Friday Readers' Forum

Friday Readers' Forum

There are 38 comments on the Marin Independent Journal story from Oct 29, 2010, titled Friday Readers' Forum. In it, Marin Independent Journal reports that:

I never vote for anyone who bothers me with those robo-calls. Sheila Fontaine, San Rafael 'A beautiful program' I attended Tuesday night's community meeting at St.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Marin Independent Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Clear Thinker

San Rafael, CA

#1 Oct 29, 2010
The MMWD is required to provide water. Directors of the MMWD are mandated to plan for an adequate water supply. If the challengers are elected, they will have a legal obligation to consider all options for providing water to meet the needs of the district. During back-to-back drought years, which will eventually occur again, the public will be clamoring for whatever source of water is available. Unfortunately, they will find that there isn't any water available, because Measure T has prevented the board from even considering desalination. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Vote NO on T, and YES on S!
Gimme a break

Corte Madera, CA

#2 Oct 29, 2010
Craig, You really miss the boat with your assumptions. Unlike the challengers, the incumbents actually have to deal with long term planning and supply. Wishful thinking, lies and inappropriate statements are the sandbox challengers must play in if they stand a chance in the upcoming election. For example: Egger suggests that digging the lakes out will increase supply. This would require in excess of 500,000 truck trips per 5000 acre feet. Eggers argument about too many truck trips for a tank in San Geronimo Valley would seem to contradict his lake proposal. Egger was tossed off the town council because the electorate started paying attention. To desal, or, not to desal, is not even the issue here. It's about responsible planning and leaving options open. Your comment about the carbon footprint is right on and the current board recognizes that. It's just too bad you mislead the readers when you speak of environmental threats. Virtually everything we do poses a threat. Driving cars, heating our homes etc. Desal is no more threatening than current water treatment technology.
Measure T Boned

United States

#3 Oct 29, 2010
Gimme me a break also. As to the 18,000 signatures, I was not one because I knew just enough about the water supply issues to know that the petition person out in front of the supermarket was pitching total BS. Unfortunately, it worked. You can only speculate as to how many of the signators had no clue. They were mislead about what they were signing. You can excavate a million loads of dirt from the reservoirs. If it doesn't rain, whats the point? Conservation is great. However, when the economy rebounds, and it will, demand will absolutly go up. Measure T reflects an idiology that it is irresponsible.
Yes on T

Corte Madera, CA

#4 Oct 29, 2010
Probability in the next 50 yrs:

Major Fire: High

Serious Floods: High

Major Earthquake: Moderate

3+ Yr Severe Drought: Low

Necessity of a desalting factory: Zero

We need to keep our water options open and this is why we need to vote yes on T.

With S they are fixated on their one plan that no one wants.

No on S

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#5 Oct 29, 2010
Yes on T wrote:
We need to keep our water options open and this is why we need to vote yes on T.
With S they are fixated on their one plan that no one wants.
No on S
I agree. One must wonder, why if they believe so passionately in desalination, why they are not also pursuing recycling.
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) has an energy cost that is a fraction of desalination (reduced Co2 emissions as well). Also, IPR doesn't have the brine & chemical outfall that desalination has (limiting deadzones). Reticulated Potable Recycling (RPR) is another sound direction. The fact is there are many options. Why exactly are these desal factory salesman so damn rabid? My guess is that they have signed massive backdoor contracts with their developers. Or their pension fund in deep water: http://www.topix.com/forum/source/marin-indep...

Yes on T and no on 23, S is snakeoil
Measure T Boned

United States

#6 Oct 29, 2010
Wow, thanks "yes on T" pretty much validates my point.

Probability in the next 50 yrs:
3+ Yr Severe Drought: Low
- Are you sure about that?

Necessity of a desalting factory: Zero

- Are you sure about that?

We need to keep our water options open and this is why we need to vote yes on T.
- keeping options open? Come ooon...read the measure.

With S they are fixated on their one plan that no one wants.
- Whoa wait a minute we have common ground. I agree, no one wants desal. But, managing for the future is not about wants - IT'S ABOUT NEED.

James C

Corte Madera, CA

#7 Oct 29, 2010
required wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. One must wonder, why if they believe so passionately in desalination, why they are not also pursuing recycling.
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) has an energy cost that is a fraction of desalination (reduced Co2 emissions as well). Also, IPR doesn't have the brine & chemical outfall that desalination has (limiting deadzones). Reticulated Potable Recycling (RPR) is another sound direction. The fact is there are many options. Why exactly are these desal factory salesman so damn rabid? My guess is that they have signed massive backdoor contracts with their developers. Or their pension fund in deep water: http://www.topix.com/forum/source/marin-indep...
Yes on T and no on 23, S is snakeoil
Because recycling in MMWD's area costs twice as much as desalination, that's why. If you ever bothered to read anything about water supply issues in Marin, you would know that there is no groundwater basin, so you can't recharge that water supply with recycled water. All that's left is irrigation and non-potable reuse, which does not have a big market in Marin. residential irrigation is verboten, according to the State regulatory agencies, unless you place all sorts of restrictions and monitoring requirements on it that Marin homeowners would not tolerate.

And the pension fund is not in deep water, if you would bother to read the IJ report on it, or the response from the CalPERS chief investment officer, which appeared in the SF Chronicle back in April, when the report from the Stanford grad students was released.

S is the sensible choice. T is a disastrous straitjacket that was sold to the people who signed the petition as a complete lie.

And your charge about developers, contracts, kickbacks, etc. is the usual rubbish that anyone who doesn't have a decent argument to make has to resort to. That pretty well characterizes the quality of your rantings.
James C

Corte Madera, CA

#8 Oct 29, 2010
Yes on T wrote:
Probability in the next 50 yrs:
Major Fire: High
Serious Floods: High
Major Earthquake: Moderate
3+ Yr Severe Drought: Low
Necessity of a desalting factory: Zero
We need to keep our water options open and this is why we need to vote yes on T.
With S they are fixated on their one plan that no one wants.
No on S
You got this rubbish from Jim Fryer, who made it up from his own fevered musings. The fact is, there have been three droughts in the past 70 years, and the likelihood of more in the future is beyond certain. Just check out the report from the National Center on Atmospheric Research that came out last week - it says that droughts will be longer, deeper and more frequent in California and the Western U.S. in the near future - due to the changing climate.

So, if you want to go live in Bolinas and die of thirst the next time a drought comes, feel free to do so. But I and the rest of the folks in Marin who care about reliable water supplies will be voting for Measure S and saying NO to measure T.
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#9 Oct 29, 2010
Still waiting on that point by point rebuttal of the document you say Jim Fryer made up.

Increased Flooding Risk: Global Warming's Wake-Up call for Riverfront Communities

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Glo...

Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events.

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Glo...

Yes on T
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#10 Oct 29, 2010
Measure T Boned wrote:
IT'S ABOUT NEED.
Desal is not needed nor will it ever be. This is why organizations like the World Wildlife Fund oppose it.

"Impacts of desalination include brine build-up, increased greenhouse gas emissions, destruction of prized coastal areas and reduced emphasis on conservation of rivers and wetlands. Many of the areas of most intensive desalination activity also have a history of damaging natural water resources, particularly groundwater."
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#11 Oct 29, 2010
James C wrote:
Because recycling in MMWD's area costs twice as much as desalination, that's why.
This is not in any way true nor is the rest of your post.

The unavoidable fact is you have raised our rates because of conservation. You asked people to conserve, a few did and now you are not selling enough water to fund your pay raises and pensions.

For a fraction of the cost of building and operating a desalination plant our community can support and fund water conservation efforts. These can include assistance with drought resistant landscaping, incentives for the removal of lawns, free replacement shower heads and subsidized replacement of water-using appliances, allowing and encouraging the use of graywater, and progressive water rates that punish heavy users.

Besides you don't plan on buying tech that you don't need. You buy tech when you need it because otherwise you end up planning, buying, and maintaining antiquated tech.
E Howard

Corte Madera, CA

#12 Oct 29, 2010
No on S wrote:
Still waiting on that point by point rebuttal of the document you say Jim Fryer made up.
Increased Flooding Risk: Global Warming's Wake-Up call for Riverfront Communities
http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Glo...
Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events.
http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Glo...
Yes on T
Why is the San Francisco Department of Health looking at the idea of setting up cooling
stationsfor people in the city in the future?
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#13 Oct 29, 2010
In fact James C, and your handful of pseudonyms, there have been a multitude of questions posed of you throughout the multitude of topics and threads posted on this topic over the month that you have run away from.

When you are confronted with the facts and your nose is shoved in it, as it has been, you run away and then show up later in a new thread, espousing about how we will all die if you don't get your way. Your way is all kinds of wrong. Let it go.

Vote yes on Measure T
E Howard

Corte Madera, CA

#14 Oct 29, 2010
What do Dombeck,Lacques,Egger and Rose know about running a FULL service
water district? There is a lot more that MMWD does than produce and deliver
drinking water.
James C

Corte Madera, CA

#15 Oct 29, 2010
OK, No on S and all of your pseudonyms, since you obviously know nothing about water supplies in Marin, read these and then come back and debate. The first is the comprehensive presentation on all water supply and demand alternatives that MMWD is considering:

http://www.marinwater.org/documents/Item_1_Wa...

This is the report on recycled water:

http://www.marinwater.org/documents/Item_12_U...

The relevant numbers you should review are the $6200/AF cost of recycled water. Compare that to $3200 for desal and $2000 for the existing supply from MMWD.

And here is the definitive report on clim,ate change, published last week from NCAR/UCAR:

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2904/climate-change...

So - what have you got to show? Not much, as I thought.
James C

Corte Madera, CA

#16 Oct 29, 2010
It's a good thing you live in Napa, Yes on T/No on S, because the last thing we need here is people who don't know much about water.
No on Measure S

Palmdale, CA

#17 Oct 29, 2010
Measure T is simple and straight forward. It requires a public vote before millions more are spent implementing a $400,000,000 San Rafael desalination plant. Measure S proponents claim that Measure T would preclude "long-term water supply planning" This is simply false. Measure T applies only to the much-studied and already planned San Rafael plant. The Water Board intends to use Measure S as a mechanism to delay a public vote and in the meantime spend millions more permitting, designing and engineering for the San Rafael plant. Ratepayers need to weigh in before millions more are spent on desalination. Vote "Yes on Measure T" - the Citizens' Initiative signed by over fifteen thousand voters and Vote "No on Measure S" - the Water Board's effort to undermine the will of the people.
Gimme a break

Corte Madera, CA

#18 Oct 29, 2010
I sincerely hope that the voters can see through the lies and exaggerations of the T proponents. The "millions" referred to is for infrastructure if a plant is built and that is after we vote on it. It's unfortunate that passion turns into a need to lie. If the challengers are elected, how will they handle the actual job when their campaigns are based on innuendo and gross exaggerations?

Look how screwed up the Ross Valley Sanitary Board is. That elected board is all over the place because some of the current members now have to face the reality of running a business and their campaign rhetoric is not satisfying the growling public stomachs. Please make the right move on Tuesday. Tell Frank Egger and his minions to take their compost elsewhere.
.
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#19 Oct 29, 2010
James C wrote:
It's a good thing you live in Napa, Yes on T/No on S, because the last thing we need here is people who don't know much about water.
I live in San Anselmo, on the creek and have endured the floods. I know water, I live it.
No on S

Corte Madera, CA

#20 Oct 29, 2010
James C wrote:
...the tobacco industry statistics represent the tobacco industries interests...
I know.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ross Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Novato Prostitution and Pornography racketeering Jun 28 Pegasus 5
College of Marin enrollment is down Jun 27 left because of d... 1
Candidate Donald Dump Demands D N A Tests of O... Jun 24 Mammy 2
News Tech executive guilty of felony battery in Mari... Jun 22 bicyclist 1
Take Back San Rafael Medical bills Jun 18 Tired of lawsuit ... 4
News Ellen: Kids are not in star couple's future, El... Apr '15 Ted Cruze 11
News Community Hospital Long Beach Foundation (Nov '14) Dec '14 Dr_Zorderz 9
More from around the web

Ross People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Ross Mortgages