A clear article on the Peripheral Canal.

One of the things that California Greens need to think about is the long term effects of the decisions and planning for a new "conveyance" for water through, under or around the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. It was once called the Peripheral Canal and voters defeated it the last time Jerry Brown was Governor.
If you want to understand what is happen, you know, the basic questions like:

• Who benefits? 
• How much will it cost?
• Who pays for it?

there is no better place to start that with Deanna Lynn Wulff's article in the Bilingual Weekly out of Stockton.  This quote tells you why it is important.

Nearly two-thirds of California residents and the majority of agriculture get their water from the Delta and its tributaries, which surround Stockton in an intricate pattern of levees, rivers and farms. But the Delta faces multifaceted environmental problems, which have led to a crisis for fisheries, wildlife and water quality.

 
The second place to look for information about cost / benefit is from Fresno friend, Lloyd G. Carter. His comments about the lack of any cost / benefit analysis regarding the State Water Project makes it sound like we are just replaying an old newsreel.

But, of course, Pat Brown and southerners in the Legislature ignored Ballis’s call for a cost-benefit analysis of the State Water Project and the problem has been beset by financial problems ever since, delivering half the water promised and costing twice as much as advertised, with many billions of dollars more need to actually finish it

. Greens need to be engaged in dealing with such major issues. It is what political parties do if they are relevant.

How much regulation is enough?

It was clear from Obama's SOTU last night that governmental regulation is going to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. The Republican mantra of less regulation, especially environmental regulation, will flow easily from nearly every Republican Candidate and you even heard Obama cite a Republican President, Lincoln, to the effect that "That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more."

With that background, we need to be look at the economic impact of some problems that we try to resolve through regulation. That this for an example:

IMPACT ON ECONOMY OVER 5 YEARS
Study: Citrus Greening Cost State $3.6 Billion, 6,600 Jobs

http://www.theledger.com/article/20120124/NEWS/120129665?Title=Study-Citrus-Greening-Cost-State-3-6-Billion-6-600-Jobs

some info from the article:
Citrus Greening (called Huanglongbing in it's contry of origin, China) has now been confirmed in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and most citrus-producing regions of Mexico. It was discovered in Florida in Sept 2005. At the Second International Research Conference on Huanglongbing in January 2011, researchers estimated greening had already infected about 18 percent of Florida's citrus trees, estimated at 70.6 million trees last year. Some say as much as 25% are infected. Thousands of acres of citrus are no longer producing saleable fruit and are now abandoned, with the psyllids continuing to spread the disease to nearby orchards.
A UF study says that since the citrus seasons of 2006-07 through 2010-11, the disease has cost the state's economy $3.6 billion over five years, including 6,611 lost jobs in agriculture and related industries.

If this were anything else that you morning orange juice, I am sure that we would have heard about it through the morning news. In stead, we get a guessing game over the medical condition of Demi Moore. However, you don't hear about this type of work, and it goes on every day. But it is easy to find attacks on the Endangered Species Act or restraints of free trade.

Greens need to have a clear definition of the role of government regulation. Maybe Lincoln's thinking is a good starting point. We also need to clearly articulate how we can do this with community based economic development, because it soon become apparent that what is good for one community may not be good for it's neighbor. Lacking such an understanding, we will easily fall victim to the massive, industry financed publicity campaigns, not only as politicla voices, but as voters and consumers.

New directions in water policy, or just shirking responsibilities.

It is rare that I will use this blog to call attention to another blog, but today's post at On the Public Record illustrates the depth of the problem that Greens would have with a rational regional water management policy.

I’ve wondered about the State and Fed’s role diminishing, especially as the legislature and the agencies explicitly set their water management approach as ‘supporting integrated regional water management’. I worry about that some, since I believe that local governments generally don’t have the luxury to do anything more than work in their immediate self-interest and compete with their neighbors for “growth” and its accompanying new tax revenue, which will always require additional water sources. (emphasis mine)

However, regional, watershed based management the only way to ensure that Green Values will govern the development and use of this indispensable resource. My observation of the politics of water in California is that it will always be governed by urban growth. At time, urban needs are hidden in the demand to support CA's agribusinesses, but too often the subsidized agricultural water allocation is only resold to urban users at a bigger profit than can be made from using that water for growing food. If you care about water and politics in this semi-arid state, then On the Public Record is required reading. In this case, his concern is very real and probably even understated.

Kids Going 120 Miles to School

Do "minority kids" do poorly in school because "those people" don't have a high enough regard for education? You know you've heard variations of this argument about a 1,000 times. The L.A. Times published a story that I personally found poignant on a number of levels.

The Los Angeles Times, Thursday, January 19, 2012
Death Valley Students Face
Loss of Lifeline
By Teresa Watanabe

A school bus carries students from Death Valley High School in Shoshone to a Native American village in the national park. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times / January 10, 2012)

California has pulled funding for school transportation for the rest of this fiscal year and may eliminate it entirely next year. In Death Valley, where some students have a two-hour round trip, the cut is 'catastrophic.' ... It is 6:54 a.m. Marlee, a 14-year-old with raven hair and red nail polish, climbs aboard. She is one of nine students who spend more than two hours riding this bus 120 miles every school day to and from the Furnace Creek area to their school in Shoshone...

The long distance and light passenger load make this bus ride exorbitantly expensive. The Death Valley Unified School District spends about $3,500 a year for each of its 60 students on home-to-school transportation — compared with about $26 per student in more densely populated districts, according to data compiled by the California School Boards Assn.

So when Gov. Jerry Brown announced that lagging state revenue would require eliminating all school transportation funding for the rest of this fiscal year, it hit this tiny school district harder than just about any other in California. Death Valley Supt. Jim Copeland calls the cut, which took effect Jan. 1, "catastrophic."

For students like Marlee, the issue goes way beyond dollars and cents. The bus is her lifeline from the desolation of the desert to a wider world of teachers and friends, school sports and art projects and academic stimulation.

"School is the highlight of my life, and we can't get to school without the buses," Marlee said after a recent morning ride.

Educators statewide have decried the busing cuts as particularly unfair to small and rural districts that shoulder disproportionately high transportation costs. They are scrambling to reverse the move with legal action, letter-writing campaigns and legislative lobbying. Some are arguing that if cuts have to be made, they should be distributed equitably across the state ...

Of course, Governor Brown, like all the Democrats and Republicans in California, is playing games. The object of his game is to convince California voters to approve his retro tax plan. Meanwhile, he talks big about "investing" in big ticket projects for California's future [Translation: shoving a lot of money into programs favored by particular interests joined at the hip to the Democratic Party Machines].

There is no lack of criticism of California's once great system of public education. The problem is that most criticism comes from the so-called "conservative" side of the aisle. While everybody is busy obsessing over Barack Obama Democrats versus the barbaric Republicans we are in for another rough ride in 2012 at the state and local level in California.

Ecology of the Gardens of Democracy

While eating a late lunch yesterday, I turned on the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC.  Luckily I caught his interview with Nick Hanauer, author (along with Eric Liu) of a new book entitled Gardens of Democracy.  I embed the clip below because I want you to hear how he argues for considering that the economy is truly an ecosystem or rather what that means.

;Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This makes a lot of sense to me. For the most part, the Green Party has not been very adept at clarifying just what economic policies we want to put in place. This election cycle, with the lack of jobs being high on every candidate's list of talking points, it will be imperative that we find our economic voice. This just might be part of the story.

Poll: Indy Californians Still Support Climate Action | KQED's Climate Watch

Over the past decade, I have not been a staunch supporter of the League of Conservation Voters. This is strictly because they operate as the environmental caucus of the Democratic Party. However, I do have to thank them for conducting this poll, as reported by San Francisco's KQED's Climate Watch.

Poll: Indy Californians Still Support Climate Action | KQED's Climate Watch

Another finding was that a substantial majority (69%) agreed that “environmental regulations provide an important benefit to our society,” while 21% agreed with a statement that they do more harm than good. The approach of the survey was to offer two opposing statements on each matter and ask which one “comes closest to your own view.” These two environmental questions did not offer degrees of agreement, as did some others in the poll.

Over the past several years, there has been a steady stream of invective from the Republican Party proclaiming that the economy would recover by itself if we just got government out of the way, reduced all of those "unnecessary regulations" and gave industry it's way. Of course, you heat that again and again from those extractive industries: coal, oil, natural gas, mining. Yes, they do provide jobs now, but they also are rushing us like a runaway train into economic ruin.

Even though some in government seem to talk in agreement with this poll, the actions of many governments, especially the US, is out of step with the public perception. Grist's David Roberts wrote today about the "climate cognitive dissonance" between what science tells us is going to happen on our current path and the reaction of the markets to that information.

There is a major opportunity for Greens, especially those who have little faith in the markets to begin with, to actually use this for our own political ends. We should be calling attention to the fact that business as usual is taking on more risk that that which caused the dot-com bubble burst of the 1990's or the real estate mortgage melt down of the past 5 years. As Roberts points out:

Yet markets don't seem to be pricing those risks either! In fact, global markets don't seem to be taking climate change or climate policy seriously. Even if you don't care about that ecologically, it's alarming economically. It's a huge, unacknowledged, unhedged risk, and if we've learned anything in the past few years, it's that having huge, unacknowledged risks at the core of your economy is ill-advised.

This week, we watch in dismay, but not surprise, as the U. S. Congress fails once again to put aside politics and deal with issues of Medicare funding and tax fairness. If there was ever a time when we need issue oriented, future focused Greens in Congress, it is now.

The Road to the Future: California Water Management Reconfiguration

The real politics in California has nothing to do with environmentalism. This is simply self-promotion by urban metropolises for increasing water supplies. The conflict is for the diversion of surface water supplies. This takes place while California's coastal cities continue to disregard
new supplies through desalination because of its costs. Rural regions have painted themselves in the corner through their depletion of groundwater supplies.

It is a classic urban vs. rural water war. Cities gave themselves a blank check for growth through diversions of surface water from rural regions. Now, every diversion sparks conflict. This has nothing to do with the environment, just users fighting for supplies of surface freshwater. It could be resolved simply by regional planning and sustainable prioritization of regional supplies by regional users. The longer the diversions are the focus of the conflict the more intense it
will become.

Two large sub-states should be mapped, with Los Angeles included in the southern sub-state. The secessionist map of the Central Valley separatists did not include Los Angeles. Clearly, this was a self-serving proposition. All supplies stay in the sub-states. Regions are established within the sub-states that are basin-based and anticipate imbalances within the sub-states in regards to supplies, but NO diversions can be authorized outside of each sub-state. Mull it over. California simply is unable to dodge desalination. It cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul. Regions need the capability of defining their own priorities in water use and resource development.

Rural regions are rapidly transforming with the growth of population. Their economic uses and residential uses are increasing coming up against the stone wall of restricted supplies. This proposed water management reconfiguration is the only one that will open the door to users and avoid economic and political catastrophe. Without new supplies, there will be only ghost towns and agricultural crises. Without increasing supplies of water, there is no way to avoid running out and the only question will be: "Who will take the fall?".

Nation of Consumers in Hard Times

We have become a nation of consumers when once we were the manufacturing leader of the world.  We now measure our economy by how much we buy rather than how much we make.   Almost every media outlet this weekend underscored that fact with story after story about surge in consumer buying on Black Friday followed by estimates of our need top spend that will come today, Cyber Monday. 


It seems that the 1980's bumper sticker is apropos: He who dies with the most toys wins.  


It is against this backdrop of rampant consumerism and, inevitably, people behaving badly, that Scott Pelley showed us the other side on 60 Minutes last night. When consumerism rules the day, what happens to people when you can't consume, when you reduced to living in a car?  We have given names to generations.  The seems to be the Hard Times Generation.

Never has unemployment been so high for so long. And as a result, more than 16 million kids are living in poverty - the most since 1962

According to Pelley, this is pushing near to 25%.  That is 25% who can not participate in the spending spree that fills our news and encourages Wall Street. That is 25% who should have learned something.  As 15-year old Arielle Metzger told Pelley:

Every time I see like a teenager or any other kid fighting with their parents or arguing with them and like not doing what they're told it really hurts me. Because they could be in my shoes. And of course I don't want them to be in my shoes. But they need to learn to appreciate what they have and who they have in their life. Because it may be the last day they might have it.

In spite of the effort of OWS to call attention to this income disparity, to the rapacity of some of the super rich, we continue down this road to ruin.  I am not sure what the Occupy movements will end up accomplishing.  If they don't get more people on their side, it might not be much.  


I know a lot of Greens support, or participate in various Occupy efforts.  They are very clear about what they are against.  Most seem unclear as to what they are for.  Greens need to articulate the vision of where this country is going, what the future will be.


So, here is my challenge to you now:  What is the future we want?  Let's start a conversation here.  There is a wider effort going on elsewhere:

That session is just getting underway at  www.futurewewant.org, at facebook.com/futurewewant  at @futurewewant on Twitter, and at the UN’s web site. http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture .

I plan to join in there.  They need to have the Green Party vision of a sustainable future with all that means for people, resources, energy, etc. Clearly, it needs to be one not driven by consumerism. This is a conversation that all GP candidate should be having with the voters.
.

The EPA is under attack, but what about natural gas.

I normally keep the tube on while washing dishes. It is mostly audio wallpaper. However, last night it was on MSNBC and when Rachel Maddow said that she was going to interview EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, I stopped working, poured a glass of a Paso Robles barbera and sat down to listen.


It was an intriguing opportunity for Jackson to score some points and she almost hit it out of the park, but missed an opportunity to deal with climate when discussing fracking and the use of un-natural gas.
I can't imagine a better setup to this piece that Maddow provided. She started with Nixon's establishment of the EPA and led that into the current Republican presidential candidate unbridled antipathy for even using the initials. This led her into the interview where she gave Jackson the opportunity to defend the EPA, which Jackson did very well. And that is where things diverged. Yes, Jackson wants to protect air and water from the excesses of fracking (after they get the science right)… right.  But then she repeated the same things that we hear from all of the petro-industry commercials.

I think natural gas is important to our country.  I do think that it is a potential big change for us.  It has immediate benefits from a pollution side.  It has immediate benefits from an energy security side, but what we have to  be able to say to the people is that in the process of getting this natural gas, we're not going to screw up your groundwater or drinking water or your air.

This coming election cycle is going to feature a concerted attack on "regulation" by the Republicans and that pushes the EPA to the top echelon of issues. While we know that both Mesplay and Stein would be staunch protectors of the EPA, it is not yet clear which will be most able to articulate a narrative in which we can:

• protect our water resources,
• manage to control greenhouse gases,
• provide useful employment for all our population. 

That is a tough task, but it is what we have to do if Greens are going to make even a ripple in the national political pond.

Bio-Regionalism and Immigration

As someone who has been engaged in public education and water planning there is a vital need for local Greens to propose bodies and committees that integrate immigrants into decision-making process to address their needs and concerns. I know California is lagging in providing real support systems for Spanish speaking students and this is wrapped around the issues of teacher training AND budget cuts. Further, the rapid rate of increasing student populations with specific needs and the impacts of growth on water quality and supply are responsibilities that can most effectively be addressed by those directly impacted. We begin to break down the kinds of antagonisms that have been allowed to fester for so long when we work together in our communities. People who are labeled as "anti-immigrant" are often responding to the failures of current systems to address the profound demographic changes and often are unable themselves to impact on local policies.

It is fine to support immigrants. But as things stand now too many in California are denied adequate education, often end up in jail and prison (or held in virtual bondage)and they cannot get the support they need for their communities' water systems, such as in the Central Valley cities. We are disregarding that "sanctuary" as it is currently implemented remains rested in proclamations. We need to define that "sanctuary" in reality means safety, security and opportunity for a new and brighter future. The public is aware and frustrated at the failures of public schools and water systems. Getting people to interact begins to break down the walls and establishes a common and shared vision for their communities that is not exclusive to any given group of people.

In NM the Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) had a Stakeholder Advisory Committee until it was dissolved administratively. When it was functioning it enabled users and stakeholders to engage directly with the ABCWUA and provide input and present concerns of different groups as to what things they were dealing with regarding the resource. From there, it is up to a Green Party to provide the electoral and political leadership that begins to break down the walls as they exist today. The dismantling of the Advisory Committee demonstrates how those determined to preserve the status quo have no desire to open our governing entities. It also demonstrates the real role of a Green Party in building change. We need to promote candidates who present new opportunities and the campaigns should not just focus on the debates as they are constructed today by the duopoly parties. We can make real proposals in the structure of the governing entities of our communities that begin to break down the animosities as they may exist. Our neighbors are not our enemies; they are the source of new solutions and alternatives that will improve sustainability and improve the quality of life for all.