Drought, farms, cities, CalSTRS, discrimination

Save water by fixing pipes

Re “ ‘Unprecedented’ cuts” (Page A1, April 2): The governor has called for urban water providers to cut their water use by 25 percent based on per capita water consumption. I am certainly in favor of conserving water and I know how these agencies can reduce water flow by 25 percent, but it is not by requiring their customers to reduce consumption by 25 percent. It is by fixing leaks in their distribution systems that result in the loss of that much water before it ever reaches their customers’ meters.

Through a public records request, I obtained five years of loss records from the local water district that indicated annual losses in excess of 30 percent. You might think that unusual but, in fact, it is typical. The governor should require any surcharges imposed to encourage reduced water use to be used to replace old leaking pipes.

Actions drown out words

Re “Growers largely spared in new water restriction” (Page A1, April 3): Am I the only one who finds Gov. Jerry Brown’s water mandate and the lack of restrictions on agriculture and building permits more than a little incongruous? To paraphrase an old adage, “his actions speak so loud I can’t hear a word he’s saying.”

Lack of accountability

What has the Legislature done in the last 40 years to prepare for drought? Gov. Jerry Brown is doing the same thing that Democrats have done for the last 40 years: whine, moan and get some extra money to waste on projects that only facilitate a few wealthy Democrats and a few friends in the business.

But nothing will be done. The news media will tout the wonderfulness of Brown watching the snow test, and how aware he and his minions are and how they are working hard on the problem.

California’s climate deniers

Re “Water rules mandate a different world” (Editorials, April 2): Unless you have been living in a bubble, had your hands tight over your ears and your head buried in the sand, you now know that we are in humongous trouble. Brought to us by the slick ad men at Big Oil, the drought that has morphed into a future that brings firestorms to the Sierra instead of snowstorms. Yes indeed, that rascally Union of Concerned Scientists was right when it said we had passed the point of no return to curb carbon emissions.

So here we are. The western region of the United States is dry as a bone with little hope of enough rainfall and certainly no snowfall to see us through the year ahead. So who’s to blame? Time to come up for air.

Change city codes

Sacramento’s city codes can be an obstacle to residents trying to reduce their landscape watering. Current codes prohibit artificial turf on the front lawn and require that the majority of unpaved front yards be “living vegetation.” I have seen many front yards in Sacramento with artificial turf or with stones, bark and fewer plants that look as attractive as yards with mostly turf. While I have a conventional front yard with mostly turf, I think some additional flexibility should be provided for these lower-water options.

CalSTRS’ responsibility

Re “Teachers demand CalSTRS unload firearms holdings” (Page A1, April 2): CalSTRS has a fiduciary responsibility to achieve the greatest return possible for its members. It has an obligation to generate as much profit as possible for its current and future retirees without regard to social responsibility.

If a certain investment is deemed potentially profitable, whether it is in firearms manufacturing or in a country whose politics we do not necessarily agree with, the overriding issue should only be concerned with how it enhances CalSTRS’ bottom line and, in turn, its retirees.

Return the retirement checks

If it’s not the firearms industry, it’s some other legally owned and operated business that the far left is against. The California retirement funds are constantly being told what not to invest in. These funds are supposed to make money through investments to relieve the taxpayers of having to shoulder the total burden. If investing in these companies is so repulsive, why don’t the teachers divest themselves from the retirement system? Better yet, ask the retirees to refund their tainted retirement checks back to the taxpayers.

Respect religious rights

Re “Shift on Indiana religious rights bill stuns conservatives” (Page A5, April 3): I honor the rights of others; why can’t they honor mine?

The belief of my religion is that marriage is only between a man and woman. It would be blasphemous for me to participate in an event that others call marriage that is not between a man and a woman. That includes providing a service that contributes to such an event. I would not deny service to an individual but would to such an event. That is my free exercise of my religion protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Discrimination is intolerable

Re “Discrimination a two-way street” (Letters, April 1): I disagree with the Rev. Vince Kelley regarding his views on discrimination. When a business posts a sign reading “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that refers to a dress code (i.e., no shirt, no shoes, no service). It does not refer to what hopefully continues to be an illegal refusal to serve anyone based on who they are, be it race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.

That kind of refusal must not and cannot be tolerated in our society. Note this is in reference to a business providing service to customers. This does not apply to a church making decisions as to who can get married in the church’s facilities, or who can be employed there or volunteer there. Widespread discrimination was not eliminated all that long ago in the United States, and we must not turn the clock back and legalize discrimination. Discrimination is wrong.

This story was originally published April 3, 2015 at 5:00 PM with the headline "Drought, farms, cities, CalSTRS, discrimination."