Negotiating on Yucca Mountain

I often enjoy Guy Farmer's column, despite his liberal leanings. But his May 10 column regarding Yucca Mountain simply must be corrected.

He quotes me as saying, "I'm absolutely convinced there's no significant risk (from nuclear waste)." Those are his words in parentheses. The correct ending was "from the storage of spent nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain."

I recently visited Yucca Mountain to see for myself the science that is going on there. It would be interesting to know if Mr. Farmer has visited the facility. The risk of continuing to store spent fuel at low security sites all over this country is far greater than the risk of storage at Yucca Mountain.

According to Mr. Farmer, my position is "... if political rape is inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it." Wrong! Several years ago, a Democrat-controlled Congress effectively condemned Yucca Mountain to become the nation's repository. Refusing to negotiate some payment would be like refusing to negotiate a payment if the state of Nevada condemned your house to build a freeway. You don't have to agree with it, but the Constitution guarantees that you are entitled to just compensation.

Nevada won't get compensation if we don't negotiate for it. Mr. Farmer says 70 percent of Nevadans oppose the repository, perhaps. But in the most recent poll I have seen, 76 percent supported negotiating for benefits.

And Guy touts that the "political equation (in Washington, D.C.) has changed." Really? We have five - that's right five - votes in Congress. To win, we must get more than half of the 535 members of Congress to vote with us. Does Guy really believe we are going to convince 268 members to vote to trash the $6 billion already invested? And that 268 members will vote to spend another $6 billion somewhere else, only to meet similar resistance.

The first rule of any political equation is to count the votes - we can count our votes on one hand. If we can win in Congress, why are we spending millions of taxpayer dollars filing lawsuits in the courts?

To refuse to recognize the situation is to bury your head in the sand. It may feel good to ignore reality, but you present a mighty big target. In my opinion, we are about to get kicked in the target.

Most of all I am disappointed at the normally sensible Mr. Farmer's implication that those who don't agree with him are some how corrupt. He uses the phrases: "your checks are in the mail," "most of us recognize a bribe" and "those who are willing to sell out the state of Nevada. ..."

Mr. Farmer, a cursory look at my voting record will clearly show that my position on issues has nothing to do with who has or has not written a check. Indeed, the last session proved my willingness to stand up for my beliefs despite political pressure or deep pockets.

Those of us who have chosen to be in politics are obligated to endure these implications in the name of free speech - we are not obligated to "just lie back and enjoy it."

Lynn Hettrick, a member of the Nevada Assembly since 1993, represents District 39, which includes Douglas County and parts of Carson City and Washoe County.