Where to live near Vegas with a generally outdoorsy family?

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

Summerlin, South Summerlin, and Spring Valley are as close as you'll get to this, with longish trail systems that cut through communities and biking from your doorstep.  Henderson has some of this, we will occasionally travel out that way for hiking, but I mostly see Henderson as the non-outdoorsy gentrified part of town.  Summerlin/Western parts of the city are closer to what it's like in Boulder (or New Paltz), Henderson more like a Connecticut suburb, if that makes any sense.  But I can't imagine driving an extra 15-45 minutes for some outdoors time will matter much to you if your commute is 10-15 minutes, possibly by bike.  We live just south of Summerlin (aka 'South Summerlin'), and avoided the HOA thing (there's many advantages, but also several disadvantages).  Late 1990s neighborhood with mostly working or retired neighbors.  Overall good neighborhood.  But houses don't come up for sale very often here, people looking for the right fit look for this type of housing, and once they find it they generally stay.

One con for Henderson is if you want to go to Mt Charleston.  It's a significantly longer drive from Henderson than from Summerlin.  We spent a lot of time at Charleston last summer (80-85F when it's 105-110F in the valley).

The heat isn't so bad if you're expecting/plan for it, reaching its peak for 3 months most years (June - August).  May and September can be hot, but they're variable so it could be 85F or 105F from year to year.  Other than the brief surges from the monsoon, humidity is insanely low because desert.  Being in the sun is the real killer here.  Just expect summer here to be what your winters were back East.  Winter can be awesome, this year it hardly rained January and February.  We got out climbing a lot.  The prior winter was very wet so that also varies a bit year to year.  Still though, weather alone has at least doubled our outdoors opportunities when compared to life back East.  Not to mention Red Rock alone ... there's literally nothing like it on the entire east coast, and it's 15-30 minutes from our doorstep.

The housing market is inevitably going to take another hit.  And it will inevitably go back up, as people like us are willing to ride out these storms for the tradeoff in improving our outdoors life, or the draw of the big lights.  You're coming in at the right time IMO, so definitely negotiate.  It's going to be a buyers market again in a matter of weeks.

Really good information. I have some experience with Connecticut suburbs and they weren't a place I really wanted to live, though they're obviously nice in their own way. I kind of felt the same way about a lot of Henderson when I was there, but it was only a quick visit to a few areas, so I am not writing it off yet at all.

Is the difference really that notable to get to Mount Charleston from Summerlin vs. Henderson? When I looked things up on Google Maps, it seemed to be about 20 minutes longer, which was surprising to me. I might have chosen a random destination that evened things out though (I think I did Lee Canyon), as I didn't know where you'd actually want to go up there. I think I'll definitely be spending a good bit of time up Mount Charleston, though, and that's one of the attractions of the West side of town despite it clearly being worse for my commute. Really I think i'd prioritize from home access to some trails before anything else. I'll get to work every day. Will I get out on trails every day if it takes 10 minutes to get there? It's less clear as life tends to try to suck up that time.

Thanks again!

Tim M wrote:

Really good information. I have some experience with Connecticut suburbs and they weren't a place I really wanted to live, though they're obviously nice in their own way. I kind of felt the same way about a lot of Henderson when I was there, but it was only a quick visit to a few areas, so I am not writing it off yet at all.

Is the difference really that notable to get to Mount Charleston from Summerlin vs. Henderson? When I looked things up on Google Maps, it seemed to be about 20 minutes longer, which was surprising to me. I might have chosen a random destination that evened things out though (I think I did Lee Canyon), as I didn't know where you'd actually want to go up there. I think I'll definitely be spending a good bit of time up Mount Charleston, though, and that's one of the attractions of the West side of town despite it clearly being worse for my commute. Really I think i'd prioritize from home access to some trails before anything else. I'll get to work every day. Will I get out on trails every day if it takes 10 minutes to get there? It's less clear as life tends to try to suck up that time.

Thanks again!

Depending on traffic, add 20+ minutes from Henderson to Lee Canyon [yes, Lee is the most popular spot for climbing and hiking].

However, Red Rock and a lot of the trail system that hugs the West side of the city are also the advantage to living there.  Also, last year funding was secured (don't know how guaranteed in light of recent events) for a dedicate bike trail from Summerlin to Red Rock, which will also open up easier access from Summerlin to the vast single track network on the West side of town.

Henderson is closer to Lake Mead, and there's also mountain biking, boating, and hiking there.  Depending on specific interests, one area is seemingly better than the other.

All Trails has fairly detailed maps of this area, you can casually browse and see all the various bike/hike trails all around the city to get a gauge of where the best concentration is, and how far from your work and home it would be.  The nice thing about the desert is the line between city and desert is very abrupt.  As soon as you set foot outside of the developed areas you are in what is the Western US's "wilderness".

My 2 cents Tim M,

Nevada State College, in Henderson, is on the extreme southeast side of the Las Vegas Valley. It is literally as far as you can go in that direction and still be in the valley.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

Depending on traffic, add 20+ minutes from Henderson to Lee Canyon [yes, Lee is the most popular spot for climbing and hiking].

However, Red Rock and a lot of the trail system that hugs the West side of the city are also the advantage to living there.  Also, last year funding was secured (don't know how guaranteed in light of recent events) for a dedicate bike trail from Summerlin to Red Rock, which will also open up easier access from Summerlin to the vast single track network on the West side of town.

Henderson is closer to Lake Mead, and there's also mountain biking, boating, and hiking there.  Depending on specific interests, one area is seemingly better than the other.

All Trails has fairly detailed maps of this area, you can casually browse and see all the various bike/hike trails all around the city to get a gauge of where the best concentration is, and how far from your work and home it would be.  The nice thing about the desert is the line between city and desert is very abrupt.  As soon as you set foot outside of the developed areas you are in what is the Western US's "wilderness".

huh? pretty sure its Kyle for the masses

....but what do I know I was only born here when the pop was 300,000

Big B wrote:

huh? pretty sure its Kyle for the masses

....but what do I know I was only born here when the pop was 300,000

Yes, Kyle.  I still get them mixed up.

No need to be snarky, no one cares how long you've been here.  There's certainly people who don't live here that knew it was Kyle.

Vegas is the most transient city in America, its surprising it keeps growing and the prices keep going up. Where will the water come from in 10 years?

M Mobes wrote: Vegas is the most transient city in America, its surprising it keeps growing and the prices keep going up. Where will the water come from in 10 years?

i assumed that they'd just stop sharing Lake Mead with everyone else...   

Water and global warming was actually one of my worries when thinking about moving to the area. But it's where I was offered the best job, so here I come. I'll enjoy what it has to offer as long as I'm there, try to do something to leave the community better than what I found it, and if things don't work out - well - then I'll add to those transience statistics I guess.

Tim M wrote:

i assumed that they'd just stop sharing Lake Mead with everyone else...   

Water and global warming was actually one of my worries when thinking about moving to the area. But it's where I was offered the best job, so here I come. I'll enjoy what it has to offer as long as I'm there, try to do something to leave the community better than what I found it, and if things don't work out - well - then I'll add to those transience statistics I guess.

The water situation is a bit more complicated than that, but what Mobes said... we don't expect to live here once things get that dire, either.  It's certainly unsustainable putting cities in the desert.  Fun while it lasts though.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

The water situation is a bit more complicated than that, but what Mobes said... we don't expect to live here once things get that dire, either.  It's certainly unsustainable putting cities in the desert.  Fun while it lasts though.

Oh I understand that they can't just keep Lake Mead's water. 'We are looking into Hydraloops. Obviously one fraction of one household's water usage won't make much a difference, but 'i think that they're pretty cool.

Tim M wrote:

We are looking into Hydraloops. Obviously one fraction of one household's water usage won't make much a difference, but 'i think that they're pretty cool.

That is essentially how the Las Vegas water supply and wastewater system works anyway...as a loop. They draw water out of Lake Mead, ozone the hell out of it to treat it, it gets used in the city, goes to a wastewater treatment plant, get ozoned to hell again to treat it, and finally goes down the Las Vegas Wash into Lake Mead, UPstream of the water supply intake. It isn't a true "toilet to tap" closed loop - that would be better and more efficient, but people get freaked out by those systems. But in any case, the net usage of water (for indoor domestic use) is actually very small, since the wastewater just goes back into the reservoir. 

I really think that Vegas gets a bad rap that it doesn't deserve, from a water-supply standpoint. The fact is, urban indoor water use is such a small portion of Colorado River Basin water supply that it is basically irrelevant. Basically everything goes to agriculture, things like growing lettuce in the Imperial Valley. Meaningful water conservation in that system has to focus on more efficient agricultural practices, since that is far and away the dominant water user. The irrigated golf courses really have to go, though.

This isn't to say that Vegas is a sustainable place - it isn't. But not for the reasons people think. It is unsustainable and terrible in the ways that it is the same as everywhere else (car-dependent suburban sprawl and generally wastefull American lifestyle), rather than the ways it is different (desert).

Looking long-term, Vegas is actually pretty secure in its water supply, and for various reason is arguable more secure than SoCal. Again, a big part of this is that Las Vegas is just a city, and cities don't use that much water in the grand scheme. Whereas California also has agricultural interests to supply and requires a lot more water. So don't worry about Vegas - but maybe worry about those fresh salad greens you buy in January.

To clarify something in JCM's post... one of the biggest losses of water, especially May through September, is evaporation.  And with more frequent dry spells and droughts, the melt water to replenish has been inadequate at maintaining water levels most years.  That's why on a whole the reservoir has been shrinking.

The lack of sustainability is fairly well represented here:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/86426/losses-in-lake-mead

Kevin Heckeler wrote: To clarify something in JCM's post... one of the biggest losses of water, especially May through September, is evaporation.  And with more frequent dry spells and droughts, the melt water to replenish has been inadequate at maintaining water levels most years.  That's why on a whole the reservoir has been shrinking.

The lack of sustainability is fairly well represented here:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/86426/losses-in-lake-mead

Evaporation is a factor, but the big long-term issue is just that the Colorado RIver is overallocated. The average volume of water assumed in portioning out water rights between states was (unkowingly) based on an unusually wet period. Now that we are in drier conditions, the amount that is allowed to be taken from the river is more than the amount available.

But this is a whole-basin problem, not just a Vegas problem. Lake Mead is not just Vegas's reservoir - in fact only a very small portion of that water goes to Vegas. California takes vastly more. Actually, all the states in the Colorado RIver Compact get much more than Nevada. This is since the law was made in 1922, long before Vegas existed, so no one foresaw Nevada needing much water. So it is a problem with the entire Southwest - and Vegas is actually a very minor part of the problem.

Another interesting factor is that Vegas will still have access to Lake Mead water even as the reservoir gets very low. They built a new intake in 2015 to address this issue.
https://www.snwa.com/where-southern-nevada-gets-its-water/our-regional-water-system/intake-no-3.html

The Southwest has some serious water supply issues that are likely to worsen under climate change. But despite popular perception Vegas is not especially threatened by "running out of water" in the way we have seen in Cape Town (South Africa) and Chennai (India) in recent years.

Let's just hope it doesn't drop too low to generate power, then our wallets will be bruised.

https://www.circleofblue.org/2010/world/low-water-may-still-hoover-dam%E2%80%99s-power/

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Let's just hope it doesn't drop too low to generate power, then our wallets will be bruised.

https://www.circleofblue.org/2010/world/low-water-may-still-hoover-dam%E2%80%99s-power/ 

Maybe that's why Vegas is encouraging more home solar power.

JCM is correct, except Vegas, has the first dibs on water rights. When the lake finally hits emergency levels(powell is a reservoir to protect this), we can start to take back the water that's been allocated to Calif. and AZ down river.
On a side-note, I just drove the mojave road from Barstow to Laughlin over the weekend and when I got to the river at the Avi casino, the river looked anemic, not sure if their holding water trying to fill Mead back up for that reason ^ but the river was literally only a couple of feet deep.

Well at least Lake Mead is higher than it's been in the last 5 years. Low standards, yes, but still...

Tim M wrote: Well at least Lake Mead is higher than it's been in the last 5 years. Low standards, yes, but still...

Tremendous gains! Very very tremendous!