LETTERS: Desalination a viable water solution
To the editor:
Many thanks to John L. Smith for his insightful and educational column on desalination (“Desalination dawdling could leave Southern Nevada high and dry,” June 13 Review-Journal. Mr. Smith hit the nail on the head when he exposed 15 years of a lack of planning, and by demonstrating the facts about desalination and the cost of generating pure, clean water.
Mr. Smith pointed out that 50 million gallons of water per day can be produced by investing $1 billion into a desalination plant such as the one in Carlsbad, Calif., versus the proposed investment of $15 billion that the Southern Nevada Water Authority wants to spend to bring water from Northern Nevada. This proposed gambit is likely to fail because of the strong opposition from Northern Nevada ranchers and religious interests in Utah.
If and when Southern Nevada water interests build a desalination plant in Southern California, Southern Nevada could exchange an equal allotment of water with California and store it in Lake Mead. Southern Nevada should get off the dime and start to think clearly about the next 30 years, or better yet, try to imagine how Clark County will look after 50 years and trying to supply water to those 70,000 new households mentioned in Jennifer Robison’s article (“We have enough,” June 14 Review-Journal). That article clearly tries to divert attention from the lack of planning by suggesting Clark County will survive by cleverly recycling waste water. How many times can the water authority recycle a gallon of water?
Desalination is financially viable and cost-effective now, but in the future, who knows? To do it will take honest negotiations, without letting the political class get its fingers into the pie. Those discussions can and should start now. No more fairy tales about “conservation efforts working” — it gets later every day.
Ms. Robison’s article was a maze of deliberately confusing and endless facts — and likely fiction. It was an attempt to justify the past 15 years of postponement in the planning department. Our appointed public servants have failed us, and we will play catch-up for decades to come, even if we don’t run out of water first.
DICK ANDERSON
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Gay marriage ruling
To the editor:
The concerns regarding same-sex marriage versus religious freedom raise some very interesting tangential questions (“Right to wed OK’d,” June 27 Review-Journal). Is a Roman Catholic merchant allowed to deny services to couples getting married if one or both of them has been divorced and their former spouse is still alive? Is a Methodist merchant allowed to deny service to couples who are serving alcoholic beverages at their wedding reception? Can a Jewish or Muslim merchant legally deny services to a couple serving bacon at the wedding breakfast or ham at the dinner? What about a Hindu believer and the quandary of a wedding dinner serving prime rib?
Are these “sins” to a given religion any less significant than associating one’s business with a same-sex marriage, or are religious freedom concerns only applicable to homosexuality issues? The advocates of religious liberty laws seem to have forgotten about the Seven Deadly Sins of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony as possible justifications for nonservice to an individual because that person is extremely rich or obese. Or they envy their competitors’ success while lusting after their competitor’s wife, or they hate the poor or minorities or anyone who isn’t like them.
Will everyone have the right to deny services associated with these sins? Perhaps all of this would be more easily settled if we simply paid attention to the biblical advice we seem to have forgotten: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The line forms on the left for all the sinless.
DONALD J. MCNAMARA
LAS VEGAS
