More dust stirred up over Las Vegas water pipeline

SALT LAKE CITY — Arguing it is a matter of fairness and "judicial economy," opponents of a Nevada water authority's Las Vegas Pipeline are asking a district judge to revisit the instructions handed down to a state water engineer regarding water rights applications.

In a motion before the Nevada 7th District Court, the Great Basin Water Network said the "scope and implementation" of an earlier Nevada Supreme Court decision needs to be re-examined, especially in light of "significant disagreement" over how far that ruling extends.

The motion is the latest legal twist in a convoluted battle over water rights in the dry Great Basin Region of Nevada and Utah because of plans to build a 285-mile pipeline.

That pipeline, sought by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, would convey groundwater to Las Vegas from eastern Nevada and western Utah, including Snake Valley, which straddles the border of the two states.

Opponents contend the groundwater supplies are inadequate to support the plan to export up to 50,000 acre feet of water. The water authority says it has the right to tap water legally belonging to the state of Nevada to supply an area where water supplies risk being imperiled due to drought.

Both states have established a team of negotiators to craft a water-sharing agreement that includes environmental protections that could derail continued pumping if detrimental impacts to sensitive species occur or the water table is drawn down significantly. If water use by existing users is compromised, the agreement also establishes a fund to compensate existing users.

That agreement, however, is in limbo, given a June ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court that said the Nevada water engineer failed to adequately address environmental protections in the four Nevada valleys of Spring, Cave, Dry Lake and Delamar.

The water rights applications previously granted to the water authority were deemed no longer valid, and the application process had to start over, kicking in a new protest period. Applications in Snake Valley also had to be renoticed.

Opponents argue going back to square one should apply to all affected areas, including the water rights that were granted in Hidden Valley, Garnet Valley, California Wash, Tikapoo and Three Lakes Valley.

"Like in the other valleys where SNWA filed applications, the proposed unsustainable pumping of ancient groundwater threatens to dry up desert vegetation and threaten the species, large and small, that depend upon these habitats," said Rob Mrowka, ecologist for the Center for Biological Diversity.

The Great Basin Water Network, in its motion, also asserted that the state engineer wrongfully determined that more than 2,000 protests filed earlier this year — prior to the court ruling — need to be refiled.