LETTERS: Yucca could fund plenty in Nevada

To the editor:

I find it interesting that political leaders are so intent on taxing Nevada’s citizens when an opportunity to expand our economy exists without taking another dime from our fellow residents. Yucca Mountain is again in the conversation (“Could Nevadans ever allow nuclear dump?” March 22 Review-Journal).

Yucca Mountain represents a great way for the state of Nevada to become a hub for technology and economic growth. Alaska is flush with cash and its citizens enjoy a very low tax environment because its political leaders allowed the oil pipeline to be built with sanctions and rewards for its citizens. Why doesn’t Nevada make a similar deal with the states that so desperately need a place to store their nuclear waste?

Take water as an example. Part of the annual runoff of water in the Columbia River system could easily be diverted into the Colorado River system, and all the users of the Colorado would benefit. This would be a permanent solution to the water shortage during drought conditions. The best part is it would not cost anything like the billions proposed for a pipeline that would drain groundwater from western Utah and eastern Nevada. It would be superior to any desalinization projects, and it would replenish lakes Mead and Powell.

Nevada has a supposed problem with education funding. If reform is not going to happen, then let’s force the states that have nuclear power stations to give us money for our education system. Tourism is our bread and butter, so let’s quit dragging our feet and build a state-of-the-art train system from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City, with stops in between, including Las Vegas. We could even expand the monorail to the airport and downtown, with spurs to the northwest and Henderson. The technological opportunities are endless with the study of nuclear power at a research center at Yucca Mountain. Then tie in all the related industries, and you have a whole new economic factor going forward.

The states that use nuclear power would gladly pay us for our cooperation, so why not take their money, instead of taxing our state into bankruptcy? Imagine the possibilities. The Legislature would never again have to fret over funding for anything. The citizens would be able to find good-paying jobs all over the state. The science is pretty clear that nuclear waste can be stored safely; why are we going to allow another state to reap the benefits that Nevada already has an inside track to benefit from?

Let the negotiations begin, and stop wasting millions of dollars trying to stop the Yucca Mountain Project.

NICHOLAS P. GARTNER

HENDERSON

Science, not politics

To the editor:

Rep. Cresent Hardy’s suggestion that the Yucca Mountain issue be reopened for discussion should be welcomed (“Could Nevadans ever allow nuclear dump?” March 22 Review-Journal). However, that discussion should have happened before billions of dollars were spent and promises and assessments were made to nuclear operations for storing their nuclear waste.

Now a review is in order, and we should abide by scientific evaluation, rather than political evaluation. A plan to get more Colorado River water for Las Vegas as a trade-off would be an excellent move. Regardless, it makes more safety sense to store nuclear waste at one major site than at dozens of nuclear plants, where it is now being stored.

ALLEN D. STRUNK

LAS VEGAS

National Parks ‘protection’

To the editor:

Regarding Jim Boone’s letter (“More national parks,” March 17 Review-Journal), here we go again with the environmental lobby wanting to lock up more land. Mr. Boone claims that ranchers will be able to run their cattle on the land. Why doesn’t he check with the ranchers in Baker, where Great Basin National Park is located, and ask them how well that promise was kept to them?

My family was going to the Great Basin area long before it was a national park. The main campground was fine if you liked neighbors. But if you wanted seclusion, you could go to the surrounding creeks for primitive camping and be pretty much alone. Now the park service has blocked off all access to those sites, by building walls, putting large rocks on the road, etc., and installing its own version of “primitive” camping. One section has about eight to 10 campsites on either side of the road. The sites are so close that if your neighbor passes wind, it will ruffle your tent.

Why don’t these people clamoring for more national parks go to the largest wilderness areas on the planet, the Arctic and Antarctica, and leave the rest of us alone?

ROBERT E. PRIBILA

LAS VEGAS

Pool moratorium

To the editor:

For years, there have been requests for a moratorium on building new homes and apartment complexes because of concern about the region’s water supply. Obviously, there’s too much money or political clout involved to make that happen.

An easier solution might be a moratorium on swimming pools. It could also be beneficial for our water supply if the Las Vegas Valley Water District paid homeowners to remove their present pools. With all the water that is lost to evaporation, there could be a huge water savings with this simple solution.

JACK OLIVER

LAS VEGAS