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.

Settlement reached in Drakes Bay lawsuit

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs

Point Reyes Light


Samantha Kimmey


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.



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

Ed Valenzuela District 2

Mike Kobseff District 3 , Board Chair 2014

Grace Bennett, District 4 530-842-4037

Marcia Armstrong, Vice Chair 2014

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


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.
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.
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.
Discussion and possible direction re the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Klamath National Forest for the fourth quarter of 2014.
Discussion and possible direction re the pending California 2014 Water Bond, Proposition 1.




No Comments

Marin County jumps into oyster dispute at last minute

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs


By Nels Johnson

njohnson@marinij.com @nelsjohnsonnews on Twitter

Posted:   10/06/2014 03:43:04 PM PDT

Marin County supervisors, wading into the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. controversy after court rulings have all but shut the company down and forced the firm’s owner to throw in the towel, advised the state Coastal Commission that other coastal programs are in jeopardy because of a procedural misstep in the case.

A letter authorized by the county board behind closed doors was dispatched Friday by County Counsel Steve Woodside, who said oyster operations were torpedoed without a vital coastal law “consistency determination.” The situation, Woodside warned, could have “adverse consequences” for other coastal activities including agriculture, recreation, fishing and public access.

A consistency review would have determined how ending a lease in a federal wilderness preserve meshed with state coastal management regulations, including Marin “local coastal program” policies encouraging oyster operations in Drakes Bay.

“There should be little doubt that actions to terminate oyster farming in Drakes Estero carry coastal implications,” the county asserted. “The process for determining consistency should have been invoked … and should be invoked in the future when proposed federal activity may possibly affect other priority land uses.”

Attorney Stuart Gross, lead lawyer pitching the latest oyster case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said that “the plaintiffs are pleased Marin County has stepped in.” The federal oyster ouster involves a major “change of resource use, from agriculture to wilderness” that requires review, and tramples the state’s right to lease tideland, Gross said. Gross said litigation on some issues may continue regardless of what happens to the Drakes Bay firm.

Wilderness advocate Amy Trainer, head of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, said the county’s letter was based on a flawed contention that federal action was taken to end the oyster lease. “There was no action taken,” she said. “The lease was allowed to expire.”

Marin officials noted the letter underscored the need for future actions to be “legal and compliant” with laws governing coastal activity.

Supervisor Steve Kinsey, who serves as chairman of the state Coastal Commission, was critical of the state agency he oversees, saying it failed to determine whether then-Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar’s booting of the oyster operation when its lease expired was consistent with coastal policies. “While I would have wished that our board was a more vocal advocate for the continuation of the oyster operation, I am pleased that we are seeking to ensure that the Department of Interior and the Coastal Commission follow existing laws,” Kinsey said. “I am especially interested to learn how they reconcile the strong support for continued oyster operations in our approved local coastal program with the secretary’s decision to terminate the lease without any analysis of the consequences or environmental review.”

Federal officials, Kinsey added, “need to follow the same rules they require of others and it appears that neither they nor the Coastal Commission have done that.”

Woodside’s letter to the Coastal Commission, considered behind closed doors without public notice or discussion by county officials who cited a “pending litigation” provision in state anti-secrecy law, sidestepped a stand on the lease expiration because the board was split on it before agreeing to criticize procedural missteps.

“If the federal government is allowed to terminate a lease or permit without first addressing consistency with local coastal programs, this could set a precedent with potentially adverse consequences for many coastal policies,” the county’s letter said. “For example, high priority coastal program activities … some of which may be dependent on federal leases or permits, could be jeopardized if federal agencies have unilateral authority to terminate those leases of permits without consideration of local coastal programs.”

The letter asks the commission to confirm it made no consistency determination, alert federal officials and “participate, as you deem appropriate, in the case pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the purpose of protecting the commission’s vital role as guardian of the California coast.”

Although Drakes Bay Oyster owner Kevin Lunny’s decision to bail out of business leaves the status of the appellate case uncertain, some gave it little chance of prevailing anyway. The appeal challenges a ruling by U.S District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers rejecting an injunction to keep Drakes Bay open. Judge Rogers, noting issues in the case had gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and back, called the litigation a “repeat” with an “absolute lack of merit” that made her wonder whether frivolous lawsuit sanctions were in order.

Attorney Gross said new arguments differ from those rejected by the high court and merit continued legal review.




No Comments

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. agrees to shut down

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs

Drakes Bay Oyster Company worker Jorge Mata, right, Lorena Pablo and Ramon Hernandez sort oysters at Point Reyes National Seashore on Monday, June 30, 2014. (KENT PORTER/ PD FILE)

October 6, 2014, 12:21PM

The National Park Service announced a settlement agreement Monday with the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. that will end all commercial activity at the west Marin County oyster farm by Dec. 31. The agreement ends a two-year legal battle for the family-run oyster farm, which fought a federal shutdown order all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the high court declined to hear its appeal this summer, the farm on Drake’s Estero in Point Reyes National Seashore closed its retail operation and oyster shack popular with tourists. As part of the agreement, the owners will be allowed to continue to harvest the shellfish for wholesale until the end of the year, at which time the National Park Service will be responsible for removing on- and off-shore infrastructure associated with the farm.

Owners Joe, Kevin and Bob Lunny announced they are opening a restaurant at the Tomales Bay Resort in Inverness.

“We fought long and hard all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,” the Lunnys said in a statement. “Along the way we stood up for family farms, for sustainable food, and for scientific integrity in government. At the end of the day, although we lost this battle, it was important for us to be a voice for justice for family farms. But we also respect the rule of law. Even though we believe we were right, as good and law-abiding Americans, we accept this decision and will now move on to other things.”

The National Park Service said it was happy with the deal.

“We are pleased to have reached this settlement agreement with Drakes Bay Oyster Company,” Christine Lehnertz, regional director for the Park Service, said in a statement. “More than 2.5 million visitors enjoy this extraordinary place every year and we will continue to take our stewardship responsibilities seriously on behalf of the American people.”

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. harvests $1.5 million worth of oysters a year from Drakes Estero, a federally protected 2,500-acre estuary. The Lunnys challenged a decision by former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar not to renew a federal permit that expired in November 2012.

Wilderness advocates have argued that the estero belongs to the public and commercial operations should be removed.

As part of the settlement, Drakes Bay Oyster Co. agreed to waive all of its legal claims and give up any right to raise shellfish in the national seashore in the future.

Check back later for more on this story.

You can reach Staff Writer Matt Brown at 521-5206 or matt.brown@pressdemocrat.com.

No Comments

Judge won’t toss suit by strawberry industry against UC Davis over plant research

Agriculture - California, Lawsuits

Sacramento Bee

Published: Thursday, Oct. 2, 2014 – 8:56 am

Lawyers for the University of California were unable Thursday to derail a lawsuit accusing UC Davis of scuttling a lucrative, decades-old agreement to breed new varieties of fruit for California’s strawberry growers.

The ruling by Alameda Superior Court Judge George Hernandez Jr. means the lawsuit filed by the California Strawberry Commission remains intact. Hernandez, following a 15-minute hearing, reaffirmed a tentative ruling he issued the day before.

The commission’s lawsuit accuses UC Davis of scrapping a research relationship that has spawned more than a dozen varieties of strawberries consumed around the world. The Davis-bred varieties are sold by top brands such as Dole and California Giant and account for about half the strawberries grown in the state.

The arrangement has been profitable for UC Davis, and emblematic of its status as one of the world’s leading agricultural universities. It has collected $350,000 a year in research funding from the grower-controlled Strawberry Commission and millions in royalties from nurseries around the world – some $50 million in the past nine years alone.

The dispute was sparked by the resignation of two star plant breeders, Douglas Shaw and Kirk Larson, who are expected to leave UC Davis in December to form their own company.

The commission says UC Davis is letting Shaw and Larson “privatize” what has been a research program funded for years by the strawberry growers. It says putting the university’s research in private hands would be devastating to much of the state’s $2 billion-a-year strawberry industry.

Although the university stopped taking the Strawberry Commission’s research grants after 2012, the school says the commission has simply got it wrong: Shaw and Larson will be replaced when they leave, and the breeding program will continue.

The university also denied the commission’s claim that the two scientists are being allowed to take with them a valuable collection of 1,500 strawberry plants, called the germplasm, which form the basis of the breeding program.

Shaw and Larson, who themselves have collected millions of dollars as their share of the university’s royalties, aren’t named as defendants in the case.

The dispute goes beyond Shaw and Larson’s departure. The commission says its contract gives it the right to a copy of the germplasm. UC Davis has refused to give the commission the plants, either.

“It’s plain from the contracts; they give (the growers) no right to the germplasm,” said Matthew Chivvis, attorney for the university.

The associate dean of UC Davis’ College of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Mary Delany, referred to the germplasm as untouchable “crown jewels.”

But the judge ruled that the interpretation of the contracts is something to be decided at trial.

Thursday’s court ruling validates the concerns raised by the commission,” said commission President Rick Tomlinson. “We hope that UC Davis will come back to the table and agree to a settlement that restores the partnership with California’s strawberry farmers.”


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/02/6755104/judge-wont-toss-suit-by-strawberry.html#storylink=cpy

No Comments

California Gov. Vetoes Controversial Bill for Antibiotics in Livestock

Agriculture - California, cattle, State gov

Associated Press

Amid ongoing concerns over resistance to antibiotics, California Governor Jerry Brown earlier this week vetoed a bill that sought to address the use of these medicines in food-producing livestock. And in rejecting the legislation, Brown lent support to critics of the FDA, which is relying on drug makers to voluntarily curtail their promotion of antibiotics for preventing disease.

His decision comes shortly after the Obama administration released a game plan for combating antibiotic resistance, which the CDC has blamed for at least 2 million illnesses and about 23,000 deaths annually in the U.S. Consequently, consumer advocates and some lawmakers have called for tougher measures to restrict usage among food-producing livestock.

The FDA plan, which goes into effect in 2016, has been a lightning rod for controversy. The agency is relying on voluntary guidelines to reduce usage and says 26 drug makers agreed to remove from product labeling any mention of antibiotics for promoting animal growth. Weight gain makes animals better suited for food production.

About 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are for use on livestock and poultry (more here), and agency critics say that only an outright ban on promoting antibiotics for preventing disease can mitigate resistance. They argue voluntary agreements can be easily breached. However, they suffered a setback recently when a federal appeals court ruled the FDA does not have to consider implementing a ban.

Like the FDA guidance, the California legislation would have required drug makers to eliminate the use of antibiotics for “growth promotion,” but allow the same drugs to be used routinely under other label categories, such as disease prevention.

And so, the bill was being closely watched. Given California’s status as a harbinger state, consumer groups were concerned that, if Brown signed the bill into law, other states may consider similar legislation. If that were to happen, they feared a new front would open in the battle over antibiotic use in food-producing animals.

In a brief message, Brown noted the shortcomings of the FDA plan and acknowledged the bill would “codify” a voluntary FDA standard that “phases out antibiotic use for growth promotion.” Doing so would be “unnecessary, since most major animal producers have already pledged to go beyond the FDA standard.” Tyson Foods TSN +1.74%, for instance, this week agreed to end antibiotic use in 35 hatcheries.

His decision was hailed by consumer groups. “Clearly, the governor is not going to accept good intentions and fig leaf solutions to tackle this problem,” says Jonathan Kaplan who heads the food and agriculture program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “Instead, we need to lift the curtain of secrecy that now shrouds the industry’s abuse of these drugs.”

Other groups that opposed the legislation included Consumers Union, the California chapter of the Sierra Club, CalPIRG and Clean Water Action. A spokesman for the Animal Health Institute, a trade group for drug makers, such as Zoetis as well as units of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck and Novartis, says there is no comment.


No Comments

Stop the “pork” — vote NO on Prop. 1 California Water Bond

Agriculture - California, CORRUPTION, State gov

Please see articles below written by Rex Cozzalio from Siskyou County, CA.

Rex is a generational farmer and rancher who has lived his whole life on the Klamath River – before and after the clean green energy dams were built.

He’s flown to DC many times to try and educate our politicians on the junk science being used and rammed through to destroy 4, in-perfect-condition, hydroelectricity, clean, green, Renewable energy dams. He is also a member of the Siskiyou County Water Users Association.

Stop the pork … NO on Prop. 1

Assembly Bill 1471 … analysis by Rex Cozzalio, member of the Siskiyou County Water Users Association

Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014

A.B. 1471, also known as Prop 1, despite its reasonable sounding Title and description, in reality provides little to nothing of the inferred promises. Offering NO guarantee of additional water available for human use, its actual primary purpose deceptively and irreversibly imposes resource confiscation and a ‘re-wilding’ agenda upon the very public indebting themselves to fund it, accomplished through the following:

Effectively usurps private and local determination, use, and allocation of all water in the State of California.

Solidifies that unfettered unaccountable funded power of water and policy decision, use, priority, and allocation into the hands of the governor, the governor’s appointed ‘Commissioners/Boards’, their State Regulatory Agencies, and the essentially unalterable environmentalist directives empowered by this Act.
In conjunction with the Groundwater Management Act recently signed into law by the Governor, executes the effective confiscation of water and bureaucratic ‘management’ through both grant-based extortion and direct regulation by the State forcing local agencies to relinquish local determination and instead become the State policy enforcement arm requiring monitoring and taking of individual rights, dictating private property usage, and collecting ‘fees’ from those affected citizens to cover all imposed ‘groundwater management and mitigation costs’ as determined by the State Agencies.

Mandates that the vast majority of billions further indebting the State will be used to ensure theoretical, frequently failed boilerplate environmental agenda purpose, limiting public and private resources, options, and benefits, with the ONLY ‘sustainable’ water assured for public use within the Act being through the funded imposition of an arbitrarily forced 20% urban water reduction from PRIOR years by 2020 upon the public regardless of population increase.

Even the 250 million dedicated for infrastructure repairs amounts to barely over 3% of the Act’s billions dedicated to special interest purpose, improvements more directly and cost effectively addressed through project specific means.

Despite the rhetoric, funds for ‘storage’ are the ONLY Bond funds NOT mandated to be spent. Those funds are subject to appointed Commission decision under directed environmental use policy requiring a minimum of 50% private funding to even occur. Under the policy mandates virtually EVERY PUBLIC DOLLAR spent for additional stored water will ONLY be used for environmental agenda, leaving ANY water available for human use paid for by private funds. In fact, Prop 1 even funds the REMOVAL of sound and beneficial existing Dams. With NO additional water actually guaranteed within the Act to ‘sustain’ humans, the conditionally defined requirements for allowed ‘storage’ are just as likely to REDUCE functional human water availability.

If the legislators supporting this Bill believe their own rhetoric, they DID NOT read the Bill, otherwise, they are LYING. READ THE BILL! Discard the rhetoric and examine the actual impacts. VOTE NO ON PROP 1!

Rex has written a rebuttal to the talking points produced by the bond supporters:

Prop 1 Water Storage Bond Facts
By Rex Cozzalio

• Proposition 1 provides $2.7 billion in funding for water storage projects critical to California’s future.
Deceptive. Under the Policies mandated by this Act, virtually EVERY PUBLIC DOLLAR for increased storage will be dedicated to resource confiscation and ‘environmental’ agenda purpose. In addition, any storage is conditionally based upon the project approval by policy directed appointed ‘Commissioners’ requiring at least 50% ‘matching’ private funds for that ‘consideration’ to even occur.

• Proposition 1 will provide more water for all Californians. Almost 40 percent of the bond funds are committed to new water storage.
Under the limiting conditions for any ‘storage’ project approval, only a portion of the privately funded portion of additional stored water would likely be assured available for human use, as defined by the private investors.

• Proposition 1 provides nearly as much investment for storage as the previous water bond while eliminating wasteful “pork” projects.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Reducing insane special interest pork in favor of the merely unconscionable, particularly in the face of fiscal irresponsibility, does NOT make this imposed environmental and political agenda a responsible choice.

• Proposition 1 insures that money for water storage projects cannot be blocked by the Legislature in the future. Investment in storage will be continuously appropriated for its intended purpose – new water storage!
Not said is that the ‘storage’ portion of funding actually ‘blocked’ from legislative alteration is the environmental policy driven unelected ‘Commissioners’ decisions regarding the use of funds and the ‘mitigating’ conditions demanded from them for approval.

• Proposition 1 will cost nearly $4 billion less than the bond passed by the legislature in 2009.
Again, a LESSER evil does not make a BETTER evil. The estimated additional debt of over $14 Billion dollars upon a State already verging on insolvency is STILL irresponsible, ESPECIALLY when that debt does NOT guarantee additional water for human use, but DOES guarantee enforced water restrictions exceeding 20% upon the urban public.

• Proposition 1 and the critical water storage it will provide is the result of united Republican Legislators working together to help secure California’s future water needs.
The only thing Prop 1 ‘secures’ is the politically benefiting continued irresponsible fiscal and environmental agenda furthering the demise of our State and the oppression of her people.

I have also sent you these article as an attachment. If you have any questions I can be reached at 530-842-5443

Louise Gliatto
Siskyou County Water Users Association

See list below of some of the organizations/people who do not support this water bond.

Siskiyou County Republican Women Federated
Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee
Siskiyou County Water Users Association
Scott Valley Protect Our Water
Yreka Tea Party Patriots
Democrats Against Agenda 21
Americans for Prosperity
CA Tea Party Coalition
California Republican Assembly
Siskiyou County Granges
Craig Huey Report
CA Assemblyman Tim Donnelly

No Comments

Vote NO on Prop. 1 Water Bond is full of pork

Agriculture - California, CORRUPTION, Elections, State gov



By Richard Marshall, Scott Valley Rancher

A thorough review of the proposed Proposition 1, “California Water Bond”, for the November ballot shows a punchbowl full of giveaways to numerous conservation groups and pork for various favorite programs of some legislators.
This proposition contrary to its billing as creating new and improved water supplies actually does very little to develop additional storage facilities which California desperately needs. The nominal cost of the bond is advertised at approximately $7.12Billion dollars yet in actual fact the bill together with interest amounts to a total cost to taxpayers of nearly $14,500,000,000 dollars further damaging the state’s financial structure. This limits the future opportunity for California to correct its water needs.
The drought problems we are experiencing now would not be taking place if adequate efforts had been followed through by the State of California on carrying out the original California Water Plan developed in the 60”s. Instead the various water bond issues Californians have previously approved Sixteen Billion Dollars which have been redirected to carry out various environmental groups’ objectives and particularly the private goals of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Department previously known as California Fish and Game. Under the guise of providing clean water and wildlife habitat the CDFW has been fronting public monies to assist conservation organizations such as Nature Conservancy to acquire ranches and conservation easements to establish CDFW control over the rural economy putting ranchers out of business and in some cases closing down access roads into mountainous areas. In addition they have purposely set out to utilize environmental organizations to shut down ranching and farming utilizing the endangered species act to assist together with environmental lawsuits to destroy large rural farming and ranching areas most notably in the Northern part of the State.
This bill originally specifically called for the largest dam removal project in the United States by the removal of four perfectly sound Klamath River Dams. These dams not only provide water storage, recreation, and flood control but also significant hydropower to over 70,000 homes and sustain a vital fish hatchery needed to replenish fish stocks. These dams produce clean non- polluting power for our Northern neighbors producing cattle, grain crops, and a significant amount of feed for the dairy industry. The plan to destroy these dams has been based on faulty and manipulated scientific reports prepared by State and Federal Agencies to serve a political end for a few politicians and the enviros who feed them money.
This bond issue is not going to help alleviate the water storage problems of the state as the stated amount of $7.12 billion will only utilize approximately 2.7 Billion less than half of the bond issue amount to water storage projects. The balance of the bond funds go primarily to pay off numerous conservation organizations and provide a bankroll for California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
There is language in this bill under section 79736 (e) which has $475,000,000 available to the Natural Resources Agency for multiparty settlement agreement (such as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Dam removal) acted upon or before December 31, 2013.
Please get the word out to your members and other organizations that they should not vote for this bond issue and send a message to the legislature and Governor to go back to the drawing board and produce a bond issue that really will add water storage capability for the State and leave the Klamath Dams in place.
We urge a NO vote on the water bond on this November ballot
Supported by:
Siskiyou County Republican Women Federated
Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee
Siskiyou County Water Users Association
Scott Valley Protect Our Water
Yreka Tea Party Patriots

No Comments

Reasons to vote NO on Water Bond Prop. 1

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, CORRUPTION, Dams other than Klamath, Elections, State gov

Guv. Jerry Brown signed the Water Quality Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act passed by the State Legislature and it will be on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot as Prop. 1 for the voters.

Although the $7.5 billion Water Bond of 2014 touts water storage for a drought-ridden state, the measure is deceiving with a significant amount set aside for pork spending environmental projects instead of water storage.

Under the nearly one billion for “environmental” projects, the state’s portion for Klamath dam destruction could be designated. This is our fear and a ridiculous project, when the Water Bond should be creating more water storage not destroying current water storage.

Please watch this short informative video from Americans For Prosperity to find out the hidden secrets!



No Comments
« Older Posts