Good job on the flood history

To the editor:

I found Kimberly Weyandt’s story on the history of river flooding in this issue fascinating, particularly because there were some really big floods in there that we don’t generally know about. Do you know where she found all the information?

One note, however: In talking about the 1955 flood, she says that the NPS worked for years to build the dam. That was the Corps of Engineers. We don’t build dams; just manage the recreation areas around some of them.

[Kimberly Weyandt researched the floods on the Upper Delaware through articles previously published in The River Reporter and interviews with Basket Historical Society founder Jack Niflot, Town of Delaware Historian Mary Curtis, Port Jervis Historian Peter Osbourne, Al Henry of the National Park Service and Clarke Rupert of the Delaware River Basin Commission.]

Ross’ sports coverage is top-notch

To the editor:

I am writing this letter to thank your youth editor, Richard Ross, for his excellent coverage and writing style in covering our local high school sports scene. He goes beyond reporting just the scores or times. His style reminds me of days gone by, before today’s super slow motion, reverse angle, instant replay, and over dissected TV sports coverage. His style evokes a time when one had to rely on a descriptive radio sports broadcaster, like the late great Bob Murphy, to describe the action and paint a picture of what was happening on the ballfield or in the arena.

His coverage of cross-country and track is by far the tops in the tri-county area. These sports aren’t as glamorous as football, soccer, basketball or baseball, but the athletes competing on these teams put in just as much time and effort. I’m sure they also appreciate reading about their accomplishments, as do their families.

Kudos again to your youth editor, Richard Ross. For someone who shares his passion for sports, it is easy to see his coverage of these events is more than just a job to him and is reflected in his writing style.

High and low waters below three dams

To the editor:

The alert American is the person whose eyes and ears are open to current events and the surrounding world. The person who sees the river problem is like the person who sees smoke and reports a fire. We need such people. The time to be heard is now, during the Delaware River Basin Commission’s three-year experiment on management of New York City’s three Upper Delaware reservoirs: Pepacton, Cannonsville and Neversink.

It is especially important to speak out during this three-year experiment, for only then can best solutions be found before finalizing of the four-state agreement on how the waters under New York City’s control can and should be managed.

The Supreme Court in 1954 did not hear the words ecology, environmental protection, etc. These words were learned across the nation the hard way after many major mistakes were made. By 1969, when the National Environmental Policy Act was passed, sponsors of major reservoirs, canals, etc., had to set forth all the potential alternatives to achieving the same ends.

New York City did not have to consider any alternatives to the three dams. This is not to say that the three dams collect water that otherwise would waste, “flowing to the sea,” and that we should all be grateful and keep quiet. But it is to point out that water in the 1950s was seen by many as a mere commodity, not as a natural resource. Otherwise, the court justices would have spelled out specifics about more than what should be the daily minimum flow at Montague, NJ. Examples could include variables of quality of natural habitats, water temperature, velocity, the sources of water measured at Montague, etc. Court justices use water and most of them like to fish.

New York City is still treating water purely as a commodity to be sold at the expense of many miles of waterways—downstream the dams—that have immense potential as prime eastern U.S. fisheries.

It would be a feather in New York City’s cap to get hold of this issue and make it its goal to achieve both its commodity purposes and at the same time serve the Neversink and East and West Branch Rivers in New York State as its prized fisheries. This would be a win-win success for both the city and state. Not to mention the Delaware River.

So now is the time for all river watchers to observe and speak out when reservoirs are maintained running too low for keeping healthy fish or outrageously high when New York City could have saved space for some of the excess rain in an environmentally-managed reservoir system.

An open letter to the Congressional delegates in Washington

The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has once again warned about what he terms “painful choices” if Congress does not trim Social Security and Medicare benefits promised to the 77 million baby boomers born during the two decades following World War II. “As a nation,” said the 78-year-old chairman, “We owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered.” The trimming, we are told, is necessary due to the longevity of the population and the baby boomers that are due to retire soon.

If this is necessary, we say “so be it,” however, why is there never a mention of a cap or trimming of the budget for Congressional retirees who receive their salaries for the rest of their lives regardless of length of service; with raises and their spouses continue with the benefits after their demise.

Most important, why is there never mention of the budgetary figures or the costs of the medical benefits offered to the same personnel and all of the federal employees. Aren’t they living longer also?

Congressional employees can decide whether or not to participate in the Social Security Program and Medicare. We wonder how many have chosen to join these programs and why it was not good enough for them. Why did they require a separate program? What do these budgets cost the taxpayers?

Isn’t this the country where all men are created equal? Shouldn’t equal “trimming,” as Greenspan calls it, apply to all of these types of funding? Aren’t some of our Congressional delegates and federal retirees living longer also and in the baby boomer class?

How long and how much would it take to “fix” Social Security and Medicare if everyone were equally covered?

Please address these queries and let the rest of the nation in on the data.

To those who do, thank you for your kind attention.

*The quotes by Chairman Greenspan were taken from a story in the Times Herald Record and were delivered at a conference held at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

This country needs John Kerry

To the editor:

I watched the first Presidential debate with my TV room full of fellow Democrat-voting friends. I was thrilled to witness Kerry’s obvious victory. We need Kerry to run this country. We need to restore integrity to the Presidential office. We need a president who gets his information correct before sending our men and women into combat. We need Kerry who gives the ultimate respect to our troops by having a plan to bring them home. We need to have our rights fully restored by revoking the PATRIOT Act. We need leadership that comes from strength and doesn’t use fear tactics to control and manipulate the American population.

Seeking facts in the presidential election

To the editor:

I have heard Mr. Kerry revise his stories of valor in his time of service—the places he had been and the actions he had taken. They, for some reason, don’t coincide with the records or the hundreds of people he worked with in the Army. I know he had a few stand by him, but what about the testimony of the hundreds who disagreed. If you need to revise your story, because new facts come out, was the first story true? Why won’t he release his own records? Is there something in them he fears?

Now in the election for President, Mr. Kerry tells us a new plan each week, and he changes his mind sometimes weekly on what his policies were and may be. I need to know what he is going to do to make an informed vote. If I need to wait each week to find out what he thinks, it does not enlist confidence in me.

The war in Iraq bugs me too. First, how can he say we have no coalition when we have over 47 countries with us? The ones who tried to stop us were making big bucks in the oil for food program the UN set up. Oh, and by the way, the people in Iraq got very little of that money for food. One final thought on Iraq, didn’t Saddam use weapons of mass destruction on his own people and the people of Iran? What makes you think he wouldn’t use the stuff he had left over on us?

Speaking the truth is not unpatriotic

To the editor:

A recent campaign ad against Kerry regarding his Vietnam service came from the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT). They characterized Kerry as being like Jane Fonda in his Vietnam anti-war posture, including a supposed “secret” meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris, and that he should apologize to the American people. The televised ad condemns Kerry for his reports regarding horrific deeds of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam. (Do SBVT vets actually doubt that those deeds occurred? Or do they simply object to Kerry revealing them?) The ad then concludes with a question of “Do you want such a man as your president?”

It fails to point out that Kerry presented those reports before the Albright Commission hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1971 as given to him by other servicemen, of horrors committed against the Vietnamese—he did not claim to have witnessed—or committed—what he reported on. Kerry also expressed concern that those acts of violence had been committed with “full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

Several months ago, I read his entire commission report and found myself deeply moved at his courage to say what he did. He had found that there was “nothing in South Vietnam that threatens the U.S.,” and that for years the Vietnamese had been “seeking their liberation from any colonial influence.”

In these ways, Kerry found our pursuit of the war to be horribly misguided. I see Kerry’s role, then, as ultimately a patriotic one.

In case the reader still doubts—as the SBVT group seems to—that the atrocities did occur, let me recount a relevant memory I have of several fighter pilots who had recently returned from Vietnam to address the Cadet Wing at the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1968. One of them actually sang to us cadets a song, the lyrics of which included something about dropping candy from their aircraft into the town square of a Vietnamese village, then after the children ran out to gather the candy, making another pass over the village with bombs to kill them all.

Far from criticizing Kerry, I praise him for speaking out as he did back in 1971. And as for the SBVT group: Would they just prefer burying such problems as the atrocities in Vietnam or in Abu Graib? Kerry did our nation two great deeds of service, first by volunteering in an unpopular war, and then by helping save thousands more lives in hastening our withdrawal from that war, when we began to see it for the tragic mistake that it was.

Think on these things, the next time that you see similar ads.

Proud to be an American

To the editor:

Last night Mr. Kerry made me proud again to be an American! I am confident that anyone who watched the debate will vote for Kerry—the obviously better man.

Kerry supports the right to bear arms

To the editor:

I have been hunting and fishing for over 50 years. I am a Republican. I am voting for Kerry. My wife hunts and fishes (and is an environmental educator). She is a Democrat. She is voting for Kerry. Our two sons hunt and fish. I don’t what parties they belong to, but they are both voting for Kerry.

Here are some of Kerry’s positions on guns directly from his website:

Kerry is a strong supporter of sportsmen’s rights to hunt and fish. He is a life-long hunter. He is a gun owner and he believes in the right to bear arms. Kerry emphasized his strong belief in the Second Amendment during his announcement that he would run for president. He has said that he will “work to ensure that the basic rights of all Americans to legally and safely hunt and fish are protected.”

He will support greater land conservation for hunting and fishing, and the right to fair share of federal funding for fish and wildlife programs. He will undertake “legitimate thinning projects to reduce the risk of fire around communities and to create a mosaic of habitat in the forest.” He will work to prevent the construction of new roads into our remaining roadless areas, specifically to prevent further fragmentation of our forests.

Bush, on the other hand, is clueless on the environment. He has a devastating environmental record, which will have long term detrimental affects on hunting and fishing and our own health.

Bush released new guidelines in January 2003 that will reduce federal wetlands protection. We hunters and fishermen know how vital wetlands are to the propagation of fish and game.

Bush proposed a rule that would remove mercury emissions from Clean Air Act regulations that have been used to limit the most toxic air pollutants. Mercury contamination in fish is poisoning us. Just read the advisories in your 2004 fishing regulation manual.

Go to johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen for more information on Sportsmen for Kerry-Edwards.