Forensic Investigation Urged on Water Deals

Mesquite, NV.  Jason King, the Nevada State Water Engineer, and Steve Wolfson, Clark County District Attorney need to immediately open a forensic investigation into how and why the Virgin Valley Water Board (VVWB) acquired river water shares from the Mesquite Irrigation Company (MIC) and the Bunkerville Irrigation Company (BIC).

Various members of the water board have intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the amount of ground water potentially available to the community. Doing so, makes it appear that a need for river water exists.  The board claims (without MIC and BIC) totals of:

  • Groundwater is equal to 12,349.29 (58% of total) Acre Feet Annually (AFA).
  • Spring water equal to 2,500 AFA (12% of total) and
  • Stream (river) water equal to 6,580.00 (31% of total)

Total = 21,429.29 AFA

However, the district has applications on file with the state water engineer equal to 211,747.49 Acre Feet Annually (AFA) of water. The applications break down as follows:

  • Groundwater applications equal to 208,866.53 AFA. That is 98.64% of the total. Groundwater further breaks down as 23,658.60 (11.33%) AFA that is ready for action (RFA) 62,896.44 (77.99%) AFA is ready for action (RFP) and 22,311.49 (10.68%) is permitted or certified.
  • Spring water applications equal to 296.33 AFA which is 0.14% of the total, and
  • Stream (river) water equal to 2,584.63 AfA or 1.27% of the total.

To move groundwater categorized as RFA to beneficial use requires the water board to “prove” that the district has the financial ability (NRS 534.080) to put the amount desired to beneficial use within five years. Protests are harder to argue. They come from individuals, other government agencies and from the state engineer. The state engineer often protests to protect the perennial yield from the basin.

Between 1993 and 2010 board members spent $12,153,670.86 for 3,155.70 AFA of river water held by shareholders of the MIC and 1,484.44 AFA of river water from shareholders of BIC. Ostensibly this total of 4,640.14 AFA of river water was for irrigation use.

It is not uncommon to use cleaner groundwater for irrigation. In Nevada, about 55 % of the total groundwater is used for irrigation. One ground water well can produce about 3,193 AFA of water at the cost of between $1.5 and $2 million. Two ground water wells would produce about 6,392 AFA or 3,236.3 AFA more than the river water purchased. Further two wells would have saved ratepayers between $ 8,153,670.86 and $9,153670.86. These excess expenditures account, in part, for the increased rates for water users and increased fees for developers. There is no legitimate excuse for not acting to obtain 6,392 AFA from the 23,658.60 AFA of groundwater ready for use.

The water board has consistently rejected efforts to study the basin. When former hydrologist Mike Johnson was asked why the board consistently rejects a basin study, he said: “because if the public knew how much water was in the basin, there would be no need to purchase water from shareholders of BIC and MIC.

A forensic investigation is needed to look into the need to purchase river water when it appears enough ground water exists at a lower cost. The investigation must also examine the familial relationships and affinities held between virtually all of the buyers and sellers of MIC and BIC shares for potential legal violations. Also, the investigation should confirm that shares purchased were not the same shares leased to the SNWA by the same shareholders.

The current board still deals with water acquired from MIC and BIC in the past. If that water was improperly acquired, then they must stop dealing with it and see that it is forfeited and returned to the public domain.

 

End Notes:

  1. An Acre Feet Annually (AFA) is one foot of water covering one acre of land in one year. Or, one AFA is approximately enough to service two homes each with 4 members.
  2. The state records the interpretations of paper records and disavows any errors, omissions, or accuracy of the information. Instead, they ask users to their date to refer to the records. As near as possible, the records associated with these water applications were reviewed.
  3. Well estimates come from expected pumping rate for VVWD new well 27a

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s