|Agreement=2007 Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations
}}{{Link Agreement
|Agreement=1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty
}}{{Link Agreement
|Agreement=Minute 319
}}
|REP Framework=The Las Vegas Valley is located in the Mojave Desert in Southern Nevada and receives about 10 cm (4 inches) of rainfall a year. Area municipalities rely on both groundwater and the Colorado River for water supply. Fast growing urban areas and a booming tourism industry have stressed water supplies. Natural climate variability with periodic droughts has further challenged water providers; projected climate changes will exacerbate these challenges.

== Demographics ==

American settlement of Las Vegas began in 1855 when a group of Mormons built a settlement based around irrigated agriculture <ref name="Harrison 2009"> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Soon after the Mormons abandoned the valley but ranching and irrigated agriculture continued. The town of Las Vegas was formed in 1905 as a railroad way station <ref name="Douglass 2004"> Douglass, W. a., & Raento, P. (2004). The Tradition of Invention: Conceiving Las Vegas. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 7–23. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.05.001</ref>. At the beginning of the 19th century, Las Vegas was a typical small western town. It grew rapidly in the 1920’s and 30’s, fueled by federal spending and an influx of workers for the Hoover Dam; government spending again fueled growth in the 1950’s as atomic testing and military training was conducted outside Las Vegas <ref name="Jones 1975"> Jones, F. L., & Cahlan, J. F. (1975). Water: a history of Las Vegas. Las Vegas Valley Water District </ref>. The rapid growth continued into the early 2000’s with Las Vegas being the fastest growing city, in the fastest growing state since World War II as seen in Figure 1 <ref name=“Douglass 2004”> Douglass, W. a., & Raento, P. (2004). The Tradition of Invention: Conceiving Las Vegas. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 7–23. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.05.001</ref>. In addition to rapid population growth, Las Vegas has been a significant tourist destination since the 1930’s. Gambling was legalized in the 1931 and by 1935 Las Vegas was already established as a marriage destination due to California’s three day waiting period for a marriage license; Hoover Dam attracted new visitors and tourism further expanded in 1941 with the start of the resort industry <ref name=“Jones 1975”> Jones, F. L., & Cahlan, J. F. (1975). Water: a history of Las Vegas. Las Vegas Valley Water District </ref>. Tourism continued to grow and Las Vegas saw a huge boom in tourism with annual visitors steadily increasing from 1970 until the mid-1990’s as seen in Figure 2 <ref name="LVCVA 2013"> Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (2013). Historical Las Vegas Visitor Statistics: 1970 to 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.lvcva.com/includes/content/images/media/docs/Historical-1970-to-2012.pdf</ref>.

[[File:Clark County Population Growth 1950 - 2010.png|none|400px|thumb|Figure 1: Clark County Population Growth]]

[[File:Visitor Growth in Los Vegas from 1970 to 2012.png|none|400px|thumb|Figure 2: Growth of Tourism in Las Vegas]]

== Governance ==

==== Las Vegas Land and Water Company ====

The Las Vegas Land and Water Company, which was owned by the Union Pacific Railroad, was the first water utility to serve the Las Vegas Valley. In 1931 the Land and Water Company was granted a 50 year franchise to provide water to the city of Las Vegas <ref name="Jones 1975" />. A 1945 study by the USGS showed that groundwater withdrawals were unsustainable and then, the city commissioned a survey to study the cost of bringing water from Lake Mead. The Land and Water Company, unwilling to invest in a pipeline from Lake Mead, decided in 1949 to sell the water system; the sale to the Las Vegas Valley Water District was finalized in 1954 <ref name="Jones 1975" />.

==== Las Vegas Valley Water District ====

The Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), a public water agency, was authorized in 1947 as the town of Las Vegas was facing its first major water crisis <ref name="LVVWD 2013"> Las Vegas Valley Water District [LVVWD]. (2013). Timeline of Las Vegas Valley Water District History. Retrieved from: http://www.lvvwd.com/about/press_history_timeline.html</ref>. The LVVWD was created in order to begin to use some of the state’s allocation of Colorado River water and to reduce groundwater usage. In 1952, the district signed an agreement with Basic Magnesium, Inc. to obtain a portion of the company’s water withdrawal from Lake Mead <ref name="Jones 1975" />. Throughout the 1950’s the LVVWD bought up small water systems serving the city to consolidate the water service operations <ref name="Jones 1975" />. The district’s responsibilities increased in the early 1970’s as it took control of the newly completed Southern Nevada Water Project and was tasked with developing a pollution abatement plan for the Las Vegas Wash <ref name="Jones 1975" />. The issue of pollution abatement also sparked the first plans for a regional water agency. Pollution in the Las Vegas Wash came from multiple municipalities, not all served by the LVVWD. Creation of a regional water utility was debated in the early 1970’s but no new agency was created at that time<ref name="Jones 1975" />.

==== Southern Nevada Water Authority ====

The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is made up of the five water suppliers and two wastewater purveyors of the region including Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, LVVWD, Clark County Water Reclamation District and Big Bend Water District <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. In order to regionally manage water, the five suppliers combined their water rights and got rid of the system of priority rights <ref name="Mulroy 2008"> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. In the authority all member agencies have equal power regardless of size and each of the water suppliers has veto power over decisions affecting the group <ref name="Mulroy 2008"> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. Each utility runs its own operations but infrastructure, conservation and planning are implemented by the SNWA regionally <ref name="Harrison 2009"> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Each municipality and county covered by the SNWA is also required to follow the agreed upon conservation standards. The approximate service area of the SNWA can be seen in Figure 3.

[[File:SNWAMap.jpg|none|400px|thumb|Figure 3: SNWA Service Area]]

==== Law of the River ====

The partitioning, use and management of the Colorado River waters are governed by a collection of federal and state statutes, interstate compacts, international treaties, court decisions and contracts with the federal government known as the “Law of the River” <ref name="Morris 1997"> Morris, R., Devitt, D. A., Crites, Z. A. M., Borden, G., & Allen, L. N. (1997). Urbanization and Water Conservation in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, (123), 189–195</ref>. The “Law of the River” dates back to 1922 when the Colorado River Compact was signed; in the years since the “Law of the River” has evolved with new agreements and court ruling being incorporated and parties shifting. The Colorado River Commission of Nevada was initially the party acting on behalf of the state of Nevada in all Colorado River agreements. However, in 1995 the responsibility shifted to the SNWA as the SNWA had become the major water delivery agency in the state <ref name="Ott 2010"> Ott Verburg, K. (2010). The Colorado River Documents 2008. United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Lower Colorado Region, United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Upper Colorado Region. Government Printing Office</ref>. The Colorado River Compact (Link to agreement article) allocates 300,000 acre-feet per year to Nevada. A few of the many other elements of the “Law of the River” are the Boulder Canon Project Act of 1928, the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 and the Arizona v. California U.S. Supreme Court Decision of 1964 <ref name="USBR 2011b">USBR (2011a). USBR (2011b). Law of the River. Retrieved from: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html</ref>.

One of the most recent additions to the Law of the River is the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations which provides temporary guidance on shortage management in the Colorado River Basin. Among other provisions, the Interim guidelines outline requirements for the creation and delivery of Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) <ref name="Grant 2008"> Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993</ref>. This provision allows states to earn additional Colorado River water credits through four mechanisms: (1) Extraordinary Conservation ICS, (2) Tributary Conservation ICS, (3) System Efficiency ICS and (4) Imported ICS. ICS is an innovative and flexible provision which encourages states to pursue projects increasing the efficiency of water systems. SNWA currently has several projects that make use of the ICS including the Virgin/Muddy Rivers Tributary Conservation and the Coyote Spring Valley Groundwater Imported ICS. However, the current ICS rules restrict projects to within the state earning the credit. This presents a challenge particularly for Nevada because, unlike other Lower Basin states, it has little agricultural use of mainstream water and no in state access to sea water for desalination <ref name="Grant 2008"> Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993</ref>. Another recent addition is the 2012 Minute 319, an agreement with Mexico covering low and high reservoir level flow distribution, salinity and water for the environment. The temporary agreement requires Mexico to share the burden of flow restrictions during shortages but allows Mexico to share in surpluses and to store water in Lake Mead in order to better prepare for flow variability <ref name="IBWC 2012"> International Boundary and Water Commission (2012, November). Minute 319: Interim Interational Cooperation Measures in the Colorado River Basin Through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja California. Retrieved from: http://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Minute_319.pdf </ref>. Figure 4 shows a timeline of implementation of major infrastructure works and policies affecting the Las Vegas Valley.

[[File:SNWA Timeline 1920 - 2005.jpg|none|1000px|thumb|Figure 4: Las Vegas Valley Water History]]

== Water Supply & Demand ==

==== Groundwater ====

Groundwater was the historic water supply of the Las Vegas Valley. The local groundwater system is a two layer aquifer system consisting of a near surface aquifer and a deeper artesian aquifer. Recharge in the near surface layer is predominately from over irrigation and urban runoff while higher precipitation (around 50 cm or 20 inches per year) in the Mountain ranges surrounding the valley recharges the deep aquifer <ref name="Morris 1997"> Morris, R., Devitt, D. A., Crites, Z. A. M., Borden, G., & Allen, L. N. (1997). Urbanization and Water Conservation in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, (123), 189–195</ref>. Historically, artesian springs could be found throughout the valley and were used by the Native American population for centuries <ref name="Morris 1997"/> . Groundwater remained the primary source of water for the Valley until the early 1970’s. However, as the city grew groundwater usage quickly surpassed sustainable yield. Some areas of the Valley saw as much as a 45 m (150 ft) drop in groundwater levels from 1945 to 1995 <ref name="Morris 1997"> Morris, R., Devitt, D. A., Crites, Z. A. M., Borden, G., & Allen, L. N. (1997). Urbanization and Water Conservation in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, (123), 189–195</ref>, and in 1962 the Las Vegas springs first stopped flowing to the surface <ref name="LVVWD 2013"> Las Vegas Valley Water District [LVVWD]. (2013). Timeline of Las Vegas Valley Water District History. Retrieved from: http://www.lvvwd.com/about/press_history_timeline.html</ref>. Today groundwater is still an important water source for the area and SNWA manages a mix of local and regional groundwater systems to supplement the Colorado River supply <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>.

==== Surface Water ====

The Hoover Dam and Lake Mead Reservoir were completed in 1936 to provide storage and water supply for California, Arizona and Nevada. At the time Las Vegas still had sufficient groundwater to cover its demands and its use of the Colorado River water did not begin until two decades later. In 1955, the Las Vegas Valley Water District signed an agreement with Basic Magnesium, Inc., a private company, to use their existing pump station and pipeline <ref name="Jones 1975" />. In the early 1960’s the LVVWD began designing the Southern Nevada Water System which consisted of an in-take structure at Lake Mead, treatment works and distribution system; the first stage of the project, in-take No. 1, was complete in 1971. The second stage of the project, in-take No. 2, was completed in 1982 increasing capacity to 400 million gallons per day (MGD) <ref name="LVVWD 2013"> Las Vegas Valley Water District [LVVWD]. (2013). Timeline of Las Vegas Valley Water District History. Retrieved from: http://www.lvvwd.com/about/press_history_timeline.html</ref>. In the early 2000’s drought conditions, as seen in Figure 5, threatened in-take No. 1 which would be out of service if Lake Mead levels dropped below 1050 feet. In 2005, the Southern Nevada Water Authority board authorized the construction of a third and lower in-take structure which is scheduled for completion in 2014 <ref name="SNWA 2013"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2013) Regional Water System. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/about/regional.html</ref>.

==== Recycled Water ====

Several wastewater treatment plants in the valley currently provide treated wastewater for reuse: the Boulder City plant, the Water Pollution Control Facility, the Bonanza Mojave Water Resource Center and Northwest Water Resource Center <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. A portion of the treated effluent is used by the sand and gravel industry, golf courses, schools and parks. The remaining effluent is returned to the Colorado River; this earns return flow credits, allowing additional in-take from Lake Mead.

==== Conservation and Demand Management ====

The Las Vegas Valley has made numerous attempts at increasing water conservation in response to water shortages. In the 1940’s summer water shortages led to low pressure in the water mains and customers at higher elevations, including the second floor of a hospital, had no water service. The Las Vegas Land and Water Company instituted landscape water restrictions banning watering from 9 am to 6 pm <ref name="Jones 1975" />. There was a state law against water meters in town’s larger than 4,500 residents; in an effort to curb waste, the Las Vegas Land and Water Company attempted to repeal the law in the early 1950’s, but the legislature voted against it <ref name="Jones 1975" />. In 1955, the Las Vegas Valley Water District got an exemption from the metering ban and began to distribute water meters; in 1958, when 90% of customers had received meters volume based pricing replaced the previous flat rate <ref name="Jones 1975" />.

Since its formation in 1991, the SNWA has used a combination of regulation, water pricing, incentives and education to promote water conservation. Regulatory measures include timing restrictions on landscape watering, ban of turf installation in new residential front yards, and golf course watering limits <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. The SNWA has an increasing block price structure for water charges to discourage water waste. The utility also offers incentives for conservation measures including the following: tuft removal, efficient irrigation equipment, pool covers, water smart car washes, and Water Efficient Technologies <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. Educational efforts include demonstration gardens, a conservation hotline and training for teachers <ref name="SNWA 2009"> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>.

Despite initial successes, critics argue that there is substantial room for further reductions. While outdoor conservation measures such as turf removal incentives have reduced demands, outdoor water use in Las Vegas is still higher than in other arid and semi-arid cities. Due to high outdoor water use the majority of conservation efforts in Las Vegas have focused on landscape use; Las Vegas has only achieved small gains in indoor conservation. The SNWA provides free retrofit kits (including leak detection and faucet aerators) to single family homes built before 1989 but no assistance or incentives for newer homes <ref name="Cooley 2007"> Cooley, H., Hutchins-Cabibi, T., Chohen, M., Glieck, P. H. & Heberger, M. (2007). Hidden Oasis: Water Conservation and Efficiency in Las Vegas. Pacific Institute & Water Resource Advocates</ref>. Multi-family homes are eligible for rebates through SNWA’s Water Efficient Technologies program but between 2002 and 2007 only 30 were claimed <ref name="Cooley 2007"> Cooley, H., Hutchins-Cabibi, T., Chohen, M., Glieck, P. H. & Heberger, M. (2007). Hidden Oasis: Water Conservation and Efficiency in Las Vegas. Pacific Institute & Water Resource Advocates</ref>. One reason for slow action on indoor conservation may be that SNWA earns return flow credits for treated wastewater returned to the Colorado and indoor use reductions would reduce this flow. However, benefits of indoor conservation would likely outweigh costs; the utility would reduce energy and chemical costs associated with water transport and treatment. Additionally, as the population grows, indoor conservation can allow more people to be served with the same amount of water while still generating return flows <ref name="Cooley 2007"> Cooley, H., Hutchins-Cabibi, T., Chohen, M., Glieck, P. H. & Heberger, M. (2007). Hidden Oasis: Water Conservation and Efficiency in Las Vegas. Pacific Institute & Water Resource Advocates</ref>.
|Issues={{Issue
|Issue=Urban allocation and demand management
|Issue Description=The four municipalities, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and Boulder City, along with Nellis Air Force Base and Clark County, are connected through their shared water supply. They collectively use the majority of Nevada’s Colorado River allocation and share an interconnected aquifer system. In order to regionally manage water, the five suppliers combined their water rights and got rid of the system of priority rights <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. While each utility runs its own operations, infrastructure, conservation and planning were implemented by the SNWA regionally and each municipality and county covered by the SNWA is also required to follow the agreed upon conservation standards <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. They have so far made substantial progress in controlling demands through cooperation having reduced per capita demands from 350 gallons per day in 1990 to 250 gallons per day in 2008 <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. With some of the easiest conservation measures already taken, tougher changes may be required to meet future conservation goals.

''Stakeholders''
* SNWA and associated utilities and municipalities
:* Associated utilities
::* Big Bend Water District
::* Clark County Water Reclamation
::* Las Vegas Valley Water District
:* Associated municipalities
::* City of Las Vegas
::* City of North Las Vegas
::* City of Henderson
::* City of Boulder City
::* Nellis Air Force Base
::* Clark County
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance
|Stakeholder Type=Local Government
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Managing shortages in the Colorado River
|Issue Description=The Colorado River Compact allocated flow based on 22 year record of river flows which suggested that a flow of 16,500,000 was a conservative estimate; however, the natural average annual flow in the Colorado was just 15,000,000 ac-feet for hundred years from 1906 to 2006 <ref name="Morris et al. 1997"> Morris, R., Devitt, D. A., Crites, Z. A. M., Borden, G., & Allen, L. N. (1997). Urbanization and Water Conservation in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, (123), 189–195</ref>; <ref name="Grant, D. L. 2008"> Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993</ref>. Since the compact was written USBR flow estimates show that during several periods, average annual flows did not reach the allocated flow.

[[File:AverageAnnualColoradoUSFlows.jpg|none|400px|thumb|Figure 5: Average Annual Colorado River Flows]]

In response to the Colorado River Basin drought in the early 2000s, the seven basin states developed a proposal outlining shortage operations, the Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations, which was later adopted by the Secretary of the Interior <ref name=“Grant 2008”> Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993</ref>. The interim guidelines are set to expire in 2026 and, given the historical record and the regional climate projections, shortages will likely increase. Minute 319, a 2012 interim agreement between the United States and Mexico, states “both countries have recognized the value of an interim period of cooperation to proactively manage the Colorado River in light of historical and potential future increased variability due to climate change” <ref name="IBWC 2012"> International Boundary and Water Commission (2012, November). Minute 319: Interim International Cooperation Measures in the Colorado River Basin Through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja California. Retrieved from: http://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Minute_319.pdf </ref>. The agreement outlines new guidelines for the distribution of flows during surplus and shortage conditions and outlines provisions for increased water for the environment in Mexico. The 2007 Interim Guidelines for Colorado River Operations and Minute 319 are both a step towards adapting the management of the Colorado River. However, both measures are temporary and the stakeholders within the states will likely need to renegotiate shortage rules in the future. Although the seven states and Mexico cooperated to develop the Interim Guidelines and Minute 319, they disagree in their interpretations of the various elements of the Law of the River including on how to determine deficit conditions and the legality of selling water across basin lines <ref name=“Grant 2008”> Grant, D. L. (2008). Collaborative Solutions to Colorado River Water Shortages: The Basin States’ Proposal and Beyond. Nevada Law Journal, 8, 964–993</ref>. In addition to future climate and demand patterns, the resolution of these legal disagreements will affect the water availability in each of the basin states.

''Stakeholders''
* Lower basin states
:* Arizona
:* California
:* Nevada
* Upper Basin States
:* Colorado
:* New Mexico
:* Utah
:* Wyoming

* Mexico
* SNWA and associated utilities and municipalities
* Water users within the other basin states
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Ecosystems; Governance
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Urban purchase of rural groundwater rights
|Issue Description=Despite conservation efforts and improved allocation schemes, local water resources and the Colorado River allocation are not sufficient to guarantee water supplies for urban and suburban Sothern Nevada. Therefore SNWA’s long-term plans also include: formulating a water resources plan that utilizes all available supplies including applying for use of un-appropriated groundwater located in other areas of Nevada <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. The problem of water resource availability has been defined by the regional water utilities and their constituents and the SNWA has been successful in dealing with the problem as defined. The SNWA has been effective at coordinating water management within the five municipalities and Clark County; however, the impacts of its plans extend beyond the urban areas of Southern Nevada to rural residents and desert ecosystems. The SNWA filled 147 permits for groundwater application in 1989 in 30 different basins <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. The “water grab”, as it was known in the rural counties, instigated an instant backlash <ref name=“Weiss 2001”> Weissenstein, M. (2001, April 9). The Water Empress of Vegas: How Patricia Mulroy quenched Sin City’s Thirst. High County News. Retrieved from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/200/10404</ref>. Due to environmental concerns and existing appropriations the SNWA withdrew, transferred or declined to pursue 49 applications, limiting their requests to 21 different basins <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. In addition to existing groundwater rights, there are concerns over how withdrawals may impact spring discharges and therefore surface water rights <ref name=“Deacon 2007”> Deacon, J. E., Williams, A. E., Williams, C. D., & Williams, J. E. (2007). Fueling Population Growth in Las Vegas : How Large-scale Groundwater Withdrawal Could Burn Regional Biodiversity. BioScience</ref>. In 2003, SNWA developed an agreement with Lincoln County to resolve outstanding concerns over groundwater applications within the county <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>.

''Stakeholders''
* SNWA and associated utilities and municipalities
* Rural municipalities
* Rural water rights holders
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Governance; Values and Norms
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Community or organized citizens
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Groundwater withdrawals and ecosystem impacts
|Issue Description=Despite the withdrawal of some of SNWA’s most controversial groundwater applications, environmental critiques remain. Deacon and colleagues <ref name="Deacon et al. 2007"> Deacon, J. E., Williams, A. E., Williams, C. D., & Williams, J. E. (2007). Fueling Population Growth in Las Vegas : How Large-scale Groundwater Withdrawal Could Burn Regional Biodiversity. BioScience</ref>, caution that the groundwater withdrawals planned by the SNWA present an underappreciated threat to the spring ecosystems and the species which depend on them. Twenty of those impacted species are listed under the federal Endangered Species Protection Act <ref name=“Deacon 2007”> Deacon, J. E., Williams, A. E., Williams, C. D., & Williams, J. E. (2007). Fueling Population Growth in Las Vegas : How Large-scale Groundwater Withdrawal Could Burn Regional Biodiversity. BioScience</ref>. The SNWA as well as several independent researchers developed groundwater models to determine the probable future effects of groundwater development. All of the independent models showed significant declines in the effective basins except for the SNWA model which assumed higher levels of recharge due to precipitation <ref name=“Deacon 2007”> Deacon, J. E., Williams, A. E., Williams, C. D., & Williams, J. E. (2007). Fueling Population Growth in Las Vegas : How Large-scale Groundwater Withdrawal Could Burn Regional Biodiversity. BioScience</ref>. In addition to varying assumptions on model parameters, there is disagreement on the proper method of calculating perennial yield. The Nevada Division of Water Resources defines perennial yield as “the amount of water from a ground-water aquifer that can be economically withdrawn for an indefinite period of time… and does not exceed the natural recharge” <ref name=“NDRW 1992”> Nevada Division of Water Resources. (1992). Nevada Water Facts. Retrieved from: http://www.pg-tim.com/files/NV_Water_Facts.pdf</ref>. This definition allows the reductions in spring flows and decreases groundwater elevation that can cause detrimental impacts to plant and animal species <ref name=“Deacon 2007”> Deacon, J. E., Williams, A. E., Williams, C. D., & Williams, J. E. (2007). Fueling Population Growth in Las Vegas : How Large-scale Groundwater Withdrawal Could Burn Regional Biodiversity. BioScience</ref>. Discrepancies in perennial yield definitions and modeling assumptions have not yet been resolved.

''Stakeholders''
* SNWA and associated utilities and municipalities
* Environmental groups
* Groundwater dependent species
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Ecosystems; Values and Norms
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}
|Key Questions={{Key Question
|Subject=Balancing Industries & Sectors
|Key Question - Dams=
|Key Question - Urban=
|Key Question - Transboundary=
|Key Question - Desalination=
|Key Question - Influence=
|Key Question - Industries=How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered?
|Key Question Description=In the Las Vegas Valley, municipalities competing for a limited water supply led to great inefficiencies. The formation of a cooperative water management utility created incentives for conservation and led to decreased water demands. Serious near-term shortages sparked interest in cooperation but good leadership was critical in navigating the transition.
}}
|Summary=The Las Vegas Valley, which includes the city of Las Vegas and the surrounding municipalities, is located in the Mojave Desert in Southern Nevada. Like most desert cities, Las Vegas exists because of water; the artesian springs of the Las Vegas Valley provided an ample water supply for Native Americans, ranchers and later a small railroad city. However, population growth increased demands far beyond local supplies. The area now depends on the Colorado River for the majority of its water supply. Natural scarcity, population growth and climate variability all contribute to the Valley’s water management challenges. This analysis addresses the following questions: 1) How can cooperation lead to better water demand management? 2) What conditions enable effective cooperation? The case demonstrates that a well-structured cooperative agency can prompt joint action by decreasing competition over water supplies. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), a regional water utility made up of five water suppliers, was formed out of the water crisis that stuck the Las Vegas Valley in the late 1980s. Although the scarcity was key enabling condition for the creation of the SNWA, the transition would not have been as successful without the strong leadership present. Since its formation, the SNWA has fostered cooperation among the five water suppliers and contributed to substantial per capita demand reductions. However, as population growth continues and climate change exacerbates natural variability, the SNWA and its members will need to adapt to continue providing reliable water supply.
|External Links={{External Link
|Link Text=Las Vegas: Landsat Annual Timelapse 1984-2012
|Link Address=http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/LasVegas
|Link Description=Timelapse of Las Vegas area urban growth.
}}{{External Link
|Link Text=Las Vegas Valley Water District
|Link Address=http://www.lvvwd.com/
|Link Description=Website for the Las Vegas Valley Water District
}}{{External Link
|Link Text=Southern Nevada Water Authority
|Link Address=http://www.snwa.com/
|Link Description=Website for the Southern Nevada Water Authority
}}{{External Link
|Link Text=US Bureau of Reclamation: Law of the River
|Link Address=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html
|Link Description=USBR website outlining the numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law of the River."
}}
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}

Water Competition & Cooperation in the Las Vegas Valley

2013-05-14T21:20:30Z