From Pacific Legal Foundation

“For those who think that our water crisis is over because of this wet year, let me set the record straight.”

That’s how Mario Santoyo of the California Latino Water Coalition began his remarks at a recent PLF press conference in Fresno.

Even with all the rain and snow this year, farms and communities, and the businesses and workers who depend on them, are still being squeezed of water.

And when normal precipitation returns, as Mario pointed out, “at best people will be getting 30 percent of their water allocation. …  It’s going to put people back in the unemployment line.”

The ongoing regulatory drought shows why PLF’s challenge to the feds’ Delta smelt regulations is as vital as ever!

Those regulations haven’t kept the fish from declining in numbers over the long term, but they have helped dry up the economy, causing deep cuts in water for the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

One more thing:  They also happen to be unconstitutional! The Delta smelt exists only in California, and nobody buys or sells it, so PLF argues that the feds have no authority, under the Commerce Clause, to issue Delta smelt regulations.

Watch the video above: PLF’s Brandon Middleton announces our petition to the Supreme Court in our Delta smelt case, along with statements by our clients and other concerned farmers and community leaders.

Donate to help PLF fight for water rights and economic recovery!

As CEO of Harris Farms, Inc., John Harris, knows something about the need for a reliable water supply when you’re working the land and supplying jobs for thousands and food for millions.

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen Opposes the $150 SRA Fire Fee

July 12, 2011

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen shared that without any public or legislative input an extra fire fee of $150 per structure was imposed on already burdened Californians.

Nielsen specified that this new fee will especially affect rural California families, many of whom will end up being triple taxed: already paying state taxes into the general fund, (which is responsible for fire protection) also paying local fire departments and will now be burdened with another fee on top of that.

Nielsen mentioned that if enough public outrage is expressed both him and Senator LaMalfa will fight to repeal this fee in the next year’s budget.

Read more:

http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/2/?p=article&sid=208&id=249011

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Question Americans Should Be Asking

“The Constitution, which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” –George Washington

Redacted

Barack Hussein Obama’s refusal to send a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the states as condition of House Speaker John Boehner’s support for raising the national debt ceiling has pushed federal funding negotiations to the precipice of the Treasury Department’s 2 August default deadline. Boehner has retreated on the House’s “cut, cap and balance” plan and its BBA provision is no longer a stipulation in negotiations. He has also reduced the “cuts” in the House plan, and may acquiesce to the larger debt ceiling increase the Democrats want in order to avoid another debt ceiling battle prior to the 2012 elections.

Notably, most House conservatives, including the Tea Party freshmen, are standing with Boehner, choosing a pragmatic approach until 2012, when they hope to strengthen their numbers in the House and Senate, and retake the presidency.

The current budget debate was the first serious consideration of a BBA since it was advocated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and later passed by the House as part of the Republican Contract with America in 1995. (At that time, it received 300 votes, including 72 Democrats.)

Now, as then, Leftist Democrats in the Senate have created a formidable gauntlet to its passage because it would severely undermine their power to redistribute wealth, power that is the only assurance of their perpetual re-election. A BBA would sunset their dynasty.

So, where to from here, and what question should conservatives be asking? First, let me offer a brief review of the current budget/debt crisis

READ MORE http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/28/what-power-to-tax-and-spend/

THE NEXT MEETING FOR BUTTE COUNTY ASSEMBLY WILL BE

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 6 p.m. 1695 MANGROVE, COZY DINER,

CHICO,CA.  CONTACT PERSON:  JOANNE ALDEN

EMAIL gracie1912@live.com

PNP Comment:  Wow, this is so packed with bias and lies from another leftist-liberal media. It is disgusting. We have scientists that have proven and Fish and Game officials have admitted that there will be destruction of the salmon runs.  How will the salmon win, if the salmon runs are destroyed?  — Editor Liz Bowen

By Anne Minard

for National Geographic News

Published July 25, 2011

This story is part of a special National Geographic News series on global water issues.

A controversial plan to remove four dams from the Klamath River to save endangered salmon could make its way to Congress in the coming weeks.

Capitol Hill lawmakers will consider taking down California’s Iron Gate, Copco 2, Copco 1, and John C. Boyle dams at a cost of about $1 billion, half of that potentially funded with federal tax dollars.

The removal plan has the backing of several Native American tribes on the Klamath who rely on the river for salmon fishing, as well as farmers who depend on its water for irrigation. The plan also has the support of PacifiCorp, Warren Buffett’s power company, which owns the dams.

Buffett’s company could benefit from dam removal because it might cost more to install the required modifications for fish passage if the dams remain. But if dams come down, salmon would be the biggest winners.

(Read the 2008 National Geographic magazine article on the Klamath River.)

Salmon runs have dwindled in the past century—from millions of fish to less than 100,000 in most years—primarily because of the dams, according to nonprofit environmental groups such as American Rivers and native tribes that depend on the fish. Those same groups say hits to water quality such as farm runoff are also to blame.

Mike Belchik is a fisheries biologist for the Yurok Tribe in California. The tribe maintains that it has relied on the fish since “time immemorial,” Belchick says, adding that archaeologists say humans have lived and fished in the area for at least 9,000 years. He says taking out the dams would allow the fish to return to their historic and more productive cold-water mountain streams, which are currently blocked by the dams, and help resolve disruptions to the main stem Klamath where they’re just barely hanging on today.

READ entire article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110725-/salmon-california-dam-klamath-river-water/?source=link_fb20110727damremovalklamath

To the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

[EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0409; FRL-9300-6]:

Info: EPA (206) 553-0050

Regarding:

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Federal Register published Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.

The EPA and Corps of Engineers are moving to seize control of all U.S. waters. Since he who controls the water controls the land, these new slight-of-hand regulations would largely give the EPA and Corps substantial controls over all private and Federal land as well as nearly all waters. They will lead to many arbitrary and capricious decisions.

The Guidance policy will, when final, give EPA broader authority to regulate bodies of water that had been the responsibility of state level water managers.

The EPA’s push for greater reach through the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction amounts to the Agency overturning two U.S. Supreme Court decisions at the same time the Agency is disregarding concerns of Members of Congress.

By publishing a draft Guidance document in the Federal Register the EPA and Corps are giving field staff freedom to choose and determine jurisdictional control. The result will be more arbitrary and capricious decisions.

EPA and the Corps have effectively overturned two U. S. Supreme Court decisions that currently limit their authority and jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to “Navigable Waters.”

The Guidance would give EPA and Corps a large degree of control over all waters of the United States.

By publishing this draft Guidance, EPA and Corps have clearly ignored the Intent of Congress. The current draft Guidance is full of vague definitions allowances for broad interpretations that show little respect for the practical implications of their actions on the American people.

The draft Guidance is intended to give EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers unprecedented control over all U.S. waters and therefore nearly all land. Because of the association of control over all US Waters to control all land, this Guidance is a clear threat to American’s property rights.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers separate the vital tie between private property owners and their local communities using these new regulations.

This means the private property rights of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and the important relationship between local communities and those property owners will be greatly changed. This relationship between private property owners and their local communities is a critical economic system that will be severely damaged by these new regulations and the change in this relationship.

If approved, this policy direction will lead to the bankruptcy of landowners, builders, farmers, ranchers and many others who must use the land and associated waters for American’s food and fiber.

Breaking the relationship between the private property owners and their local communities will create severe economic consequences to the communities themselves.

Over 150 Members of Congress have stated in a letter that they each signed that this published draft Guidance will lead to a super water regulation that includes a vast overreach by the EPA and the Corps.