For Immediate Release                                                                Contact: Scott Huntley  702-258-7258

Jan. 28, 2010                                                                                                                                J.C. Davis  702-258-7117

 

 

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

 

Southern Nevada Water Authority Response to Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

 

 

We are disappointed by the courtÕs decision and are considering whether to file a Motion to Reconsider, because we believe the justices may not fully appreciate the far-reaching ramifications of their decision on people throughout the state.

 

While the decision was directed at the Nevada State EngineerÕs ruling on our water right applications, the reality is that based upon an initial review of the stateÕs database, more than 1,800 applications are jeopardized by this ruling, while thousands of additional permits held by agricultural interests, the mining industry, municipal water agencies and individual citizens could be called into question, as it is not uncommon for it to take longer than 12 months to act upon a water right application.

 

The Nevada Supreme Court ruling remanded to District Court the decision as to whether the Nevada State Engineer will simply need to re-notice the applications in order to allow additional protestants to participate—which appears to have been the rulingÕs underlying intent—or whether the applications must be re-filed.

 

It would certainly be in the interest of other applicants throughout Nevada for the District Court to opt for the former. However, because these applications represent the emergency water supply for the entire Las Vegas Valley should Lake Mead continue its decline, the SNWA today re-filed the applications originally filed in 1989 to protect the communityÕs ability to seek permits from those basins should the District Court determine that re-filing is the appropriate action.

 

While it has not yet been determined which path the District Court will choose, this ruling seems unlikely to alter the EIS process because there are no substantive changes to the environmental permitting process. It is too early to know the implications for the projectÕs construction timeline, which is being driven by elevations in Lake Mead, but that also seems unlikely to be affected by this decision.

 

-30-