View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Water cutbacks should be required of all

Posted: April 11, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: April 11, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I seem to have been living in a bubble that was not transparent. As I have been hearing for the past few years, and more so recently, we, the state of California, have been and are now in a very serious drought.

We are even at the stage when the politicians and water experts are “asking” us to cut back 20 percent on our water usage. It isn’t mandatory cutbacks, but that’s just around the corner when, not if, it gets worse.

Then how is it that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and the Los Angeles County department that issues building permits, and the courts, have allowed Newhall Land Development Inc. to go ahead with that monstrous and ludicrous building debacle west of Interstate-5 along Highway 126.

I just cannot wrap my head around that idea of building all those structures when the rest of us are asked to “cut back 20 percent” on our water. I guess they won’t be using any water on that project?

Have I missed something along the way? Is this not a one city-one county issue?

If “we” (the city of Santa Clarita) and the rest of the state of California are asked to cut back 20 percent on our water usage, does this request not also apply to Newhall Land?

Or does that company have a special dispensation for not cutting back on water so it can get all its money quicker?

I write this article just wondering who the state was addressing when they asked for the cutback in water usage.

All of us except Newhall Land, I guess.

Just a curious taxpayer.

 

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...