Wrong on tunnels on several levels
Re “Obstructionism will destroy our precious Delta” (Viewpoints, Feb. 2): Robbie Hunter of the State Building and Construction Trades Council is wrong saying Gov. Jerry Brown’s twin tunnel project is the only solution to Delta water issues. Truth is the state has been asked to review more reasonable proposals to replace the existing pumps but has refused because they couldn’t guarantee more water than junior water rights holders in the western San Joaquin Valley currently get.
Hunter is also wrong about the tunnels restoring more natural river flows and making other environmental improvements. He should check what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service had to say about this. If the twin tunnels are built, whatever is left of the Sacramento River after most of it is siphoned into the tunnels won’t sustain the Delta or our salmon runs.
John McManus, Pacifica
Tunnels will destroy the Delta
The State Building and Construction Trades Council sounds desperate when they decry “obstruction” regarding opposition to the plan to build the Delta tunnels.
A rehashed plan rejected by voters in 1982, the Delta tunnels still cannot deliver the ecological benefits or the water supply reliability that supporters claim. The EPA gave the Draft Environmental Impact Report a failing grade of “inadequate.” Board members of the Santa Clara Valley Water District recently raised serious concerns about whether the plan would lead to salmon extinctions.
Findings from the state Water Board and state and federal fishery agencies have repeatedly shown that Delta outflows must be significantly increased to protect the estuary’s fisheries, drinking water supplies and agriculture economy.
Whining by the building trades or associated “astroturf” campaigns like Californians for Water Security won’t change the critical flaws in the tunnels plan.
Restore the Delta
Gold Rush in pot tax, but for whom?
Re “How pot legalization would work in California” (Insight, Feb. 2): As a long time believer that we should legalize and tax pot, I was impressed by The Sacramento Bee’s article on how it would work. I did, however, find humor in the financial analysis statement about “most of the proceeds must be spent for the specified purposes such as substance-use disorders, education, prevention, treatment and law enforcement.” Was this portion of the article written by the same people who promised gas tax for roads and lottery funding for the schools?
I will vote for legalization, but don’t try and fool me again about where the money will go.
Billy Barnes, Carmichael
Solar owners get socked again
Re “Utilities fall short on solar fee request” (Capitol & California, Jan. 29): I am sick and tired of the Public Utilities Commission sticking it to folks who have installed solar panels. Back in the early 2000s the grid was overtaxed, and we had blackouts. Solar installations have helped alleviate overloading the grid by supplying needed electricity to homes and businesses.
Now we are told we don’t support the grid. Our bills are too low compared to others who don’t have solar. Solar systems even with rebates cost the owners thousands of dollars. We installed solar systems to save money down the road. Little by little the PUC is allowing the utilities to raise rates and charge fees to solar owners because their bills are too low.
I have an answer to this. How would the grid fair if all solar owners in the state just decided to turn off their systems for a day or two? How much chaos would that cause?
Martin Marovich, Rocklin
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.