Good Neighbor to the East

California and Nevada weren't always good neighbors. In fact in 1865, when an engineer from San Francisco proposed building an aqueduct to deliver water from Lake Tahoe to the booming city, Nevadans rallied against the project. That incident was the start of what was to be decades of contention and negotiations between the two states over key waterways that crossed their borders--Lake Tahoe, and the Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers.

For California and Nevada, the issues centered on how much water they could rightfully claim from these interstate resources. Each state faced demands for water to irrigate farmlands, and each anticipated growth in the communities and industries that would require a reliable supply.

Nevada, however, faces quite a different water dilemma from its neighbor to the West. California is water-rich compared to Nevada, even though the latter seeks to satiate the thirst of only about 2 million people (compared to the former's more than 30 million population). Nevada has only one river, the Humboldt, contained within its boundaries and a few minor streams and creeks. The only other major supply for the West's most arid state comes from its share of the Colorado River--300,000 acre-feet to quench the thirst of its largest city, Las Vegas.

Throughout the years of conflict with California over water allocations and rights, Nevada has closely guarded its limited supplies. While negotiations were sometimes heated and often frustrating, most of those immersed in these discussions recognized that only from acknowledging one another's concerns and needs would come the gains sought. Among them was a young civil engineer named Roland Westergard, who entered the fray in the 1960s as a representative from the Nevada Division of Water Resources and who would eventually rise to head the state's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Westergard learned the significance of water very early in life, growing up on a small ranch in Lovelock, Nevada. As a boy, he aspired to a career as the State Engineer partly because of the excitement generated when the official came to town. Water was also a family tradition, with a brother who worked for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (as he would) then later for the water district that also employed his father.

His career spans nearly 40 years of accomplishments and commitment to resolving his state's water issues. Though retired from his former state post in 1990, he is still active in the field -- including long-time memberships in the Western States Water Council and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state entity which seeks to balance environmental concerns with land development and water use in the Tahoe Basin.

During a recent interview, Westergard discussed his past, and the present and future of what lies ahead for Nevada and other states struggling to balance water demands with water supplies.

Q: Tell me about your start in the water field?
A: I joined the USBR after serving in the U.S. Army and was involved in the Washoe Project which included Prosser Dam, a proposed dam on the upper Carson River, and Stampede Dam on Little Truckee River, as well as related water and land issues. But I left after a couple of years because my wife and I wanted to stay in the Carson City area so I joined the Division of Water Resources. Back then it was a very small office of about 25 to 30 people. And because it was, I was exposed to all facets -- water rights appropriations, water adjudications, approval of dams, flood control, planning, and interstate issues.

Q: How would you describe Nevada's water situation?
A: The state's water supply is extremely limited. The major surface water sources are Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers in the north, Humboldt River in the east, and a portion of Colorado River in the south. For all practical purposes those sources are fully committed, as are our groundwater basins which are also limited.

For Nevada, water is more a matter of processing water rights to use those supplies. And as the economy and emphasis change, earlier irrigation rights will be converted to municipal rights.

Q: What are the main differences between how our two states administer the water?
A: One of the primary differences is in Nevada you must have a permit, granted by the State Engineer, to use groundwater resources, while in California, groundwater is not adminstered by the state. Here, you can drill an individual domestic well drawing 1800 gallons per day without securing a permit. In areas where municipal water is available, you can be precluded from drilling a well for domestic purposes. There are very rigid controls over our groundwater resources.

Q: What other differences in water issues exist?
A: In Nevada, there is no large-scale diversion from one area to another as in California. There are some transbasin diversions but very limited. Several years ago, there was a potential for a north-south conflict as in California when Las Vegas filed for an application to appropriate water from some of the valleys to the north. That has been placed on hold, because you can imagine the concerns of those people living in the areas of origin.

We are also not blessed with the quantities of water your state has. But maybe that's a blessing in itself. When your water supply is limited, it limits development and helps maintain the lifestyle desired by certain areas.

Q: How have Nevada and California worked out their interstate issues?
A: In 1955, both states created separate interstate compact commissions that also met jointly to work on distribution and use issues related to the Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers, and Lake Tahoe. These negotiations extended from 1955-1969 when the two states agreed on the compact. California passed it in 1970 and Nevada in 1971.

While the two states agreed on the interstate allocations, the compact had to be approved by Congress. But that was not secured, because of objections by the federal government and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, until the passage of Public Law 101-16 in 1990. Interestingly enough, the interstate allocation provisions in the latter document are very, very similar to the original compact. That affirms that the judgment and good faith demonstrated in the earlier negotiations were in fact very valid in providing reasonable and fair allocations between the two states.

Q: To what do you attribute the success of those earlier negotiations?
A: To the mutual good faith, understanding and credibility of the representatives of both states. They realized it was extremely important to resolve the interstate issues and recognized that negotiations were preferable over litigation. The solutions would assure protection for the existing water rights and the economies that depended on those rights. Success depended on a fair and equitable division of available water between the states.

It's not to say there were no heated negotiations. Though a mutual respect had developed among those involved, there was still a very competitive attitude about protecting Nevada's interest on the one hand and California on the other. Tempers would flare occasionally, but I think in all they were pretty amiable discussions.

Q: What do you feel has been your contribution to the resolution of interstate water issues?
A: I think my early recognition of the need to protect our state's limited water resources, whether it was for an individual farmer or entity, gave me a sense of the importance of being fair and equitable. I would like to think I was as credible and had the integrity that I attribute to the other participants such as DWR Director David Kennedy. I have tremendous respect for him, his predecessors, and his staff. A bond developed early on among the participants that still exists today.

Q: In view of Nevada's limited water sources and the burgeoning growth of such cities as Las Vegas, where will new supplies come from?
A: Such communities as Las Vegas are searching for new sources to augment their supplies. Our 300,000 acre-feet share from the Colorado is nearly fully committed. I've been recently appointed to the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. We are now considering the potential of water marketing with other states.

Q: What do you feel will be the toughest issue future water planners in Nevada will have to face?
A: They will need to have the courage to face the fact that there are limitations on our resources and, when they reach those limits, to say, "No, there is no more." I think people in certain areas of Nevada and California dismiss that idea. They think even though an allocation is fully utilized, there will be another answer. But our options are becoming increasingly limited because of the competition for what's left.

We have to act responsibly, whether it's to limit development to the extent that resources will support it or to explore other alternatives which do not encroach on the rights and privileges of other water users. If we don't, we will pay the consequences--certainly environmentally and ultimately economically.

Q: Any parting thoughts?
A: I don't think there is any one issue that is more important to Nevada than protecting and administering its water resources. It's been a tremendous opportunity, and I feel very fortunate that I can continue to work on these issues and maintain my association with people who are very serious about protecting their interests while doing what's right.