In a recent commentary, IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood promoted a false narrative about the previous Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors’ record in addressing water supply challenges (“Recently active MMWD needs to keep pushing projects,” July 7).
The previous board wasn’t “dithering.” It acted decisively to increase Marin’s water supply under very challenging circumstances. I was a member of that board. During our term, we rebuilt Kastania pump station to increase the annual supply flow from Sonoma County by 5,000 acre feet per year (equivalent to adding another Bon Tempe reservoir); rebuilt and quadrupled our recycled water production; implemented a variety of innovative conservation measures to bolster water resilience; and drafted a comprehensive road map of needed infrastructure improvements, including the Phoenix Lake project.
All of this was accomplished while operating under stringent COVID-19 pandemic lockdown protocols during a historic drought. While the current board has managed to vastly increase rates, it has not increased our supply, as exemplified by its decision to pause the Phoenix Lake project.
Spotswood’s claim that “MMWD has delayed action to increase drought resiliency to protect a handful of steelhead trout” is misleading. Water rights are strictly controlled by the State Water Resources Control Board. Even so, our board applied for, and received, a drought exception, which allowed us to modify our habitat water releases.
Spotswood’s assertion that these policies caused it to impose water rationing is inaccurate. While the board adopted temporary drought restrictions on landscape irrigation, it did not impose household limits. More importantly, the Mount Tamalpais watershed remains Marin’s most important source of water and the district’s exemplary environmental stewardship of it has been beneficial to both humans and habitat.
Those are the facts. Spotswood’s spin ignores the record and reduces consideration of Marin’s water policy to empty rhetoric and partisan finger-pointing.
— Larry Bragman, Fairfax
It was wonderful to read the story about anchor-out resident Peter Romanowsky (“Richardson Bay housing program eases ‘anchor-outs’ ashore,” July 16).
The efforts by the caseworkers to actually paddle out to his boat to speak with him, along with this innovative program created by county officials, left me impressed, inspired and grateful to all who worked on this program. I hope there will be more creative efforts to get all of our unhoused neighbors, and their animal companions, into safe housing.
— Maggie Rufo, Novato
President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump in 2020. He is convinced he’ll do so again. One way for Biden to prove it is to hold an open process at the Chicago convention for the choice of his running mate. Current Vice President Kamala Harris might be selected, but it could be someone else.
If a change is made, Biden would still have the option of holding out the post of attorney general to Harris, with an understanding that if he has the opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court justice, she’ll be first on the list.
So far, Democrats have been making things easier for Trump. It’s time for them to be smarter.
This happened in 1944. Then President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose health was failing, realized he needed to replace Vice President Henry Wallace with a different running mate to secure voters’ confidence. Many convention delegates understood, sadly, that in naming Harry S. Truman as Wallace’s successor, they were most likely naming the next president.
— Steve Stein, Greenbrae
Democracy vs. authoritarianism: What, exactly, do these two words mean?
A democracy incorporates the whole of our people. They determine how our government should run. We elect a person to represent us whom we believe can carry out our wishes for a better government that enhances our lives and freedoms.
An authoritarian government does the reverse. One person determines how our government should run. The justice system is determined by an authoritarian leader. Abilities to have freedom to speak, protest and exchange opinions would only be allowed if it supported the authoritarian leader. An authoritarian system would have no need for a constitution as we know it.
— Sue Curran, San Rafael
