Water Budgets Meet Financial Budgets in CA Water Wars

There is an increasing body of evidence that any resolution to the peripheral canal and Delta infrastructure is meeting a financial wall around which there is no room to maneuver. What is happening in California is no different in many ways from what is happening elsewhere. Water wars are driven by allocations, financial and hydrological. Coastal urban allocations in California are disproportional in their priority because of the use of geo-political entities. As the Central Valley becomes more urbanized there is an increase in their political representation. But as long as diversions are the solution of choice in California, regional planning will never be utilized to integrate urban users with agricultural and rural users in the decision-making process.

There is a real base of support here in California among ag and rural users for regional planning. At this stage, this is primarily to get the State Legislature out of the process. Politically, there remains the Arnold attitude towards water that “We can have it all.” This is simply because of the political control of the State Legislatures by urban users.

Establishing new geographical and political parameters for diversions would change this impulse. Coastal waters have not been included in the array of supply options in California.  There remain untapped potential supplies that have been modeled elsewhere. “Desalination systems account for a fifth of the freshwater used in Israel and, according to existing plans, by the end of the decade that amount will be doubled.” The freshwater fetishness has provided other options not previously on the table. Wastewater has been tapped by Orange County as a source for municipal water supplies. Pacific Institute concluded in a 2006 study: “Is desalination the ultimate solution to our water problems? No. Is it likely to be a piece of our water management puzzle? Yes. In the end, decisions about desalination developments will revolve around complex evaluations of local circumstances and needs, economics, financing, environmental and social impacts, and available alternatives. We urge that such decisions be transparent, honest, public, and systematic.”

Point being: that the tax structure has too long defined the water debates for revenues. No discussion of a tiered water severance tax has been broached. No local revenue raising regional bodies are being proposed to provide collaborative adaptive governance for long-term regional planning. Diversions will always prove to be projects with enormous price tags attached. California’s state budget has been the source of its system of aqueducts throughout the state. But that party is over. In November 2012, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 will be on the ballot in California. If passed, it will enable the state to borrow $11.1 billion for water projects. “The state makes yearly debt payments of about $10 billion on its $89 billion debt load.”

Fundamental questions to raise are: Will the charge of the project to users impact on local ag and urban water use in the Central Valley? Will this impact the economic situation and food production of the Central Valley? Are there any options that can address the issue of supply of water equitably for the Central Valley? I think I have included several of those options that have not been developed. A public planning process would certainly increase the options explored for their feasibility.


The concerns of the Delta residents are distinct and addressing them needs to acknowledge that existing political entities have not proven capable of addressing the complexities of infrastructure needs. As things stand the water war has benefited neither the Delta nor the Central Valley. It raises the question of whether the Central Valley Aquifer provides a hydrological linkage between the two regions that could bring them together in a regional water planning process. Is it possible for such diverse stakeholders to sit down together at the same table and map out a common future in regards to water management? Can they accurately gauge supplies, evaluate demand, establish a regional or sector-based annual water budget, improve measurement and monitoring, develop infrastructure, establish sustainable goals for conservation, maintain appropriate water quality guidelines based on the character of the usage, raise revenues, and work in conjunction with Federal and state agencies?

That’s a plateful. The questions that can be raised to get a clearer picture of the context faced by water users and the environment today are: Can the State Legislature continue to use the Public Trust Doctrine to build massive projects, more often than not, for California's coastal metropolitan uses from rural regions of the state? Can our state budget manage to come up with the funds needed to finance the projects as they have been developed in the past? Can the supplies address the demands of the wide array of beneficial water use in a sustainable manner? Can growth be balanced on the basis of renewable supplies of water? Can rural communities work in conjunction with long-term planners in developing rural conservation ordinances that don’t deplete the aquifer? Will urban users recognize their own responsibilities in adapting to local resources without depending on other regions of the state for their supplies?

These kinds of questions are centered on the issue of water governance and not simply diversions. The answers to the questions require a review of existing entities as they empower users and efficiently and effectively manage our water resource. It is becoming increasingly clear that the state of California cannot simply drop bonds out there to provide new supplies for coastal regions. The state’s regions need to develop the most holistic evaluation of their resources and establish their own priorities in regards to the maximum utilization and development of the resource.

Regions in California already have the resources, both natural and financial, to develop new long-term plans to be implemented in a fair and consistent manner.  It should be said that coastal regions and others have begun to demonstrate innovations in ground water management. “The regions are increasingly developing their own means of addressing water management that have produced new models of stakeholder engagement, Among other things, we see agencies using measurable objectives for limiting groundwater drawdown; analyzing suites of management options with transparent decision criteria and simulations; collaborating with neighboring agencies; involving a broad range of agricultural, municipal, environmental, State, and federal stakeholders in their planning decisions; undertaking groundwater metering as well as monitoring; actively controlling pumping to limit groundwater drawdown; and protecting hydrologically connected surface waters and groundwater-dependent ecosystems.”

Bad actors in water use should not be extended the continued graciousness of getting supplies from others as a reward. On the other hand, the potential for improving the employment situation in areas such as Los Angeles has been demonstrated to be the most effective in the development of water resources. In a recent study by the Economic Roundtable it is presented that: “Los Angeles is the most populous region of California, with average daily water use of 135 gallons per person – 49,275 gallons per person annually. Population growth and demands from other regions for an increasing share of the water that has traditionally come to Los Angeles is making it increasingly difficult and expensive for Los Angeles to import enough water to meet local demand…Periodic droughts and the high costs of importing water from the Sacramento Delta and Colorado River Basin make the need to achieve greater water use efficiency even more urgent.” “Findings from the Economic Roundtable’s study indicate that there are much greater local benefits from investing in local water use efficiency projects than from equivalent investments in massive statewide projects.”

The plentifulness of our resources and the resourcefulness of our people can effectively and efficiently be utilized at the regional levels. Whether in the Delta, the Central Valley or the metropolitan coastal regions, there lies the foundation for new and adaptive water governance that does not simply jump from crisis to crisis. Now, more than ever, we have to find new avenues for construction and development of our resource infrastructure. Those being impacted by decisions need to have political entities that are open, transparent and representative of stakeholders, managers, specialists and the environment.

 

L.A. Times' Steve Lopez: Obama's 'Hollywood Hypocrites'

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are times when an MSM columnist really "gets it." This one by Steve Lopez about Obama's $40,000 a ticket fundraiser in the San Fernando Valley gets it right on the money

Posted on the Los Angeles Times Web Page, May 10, 2012
Clooney's Obama Party Full of 'Hollywood Hypocrites'
By Steve Lopez

They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the operative word is "gross."

Yeah, pardon me for being such a party pooper, but isn't it a little offensive that 150 of L.A.'s high rollers would shell out $40,000 to kiss Clooney's ring and get maybe 10 seconds of face time with Obama?

And what about the thousands of saps who pumped an average of $23 into Obama's campaign coffers for the chance to be one of the two peons chosen to break bread with the VIPs?

I'd rather watch the Lakers game from a bar stool, which in fact is what I may do.

I haven't seen Clooney's guest list, but I'd bet $2 -– and not a penny more –- that his house will be full of that particularly unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this that make them feel good about themselves but don't really give a toss for their own community. Los Angeles could end up declaring bankruptcy and these posers will be telling friends about their big night at George's house.

Fifteen million dollars -– a third of it raised by the local big shots -– is peanuts to Obama, really. Another drop in a bucket the size of Santa Monica Bay. And isn't money the root of all evil in politics, whether it's from out-of-control "super PACs" or wanna-be-seen moguls who might be expecting something in return for ponying up?

Los Angeles is shutting school libraries, laying off teachers and shutting down fire houses. And VIPs are paying $40,000 for a Wolfgang Puck hors d'oeuvre and a silly photo with a president who only now has come to think it might be OK for gay people to have the same rights as straight people.

Open your eyes, Hollywood hypocrites!

If there's any justice, the traffic jam on Ventura Boulevard will be so horrific that you'll miss the party and end up crying over a Du-par's short stack.

[Updated at 5:26 p.m. Oh come on, give me a break, all you defenders of obscene excess.

The problem is money and the way in which it undercuts democracy. Money from the right. Money from the left.

Money, money, money.

Yeah, sure, Obama’s got to raise all he can to fend off Mitt Romney and hold onto his seat. But is that a race to the top or a race to the bottom?

If money buys victory and access, what about the masses who can’t afford a $40 fundraiser let alone a $40,000 party?

When do they get the president’s ear?

I suspect some of the self-congratulatory high-rollers at Clooney's house are paying more for two hours with the President than they pay their nannies, housekeepers and gardeners in a year.

I’m sure George Clooney and some of his pals are good people who want to save the world and even toss a crumb to a local charity now and again. But if they’re so desperate to celebrate their wonderful ways and important causes, why not a Hollywood fundraising party to save the libraries, rec centers or the parks. Or better yet, might Wolfgang Puck and all the beautiful people be available to stage a fundraiser for campaign finance reform?]

ABOUT STEVE LOPEZ

Columnist Steve Lopez joined the staff of the Los Angeles Times in May 2001 after four years at Time Inc., where he wrote for Time, Sports Illustrated, Life and Entertainment Weekly.

Prior to Time Inc., Lopez was a columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Jose Mercury News and the Oakland Tribune. His work has won numerous national journalism awards for column writing and magazine reporting.

A California native, Lopez is the author of three novels and a book of non-fiction, "The Soloist: A Lost Dream, An Unlikely Friendship, And The Redemptive Power of Music."

Putting our House in Order

Let's start out with the premise that "business as usual" is getting nowhere in addressing the current economy. The defaults that are looming on housing, student loans and credit cards remain a dark cloud in regards to increasing consumption to increase demand. The market does work but it will always reflect the overall economy. Corrections are being made, but will not inherently produce a turn around. Obama is not a right-winger. He simply doesn't grasp the basic engine of the economy.

Let's start with the fallacy of "we can have it all- guns and butter". You cannot spend the same funds twice and there is a bottom to the barrel, no matter how many dollars you print. If there is not a change in the fundamental social forces that drive the economy, there will be no change in either the wage gap or unemployment. The focus of this election has been on minor changes in the tax code. The tax code is no more or less than a minor lift to peoples' ability to improve their standard of living or invest in the development of small businesses. If we use the WW2 model to demonstrate the key role of the Federal government in driving the economy, then we are left looking at the wage-price controls that were also a part of that model. If we use the New Deal as the model we are looking at a scenario without the debt/GDP ratio we have today.

"Business as usual" is trying to address constituency political demands the same as yesterday. As an example, the reality is that the political dynamics of "environmentalism" is constituent-based, not ecologically-based. They are resource battles and illustrate the conflict between urban and rural users. Water use, as an example, is confronting the fact that state governmental entities are dominated by urban users, so the "environmentally-friendly" proposal of instream flow is nothing less than the action by municipalities to get allocations previously used for agriculture.

"Business as usual" has addressed educational failings from the top down. We have long recognized the failure of urban public education but it has long-term impacts on our civil life and our society at large. But the solutions continue to make things worse instead of better. Making the situation worse, is the loss of value for studying by students.

The cultural revolution in the US has successfully crushed the old Protestant ethic in academics. In its place is more partying, less studying. It should be said that focus on personal behavior as a component of the political agenda has had many unexpected consequences. Among those effects is the rash of plagarism and cheating. We are seeing teachers cheat, as well as Wall Street brokers. Social workers have been caught robbing as well as Enron execs.

Not everything is economic and how we address charcter development has begun to demonstrate impacts on the focus of young people on their studies.There is something important that we lost with the Protestant ethic- that is a sense of individual accountability and responsibility. If the economy is going to get better than we need to improve our own conduct and expectations of each other.

We function as a small bit in a huge society of Gigabits. But if a virus robs us of our own sense of ethics, we ignore what is happening around us to our own detriment. Regional water planning taught me that people can work together when we agree on a common mission- a collective statement of individual shared values. We don't need to resurrect the Protestant ethic to define what we share as a nation. We do need to acknowledge the impact of our words and actions on others. Our economy is not something that starts from the top in some agency or corporate office, it begins with how hard we work as individuals and how we use the skills that we each have for the betterment of this world.

Professor Lakoff’s ‘Political Mind’

Editor's Note -- Scott McLarty serves as media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States and for the DC Statehood Green Party. This review of "The Political Mind" by George Lakoff first appeared in Green Horizon, Spring/Summer 2012.

Finding the Green Frame:
Professor Lakoff’s ‘Political Mind’ and the Green Party
By Scott McLarty

This past summer, some Green Party members opened up a dialogue with economic David C. Korten, who appeared via Skype on a screen before an audience at the party’s annual national meeting in Alfred, New York.

During one discussion with a few Greens, Korten said that the Green Party “must find its narrative.” People can grasp political ideas if they’re presented as part of a story. This makes sense. It’s impossible to think, for example, of the achievement of legal rights for black Americans apart from the dramatic narrative of the Civil Rights movement. Greens need to find their own story that places the party’s ideas and experiences as a growing political movement into a context that will enable Americans understand our claim to be the party of the 21st century.

Professor George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, has taken this basic idea much further in a series of books, one of which is ‘The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.” Like Korten, Lakoff’s sympathy is with progressives. He never mentions the Green Party and we can fault him from viewing US politics from within the restrictive two-party prison. Nevertheless, every Green Party member who thinks about how people think about politics should read the book.

According to Lakoff, progressives tend to subscribe to an 18th-century Enlightenment notion of reason, in which people make logical choices, especially political choices such as who to vote for, based on what’s in their own best interests. Lakoff says that this tendency among progressives is erroneous, demonstrably so, since Americans very often succumb to ruling-class propaganda and vote against their own interests.

Instead, says Lakoff, people think according to culturally-based conceptual frameworks and systems of metaphor. Reason and intellect are grounded in our emotions and our physical bodies — there is no difference between the mind and the brain. This doesn’t mean that humans are irrational. On the contrary, it’s rational to be disgusted and outraged by cruelty, murder, greed, and other evils. Our sense of justice and our political ideals are formed with the help of emotions, which are stimulated by the fields of metaphor in which such notions are communicated. Reason often takes place in the unconscious mind, where these mechanisms function most effectively.

Rightwing politicians and their think tanks have already figured this out. They know how to use the language of metaphor to reach and persuade the public. For example, Republicans describe their plans to lower taxes as “tax relief,” evoking a metaphor of “injury” that depicts taxation as an infliction from which we deserve relief, rather than something (when enacted fairly) that benefits all Americans. (An even more blatant example is the Republican decision to label estate taxes, which are applied only to millionaires, as a “death tax” that will affect all of us when we die, as if government were a vulture that feeds on our corpses.)

Progressives have been slow to learn the power of metaphor, which Lakoff called “frames” in an earlier and equally useful book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant.” For this reason, Republicans have been able to pull much of the public and most of the Democratic Party over their side when arguing for things like the invasion of Iraq, even when all the logical arguments were on the side of those who opposed President Bush’s war plans. The US troops sent over to depose Saddam Hussein were heroes fighting an evil-doer who, like a comic-book villain, was hiding weapons of mass destruction and conspiring with al-Qaeda to destroy America. When no WMDs were found and everyone realized that the Saddam-Osama conspiracy was implausible, the hero-versus-villain frame was discarded and replaced with one in which US troops were “rescuers” sent to bestow democracy on the beleaguered Iraqi people. Both of these frames leave out details like the drive to control Iraq’s oil supplies and assert political control over a large region of Asia.

While Republicans have excelled at exploiting frames, thanks to PR whizzes like Frank Luntz, Democrats have mostly relied on stale and ambiguous visions like “Bridge to the 21st Century” and “Hope is on the way.” An exception occurred with Barack Obama’s election victory in 2008, in which he was perceived as the conquering hero who delivered us after eight years of GOP misrule and the young “best and brightest” black man who carried the inherited mantle of Martin and Malcolm into the White House. These frames were effective because they convinced voters that Obama was the voice of progressive, antiwar Americans, even though his actual positions showed otherwise.

Logical thinking, dissociated from persuasive frames, motivates Greens to believe that we can convince the voting public to support us simply by communicating our Key Values and platform positions, along with some debate to support the ideas we stand for. The campaign brochures of Green candidates sometimes look like laundry lists of what they hope to accomplish if elected.

The Green New Deal, a useful distillation of Green Party agenda that many Green candidates have adopted as a sort of campaign manifesto, suffers from the same problem. It suggests President Roosevelt’s New Deal, which put millions of Americans to work and boosted productivity during the Great Depression, but this historical framework is a bit meager for people under 80 years old whose experience of the Depression is an essay they wrote for a high-school history class.

Greens running for office on the Green New Deal must find ways to turn it into a story that can involve voters personally and emotionally. I’m not sure how to accomplish this, but placing it in the context of documents that pushed America towards greater democracy and freedom might be a start: Tom Paine’s Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and passage of various amendments, the Emancipation Proclamation, Seneca Falls Declaration, etc. Or perhaps a grand dramatic action, with an element of civil disobedience, to publicize the Green New Deal in the spirit of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg in 1517, which touched off the Protestant Reformation.

The lack of cultural frames has stymied alternative parties for most of the last century. The Green Party is foreign to the two-party paradigm in which most Americans think about politics. There is nothing constitutional about exclusive rule by two parties, it’s simply a status quo that most Americans accept as natural.

Lakoff has famously compared the competition between the Republican and Democratic parties as a rivalry between the “strict father” and “nurturant parent” (usually mother) models that come out of the “family” frame in which government is perceived as the parents and citizens are the children. Alternative parties are irrelevant to this frame, just as Iraqi oil was irrelevant within the hero-villain frame used to promote the Iraq War.

This is why Green participation in elections seems to have the character of an eccentric distant relative who shows up at the front door when the family unit is about to settle down for dinner. When Greens remind other Americans that Green Parties exist and are often quite successful in elections in Europe, it only contributes further to the perception of the party as something foreign.

The spoiler accusation and other reasons people use not to take the Green Party seriously are informed by the idea that alternative parties are trying to interfere with something as natural as the family. How can the Green Party of the United States persuade people that we don’t only offer good ideas, we represent something that is authentically and indispensibly part of the American political landscape?

Greens must overcome the problem by developing our own frames. Occupy Wall Street provides some clues about how that might be accomplished. Occupy demonstrators seem to fit into a common narrative in US history, that of a popular uprising to defy the power of Wall Street and clear away the corruption of corporate-money politics. In the past half century, such uprisings have been marginalized and objections to the power of business elites have been relegated to the Democratic Party’s “nurturant parent” function, where such conflicts are resolved by the enactment of a few modest social programs while the power of elites remains unaffected. The Occupy Movement, if it can resist cooptation by Democratic Party front groups like MoveOn.org that would turn it into “Reelect Obama,” has the potential to overturn these facades.

Lakoff writes:

"America is about empathy and responsibility: people caring both for themselves and for one another, and acting responsibly on that sense of care…. If progressives can stick to these basics, activate empathy in our fellow citizens, and frame issues so that they notice all the protection and empowerment that government affords in their everyday lives, then we have a fighting chance that the minds and the brains of our countrymen will align once more with the fundamental values and goals of American democracy. We need to say over and over that this is what true patriotism is. Moreover, we need language to evoke the frames that tell us why conservatism is destructive to democracy.

For Greens, enlightening Americans about the destructiveness of Republican-style conservatism isn’t enough. We must also enable people to understand that the Democratic Party shares much of the same mindset, even adopting many of the GOP’s agenda. Under President Obama, Democrats have devoted themselves to building the US war machine for deployment anywhere around the world for US interests, often on the basis of “preemption” as in the case of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. Democratic leaders have also embraced the temptation to slash Social Security and Medicare, legally questionable mandates requiring everyone to purchase private health insurance, offshore drilling along US coasts, new nuclear power plants, privatization of publicly owned resources and services (including military), taxpayer-funded bailouts and virtual impunity for Wall Street firms whose fraud caused the 2008 economic meltdown but minimal assistance for working Americans hurt by the crisis, and too many other examples to be listed here.

In other words, Greens must introduce their own frames to persuade people that politics restricted to two corporate-money parties is un-American and has damaged our country. This will be difficult. According to the usual media script, bipartisanship is good and gridlock is bad. (We could have used a little gridlock when the US Senate confirmed George W. Bush’s 2000 election “victory” despite a possible election theft, when Congress was asked to cede war powers to the White House in advance of the invasion of Iraq, and when the Wall Street bailout was first proposed in 2008.)

Greens must also find frames strong enough to penetrate the psychology of progressives who are too relieved to have a Democrat in the White House, too ready to believe he shares their progressive agenda, and too loyal or impressed by his charisma when confronted with the need to register protest. Professor Lakoff shows the same tendencies when he writes in ‘The Political Mind’, which came out in early 2009, about Barack Obama’s impending move into the White House.

It’s important to understand that Lakoff is not talking about propaganda, although conceptual frames can be manipulated for such purposes, as the PR successes of the GOP have proved ever since Reagan was elected president in 1980. The flood of deceptive political ads we’re likely to see in the 2012 election, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that removed limits on advertising by corporate PACs on behalf of candidates, will be a crash course on the use of frames. Some are already at work in the GOP primary contest, with Republican candidates accusing each other of being “Washington insiders,” which taps into the “federal government is evil” frame favored by Republicans. (Especially Republicans who work in the federal government.)

Rather, Lakoff means patterns of thinking and communicating that are built into our cognitive wiring, just as all humans use grammar when they speak, even though the particular rules and structures of grammar of a language are learned. Cognitive linguists like Lakoff compare their theory of innate brain structure for culturally learned systems of metaphor with Noam Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar, which sparked a revolution in linguistics in the late 1950s.

Lakoff’s responses to Chomsky and other “18th-century Enlightenment” linguistics who are skeptical that there exist deep structures for metaphor and frames analogous to grammatical deep structures will be interesting to those (like me) who enjoy a good academic dispute, but these topics are only a small part of ‘The Political Mind’ and Green readers shouldn’t be put off.

Lakoff waxes too optimistic in the final chapter, where he looks forward to an era of truth in politics made possible by the New Enlightment understanding of metaphor and frames advanced by himself and his fellow cognitive linguists. The sophisticated use of frames by rightwing politicians, with the wizardry of Luntz and other PR experts, suggests that deception might become even more pervasive in this era of saturation propaganda. We’ve seen how easily the Tea Party movement was manipulated by GOP operatives into endorsing remedies based on deeper entrenchment of the very ruinous policies, like Wall Street deregulation, that triggered the recent economic meltdown.

But this is an argument for the Green Party and Green candidates to find more sustained and persuasive ways to bring the Green imperative to the public. ‘The Political Mind’ is indispensible for Greens who care about how we communicate.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Scott McLarty serves as media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States and for the DC Statehood Green Party. He has had articles, guest columns, and book reviews published in Roll Call, Common Dreams, Z Magazine, Green Horizon, The Progressive Review, In These Times, and several local and community publications. He joined the Green Party in 1996 and in 1998 ran for the Ward 1 seat on the City Council of the District of Columbia. Mr. McLarty grew up on Long Island and now lives in Washington, DC.

More than innovation

Many Greens have a gut level distrust of technical innovation as being able to ensure humanity's progress, even as they take advantage of the latest social media innovations that are part of America's love affair with technology.

When it becomes necessary to put forward a coherent policy that considers both ecological and economic concerns, Greens rely on the concept of sustainability to define their objective. However, we are not often clear about what policies we would put in place to become truly sustainable.

To that end, I suggest reading the full text of Gregory Wagner's article Innovation is Not Enough: Why Polluters Must Pay. Wagner is an economist teaching energy economics at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He summarizes his own article in this manner:

In short, we need to ramp up and be able to sustain R&D (&D) — and that is nearly impossible when all market forces are pointing in the opposite direction. We need to guide private research efforts, and we need to pay for public ones. The American Energy Innovation Council lists five ways for government to come up with the necessary funds, four of which point to increasing the price of fossil energy.

In this coming presidential election, Greens need to be clear that our energy policy will put a price on carbon in whatever form it is used.

Black Girls Code

I graduated from Flagstaff (AZ) High School in 1958. A recent story local San Francisco television about Kimberly Bryant and her organization, Black Girls Code, made me think about how much, and how little has changed since I was in High School.

Flagstaff was always a place where multiple races lived in a state of tension where harmonious relaxation never really occurred. It was not just White / Black. There were always sizable populations of Hispanic and Native Americans in town, and in the school. But something was happening that introduced some change, but not enough.

Most of the African American population lived in the SE part of town… south of Rt. 66 and the Santa Fe tracks, East of Agassiz St. Their children went to the Paul Lawrence Dunbar Elementary School where only they attended. The "Mexicans" and others went to South Beaver School. Only the latter still exists. Dunbar was shut as the result of Brown vs.Board of Education decision. It's last principal was Wilson Riles, later Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of CA.

Those Dunbar students were my classmates at Flagstaff High School in the 1950's. One of them stood out to the extent that would occasionally check what happened to Joan Dorsey. When I knew Joan, she was a member of the National Honor Society and a leading singer in our school choir. Then we went our separate way, Joan to the University of Arizona and I to the University of Redlands. After graduating with a degree in education, Joan became the first black stewardess at American Airlines.

There are always those who break down barriers. Joan was one of those. It seems that Kimberly Bryant is another, only society has changed to the extent that now Kimberley is getting girls, black girls, interested in computers and engineering. It is a long way from aspiring to be a well trained waitress as a career goal. But there is still a long way to go and leaders like Bryant need support.

Now the old Dunbar School has been re-purposed and Joan and Wilson are getting a measure fo the credit that they deserve. Last August, the Arizona Daily Sun carried the story of a new mural on the old building... one with pictures of both Riles and Dorsey.

Duopoly's Diversions Drive Water in California

The oppressive character of a one-party system is that it does not incorporate input from other parties. There is nothing "supposed" about that circumstance. Greens know full well how it comes down. We are subjected to numerous administrative and legislative efforts to deny us ballot access in California. The record speaks for itself. Recent changes have further marginalized Green engagement.

The character of the water war in California is about allocations. It is demonstrated by various advocacy groups who have aligned with propositions that promote one group of users at the expense of others [see Pacific Institute's assertion linked below]. Los Angeles has taken water from the North for decades. San Francisco pipes its water from the east. The condition on the ground in California is that the drought is over and reservoirs are filled. The proposition for secession that was brought up by a Republican state legislator is based on lack of influence in the decision-making entities under the status quo. Now there is a move to restore Hetch-Hetchy coming from rural water users to increase their own base of support in the state.

The situation of the groundwater overdraft and the satellite monitoring of the Central Valley Aquifer presents a conumdrum to those who are hitting the bottom of the well as it were. (That would be the users east of the Sierras) The conflict over the peripheral canal is the same as has been addressed by the massive diversions to Los Angeles in the California Aqueduct and other projects including the Owens Valley diversion. Make no mistake about it, this IS a resource war. Notice the Delta would be included in the new state. This makes up the northern tip of the Central Valley Aquifer.

The largest metropolitan areas in California are located next to the ocean and yet continue to rely on freshwater sources from other parts of the state and have been financed through bonds. Even El Paso figured out how to access new supplies through desal of deep water aquifers. Their cry of poverty is inconsistent with their ability to utilize other sources. The state of Israel is looking to implement desal for 65% of its water supply. It CAN be done.

Population has increased throughout the state of California, including in the Central Valley. http://www.city-data.com/states/California-Population.html See the chart in regards to population growth in California http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Population/PopList.asp?ST=CA&LongName=California . L.A.'s growth has been an exercise in failing to abide by even minimal restraints and it has long ago surpassed the carrying capacity of the bioregion. there is no question that these guys want all the gravy with none of the lumps.

California makes up about 17% of the U.S. population. Its crops also provide 17% of the U.S. produce. But there remains a belief, as Arnold himself put it that:"we CAN have it all". The Pacific Institute Report states: “The total volume of water withdrawn nationwide in 2005 was lower than it was in 1975, despite substantial economic and population growth. This is a significant achievement (my emphasis- MZ) that water demand can be successfully delinked from growth." (my emphasis) MUNICIPAL DELIVERIES OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER, page 2-3 at http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_municipal_deliveries . This sounds more like Arnold Schwarzenegger than John Muir.

The consequences of a state legislature that has a majority of urban users is the failure to establish and govern with the interests of others incorporated into it. California has manipulated its water law so that it means all things to all people. Public Trust Doctrine has been used to promote private interests receiving takings from other users as a result of state actions. Beneficial uses are so inclusive as to lack any real meaning in regards to distinguishing consumptive use. In California water law doctrine is inclusive of pueblo rights, riparian, prior appropriation and a separate one for groundwater. Fourteen Federal agencies and 15 state agencies (table 2.10, page 129, PPIC Report) put their hands in the waters of California and local authorities exist in nine distinct jurisdictional governmental entities (ranging from municipalities to flood control, sanitation and water districts).

The Department of the Interior under G.W. Bush that predicted regional hotspots and projected regions of conflict in the U.S. in the Water 2025. http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/water03/water2025.pdf It remains to be seen if we are doomed to stay on the course that guarantees conflicts as growth proceeds unabated and resources continue to be depleted. No one can "have it all" when "it" is at the expense of others. It is long overdue for real prioritization of regional water planning to replace the continued expensive, massive aqueducts and diversions.

Delta? Who dat?

About once a year I am reminded that the Stockton Record columnist, Mike Fitzgerald, is really good at what he does. Since most of that involves writing about San Joaquin County, I don't follow too closely until something sends me back and I am reminded yet again. This week it was this column on the Sacramento / San Joaquin Delta.

I am not sure how many times I have posted about the Delta. I know that there are 7 labels for posts that begin with "Delta". A search of this blog for the labal "Delta Vision" will get at least 10 posts. So, I was a bit surprised, as Fitzgerald seemed to be, that some 78% of California don't know who, where or what it is. I wish that I could deal with that as well as Fitzgerald does.

In the latest installment of "Invisible Valley," the saga of a region nobody pays attention to, a survey shows 78 percent of Californians don't know what the Delta is.

Or where it is. Or who it is.

Mind-boggling.

Seventy-eight percent of the lotus-eaters in this state haven't got a clue the Delta even exists.

Even as they drink it, fill their swimming pools with it and live on food that couldn't have grown without it.

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." -Demosthenes

I really wish that every Green reader of this blog were part of the 28% who know a bit about where we get our water, and so, learned reader, I will continue to believe it.

What bothers me most is that it is just so damned difficult to make any progress at all toward a comprehensive negotiated settlement of CA's Water Wars and this lack of public awareness, or knowledge, is allowing that power brokers to continue doing what they have been doign for years, screwing the rest of us for relatively short term economic advantage. Even such an Green sounding organization as the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta is now what it purports but, according to activist Dan Bacher...

Three executives of Stewart Resnick's Paramount Farms in Kern County founded the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the public for a big profit.

Then, Kern County isn't exactly part of the Delta either, is it.

It is fast becoming too late to do anything to stop the process currently under way, one that is aimed at giving the current Gov. Brown a legacy of building CA's infrastructure to match that of his Father. Unfortunately for us, if he succeeds, there will be hell to pay, and pay, and pay for years to come. We will be in bonded servitude to debts of a failed project.

In one more reminder of just how far things have gone awry and how little the bureaucrats care, I suggest your taking the time to read this post by Jane Wagner-Tyack at Restore the Delta.

Just to be clear here: Delta levee improvements, including seismically-resistant levees, were found to be less costly than conveyance and to have greater risk reduction benefits. So the risk-reduction benefits were misrepresented in both reports, and the seismically-resistant levees disappeared altogether from the second.

Oh yes. The fix is in and all the Good Dems will continue nodding to Gov. Brown's planned Big Dig.

Teachers' Woes Grow Ever More Intensely

Recent actions at the state levels have drawn attention to the role of teachers’ unions in the public education process. It should be said that most of this attention is unwarranted. The fact is that, in the context of education cuts, more demands are being made on teachers than they are able to deliver in the current public school setting. This has nothing to do with teachers' unions.

Regular education is facing the consequences of increased class sizes and pressures resulting from NCLB and state budget cuts. One consequence of this is the increasing turnover of teachers and the rising median age of teachers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/03/08/high-teacher-turnover-rates-are-a-big-problem-for-americas-public-schools/ http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS/tables/state_2004_19.asp Young people are more likely to avoid the profound difficulties of the current public school work environment in favor of other careers. It is worth saying that public school teachers have heard the message of the public - parents, public officials and public opinion. Teachers have always considered themselves as advocates for their students. But for the past 20 years this has turned into a situation where teachers are being scapegoated for the poor status of student academic performance.

The profound demographic changes in the nation have added basic language skills to the array of issues that impact on student performance. The ELL training is not proving sufficient in expanding the skills needed by non-English speaking students and ELL classes are inadequately constructed in numerous settings to address the issues of improving student achievement. “If mainstream teachers are to help meet the many challenges inherent in educating ELLs, one of many subgroups within a single classroom, a researched-based effective professional development source must be devised to create the workforce with the skills needed to teach these students effectively. Equity of education for ELL students will depend ultimately upon how schools respond to the individual student and his or her needs. The training, follow-through, and support of the mainstream teachers for English language learners are important to all Americans, as education is the pathway to employability, economic independence, and social wellbeing.” http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1709&context=gradschool_diss

Increasing teacher training will not benefit if new potential teachers see that the environment they are considering is so profoundly dysfunctional. Expectations on current teachers have been raised beyond the capabilities to achieve. This is resulting in teacher turnovers and cheating scandals such as the one in Atlanta.

Learning technologies are often pointed to as the silver bullet in public education. The fact is that these technologies have their own issues that include the difficulty in monitoring and the lack of personal interactions and dialogue between students and teachers. On-line schools and other alternatives have arisen and gained a certain popularity. http://www.kvue.com/news/Online-K-12-schooling-on-the-rise-138317819.html It is not reasonable to presume that it will ever replace the public education system.

Increasing common core standards holds no solutions when they are not sufficiently relevant in the existing classroom settings. Standards in California have been raised in the face of repeated failures throughout the state public school system. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/11/many_california_elementary_stu.html One thing we are learning from the NCLB testing is how inadequate student performance is in meeting those standards. In this context, there is an increasing atmosphere of antagonism between teachers, parents and administration, not collaboration. Teacher demoralization is an issue in itself that will not be addressed simply by core standards. Training will help. There appears to be more training being expected of public school teachers than is being delivered by either public schools or higher education. Focusing solely on teacher training will not address the profound demands that are being made on teachers in the classroom.

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.

Occupy Pelosi's Office

I would like to suggest that the Occupy Wall Street folks, especially the Occupy San Francisco demonstrators, seek to Occupy everything Pelosi.

If there is anything wrong with Congress, it is the idea that they are different from the rest of us. They love to give themselves special privileges. Nothing exemplifies this more than the manner in which Pelosi and her husband accepted an IPO stock deal with Visa and then Pelosi kept legislation for new regulation of the Credit Card industry bottled up, not allowing it to come to a vote in the House while she was Speaker. The current Speaker, John Boehner, is not better.

All you need to know came from Steve Kroft on 60 minutes this week, yet no one seems to pick this up. If it were Boehner, you know the crowd at MSNBC (O'Donnell, Maddow, Shultz) would be all over this were it a Republican Speaker, but Pelosi is the 2nd best fund raiser for the Democrats and that gives her a lot of power.

If Occupy San Francisco wants to be non-partisan, they should go after the powerful and that includes San Francisco's favorite Congresswoman. Maybe CA Greens need to nudge them a bit.