Nevada water advocates dispute BLM’s assessment of Utah water pipeline plan

Image

Paul Monroe / Central Iron County Water Conservancy District (2017)

Water flows from a pipe in 2017 during the drilling of test wells in Beaver County, Utah, by the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District. The district wants to build a pipeline to transport water from an aquifer under the Pine Valley to Cedar City, Utah. The plan, which needs the approval of federal agencies, has drawn the attention of Nevada water advocates because of the aquifer’s proximity to the Great Basin National Park.

Fri, Jan 14, 2022 (2 a.m.)

A federal agency’s preliminary determination that a proposed water pipeline in southwest Utah would have minimal effects on Nevada has some water activists and hydrologists crying foul.

The Central Iron County Water Conservancy District in Cedar City, Utah, is seeking approval for a $253.6 million 50-mile pipeline project to transport about 15,000 acre-feet of water a year from an aquifer underneath the Pine Valley in Beaver County, Utah, to Cedar City.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s 237-page draft environmental impact statement for the Pine Valley Water Supply Project says the effects of the drawdown of water to feed the pipeline “are not expected to be measurable or observable” on the nearby Great Basin National Park in Nevada, just across the Utah-Nevada state line from the northern reaches of Pine Valley.

Paul Monroe, general manager of the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District, said the project’s effect on Nevada “looks to be very negligible.” There are a couple of places where the project drapes across the Utah border, but “by and large there’s not any really anticipated negative effects in Nevada,” he said.

Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, disagrees and says the project will harm water supplies in Nevada.

He points to a different model produced by the U.S. Geological Survey showed the project would lead to a massive water drawdown in Snake Valley, which is home to Great Basin National Park, which is about 200 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Over the course of 62 years, the pipeline would negatively affect Nevada’s side of the Great Basin and 11 other basins, Roerink said.

Roerink is concerned that the draft environmental impact statement ignores large-scale consequences of the project.

“I think federal officials are completely ignoring the science in favor of a community that does not want to conserve water and does not want to think about the future in a reasonable way,” he said.

A report commissioned by the Great Basin Water Network that was conducted by Roux Associates, an environmental consulting and management firm, found that even if less than 15,000 acre feet of water were to be pumped from Pine Valley and Wah Wah, the effects on Nevada “would likely be substantial.”

The Roux Associates report also says that there is no way to know for sure how the aquifer will be affected after 50 years of use.

“Great Basin National Park being in the crosshairs of this project is something of concern to anybody in the state,” Roerink said.

Roerink and his organization aren’t alone in the criticisms.

Nearby tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, have expressed concerns that the project would affect their water rights and would infringe on culturally significant and sacred land. The draft statement from BLM says that no Native American tribal lands are present in the vicinity of pipeline construction or within the area of potential effects of groundwater drawdown.

If the project is approved, some tribes said they would be supportive of adaptive management and would want to be identified as a tribal stakeholder for any monitoring and mitigation plans.

Counties surrounding the Pine Valley also oppose the project, saying their water would be taken from them.

“This project will have a dangerous ripple effect in Nevada,” Gary Perea, a member of the White Pine County Water Advisory Committee, said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that groundwater flow between Pine Valley and basins in Nevada will be irreparably harmed, resulting in groundwater mining.”

Monroe hears critics say that Iron County and Cedar City simply need to conserve more water, but Cedar City stands to lose 80% of its water rights through the state’s groundwater management plan over the next 40 years.

“You just can’t conserve your way out of that,” Monroe said, noting conservation efforts, including reusing wastewater and promoting xeriscaping, or landscaping with low-water-use plants are in use in Iron County.

Monroe said the conservation district had a good mitigation plan where it would look at monitoring wells to make sure groundwater basins would not fall lower than what the district anticipated. If there are any adverse effects, the district will have to dial back pumping, Monroe said.

In regard to other water right holders in the area such as tribes, if there are negative impacts to them, the district will make sure they supply them with water or other resources, Monroe said.

“We’re committed to those things up-front,” Monroe said.

The Bureau of Land Management is inviting the public to review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement through Feb. 21. A virtual public meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Feb. 9.

“Public input will help the BLM ensure we are considering all possible impacts to the lands, resources, and the programs that we manage,” BLM Cedar City Field Manager Paul Briggs said in a statement. “We also have a responsibility to assess the potential effects on the heritage and history of the many people and tribal nations who use these lands and resources.”

Some of those commenting will be Cedar City residents who would see a monthly water bill increase of $54 above the current average $17 by 2030, the impact statement says.

“It’s a much-needed project,” Monroe said. “And we’re excited that it’s moving through with the process. We appreciate the publics’ comments to help us understand if there is anything that we’re missing that we haven’t taken a hard look at.”

Click to enlarge photo

Back to top

SHARE