Natomas development, water, sheriff, abortion, Koons

New homes need water

Re “No rush for housing boom in Natomas” (Editorials, March 18): With all the conversation about water conservation, the severe drought, lack of snowpack and low water levels in reservoirs, I’m astounded by the continuing influx of new home construction being slated for the Sacramento area. Folsom, Natomas, Sacramento, Rancho Murieta – all looking to start building thousands of new homes.

Where is the water going to come from for these new homes? Who’s minding the store here? Each city? The county? The state? Or the builders?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Cameron Park restricted the sale of water meters and sewers to builders due to low water levels. Anyone thinking of that today? Or are we just concerned about being able to water two days a week instead of three?

I hardly think that will cover the thousands of new homes that will start being constructed in the next six months.

Should sprawl trump farms?

Before developers were given the Natomas basin in exchange for putting up a cheapo basketball arena, Natomas was known as The Bathtub. When it was noted that floods happen along rivers with old farm-purposed levees, Rep. Doris Matsui got federal money to complete the levees. Our frothing developers should thank all U.S. taxpayers for financing this.

Now we are confronted with a drought as well as changing weather patterns, warmer air, less snowpack, depleted aquifers, rice farmers selling their water allotments to Southern California, and thousands of building permits to pave over more farm and grazing land.

San Jose used to be known for its orchards. Seen one there recently? Orange County was named for its now-vanished citrus farms. How about no more building permits until we get five years of good rain and snowfall? Then we can discuss whether it is a good idea to have suburban sprawl instead of farms.

Desalination not a quick fix

Re “Water, water nowhere” (Letters, March 18): The letter writer’s concern with the drought’s impact on businesses is reasonable. However, economic realities conflict with his claim that increased reliance on desalination could alleviate our water woes if it weren’t for those meddling environmentalists.

Desalination continues to struggle with cost effectiveness. A 2012 study projected that desalinated water would have the highest marginal cost of any alternative water source. That calculation excluded environmental and social externalities, which would likely increase the overall costs. There were 21 desalination plant proposals in the state in 2006; only two had secured funding by 2012. Plant construction and operation costs are unlikely to decrease significantly in the foreseeable future.

Presently, the implementation of desalination is barely feasible at the individual plant level, let alone at the scale necessary to mitigate the drought. In difficult times it is tempting to seek easy answers, but we should make sure our claims hold water.

Kudos to Sheriff Jones

Re “Move on, Sheriff Jones” (Letters, March 18): When Michael Santos is willing to put his life on the line to protect the public, then he may have some credibility.

He proclaims that the ACLU has the sole purpose of protecting the U.S Constitution. The ACLU does not give a care about my family’s safety. Sheriff Scott Jones does. His officers have literally given their lives to protect us. Is the ACLU willing to die in order to keep me safe?

Jones is the voice of many of us who count on him and his department to protect us and solve our neighborhood crimes. Sacramento County is fortunate to be served by an honest and trustworthy sheriff who has the guts to speak out loud.

‘Full’ abortion story misinforms

Re “Women deserve full story on abortion” (Another View, March 18): Marie Leatherby accuses Amy Everitt of spreading misinformation about Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Yet she utterly fails in her attempts to discredit her.

Leatherby cites Psychology Today (which isn’t a scholarly journal) to claim that post-abortion stress syndrome is real. The debunking of this syndrome can easily be found in reputable peer-reviewed journals such as Harvard Review of Psychiatry and Journal of the American Medical Association. She also accuses Everitt of being “biased.” But the executive director of the Sacramento Life Center is not?

I notice Leatherby didn’t address the most damning of Everitt’s claims, that these clinics try to convince pregnant women that abortion causes breast cancer and infertility, and mislead in their advertised services. If this article is any indication of how the clinics are run, I can well believe they are full of misinformation and deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

More on Koons

Re “Koons choice was rubber stamp” (Letters, March 19): Reader Dave Casella’s comment rings true. Previous letters to the editor have suggested that, no matter how ludicrous the art object choice might be, the core issue is that it raises the worldwide visibility of Sacramento. Seems like the wealthy art patron’s goal might instead have been to be able to say, “Look what I did, look what I did!”

This story was originally published March 19, 2015 at 5:01 PM with the headline "Natomas development, water, sheriff, abortion, Koons."