New water legislation already old.

The recently passed and widely publicized wildly hyped water legislation is already out of date.  This is almost a full year before the voters are going to be asked to approve a bond measure that won't do what it is supposed to do even if that was not enough.  In order to follow this, you have to set aside any doubt you might have and just assume that the scientists are basically right about our changing climate.

Buried in SBX7.1(pdf) are several references to climate change and one of it's major effects… a rising sea level.  Since the Delta is on the boundary between our rivers and the bay, any change in sea level is serious and major changes are potentially catastrophic.

 85307(c) The council, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, may address in the Delta Plan the effects of climate change and sea level rise on the three state highways that cross the Delta. (bold emphasis mine).

We obviously do not want any highways to go under water, so that would have to be considered. But that items about consulting with the Department of Transportation is rather vague. In fact, the bill says only that they "may" do this.  Even more unclear is how they might arrive at the amount of change they have to account for.

There is a clue to this in another section of the bill dealing with the possible design and construction of a conveyance through or around the canal.

85320(B)(2)(c).The potential effects of climate change, possible sea level rise up to 55 inches, and possible changes in total precipitation and runoff patterns
on the conveyance alternatives and habitat restoration activities considered in the environmental impact report.

That sounds like a lot. In fact, the number is taken from estimates of sea level rise by 2100 and it to be found in a lot of the literature including some from the Pacific Institute that even provides mapping data of the areas of California to be inundated by 55 in.

So, this legislation establishes a guideline for considering sea level rise for one use. I can even envision that State Senator Simitian, who is the nominal author of this, was quite proud of getting this recognition of a key environmental issue into the final version of the bill.

The only problem is that the number is out of date. Two reports now available make it clear that we have to consider much higher numbers.  The first is a general report entitled The Copenhagen Diagnosis updating the 2007 IPPC information in preparation for the December IPPC in Copenhagen. The press release announcing the report calls attention to the areas where the original estimations of the pace of climate change were wrong.

Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world’s top climate scientists.

In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

Note: The Copenhagen Diagnosis was written before the next report was published.

In the second, published in Nature Geoscience, it is noted that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, once thought so cold as to not be a factor, has been show to have been losing mass (thawing) after all, contributing more fresh water to the oceans. The link above is to an abstract of the report (subs required). Joe Romm has an explanation at Climate Progress. The net for this discussion is that 55 inches is not going to be enough and it was naively stupid to put such in any legislation.

The current thinking is that we need to plan for 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 and those making the projections have consistently underestimated the effects.

The final legislative mention of sea level rise in not so detailed, only part of the definition of the term, "Restoration" as in "Restoration of the Delta".

85066. “Restoration” means the application of ecological principles to restore a degraded or fragmented ecosystem and return it to a condition in which its biological and structural components achieve a close approximation of its natural potential, taking into consideration the physical changes that have occurred in the past and the future impact of climate change and sea level rise.

Taken all together we see that this legislation was just thrown together with not enough understanding of the forces they will have to deal with. For being so specific on this one point, a 55 in. sea level rise, it is surprising that there are so many unanswered questions which the California State Legislature left unanswered.

• How much are we willing to spend to protect any part of California from the effects of climate change that we know are coming?
• Where will we draw the line between that which we are willing to protect and that which we acknowledge that we will have to let go? 
• Is it in the Bay (Alviso for example is already lower than current sea level.) 
• Will we try to stop the salt water intrusion between Suisun Marsh and the Delta? 
• Are we willing to let Bethel Island, it's homes and businesses, disapper forever, it's residents relocated at our expense?
  

If we have not begun to think about the answers to these questions, it makes no sense to start building infrastructure for a future water world.  The entire water bond we will be asked to vote on lists project after project with no sense of prioritization, having been thrown together not to protect the water supply for Californians but rather to secure the votes of legislators who might otherwise have shown a streak of common sense and voted "no."

A Green Party Approach to Oppose the Water Bond and Address the Budget Crisis

The political solution for rational and sound water planning lies in structural reforms that establish bio-regional entities that represent stakeholders in the decision-making process. Such a solution would inherently impact on the character of water diversions that we have seen in the past and provide a new political landscape for Greens running for political office.

Green Party candidates, who come forward in the next election cycle, need to oppose the bond issue, promote regional water planning and oppose continued diversions from one region of California to another. Greens running for the State Legislature can develop campaign strategies that focus on the environmental and budgetary issues around the theft of funds for education, the reckless spending for favored agri-business interests and the failure to end multi-billion dollar diversions without recognition of the needs of the regions impacted. Prioritization needs to be based on documented and consensual processes, not on back room deals made in the dead of night.

Education and water are issues that California state government has failed to provide real solutions. The Green Party is willing to break from the failures of past policies and promote reforms that are long overdue.

New support for the Green Party will develop based on our willingness NOT to repeat the hollow rhetoric of the Democrats and the Republicans. Too many times they have showed their true colors. It is time for advocacy groups to come forward and unions and other political action groups to step forward and support Green campaigns through financial support and to step forward in building and creating a new agenda for California.

We have worked often with environmental groups, Constitutional reform groups, student groups, teachers groups and other political organizations. We have contributed to their efforts and continue to do so. But reforms will not happen without the representation in there willing to make it happen.

In water there is no step backwards. Opposing the bond issue, as many environmental groups already have, is one step forward. The group RESTORE THE DELTA has been actively engaged in organizing based on the concerns of regional stakeholders. They have steadfastly opposed the water agreement when it was in the state legislature. It circulated a petition along with 23 other environmental groups stipulating:

First, I oppose the creation of a Delta Council on which the Delta would only have one representative. Second, I oppose the authority the Council would have over all quality of life issues in the Delta as it would have the right to override approval of local agencies for all local projects. Third, I oppose the intent of the bill "authorization of new conveyance" as this would offer a new layer of super protection for the outcome of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Fourth, I oppose the idea that protecting the Delta, fisheries and communities alike, can be set as a co-equal goal with water exports to another region in California, all at a loss to the Delta's ecosystem and economy. And last, I oppose a general obligation water bond or bonds that will fund infrastructure and programs that will not restore the Delta, regardless of whether these bonds are offered as one large package or in future bond cycles.

The work opposing the water bond is the next on the political agenda to oppose the agreement reached in the state legislature. RESTORE THE DELTA issued a statement following the passage of the water agreement by the state legislature that pinpoints the irresponsibility of the bill.

“Restore the Delta Blasts Legislature for Boondoggle Water Deal”

Today, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director for Restore the Delta, issued the following statement regarding the water deal that was passed early this morning by lawmakers:

"The water package that passed in the dead of night epitomizes the dysfunction that has gripped our Legislative process," Barrigan-Parilla said. "The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival with the water bond ballooning to over $11 billion dollars. With our state already facing a massive debt and more red ink on the horizon, how can we afford this?"

Barrigan-Parilla added, "In addition, the one bill that would have required a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature before the peripheral canal could be built, Huber-AB 13 7x, was killed by Legislative leadership because Southern California water interests viewed it as a 'distraction.' Since when is it a distraction to require fiscal analysis?"

"We will continue to use every means possible to oppose this package which sets in motion the canal and allows an unelected body to make key decisions that will impact our Delta Communities, while we are left on the sidelines," Barrigan-Parilla concluded. "It's no wonder Californians have such a low opinion of their elected representatives." http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs062/1102037578231/archive/1102807343943.html

There are public forces and political representatives who have opposed the bond and the agreement. According to Restore the Delta public officials and groups opposing the bond include: Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D- Antioch), Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon), Assemblymember Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills), Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis)and Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine)

The bond has been criticized from a financial perspective and its impact on funding of education and social services. In the RESTORE THE DELTA statement, officials from SEIU, AFSCME and Sierra Club were critical of the bonds impacts.

Jason Dickerson, director of state administration at the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst's office, said "voter approval of the water bond would add to California's massive debt, which could soon require 10 percent of state revenue to pay down. Debt service on the water bond alone would likely cost between $725 million to $809 million a year after all the bonds have sold, he said". ("Calif. voters have final say over $11B water bond," Associated Press, November 4, 2009)

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs062/1102037578231/archive/1102810185072.html

Let it not be said that the Green Party stood silent in the midst of crises. Let it not be said that who dared to present new alternatives were disregarded by those whose support could make the difference between winning and losing.

To the family farmers, the migrant farmworker, the unemployed, the student, from the Silicon Valley to the Central Valley to the Imperial Valley, from the Delta to Death Valley, from Orange County to Humboldt County: Green is the only real choice.

Sen. Inhofe was right?

Did I really write that? That Sen. James Inhofe, über climate denier was right about something? I guess that I did, and as much as I hate to admit it, his criticism of climate change science has an element of truth in it… though not exactly as he intended.

Faced with an unrelenting attack from those who would profit from the continuation of our energy status quo, many scientists have under reported their findings, emphasized the low end of their estimates of the rate of climate change and, in fact, have just plain missed some of the data. The problem for Sen. Inhofe is that the direction of their error is just the opposite from that which he proclaims.

As reported in just the last week, scientists completely missed the effects of a warming climate on the East Antarctic ice sheet. While that is a long distance away and most of us will never go there, we will all have to deal with an ocean that is rising faster and will rise higher given our general tendency to do nothing until trouble hits like a Hurricane Katrina, full of intensity, overwhelming our resources and easily managed had we only done what we should have.

This is the effect that Inhofe and his ilk have had. We had concrete evidence of that effect in April, when the U.K. Guardian published this.

Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction.

So we have been lulled into inaction, fueled by a sense that there is always time enough to act and an arrogance about our own technological capabilities. Now we let the half-truthers warn us of catastrophe fatigue while they hope that we just sit down and shut up.

We we are not going to sit down and shut up. And the scientists are becoming more forceful, as noted on Yale Univ.'s Environment 360 blog today.

Ahead of talks in Copenhagen, a group of leading climate scientists has issued a new report summarizing the most recent research findings from around the world and concluding that scientists have underestimated the pace and extent of global warming.

For California, perhaps the most important effect is the under-estimation of sea level rise. That will be the subject of a subsequent post, since it tears at the very fabric of the recently passed water legislation in California. Suffice it to say that the bond issue is already out of date before it is even put to a vote.

If Greens are to be relevant in the determination of our future, then Greens need to increase our level of participation in all aspects of the climate debate and to become leaders in climate action. The time has passed when only polite reasoned debated will carry the day and save mankind. Let's take this to the streets with the same intensity that we have done over the Iraq War. The moral issues, the ecological justice questions are of a scope that far exceed anything that we thought about Bush's folly. We are not referring to the thousands who died by the action of the US, but of the millions who will die due to the inaction of the US and moral hypocrisy of U.S. Senators like Inhofe.

"Give me night, or give me Blucher"

The failure of state government is that it failed to govern, failed to administrate and failed to establish sound budgetary principles underlying each and every budget for the last thirty years. Greens for our part need to address these fundamental issues of accountability, fiscal responsibility and prioritization in the budgetary process. We need to get the handcuffs taken off, increase state revenues through direct royalties from oil companies and accounting that prevents deficits.

Student protests are all well and good, but political, legislative, electoral and Constitutional actions loom as the only viable alternatives for the mess we are in today. Prioritization: 1. Education; 2. Regional water planning, 3. Increasing revenues, 4. Re-organization of debt (feel free to add to this list, it's just off the top of my head.)

The impact of a dysfunctional government are profound and CA has certainly touched the face of God at this point. We should tremble at the potential cataclysmic impacts and not simply bask in the upsurge of a student movement that rekindles memories of our youth. It is indeed a downward spiral to the abyss that mesmerises us..

What did we fail to do as Greens? 1. We failed to predicate political work on consolidating mass public support; 2. We failed to prioritize issues, often falling behind the 'social movements" of the moment. 3. We failed to develop sound grassroots organizations that were capable of amassing the information and data around us and from there developing strategies and focused campaigns with something more then a "message". 4. We failed to develop leadership that could work together and assimilate our experiences onto a learning curve capable of benefiting our future work.

We missed the boat. "Give me night, or give me Blucher" said Wellington on the verge of defeat at Waterloo. He got Blucher. Has anyone seen Blucher?

Not with a bang.

The condemnation of the current political regime in Sacramento has become nearly universal. The following T. S. Eliot inspired quote appeared in the August/September issue of Connections, a publication of the Peace and Justice Center, Stockton, CA.

This is the way California ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper. With a failure of leadership so complete, so total, as to leave the state bereft of hope for its future.

Those were the final words of an opinion piece by Robert Cruickshank from his July 19th post at Calitics.


I am not as pessimistic as Robert was in this post, but then maybe he sees more of the intestinal insides of power politics than I do. After all, he is a delegate to the State Democratic Party. I still hold out the hope of a fundamental change that I believe is necessary if the never truly realized dream of California is to have another chance.

It should be clear to all that the frustration with Sacramento politics as usual has essentially gone viral in California. Comb through the comments to OpEds in the opinion pages of any California newspaper from the very Libertarian Orange County Register to San Francisco Chronicle and you need to hack through the resentment with a mental machete, filtering it out to determine if there is any real substance to the comment or just emotion.

We are now ready to got through another long, painful and secretive budget process. Economic recovery has not come to California. If history repeats itself, California will lag the rest of the nation in terms of job creation and that makes it very difficult to be optimistic about revenue projections for the State. It appears that history will also repeat itself in that the real negotiations will take place in secret meetings and then both sides will run to the nearest microphone to sell the result as a victory for their side.

California needs a legislature where there are no backroom deals, where the process of legislative budgeting if fully transparent and open to media and the public, where the education of our children is an assumed responsibility of government, where the care of the ill and dying is not determined by the need to pay executive bonuses, where water is a human right and not a tradeable commodity.

If your legislator is not running to deliver all of the above, then it is time to go in a new direction. Those goals, common to most Californians, define what Green candidates can, and if elected, will deliver. Green candidates who do not accept corporate donations are set free to serve the public rather than their masters.

If Ex-Legislators tell the truth, what do our current crop tell?

I am astounded the termed out State Senator Sheila Kuehl has found way to describe the problems of the much lauded water legislation so that even a dummy like me can understand it. This propensity for telling thing truly is probably why some of her legislation never passed… she didn't play the Sacrament game.

Click Read more! to find out just how far truth takes her from the party line.


Kuehl has started to release a series of four essays on that recent water legislation. The first one set the stage and specifically dealt with the manner in which a bill to authorize the monitoring of ground water is an empty bucket.

Think oil. Think sticking a straw into the ground and drawing water out of vast underground lakes. There is an amazing amount of fresh water underground in California and the state has mapped the various "basins" and "subbasins" where it lies. Some groundwater is polluted and can't be withdrawn. As to the rest, private landowners, corporations, cities and other public entities draw it out in wells.

Assembly member Jared Huffman referred to SBX7.6 as providing "California’s first comprehensive groundwater monitoring requirement". Kuehl, on the other hand is a bit more objective.

One of the bills just passed, SBX7 6 (Senate Bill 6 in the 7th extraordinary session of 2009), provides that entities may "volunteer" to do groundwater monitoring of the quantity, not the quality of the groundwater (a much watered down bill from its original introduction, no pun intended).

In addition, even if they do volunteer, monitoring entities are still prevented from entering onto private property or even asking private property owners in their entity district to submit to monitoring. So, although we finally have something in the law about groundwater monitoring, we can't compel it. This is particularly troubling in the many districts where private landowners control most of an entire basin. Under the bill, voluntary monitoring may start in 2012.

Finally, paying for the monitoring is a problem as, when there is no monitoring entity, the Department of Water Resources is allowed to monitor, but may not charge private well owners. If DWR determines that all of part of a basin is not being monitored they must identify existing monitoring wells, determine whether these wells provide sufficient information and, if not, and if the State Mining and Geology Board concurs with the determination, perform the groundwater monitoring. However, since there is no extra money in DWR's budget for increased monitoring, it is not clear how they would accomplish the goal.

Today, she released the second in her series, this one covering the restructuring of the governance of the largest source of water for both agricultural and urban use, the California Delta. Once again she neatly lays out the scope of the mess that we are in.

For years, a combined federal and state entity called Cal-Fed tried to work out possible agreements, but was hamstrung by lack of funds and lack of authority to enforce agreements. A Delta Protection Commission, made up of more than twenty members, has struggled to put together a protection plan. A Delta Blue Ribbon Commission and the Public Policy Institute of California have both created extensive recommendations.

I have long felt that there were two major problems with the new governance structure. One is the lack of public representation. The major change is the naming of a new Delta Stewardship Council to create a plan for the Delta and then to see that everyone follows the plan. By law, the plan must have a dual objective of meeting both the environmental needs of the Delta as well as the needs of California for water for other uses.

In reality this will be a lobbyist driven effort with only the nominal authority to enforce the plans that they develop. They are a planning agency with some authority to block project that do not meet the plan. Unfortunately, the planning will be controlled by the Governor, who appoints 4 of the 7 members of the board, public be damned.

Kuehl and I agree on the second major weakness. The State of California has no money and so it not going to adequately fund the Delta Stewardship Council. Kuehl's point is similar.

As with every other aspect of state funding this year, the lack of funding for the entities created by this bill are troubling. The Conservancy has to find its own money. The Stewardship Council is only funded for a year. The Council has no fee authority and no power to require water users to pay for any of the improvements in the Delta. Time will tell if this has the same weakening effect that such a lack of funding had on all previous Delta governance entities.

The lack of such honesty from California Legislators is shameful.

CA State Education Budget Cuts and the Governor's Race

The recent upsurge of student strikes and rallies surrounding the CA budget cuts and education cutbacks are significant in their scale and scope. Our task as Greens is to focus their political impact and develop campaign strategies, such as the one in Orange County that increased voter support for Greens. The election of Dana Silvernale to the Northern Humboldt Union High School Board is a significant accomplishment and an indicator of our viability as a political and electoral option.

These issues raise the immedicacy of a viable Green candidate in the next Governor's election.

"Protests and occupations have taken place at UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, CSU Fresno, San Francisco State and San Francisco City College. Students have occupied Campbell Hall at UCLA, Kresge Town Hall and Kerr Hall at UC Santa Cruz, Mrak Hall and Dutton Hall at UC Davis, Wheeler Hall at UCB, and the library at CSU Fresno." http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11/20/18629379.php Occupations of administration buildings are increasing at various state universities throughout the state. But even here tactics have taken precedence over strategy. Arrests are considerably less then prior actions as university adminitrators are clearly avoiding the polarization of such arrests and may see some advantage to prolonging them in regards to getting the funds back.

Teachers' unions are clearly developing their own strategies. The LA teachers union is backing an action in March. This could catch on given the extent of the cuts. The current tactics of opposing the budget have been weak on issues such as royalties on oil companies. Clearly there is a base of support among teachers and families for a Green alternative for Governor to address the budget issues..

Mass actions are needed and build popular awareness, but from all appearances they have been anticipated consequences of the budget agreement. To date they have not appeared to have a significant impact on the political processes that they are meant to influence. But, more public officials and various groups are beginning to address the budget issues. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7148 While the regents have become the target, the lack of funds from the state has clearly presented them with narrowed options. They might even support the actions as leverage for getting the funds back. Support from employee unions have been evident from the beginning but even there the employee turnouts in the recent "strikes" appear minimal. This may be influenced by the fact that 1/3 of university employees are part-timers.

The budget has been locked in place for years as a result of Props 13, 218 and various referenda passed over the years and the 2/3 vote requirement in the legislature. California can anticipate a $21 billion deficit even with the current draconian measures, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7143 State revenues are declining because of the economy and the source of new revenues include an additional 10% state extraction of incomes until income taxes are filed.

Greens have seen some impact in votes in Orange County and Fairfax, but internal disorganization remains rampant
within the Green Party throughout the state. If we are to have any influence this needs to change. Greens need to structure county organization in more effective ways and prioritize recruitment of candidates and selecting critical campaigns. K-12 and the entire system of the University of California and Cal State campuses have been impacted. Locally, public education funding need to be incorporated into our campaigns.

How do we avoid trying to run from one issue to another and ground our campaigns in the profound economic and environmental crises confronting our state? One way is for Greens to run for office. The election of Dana Silvernale is proof that we can win and we can build campaigns in school boards that address the fundamental issues confronting public education. Candidates are coming forward but we are still behind in establishing a real alternative in such campaigns throughout the state.

The Governor's race would be a highly visible effort for the party to engage in to make the most significant impact on the Green Party's relevance in the water agreement and the education cuts. Candidates for Governor need to be vetted and recruited to establish our credibility in opposing the water bond and the education budget cutback.

One water wonk and one ex-School official, or former Mayor or city supervisor, and we can establish a presence in the Governor's race with effectiveness. Is anyone out there listening?

Progressive towards what?

California Republicans look back with fond memories of the days when Reagan was Governor. Little do they remember that he actually raised taxes. It is rather President Reagan that they quote, and Nancy Reagan that they follow. Her most famous words were "Just say no." And Republicans have been doing that ever since.

For the life of me, I can not understand why those who consider themselves to be progressives would want to emulate Reagan. Yet so called progressive media: whether hard copy publications or just bloggers, continue to emulate Nancy Reagan, telling us all that they are against and very little about what they are for. It is no wonder that the public trusts Republican Politicians even less than they do Democrats. The public understand that stopping government is not a solution, even though Newt Gingrich thought it would be.

Greens who think of themselves as progressives need to think about what we are progressing towards. They should be telling the world how good it good be rather than how bad it is. A recent tweet from the GPCA id said that our candidates should be dream catchers. If we could turn the corner on this, if we could remember the words of John Lennon and allow voters to Imagine what the future might bring, Greens would attract more voters.

I quote from William Ford's Keynote speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention. It embodies the type of vision that too many Green Candidates fail to deliver.

Imagine a debt-free economy so strong that everyone shares in the American Dream.

Imagine a healthcare system where every American receives the medicine they need, and where no senior is forced to choose between buying food and filling a prescription.

Imagine a society that treats seniors with the respect and dignity they deserve, and where Social Security and Medicare are strengthened, not only for our parents and grandparents, but for our children and grandchildren.

Imagine a nation of clean coastlines, safe drinking water, pristine parks, and air our kids can breathe as they play in those parks.

We all recognize that no issue is more critical to our nation's continued success than how we educate our kids.

If we can find the will and resources to build prison after prison, then we can build new schools, reduce class sizes, connect every classroom up to the Internet.

Surely we can pay teachers what they are worth- surely we must hold schools accountable for results.

Imagine giving all our kids the world-class education they deserve.

Well, it is time to stop imagining.

We know what happened to Gore. We are thankful the Lieberman never became the VP. We know that Ford's career was trashed and he was relegated to an occasional NewsHour appearance, much of it attributed to the lack of a progressive imagination or the fact that the moneyed interest saw this as a threat.

The times have changed, some issues remain: education, health care. Ignored issues like climate change can no longer be ignored. But we still lack those visionary leaders who can show us what we could be. Will we be left with the remorse of might have been?

De-addnex Oklahoma?

The history of the State of Oklahoma is essentially the story of the marginalization of the Indian population of the United States and then the seizure of those lands to further the expansion of white America and the 19th Century rush to exploit nature for all it could provide: land for farming, ranching and most of all for oil. The Cherokee, moved over the Trail of Tears from Georgia to Oklahoma were only the most well known of many tragic exploitations.

Exploitation is still the goal of Oklahoma, as one can gather from this short clip of Sen. James Inhofe in a session of the Senate Committee Environment and Public Works, Chaired by California's Barbara Boxer.

It seems that the rest of the nation has moved beyond the pompous self-indulgent, might I use the word rapacious, resource exploitation of the 19th Century, but that the State of Oklahoma has not. It continues to elect, and re-elect such as Sen. Inhofe. Perhaps it is time that we consider de-annexing the State of Oklahoma and returning it to the rule of the Indian tribes that still live there.

PS: To my politically correct Green friends, I used the term "Indian" as a number of my "Native American" friend have used that term to describe themselves, as in the name of this important publication: Indian Country Today.

Craftmanship at the union of man and the rest of nature.

I am nearing the end of a year's subscription to Orion magazine. I'm not sure that I will renew. But, the online version of the magazine features an interesting video that I felt worth passing on.

Stone River: The Passion of Jon Piasecki
An Orion original video

Orion contributor Jon Piasecki spends his days moving -- and thinking about -- stones and how he can use them to save the world. An original Orion video production. (Read Piasecki's January/February 2008 article "The Nature of Walls".)

Worth a view if you have the bandwidth and 16 minutes.

Coal's war on America.

We know that one of the major sources of the greenhouse gasses that are driving climate change is the coal the we burn to generate electricity. If nothing is done to change that, the all of the other stuff we might do would not be enough to reign in our warming climate... making 650 ppm CO2 much more likely than 350.

One would think that it might be easy for Democrats to pass some sort of climate change legislation. Well, it would if they didn't need the votes of two Senators from West Virginia, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, to stop what ever delaying tactics that Oklahoma's Sen. Inhofe has planned... and Inhofe has promised to block any attempt to address climate change.

We all know that Robert Byrd is the last of the old Southern Democrats and maybe the only one not to have changed parties. In fact, Byrd is older than sliced bread or band aids and even voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964. That is the kind of Democrat he is.

This connection of West Virginia and coal and the political power they have makes a very long story and one that points to a lot that is wrong in this country in these times. Perhaps no one documents this better than Ken Ward Jr., a reporter for the Charleston WV Gazette and the owner of their Coal Tatoo blog. I have been following @kenwardjr on twitter and two tweets today are very interesting, worth everyone's attention even if your previous view of West Virginia ended with John Denver's Country Roads.

Click Read more! below for the real dirt and slag.


The first was a bit of a surprise. WV's coal interests are pretty well protected in the House of Representatives. Nick Rahall (WV-03 Dem.) is currently the Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resource and any mining regulations have to go through his committee. I will admit that Rahall is better than he predecessor, my own ex-Congressman Richard Pombo. But he has still been described as a "whore for coal."

Then I was surprised when one of Ward's tweets pointed me to a story on a primary opponent for Rahall.

Delegate Ralph Rodighiero of Logan filed pre-candidacy papers Friday that allow him to raise money for a possible primary challenge in the state's 3rd Congressional district.

The 46-year-old legislator says coal industry figures approached him several months ago, encouraging him to run. They are upset with the Obama administration's handling of mining permits.

It appears that maybe the "whore for Coal" is taking the votes but not putting out.

The Obama Administration is beginning to challenge mining permits and even appears to be willing to have the EPA go to court over Clean Water Act violations from mining operations and Rahall has not been able to block it. This is what happens when you don't jump through the master's hoop.

We know how much coal, and especially Massey Energy controls WV politics. After all, there was a recent trial where the Chief Justice of the WV Supreme Court had to recuse himself after it was revealed that he had been wined and dined on the French Riviera by Massey Energy's CEO Don Blankenship.

The mention of Blankenship ties to the next item I picked up from Ward. It seems that Blankenship and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are scheduled to debate the future of coal at an energy forum sponsored the University of Charleston. We have seen the way Blankenship operates. This is what Kennedy thinks:

In a column in The Washington Post in March, Kennedy referred to mountaintop removal coal mining(MTR) as "the greatest environmental tragedy ever to befall our nation."

"This radical form of strip mining has already flattened the tops of 500 mountains, buried 2,000 miles of streams, devastated our country's oldest and most diverse temperate forests, and blighted landscapes famous for their history and beauty," he wrote.

It is the ability of Corporations like Massey Energy with CEO's like Blankenship, to manipulate the political process for their own gains... and of course to protect the jobs of all of their workers, as they will tell you... that makes the prospect for meaningful action against climate change so dim. Even the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has called for Byrd and Rockefeller to block health care legislation over actions to clean up the coal industry. Unfortunately, Byrd and Rockefeller are in a position to do just that.

Obama promised us a change. We are beginning to see a little, with the EPA, for the first time, actually going to take a look at Massey Energy's latest MTR operation as Coal River Mountain. This would never have happened in a Bush administration. But, it is far too little and far too late.

We don't think a lot about coal out here in California. We had better start doing it, our children's lives may depend on it.

WAL-MART versus CITY OF MILPITAS

Wal-Mart plans to expand its existing store in Milpitas, California into one of those notorious community-killing Wal-Mart Supercenters. A few years ago a similar plan was turned back, but like the influenza virus, Wal-Mart never completely goes away and in tough economic times Wal-Mart feeds off the need of low-priced goods among the very workers and small businessmen that the predatory superstore helped to put into hard times.

The City of Milpitas released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Wal-Mart’s Supercenter application. The public has 45-days to comment. Read more to hear what community organizers in and around Milpitas are doing about it.

* * * Attention: Important Community Meeting * * *

Please join like-minded, concerned residents to discuss how we can stop the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. Please bring your family and friends.

Thursday, November 19 at 6:00 PM
Omega Restaurant, 90 South Park Victoria Drive

Read more to hear what community organizers in and around Milpitas are doing about it.

A Wal-Mart Supercenter comes with risks...

• Displaced local businesses. Milpitas already serves as a regional retail magnet. A 24-hour Supercenter will not generate substantial gains in sales tax revenues, since it will simply displace other existing retail.
• Urban decay. As businesses close as a result of a Supercenter, property values will fall due to urban decay and property tax revenues will be lower than otherwise.
• Traffic congestion. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) states that the 24-hour Supercenter will have lsquo;significant unavoidable impacts’ on the roadways due to traffic increases.
• 
  Lower wages. Wal-Mart pays lower wages and benefits than most of its competitors, particularly in the grocery arena. These lower wages will impact Milpitas’ economy since many employees are likely to be residents. These new jobs will displace higher paying jobs in the grocery industry.
• Lower quality of life. When a community’s mom-and-pop operations lose to national big-box chains, the community loses as well. And although Wal-Mart is located on the other side of the Interstate, a 24-hour Supercenter will impact the entire city, including your neighborhood stores.

The City of Milpitas should not allow the Supercenter. Let’s maintain our quality of life. Tell the City to reject the Wal-Mart expansion, like many other Bay Area cities.

Send your written comments via email, letter, or fax by 5:00 PM, Friday December 18th. Each letter should address the various impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

All letters should be sent to: Ms. Cindy Hom, Assistant Planner City of Milpitas Planning and Neighborhood Services Department 455 E. Calaveras Boulevard Milpitas, CA 95035 E-Mail: chom2@ci.milpitas.ca.gov

You may download a .PDF file of a sample letter to council members at: http://alexcathy.com/milpitas_letter.pdf

Is California League of Conservation Voters losing touch?

In a recent post, I accused the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) of practicing Identity theft with their greengov2010 site. After all, there is a Green Party and they should elect the real green governor in 2010.

Now, it seems that others are questioning CLCV's use of the word "Conservation" in their own name. Maybe identity theft is the family business. I had a problem understanding the CLCV's support of the recent water legislation. In the link above, you find that a delegate to the State Democratic Party, Robert Cruikshank, questions the CLCV's focus on State Senator Alan Lowenthal (100% rating by CLCV in 2008) as an environmental leader.

Has Lowenthal stopped trying to gut high speed rail? (0.00 / 0)
For someone who claims to be an environmental advocate he sure hasn't been supportive of one of the key elements of getting our carbon emissions reduced and spurring clean, sustainable forms of intercity transportation.

It would appear that the CLCV, long viewed as an extension of the Democratic Party is losing the more progressive Democrats. It makes me wonder if CLCV is still relevant.

It should be noted that the CLCV gave Assemblyman Jared Huffman the same 100% rating. This is the Huffman who was so influential in passing the recent water legislation sell out.

If Huffman and Lowenthal are the environmental leaders, then California needs Greens in Sacramento more than ever.

Tale of Two Deltas

When I first started to closely follow the water issues surrounding the California Delta, one of the first items I read was by Dr. Jeffrey Mount of U.C. Davis Center for Watershed Studies. (Various stories are around. In this one on MSNBC Dr. Mount makes the point.)

Yesterday, a Federal Judge put a large portion of the blame directly on the Army Corps of Engineers.

"It is the court's opinion that the negligence of the Corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MRGO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and short-sightedness," U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. wrote in his lengthy ruling, referring to the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet canal.

"For over 40 years, the Corps was aware that the Reach II levee protecting Chalmette and the Lower Ninth Ward was going to be compromised by the continued deterioration of the MRGO ... The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so. Clearly, the expression 'talk is cheap' applies here."

When I look at the water legislation passed recently by the California Legislature, and signed with great fanfare by our Greenwashed Gov, I have to think that no lessons were learned, no effective actions were taken and the levees are in worse shape today than they were when Dr. Mount was quoted on MSNBC.

It will take years before the Sacramento Bureaucracy admits that this effort, just like the Feinstein crafted CALFED program from the 90's, is another failure. I only hope that the levees in the Delta do not themselves fail before then. If that happens, we know who is culpable. Calfifornia Department of Water Resources, California State Legislature and, lest I forget, the Army Corps of Engineers.

Politicians preen in public, scheme in secret

If Darren Sakmuelsohn is correct in his NY Times Greenwire post, our Senators are now talking about a Climate Plan B that would still implement some sort of cap-and-trade... but only for power plants... everyone else being free to emit all they want.

"A power plant-only cap and trade could be doable on the Hill," Mark Helmke, a senior aide to Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), said today.

Senate Democratic and Republican staffers are studying a package that combines a mandatory limit on power plant emissions with separate programs outside of the cap-and-trade program aimed at cutting greenhouse gases from other sectors of the economy. "It'd be done with efficiency standards for buildings and stronger CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards for transport," Helmke said.

OK, it is just an idea being floated for public reaction... but it is a horrible idea. If all our legislator's did was pass the "doable" then I could do the job as well as Barbara Boxer and a hell of a lot better that DiFi. We elect them to apply their brain mass to figuring out solutions to problems, not solutions to electoral calculus.

In fact, I wonder what Boxer is really doing to end the embarrassment of our current climate non-policy. It looks like she has punted the ball over to firm of Kerry, Graham and (shudder) Lieberman. Oh how I wish we had a Green positioned to take on Boxer next year. If you surmise that her opponent would be Carly Fiorina, then it would be a race in which an ecology savvy Green can make a good case. If Nuclear Chuck DeVore pulls enough right wing-nuts to the polls to take the primary, then Boxer is the environmental choice and Greens would be less attractive as an alternative.

The world is flat and very crowded.

Yes, thanks to Joe Romm at Climate Progress, I have been reading Thomas Friedman again. In particular, I want to call attention to this excerpt from his OpEd today at the NY Times.

According to the 2006 U.N. population report, “The world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion ... passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. This increase is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950, and it will be absorbed mostly by the less developed regions, whose population is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.”

The energy, climate, water and pollution implications of adding another 2.5 billion mouths to feed, clothe, house and transport will be staggering. And this is coming, unless, as the deniers apparently believe, a global pandemic or a mass outbreak of abstinence will freeze world population — forever.

People always get anxious about what you are going to say next when you start talking about population, especially when you think that they might all want to have the same consumer that so many Americans buy so much of. Add it up and try to calculate just how much climate change is going on. This can not be sustained and those who deny, doubt, delay action should be held criminally culpable for any and all failures, just as the Army Corps of Engineers has been held responsible for the flooding of the 9th Ward by Katrina.

With all of the other economic crises facing us, we can not afford the price of inaction. The time for civil disobedience is now.

California's Budget: Is anyone doing anything right?

This week's news presents two sides of California's ongoing budget crisis. Teachers, staff and student in the California University System started a major demonstration or strike underscoring there opposition to having jobs cut and student fees increased by 32%. At the same time, most CA newspapers are reporting that the budget deficit continues to grow and there seems no end in site.

The Schwarzenegger administration seems unwilling or incapable of coming up with with either accurate projections of future income, they are already off by $1 Billion in the current cycle. At the same time, they are so locked in to a single ideological solution to the problem that they seem to become gleeful about every piece of bad news as it gives them one more excuse to rail against their prolifigate progressive opponents.

While the State Legislature remains deadlocked in these ideological conflict, the education of our youth is being flushed down the toilet or, at a minimum, rationed to only those rich enough to pay for it privately. The differences between the public UC Berkeley and the private Stanford University may be limited to the sports arena rather than their ability to broadly educate the citizens of this once-great state. I take that back. Stanford has a much better scholarship plan for those who can not afford its tuition and fees.

When the Democratic led legislature does seek to find more funding, they always end up raiding the the funds allocated to our Cities and Counties or to maintaining the infrastructure that ties Californians together. We see that now with every community having to reduce staffing for public safety services, fire and police, or local school board who have an increasingly difficult time managing their own budgets in the face of legislative raiding of their accounts.

Tied between a Republican Party that can only say "No" (to new taxation) and a Democratic Party that can't say "No" (to more spending) the public continues to suffer. Both parties have broken faith with the citizens of this state. They work in a partisan manner that guarantees the votes of their core constituencies and compromise becomes a merely a three card monte came of legislative legerdemain where the real costs are hidden by bonds and other borrowing, passed on to our children so that we don't have to pay the bills today.

The Schwarzenegger administration says that it will be facing a $14.4. Billion deficit and they have been consistently overoptimistic about State Revenues. Some worst case scenarios peg the deficit at $23 Billion. Those are numbers that can not be ignored.

The future offers California no respite from ongoing budget crises. The Legislative power structure would have us continue to borrow money to provide political fixes for our water needs, drowning Californians in more debt while drowning the Delta's economy with the results. The unwillingness of both state and federal legislatures to deal decisively with climate change only increases the final costs that we push on to our children's backs as we contemplate silly plans like the development of a Treasure Island that will be inundated by rising sea levels while we do nothing to address the same problems with our major source of fresh water, the Delta.

We should demand that the legislative leaders, dubbed the "Big Five" for the size of their egos, conduct their business in the open rather than behind closed doors as have become the common practice. Both parties seem to be absolutely paranoid about the public learning what they are willing to trade off for the sake of partisanship.

Budget assumption should be predicated on the achievement of a sustainable economy, one in which the cyclical nature of the economy does not destroy people lives in order to achieve an illusory balance. We will only hurt ourselves when budget depends the funds constitutionally guaranteed to our education system, or those of our cities and counties treating them as just another revenue stream for meeting the state payroll.

The assumption that growth will be being able to cover current account shortfalls is a dream becoming a nightmare. Too many events, from peak oil to climate change to water problems stand in the way of such economic growth and wishing will not make it happen.

All of this is an opportunity for the voters of California to find other choices... Green candidates who will practice the transparency that other only talk about.

CA Governor in 2010

In a previous post, I laid down some criteria that I thought Greens should be using to choose a candidate for POTUS in 2012. I got some good feedback on that. Today, I belatedly tackle the same problem for a Green candidate for Governor of California in 2010.

Click Read more! for my rant and recommendation.


I think that we have to put forward a candidate who is clearly adept at talking on financial matters. On Wednesday, Nov. 18, the legislative analyst's office will issue a report on the 2010 budget and media reports say that the deficit could be pegged at $25 Billion rather than the $12 Billion that Schwarzenegger has been citing.

We already know what the most likely mainstream candidate will be running on. Meg Whitman is all over the airways and the internet talking creating jobs, cutting spending and fixing education. That, more or less, will define the Republican pitch. It is even put forward as a platform.

Well, Greens already have a platform, we just need to start using it. It clearly outlines that direction we would like to see society move. It does not, however, give a very good view of how you take the current government of California and apply sound fiscal policies to create the a sustainable future for this state and all who live here, not just for the ultra-wealthy like Madame Meg.

This is not an aside. It underscores the need for a candidate who does more than mouth progressive platitudes, someone who could take a Ross Perot chart and make the rest of us understand it, understand where they want to take us. We had this for a while when Peter Camejo was mixing it up in the debates associated with the recall of Gray Davis. I have not heard that since.

While there are many inspirational people associated with the peace movement, or other social justice efforts, that is not who we need leading this part in this state at this critical time.

There are a number of other Green Issues on which we need to give our candidate all the help they can use. I know that we are in the middle of the next battle in the water wars. There are Greens ready and willing to help define a Green Party water policy and how we should react with a highly controversial water bond to be on the 2010 ballot, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010.

There is an opportunity, in the 2010 election, to redefine the social contract between Government and the citizens of California. The current one has been fractured like Humpty Dumpty. We have forgotten the duty we owe each other. This election is an opportunity not to be wasted.

Meg Whitman is trying to do just that, offering a Contract with American style vision of a return to California's Golden Years. (Typical of a Republican to want to return to something that never was. We should allow Meg to enjoy her golden years.) The Democrats think that they own the social contract, but for them is only a way to slice and dice the populace, playing to every interest group and, in the end, disappointing them all.

I am concerned about having a candidate who is articulate across a broad range of issues, but they have to be able to explain what they will do about California's budget mess.

So far, of all the names that I have heard tossed around for Governor, only Laura Wells has demonstrated the chops to play this gig.

Offshore drilling wins another round

Thanks to an alert from Sacramento Progressive Activist, Dan Bacher, I learned just how far the drill-baby-drill oil lobby will go to advance their cause, especially as it relates to offshore drilling along California's coast.

The Board of Directors of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) on October 16 announced that Catherine Reheis-Boyd, chair of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force, will assume the role of President of the oil and natural gas industry trade association January 1, 2010.

That is just what we don't need, an oil industry lobbyist developing marine life protection guidelines. And the tone-deaf, NY based national media continue to refer to Schwarzenegger as a "green governor." He is about as green as the Austrian flag.

It is time that we find some creative ways of expressing our opinion. My co-blogger Alex has long been asking asking "Where is the outrage?." It seems that the progressives have quietly swallowed the hemlock and the outrage has moved to the teabaggers. How have we allowed this to happen? Perhaps we have forgotten the principles that Charlenet Spretnak and Fritjof Capra outline in Green Politics.

There is only one world and one nature. It is all we have to live in. We destroy it searching for some golden fleece, or the Ponzi dream of perpetual growth. If the time for change has come, the make sure it is really change. Challenge Schwarzenegger and his oil industry friends. Point out that it makes no good sense to try and control fossil fuel driven climate change while helping the oil industry spoil what good we have left in our natural ecology.

Identity Theft

The California League of Conservation Voters, long recognized as the environmental arm of the California Democratic Party, has now put up a new web site that exhorts everyone to "Help make California’s next Governor a Greener Governor in 353 days." They even label the web site "Green Gov". Of course, it is just an outreach for the Democrats and appears to have only a Democratic following.

I mean, it is easy to contrast Jerry Brown, who is not yet an official candidate, with Tom Campbell, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. However, they ignore the fact that there might be an even Greener option. I doubt that they will even list a Green Party candidate when we have an official candidate. I certainly encourage Laura Wells to jump into the fray and let's start spreading the truth to the people of California.

If unchallenged, actions like the CLCV has taken will erode even more of our identity. We must protect what we have. I encourage all of you to go to the GreenGov web site and take their poll, but make sure to click "other" for the choice. Of course, they don't give you the option of filling in a name like Laura's. But we will make a point that none of that list of greenwashed corporate apologists is truly Green.

Why you Run races you "can't win".

Everyone in the Green Party is subject to questions about why they would run races that they can not possibly win. When we do reach the level where our presence becomes a factor in a race, then the charges of being a spoiler roll out from the Democrats, especially of the yellow dog breed, as if it were a Pavlovian reaction.

Let me recount a story. Sometime in late 2003 or early 2004, Jerry McNerney was talking to his son and complaining about his Congressman, Richard Pombo, a man who was so far from McNerney's own values as to bring a shudder when his name was spoken. McNerney's son asked who was running against Pombo and, when Jerry answered that no one was, his son said "The why don't you run, Dad."

From that point, Jerry started to work toward making sure that there was opposition. First, he had to build an organization that would allow him to get on the ballot as a primary election write-in for the Democratic nomination, since there were no official Democratic candidates in this safe district for Pombo, then Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. Even as the sole candidate, McNerney needed a recount of votes to qualify for the general election. He borrowed additional money against his own home as a guarantee of the cost of the recount and ended up qualifying by less than 5 votes.

Predictably, McNerney, a neophyte politician, lost in 2004. But, he came back in 2006, fought against Steve Filson, the candidate hand picked by then Representative Ellen Tauscher and backed by Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Once again, he pulled out a victory with the odds stacked against him. As one close to all of this, I listened to the frustrations of all of the progressives who complained that Jerry spent too much time fund raising and too little time out in the district. But politicians evaluate each other based not one what they believe or what they say, but rather on how much money they can raise and the media follows along.

Aided by an arrogant and uninspired campaign by Pombo, McNerney won the seat in a Republican weighted district.

So, why might I write this on a Green blog? There are two points. First, Greens seem to be not so adept at fund raising. Having taken the pledge to not accept corporate donations, we have to work twice as hard as anyone else to raise the money from other sources, but we don't. The other is that a continuity of effort based on solid grassroots organizing will pay off in the end. The people that gave McNerney a financial boost were the denizens of DailyKos, but with the number of small donations that he was able to amass, he could then go to other donors and say... look at that track record. It was the work of an army of volunteers who helped turn the tide.

I live in an unlikely neighborhood for precinct canvassing. The terrain is hilly, the streets are winding and the lots are about half an acre. The only campaign that has ever come to my home to canvass was for McNerney. When the Pombo campaign announced its own major canvass action leaving from a rail station, the volunteers were there with a video camera to record the non-appearance of even a single Pombo volunteer and within 30 minutes, it was on the blogs and the video on YouTube.

We have an opportunity in 2010 to make major gains. The really progressive Democrats have had an opportunity to become disenchanted. The Republicans are rather in disarray as it appears that the tea baggers are controlling its direction. But we need to be executing now on those very important basic tasks that got Jerry McNerney his Congressional seat: fund raising and building the volunteer organization. Meg Whitman raised $70,000 yesterday. (Source: ElectionTrack) What are we doing?

An Inside Job part II. The Water Wheel.

In every political campaign that I have observed since going to a neighbor's house to watch the 1956 re-nomination of Adlai Stevenson on a grainy black and white television, I have noted the manner in which every candidate exploits their experience as the major criteria for selection. We all recently recently listened to Hillary Clinton and John McCain as they tried to use the experience argument against Barack Obama in 2008.

I can think of no local example where the value of experience is more clearly used, and abused, than with the battles to control California's water. In my own community, where the water wholesaler is the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), there is continual movement of personnel from working for the water district to serving as a member of the board. There is even a case where the board hired one of their own members to be a senior manager for the SCVWD. It is alike a water wheel, continuously turning, but only moving members from one role to another.

Sometimes, being so much on the inside helps as one gains knowledge. More often the confidence that an elected official has in their own knowledge and the hard work of their long time associates leads to an arrogance, or maybe just a misplaced sense of trust, and when oversight is involved, blindness to what is really going on.

Such blindness, or laziness, is surely behind the fact that the SCVWD board approved a budget that allowed the water district to double dip into tax payer's pocket books. They levied a groundwater fee against well owners and also collected a charge against property taxes.

Such blindness surely affected Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman as he guided the package of water legislation through the Assembly during the recent Special Session.. Special Session 7, since the legislature can't seem to get things done any other way.

Huffman surely has some experience with the issues involved as a quick read of his web autobiographical statement tell you. He served on the Board of Director of the Marin Water District for 12 years before running for the Assembly. Of course, one wonders whether that was a time when he practiced sound oversight, or like his counterparts in SCVWD, just learned to go along. One interesting speculation would be to know if

This is another case where I think that we have to examine whether his close relationship with a water supplier might have blinded him to the needs of water users, a sort of insider arrogance that help pass California's term limits legislation.

In a previous post, I wondered how Barry Nelson and the NRDC was able to gain an insider position in the development of this water legislation. It all became clear when I read Huffman's bio. He was a Senior Attorney for the NRDC. Bingo. Connection made.
It isn't citizen involved regional planning, but personal connections that count. Is there such a thing as corporate nepotism?

The fact that Huffman backed out on his promise to NOT support the bond measure, a promise given to many of the organizations who sponsored the reasonable, alternative plan for water management. It would seem that he is still too close to the water suppliers that were his support for far to long. He betrayed his friends, he sponsored legislation that betrayed the residents of the Delta and voted for a bond measure the seems to betray the tax paying people of California.

I wonder what Huffman will do next. Speculation on that belongs in another post. We might find someone else pulling an inside job.