LETTERS AND EMAILS

Cartoon By: Ann Cleaves

Dear Editor,
I read your article in the July edition of the Southern Sierran regarding the use of drought resistant, native plants instead of grass. While I strongly agree that the use of desert landscaping, including drip irrigation and rocks is long over due, my concern is with the water saved.

Potentially this can result in a substantial reduction in residential water use, especially if thousands of home owners adopt the idea. However, what happens with the saved water?? Do you really trust the local water company to simply bank the water for dry years, perhaps sell it to raise revenue to reduce water costs or subsidize the expected reduction in income due to reduced water use?

More likely the water company will simply approve service to new developments with this saved water. Resulting in an endless circle of water use reduction so that the agency can approve service to more developments. The result is more congestion and crowding.

The prospect of this happening has a discouraging effect on my decision to seriously consider water wise landscaping. Until each water agency provides the users with a rock solid commitment not to approve more water connections, I would rather keep my lawns green than give them (elected boards usually who need campaign contributions) additional water to approve more growth!

-Richard Saretsky

Editor responds to Mr. Saretsky:

The Angeles Chapter supports beneficial uses for conserved water in our communities. The Committee's position is that water conservation should not primarily benefit new development. Conserved water should be available for the enhancement of urban areas, for local farmers who produce food for the region, and for residents to grow their own food. Water savings should also go back to the natural environment, ensuring the long term health of those unique ecosystems.

Dear Southern Sierran:

The piece by Carol Henning refers specifically to the DOT/BAC Master Plan which calls for introducing mountain bikes on congested urban trails. This is an issue of appropriate usage of traditional hiking and equestrian trails in one of the largest cities in the world. To achieve this stated purpose, it is necessary to amend the existing City Ordinance which wisely prohibits bikes on city park dirt trails. Even in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, bikes are not allowed on trails. City of Los Angeles dirt trails are not the open back country where mountain bikes on trails is more common. Hikers and equestrians move at approximately the same walking speed. Historically, there has been little conflict between these two user groups. In The American Sports Data, Inc.'s 2008 Superstudy of Sports Participation, Mountain biking was noted in the Outdoor Extreme Sports section. Introducing a fast moving extreme element onto crowded urban trails is dangerous and sets up for much user conflict. Confronted suddenly by a speeding bike, a horse's instinct is to buck, wheel and bolt, possibly throwing the rider to the ground, resulting in injury or death to either horse, rider or both. The mountain bikers have the lion's share of local trails with over 1500 miles of trail for their enjoyment around Los Angeles, including Mandeville Canyon, a park purchased in 2000, specifically given to bike usage, plus the Santa Monica mountains, the Verdugos, the San Gabriels and other trails in the Valley. City Park trails are less than 100 miles crowded with hikers, dog walkers, stroller pushers, running clubs and equestrians.

-Lynn Brown

Dear Editor,

Regarding the use of mountain bikes on trails, I believe the issue of safety (as well as trail damage) should be a concern. A number of participants on Sierra Club hikes have been injured by mountain bikes. I consider it unsafe to hike weekends on narrow trails open to mountain bikes. As a retiree, I have other choices but those have only that time off have to choose between risking injury or giving up hiking on what may have been their favoriate traills, especially if they are hearing impaired.

-Barbara Lilley