Gov. Jim Gibbons last week came out all in favor of the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s pipeline project that aims to pump rural groundwater down to thirsty Las Vegas. In a Thursday speech to the Perspective 2008 crowd, Gibbons said Nevada must invest in the in-state groundwater project, and that we must decrease our dependence on the Colorado River as the main source of water for Las Vegas.

Then, in a news conference later that day, Gibbons added that he would not oppose the pipeline project, and that it is “part of the solution” for Southern Nevada.

Now, this was news primarily because Gibbons had previously declared exactly the opposite, and more than once. Review-Journal reporter Henry Brean noted the inconsistency by referring to a story that appeared in the Lahontan Valley News back in February, in which Gibbons said the project “…should be scrapped in favor of building desalination plants on the Pacific Coast,” according to Brean’s story. (Sure enough, a check of the Lahontan Valley News’s website finds an article quoting the governor saying exactly that.)

But Gibbons told Brean that he never said such a thing: ““They didn’t quote me saying that, because I didn’t say that. No, what I said is there may be alternatives that we can look at. I didn’t say we should scrap that project.”

Actually, they did quote the governor saying that. And if there was ever a request for a correction, clarification, or retraction, one is not appended to the story in question on the Lahontan Valley News’s website.

To be honest, we were a little curious ourselves. See, we know of not just one, but at least two times the governor has come out against the project. The first documented occasion was back in February 2007, when the Las Vegas Sun reported that Gibbons had told a meeting in Carson City that the pipeline wasn’t a good idea and shouldn’t be built. At that time, Gibbons and his staff didn’t deny the governor had said it. Instead, his then-Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Robinson said Gibbons’s remarks were taken out of context by two environmentalists attending a meeting, Scot Rutledge of the Nevada Conservation League and Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

Then again, Rutledge and Fulkerson were present at the meeting and heard Gibbons say things such as “The Southern Nevada Water Authority is not going to like what I’m about to say,” and “I’m not sure a pipeline is necessary.”  Robinson was not present at the meeting but was briefed on it later. He’s since left the governor’s employ.

Poor Fulkerson. This marks the second time he’s been snookered by the governor’s pro, con, pro routine on the pipeline. (PLAN and other environmental groups even thanked Gibbons for standing against the pipeline after the Lahontan Valley News story!) “I think we just have to wait another couple of months and see if he has another position. It’s almost comical,” Fulkerson told the Reveiw-Journal for Friday’s story. “I think it shows the lights are on but nobody’s home. I just think it’s a real shame for the state of Nevada.”

We strongly disagree with Fulkerson. It’s not “almost comical.” It’s totally comical.

Anyway, we wanted to get to the truth ourselves, so we asked Gibbons’s press secretary, Ben Kieckhefer about it. Here’s the official word:

The Governor on Thursday stated that he never was against the project and that if a newspaper quoted him saying as such he was misquoted. Instead he has stated that he’s concerned about the ramifications the project will have on Eastern Nevada, both economically and socially. He does believe that the pipeline project should move forward and help diversify the water supply in southern Nevada. He continues to believe that desalination projects are an option to increasing the total water supply, and recently reiterated that belief to SNWA officials.

Now, the cynical among us might take note of the fact that every time he’s “misquoted,” it happens to be in the northern part of the state, which is against the pipeline, and every time he’s accurately quoted (i.e., in favor of the project, albeit reluctantly) it’s in the south, which favors the pipeline. Also, cynics would probably say that, after being “misquoted” once, the governor would take extreme care not to be misunderstood again, assuming he really was misquoted the first time. And finally, the cynical might add, it’s very unlikely that environmentalists would forget Gibbons coming out against the project, as they would have been mighty surprised to hear what they would consider a pro-environmental message from a governor not known for being an environmentalist.

(Funny story: In Congress, Gibbons would revel in his very low ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. One year, an anti-Yucca Mountain vote was included in the grading, which elevated Gibbons from the usual 0 percent to something like a 9 percent. According to a then-aide, a surprised Gibbons wondered how he’d managed to do something an environmental group liked.)

Anyway, even if Fulkerson is flummoxed at Gibbons’s stance(s) on the pipeline, the Southern Nevada Water Authority is not. After his anti-pipeline comments were reported in February, authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said “I am not sure the governor fully understands what’s happening down here.”

But now, clearly, he does: “The important thing is that he has all the information,” says authority Deputy General Manager Dick Wimmer, who briefed Gibbons on the issue. “I think we accomplished that.”

For now, Dick. For now.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: We at Various Things & Stuff are married to an associate at Faiss Foley Warren Public Relations & Government Affairs. The Southern Nevada Water Authority is a client of that firm.)

See original blog post here.