On the same day the Associated Press reports that funding for the Yucca Mountain repository under the Democrat-controlled Congress is the lowest it’s been in years, “likely causing yet more delays in opening” it, Nevada Appeal columnists Carolyn Tate and Maizie Harris Jesse - who normally don’t weigh in much on political issues, had this to say:
“Yucca Mountain keeps getting funds for dumping nuclear waste, no matter how strong the rhetoric is. Nevada could solve all its infrastructure woes and send us checks as well (an Alaska-like deal) by going along with this and taxing the hell out of every entity that ‘dumps on us.’ With all the technology we have, and are going to keep getting, we think within a few years, the ‘waste’ problem will be solved, and we won’t need to be taxed for anything, i.e., gas, roads, anything. Work on it.”
I secretly suspect the opinion of Tate and Jesse runs a lot deeper and a lot wider in Nevada than the powers-that-be would care to admit, polls and political posturing notwithstanding.
The big question is whether or not Nevada can still even negotiate for any kind of significant financial benefits in return for accepting the repository. It may well be that ship has sailed. The feds and nuclear industry may have concluded that they’ll be able to shove Yucca down Nevada’s throat without giving us a dime. It may be that Nevada’s steadfast opposition and legal foot-dragging over the years means the opportunity to make a good deal has past. If so, and if Nevada gets the dump with no benefits, we’ll all be able to thank our wonderfully enlightened elected officials.
Which is really the point of this. GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his position on this issue; it’s a states rights matter. Nevada shouldn’t be forced to accept nuclear waste from the other states. It should be something the state’s citizens voluntarily agree to.
And for a matter this important, such a decision shouldn’t be left to a handful of elected officials. Especially since we know elected officials, often influenced by big-dollar special interests and political self-interest, don’t always come down on the same side of an issue as the people. Term limits and the Gibbons Tax Restraint initiative are just two examples which immediately come to mind.
Therefore, Yucca Mountain should be put before the people of Nevada as a referendum.
Nevada supposedly needs a mountain of new tax revenue for schools and roads and all manner of other infrastructure needs. I don’t buy it, but for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s true. Now what if the citizens of Nevada were given a choice between accepting the nuclear repository in exchange for that mountain of cash from outside state interests, how would they vote?
What if revenue from Yucca Mountain allowed us to build all the roads we need to alleviate traffic congestion in Clark County without a dime of it coming out of Nevada taxpayers’ pockets? What if Yucca Mountain revenue enabled us to build all the schools we’d ever need? What if Yucca Mountain revenue could build us new prisons and homeless shelters? What if Yucca Mountain revenue allowed us to cut our gas taxes, our property taxes and our sales taxes? What if, indeed?
Sure, the polls today keep saying Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain. But those polls are taken without the context of a fair exchange. Without knowing if, let alone what, benefits Nevada citizens would get in exchange, is it any wonder the people keep saying, “No way, Jose”?
The biggest problem with accepting new revenue from Yucca is…the Legislature. If you give those people a million dollars, they’ll spend a million dollars. If you give them two million dollars, they’ll spend two million dollars. If you give them a gazillion dollars, they’ll find a way to spend a gazillion dollars. So even this hypothetical Yucca deal shouldn’t be considered until some serious spending restraints are placed on the Legislature, including a 2/3 super-majority requirement to pass any budget which exceeds the rate of population growth plus inflation.
Much like Social Security at the national level, at one time even the mere thought of discussing in a public forum the notion of accepting Yucca Mountain in exchange for significant financial compensation would have brought down a ton of bricks on you. Times change. So do opinions. Perhaps it’s time to rethink our thinking about this.
Posted on December 18th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
I agree 100% that Nevada should negotiate with the Federal Government for significant financial compensation in return for accepting the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.
If Harry ‘Hands Up’ Reisd were to be paid, (under the table..of course) he would support the Yucca Mountain project! He simply cannot pass up a buck if ‘paid ‘correctly.
It has been well established that the Fed., NRC, and Nuke Industry have no intention of “Giving” Nevada a dime directly for Yucca.
There may be some temporary construction jobs, perhaps a few permanent jobs for security, but no direct payments.
Remember, the Fed. Gov. claims that THEY own 97+% of Nevada, and they don’t intend to pay for the use of their own land!
This despite the “Equal Footing” clause of our constitution, and that the Fed. never bought the public lands as required to “own” them.
If Nevada had not copped out of the “Sage-Brush Rebellion” a few years ago, or the “Nevada Plan for Public Lands” had been adopted by our legislature, we might stand a chance of squeezing the Fed. or Nuclear Industry for a few pennies.
As it is, even a potential public bribe is not a decent reason to make Nevada a wasteland.
You may also want to keep in mind that efforts are already being made to expand the size of Yucca beyond the original design.
Yucca is like taxation, your not going to see it shrink, and your not going to see any real direct benefit from it.
So why is it that no one asks the residents of the SITUS county? The thing isn’t in Clark county, where all the money goes to, it’s in Nye county, where we have no real problem with it, so long as we start collecting our share, including the jobs.
What a novel concept.
Tate and Jesse are misinformed–Alaska deals were made between the state and private companies, not the federal government. Since when has the U.S. government reliably kept its word? Many deals were made with New Mexico and the feds on the WIPP project, and New Mexico ended up disappointed. We stood no chance of “benefits” then, and we don’t now. The best shot for Nevada is to tax each and every cask of high-level nuke waste that comes over our roads and rails. As for a popular vote by citizens, that would be a waste of time since Congress has already spoken. Against us.
Shelia is right-on! Sorry to say Linda and Sandy, but Congress would be under no obligation to keep the ‘quo pro’ coming once we agreed to be a nuclear dumping ground. Any change in Administration or congressional leadership and we could see those funds disappear, and as the blog’s author stated, if the state’s govenment got $5m in the deal, they would increse spending $5m…and when Congress cut the funds, where would we be? $5m in the hole.
[…] The big question is whether or not Nevada can still even negotiate for any kind of significant financial benefits in return for accepting the repository. It may well be that ship has sailed. … GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his position on this issue; its a states rights matter…. source: Rethinking Our Thinking on Yucca, MUTH’S TRUTHS […]