By Vernon Robison
Moapa Valley Progress
The Moapa Valley Water District (MVWD) Board of Directors last week considered what would be a significant change in the district’s position in its ongoing acquisition of Muddy Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC) water shares. New board members expressed less zeal for purchasing water shares than had been expressed by the past board. The topic came up in a Thursday board meeting during a preliminary review of the tentative budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
MVWD General Manager Brad Huza summarized that the past board had made a conscious effort to acquire MVIC irrigation shares. In recent years the board had set aside $200,000 from reserves to purchase irrigation water. Usually these purchases were made from shareholders who wished to sell irrigation water but who were hesitant to accept the open offer from Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) because they preferred keeping the water in the community.
The MVWD currently owns 140 preferred MVIC shares and over 300 common shares.
SNWA maintains a standing offer price of $50,000 per preferred MVIC share.
But Board members at Thursday’s meeting questioned whether this ongoing acquisition was still necessary.
“The fact is that water isn’t moving right now,” said Board member Scott Carson. “Despite their standing offer, the SNWA hasn’t bought a thing in over a year. I’m convinced that, if they could, they would reverse some of their past water deals. They have effectively taken control of the Irrigation Company and they are in a position where they don’t need any more water.”
Board member Randy Tobler suggested that buying water right now when prices are low might be a good time for the district to acquire additional shares that would increase in value later on. “We might want to consider this an opportunity to buy at the low,” Tobler said. But he remarked that it is difficult to determine a fair market price when there is no market trading going on.
Carson observed that the district apparently has an excess of water already and he questioned whether the existing resources would ever really be needed in the foreseeable future. Carson asked Huza what population numbers could realistically be served on MVWD resources already acquired.
“In the best case scenario, if the Coyote Springs test pump proves out, we would have sufficient water to service a population of 75-100 thousand people,” Huza said. “In the worst case, just using current resources, it would be 30-40 thousand people.”
“So we are not in a big hurry to get more water,” Carson said. “I think that the district has other issues to worry about before the need for more water purchases.”
The discussion item was not an agenda item so no action was taken in the meeting.
In another item, the board carried on a vigorous discussion about a proposed equipment purchase for the district.
In the current year budget, the district had set aside $70,000 for the purchase of a new backhoe. The matter had been sent out for competitive bidding and district staff had identified a John Deere model from Blaine Equipment as the best bid at $69,407. The purchase of the equipment was now coming to the board for approval.
Carson questioned whether an additional backhoe was really needed at this time. The district currently owns two backhoes and this would be a third.
Carson asked what maintenance costs on the current equipment had occurred over the past three years. Without hard figures on hand, Huza estimated it was around $8,000.
“To me that is not a lot of money to run a backhoe that we already have,” Carson said. “But I’d like a little more specific information on current costs before we act on this.”
MVWD staff stated that they occasionally run into scheduling issues with the equipment slowing down work on projects. “Right now we don’t have a problem,” Davis said. “But in a few months, for example, we will be working in the Valley Heights subdivision in Logandale on a small main project that will take 48 days. Having all of our machinery tied up on a long project like that can create a scheduling nightmare.”
“From what I see, and from my conversation with staff, I think that we do need to end up with three backhoes,” said Board member Lindsey Dalley. “The lifeline of the Water District is the backhoe. If you have an extended project going on where you have the equipment on site and then you have a leak come up somewhere in the system that presents a real problem.”
Dalley did, however, express concerns about the choice of equipment being purchased. He didn’t feel that the different machines being bid were fully comparable to each other. He felt that there should be several options of different equipment considered to ensure that the best match was made to the needs of the district.
But Board Chairman Ken Staton said he was in favor of approving the purchase as requested.
“I think that we want to stay ahead of the curve on equipment, not behind,” Staton said. “I applaud the staff for thinking ahead and budgeting for this purchase. The money is in the budget. The staff likes the John Deere. They are the ones that are going to use it. I don’t want to tell them which one they should be using.”
“I am with Ken on being ahead of the curve,” said Board member Jon Blackwell. “That is important. There is nothing more frustrating than a piece of equipment that doesn’t do what it should when you need it to. I think that the district should have three backhoes.”
Carson said that he wanted more time to gather specific maintenance information on current equipment and to entertain other options in more suitable equipment for the district’s needs.
Staton made a motion to accept the bid and purchase the equipment. But the motion was rejected in a 3-2 vote with Dalley, Carson and Tobler opposed.
Tobler then made a motion to reject the bid. He also requested that documentation on maintenance costs of the existing machinery be provided to the board for review in the decision. In addition the motion asked that equipment dealers be requested to rebid, this time with two different classes of machinery each to allow for comparison.
Tobler’s motion was approved on a 3-2 vote with Dalley, Carson and Tobler in favor.
