View source for ASI:Formation of the SNWA: Cooperation in Demand Management

{{ASI
|First Contributor=Margaret Garcia
|First Contributor Link=http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Margaret
|Reflection Text=The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was formed out of the water crisis that stuck the Las Vegas Valley in the late 1980s <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. In the late 1980’s, the opening of the first large scale resort casinos in the city, such as the Mirage Casino, sparked unprecedented growth in population, tourism and in water demands <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The structure of water allocations put neighboring cities in competition for water resources and gave no incentive for conservation or cooperation. The Nevada Colorado River Commission’s policy for allocating to municipalities water was based on the amount used in the previous year <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. This encouraged wasteful practices as each municipality was primarily concerned with maintaining its ability to grow <ref name=“Weiss 2001”> Weissenstein, M. (2001, April 9). The Water Empress of Vegas: How Patricia Mulroy quenched Sin City’s Thirst. High County News. Retrieved from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/200/10404</ref>. In an extreme example, Boulder City uncapped its fire hydrants to ensure that it would continue to receive its full allocation <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>. Another obstacle to cooperation was the system of priority rights governed the priority of allocations when supplies ran short; this meant that water could be flowing in the streets of Las Vegas while Henderson ran dry <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>.


In the late 1980’s the municipalities of the Southern Nevada began to come up against their water supply limits and realized the need to work regionally to control water demands <ref name=“Mulroy 2007”> Mulroy, P. (2007, May 1). California Colloquium on Water, UC Berkeley, Overcoming the Traditions that Divide Us: Tomorrows Reliable Water Supply Dependent Upon Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sunsite.berkeley.edu/WRCA/ccow.html#mulroy</ref>. An external study, completed by Water Resources Management Inc. (WRMI) in 1991, found that at the current usage rates the Las Vegas Valley would exhaust their ground and surface water supplies by the mid-1990s <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The WRMI study recommended a more cooperative approach to water management <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. While discussing the WRMI study over dinner, employees of the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), Henderson and North Las Vegas utilities developed the idea of creating a regional super-agency to carry out WRMI’s recommendation for cooperation; they agreed to pitch the idea to the leadership and it was approved <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>.  


The five water suppliers and two wastewater purveyors of the region (Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, LVVWD, Clark County Water Reclamation District and Big Bend Water District) came together to form the Southern Nevada Water Authority <ref name=“SNWA 2009”> Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA]. (2009). Water Resources Plan 09. Retrieved from: http://www.snwa.com/ws/resource_plan.html</ref>. In order to regionally manage water, the five suppliers combined their water rights and got rid of the system of priority rights <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>.  In the authority all member agencies have equal power regardless of size and each of the water suppliers has veto power over decisions affecting the group <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. This consideration assuaged the fears of smaller utilities of being dominated by the LVVWD. Each utility ran its own operations but infrastructure, conservation and planning were implemented by the SNWA regionally <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Each municipality and county covered by the SNWA is also required to follow the agreed upon conservation standards. The agreement that the seven agencies entered into when the SNWA was formed was unprecedented in the Western United States; five water purveyors gave up their priority water rights, one of the most fundamental concepts in western water law <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. Success in forming this agreement can be attributed in part to the gravity of the problem as according to the WRMI report serious shortages were only a few years away. However, key personalities that inspired trust and confidence also played a role. The first head of the SNWA, Walter Fite, was replaced with in the first year because he approached the problem with an attitude of division and competition; he was replaced by Patricia Mulroy who developed trust within the member agencies through transparency by, for example, sharing proprietary hydrological information from the LVVWD with the all of the agencies <ref name=“Weiss 2001”> Weissenstein, M. (2001, April 9). The Water Empress of Vegas: How Patricia Mulroy quenched Sin City’s Thirst. High County News. Retrieved from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/200/10404</ref>. 


SNWA initially allocated water to member agencies based on a formula for growth potential recommended by WRMI but growth within the city of Las Vegas outpaced all projections <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The result was that some agencies were short on water supplies while others had more than they needed <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. The SNWA, deciding that a more flexible allocation scheme was needed, decided to rid of agency allocations altogether and rework the distribution system so that water was delivered based on demand <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. This was a profound departure from traditional western water management; although the need for a more efficient allocation scheme certainly contributed to the decision, it is not clear why the SNWA members were able to reach an agreement to abandon priority rights while most western cities and farmers guard these rights intensely. 


The ability to cooperate enabled a regional approach to conservation which contributed to a substantial decrease in per capita demands since the early 1990’s. In addition to aiding regional management, coordination enabled Southern Nevada to speak with one voice and better negotiate with other stakeholders on the Colorado River. Shortly after its formation the SNWA was able to negotiate the use of Nevada’s remaining Colorado River allotment and return flow credits <ref name=“Harrison 2009”> Harrison, C. (2009). Water use and natural limits in the Las Vegas Valley: A history of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. University of Nevada, Las Vegas </ref>. Then, in 1995, SNWA became the agency acting on behalf of the state of Nevada for Colorado River negotiations replacing the Colorado River Commission of Nevada because the SNWA had become the major water delivery agency in the state <ref name=“Ott 2010”> Ott Verburg, K. (2010). The Colorado River Documents 2008. United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Lower Colorado Region, United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Upper Colorado Region. Government Printing Office</ref>.


The formation of the SNWA stems from the stakeholders recognition of their interdependence. As evidenced by the crisis in the late 1980’s the stakeholders need for cooperation, and therefore their willingness to cooperate, increases in proportion to the stresses on the system <ref name=“Mulroy 2008”> Mulroy, P. (2008). Beyond The Divisions: A Compact That Unites. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, (1), 105–117</ref>. Examining this case through the values, principles and tools framework, the underlying value in the formation of the SNWA is to provide reliable supply and enable regional growth. The principle is that regional cooperation and coordination is the most effective way to accomplish this; the SNWA is the tool used to implement coordination and cooperation.
|Reflection Text Summary=The formation of the Southern Nevada Water Authority stems from the stakeholders recognition of their interdependence. This case demonstrates that stakeholders need for cooperation, and therefore their willingness to cooperate, increases in proportion to the stresses on the system. It also demonstrates that good leadership was instrumental to the success of the Authority in controlling water demands and acquiring water supplies.
|Perspective=Academic
|ASI Type=Analysis, Synthesis
|Case Study=Water Competition & Cooperation in the Las Vegas Valley
|ASI Keyword=
|User=Margaret
}}