More About Water
In response to the “H2 Woe” article [Cover story, Aug. 13] and the discussion about the need to improve local infrastructure, it’s important for Santa Fe area residents to know that the Buckman Direct Diversion Board does not plan to install reverse osmosis (RO) nor ion exchange (IE) treatment at the point where the water is diverted from the Rio Grande. This location is about two miles downstream from where the Los Alamos canyons, which hold the majority of the Manhattan Project contaminants, meet the river.
The Buckman Board plans to reserve space in the water treatment facility for RO and IE options. But they did not include the need for the extra power to run these additional treatment options in their recent agreement with Public Service Company of New Mexico, which provides electricity for the Buckman Project.
Greg Friedman of National Water Services is correct. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires testing for fewer than 150 chemicals and contaminants. Los Alamos National Lab is a research and development facility that uses many chemicals and radionuclides that do not have regulatory standards.
The Buckman Board states that the water will meet all state and federal drinking water standards. That’s not enough.
The Buckman Board needs to take every precautionary step available to them to provide clean tap water to everyone who will be drinking the Rio Grande water. RO and IE must be part of the water treatment process.
Concerned Citizens for
Laughing out loud
Responding to the ranting [Letters, Aug. 13: “Look Who’s Talking”] regarding our take on Mr. Lorenzen: The gang almost met in “special session,” but George had a dental appointment. Instead, the group met for its regularly scheduled coffee and decided to respond to his ramblings—useless as it appears. Why have a battle of wits with an obviously unarmed man?
My descent is not relevant: Our group consists of a rainbow coalition that encompasses the wide and varied native population of Santa Fe. I am merely acting (quite proudly, I might add) as the secretary for the group. As such, we will address the totally discombobulated attacks on the local population in the Letter to the Editor.
We were all shocked at the racist attacks on both the Pueblo people and the Spanish settlers. Well-informed scholars of all backgrounds agree that the two combined forces to ensure the survival of each other against raids from the numerous marauders to the area. One need only look at the Segesser hide paintings, depicting the 60 Pueblo warriors and 46 Spanish militia fighting side-by-side against French, Pawnee and their Otto allies in Kansas on Aug. 13, 1720, as an excellent, documented example.
Attacking the religious and cultural aspects of the local population was also low but not unexpected—Hitler would be proud of you!
Suggesting that the “Puebloans” revolt and conquer the plaza because of the cost of rent and selling-out their culture, we addressed this issue only for the absurdity involved in the paragraph’s entire content. The Pueblo people will always have their culture, languages and pride—these are not subject to sale regardless of the price!
In any event, we decided not to lead a revolt against the “conquering enslavers” of the plaza because of the cost of gas, car-pooling, Clark wanting another piece of cherry pie and other logistics.
In conclusion, we then decided that we would call ourselves the “Pinheads” as Jon Ewell refers to us because we’re always the first to identify a stupid little prick. So thanks, Jon Ewell. We’ll treasure the name and hopefully your departure from the Santa Fe area—we can’t afford any more ignorance, hate and prejudice here.
Bernardo c’ de baca
ATV riders losers? [Winners & Losers, Aug. 20: “The Great Outdoors”] I don’t think so.
Sure, the Forest Service is talking about cutting the number of roads legal for noisy recreation to half of what is now open, but we are still talking about over 2,000 miles of roads—that’s from here to the East Coast!
Google the Santa Fe National Forest Web site, go to the “Proposed Action” for travel management and look at the maps for yourself—especially the obscene carving up of the Jemez. All this for, according to the Forest Service’s own figures, less than 5 percent of total forest users.
No, it’s you, me, quiet recreationists in general and the wildlife of the forest who are the real losers here—and especially the idea, whose time has surely come, that the forest itself has its own rights equal or superior to the humans who view the forest as existing purely for their benefit and pleasure. These include the riders of these machines to whom the forest is little more than a nicely landscaped NASCAR track, the dealers who prey on their fantasy and an industry that makes huge profits dependent on what amounts to a public subsidy.
After reading yet another article [Outakes, Aug. 20: “Audit Right There”] about the questionable decisions of Jerome Block Jr., Democratic candidate for the Public Relations Commission, I have to ask myself: How could anyone with a modicum of intelligence or integrity vote for him?
This is not even Jerome Block Jr.’s own money were asking him to be accountable for. It is our money, taxpayer money. Even if the conflict of interest were not flagrant (if not illegal), there are certainly gray areas in his spending.
Block continues to hide behind empty words: The “campaign follows all rules.” A person of integrity would step up and explain himself and the numbers, if not his position.
How can we expect a person who refuses to be accountable to the public to hold others accountable as a member of the PRC?
I will be voting for Rick Lass for PRC in November and I urge others to do the same. Lass is accountable and does not try to hide behind empty words or meaningless numbers.
Corrections: SFR’s chart of DNC delegate power connection [Cover, Aug. 20: “Denver or Bust”] had two errors. Rep. Antonio “Moe” Maestas was incorrectly named as Rep. Joe Maestas. Also Estevan Gonzales was incorrectly identified as Santa Fe County Manager Roman Abeyta’s father in-law. Gonzales is Abeyta’s brother in-law.
The Reporter welcomes original, signed letters to the editor. Letters (no more than 200 words) should refer to specific articles in the Reporter. They may be edited for clarity and space. Include address and phone number for verification purposes; these will not be published.