Quealy 1
Snake Valley Water Agreement
The Snake Valley aquifer lies in portions of southwestern Utah and southeastern Nevada.
The people of the Snake Valley rely on the water in the Snake Valley aquifer for their
livelihood, which includes ranching, growing hay for their cows, and drinking water. The
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) wants 50,000 acre-feet of water from the
Snake Valley to be pumped to Las Vegas. This has struck fear and anger in to the
ranchers of the Snake Valley. They fear this pipeline will jeopardize their way of life by
lowering the water table, drying up springs, and jeopardizing farming and grazing land.
They also feel that SNWA is “stealing” their water. I will explain the nature of the Snake
Valley Water Agreement (the Agreement) between Utah and Nevada, including how no
water is being stolen, how the rancher’s fears are being addressed, and how, in my
opinion, the ranchers are over reacting.
The Ranchers
The ranchers have many concerns about the Agreement. I do not have the time to list all
their concerns here, but I will address some of the major ones. The Agreement provides
protection for the ranchers and their livelihood. However the ranchers just don’t trust the
states and feel the states are not really concerned with their needs. I don’t blame them for
Quealy 2
feeling the way they do. If someone tried to do something that I perceived to threaten my
livelihood I would be defensive too.
Some of their opposition to the Agreement is based on legitimate concerns. Some
of the concerns are that when Nevada starts to pump out the water it may lower the water
table, which would have some adverse effects. It may dry up springs, and marshland, and
could directly affect the ranchers by forcing them to deepen their wells to be able to reach
the water, which would cost them money. Mark Miller of Elko NV, stated in a comment
on the Utah Division of Water Rights website that he is worried about the water table
falling so far that the aquifer could collapse. It is true that the water table is expected to
drop. However there stipulations in the Agreement and Utah law that will protect the
ranchers and the water table from falling to unreasonable levels.
Under Utah law, the rule of reasonableness requires that a prior groundwater user
cannot demand that groundwater remain the same as when he first made his
appropriation. But, any drop in ground water levels must be “reasonable”. In addition, the
Agreement provides a process to identify and mitigate adverse impacts from SNWA
pumping on existing water rights. As long as the SNWA pumps water from the aquifer it
must maintain a $3 million mitigation fund, which may be used to deepen wells,
reimburse pumping costs or provide other mitigation measures. As for Mark Miller’s
concern of the aquifer collapsing, keeping the aquifer level at a “reasonable” level would
prevent that from happening.
Some of the opposition is cultural, the mentality that this is the “good ol’ boy’s”
water and we’ll be damned if you city slickers are going steal what is ours. This mentality
is longstanding and is ingrained in to their way of thinking. They live a simpler slower
Quealy 3
paced and independent life than the people of Las Vegas do and they feel “Othered” by
the Agreement. Cecil Garland a rancher who lives in Callo Utah, which is in the middle
of the Snake Valley said this in an interview with KSL News "By what incredible right in
this so-called ‘land of the free and home of the brave' do huge metropolitan areas feel that
they have the right to walk in and take the most sacred commodity? They call it a
commodity, we call it a way of life.”
Environmental Issues
Some people are worried about the environmental impact on the fish, frogs, and
snails that live in the wetland and springs fed by the aquifer. In addition, Salt Lake and
Utah Counties are concerned about air quality. They fear that if the too much water is
pumped out of the aquifer it could blow dust in to the two counties, having a negative
effect on air quality.
However, the Agreement requires extensive monitoring and mitigation to address
environmental concerns, including potential impacts on sensitive species and damage to
the wetland and air quality. The extent of this process is set forth in a separate agreement
between Utah and SNWA to be attached to the primary Agreement. It basically says that
Quealy 4
there will be significant focus on protection of the wetland and prevent the listing of
certain species to the Endangered Species List. If this were to occur the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service would step in and exert control over the Snake Valley water project to
protect critical habitats. Further, the environmental protections will be made part of any
water right permit Nevada issues to SNWA.
After reading these documents it seems that great care has been taken to prevent
any unreasonable environmental impacts. Will there be some impact? Yes. Will it turn in
to a dust bowl? Or will there be so much water taken out that the aquifer will collapse? I
highly doubt it. There are so many rules and guidelines in this agreement that is seems far
fetched that any major environmental impact will occur. However there will be a
moderate impact but it will be monitored and regulated to prevent a major impact.
The Agreement And The Benefits To The Ranchers
What I’m not sure the ranchers understand about this, is that a good portion of the
water belongs to the Nevada and they are entitled to their portion of the water. It is
Nevada’s water; Utah is not selling or giving it away, since it is not all Utah’s to begin
with. Just because Nevada has not used its share of the, Snake Valley water in the past,
does not mean it has forfeited its water rights to Utah. 65% of the recharge comes from
Nevada while historically 70% of the current use occurs in Utah. The Agreement states
that the Snake Valley water will be divided between the two states on a 50/50 basis.
This benefits the ranchers of Snake Valley and puts limits on how much water
SNWA can take out. While neither state gets exactly what it wants, both states have
control over their respective interests and how to protect them. Both states will jointly
Quealy 5
manage the aquifer. The Agreement protects the interests of the ranchers and provides
mitigation if harm occurs, and it creates a system for the protection of previously
mentioned wildlife and ecosystems.
There are two additional major benefits to the Agreement that are in the rancher’s
interest.
1.
The SVWA puts in to place a 10 year waiting period where SNWA will not
be granted water permits while the U.S. Geological Survey conducts base
line studies to be compared with data collected after the SNWA begins
taking water out. Not only will this delay the project for 10 years, it will give
the ranchers a leg to stand on if their water rights become negatively
affected. It will also give the states a better idea of the water available for use
without causing an unreasonable drop in the water table.
2.
If the ranchers are unreasonably or negatively affected, or environmental
issues occur, the Nevada will revoke water rights in a newest to oldest order.
This means that the piping to Las Vegas would be the first to be stopped and
the ranchers would be the last.
For these two reasons alone I believe like the agreement is in the best interest of
the ranchers. Remember, the SNWA is going to take their share of the water no matter
what with or with out an agreement. Why not do it in a way that delays pumping for 10
years, and protects the ranchers and the environment if unforeseen, or unreasonable
negative effects are produced?
Quealy 6
The Agreement Is Better Than No Agreement
Some people believe that no agreement would be better than the Snake Valley Water
Agreement and believe that Utah should hold out for more water. These views are
misguided. How the water will be divided up is outlined in detail in the Agreement. It is
complicated and broken it to several sections. Basically it provides that no current water
rights will be adversely affected and only the unappropriated water will be given out so
the total available water will be divided between the states 50/50.
Without an agreement, Nevada could pump unregulated. If Nevada’s
development of the Snake Valley aquifer harms Utah interests (the ranchers) Utah’s only
remedy is to sue Nevada in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court would
divide up the water rights. The problem with that is the U.S. Supreme Court would only
hear the case if Utah can show that actual, present harm is taking place. In order for that
to happen significant harm must have already occurred, and in the time it would take to
build a case and argue it the ranchers may have already lost their ranch. In addition, in the
time it would take to get the case together Nevada could stop pumping, the negative
effects would go away and Utah would not be able to show actual present harm and the
case could no longer proceed then Nevada would resume pumping. There are so many
uncertainties with this solution it hard to believe any rancher would want to oppose this
agreement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Agreement is a better way to address and mitigate the potential
adverse effects of the SNWA, pumping project in Snake Valley than an expensive lawsuit
would be and much better than no agreement at all.
Quealy 7
It will regulate how much water SNWA can pump out and put in place safeguards like limiting or revoking water rights in a reverse order if negative effects occur. It
will delay piping the water to Las Vegas for 10 years while the USGS collects baseline
data that the ranchers can use if there are unreasonable negative effects to their ranch. It
will monitor the level of the aquifer and prevent the water table from dropping too low. It
will protect the wetland and the associated species. It will monitor air quality. If a rancher
has to deepen his well, the Agreement has set aside money to do that.
While I do see why the ranchers in the Snake Valley are apprehensive about the
pumping of this water, I do not see why they are not behind this agreement. Nevada is
going to pump this water and there is really no way to stop it. This agreement it is clearly
the best way to protect their interests and livelihood.
Quealy 8
Work Cited

Utah division of water rights . Snake Valley Water Agreement .
Date
of publish Unknown. State of Utah, Web. 4 Oct 2009.
http://waterrights.utah.gov/snakeValleyAgreement/snakeValley.asp

Alex, Cabrero. Western Utah ranchers call water deal a ‘death
sentence. ksl.com. August 13, 2009. KSL news, Web. 4 Oct 2009.
<http://www.ksl.com/?sid=7530519&nid=148>.

"DWR." Draft Agreement Released on the Management of the Snake
Valley Groundwater System . Date Published Unknown. State of
Utah, Web. 4 Oct 2009. <http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/defaultH.asp>.

"DWR." Truth about Snake Valley Agreement . Date Published
Unknown. State of Utah, Web. 4 Oct 2009.
<http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/defaultH.asp>.

"USGS." USGS Scientific investigations report 2007 -5261 Summery
of Major Findings. Date Published Unknown. USGS, Web. 4 Oct
2009. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5261/sectioin 1.html>