It's in Nevada, so please respect state's rights. This is the free market at work. Vegas is willing to invest more so they deserve the water. Are you NINO's?

"State's rights" is not the whole story here. The water that is held in the ground knows no boundaries, and will flow towards any "cones of depression" formed from pumping. So, "our" water under Utah will flow across the state line into "their" pipeline.
Oh, and there's the small matter of the local springs drying up as the water table drops. Ours as well as theirs. The water level in wells will follow suit.

Listen to the Conservative Republican editorial board complain when someone wants to take something away.

The point about the greasewood tree is hilarious. Spotted Owls, cook em on the barberque grill, but we must protect the Greasewood.

Come on people, this is like oil, let em drill!!!

Quit whining about the possibility of pollution, lack of water and dust storms. This is being done in the name of economic progress.

Present day Las Vegas is a an unsustainable city born of government enforced cheap gas and cheap jet fuel, both of which will not last as hard economic reality sets in with high energy costs. Las Vegas is a brand new obsolete city. Sending west desert water there would literally be pouring precious water down a rat hole.

The ground water doesn't care where the state line is drawn. Since the aquifer straddles the border, pumping water from the Nevada side will cause water from Utah to flow to the wells on the Nevada side. Nevada would be, in effect, taking Utah's water.

Economic progress? For who? Certainly not us.. Why would we want to pay all the environmental costs to help Las Vegas? How is that in our interest in any way?
Furthermore, why do some people think the economy always trumps the environment? And don't say "the air doesn't matter if we're all starving to death," because all the food in the world doesnt matter if we're choking to death either.. economic and environmental issues should be weighed equally, because they affect us equally

While I can understand completely the ecological implications of piping water into desert cities and the haggling that goes on with all the players in a water battle, the need for water is going to eventually win out---regardlesss.

Growth, whether regulated or not in desert region cities is not something that can be shut off like a light switch---people are going to live where they choose no matter what.

The battle over water isn't going to go away anytime soon, but necessity will dictate at some point that desert-based cities, which need water will get it,

Bottom line: Cities like Las Vegas generate tremedous amounts of jobs and revenues. Water is one issue, money is another. Wherever money is people will go---and people need water to survive.

Follow the money trail---water will follow it to!

I can't recall ever agreeing with Lew Jeppson on any subject, but I agree with him 100% today. (Sorry, Lew, if you would rather that our viewpoints collide.)

Las Vegas is a city built on false ideas and false ideals. Whether it is water or oil or money, people will someday learn that Las Vegas is not worth the cost.

I love the west desert. I love driving the pony express trail. I like the solitude, I like the wildlife, I like the scenery.. to those who think your surroundings are just a giant wasteland, why are you here? Just seems if you dont care about the geography, there's little reason to be here. Go to Oklahoma, where the cost of living is much cheaper. It won't matter to you that its flat and ugly, because you don't care!

I agree with Lew Jepson and Mike Richards. Las Vegas is unsustainable (by natural means). The fact of the matter is... you have to take water from somewhere for Las Vegas to continue to grow the way it has, and refuse to accept the reality that the water for this size population doesn't exist naturally. Without Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, and other man-made artificial solutions to their water needs, Las Vegas would be like any other small desert town today.

LA is in the same situation. They couldn't sustain their growth in the 1950's naturally so they diverted rivers, drained natural lakes, etc, to enable LA to be able to continue it's unsustainable growth pattern.

SLC is in the same boat (but a little behind LA and Vegas). We keep wanting our population to grow so our economy can grow, but the land can't sustain it forever.

"to: GWB" you said "Economic progress? For who? Certainly not us..."

You clearly missed the sarcasm in my post.

And Mike R: who cares if Vegas is not worth the cost - businesses are making money and employing people. Do you now advocate regulation to direct the moeny to someplace more worthy of the cost? The free market has decided that Vegas is worth the cost and to the Conservative that is all that matters, right?

Oh, and your argument about it not being worth the cost could be used for Iraq where their government now wants a timetable for US withdrawal.

What's in Nevada? Snake Valley? Snake Valley is in Utah. Spring Valley is in Nevada. And the Aquifer spans both (it doesn't stop at the state line) so what happens there affects both Utah and Nevada (not just Nevada).

Aquifers are just like lakes or rivers. When they are shared, a neighboring state can't just suck them dry without the other state having something to say about it.

Anonymous, You live in California. Lake Tahoe is partially in 2 States California and Nevada (just like the Snake Valley Aquifer). Are you saying you and the rest of the high and mighty Californians would say nothing but "It's States Rights", if Nevada decided to drain Lake Tahoe to supply Las Vegas with water?

I know you hate Utah and Utahns, but at least think about what you are saying. It's the States right to drain a resource that the states share?

GWB,

I do not advocate regulation to divert money to any city at the expense of any other city, nor do I advocate the diversion of scarce resource to benefit one city at the expense of another.

Las Vegas may think that it needs another fountain, but does it get to have it at the expense of someone's farm?

Back when I was a boy and lived on a farm, my father drilled a well. It turned out that the well was 'artesian', but we couldn't use it for anything except household needs because, even though it was 'artesian', excessive use of the free-flowing water would have drained other wells in the area.

Should Las Vegas be allowed to use water for 'show' when that water would be taken from those who need it to grow crops?

There is no doubt that that pool of water extends across State boundaries. Should Utah farmers preemptively drill and 'capture' all of that water and keep it for themselves?

So Mike, what you are saying is that someone should regulate HOW someone uses a precious NATURAL RESOURCE and it should not go to the highest bidder?

When the Dems say that about Oil, you attack.

When it is Utah's water, you support the limitation of extraction.

Hmmm, there is a certain word that comes to mind about that... Hypocrisy perhaps?

Sorry GWB, but I can't follow your fuzzy logic.

Let's look at mineral rights for just a minute. When we owned the farm in eastern Utah, we held the mineral rights for everything beneath the ground. Those rights extended from the surface to the center of the earth, if we desired to drill that deep.

When oil was found under the ground, attempts were made to define the area of that pool and all land owners who held mineral rights were paid for the oil that was extracted from under their land.

The farmers in Utah have rights to their underground water, as do the people in Nevada who have land covering that pool of water. To allow Las Vegas to steal water belonging to Utah farmers is the same as allowing anyone to steal money from your wallet. Las Vegas doesn't own that water and they have no right to it.

Do you own the oil beneath the ground? Do you have papers showing that you can dictate to anyone whether they can or cannot drill?

Public lands do not belong exclusively to the Democrats.

Mike, you would think there are any democrats with grazing rights in Utah or Nevada. It's welfare ranchers that think they own public lands.

Snakes, cows and alfalfa? This water will creative more wealth in LV. This water could creat hundreds of jobs. Stop hindering process.

We all know what portends regarding the "Nevada Water Grab ... what's the big deal, it's only about money ... simply drill our own access to the aquifer upstream ( and there is an upstream)... supply the Utah Farms & Ranchers & the Utah Snake Valley first and then pump the excess via pipeline to the Wasatch Front as well the arid communities along the pipeline route... it's only money after all. Think exactly like Vegas ... get (steal)the water upstream or become another destroyed arid Owens Valley whose politically stolen waters now evaporates in uncovered canals hundreds of miles long with the excess supplying the Los Angeles Valley desert citizens with low cost water for lawns / palm trees / water parks / sanitary systems /and some drinking water.