Readers React: Enough drought-intolerant development, say water-wise readers

In reading the letters responding to politicians who admonish people to cut their water use, a reality becomes clear: Our success in getting through the drought will depend largely on whether government can convince the public with its actions that it truly cares about wasting water.

A case in point is the reader reaction to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti’s announcement this week of a push by the city to cut water use 20%. Few readers appeared moved by the mayor; in fact, most said that unless the city curbs residential development, it’s difficult to take City Hall seriously on the drought.

The reaction to Garcetti’s challenge for residents to save water can be summed up in two words: You first.

Harvey Pearson of Los Feliz finds little reason to panic:

Meteorologists have recently reported that this winter California will most likely experience a “weak El Nino.” These tend to result in either a very low precipitation weather pattern for our area — or a whole lot of (much needed) rain.

Given this, politicians like Garcetti shouldn’t be leading us into an Ebola-like panic that would let our grassy parkways turn irrevocably brown or put pedestrian-blocking cactuses on them in lieu of dead lawns. That said, frontyards that have been converted to drought-resistant flora often do look quite nice.

Our grass parkways have such an important, pedestrian-friendly, auxiliary purpose that they are just too valuable to prematurely (if ever) be effectively removed from such uses.

Studio City resident Harvey Barkan spots inconsistencies in Garcetti’s approach:

L.A.’s present serious water shortage has been escalating for some years, so this “crisis” is not new. As Garcetti challenges homes and businesses to cut usage yet another 20%, I wonder where his concern has been when he continues to support increased construction and building during this drought, particularly with pride, in his former City Council district.

How can he ignore that increased building equates to increased water usage permanently? Sure, there is demand for more housing and high-rise construction, but unfortunately, the city should not and cannot continue issuing building permits if adequate water is not available to supply what the new users require.

Carolyn Gill of Redlands says politicians should first think of long-term Californians:

It’s ironic that a few days after The Times publishes a story about the new housing boom, Garcetti proposes new water restrictions for Los Angeles.

California’s water situation, with its cyclic droughts, is not new. If our “leaders” in the past had not spinelessly (or complicitly) rolled over to the demands of relentless development, there would be no need to make life miserable for those of us who have lived here for many years.

California has, and always has had, plenty of water — for the number of people who should be living here.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion