George Olive: Another example of mistrust in NID leadership
Once again, is NID to be trusted? At the April 25 meeting, NID’s general manager surprised attendees with his decision to revise the Raw Water Master Plan.
His presentation was very unusual for NID: an “open and transparent process,” he claimed. He had read a leading book about inclusive processes. The Raw Water Master Plan becomes our primary work, he promised, and NID would be “agnostic to the end solution.”
We were told by one director, “This is a reversal.”
So — the Centennial Dam, as NID’s billion-dollar “solution” to water supply, would be stopped, right? A science-based alternative will be solicited, right? Wrong.
NID continues to spend millions acquiring properties. Instead of a public hearing to hear ideas about the raw water plan, NID’s board president tells us in an op ed (The Union, July 14) how NID will control the plan input: Four working groups — three run by NID; the fourth selected by NID. What a shame.
NID could join the 21st century, spend the $500,000 on an objective water needs assessment. Local hydrologists, water rights experts and ecologists — stakeholders in NID’s decisions — have asked by letter to contribute.
If this Raw Water Master Plan “Trojan Horse” is just a distraction, NID’s leadership has only solidified the mistrust NID has engendered for decades.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.