Q: Can you give us a quick explanation of what the water question means in requiring land use plans to be based on and balanced with "identified and sustainable" water resources available with Washoe County?

Galloway: It's says land use planning will be based on known sustainable water supply and right now the known sustainable supply will serve a population of 600,000. What we want is for regional planning to be based upon that build out to 600,000.

Q: Is this question binding?

Fulkerson: We gave the Washoe County Commission the opportunity to make them advisory when we went before them on March 11. They said no and told us to go home and watch Oprah. So we came back a couple days later and decided to make them binding.

Q: How would the water question impact the importation of water?

Fulkerson: It would not impact the importation of water from within Washoe County. However, it would prohibit the importation of water from outside the county.

Q: Some local officials aren't sure what the impact the water question will have on water stored upstream and send down the Truckee River. Will the question put any limits on upstream water storage under the Truckee River Operating Agreement? Or from water supplies purchases from farmers in Fallon and Fernley and stored upstream?

Fulkerson: No. That water from the Truckee River goes right though Washoe County. We put the straw in it and suck it out when it comes through the county. It's in Washoe County.

Galloway: There are water experts who have suggested that some Lahontan water rights might be available to help with development here in the future. That could be a little more water available.

Q: Do you think the ballot question could end up in court?

Fulkerson: I expect developers would do everything they can to prevent this from becoming law. If this does become law, they will take us to court.

Smith: My experience with the billboard petition, they will take you to court. They took us to district court and we beat them in district court and they took us to supreme court and we beat them in supreme court.

Fulkerson: They did the same thing on the sustainable growth initiative in Douglas County that voters passed four years ago. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and the court upheld the right for people to have these initiatives.

Q: Would this ballot question stop growth?

Fulkerson: The 600,000 number is based on current use. If there were ways to conserve more, we might grow more. We are going to reach the time when water becomes the limiting factor for growth. This petition forces that question. It simply says 'wake up developers, wake up planners, water is going to be a limiting factor' and we better start planning for that right now.

Q: What realistically can the area support in population, given more people may be living in high rises in core areas in the future and more water may be recycled and used in people's yards in new areas?

Galloway: Some think we could go to 700,000 if we did all those things. I don't want we should throw that out there right now because it would add more wiggle room. What we are really want to do is wake people up. This is finite resource. It is constrained. Obviously, we are going to be more creative. Building up, not out. Building smaller homes perhaps. Maybe people don't live here. Maybe they live further downstream in Fernley or Fallon or Dayton.

Fulkerson: Bottom line there has been a disjoint between water planning and land use planning. This petition would correct that and sync those.

Galloway: It forces them to create a regional build-out of 600,000 if this passes.

Q: Is this initiative partly in frustration to your efforts to try to change the regional plan that created significant new growth areas?

Holland: Yes. I feel the public process is broke. They didn't listen to us. At the very beginning of process in 2006 when elected officials favored the large new areas, we got a lot of people together and the regional planing commission ruled in our favor. Then the regional planning commission was changed. After June 15, the entire process is bogus. It's built on a bogus foundation.

It is inevitable that if you don't include the public, that something like this can happen. A lot of times the public will allow themselves to be rolled over. Sometimes they don't.

Smith: You must remember the Constitution says if government isn't doing its job, the citizens have the right to petition that government. So most times in the petitions I see, usually something is broken. And it's a last resort.

Galloway: The cities and the county have been fighting over land, money, water, population for more than 15 years. Enough already . We are tired of this. Quit fighting and come together and get a logical plan. We have spent millions of dollars on planning. What's the plan?

Fulkerson: When we do have a good plan and developers don't like it, they change the planners. That happened in 2006. That's why several planning commissioners were unceremoniously replaced. That's why Dave Ziegler, the planning director, was replaced. They told the truth. Land use plans are far in excess of what this region can supply with water.

Smith: Most of this is driven by taxes. Most of older parts of town have depreciated and pay less and less taxes. Government is like a big thrashing machine. You have to throw all bundles in there to get grain out the other end. When you have a big machine, it's hungry.