Walker River Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Alternatives Don’t Seem To Give Reason For Going Ahead With Purchases (Post 4)
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to put on paper the merits and considerations being contemplated for a decision by a federal agency. This process is intended to provide the public the opportunity for input as well as see for themselves the factors that lead to the selected course of action.
As we have noted in earlier posts on this subject, the interesting aspect of this EIS is that there is not going to be a federal agency decision. The Bureau of Reclamation, the agency in charge of the EIS process, isn’t making the decision (or at least the current decision) on the acquisition of water rights from willing sellers. The University of Nevada System, in charge of the acquisition of water rights, isn’t compelled to pay any heed to anything related to the EIS.
No matter how “appropriate” those involved want to make appearances look, perception and reality don’t have much to do with one another. Which brings us to the benefits of the various alternatives included in the DEIS…
Review and Comments:
No Action Alternative: This approach is basically to do nothing and leave things be as they are without the University acquiring water rights from willing sellers. Since the University was given the $70 million with Senator Reid’s marching orders to acquire water from willing water right owners in the Nevada portions of the Walker River – not doing what they’ve been told, doesn’t seem a likely outcome that will be selected.
Alternative 1 (Acquisition): This option would involve the University using the funding they have to acquire land, water appurtenant (attached) to the land and provide the water they’ve obtained to Walker Lake. Having spent about $14 million (on “research”) the University has about $56 million of the $70 million they received through the legislative directive to be used in acquiring.
The estimated amount of water that the DEIS believes will be acquired by spending the $56 million is 11,900 acre feet with about 7,300 acre feet of this amount entering into Walker Lake on an annual basis. In order to put 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake, their stated goal, the estimated amount of water that would be needed would be 82,000 acre feet (and of course a lot more money than the $56 million left in the pockets of the University).
When we get into Chapter 11 of the DEIS and the impacts of the alternatives are evaluated on the merits of Recreational benefits it is extremely interesting to read the assessment that the authors portrayed regarding the $56 million spent –
This seems to take the idea of the “any little bit helps” theme, but certainly doesn’t constitute a ringing endorsement on the soundness of going forward. U.S. Taxpayers will have flushed $56 million (I know that its really not that much when you think of all the other places a lot more goes down the federal drain) and the result is “insufficient to significantly improve the ecology of the lake”.
What does that tell us of the wisdom of going forward, if thinking had anything to do with this proposed action…
For other post on comments prepared for the DEIS, please use this link to reach the category grouping for our evaluation of the Walker River Acquisition Program. Please share your thoughts and comments on aspects that we might have missed or you believe should be covered differently.
We also hope that you will plan on attending the various local public meetings that have been scheduled:
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to put on paper the merits and considerations being contemplated for a decision by a federal agency. This process is intended to provide the public the opportunity for input as well as see for themselves the factors that lead to the selected course of action.
As we have noted in earlier posts on this subject, the interesting aspect of this EIS is that there is not going to be a federal agency decision. The Bureau of Reclamation, the agency in charge of the EIS process, isn’t making the decision (or at least the current decision) on the acquisition of water rights from willing sellers. The University of Nevada System, in charge of the acquisition of water rights, isn’t compelled to pay any heed to anything related to the EIS.
No matter how “appropriate” those involved want to make appearances look, perception and reality don’t have much to do with one another. Which brings us to the benefits of the various alternatives included in the DEIS…
Review and Comments:
No Action Alternative: This approach is basically to do nothing and leave things be as they are without the University acquiring water rights from willing sellers. Since the University was given the $70 million with Senator Reid’s marching orders to acquire water from willing water right owners in the Nevada portions of the Walker River – not doing what they’ve been told, doesn’t seem a likely outcome that will be selected.
Alternative 1 (Acquisition): This option would involve the University using the funding they have to acquire land, water appurtenant (attached) to the land and provide the water they’ve obtained to Walker Lake. Having spent about $14 million (on “research”) the University has about $56 million of the $70 million they received through the legislative directive to be used in acquiring.
The estimated amount of water that the DEIS believes will be acquired by spending the $56 million is 11,900 acre feet with about 7,300 acre feet of this amount entering into Walker Lake on an annual basis. In order to put 50,000 acre feet of water into Walker Lake, their stated goal, the estimated amount of water that would be needed would be 82,000 acre feet (and of course a lot more money than the $56 million left in the pockets of the University).
When we get into Chapter 11 of the DEIS and the impacts of the alternatives are evaluated on the merits of Recreational benefits it is extremely interesting to read the assessment that the authors portrayed regarding the $56 million spent –
“It is estimated that acquisitions limited to existing allocated funding would increase average inflows to Walker Lake by an average of 7,300 af/yr. This increase would be insufficient to significantly improve the ecology of the lake, but would begin the process of reversing the lake’s decline.”
This seems to take the idea of the “any little bit helps” theme, but certainly doesn’t constitute a ringing endorsement on the soundness of going forward. U.S. Taxpayers will have flushed $56 million (I know that its really not that much when you think of all the other places a lot more goes down the federal drain) and the result is “insufficient to significantly improve the ecology of the lake”.
What does that tell us of the wisdom of going forward, if thinking had anything to do with this proposed action…
For other post on comments prepared for the DEIS, please use this link to reach the category grouping for our evaluation of the Walker River Acquisition Program. Please share your thoughts and comments on aspects that we might have missed or you believe should be covered differently.
We also hope that you will plan on attending the various local public meetings that have been scheduled:
- Monday, August 17 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Reno – Rancho San Rafael County Park, Main Ranch House, 1595 N. Sierra St.
- Tuesday, August 18 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Yerington – Casino West Convention Center, 11 North Main St.
- Wednesday, August 19 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Wellington – Smith Valley Community Center, 2783 Highway 208
- Thursday, August 20, (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) Hawthorne – Mineral County Public Library, First & “A” Street
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/30/2009 10:19 AM 
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: Nevada University of Nevada Water Acquisition Walker River
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: Nevada University of Nevada Water Acquisition Walker River
Comments