Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Agriculture – California category.

Why are U.S. lawmakers making California water deals in secret? From: Staff, Los Angeles Times

Agriculture - California, Water, Resources & Quality

From California Farm Water Coalition news

EDITORIAL: Why are U.S. lawmakers making California water deals in secret?
From: Staff, Los Angeles Times

California made extraordinary progress on water policy in this severe drought year, largely under the guiding hand of Gov. Jerry Brown. The governor’s master stroke was to initiate the conversation and then back away, allowing various interests – agribusiness, urban areas, environmentalists, people who favored building tunnels to move water from north to south, people who vigorously opposed them – to fight it out.

Go to:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-policy-congress-california-20141120-story.html

No Comments

Recognizing the Role of California Farmland in Economic and Environmental Goals

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather

California Political Review

Agriculture is the number one industry in California and one of the major industries in the nation. To succeed, the farmers must be environmentally conscious, use the best techniques for land preservation and water use. The way the Left talks about the farmers is that the radical city folks have more concern about farmland than the farmers.

“Earlier this year, the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) released a draft of the Grant Guidelines & Applications for the new California Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation program (SALC). The public was asked to comment and the Working Landscapes Action Team went into action.

SALC was established to support California’s climate adaptation and greenhouse gas emission goals, directed by AB32 and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The program will make strategic investments that protect agricultural lands by working to prevent development in critical agricultural lands. The grants through SALC will fund plans, conservation acquisitions and incentives to work toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions connected with agricultural lands.”

This, along with the Sacramento control of water projects and ground water, farmer s will now be forced to ask permission to plant, what to plant, how much to plant, or if they are even allowed to plant. Sounds like the old Soviet Union.

Corn Field

Recognizing the Role of California Farmland in Economic and Environmental Goals

By Nadine Ono, California Economic Summit,   11/14/14 

In an effort to meet the challenges posed by climate change, California is working toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions while trying to maintain its open spaces and a healthy agricultural economy. And members of the Summit’s Working Landscapes Action Team are making sure that their voice is heard through this process.

“What we’re after is to look at the whole urban-rural landscape in a more comprehensive way and find better ways to make the best use of our available resources, including our farmland” said Glenda Humiston, a Working Landscapes Action Team co-lead and Director of the USDA California Rural Development office.

Earlier this year, the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) released a draft of the Grant Guidelines & Applications for the new California Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation program (SALC). The public was asked to comment and the Working Landscapes Action Team went into action.

SALC was established to support California’s climate adaptation and greenhouse gas emission goals, directed by AB32 and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The program will make strategic investments that protect agricultural lands by working to prevent development in critical agricultural lands. The grants through SALC will fund plans, conservation acquisitions and incentives to work toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions connected with agricultural lands.

The Working Landscapes Action Team wants to make sure that SALC’s investments are in line with its own goals, including the creation of a roadmap for triple-bottom-line prosperity (social, economic and environmental progress), the theme of the 2014 Economic Summit. From the letter:

Land use decisions are economic decisions, so a better understanding of the economics of agriculture and food, land, management and stewardship, and ecosystem services is key to informing better decisions about conservation strategies and markets for products and services provided by open land. USDA Rural Development recommends that the SGC grants for agricultural preservation be broadened to explicitly include supporting an economically robust rural and agricultural economy, which by definition includes recognition of the role of prime farmland.

Humiston, who is one of the letter’s signatories, explained one of the main concerns with the draft: “The initial proposed draft is largely just focused on preserving farmland, using a lot of traditional tools like easements and the Williamson Act.” The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for lower property tax assessments.

What is problematic with that method of measuring the value of farmland is that it’s not comprehensive enough, explained Humiston, not in an era of big data and sophisiticated land modeling and planning software.

“And I think many of us on the state Economic Summit, particularly the Working Landscapes Action Team have realized over the past several years, the importance of tying the eco-system services, i.e. producing food and fiber–that’s very important–but also the economic viability and the social and cultural aspects of it all and really tying it together in that people, planet and prosperity – the triple-bottom-line.”

The next steps with the draft Grant Guidelines & Application will most likely be hearings and meetings between the SGC and interested parties such as the Working Landscapes Action Team.

MORE:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/recognizing-the-role-of-california-farmland-in-economic-and-environmental-goals/

No Comments

Our View: Sites will see competition and opposition

Agriculture - California, State gov, Water, Resources & Quality

Appeal Democrat.com

Opinion

Posted: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:49 am

Good for the Sites Joint Powers Authority.

The group of Sacramento Valley leaders and water district personnel is working on further planning and financing for the off-stream reservoir proposed to be built at the border of Glenn and Colusa counties. And it was reported they’re even looking for possibilities to bring the total price down and make the project more saleable.

The sense is they realize their project will have plenty of competition. It’s hard to imagine otherwise and we’re glad that they’re meeting that reality head-on.

Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond issue, passed resoundingly, supported across the state, and we think the storage component was a big part of what brought many voters to the polls in favor of it. With Prop. 1′s passage, the California Water Commission will be in charge of doling out $2.7 billion dedicated to creating additional water storage and will be writing up the regulations for how that’s done. That funding, then, will be available in December 2016.

According to a story by Andrew Creasey in the Wednesday edition, the Sites Joint Powers Authority is hoping for a share of the bond money to seed funding for the construction project estimated at present to total some $4 billion.

Sites, for a few reasons, makes good sense as a leading contender for that funding. As Creasey wrote, the main goal of the project is “the notion of increased flexibility.” Sites could store water when it’s abundant during winter and spring rains, when high flows in streams and tributaries below Shasta Dam often mean fresh water escaping into the ocean.

The stored water could then meet whatever need crops up — supplementing Shasta deliveries, for instance, so that reservoir could keep cold water in storage for use later in the summer to help fish.

Regardless of how much sense it makes, there will be opposition and competition. It’s encouraging the supporters are ready.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/opinion/our-view-sites-will-see-competition-and-opposition/article_a426686a-6adf-11e4-b287-53276ffe71fe.html

No Comments

11-06-14 PRL: THE END OF AGRICULTURE ON POINT REYES

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/end-agriculture-point-reyes

The park, the E.A.C., the N.P.C.A. and others have claimed they are not trying to get rid of the ranches. We are skeptical. If they mean what they say, then we ask Jon Jarvis, Neal Desai, Gordon Bennett, Amy Trainer and Jerry Meral to make the following pledge to the community: I promise that neither I nor any organization I am a part of will ever participate in legal action to eliminate or restrict the ranches on Point Reyes; and if such legal action is ever taken, I will do everything in my power to vigorously defend the ranches.
If they don’t take the pledge, watch out. Our ranches are about to disappear.
The end of agriculture on Point Reyes
By Corey Goodman and Peter Prows
11/06/2014
In 1962, a historic collaboration between environmentalists and agriculturalists led to the formation of the Point Reyes National Seashore. This, along with a new county plan and help from the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, preserved West Marin as a working landscape of beautiful ranches and rolling hills, and as a beacon for how to produce sustainable food while protecting the environment.
But today a new generation of activists and National Park Service officials view agriculture with antipathy. If that view prevails, the ranches on Point Reyes will go the way of the oyster company. We challenge those activists and officials to embrace what their predecessors supported: that agriculture and the environment can successfully collaborate. We call on them to pledge to oppose efforts already underway to run the ranchers out of the seashore.
It wasn’t always this way. In 1961, a representative of what is now the National Parks Conservation Association testified to the United States Senate in support of preserving ranching in Point Reyes: “the combination of dairy country and wild natural shoreland is part of the charm of Point Reyes, and we think the combination ought to be preserved.” The park lauded the “exceptional” public values provided by the oyster farm. In the 1970s, the founder of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Jerry Friedman, wrote to Congress supporting the continuation of the ranches and oyster farm—even in designated wilderness. The Sierra Club is on record saying much the same thing.
But in recent years these groups have flip-flopped as their leadership and priorities have changed. The park, under the direction of Jon Jarvis, led the charge to remove the oyster farm. The N.P.C.A. and its representative, Neal Desai, launched campaign-style national attacks on the oyster farm that were premised on falsehoods. The Sierra Club, initially under the direction of Gordon Bennett, did much the same.
Amy Trainer’s E.A.C. has seen its membership dwindle but its money and political influence grow as it ramped up attacks on agriculture, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Sacramento-based fund created by former Republican Governor Wilson’s undersecretary for resources. The E.A.C.’s only agricultural representative recently resigned in frustration, and rather than replace her with someone from the agricultural community to its board, the group brought in activist and political insider Jerry Meral.
Sadly, the closure of the oyster farm is not the end, but rather the beginning of the battle to protect agriculture on Point Reyes. We fear that in the next five years we will witness the end of agriculture, and with it the weakening of the ecosystem that supports farming and ranching throughout West Marin.
In coming to this conclusion, we have been good students of history, examining what happened at Cowboy Island, also known as Santa Rosa Island, in the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California. There we found a blueprint.
Tim Setnicka, the former superintendent of Channel Islands National Park, warned our community two weeks ago that what happened at Cowboy Island was going to happen here. Nita Vail, the daughter of the ranching family that was kicked off the island, will speak next week, on Nov. 11, at West Marin School.
The Vails owned Cowboy Island and ranched on it for nearly 100 years. Congress recognized them as excellent stewards of the land. In creating the national park, the park service made a deal with the Vails in which the latter would be allowed to continue ranching for several decades. But then the park and its supporters started claiming cattle were polluting streams and harming endangered species in a national park area, using what Setnicka called dishonest science.
Ultimately, the N.P.C.A., with the help of the Center for Biological Diversity and a Santa Barbara environmental group, sued the park service, alleging the Vails were violating the federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. The park settled the case out of court, and as a result, evicted the Vails from the island.
What does this story teach us about Point Reyes? The parallels are unnerving. Both parks were set up as partnerships between agriculturalists and environmentalists. In both there has been a change in mindset away from agriculture. On Point Reyes, the park demonized the oyster farm with dishonest science. On Cowboy Island, the park used dishonest science to restrict ranching, while lawsuits by national environmental groups ultimately sealed the Vails’ fate.
Will our ranches go the way of the oyster farm and the Vails’ ranch? The warning signs are distressing. The park’s environmental impact statement on the oyster farm put a bulls-eye on the ranchers by identifying them as “the primary source of nonpoint-source pollution in Drakes Estero.” But the oysters clean the water by filtering the coliform bacteria, a benefit the National Academy of Sciences thought was significant. Once the oysters are gone, the estero will lose the beneficial filtering functions, and winter rains will lead to increasing coliform levels. Higher levels may invite opportunistic groups to file a Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act suit against the park, which will then be pressured to settle by evicting the ranchers.
And while the suit is pending, the ranchers will continue to compete with the out-of-control tule elk for scarce forage and water.
There is good reason to believe this is the plan. As Phyllis Faber has written in these pages, a few years ago, when Don Neubacher was superintendent, he told her the C.B.D. had just such a lawsuit ready to go as soon as the oysters were removed from Drakes Estero. Last year, Gordon Bennett invited River Watch and its leader Jack Silver into this community; Silver is notorious for filing frivolous Clean Water Act lawsuits, and has already filed such a suit against the oyster farm. The C.B.D. is taking the opportunity presented by the park’s new ranch-planning process to organize its national membership in opposition to ranching.
Just last month, a blog called Protect Our Shoreline News, which is supported by local activists, wrote that now we will get to find out if “… what matters is controlling what flows into the estuary.” Given the history of Cowboy Island, there is little doubt what that statement means.
The park, the E.A.C., the N.P.C.A. and others have claimed they are not trying to get rid of the ranches. We are skeptical. If they mean what they say, then we ask Jon Jarvis, Neal Desai, Gordon Bennett, Amy Trainer and Jerry Meral to make the following pledge to the community: I promise that neither I nor any organization I am a part of will ever participate in legal action to eliminate or restrict the ranches on Point Reyes; and if such legal action is ever taken, I will do everything in my power to vigorously defend the ranches.
If they don’t take the pledge, watch out. Our ranches are about to disappear.

Peter Prows is an attorney and partner with Briscoe Ivester & Bazel L.L.P. of San Francisco. Although he has represented Drakes Bay Oyster Company, he wrote this column in his personal capacity. Dr. Corey Goodman, an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, is the scientist and West Marin rancher who discovered the misleading science used by the park and its supporters against the oyster farm.

Peter Prows
155 Sansome Street, Seventh Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Direct: (415) 402-2708 Cell: (415) 994-8991

No Comments

California Prison Dairy Gives Inmates Job Skills — And A Sense Of Purpose

Agriculture - California, State gov

California Political Review

By Stephen Frank on Nov 05, 2014 08:05 pm

The State of California is putting major restrictions on dairy farms—due to the manure runoff, the methane gas given out by cows and the other government restrictions causing dairy farms to move to other States or to reduce the size of the herd.

Now the Correction System is training prison inmates in the care and feeding of cows—so they can have jobs after they leave prison.

This is a brilliant idea. Force the dairy farms out of State. Then train criminals in dairy farming—which then forces them to move to other States if they want to milk cows for a living! You have to wonder if they still train prisoners in the making of buggy whips?

More

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/california-prison-dairy-gives-inmates-job-skills-and-a-sense-of-purpose/

No Comments

California diverts water from farmers to wildlife refuges

Agriculture - California, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality, Wildlife

Washington Examiner.com

By Paul Gonzalez | October 30, 2014 | 2:01 pm

As California’s Central Valley struggles through one of the worst droughts in state history, a group of farmers say the region was illegally denied access to water by the state.

The Friant Water Authority, a water-rights advocacy group representing thousands of farmers from the San Joaquin Valley, has filed a suit against the California State Water Resources Board, which took emergency measures this year to ration California’s dwindling water reserves.

An executive order issued in late April by California Gov. Jerry Brown increased the scope of the agency’s authority, but east Valley farmers say ration policies from the board prevented farmers, including those with “senior water rights”, from getting any of the water needed to sustain their farms.

While farming operations suffered and unemployment rates approached historical highs in the Valley, wildlife refuges and California’s State Water Project which provides water to Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco were given priority over the senior water-rights holders whose claims reach as far back as the 1800s.

The decisions forced lawmakers to aggressively tap water supplies in Northern California such as Millerton Lake, literally leaving high and dry not only farmers but also cities dependent on those reservoirs. The resulting “zero water allocation” policy levied against these communities was the first in over 60 years for the region.

In a statement to the Fresno Bee, Friant Water Authority representative Jennifer Buckman summarized the situation stating “the state’s orders had the effect of putting birds on the refuges ahead of people in small east-side communities.”

While state policy has unquestionably had a crippling effect on Valley farming communities, its legality has yet to be determined by the Fresno County Superior Court.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-diverts-water-from-farmers-to-wildlife-refuges/article/2555490?utm_campaign=Fox%20News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

No Comments

Prop. 1 Water Bond Fraud: NO Dams in Measure—Contrary to Guv Brown TV ads

Agriculture - California, Elections, State gov, Water, Resources & Quality

California Political Review

Prop. 1 Water Bond Fraud: NO Dams in Measure—Contrary to Guv Brown TV ads

If you read the mailers from Prop. 1 and watch the confused Guv Brown on his TV commercials you would think that the proposition was about dams and creating water for the people of California. Absolutely not—no dams/no water—just a $15 billion (including interest) slush fund for the Left. How is the money to be spent?

“Total funding is slightly more than $7 billion, and projects include watershed protection, increasing streamflows and cleaning groundwater contamination.

 

The bond also contains funding for water storage projects, which has generated the most intense debate over the measure.

“There is controversy because the bond includes $2.7 billion for water storage, but many people don’t understand that doesn’t necessarily mean dams,” says Rothert.

Rothert notes groundwater storage will be the primary focus, which is much less expensive to establish, improve and maintain than building new dams. In addition, the Water Bond specifically states that any funding for surface storage projects will have to be approved by the California Water Commission, in consultation with the State Water Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife.” In other words—they are lying when they claim a single dam will be built. Expect different from Sacramento?

Photo courtesy of secretlondon123, flickr

Water Bond Debate Muddied by Dam Misunderstanding

Public News Service, 10/28/14

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California’s water woes are one of the issues facing Golden State voters on Election Day.

Voters will decide the fate of Proposition 1, known as the Water Bond, which sets aside billions of dollars to update water infrastructure, recycle water, and improve conservation.

Steve Rothert, California director at American Rivers, says it’s been decades since the state made significant investments in water systems – both natural and man-made. Whether it’s rivers and wetlands or a dam, he says the state’s water systems are all in need of help.

“We need to not only address the current drought and future droughts,” says Rothert, “but to restore the fisheries and ecosystems that are the backbone of California’s natural history.”

Total funding is slightly more than $7 billion, and projects include watershed protection, increasing streamflows and cleaning groundwater contamination.

The bond also contains funding for water storage projects, which has generated the most intense debate over the measure.

“There is controversy because the bond includes $2.7 billion for water storage, but many people don’t understand that doesn’t necessarily mean dams,” says Rothert.

Rothert notes groundwater storage will be the primary focus, which is much less expensive to establish, improve and maintain than building new dams. In addition, the Water Bond specifically states that any funding for surface storage projects will have to be approved by the California Water Commission, in consultation with the State Water Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife.

According to Rothert, any funding allocated to water supply projects must be “cost effective and provide a net improvement in ecosystem and water quality conditions.”

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/prop-1-water-bond-fraud-no-dams-in-measure-contrary-to-guv-brown-tv-ads/?utm_source=CAPoliticalReview.com&utm_campaign=94cc6b4476-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b855a22bd3-94cc6b4476-283264393

No Comments

Settlement reached in Drakes Bay lawsuit

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs

Point Reyes Light

By

Samantha Kimmey

10/09/2014

Drakes Bay Oyster Company must evacuate Drakes Estero and harvest its final bivalves by midnight on Dec. 31, 2014, according to a settlement reached last Tuesday between the oyster farm and the federal government and approved by a federal court this week.

Though the end has never been more clearly in sight for Drakes Bay, farm owner Kevin Lunny and his family will soon have a new oyster business in Inverness that will employ many of their longstanding workers: Drakes Oyster House, which will take over the years-vacant restaurant space at the Tomales Bay Resort.

Mr. Lunny, citing his passion for shellfish aquaculture, is also investigating possible new locations for another oyster farm on the Pacific Coast.

The new restaurant, which could open as early as next month with a limited menu and hours for the winter, will be “on the casual side,” Mr. Lunny said, starting out with oysters, chowder, soups, fish and chips and burgers. It will feature local ingredients, including the organic beef and vegetables grown on the family’s G Ranch. Customers will also be able to buy bags of oysters to go.

“We fell in love with connecting people to their food. That’s what was so special about the oyster farm: the 50,000 [annual] visitors that came with their families and learned where their food came from,” Mr. Lunny said. Though he had been unsure about announcing the new venture this week, he said he didn’t want the news of the oyster farm’s final closure to “look like a eulogy.”

Mr. Lunny said he is setting up the restaurant as a benefit corporation. Though he is still hammering out the details, he plans to create an educational component—perhaps farm tours or boat tours of Tomales Bay oyster growers. The benefit might also include providing space for nonprofits or offering the kitchen to artisan food producers. He and Jeff Harriman, who owns the resort, are currently interviewing chefs.

In a separate venture, Mr. Lunny is also planning to distribute oysters to Bay Area restaurants. Though has not yet determined whose oysters he will sell and serve at the restaurant and distribute more widely, he said they could come from as near as Tomales Bay and as far away as Mexico. “Baja California grows fantastic oysters,” he noted.

The settlement with the federal government marks the end of Drakes Bay’s nearly two-year legal battle with the Department of the Interior that never went beyond an initial request for an injunction. Drakes Bay filed a lawsuit after then-Secretary Ken Salazar ordered the company to shut down in November 2012 and opened the door for the estero’s conversion to a marine wilderness, though the lengthy and fiery controversy over the farm’s fate kicked off in earnest years earlier, in 2007.

In its suit, the farm alleged that the federal government illegally turned down its request for a permit renewal and violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws. But both a district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case this summer. The farm ended retail operations and closed its cannery—the last remaining cannery in the state—on July 31, but it has continued to harvest and sell oysters wholesale to restaurants and markets. The farm will harvest what it can in the next few months, although millions of pounds of oysters that won’t reach market size this year will have to be thrown away.

As part of the settlement, Drakes Bay agreed to bring no more lawsuits against the government. The National Park Service took on the task of removing the oyster racks at its own expense, though in the past it said that would be the oyster farm’s responsibility. It, too, agreed to not pursue any administrative claims against the farm, such as for trespassing. The seashore can start cleanup efforts and remove property not connected to shellfish operations immediately, “advancing the Park Service’s goal of expeditiously transitioning Drakes Estero to management as a marine wilderness,” the settlement says.

MORE

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/settlement-reached-drakes-bay-lawsuit

No Comments

Vote NO on Prop. 1 Water Bond full of Special Interst PORK !!!

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, CA & OR, California water, CORRUPTION, Elections, State gov

Prop 1 is about taking $14.5+ billion ($7.12B+interest) dollars from California taxpayers and handing it over to self-appointed land grabbing, pet project creating “agencies” and “special interest groups” in the name of radical environmentalism and administrative fees; in the name of “protecting” and “restoring” wetlands (aka land grabs), “removing fish barriers” (aka dam removals), creating biking trails, hiking trails (aka land grabs) and funding for “multi-party settlement agreements” like Klamath River Dams REMOVAL and Yosemite River Restoration to REMOVE the ice skating rink, tennis courts, raft, bike and horse rental (things that have nothing to do with Merced River “restoration).

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS PROP 1 TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT; just as we did with Obamacare?

Couple the new groundwater legislation JUST passed with the potential passing of Prop 1 … the THEFT of our land and water at historic level continues. Is it any wonder that California’s economic status in the world continues to decline? Is it any wonder our children will suffer the consequences for years to come past our lifetime?

It is NO MYSTERY why California continues to lose its status as THE breadbasket of the world and the economies that come with. Imagine the lives California has changed throughout the world and throughout California’s history because our Ag Industry was strong and vibrant with small, responsible, generational farming and ranching families.

Because of big legislation and unknowing voters we are selling out our small farming and ranching communities like water through a fire hose. How can our small farming and ranching communities possibly compete with BIG AG that can afford to pay the sky rocketing fees for the water and land that has been STOLEN from The People???

As we allow the majority of politicians on both the Left and the Right (with their BIG AG & BIG ENVIRO lobbyist buddies) act like KINGS drunk on riches of POWER and GREED, our quality of life drips away like water through a sieve and we WILL become their paupers.

ARE we a democracy? The only difference between a democracy and a kingdom is HOW MANY DICTATORS WE ALLOW TO RULE OVER US!!

California…our Liberty and Freedom and QUALITY OF LIFE ARE ON NOTICE!!!

From Debbie Bacigalupi

 

No Comments

Your help needed to defeat Prop. 1 Water Bond

Agriculture - California, CA & OR, California water, Elections, State gov, Water, Resources & Quality

Scott Valley Protect Our Water is opposed to Proposition 1 Water Bond.

It is full of special interest pork – over $5 billion worth; and has very little for real water storage.

Do NOT be fooled by the campaign for Prop. 1.

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisor will have as a discussion item on the agenda this Tuesday Oct. 14th Prop. 1, the water bond measure which is on the CA ballot this Nov. 4th.

We will be asking the Board to take an official stand against this bond issue.

We need an army to fill the BOS chambers!!! Please try to attend to show your support against the bill. You need not speak but you presence there is very important.

If you are not able to attend –
then please call or send an email on MONDAY asking your Supervisor to adopt a resolution against prop. 1.

All you need to say is that you encourage them to not support prop. 1.

See contact information below on the Supervisors and the Agenda for the meeting on Tuesday.
It is recommend that you arrive around 10:20 AM.

Hope to see you there…your support is important !

Brandon Criss District 1
530-859-5548
bcriss@co.siskiyou.ca.us

Ed Valenzuela District 2
530-926-1733
dist2sup@sbcglobal.net

Mike Kobseff District 3 , Board Chair 2014
530-918-9128
mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us

Grace Bennett, District 4 530-842-4037
gbennett@co.siskiyou.ca.us

Marcia Armstrong, Vice Chair 2014
530-468-2824
marmstrong@co.siskiyou.ca.us

California State Grange just passed a Resolution asking its members
to vote NO on Prop. 1.

– This above info is from Kathy Bergeron.

Board of Supervisor Agenda for Tuesday, Oct 14th

10:20 A.M. – DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS – It is Item E

A. GENERAL SERVICES – TRANSPORTATION
Discussion, direction and possible action re an emergency purchase of a Print Encoding Machine used to print STAGE bus tickets, in the approximated amount of $20,000.
B. SHERIFF
Discussion, direction and possible action re request to continue the application/Request for Proposals process to the California Board of State and Community Corrections for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funding, in an amount up to $220,000.
C. COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion, direction and possible action re Resolution expressing appreciation for the response of the Governor and State agencies to the Boles Fire in Weed, California.
D. COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion and possible direction re the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Klamath National Forest for the fourth quarter of 2014.
E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR/SUPERVISOR MICHAEL N. KOBSEFF
Discussion and possible direction re the pending California 2014 Water Bond, Proposition 1.

 

 

 

No Comments
« Older Posts