Editorial: For now, a victory in Yucca fight

Monday, June 28, 2004 | 8:28 a.m.

A war is looming in Congress over the agreement on next year's budget for Yucca Mountain. For now, however, Nevada has won an important victory. For that matter, the victory belongs to the whole nation, as security and safety will be at risk immediately if the go-ahead to open Yucca Mountain is ever granted. Located just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the mountain is the planned site for burying the nation's high-level nuclear waste.

On Friday, in the first major battle over the 2004-2005 Yucca budget, the House voted to authorize only $131 million. This compares to the current-year budget of $577 million and the $880 million the Bush administration is hoping to receive for next year.

Nevada's representatives in the House, Jim Gibbons, R-Reno, Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas and Jon Porter, R-Henderson, lobbied successfully against an amendment by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, which would have added $750 million to the budget. It seems almost paradoxical for representatives to work against money destined for their own state. But Gibbons, Berkley and Porter have our full support as they work to cut every cent possible out of the Yucca budget. Ideally, Congress -- and perhaps a John Kerry administration -- will come to its senses and halt work on this dangerous project. In the meantime, we welcome anything that does the next best thing, which is to slow it down.

The Energy Department says it will now work with the House and Senate to get Yucca's funding for next year restored, which is a highly possible scenario in Washington. The Yucca budget was contained in a larger House energy and water bill, which could yet undergo several revisions. The Senate will vote separately on Yucca Mountain's budget sometime after July 4. Then the House and Senate will appoint a committee to confer on the final number.

If the $131 million stands, the Energy Department says it will have to lay off 1,700 workers at Yucca Mountain, meaning that the dump's planned opening date of 2010 could not be met. In our view, there should never be an opening date, because the mountain's geology will never be adequate protection against the more than 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste planned for burial there. And common sense is all that's needed to understand that transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain will endanger every community along the thousands of miles of rail and highway routes.

Gibbons, Berkley and Porter voted against even the reduced budget, because they do not believe any money should be spent on Yucca. Neither do we.