Click to see preamble.

   

 
MARCH 23, 2014

WE THE PEOPLE RADIO

WE THE PEOPLE RADIO
Water Politics

www.FAMILIESPROTECTINGTHEVALLEY.com

SHOW APPEARANCES:  MARCH 16, 2014  MARCH 23, 2014

DENIS PROSPERI

   
Our Guest: Denis Prosperi
  Central Valley almond farmer

Denis is currently Chairmen of the Central California Almond Growers Association and serves as a board member of Families Protection the Valley.

 
Americans pick environment over economic growth
CENTRAL VALLEY BUSINESS TIMES
REF: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=25473
Americans are more likely to say protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, according to a new survey by Gallup Inc.

Since 2009, during the Great Recession, Americans generally prioritized economic growth over the environment, except for immediately after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in May 2010.

In the March 6-9 Gallup Poll Social Series survey on the environment, Americans said the environment is a priority over economic growth by a 50 percent-to-41 percent margin. In the 30 years that Gallup has asked this question, Americans have almost always chosen the environment over economic growth as a priority.

The percentage of Americans who prioritized the environment swelled to 71 percent in 1990 and 1991, with the lowest percentage for economic growth occurring in 1990, at 19 percent. That year is notable for the mass revival of Earth Day, begun in 1970 by Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson as a way to boost environmental awareness. The 20th anniversary of Earth Day attracted hundreds of conservational groups that pressured businesses for tighter environmental regulations.

Democrats and Republicans Far Apart on Environment and Economic Growth Priorities

Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided as to whether the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Two-thirds of Democrats say the environment should be prioritized higher, while about one-third of Republicans say the same thing.

This is the largest partisan gulf since 1997, mainly as result of the sharp rise among Democrats prioritizing the environment higher than economic growth. Both parties give higher priority to the environment than they did prior to the 2008-2009 economic recession.

A majority of both Republicans and Democrats prioritized the environment prior to George W. Bush becoming president in 2001. The drop in Republican support for the environment over economic growth coincided with President Bush placing less of a priority on the environment. During this era, the Bush Administration did not take part in the Kyoto Protocol, citing that the cost was prohibitive to the U.S. economy.

Since 2001, Republicans have chosen economic growth over the environment, with the largest gap between the two parties occurring in 2011, when economic growth was favored over the environment by a margin of 74 percent-to-19 percent. However, there has been a slight increase in the percentage of Republicans prioritizing the environment and a slight decrease in the percentage prioritizing economic growth in the last year.

The percentage of Democrats choosing the environment over economic growth surged 11 percentage points in the past year and 20 points since 2011. This increase suggests that Democrats may believe the economy is improving and it is now acceptable to favor protecting the environment, even if it curbs economic growth. As the leader of the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities for his second term. The 66 percent of Democrats who prioritize the environment over economic growth is the highest since 2000.

Younger Americans Choose Environment, Older Americans Choose Economic Growth

Among age groups, Americans aged 18 to 29 are most likely to say the environment should be given priority over economic growth, by a 60 percent-to-30 percent margin. Americans aged 65 and older, on the other hand, say economic growth should be prioritized, by a margin of 50 percent-to-39 percent. Both 30- to 49-year-olds and 50- to 64-year-olds prioritize the environment over economic growth, but the gap between the two topics narrows as the age group becomes older.
Read more: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=25473
 
Proof that environmentalists have a screw loose
 
Similar problems in Siskiyou County

  Video: Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey sums it up in 22 seconds
 
City of Montague (Siskiyou County) NO Water by End of Summer
STEPHEN FRANK'S CALIFORNIA  MARCH 21, 2014    by Stephen Frank
REF: http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/03/21/city-of-montague-siskiyou-county-no-water-by-end-of-summer/
The city of Montecito in Santa Barbara County is on notice they will run out of water during this summer. Now, a similar situation is happening 500 miles away in Montague—a city in Siskiyou County. Expect many more cities will be sending out similar notices. While people do not get the water needed, government has decided that fish should get it—and if they do not have enough, the State will TRUCK 12 million salmon to a more plentiful water area..with your tax dollars.
“The Montague Water Conservation District has recently informed us that, due to the extreme drought conditions, there may not be sufficient water in Lake Shastina to supply the town through the summer. At this time there are approximately 8400 acre feet (one acre foot is equal to about 326,000 gallons) in Lake Shastina. The average amount usually in storage in the lake on April 1 is around 33,000 ac ft.”
   

Montague Water Users March 2014 Drought Info

The Montague Water Conservation District has recently informed us that, due to the extreme drought conditions, there may not be sufficient water in Lake Shastina to supply the town through the summer. At this time there are approximately 8400 acre feet (one acre foot is equal to about 326,000 gallons) in Lake Shastina. The average amount usually in storage in the lake on April 1 is around 33,000 ac ft.
 
About 3500 ac ft is required to supply what are known as prior rights obligations –these are properties that lost their ability to draw from the Shasta River when Lake Shastina was constructed. MWCD receives no income from delivery of this water. As a result of the recent lawsuit settlement between MWCD and the Riverkeeper/Karuk tribe, 2250 ac-ft must be released to the Shasta River for Coho salmon habitat improvement (about 1100 ac-ft have already been released). Adding 1100 ac-ft in remaining Coho water and 3500 for prior rights yields 4600 ac-ft in obligations. If you subtract that amount from the 8400 in the lake it leaves 3800 ac-ft available for Montague.
A conservative estimate of water required to supply the City of Montague, under dry canal conditions and based on previous year’s use, is approximately 3750 ac-ft. Subtracting that 3750 ac-ft from the available 3800 ac-ft would leave only 50 ac-ft in Lake Shastina..
An additional problem is that under the terms of the settlement, MWCD has to have 2000 ac–ft in Lake Shastina as of October 1(though this water can be used as part of the 2250 required for the Coho or to supply Montague after that date).
The bulk of the 3750 ac-ft necessary for Montague occurs prior to October 1. The City actually only uses about 250 ac-ft of water between April 1 and October 31. The remainder of the 350 ac-ft is the amount required to push the water all the way from Lake Shastina to Montague under dry canal conditions. The difference is due to hydraulic requirements and loss in the canal system due to percolation, evaporation and leakage.
The canal system was simply not designed to deliver water only to the City of Montague.
Read more: http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/03/21/city-of-montague-siskiyou-county-no-water-by-end-of-summer/
 
North Valley farmers may sue for more water
KCRA NEWS  MARCH 17, 2014  
REF: http://www.kcra.com/news/north-valley-farmers-may-sue-for-more-water/25025922#ixzz2weBN06lq     CLICK TO SEE VIDEO
WILLOWS, Calif. (KCRA) —Farmers in the northern Central Valley said Monday they may sue the federal government for failing to provide the minimum amount of water they said a 50-year-old contract requires
 
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced last month it planned to provide farmers along the Sacramento River with 40 percent of the water they normally receive.

"It came as a surprise," said Larry Maben, who owns an 800-acre rice farm near Willows.

Maben said a contract signed in 1964 guarantees that farmers in this part of the state will never receive less than 75 percent of their normal supply.

"I think those contracts should be honored. I mean, they wrote the contract. They knew what they were doing when they signed it," said Maben.

The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District provides water to Maben and about 1,300 more growers in a stretch along Interstate 5 between Williams and Willows.

Thad Bettner, general manager of the district, said his members began pumping water from the Sacramento River long before 1945 when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed Shasta Dam.

For years after the dam was built, farmers and federal officials argued about how to apply the farmers' long-standing water rights.

In 1964, the two sides settled the case with a contract and the North Valley farmers became known settlement contract users.

Because of that contract, Bettner said the North Valley farmers' water allotment cannot be lowered below 75 percent, even though South Valley farmers have been told not to expect any federal water this year.

"Those junior water rights users know that in years like this when water is tight, they're likely not going to get any water. So the system works," said Bettner.

 
Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/north-valley-farmers-may-sue-for-more-water/25025922#ixzz2weBN06lq  
 

INDEX OF RADIO SHOWS

SEARCH
site search by freefind advanced
WE THE PEOPLE RADIO

 

An excellent history lesson on our Constitution

please listen

MarkLevinShow.com

www.MarkLevinShow.com