Handle water tank with care

We agree with Supervisor Parks that the replacement for the Conifer tank doesn’t have to be in a neighborhood or at the trailhead to the national park. We appreciate her effort to bring forward the option of sharing the Kimberly tank site and want to point out in response to the Dec. 29 Acorn article on the topic that a new larger tank at Kimberly would not be “visible” or “twice as large as the one at Conifer.”

While the new tank may hold twice the volume, it would only be 41 percent larger in circumference, and while the existing Kimberly tank is above ground, a new tank could be buried and not visible. Such a location, which is already graded and has a road going to it, would not require the undertaking of an expensive environmental impact report. It would also take a 20year-old tank and replace it with a new one that would offer greater water reserves in times of emergencies, such as fires.

We also agree with Supervisor Parks that a new tank could be placed in a non-controversial location, whether it is done in cooperation with the Las Virgenes Water Image District at the Kimberly tank site, or in the over 1,000 acres of land behind the Conifer tank.

Save Open Space is opposed to, and will continue to oppose, the construction of a water tank at the entrance to the national park’s Palo Comado Canyon. The Triunfo Sanitation District needs to revisit their bad decision, which will result in significant environmental damage. Mary E. Wiesbrock Agoura Hills