Las Vegas Running Out of Water Means Los Angeles Must Turn Down the Lights

[marmar]

Las Vegas Running Out of Water Means Dimming Los Angeles Lights
By John Lippert and Jim Efstathiou Jr.


Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- On a cloudless December day in the Nevada desert, workers in white hard hats descend into a 30- foot-wide shaft next to Lake Mead.

As they’ve been doing since June, they’ll blast and dig straight down into the limestone surrounding the reservoir that supplies 90 percent of Las Vegas’s water. In September, when they hit 600 feet, they’ll turn and burrow for 3 miles, laying a new pipe as they go.

The crew is in a hurry. They’re battling the worst 10-year drought in recorded history along the Colorado River, which feeds the 110-mile-long reservoir. Since 1999, Lake Mead has dropped about 1 percent a year. By 2012, the lake’s surface could fall below the existing pipe that delivers 40 percent of the city’s water.

As Las Vegas’s economy worsens, the workers are also racing against a recession that threatens the ability to sell $500 million in bonds so they can complete the job.

Patricia Mulroy, manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, is the general in this region’s war to stem a water emergency that’s playing out worldwide. It’s the biggest battle of her 31-year career. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_b86mnWn9.w&refer=home

[kestrel91316]

1. We're doing well with our energy diversification and solar development.

It's Las Vegas that's gonna have to turn OUT the lights and SHUT OFF the water mains. Vegas is doomed. And THAT, sportsfans, is what is gonna put the kibosh on Mulroy's evil, harebrained scheme to steal the aquifer out from under Great Basin National Park and the ranchers of White Pine County. That woman is pure evil.

[acmavm]

5. Wow, for a minute there I thought you were ranting about the movie

Chinatown. Then I saw 'woman'.

[pnwmom]

2. The water district doesn't want a large reduction in water use because

that would mean a reduction in budget for the water district.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/08/water-more-you-use-more-youll-have-pay/

The water district doesn’t want too drastic a reduction because that would also mean a drastic reduction in its revenue. In addition to encouraging conservation, the rate increases also are expected to result in a revenue increase for the district, officials said.

When the rate committee was meeting last fall, there was a lot of talk about avoiding increases that would cause massive reductions in water use — because of the effect that would have on the water district’s bottom line.

Conservationists argue that with the valley threatened by a dwindling water supply and an ongoing drought, massive reductions are exactly what we should be seeking, and if huge price increases are necessary to accomplish that, so be it.

“My concern is that we’re in a desperate position when it comes to the environmental impacts of use and misuse of water,” said Launce Rake, a rate committee member and spokesman for the environmental group Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

[DS1]

3. Raze Las Vegas instead

There's not supposed to be a city there.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Yep. Completely unsustainable.

[kiva]

8. I will support abandoning Las Vegas when

*all communities that have been flooded and have required large amounts of federal aid in the last 50 years (near rivers, lakes) are razed

*all cities in the northeast and northern mid-west who suck up vast amounts of coal and natural gas to heat homes during their extended winters are closed

*New Orleans, Galveston and other cities (including much of Florida) that have experienced major hurricanes are removed

*the 2.4 million Californians in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties, and other communities in the San Joaquin Valley--who exist because the Hetch Hetchy valley was flooded to provide water and electricity for their cities--are moved

When these millions of people are removed, then Las Vegas can be razed, no complaints from me.

[DS1]

9. Right, because the northeast is a valid comparison

And you managed to leave out the inconvenient fact that Las Vegas is a worn out ratfuck.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. It must be ten years ago that I read that Las Vegas was using water

at 130% of sustainability. In other words, they were using 1/3 more water each year than they really ought to in order to avoid running out.

What good can come from a city that was basically built up as a theme park for organized crime?

(Yeah, yeah, I know that some fine people live there. I'm even related to some of them. But common sense should have told anyone who wasn't in organized crime that southern Nevada is a dumb place to put a large city.)

[enlightenment]

7. Jeopardy question

Answer: What is Folsom, California, Alex.

Question: Which western US city used the most water, per captia per day, in 2008?*

*25% MORE per capita than Las Vegas (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1024692.html)


A more serious question: having determined that Las Vegas is not viable, where do you propose to put the 1.9 million residents? Would you like them to come to your town?

All the 'should haves' in the world can't resolve the issue of what IS. Those of you who don't live in Las Vegas (but have probably taken a trip or two to the casinos and expected plenty of hot and cold running water in your air conditioned hotel room) are pretty free with the criticism of what 'should have' been done 100 years ago, but pretty short on anything else.

Water issues in the west are complex; the topic really doesn't lend itself to one-liners like the one I used above. But that's usually all I see on DU: Las Vegas is a dumb place; a wasteful place; a greedy place . . . the whole reason that Southern Californians can't water their lawns is because Las Vegas is taking their water . . . the whole reason the Imperial valley is suffering a water shortage is because of the casinos . . .

Not really. But the reality can't be covered in a sound-bite and it seems as if a lot of people find it a lot easier to pin the blame on 'Sin City' because it's just a worthless place in the desert, after all - and anyone with common sense should know better than to live there.

If you do a quick check on the Internet, you'll find a lot of sites giving a per capita figure for Las Vegas of over 300 gallons a day. That was in 1999. More recent figures are 255 gallons per day.
It's a valid number, but a misleading one when you compare it to other states - because the Southern Nevada Water Authority uses a city wide average to arrive at the number. Other states use residential use ONLY to arrive at their per capita figures. When you break down the city total number, that 255 gallons drops to 165 gallons per person, per day.

That's not that far off the mark from other desert cities. Lower than Folsom (all of Sacramento county, for that matter), lower than Phoenix, about the same as Ft. Collins, Colorado. West coast cities like LA and San Francisco are much lower, not surprisingly. It's cooler and they get more rainfall.

I'm not suggesting that Las Vegans don't waste water; they do and it's an issue that needs even more attention paid to it. What I am suggesting is that it is irrational to single out Las Vegas as the culprit when the issue is much more wide-spread.