Advertisement

Our coronavirus coverage is free for the first 24 hours. Find the latest information at tampabay.com/coronavirus. Please consider subscribing or donating.

  1. Archive

New Port Richey needs to mind Tampa Bay Water

Editor: The New Port Richey City Council should give urgent attention to correcting the policy and objectives of the badly flawed, rainfall-dependent Master Water Plan inherited by Tampa Bay Water.

The city of Tampa, Hillsborough County and Pasco County see correcting that plan as their highest priority. It is high time that New Port Richey take similar action. The first step is proper briefing.

Mayor Wendy Brenner is probably unaware that management at Tampa Bay Water is fighting to turn an additional 4-million gallons a day from Cypress Bridge into a seventh full-fledged wellfield in Pasco County. The new wellfield is to be called Cypress Bridge II.

The restated Interlocal Agreement conditions the increase of 4-million gallons per day at Cypress Bridge on environmental condition. In view of the proliferating sinkholes along the path of Cypress Bridge and under homes around Cypress Creek wellfield, any further increase in pumping should be prohibited by Swiftmud.

New Port Richey does not exist in a vacuum. For better or worse, it is a part of the political subdivision of the state of Florida called Pasco County, with which its future is inextricably tied. The destruction of Pasco will also mean destruction for New Port Richey.

The briefing usually lasts from one to one and a half hours. If the mayor cannot spare that time each month for the future of her citizens and those in the county at large, then another council member should be seated on the Tampa Bay Water board until she has her onerous duties under control.

Silbourne Clarke

Wesley Chapel

Proposed Port Richey incinerator would pose environmental danger

Editor: Today, the Port Richey City Council may move one step closer to allowing an open burn pit within the tiny confines of our fair city. The projected Air Curtain Incinerator is to be situated at the eastern end of Siesta Lane in the edge of a sensitive wetlands area.

The planning and zoning board has rubber-stamped this project and recommended the zoning be changed from agriculture to commercial. While code enforcement leaves much to be desired along the rest of Siesta Lane, nothing is as offensive and environmentally dangerous to the citizens of Port Richey as the proposed open burn pit. This facility, if approved, would be a permanent blight upon our city and would be allowed to burn 12 to 18 hours per day, depending upon exact sunset and sunrise times.

If you are a concerned citizen of the city or live or work in the county adjacent to this area you should attend the council meeting tonight and make your feeling known.

Edward E. Schultz

Suncoast Gateway Mobile Village

Port Richey

New residents need newer faces in same-old sheriff election

Editor: I've now read numbers of letters about Jim Gillum. There are many new people in this county now and have no idea of the days of Jim Gillum.

The days when old men played cards on Hudson Beach and got harassed when Gillum was sheriff. The time Gillum set up sting operations by selling cheap cartons of cigarettes and booze to small bars and other businesses. He wasn't catching criminals but creating them. It made headlines but wasted taxpayers' money.

Jim Gillum says there's more drugs on the street, well maybe there's more people in this county than there use to be. And both young and old know now that the laws are not working on that war; most of us don't want to hear that old song and dance. Jim Gillum talks about juvenile crime being out of control. Well, that is not just a police problem. It's a severe parenting problem. This is a problem that needs to go to the source, not political talk.

Thanks but no thanks. Is there a new face out there yet?

William Oehlecker

Hudson

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Advertisement
Advertisement