Last month, Nevada State Engineer Tracy Taylor denied the two counties' request for "interested party" status, saying the counties should have filed a formal objection in 1989 to the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plans to build a $3.5 billion, 285-mile pipeline project.
In a lawsuit filed this week in Nevada state court, the Utah counties allege siphoning water from an aquifer that lies under the two states to feed Las Vegas would cause vegetation to die. If that happens, winds could pick up the destabilized soils and send them in dust-storm clouds to the Wasatch Front , already struggling with particulate pollution.
Twenty years ago, when Las Vegas filed its application in Nevada for the project, little was known about the effects of groundwater pumping on air quality, the petition states.
Opponents say that if Las Vegas takes the groundwater, the water table will be out of reach of the roots from plants that fix the soil, the same phenomenon that led to the destruction of the Owens Valley in California when Los Angeles imported water. Dust storms make the Owens Valley one of the nation's most polluted places.
All the Utah counties want is to be at the table while Taylor proceeds with the project application, said Utah Association of Counties attorney Mark Ward.
"You cannot adequately assess the environmental soundness of this [water proposal] without taking into account regional air quality," said Ward, who drafted the petition for the Nevada attorney representing the counties.
Taylor also denied requests for interested-party status from three Indian tribal bands and grass-roots groups in a move seen as a new, aggressive tactic to push aside Utah concerns about what could happen to Snake Valley vegetation if the water table drops too low.
In its legal filing with the state engineer, the Southern Nevada Water Authority says the interested-party applicants failed to demonstrate that extreme circumstances prevented them from filing official protests in 1989.
Utah and Nevada are still negotiating on the project, which requires both states' approval. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management also is working on an environmental-impact study.
Taylor has said he would hold a final hearing on the project in late 2009.
