The recent publication, MANAGING CALIFORNIA’S WATER: FROM CONFLICT TO RECONCILIATION by the Public Policy Institute of California has created a stir of late. There are concerns expressed in regards to the role of Bechtel Corporation in funding the process that brought the report together. Recently, a forum for discussion by PPIC being held in San Francisco was denounced as a “Greenwashing Event”. The writer, Dan Bacher chooses to dismiss the PPIC with accusations of “elitism” and “institutional racism”. This was based on the lack of representation on the presentation panel of Delta residents, tribal members or fishermen. In point of fact, there is no real representation anywhere in California’s water management system of users, advocates and stakeholders.
What Mr. Bacher omits is the significance of the structural reforms being proposed by the PPIC in the MANAGING Report. It is one thing to criticize Bechtel for its record in Cochabamba and elsewhere around the world. It is quite another thing to summarily dismiss the PPIC report with its proposals in regards to California water. The Report constitutes a change in direction and proposes significant structural reforms long overdue in California. (see MANAGING CALIFORNIA'S WATER, FROM CONFLICT TO RECONCILIATION, Chapter 8, Effective and adaptive Governance, p. 365 "To further encourage integration of water resource planning, the California legislature could create an affirmative structure for regional integrated planning and management. We propose creating nine regional stewardship authorities, coinciding with the jurisdictions of existing regional water quality control boards. As discussed below, the authorities would develop and manage integrated basin plans.")
As things stand, the plain fact is that California’s water politics are polarized and the main arena of battle is the State Legislature. The politics of water are rural (Republican) vs. urban (Democrat) with the result that localities are isolated in regards to diversions from one region to another. Further, the political landscape is skewed towards the urban users in the context of the large metropolitan areas in the state and the resulting Democratic majority in the State Legislature. This was seen in the debate around the peripheral canal in the Delta, in the Hetch-Hetchy diversion and in the Owens Lake diversion.
The point is that this is NOT simply a function of the Democratic Urban Machines that dominate the cities of California. It is a product of a water system that is diffuse and not designed to function in the context of sustainable regional uses. This is a point brought out in the PPIC Report as well. Two key elements remain unaddressed in regards to the future of water management in California:
1. How can sustainable water allocations in California’s regions be planned and implemented without depending on diversions; and
2. How can regional planning processes assure the open input and transparency needed to make fair and equitable decisions.
When one reads the PPIC Report one cannot help but be impressed with its recognition of the need for restructuring water management in California. The dilemma is: California has disregarded the consequences of actions that have increased the stressors on public infrastructure throughout California. The peripheral canal proposal is one more log on that fire. Big Ag and Big Urban are fighting over Big Water. Now that the drought is over everyone has some breathing space to re-structure the entities making the decisions. The water management system of California is a fundamentally flawed process, and the PPIC report is premised on this. This alone makes it a report worthy of consideration.
Showing posts with label Green Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Monday, December 07, 2009
A Reply to Ted Glick's New Book
Ted,
It is good to present a strategy for the future that is thought out and proposes organizational and tactical recommendations. http://www.tedglick.com/books.html The debate that needs to be held really needs to be public. I have written several articles in the GREEN HORIZON MAGAZINE that presented the particular strategy of building an independent political party, the Green Party. I would be more then willing to help build for a forum on strategy for the road forward in San Francisco. I am forwarding this for Greens on the Eco-Action Committee and others to review and consider the possibility of such a forum.
The idea is not to win a debate but to review the viable strategic options that have presented themselves and how to address the lack of progress from current tactics and strategy. As you know, no one strategy has demonstrated a degree of unqualified success that puts it beyond reproach. But there have been significant gains, increased electoral experience and lessons learned in regards to questions of organization and tactics that are worth summarizing. Your proposal of a United Progressive Alliance is by no means a new proposal. Internally, Greens have had those who promote a fusion strategy for years in many different political contexts. To date, the successes have not significantly impacted on the political debate of our times.
Issues that need to be raised include: the role of the Democratic Party in the marginalization of a third party option in states they dominate, the role of progressive advocacy groups in electoral campaigns involving the Green Party, the context and role of PDA and other Democratic Party political action groups, the lack of a broad-based constituency within the progressive movement and the deep environmental consciousness that exists among broad strata of the American public that has not been tapped politically in the past 2-3 decades. Strategically structural reforms necessitate an approach that works from the bottom up and establishes alliances with various public officials. Ballot access and proportional representation touch on the kind of changes needed to increase the representation of those currently marginalized in the decision-making processes.
It is a mistake though to take on campaigns that we are not prepared to win. Political viabilty will come with victories and by working in processes in which the global warming issue can be defined locally. Having spent much of my efforts in NM in water planning, there was a clear priority in that state and public awareness that presented itself for a process that developed a specific and holistic approach. The failure was the lack of awareness and willingness to formulate this experience into a political campaign that presented the options and built on the public engagement in the planning process.
There will always be contradictions between Greens and those promoting fusion. Bill Richardson can afford to present himself as a progressive to those outside of the state of NM, as he did in the primary, but his image in the state was far from that. At the same time, Democratic candidates, such as Richard Romero in his losing race for Congress, did the unthinkable by reaching out to Greens. Different candidates require different approaches.
What I am more concerned about is the inherent ideological definition of progressives being a pre-determined basis of unity. In California, groups have aligned with those in the Delta that included a variety of water-based recreational and sporting businesses. In NM, Republican farmers, local water managers, specialists, historical users and urban users were able to effectively minimize the influence of real estate interests and developers. In other words, strategic alliances need to be based on common issues of concern and not flow from a pre-set political agenda. If reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is the goal, then the analysis of who stands to benefit from this becomes a much more fundamental issue in electoral work and political action.
In an article in which I presented a strategic issue of energy transition, I presented the matter thusly:
" The development of a serious effort in this regard has not even begun. The first necessary steps is to establish a broad-based coalition of organizations that establishes a common, working strategy for the writing, passing and implementation of an Energy Transition Legislative Package. A five-year target date should be established at an appropriate Founding Congress of political action groups. Political action during that time needs to be prioritized in regards to the passage in Congress, and State Legislatures of the US...
"Time is not on our side. That does not negate the critical element of transformation that can take place rapidly and efficiently once the political will has been consolidated and institutionalized. The complexities are already being addressed.
The alternatives are already modeled in locales and nations around the world. Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have already established energy transition to renewable energy as national priorities.
"The first obvious aspect of any plan is that it needs to be approved with more than just a Democratic working majority. It requires winning over non-ideologues in both parties.... Actions are already being taken by the Western Governors' Association http://www.westgov.org/wga/press/plenary1-pr.htm and the U.S. Conference of Mayors http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ regarding climate change. As momentum is building public officials need to be encouraged to move faster and implement the transition legislation needed."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_martin_z_070320_the_transition_to_re.htm
The essence of the position is that there remain more strategic issues to move forward that cannot be found simply in an alliance of progressives. Priorities need to be established and reduction goals defined in the political context of candidate districts. States such as California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania present themselves as the largest emitters of GHGs. As such, these states need to be prioritized in political work and electoral campaigns above and beyond work done at the Congressional level. In this context it is worth noting the recent consolidation and expansion of the Illinois Green Party on the state ballot and the election of Green candidates in California, though mostly non-partisan elections.
Defining the Mission of a unified alliance needs to be focused on the goals that we are striving for. Constituencies that we have worked with in the past need to be expanded based on common concerns and political action needs to be based on demonstrated common direction towards our common goal and not the entire Platform or political agenda of any one ideological or political group.
I welcome feedback.
It is good to present a strategy for the future that is thought out and proposes organizational and tactical recommendations. http://www.tedglick.com/books.html The debate that needs to be held really needs to be public. I have written several articles in the GREEN HORIZON MAGAZINE that presented the particular strategy of building an independent political party, the Green Party. I would be more then willing to help build for a forum on strategy for the road forward in San Francisco. I am forwarding this for Greens on the Eco-Action Committee and others to review and consider the possibility of such a forum.
The idea is not to win a debate but to review the viable strategic options that have presented themselves and how to address the lack of progress from current tactics and strategy. As you know, no one strategy has demonstrated a degree of unqualified success that puts it beyond reproach. But there have been significant gains, increased electoral experience and lessons learned in regards to questions of organization and tactics that are worth summarizing. Your proposal of a United Progressive Alliance is by no means a new proposal. Internally, Greens have had those who promote a fusion strategy for years in many different political contexts. To date, the successes have not significantly impacted on the political debate of our times.
Issues that need to be raised include: the role of the Democratic Party in the marginalization of a third party option in states they dominate, the role of progressive advocacy groups in electoral campaigns involving the Green Party, the context and role of PDA and other Democratic Party political action groups, the lack of a broad-based constituency within the progressive movement and the deep environmental consciousness that exists among broad strata of the American public that has not been tapped politically in the past 2-3 decades. Strategically structural reforms necessitate an approach that works from the bottom up and establishes alliances with various public officials. Ballot access and proportional representation touch on the kind of changes needed to increase the representation of those currently marginalized in the decision-making processes.
It is a mistake though to take on campaigns that we are not prepared to win. Political viabilty will come with victories and by working in processes in which the global warming issue can be defined locally. Having spent much of my efforts in NM in water planning, there was a clear priority in that state and public awareness that presented itself for a process that developed a specific and holistic approach. The failure was the lack of awareness and willingness to formulate this experience into a political campaign that presented the options and built on the public engagement in the planning process.
There will always be contradictions between Greens and those promoting fusion. Bill Richardson can afford to present himself as a progressive to those outside of the state of NM, as he did in the primary, but his image in the state was far from that. At the same time, Democratic candidates, such as Richard Romero in his losing race for Congress, did the unthinkable by reaching out to Greens. Different candidates require different approaches.
What I am more concerned about is the inherent ideological definition of progressives being a pre-determined basis of unity. In California, groups have aligned with those in the Delta that included a variety of water-based recreational and sporting businesses. In NM, Republican farmers, local water managers, specialists, historical users and urban users were able to effectively minimize the influence of real estate interests and developers. In other words, strategic alliances need to be based on common issues of concern and not flow from a pre-set political agenda. If reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is the goal, then the analysis of who stands to benefit from this becomes a much more fundamental issue in electoral work and political action.
In an article in which I presented a strategic issue of energy transition, I presented the matter thusly:
" The development of a serious effort in this regard has not even begun. The first necessary steps is to establish a broad-based coalition of organizations that establishes a common, working strategy for the writing, passing and implementation of an Energy Transition Legislative Package. A five-year target date should be established at an appropriate Founding Congress of political action groups. Political action during that time needs to be prioritized in regards to the passage in Congress, and State Legislatures of the US...
"Time is not on our side. That does not negate the critical element of transformation that can take place rapidly and efficiently once the political will has been consolidated and institutionalized. The complexities are already being addressed.
The alternatives are already modeled in locales and nations around the world. Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have already established energy transition to renewable energy as national priorities.
"The first obvious aspect of any plan is that it needs to be approved with more than just a Democratic working majority. It requires winning over non-ideologues in both parties.... Actions are already being taken by the Western Governors' Association http://www.westgov.org/wga/press/plenary1-pr.htm and the U.S. Conference of Mayors http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ regarding climate change. As momentum is building public officials need to be encouraged to move faster and implement the transition legislation needed."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_martin_z_070320_the_transition_to_re.htm
The essence of the position is that there remain more strategic issues to move forward that cannot be found simply in an alliance of progressives. Priorities need to be established and reduction goals defined in the political context of candidate districts. States such as California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania present themselves as the largest emitters of GHGs. As such, these states need to be prioritized in political work and electoral campaigns above and beyond work done at the Congressional level. In this context it is worth noting the recent consolidation and expansion of the Illinois Green Party on the state ballot and the election of Green candidates in California, though mostly non-partisan elections.
Defining the Mission of a unified alliance needs to be focused on the goals that we are striving for. Constituencies that we have worked with in the past need to be expanded based on common concerns and political action needs to be based on demonstrated common direction towards our common goal and not the entire Platform or political agenda of any one ideological or political group.
I welcome feedback.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Trust Washington? A call for a new Green Politics
Two discussions of the subject of trust came to my attention today. The most prominent was that of Alan Greenspan who told Congressional committee of his mistake leading to the current economic fiasco. He trusted the executives of major banks to act to protect their shareholders. They did not. You know the rest of that one, at least as far as the millipede we call the economy has dropped it's shoes.
Then, I found a discussion of the problems the environment where after years of environmental activism, the planet is in worse shape today than ever before and issues a call for a new Green Politics. This time the author, James Gustave Speth, finds a misplaced trust to be contributory to this situation. He cites another.
For example, Mark Dowie in his 1995 book Losing Ground notes that the national environmental organizations crafted an agenda and pursued a strategy based on the civil authority and good faith of the federal government. "Therein," he believes, "lies the inherent weakness and vulnerability of the environmental movement. Civil authority and good faith regarding the environment have proven to be chimeras in Washington." Dowie argues that the national environmental groups also "misread and underestimate[d] the fury of their antagonists."Speth defines his new politics as confrontational, disobedient but nonviolent. It might just work if we had a new Dr. Martin Luther King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)