Bouvier wrote on August 02, 2009 12:34 PM: It's funny how everyone seems to only pick on Lake Las Vegas (jealous much?)for all of the waste of resources in the desert.

Isn't a bigger waste of resources is a city like Las Vegas, Henderson, Phoenix in the desert? Whether city or a man-made lake, neither of them should have actually ever been put there in the first place. With this in mind, everyone should leave the desert and head the coast.

PS: Those who say that the Lake Las Village has empty stores front should go back and count. I think there is only 1 or 2 empty. (not that unsual in thise economy)

PSS: Friends just returned from the strip. They said most casinos there were empty.

PSSS: I just receive an email from the Venetian. I can get a hotel room and ticket to the Phantom for $100.00. (they must have really low occupancy) Montelago village has been busy, up to 90% occupancy rates and was sold out over 4th of July. Check out the recent LAs Vegas Sun article on Staycations. I hardly think Lake Las Vegas is a ghost town and the only light switches being turned off are by the GUESTS in the rooms to conserve energy! :)

PSSSS: Nearly 1/2 of the foreclosed properties at LLV have been or in the process of being purchased. Things should be buzzing even more out there very sooon!

Andrew wrote on September 17, 2008 01:31 PM: Actually, Lake Las Vegas does increase losses due to evaporation. If the water is in Lake Mead then lake Mead is filled to a greater depth, which means less surface area. Less surface area means less evaporation.

If surface area had no effect on evaporation, as you claim "it's the same amount of water," then why not drain Lake Mead even more and cover hundreds of square miles to a depth of 1"? You could grow rice!

King wrote on August 03, 2008 02:35 PM: Good thing the government never sold the land around Lake Mead - that would have been nice too - lake front -- 400 yards ahead! LOL

Dave wrote on August 03, 2008 02:34 PM: "the project would lose a considerable amount of its appeal were it built around a dry lake bed."



DUH -YOU THINK?? THAT HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST QUOTES I'VE EVER SEEN.

N6idf wrote on August 03, 2008 07:50 AM: "Such an outcome would be disastrous for the project, because it would be virtually impossible to obtain the amount of water necessary to re-fill the lake, and the project would lose a considerable amount of its appeal were it built around a dry lake bed."

Really?

Reality Check wrote on August 02, 2008 03:02 AM: Snackler, water rates in Henderson *are* already graduated. Bigger users are paying bigger rates and bills, which actually helps the City's budget so it can provide services to the people.

As to evaporation loss being a reason to drain it and "save" water, this makes as much sense as people who think that selling their gas hungry SUV somehow helps the environment. The water would be stored either in Lake Las Vegas or in Lake Mead -- either place it will be subject to the same evaporation conditions and issues.

As for the SUV analogy, the person who buys the gas hungry SUV Joe Green is selling is still going to drive it, it is still out there drinking gas, unless you can prove that the new owners drive it less. And if Joe Green buys a new vehicle (even a hybrid), they are actually *increasing* pollution and gas consumption with their incorrect thinking that they are somehow "doing their part for the environment."

People need to think things through rationally and thoroughly and quit blindly buying into the media hype Joe Green's are trying to shove down our throats.

Oh, and its the Lakes at Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC and not Lake Las Vegas that filed for Chapter 11. Lake Las Vegas is a big development that includes nearly 2,000 privately owned properties that are not part of the bankruptcy.

Vegas B wrote on July 31, 2008 06:39 PM: Harshaw,

You are correct in that no one is asking the government to help out. However, you are incorrect about the association. It did not file for bankruptcy...the developer did.

It is obvious that few people understand what is really going on.

Mel G wrote on July 30, 2008 08:53 PM: Snakler
I agree with the graduated water rates. Your example of water waste through pools is incorrect. Swimming pools use a fraction of the water that is used on grass. Household useage such as low flow toilets, shower heads, sinks and appliances would decrease a huge amount of waste. Swimming pools are only big water users on the initial fill, but when the water is properly drained back to the sewer it is credited back as reclaimed. I do agree with your main point.

Mark wrote on July 30, 2008 07:24 PM: When you're thirsty, water may as well be more valuable than gold or oil...

snackler wrote on July 30, 2008 07:15 PM: It's pretty obvious that water is on the minds of the good citizens of Las Vegas. As it should be. A long term solution would be to have graduated water rates. Keep rates reasonable for sane usage for families. Above that, the more you use the higher the rate. Want to fill your pool, pay through the nose. Build a golf course, better be rich to afford the water. This way would force most pools and golf courses out of existence and save a whole lot of water. Like most of you have said, it's a desert. Set the bar low enough so people without pools pay for wasting their water. For example. A friend of mine has 4 kids and they each change their clothes and shower 4 times a day. His wife is washing multiple loads every day. His water rates are dirt cheap yet his families water usage is breaking him. No matter who you are, waste it you will pay for it. The law of the pocketbook can work miracles.

Read All Comments