I read the Ely Times article “12 ideas in new plan to cut Colorado River use” with hope that Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was serious about looking into alternatives to the water-grab pipeline network. But I don't think so now. You see; they left out one very important alternative – the one they're actually planning on doing.
Now, why would SNWA leave out the water grab as an option in this study? Why would they not want to compare the costs of the multi-billion dollar “Groundwater Development Project” to these other ideas?
Maybe SNWA wanted to save money on the study. Since they apparently feel the water grab is such a wonderful idea, maybe they felt it would just be a waste of money to compare it to other ideas. If so, why bother with the study?
Maybe they don't want anyone else calculating how much the pipeline will really cost. Independent estimates have been higher than SNWA has been telling us. Admitting to the true cost of the pipeline network would be so inconvenient.
Maybe they don't want us to compare the water grab to these ideas. It would be so confusing if the water grab didn't turn out to be the best idea.
Maybe this is all a public relations effort. If SNWA can claim they tried to think of everything, then they can claim that the water grab is the only option. Without all the information available to us, we have to rely on the “Authority” to make the final decision.
Maybe SNWA was serious about this study in a different way than they claim. By grouping good ideas with bad, they can make good ideas appear more like hair-brained schemes. Therefore; only the water grab will look like a good idea. How convenient...
Although Bill Rinne, director of surface water resources for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said “All options are still on the table” it appears more likely that they want to table these ideas.
Despite what SNWA wants us to believe, the water grab is not above criticism. If SNWA doesn't want anyone else to examine the water grab, apparently they must have something to hide.