A recent publication outlined the city of Henderson‘s plans to significantly increase rates for water use over a three-year period. Officials asked for comments. My comment suggested two answers to stop overuse of our severely dwindling Lake Mead water supply.
First, convince gluttonous California to build several coastal desalinization plants in lieu of using Colorado River water. Second, stop issuing lucrative building permits to builders in our valley. Thousands of homes presently under construction are very lucrative for the city — and insane. And the number is growing. We just won‘t have the water to support this growth.
The reply from the city of Henderson was a form letter suggesting that we just can‘t do anything to stop people from moving here, and that our aggregate water use has decreased 33 percent since 2000. Really? Have you seen the calcium line at Lake Mead? Do officials really believe that we will use less water if the water district just keeps strapping us with more and more rate increases?
Look at Boulder City, one of the best places to live in Southern Nevada. It has severely limited building for years, and the water bills are a fraction of ours. Most of their homes are filled, unlike in the Las Vegas Valley, where we have thousands of empty homes that need an influx of new residents. And now, Henderson is not satisfied with the thousands of homes and apartments under construction; the city is trying to annex more land over the hill near Boulder City, to build more (“Henderson annexation plan moves forward,” June 2 Review-Journal online).
This money grab by our politicians and the water district has to stop. We must stop building homes, and we must stop building billion-dollar straws to suck Lake Mead dry. We will be a ghost town if we don’t act before it is too late.
It will be interesting to see how the dozen or so Republican and Democratic presidential candidates deal with the emerging issue of U.S.-Cuba relations. Specifically, the establishment of embassies in Washington, D.C., and Havana, and the embargo of more than 50 years (“Obama says U.S., Cuba will reopen embassies,” July 1 Review-Journal online).
What the candidates know is that currently, there are interest sections in each country, and that lively trade programs exist, as long as Cuba pays cash for U.S. exports. What the candidates also probably know, but won‘t tell us, is that the establishment of an embassy can only strengthen human rights issues, which our government is concerned about.
The embargo was designed to bring down Fidel Castro and contain the threat of communism. But Mr. Castro has survived it all. The only part that has been brought down: the people struggling to deal with the challenges and difficulties of preserving, through socialism, the spirit of a revolution that took place years ago. Normalizing political and social relations can only serve to address this issue, as well.
The shooting of two perpetrators during a home invasion clearly illustrates the need for gun ownership to protect one‘s home (“Intruder killed, another is shot,” July 2 Review-Journal). Law-abiding citizens have this right.
What if the resident wasn‘t armed? He and his family would probably be dead. This should be a test case for the anti-gun crowd, which is understandably quiet.