The problem: The aquifers in question also run under Utah's west desert. And ranchers, environmentalists and political leaders on this side of the border are raising red flags about the potential impacts of such a project.

"We're quite concerned," Millard County Commissioner Daron Smith said this week. "Water is the lifeblood of the West. There aren't many of us out in this part of the state, but the water situation is critical for those who live and work here. All of the studies done say that any pumping along that aquifer will have a real negative effect on the groundwater wells. So we're nervous."

Nevada's groundwater development plan centers on the Snake Valley, near Baker and Great Basin National Park. But the aquifer system that feeds the valley also runs under the Utah side, roughly from Iron County in the south to Tooele County.

In addition to the potential impacts on west desert farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and anglers also are worried about what the project might do to the headwaters in the Deep Creek Mountains, and larger water bodies, such as Fish Springs, home to a national bird refuge.

"The folks in southern Nevada say that it's not going to affect this area, based upon the [groundwater] recharge," said Don Duff, president of the Utah Council of Trout Unlimited, and a retired aquatic ecologist. "But nobody knows what the recharge level really is. I don't think they have the science to make those decisions."

Not yet, anyway. Two environmental studies are under way - one by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Desert Research Institute, the other by the Bureau of Land Management's Ely, Nev., Field Office - to assess the impacts of the project on existing groundwater inventories and address the proposal to build a pipeline from Clark County where Las Vegas is located to groundwater development sites in Lincoln and White Pine counties. The environmental studies are expected to take two to three years to complete.

Eastern Nevada officials and ranchers also have expressed misgivings about the project, for largely the same reasons as those in Utah. But Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, says any concerns raised at this point are premature - and in some cases unwarranted.

"We're committed to do this in a way that there's not a negative impact," she said. "But we also know that there's water in that basin that can be safely developed."

Part of the problem, Mulroy added, is that "we're living with the legacy of Owens Valley," whose water supply was usurped by Los Angeles to meet the growing water needs of that city a century ago.

"We understand the suspicions. We understand the anger," she said. "But this is not the Owens Valley. We're living in a time of strict environmental laws and we're in a state with strict groundwater laws. Owens Valley cannot happen here."

Utah officials say the last thing they are looking for is a water war with their Great Basin neighbor. But they also say they will protect the state's interests - and are not without leverage. Language in a congressional bill authorizing rights-of-ways for the project requires agreement by both states before it can proceed.

"This is not about marshaling folks with clubs at the border," said Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. "It's about sitting down and solving this in an amicable way. We want to make sure we understand all the issues and problems, then with our Nevada friends we can make the right decisions, both for now and in the future."

jbaird@sltrib.com