Letters to the EDITOR

Is Castaic Dam ready for the big one? Are we?

On Sept. 1 the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, released a report on the safety status of the 1,249 dams under its jurisdiction, including “downstream hazard classification, condition assessment, and reservoir restriction status” for each dam.

This information has been compiled to support the state’s ongoing efforts to be proactive and a leader in dam safety following the Lake Oroville “spillways incident” during heavy rains in the area. The overall plan is to strengthen the dam safety program and make the essential safety information readily accessible. It may be easily accessed online.

This report is of extreme importance to all of us living in this earthquake-prone valley as the Castaic Dam, our very close neighbor, has been given a rating of only “fair.”

This means that, while the dam can satisfactorily hold the amount of water it was designed for, it might have problems dealing with extra water or stresses such as those occurring during an earthquake. Downstream hazard has been rated “extremely high.”

As the reservoir capacity of Castaic Dam is 323,700 acre feet, and it is of earthen embankment construction (the same as the Oroville Dam), it behooves us to give some thought to the maximum damage to the dam that could possibly occur with a powerful earthquake that will likely come to pass one day. Do we have an evacuation plan ready in case parts of our valley become flooded?

How would that affect our water supply, transportation, emergency preparedness and other plans? How would such a catastrophe affect the two Newhall Ranch villages which have recently been approved?

How many more automobiles will we have on the freeways should we need to evacuate the area?

We have recently been witness, albeit from a distance, to the ravages of Mother Nature and how important it is to be prepared to face the 200-year flood, fire or earthquake. It’s time to start thinking and planning. Sally White

Valencia

Knight: Why the change in policy?

Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter. He helped found the Boone and Crockett hunting club in 1887; its purpose was to promote “fair chase” and to prevent wildlife decimation from overhunting.

Fair chase is hunting that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over the hunted, requires a quick kill and requires hunters to “behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted or the environment.”

Congressman Knight abandoned this doctrine in voting Sept. 7 to convert our Federal Alaskan Wildlife Refuges into game farms for moneyed trophy hunters. Now they can target shoot animals at “bait stations” and steel-jaw traps, gas or set fire to wolf pups in their dens (“denning”), pull hibernating bears and their cubs out of their dens using artificial lights (“spotlighting”), and shoot them from helicopters.

Last year the entire Lost Creek wolf pack, some with radio collars, was shot from a helicopter, wiping out 20 years of ecological study.

The National Park Service chief for Yukon-Charley Rivers explained that the U.S. system of federal refuge’s prime directive is to “let the natural balance and fluctuation of species happen.”

Decimating bears and wolves to inflate the caribou and deer population for a select group of hunters is out of sync with our national directive to restore the biological integrity of species living in our federal refuges and wetlands that already offer hundreds of hunting and fishing programs.

What reason did Congressman Knight have for prioritizing the elite few? The majority of Alaskans opposed this bill, and wildlife-watchers spend much more money than safari groups.

Perhaps wildlife-watchers are more interested in local economies than in funding politicians. This has already happened in Alaska and will spread.

Just read the SHARE Act. Tell Congressman Knight what you think: (661) 255-5630. Nancy Oliver

Valencia

Democratic leadership hard to figure

Let me get this right: The Democratic leadership of California is suing the Trump administration over the border wall. Guess they feel it’s OK for open borders. Let me get this right: The Democratic leadership of California is pushing to make California a sanctuary state. Guess they feel it’s OK to protect the illegals. Let me get this right: The Democratic leadership of California feels it’s OK to protect DACA recipients. They must feel it’s OK to protect illegals before their own citizens.

It’s a crying shame when the Democratic Party will protect illegals breaking the law just to stay in power. Bob Searcy

Valencia