Letters to the Editor
More recent data needed for flood mitigation project
I am writing to comment on the proposed flood mitigation project that was covered in the PV Times in July of 2026 (and with subsequent updates).
First of all, I applaud the Nye County Department of Emergency Management for being selected by FEMA for a local flood risk reduction project. But I have questions about the overall effectiveness of the project. The notice released by Nye County about the project indicates that of the 6.1-acre project area, only .1 acres fall within the .2 percent (500-year) floodplain.
This project would include an almost fifth of a mile of flood wall, removal of sidewalk, relocation of a dumpster enclosure, and construction of a 24 x 48 culvert. It seems to me that if this area is subject to severe flooding, as indicated by the county release, then the first step in this project should be to study the project area. A hydrologic and hydraulic study of the area would help identify any changes to local flood risk, and help validate the proposed solution.
The current FIRM panels for the town of Pahrump are from 2015. There is undoubtedly better data and modeling methods developed in the past 11 years that would help the county to verify that this project, as designed, is the correct approach.
Jason Farrell
Reader disputes information in letter on 14th Amendment
In response to the letter from Mr. Breitenbach on Sept. 30:
Mr. B seems not to have read or understood the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It clearly states, to me and I believe any rational person, that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. You can look at it as one definition of citizenship. SCOTUS recently affirmed this in the Trump v. Barbara case. The 14th Amendment also defines naturalization as a path to citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. I don’t think any of the original framers of the Constitution were alive then. So what they intended is irrelevant to that amendment.
However, I don’t know what to make of Mr. B’s statement that “recently our Supreme Court unjustly ruled that a baby born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen.” He provides no argument at all for that conclusion. I believe that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what a law or the Constitution means when there is any doubt, as may be thrown up by various cases. If you are going to say that they acted unjustly, you should support that conclusion with some argument.
Now, Mr. B also refers to a U.S. senator that flew to a foreign country to help release an illegal alien. I believe he refers to Abrego Garcia and Senator Chris Van Hollen.
In 2019 Garcia was given a “withholding of removal status”, while his case was processed. After that time, he was a legal resident of the U.S.
His legal process was lengthy, involving many court hearings and actions by the DOJ, see Wikipedia for details. If I may comment, it seems to me that many attorneys would have had their income tax status raised to the highest withholding bracket (if not already there), at taxpayers’ expense. Anyway, on May 22, 2026 Federal District Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed the case by the DOJ, citing evidence of vindictive prosecution.
There is no credible evidence that Garcia was a member of a MS13 gang. Hope I have shed a little light on the facts of these cases.
George Tucker
