He Probably Voted For Bush Jr. Both Times

Yesterday, I met the nicest man... with the most dangerous of beliefs.

This man was a retired miner who's views have been shaped by his career, mass media, and his religion. He wasn't out of the ordinary. Which is exactly what makes his perspective so dangerous.

He has a “theory.” (That's right, he calls it a “theory.”) His “theory” boils down to this;

“God gave us coal so that we could burn it.”

By that argument, pretty much everything is here for us to exploit. By that argument, it almost sounds like God wanted us to be criminals. By that argument, God gave us women, so it is not only our right, but our duty to rape them... HELL NO!

We must treat everything with respect – if for no other reason than we have to always consider the consequences of our actions.

His “theory” reminds me of what white people thought back when they found all of the dead Indians and deserted villages back when Europeans first came to the Americas. From what I read; many of these white people believed that God had cleared out the Natives so that there would be room for Caucasian expansion.

Of course, we now know that these massive Native deaths from disease were simply an unforeseen consequence of European travel. God did not want to kill all those Native Americans. Europeans just simply didn't understand the consequences of their actions. And maybe they didn't care.

I hate to say this about the man I just met, because he was so nice to us; but “theories” like this are a sign of ignorance, laziness, and greed... Which means he is human. In fact, his view of the world is common – maybe even the majority view.

The truth is that people are willing to believe anything to get what we want – especially if we think we can get it right now, with minimal effort. Callousness and self-deception are just a part of the human condition. We're selfish. Because sometimes being selfish works.

Of course, there are often consequences to being selfish. Sometimes there are very harsh consequences. Consider your options well. Remember to ask yourself what you really want. And keep asking yourself. Ultimately; your future, the future of our country, our civilization, and even humanity is at stake.

It doesn't take that much effort to remember that we have options. If you are cold, you don't have to burn coal. You can wear a sweater. You can burn hydrogen. You can build a passive solar heated home. My Native American ancestors even moved in the winter to lower, warmer elevations.

(Of course, we also have options for electrical generation.)

Humans have complex brains that we can use to think about the consequences of our actions and consider alternative actions that suit us better. Most of us didn't stop burning wood because we ran out of wood. The same is true for coal. We simply have neither the right or the duty to burn coal just because it's there.

Coal is not like other minerals. Most other minerals have worked their way up from the depths of the Earth. Coal, on the other hand, was shoved underground from the surface.

There is another “theory,” quite worthy of mention:

“Coal may be underground because it's supposed to be there.”

There is a balance of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere that supports life, including our own.

No matter whether you believe God set things up the way they are, or life achieved a balance on its own over millions of years; you have to admit that the natural world is very special and it is critical that we keep our environment healthy in order to keep ourselves alive.

My (belated) reply to this person is:

Then you ought to also believe that God gave us this world (in a beautiful natural state) for a reason; and by damaging it, we are damaging God's work.

Ramblin' 'bout a Revolution

I occasionally hear exasperated American citizens exclaiming that all of our politicians are corrupt... That we ought to vote them all out, and elect a whole new set of people. I don't think these ordinary citizens realize the implications of what they're saying. Replacing everyone in power with somebody new would be tantamount to a revolution. Do they want a revolution? Well... of course, nobody wants the violence. But almost every ordinary citizen would like our government and economic systems to function far better. I guess it depends on what you consider a revolution to be.

If there is a fundamental change in how a government works, that could also be considered a revolution.

Although I am not a historian, I would say there have been three “revolutions” in the past century in the US. Actually, there were two revolutions and one counter-revolution. The revolutions occurred during the Great Depression and during and after the Viet Nam war. The counter revolution started with the election of Ronald Reagan – and continues to this day.

Whatever your opinion of these revolutions, they have been times when a pronounced portion of the population wanted fundamental change. That time has come again.

In most Americans' opinion; our political, economic, and mass information systems are in an advanced stage of dysfunction. And the politicians who do want to fix things have run up against roadblocks at every turn. For many, despair has set in. But, hopelessness won't get us anywhere.

Let's face it. Fixing our systems will require far more effort than going to vote once every few years. Running a democracy requires constant diligence from the people. To fix things, we will have to learn how to become effective citizens. And in case you hadn't noticed, most of us are not effective citizens now. Apathy slowly kills a functional democracy. And with global warming, we are now learning (the hard way) that the cost of apathy is far greater than we ever imagined.

Change is a survival tactic.

We need extraordinary fundamental changes to our systems – now – or our country, and maybe even our civilization will weaken greatly, or even collapse.

Nonetheless, even if you could vote in a whole new set of representatives, it might not make a significant difference – if the candidates aren't significantly different. And they aren't. The election process has been effectively designed to favor the status quo. The two parties exist to keep the two parties in power – not solve problems. And the election process has been effectively designed to weed out those candidates with a conscience.

Consequently, our political system has an inherent inertia that was designed into it to keep those who are rich and powerful in control. Those on top don't want change. This is a critical flaw in our systems. The world is changing, and our systems can't adapt.

Consider the control which big business has over our own American political system:

The industry that makes more money always has more money to contribute to political campaigns than smaller new industries that have better ideas. Consequently, our government systematically functions to maximize big business profits by stifling innovative competition and maximizing prices to consumers. We see examples of this in the efforts (that got nowhere) to do something about speculators (including the oil industry) driving up oil prices. And we also know something is very wrong when we see that, for 30 years, there have essentially been government implemented roadblocks regularly put up to keep alternative energy on the sidelines. (And don't expect the truly clean energy industries to complain much. They might lose what little help they do get.)

Another example of big bad ideas that keep coming back because big business cares more about profits than people, and the government helps them get away with it; is nuclear power. We all thought we had put this dangerous industry on the shelf. But now, it's back on the table. And why? Not because the nuclear industry is orders of magnitude safer now. No, because there's big money in selling electric power. Still, no one has figured out what to do with all of that nuclear waste. Nonetheless, the nuclear industry sell-outs are willing to tell us anything we want to hear. Hey. “It's all better now.” They've worked out all the glitches... yeah, right.

(However, there is one condition where I would support nuclear power. If the reactors can be designed to run on the nuclear waste that has been accumulating over the past 50 years... That would be great. We could clean up the environment and generate energy too. And apparently, the nuclear industry claims it can be done. But I'm skeptical. I don't think anyone from the nuclear industry is claiming they can presently generate energy without accumulating even more nuclear waste than we already don't know what to do with. Sure, they claim that someday we'll burn nuclear waste. But apparently for now, we'll just have to settle for the same old nuclear technology with a couple bells and whistles. Oh really... I sure hope this nuclear dream technology isn't just another big energy bait-and-switch fantasy (like carbon sequestration) to fool us into accepting the unacceptable.)

Let's face it. We're constantly being lied to – in order to keep huge profits rolling in for established industries. And sadly, bait and switch offers seem to succeed in politics. George Bush promised to do something about global warming back in the 2000 presidential race, and now he's the world's primary impediment to global warming progress. George Bush promised to relieve Americans' tax burden, and now his borrow-and-spend policies have left us with the highest national debt in history. And moreover, the mass media has repeatedly looked the other way when George Bush does wrong.

Why would the mass media look the other way? Why would, for years now, while George Bush is out making mountain bike trails out on his “ranch” (with no cattle), has the press reported it as “clearing brush at his ranch”? Maybe the mass media wants to make him sound more presidential? And why would the mass media want to make George Bush appear more presidential? Of course, because there's something in it for them.

Example:

Both our local Ely Times newspaper and the Las Vegas Review Journal are owned by the Stephens Group. The Stevens Group is also partnered with a number of fossil fuel energy and power generation related companies. Could that lead to a conflict of interest in reporting? The Ely Times has published many editorials against action on global warming. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that this is just a coincidence.

Investors have a term for having your hand in everyone else's pocket. They call it “diversifying your portfolio.” As far as investors are concerned, this is an admirable trait. Which could mean that this trait's consequences are intractable problems. For example; why would anyone with money want real change, when that might upset their investment portfolio?

Those who own the mass media have lots of money. Consequently, we should expect the mass media to support the politics which boost their owners' related profits. Therefore, it is inevitable that the mass media will have a conservative slant. It is predictable that NBC (which is owned by General Electric), would promote nuclear power. And it is capitalistic destiny that CNN would back down on global warming news reports when the coal industry started spending big bucks on a “clean coal” ad campaign.

History reminds us that corrupt communists wanted the government to control the press.

Nowadays, corrupt capitalists want the press to control the government.

Either way, the press has been used to control the people.

As an example; this whole right-wing/left-wing thing is all just a mass media distraction. The simple fact is that most citizens of the U.S. generally agree on how we want our systems to work. We want a fair democratic republic that respects minority opinion. We want a just and functional society. We want peace. And we don't want to see starving people on our streets. The real differences aren't right and left – no, they're up and down. The greedy rich are getting even richer, while the poor and middle class are getting poorer. All the while, the environment inches closer and closer to collapse.

It is time to ask why we should think in terms that are so expedient for the owners and advertisers of mass media.

It is time to think more clearly.

There are those who would frame our society's technological choices as a struggle between the economy and the environment. Yet our struggle has never been, and will never be between the economy and the environment. The economy and the environment go together. In fact, the economy is just a subset of the environment. Think about it; if we destroy our only natural home for the human species, it is bound to detrimentally effect the economy.

We've been taught economics wrong.

It's not about money. Money is only paper.

It's not necessarily about jobs. Those who work in sweat shops have jobs.

And it's not necessarily about growth. For the earth is a finite size, and cannot grow.

Improved economic thinking should be about wealth – true wealth.

And true wealth is that which keeps you healthy and happy.

Clean air and water are some of the necessities to keep us all healthy and happy.

A just society keeps us healthy and happy.

Political systems that can respond to change can keep us healthy and happy.

Corporations that do the right things keep us healthy and happy.

And healthy forests keep us healthy and happy.

Think about it. The act of making paper for money from forests is only practical if you can use that paper money to buy time out in the forest.

Our goals are misdirected.

What we need is a revolution of good ideas.

Surprisingly, most of those good ideas have already been thought up. It is only the inertia of our political system that has kept these good ideas from being implemented. Hilary Clinton said during the presidential campaign that “Washington is the place good ideas go to die.” Unfortunately, she didn't map out how to fix that problem. But I think we all know that it will take substantial fundamental changes in how Washington works. Our politicians cannot change Washington on their own. They will need millions of us pushing for real change. It will take a peaceful revolution - which, of course, will require peace.

For a couple of decades now, wise people have been trying to tell us there is a better way. The time has come when we can no longer ignore them.

Check out work by:

Paul Hawkin – Blessed Unrest

Amory Lovins – Rocky Mountain Institute

L. Hunter Lovins – Natural Capitalism

Jeremy Rifkin – The Hydrogen Economy

And Now... The Hydrogen Economy

Great news; it just got a whole lot easier and cheaper to make hydrogen from water and convert that hydrogen to electricity with a fuel cell.

Technology Review has reported that “Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.” ... “Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst ... which is easy and cheap to make, (that) could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.”

Other scientists are raving about this discovery. One even goes so far as to say that for solar power; “this is probably the most important single discovery of the century."

On top of that, Gizmag has reported that Australian scientists have discovered a much cheaper way to build a fuel cell, utilizing a polymer cathode (instead of platinum).

It looks like the hydrogen economy has finally arrived... if we welcome it.

There is potential here to live totally off the grid. Which must scare the hell out of the fossil fuel industry. You know they will do everything they can to suppress this technology.

For thirty years now, the fossil fuel industry has sucked up billions and billions of dollars in subsidies in the U.S., while politically starving sustainable energy generation. With trillions of dollars at stake, that is not about to change.

The Wall Street Journal has reported; “Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a vote on legislation to rein in speculation in the energy markets, instead calling for energy votes that would expand domestic petroleum production and more nuclear power development.” Where's the help for sustainable energy? Nowhere.

There is even a good chance sustainable energy generation might lose what tax breaks they do have. Talk about pulling the rug out from under the best ideas just when they're needed the most. This isn't an accident. And it's been happening ever since Ronald Reagan was elected on the premise of reducing big government. (Of course, he didn't tell us he wanted to get rid of the best parts of government – like alternative energy development.)

You might have expected someone in the mass media to have reported on the suppression of alternative energy sometime in the past 30 years. But no, they've been too busy making millions every time some company from the fossil fuel industry ran an ad campaign to green-wash their image of greedy corporatocracy. And as long as the money keeps pouring in, the mass media has no intentions of telling the whole truth about the influence of the fossil fuel industry. The whole truth is that many have known for decades that our economy and our environment are in big trouble - as a result of these irresponsible corporations' control over our government, our media, and our minds.

When it comes to the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, George Bush has used China's polluting ways as an excuse to ignore sustainable energy generation. But even China has decided to invest in renewables. The BBC has reported; “China's rapid investment in low carbon technologies has catapulted the nation up the global renewable energy rankings, a report shows ... (they are) second only to Germany.” So, has George Bush changed his mind now? Of course not, he's an oil man. China was only an excuse.

Is John McCain any better? He claims to be. But so did George Bush, back when he was running for president in 2000.

Back in June, John McCain changed his position on offshore drilling for oil. He now wants to ignore all environmental concerns and drill it all. Not long after his change of heart, John McCain received some big checks from oil executives. This ain't no coincidence!

Barrack Obama has recently published and ad remarking about John McCain's ties to the fossil fuel industry. Click here to see it.

For more information on John McCain's ties to lobbyists. Click here.

So, now for the bad news. The technology to ween ourselves off of expensive, polluting, and climate changing fossil fuels has arrived. But our own government has been influenced into fighting the development of these technological advances almost every step of the way. Follow the money...

What this will mean is that we will continue to pay price gouging prices for fossil fuels, our economy and environment will suffer possibly unrecoverable blows, and other countries industries will further leapfrog ahead of us – if we allow this happen.

But... If we insist our elected leaders support renewable energy - really insist on real action, maybe they will listen. So far, Republicans are just paying us lip service. And the mass media won't report this. Stop watching. When mass media revenues start to drop, we'll see a far more objective mass media. Until then, they'll keep telling us lies.

The American people have the power to make change for the better, if we use our power. There are hundreds of millions of us. We're angry. We want renewable, sustainable energy. And we want it now!

Witnessing Glacial Melting

I had to go look. I had to see for myself just how bad it really is. I wanted to personally experience the effects of global warming on the Arctic. I went to Alaska. I visited some of the glaciers there. And, without a doubt, the problem is very serious.

The world has already changed, right before our eyes. And it continues to change even more.

In the area I visited, 98 percent of the glaciers have shrunk... Yes, 2 percent have grown. But this is because of global warming too. A warmer ocean has led to more evaporation, and therefore more snowfall in some areas.

Of the glaciers I visited, all of them have melted significantly. The main glacier we went to see, Northwestern glacier, was a mere shadow of it's former self. One hundred years ago, it had stretched for miles into the ocean. Now, it barely reached a few feet into the water – and that ice was melting fast. In fact, I left my video recorder on continuously while we were there, because ice was almost continuously calving while we were watching.

(The photo shows glaciers in the distance. All of the water in the picture was covered by hundreds of feet of ice a century ago. The video I took is of an ice fall, a form of glacier calving that is falling down the side of the mountain for thousands of feet. This is what happens when a tidal glacier starts melting up the mountain. This is ice melting off of land. This is what sea level change looks like. This is what coastal flooding looks like. It's not a question of when the seas will rise any more. It's now a question of how much.)

As our boat was first entering the bay, you could see where the glacier had once ended a hundred years ago. The pile of rocks known as it's terminal moraine was underwater, but it reached high enough stop ocean swell. From that point, you couldn't even see the glacier. From that point, it was still almost a half an hour's travel to reach where the glacier ends now.

A hundred years ago, this glacier stretched for over a mile across the bay. It was 400 feet high. And it flowed for over 7 miles out into the ocean. Now, that is all gone. Gone!

Our ship captain pointed out to us that during the 15 years he had been coming out to visit this glacier, he had seen it shrink significantly. I too, felt as if I were witnessing it shrinking before my eyes. The experience was overwhelming.

The truth is so self evident that we are in big trouble that it seems hard to believe that there is any controversy. The Earth's environment is changing. That may be a good thing 2 percent of the time. But, 98 percent of the time the results will be horrific for humanity.

Shrinking glaciers are a sign.

If we ignore the signs, we will have to bear the brunt of the consequences.

The time to act responsibly was 30 years ago.

We won't be getting out of this unscathed.

The balance of life on Earth has already suffered.

People have already died (from extreme weather due to global warming).

The situation is now beginning to become desperate.

For some, it's already too late.

There's even a possibility that it's already too late for our civilization.

The longer we wait – the longer it's business as usual, the worse the consequences will likely be. And this is happening in our lifetime.

Meet Al Gore / The Real Bush and Cheney

There has been a wildfire raging in the mountains behind our home for almost two weeks now. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if there weren't so many dead white fir (pine) trees up there - set to burn as soon as conditions became bad enough.

But, this area has seen years of drought. And the bark (pine) beetles have killed a third of the trees in some areas. In a way, this was just a disaster in the making... And what is responsible? We can't ignore global warming. The effects of climate change have been brutal and continue to get worse.

There are some people who want to ignore the effects of global warming. But I can't. The forest behind my home is on fire.
---------------------
If you think you know who Al Gore is from what you've heard on TV; you're likely wrong. If you haven't heard his speeches, please get to know Al Gore. This is one of the most inspirational speeches I have ever heard.



"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet," Al Gore said in this speech. "Every bit of that's got to change." For the first minute, Al Gore thanks a few people, but it's well worth the wait.

If you don't have a fast enough internet connection click here to read about his speech.

Al Gore was also on Meet the Press. You can watch his interview - click here.

To see Al Gore's update to An Inconvenient Truth - click here.

Once you see these videos, it becomes so much more apparent how much we've really lost in the past 8 years.

In contrast; George Bush has viscously insulted every responsible country (and person) on the planet at the G8 summit. Bush ended the meeting saying "Goodbye, from the world's biggest polluter." And then he punched at the air.

Also in contrast; a smoking gun has been found that shows, on paper, that Dick Cheney has been responsible for the suppression of evidence that global warming will harm us.

Longest Walk 2 Reaches Washington!

Today's the big day.

The Longest Walk 2 has made it all the way, walking across the nation. They were scheduled to walk to the White House this morning.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

We in Ely, and the people of the country thank you.

You took many of our messages with you to Washington.

You represent a nation of people who have supported you.

Today, may your voices be heard.

We all know the attitudes of the people who run this country.

We know how they feel about the earth... they wish to dominate it.

But, we are only a part of the earth.

We must learn how to live as a part of the system of life.

And Native peoples have a slightly better comprehension of this fact of life.

Today, may your voices be heard.

There are those who believe that they are the voice of the people.

Or, at least they want us to believe it.

Some of them even believe they are above the law.

But no one is above the laws of nature.

Most people realize that, but some people don't care.

Unfortunately, the cost of apathy is far greater than we ever imagined.

Today, may your voices be heard.

Fools And Your Money

In 2007, parts of Nevada were declared “Disaster Areas” – due to drought. That drought was the most severe in the Southwest in its 100 year historical record... But this wasn't what got the mass media's attention. The big story was how Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, was at the lowest water levels in 40 years... Of course, Las Vegas still had plenty of water; but someday, they to might have to deal with a drought disaster.

Southern Nevada Water Authority's way of dealing with this impending crisis was to bring back the watergrab – of Lincoln and White Pine Counties' groundwater.

SNWA had tried this watergrab scheme back in the 90's – but were stopped. Even the people of Las Vegas wouldn't put up with it. The act was just unacceptable. It was seen as destroying your neighbors, so that you can be richer. It was seen as destroying an ecosystem larger than some of the smaller states, to keep the big bucks coming into Las Vegas.

So, SNWA gave up on the watergrab... for a while. But the drought, and the realization that Global warming is beginning to significantly effect the Southwest's climate gave them a new excuse. The new excuse for the watergrab boils down to this: Something has to be done about Global warming. Therefore, SNWA will take water from the rest of the State.

Of course, this makes no practical sense. Taking water from a drought stricken area to support growth in another drought stricken area will only make things worse overall in the long run.

The department of Agriculture has published a study that shows “Global warming in the West will likely get worse in the next 25 to 50 years, with intensified drought, continued declines in annual mountain snowpacks, and about a 20 percent reduction in runoff in Colorado and the Great Basin.”

The outlook isn't good. A 20 percent reduction of the flow of the Colorado River must sound pretty frightening to those who profit off of growth in Las Vegas. But what the media in Las Vegas often ignores is that the drought also effects the Great Basin. That's right, Las Vegas isn't the only place at risk. The rest of Nevada is even worse off. And Las Vegas should still care about that.

The valleys of the Central Great Basin may appear somewhat barren. But they are full of life. A study by the Desert Research Institute has shown that the Mojave Desert absorbs comparable amounts of greenhouse to temperate forests. Deserts inhale carbon dioxide at a far greater rate then expected. The valleys of Nevada hold very important ecosystems capable of counteracting Global warming.

If we allow the watergrab, we will allow SNWA to kill off vast swaths of old growth desert. Which, of course, will make Global warming worse. Which, of course, will further complicate Las Vegas' water predicament. It seems that SNWA doesn't really care that much about Global warming after all. But they should.

Global warming has already begun to effect far more than the Western U.S. The number of reported tornadoes in half of this year has exceeded the 10 year average for an entire year. There has been flooding in the Midwest. There have been hundreds of fires in California. This Spring saw Cyclone Nargis devastate Myanmar, where almost 80,000 people died. And scientists predict a 50/50 chance of the North Pole losing it's ice cap this summer.

It has become imperative that we do everything within our power to stop Global warming.

Yet, the scientific community has known about Global warming for well over 50 years. So, why has it been so difficult to do something about it?... The answer lies in our economic system – which is based upon unbridled greed. Maybe it isn't just a coincidence that Global warming coincides with explosive concentration of wealth for a few? Maybe it isn't just a coincidence that Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year while spending millions on global warming skeptic propaganda? And moreover, maybe the corporatist effort to privatize everything, including water, isn't good for the environment either?

Corporatism without standards, without boundaries, without laws; becomes a race for the bottom – a stampede towards corporate anarchy. You may have heard of the term “Disaster Capitalism.”

The fact is; those at the top of the power structure are using perceived disasters as opportunities to increase their wealth and power. Our system forces the “captains of industry” to act like pirates. These industry leaders, and corrupt politicians are nefariously implementing policies that would never be passed during less stressful times.

It looks like the drought is the disaster SNWA has been waiting for to scare people into allowing the watergrab.

By Nevada law, the water SNWA covets can't be sold at a profit. So, on the surface, it would seem there isn't a profit motive for taking the water. But remember; Enron didn't drill or refine natural gas. Enron didn't generate power or own power lines. Yet Enron made a multi-billion dollar killing delivering electric power. Very likely, someone has already figured out a way to siphon off profits from “delivering” the water.

Even so, there are those in Las Vegas who would pay any price for more water.

Any price?... Apparently, we're willing to pay any price for oil right now. And America's economy is suffering greatly for it.

We have to remember that SNWA executives don't really care how much the water will cost. The residents of Southern Nevada will ultimately pay for it all. Could it be that SNWA executives don't care if the watergrab is a bad investment?

One of the main reasons the pipeline network is such a bad investment is because it cannot be built incrementally – as needed. To reduce environmental damage, SNWA needs to take water from over a vast area. Which means the whole Groundwater “Development” Project has to be completed to be useful. This means the commitment of billions of dollars – and likely, billions more for cost overruns.

And what happens if Las Vegas doesn't grow as expected? This could happen. Las Vegas' economy is heavily dependent upon the price of oil. And the price of visiting and shipping goods to Las Vegas is skyrocketing. The mortgage crisis has shown us that Las Vegas' economy is not recession proof. There is a possibility that this pipeline could be built to support growth that just won't happen.

And what happens if the expected water isn't there? The USGS estimates that there is groundwater in the Central Great Basin, but they never drilled any wells. Moreover, even if there is water to be taken; there is no guarantee the water will be drinkable. There are a number of oil wells in the Central Great Basin. Which means that there is more than just water underground here. Once the water starts pumping, it could become contaminated with oil.

There is one more great risk SNWA is taking with the watergrab. The desert is a very fragile environment. Water is the most important resource here. In fact, water is the limiting factor of life in the desert. Deputy General Manager of SNWA, Kay Brothers said; “We recognize that our efforts to reduce Southern Nevada's reliance upon the drought-plagued Colorado River cannot come at the expense of Nevada's environment.” What if the Federal Government holds SNWA to that statement? The blatantly obvious truth is that SNWA cannot pull a river of water out of a place that has no rivers without consequences. Those consequences could include turning the Central Great Basin into a giant dust bowl. The Federal Government someday may not allow that.

These and other risks make the watergrab a very risky project. Which makes one wonder why SNWA executives are so committed to gambling with billions of Southern Nevada's dollars. Aren't there alternatives? Yes... Of course, there's conservation. But let's assume that eventually Las Vegans will learn to conserve water. What else?

There's desalination. Currently there are 15,000 desalination plants worldwide generating between 10 and 13 billion gallons of fresh water per day. For SNWA to claim that desalination is not practical is almost laughable. Moreover, the price of desalination just keeps getting cheaper. The company Siemens has come up with a desalination technology for Singapore that uses half the energy of reverse osmosis. And a University of Ottawa PhD student claims to have developed a prototype desalination system that is 600 to 700 percent more efficient than current technology.

But, SNWA executives don't even want to talk about desalination. Are they privy to some secret technical information about desalination that the rest of us don't know about? I doubt it. If there's anything being kept secret, it's most likely the law of supply and demand. If SNWA makes more fresh water, a greater supply means they won't be able to charge as much.

There is another alternative to the watergrab that is already cheaper than desalination. SNWA could pay to recycle other cities' water in exchange for a bigger allotment of the Colorado River. Presently, desalination is 50 to 400 percent more expensive than water recycling. Which means that SNWA could offer significantly more recycled water in exchange. It would likely be too tempting for other Southwestern cities to pass up on an offer of 50 percent more, or even twice as much water than what they get (and have to treat) from the Colorado River.

There is even more good news. A team of researchers at the University of California, Davis has genetically engineered crop plants that can grow with 70 percent less irrigation water. If SNWA could subsidize the farms that utilize these drought resistant crops, and purchase the unused water, everyone would have enough water.

Unfortunately, we can't expect bureaucrats and executives to make the best decisions. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that snowpack in the Colorado River basin was 122 percent of normal this year. The extra water for Lake Mead will mean that the lake level will drop by only 5 feet... Now think about that. With 22 percent greater than average snow pack, Lake Mead is still dropping? This blatantly shows that Lake Mead's water elevation isn't just an environmental problem. This is also an administrative problem. Bureaucrats are allowing Lake Mead to be drained. And SNWA is opportunistically using this crisis in administration as a propaganda tool for the watergrab.

But why?

Let's consider the price of water. The Southern Utah Spectrum reported the Virgin Valley Water District water at $8,600 an acre-foot. And in Heber Valley, Utah the price is $12,000 an acre-foot. That's far more expensive than what the California Coastal Commission estimates the price of water produced by desalination plants at - $1,000 to $4,000 per acre-foot. One would think the choice is obvious.

But... Let's look at this from a SNWA executives' point of view. Coyote Springs Development has already agreed to pay $5,000 an acre-foot, just to “deliver” their own water from Geyser Ranch (in Lake Valley, Nevada). SNWA has applied for 200,000 acre feet in this watergrab. If we just estimate the gross profits utilizing the Coyote Springs $5,000 an acre-foot price; that calculates out to a billion dollars a year! A BILLION DOLLARS a year!

Nevada Senator Bob Beers has posted, on his blog:

“My idea is to amend federal law to allow the Southern Nevada Water Authority to buy ranches downstream from us on the Colorado River, fallow them, and draw into Nevada their water allotments, through our Lake Mead water intakes, whose capacity is double today's requirements. This plan harms no one, solves Clark County's water shortage, and costs very little compared to the costs already incurred in the earliest stages of sucking Northeastern Nevada's water table dry – much less than costs yet to come. My plan avoids the sure environmental ruin of the current plan, is much cheaper and faster, and is a market solution...

SNWA steadfastly refuses to discuss my idea, or to explain what is wrong with it. I have been advocating this plan for more than a year, with nothing but SNWA’s cold shoulder. The reporter noted, correctly, that my proposal made a lot of sense...

(Later) The reporter explained that she had talked to Pat Mulroy, and my plan wouldn’t work. The reasons were “too complicated” ...

It’s almost as if there are some politically powerful entities out there who SNWA is catering to who would profit from building the pipeline to Northeasten Nevada, and who don’t care if the whole idea is stupid, expensive and environmentally damaging.

By the way, SNWA this week increased their underestimate of the pipeline’s cost to being equivalent to the entire Nevada State Government’s annual general fund. This is double the underestimate from two years ago”

Could it be that the executives (and maybe the board) of SNWA are in on some kind of a scheme? One sure sign of a corrupt bureaucrat is that they are more concerned about their next job than the one they have. The revolving door of government to private careers has been a corrupting influence for decades. To investigate this potential corruption, all we have to do is follow the money. And the pipeline construction monies are the first billions available.

Guess what? The construction money will go to companies that almost entirely exist to secure government contracts to perform work formerly done by the government. Two of the pipeline contractors; CH2M Hill and KBR, have made billions off of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

In case you didn't know; the BBC has reported that “around $23 billion may have been lost, stolen, or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.” Congressman Henry Waxman, who chairs the House Committee on oversight and government reform, has said “It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history.”

CH2M Hill has annual revenues of about $4.5 billion. From 2002 to 2004 CH2M Hill made over $1.5 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if you check their website, CH2M Hill barely even mentions Iraq. Why aren't they bragging? Maybe they have nothing to brag about?

One of the contracts CH2M Hill had in Iraq was to provide support to the Public Works Sector program office. The joint venture oversaw work done on public works and water projects.

A General Accounting Office report shows that by July 2008:

Only 36% of targeted potable water has been achieved.

0% of targeted sewage treatment capacity has been achieved.

Only 50% of repair to dams and canals has been achieved.

And only 8% of land irrigation has been achieved.

In Iraq; gastro-enteritis, brucellosis, hepatitis, and typhoid fever are common among children due to bad drinking water. No wonder that oversight project wasn't mentioned on the CH2M Hill website.

And the other watergrab contractor, KBR (formerly known as Kellogg, Brown, and Root) has been reported (by Rolling Stone magazine) as the “undisputed master of milking the system.”

A former Army civilian official has told the New York Times that when he refused to sign off on more than $1 billion in questionable charges, KBR went over his head. He was suddenly replaced, and the billings were approved.

KBR has dodged paying $500 million in Social Security and Medicare taxes by operating a shell company in the Cayman Islands.

And the Washington Post reports that KBR has been accused of providing contaminated water to U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

You have to wonder; couldn't SNWA executives have picked more reputable partners in this project? You have to wonder; maybe they didn't want to. Maybe, just maybe, these are the perfect partners for a corporate feeding frenzy.

Much of SNWA's money has come from BLM land swaps. What that means is that federal land sales are subsidizing the watergrab. What that means is that; in a way, Nevadans, and the American people will be subsidizing this pipeline.

But, most Nevadans and the American people have no say concerning the pipeline. Doesn't that sound like taxation without representation?

SNWA has approximately a billion dollars – that could be much more wisely spent than on a pipeline into the desert. Smaller projects; such as desalination plants, water recycling, and support of low water use crops could be incrementally accomplished, as needed, to support the population of Southern Nevada.

Some of SNWA's money could even be used to help out with the immediate financial crisis in the State of Nevada. There are things Nevadans need much more than a watergrab.

But we won't be getting anything if we don't take back our power.

Organize.

Las Vegas should consider firing their SNWA executives.

Nevadans should force real reform of Nevada water law.

And White Pine and Lincoln counties may wish to consider secession from Nevada.

For if White Pine and Lincoln counties were a part of Utah, Nevada water law would not apply – and the watergrab would be over.