Maybe it's our winter sunshine while snow falls elsewhere-or how we embrace innovation and welcome eccentrics rejected in other places. Some Californians presume our state a haven from the nastiest aspects of American life. But we are not.
Now the fallout from a dangerous U.S. Supreme Court ruling is hitting our political landscape. Stopping the corrupting effects of the 2010 Citizens United decision is a serious and important challenge. The ruling has already prompted the rollback of some hard-won checks on special interests' domination of elections in California. It further tilts the playing field against the election of community-based leaders and in favor of candidates bankrolled by special interests and beholden to their big-money marketing blitzes.
Citizens United threatens governance of, by, and for the people. It's no coincidence that the first national election under this ruling was the first in 40 years in which the ranks of women state legislators actually shrank, significantly. California's progress on diversity and openness in public service and our hopes of fixing revenue collection and preserving schools and vital services hang in the balance as long as Citizens United remains the law of the land. Because it hinders our capacity to elect leaders who truly reflect and will stay accountable to our communities, Californians should demand its reversal.
One would think that in a democracy, the preferences of voters would drive political analysis. If voters abandoned one of the parties in droves to the point where that party became irrelevant, it would be a sign of a healthy political system that was adaptable and flexible to changing public views. If, however, one party became massively unpopular yet still wielded power and influence, that would be the sign of a failing political system - one that did not reflect the views of a democratic people.
In California, we have witnessed the long yet inevitable death of the Republican Party. Driven by a base that hates everything about 21st century California, from its diversity to its social and economic values, California Republicans have made themselves irrelevant by their refusal to abandon that crazy base or their own unpopular ideologies.
They lost every statewide election in 2010. They have not picked up a Congressional or legislative seat from Democrats in nearly a decade. The independent redistricting process found that the previous lines had been gerrymandered for Republicans and when they produced a fair redistricting, Republicans faced the loss of numerous seats. Republican party registration has been in decline for years. And the last time Republicans controlled the Legislature, the Beatles were still making records together.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that. California Republicans do not reflect the values or desires or diversity of their state and so they are a dying party. Parties that get out of step with their electorates die - it has happened before (Federalists and Whigs aren't on the ballot) and more importantly, it is a good thing. It is a sign that democracy still works, even in a state with serious structural problems.
Yet it is wrong if you are someone like George Skelton who prefers to believe that a healthy democracy requires not a party system that reflects voter preferences, but an artificial one that represents left and right equally, even if the right has been rejected by the state's voters. In his column in today's LA Times, Skelton sees it as bad for democracy that the right is no longer part of governance in this state - even though voters have made it absolutely clear they want nothing to do with them:
A Democratic governor - basically a moderate - doesn't find it worthwhile to dicker with conservatives. Brown futilely tried for several months last year to reach a deal with Republican lawmakers in which they'd provide the necessary two-thirds legislative vote to place a tax measure on the state ballot.
Republican leaders wouldn't negotiate at all. A handful of unranked GOP senators agreed to talk. But for whatever reason - Brown wouldn't cross labor, Republicans feared anti-tax demagogues - bargaining broke down.
So Brown went the signature-collecting initiative route. To achieve his goal of placing a potentially winnable tax increase on the ballot, the governor felt compelled to deal with the far left. The right - the GOP - was irrelevant.
That's unhealthy in a democracy. And it's nobody's fault except the hard-right GOP's. The party allowed itself to become so weak in California that it has little to offer Democrats in bargaining. And what it does have, it refuses to offer.
This is absurd. The only reason Brown is going to the ballot is because of the undemocratic rule requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes. Without that, Brown could have passed a tax increase in the legislature (as the Constitution intended) or he could have put something on the ballot for voters directly.
More importantly, there is nothing at all unhealthy about refusing to negotiate with a party that has been consistently rejected by California voters. If Republicans had made big gains in 2010, if they were a growing rather than a shrinking party, then maybe Skelton might have a point that they've earned a role in negotiating a ballot initiative.
Californians have made it clear they don't like Republicans and they don't like right-wing ideology or values. They have consistently rejected them. That's true of tax policy, where local tax increases routinely pass, and where most receive 50% of the vote even if passage requires the undemocratic 66.6% mark. The debate in California is about which taxes are the right ones to levy. To Republicans, the debate should be about whether any taxes at all should be levied.
But voters have rejected that too - Meg Whitman promised no new taxes and she lost to Jerry Brown by 13 points. Brown promised "no new taxes without voter approval" - indicating he was indeed open to tax increases - and is now governor.
Skelton's focus on an artificial and obsolete left-right equality means he doesn't grapple with the more interesting and relevant questions as to why Republicans and the right are dying in California. Just 20 years ago right-wing politics was quite viable in the Golden State. California was a swing state in the 1992 election, after having voted for Republican presidential candidates in each of the past five elections. In 1994 Republicans re-elected a right-wing governor, narrowly won the Assembly, and came close to taking the Senate.
It's been all downhill since then. The 1994 victory came by rallying whites against Latinos. But in the subsequent 20 years Latinos have soared in population and gotten politically organized to oppose the right and the Republicans. Many conservative whites left the state and those who remained have steadily grown more progressive.
California has changed, and its political system and its parties ought to change with it. If a party refuses to change and adapt, then that party should rightly suffer the consequences at the ballot box. That's exactly what has happened to the Republicans. And that means they have lost any claim to playing a role in the governance of this state.
Ultimately, this raises the question of whether Skelton is still a useful political commentator on California issues. He clearly has a lot of background and expertise. But he also seems to not understand modern California. Until he realizes that the death of the Republican Party is a healthy thing for democracy, he's going to keep advocating for unhealthy political practices merely out of a misguided desire to uphold political balance at the expense of political reality.
Here are the updated districts in my "Outlook" series. I replaced the 2008-President numbers with a "Cook PVI" based only on 2008. With this number, calculating the "Partisan Factor" (PF) became a bit easier, simply averaging the CPVI, 2010 Governor and Senate races, and the difference between the DEM and GOP registration numbers. The PF's changed slightly, but the overall numbers for U.S. House, State Senate, and State Assembly remain the same.
For the 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Fiorina won 51-49 and Brown won 53.8-46.2.
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 1837, a federal water management bill targeting California. The bill would override state law to favor certain powerful water users - specifically agriculture.
The bill still needs to pass the Senate before going to President Obama, and both of California's Senators have vowed to fight its passage. If it were to pass, it would disregard decades of collaboration between various stakeholders in California.
At risk are:
- efforts to restore the Bay Delta to help prevent a total collapse of the fish and other wildlife populations that rely on it;
- water conservation measures; and
- environmental protections for all Delta and Central Valley rivers.
The vote was highly partisan, with Republicans (ironically) pushing through this bill ignoring state rights in a vote of 246-175. Other states including Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon stood in opposition to H.R. 1837, recognizing that it would set a precedent allowing Federal law to usurp state control over water.
One of the most outspoken opponents of H.R. 1837 is California Congressman John Garamendi. As President Clinton's former Deputy Interior Secretary and as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Garamendi is intimately familiar with California water policy. According to the Congressman:
"This legislation turns upside down 150 years of California water law and court decisions, creating an unprecedented theft of 800,000 acre feet of the Delta water by South-of-the-Delta water contractors. All of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its watersheds are contained in the state of California. The federal government has shown deference, respecting California water rights and the constitution. This legislation usurps California's power to determine its own water and economic destiny."
The war on women comes to California as Jennifer Kerns, the new communications director for the California Republican Party, unleashed a brutal twitter attack on former Democratic congressional candidate Krystal Ball for defending a woman's right to birth control:
And in case the Tweets get taken down, here's a screenshot (via Lisa McIntire):
California Republicans alienated Latinos, Asians, Blacks and young people in droves by 2010 and lost the governor's race by 13 points. They haven't won a statewide political race since 2006 and haven't picked up a seat in the legislature or Congress in even longer. I guess they've now decided to alienate women as well.
No wonder we've called the CRP the Zombie Death Cult for many years here at Calitics. This is what a dying political party looks like - a party that only cares about inside jokes with its tiny, shriveling, pathetic, hateful base.
We'll see if the CRP fires Kerns for this, especially as Republicans across the country are trying to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh's similar attack on a young law student, calling her a "slut." But the damage is done, and Californians are now aware that the Republican Party has added women to the list of people they hate.
Del Beccaro said in a statement that she "brings not only an unrelenting desire for our Party and for its goals to succeed, but also a great deal of creativity that will help us drive our message in 2012."
And that message is apparently that women who disagree with the party's policies are sluts.
Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a Member of the House Natural Resources Committee and former Deputy Interior Secretary under President Bill Clinton, said in a press release on February 28 that he is "doing all he can to prevent reigniting another California water war."
On February 27, Garamendi sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to all Members of Congress urging his Democratic and Republican colleagues to vote 'nay' or 'present' on H.R. 1837, the so-called San Joaquin Water Reliability Act.
There is broad and substantial opposition to H.R. 1837 in California among urban, agricultural, conservationist, and recreational water stakeholders. A huge, diverse coalition of 190 environmental, environmental justice, tribal and fishing organizations from around the state sent comments in opposition to H.R. 1837 to Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. California Indian Tribes opposing the legislation include the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Karuk Tribe and Modoc Nation. (http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102037578231-135/HR+1837+Opposition+Letter+Final.pdf)
The "water grab" is also opposed by the Western States Water Council, which consists of representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states.
"I urge you to either vote "Nay" or "Present" on H.R. 1837, because it would turn upside down 150 years of California water law and use the power of the federal government to preempt our state law and constitution," Garamendi wrote in his letter to fellow Members of Congress.
"Water law is sacred in the western United States. If you represent the western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming, then H.R. 1837 is especially alarming because it grants the federal government power to override a state's water law. A "Nay" or "Present" vote is a states' rights vote," emphasized Garamendi.
The Sacramento Bee also published an op-ed by Congressman Garamendi on H.R. 1837 entitled "Water bill in Congress promotes division, destroys state consensus."
"In addition to a blatant water grab, HR 1837 also creates sweeping exemptions from federal laws protecting our water and pre-emptively prohibits state lawmakers from striking a consensus-driven compromise. It would be more accurate to call HR 1837 the State Water Rights Repeal Act," Garamendi wrote in the op-ed.
"Now is not the time to reignite the California water wars of the past. Now is not the time to pit Californians against each other for short-term gain. There is a more constructive way forward for California. We must focus on responsible, science-based water management, with conservation, storage and recycling playing a prominent role - balancing our water needs and creating jobs across the Golden State," he stated.
At the same time that Representatives Devin Nunes, Tom McClintock and Jeff Denham are attempting to ramrod HR 1837 through the House, the Obama and Brown administrations are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal.
If built, the canal would lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales. The canal would also result in the eradication of striped bass, now officially classified as a native species by the California Fish and Game Commission.
This morning (February 29) the House of Representatives will be voting on HR 1837; stay tuned for the results of the vote. For the journal of the day's proceedings, go to: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...
Garamendi's letter and op-ed are below.
Letter to Colleagues: Protect States Water Rights
From: The Honorable John Garamendi
Date: 2/27/2012
Vote "Nay" or "Present" on H.R. 1837
I will be voting "Nay" on H.R. 1837. I urge you to either vote "Nay" or "Present" on H.R. 1837, because it would turn upside down 150 years of California water law and use the power of the federal government to preempt our state law and constitution.
Titles 1 and 2 of the bill rewrite complex federal water law without sufficient bipartisan collaboration, expert analyses or stakeholder engagement. Without Democrats and Republicans working cooperatively to address California's water challenges, no solution will be achieved.
H.R. 1837 is not broadly supported in California among urban, agricultural, conservationist, and recreational water stakeholders. Several notable groups have not taken a position on the legislation because it lacks consensus. Most of the state's leading editorial boards are opposed. H.R. 1837 is dividing us, instead of uniting us.
Water law is sacred in the western United States. If you represent the western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming, then H.R. 1837 is especially alarming because it grants the federal government power to override a state's water law. A "Nay" or "Present" vote is a states' rights vote.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office reports that "H.R. 1837 would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting state laws and requiring or prohibiting some activities related to water management and wildlife preservation. The bill would require the state of California to change how it manages a state system for storing and delivering water. It also would prohibit the state from restricting existing water rights in an effort to protect any species affected by the operations of the water projects in the state. Similarly, it would prohibit restrictions on water rights that are designed to protect, enhance, or restore the value of public water resources. Finally, the bill would preempt several other state laws related to water management and wildlife preservation."
H.R. 1837's unintended consequences are too great and its unanticipated uncertainties are too risky. What happens in California won't stay in California no matter what Title 5 of this bill says. This bill, if it ever becomes law, will ignite California's next water war and the fights will spread across the West.
Don't get roped into voting "Yea" on H.R. 1837 by leadership. Vote "Nay" or "Present", protect states' water rights and let those of us in California work together to reach solutions to our water challenges.
Sincerely,
JOHN GARAMENDI
Member of Congress
Sacramento Bee Op-Ed: Water bill in Congress promotes division, destroys state consensus
By Rep. John Garamendi
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
As early as Wednesday, Congress is voting on a dangerous bill that would turn upside down 150 years of California water law. House Resolution 1837, the so-called San Joaquin Water Reliability Act, removes all environmental protections for the Delta and Central Valley rivers while allowing destructive exports of water from the Delta to politically connected San Joaquin Valley farmers.
As President Bill Clinton's former deputy interior secretary and as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am intimately familiar with California water policy. During discussion of HR 1837 in committee, I offered a series of amendments that would have made this legislation better, but all my amendments were rejected.
We need to bring this bill back to the drawing board. That's why I'm doing all I can to stop this bill, partnering with farmers, fishermen, outdoor enthusiasts and conservationists to tell Congress to stop HR 1837. This legislation is opposed by the state of California, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, local governments, and editorial boards across the state. And the list of opposition is growing.
Water storage and water recycling are important components of water policy, and they're lacking in HR 1837. This bill threatens thousands of jobs for salmon fishermen and Delta farmers. These workers have already suffered from the creeping salt water from the bay caused by excessive pumping of Delta water.
While agribusinesses in parts of the San Joaquin Valley claim to be suffering from an absence of water, the facts tell a different story. Farmers in these areas pay some of the lowest rates despite their distance from water sources. Unemployment in these parts of the state has been a chronic issue even in wet years.
Recent job losses have been mainly caused by the collapse of the construction and housing sector after the financial crisis. In addition, even at the height of the financial crisis and drought, California farmers were able to post record sales.
In addition to a blatant water grab, HR 1837 also creates sweeping exemptions from federal laws protecting our water and pre-emptively prohibits state lawmakers from striking a consensus-driven compromise. It would be more accurate to call HR 1837 the State Water Rights Repeal Act.
This bill also destroys California's 2009 comprehensive water package by isolating the Delta. The state's dual goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration cannot be met if this bill becomes law.
It's possible to craft a balanced approach that satisfies the needs of everyone in California. HR 1837 isn't a balanced approach, however. If it were implemented, it would destroy waterways throughout Northern California, and it would take away California's ability to control our own water destiny.
Now is not the time to reignite the California water wars of the past. Now is not the time to pit Californians against each other for short-term gain. There is a more constructive way forward for California. We must focus on responsible, science-based water management, with conservation, storage and recycling playing a prominent role - balancing our water needs and creating jobs across the Golden State.
Instead of threatening the Delta and river communities throughout Northern California, I hope my colleagues in Congress will come back to the negotiating table. We can improve water access for Central Valley farmers without throwing out more than a century of water law. We can unite as Californians and invest in American-made water recycling and storage, from the Delta to the Bay Area to the Central Valley and farther south. We can create thousands of jobs throughout the state without destroying thousands of jobs in the Delta. We can embrace consensus instead of fostering division.
Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, is a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.
The federal government on February 9 approved a landmark California proposal banning the discharge of more than 22 million gallons of treated vessel sewage to shorelines and shallow marine waters in California every year, drawing praise from environmental and shipping industry groups alike.
U.S. EPA's Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld signed a rule that will finalize EPA's decision and approve a state proposal to ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California's 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands.
The action established a new federal regulation banning even treated sewage from being discharged in California's marine waters.
"This is an important step to protect California's coastline," said Governor Jerry Brown. "I want to commend the shipping industry, environmental groups and U.S. EPA for working with California to craft a common sense approach to keeping our coastal waters clean."
"By approving California's 'No Discharge Zone,' EPA will prohibit more than 20 million gallons of vessel sewage from entering the state's coastal waters," said Jared Blumenfeld. "Not only will this rule help protect important marine species, it also benefits the fishing industry, marine habitats and the millions of residents and tourists who visit California beaches each year."
This action strengthens protection of California's coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels, according to an announcement from the the U.S. EPA.
"Several dozen cruise ships make multiple California port calls each year while nearly 2,000 cargo ships made over 9,000 California port calls in 2010 alone," the EPA stated. "EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage."
Senator Joe Simitian authored Clean Coast Act
State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) authored Senate Bill 771, the Clean Coast Act that prohibits all commercial ships from dumping hazardous waste, sewage sludge, oily bilge water, "gray water" from sinks and showers, and sewage in state waters. Simitian's SB 771 also required California to petition the federal government for a 'No Discharge Zone' to enforce the bill's anti-dumping provisions.
"This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground," said Simitian. "This 'No Discharge Zone' - the largest in the nation - protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health."
"California's coastal waters will no longer serve as a sewage pond for big ships," said Cal/EPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. "For too long, pollution from these vessels has endangered our marine environment, jeopardized public health and threatened the coastal communities that rely on recreation and tourism dollars. I commend U.S. EPA for helping us ensure that our coastline remains pristine."
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already implemented similar vessel sewage discharge bans in the four California marine sanctuaries that it oversees. Recreational and commercial uses of California's coastal waters are equally important. Seventy-seven percent of the State's population lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days are spent at California beaches.
California ranks first in the nation as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for tourists. California's commercial and recreational fishing industry also relies upon clean water to help preserve and restore coastal fisheries.
Under the Clean Water Act, states may request EPA to establish vessel sewage no-discharge zones if necessary to protect and restore water quality. In 2006, following passage of three state statutes designed to reduce the effects of vessel discharges to its waters, the State of California asked EPA to establish the sewage discharge ban.
After releasing the proposed rule in 2010, EPA considered some 2,000 comment letters from members of the public, environmental groups, and the shipping industry before finalizing the regulation.
"California's economic health is tied to the health of our oceans and beaches," said Charles Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. "Pollution from cargo and cruise ships directly threatens public health, marine life and our economy. This led to our request to declare the whole coastline a no discharge zone so that we could provide equal water pollution protection along our precious coastline."
Today's prohibition is unprecedented in geographical scope. In contrast to prior no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, which apply in very small areas, the new ban applies to all coastal waters out to 3 miles from the coastline and all bays and estuaries subject to tidal influence. Other California no discharge zones for ten bays and marinas remain in effect for all vessels.
Shipping industry and environmental groups praise ban
Both the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth applauded the ban.
Consistent with the State's request, the prohibition applies to all passenger ships larger than 300 tons and to all other oceangoing vessels larger than 300 tons with sewage holding tank capacity.
"The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association shares the concern for protection of California's marine environment. Our member companies are dedicated to the facilitation of trade while also minimizing any associated environmental impacts," said John Berge, Vice President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
"Big ships make for big pollution but unfortunately, responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn't always been a given in California," said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels project director at Friends of the Earth. "The actions taken by the U.S. EPA, the State of California, and the thousands of Californians who supported the Clean Coast Act mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California's valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet."
In addition to the discharge prohibition, other vessel sewage discharges will continue to be regulated under existing Clean Water Act requirements, which generally require sewage to be treated by approved marine sanitation devices prior to discharge. The State is also continuing to implement and strengthen other efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels, including recreational boats, to state waters.
"California's coastal waters are home to a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range of recreational and commercial activities," the EPA stated. "Four national marine sanctuaries, a national monument, portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200 other marine reserves and protected areas have been established to protect California's unique marine resources."
Greater effort needed to fully protect ocean and Delta from pollution and water diversions
I laud Senator Joe Simitian for sponsoring the legislation banning sewage discharge from cruise ships - and for the Brown and Obama administrations for implementing the "No Discharge Zone" to clean up the state's ocean waters.
However, while this is a good first step, much more action is urgently needed to protect California's marine waters and the San Francisco-Bay Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. California's controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The questionable "marine protected areas" that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2001 were created under the "visionary leadership" of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association and chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. Now that fishermen have been kicked off large areas of the South Coast, Reheis-Boyd has been relentlessly lobbying for new oil drilling off the California coast, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws.
The failure of the MLPA Initiative to comprehensively protect California waters occurs at a time when the military is planning to expand its training exercises in West Coast waters. A broad coalition of conservation and tribal organizations on January 26 sued the Obama administration for failing to protect thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions from U.S. Navy warfare training exercises along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Earthjustice, representing the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of the Navy's training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex.
"These training exercises will harm dozens of protected species of marine mammals-southern resident killer whales, blue whales, humpback whales, dolphins, and porpoises-through the use of high-intensity mid-frequency sonar," said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups. "The Fisheries Service fell down on the job and failed to require the Navy to take reasonable and effective actions to protect them." (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/30/groups-sue-over-navy-sonar-impacts-on-marine-mammals-94811)
One of the reasons why this and similar lawsuits are so necessary is because the "marine protected areas" created under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative - in reality "no fishing zones" that are falsely portrayed by MLPA advocates as "Yosemites of the Sea" and "underwater parks" - fail to protect the ocean from military testing and all other human impacts on the ocean than fishing.
Ironically, the same Brown and Obama administrations that announced the welcome ban on sewage discharge from larger cruise ships on February 9 are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal to export more California Delta water to southern California and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
Delta advocates believe the construction of the peripheral canal will lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other imperiled species.
So while state and federal officials tout the creation of the New "No Discharge Zone" off the California coast, they are proceeding forward with a canal plan that will kill many more fish and other species that the MLPA Initiative's "marine protected areas" or the "No Discharge Zone" would ever "save."
More Information:
To view the electronic media kit for the U.S. EPA announcement including photos and a copy of the final rule please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region9/med...
Media Contacts:
U.S. EPA Media Contact: Mary Simms, simms.mary [at] epa.gov, 415-947-4270
Cal/EPA Deborah Hoffman, Director of Communications 916-324-9670 dhoffman [at] calepa.ca.gov Cal/EPA Lindsay VanLaningham, Deputy Director of Communications, 916- 324-9670, LindsayV [at] calepa.ca.gov
State Water Resources Control Board - George Kostyrko, Director of Public Affairs 916- 341-7365 gkostyrko [at] waterboards.ca.gov
Sen. Simitian's office, Lisa Gardiner, lisa.gardiner [at] sen.ca.gov, 916-651-4011
Marcie Keever, Friends of the Earth, Oceans & Vessels Project Director, 415.544.0790 x223, mkeever [at] foe.org
In a move celebrated by anglers and conservationists, the California Fish and Game Commission in Sacramento on Thursday, February 2 took final action to reject the Department of Fish and Game's controversial proposed changes to striped bass regulations.
In a unanimous 4-0 decision, Commissioners voted not to pursue a proposal that would have liberalized sport fishing regulations related to anadromous striped bass, including increasing bag limits and decreasing size limits. Hundreds of anglers from an array of fishing groups attended the meeting and dozens spoke in opposition to what they described as the striped bass "eradication" proposal.
"This is a great victory for northern California, its water, ecosystem and species," said Victor Gonella, President of the Board of the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA).
The GGSA opposed the DFG plan - and submitted an alternate proposal to the DFG plan focusing on reducing the pumping of Delta water and identifying and eliminating "hot spots" where striped bass and other predators congregate to prey on juvenile salmon.
Commission President Jim Kellogg made the motion after speaking passionately about his eyewitness experience with the results of export pumping when he worked from 1966 to 1969 on installing the first pumping station on the South Delta for the State Water Project.
"I was there when Governor Reagan was there to cut the ribbon on the completion of 7 pumps, including 4 big ones and 3 small ones," said Kellogg. When the small pumps were turned on, he witnessed large numbers of fish going into the canal.
"There is more to this than striped bass predation - it's about water pumping and saltwater intrusion in the Delta," he noted. "And invasive species are just as big an issue, not just fish species but plants also."
Kellogg, like many anglers in the room, noted that the striped bass and listed salmon and Delta smelt had coexisted for 130 years. He also declared that striped bass are a "native species" in California, since they have been here for so long.
"Nobody's got an answer on how this is done, or who declares it, so I'm going to declare the striped bass a native species of the state of California," he said.
Commissioner Dan Richards seconded the motion to reject the striper eradication proposal - and then the 4 Commissioners, including Jack Baylis and Michael Sutton, voted for the motion. The anglers in the room gave a standing ovation to the Commission after their vote.
A panel of three representatives of the Allied Fishing Groups, including John Beuttler, Dave Hurley and Mike McKenzie, voiced their "complete opposition" to the DFG's proposed changes to the striped bass sport fishing regulations for a number of reasons. The Allied Fishing Groups include 40 organizations and businesses, such as the Black Bass Action Commitee, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Dan Blanton's StriperFest, Delta Fly Fishers, California Striped Bass Association and Recreational Fishing Alliance.
"Adopting this proposal would be a violation of the Department's and the Commission's fiduciary obligations to hold the public's fish and wildlife resources in trust and manage them at sustainable population levels in accord with the Commission's policies and statutory responsibilities including your striped bass management policy," said Beuttler.
"Since the striped bass fishery has declined from some 3 to 4 million adult fish in the 1960's to 650,000 today, its collapse has paralleled that of several runs of listed salmonids that utilize the Bay-Delta estuary. It's clear all of these fisheries are not being managed on a sustainable basis," stated Beuttler.
The proposal introduced by the DFG arose out of a settlement agreement resulting from a 2008 lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness Astroturf group consisting of San Joaquin Valley water districts, claimed that striped bass are "harming" native species, including endangered Central Valley chinook salmon and steelhead and Delta smelt.
Representatives from the Coalition, Department of Fish and Game and NOAA Fisheries spoke in favor of the proposal.
"We believe a yes vote is justified," said DFG Director Chuck Bonham. "Striped bass predation is not the only factor or even the most significant factor in the decline of salmon and other listed species - but any angler who fishes for stripers sees how they predate on salmon."
Bonham emphasized that striped bass predation is a "controllable" factor in reducing salmon and Delta smelt mortality. "This controllable factor is addressable by you through this proposal," said Bonham.
Michael Boccadoro of the Dolphin Group, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, vowed further litigation if the Commission didn't approve the striper eradication proposal.
"If the proposal is rejected, it only gets kicked backed into the federal courts," said Boccadoro.
Three executives of Stewart Resnick's Paramount Farms in Kern County founded the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the public for a big profit.
The Coalition claimed that the striped bass, an East Coast fish introduced to the Sacramento over 130 years ago, should not be protected because the fish prey on protected chinook salmon and Delta smelt. Anglers accused the Coalition of trying to blame striped bass "predation" for the decline of salmon and smelt in order to divert attention from record exports out of the Delta in recent years that resulted in the 2008-2009 Central Valley fall salmon collapse, in addition to the collapse of Delta smelt, longsfin smelt, threadfin shad, young striped bass and other species.
The coalition's backers want to divert more Delta water to San Joaquin Valley growers and southern California. While supporters of Central Valley and Delta fish restoration scored a victory against the water contractors Thursday, this is one battle in a war by corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies to take more water from the Delta.
The same water contractors advocating for the striped bass eradication proposal are collaborating with the Brown and Obama adminstrations to build the peripheral canal, a project that would result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species.
"This is a victory for any fisherman in Northern California, and a clear defeat of the agricorporations' thinly-veiled greedy water grab," said Jim Cox, President of the California Striped Bass Association, West Delta Chapter. "Had these changes been enacted, the striped bass would have been potentially fished to extinction, with no clear benefit to the salmon and delta smelt this was supposed to be protecting.
"The biological end of the DFG was forced to compile these regulation changes by the legal end of the Department to settle a lawsuit. Hoorah to the integrity of the Fish and Game Commission to see through this 'fishery management by lawsuit' and defend the autonomy of the regulation process. Particular credit goes to outgoing Commission President Jim Kellogg who, as his last piece of business in his two year term as President, declared striped bass a native species," Cox concluded.
Kellogg, a Davis appointee, is still on the Commission, but is up for re-appointment right now. "I will continue to be a voice for hunters and fishermen," Kellogg emphasized.
On January 30, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego denied a motion by the Fish and Game Commission to dismiss the Coastside Fishing Club's appeal of an unfavorable court ruling regarding the imposition of so-called "marine protected areas" on the North Central Coast of California.
After three legal victories in a row, the Club, United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher in October suffered the first setback in their legal campaign targeting ocean fishing closures imposed under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. The controversial initiative is privately funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.
Ronald S. Prager, San Diego Superior Court judge, rejected arguments that the Commission exceeded its authority when it approved new "marine protected areas" on the North Central Coast from Pigeon Point in San Mateo County to Alder Point in Mendocino County that went in effect on May 1, 2010.
On December 15, 2011, the Club filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the trial court's denial of Coastside's claims that the Fish and Game Commission "lacked statutory authority and failed to follow required procedures" in adopting the North Central Coast marine protected areas (MPAs) and MPA regulations.
"We just received good news from the court of appeal - it denied the Commission's motion," according to a statement from Coastside. "Coastside's appeal may therefore go forward and be heard on the merits."
"This is definitely a win for us," said Robert C. Fletcher, the former president of the Sportfishing Association of California, "since the Attorney General's Office, representing the Commission, has repeatedly tried to block our appeal."
"If the court finds merit to Coastside's arguments, they will vacate the Commission's adoption of the North Coast MLPA regulations and force them to go back to the drawing board. This will have implications not only for the North Central Coast, but for the South Coast as well," said Fletcher.
All of the remaining claims brought by United Anglers and Fletcher, including the South Coast regulatory authority and CEQA claims, as well as the Coastal Act claims, are still pending in the trial court. A trial date has not yet been set.
On January 9, 2012, the Commission filed a motion in the Court of Appeal to dismiss Coastside's appeal, arguing that Coastside must wait to appeal until all of the remaining claims still pending in the trial court have been resolved.
Grassroots environmental leaders fighting the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative applauded the Appeal Court's decision.
"The corrupt and illegal MLPA Initiative process will be exposed and overturned eventually," said John Lewallen, North Coast environmental leader and co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and North Coast Seaweed Rebellion. "The brave fishermen and fisherwomen of Coastside Fishing Club are protecting ocean access and government by the people, now under assault by private corporate interests."
The initiative, overseen by a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive, agribusiness hack and other corporate operatives with many conflicts of interest, is a process that directly parallels the equally corrupt and corporate-controlled Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal.
The MLPA Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas," supported by Safeway Stores, Walmart and the Western States Petroleum Association, that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wave and wind energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean than fishing and gathering.
In an overt conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the "august body" that designed the "marine protected areas" that went into effect on the Southern California Coast on January 1. Reheis-Boyd, a big oil industry lobbyist advocating for new offshore drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and the gutting of environmental laws, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, as well as "serving" on the North Central Coast and North Coast Task Forces.
While MLPA advocates have claimed that the initiative is "open, transparent and inclusive," it is instructive that MLPA and state officials refused to appoint any tribal scientists to the MLPA Science Advisory Team (SAT). This was in spite of the fact that the Yurok Tribe alone has a Natural Resources Department with over 70 staff members, including scientists. The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force also didn't include any tribal representatives until 2010 when one was finally appointed to the panel.
Hundreds of anglers, conservationists and supporters of Delta fish restoration will be attending the Fish and Game Commission meeting in Sacramento on Thursday, February 2 at 8:30 a.m. to oppose the Department of Fish and Game's striped bass eradication proposal. The meeting will held at the Resources Building in the First Floor Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento.
The eradication proposal, the "request for the authorization to publish notice of the Commission intent to amend the striped bass regulations," is number 9 on the agenda. There will be two special presentations, the first by the Department of Fish and Game and the second by the Allied Fishing Groups.
"Fishing regulations are supposed to be based on the best available science," said John Beuttler, spokesman for the Allied Fishing Groups. "These regulations are not based on the best available science."
Members of the California Striped Bass Association, Coastside Fishing Club, Water for Fish, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Federation of Fly Fishers and other groups will be there in force to oppose the adoption of the DFG proposal.
The DFG proposal would raise the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish, raise the possession limit from two to 12 fish and lower the minimum size from 18 to 12 inches in order to reduce alleged "predation" of Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt by stripers.
It would also establish a "hot spot" for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
The Allied Fishing Groups, in a letter to the Commission on January 17, voiced their "complete opposition" to the DFG's proposed changes to the striped bass sport fishing regulations for a number of reasons.
"Adopting this proposal would be a violation of the Department's and the Commission's fiduciary obligations to hold the public's fish and wildlife resources in trust and manage them at sustainable population levels in accord with the Commission's policies and statutory responsibilities including your striped bass management policy (See Fish and Game Code sections: 703, 711.7, 1017, 1301, 1600, 1700, 1802, 2761, 2780, 7050, 7070, 7072)," the letter stated.
"Since the striped bass fishery has declined from some 3 to 4 million adult fish in the 1960's to 650,000 today, its collapse has paralleled that of several runs of listed salmonids that utilize the Bay-Delta estuary. It's clear all of these fisheries are not being managed on a sustainable basis," the groups said.
The Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) has sponsored an alternate proposal for the Commission to "dedicate a much greater percentage of unimpaired runoff in the winter and spring to Delta inflows and outflows, and generally restore more natural flow patterns throughout the year, in order to provide habitat conditions that promote much greater survival of native species populations and reduce the effects of predation."
The proposal also advises the Commission to "aggressively remove hot spots where striped bass and other predators can congregate and easily attack juvenile native fish." (http://goldengatesalmonassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Striper-Proposal-GGSA-Final.pdf)
The DFG striped bass eradication proposal is the result of a court settlement of a lawsuit between the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness "Astroturf" group representing San Joaquin Valley corporate growers. This group is housed in Stewart Resnick's headquarters for Paramount Farms in Kern County. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire and largest tree fruit grower in the world who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit.
The Coalition claims that the striped bass, an East Coast fish introduced to the Sacramento over 120 years ago, should not be protected because the fish supposedly prey on protected chinook salmon and Delta smelt. The Coalition is trying to blame striped bass "predation" for the decline of salmon and smelt in order to divert attention from record exports out of the Delta in recent years that resulted in the 2008-2009 Central Valley fall salmon collapse, in addition to the collapse of Delta smelt, longsfin smelt, threadfin shad, young striped bass and other species. The coalition's backers want to divert more Delta water to San Joaquin Valley growers and southern California.
Agency staff "salvaged" over 11 million fish, including a record 9 million imperiled Sacramento splittail, in the state and federal pumps in 2011. Scientists estimate that the actual amount of fish lost in the pumps is 5 to 10 times the "salvage" numbers.
Last year was also a record one for water exports from the Delta. The total water exported was 6,633,000 acre-feet in 2011 - 163,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,470,000 acre-feet set in 2005, according to DWR data. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/30/states-first-snow-survey-follows-record-water-export-year)
It is noteworthy that Resnick sits on the Board of Conservation International, a corporate environmental NGO, with Walmart Chairman Rob Walton. Walton's Walton Family Foundation dumped $36 million into ocean privatization efforts through "catch shares" programs and the creation of so-called "marine protected areas" in 2010 in an attempt to kick sustainable recreational and commercial fishermen off the water.
Resnick and Walton's Conservation International received the top amount, $18,640,917, of the five NGOs receiving Walmart money to promote ocean "conservation" programs including marine protected areas similar to those imposed by the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative in California. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/30/the-worst-of-the-one-percent).
San Francisco - A broad coalition of conservation groups and American Indian Tribes on January 26 sued the Obama administration for failing to protect thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions from U.S. Navy warfare training exercises along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Earthjustice, representing the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of the Navy's training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex.
The lawsuit calls on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to mitigate anticipated harm to marine mammals and biologically critical areas within the training range that stretches from Northern California to the Canadian border, according to a statement from Earthjustice.
"These training exercises will harm dozens of protected species of marine mammals-Southern Resident killer whales, blue whales, humpback whales, dolphins, and porpoises-through the use of high-intensity mid-frequency sonar," said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups. "The Fisheries Service fell down on the job and failed to require the Navy to take reasonable and effective actions to protect them."
The groups said the Navy uses a vast area of the West Coast for training activities, including anti-submarine warfare exercises involving tracking aircraft and sonar; surface-to-air gunnery and missile exercises; air-to-surface bombing exercises; sink exercises; and extensive testing for several new weapons systems.
Tribes say exercises will hurt traditional cultural lifeways, whales
"Since the beginning of time, the Sinkyone Council's member Tribes have gathered, harvested and fished for traditional cultural marine resources in this area, and they continue to carry out these subsistence ways of life, and their ceremonial activities along this Tribal ancestral coastline," said Priscilla Hunter, chairwoman and co-founder of the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council. "Our traditional cultural lifeways, and our relatives such as the whales and many other species, will be negatively and permanently impacted by the Navy's activities."
"Both NMFS and the Navy have failed in their obligations to conduct government-to-government consultation with the Sinkyone Council and its member Tribes regarding project impacts," Hunter emphasized.
Founded in 1986, the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, is a California Indian peoples' environmental consortium working to re-establish local Indian stewardship within the Sinkyone region of Northern California through land conservation, habitat restoration, and traditional resource management.
The member tribes of the Council are: the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Redwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Hopland Band of Pomo Indians; Potter Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians; Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Robinson Rancheria; the Cahto Tribe and the Round Valley Indian Tribes.
In late 2010, NMFS gave the Navy a permit for five years of expanded naval activity that the groups said will harm or "take" marine mammals and other sealife. The permit allows the Navy to conduct increased training exercises that can harm marine mammals and disrupt their migration, nursing, breeding, or feeding, primarily as a result of harassment through exposure to the use of sonar.
High intensity sonar results in marine mammal strandings
Navy's mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in mass strandings of marine mammals in, among other places, the Bahamas, Greece, the Canary Islands, and Spain, according to the conservation groups and Tribes.
In 2004, during war games near Hawai'i, the Navy's sonar was implicated in a mass beaching of up to 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay.
In 2003, the USS Shoup, operating in Washington's Haro Strait, exposed a group of endangered Southern Resident killer whales to mid-frequency sonar, causing the animals to stop feeding and attempt to flee the sound.
"In 2003, NMFS learned firsthand the harmful impacts of Navy sonar in Washington waters when active sonar blasts distressed members of J pod, one of our resident pods of endangered orcas," said Kyle Loring, Staff Attorney for Friends of the San Juans. "Given this history, it is particularly distressing that NMFS approved the Navy's use of deafening noises in areas where whales and dolphins use their acute hearing to feed, navigate, and raise their young, even in designated sanctuaries and marine reserves."
"Whales and other marine mammals don't stand a chance against the Navy," summed up Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Navy's mitigation plan for sonar use relies primarily on visual detection of whales or other marine mammals by so-called " watch-standers" with binoculars on the decks of ships. If mammals are seen in the vicinity of an exercise, the Navy is to cease sonar use.
"Visual detection can miss anywhere from 25-95% of the marine mammals in an area," said Heather Trim, Director of Policy for People For Puget Sound. "It's particularly unreliable in rough seas or in bad weather. We learn more every day about where whales and other mammals are most likely to be found-we want NMFS to put that knowledge to use to ensure that the Navy's training avoids those areas when marine mammals are most likely there."
The litigation is not intended to halt the Navy's exercises, but asks the Court to require NMFS to reassess the permits using the latest science and to order the Navy to stay out of biologically critical areas at least at certain times of the year.
A US Navy spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, while a National Marine Fisheries Service spokesperson said the agency has not yet received any information on the suit.
Killer whales threatened by both Navy training and water exports
Marcie Keever of Friends of the Earth pointed out the dramatic impact that the Navy exercises could have upon endangered southern resident killer whales (orcas).
"It has become increasingly clear from recent research that the endangered Southern Resident killer whale community uses coastal waters within the Navy's training range to find salmon during the fall and winter months," said Keever. "NMFS has failed in its duty to assure that the Navy is not pushing the whales closer to extinction."
The killer whales face a double threat now: Navy sonar testing and increased water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. A NOAA Fisheries biological opinion released on June 4, 2009 found that water pumping operations in the Central Valley by the federal Bureau of Reclamation jeopardize the continued existence of imperiled Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales, which rely on chinook salmon runs for food.
MLPA Initiative fails to protect ocean from military exercises
In my opinion, one of reasons why this and similar lawsuits are so necessary is because California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from military testing, as well as pollution, corporate aquaculture, wave and wind energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The initiative is a privately funded process, overseen by a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive, agribusiness hack and other corporate operatives with many conflicts of interest, that is supported by the Western States Petroleum Association, Safeway Stores and the Walton Family Foundation. The MLPA process parallels the equally corrupt and corporate-controlled Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal to export northern California water to southern California.
In an egregious conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the "august body" that designed the so-called "marine protected areas," falsely touted as "underwater parks" and "Yosemites of the Sea" by MLPA Initiative advocates, that went into effect on the Southern California Coast on January 1.
Reheis-Boyd, a big oil industry lobbyist who relentlessly pushes for new offshore drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and the gutting of environmental laws, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, as well as "serving" on the North Central Coast and North Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces.
You would think that a simple bill requiring the labeling of Frankenfish would pass easily through the California Legislature.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, since Assemblymembers apparently beholden to the bioegineering and biotechnology industry on January 19 voted against a bill, AB 88, that would have required that all genetically engineered (GE) fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.
The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-6), failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a vote of 9-7. Assemblymembers Harkey, Calderon, Hall, Nielson, Norby, Solorio, Wagner, Campos and Donnelly voted no on the bill, while Fuentes, Bradford, Chesbro, Gatto, Hill, Ammiano and Mitchell voted yes.
Assemblymember Blumenfield, who voted for the bill last May, was out of the room during the vote.
"It's shameful that nine members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee chose to keep consumers in the dark as to whether salmon sold in California is genetically engineered or not, should GE Salmon be approved by the FDA," said Marie Logan of Food and Water Watch. "We will continue to fight for labeling of all genetically engineered foods and continue to urge the FDA to not approve GE salmon, so that this potentially risky product never reaches grocery store shelves. Food & Water Watch will continue working to support national legislation that would stop the approval of GE salmon by the FDA."
The legislation, AB 88, was stalled in Appropriations last year, and was held-over for reintroduction this session by Assemblymember Huffman. This bill is modeled after similar legislation passed in the state of Alaska in 2005 that requires labeling of all genetically modified seafood.
"While we are disappointed that AB 88 failed today, we are encouraged by the level of support the bill received in a tough Committee," according to a statement from the Center for Food Safety (CFS). "The bill's failure in Committee came despite clear consumer demand for labeling of GE fish."
As Huffman told TakePart, "If we had put this bill before the people of California, it would have passed overwhelmingly."
Consumer, environmental and fishing groups oppose the approval of genetically engineered salmon and other fish by the federal Food and Drug Administration because of its potential human health impacts and the danger presented to struggling West Coast salmon populations if the GE fish escape from aquaculture facilities. They supported the legislation as a way of safeguarding human health in California if efforts to stop the approval of Frankenfish at the federal level fail.
BIOCOM, an organization representing the biotechnology and life sciences industry, opposed the Legislation by claiming that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "closely regulates" the use of bioengineering and biotechnology in foods and is currently reviewing the approval of consumption of genetically engineered salmon. BIOCOM argued that it should be left to the FDA to determine whether or not labeling should be required on these products.
The Frankenfish issue is not going to go away as long as AquaBounty's salmon is on the table for FDA consideration and while other biotech corporations push for the approval of GE animals. The Obama administration, the same administration that is pushing for the privatization of ocean public trust resources through "catch shares" program and the construction of a peripheral canal that will destroy Central Valley salmon and California Delta fish populations, has also put the GE salmon approval process on the fast-track.
On December 19, a coalition of 11 food safety, environmental, consumer and fisheries organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) calling for a halt to its approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon after learning that the company's - AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. - research site was contaminated with a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), the deadly fish flu that is devastating fish stocks around the world.
"This new information calls into question the reliability of AquaBounty's data and the validity of its claims that their fish are safe for the environment" said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "The FDA must respond appropriately and conduct their own environmental impact statement that looks at a broad range of environmental risks from these genetically engineered salmon, including the risk of spreading diseases such as ISA and antibiotic use for other diseases."
The coalition included the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Watch, Center for Environmental Health, Alliance for Natural Health USA, Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, PCC Natural Markets, Organic Consumers Association, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and Mangrove Action Project.
Legislation advocating a ban on GE salmon, S. 230, and mandatory labeling, S. 229, is making its through the U.S. Senate.
Legislation advocating a ban on GE salmon, H.R. 521, and mandatory labeling, H.R. 520, is also proceeding through the U.S. House of Representatives.
For more information on GE fish, visit CFS's campaign website, http://www.ge-fish.org, or Food and Water Watch's website,http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/stop-frankenfish.
On November 2nd, 2010, California voters passed Proposition 20 allowing a commission composed of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 Independents to redraw my state's congressional districts. Previously, the state legislature drew the maps. In the House of Representatives, the representatives represent voters in districts the legislature draws. In recent years though, states such as Washington and California have chosen commissions to draw districts without political influence. In California, the commission traveled around the state to hear public comments from citizens like me and talk to groups such as MALDEF. On June 10th, 2011, the California Redistricting Commission released their first set of maps for California after hearing public comments from meetings such as this one on May 20th that I attended. The guidelines set for the commission were to draw districts that follow the VRA, stick to county boundaries as much as possible and preserve communities of interest. They approved the final maps in mid August. Also, this is the first election year where all California Congressional elections will have a top two primary where all candidates run in the June primary and the top two vote getters advance to the general election on November 6th.
I posted an earlier analysis of California's new congressional districts here: http://racesandredistricting.b... but this version is different because it analyzed the 1st draft of California's redistricting maps. This new version here analyzes California's Congressional districts after the Commission approved the final maps. Instead of focusing on communities of interest, this analysis will mostly focus on the congressional races themselves and which party is likely to win them. Overall, the Commission's new Congressional map produces 28 Safe Democratic seats, four Likely Democratic seats, five Lean Democratic seats, two Tossup seats, two Lean Republican seats and 12 Safe Republican seats. This totals to 37 seats expected to vote Democratic with 14 seats expected to vote Republican for Congress, suggesting Democrats could win 3-5 seats under California's new map.
Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the "Outlook" series for 2012.
In 2008 I tried a "Partisan Factor" (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new "Partisan Factor" using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.
Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.
Yesterday, shortly after I posted my latest entry on the ProPublica redistricting story scandal, ProPublica posted a response to critics. Unfortunately, the response continues to evade the key questions and criticisms made of their article, particularly their lack of knowledge of California politics and their strange assumption that somehow it's wrong if Democrats wind up benefiting from the new lines.
Q: If California Democrats actually succeeded in manipulating the redistricting commission, then why did some Democratic incumbents lose?
A: Our story did not assert that every Democrat got what they wanted from the Commission. Indeed, we noted that Democrats faced a particularly difficult challenge getting what they wanted in densely populated, ethnically diverse Southern California.
Still, fewer Democrats might have lost than it seems.
Some have argued, for instance, that the high-profile retirement of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, in Northern California, was a result of redistricting.
But as it turns out, Woolsey announced her retirement before the lines were completed, and has said redistricting had nothing to do with her decision.
This is a non-sequitur answer. One of the key reasons for the commission was voter anger that incumbents were essentially "drawing their own lines." It should be noted I didn't share that reasoning, and I in fact opposed this commission. But the commission was given loud and clear direction by voters to ignore incumbency and that is precisely what they did.
Q: What about Reps. Berman and Sherman getting drawn [4] into a district together?
A: As many have noted, Democratic U.S. Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman were drawn into the same district [5], and as were Reps. Janice Hahn and Laura Richardson.
Several people -- including members of the redistricting commission [6] -- have pointed to the Berman-Sherman face-off, in particular, as evidence that the commission was not manipulated by Democrats.
But even in that case, there appears to be evidence of an effort to influence the process.
According to FEC records, on May 23, Sherman's PAC paid $15,000, to an entity it called "PMPA" in their disclosures. The address of PMPA is the home of redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell's mother in Glendale. One of Paul Mitchell's firms is called Paul Mitchell Public Affairs, or PMPA. It's not clear what the work was for. Mitchell didn't respond to our request about his work about Sherman.
In the end, Sherman appears to have come out ahead. The so-called Berman-Sherman district was 60 percent from Sherman's old district, and 16 percent from Berman's district.
Sherman's office did not return our requests for comment.
As for Berman, he told ProPublica he didn't try to influence the commission: "I'm not unfamiliar with the redistricting process. I wasn't caught flat-footed. I just chose not to do what many on both sides of the aisle did: try to sway the commission to do something that was good for one member. The whole process was supposed to draw lines without consideration to incumbents. I respected that process."
So people tried to influence the commission. Big fucking deal. That in and of itself is not a news story. What ProPublica asserted - and has so far been entirely unable to prove - is that these efforts to influence actually succeeded in swaying the commission's decisions. But commissioners themselves - whom ProPublica did not deign to interview - have consistently denied that their decisions were affected by this lobbying.
Q: Didn't Republicans and others try to influence the commission too?
A: Yes, they did. In fact, our reporting began with one such attempt. But we also found that Republicans were far less organized or effective than Democrats.
For instance, Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, tried to enlist his allies to urge the commission to draw him a friendly district. Last April, McKeon emailed a local trade group with defense industry tries encouraging them to "advocate to the Redistricting Commission" for McKeon's ideal district. (Read the email [7].) McKeon didn't return our requests for comment.
The group, the Antelope Valley Board of Trade, did not testify in favor of his district. McKeon ended up getting part of what he wanted but not all of it.
Again, ProPublica asserts that Democratic influencing efforts "succeeded" without having any evidence to defend this claim. The fact that anyone was trying to influence anything is itself unremarkable.
Q: California is a blue state. In a fair process, shouldn't the Democrats [4] "win" [8] redistricting?
A: There haven't yet been elections based on the newly redistricted lines. So any projections about how Democrats and Republicans will fare are just that, projections.
We interviewed multiple experts who said that Democrats could be expected to gain a seat or two via redistricting. The previous district lines had actually been the result of a bi-partisan backroom gerrymander that created a few Republican seats. A fair redistricting process might have eliminated those safe seats.
But after the districts were drawn, internal Democratic Party analyses projected a gain of six or seven seats.
More importantly, the way lines are drawn doesn't just affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. Particular lines can also protect particular politicians.
Rep. Judy Chu's Southern California district, for example, would likely remain safely Democratic in any redrawing. But, as our story shows, a group with ties to Rep. Chu successfully intervened in the commission process at the last minute to tweak lines that will likely make it easier for Chu herself to defeat any Democratic challenger.
That's particularly relevant because California is moving to a new "open primary" system where the politicians who get the largest number of votes go on to face each other in a second round -- regardless of party affiliation.
This is a response to my criticism on Thursday - or at least it's intended as a response. Note that ProPublica does not actually deal with the substance of my question.
Democrats have a 44-30 registration advantage over Republicans. And many voters registered as "Decline to State" actually vote consistently for Democrats. Remember also that Republicans got swept in the 2010 elections and dating back to 1998 have had trouble winning more than one or two statewide seats. Their last US Senator was elected in 1986. They last had a majority in the state legislature in 1970.
In short, given the fact that California voters have consistently favored Democrats for the last few decades, any outcome that did not result in increasing opportunities for Democrats to win seats would not have been an accurate reflection of political reality.
As to Judy Chu, ProPublica asserts that organizing efforts were done on her behalf. In fact, organizing was done to ensure Asian-Americans had a majority district. The redistricting commissioners were subject to both state and federal Voting Rights Act rules. And Asian-Americans have faced historic discrimination in California. So it makes sense that there will be at least one Asian-American district in the state. And many Asian-American voting rights advocates were actually disappointed in the work of the commission. The district benefits an Asian-American candidate and it won't necessarily be Judy Chu.
Q: The Commission was never meant [9] to be non-partisan.
A: We'll let readers judge for themselves. The voter referendum creating the commission called for "nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation."
Here is the language voters saw in the ballot box [10]:
The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare their purpose in enacting this act is as follows:
(a) Under current law, California legislators draw their own political districts. Allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a serious conflict of interest that harms voters. That is why 99 percent of incumbent politicians were reelected in the districts they had drawn for themselves in the recent elections.
(b) Politicians draw districts that serve their interests, not those of our communities. For example, cities such as Long Beach, San Jose and Fresno are divided into multiple oddly shaped districts to protect incumbent legislators. Voters in many communities have no political voice because they have been split into as many as four different districts to protect incumbent legislators. We need reform to keep our communities together so everyone has representation.
(c) This reform will make the redistricting process open so it cannot be controlled by the party in power. It will give us an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the commission, and will ensure full participation of independent voters-whose voices are completely shut out of the current process. In addition, this reform requires support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents for approval of new redistricting plans.
(d) The independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will draw districts based on strict, nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation. The reform takes redistricting out of the partisan battles of the Legislature and guarantees redistricting will be debated in the open with public meetings, and all minutes will be posted publicly on the Internet. Every aspect of this process will be open to scrutiny by the public and the press.
(e) In the current process, politicians are choosing their voters instead of voters having a real choice. This reform will put the voters back in charge.
ProPublica is imparting their own meaning to this question. The commission was in fact never meant to be non-partisan because it had partisan representation written into the proposition that created it. In fact, one reason I opposed the commission is that it gave an unfair advantage to Republicans, giving them the same number of seats as Democrats even though they had many fewer valid registrations.
Further, the commission did act in a non-partisan way by refusing to review party registration when drawing up boundaries, a fact ProPublica criticized them for doing. So it seems ProPublica wants to have it both ways here - criticizing the commission for being "partisan" while also criticizing them for ignoring partisanship.
Why do you say the commission limited opportunities for public input? Didn't it have dozens of hearings?
The public hearing transcripts clearly show that a lot of testimony was received by the commission. But the commission cancelled a second round of draft maps and the hearings they said they would do with them. Many groups criticized this move [11] as limiting citizen input.
Instead of releasing a promised second round of draft maps, the commission chose to release daily 'visualizations,' which were drawn at meetings in Sacramento. While the general public could comment via email, transcripts show individuals in attendance joined what became impromptu hearings at the beginning of each meeting. Transcripts show that these in-person comments and map submissions were influential. But they were only an option for those with the resources both to anticipate which districts would be discussed on a particular day, and appear in person in Sacramento.
Here is the commission's statement [12] on our article.
Of course, commissioners were not sequestered either. They were well aware of all efforts to influence them - and in fact took steps to minimize that influence. Cancelling the hearings was in fact an effort to do just that. Once again ProPublica wants to have it both ways in their criticisms.
Ultimately this "response" does not really address the key questions. So I'll state them again:
1. Does ProPublica have any hard evidence establishing a causal link between efforts to influence the commissioners and the commissioners' decisions as reflected in the final maps? By "hard evidence" I do not mean circumstantial or correlative evidence, but something that actually proves, beyond doubt, that commissioners made their decisions based on the influence they were given?
2. Does ProPublica acknowledge that for at least 13 years California voters have made their preferences for Democrats extremely clear, and that under no logical argument can a case be made that Republicans "deserved" more favorable seats?
3. Can ProPublica explain why they did not bother to interview any commissioners for their article?
5. Following up on #4, can ProPublica confirm or deny that their article was written with the intent to question California redistricting because it is projected to favor Democrats, and all dissenting voices were excluded from the article in order to produce that conclusion?
6. Did ProPublica write this article in an attempt to placate the right and/or Republicans after they published a series of articles criticizing pro-GOP redistricting?
7. Does ProPublica have any detailed knowledge of California political trends?
8. Does ProPublica have any detailed knowledge of California demographic trends?
Feel free to add other questions in the comments.
From what I can tell, ProPublica is just another one of these supposedly "independent" news sites that actually gets stories fundamentally wrong because they are interested in making everyone look bad and finding "evidence" of wrongdoing even if no such evidence exists. Rather than tell their readers the truth - that Republicans were doomed to lose out in any fair redistricting process and that they are now whining about it to anyone who will listen - they are misleading their readers by concocting a story in an effort to score cheap journalistic points.
One of the primary reasons blogging exists is because for media outlets like ProPublica, telling the truth is no longer valued.
The scandal surrounding the ProPublica article on California redistricting is intensifying today as more damning revelations emerge about the flawed way the article was assembled. Over at Calbuzz Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine break an important part of the story - that the article's authors interviewed a Public Policy Institute of California expert who explained why the final district lines were sensible, but that this never made it into the article:
All you really need to know about their over-reaching piece is this: the reporters studiously ignored documented research and statistical evidence they were provided that conflicted or undercut their conclusion - that projected Democratic gains in the state's House delegation are the result of a secret and nefarious partisan manipulation of the political naïfs on the commission.
In the course of their reporting, Calbuzz has learned, Pierce interviewed Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California, one of the state's top non-partisan reapportionment experts, who explained to her that the gains forecast for Democrats represent a logical and expected result given a) demographic changes in the last decade and b) the criteria the commission was charged with using.
McGhee even emailed Pierce an advance copy of a 45-page analysis of the commission plan he co-authored with Vladimir Kogan of UC San Diego, which is scheduled to be published in the California Journal of Politics and Policy in a few months. Among its conclusions: given the gerrymandered districts used for the last decade, "it seems unlikely that it is possible to draw any plan that increases competition among congressional seats without also advantaging the Democrats."
But when the ProPublica report published Wednesday - claiming that Democratic operatives had "managed to replicate the results of the smoke-filled rooms of old" (yes, they actually wrote that) - there was no mention of the detailed and comprehensive McGhee-Kogan research, nor even a reference to the facts, background and context on which it is based.
"If there was a credible argument on the other side," of ProPublica's conclusion, McGhee told us, "I don't understand why they didn't include it."
That's pretty damning. Nowhere in the ProPublica article was this analysis ever mentioned or hinted at. One would assume that if the authors were interested in serious journalism, they would have included this perspective in some form.
Instead they were pursuing a "Democrats are bad too!" story intended to balance out their reporting on genuine ways Republicans monkeyed around with redistricting in other states. Like Politifact, ProPublica put their desire to placate Republicans ahead of getting the story right.
"As a commission, we ran a very transparent process, so some of the allegations made in the story are easily disproved by a look at our website and the criteria we used," said Connie Galambos-Malloy, one of four "decline to state" voters on the 14-member commission. "If the voters investigate, it's clear that most of the allegations are dead wrong."...
Galambos-Malloy said the commission "wasn't contacted before the story" for comment prior to the piece's publication - a move she calls regrettable.
"I wasn't reached out to," she said. "And the story just doesn't match the process we went through."
Rob Wilcox, the media spokesman for the commission, confirmed in an email today: "Three Commissioners were interviewed in general about the Commission's process in early November." But "ProPublica did not contact the Commission for comment on the specifics of their investigation following those initial conversations," he said.
That's pretty shoddy journalism from ProPublica, and casts further doubt not only on the conclusions reached in their story but also their basic credibility as a news outlet.
One of the authors of the story, Olga Pierce, took to Twitter to respond to David Atkins' post at Hullabaloo. Pierce dodged the substantive issues raised by Atkins and by others who have questioned her article to make what was essentially a non sequitur:
@DavidOAtkins I greatly respect your opinion, but we didn't say anything in our story about the California state democratic party.
So? If she was hinting at the DCCC, it still doesn't make any difference. The criticisms we're making weren't about the California Democratic Party or about Democrats more broadly. No, we are challenging her "correlation equals causation" reasoning that ignored the evidence showing why the new district lines were a reasonable outcome and how there's no evidence to indicate any of the organizing efforts actually impacted the final maps.
Indeed, if the DCCC was trying to influence the outcome (and there's nothing wrong with doing so) they did not exactly succeed. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman are drawn into a district together, as were Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza (who chose to retire, costing Democrats a representative in the crucial Central Valley). So too were Janice Hahn and Laura Richardson. Lois Capps' seat became much less safe and she will face a stiff challenge from Abel Maldonado next year.
Neither Pierce nor ProPublica have yet seen fit to offer any other responses to the mounting criticism their article is facing. Instead they appear content to let their reputations erode in the hopes that at least they made California Republicans happy.
Finally, I got an email from Dave Meyer of the Rose Institute who was upset at my post yesterday. In that post I quoted California Democratic Party chair John Burton who called the Rose Institute "Republican funded." Meyer said "the Rose Institute takes non-partisanship extremely seriously. We receive no support or funding of any kind from any political party." Of course, that wasn't exactly what Burton charged - he was saying Republican donors back the Rose Institute and claimed Rose has "Republican ties," which wasn't the same as Meyer's denial. Additionally, the Rose Institute lost the contract to advise the redistricting commission earlier this year in part due to failure to disclose information, including their donors, that the commission required.
Still, I've included Meyer's comments above so you can decide who's right and who's not. That's more than can be said for ProPublica and Olga Pierce.
ProPublica's argument is basically this: California Democrats organized to try and influence the Citizens Redistricting Commission to produce outcomes favorable to Democrats. Ultimately, the Commission produced outcomes favorable to Democrats. Therefore, California Democrats successfully manipulated the commission to produce that result:
As part of a national look at redistricting, ProPublica reconstructed the Democrats' stealth success in California, drawing on internal memos, emails, interviews with participants and map analysis. What emerges is a portrait of skilled political professionals armed with modern mapping software and detailed voter information who managed to replicate the results of the smoked-filled rooms of old.
The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state's voters. The intent of the citizens' commission was to directly link a lawmaker's political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica's review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.
This is, as Burton and I both said, complete bullshit.
First, ProPublica seemed to not notice that pretty much everybody in California organized to try and influence the commission. That includes Republicans, Democrats, unions, businesses, progressives, teabaggers, MALDEF, Asian American voting rights activists, white supremacists, and so on. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. That's how democracy works, and the commission was mandated to take public testimony.
Second, ProPublica did not bother to actually to look at California's demographics or voter choices. They claim that the new maps did not reflect the will of the people. One reason they say this is that supposedly population growth benefited Republicans:
"Very little of this is due to demographic shifts," said Professor Doug Johnson at the Rose Institute in Los Angeles. Republican areas actually had higher growth than Democratic ones. "By the numbers, Republicans should have held at least the same number of seats, but they lost."
We'll come back to the Rose Institute in a moment. But this claim itself is absurd on its face. Most of that population growth came from Latinos - who, as anyone familiar with California politics knows, have little love for Republicans. The reason is obvious: the California GOP is a white man's party that despises Latinos. So why on earth should Republicans benefit from Latino population growth?
In fact, the notion floated by the Rose Institute that certain parties have a claim on districts is exactly what the commission was intended to challenge.
Of course, the core assumption that California Republicans deserved any new seats is challenged by their collapse in the November 2010 elections. While Republicans across the country were having a banner night, California Republicans lost every single statewide election (including losing the governor's race by 13 points despite outspending the Democrats nearly 10 to 1). They also failed to pick up a single seat in either the legislature or Congress, losing one Assembly seat. California voters made explicitly clear in November 2010 that they do not like Republicans. That doesn't appear to have actually influenced the commission's deliberations, but it does mean the claim that Republicans had any reasonable expectation of gains is ridiculous.
And as it turns out, the Rose Institute is not a neutral observer, even though they were treated as one by ProPublica. John Burton and the CDP pointed out in their press release about the article that the Rose Institute is Republican-funded and had a score to settle with the commission:
Sadly, Pro Publica chose to recycle talking points from the Republican-funded Rose Institute without checking with the Democratic Party. The Rose Institute, which was knocked out of the redistricting process earlier this year because of its explicit ties to the Republican Party, tried to make these charges at beginning of the Commission's deliberations where they were clearly rejected. If the Rose Institute and the Republican Party believed the Democratic Party controlled the independent Commission, one would think they would have challenged all three redistricting plans in court, instead of just one.
Ouch. If I followed ProPublica's method of analysis, I would conclude that they were collaborating with the Rose Institute to produce an article smearing the commission - which is essentially the charge they've leveled at Democrats and the commission.
Instead I'll continue pointing out other absurdities in their article. They claim that the fact that Jerry McNerney and Judy Chu got favorable districts proves Dems gamed the system. But tell that to Dennis Cardoza, drawn into a Valley district with Jim Costa. Tell that to Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, drawn into a battle-to-the-death in west LA. Tell that to Janice Hahn, backed by the party establishment only to be drawn into a south bay district with Laura Richardson.
Even Bob Mulholland managed to say something useful about this, pointing out that the way the commission was set up made it impervious to bias:
Democratic Party campaign advisor Bob Mulholland, in an email, said it would have been "easier to influence North Korea" than the redistricting commission, which was made up of three Republicans, three Democrats and two decline to state voters chosen through a lengthy vetting and lottery process.
ProPublica also took issue with the fact that the commission ignored voter registration when drawing the lines. But wasn't that part of the entire point of the commission?
John Myers has an interesting take on the report that is half right and half wrong in its conclusions. First, what he got right:
Finally, an observation about a mindset that seems to exist not only with ProPublica's national reporting team but others who have watched or participated in the redistricting commission's work. And that is that California voters created a "nonpartisan process" for drawing political districts. However, neither Prop 11 nor Prop 20 ever specifically promised a "nonpartisan" commission -- that is, one made up of members and opinions with no formal political allegiances. Instead, what the two initiatives promised was a commission "independent" from elected officials and the tendency to gerrymander.
That's a key distinction. 75% of California voters have chosen to identify with a political party. Most of the remainder have chosen to identify with no party at all, choosing "Decline to State" as their option - though as we know, most of these DTS voters wind up voting Democratic anyway. In any case, with 3 out of 4 Californians openly embracing a partisan identity, it makes sense that they did NOT want a "nonpartisan" commission since the electorate itself is willingly partisan.
No, the primary selling point of the commission was that elected officials could not control it. The ads and arguments for it played on public distrust of politicians, not of political parties.
Myers should know that, which is why his final paragraph is so odd:
And yet time and again through the process, some observers criticized Democrats on the panel for acting like -- well, Democrats -- and Republicans for acting like -- well, Republicans. (The criticisms were much more numerous, it should be noted, against the commission's Dems.) Four other members of the commission were unaffiliated with either party, but often had to make decisions that favored one partisan mindset or the other. If the public truly expected an apolitical redistricting process, then they were set up for disappointment from the very start.
But they did NOT expect an "apolitical" redistricting process. Voters are not idiots. They know there is no such thing as "apolitical." They liked the commission because it was designed to limit the influence of elected officials, and it quite clearly did so. Finally, given that Californians have so strongly endorsed Democrats on Election Day, it is hard to believe that the outcome of the commission was anything close to a disappointment.
ProPublica's article relies on flimsy evidence and assumptions that fly in the face of common sense. Anyone who knows anything about California politics could easily see the flaws here.
Democrats didn't get favorable maps because they organized for it. They got favorable maps because California favors Democrats and has clearly rejected the Republicans. The California GOP is a dying party, increasingly being left behind as state politics realigns toward a system where progressives and corporate-friendly politicians are the two dominant forces, with Republicans on the fringe.
ProPublica knew nothing about California's demography or politics, and produced a ridiculous article either out of gullibility or conspiracy. In the end it doesn't matter which one it was. Their article should be laughed out of the room and ProPublica shouldn't be taken seriously again, at least not until they retract that article.
California Governor Jerry Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on December 19 reaffirmed their "strong mutual resolve" to moving forward with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal, in spite of strong opposition by Delta advocates.
They also "reinforced their joint commitment to effective action to achieve the dual goals of a healthy San Francisco Bay Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply for California," the same dual goals that doomed the CalFed program to failure.
Brown and Salazar announced several minor changes that they claimed will "ensure a fair, open and transparent process" and "a full opportunity for input by all interested parties" in the development of a plan to address the future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. These changes included revisions to the draft BDCP Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that they contend are "responsive to the comments received by a wide range of water stakeholders in recent weeks.
"It is clear that our Delta ecosystem needs repair and restoration," said Governor Brown. "We shouldn't wait for a natural disaster to force our hand. This agreement takes us in the right direction to protect California's water supply."
"Successfully developing a science-based Bay Delta Conservation Plan holds the promise of breaking from the unsustainable status quo and being a game-changer for California," said Secretary Salazar. "That is why the Obama administration is joining with Governor Brown and recommitting funding and technical assistance to support what could become the largest restoration project in history." (http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Governor-Brown-and-Secretary-Salazar-Reaffirm-Commitment-to-Bay-Delta-Conservation-Plan.cfm)
However, Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) wasn't impressed with the Brown and Obama administration claims that they were going to "ensure a fair, open and transparent process" under the BDCP.
"I am disappointed and upset that the Department of the Interior has decided to move forward with this Memorandum of Agreement," said McNerney. "Despite a few changes, the MOA remains deeply flawed and is an affront to the people of the Delta communities."
"From its inception, the Bay Delta Plan has been crafted by, and for, water exporters from Southern California. They have used their economic power to influence the state and federal governments, and the Delta communities will suffer as a result," said McNerney.
"Make no mistake, the Delta communities and I will never accept a Bay Delta Plan that includes a peripheral canal that was conceived without our input. I will continue to stand with the families, farmers, and small business owners of the San Joaquin Delta whose livelihoods would be destroyed by a peripheral canal," emphasized McNerney.
Incredibly, Brown and Salazar issued their statement claiming that they would ensure "a fair, open and transparent process" just days after I revealed that an employee of the Westlands Water District is currently working "on loan" for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan!
Documents obtained by this reporter under the California Public Records Act reveal that Susan Ramos, Deputy General Manager of the Westlands Water District, was hired in an inter-jurisdictional personal exchange agreement between the Department of Water Resources and Westlands Water District from November 15, 2009 through December 31, 2010. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/14/westlands-official-working-for-dwr-on-delta-plan)
The contract was extended to run through December 31, 2011 and again to continue through December 31, 2012. The maximum amount to be paid in the agreement for the entire period is listed as $652,180.54.
Ramos "will serve as a liaison between all relevant parties surrounding the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP) and provide technical and strategic assistance to DWR, in cooperation with all appropriate Federal and State Water Contractors, on a variety of matters based on her experience working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, federal contractors and others," according to the agreement (Contract 4600008672).
The justification for contracting out Ramos, rather than employing a current state employee in the position, was provided in the contract signed by Richard Sanchez, the Chief of the DWR's Division of Engineering, on September 14, 2011.
"Ms. Ramos possesses specialized knowledge and has experience working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and federal contractors. The technical and strategic assistance that will be provided by the Contractor cannot be performed satisfactorily by State civil service employees," the contract stated.
If Brown and Salazar are so committed to ensuring "a fair, open and transparent" BDCP process, why did it require a California Public Records Act Request to find out that Westlands' Deputy Manager was surreptitiously inserted into the Department of Water Resources to guide writing the permit that would give more of the public's water to Westlands?
The news of Ramos' service on loan from Westlands followed the disturbing disclosure that the California Department of Water Resources hired Laura King Moon, the Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, to assist in the completion of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/10/25/state-hires-water-contractor-rep-to-help-oversee-bay-delta-plan/)
Delta residents, fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists, family farmers and environmental justice advocates are opposed to the peripheral canal because it would result in the export of more northern California water to corporate agribusiness and southern California. The canal's construction would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled species.
