Editor:

Arcata can be so much better than it thinks it is.

This has been my mantra for many years now about the small, rural college town where I live.

The history of Arcata in the last half of the 20th century and the early years of this current century have seen an evolution of progressive ideas and actions and, now, a de-evolution of those same ideals.

That the current all-woman Arcata City Council failed to even discuss a proposed resolution from some of its town citizens about stopping a war on children and other innocent people of Gaza was beyond disappointing (Mailbox, Nov. 9). They did not have to support the proposed verbiage of the presented resolution, yet they could have discussed a simple humanitarian resolution to stopping the bombing of children with military aid from the United States of America.

In researching Arcata resolutions of the past, I came upon the Oct. 16, 2002, proclamation against the war on Iraq.

In the 21 years since that proclamation, and with the knowledge we have gained upon seeing what that Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan have done to the people of the United States and to those countries' peoples, I am so disappointed in the Arcata City Council in their cowardly refusal to even discuss this Middle East war issue from the dais.

Arcata can be so much better — and boldly humanitarian — than it thinks it is. If these current council members won't resign, be sure to vote them out at the next election. We need brave leadership now.

Joanne McGarry, Arcata

Editor:

After the long saga for the Klamath dams removal has started, the same playbook in a more condensed version is to be applied to the Eel River dams ("PG&E Moves Forward with Eel River Dam Removal," Nov. 23). First, federal and state regulators impose onerous and expensive conditions for permits to allow the dams to operate. When the permits come up for renewal again, even more requirements are imposed, as well as expensive environmental studies. Eventually the cost of compliance becomes too much and the utilities relent and allow for the removal. 

In the case of the Klamath dams, the ratepayers were forced to pay an extra $250 million for removal and in California the taxpayers put up $250 million from a bond that ironically was primarily for water storage. The final cost of the project will be well over the stated half-billion dollars. The generated electricity is lost and there's no guarantee the beloved salmon will recover to be caught.

PG&E sees what the future holds and wants to cut their losses. The stakes are higher for the Eel River dams, as water users in Sonoma and Mendocino counties rely on the water diverted from the Eel for irrigation. Lake County will see a loss of property values as there would no longer be a Lake Pillsbury.

This brings us to our representative, Jared Huffman, a man that never saw a dam he liked. He touts his support for the two basin solution — a "can't have your cake and eat it" position that certainly won't make Mendocino, Sonoma and Lake counties happy. Make no mistake, Huffman represents his old employer, The Natural Resources Defense Council, not his constituents regarding this project. He will make public comments about sending water from the Eel south but doesn't support doing that. He will demand that the federal government print more money for the removal and to backfill the tax revenue losses to Lake County. Meanwhile the taxpayers will be hit again, the generated electricity will be lost and there's no guarantee the beloved salmon will recover to be caught.

Dennis Scales, Fortuna