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.

Rep. LaMalfa Votes to Provide California Short-Term, Immediate Drought Relief

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, Doug LaMalfa Congressman CA, Federal gov & land grabs, State gov, Water, Resources & Quality

Washington, DC – Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) today voted in favor of legislation aimed at providing immediate, emergency relief from California’s historic water crisis. H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act, which would sunset in eighteen months, includes two critical components: flexibility to store additional water when winter storms cause high river flows and protections for the North State’s senior and area of origin water rights.

“The state of California is going through the worst drought in over a century, creating devastating conditions for our farms, families and ranches. The measure we passed today represents a bipartisan, noncontroversial fix that simply gives federal water managers the flexibility they need to conserve excess water during the wettest months,” said LaMalfa. “It’s simply reckless that we continue to watch ill-conceived federal policies allow billions of gallons of water to be diverted away from our communities to just flow out to sea. It’s time to bring an end to the delays and inaction coming from Washington and start moving forward towards a long-term solution that adequately addresses our state’s water needs. I urge the Senate to act quickly to advance this critical measure and help prevent yet another year of damaging drought conditions for California.”

The California Emergency Drought Relief Act would:
• Increase water supplies to Northern Californians who have seen their water allocations reduced to 50%, or even 0%. Under this bill, Northern Californians would receive a minimum of 75% of their water right in drought years.
• Ensure more flood flows are held at North State reservoirs rather than being diverted to the sea, resulting in more water stored during winter months.
• Enhances North State water rights and creates additional area of origin protections.
• Promotes federal water storage projects in the state by expediting the completion of needed reviews to approve water transfer requests associated with voluntary fallowing of non-permanent crops.
• Holds federal agencies accountable by utilizing a streamlined process to ensure regulatory decisions related to projects that provide additional water resources are made it a timely process.

H.R. 5781 passed out of the House of Representatives on a 230-182 vote and will be sent to the Senate.

Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing California’s First Congressional District including, Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Tehama Counties.
###

No Comments

Brown Administration Opposes Federal Drought Legislation

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, California water, State gov

California Natural Resources Agency  ( FISH AND WILDLIFE )

Media Contact:
Richard Stapler, (916) 653-9402
richard.stapler@resources.ca.gov

Brown Administration Opposes Federal Drought Legislation

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Writing on behalf of the State of California, California Natural Resources Agency Secretary John Laird today issued a formal opposition letter to HR5781. The text of the letter is pasted below:
“In the last twelve months, the Brown Administration has dealt with the most extreme three-year drought of modern times, while trying to implement a long-term, broad-based strategy to better protect California from future water shortages. We have done both with a recognition that the public interest is best-served by developing strategies that enjoy broad support across California and to fairly balance the needs of a diverse state with many different stakeholders and regional concerns.
As a result of the drought state of emergency declared by the Governor on January 17, 2014, California state agencies have worked very closely with their federal counterparts and impacted stakeholders to provide critically needed water supplies while protecting our water quality, imperiled species, and fragile ecosystems — all are suffering from these unprecedented drought conditions. With a possible fourth year of drought, these same state and federal agencies are working to prepare a 2015 Drought Operations Plan, and expect to complete it early next month. Building on the experience of last year, these agencies are actively exploring alternative approaches to water project operations that hopefully will better optimize both water supplies and species protections under extreme conditions. Work in developing this plan continues. But, one thing is certain: managing an extreme drought is best done in real-time here in California, by agencies with on the ground experience and expertise, in close collaboration with affected stakeholders. This is the only way to rapidly and equitably balance all of the competing needs such as regulated and unregulated stream flow, locations of critical fish populations, upstream storage needs for temperature control and conservation purposes, salinity conditions as influenced by tidal cycles and barometric conditions, and others. In January, the Administration also adopted the California Water Action Plan, a comprehensive plan for future water management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water transfers and other actions that will better enable the state to provide for the next generation of Californians. Many elements in the Water Action Plan were included in Proposition 1 – the water bond – that was approved by over two-thirds of California voters just weeks ago.
Coming off a year where more progress has been made on water policy in California than any time in recent years – with broad support evident in the electorate for this strategy – this is no time to reignite water wars, move water policy back into the courts, and try to pit one part of the state against another. For this reason, the administration opposes HR5781. Our collective energies should be devoted to a long-term solution for California’s water needs in a way that rewards working together as opposed to dividing interests, just as the successful campaign for the water bond recently did. We stand ready to work with the supporters and opponents of HR5781 to that end.”

###

No Comments

NOTICE OF TEMPORARY LIFTING OF CURTAILMENTS FOR DIVERSIONS SPECIFIED IN THE SCOTT RIVER ADJUDICATION IN THE SCOTT RIVER WATERSHED

Agriculture - California, Scott River & Valley, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality, Watermaster Service

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is temporarily lifting the water right curtailment for junior priority class rights in the Scott River watershed beginning on December 3 at 10:00 am continuing until further notice. The temporary authorization for diversion is based on this week’s rain event and associated projected runoff in excess of the flows required to satisfy senior priority class rights.

The junior priority class rights are identified as either: (1) a Priority 2 Class Right in Schedule D-4 of the Decree, (2) a Post-1914 Appropriative Right in Schedule E of the Decree, or (3) a “Surplus Class” right in the Decree.

During this diversion opportunity, you must comply with all terms and conditions of your water right, especially season of diversion and bypass conditions. You should keep a record of your diversions since such diversions are still subject to prior rights. Any diversion in violation of terms and conditions or of these notices is subject to enforcement.

The State Water Board will be monitoring weather forecasts and stream gages to determine if the temporary diversion opportunity should continue. Please monitor your email and our website for further updates on when diversions are authorized, and when curtailments are in place. If an email list notice is issued on the weekend, the website will not be updated until the following Monday due to service limitations.

No Comments

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
« Older Posts