Flawed report doesn’t hold water
April 10, 2008 - 9:00 pm
To the editor:
In response to the Review-Journal's March 31 article, "Big ideas, slim hope for water":
The recent report financed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority examining 12 water alternatives has clear signs of selected data and fraudulent conclusions. Desalted water costs are cited at "between $1,100 and $1,800 per acre-foot."
This cost estimate is curious, as a May 2005 water authority report shows acre-foot costs for four desalting plants ranging from $592 to $691. I'm sure the 2008 report does not assign a dollar value for desalting for improved human health or for how desalting benefits Colorado River hydropower, recreation, marinas, wildlife, water quality and the delta. Considering these benefits, one can contend the acre-foot cost may approach zero.
I bet the report does not mention new solar and gravity-powered desalting techniques, the new Australian plant 100 percent powered by wind, Scotland's tidal powered plant, or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's new membrane technology, which they think will lower desalting costs by 75 percent.
I'm confident the report does not mention that a decade ago, the water authority could have gotten Uncle Sam and 270 million Americans to pay for 50 percent of a desalting plant if it attained 25 percent water conservation. For now, the 2 million people in Clark County may pay $5,000 per person for the authority's pipelines.
Further, I'm certain the report did not mention Colorado River farm water costs $20 per acre-foot due to the near 100 percent federal subsidy farms receive.
In sum, the Southern Nevada Water Authority's recent report is waterboarding the taxpayers of Nevada.
MARK BIRD
LAS VEGAS
Open government
To the editor:
In response to your April 3 editorial, "It's all under control," the Nevada State Contractors Board wants to make it clear that it has, and always will be, in favor of open government. The board publicly took the stance when it requested introduction of Senate Bill 279 at the 2007 Legislature to allow the board to continue doing what it had been doing for years -- making public a five-year history to anyone who called and asked for the number of complaints filed against a licensed contractor, the number that were found to be valid or invalid, pending investigations, and the number of cases resulting in disciplinary action by the board. This public reporting practice was changed with the enactment of Senate Bill 279 by the 2007 Legislature. The board can still collect this data, but until disciplinary action is initiated against a licensed contractor, the data cannot be released to the public.
NRS 624.327 was amended to read as follows:
1.) "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the existence of and the personally identifying information in a complaint filed with the Board, all documents and other information filed with the complaint and all documents and other information compiled as a result of the investigation to determine whether to initiate disciplinary action are confidential.
2.) The complaint or other document filed by the Board to initiate disciplinary action and all documents and information considered by the Board when determining whether to impose discipline are public records."
The Review-Journal editorial board knows this and was right on point by defending the public's right to know in an Oct. 25, 2007, editorial when it stated: "The Legislature has some repairs to make when it convenes in February 2009: passing a law that gets complaints against contractors out of the shadows and back in the sunshine."
The law, as enacted in SB279 on May 31, 2007, has not changed. The Nevada State Contractors Board would welcome the opportunity to stand with the Review-Journal to propose amending NRS 624.327, so the public can once again have access to complaint information.
ART NADLER
HENDERSON
THE WRITER IS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR THE NEVADA STATE CONTRACTORS BOARD.
The Church of Green
To the editor:
Despite your excellent Tuesday editorial on the shortcomings of the science supporting the planet's warming, this issue will only heat up over the next decades.
Environmentalists, Hollywood, and the majority of print and electronic media have already bought into the global warming hypothesis and even support some of the drastic measures mentioned in your editorial to reduce this "imminent threat."
Even worse, some so-called Christian denominations are pushing the teachings of Jesus and his disciples aside to make way for the new gospel of environmental extremism.
The problem with this new religion, as your editorial points out, is that it is based on blind faith.
Dan Kane
LAS VEGAS