You have permission to edit this article.
Letters to the Editor: Rethink Nipomo development project; Questioning restrictive voting rights bills; No more trucking

Letters to the Editor: Rethink Nipomo development project; Questioning restrictive voting rights bills; No more trucking

Rethink Nipomo development project

Thanks to Mike Hodgson for his article on the massive, proposed development in Nipomo.  I was struck by the term "to the extent possible" when referring to saving the special and protected species at the site of the proposal.  That leaves a lot of wiggle room. 

When we built a new power line through the California desert years ago, we were told not to kill any desert totoise and that we had to move them to a new, proper habitat. We were not told to the extent possible.

The one word I did not read in the article was "water." Water has become very precious in Nipomo, so much so that my water bills definitely reflect it.  Nipomo was so short of water that they had to contract with Santa Maria to get part of their share of water the state ships to them.  It was very expensive as a pumping station and a pipeline had to be built to get it back north.

What happens if we have extremely long droughts and the state has no water to ship to Santa Maria, especially since they are building like crazy, and there is none for Nipomo. Our Nipomo wells will probably also be dry or have salt water intrusion.

So, my question is why do we keep building huge projects in Nipomo when water is a huge issue? We old time residents have always wanted Nipomo to stay rural and not become Los Angeles, or Santa Maria for that matter, where every inch of land is paved over. Those in charge, please rethink this project. 

Rick Tibben


Questioning restrictive voting rights bills

I'm just wondering if the legislators who proposed the 253 restrictive voting rights bills leave out words when they salute the flag like: pledge, allegiance, United, Republic, one, nation, under, God, liberty, justice and for all.

John Waddell


No more trucking

Last year, on the first day of spring, an oil tank truck crashed on Highway 166 east of Santa Maria, spilling 6,700 gallons of crude oil and fuel into the Cuyama River. The driver was speeding and is finally being prosecuted by the District Attorney.

Exxon recently revived plans to send 70 such trucks daily, on Hwy. 101, from their Gaviota facility to the Nipomo refinery. If that doesn’t work out, they will then send the trucks down the 166 to their Kern County pipeline. Those 70 trucks then return to pick up the next day’s load.

Will our county and the state sanction this major pollution process and oil spills waiting to happen? For 30 years this oil was piped north in substandard and neglected pipelines until the Refugio Beach oil spill shut down the pipeline.

Do the citizens and environment of Santa Barbara County need to bear the pollution and accident risk of this oil trucking so Exxon can avoid the consequences of the Refugio spill and make a short term profit?

Please contact your county supervisor and state Assembly and Senate members and tell them to stop this dangerous and climate killing project.

Larry Bishop



Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alert

Breaking News