When I go traveling, one of the things I miss most about home is the water. Do Marinites really imagine themselves drinking reused wastewater like they do in Texas? Many have said that drinking recycled water is the answer to our shortage. I guess after growing up drinking pure “Tam to tap” water, one could say I’ve been spoiled by Mount Tamalpais and the Marin Municipal Water District.
I think the ones who are actually spoiled are those who refuse to adapt to our environment. I believe that inappropriate landscaping is threatening our water supply more than in-home use. I am looking at the 30% of you who are using Tier 2 and above amounts of water — I know you can afford to redesign your landscapes or get a cistern and live within your water means.
As a member of Generation Z, I’d really appreciate it if the older generation would step up so that we won’t be saddled with millions of dollars of debt to drink substandard water that’s “not from rain.” I guarantee you, those who think a victory on Election Day will taste sweet, you won’t feel like celebrating once you taste that “toilet to tap” water.
— Cristal Brown Orr, San Rafael
A recent front page of the Marin Independent Journal was an example that loudly stated how the California government is so big and so dysfunctional. On the left side was a story about the need for water conservation (“Water plan could trigger earlier conservation calls,” Oct. 23). On the right was a story about housing growth mandates for cities and unincorporated areas (“Housing mandate changes sought,” Oct. 23). To me, those conflicting goals said it all.
A deeper look into that day’s IJ revealed a commentary by opinion columnist Dan Walters, who wrote about building mandates in wildfire areas (“California faces conundrum of housing, wildfire threat,” Oct. 23).
So it appears that California will keep building where there are wildfire issues, even though it could lead us to an extended, severe water shortage that has no end in sight. Have the people we’ve elected to run California lost their minds?
— R. Aragon, Novato
I found the final sentence of James Petray’s recently published letter to be a bit chilling. He points out that the United States is technically a constitutional federal republic rather than a democracy.
This line appears to be an attempt to justify his support of a party and a former president who have been trashing the institutions and branches as well as the election processes of that republic. Those very institutions which, along with the peaceful transfer of power following elections, have served our nation so well since its inception.
Elements of the Republican Party clearly want to help former President Donald Trump replace our federal republic with an autocracy in which the results of elections can be ignored by the use of the big lie.
Personally, I rest easy with the prospect of Trump running again in 2024. Should he choose to do so he will precipitate another deluge of voters determined to keep him out of the White House. I suspect that he will eventually decide to sit on the sidelines and do what he does best: sow chaos.
— Michael Sillman, Larkspur
I have been writing letters to the IJ about Steve Bannon and accusations about his role in the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol since December of 2021. I think he was shielded by “a deep state” organization that deprived the public of timely justice. So, in July, finally, he was found guilty rather promptly, but his sentencing was scheduled for months later — Oct. 21. That was more untimely justice.
Now, news outlets are celebrating the four-month prison sentence given him. But he walked out of the courtroom and back to his radio broadcast studio to carry on his ripping criticism of modern American politics, pending his inevitable appeals and leaving the Jan. 6 committee with a principal witness untouched.
Where is the justice in this nation’s courts? Why is it so difficult for Bannon (or former President Donald Trump) to be subject to the rule of law?
— Hobart Bartshire, Fairfax
