In the interest of transparency and fact, a news release from the Gila Conservation Coalition was published under Editorial, because of questions this editor has.

First off, this editor is not questioning the Attorney General's decision, although inquiring minds would like to know more specifics about why he made his decision. But it is made and accepted.

We don't know how Norm Gaume, P.E., "knows" his explanation of what happened in closed session. Was he somehow present? Did he "accidentally" continue to record the closed session? Does he have a mole on the entity informing him of things that were said?

And this editor is aware that the Gila River is not a wild river, although Allyson Siwik said it is and continues to say it is.

It has 11 diversions functioning on it today. Yes, portions of the river are wild, but not in the agricultural areas along the river. Diversions permit agricultural users to divert their allowable water rights into ditches to irrigate their fields. Do wild rivers have diversions?

And to question another of Siwik's statements, she said the group would spend "hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs."

She also accuses the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity of "saddling taxpayers and water users" with those millions. The taxpayer through the federal government has already seen $66 million set aside for projects or other alternatives. Yes, the users will pay for the exchange costs, but many of the entity members are users and they seem willing to pay for it.

Those who question the costs are more than willing to let that money be spent for "their" projects, but not on ones they do not like.

The members of the entity made it clear they did not wish to spend more than $80 million to $100 million on the first phase of the project to acquire water allocated by the Arizona Water Settlements Act to provide agricultural users their full water rights.

Perhaps in later phases, more millions will be spent as suggested in the proposals. However, the entity has said multiple times that it wants to be self-sufficient and sustainable in its expenditures.

This editor is not an expert on the Open Meetings Act. However, several of the members of the entity have been in positions prior to serving on this board, where they were expected to know the intricacies of the OMA. Might they not have questioned if someone was speaking outside the stated reason for the closed session?

I don't know, and neither do you, the reader. You likely will make up your own mind based on who said what.

As the editor, although I try to always factually report on what people say in meetings (and appreciate corrections), I still sometimes question what they mean by their statements and what they hope to achieve by them.

Does the end always justify the means?