Federal intervention on the Colorado River, how the Interior Department plans to avert a Western water crisis, and what water cuts Nevada could face, that's this week on Nevada Week .

♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.

-Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

The federal government is now stepping in after the seven states that rely on the Colorado River failed to agree on how to cut their water usage.

More on that is just ahead but, first, what about the wet winter we had?

How much of an impact will it have on our water supply?

For that, we bring in Paul Miller, Service Coordination Hydrologist for the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center.

Paul, how are you doing?

(Paul Miller) Good.

How are you doing, Amber?

-Doing well.

Thank you.

And the snowpack, we're hoping it is doing well as well in the Rocky Mountains, going to eventually melt and eventually make its way to Lake Mead.

It typically peaks around this time of year.

How would you describe the snowpack that has accumulated there this winter?

-We've had a historically wet winter this year.

Many of the SNOTEL stations that we rely on to provide us with information on the amount of precipitation and the associated amount of snow water equivalent are either showing record conditions or conditions that are in the top fifth, top 5 of their period of record or even top 10.

So very wet conditions, lots of snow.

They've-- It's all contributing to forecasts from our office that are well above average for the last 20 years.

-Awesome!

So solid snowpack.

But there are other factors, like warmer weather and soil moisture, that will influence how much water actually ends up in Lake Mead.

How can you update us on those factors and their expected impact?

-So that's very true.

So with regards to soil moisture, our office model is soil moisture for the entire Upper Colorado River Basin.

And based on this very persistent drought that we've been in, we have-- We're modeling below normal soil moisture conditions throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin.

As a result, we're expecting a slightly less efficient runoff than we normally otherwise would have.

That being said, with all the snow that we have in the, in the mountains and in the Upper Colorado River Basin, we're still expecting much above-average runoff conditions throughout the basin.

How that runoff comes off is going to be impacted by how we warm up.

So over the last week or so we've seen it warm up, and we've started to see a lot of the snow start to melt off, especially at lower elevations.

But now we're kind of entering a little bit of a cool down here.

So we're in a little bit of a break, which is good from a flooding perspective.

We hope that we don't warm up too quickly and have all this snow come off too fast or all at once, because that just leads to a lot of flooding conditions.

But hopefully we have a gradual warmup that allows this water to come off in a relatively orderly manner.

-And the flooding conditions, those would be expected in what areas?

Because not Las Vegas?

-No.

Though, it's important to be aware that because we've had such high snowpack conditions, that anywhere that you're around, creeks or rivers or streams, you should expect higher than normal runoff conditions and higher than average runoff.

So we might not have flood stages set there or flood levels defined, but it's important to recognize that there's going to be higher than normal flow throughout the Basin and colder water too.

So you don't want to be putting yourself in any danger with these colder than normal streamflow conditions.

All that being said, we're expecting flood threats in the Upper Colorado River Basin, notably the headwaters of the Colorado near the Yampa River Basin, the parts of the Gunnison, the lower parts of the Green River Basin, and in parts of the Virgin River could also see flood-related impacts.

-All right.

And as far as water levels at Lake Mead at 25% capacity right now, what does all this mean?

-Well, we provide our forecasts to the Bureau of Reclamation who really set the operations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

So because Lake Mead is so dependent on operations at Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam, that's really up to the Bureau of Reclamation on how much of this runoff is going to impact Lake Mead in the short term.

-We are in a 23-year drought.

Can you tell us what this wet and cold winter means for-- You know, a lot of people out there thinking this could actually put a dent in the drought.

Your response to that?

-You know, it's like you mentioned, we're in a 23-year drought period.

And this one really good year isn't enough to pull us out of that, the ramifications of that 23-year drought period.

So it's a step in the right direction, but we're still probably a long ways away from where we're comfortable, from a water supply perspective.

-Paul Miller, thank you so much for your time.

-Sure.

Anytime.

-The decades-long drought combined with overuse of the Colorado River led the federal government in June of last year to demand the seven states that depend on the river make cuts in their water usage, but negotiations among the states as to who should cut what has been unsuccessful so far.

And that's why the feds came up with their own plan which could further reduce Nevada's already limited water access.

(Tommy Beaudreau) We all know, but it bears emphasizing upfront that the prolonged drought afflicting the American West is one of the most significant challenges facing our country today.

-With the Hoover Dam in the background, Interior Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau justified a draft of a federal plan which he says would protect the shrinking Colorado River and ensure continued power generation and water deliveries to 40 million people.

-If you look out the window on this setting, you see the water intakes for Hoover Dam.

And clearly they are designed to be able to take in water all the way up to these levels.

You look at the bathtub rings around Lake Mead, and you know what the system was designed for and where it stands today.

-The Interior's plan includes three options: one, take no action, which officials agree is the worst option; two, make water usage cuts based on priority rights established about 100 years ago-- under this plan, California would receive fewer cuts, while Arizona and Nevada would face the more severe cuts-- and, three, make equal cuts of the same percentage across the Lower Basin states of Nevada, California, and Arizona.

(Tom Buschatzke) But those paths have dire consequences in some cases and may spur opposition or even litigation.

Unacceptable outcomes.

Instead, let us accelerate our discussions in the Basin for a collaborative consensus-based outcome.

-In January, six of the seven states that make up the Colorado River Basin agreed on how to cut one-and-a-half-million acre feet of water.

Meanwhile, the lone holdout, California, submitted a different recommendation for cuts.

(Estevan Lopez) What I was heartened by then was the fact that both recommendations really acknowledged to, kind of, the extent of the shortages that we will have to face.

And it also acknowledged-- both alternatives acknowledge that whether we like it or not, the heavy lifting has to happen within the Lower Basin.

The Upper Basin has already taken and continues to take significant hydrologic shortages.

-However, Nevada draws the smallest share of Colorado River water yet boasts a water recycling program that returns about 99% of water used indoors to Lake Mead.

That program is under the Southern Nevada Water Authority whose General Manager, John Entsminger, said this about the Fed's proposals: (John Entsminger) Enforcement by strict priority, enforcement by, you know, rather arbitrarily cutting every contract by the same amount regardless of previous conservation achievements.

There's not a lot of nuance.

-His interpretation of the Interior's plan?

-I think it shows you what the federal government thinks their tools are.

And the federal tools, unfortunately, are a box of hammers.

So if we want something more nuanced than that, if we want something that really works and can be durable for the people that use this river, that's up to the states and the water users to come up with that.

-The draft of the Interior's plan will be available for public comment until May 30.

A final plan is expected this summer.

And joining us now to expand on what the plan could mean for Nevada is Colby Pellegrino, Deputy General Manager of Resources at the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Colby, thank you for joining us.

(Colby Pellegrino) Thank you for having me.

-So that plan is almost 500 pages long.

And at that press conference we were at, it was released just as that press conference started.

So the representatives from the states had no opportunity to go through it and said, Hey, we haven't read through it.

I'm just curious, why do you think the Interior Department chose not to let them in on it prior?

-Well, the process that the Interior Department is going through is actually processed under federal law as part of the National Environmental Policy Act.

And there's a pretty strict set of rules about how these documents are developed and who they're shared with and when they're shared and sort of having equal opportunity for everyone that's not helping write the documents see the document at the same time.

-Fair enough.

So as of this taping, we are two days removed from that press conference.

How much of this plan have you been able to go through?

-You know, we're starting to get our feet wet, if you will.

Probably a bad pun for this particular document.

-I like it.

-But we're starting to look at it and understand the analysis that they've done.

-What has stood out to you so far?

-You know, I don't think there's any huge surprises in the document.

The magnitude of reductions needed to help stabilize the Colorado River system is large.

We've been talking about the same quantities of water being needed since summer of last year.

The commissioner said we need 2- to 4-million acre feet a year in permanent savings in order to stabilize the river system.

So there's not really any surprises in terms of the overall magnitude of the reductions that they're talking about.

-Not surprised, though, by the inclusion of "take no action" plan.

I mean, how likely is it to happen that they would allow water levels to get low enough that the dams can't operate?

-Yeah.

And again, that's-- That's a structure of how the National Environmental Policy Act is set up.

In order to analyze any federal alternative, you have to compare it to what happens if the federal agency doesn't take any action.

So I think in layman's terms, we don't expect "no action" to occur, but it has to be included to sort of compare the other alternatives.

-Okay.

So Alternative 1 is based off of priority rights established about 100 years ago.

Nevada got the short end of the stick in those negotiations, getting the least amount of water from the Colorado River among all the seven states.

California gets the most.

How much more would Nevada suffer if the priority rights plan was implemented?

-I think that where the plans sit today, they're really bookmarks for analysis.

They're creating the room for the states to sit and continue to negotiate.

We don't think either of the alternatives that the feds have presented are really workable for the states.

When you look at the outcomes associated with them, they're, as Tom Buschatzke said in his comments at their release, those are dire consequences that we need to find other ways to mitigate.

So I think that, you know, under a strict priority appropriation that has a major impact on the valley, it's one that we would be able to deal with through the resource planning that we've done.

But we don't think either of those alternatives are tenable and sort of underscores our need, one, to continue conservation here locally and, two, to continue cooperating with our partners on the river to come up with a plan that works for everyone.

-That's really interesting that the federal government would come up with something that doesn't seem feasible to the parties involved.

-I think it just re-emphasizes that when you look at a situation like this and the tools that the federal government has, the states and the water users can use a scalpel, and they can come up as long as everyone can agree with something that really takes into consideration everyone's individual needs.

The federal government doesn't have tools that are that precise.

They get an axe.

And that's what we see here is that if you leave the federal government without the cooperation of the states and water users, that they have these really draconian measures for their use, and that's it.

-You call it an axe.

Entsminger calls it a hammer.

[laughter] -But the other alternative has all the Lower Basin states--California, Arizona, Nevada--cutting the same percentage of water.

What percentage would that be?

-The percentage reduction increases as the Lake Mead's elevation decreases.

-Okay, all right.

So I was wondering how Southern Nevadans would actually feel this.

How worried should they be?

-I don't think, again, that either of these two alternative represents a viable management regime for the Colorado River system.

The six-state alternative had higher-- had increased reductions higher up in the reservoir, helping us avoid some of these large reductions lower down in the reservoir.

California's alternative had the same thing.

So I think there will be common ground where we can get to different tools and different reductions that provide the same amount of stability with less impact to the community.

-I did get to speak with your boss, John Entsminger, at that press conference.

He's unable to be here today, because he said he was out of state negotiating with Arizona and California.

So the negotiations continue.

Is California the real stickler here, as they're being portrayed, because of the separate proposal that they submitted?

-I think that negotiations are hard.

These types of negotiations have really acute impacts on the communities that rely on Colorado River water.

And in particular, communities that have one major source of economic revenue or only one source of water, they fall on even more acutely.

Obviously, time is not on our side.

So that provides even more pressure.

I don't think that it's fair to say that California is the problem.

I think it's fair to say that everyone needs to be able to find something that works for them.

We were pretty dang close when we submitted the six-state alternative.

We just didn't have enough time to get there.

-And now how much time do you have?

-So this process, as they mentioned, there's comments open until the end of May.

And then they actually re-issue that 476-page document again, as a final alternative.

Not immediately after that comment period closes.

So that gives us at least a few months to continue negotiating before the final document is produced.

And then should that come up with new management alternatives, then there's another comment period and a record of decision.

So the hope is that we can line up all of these things by August, because that's when we're determining how much water everyone has for the next calendar year.

-And we haven't talked about Mexico.

What role have they played in these negotiations?

-Mexico has been a great partner on the river since we entered into our first shortage guidelines, coming and agreeing voluntarily to take reductions with this same sort of scalpel approach, where we're getting to policy that benefits them with their needs as well as helping the river system.

I anticipate that Mexico will continue to be a partner in whatever this next chapter of reductions is.

-We have only a few minutes left.

I want to pivot to some of the further conservation measures that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would like to implement, and that is within the Nevada legislature, Assembly Bill 220, making national headlines because it would give the Water Authority the power to restrict single family residential water use to about 30,000 gallons above the average use.

30,000 gallons above the average use, how many homes in Nevada are using that much water?

-So this is something that's really aimed at our largest single family residential water users.

That top 20% of residential water users uses over 35% of the water that goes to the single family residential sector.

And your average home in the Las Vegas Valley is only using about 9,000 gallons a month.

So to put that into context, you're talking about them having four times the amount of water of your average single family residential home.

And we're really asking for some power in an extreme situation to be able to curtail use so that we can help manage the valley's water supply.

-So should this pass, it would not immediately be implemented?

-No, it's an emergency measure.

-And then the other part of it is asking homeowners with septic systems to get rid of those, hook them up to the municipal water system so that that water can be recycled.

That's gotten some heat.

Some of the homeowners that have testified, according to some of the reading I've done, say it could cost $37,000 for them to replace it.

How would you justify that kind of cost?

-So when we look at the way that the community uses water, if your home is connected to the central sewer system, anything you use indoors is being treated and returned back to Lake Mead.

And we can withdraw that same gallon of water from Lake Mead again.

So anything you use indoors is not hurting our water resources.

Any water that goes into a septic is not being recycled and reused.

So essentially, if you're on the sewer, you're renting water from us.

If you're on a septic system, you're buying it because we can't use it again.

So we need to create that closed loop with all of the homes in the valley that are using Colorado River water.

Code today already requires those users to connect.

The problem is it's not been implemented very consistently throughout time.

So we're trying to set up a financial program along with the legislation to offset the cost to the homeowner while already requiring what they're required to do today -And that would be about half the price?

-What we're looking at today is getting closer to 85% of the cost.

There are ongoing costs with a septic system.

Septic systems don't last forever.

If you replace a septic system, you're looking at 15- $20,000.

So there are costs associated with having that septic, and this is just shifting some of those costs.

-Colby Pellegrino, thank you for your time.

For nearly 20 years, wastewater investigators with the Las Vegas Valley Water District have been patrolling our streets looking for wastewater violations.

Nevada Week's Maria Silva joins us now.

And Maria, while not part of their official title, they are also known as watercops.

(Maria Silva) And Amber, I'm told that it is a term they have learned to embrace.

And you better believe that in a 24/7 town, 24-hour town, right?

They are out and about patrolling 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

They are very busy.

Now, we tagged along with one of these water waste investigators to find out what they're looking out for when it comes to those water waste violations, plus the fines that you could face if you get one.

(Cameron Donnarumma) Water Waste Investigator 8776.

-Water Waste Investigator 8776 is Cameron Donnarumma, one of 18 investigators who make up the Las Vegas Valley Water District's Water Patrol.

-A lot of people call us water cops or water police for short.

I mean, that's fine with me.

-And they are definitely ready to protect and conserve 24/7.

-Yeah, it is a flashy vehicle with the amber lights.

The number one thing is we do try to get attention when we're in neighborhoods so people see that we're in their community.

We are patrolling.

-On this particular morning, homeowners in this neighborhood, part of Watering Group C, were watering their lawns on one of their assigned days.

But Cameron was still on the lookout for water waste violation.

-As you can see, there's kind of water leaving the property going all the way down the street into the gutter.

This could be due to overspray, misaligned spray heads, sometimes over irrigation.

Sometimes homeowners have their runtime set for just too long, which causes the water to just run off right off the yard.

-The next step involves a quick online search for any previous violations.

-So this particular property doesn't have any previous history of any water waste violations, so this will be considered a warning -That warning comes in the form of a door hanger.

-Our number one goal is education.

So we definitely will leave a door hanger that contains all the information.

Sometimes if it's during business hours, we'll try to attempt to make contact with the homeowner.

-If the homeowner does have a history of similar water waste violations in the past 18 months, they could face hefty fines.

-Most single family homes, starting fee starts at $80.

If the water waste violation is not corrected, it does double.

So it goes from $80 to 160, and so on.

-A big part of a water waste investigator's job, helping the homeowner fix the problem.

-Sometimes some homeowners don't know how to work their irrigation controller properly.

So some of them have to be instructed to show them how to water on the correct days or if they need advice or tips on how to avoid water running off their properties.

I would say most people appreciate our presence, and they understand why this is necessary, why this is important.

So I think most people do appreciate our presence in the community.

-Cameron is extremely proud of the work he is doing to help conserve one of our most precious resources.

-So I've been doing this for almost four years.

My favorite part of this job is probably just kind of reaching out to the community, educating and letting them understand why this is so important, why conserving water is essential to our community.

We have a limited water supply, and just-- I've lived here most of my life, so I mean, I feel like a connection kind of with the city and with our community.

So that's why I enjoy this job.

And this concludes the investigation.

-Now, we witnessed firsthand that Cameron really does love his job.

By the way, great job, Cameron.

His shift starts at 3:30 in the morning.

He does not mind.

Now getting back to those fines.

If you get one, you have the option of doing an online water waste education course instead of paying that fine.

-And that is a very real possibility, because I understand that neighbors can even report on people who have these violations.

-We talk about, we all have to do our part, right?

So, yes, you can go online.

We have that information on our website.

Now, these water waste investigators, they do take it very seriously.

They ask you to upload photos and talk a little bit about what the situation is, whether it's, you know, the water flowing off the property or maybe a sprinkler that's broken, and then they go back the following week at the exact time that you put on that report.

And then they go ahead and make sure that the problem is fixed, or they talk to the homeowner.

So again, most of their day consists of going out and doing those investigations.

-And I was thinking that same thing.

If water was running off my property, I don't know if I would know how to fix it, that sprinkler system.

It's so neat that they help out.

-They really do.

And as we saw there, they're very committed to their job.

-And thank you, Maria, for helping make this show so great.

Thank you for joining us.

For any of the resources discussed on this show, including information on how to make your landscaping watersmart and how to report water waste, go to our website, vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

♪♪♪