- Email: [email protected]
Boomtown growth issues along the Colorado River border
Boomtown growth issues along the Colorado River border The case of Laughlin-Bullhead
City
Lawrence M. Sommers and John F. Lounsbury
The Laughlin-Bullhead City area, one of the Colorado River communities, represents a major boomtown growth area in the South-west based on the growth of casino gambling. This article analyses the nature of this growth and the resulting land use policy implications. The developments are exacerbated by the different tax systems, land use policies and zoning requirements in the states of Nevada and Arizona. The future success of the area rests in the ability of the states and communities to develop appropriate policy and cooperate in rational land use evolution in the face of explosive growth. Professor Sommers is at the Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 48824, USA, and Professor Lounsbury is at the Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
‘John V. Cotter, New Towns as an lnternational Phenomenon, Council of Planning Libraries, Monticello, IL, USA, 1977.
0264-8377/88/04385-09$03.00
history, boomtowns have been indicators of rapid economic and urban growth in various regions of the world. This phenomenon has been most characteristic of areas exploiting natural resources such as gold and lumber, but more recently has resulted from rapid industrial-, commercialand service-type growth. The towns resulting from this latter category of boomtown growth, found in all Western industrialized and urbanized countries but especially in Europe, have been called new towns.’ New towns, normally planned urban growth, are not as characteristic of the US as Western Europe. Several new towns are found in the South-west US, however, often based on retirement and resort communities. The most recent example is the Laughlin-Bullhead City area on the Colorado River, an area of phenomenal growth based upon tourism, retirement and casino gambling. The population growth and land use change of the Laughlin-Bullhead City area are among the most dynamic and rapid in the arid US South-west. Growth is possible due to the availability of water from the Colorado River. The Colorado River water, together with its impoundments from Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, supports recreational activities and a few communities in the river valley from just west of the Grand Canyon National Park to the California border north of Needles (see Figure 1). North of Davis Dam, on both sides of the river, the land is federally controlled under the jurisdiction of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. This sparsely populated area has excellent recreational opportunities including hiking, camping, backpacking, fishing and boating. From Davis Dam southward to the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation, however, rapid urbanization is taking place. This article evaluates the nature of this boomtown growth and the resulting land use change issues in the Laughlin-Bullhead City area resulting from the radically different policies of Arizona and Nevada. The analysis emphasizes the role of spatial impacts on land use policy and suggests continuing problems that will confront the area.
Throughout
0 1988 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
385
‘l.
Fort
Mohave
Havasu
Indian
National
Wildlife
Figure 1. Major land uses along the Colorado River in Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California.
Chemeheuvl lndlan Reservation
k
LakeHa
Reservation
Refuge
0
I_
20
40
miles
Lake Havasu City
Recent population growth trends in Arizona and Nevada increase of population in the South-west is one of the more remarkable demographic trends currently taking place in the US.’ Nevada and Arizona ranked first and second respectively in the nation in percentage of population growth in the 197GW decade (Table 1). Recent projections indicate that three states in the country will increase their population by over 100% between now and the year 2000, including Nevada with a 130.1% increase and Arizona with a 105.5% increase. The reasons for this growth include a variety of centripetal factors in the South-west as well as centrifugal factors in many eastern and mid-western states. It is estimated that the population of most of the mid-western and eastern states will grow very slowly. and nine of these states will actually experience a noticeable loss in population by the turn of the century (Table 2). The inhospitable physical environments of much of Arizona and Nevada result in an uneven distribution of people. Mining. irrigated agriculture. transportation foci. extensive rangeland grazing and recreation based on water availability or mountain topography have been the major reasons for early development of settlements. Some of these population concentrations such as Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas and Reno are now major urbanized areas. The Phoenix and Tucson Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) in Arizona presently
The rapid
‘Lawrence M. Sommers and John F. ‘The impact of population Lounsbury, growth trends on state and local land use policy: the examples of Michigan and Arizona’, Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, SUNY, Binghamton, NY, USA, Vol 5, 1982, pp 11&136.
386
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Table I. Leading states in percent of population increase, 1970-80.
State Nevada Anzona Flonda Wyoming Utah USA
1970 488 1 775 6 791 332 1 059
1980 738 399 418 416 273
799 184 2717866 9 739 992 470 816 1 461 037
203 302 031
226 504 825
% increase
National rank
63 5 53.1 43.4 41.6 37.9
1 2 3 4 5
July 1983’ 891 2 963 10 680 514 1 619
2000’ 1 918 5 582 17 438 1 002 2 777
000 000 000 000 000
800 500 000 200 400
267 461 600
233 981 000
N&e.? Estimated value. Source: 1980 US Census, US Bureau of Census, 1980.
represent about 75% of that state’s population, and the Las Vegas and Reno SMSAs account for almost 85% of Nevada’s current population. Although the Phoenix. Tucson, Las Vegas and Reno urban areas account for most of the population increase of the two states. a few other favoured smaller :lrens have experienced rapid growth. The most spectncular has been the Laughlin-Bullhead City boomtown along the Colorado River, just south of Davis Dam (Figure I). Most of this growth has occurred in the past ten years, during which time the population increased at ;I rate of 12-15% annually. The rapid increase has taken place on both sides of the river under radically different land USC policies and with limited cooperation or joint effort in planning the totnlity of the Laughlin-Bullhead City region. Economically, however, these urban areas in the two states Lire highly dependent upon one another and should logically be viewed 11sa single region in order to bring about the best array of land uses.
Urban growth issues in the Laughlin-Bullhead
City area
The environment of the Laughlin-Bullhead City area is typical of ;\ low-latitude desert with long, hot summers and no cold season. Rainfall averages slightly over 3 inches per year, although major Lmnual variations may occur. The average annual temperature is over XYF, and the mean for the four summer months is over 100°F. Maximum temperatures of more than 115°F ;ire common and Bullhead City frequently records the highest temperature in the US. The topography is flat to gently rolling near the Colorado River, but the nearby mountains
and associated
nlluvial fans give rise to occasionnl flash flood conditions. Special fncilities :rrc ncccssary in certain wash sections to minimize the flood haz:rrd. In the p:rst. the vast majority of the land in the Laughlin-Bullhead City area wx Table 2. Population increase/decrease
used for cxtcnsivc
with low carrying
of selected states, 1980-2000.
States with 50% or more increase State Nevada Wyoming Arizona Utah Florida Colorado Idaho Alaska Oregon
grazing on ranges
% increase 1980-2000 1400 1129 105.4 90 1 79.0 61.2 60.2 57 5 52 9
States with decrease National rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a
9
South Dakota Michigan Connecticut llllnols Rhode Island Ohio Massachusetts PennsylvanIa New York USA
% increase 1980-2000 -0.4 -0.5 PI.5 -2.0 ~2.3 -4.1 -4.3 -5.6 -14.6
National rank 42 43 44 45 46 47
48 49 50
16.1
Source: US Bureau of Census Reports, Dee 1980. Sept 1983, Nov 1984.
LAND
USE POLICY
October
1988
387
capacity. Crop agriculture was possible in only a few selected irrigated locations. Mining for gold and other precious minerals and tourism provided an economic base for a few widely-spaced small communities. The Davis Dam on the Colorado River, completed in 1953, provided new economic opportunities. The flow of the river was controlled and resulted in the creation of Lake Mohave above Davis Dam with its excellent recreational opportunities. Hydroelectric power also became available to the area. Population growth and subsequent land use changes were gradual from the mid-1950s until the late 1970s. Ranching, river-based recreation, small retirement communities and hydroelectric generating facilities associated with the Davis Dam continued to support the relatively small population. In the 1970s a major change occurred as the Laughlin enclave - about 1200 acres of private land on the Nevada side of the river south of the dam - began to develop gambling casinos to serve the urban populations of Phoenix and southern California. ARIZONA
The Laughlin-Bullhead
Figure 2. Laughlin-Bullhead urban land expansion, 1950-86.
388
City
City boomtown growth of the 1980s
In the mid-1960s the community of Laughlin consisted of one small bar, a bait shop and a few cabins situated on the Nevada shore of the Colorado River - a total of six or seven small buildings. Across the river in Arizona, 11 small and unincorporated communities comprised the Bullhead City arca with a permanent population of about 600 people. These communities were either remnants of larger construction camps associated with the building of Davis Dam, or fishing camps and groups of recreation-oriented cottages scattered along the river banks. Rapid growth began in 1975 when resorts and casinos mushroomed along the river banks and formed the major growth incentive for the region that was developing on both sides of the river. Since 19X0 the arca has been the fastest growing resort arca in the US (see Figure 2). The major market areas for the Laughlin casinos are the rapidly growing urban centrcs of Phoenix - less than 250 highway miles from Laughlin - and the Los Angeles and San Diego urban complexes that arc about 300 miles away. Over 17 million people reside within a 3SO-mile radius of Laughlin-Bullhead City. and this population provides most of the customers for the gaming industry of Laughlin (see Figure 3). This market arca of southern California, southern Nevada and Arizona is increasing its population at ;I rate of about 3% annually, over 500 000 per year. By the mid-19XOs the casinos and hotels, developed into plush gaming resorts, were attracting over 5 million people annually. Laughlin gaming rcvenucs increased by 40-W% each year, six to seven times the rates of Nevada as a whole. Over X000 casino-hotel employees reside predominantly in Arizona and commute to work by a number of small casino-operated ferries or by automobile via Davis Dam. three miles to the north, or a new bridge (completed in 19X7) at the north end of the present casino complex. I,argcly to satisfy the residential, service and commercial needs of the Laughlin casino development, the greater Bullhead City’s population grew rapidly to approximately 20 000, excluding winter visitors (called snowbirds). Housing subdivisions, motels, restaurants and shopping centres mushroomed in Arizona in response to the tourist trade generated by the Nevada resort and casino developments. Thus the Laughlin-Bullhead City urban complex is the result of recent. explosive
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Boomfown
growth
issues along the Colorado
River border
I
c
Figure 3.
Laughlin-Bullhead
City
J
location in the US and the South-west.
3John F. Lounsbury and Lawrence M. Sommers, ‘Emerging land use patterns in the arid southwest: example of Laughlin, Nevada’, Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, SUNY, Binghamton, NY, USA, Vol 8, 1985, pp 273-282.
LAND USE POLICY October
1988
urban growth, almost totally unplanned on the Arizona side of the Colorado and closely controlled by Clark County on the Nevada side. In 1983 important changes in federal policy and philosophy took place to allow for urban developments in Laughlin, Nevada. The Colorado River Commission turned almost 1000 acres of federal land over to the state which, in turn, awarded the property to developers to create a new community under strict land use control policies of the Clark County, Nevada, Planning B0ard.j Construction of new residences began in 1984 and, by 1990, 15 000 people will be residing in the new Nevada community. In less than six years the Laughlin community grew from less than 100 people to the third largest urban complex in the state, exceeded only by Las Vegas and Reno. The planned community may eventually total over 50 000 people. In the period from 1984-87 two casino-hotels underwent major remodelling and expansion, and two additional large resorts were built. There are eight casinos and seven hotels on the Nevada side of the river as of 1988. Three additional casino-hotels are under construction and will be completed in 1989. Although Laughlin and Bullhead City are totally separate political units, collectively they are an economic and, in some respects, a sociocultural entity. They form a symbiotic community, each considerably dependent upon the other. The Laughlin casino-hotel complex is the primary economic base of the area, and Bullhead City provides the residential, commercial and service support facilities for the casinohotel
employees.
Many
of the customers
of the
Bullhead
City
motels,
restaurants, retail and other services are drawn to overflows of the area by Laughlin’s casinos. The communities making up greater Bullhead City are in Mohave
389
County,
Arizona.
population Massachusetts Bullhead
City
increases. one
overwhelmingly the elderly
of Bullhead
30 sc~ux-c
to develop
gasoline-tax
include
he substantial. to cope
with
of
explosive
growth.
Mohave
doubled
(110.4%)
of the Arizona
the Colorado growth
and
heavy
sewers
and
reflecting The
water.
new
layout
from
sep:lrate
community Each
irrchitectural
one subdivision ;IS
developed
overall
master
community
is to evolve
than
isolated
developers
and
must
and those
Planning
Board
with
of government to
be
segments
and the Colorado access
will
the
the
agencies River Laughlin
accident
police
:md
waste
disposal,
visual
and
built
fit-c
blight
-
side.
by three
methods
of
variations
in style
and
coordination if
local
such
the
the
Arizona. of
among
to
and viable
desires
take
stimulus.
traffic
and
essential
21s in
for
will
growth
adherence
;i well-integrated
unrelated
also mesh
intcrcsts
Transportation
plan
into
City
objectives,
cause Close
has
Havasu
on the Arizona
planned
as complete
total
is predicted
-
splatter
the
Vegas A large
increase
high
in evidence
to another.
well
52%
maintenance.
that
than of
County
and Lake
;IS the
different
designs
developers
in Mohave
all this
is being has
Most
of the
systems
urban
population more
in Laughlin.
congestion,
~ are much
its has
percentage
about
the
Colorado
Las
Laughlin
road
the
3).
policy from
in the greater
City
service
sprawl.
growth
Laughlin and
the
of
(Table
Virtually
with
facilities,
developers,
operation
recent
future
tripled
increases of
of
Nevada
has been
Bullhead
highway on
Urban
random
large-scale
River
in
;I small
increase
demands
almost
decade
2000.
has caused
education
protection,
the
resulting
sides
has been
population
year
both
period
and only
additional
by the
;I
growth
has
in the greater
an
County
rapid
rates
;IS
the
that will
from
series
facts urban
same
to the last
the river
place along
~ such
and the necessity
resulting
County
County
north,
prior
Further,
the
in Clark
been along Mohave
%lark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Laughlin-Nevada: Land Use and Development Plan, Clark County, NV, USA, 1982.
during
percentage areas.
of the
However,
;I city government
on
Arizona
and Clark
to the
increase
aren increase
in
I970,
growth
;u-ea. 90 miles
area
all lands within
funds
projects.
problems
boomtown
County
since
county
the
population
(180.8%) population
City
on
:~nnual
River.
:in
and future growth issues
based
I?-15%
This
serious
Laughlin-Bullhead
problems
state
improvement
tax the
include
plan for
master
largely
new city brings
within
in the need to levy city taxes.
21 variety
Contemporary
The
uses
of
major
proponents,
incorporation
the cost of maintaining
resulting
uncontrolled.
road
1981.
likely
the
land
of some
gain
;I
:I present
to incorporate
feared
by
of
code and
and
for
of
advantages
;I zoning
revenues
effort
variety
with
in 1979 and
who
passed by ;I 3: I ratio. ;I
The
limits.
disadvantages
The
City unit
miles.
corpornte
defeated 1984
miles
the area of the states
Referendums
and others
concerted
;I
I.3 000 square
combined.
were
governmental
authority the
- over
72 600 - is about
from After
incorporation nearly
county
:md Connecticut
by opposition
into
This
of approximately
developing
whole. The
rather plans
officials,
as the
the
recently
Clark
of
private County
Commission.’
casinos
is
crucial
and
air
Table 3. Population growth of the counties along the Arizona-Nevada Colorado River Boundary, 1960-2000. Sources:YJS Bureau of Census, 1980; “Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, NV, USA, 1986; ‘Anzona Department of Economlc Services, 1986.
390
Clark County, NV Mohave County, AZ
1960’ 127 016 7 736
1970= 273 280 25 857
1980a 461 816 55 693
LAND
1965 575 OOOb 72 600’
USE
% gain 1970-65 110.4 1600
POLICY
October
2000 891 100b 110300’
1988
have been inadequate. Previous to the autumn of 1986 the Laughlin-Bullhead City area was served only by propeller-driven. eight-passenger or smaller aircraft connecting the area with Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix (via Lake Havasu City). In the autumn of 1986 a new airline was established which provided Laughlin-Bullhead City with direct connections to many cities in southern California as well as Phoenix, Tucson and Las Vegas. The aircraft providing these services are M-passenger, twin engine transports. As a result of the new airline and projected use of jet planes in the future, providing adequate air transportation facilities for the booming Laughlin-Bullhead City region has become an increasingly serious planning issue. Currently, large numbers of the casino customers come in by motor vehicles (45% of those arriving from California and 23% from Arizona).’ If expanded facilities were available. the mode of transportation for most visitors might change to air, and the geographical source of customers could become much wider, even nationwide. The present regional nature of the customer market area would probably change. The Bullhead City airport expansion plans are restricted by hilly topography on the east, the Colorado River on the west. government-owned land on the north and lack of available undeveloped land on the south. These conditions mean that additional land must be obtained from the federal government and the necessary changes to create jet runways - involving considerable amounts of earth moving - will be expensive. Other costs will result from the moving of high transmission power lines and the development of flood control measures to protect adjacent land areas. The rational development of the airport area is a major land use policy issue for the community. The growth of the gaming industry creates the need for other rapidly developing economic and service activities to serve the population working in the casinos and hotels. This is not an economically well-balanced nor self-sufficient community as it depends upon a steady flow of tourists to sustain the economy. As is the case with other ‘one activity’ economies, there is a danger of extreme fluctuations as a result of the economic cycles of the country. The entertainment business often feels the impact of a recession first. If the gaming industry loses its popular appeal or passes into public disfavour, inherent risks for any type of recreation or entertainment enterprise, the new community has no existing major employment substitute. Further, gaming activities are developing rapidly in other states. Some casino gaming exists, eg in Atlantic City, and a number of states have plans in various stages of consideration. If casino gaming was legalized in other states, particularly in California and Arizona, the impact on Laughlin could be drastic. Other land use problems are related to the nature of the physical environment. Laughlin and Bullhead City are developing in a harsh environment due to heat, aridity and flooding problems. Flooding is the most serious problem for both residential and commercial building locations and may affect the boomtown growth in two ways. The flow of the Colorado River is controlled by large dams upstream and downstream of Laughlin-Bullhead City. The major source of water for the river is the melting winter snowpacks in high mountain areas to the north and east. In times of exceptionally heavy winter snowfall, the spring meltwaters overload the dam capacities and must be released, thereby rapidly increasing the river flow. Severe flooding along the Colorado River in 1983 caused damage exceeding $80 million to public
facilities
5F. Lawrence Dandurand, ‘Laughlin visitor profile study: a research study done for the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce’, University of Nevada, NV, USA, 1986.
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
391
private property on both sides of the river in Nevada and Arizona. The second way in which the Laughlin urban expansion is threatened is by flash floods away from the river to the west (Figure 1). In times of intense or prolonged rainfall, runoff from the mountains and foothills causes wash or channel flooding. Washes, originating on the debris cones of the.alluvial fans, may cause flash flood waters of destructive velocities. This is a serious constraint to development in certain sections as costly flood control structures must be built. Another major problem is the disrupting location of the Mohave Generating Station in the middle of the Laughlin development. The coal-generated plant is located between the Laughlin casino-hotel complex along the river and the new residential and commercial developments to the west (Figure 2). The land controlled by the power company (totalling about four square miles) forces the current Laughlin development to be somewhat U-shaped or fragmented. The utility occupies the heart or core of an otherwise contiguous and compact development, and will cause schools and other service facilities to be built in less desirable locations. Further, the unattractive, high smokestack and the generating facilities dominate landscape views from many directions. The effluent from the plant affects the air quality of the local area negatively particularly during times of temperature inversions. Thus the power plant detracts from the natural beauty, air quality and cohesiveness of the area. Probably the most important policy issue for the future growth of the area is lack of formal or effective short- and long-term regional planning for the urban development of the total Laughlin-Bullhead City boomtown. Mohave County on the Arizona side is primarily rural in nature with no large urban centres and has not controlled the random growth of the recent past nor is it providing sound, long-range planning for the future. It will be years before the total impact of the recent Bullhead City incorporation on growth patterns will be known. However, a planning department has recently been established. and a much-needed long-range master plan for Bullhead City is being developed.” Across the river in Nevada, by contrast, the Laughlin area presently consists of well-organized casinos, hotels and growing residential as well as private and public service areas. Urban sprawl as such does not exist. Further, being located in Clark County - which includes the extensive and well-planned urban agglomeration of Las Vegas - it has the benefits and resources of a large and sophisticated planning group. The Laughlin portion of the boomtown community is closely monitored and controlled at every step of the development process by public and private groups. Many of them, however, have different objectives and aspirations as to the future of the area. Differences in resources, local policy, philosophy and long-range planning efforts between Bullhead City and Mohave County in Arizona and Clark County in Nevada are major obstacles to effective future coordination and control of land use developments in the greater Laughlin-Bullhead City region. The impact of the growth of the gaming industry is dominant on both sides of the Colorado River, but the control and character of the growth is markedly different. Thus the area presents an excellent case study illustrating the policy implications of spatial contrasts in an urban region resulting from some physical differences but primarily from the major contrasts in the nature of the human decision-making processes. and
‘Bullhead City: General Plan Program, Background Cotton/Beland Report, Associates, Pasadena, CA, USA, 1986.
392
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Boomtown
growth
issues along (he Colorado
River border
Conclusions Many urban communities in the world have grown up on two sides of rivers. In Europe, rivers divide settlements in different countries so that division is much stronger over a longer period of time. In recent decades, however, none have grown as fast as Laughlin-Bullhead City. The radically different policies, philosophy, histories and growth patterns on the two sides of the Colorado River have resulted in contrasting land use policy problems that are difficult to resolve. The Colorado River is crucial to the boomtown development of both Nevada and Arizona as it provides common scenic, economic and recreational assets as well as vital domestic, industrial and commercial water. The political boundary following the river, however, is a significant barrier in terms of policy coordination concerning population, economic growth and resulting land use management. It is likely that cooperation between the two states will be forced to evolve slowly as population growth continues and as land use and public service issues and pressures multiply. The explosive Laughlin casino-hotel growth will demand more and more housing and an increasing variety of service facilities on both sides of the river. Land being made available for the expansion of existing casinos and the adding of new ones will exacerbate the Nevada side land use problems as the job opportunities and population continue to increase rapidly and demand land for residential, commercial, public and other services. Some of this development will force growth on the Arizona side of the Colorado as well. The following actions need to be considered: the development of a continuing mechanism for assuring coordination of policies and procedures in the greater Laughlin-Bullhead City community; the exchange of planning intentions, instruments and ideas at an early stage so that problems and issues can be identified before positions are hardened and while compromise and negotiation are still possible; plans of developers in both Laughlin and Bullhead City need to coordinate better their intentions with each other and with officials and planning agencies, in order to make the end product of development and the implementation of land use policy a better product for the entire community; land use policy needs to be implemented in a way that makes the Colorado River a cohesive rather than a separating influence.
‘John G. Gliege, New Towns: Policy in Regional Development, Institute of Public Administration, Arizona State University, AZ. USA. 1970; James A. Clapp, New Towns and Urban Policy: Planning Metropolitan Growth, Dunellen, NY, USA, 1971.
LAND USE POLICY
October 1988
This area is a classic example of the land use issues and policy implications created by a political boundary separating regions with different tax laws, land use policies and zoning requirements.’ As the major growth force in the community - the casinos and hotels continues to expand, the problems and issues resulting from this explosive growth will magnify on both sides of the Colorado River. Interstate and intercommunity cooperation seems mandatory for the orderly growth and future success of this major boomtown region in the South-west. It fits the model of a boomtown in degree of rapid growth. The Arizona portion illustrates the chaotic growth often associated with boomtowns and the Nevada side has the potential of being a well-planned new town. The next few years will be crucial as to which growth model dominates and whether it will be one or continue to be two different communities in terms of cohesion, planning and character.
393
City
Lawrence M. Sommers and John F. Lounsbury
The Laughlin-Bullhead City area, one of the Colorado River communities, represents a major boomtown growth area in the South-west based on the growth of casino gambling. This article analyses the nature of this growth and the resulting land use policy implications. The developments are exacerbated by the different tax systems, land use policies and zoning requirements in the states of Nevada and Arizona. The future success of the area rests in the ability of the states and communities to develop appropriate policy and cooperate in rational land use evolution in the face of explosive growth. Professor Sommers is at the Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 48824, USA, and Professor Lounsbury is at the Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
‘John V. Cotter, New Towns as an lnternational Phenomenon, Council of Planning Libraries, Monticello, IL, USA, 1977.
0264-8377/88/04385-09$03.00
history, boomtowns have been indicators of rapid economic and urban growth in various regions of the world. This phenomenon has been most characteristic of areas exploiting natural resources such as gold and lumber, but more recently has resulted from rapid industrial-, commercialand service-type growth. The towns resulting from this latter category of boomtown growth, found in all Western industrialized and urbanized countries but especially in Europe, have been called new towns.’ New towns, normally planned urban growth, are not as characteristic of the US as Western Europe. Several new towns are found in the South-west US, however, often based on retirement and resort communities. The most recent example is the Laughlin-Bullhead City area on the Colorado River, an area of phenomenal growth based upon tourism, retirement and casino gambling. The population growth and land use change of the Laughlin-Bullhead City area are among the most dynamic and rapid in the arid US South-west. Growth is possible due to the availability of water from the Colorado River. The Colorado River water, together with its impoundments from Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, supports recreational activities and a few communities in the river valley from just west of the Grand Canyon National Park to the California border north of Needles (see Figure 1). North of Davis Dam, on both sides of the river, the land is federally controlled under the jurisdiction of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. This sparsely populated area has excellent recreational opportunities including hiking, camping, backpacking, fishing and boating. From Davis Dam southward to the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation, however, rapid urbanization is taking place. This article evaluates the nature of this boomtown growth and the resulting land use change issues in the Laughlin-Bullhead City area resulting from the radically different policies of Arizona and Nevada. The analysis emphasizes the role of spatial impacts on land use policy and suggests continuing problems that will confront the area.
Throughout
0 1988 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
385
‘l.
Fort
Mohave
Havasu
Indian
National
Wildlife
Figure 1. Major land uses along the Colorado River in Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California.
Chemeheuvl lndlan Reservation
k
LakeHa
Reservation
Refuge
0
I_
20
40
miles
Lake Havasu City
Recent population growth trends in Arizona and Nevada increase of population in the South-west is one of the more remarkable demographic trends currently taking place in the US.’ Nevada and Arizona ranked first and second respectively in the nation in percentage of population growth in the 197GW decade (Table 1). Recent projections indicate that three states in the country will increase their population by over 100% between now and the year 2000, including Nevada with a 130.1% increase and Arizona with a 105.5% increase. The reasons for this growth include a variety of centripetal factors in the South-west as well as centrifugal factors in many eastern and mid-western states. It is estimated that the population of most of the mid-western and eastern states will grow very slowly. and nine of these states will actually experience a noticeable loss in population by the turn of the century (Table 2). The inhospitable physical environments of much of Arizona and Nevada result in an uneven distribution of people. Mining. irrigated agriculture. transportation foci. extensive rangeland grazing and recreation based on water availability or mountain topography have been the major reasons for early development of settlements. Some of these population concentrations such as Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas and Reno are now major urbanized areas. The Phoenix and Tucson Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) in Arizona presently
The rapid
‘Lawrence M. Sommers and John F. ‘The impact of population Lounsbury, growth trends on state and local land use policy: the examples of Michigan and Arizona’, Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, SUNY, Binghamton, NY, USA, Vol 5, 1982, pp 11&136.
386
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Table I. Leading states in percent of population increase, 1970-80.
State Nevada Anzona Flonda Wyoming Utah USA
1970 488 1 775 6 791 332 1 059
1980 738 399 418 416 273
799 184 2717866 9 739 992 470 816 1 461 037
203 302 031
226 504 825
% increase
National rank
63 5 53.1 43.4 41.6 37.9
1 2 3 4 5
July 1983’ 891 2 963 10 680 514 1 619
2000’ 1 918 5 582 17 438 1 002 2 777
000 000 000 000 000
800 500 000 200 400
267 461 600
233 981 000
N&e.? Estimated value. Source: 1980 US Census, US Bureau of Census, 1980.
represent about 75% of that state’s population, and the Las Vegas and Reno SMSAs account for almost 85% of Nevada’s current population. Although the Phoenix. Tucson, Las Vegas and Reno urban areas account for most of the population increase of the two states. a few other favoured smaller :lrens have experienced rapid growth. The most spectncular has been the Laughlin-Bullhead City boomtown along the Colorado River, just south of Davis Dam (Figure I). Most of this growth has occurred in the past ten years, during which time the population increased at ;I rate of 12-15% annually. The rapid increase has taken place on both sides of the river under radically different land USC policies and with limited cooperation or joint effort in planning the totnlity of the Laughlin-Bullhead City region. Economically, however, these urban areas in the two states Lire highly dependent upon one another and should logically be viewed 11sa single region in order to bring about the best array of land uses.
Urban growth issues in the Laughlin-Bullhead
City area
The environment of the Laughlin-Bullhead City area is typical of ;\ low-latitude desert with long, hot summers and no cold season. Rainfall averages slightly over 3 inches per year, although major Lmnual variations may occur. The average annual temperature is over XYF, and the mean for the four summer months is over 100°F. Maximum temperatures of more than 115°F ;ire common and Bullhead City frequently records the highest temperature in the US. The topography is flat to gently rolling near the Colorado River, but the nearby mountains
and associated
nlluvial fans give rise to occasionnl flash flood conditions. Special fncilities :rrc ncccssary in certain wash sections to minimize the flood haz:rrd. In the p:rst. the vast majority of the land in the Laughlin-Bullhead City area wx Table 2. Population increase/decrease
used for cxtcnsivc
with low carrying
of selected states, 1980-2000.
States with 50% or more increase State Nevada Wyoming Arizona Utah Florida Colorado Idaho Alaska Oregon
grazing on ranges
% increase 1980-2000 1400 1129 105.4 90 1 79.0 61.2 60.2 57 5 52 9
States with decrease National rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a
9
South Dakota Michigan Connecticut llllnols Rhode Island Ohio Massachusetts PennsylvanIa New York USA
% increase 1980-2000 -0.4 -0.5 PI.5 -2.0 ~2.3 -4.1 -4.3 -5.6 -14.6
National rank 42 43 44 45 46 47
48 49 50
16.1
Source: US Bureau of Census Reports, Dee 1980. Sept 1983, Nov 1984.
LAND
USE POLICY
October
1988
387
capacity. Crop agriculture was possible in only a few selected irrigated locations. Mining for gold and other precious minerals and tourism provided an economic base for a few widely-spaced small communities. The Davis Dam on the Colorado River, completed in 1953, provided new economic opportunities. The flow of the river was controlled and resulted in the creation of Lake Mohave above Davis Dam with its excellent recreational opportunities. Hydroelectric power also became available to the area. Population growth and subsequent land use changes were gradual from the mid-1950s until the late 1970s. Ranching, river-based recreation, small retirement communities and hydroelectric generating facilities associated with the Davis Dam continued to support the relatively small population. In the 1970s a major change occurred as the Laughlin enclave - about 1200 acres of private land on the Nevada side of the river south of the dam - began to develop gambling casinos to serve the urban populations of Phoenix and southern California. ARIZONA
The Laughlin-Bullhead
Figure 2. Laughlin-Bullhead urban land expansion, 1950-86.
388
City
City boomtown growth of the 1980s
In the mid-1960s the community of Laughlin consisted of one small bar, a bait shop and a few cabins situated on the Nevada shore of the Colorado River - a total of six or seven small buildings. Across the river in Arizona, 11 small and unincorporated communities comprised the Bullhead City arca with a permanent population of about 600 people. These communities were either remnants of larger construction camps associated with the building of Davis Dam, or fishing camps and groups of recreation-oriented cottages scattered along the river banks. Rapid growth began in 1975 when resorts and casinos mushroomed along the river banks and formed the major growth incentive for the region that was developing on both sides of the river. Since 19X0 the arca has been the fastest growing resort arca in the US (see Figure 2). The major market areas for the Laughlin casinos are the rapidly growing urban centrcs of Phoenix - less than 250 highway miles from Laughlin - and the Los Angeles and San Diego urban complexes that arc about 300 miles away. Over 17 million people reside within a 3SO-mile radius of Laughlin-Bullhead City. and this population provides most of the customers for the gaming industry of Laughlin (see Figure 3). This market arca of southern California, southern Nevada and Arizona is increasing its population at ;I rate of about 3% annually, over 500 000 per year. By the mid-19XOs the casinos and hotels, developed into plush gaming resorts, were attracting over 5 million people annually. Laughlin gaming rcvenucs increased by 40-W% each year, six to seven times the rates of Nevada as a whole. Over X000 casino-hotel employees reside predominantly in Arizona and commute to work by a number of small casino-operated ferries or by automobile via Davis Dam. three miles to the north, or a new bridge (completed in 19X7) at the north end of the present casino complex. I,argcly to satisfy the residential, service and commercial needs of the Laughlin casino development, the greater Bullhead City’s population grew rapidly to approximately 20 000, excluding winter visitors (called snowbirds). Housing subdivisions, motels, restaurants and shopping centres mushroomed in Arizona in response to the tourist trade generated by the Nevada resort and casino developments. Thus the Laughlin-Bullhead City urban complex is the result of recent. explosive
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Boomfown
growth
issues along the Colorado
River border
I
c
Figure 3.
Laughlin-Bullhead
City
J
location in the US and the South-west.
3John F. Lounsbury and Lawrence M. Sommers, ‘Emerging land use patterns in the arid southwest: example of Laughlin, Nevada’, Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, SUNY, Binghamton, NY, USA, Vol 8, 1985, pp 273-282.
LAND USE POLICY October
1988
urban growth, almost totally unplanned on the Arizona side of the Colorado and closely controlled by Clark County on the Nevada side. In 1983 important changes in federal policy and philosophy took place to allow for urban developments in Laughlin, Nevada. The Colorado River Commission turned almost 1000 acres of federal land over to the state which, in turn, awarded the property to developers to create a new community under strict land use control policies of the Clark County, Nevada, Planning B0ard.j Construction of new residences began in 1984 and, by 1990, 15 000 people will be residing in the new Nevada community. In less than six years the Laughlin community grew from less than 100 people to the third largest urban complex in the state, exceeded only by Las Vegas and Reno. The planned community may eventually total over 50 000 people. In the period from 1984-87 two casino-hotels underwent major remodelling and expansion, and two additional large resorts were built. There are eight casinos and seven hotels on the Nevada side of the river as of 1988. Three additional casino-hotels are under construction and will be completed in 1989. Although Laughlin and Bullhead City are totally separate political units, collectively they are an economic and, in some respects, a sociocultural entity. They form a symbiotic community, each considerably dependent upon the other. The Laughlin casino-hotel complex is the primary economic base of the area, and Bullhead City provides the residential, commercial and service support facilities for the casinohotel
employees.
Many
of the customers
of the
Bullhead
City
motels,
restaurants, retail and other services are drawn to overflows of the area by Laughlin’s casinos. The communities making up greater Bullhead City are in Mohave
389
County,
Arizona.
population Massachusetts Bullhead
City
increases. one
overwhelmingly the elderly
of Bullhead
30 sc~ux-c
to develop
gasoline-tax
include
he substantial. to cope
with
of
explosive
growth.
Mohave
doubled
(110.4%)
of the Arizona
the Colorado growth
and
heavy
sewers
and
reflecting The
water.
new
layout
from
sep:lrate
community Each
irrchitectural
one subdivision ;IS
developed
overall
master
community
is to evolve
than
isolated
developers
and
must
and those
Planning
Board
with
of government to
be
segments
and the Colorado access
will
the
the
agencies River Laughlin
accident
police
:md
waste
disposal,
visual
and
built
fit-c
blight
-
side.
by three
methods
of
variations
in style
and
coordination if
local
such
the
the
Arizona. of
among
to
and viable
desires
take
stimulus.
traffic
and
essential
21s in
for
will
growth
adherence
;i well-integrated
unrelated
also mesh
intcrcsts
Transportation
plan
into
City
objectives,
cause Close
has
Havasu
on the Arizona
planned
as complete
total
is predicted
-
splatter
the
Vegas A large
increase
high
in evidence
to another.
well
52%
maintenance.
that
than of
County
and Lake
;IS the
different
designs
developers
in Mohave
all this
is being has
Most
of the
systems
urban
population more
in Laughlin.
congestion,
~ are much
its has
percentage
about
the
Colorado
Las
Laughlin
road
the
3).
policy from
in the greater
City
service
sprawl.
growth
Laughlin and
the
of
(Table
Virtually
with
facilities,
developers,
operation
recent
future
tripled
increases of
of
Nevada
has been
Bullhead
highway on
Urban
random
large-scale
River
in
;I small
increase
demands
almost
decade
2000.
has caused
education
protection,
the
resulting
sides
has been
population
year
both
period
and only
additional
by the
;I
growth
has
in the greater
an
County
rapid
rates
;IS
the
that will
from
series
facts urban
same
to the last
the river
place along
~ such
and the necessity
resulting
County
County
north,
prior
Further,
the
in Clark
been along Mohave
%lark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Laughlin-Nevada: Land Use and Development Plan, Clark County, NV, USA, 1982.
during
percentage areas.
of the
However,
;I city government
on
Arizona
and Clark
to the
increase
aren increase
in
I970,
growth
;u-ea. 90 miles
area
all lands within
funds
projects.
problems
boomtown
County
since
county
the
population
(180.8%) population
City
on
:~nnual
River.
:in
and future growth issues
based
I?-15%
This
serious
Laughlin-Bullhead
problems
state
improvement
tax the
include
plan for
master
largely
new city brings
within
in the need to levy city taxes.
21 variety
Contemporary
The
uses
of
major
proponents,
incorporation
the cost of maintaining
resulting
uncontrolled.
road
1981.
likely
the
land
of some
gain
;I
:I present
to incorporate
feared
by
of
code and
and
for
of
advantages
;I zoning
revenues
effort
variety
with
in 1979 and
who
passed by ;I 3: I ratio. ;I
The
limits.
disadvantages
The
City unit
miles.
corpornte
defeated 1984
miles
the area of the states
Referendums
and others
concerted
;I
I.3 000 square
combined.
were
governmental
authority the
- over
72 600 - is about
from After
incorporation nearly
county
:md Connecticut
by opposition
into
This
of approximately
developing
whole. The
rather plans
officials,
as the
the
recently
Clark
of
private County
Commission.’
casinos
is
crucial
and
air
Table 3. Population growth of the counties along the Arizona-Nevada Colorado River Boundary, 1960-2000. Sources:YJS Bureau of Census, 1980; “Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, NV, USA, 1986; ‘Anzona Department of Economlc Services, 1986.
390
Clark County, NV Mohave County, AZ
1960’ 127 016 7 736
1970= 273 280 25 857
1980a 461 816 55 693
LAND
1965 575 OOOb 72 600’
USE
% gain 1970-65 110.4 1600
POLICY
October
2000 891 100b 110300’
1988
have been inadequate. Previous to the autumn of 1986 the Laughlin-Bullhead City area was served only by propeller-driven. eight-passenger or smaller aircraft connecting the area with Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix (via Lake Havasu City). In the autumn of 1986 a new airline was established which provided Laughlin-Bullhead City with direct connections to many cities in southern California as well as Phoenix, Tucson and Las Vegas. The aircraft providing these services are M-passenger, twin engine transports. As a result of the new airline and projected use of jet planes in the future, providing adequate air transportation facilities for the booming Laughlin-Bullhead City region has become an increasingly serious planning issue. Currently, large numbers of the casino customers come in by motor vehicles (45% of those arriving from California and 23% from Arizona).’ If expanded facilities were available. the mode of transportation for most visitors might change to air, and the geographical source of customers could become much wider, even nationwide. The present regional nature of the customer market area would probably change. The Bullhead City airport expansion plans are restricted by hilly topography on the east, the Colorado River on the west. government-owned land on the north and lack of available undeveloped land on the south. These conditions mean that additional land must be obtained from the federal government and the necessary changes to create jet runways - involving considerable amounts of earth moving - will be expensive. Other costs will result from the moving of high transmission power lines and the development of flood control measures to protect adjacent land areas. The rational development of the airport area is a major land use policy issue for the community. The growth of the gaming industry creates the need for other rapidly developing economic and service activities to serve the population working in the casinos and hotels. This is not an economically well-balanced nor self-sufficient community as it depends upon a steady flow of tourists to sustain the economy. As is the case with other ‘one activity’ economies, there is a danger of extreme fluctuations as a result of the economic cycles of the country. The entertainment business often feels the impact of a recession first. If the gaming industry loses its popular appeal or passes into public disfavour, inherent risks for any type of recreation or entertainment enterprise, the new community has no existing major employment substitute. Further, gaming activities are developing rapidly in other states. Some casino gaming exists, eg in Atlantic City, and a number of states have plans in various stages of consideration. If casino gaming was legalized in other states, particularly in California and Arizona, the impact on Laughlin could be drastic. Other land use problems are related to the nature of the physical environment. Laughlin and Bullhead City are developing in a harsh environment due to heat, aridity and flooding problems. Flooding is the most serious problem for both residential and commercial building locations and may affect the boomtown growth in two ways. The flow of the Colorado River is controlled by large dams upstream and downstream of Laughlin-Bullhead City. The major source of water for the river is the melting winter snowpacks in high mountain areas to the north and east. In times of exceptionally heavy winter snowfall, the spring meltwaters overload the dam capacities and must be released, thereby rapidly increasing the river flow. Severe flooding along the Colorado River in 1983 caused damage exceeding $80 million to public
facilities
5F. Lawrence Dandurand, ‘Laughlin visitor profile study: a research study done for the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce’, University of Nevada, NV, USA, 1986.
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
391
private property on both sides of the river in Nevada and Arizona. The second way in which the Laughlin urban expansion is threatened is by flash floods away from the river to the west (Figure 1). In times of intense or prolonged rainfall, runoff from the mountains and foothills causes wash or channel flooding. Washes, originating on the debris cones of the.alluvial fans, may cause flash flood waters of destructive velocities. This is a serious constraint to development in certain sections as costly flood control structures must be built. Another major problem is the disrupting location of the Mohave Generating Station in the middle of the Laughlin development. The coal-generated plant is located between the Laughlin casino-hotel complex along the river and the new residential and commercial developments to the west (Figure 2). The land controlled by the power company (totalling about four square miles) forces the current Laughlin development to be somewhat U-shaped or fragmented. The utility occupies the heart or core of an otherwise contiguous and compact development, and will cause schools and other service facilities to be built in less desirable locations. Further, the unattractive, high smokestack and the generating facilities dominate landscape views from many directions. The effluent from the plant affects the air quality of the local area negatively particularly during times of temperature inversions. Thus the power plant detracts from the natural beauty, air quality and cohesiveness of the area. Probably the most important policy issue for the future growth of the area is lack of formal or effective short- and long-term regional planning for the urban development of the total Laughlin-Bullhead City boomtown. Mohave County on the Arizona side is primarily rural in nature with no large urban centres and has not controlled the random growth of the recent past nor is it providing sound, long-range planning for the future. It will be years before the total impact of the recent Bullhead City incorporation on growth patterns will be known. However, a planning department has recently been established. and a much-needed long-range master plan for Bullhead City is being developed.” Across the river in Nevada, by contrast, the Laughlin area presently consists of well-organized casinos, hotels and growing residential as well as private and public service areas. Urban sprawl as such does not exist. Further, being located in Clark County - which includes the extensive and well-planned urban agglomeration of Las Vegas - it has the benefits and resources of a large and sophisticated planning group. The Laughlin portion of the boomtown community is closely monitored and controlled at every step of the development process by public and private groups. Many of them, however, have different objectives and aspirations as to the future of the area. Differences in resources, local policy, philosophy and long-range planning efforts between Bullhead City and Mohave County in Arizona and Clark County in Nevada are major obstacles to effective future coordination and control of land use developments in the greater Laughlin-Bullhead City region. The impact of the growth of the gaming industry is dominant on both sides of the Colorado River, but the control and character of the growth is markedly different. Thus the area presents an excellent case study illustrating the policy implications of spatial contrasts in an urban region resulting from some physical differences but primarily from the major contrasts in the nature of the human decision-making processes. and
‘Bullhead City: General Plan Program, Background Cotton/Beland Report, Associates, Pasadena, CA, USA, 1986.
392
LAND USE POLICY
October
1988
Boomtown
growth
issues along (he Colorado
River border
Conclusions Many urban communities in the world have grown up on two sides of rivers. In Europe, rivers divide settlements in different countries so that division is much stronger over a longer period of time. In recent decades, however, none have grown as fast as Laughlin-Bullhead City. The radically different policies, philosophy, histories and growth patterns on the two sides of the Colorado River have resulted in contrasting land use policy problems that are difficult to resolve. The Colorado River is crucial to the boomtown development of both Nevada and Arizona as it provides common scenic, economic and recreational assets as well as vital domestic, industrial and commercial water. The political boundary following the river, however, is a significant barrier in terms of policy coordination concerning population, economic growth and resulting land use management. It is likely that cooperation between the two states will be forced to evolve slowly as population growth continues and as land use and public service issues and pressures multiply. The explosive Laughlin casino-hotel growth will demand more and more housing and an increasing variety of service facilities on both sides of the river. Land being made available for the expansion of existing casinos and the adding of new ones will exacerbate the Nevada side land use problems as the job opportunities and population continue to increase rapidly and demand land for residential, commercial, public and other services. Some of this development will force growth on the Arizona side of the Colorado as well. The following actions need to be considered: the development of a continuing mechanism for assuring coordination of policies and procedures in the greater Laughlin-Bullhead City community; the exchange of planning intentions, instruments and ideas at an early stage so that problems and issues can be identified before positions are hardened and while compromise and negotiation are still possible; plans of developers in both Laughlin and Bullhead City need to coordinate better their intentions with each other and with officials and planning agencies, in order to make the end product of development and the implementation of land use policy a better product for the entire community; land use policy needs to be implemented in a way that makes the Colorado River a cohesive rather than a separating influence.
‘John G. Gliege, New Towns: Policy in Regional Development, Institute of Public Administration, Arizona State University, AZ. USA. 1970; James A. Clapp, New Towns and Urban Policy: Planning Metropolitan Growth, Dunellen, NY, USA, 1971.
LAND USE POLICY
October 1988
This area is a classic example of the land use issues and policy implications created by a political boundary separating regions with different tax laws, land use policies and zoning requirements.’ As the major growth force in the community - the casinos and hotels continues to expand, the problems and issues resulting from this explosive growth will magnify on both sides of the Colorado River. Interstate and intercommunity cooperation seems mandatory for the orderly growth and future success of this major boomtown region in the South-west. It fits the model of a boomtown in degree of rapid growth. The Arizona portion illustrates the chaotic growth often associated with boomtowns and the Nevada side has the potential of being a well-planned new town. The next few years will be crucial as to which growth model dominates and whether it will be one or continue to be two different communities in terms of cohesion, planning and character.
393