Latest news with #KyleRoerink
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Las Vegas sprawl at a crossroads
Homes near Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area may no longer be considered the outskirts of Las Vegas if proponents of public lands sales have their way. (Photo courtesy Kyle Roerink) A remarkable sequence of events unfolded in the week before Memorial Day that could shape the future of Las Vegas more than anything else in recent memory. First, Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei made what may prove to be a fateful miscalculation in the waning days of the House's negotiations over the reconciliation budget bill. He added an amendment in the literal dark of night that would authorize — nay compel — the sale of over half a million acres of public land in Nevada. Public outrage ensued. The lands in question in Amodei's amendment have been considered for sell-off in various land legislation proposals in recent years. Though those proposals have been problematic, conservation interests and county governments were at least involved in the negotiations. It felt like Amodei was blowing up the years of work they'd put in. His sneak attack also sparked outrage across the entire country. Former Interior Secretary and Montana Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke led the charge in D.C. against the amendment, calling it 'my San Juan Hill,' in reference to a battle in the Spanish-American War. Other members of Congress spoke out, and calls from around the country flooded Amodei's office. In the end, Amodei bowed to pressure and his amendment was withdrawn from the final House budget bill. Instead of scoring a victory for the real estate and mining interests that bankroll him, he dealt a historic setback to the public lands sell-off movement. At the same time as negotiations were under way in D.C., the Nevada legislature was considering Assembly Joint Resolution 10, which was an endorsement of the Clark County lands bill. The Clark County lands bill — one of the aforementioned lands legislation proposals of recent years — would facilitate tens of thousands of acres of new sprawl south of Las Vegas. It would create a new city the size of St. Louis, stretching all the way to the California border. While some environmental groups have been supportive of the Clark County lands bill, citing conservation interests, our groups have steadfastly opposed any proposal that would facilitate the endless sprawl that strains our water supply and harms our air quality, wildlife habitats and communities. The Sierra Club, Great Basin Water Network, and Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition worked relentlessly for weeks to halt the measure. Amodei's deeply unpopular amendment loomed large in Nevada's legislative chambers. The prospect of Democrats endorsing endless sprawl days after Zinke — Trump's former Interior Secretary — defended public lands was something that Carson City politicians couldn't stomach. Legislators let the Clark County lands bill die late last week. It wasn't just sprawl on public lands that was dealt a blow last week, however. Coyote Springs — a proposed city on a privately owned parcel of land 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas — had one of the last nails pounded into its coffin by a Clark County District Court judge. The developers behind Coyote Springs proposed building a city of a quarter million people on desert they own in northern Clark and southern Lincoln counties. The problem is they have no water. And the groundwater that sits deep under their land — which they propose pumping to fill swimming pools and irrigate golf courses — is connected to waters that sustain endangered species and communities downstream via the Muddy River and Colorado River system. After years of wrangling in court — including a key victory for the Center for Biological Diversity and allies when the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the state's right to manage groundwater for the public interest, including wildlife — Judge Bita Yeager ruled last week that pumping at Coyote Springs would harm endangered species and communities. While Coyote Springs backers are sure to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, the evidence and law is overwhelmingly against the project. Recent momentum clearly favors those who oppose the endless sprawl machine. But what does the future hold? We caught a glimpse last week, as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Bureau of Land Management launched an environmental review for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, formerly known as the Ivanpah Airport. The enormous international airport would be built 30 miles south of Las Vegas on a playa near Primm. In addition to the airport and associated facilities, the site would also include retail and industrial development. It would need pipelines for water, tons of concrete, and land currently inhabited by the imperiled desert tortoise. The land for the airport was given to Clark County by Congress in 2000, meaning that its permitting is close to a foregone conclusion. Even before Trump launched his assault on the nation's bedrock environmental laws, federal agencies by and large have rubber-stamped these sorts of developments. What's not a foregone conclusion is whether the airport will ever be built. Where will the water come from? Who will pay the Southern Nevada Water Authority to build one pipeline to tap into Colorado River water and another to bring back effluent? Where will the people who work there live? Will we have an exodus of workers driving 60 miles roundtrip to the airport, while tourists do the same long journey just to get to The Strip? Who will pay for the new electricity infrastructure, new schools, new roads, new sewers — new everything? The Las Vegas growth machine is at a crossroads. While corporations and their politician handmaidens are growing bolder than ever in pushing the development agenda, the public is coming to the defense of our public lands and pushing back against endless sprawl. Our organizations will continue to highlight the absurdities of selling off public lands for sprawl and oppose these measures in all their forms. The remarkable events of the past week underscored that we have the power to resist — and win.
Newsweek
12-05-2025
- Climate
- Newsweek
Lake Mead Water Warning Issued: 'Painful Summer'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New data suggest that a disappointing snowpack could result in less water than previously thought for America's two largest reservoirs. Why It Matters Lake Mead is a vital water source for millions of people across Nevada, Arizona, California, and parts of Mexico. Its declining levels potentially jeopardize municipal water supplies, agricultural irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. What To Know Officials previously raised concerns about the water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, following a lacking winter snowpack that threatened to stall progress made during last year's wetter-than-average season. File photo of Lake Mead as seen from Hoover Dam at the Nevada and Arizona border. File photo of Lake Mead as seen from Hoover Dam at the Nevada and Arizona border. bloodua/Getty Images The resulting water supply is expected to be even lower than earlier projections. Scientists now forecast runoff into Lake Powell to reach just 55 percent of the average, down from the previous estimate of 67 percent, according to data from the National Weather Service's Colorado Basin River Forecast Center cited by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Lake Powell, situated along the Arizona-Utah border, and Lake Mead, located near Las Vegas, are both integral components of the Colorado River system. The Colorado River Basin supplies water to more than 40 million people across seven states and Mexico. Lake Mead, which receives flows from Lake Powell, hit critically low levels during the summer of 2022 following years of drought. The lakes are the two largest reservoirs in the U.S., with a combined capacity of approximately 55 million acre-feet. At the time of writing, Lake Mead's water levels were 1,060.06 feet mean sea level, 168.94 feet below its full pool of 1,229, according to Lakes Online, an online resource for lake and reservoir information. What People Are Saying Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "It's going to be a painful summer, watching the levels go down. We're getting to those dangerous levels we saw a few years ago." "These types of runoff conditions make water managers nervous," Roerink said. "They make NGOs nervous, and they certainly make water users nervous." What Happens Next Meanwhile, the states that rely on the Colorado River have been engaged in negotiations to develop new water-sharing agreements by 2026. A study earlier this year suggested that increasing wastewater recycling to 40 percent in states within the basin could conserve nearly 900,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, enough to supply almost two million households. The authors advocate for policy actions such as new federal reuse guidelines, standardized reporting, and expanded grant programs to promote water recycling.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Excessive warm weather and below-average snowpack cause concern for Lake Mead's water levels
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) – Water officials are bracing for impact as the excessive warm weather and below-average snowpack across the Rockies have caused concern for the nation's largest reservoir. 'It's a big lake, huge lake, but it's a shame to see it go down this much,' Gary Peck, a boater at Lake Mead, shared with 8 News Now. 'The volume of water was much higher a decade ago than it is right now, and when we go around the lake, you can see all of these empty spots where we used to go and jump in the water,' Suzana Fox, a boater at Lake Mead shared. Federal data and predictions about our reservoir's elevations show a decrease in water levels. Those at the Great Basin Water Network are expecting the nation's largest reservoir to drop a number of feet this summer. 'This year, it seems like we are hitting an intense pattern of aridity. We're not seeing the moisture that we saw in 2023 going into 2024,'Great Basin Water Network Executive Director, Kyle Roerink, explained. He also added that it's vital for consumers to be conservative with their water usage right now. 'We have to remember that Las Vegas is in the Mojave Desert, so one of the driest places in the nation and in the world. We have to be very conscious,' he said. 'Unfortunately, there's so much uncertainty just behind the hydrology because we are waiting for some major agreements between the seven Colorado River basin states, the federal government, and Mexico, but since the new administration came into office, a lot of things have been upended.' The Great Basin Water Network was formed to protect the water resources for residents, animals, and plants and promote water conservation programs. The Great Basin includes parts of Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and California. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Developers, conservationists clash over bill to sell public land for housing
The Clark County Lands Bill would open 25,000 acres of public land in Southern Nevada to development. (Photo courtesy Kyle Roerink) Housing developers and conservation advocates clashed over a bill Thursday that would encourage the federal government to open thousands of acres of public land in Clark County for development, a move critics say will encourage sprawl and supporters argue would lower housing costs. Assembly Joint Resolution 10, a non-binding statement of support sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sandra Jauregui of Las Vegas, urges the federal government to prioritize the passage of the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, colloquially known as the Clark County Lands Bill, which would open 25,000 acres of public land in Southern Nevada to development. The federal legislation is sponsored by Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto in the Senate and Democrat Susie Lee and Republican Mark Amodei in the House. Thursday was the first time state lawmakers held a public hearing for the resolution, which drew criticism from conservation groups and Nevada residents who spoke in opposition of the measure. Despite forgoing a public hearing, the bill passed the Assembly in April with only six members opposing it, all Democrats. During the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections hearing Thursday, supporters of the measure told lawmakers the release of public land would spur the construction of affordable housing, but critics argued the measure does not guarantee housing affordability and would only encourage unsustainable urban sprawl and exacerbate water scarcity. Jauregui said there is a severe housing shortage in Nevada, leading to skyrocketing rents and home prices. Jauregui pointed to a 2022 report from Applied Analysis put together for the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association that found the region could exhaust all available land for development in seven years if current construction trends continue. 'This housing epidemic isn't just about a housing supply shortage, but also a land shortage,' Jauregui said. Several housing developers and business interests spoke in support of the resolution Thursday, including the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Builders Association of Northern Nevada, Nevada State Apartment Association, and the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. The Nevada Republican Party, City of Henderson, Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority and the Nevada Rural Housing Authority also spoke in support of the resolution. Nevada faces a shortage of 80,000 affordable rental homes for extremely low-income residents, according to the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority. 'This is not about unchecked expansion. It's about strategic, responsible growth that allows our communities to meet the real needs of families, seniors and essential workers,' said Mindy Elliot, a lobbyist speaking on behalf of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority and the Nevada Rural Housing Authority. Jauregui acknowledged that just opening public land to development would not be enough to address rising housing costs in southern Nevada. She advocated for the resolution in combination with other housing bills she is sponsoring, including Assembly Bill 241, which would encourage more infill development in urban areas. For nearly an hour, advocates and Nevada residents spoke in opposition to the resolution during public comments. Several took the opportunity to castigate Democrats in the Assembly for failing to hold a public hearing before passing the resolution. The Senate panel also came under criticism for scheduling the Thursday hearing at the last minute. The resolution's opponents cited concerns about water scarcity, utility costs, urban sprawl, and the urban heat island effect — a phenomenon that creates higher temperatures in cities due to an abundance of superheating man-made surfaces like roads and pavement. Some residents expressed concern about the financial burden on taxpayers to fund new infrastructure, services, and roads in low-density suburbs if the resolution passed. During the hearing, critics of the resolution also pointed out that the Clark County Lands Bill does not specifically set aside any land for affordable housing, meaning there is no guarantee any of the released land will result in lower housing costs. Jauregui refuted arguments that the Clark County Lands Bill would not create affordable housing, pointing to Ovation Development Corp's affordable senior housing project being built on land that had belonged to the federal government before it was released to the City of Las Vegas. 'It took five years for this land to transfer from the [Bureau of Land Management]. This new act will streamline the process that allows for these types of affordable housing developments to happen and to happen faster,' Jauregui said. Organizations opposed to the resolution included the Great Basin Water Network, Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, Sierra Club, Make the Road Nevada, and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. Conservation groups argued that infill development of existing neighborhoods is a better solution than development on parcels sprawling along the metro area's edges where federal land would be privatized. Development would exacerbate water scarcity, increase urban sprawl, and worsen housing inequities. An analysis by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada found that around 80,000 acres of vacant or underused land in Southern Nevada's urban core — more acreage than the entire City of Henderson — could be developed for housing near public transit and existing infrastructure. Olivia Taniger, the director of the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, argued the resolution would undermine attempts to promote infill and public transportation development. 'Folks don't want housing out in Jean. They don't want resources taken away from their communities in East Las Vegas when folks already struggle to get around on public transportation,' Tangier said. She argued much of the public land released by the Clark County Lands Bill would likely be sold for warehouses and manufacturing rather than housing. Kyle Roerink, the executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, highlighted the cost of urban sprawl on water resources in the state. Roerink pointed to research that the Colorado River's flow has shrunk by about 20% since 2000, with further declines projected due to climate change. 'Are you willing to tell your constituents that you support inviting another 800,000 people to the region with Lake Mead sitting at 33 percent full? That's what you need to consider with this legislation,' Roerink said. A joint study by Clark County and the City of Henderson found that development under the Clark County Lands Bill could increase daily water demand by 49 million gallons, or about 18% of Nevada's total allocation from the Colorado River. Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, who represents much of east Las Vegas and Henderson along with the Las Vegas Strip, spoke out against the Clark County Lands Bill to state legislators last month. No action was taken on the resolution. The resolution will need to pass in the State Senate by May 23 before being sent to the governor's desk for final approval. Unlike bills, Nevada resolutions don't require approval from the governor. But Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo has repeatedly advocated the sale of federally managed lands to developers. Last month, Lombardo signed a data sharing agreement with the Bureau of Land Management to help facilitate the privatization of federal land.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Westerners are up in arms about proposed public land sales. NV Dems don't seem to notice.
Lake Mead reservoir levels have dropped more than 150 feet since 2000. Federal officials project greater drops throughout this year. Echo Bay Marina, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, summer 2024. (Photo courtesy Kyle Roerink) While Lake Mead sits at about one-third full, a bipartisan cohort of Nevada's state lawmakers think now is the time to sell off public lands to support more Colorado-River-dependent homes and businesses in Southern Nevada. On Thursday, Nevada Assemblymembers, the majority of whom are Democrats, overwhelmingly voted to ask President Donald Trump to support selling off tens of thousands of acres outside of Las Vegas as fast as possible. The resolution implores the administration to support federal legislation from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act. The news of the 36-6* vote in the Assembly comes as communities across the West are rising up and opposing efforts to sell off public lands. Coalitions of concerned citizens across party lines have reservations about these efforts to build in areas prone to drought, wildfire, or flooding. Nevada Democrats do not. Traditionally, public lands privatization is an issue championed by sage brush rebels and urbane developers aligned with the GOP. The Keep It Public movement in Nevada has some legitimate supporters but a dark underbelly. Thanks to a special carveout in federal law championed by Nevada Democrats in the late 1990s, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sells off large chunks of public land that facilitates cookie-cutter growth around Las Vegas and praise from politicians. Across the West, the private-sector crowd views many places not named Yosemite or Yellowstone, or lacking a Grand or Great adjective, as blank canvases for industry. The industry du jour changes among the decisionmakers. But the lands are always expendable enough. Today, affordable housing is the artifice by which powerful interests believe they can get cheap land for major projects. For Las Vegas, there's less water in the Colorado River System and rapidly warming temperatures posing deep uncertainty. As for the overall quality of life, it depends on your income bracket. And most of the people championing public land sales don't fret around tax time. Many politicians are, after all, wealthy. For the masses, there are more regressive taxes and higher utility bills across Nevada than decades past. Nevada's public education system still ranks as one of the worst in the nation. The health care system is near the bottom rung. The well being of children is worse in Nevada compared to other states. And, of course, housing affordability is a major problem as investors like Black Rock buy up residential blocks that were, you guessed it, built on lands sold off by the BLM. A quarter century of practice can fairly raise the question: Is the public-lands-sale model working? Now is the time for Nevada to tell the others in the West: proceed with caution. Instead, Nevada politicians of all stripes are saying 'build, baby, build.' The challenge, of course, is finding an effective substitute that meaningfully incentivizes the private sector without further sapping the public in the long run. In Clark County, there are more than 75,000 acres of infill available. But developers aren't buying it at meaningful rates to appease political appetites. We have opportunity zones, abatements, investment trusts, deductions, and credits that industries benefit from in the West. Data centers, energy companies, mines, and casinos are a few industries that can attest to the benefits. Meaningful solutions to the housing problem will require financial tools and reasonable foresight too. And that will require more than milking the sacred cow of legitimized public land sales. We need to put people where there's existing infrastructure, high-rise opportunities, walkability, and mass-transportation options. There must be water and power infrastructure already in-place. But instead, Nevada Democrats just supported putting more folks in the wildland-urban interface so associated with the fringes and foothills of western public lands. These are water-scarce places currently home to desert tortoise and important carbon capturing environments. Many of the very people who attest to giving a damn about urban heat just voted to exacerbate the problem. But don't try telling them that. There's money to be made. The type of sprawl Nevada Democrats voted to support via AJR10 will warrant expensive new water lines, sewer systems, roads, electricity infrastructure, schools, fire stations, and a host of other intangibles that have costs that span decades. These are not one-time expenses. They are forever expenses. Nevada Democrats and Senator Cortez Masto are desperate to expand the existing policy from former Senators Reid and Bryan known because it dispenses proceeds from public land sales. And other states will take notice. Such revenue streams are red meat for states looking to Nevada as an exemplar. BLM accounts for $4 billion in revenue generated from public land sales since the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act first took effect. Public education, regional water managers, and the aviation department split less than $700 million since the genesis of the program, according to a federal report released last summer. New proposals would have to indeed fill the gaps. But it does make you wonder: Are public land sales the only way to support our community? Is it sustainable? Are the funds sufficient to cover the new needs that will inevitably occur. Nevada Democrats think so. But these are folks who also think that, of all things to ask President Trump to do, selling off public lands is the most pressing issue of the day. *The six members of the assembly, all Democrats, who voted against the resolution were Natha Anderson, Venecia Considine, Tanya Flanagan, Selena La Rue Hatch, Cinthia Moore, and Howard Watts.
