I have just read the views of two of our citizens in Wednesday's Times concerning water restrictions. To read one opinion that has a basis in fact and is supported by statistics next to an opinion based primarily on emotion left me extremely distraught.
Mr. Wewers' suggestion that people landscape for dry climates sounds good in light of current conditions. But plants that are intended for dry climates will normally not survive well in this area under our typical soil type and rainfall conditions. There are plants that can be used in our area that are drought-resistant, but even these plants would require some water to keep them healthy and disease-free.
Ms. Bowen presents a strong and sound case for allowing some amount of watering to be allowed.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wewers is following the same emotional response we see so often in our legislators and a great number of voters. Emotions must be tempered by facts. Ms. Bowen has clearly stated the facts and our legislators must now find an appropriate balance that will prevent greater harm to our environment through unrealistic water restrictions.
Keeping our trees and shrubs alive and healthy is very important in our efforts to combat global warming. Having the ability to plant new vegetation is a necessity to prevent soil erosion.
Knee-jerk reactions to any problem always end up causing the problem to be worse. I still have hope that one day our elected officials will realize this.
Michael L. Scupin
Lawyers conspire to circumvent justice
I read an article this week about an 80-year-old lawyer in California who was paid $2.5 million to corrupt a trial on which he was a juror. Because of his declining health, he avoided any prison time and was fined $1.5 million. It appears he cleared $1 million after paying his fine.
Doesn't anyone see how bad this reflects on our justice system when the convicted, the judge, the prosecutor and the defense are all lawyers? Shouldn't the fine be more than the booty?