Re "L.A. will make water a terrible thing to waste," May 15
It's refreshing to see that Los Angeles is stepping up to address water policy in a manner that would balance the environment and economy and sustainably accommodate future growth.
Although demand-side management in the form of conservation and recycling won't preclude all new construction for enhanced supply, an acre-foot saved or reused is one less we have to impound and transfer from somewhere else.
If California were truly serious about sustainability, we'd develop a statewide solution -- reduce consumption, safely recycle and consider new supply when needed and where environmental consequences can be fully mitigated. What we really need is an approach to water that brings the state together, not one that creates winners and losers.
However, given the hair-pulling and name-calling that passes for water negotiations in Sacramento, L.A. is prudent to take action on its own.
Richard G. Little
The writer is director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy.
Re "Tapping into the future," editorial, May 18
The mayor's water conservation plan is a worthy first step? It's a huge step backward as far as most of us are concerned. Most of the state's water is used by agriculture, and farmers are wasting it horribly. It seems to me that we should be promoting savings there. Farmers have more control over water waste than anyone.
We also need to be looking into desalination plants and more ways to get water. The idea of using reclaimed water for citizens to drink will never be accepted by anyone. It's just more government intrusion and control of our lives -- and a way to find more tax revenue.
How could water ever seem plentiful in a desert like Los Angeles with millions of people, much less "too" plentiful, as you state in this editorial?
To move beyond our hysterical past to a reasonable future, this city will have to take off its blinders.