Southern Nevada Water Authority

Legislative Committee to Study the Use, Management and Allocation of Water Resources

January 13, 2006 EXHIBIT B – WATER RESOURCES Meeting Date: 01-13-06 Document consists of 36 slides. Entire Exhibit Provided What is SNWA?

The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was formed in 1991 to address Southern Nevada’s unique water needs on a regional basis SNWA Member Agencies

City of Las Vegas City of Henderson City of Boulder City City of North Las Vegas Big Bend Water District Clark County Water Reclamation District Las Vegas Valley Water District SNWA Resource Portfolio

− Southern Nevada has historically benefited from two very dependable, accessible and inexpensive resource options:

− Groundwater in the Las Vegas Valley

− Colorado River Water Historic Water Use SNWA Resources

Today, the Colorado River meets 90% of Southern Nevada’s resource needs

Year Colorado River Non-Colorado River 1940 0% 100%

1975 50% 50%

2005 90% 10% SNWA Resources

By 2050, the Colorado River is expected to meet 60% of Southern Nevada’s resource needs

Year Colorado River Non-Colorado River 1940 0% 100%

1975 50% 50%

2005 90% 10%

2050 60% 40% Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee

Created in June 2004 Presented Recommendations in November 2005 Purpose

To assess alternatives and develop general recommendations for the SNWA Board of Directors concerning integration of in-state water resources into the water planning and management activities of Southern Nevada. Stakeholder Groups

SNWA Board Appointments Other Participants Nevada Taxpayers Association (1) Lincoln County Resident (1) Gaming Industry (1) White Pine County Resident (1) Homebuilder (1) Nye County Resident (1) Master Planner (1) Moapa Valley Water District (1) Developer (1) Virgin Valley Water District (1) Industrial/Commercial Business (1) Small Business (2) Ex Officio Members Paiute Tribe (1) Chair, Colorado River Commission Financial Industry (1) Chair, Committee on Public Lands Union (2) Office of the Governor (1) Environmental (2) Senior Citizens (2) Southern Nevada Residents (5) Committee Members

Dean Baker Frank Martin Richard Bunker Adrian Mendoza Earl Burris Alfreda Mitre Bob Campbell Terry Murphy Brent Hardy Bob Nard Glen Hardy Bryan Nix John Hiatt Ken Rengert Michael Hillerby Dean Rhoads Somer Hollingsworth John Ritter Peggy Maze Johnson Mark Russell Allen Kaercher Dan Stewart Walt Kuver Danny Thompson Joel Laub Jim Widner Clifton Marshall Glenn Zelch Bill Martin Key IWPAC Recommendations

• Pursue more aggressive water conservation

• Decrease total water demand from 272 GPCD to 250 GPCD by 2010 and to 245 GPCD by 2035

• Pursue development of all the resource options considered in the IWPAC planning scenarios

• Provide additional safeguards for communities and the environment in areas where in-state groundwater resources are developed

• Continue to pursue ocean desalination as a long- term resource Water Conservation

SNWA has one of the most aggressive water conservation programs in the Nation Demand Reduction Tools

• Development codes (commercial & residential) – Indoor fixtures (for example, low flow devices) – Outdoor landscaping, misting systems and fountains

• Time-of-day and day-of-week watering restrictions

• Water budgets for golf courses

• Water efficiency plans for resorts Water Waste Investigations

Over the past two years, we conducted over 77,000 water waste investigations Tiered Pricing Encourages Conservation

$3.00

2003-2004 Rate

$2.00

$/1,000 gallons $1.00 2002-2003 Rate

$0.00 1 5 9 45 49 65 21 25 29 33 37 41 53 69 13 17 57 61 Monthly Use 1000's Gals Water Smart Landscapes Program

• Instituted in 1999

• Provides rebates to customers that replace turf with water-smart landscaping

• Nearly 68 million square-feet converted since program inception

• Over 3.7 billion gallons saved annually Water Smart Landscapes Program

Since 1999, the equivalent of 1,177 football fields of decorative turf have been converted

Before Conversion After Conversion Water Smart Landscapes Program

Since the program’s inception, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has rebated nearly $56 million Water Conservation & Drought Response Southern Nevada has made significant conservation gains 325,000 270,000 265,000

2002 2003 2004

Between 2002 and 2004, Southern Nevada’s consumptive water use decreased by about 20 billion gallons, despite nearly 170,000 new residents and 37 million annual visitors. 2002-2005 Cumulative Water Use

600,000 2002 2003 500,000 2004 2005 400,000

300,000

Acre-feet 200,000

100,000

0 Jul Oct Mar Apr Jan Jun Feb Dec Sep May Nov Aug The Bottom Line

Conservation will continue to play a significant role in water management activities for Southern Nevada SNWA Water Resource Portfolio

Colorado River Resources Non-Colorado River Resources

− Nevada Basic Apportionment − LV Valley Groundwater − Return Flow Credits − LV Valley Shallow Aquifer − Surpluses/Interim Surplus − LV Valley Reclaimed Groundwater − Unused Apportionment (AZ/NV) − In-State Non-Colorado River Water − Arizona Water Bank − Muddy River − California Water Bank − Virgin River − Southern Nevada Water Bank − Groundwater in Clark, Lincoln & − Transfers/Exchanges White Pine counties − Reclaimed In-State Resources Projected Demands and Current Resources

1,200,000

Projected Demands

1,000,000

800,000

Unused Nevada (Non-SNWA) Reclaimed Water Colorado River Water 600,000 acre-feet/year

400,000 Colorado River Water Return Flow Credits

200,000 Colorado River Water Consumptive Use

Groundwater 0 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2006 Water Resource Plan

1,200,000 Transfers and Exchanges Bank Recovery (CA and NV)

1,000,000

Full Consumptive Use / Recycled In-State 800,000

In-State Resources

600,000 AZ Recovery acre-feet/year

400,000

Current Resources

200,000

0 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 Sample Planning Scenario

+ 8,000 plus Augmentation 1,000,000 Resource Option Yield (AFY) Arizona Water Bank 68,000 800,000 Three Lakes Valley GW 8,000 Coyote Spring Valley GW 9,000 Pre-Compact Rights 20,000 600,000 Virgin – Surface Diversion 60,000 5 Basin Approach N/A 400,000 6 Basin Approach 125,000 Augmentation Credits (partial*) 113,000 200,000 Additional Conservation Varies Total 403,000 0 Year 2035

* Augmentation credits not applied to Virgin River surface diversion (1994 water rights) In-State Resources

Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine counties groundwater development

Virgin/Muddy rivers surface water Three Lakes Valley development groundwater development Three Lakes Project

Overview

• Approximately 8,900 acre-feet of groundwater rights in Three Lakes North, Three Lakes South and Tikaboo South valleys

• Delivery via pipeline to northwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley Virgin/Muddy River Surface Water Project

Overview

• 113,000 acre-feet of Virgin River water rights (annual average diversion)

• ~ 7,000 acre-feet of Muddy River water rights

• Delivery via Lake Mead, pipeline to northern portion of the Las Vegas Valley or combination of the two Clark, Lincoln & White Pine Groundwater Project

Overview

• Contingent upon permits for unused groundwater from six basins; water right applications were filed in 1989 • EIS analysis is based on180,000 afy of groundwater

• Approximately 420 miles of pipeline with 4 pumping stations

• Delivery to northeast Las Vegas

• ~ 200 miles of power line

• Disinfection treatment only – no arsenic treatment anticipated because of blending Interbasin Transfers

• Interbasin water transfers are not new in Nevada – The first one was in Northern Nevada in 1873

Existing Transfers Proposed Transfers Carson City Clark County Wendover Washoe County Tonopah Lyon County Lovelock Virginia City Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Eureka Truckee River Lincoln County Land Bill

• Signed into law – December 2004 • Designates utility corridors • Designates wilderness areas and disposes of some federal lands within Lincoln County • Requires environmental compliance • Land sales help fund education statewide and economic development within Lincoln County • Authorizes White Pine County water study White Pine County Water Study

• Review groundwater quantity, quality and flow characteristics of basins within White Pine County, in White Pine or Lincoln County, and in adjacent areas in Utah

• Appropriates $6 million

• Designates U.S. Geological Survey, Desert Research Institute and a representative from the State of Utah to conduct the study

•The Basin and Range Carbonate Aquifer System Study (BARCASS) was initiated for this purpose White Pine County Meeting

• Attended 1/11 White Pine Board of County Commissioners meeting

• Offered to settle differences with the county

• Suggested development of a plan to reserve water in Spring Valley for future development

• Discussed pre-payment of interbasin transfer fee Pre-Hearing Conference

• State Engineer held a pre-hearing conference on 1/5

• Heard from applicant and protestants on various hearing issues, such as: – Timetable and schedule – Hearing format – Pre-hearing information sharing

• State Engineer expected to issue an interim order specifying hearing details