Walker River Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Money Is No Object (Post 8)
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The past couple of posts have covered the subject of the Socioeconomics evaluation put forth in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) . From this review it has been clear how extreme the shortcomings have been in assessing the economic impacts of the University of Nevada System purchasing water from production agriculture to put into Walker Lake.
Since the University System doesn’t have to follow the findings of the DEIS it is probably understandable why it doesn’t matter that the purchases cannot be economically justified.
One might consider some merit of trying to present the loss of agricultural production against the backdrop of the gains made by accomplishing the goals of enhancing the water quality in Walker Lake. Even by using the approach of undervaluing the agricultural consequences of the purchases the offset doesn’t achieve the desired outcomes for the lake.
In seeking to minimize the anticipated employment decreases, the study spreads the jobs over the entire breadth of Lyon County. Not mentioned in the report is the fact that Lyon County is currently ranking as the top county in the state for overall unemployment.
It is also interesting to note that while the impression is presented that there will likely be some perceived potential for employment increases in Mineral county, there isn’t an actual number of new jobs attributed to the increased inflows.
For those who might be keeping track of this project at home, you can attribute $70 million of taxpayer dollars being spent by the University of Nevada, as well as the rest of the $200 million from the 2002 Farm Bill provided to the Bureau of Reclamation for the Desert Terminus Lake program. Also needed to be included in the expenses is the funding from the 2008 Farm Bill (starting out at $200 million, but later reduced to around $186 million).
Once used for funding the purchases or leases, the taxpayer “investment” will contribute to further economic losses, possibly weakening the entire infrastructure of the irrigation system to a point where even those not involved in the removal of water from agricultural production could be harmed. Thus far we have not been able to locate the evaluation of this possibility in the DEIS.
Pursuing The “Don’t Do It” Option:
The “No Action” alternative is fairly well dismissed as not being acceptable, even though the purchase by the University (with the current $56 million in funding that they have available) doesn’t get very much accomplished.
Consideration is highlighted to the advantages that could be accomplished if spending beyond the University’s $56 million were to happen, leading us to believe that in spite of how much of sham this use of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) turned out to be – something might be in the works for further actions. Is this DEIS just a cover for those actions?
Without taking the route that Dr. Lesperance was taken to task for, (suggesting that the purchased water could find its way to Las Vegas and would fall under the control of the federal government) it’s unknown what will happen after the University gets done spending their money. How things will operate to deal with the water they have purchased and how that will match up with the additional funds, targeted for buying up water, has not been explained.
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.
We also hope that you will plan on attending the various local public meetings that have been scheduled:
The past couple of posts have covered the subject of the Socioeconomics evaluation put forth in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) . From this review it has been clear how extreme the shortcomings have been in assessing the economic impacts of the University of Nevada System purchasing water from production agriculture to put into Walker Lake.
Since the University System doesn’t have to follow the findings of the DEIS it is probably understandable why it doesn’t matter that the purchases cannot be economically justified.
One might consider some merit of trying to present the loss of agricultural production against the backdrop of the gains made by accomplishing the goals of enhancing the water quality in Walker Lake. Even by using the approach of undervaluing the agricultural consequences of the purchases the offset doesn’t achieve the desired outcomes for the lake.
In seeking to minimize the anticipated employment decreases, the study spreads the jobs over the entire breadth of Lyon County. Not mentioned in the report is the fact that Lyon County is currently ranking as the top county in the state for overall unemployment.
It is also interesting to note that while the impression is presented that there will likely be some perceived potential for employment increases in Mineral county, there isn’t an actual number of new jobs attributed to the increased inflows.
For those who might be keeping track of this project at home, you can attribute $70 million of taxpayer dollars being spent by the University of Nevada, as well as the rest of the $200 million from the 2002 Farm Bill provided to the Bureau of Reclamation for the Desert Terminus Lake program. Also needed to be included in the expenses is the funding from the 2008 Farm Bill (starting out at $200 million, but later reduced to around $186 million).
Once used for funding the purchases or leases, the taxpayer “investment” will contribute to further economic losses, possibly weakening the entire infrastructure of the irrigation system to a point where even those not involved in the removal of water from agricultural production could be harmed. Thus far we have not been able to locate the evaluation of this possibility in the DEIS.
Pursuing The “Don’t Do It” Option:
The “No Action” alternative is fairly well dismissed as not being acceptable, even though the purchase by the University (with the current $56 million in funding that they have available) doesn’t get very much accomplished.
Consideration is highlighted to the advantages that could be accomplished if spending beyond the University’s $56 million were to happen, leading us to believe that in spite of how much of sham this use of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) turned out to be – something might be in the works for further actions. Is this DEIS just a cover for those actions?
Without taking the route that Dr. Lesperance was taken to task for, (suggesting that the purchased water could find its way to Las Vegas and would fall under the control of the federal government) it’s unknown what will happen after the University gets done spending their money. How things will operate to deal with the water they have purchased and how that will match up with the additional funds, targeted for buying up water, has not been explained.
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.
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 8/9/2009 4:21 PM 
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: University of Nevada Walker River Acquisition
Categories: Walker River DEIS
Tags: University of Nevada Walker River Acquisition
Comments