Understanding water in the Rocky Mountain West is similar to understanding the human brain: no matter how much we study, investigate, consider, philosophize over, deconstruct and restudy, we’re still not sure of what we have, why it works or how to make it work better. Everyone from federal lawmakers to local volunteers over the last century and a half has had a say in how our limited supply of water is used, and for the most part, somehow our taps and irrigation pipes turn on — but still, we sense a problem is always underfoot.
Sarah Van de Wetering, in her column “Watering the West” clearly and succinctly defines part of what we’re still grappling with: the divide between land-use planning and water planning. She sums it up well with this short line: “Water is allocated by state agencies, and land use planning is done by local officials,” adding that: “local land use decisions run headlong into water supply concerns.” To deal with that division, Van de Wetering offers a menu of options, divided into two categories, “water-conscious land-use planning” and “community-conscious water-use planning.”
The collision of land-use planning, be it planning for cities, developments, farms or ranches, with the limited supply of available water is nothing new — it’s the heart and soul of the ageless struggle. What’s new here is the increasingly charged relevance it’s taking on in relation to the region’s urban and population growth.
More homes need more water. And as states and local governments wrangle with their own bureaucracies to assure “fair” allocation of water, developers are playing by the rules of capitalism, allowing the market and money to find needed water, and acting in ways much quicker than a tangle of rules allows. In some states, the courts are also joining the water game, playing referee between state agencies, developers and local governments.
In the States
State Legislatures are addressing water issues, and some of the bills proposed fit into Van de Wetering’s categories. Same goes for local governments. But mostly, land-use planning and water planning have become reactionary affairs, with lawmakers seeking ways to fix problems caused by the last generation of laws, or dealing with new situations that have come about faster than lawmakers are able to keep pace with.
In Montana, for instance, lawmakers are wresting with a state Supreme Court case from last year that, for the first time, legally linked surface water and ground water. It’s not that the two weren’t previously connected; they were geologically, just not legally.
This ruling has allows the state to close some river basins to more water allocations, meaning no more rights will be distributed. Several bills that stem from this idea of connectivity address ways developers can apply for new water rights in basins that are still open, and they would require that those who use the water either replace the water used or prove it won’t affect senior water rights holders.
Montana lawmakers also considered a bill that would require all groundwater users, even those whose wells pump 35 gallons-per-minute or less, have a permit from the state. This bill stems from developers who wanted to skirt state water allocation laws by attaching a separate well to each house in a development, instead of one well for the whole project. The net effect on the water source, though, would be the same.
All of these bills were introduced with new development, not traditional irrigation, in mind.
The situation in Nevada is more dramatic. Nevada is, not coincidentally, one of the fastest growing states in the country, and also one of the driest. So the state and developers are looking underground and across state lines for water.
In Arizona, Wind River Resources is trying to secure the rights to 4.5 billion gallons of water a year pumped from 55 acres in Arizona’s “strip” — the area where I-15 briefly dips into Arizona — so it can sell the water to the Virgin Valley Water District in Nevada, which services the growing town of Mesquite. Wind River Resources also wants to piggyback onto the Nevada water district’s water system to sell the water back to Arizona.
Arizona officials don’t like the plan, though Nevada officials do, and now the plan is in court, where an administrative law judge could take up to six months to decide whether such an application, unprecedented in Arizona, is legal and can go forward.
Farther south, the Southern Nevada Water Authority is pushing a plan to pump groundwater from a rural valley that straddles the border of Nevada and Utah, siphoning off water from below both states, 250 miles away for growing developments in Las Vegas. Locals from both states in the northern, rural area are fighting the plan, which would cut into their own water sources, but they could have trouble battling such a giant.
Utah lawmakers, meanwhile, passed a non-binding resolution to provide no groundwater to the proposed Nevada development until more studies on the effects of pumping that water are completed. The resolution, some worry, may not mean much, but others say it sends a clear message to Nevada and even Utah leaders that the Legislature is watching this closely.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority has also tried to buy water from White Pine County in Arizona, but officials there said the deal would hardly cover costs. Meanwhile, some critics of the water authority say that if it employed a pricing system like the one used in Tucson, Ariz., users would consume up to two-thirds less water per day.
In Idaho, water laws and regulations have also undergone a significant transformation recently. A couple of weeks ago, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that those with the oldest and highest-priority water rights don't have absolute rights to that water — the state does. That decision opens the door to allowing the state more discretion in how water is allocated and allows Gov. Butch Otter to negotiate future Idaho water policy, including discrepancies between ground water and surface water users.
The decision is centered around management of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, which mostly affects irrigators, but the implications will also affect management of the Boise River and its reservoirs, near the growing capital city. And the ruling also opens the door for Gov. Otter to hold his “water summit,” which will focus on water law and may be held before the end of this session.
Not all water agendas focus on development; some actually focus on conservation. In Idaho, lawmakers recently approved a plan to allow water users to donate unused portions of water allotments back to the Big Wood River, which has been de-watered from irrigation and a building boom. And in New Mexico, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County water utility recently released a report that shows per-person consumption levels were at 165 gallons, a 35-percent decrease since 1994.
The list of law and regulation changes and proposals of late runs on, and includes instances in all eight Rocky Mountain West states. Issues range from creating local whitewater parks to interstate water compacts for the Colorado River. And they involve state lawmakers, county and local officers, and state and federal agencies. But most are drawn up with regard to current conditions while few set universal goals.
Van de Wetering presents a strong case for why we should move ahead of the curve on land-use and water planning, setting community goals before considering individual projects. And she lays out a blueprint for how to do so. But the real trick is going to be to slip our state lawmakers and county regulators into the process far enough ahead to make that plan successful. |
