Marin IJ Readers Forum January 20, 2022 – Marin Independent Journal

Climate change must be part of the future plan of water

In his recently published commentary (“Slowing water pipeline plan best for MMWD board incumbents”, January 9), IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood makes many positive points, but misses the elephant in the room – climate change. .

As president of Confluence West, a consortium of western water experts, I can say that we know there will be both extraordinarily wet years and long-term drought years in the decades to come. What’s missing in the current water supply discussion is a long-term, science-based plan – not the focus on various short-term, tense conversations about “the pipeline versus conservation” or ” desalination versus reservoir expansion”.

An 80 to 100 year plan will answer questions such as how we ensure overall water security, affordability for low-income residents, a thriving farming community, the impacts of rising water levels the sea and the health of the salmon in our waterways. Let’s stop living paycheck and create this science plan for any Marin.

—Kimery Wiltshire, Sausalito

Distribute remaining aid to tenants, owners now

I am writing about the article published on January 12 under the title “Marin’s requests for housing assistance exceed current funding”.

In the report, Marin County Deputy Administrator Hyacinth Hinojosa said the county is now requesting new funds for housing assistance. That’s fine, but I believe the county has ineptly dispersed current funds. I am disappointed that only $20 million of the $36 million currently available has been disbursed so far to tenants and landlords in need. I have not the slightest doubt as to the validity of the request for additional funds. But the bigger problem is how to get money into people’s hands so the bills can be paid.

The article also mentions that a former housing assistance coordinator embezzled funds. I’m glad Hinojosa can help prevent fraud, but until we disperse all available funds, it’s not serving those in need.

I think it’s outrageous that victims financially affected by the coronavirus pandemic cannot get help. It’s been almost two years since the pandemic shutdowns began. This program needs to be delivered more effectively and efficiently. Put those leftover funds into the hands of tenants and landlords in need.

—Gigi Gruenke, San Anselmo

Capurro, Marin County Icon, Will Be Missed

I so enjoyed Marin IJ’s recent op-ed regarding the death of Joan Capurro, aka “the hat with a smile” (“Tireless Champion for Those Who Do Good for Marin,” Jan. 10). She was an excellent representative of the Sailor’s Bank, but it was usually her cause that caught your attention. I will miss her.

—Gladys C. Gilliland, San Rafael

Solar battle goes back to need for PG&E assets

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s rates are set by the California Public Utilities Commission to reflect a specific rate of return on total assets. For example, when PG&E sold its headquarters in downtown San Francisco, it reduced its assets, which impacted the rate structure established by PUC. In this case, PG&E has a problem with solar on private rooftops (“California Proposes to Cut Incentives for Rooftop Solar,” Dec. 14).

In high demand areas during the summer months when the air conditioning is on full blast, solar energy provides additional electricity for those peak times. But PG&E has a slew of “peak” factories across the state that it historically uses in times of high demand. Some of these factories are rarely or never used, but they count towards the rate of return on assets.

More solar energy means less “peak” plants. This reduces the rate of return for shareholders.

The first thing to do is shut down PG&E’s ability to contribute to politicians’ campaigns so we can bring some honesty back into government and continue to build a more efficient power grid.

— John Carapiet, Belvedere

The budget surplus should return to the taxpayers

I recently read that Governor Gavin Newsom is looking for ways to spend California’s $31 billion budget surplus (“California Analyst Predicts $31 Billion Budget Surplus,” November 17).

I have a new, downright revolutionary idea for Newsom. How about giving it back where it came from, which is to overburdened California taxpayers? Collectively, we promise to spend it more wisely.

— Tom Areton, San Anselmo