A letter from Dr. Paulson 22 August, 1997

To: Ann Reynolds,
The attached article was published in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday.
Somehow they got a bunch of typos in it and edited out a lot of my
original letter. I've included the original below. If you've got any
extra space on Las Vegas Citizen maybe you could run my original letter (see below).
I think it explains pretty well why our water prospects are so dim,
even if the commission increases the sales tax and the SNWA finishes the
new water project.

Thanks, Larry Paulson

Subject:Nevada's Water Prospects Dim
Date:Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:21:03 -0700
From:"Larry J. Paulson" <lars@vegas.infi.net>
Organization:Retired
To:letters@lasvegassun.com
CC:ann@lasvegassun.com, tajmahal@vegas.infi.net

Editor: I realize this letter is quite lengthy, but I feel your readers
should have an opportunity to hear another view about the water project.
I hope you can find space to run it. Thank you. Larry J. Paulson

Las Vegas Sun
To the Editor:

Pat Mulroy argues in Sunday's "Where I Stand" column that we can't wait
any longer to pass the quarter-cent sales tax hike for the $1.7 billion
water system. She neglects to point out a major problem: Nevada's
prospects for getting more Colorado River water are dim, even if we
build the new water system. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)
has worked hard for several years to secure more Colorado River water.
That effort has produced a lot more frustration than water.

The SNWA is trying to free up some water by "weaning" California from
using all the river's surplus. California uses 5.2 million acre feet of
Colorado River water per year, or 800,000 acre feet more than its annual
4.4 million acre feet entitlement. What makes the SNWA think California
will give up any water for Nevada. California needs that surplus water
to meet its own ever increasing demands.

Arizona is not giving up any of its 2.8 million acre feet annual
entitlement either. Arizona fought with California for many years,
including a U.S. Supreme Court case, to keep its Colorado River
entitlement. Nevada apparently has "banked" about 100,000 acre feet of
water in Arizona. That won't get us through a hot summer, assuming the
diversion of "banked" water can even be shifted back to Nevada.

California will oppose water "wheeling," or shifting the diversion from
one point in the river to another, because it allows competing states to
use or sell their surplus water, leaving less for California. The SNWA
plans to "wheel" the Virgin River through Lake Mead and is negotiating
with Utah to "wheel" some water down from the upper Colorado River
Basin. Why should California agree to buy surplus water when it has used
it free for 30 years?

There is even more bad news regarding our water outlook. Roughly half of
Nevada's existing entitlement depends on credits from wastewaters
returned to Lake Mead. Discharges of contaminated wastewater,
groundwater and stormwater from Las Vegas Wash cause serious water
quality problems in the lake. Local health officials don't seem troubled
by discharges of polluted water just six miles upstream of our drinking
water intakes. What about the people downstream from us? What happens if
an Arizona or California water user, or some environmental group, sues
Nevada for polluting the Colorado River with perchlorate or some other
toxic compound. We could lose the return flow credits when we
desperately need them to meet our water needs.

Nevada is "flirting with disaster" all right, but not because the water
system is unreliable or undersized. The disaster is we're spending
millions for an enormous new water system, and haven't got enough water
lined up to wet the pipes. The disaster is casinos and developers are
investing billions in expansions and new construction believing the SNWA
will get more water. The disaster is local resident's water supplies
will be reduced as the SNWA struggles to deliver water for all the
development. We're in worse shape with water now than any time in our
history. There are 1.2 million people living in the valley and a large
share of the state's economy depends on growth and prosperity in
Southern Nevada. I go into shock every time I think about it.

I've expressed these concerns to our political leaders, Democrats and
Republicans alike, time and again. My critics tell them I'm a
disgruntled, anti-growth advocate. They just ignore me and approve
spending for the water project as if the SNWA had secured rights to
twice as much Colorado River water. It has been very frustrating trying
to convince our leaders that building an expensive water project will
not solve our water problems if we can't get more water!

I'm a 30 year Clark County resident, who happens to know a lot about the
Colorado River, and is very concerned that my tap soon will run dry or
be contaminated by toxic chemicals. My investment in this community is
just as great, relative to my income and assets, as that of the Strip
casino owners and developers. Other homeowners and business owners in
this valley should be just as concerned as I am. All of us will come
out of this high stakes crap game big losers.

I concluded some time ago that we are locked on a disastrous water
course. It's time to make some course adjustments, cut our loses with
this water project and look at other alternatives for improving our
water outlook. I will try to convince local political leaders of that
again when they hold a public hearing on the sales tax hike.

Larry J. Paulson, Ph.D.
904 San Eduardo Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89015
566-1466

Click here to read http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/debate/1997/aug/21/506214638.html

---

August 4, 1997

Clark County Board of Commissioners
500 South Grand Valley Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Commissioners:

When I reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
wetlands park, I discovered that only 158 acres of wetlands would be
created in the 2300 acre wetlands park? By wetlands, I'm talking about
cattails, the marsh plants that have beneficial effects on water
quality. I posed the question of how we can have a wetlands park without
any wetlands before you at the July 15, 1997 public hearing for the 208
water quality management plan. I pointed out that an entire chapter was
devoted to wetlands in the 208 plan, but only 158 acres of wetlands
would be developed in the wetlands park. I recommended that you delay
approval of the 208 plan, which you voted for unanimously.

To develop wetlands, the engineers maintain they first must design and
construct erosion control structures on the main stem of the wash. Plans
call for up to 15 structures between the wastewater treatment plants and
Lake Las Vegas. The first structure is for Pabco Road. It's been in the
design stages for several years. The costs for that structure have
escalated to over $4 million dollars, according to estimates by Jeff
Harris, at the last Friends of the Wetlands meeting. There was $13
million authorized in the original park bond.

Substantial modifications obviously have been made in the design of the
Pabco Road Structure. The parks department seems real anxious to get
bids out for construction. What's the big hurry now? County officials
stood by for 20 years and watched the wetlands erode into Lake Mead.
Wasn't the park bond passed in 1991? It appears all that's been done to
date is planning studies. So what's going on here?

I went back and took a closer look at the 208 plan searching for
answers. It states on page 7-5,

"SNWA projected Wash base flows estimated for year 2050 (Selby 1996) are
approximately 269,000 acre feet per year, equivalent to an annual
average of 372 cfs (240 MGD). Thus, the Wetlands Park erosion control
structures need to be redesigned to carry a base flow of 372 cfs, rather
than the 260 cfs recommended the Las Vegas Wash Erosion Mitigation
Plan."

(Note: The Selby 1996 reference is a memo to Vicki Scharnhorst at
Montgomery Watson from Doug Selby at the SNWA regarding base flow
projections).

That "redesign" explains why the costs have gone up so high. Moreover,
it also tells me the dischargers are planning on dumping a lot more
wastewater into Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas Bay. Why else would they
need to upgrade the Pabco Road structure? Wastewater contributes most of
the base flow in the wash.

Not one acre of wetlands will be created by the Pabco Road structure, as
indicated by Figure 2-5 of the wetlands park EIS. All 15 structures will
only increase wetlands acreage by 158 acres (see Table 2-6 on page 2-14
of the EIS). There are only 78 acres of wetlands left in the park
(see Table 3.3-5 on page 3.3-10 of the EIS), so the Pabco structure will
do little to protect what little wetlands are there now.

What do we get for $4 million dollars ($5 million if you count the
planning) of park bond money? An erosion control structure, which is
really a "flood control structure", that will allow sewage discharges in
the wash to increase to 372 cfs (240 MGD). The wetlands park erosion
structures are designed to maximize return flows, rather than wetlands.
Next will come millions of dollars in facilities expansions at the sewer
treatment plants. Water quality standards will be relaxed as necessary,
or monitoring programs will be redesigned to avoid "bad news," so the
dischargers can comply with the Clean Water Act. Look for water quality
problems in Las Vegas Bay to get much worse.

I wonder if the above scenario is what the voters intended when they
approved the park bond (Question 5)? Maybe we should put it on the
ballot again in 1998 stated as follows: "Do you want to spend $13
million dollars to build flood control structures in Las Vegas Wash so
we can double the amount of sewage discharged back to Lake Mead six
miles upstream of our drinking water intake?" I doubt that would pass.

Nearly 50% of the $13 million bond issue will be spent on planning
studies and one erosion control structure at Pabco Road, assuming the
construction comes in on budget, which rarely happens these days. Not
one acre of wetlands will be created with that structure. It just makes
me sick.

It seems the sanitation districts are determined to discharge as much
wastewater as they can back to Las Vegas Bay, despite all the talk in
the 208 plan about wastewater reuse, wetlands and diffusers. If that is
the policy of this board too, then I guess I'll have to abide by it like
everyone else in this valley. I do have one additional request: Please
have the flood control district, the sanitation districts and SNWA pay
for the erosion control structures instead of taking it out of the
wetlands park bond money. I proposed that the following paragraph be
added to the 208 plan late Friday afternoon in an e-mail message to Judy
Laws:

"It is recommended that CCRFCD, SNWA, wastewater agencies (City of Las
Vegas, City of Henderson, Clark County Sanitation District) and other
stakeholder groups, public and private, partner with Clark County to
address issues in Las Vegas Wash. One issue that must be addressed is
financial contributions by these entities in funding costs of structures
(i.e., grade and erosion control structures) and wetlands restoration
that are beneficial to the entities and the community."

We have precious few dollars set aside for the wetlands park and those
funds should be used for park development, not for structures to
facilitate more wastewater discharges to Las Vegas Bay. Thank you for
your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Larry J Paulson, Ph.D.
904 San Eduardo Avenue
Henderson, NV 89015
566-1466

cc: Judy Laws, CCCPD
Jeff Harris, CCDPR
Del Kidd, USBR
Jack Harvey, Friends of the Wetlands Park
L. Kenneth Mahal, Nevada Seniors Coalition

"Click" Back to The Las Vegas Citizen