Letters: Water conservation, Ami Bera, Donald Trump

Now we pay for saving water

Re “Region reduced water use 30% last year, beating drought target” (Local, Jan. 22): That’s great! We should save water. Now we have to deal with the flip side of saving water.

Water departments in most cities still have to support the infrastructure of delivering water. In the case of Roseville, water rates are due to rise 30 percent in February. No doubt other cities are raising rates as well.

Moderates should support Bera

Re “Votes leave Bera backing frayed in a complex electoral district” (Insight, Jan. 22): Like many other Democrats, I may have lost sight of the forest for the trees when I think about Rep. Ami Bera’s votes. For me, the moral magnitude involving the immigration issue looms large; for others, it might be labor issues.

The reality for Bera is that he must attempt to communicate to constituents with such disparate outlooks within his own party, and also serve the interests and perspectives of those who did not vote for him. Adding to the complexity of the communication issue is that each of us tends to hear only what we want to hear.

Sadly, any endorsement by a local group at this juncture might be seen as “damning with faint praise,” and likely to have little beneficial impact. At least Bera understands the complexity of the issues facing us all, and attempts to address them on the behalf of all.

Moderate people within his district should unite in supporting Bera.

Is GOP settling for less with Trump

Re “GOP establishment adjusts to idea of Trump as nominee” (Page 8A, Jan. 17): Is Donald Trump really the man the Republican Party would want to have in office? Do they fear the spoiler effect? Why else would they so suddenly come to accept him as a potential presidential nominee?

While it is necessary for the Republicans to avoid having another Democrat in office, what is best for the country is definitely not a sexist, racist and narcissistic individual.

The GOP, I’m sure, has calculated the challenges the country could face should Trump win the election. Most voters, regardless of political affiliation, know that we need a knowledgeable and diplomatic individual to serve as our president. Settling should not be an option.

Ranchers in standoff are bullies

Re “Oregon standoff” (Page 1A, Jan. 10): Ranchers in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are acting like bullies. There’s enough land for cattle and wild animals to share. But the cattle industry is greedy. Not only does it seek to eliminate predators like wolves and lions, but ranchers want to kill any animal that eats a blade of grass.

These bullies and the BLM are responsible for throwing wild herds off historic lands set aside 40 years ago by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. It’s illegal, but our tax dollars pay for it.

Cattle and sheep destroy land by overgrazing. These ranchers are driving off all of our precious wild animals. The BLM should round up these bullies and put them in corrals just like the wild horses. Should we boycott beef?

Save our wild refuges, and let the wild animals be wild.

Who is responsible for beavers?

We live in North Natomas near two retaining ponds. In September we noticed beavers were taking down trees along the water. As the felling of trees got worse, we reported it to a variety of authorities.

In December, a work crew put wire fencing around the remaining trees, but belated response resulted in the loss of at least 30 mature trees; more had to be cut due to severe damage.

We all know how important trees are to the environment and to wildlife. The hope is the trees will be replaced and the area restored.

This story was originally published January 24, 2016 at 3:30 PM with the headline "Letters: Water conservation, Ami Bera, Donald Trump."