For those who don't know about the plans for Las Vegas to pump out

[kestrel91316]

the aquifer underneath Snake Valley, here's the website for keeping abreast of this issue:
http://www.greatbasinwater.net/

This is an issue very near and dear to me. My ancestors pioneered this area in the 1870's. Great Basin National Park is a national treasure, and it's hydrology is jeopardized by this poorly-thought-out water grab.

http://www.nps.gov/grba/

Snake Valley recently received a temporary reprieve in the form of a hearing delay until fall of 2011. We need to stir up a lot of opposition between now and then to increase the pressure on Vegas to find an alternative (such as CONSERVATION).

[enlightenment]

1. kestral, I know it's near and dear to you -

but please refrain from hyperbole.

IF they take the water, they won't 'pump out the aquifer' - that's just foolish.

Las Vegas does practice conservation. A hell of a lot better than California does - or Northern Nevada, for that matter.

I don't absolutely disagree with you on the issue, although the state's water belongs to the state, not to the people that live on top of it - and in the west we use that sticky wicket of the doctrine of prior appropriation, and that gets tied up with 'beneficial use' - and unfortunately, the amount of farming/ranching that's going on in the area doesn't match the 'benefit' of a major city under those terms.

And please refrain from snarking back at me because I am looking at realities - like I said, I don't really disagree with you. But you do the issue no favor by making it sound like Vegas is gearing up to suck Northern Nevada dry.

[kestrel91316]

3. It's my understanding, from a source I read a couple of weeks ago

(but obviously don't have a link for) that Vegas per capita water use is FAR FAR greater than that of Los Angeles, and that it is considered deplorably high. California's high water use is due to Central Valley agriculture, NOT the citizens of Los Angeles (who still could stand to conserve a lot more).

Further growth in a city that is completely unsustainable from an environmental standpoint is completely insane. The very good news is that development there has come to a screeching halt, and that gives the environmentalists time to build more support.

I was born in Nevada, BTW. But my family has always been Northern Nevada rather than Southern, and there is a totally different perspective there.

[TankLV]

5. WRONG. Las Vegas more than DOUBLED it's population at the same time it HALVED it's water usage

for the SAME PERIOD.

Las Vegas conserves FAR more efficiently than LOS ANGELES - WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF CLIMATE AS LAS VEGAS IS!!!

Los Angeles STILL has all those LARGE GREEN LAWNS, while every year, Las Vegas returns many SQUARE MILES to desert landscaping!!!

There is simply NO comparison.

You can take your northern prejudices and SHOVE IT!!!

[kiva]

2. This is an area where we may need to agree to disagree.

Your first source lays out the battle lines clearly, asking for support "to ensure that we can continue to provide technical, scientific, and legal assistance to rural communities, ranchers and farmers, and conservationists. The order to me is telling - this isn't about benefiting the greatest number of people or even mostly about conservation, given that it seems to be added to the list in an attempt to attract someone other than the previous groups. Using water to irrigate land which is often only marginally productive may not be the best use of the resource.

[kestrel91316]

4. The primary concern is the environmental devastation that is certain to result.

You simply cannot keep greasewood and sage alive if you drop that water table down even 20 feet. It WILL turn it into a complete dustbowl, and the threatened and endangered plant and animal species in the area will suffer, and many other species will likely become threatened or endangered.

Humans simply cannot continue to breed like rabbits, and they especially cannot afford to do so where there is no water and no rabbit food.

Maybe destroying a national park and wilderness areas and their ecosystems works for you. It sure doesn't work for me.

I didn't want to turn this into a flamefest, but support for unthinking rampant and irrational development doesn't strike me as terribly progressive, lol.