The Thursday, May 1 article "Watering restrictions voluntary in summer," leads you to believe that we all go back to watering our lawns and plants just like we used to. After all, as the article states, "there will be no watering restrictions, no assigned watering days and no penalties, no matter how much water is used, Colorado Springs Utilities officials said."
What was blatantly left out was that the tier system is still in play. So, if you use over 2500 cubic feet of water in one month you will be paying a penalty at that outrageous, cost choking, third tier rate. We can all speculate why we weren't told that the highest tier was still being used. I have my own skeptical thoughts. But, the bottom line is be careful with your watering. That first bill could be very scary.
Joel Phillips, Colorado Springs
Paying more per cubic foot
Like most homeowners, I was very happy and encouraged to hear that we will not have to deal with water restrictions this summer. However, as I listened to the radio news reports yesterday a question occurred to me that was not being discussed. OK, no restrictions on watering, but what will the tiered rate structure be like this year as compared to last?
This morning I went to the Utilities website and found the following:
cubic fee 2013 2014
0 - 999 $0.0311 $0.0349
1000 -2499 $0.0584 $0.0654
2500 + $0.0885 $0.0988
In June when it was so hot and dry, I was forced to water the twice a week minimum every week which put my usage just over the 1000 cf level. If I could have foregone just one of those scheduled watering I would have stayed under the 1000 cf threshold, but my lawn was struggling too much to do so.
That one extra watering cost me $50. Luckily we had a lot of rain in July and August and I was able to turn off my sprinklers several times during those months.
If we have another long stretch of severe hot and dry conditions this summer I and others may be forced to spend even more to offset that. So, just be aware that while we can water as much as necessary this year, we will be paying more per cubic foot to do so.
Stewart Miller, Colorado Springs
Suspending immigration enforcement
The May 1 article, "Denver refuses holds for ICE," is of concern, as it is a demonstration of what is wrong with our immigration system.
I read the article to mean that any county in Colorado may refuse to honor requests from ICE to hold someone solely on the basis of a person's immigration status.
So any county has unilateral authority to void out immigration restrictions and enforcement triggers? And until we have an administration that values the rule of law, or a ruling on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court - which seems clear to me - citizens will be at the mercy of these ad hoc amnesties?
I believe elected representatives, including sheriffs, have a duty to protect Americans first.
There is an enormous body of clear and solid immigration law, and it would, I believe, make citizens safer and more confident in those who are elected to represent and protect Americans if the laws were followed.
In March, illegal immigrants were charged with more than 250 separate counts of sex crimes against children in North Carolina. In February, illegal immigrants were charged with more than 150 acts of child molestation, indicating the 250 figure is no anomaly. How many such crimes occur among our border states?
Conveniently, statistics on the number of crimes committed by those here illegally are not kept by federal authorities. Suspending immigration enforcement at any level, as well as city governments implementing so-called 'sanctuary policies' shielding aliens from possible deportation, are foolish and dangerous.
Instead of enforcing immigration laws along our southern border, border agents have been known to help smuggle the children of illegal immigrants. This is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws. More troubling, such smuggling of children jeopardizes the safety of these children.
If citizens believe that there are no adverse impacts to looking the other way or devising their own interpretation on immigration laws, they might, at minimum, consider the fact that what they do also impacts and possibly jeopardizes fellow citizens.
I feel grateful that this is not an issue in El Paso County and that we have 287 deputies certified to carry out immigration enforcement.
Janice Taylor, Colorado Springs
Who's more detrimental?
Re: Mikey Weinstein's guest column.
Mikey Weinstein is a hypocrite, makes money on his attacks on the Air Force Academy through the "nonprofit" organization he set up to benefit himself, and uses any excuse to get his face on TV, radio or in this newspaper.
Just how many "clients" does attorney Weinstein have among cadets? What "contract" or other agreement does he have with each?
What benefits accrue to each party? Are these agreements made known to academy leaders?
Moreover, who constitutes "competent" military authority? Only those Weinstein would bless with his prejudicial views?
Finally, who is more detrimental to the Academy's "unit cohesion, good order, and discipline"? Mikey or Gen. Bentley Rayburn?
Charles Andrew Wood, Colorado Springs