From Santa Rosa Valley Resident - Kimme Black October 25, 2009: I received the notice from the Camrosa Water District about rate hikes...I think it's time to get the pencils out again and write letters. I feel that water and air are the two most inalienable rights we have as human beings...if global warming is a reality, then the polar ice caps are melting bringing more water then ever before into the system regardless of California's drought. I believe this is a case where those who control the valves are exhibiting short sighted values regarding the sanctity of all life.
The last paragraph in Frank E. Royer's letter said: If a majority of the property owners in the District submit written protests (which must be in their hands by December 9, 2009, by 4:30 P.M.), the proposed rate increases will not be implemented. This is astounding! If we lie on our backs and throw our legs up into the air, we will have an increase...if we bare our teeth and protest we won't...what does this say for the system that conceived of the rate increase in the first place? The public hearing is on December 9, 2009, 5:00 p.m. I would urge us all to get out to our neighbors and encourage them to write their letters and send them to:
Camrosa Water District Rate Hearing Comment 7385 Santa Rosa Road Camarillo, California 93012
I will be happy to help anyone write letters and get them out to all the HOA's and neighborhoods of Santa Rosa Valley. Furthermore, every person in this valley should be at that meeting if possible...
Response from Santa Rosa Resident, Richard Davis: In response to Kimme Black, as a matter of clarity: Air, perhaps, but certainly not water is an “inalienable right”. People are involved in the process of delivering water; you cannot have the right to the production of others; you can’t have a right to violate the right of another. Concerning global warming, evidence is, at best, controversial; especially as it relates to polar ice caps. Apparently, as well, we are now in the midst of a 15 – 20 year cooling period. I would suggest not using either of these two arguments for lower water rates. I suggest instead focusing on why costs are suddenly (in the last year or two) higher; Is my understanding correct that the reason for the sudden increase in cost of water delivery and the demise of many California farmers is the environmentalists insistence on the protection of a species of fish by limiting the otherwise normal flow of water? Forgive me for this aside, I can’t help myself, but the logic is inescapable: If this is true, are humans to be sacrificed for the sake of fish? Is this why, and this is a pure guess, that Frank Royer is saying that this is a political (and is thus calling for written protests), as opposed to an economic, issue? I would like to put my protest in writing but would like to know what the basis for the protest will be. Can anyone help? Thanks. You can respond to: rd-ond@usa.net
Most experts agree with an analysis that only puts at most 1/2 the blame on the Delta smelt. The fish is just the indicator that the entire Delta is not to be a sustainable water source if we keep on with the "normal flow" of water. The other 1/2 to blame it on is the continual years of below average rainfall and snow pack in the Sierra's. California blew it many years ago by not spending a little bit more to build the peripheral canal as part of the original State Water Project. We chinced it. Now because of extremely higher costs AND new environmental hurdles the Governor is scrapping the idea once again. As a result our imported water woes and rate increases are never going to go away unless we can get off imported water somehow.
Posts
From Santa Rosa Valley Resident - Kimme Black
ReplyDeleteOctober 25, 2009:
I received the notice from the Camrosa Water District about rate hikes...I think it's time to get the pencils out again and write letters. I feel that water and air are the two most inalienable rights we have as human beings...if global warming is a reality, then the polar ice caps are melting bringing more water then ever before into the system regardless of California's drought. I believe this is a case where those who control the valves are exhibiting short sighted values regarding the sanctity of all life.
The last paragraph in Frank E. Royer's letter said: If a majority of the property owners in the District submit written protests (which must be in their hands by December 9, 2009, by 4:30 P.M.), the proposed rate increases will not be implemented. This is astounding! If we lie on our backs and throw our legs up into the air, we will have an increase...if we bare our teeth and protest we won't...what does this say for the system that conceived of the rate increase in the first place? The public hearing is on December 9, 2009, 5:00 p.m. I would urge us all to get out to our neighbors and encourage them to write their letters and send them to:
Camrosa Water District
Rate Hearing Comment
7385 Santa Rosa Road
Camarillo, California 93012
I will be happy to help anyone write letters and get them out to all the HOA's and neighborhoods of Santa Rosa Valley. Furthermore, every person in this valley should be at that meeting if possible...
Thank you for your consideration of this note.
Warmly,
Kimme
Response from Santa Rosa Resident, Richard Davis:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kimme Black, as a matter of clarity:
Air, perhaps, but certainly not water is an “inalienable right”. People are involved in the process of delivering water; you cannot have the right to the production of others; you can’t have a right to violate the right of another.
Concerning global warming, evidence is, at best, controversial; especially as it relates to polar ice caps. Apparently, as well, we are now in the midst of a 15 – 20 year cooling period. I would suggest not using either of these two arguments for lower water rates. I suggest instead focusing on why costs are suddenly (in the last year or two) higher; Is my understanding correct that the reason for the sudden increase in cost of water delivery and the demise of many California farmers is the environmentalists insistence on the protection of a species of fish by limiting the otherwise normal flow of water? Forgive me for this aside, I can’t help myself, but the logic is inescapable: If this is true, are humans to be sacrificed for the sake of fish?
Is this why, and this is a pure guess, that Frank Royer is saying that this is a political (and is thus calling for written protests), as opposed to an economic, issue?
I would like to put my protest in writing but would like to know what the basis for the protest will be. Can anyone help?
Thanks. You can respond to: rd-ond@usa.net
Most experts agree with an analysis that only puts at most 1/2 the blame on the Delta smelt. The fish is just the indicator that the entire Delta is not to be a sustainable water source if we keep on with the "normal flow" of water. The other 1/2 to blame it on is the continual years of below average rainfall and snow pack in the Sierra's. California blew it many years ago by not spending a little bit more to build the peripheral canal as part of the original State Water Project. We chinced it. Now because of extremely higher costs AND new environmental hurdles the Governor is scrapping the idea once again. As a result our imported water woes and rate increases are never going to go away unless we can get off imported water somehow.
ReplyDelete