Charge them, they can afford it

The Antelope Valley Press’ editorial “Law means few options for water haulers” stated, in part, “The rule requires the new engines by 2023. What that means for water hauling truck owners is that they would likely have to purchase new trucks at the cost of approximately $200.000.” Yet Karen Caesar of the California Air Resources Board was quoted as saying, “(T)ruck owners are not expected to go out and purchase new vehicles” — that “funds are available to help with the purchase” of a “2010 or newer” engine.

Antelope Valley Press: “According to water haulers in the area, there is a very slim profit margin when hauling water. To accommodate the purchase of a new truck, the businesses would likely have to charge about $220 to $250 per water load. That price tag is not something that some families who rely on the service can afford.”

(Again), the state does not require the purchase of a new truck; only the purchase of a replacement engine which may be as old as (ten) years. And if indeed these water haulers are operating on a very slim profit margin, then they need to raise their fees accordingly or go out of business. After all, those who are affluent enough to reside in rural areas, such as Acton and Agua Dulce, are also affluent enough to pay at least $250 per water load.

Moreover, given its enormous carbon footprint, transporting water via truck is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme. As such, a climate change-related tax of, say, $25 per load should be levied on those who chose to depend upon truck delivered water. A portion of such revenue could be used to help defray the additional costs incurred by our poor, poor put upon water haulers.  

Guy Marsh


Entitled to your opinion

Guy Marsh, your diatribe against the US military, though possibly true in part, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of your quote about soldiers serving their country.  

To the soldier serving in Iraq, Afghanistan or on any other base, the nature of our armed services matters not. The fact that soldiers in some of those countries put their lives on the line, live in miserable conditions among many other hardships should be enough to merit them respect.  

They aren’t involved in the decisions made by “the Brass” they just follow orders so I would say it’s “naive and childish” to condemn them. I especially consider it “naive and childish” to make the statement: “Therefore, no soldier, sailor, airman or Marine contributes in any way whatsoever towards the freedoms of working class Americans.”  

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, just don’t try and sell it as fact.  There is also a copious amount of information available concerning the need for a strong military in current times. It’s fine that you disagree with that statement but it doesn’t make your opinion any more valid.  

To make it clear, they are not “my cherished military.” I just have respect for people who are in some of the horrid environments our military personnel are in and I’m certainly not going to demean them.  

You sound like the type of person Colonel Jessup was referencing about in his famous end-of-movie speech.

Again, the current declining state of the capitalist system (in your opinion) is irrelevant to the fact that you prospered from it yet you condemn it so vociferously today.    

Steve Lockhart


It means nothing

To all of you pampered and pompous haters of the military, capitalism, and America in general, you feel you are more intelligent and superior then the rest of us.

This is proven by the way you write your opinions.

But, as Dan Brew, my grandfather, said “You can have all the education in the world, but without the common sense to pour pee out of a boot, your intelligence means nothing.”

Gary Hansen


Won’t be

fooled twice

Katie Hill is following the three step rule for ethical misdeeds.

The first will be to keep silent so she can respond to the allegations. She will want to be on the moral high ground so she will angryly deny all allegations.

The third step will be to attack her accusers. She will want to play the victim and galvanize support for her misdeeds.

In today’s political swamp, Katie will not resign and will get re-elected. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care that Katie is a serial sexual predator.

She wants the district Democrat, so she can still be speaker. It gives me the chills when I see Katie hugging young women and girls at our schools.

I’ve dealt with predators like Katie and she will be caught again because she has is an addition.

I will not vote for her a second time.

William Thompson


That went well

Too bad a “trusted” ( and I say that with contempt) member of Congress turned out  to be just another loud mouth millennial bimbo voted into office by a bunch of snowflakes who were conned maybe to no fault of their own.

Great job. What a clown she turned out to be. Now who are they going put up to replace her when Governor Nonsense calls for a special election. My god everyone has a camera sweetie. Haven’t you figured that out by now. You shouldn’t be in charge of anything let alone a member of Congress.

John Rector

Quartz Hill

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.