Letters to the EDITOR

Water legislation has nothing to do with Newhall Ranch

It appears from recent letters to the editor that Lynne Plambeck and her Friends of the Santa Clara River and SCOPE cohorts have rousted out the “oppose SB 634 water merger legislation” troops.

The reasons haven’t changed – characterizing the legislation as a “water grab,” a “war over water” and alleged assurance of water for the Newhall Ranch development at the expense of all who live in the SCV.

In fact, the only “war over water” has been the one the local activists have waged over the years – principally through frivolous litigation – in their attempts to curtail prudent and proper water management and dictate land use planning in the valley.

The benefits of the merger have been widely publicized. In fact, implementing the merger now makes practical sense because the need for separate water retailers serving separate communities in the valley no longer exists.

We are one community and water service from a sole provider will not result in a “mega-agency,” as ludicrously characterized by the activists. It will simply result in more cost-effective and efficient service and greater water supply reliability.

The merger has no impact whatsoever on the provision of water to Newhall Ranch. In fact, water supply for the development was identified and approved over 10 years ago by the county Board of Supervisors, long before the merger was proposed.

Since then, the Newhall Ranch water supply has been included in SCV Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updates (every five years; the most recent is the 2015 Plan).

Plambeck, in her capacity as Newhall County Water District director, voted to approve the 2010 and 2015 UWMPs. She has known and understood for at least a decade the Newhall Ranch water supply is included in the UWMPs.

So who is Plambeck trying to fool: the California Legislature, SCV water customers and residents, or her environmental constituency? I think she’s trying to fool one and all as long as it suits her goal, one that has nothing to do with the merger. Dan Masnada former CLWA General Manager

Encourage a ‘yes’ vote on Senate Bill 294

In the last two decades, we have seen a 25 percent drop in the cancer death rate. But our work is not complete. Research suggests that roughly half of all cancer deaths can be prevented if we avoid tobacco, get physical activity, eat a healthy diet and get regular, recommended cancer screenings.

In order to do this, people need access to services that help them quit tobacco, get exercise and access the care they need. That’s where lawmakers come in.

Our local and state policymakers play a crucial role in the fight against

cancer by passing laws that help reduce the toll of the disease – which will claim nearly 60,000 lives in California this year alone.

California is making great progress on legislative efforts to combat cancer, according to American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network’s 15th annual report, “How Do You Measure Up?: A Progress Report on State Legislative Activity to Reduce Cancer Incidence and Mortality.”

“How Do You Measure Up?” rates states in nine specific areas of public policy that can help fight cancer. The report evaluates each state’s legislative activity on issues such as access to care, cancer prevention and tobacco control.

California measured up in seven of nine critical benchmarks measured in the report.

The only ranking in which California is “in the red” is access to palliative care. California lawmakers have a chance to improve access to palliative care by passing Senate Bill (SB) 294 this legislative session.

Senator Ed Hernandez’s SB 294 updates the hospice agency licensing statute to allow hospice agencies to provide palliative care services to patients who are not in hospice and not facing a terminal illness.

State policymakers must act now. We cannot miss opportunities to enact policies that could save money and, most importantly, save lives. Aprile Andrada Valencia

What I did on my summer vacation

I was not a cool kid growing up. I kind of looked like a dough-boy, and for some reason walked around pursing my lips like I was going to kiss someone.

But everyone wanted to hang out with me because my father was rich and they thought that would help them be rich, too. I was elected student body president because I promised everybody everything.

They didn’t know I rarely told the truth. I started a bicycle club and invited all of the cool, smart kids to join – and then I could be the leader of the cool, smart kids.

One day this summer I accidentally told the truth and all of the cool, smart kids in my club quit. Not to be outdone by the cool, smart kids, and everyone else who voted for me, I disbanded the club and told every cool, smart kid everywhere that they could no longer be in my club. Thank you. Tony Matthess Newhall

A highly desirable $12 an hour

Jim DeBree’s Opinion article “Finding the best minimum wage,” published Aug. 19, correctly pointed out the complications involved in setting a minimum wage, noting that labor costs must strike a balance between labor supply and demand, product demand vs. price, and the effects of technology and automation on wages.

His conclusion was that the “optimal minimum wage is likely less than $15 per hour.” While this may be true, it struck me that a minimum wage of $12 per hour must be at the absolute lower limit to attract entrylevel employees.

A striking example of this is the very large banner hung above the McDonalds fast food restaurant on McBean Parkway near Creekside Drive in Valencia.

This business is pulling out all of the stops to advertise its job openings at $12 per hour. Thomas Oatway Valencia