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 blog archivesfor the day Wednesday, January 18th, 2012.

Joyful day! Finally, rain and snow in Siskiyou County

Air, Climate & Weather, Photos

Windy and rainy all night, Jan. 17 to Jan. 18 and on Wednesday morning, there was a snow line at about 3500 feet. I’ve been waiting (finding a good excuse) for the rain to soften up the soil, so I can clean up the garden.The corn stalks to the left are still standing, as you can see.  Guess, I’ll need to do it now, or else find another excuse! — Editor Liz Bowen

No Comments

L.A. FOX news segment “Saving the California Dream”

Agriculture - California, Forestry & USFS, FOX news, Mining, Siskiyou County, State gov, Threats to agriculture

In December 2011, Fox News reporter Heidi Cuda traveled from her home television station in L.A. to the top of the State and filmed a meeting on Jobs in Yreka, in Siskiyou County. Heidi was also able to interview several citizens, including ranchers. She then used the information and video as part of her series called “Saving the California Dream.” Below are 4 segments of the half-hour segment.

From Heidi Cuda:

All of you participated in making the first “Saving the California Dream” half-hour special and my first-ever co-anchoring gig a success…. am deeply indebted…. here is the special in its entirety.

Many thanks for all your tutelage, patience, generosity and kindness in this endeavor xo

Part One: The Exodus

Part Two segment includes a clip of the rally held before the Jobs meeting at the Yreka Community Theater.

Part Two: The Political POV

Part Three is focused on Siskiyou County and strangling regulations. It states the 20 percent unemployment raite; 800 percent for water master service fee increase; and the $11 million spent in legal fees for environmental lawsuits.

It is an unbiased depiction. Thank you Heidi !

Part Three: The War on Rural California

Part Four: The Innovators

Heidi Siegmund Cuda
Producer, Studio 11 L.A.
Fox 11 News
1999 S. Bundy Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 91423

No Comments

Parties in Salmon Litigation File Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012

Federal gov & land grabs, Salmon and fish

January 17, 2012

On January 12, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and public water agencies filed a stipulation with the United States Eastern District Court that proposes modified Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations for the period of April 1 to May 31, 2012.

The stipulation describes the state and federal agencies’ agreement to install a seasonal rock barrier at the head of Old River, near Lathrop, designed to keep salmonids from entering Old River, in the direction of the export pumps. The stipulation also includes more flexible guidelines governing permissible flows in Old and Middle Rivers and an increased commitment to acoustic tagging of listed fish to gather information on migratory patterns.

The parties filed the Joint Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012 (available here) in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, Case No. 1:09-cv-1053, the case challenging the biological opinion that governs long-term operations of the CVP and SWP. In September 2011, the district court issued a memorandum decision finding the so-called 2009 Salmonid BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. A later order by the court indicated that parties to the case could present stipulations on project operations in 2012.

Because the judgment entered in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases remanded the 2009 Salmonid BiOp and RPA, without vacatur, it had the effect of leaving RPA actions in place, notwithstanding the court’s finding that they were unlawful. Had the parties not agreed on modified operations for April 1 to May 31 of this year, RPA Action IV.2.1, which sets a San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio requirement for the same period, would likely have severely restricted CVP and SWP operations.

Concurrent with a press release announcing the stipulation (available here), NMFS also made public its “Summary of the Expected Benefits to Salmonid Survival of a Rock Barrier at the Head of Old River & Preferential Use of the Central Valley Project Export Facility” (available here). The summary describes the expected benefits of placing a rock barrier at the head of Old River, as well as an explanation of the adaptive range of Old and Middle River flows included in the plan for 2012 operations and the rationale for preferential diversion of water through the CVP facility rather than the SWP facility.

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Related story:

No Comments

California farmers eagerly await rain

Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather

By Mark Glover

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 6B

Rain can’t come soon enough for California farmers and ranchers, who are counting the hours in anticipation of Thursday’s forecast arrival of meaningful showers.

A nearly bone-dry fall/early winter season has been accompanied by periodic freezing conditions in December and this week.

Hard freezes have already caused crop damage in some California fields, but agriculture industry officials say a good soaking – and the accompanying warmer temperatures – will go a long way toward easing landowners’ anxieties.

“The absence of rain has been of greatest concern to the cattle ranchers and other livestock owners,” said Dave Kranz, spokesman for the Sacramento-based California Farm Bureau Federation. “The rangelands have pretty well dried out. They need rain to replenish grasses on the hillsides and where cattle go to drink water.”

Central Valley farmers are likewise looking for storm clouds.

“They’ve been irrigating trees and vines that need moisture now, and they’re not getting it from the clouds,” Kranz said. “They’ve had to tap into their irrigation supplies weeks earlier than they typically would.

“Some good rainfall now would allow them to stop doing that.”

Agriculture groups throughout the state are still assessing crop damage caused by Tuesday morning’s hard freeze, which saw temperatures dip into the 20s in Northern California’s agricultural valleys.

Dean Thonesen, vice president and general manager of Sunwest Fruit Co. in Fresno County, said mandarins and navel oranges are being harvested in fields where wind and water machines are being used to moderate temperatures. He said it might take up to a week to determine the extent of any cold damage to crops.

The National Weather Service said temperatures dropped to as low as 19 degrees in some citrus-growing regions early Tuesday morning. Oranges begin to suffer at about 28 degrees. Temperatures are expected to continue gradually warming today, right up to Thursday’s expected rainfall.

California Citrus Mutual, the growers cooperative based in the Tulare County community of Exeter, said Tuesday that citrus damage did not appear to be widespread as temperatures stayed in the mid-20s in some key citrus regions.

Kranz pointed out that oranges have by now built up quantities of sugar and acid, “which actually helps insulate them from the cold … So we’re fairly optimistic that they have avoided significant problems.”

Kranz said mandarin oranges grown in the San Joaquin Valley are “a little more vulnerable” to cold conditions, but he said sugar buildup appears to have saved that crop from extensive damage.

The Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, which has the authority to withhold damaged citrus from the fresh-fruit market, will examine fruit later this week to determine the extent of any damage.

Farmers in Monterey County on Tuesday reported some freeze damage to vegetables in that region. The extent of damage to artichokes and broccoli in the Salinas Valley is still being assessed.

Even farmers who are not now in urgent need of rain are eagerly anticipating its arrival. For example, it’s the offseason for rice farmers, but officials at the California Rice Commission said rice growers are hoping for sustained rains from the approaching weather system.

Kranz explained that last year’s unusually heavy rainy season created “a situation where we do have adequate water storage this year, so that’s one reason that people have not been as concerned this year as in past years.

“But (farmers) still want rain. The vast bulk of farmers and ranchers expect it to rain. You’d be hard-pressed to see anyone disappointed with a good, steady rain. That should take a little pressure off.”


No Comments

Head to Head: Should California build a Delta water canal it rejected in the 1980s?

California water, Op-ed, State gov

From Sacramento Bee – Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012

The issue: Gov. Jerry Brown is moving ahead with plans to build a water diversion canal or tunnel through the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, saying the project is essential for reducing conflicts over fish and ensuring reliable water deliveries. Worried about environmental impacts and water rights, many residents in the Delta and Northern California oppose the project. Should California build a Delta water canal it rejected in the 1980s?

Also, LIVE CHAT ONLINE: Join Ben and Pia for a live chat online Thursday with Jonas Minton, a senior water policy adviser for the Planning and Conservation League, and Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. Go to www.sacbee.com/live  at noon Thursday.


By Ben Boychuk and Pia Lopez

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 13A
Last Modified: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 – 9:59 am

THE ISSUE: Gov. Jerry Brown is moving ahead with plans to build a water diversion canal or tunnel through the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, saying the project is essential for reducing conflicts over fish and ensuring reliable water deliveries. Worried about environmental impacts and water rights, many residents in the Delta and Northern California oppose the project.

Should California build a Delta water canal it rejected in the 1980s?

Ben Boychuk: Yes

At the risk of badly mixing metaphors, a peripheral canal is a rat’s nest of politics and special interests. Gay marriage and immigration reform are easy by comparison.

Personally, I’d rather discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. The stakes are lower.

Just about every rationale offered for the peripheral canal – which would be the largest water project in the state since the Aqueduct was completed four decades ago – is hotly contested. Would a canal save endangered fish or finish them off? Create jobs or destroy them? Do the costs, estimated to reach $53 billion or more, outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

From what I can tell, the answer to all of those questions is “yes.”

But we should build it anyway.

Although our population has grown substantially and the Delta is under much greater strain, our dilemma today is essentially what it was 50 years ago: How do we get the water where we need it most?

About 70 percent of California’s water supply falls as rain or snow in the north, but about 80 percent of the demand is in the south, where rainfall is on the lighter side.

Northerners love to kvetch about Angelenos stealing “their” water, but as long as California remains one state – and you people had plenty of opportunities to split! – the dynamic will remain unchanged.

Fact is, agribusiness would be the biggest beneficiary of a canal. Not surprising, really, when you consider Golden State farming and ranching are an $80 billion business. We produce half of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables, and we’re the largest dairy state in the country. Those crops and cows don’t water themselves.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/18/4195410/should-california-build-a-delta.html#storylink=cpy

California Farm Water Coalition response … 

Pia Lopez’s position is absent of some very important facts. She characterizes the west side as the “Westlands Water District Project” when the benefits of water flowing through the Delta to San Joaquin Valley farmers stretch from Tracy to Bakersfield, a region several times larger than Westlands Water District. These farmers…as well as 25 million Californians…will benefit from an improved conveyance that delivers a reliable supply of water. The farmland along the west side of the valley is some of the most productive farmland in the world with valuable crops grown sustainably on all types of land, resulting in job creation and economic productivity.

The claim of “arid, marginal lands that are increasingly saline” ignores the facts of how farmers, public water agencies, environmental groups and governmental agencies are working together to maintain 100,000 acres of productive farmland in the Grasslands Bypass Project, which EPA hailed recently as a “success story.” A visit to the area would provide Lopez with a better understanding of the land that produces much of the food we all depend on.

No Comments



There is an old saying in the ranching community:  You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Anyone who has ever owned a horse understands this as the truth.

The above cartoon is a great “take” on that sentiment!

No Comments

BREAKING: New Media Alert: RNC passes Resolution Exposing UN Agenda 21, ICLEI and “Sustainable Development”, **unanimously**

Agenda 21 & Sustainable, Politicians & agencies

New Information on the fight against Agenda21 and ICLEI from Shelly Kennedy

Great news. Some have seen my FB note about the Indiana committeeman verifying that the RNC passed a resolution exposing UN Agenda 21, unanimously. This is true. (See attached).
Now Oklahoma also verifies it. See below correspondence from Robert Semands, Govern Edmond Locally spokeperson, and please repost. Let’s hold our GOP elected officials at all levels accountable to adhere to this RNC resolution. Are they Republican or not? Time to hold them accountable. By the way – who is OUR NJ RNC Committee person? Let’s thank him/her!

In other news, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies adopted the following resolutions in October, 2011. They obviously GET IT. Why did we not hear about this anywhere, in debates, press releases? The silence and deer-in-the-headlight stares we get from GOP elected officials when we inquire about Agenda 21 are becoming increasingly suspect as an artifice of deceit. How can they all not know, and what is this “code of silence” about anything having to do with UN Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development? Time to make GOP electeds break that code. And were any of our state GOP assemblies involved in this? Who were they, and let’s thank them!

National Federation of Republican Assemblies adopted these resolutions in October of 2011. They GET IT. Why did we not hear about this anywhere, in debates, press releases? 

* Resolution Opposing United Nations’ Comprehensive Land Use Planning
* Resolution in Support of Protecting American Sovereignty and Defending Individual Second Amendment Rights from United Nations Interference
* Resolution Calling for the Immediate and Complete Withdrawal of the United States of America from the United Nations
* Resolution Demanding the End of Deficit Spending, the Repayment of National Debt and for the Beginning of Balanced Budgets and Sound U.S. Fiscal Policy
* Resolution on Repeal of Death Tax
* Resolution Calling for Immediate Enforcement of Immigration Laws
* Resolution Calling for Limiting Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

Below is some excellent news sent to me by Carolyn McClarty, a National Republican Party Committeewoman from Woodward County in northwest Oklahoma near the panhandle. I met her when I spoke to the Woodward County Republican Women in November about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. After hearing about UNA21 she decided she wanted to do a resolution (see inserted at bottom of email & as attachment) in opposition to UNA21 to move through the Republican Party structure. She was able to assemble many Republican Committeepersons from other states to co-sponsor the resolution. I received this wonderful news today, Saturday, Jan 14th.

Unamended through the Republican National Committee! Now that is amazing! We all owe a debt of gratitude to this patriotic woman.

Something amazing is happening!!

Robert Semands
GEL Spokesperson
Govern Edmond Locally

Carolyn L. McLarty, DVM
Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma

Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of     extreme
environmentalism, social engineering and global political control, that was initiated
at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local
communities throughout the United States of America through the International
Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable
development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities,
Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable
development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, singlefamily
homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately
owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is
described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the
resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished
by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is
deemed a social injustice; now therefore be

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and
insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and
public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further

RESOLVED , that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it.

No Comments