comments

Stay aware of HR 1837

Reader Input
-A +A
The print was hardly dry on my letter about Tom McClintock’s water giveaway and the insult to salmon restoration in HR 1837 when one of his minions came to his defense (see Jon Huey’s letter, “Writer doesn’t get HR 1837,” Reader Input, Aug. 2). In the time-honored fashion of those pressed to defend a questionable position, Mr. Huey repeatedly attacked me as “not understanding.” The first point in my letter was about the water giveaway. If HR 1837 were to become law, water presently available for various Northern California users and for delta environmental protection would be diverted to Southern California. HR 1837 does not make this diversion explicitly, but that is the effect of various sections of this complex bill. For example, the bill shifts the responsibility to protect the Bay-Delta ecosystem to Northern California water users, thus freeing up more water for San Joaquin Valley users. Contrary to Mr. Huey’s assessment of me, I understand these effects of the bill quite well. As to the other point made in my letter, just a couple of the several impediments to salmon restoration included in the bill are the cessation of the restoration program on the San Joaquin River (Title II) and the gutting of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, including a reduction in money (Section 106) and water (Section 105) available for salmon and environmental restoration. Again, I have no misunderstanding of the effects of the bill. I want to thank Mr. Huey for his rebuttal though. There is nothing I would like more than to see the continued airing of the controversial nature of HR 1837 for the readers of the Auburn Journal. Howard Williams, Cool