The fight continues in
California to get seven multibillion dollar Water Bond Bills on the ballot by
June 26. Two of the extremes are discussed here along with an overview of
‘sustainable development’, which is a primary driver being used by stakeholders
to control water in the state.
“Theory says if CO2
levels go up; then, temperatures go up. Mother Nature didn’t get the memo. CO2
levels up; temperatures have been in stasis for 17+ years. We hate it when that
happens but when it does science says: modify or abandon the theory because as
it stands it is wrong.”
That did not stop
legislators in the great state of California from passing the two ‘global
warming bills – AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008) that are destroying the state
under the guise of ‘sustainability and sustainable development’.
State republican
representatives must not read their own party
platform or resolution(s)
memos from local Republican Central Committees. Sustainable development, aka
U.N. Agenda 21, has been identified as a major problem by these entities. For
example, the Republican Central Committee of San Bernardino passed a resolution
exposing elements of U.N. Agenda 21 on 3-27-2012 “… United Nations Agenda 21
plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of
life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership
and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to
the environment…” The 2013 and current platform of the GOP states on page 45,
“…“We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.”
The American Coalition
for Sustainable Communities (ACSC) defines sustainable development: Sustainable
Development (SD) is government influenced development, which uses science,
politics and consensus to predict future needs and create present-day planning
schemes; therefore, it is preemptive in nature and promotes centralized
planning. SD appeals to the influence of unelected agencies, regional boards,
bodies, commissions, and public-private partnerships. This can have unintended
consequences. It can undermine local elected official’s authority, and
ultimately local control. A primary driver of SD is taxpayer funded grants.
Grants, through specific terms and conditions, often usurp American
exceptionalism: bottom-up, local control. SD generally results in increased
taxation, restricted land use and cosmetic benefits for the present with
potentially harmful impacts on future generations. In the long run, this
ultimately hampers property rights in that property owners often have all the
responsibility of ownership and no authority of ownership. Water bonds
currently being proposed in California come from unelected bodies who want to
control water from the northern part of the state to the southern portion.
The North State Water
Alliance (NSWA) is defined as “a growing partnership of cities, counties, water
providers, business, and community groups in northern California. Our common
geography and interests have brought us together to work closely on water
issues”. This progressive group is pushing the new water bond. NSWA will
control the cost of delivered water from the north to the south by owning the
water rights and currant laws controlling funding – Here we go again, another
unelected entity controlling our lives. What is disturbing is the five general
principles they believe must guide a water bond.
1.
Existing water rights’
priorities and laws must be maintained;
2.
a bond should
contribute to sustainable groundwater management;
3.
it should strongly
emphasize water conservation and recycling;
4.
it should include
projects to restore critical migratory corridors for salmon and waterfowl;
5.
and any money
dedicated to new reservoirs should pay for dedicated environmental benefits and
enhanced flexibility of the California water system as a whole.
Items 2 through 5 are
sustainable development, which basically negate item 1. What this really says
is: We will “manage” (control) your water supply through “conservation”
(optimization of demand, which means rationing in the form of increased
ordinances and regulations, including ‘efficiency’ programs. For example,
tiered water rates and ‘smart’ radio controlled sprinkler heads). “Migratory
corridors” will be off limits to all humans in the future. “If” we build any
“new reservoirs ” money must be included for sustainable development.
The current drought in
California and the neglect of the current water Infrastructure, has created a
water crisis – government loves a crisis. “Never let a crisis go to waste”.
This has been amplified by mismanagement of our
water supplies by State agencies. For example, a couple of years ago California experienced high
rain fall. Rather than replenish reservoirs, officials allowed the water to
drain directly into the ocean; hence water storage levels were at record lows
going into the current drought. Also, over the Memorial Day weekend of 2014,
officials dumped millions of gallons of water, from already low reservoirs, in
order to replenish water needed for fish stocks.
We now find ourselves
in a water crisis due to the drought. This crisis also appears to be
facilitated to some degree by State water agencies and now that the time is
just right, legislators are being asked to float a sustainable water bond that
will cure solution – create the problem and offer the solution…
Competing Water Bonds:
Two Extremes
State Senator Bob
Huff’s June 6 Water Forum was essentially a prolonged sales pitch to frighten
citizens into supporting his “Bay Delta Conservation Plan.”
There are four “co-equal
goals” to his Bay Delta Plan, which are taken straight from the Sustainable
Development/Agenda 21 playbook:
1.
Multispecies
protection (not humans),
2.
Upfront regulatory
assurances (described as severely limited water distribution, a huge complaint
of the central valley farmers who are the low men on the totem pole),
3.
Habitat
conservation (mostly for the benefit of fish), and
4.
Conveyance
improvement.
Conveyance
improvements involve conveyance alignment. Translation: expensive tunnels will
be built under the delta, they will be connected to a conveyance system, which
in turn will connect to the aqueduct. Stated goals: reduction in toxic
pollutants for safe drinking water, and reduction in “environmental stresses”
such as control of invasive species (a fish benefit), reduction in aquatic
predators (a fish benefit), and better control of hatcheries (a fish benefit).
All five speakers at
the meeting agreed that the Bay Delta solution will only have an effect on the
reliability of water, when water is available, and not increase the actual
amount of water available or reduce water cost. They also concurred that no
matter what, water prices are going to increase. They said the Bay Delta Plan
will ONLY add $5 per household per month for 10 years.
None of the experts at
the meeting mentioned one of the causes of the water price increases-the loss
of billions of gallons of water due to the California government draining the
Folsom and other Reservoirs and dams, or them leaving the central valley valve
open and flowing to the sea, as part of Nancy Pelosi’s salmon restoration
project. These water wasting actions by our government have also lead to the
increase in food prices in California, and across the nation. Additionally our
drained dams cannot now function correctly to produce electricity, so our
electricity prices are rising as well. You can read about this water
mismanagement on Rep. Tom McClintock’s website. * See Competing Bonds &
Delta map below.
The other water bill
is Assemblyman Anthony Rendon’s Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water Act of
2014, AB 1331, which could be renamed the Welfare Water Bond or the You Have to
Pass it to Know What’s In It Bill.
Rendon states that his
bill has nothing to do with Governor Brown’s Bay Delta Plan or building any
tunnels. The bond will cost $8 billion initially but will require future
taxpayer money for “future investments”. The Bond will take 20 years for
repayment. There are no earmarks (described as dedicated funds for specific
projects-Rendon emphasis # 1), although a huge focus and emphasis is $400
million for “Disadvantaged Communities.” However, the coastal area needs to
find its own solution and is not included in this bond because it is too
isolated and “off the grid.” Isolation must not be considered a disadvantage to
Rendon.
He is including $2 B
is for water delivery and $2.5 B for water storage, but could not describe what
water storage or delivery systems will look like. Give us a clue: Tupperware
containers, in-ground tanks or new reservoirs? When asked about his expected
outcomes for his plan, such as increased water availability or decreased water
cost he did not have an answer. He also did not know how long it would take to
build any functional structures. Capsule summary he wants an initial $8 billion
dollars for nothing specific, with no stated taxpayer benefits, but certain
disadvantage communities WILL get money.
His meeting was
populated by several mayors, a Representative, city council members, and many
different Water Board members, who said Rendon’s meeting was information packed
and his plan needed to go through. If they could make that statement after
Rendon was questioned about specifics and could give no answers, it is obvious
that our elected officials are indeed working for their own gain and not for
the common good. It should be noted that none of the many politicians at the
two meetings, from city to House of Representative level, flinched at questions
of mismanagement or squandering money. We need to start hitting them with “who,
what, where, when, how and why” at more meetings to find out what it is they
want to do with our money, and then hold their feet to the fire via the ballot
box.
The summaries
presented here offer outcomes that make water neither affordable or
available, yet our politicians are asking tens of billions of dollars from the
taxpayers. We don’t need any of the 7 bonds currently trying to get on the
ballot by June 26. Let the 2009 Water Bond go on the ballot in November and
then vote against it as well. Here is a scenario that comes to mind.
How to Make a Profit:
Water Wars – Again
The plot set in the
1800s whereby a rancher upstream reroutes a stream, which is the only water
source for farmers “down river”. Farms dry up and the land goes fallow. Rancher
upstream calls speculator friend who buys up fallowed farm land. Rancher
upstream returns stream to origin. Farmland goes up in value. Speculator
resells the farm land. Rancher upstream and speculator split the profit. This
is essentially what is happening in the Central Valley of California where
water is being diverted for endangered fish and farmers are being left out.
Nonprofit conservation groups (speculator) offer to ‘help’ farmers by offering
them below market value for their land to put it in to a trust or conservation
easement. Who will benefit when water begins to flow again in the great Central
Valley?
The plot set in the 21st
century whereby crony gets legislator to pass climate change legislation.
Sustainability controls all resource and development. Water is subject to
environmental considerations before human considerations. Crony makes a pact
with the government: a public-private partnership. Crony and government split
revenue increases.
Take Action
Contact
your California state representatives and say no to any ‘sustainable water bonds’. Support bills that
promote water storage.
http://iagenda21.com/current-issues/
No comments:
Post a Comment