MARCH 23, 2014 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
WE THE PEOPLE RADIO |
|
|
|
|