Connect with us

Nevada

Kelemeni and San Jose State host Nevada

Published

on

Kelemeni and San Jose State host Nevada


Associated Press

San Jose State Spartans (7-6) at Nevada Wolf Pack (5-8)

Reno, Nevada; Sunday, 4 p.m. EST

Advertisement

BOTTOM LINE: San Jose State faces Nevada after Sofia Kelemeni scored 27 points in San Jose State’s 100-44 win over the Bethesda (CA) Flames.

The Wolf Pack are 4-3 in home games. Nevada is 3-3 when it turns the ball over less than its opponents and averages 13.6 turnovers per game.

The Spartans are 1-2 on the road. San Jose State averages 17.2 turnovers per game and is 3-0 when turning the ball over less than opponents.

Nevada’s average of 6.2 made 3-pointers per game this season is only 0.1 fewer made shots on average than the 6.3 per game San Jose State allows. San Jose State’s 40.7% shooting percentage from the field this season is 2.7 percentage points lower than Nevada has allowed to its opponents (43.4%).

The matchup Sunday is the first meeting of the season between the two teams in conference play.

Advertisement

TOP PERFORMERS: Lexie Givens is scoring 12.2 points per game with 6.2 rebounds and 1.5 assists for the Wolf Pack.

Rylei Waugh is averaging 7.2 points for the Spartans.

LAST 10 GAMES: Wolf Pack: 4-6, averaging 68.5 points, 34.3 rebounds, 12.3 assists, 7.6 steals and 1.7 blocks per game while shooting 38.1% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 67.5 points per game.

Spartans: 5-5, averaging 64.4 points, 34.1 rebounds, 13.9 assists, 6.8 steals and 2.0 blocks per game while shooting 40.2% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 64.1 points.

___

Advertisement

The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.




Source link

Nevada

NEVADA VIEWS: Single-family rentals are a bridge to opportunity, not a barrier

Published

on

NEVADA VIEWS: Single-family rentals are a bridge to opportunity, not a barrier


Housing affordability has become one of the most pressing economic challenges facing families across Las Vegas and Nevada. As prices and borrowing costs remain elevated, the debate over why housing feels increasingly out of reach has intensified. In the search for answers, single-family home investors are often singled out as a convenient explanation. But that framing oversimplifies a far more structural problem and risks distracting from the real drivers of affordability.

For many Nevadans, the desire to live in a single-family home hasn’t changed. What has changed is access. Higher interest rates, elevated home prices and limited inventory have reshaped the housing landscape, making traditional ownership more difficult for households at various stages of life. In that environment, single-family rentals have expanded to meet demand — not as a replacement for ownership, but as one of several ways families secure stable housing in constrained markets.

Investor participation in housing is frequently portrayed in binary terms: good or bad. The data, however, is more nuanced.

A recent analysis from the UNLV’s Lied Center for Real Estate documents that investors have represented roughly 1 in 5 home purchases in the Las Vegas area over the past 15 years, with activity peaking in the post-COVID period before easing more recently. Importantly, the study does not assign value judgments. It simply reports a trade-off: Elevated investor participation contributes to greater availability of single-family rental homes while also tightening supply for prospective owner-occupants.

Advertisement

That distinction matters, particularly when data is used to inform public policy. Much of the investor data cited in public discourse relies on standardized national datasets that are often sourced from firms such as Redfin and that classify buyers based on ownership structures such as LLCs or trusts. These classifications are necessary for consistency and privacy, but they inherently limit visibility into who is behind a purchase and how a home is ultimately used. This does not make the data inaccurate. But it does not tell the full story, and caution is warranted when drawing policy conclusions from ownership labels alone.

What can be measured clearly, and consistently, is housing supply and housing prices. On those metrics, the evidence is decisive. A 2025 Lied Center study shows Southern Nevada has experienced nearly 15 years of chronic underbuilding. Since 2010, residential construction in the Las Vegas area has declined by more than 60 percent compared with historical norms, even as population growth continued. Had construction merely kept pace with prior trends, the region would have tens of thousands more homes today.

National research reaches the same conclusion. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research consistently find that prolonged underbuilding and restrictive land-use policies are primary drivers of rising home prices. Nevada’s affordability challenges are not unique, but the constraints shaping them are especially pronounced.

Nowhere is that clearer than land availability. Roughly 80 percent of Nevada’s land is controlled by the federal government, with much of Southern Nevada controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This structure limits where housing can be built, extends development timelines and increases land costs long before a home is ever constructed. Those costs ripple through the market, affecting renters and buyers. Any serious conversation about affordability in Nevada must account for this reality. Issues like this are of far greater impact than the portion of investors who own housing units.

There is no single cause of today’s housing challenges, and there will be no single solution. But the direction is clear. Expanding housing options requires addressing the barriers that constrain supply: permitting delays, zoning limitations, regulatory complexity, land access and the cumulative friction that slows housing production. Focusing narrowly on who owns homes, rather than how many homes exist, risks missing the larger picture.

Advertisement

Single-family rentals and homeownership are not opposing forces. They are interconnected outcomes of a housing system shaped by policy choices, market conditions and long-term supply decisions. If Nevada wants a more affordable, resilient housing market, the focus must remain on increasing supply and removing the obstacles that prevent it. We should not be focused on regulating areas of the market where data sets aren’t clear, unintended negative consequences may occur and our business-friendly environment will be harmed.

Zach WalkerLieb is a housing policy advocate, the managing partner of Willow Manor and chairman of the Board of Habitat for Humanity Las Vegas.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Nevada

Analysis: The coming failure of Glen Canyon Dam

Published

on

Analysis: The coming failure of Glen Canyon Dam


This story was originally published by High Country News.

Floyd Dominy, the commissioner of the federal Bureau of Reclamation in the 1960s, was largely responsible for the construction of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. In 1963, when the dam was completed, he could not have foreseen the climate situation we find ourselves in today, with declining snowpack, record-high temperatures and alarmingly low water levels in Lake Powell, year after year. But he and his engineers could have, and should have, foreseen that the way they designed the dam would leave little room to maneuver should a water-supply crisis ever impact the river and its watershed.

Indeed, a state of crisis has been building on the Colorado for decades, even as the parties that claim its water argue over how to divide its rapidly diminishing flows. Lately, things have entered a new and perilous phase. Last Nov. 11 was a long-awaited deadline: Either the states involved — California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming — would have to agree on a new management plan, or else the federal government would impose its own, something none of the parties would welcome. Meanwhile, the 30 tribes that also hold claims to the river have historically been and continue to be excluded from these negotiations.

That deadline came and went, and instead of acting, the government punted, this time to Feb. 14. Nobody was surprised: Unmet deadlines and empty ultimatums have been business as usual on the river for years. Decades of falling reservoir levels and clear warnings from scientists about global warming and drought have prompted much hand-wringing and some temporary conservation measures, but little in the way of permanent change in how water is used in the Colorado River Basin. This month’s deadline also came and went.

Advertisement

For decades, the seven Basin states have used more water than the river delivers by drawing their entitlements from surpluses banked in reservoirs during the wet 1980s and ’90s, chiefly in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Never mind that those entitlements were based on an over-estimate of river flows in 1922, when the Colorado River Compact was established, rendering the “paper” water of the entitlements essentially a fiction, not to mention a source of continual conflict. That savings account has now been drained: Mead and Powell are each below 30 percent full, and the trend is steadily downward. Global warming has only accelerated the decline: So far this century, the river’s flow has fallen 20 percent from its long-term annual averages, and scientists forecast more of the same as the climate continues to heat up.

Meanwhile, the physical infrastructure that enables Colorado River water management is on the verge of its own real and potentially catastrophic crisis — and yet Reclamation has barely acknowledged this, with the exception of an oblique reference in an unposted technical memorandum from 2024. The falling reservoir levels reveal another, deeper set of problems inside Glen Canyon Dam, which holds back the Colorado and Lake Powell. The 710-foot-tall dam was designed for a Goldilocks world in which water levels would never be too high or too low, despite the well-known fact that the Colorado is by far the most variable river in North America, prone to prodigious floods and extended droughts. But the Bureau, bursting with Cold War confidence — or hubris — chose to downplay the threat. In the record-breaking El Niño winter of 1983, the Bureau almost lost the dam to overtopping, due to both its mismanagement and its design, because the dam lacks sufficient spillway capacity for big floods. Only sheets of plywood installed across its top and cooler temperatures that slowed the melting of that year’s snowpack saved Glen Canyon Dam.

Today, the dam is threatened not by too much water but too little. In March 2023, the water level of Lake Powell dropped to within 30 feet of the minimum required for power generation, known as “minimum power pool.” At 3,490 feet above sea level, minimum power pool is 20 feet above the generators’ actual intakes, or penstocks, but the dam’s eight turbines must be shut down at minimum power pool to avoid cavitation — when air is sucked down like a whirlpool into the penstocks, forming explosive bubbles which can cause massive failure inside the dam.

Even more worrisome is what would happen next. At minimum power pool, the penstocks would have to be closed, and the only remaining way to pass water through the dam is the river outlet works, or ROWs: two intakes in the rear face of the dam leading to four 96-inch-diameter steel pipes with a combined maximum discharge capacity of 15,000 cubic feet per second. However, the ROWs, also known as bypass tubes, have a serious design flaw: They are unsafe to use for extended intervals, and start to erode when the reservoir is low.

In 2023, when the ROWs were used to conduct a high-flow release into the Grand Canyon at low-reservoir levels, there was, in fact, damaging cavitation, and the Bureau has warned that there would likely be more in the event of their extended use. In practice, safe releases downstream may only be a fraction of their claimed capacity — and if the tubes begin to experience cavitation, flows may need to be cut off entirely. Such a scenario would compromise the dam’s legal downstream delivery requirements, or, to put it bluntly, its ability to deliver enough water to the 25 million people downstream who rely on it — as well as the billions of dollars’ worth of agriculture involved. This means that Lake Powell — and with it, the entire Colorado River system — is perilously close to operational failure.

Advertisement

If reservoir levels drop to the ROWs’ elevation of 3,370 feet above sea level, Lake Powell would reach “dead pool,” where water would pass through the dam only when the river’s flow exceeded the amount of water lost to evaporation from the reservoir. No other intakes nor spillways exist below the ROWs. There is no “drain plug.” Yet there is more dam — 240 feet more before the bottom of the reservoir, effectively the old riverbed. This not-insignificant impoundment — about 1.7 million acre-feet of water — would be trapped, stagnant and heating in the sun, prone to algal blooms and deadly anoxia. The lake would rise and fall wildly, as much as 100 feet in a season, because of the martini-glass shape of Lake Powell’s vertical cross section.

Insufficient or no flows through Glen Canyon Dam would be a disaster of unprecedented magnitude, affecting vast population centers and some of the biggest economies in the world, not to mention ecosystems that depend on the river all the way to the Gulf of California in Mexico. The Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada warned as much in a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, saying that Reclamation’s failure to mention the dam’s plumbing problems in its current environmental impact statement for post-2026 operations is against federal law. The letter reads: “Addressing the infrastructure limitations may be the one long-term measure that would best achieve operation and management improvements to the Glen Canyon Dam.”

To date, however, the Bureau has made no formal response.

One thing is clear: Glen Canyon Dam will need to be modified to meet its legal and operational requirements. In the process, the health of the ecosystems in Glen Canyon, above the dam, and in Grand Canyon, below it, must be considered. The best way to avoid operational failure and the economic and ecological disasters that would follow is to re-engineer the dam to allow the river to run through it or around it at river level, transporting its natural sediment load into the Grand Canyon.

As it happens, Floyd Dominy himself provided us with a simple and elegant plan for how to do it. In 1997, the former commissioner sketched on a cocktail napkin how new bypass tunnels could be drilled through the soft sandstone around the dam and outfitted with waterproof valves to control the flow of water and sediment. What it prescribes is treating the patient — the Colorado River, now on life support — with open-heart surgery, a full bypass. Dominy’s napkin, which he signed and gave to my colleague Richard Ingebretsen, the founder of Glen Canyon Institute, is effectively a blueprint for a healthier future for the Colorado River and the people and ecosystems that depend on it.

Advertisement

But the window for action to avoid dead pool is dauntingly narrow and closing fast, especially given the time that would likely be required for the government to study, design and implement a fix. The Trump administration’s gutting of federal agency expertise and capacity adds yet more urgency to the issue. The feds and the basin states need to look beyond the water wars and start building a lasting, sustainable future on the Colorado River.

Wade Graham is a historian and writer based in Los Angeles. He is the author of books on landscape, urbanism and environmental history. Since 1999, he has been a trustee of the Glen Canyon Institute.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Nevada

Nevada treasurer sends $2.1 billion payment request to President Trump after tariff ruling

Published

on

Nevada treasurer sends .1 billion payment request to President Trump after tariff ruling


A landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court on Friday ruled President Trump is not authorized to impose tariffs.

The high court’s 6-3 decision found that the Constitution allows Congress the power to impose taxes and duties.

Here in northern Nevada, shoppers leaving the Reno Costco were glad to hear their grocery bill could be coming down soon.

“I’ve definitely seen an increase of price over the last year, so I’m looking forward to hopefully seeing something that’s more reasonable,” said Reno resident Jeffrey Saker.

Advertisement

“I was very happy that the Supreme Court would stand up to Trump and his tyranny,” said Reno resident Cliff Young.

Prior to Friday’s ruling, the federal government collected more than $130 billion in tariff revenue. So, what happens to that money now?

Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine wants those dollars back in your pocket. He sent the Trump administration a $2.1 billion bill, accounting for the roughly 1.2 million Silver State households.

Data from the minority membership of the U.S. Joint Economic Committee shows the Trump administration’s tariff actions have cost American consumers $231 billion, roughly coming out to $1,744 per household.

Bruce Parks, Chairman of the Washoe County Republican Party, said he wasn’t surprised by the court’s ruling, but has other ideas for what the government should do with that money.

Advertisement

“Use every penny of that to pay down our national debt,” Parks said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending