Vail Daily letter: Specifics needed
In Sunday’s Daily Bill Lindsay makes reference to LCV.org (League Conservation Voters) regarding congressional votes on environmental issues, but fails to give any specifics. Just because an environmental issue comes before politicians for a vote, it’s not axiomatic that the particular policy being voted on actually makes sense or has a provable benefit to society. Suppose a given piece of environmental legislation would cost a nation already $18 trillion in debt, another billion dollars, and is predicated upon an unproven theory — what then? An example of this is occurring in California where environmental impact lawsuits and lobbying by environmental groups is adversely affecting society. Excessive environmental regulation has all but halted new investment in water infrastructure. In fact, the last major investment in water infrastructure in California occurred in the late ’60s. Today California is in the middle of a drought as tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched. I applaud Mr. Lindsay’s concern for the environment and I’m sure some members of Congress are more environmentally aware than others, but without specific details about the issues, the cost, who would be affected, and perhaps most importantly, the potential unintended consequences, a tabulation of “yes” vs. “no” votes is meaningless.