That program is called "Cash for Grass," Gleick said. The report shows that many other water-efficiency programs that have been implemented successfully by other Western cities are not pursued by Las Vegas. "They do almost nothing, for example, on indoor efficiency," Gleick said.

Erickson said the report shows that Las Vegas can tap its existing resources through conservation much more cheaply without building the controversial pipeline. Such an effort, he said, would avoid the pipeline's risks, which he said include damaging the economy, environment and people of rural Nevada and western Utah.

Scott Huntley, spokesman for the water authority, based in Las Vegas, said many people have been interpreting the report as indicating Las Vegas should not be pursuing other water sources like the pipeline. But he noted that the report itself does not make such a recommendation.

"We find the report to be very good and interesting on many aspects and actually could be very helpful to us on many aspects," he told the Deseret Morning News.

The authority may have some marginal disagreements such as savings from indoor conservation, he said.

However, Huntley said, any interpretation of the report that the authority should "do this instead of that" is faulty, he said.

The reason for the pipeline project is that the Colorado River system is in drought, he said. Las Vegas is in a similar situation as Atlanta in that "all our eggs are in one basket," he added.

According to Huntley, the city needs to diversify its water supply. "We think conservation is important, but we can't afford not to diversify."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com