| Water, growth ballot questions axed |
|
Washoe County voters will not see any advisory questions on the Nov. 4
ballot about importing water or "leap frog" annexations, after
commissioners rejected two questions proposed Tuesday. Those advocates
are considering a petition drive to get their questions on the ballot.
Reno Gazette Journal: PLAN Executive Director Bob Fulkerson tells Washoe County Commissioners to let the residents of Washoe County have a voice in growth and development of the county. March 12, 2008 Washoe County voters will not see any advisory questions on the Nov. 4 ballot about importing water or "leap frog" annexations, after commissioners rejected two questions proposed Tuesday. Those advocates are considering a petition drive to get their questions on the ballot. "This isn't rocket science. There is only so much water to go around," said Ramon Alaniz of Lemmon Valley, one of about 150 residents wanting a question that said all projects must have proven water sources. "Wildlife habitat is being destroyed. No one seems to care." One question would have asked voters if growth should be limited to sustainable water resources and whether a public vote should be required before water is imported from outside the county. A second question would have asked whether cities should be allowed to annex areas not contiguous and create islands by "leap frog" development. Bob Fulkerson, Tina Nappe, Erik Holland and others in the sustainable growth movement said they will consider a citizen's initiative to get questions on the ballot, which could be advisory questions or seek to impose limits on growth. Several county commissioners urged the group to seek a citizens initiative and Fulkerson said the board "should be careful for what it wishes." Fulkerson said the citizens initiative could be modeled after one in Douglas County, upheld earlier this year by the Nevada Supreme Court, that limits building permits each year to a 2 percent growth rate. To put a question on the ballot, supporters must gather the signatures of about 20,000 registered voters, the required 15 percent of voters in the last election with several thousand as a margin for safety and submit them in June, said Fulkerson, head of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. In the 3-2 vote, Commissioners Jim Galloway and Kitty Jung wanted more study of the ballot questions. Galloway said a groundswell of support is behind planning based on sustainable water supplies. Chairman Robert Larkin, Bonnie Weber and David Humke said they did not want to fight the annexation issue fought in the Legislature last year. State legislators killed the noncontiguous annexation bill supported by Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. Regarding water, Larkin and Weber said they represented a broader scope of people than those who crowded into the commission chambers Tuesday and did not want to rehash regional land and water planning issues worked out over the last several years. Larkin said a water question would harm his constituents in Spanish Springs because imported water would be needed there eventually. Humke, the swing vote, said he didn't want to appear as if he would favor putting the water issue on the ballot. Several attempts to craft a motion to his liking failed. In February, Humke had asked staff to get input from neighborhood and citizen advisory boards, the Reno and Sparks City Councils and the interim Western Regional Water Board on the water issue. But that was not done. The Western Regional Water Commission of local elected officials is to work on the water issue starting in April but has no power to tax or raise fees for water projects. The Nevada Legislature created the board last year at the urging of local developers. The WRWC replaces the Regional Water Planning Commission that approved an updated water management plan in February that says the region will need to find an additional 35,839 acre-feet of water by 2030 to complete the build-out of central Reno and Sparks and to grow into nearby annexation areas. Beyond 2030, the regional plan outlines tens of thousands of acres of desert that could be developed if there were water sources. Several representatives for developers and the Nevada Chambers of Commerce spoke against the ballot questions. "The people have spoken through their elected officials," said George DelCarlo of the Associated General Contractors. Mike Dillon of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, said the county commission, county planning commission and the new water commission should handle complex water issues. |