The lack of support by Californians for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's water bond spurred the Legislature last week to delay the vote for this measure from this November ballot to November 2012. This is a great victory for all of those opposed to the construction of the peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The bond funded the infrastructure needed to build the peripheral canal and new dams. Due to overwhelming opposition to the bond by fishing groups, environmentalists, Indian Tribes, labor unions, family farmers and Delta residents, the Governor will leave office without setting in place the infrastructure for the canal that he has so relentlessly campaigned for over the past three years.
"With the Legislature's vote to delay the Water Bond until the 2012 ballot, it is clear that both the contents and price are unpopular with voters," according to a news release from the No on 18 Campaign. "Now members from both houses, across party lines, have seized the opportunity to start the discussions necessary to craft a proposal that will truly ensure California has a secure, safe and reliable water supply for all Californians and our fragile environment."
A bi-partisan coalition of legislators worked hard to prevent AB 1265 from passing, knowing that the water bond "would not get better with time," according to the No on 18 Campaign. Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who led the charge in the Assembly to pass last year's water package, was a vocal opponent of now delaying the bond.
Legislators of both parties, including the entire Delta delegation of Democrats Mariko Yamada and Joan Buchanan and Republican Bill Berryhill, joined Huffman in the Assembly. Twenty-two assembly members stood firm with the many environmental, fishing, tribal, labor and consumer groups opposing AB 1265.
In the Senate, Senator Lois Wolk of Davis, another Delta legislator, rallied the Democrats who had opposed the bond last year. Senators Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Para, Leno and Yee joined with Republican George Runner in opposing AB 1265.
The No on Proposition 18 legislative co-chairs, Senator Lois Wolk (D) and Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R), portrayed the delay as a victory and vowed to defeat the bond two years from now.
"While we may have (narrowly) lost the fight to keep the bond on this ballot, we must remember that they're moving it in the first place because of the hard work and dedication of everyone on this team," said Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R - Ceres). "This is a victory for us. As long as we use the next two years to continue to work together and educate people on this bond, I know we can defeat it just as soundly two years from now."
"I want to thank everyone for their efforts and I am grateful for the friendships I have forged in this endeavor. We took on some giants and won. We must build on this momentum and keep fighting," he stated.
"I welcome the action taken to remove the bond from the 2010 ballot, although simply postponing it to 2012 has done nothing to address my concerns or the concerns of the voters," said Senator Lois Wolk (D - Davis). "It is still bloated with unnecessary pork and still fails to address the most important water issue in the state, the unsustainable over-reliance on the Delta for our water supply.
This bond is out of touch with our fiscal situation, including a structural deficit projected for years to come. This bond still funds water taxis in Tahoe while we cut public transportation. It still funds watershed education centers while we lay off teachers It still funds billions of projects unrelated to our true water needs.
Voters didn't like it this year and I'm confident that the more they learn about it they'll like it even less two years from now. So, I consider this bond all but dead.
That is why I intend to get to work with other legislators and water policy advocates on a smart water financing plan that focuses on reducing our reliance on the Delta. A plan that is in touch with our times and recognizes our fiscal realities, not a lobbyist driven wish-list that saddles our children and grandchildren with more and more debt.
I look forward to working with the next Governor and a new Legislature on a responsible water financing plan for California."
The work by the broad coalition that organized against the bond and peripheral canal kept the Water Bond from being passed this year but it isn't over yet. The Governor and his collaborators will continue to push his schemes to build the canal and new dams through his Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process and the Delta Stewardship Council.
"It's clear voters do not want this poorly designed water bond, but they do want solutions," the No on Proposition 18 Campaign concluded. "We'll continue working to build support for cost effective water solutions that benefit all Californians. It's imperative that we keep up this momentum on this issue. Stay tuned for more information."
The peripheral canal, backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness, and southern California water agencies, is likely to lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whale populations. The canal is designed to facilitate the export of Delta water to corporate growers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and water privateers including Stewart Resnick, owner of the giant Paramount Farms in Kern County. The canal/tunnel would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time that California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
I applaud all of those Legislators who opposed the bill to delay the bond. Still, the fact that the bond has been delayed shows that the Governor and his collaborators knew that the water bond was headed to certain defeat in November, just like the peripheral canal initiative was crushed by the voters in 1982.
The Governor's certainty that the water bond would have been defeated had it gone before the voters is not the only major defeat for Schwarzenegger's "environmental" legacy in the past two weeks. The Legislature, faced with massive opposition to the confirmation of Don Benninghoven to the Fish and Game Commission because of his strong support of the Governor's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, failed to confirm the Republican Governor's appointee by the deadline of August 4.
The MLPA Initiative under Schwarzenegger, in a bizarre parody of marine "protection," has taken oil drilling, water pollution, corporate aquaculture, wave energy projects and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The Blue Ribbon Task Forces that design the so-called "marine protected areas" are dominated by oil industry, marina development, real estate and other corporate interests.
Opposition to the MLPA on the North Coast by Indian Tribes, environmentalists, fishermen, immigrant sea urchin industry workers and community leaders has spurred the creation of the largest political movement on the North Coast since the Redwood Summer of 1990.
On July 21, a prominent North Coast environmental leader called for the resignation of an oil lobbyist who serves as a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to implement Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.
Judith Vidaver, Chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition based in Mendocino County, asked for the resignation of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, in her public testimony several hours after over 300 Indian Tribal members and their allies peacefully took control of a BRTF meeting to protest the violation of sovereign Tribal gathering and fishing rights under the MLPA.
"OPC respectively and regrettably requests that Catherine Reheis-Boyd voluntarily step down from her position on the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)," said Vidaver. "Oil and water do not mix - as we are daily being reminded by the disaster spewing in the Gulf. Mrs. Reheis-Boyd's position as President of the Western States Petroleum Association and her lobbying efforts to expand offshore oil drilling off the coast of California are a patent conflict of interest for which she should recuse herself from the BRTF proceedings which are ostensibly meant to protect the marine environment."
"OPC does not believe Mrs. Reheis-Boyd can provide unbiased, objective and science-based recommendations regarding placement and sizes of MPAs-especially if she may be privy to confidential oil industry information regarding areas of the coast of interest to the oil/gas industry," stated Vidaver.
Vidaver said Mrs. Reheis-Boyd's recusal would also foster a "greater sense of trust" amongst the public-public trust being a commodity in short supply."
"If Mrs. Reheis-Boyd does not recuse herself, OPC will request a full conflict of interest investigation," affirmed Vidaver.
"The federal government is just now initiating the development of a National Ocean Policy," said Vidaver. "The MLPA process will be scrutinized as a model of how to proceed in the formulation of this policy. Therefore it is vital that the deficiencies of the MLPA be addressed and corrected. Removing the perception of a conflict of interest by one representing an ocean polluting industry would go a long way towards legitimatizing the MLPA process."
Besides serving on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Coast, Reheis-Boyd was chair of the South Coast task force and sat on the North Central Coast task force.
Vidaver also asked that the so-called "marine protected areas" designated by the task force include the banning of oil drilling, wave energy projects, water pollution and other industrial uses of the ocean.
"For over 25 years OPC, with our fisher and seaweed harvester allies, has protected our ocean from threats such as aquaculture projects, nuclear waste dumping, offshore oil development and recently, wave power plants," noted Vidaver. "We are requesting that final Marine Protected Area (MPA) designations under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative include language prohibiting industrial-scale commercial activities such as those cited above. Allowing such activities would not only threaten the very goals of the Marine Life Protection Act, but would also disrespect the incredible effort put forth by our community towards trying to implement this mandated program."
Meg Caldwell, a BRTF member, responded to Vidaver's request in defense of Reheis-Boyd.
"I am a died-in-the-wool environmentalist and I have worked with Reheis-Boyd on the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Not once has she demonstrated any bias for any industrial sector," she stated.
However, local environmentalists, fishermen and Tribal members were quick to point out that there is no way of knowing for sure if Reheis-Boyd has demonstrated any "bias" for the oil industry or other industrial sectors, since she may be privy to confidential oil industry information regarding areas of the coast of interest to the oil/gas industry. Many believe that Reheis-Boyd was appointed by Schwarzenegger to make sure that the marine protected areas don't interfere with current or planned oil industry operations.
Susan Burdick, a traditional Yurok Tribal gatherer, earlier in the day challenged the task force about its motives for denying Tribal members their right to gather and fish.
"What is your real purpose: to start drilling for oil off our coastline?" she asked. "Be honest with us!"
"We're not going to stop what we have doing for generations. We have young people here, old people here and we will march everywhere you go," Burdick affirmed.
In recent months, Catherine Reheis-Boyd has repeatedly called for new drilling off the California Coast. For example, in spite of the BP spill's environmental and economic devastation, she advocated for the development of the "huge reserves of petroleum" off California in her "Gulf Oil Spill Comments," published on the association's website, http://www.wspa.org.
"The tragic Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in California Governor Schwarzenegger's withdrawal of his support for limited offshore oil development near Santa Barbara," said Reheis-Boyd. "WSPA has not taken a position on specific offshore projects. But we have been vocal about our views that California businesses and consumers would benefit from development of the huge reserves of petroleum off the California coast, in both state and federal waters."
In fact, respected environmental leaders such as John Stephens-Lewallen, co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and Seaweed Rebellion on California's North Coast, say that the MLPA clears the path to new offshore oil drilling.
"By setting up these no-take marine reserves and kicking fishermen, Indians, seaweed harvesters and other ocean food providers off traditional areas of the ocean, the Schwarzenegger administration is paving the way for offshore oil drilling," said Stephens-Lewallen. "Twenty-three percent of the nation's offshore oil reserves are off the coast of California. The Point Arena Basin off Mendocino is on track now to be leased for drilling by the Minerals Management Service."
You just can't make up a scenario this wacky, bizarre and corrupt. Here we have Schwarzenegger's "marine guardian," Catherine Reheis-Boyd, and real estate, marina development and other corporate operatives on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force "protecting" the ocean by removing Tribal members, fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the strongest opponents of offshore oil drilling, from the water as she calls for new drilling off the California coast. What type of perverse marine "protection" is this?
The California Senate and Assembly on August 9 passed Assembly Bill 1265, a measure that would delay the controversial water bond, Proposition 18, until November 2012.
The $11.14 billion measure, coauthored by Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) and Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), will move next to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for his signature.
The water bond, a virtual festival of pork, funds the infrastructure to build an environmentally destructive and enormously expensive peripheral canal and new dams. The delay in the bond means that the massive campaign by fishermen, environmentalists, Delta farmers, California Indian Tribes and labor unions has succeeded in preventing Schwarzenegger from putting in place the infrastructure for the canal, estimated to cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion, before he leaves office.
"At the end of last year, the Legislature made history by approving the first major investment in our water infrastructure in almost half a century," claimed Cogdill, who authored the legislation initially authorizing the bond for voter approval. "Mindful of the current economic slowdown, I support the move to give voters more time to understand this critical investment and give the state's economy more time to rebound."
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), the only member on the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee representing a major portion of the primary zone of the Delta, voted "no" on AB 1265 in the committee and on the Assembly Floor.
"Proposition 18 should not be delayed, it should be repealed," said Assemblymember Yamada. "The same issues that we faced before - unrelated projects, excessive debt burden and minimal Delta representation in discussions - have not changed."
"AB 1265 delays implementation of a water infrastructure funding solution that was sold as being so urgent, passage could not wait a few months in order to have a more carefully crafted piece of legislation. Now the same majority who put this bond on the ballot wants to wait another two years, without any promise of revision," she explained.
She also voted no on AB 1260, "a precedent setting measure that ensures the legacy of the current governor without a clear purpose as to why."
Members of the No on Proposition 18 Coalition said they agreed with legislators who admitted that the $11.14 billion water bond is immensely unpopular with voters, but they did not expect support to improve by 2012.
"We heard a laundry list of reasons why the bond is bad for California during the legislative debate on AB 1265," said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "Yet the legislature voted to keep the measure afloat for another two years. The problems with the bond will only grow more glaring with time."
"Voters want the right solutions to California's water problems now, not the wrong solutions two years from now," stated Tina Andolina of the Planning and Conservation League. "The passage of A.B. 1265 just delays any progress on meaningful water solutions by keeping this disastrous bond on life support."
Voter disapproval of the bond has been strong since its razor-thin passage in November 2009 in during a special session called by Schwarzenegger. In a classic example of elitism and institutional racism, fishermen, Indian Tribes, Delta farmers, Delta legislators and environmental justice communities were completely excluded from the back room deals that led to the passage of the water policy/water bond package last year.
The opposition to the bond was so fierce that Governor Schwarzenegger, in an admission of defeat in his campaign to build a peripheral canal and new dams, appealed to the legislature to delay it to the 2012 ballot.
Andolina said that many liberal and progressive voters opposed the bond's focus on dam construction while conservation, drinking water improvements, and other critical projects went under-funded. Many conservatives opposed the bond due to its fiscal impact - an estimated $22 billion over 30 years.
"The bond's $22 billion price tag will still be $22 billion in two years," Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club emphasized. "Meanwhile, we have billions of dollars for water projects that have been approved by voters but are still unspent. Voters know that it's unfair for special interests to be coming to the legislature for more money out of taxpayers' pockets."
"Now or two years from now - it doesn't matter," summed up Jennifer Clary of Clean Water Action. "The bond won't be supported by voters because it is the wrong approach."
Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe, was disappointed by the Legislature's refusal to repeal the bond at a time that California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"We're looking at a massive deficit in the state, with services being cut left and right, and the legislators are still pushing this massive log up a road that leads nowhere," said Franco. "They're blocking all traffic to all of the good things that they could be doing, such as promoting water use efficiency programs and making sure that we have sufficient water in the rivers for the salmon and other fish that we are trying to bring back. We see all these programs going away to keep feeding a big pig that is sucking all of the energy from everything."
Franco noted that he was very happy to see that Assembly Member Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) spoke out in opposition to AB 1265.
Agribusiness interests used the delay in the bond as a chance to promote the postponed measure, touting the co-equal goals of water supply and ecoystem "restoration" that are enshrined in the bond.
"California's water future is dependent on fixing an aging infrastructure that will provide a reliable supply of water to farmers and 25 million Californians while restoring the environmental health of the Delta," said Mike Wade, executive director of the Farm Water Coalition. "California's water future is dependent on fixing an aging infrastructure that will provide a reliable supply of water to farmers and 25 million Californians while restoring the environmental health of the Delta."
It's disappointing news that the bond was delayed for two years, rather than being repealed. However, the move by corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans to delay the bond demonstrates how unpopular the bond is with all Californians. Schwarzenegger and his collaborators in the Legislature were so afraid of the bond going down in flames this November that they had to launch a last minute campaign to postpone the vote.
This defeat for the Governor's plans to build his peripheral canal as a monument to his enornous ego and "manhood" was only possible because of the huge coalition of fishing groups, California Indian Tribes, Delta farmers, environmental organizations, labor unions and consumer groups that united to stop the bond.
I applaud the Legislators on both sides of the political aisle who opposed AB 1265. These include Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Assembly Members Jared Huffman (D- San Rafael), Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills), Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), Bill Berryhill (R-Modesto) and Chuck Devore (R-Irvine).
Opponents of Proposition 18 include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.
Your Call Needed TONIGHT To Urge Repeal Of The Water Bond - Call Now
This week, possibly tonight, the California Legislature will likely vote on AB 1265, a bill to delay a public vote on Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, until 2012. The water bond is currently on the November 2010 ballot, but polls show that the budget-busting measure may fail. So this afternoon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders are proposing AB 1265 to move the vote to the next general election in 2012. The commitee is meeting as we send this email so please do call as soon as you can!
Friends of the River opposes the water bond because part of the measure would fund expensive and largely ineffective new and enlarged dams. Unlike previous water bonds, the taxpayers will be billed for costly and destructive dams, not those who directly receive and benefit from what little new water may be produced by the dams. In addition, the $11 billion bond will ultimately cost taxpayers $22 billion, increasing California's debt and requiring additional budget cuts in public education, safety, and health services.
Struggling with a $19 billion state deficit and political gridlock over the state budget, the Governor and legislative leaders have no choice but to try to delay a bond vote because the flawed measure appears doomed if it appears on the November ballot. Newspapers across the state have editorialized against the water bond, demanding that the Legislature repeal the measure and start over.
Sample text for call:
"Hi my name is _____________ and I'm from the city of _____________. I'm calling because I want [Senator/Assemblymember ________ ] to vote NO on A.B. 1265. The water bond is bad for the budget and for California's water, now or in 2012. We should scrap the bond and start over, not postpone it! Please vote no on A.B. 1265."
Click here to call your Assemblymember and State Senator TODAY! (this will take you to the action page sponsored by Food and Water Watch, with who we are working to defeat the bond).
The No on Proposition 18 campaign on Friday announced its opposition to A.B. 1265, a Schwarzenegger administration backed bill to postpone the $11.14 billion pork-filled water bond from this November's ballot to 2012. The Legislature could vote on postponement on Monday, August 9.
The announcement was made the day after Food & Watch Watch released a ground-breaking report revealing who's really behind the water bond.
The bill, pushed by agribusiness interests, southern water California agencies, oil companies and corporate water privatizers, is sponsored by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) and Asssemblyman Kevin Jeffries (R-Lake Elsinore).
"A vote for A.B. 1265 is a vote for the water bond," said Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club California. "Legislators should do what's right for California and vote down this attempt to delay the measure - not try to hoodwink voters by postponing it for two years."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed postponing the measure to 2012 when polling numbers showed low support for the bond, which would cost California taxpayers $22 billion over 30 years to fund projects such as the construction of new dams.
"After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget -- solving the deficit, reforming out of control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system," Schwarzenegger proclaimed in a June statement. "It's critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California's economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations."
Proposition 18 includes $3 billion for new dams, the most expensive, environmentally destructive, and least productive sources of new water supply, according to Clean Water Action. This bond allows public funds to pay up to 50% of the project cost, with no repayment.
The bond also provides $1.5 billion in funding that will ultimately support a peripheral canal to divert Sacramento water around the Delta and feed the giant federal and state pumps in the South Delta. Voters rejected the canal in 1982 because of its ability to dramatically increase water exports from the Delta; this is a back-door mechanism to reverse that decision.
"Legislators are seeing the writing on the wall," said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "This bond is unpopular because it is bad policy. It's bad for the Delta and bad for our communities. We need solutions that work for all Californians, not that continue the failed policies of the past."
"Voters know that the bond is bad for California," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director with the consumer group Food & Water Watch. "The main beneficiaries of the bond would be special interests such as developers and agribusiness, not most Californians."
Report Exposes Who's Behind the Water Bond
The legislature's decision on whether to postpone, scrap or leave untouched this controversial measure "is actually a referendum on who should control water in California," according to Starmer. Legislators have an opportunity to weigh in in favor of the public by voting to permanently remove the bond from the ballot.
"The battle over the bond has been framed in many circles as a battle between farmers and fishermen, or between Northern and Southern California," said Starmer. "But a report released by Food & Water Watch yesterday suggests that the real battle is between private and public interests, with private interests across the state set to gain measurably if the bond is passed."
The real battle is between the people, including fishermen, family farmers, farmworkers, California Indian Tribes, conservationists and environmental justice communities, and the giant corporations that seek to profit off California's public trust water resources. It also is a battle between the overwhelming majority of California's environmental groups and a few corrupt corporate environmental NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy.
Bond beneficiaries would include the Obayashi Corporation, a large Japanese contractor working on the San Vicente Dam in San Diego, and Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Pacificorp would have costs associated with the removal of its dams on the Klamath River offset by bond funds. Another beneficiary would be Cadiz, Inc., which could access bond money for a groundwater bank in the Mojave Desert, where it would store Colorado River water and resell it at a profit to Southern California communities.
"That puts the bond's cheery title, the 'Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010,' in a whole new (and suspect) light," said Starmer. "And it makes the fact that the bond would be paid for out of the same pot that funds essential public services like education, public safety, and health care seem positively reprehensible."
"These interests stand to benefit from the bond because the main emphasis of the package is the construction of new dams," she emphasized. "Entities like the Friant Water Users Authority, representing east San Joaquin Valley agribusinesses, and the powerful Westlands Water District could see new dams constructed in their regions using bond funds."
She noted that although the cost of building the dams would fall on taxpayers across the state, most of the water would flow to these powerful Valley interests. That water could then be resold to developers at a significant profit. The dams themselves could also be owned and operated by private companies, even though their construction was financed with public money.
Starmer said it shouldn't be surprising that over half of the contributions to pro-bond PAC have come from the construction industry, agribusiness, and developers. An additional 20 percent came from Governor Schwarzenegger's "California Dream Team," which raises money to support the Governor's agenda to privatize California's public trust resources.
For the 2009-2010 election cycle, Dream Team contributors included the energy industry ($325,000 from Occidental Petroleum Company), agribusiness ($35,000 from billionaire Steward Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms), and developers ($150,000 from Henry Segerstrom of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons).
The remaining 29 percent of contributions to the pro-bond PAC came from land conservancies, which could receive significant funding for land purchases and related projects in the bond. "Unfortunately, the way the bond is written forces dams to be funded first, arguably offsetting any environmental benefits that might be associated with these projects," Starmer noted.
"And who would lose if the bond passes?" said Starner. "Our communities and our wallets. Only 2 percent of bond funding is guaranteed for conservation programs, the most cost-effective and urban-friendly way to improve water supply reliability. Only one percent of funding is guaranteed to reach disadvantaged communities that struggle with polluted drinking water and other problems."
With interest, the bond would shoulder California taxpayers with an additional $22 billion in debt, to be paid off over 30 years at a cost of some $800 million per year, according to Starmer. That's enough to pay for 13,000 teachers' salaries or four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in the state.
"The findings of this new report are clear," she concluded. "The bond is a continuation of failed policies that have funneled California's public water to private interests that overuse, pollute, and profit from it. Our legislators should take advantage of the scuffle over the bond to stop the measure in its tracks and remove it from the ballot permanently. We can, and must, do better."
Opponents of Proposition 18 include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.
The water bond and campaign to build a peripheral canal and new dams occurs in the larger context of Schwarzenegger's drive to privatize public trust resources and resource management in California, including the Governor's corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.
In a parody of real marine protection, the MLPA Initiative has taken water pollution, oil drilling, wave energy projects, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces are overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corrupt corporate interests that seek to profit from the privatization of the ocean. The MLPA has violated the sovereign rights of California Indian Tribes in an egregious display of institutional racism and cultural genocide.
Opposition to the MLPA has mushroomed into a broad based human rights movement including over 50 Indian Nations, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, immigrant workers, divers, environmentalists and coastal communities. Likewise, the opposition to the water bond and peripheral canal has expanded into a huge, diverse coalition including fishermen, environmentalists, family farmers, environmental justice communities, tribes and the vast majority of Californians.
I've written you all before about Proposition 18, the disastrous $11 billion water bond that allows for more dam development and paves the way for a peripheral canal in the California Delta. As you all know by now, the Governor has asked the legislature to postpone the bond to the 2012 ballot, when he thinks it will have a better chance of passing.
The big news is that the legislature will vote on postponement this coming Monday. Can you make a call personally, or generate 10 calls from your members before Monday morning to your local legislators asking them to vote NO on postponement?
The bill number is AB 1265. We are asking for a no vote. Delaying the bond for two years will keep the legislature from developing better water policies that work for all Californians. We should scrap the bond completely, not delay it -- but if they won't scrap it, at least let voters have a say this November. We're confident it would be voted down, and then we can move on to working on better alternatives.
Food & Water Watch has put together an action alert page where people can look up their legislators' numbers and call them, and also send an email. Please circulate this with your lists if you can and ask them to make a call: http://action.foodandwaterwatc...
Thanks to many of the groups on this listserv, we're now several dozen organizations strong against the bond. If each of your groups can generate even 10 calls, it would be a huge help -- and more would be great too. This will be a close vote and we don't have a lot of time. Thanks for your help!
Please see these video as well encouraging 2 key legislators to vote NO on AB 1265.
P.S. - check out our new report, "Who's Behind the Bond? How Proposition 18 Benefits Private Interests over the Public Good" at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.o...
________________________________
Marie Logan
Researcher and Policy Analyst, Fish Program
Food & Water Watch
25 Stillman Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 293-9919
(415) 293-9920 - Fax
mlogan@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwaterwatch.org
The No on Proposition 18 campaign on Friday announced its opposition to A.B. 1265, a Schwarzenegger administration backed bill to postpone the $11.14 billion pork-filled water bond from this November's ballot to 2012. The Legislature will vote on postponement on Monday, August 9.
The announcement was made the day after Food & Watch Watch released a ground-breaking report revealing who's really behind the water bond.
The bill, pushed by agribusiness interests, southern water California agencies, oil companies and corporate water privatizers, is sponsored by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) and Asssemblyman Kevin Jeffries (R-Lake Elsinore).
"A vote for A.B. 1265 is a vote for the water bond," said Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club California. "Legislators should do what's right for California and vote down this attempt to delay the measure - not try to hoodwink voters by postponing it for two years."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed postponing the measure to 2012 when polling numbers showed low support for the bond, which would cost California taxpayers $22 billion over 30 years to fund projects such as the construction of new dams.
"After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget -- solving the deficit, reforming out of control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system," Schwarzenegger proclaimed in a June statement. "It's critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California's economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations."
Proposition 18 includes $3 billion for new dams, the most expensive, environmentally destructive, and least productive sources of new water supply, according to Clean Water Action. This bond allows public funds to pay up to 50% of the project cost, with no repayment.
The bond also provides $1.5 billion in funding that will ultimately support a peripheral canal to divert Sacramento water around the Delta and feed the giant federal and state pumps in the South Delta. Voters rejected the canal in 1982 because of its ability to dramatically increase water exports from the Delta; this is a back-door mechanism to reverse that decision.
"Legislators are seeing the writing on the wall," said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "This bond is unpopular because it is bad policy. It's bad for the Delta and bad for our communities. We need solutions that work for all Californians, not that continue the failed policies of the past."
"Voters know that the bond is bad for California," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director with the consumer group Food & Water Watch. "The main beneficiaries of the bond would be special interests such as developers and agribusiness, not most Californians."
Report Exposes Who's Behind the Water Bond
The legislature's decision on whether to postpone, scrap or leave untouched this controversial measure "is actually a referendum on who should control water in California," according to Starmer. Legislators have an opportunity to weigh in in favor of the public by voting to permanently remove the bond from the ballot.
"The battle over the bond has been framed in many circles as a battle between farmers and fishermen, or between Northern and Southern California," said Starmer. "But a report released by Food & Water Watch yesterday suggests that the real battle is between private and public interests, with private interests across the state set to gain measurably if the bond is passed."
The real battle is between the people, including fishermen, family farmers, farmworkers, California Indian Tribes, conservationists and environmental justice communities, and the giant corporations that seek to profit off California's public trust water resources. It also is a battle between the overwhelming majority of California's environmental groups and a few corrupt corporate environmental NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy.
Bond beneficiaries would include the Obayashi Corporation, a large Japanese contractor working on the San Vicente Dam in San Diego, and Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Pacificorp would have costs associated with the removal of its dams on the Klamath River offset by bond funds. Another beneficiary would be Cadiz, Inc., which could access bond money for a groundwater bank in the Mojave Desert, where it would store Colorado River water and resell it at a profit to Southern California communities.
"That puts the bond's cheery title, the 'Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010,' in a whole new (and suspect) light," said Starmer. "And it makes the fact that the bond would be paid for out of the same pot that funds essential public services like education, public safety, and health care seem positively reprehensible."
"These interests stand to benefit from the bond because the main emphasis of the package is the construction of new dams," she emphasized. "Entities like the Friant Water Users Authority, representing east San Joaquin Valley agribusinesses, and the powerful Westlands Water District could see new dams constructed in their regions using bond funds."
She noted that although the cost of building the dams would fall on taxpayers across the state, most of the water would flow to these powerful Valley interests. That water could then be resold to developers at a significant profit. The dams themselves could also be owned and operated by private companies, even though their construction was financed with public money.
Starmer said it shouldn't be surprising that over half of the contributions to pro-bond PAC have come from the construction industry, agribusiness, and developers. An additional 20 percent came from Governor Schwarzenegger's "California Dream Team," which raises money to support the Governor's agenda to privatize California's public trust resources.
For the 2009-2010 election cycle, Dream Team contributors included the energy industry ($325,000 from Occidental Petroleum Company), agribusiness ($35,000 from billionaire Steward Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms), and developers ($150,000 from Henry Segerstrom of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons).
The remaining 29 percent of contributions to the pro-bond PAC came from land conservancies, which could receive significant funding for land purchases and related projects in the bond. "Unfortunately, the way the bond is written forces dams to be funded first, arguably offsetting any environmental benefits that might be associated with these projects," Starmer noted.
"And who would lose if the bond passes?" said Starner. "Our communities and our wallets. Only 2 percent of bond funding is guaranteed for conservation programs, the most cost-effective and urban-friendly way to improve water supply reliability. Only one percent of funding is guaranteed to reach disadvantaged communities that struggle with polluted drinking water and other problems."
With interest, the bond would shoulder California taxpayers with an additional $22 billion in debt, to be paid off over 30 years at a cost of some $800 million per year, according to Starmer. That's enough to pay for 13,000 teachers' salaries or four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in the state.
"The findings of this new report are clear," she concluded. "The bond is a continuation of failed policies that have funneled California's public water to private interests that overuse, pollute, and profit from it. Our legislators should take advantage of the scuffle over the bond to stop the measure in its tracks and remove it from the ballot permanently. We can, and must, do better."
Opponents of Proposition 18 include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.
The water bond and campaign to build a peripheral canal and new dams occurs in the larger context of Schwarzenegger's drive to privatize public trust resources and resource management in California, including the Governor's corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.
In a parody of real marine protection, the MLPA Initiative has taken water pollution, oil drilling, wave energy projects, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces are overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corrupt corporate interests that seek to profit from the privatization of the ocean. The MLPA has violated the sovereign rights of California Indian Tribes in an egregious display of institutional racism and cultural genocide.
Opposition to the MLPA has mushroomed into a broad based human rights movement including over 50 Indian Nations, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, immigrant workers, divers, environmentalists and coastal communities. Likewise, the opposition to the water bond and peripheral canal has expanded into a huge, diverse coalition including fishermen, environmentalists, family farmers, environmental justice communities, tribes and the vast majority of Californians.
Assembly Speaker John Pérez Is on the Wrong Side of History
By Dan Bacher
In a historic protest on July 21, over 300 members of California Indian Tribes and their allies peacefully took control of a Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg to protest the violation of indigenous gathering and fishing rights under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's controversial MLPA Initiative.
Over 60 immigrant workers from the sea urchin industry, many from indigenous communities in central and southern Mexico that were forced to come to the U.S. after they were driven off their land under NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), marched side by side with members of the Yurok, Tolowa, Cahto, Kashia Pomo, Karuk, Hoopa Valley, Maidu, Hopi, Navajo and other tribes. Besides them were recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, seaweed harvesters, environmentalists and sea urchin divers and local political candidates.
Alongside tribal flags, participants hoisted banners with slogans including "Keep Away MLPA," "Native Conservation, Not Naive Conservation," "No MLPA," " MLPA=Big Oil," and "RLF - What Are You Funding." Many of the protesters wore blue shirts proclaiming, "M.L.P.A. Taking Tribal Rights Away."
I have been to hundreds of protests on a variety of water and environmental justice issues, but it was simply the most moving event of its kind that I've ever been to. I was touched by the solidarity shown by people from such diverse communities in opposition to a process that that they feel is not listening to them or their needs.
Opponents of the MLPA Initiative believe that Schwarzenegger appointed MLPA officials have railroaded California Indian Tribes and fishing communities on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast - and now are trying to do it on the North Coast, but they have faced massive resistance there.
The group peacefully took over the task force meeting in a great example of non-violent direct action. After rallying at Oak and Main Street, over 300 people walked a half-mile to the C.V. Star Community Center. Just before heading into the meeting, tribal community members standing twenty deep chanted, "No Way M.L.P.A.!" to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) members convened inside.
Tribal elders and immigrant workers then spoke on the impact of the MLPA process upon them. Some of the most powerful testimony came from Susan Burdick, Yurok Tribal gatherer, who slammed the Blue Ribbon Task Force members for violation of sovereign Tribal rights.
"We're not going to stop what we have doing for generations," said Burdick. "We have young people here, old people here and we will march everywhere you go."
"What is your real purpose: to start drilling for oil off our coastline?" she asked. "Be honest with us!"
Elizabeth, a worker in the sea urchin industry, told the panel how the MLPA threatened the livelihoods of immigrant workers. "By taking away our jobs by closing areas of coast, you are taking away the opportunity for our kids to go to college and make a better live for themselves," she stated.
Thomas O'Rourke, the chair of the Yurok Tribal Council, vowed that tribal members would be willing to go to jail to defend their rights.
"It is wise to listen to the people who managed these lands for thousands of years," he continued. "We believe in protecting species. We will continue to exercise our right to harvest seaweed and fish as we always have. You wlll have to take us to jail until you go broke and you fix this law."
"Our tribal rights are not negotiable," Dania Colegrove, Hoopa Valley Tribe member and a member of the Coastal Justice Coalition, told the task force. "Get used to it!"
Frankie Joe Myers, organizer for the Coastal Justice Coalition and a Yurok Tribal ceremonial leader, summed up the feelings of many when he said, "This is about more than a fouled-up process that attempts to prohibit tribes from doing something they have done sustainably for thousands of years. It is about respect, acknowledgement and recognition of indigenous peoples' rights!"
When I got back from the protest, I was shocked to hear that Assembly Speaker John Perez, in spite of the massive opposition to MLPA Process from diverse communities, had recently sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission strongly endorsing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track MLPA Initiative.
In his letter, Perez said he supports "the strongest possible network of marine protected areas based on science" along California's southern Coast.
That is simply not true, since the MLPA as implemented on the Central North Central, South and North Coasts of California has completely taken oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy projects, corporate aquaculture, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean off the table other than fishing and gathering.
"You have a historic opportunity to create a legacy for southern California's oceans and generations to come," stated Pérez. " Please adopt the protections most likely to provide lasting benefits for all Californians by choosing the strongest possible option of Marine Protected Areas in southern California."
However, the real "legacy" of the illegitimate process that John Pérez adamantly supports is the industrialization and privatization of California ocean and bay waters under an initiative privately funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. This process has violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, the California Public Records Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and other laws.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces, appointed by the worst Governor in California history to kick Tribal members, fishermen and seaweed harvesters of the water in fake "marine protected areas," are dominated by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corrupt corporate interests.
In fact, the "strongest possible option of Marine Protected Areas" that Perez gushes over was crafted under the leadership of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association and the chair of the South Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, who has called for new oil drilling off the California coast. What kind of "protection" is that?
Perez's increasingly friendly relationship with big oil companies is no secret. Pérez is the author of the "rigs to reef "legislation on behalf of the oil industry that saves them billions in the decommissioning of oil rigs off Southern California, so his strong support of oil industry supported "marine protected areas" that also insulate them from pesky environmental regulations should also come as no surprise.
In a post on the California Majority Report, Marcela Gutierrez, program manager of Wildcoast, spoke up for the MLPA and for Perez's record, stating, "Speaker John Pérez has a strong and consistent record showing his commitment to social and environmental justice."
"Suffice it to reference his work on AB 890, the law passed last fall to address chronic pollution (manganese) to the City of Maywood's water supply. Championing a solution to the oft-ignored problem that plagues Maywood's mostly working-class and immigrant community is hardly the hallmark of a 'corporate green-washer.'"
I roundly applaud Pérez's work on AB 890, legislation that I strongly support. However, that doesn't excuse Pérez from supporting the MLPA Initiative, a widely-criticized process that has united a diverse group of Indian Tribes, fishermen, immigrant workers, environmental justice advocates, conservationists, cities and coastal communities against it.
By supporting the MLPA Initiative, Pérez is on the wrong side of history. If he truly cares about environmental justice and his legacy, he should use his power to convene a legislative oversight hearing to investigate the conflicts of interest, total disregard for indigenous fishing and gathering rights, violation of numerous state and federal laws and greenwashing that have plagued the MLPA Initiative since Schwarzenegger privatized it in 2004. Further, he should call upon the Governor to immediately suspend the MLPA process until this hearing is conducted.
People who care about true ocean protection, rather than the fake "protection" provided under the MLPA, should oppose corporate greenwashing and institutional racism, whether it's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker John Pérez, or any other politician that is supporting it.
For more information about the Coastal Justice Coalition's battle against the MLPA's violation of indigeous rights, go to: http://www.klamathjustice.blog...
The environmental review process has begun for the South Coast Study Region Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) developed under Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers fast-track Marine Life Protection (MLPA) Initative, a privatized process overseen by an oil industry lobbyist who has praised the industry's "safety record" as the BP Deepwater Horizon oil gusher continues to devastate marine life and fishing communities in the Gulf of Mexico.
On June 29, the California Fish and Game Commission and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) together issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the controversial project that implements Schwarzenegger's war on the California coast, fishermen and coastal Indian Tribes.
This project initiates the scoping phase, during which interested members of the public are "invited to help identify the range of issues and type of information to be considered" in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that will be prepared in the coming months, according to a DFG news release.
There are currently five MPA proposals under consideration for the South Coast Study Region, which extends from Point Conception to the California border with Mexico, the DFG stated. The proposals were developed with input from a regional stakeholder group, a science advisory team and a Blue Ribbon Task Force consisting of marine experts.
The currently preferred proposal, the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA), was selected by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, the DFG announced. The IPA is a hybrid of the other proposals. The DEIR will also look at three alternative proposals and the no action alternative or the status quo (the current South Coast Study Region MPAs with no suggested changes).
Since only one public scoping meeting is scheduled for this "environmental review," it appears that the Schwarzenegger administration, the worst in California history for fish and the environment, is doing the bare minimum to comply with the requirements of CEQA while railroading so-called "marine protected areas" over coastal communities.
The announcement failed to note that this rigged process on the South Coast was overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate executives that Schwarzenegger appointed to the Blue Ribbon Task Force to protect their interests from being impinged on in the creation of new marine reserves. The initiative is funded by the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation, a private corporation headed by executive director Michael Eaton.
No single action demonstrated the illegitimacy of the MLPA fiasco more than when Schwarzenegger appointed Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, as the chair of the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast last year. In essence, Big Oil took control of so-called marine protection on the South Coast when Schwarzenegger chose the oil industrys head lobbyist to lead the process.
Reheis-Boyd now serves on the North Central Coast Task Force and served on the North Coast task force charged with implementation of the MLPA in one of the most overt examples of conflict of interest and corporate greenwashing in California history.
On June 22 in an op-ed on the Noozehawk website, Reheis-Boyd attempted to gloss over the public outrage over the BP Gulf Oil Gusher, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, by touting the very good safety record of the oil industry (http://www.noozhawk.com/opinions/article/062210_catherine_reheis-boyd).
We realize that recent events in the Gulf of Mexico have shaken public confidence in our industrys ability to produce oil safely, she said. However, our industrys safety record around the world, around the United States and here in California has been very good. More than 1 billion barrels of oil have been produced from offshore California in the 40 years since 1970 and fewer than 22 barrels per year on average have been spilled during that time.
Reheis-Boyd should try to tell the fishermen and residents of Gulf Coast communities now devastated by the daily carnage in the BP disaster about the very good safety record of the oil industry. Is Reheis Boyd, an oil industry superstar and Schwarzeneggers marine guardian, out of her mind?
Even worse, Reheis-Boyd recently affirmed her support for new offshore oil drilling off the California coast in spite of the BP spills ongoing ecocide, in her commentary, Gulf Oil Spill Comments, on the associations website, http://www.wspa.org.
The tragic Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in California Governor Schwarzeneggers withdrawal of his support for limited offshore oil development near Santa Barbara, said Reheis-Boyd. WSPA has not taken a position on specific offshore projects. But we have been vocal about our views that California businesses and consumers would benefit from development of the huge reserves of petroleum off the California coast, in both state and federal waters.
Conflicts of interest are nothing new to Reheis-Boyd. On February 24, 2009, Consumer Watchdog and Public Citizen filed a detailed request for public records of the California Energy Commission, seeking communications between its professional staff and a politically appointed member of the commissions board, James Boyd, whose spouse, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, was a state-registered lobbyist for the oil industry. The two groups previously sent a letter charging a conflict of interest by James Boyd.
"The relationship is clear conflict that should prevent Commissioner Boyd from leading a panel deciding the costs and benefits of fixing the unfair sale of 'hot gasoline' in California," said Judy Dugan of Consumer Watchdog. "Gasoline and diesel fuels are a glaring exception to the usual rules of retail fairness. Buying hot fuel is the same as a buying from a butcher with a hidden finger on the scale. The unfairness is doubled when the oil industry has an inside pipeline to a government body that should protect the consumer, not create loopholes for industry.
The silence by the "Big Green" environmental NGO's over Reheis-Boyd's overt conflict of interest in chairing the South Coast MLPA panel is appalling. Real environmentalists - unlike ardent supporters of the MLPA Initiative such as the representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Ocean Conservancy and the League of Conservation Voters - oppose big oil's inordinate influence on the corrupt MLPA Initiative.
The DFG press release also failed to mention that Schwarzenegger, under pressure from corporate polluters, has completely taken the protection out of the Marine Life Protection Act.
The MLPA, a landmark law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, was intended to not just ban fishing and seaweed harvesting in a network of marine protected areas, but to restrict or prohibit other human activities including coastal development and water pollution.
Coastal development, water pollution, and other human activities threaten the health of marine habitat and the biological diversity found in Californias ocean waters, the law states in Fish and Game Code Section 2851, section c.
Unfortunately, the Schwarzenegger administration has taken all other human uses and extractive activities other than fishing and seaweed harvesting off the table in the implementation of the MLPA process in order to implement his war on the oceans. The MLPA fiasco does nothing to stop water pollution, oil drilling, and wave energy projects or other activities from destroying fish and other marine life populations in Californias coastal waters. The law would do nothing to stop an ecological catastrophe like the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from devastating the California coast.
In fact, respected environmental leaders such as John Stephens-Lewallen, co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and Seaweed Rebellion on California's North Coast, say that the MLPA actually clears the path to new offshore oil drilling and the industrialization of the ocean.
By setting up these no-take marine reserves and kicking fishermen, Indians, seaweed harvesters and other ocean food providers off traditional areas of the ocean, the Schwarzenegger administration is paving the way for offshore oil drilling," said Stephens-Lewallen. "Twenty-three percent of the nations offshore oil reserves are off the coast of California. The Point Arena Basin off Mendocino is on track now to be leased for drilling by the Mineral Management Services.
The Southern California Blue Ribbon Task Force Integrated Preferred Alternative is devastating to fishing communities, but good for offshore oil drilling interests," he concluded.
The evisceration of the MLPA under Schwarzenegger should be no surprise. This is the same Governor that has presided over the collapse of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, striped bass, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whale populations. This is the same Governor that is constantly pushing for the construction of a peripheral canal, an environmentally destructive project that would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion.
Meanwhile, a broad coalition of California Indian Tribes, fishermen and environmentalists on the North Coast has united to defend tribal fishing and gathering rights from being stripped by MLPA officials. Members of local Tribes interrupted the MLPA Initiatives Science Advisory Team meeting in Eureka on July 1, demanding that they not be blamed for the decline in ocean fisheries.
We gathered and harvested the oceans bounty for thousand of years in a sustainable manner," said Frankie Joe Myers, a Yurok ceremonial leader and member of the Coastal Justice Coalition. "For California to blame Tribes for its reckless mis-management of our fisheries for the last century is simply appalling,
The MLPA is designed to protect ocean resources, but Tribal spokesmen say that its "an attempt by the Schwarzenegger Administration to greenwash his legacy."
Schwarzenegger's war against the California Coast, fishermen and coastal Indian Tribes must be stopped. We cannot allow the "Fish Terminator" to greenwash his abysmal environmental legacy.
The DEIR will be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and will analyze the five proposals. The NOP for the DEIR can be found on DFG's website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/reg...
Anyone wishing to provide written input on the scope of the analysis to be conducted and included in the DEIR for this project may send written comments by August 3, 2010 to:
MLPA SCSR DEIR
Department of Fish and Game
South Coast MLPA Office
4665 Lampson, Suite C
Los Alamitos, CA 92679
Comments may also be e-mailed to Thomas Napoli, Staff Environmental Scientist,at tnapoli [at] dfg.ca.gov.
Members of the public may also provide comments verbally at a public scoping meeting to be held in Long Beach on July 23. The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following location:
Administration Building of the Port of Long Beach
925 Harbor Way, Sixth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Proponents and opponents of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Water Bond, Proposition 18, had very different responses to the release of today's Field Poll survey that showed support for the controversial $11.14 billion water bond at 42 percent yes and 32 percent no.
Representatives of both campaigns said that the poll results demonstrate support for their respective positions on the water bond.
"The Field Poll released today shows that only 42% of California voters support Prop. 18 - the $11.1 billion water bond measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature," said Elanor Starmer of Food & Water Watch, a member of the No on Proposition 18 Committee. "Considering that the Field Poll did not test any of the actual language related to the true cost of the bond, this shows how little support there is for this bond and it highlights why supporters want to move this bond to 2012. But now or two years from now, the bond is a bad deal for California."
Starmer noted that Proposition 18 is still on the ballot for November and has yet to be either postponed or repealed. "While proponents of Proposition 18 have recommended postponement 'in light of the economy,' in essence admitting the negative impact of this water bond on the state's economic health, opponents, including editorial boards around the state, are urging its repeal," she said.
"We are confident that as we inform voters that this water bond will cost our state billions of dollars while not actually cleaning up our water supply or creating a new reliable and sustainable water system, they will reject this back-room deal," Starmer stated. "We will continue our campaign against Proposition 18 and our position is clear - this bond should not be postponed, it should be killed and the politicians should get back to work on real water solutions that help all Californians."
In contrast, Allan Zaremberg, president and CEO, California Chamber of Commerce, and co-chair of the coalition to pass the water bond, the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, claimed that the poll showed that Californians "support" the bond.
"The Field Poll is consistent with our internal polling and other public polls which have shown voters know we have a water crisis and support the bond as a solution to begin fixing our water system," said Zaremburg. "We continue to believe that in light of the poor economy and the difficult climate in which to raise funds, the water bond is best postponed until 2012."
"The water bond represents a truly comprehensive solution to fix the problems in the Delta, increase conservation and recycling, and expand the availability and quality of water supplies in every region of the state. That's why the measure has unprecedented support from business, labor, environmentalists, farmers, water agencies and many others," he stated.
Zareburg urged the legislature to postpone the bond vote until 2012, an action that Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Senator Dave Codgill support - and that the broad coalition of fishing, conservation, labor, tribal, labor, environmental justice and consumer groups united under the No on Proposition 18 Committee strongly oppose.
The bond will fund the infrastructure to build a peripheral canal and new dams, although it does not specifically fund the canal itself. Canal opponents fear that the construction of the peripheral canal, designed to facilitate massive water exports from the California Delta to subsidized corporate agribusiness and southern California, will lead to the extinction of collapsing populations of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other species. This will lead to further harm to economically devastated coastal and inland communities that depend on healthy salmon and other fish populations for their survival.
The peripheral canal/tunnel will cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time when California is in unprecedented economic crisis - and the budgets for teachers, game wardens, health care for children and state parks are being slashed.
Food and Water Watch has put together a funny new YouTube spot, http://nowaterbond.com/terminate, to highlight just how bad Prop 18, the $11 billion water bond, would be for California -- and why the legislature should scrap it, not postpone it to the 2012 ballot. For more information about the No on 18 campaign, go to: http://www.NoWaterBond.com.
Leonard Masten, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, today said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's announcement to postpone the California Water Bond (Proposition 18) from the 2010 ballot until 2012 is "indicative of the measure's weakness" and called on the Legislature to repeal the bond.
"It's a choreographed political move for Schwarzenegger and his special interest cronies to postpone the measure," according to a statement from Masten. "It buys them more time to falsely convince the public that they need this pork-filled bond to have water when they turn on their spigots."
Masten noted that the $11.14 billion bond, known as the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act, "is not really about drinking water."
"It's about building and privatizing taxpayer-built dams and moving the control of the California's water from the public trust to the private sector," he said. "The measure also paves the way for the construction of a peripheral canal that would more easily ship Northern California Water south."
Masten said he agreed with the statement by Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, that "The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn't make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective. Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand- it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die."
The Hoopa Valley Tribe is urging the California legislature to vote NO on postponing proposition 18 until 2012, according to Masten.
"We also urge legislators to go one step further and repeal the water bond entirely," said Masten. "It is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is a bad idea now and it will continue to be a bad idea in two years."
Masten said the Hoopa Valley Tribe has lived on the banks of the Trinity River since time immemorial, carrying on traditions that hold the water and fish in the highest regard. The damming and diversion of the Trinity and Klamath Rivers has devastated the Hoopa people's livelihood, salmon.
"The Trinity River is the only source of imported water to the Central Valley Project," explained Masten. "A drop of Trinity River water can travel all the way to Los Angeles, over 900 miles, via Central Valley Project plumbing. For decades, over 90 percent of the river was siphoned south to quench the mounting thirst of Southern California. We have fought ever since to restore the Trinity River, with great opposition from Southern California water districts."
The Hoopa Valley Tribe joins the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Inter-Tribal Water Commission, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and many diverse groups in opposing the water bond.
No on the Water Bond (Proposition 18) is sponsored by a coalition of consumer, education, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal, labor and social justice organizations opposed to the water bond. Proposition 18 opponents include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Teachers Association, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the River, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California and United Farmworkers Union.
Fearing the overwhelming opposition to his $11.14 water bond (Proposition 18), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today said he will work with the Legislature to postpone the controversial initiative until 2012 to "avoid jeopardizing its passage."
"After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget -- solving the deficit, reforming out of control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system," said Schwarzenegger. "It's critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California's economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations."
Schwarzenegger noted that there are precedents for legislators delaying bond measures that they placed on the ballot. For example, state leaders in May 2004 passed a bill to delay voting on the high-speed rail bond until November 2006. They later delayed the vote again until November 2008, when it eventually passed as Proposition 1A.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who collaborated with Schwarzenegger to pass the water policy-bond package through the special legislative session last November without the input of fishermen, Delta farmers, California Indian Tribes, environmental justice communities and the majority of environmental groups, supported the Governor's call to postpone the bond.
"Given the challenges currently facing California, I agree with the governor the water bond should be postponed,'' Steinberg said.
The coalition working for the passage Proposition 18, the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, also agreed that the bond should be delayed until 2012.
"The water bond represents a truly comprehensive solution to fix the problems in the Delta, increase conservation and recycling, and expand the availability and quality of water supplies in every region of the state," said Jim Earp, co-chair of the alliance.
"We're confident that when presented to voters, they will approve the measure," Earp claimed. "However, in light of the economic situation, we agree with the Governor and legislative leaders that the best timing for the water bond is in 2012. We support postponing the bond to 2012."
Opponents of the water bond had mixed reactions to the Governor's announcement, ranging from wanting to keep the bond on the ballot so it is roundly defeated to asking for the complete scrapping of the bond.
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said she hopes that the bond will stay on the ballot so Californians can decisively vote it down - just like they did with the peripheral canal in 1982.
"The Governor led the campaign to create this bond, so he owns it," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "We hope the Legislature continues to support the bond as they did in November. Let California voters decide - we are confident that the voters will vote against the bond."
"The Governor started this fight and we would like to finish it," she emphasized.
"We call on the Legislature to scrap this $11 billion bond and start over," said Jim Metropulos of Sierra Club California. "Even if it is delayed to a future ballot it will continue to be a bad back room deal, hatched in the dark of the night and loaded up with billions of dollars in pork projects to buy off votes."
"Even if it is delayed to a future ballot, it will still mean billions more dollars in debt for our State," Metropulos added. "Even if it is delayed to a future ballot, it will not address the key points needed to fix our water infrastructure or create sustainable water policy. Moving the initiative to another election will not lessen our opposition!"
"The legislature is considering pulling Proposition 18 off of the ballot because of a lack of support," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director with Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group that is part of the No on Proposition 18 coalition. "The problem is not the timing of the initiative, but the package itself. Californians will reject this massive bond regardless of when it appears on a ballot because it benefits corporate interests, not Californians."
The Governor's statement was preceded just a few hours by the No on the Water Bond's announcement that the California Teachers Association (CTA) State Council voted during its June meeting to oppose Proposition 18.
"We can't afford an $11 billion water bond," said David Sanchez, President of CTA. "With an already outrageous budget deficit, California can't afford an additional $1 billion every year, taking even more money away from our students, our schools and other essential services."
Proposition 18, the so-called Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, would end up costing the state of California $22 billion once the interest is factored in.
The $11.14 billion water bond is part and parcel of the campaign by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and corporate agribusiness to build a peripheral canal and new dams, according to bond opponents. The canal is likely to result in the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales populations. The peripheral canal/tunnel would cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time when California has slashed the budgets for teachers, game wardens, state parks and health care for children.
No on the Water Bond (Proposition 18) is sponsored by a coalition of consumer, education, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal, labor and social justice organizations opposed to the water bond.
Proposition 18 opponents include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the River, Inter-Tribal Water Commission, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union and Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
Supporters of Proposition 18 include the Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Western Growers Association and Westlands Water District. Two environmental NGOs, the Nature Conservancy California and Audubon California, back the bond.
Here is Virginia Strom-Martin's op ed in the Eureka Times-Standard celebrating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative and my response:
MLPA: A more holistic approach to protecting our ocean resources
Virginia Strom-Martin/For the Eureka Times-Standard
Posted: 06/29/2010 01:31:39 AM PDT
As a fifth generation resident, I share a deep connection with my North Coast neighbors. As local citizens, we treasure the breathtaking natural beauty that surrounds us and draw renewed inspiration from the rich history that has woven together this unique community.
I'm not alone when I say the North Coast is truly unique -- it is unlike any other region along California's vast coastline. This is why I have been a lifelong advocate for the community, first as an educator seeking to improve our school system to successfully prepare our next generation of local and national leaders and later as a California State Assembly member, where my interest in maintaining a vibrant ocean economy led me to chair the Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.
A more holistic, long-term perspective is required to improve our community livelihood. This is equally true with respect to protecting our ocean resources. Last year I was appointed to the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force to help ensure that local community involvement and knowledge is utilized in the creation of the north coast portion of a statewide network of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA North Coast Study Region encompasses state waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County.
As the most open and transparent process I have ever been involved in, the MLPA Initiative continues to impress me. The initiative utilizes every available means to seek the advice of residents every step of the way. It incorporates local expertise along with the best scientific knowledge in an effort to more holistically protect the ocean ecosystem we are highly dependent upon for our food, spiritual traditions, recreational enjoyment and economic livelihoods.
The eight-member task force's role includes ensuring that all voices are heard throughout the north coast MPA planning process. My fellow task force members and I share a mutual interest in ensuring that traditional tribal uses of the ocean are preserved and that negative economic impacts to the North Coast community are minimized to the extent possible. We also hold strong support for MPA ideas that meet the MLPA's science and ecosystem-based protection goals to support long-term success of the statewide network and ideas that receive broad, cross-interest support from the community.
The tough task of developing MPA proposals is currently underway by the diverse interests from Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties represented on the 33-member North Coast regional stakeholder group. The group has developed four draft MPA proposals, which will be further refined following public input provided at a series of public open houses on July 6 through July 8 throughout the North Coast Study Region.
The Humboldt area open houses will be held on Wednesday, July 7, from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Humboldt Bay Aquatic Center in Eureka and on Thursday, July 8, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Redwood National and State Parks South Operations Center in Orick.
Members of the public are invited to attend, at any time, during one of these "open house" events. The events offer stakeholders, MLPA staff and task force members the chance to engage in informal one-on-one conversations with community members to gather input and provide feedback on the four draft MPA proposals developed thus far by the stakeholder group. The stakeholder group members will use this input when they meet later this summer to begin refining their MPA proposals.
At the open houses, you will also have the opportunity to speak with MLPA staff to learn more about the North Coast MPA planning process, have questions answered, and discuss how these MPA ideas will help meet the science and ecosystem goals to improve marine life, habitats and overall ocean health as required by the act.
The success of this effort requires local expertise and input from the diverse perspectives that comprise our unique community. All voices are needed to develop a strong network that works for everyone -- and, most importantly, helps protect the marine life and underwater habitats upon which they depend that are a vital component of our local community.
I hope you will attend one of the upcoming open houses, and continue to provide input until the proposals are completed later this year.
It is only by working together that we can ensure a healthy ocean and successfully teach future generations to be good stewards for our precious community assets.
Virginia Strom-Martin, former Assemblywoman (District 1) and Sonoma coast resident.
My Response:
How can the corrupt MLPA fiasco be open and transparent?
by Dan Bacher
Virginia Strom-Martin's claim that the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast track MLPA Initiative is "the most open and transparent process" you have ever been involved with is mind boggling.
The truth is that Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative is a privately funded process overseen by oil industry, marina development, real estate and other corporate interests. Rather than truly protecting the ocean as the landmark law originally intended to do, the MLPA Initiative under Schwarzenegger has completely taken water pollution, habitat destruction, oil drilling, wave energy projects and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and seaweed harvesting off the table.
I have a series of questions to ask you and other proponents of Schwarzenegger's MLPA process. I asked many of these same questions in response to a recent op-ed by Beth Warner and she failed to respond.
Why did the Governor and MLPA officials install an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate interests as "marine guardians" to kick Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the greatest defenders of the oceans, off the ocean?
Why is Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, allowed to make decisions as the chair of the BRTF for the South Coast and as a member of the BRTF for the North Coast, panels that are supposedly designed to "protect" the ocean, when she has called for new oil drilling off the California coast?
Why has the Initiative shown very little respect for tribal subsistence and ceremonial rights to date? This is an overt violation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 32, Section 2, of the Declaration mandates "free prior and informed consent" in consultation with the indigenous population affected by a state action (http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp ).
Why did MLPA staff until recently violate the Bagley-Keene Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by banning video and audio coverage of the initiative's work sessions?
Why do the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Science Advisory Team continue to violate the California Public Records Act by refusing to respond to numerous requests by Bob Fletcher, former DFG Deputy Director, for key documents and records pertaining to the MLPA implementation process?
Why does the initiative discard the results of any scientists who disagree with the MLPA' pre-ordained conclusions? These include the peer reviewed study by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the planet.
Why do MLPA staff and the California Fish and Game Commission refuse to hear the pleas of the representatives of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves?
Why are you, a former Democratic legislator, now collaborating with Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the worst Governor for fish and the environment in history, who has presided over the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, striped bass and other fish populations?
Finally, why is a private corporation, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, being allowed to privatize ocean resource management in California through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFG?
"It is only by working together that we can ensure a healthy ocean and successfully teach future generations to be good stewards for our precious community assets," you claim.
How can you possibly conclude that a privately funded initiative filled with so many confllcts of interest and violations of state, federal and international laws will result in a "healthy ocean?"
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, in an announcement from Restore the Delta on June 21, asked the question: "What would you do with $800 million per year?"
That's the amount it will cost Californians every year to pay the principal and interest on the $11.14 billion water bond. The bond, known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 by its proponents, was part of the controversial water package that emerged from the special Legislative Session called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall.
"With $800 million, California could rehire 12,000 teachers that were laid off this spring," Barrigan-Parrilla stated. "We could pay for four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in California."
Do you remember those state parks that Schwarzenegger threatened to close last year? "We could run them for 57 years," she said.
"Or we could pay for one year of principal and interest on the Water Bond to set the stage for building a peripheral canal through the Delta and to give corporate agribusiness, private water companies and developers more control of our water. All at the expense of Delta family farmers and Delta fisheries," Barrigan-Parrilla explained.
Restore the Delta is part of a statewide campaign that includes the Sierra Club, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Clean Water Action, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and many other groups. The No on the Water Bond coalition is "working against big money and big power" to defeat the Water Bond in November, said Barrigan-Parrilla.
The Water Commission of the Inter-Tribal Council of California (ITCC) is also urging people to vote "no" on the water bond on November 2. The Commission pinpoints three reasons for voting no on the water bond: "1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion; 2. Language excludes 'Tribes' from eligibility criteria; and 3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance."
Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farmworkers Union (UFW), also strongly opposes the water bond, contending that it further subsidizes corporate agribusiness.
"The water bond that was recently approved by our lawmakers will give agricultural companies billions more in subsidized water," said Rodiguez in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 23 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/ED7U1BUUH3.DTL). "The state treasurer has asked the right question: Why aren't these giant ag industry operators paying for their water like everyone else?"
Water bond supporters try to portray it as a "vital measure" that will restore the Delta while providing water to California's increasing population.
"It's time to act now to begin fixing our water system before it's too late," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs and chair of the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, the committee in support of the water bond. "The water bond will invest in the repairs we need to safeguard water supplies, to upgrade water infrastructure, to clean up contamination, and to restore the Delta so we can protect this vital resource for wildlife, people and businesses."
However, Barrigan-Parrilla and other water bond opponents say the pro-bond campaign is a "con" job.
"Bond supporters are trying to make the water bond sound like a good idea, but don't be deceived: It's a con," said Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta's campaign director. "Backed by the Governor, developers, and wealthy agribusinesses, the bond would build more dams and allow private interests to control more of our water."
She added, "Projects in the bond that we support, like conservation, will not be funded for years if ever. We must oppose this bond and work for better water policies that truly benefit the public."
I agree. There are a lot of good things that California could do with $800 million a year, such as restoring salmon and other fish populations. In fact, I can't think of much worse things to do with $800 million per year than building more dams and bailing out corporate agribusiness.
Don't be fooled by the water bond's backers, who include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Joaquin Valley agribusiness, southern California water agencies.
Don't be conned by support of the bond by the Nature Conservancy and Audubon California, who provide the "environmental" cover for this water grab by agribusiness and southern California developers.
By signing up for the coalition's action alert list, you'll learn about ways to get involved, see the new social media tools and viral videos the campaign is producing, and learn more about this disastrous bond.
Join the campaign and tell your friends. Join the coalition's people-powered campaign to defeat the bond! Go to: http://www.nowaterbond.com.
It was only a matter of time before fishing and conservation groups filed a lawsuit against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, considering the many violations of state, federal and international laws that have marred the privately-funded process.
On May 28, United Anglers of Southern California (UASC) and petitioner Robert C. Fletcher, president of the Sportfishing Association of California, filed a landmark lawsuit in California Superior Court in Sacramento against the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), the MLPA Master Plan Team (Science Advisory Team) and additional related defendants.
The recreational anglers, represented by the law firm of Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory & Natsis, LLP, said this is the first step of a multi-stage litigation process.
The firm filed the verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint at the Sacramento County Courthouse for violation of the California Public Records Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The suit is tied to numerous requests made by Fletcher for key documents and records pertaining to California's MLPA implementation process. The BRTF and Science Advisory Team failed to respond to these requests.
"It is my contention that both the BRTF and the Master Plan Team are subject to the requirements of the California Public Records Act," said Fletcher, a former Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. "As such, their refusal to respond to my requests for certain MLPA related records and documents is a direct violation of that Act."
Fletcher emphasized, "According to California law, any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce their right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record. This is a necessary first step to allow a thorough and careful scrutinizing of the entire MLPA process."
This litigation is being is spearheaded by UASC with the support of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) and its members. In addition to UASC , the PSO includes the American Sportfishing Association, Berkley Conservation Institute, supporting members of the Avalon Tuna Club, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, NorCal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Institute, Sportfishing Association of California, Southern California Marine Association and Watermen's Alliance.
"It has become more and more evident that the MLPA process is being steered off course by special interests - and political motivations - with dangerous potential for restricting many popular areas enjoyed by fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts," said Steven Fukuto, UASC executive director. "As Robert Fletcher said, this filing is a necessary and important first step in what will be an ongoing and thorough examination of this flawed process."
"Our legal team has identified several potential causes for action, and we will aggressively pursue any and all legal avenues to protect recreational access for fishermen and all Californians," Fukuto affirmed.
North Coast environmentalists, outraged by the corruption and the violation of numerous laws that characterize the MLPA initiative, applauded the lawsuit.
"Every Californian should support this lawsuit," said John Stephens-Lewallen, North Coast environmental leader and co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and the grassroots Seaweed Rebellion. "The MLPA Initiative corrupts everything that it touches. I am glad that the fishing and conservation groups have launched litigation to stop this corrupt process."
Stephens-Lewallen and other North Coast environmental leaders have slammed the MLPA fiasco for its conflicts of interest, mission creep and privatization of resource management. The Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversee the creation of so-called "Marine Protected Areas" (MPA) are dominated by oil industry, marina development, real estate and other corporate interests.
In fact, an oil industry superstar, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), is the chair of the MLPA Initiative's Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. She also sat on the task forces for the North Central Coast and now sits on the task force for the North Coast.
Incredibly, Reheis-Boyd has called for new oil drilling off the California coast even as the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history, the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, continues to devastate the marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the fishing communities that depend on the healthy fisheries for their livelihood.
"WSPA has not taken a position on specific offshore projects," Reheis-Boyd, recently stated on the WSPA website (www.wspa.org). "But we have been vocal about our views that California businesses and consumers would benefit from development of the huge reserves of petroleum off the California coast, in both state and federal waters."
Lewallen and other conservationists and environmental justice advocates contend that Reheis-Boyd oversees the MLPA process for one reason - to make sure that existing offshore oil operations in Southern California and future plans to drill oil off the Point Arena Basin and other areas are not impacted by so-called "marine reserves."
At the same time, the Schwarzenegger administration and its collaborators have completely taken water pollution, habitat destruction, aquaculture, oil drilling and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing in the creation and implementation of these fake "Marine Protected Areas."
Besides violating the California Public Records Act as charged in UASC's lawsuit, Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative has openly violated numerous other state, federal and international laws, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The MLPA Initiative has banned the Kashia Pomo Tribe from their sacred site in northern Sonoma County, "Danaka," in spite of pleas by Lester Pinola, past chairman of the tribe, and other tribal members to continue to allow seaweed harvesting and shellfish gathering off Danaka as part of their religion.
There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative is an out-of-control, lawless process that must be stopped. The May 28 lawsuit by United Anglers of Southern California and PSO partners will hopefully mark the beginning of a series of lawsuits by the many diverse communities under siege by the MLPA Initiative.
The rule of the lawless must be replaced by the rule of law. Ken Wiseman, MLPA executive director, the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), the MLPA Science Advisory Team, Michael Eaton, the executive director of the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation that funds the MLPA process, and Schwarzenegger administration officials must be finally held accountable for the many violations of law that have occurred under the MLPA.
The MLPA officials and the California Fish and Game Commission under Schwarzenegger have shown no respect for the rights of indigenous people, fishermen, seaweed harvesters and other Californians. As Violet Chappell, Kashia Pomo elder, said in reference to the MLPA's closure of their sacred site, "I don't think the Fish and Game Commission would be allowed to close down a Catholic Church, would they?"
For more information about how you can support the lawsuit against the MLPA, contact Steven Fukuto, UASC, (562) 494-9900, steve@unitedanglers.com.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to the facebook page of Violet Wilder, Kashia Pomo tribal member, "KEEP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE COASTAL TRIBES" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105945012781743).
Today at 9:00 a.m., Indian Tribes from Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, and Humboldt counties met at Wilderness Rd. near Branscomb along the Northern California coast to take the traditional route for summer food gathering.
They ended their route at Howard Beach at 2:00 p.m. for traditional dance and food. Discussion took place regarding Governor MLPA Initiative closures and the issues the tribes are facing, according to a news release from the tribes. The public was invited to attend.
For thousands of years, tribes have gathered seaweed, mussels, abalone and fish from the inter-tidal zone for subsistence and ceremonial purposes. However, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process has shown no respect for the religious, subsistence and ceremonial rights of coastal tribes.
Beginning May 1, new closures imposed under the MLPA ban the Kashia Pomo Tribe from their traditional gathering and ceremonial site off Danaka (Stewarts Point) in Sonoma County, a site sacred to the tribe. "I don't think the Fish and Game Commission would be allowed to close down a Catholic Church, would they?" said Violet Chappell, Kashia Pomo Tribe Elder at a blessing ceremony on April 30.
I will have a more detailed report on the event within the next couple of days.
The MLPA, a landmark law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, has been hijacked by oil industry, real estate, marine development and other corporate interests under the Schwarzenegger administration. Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative has openly violated numerous state, federal and international laws, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to: http://www.fishsniffer.com/for... and Violet Wilder's facebook page, "KEEP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE COASTAL TRIBES" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105945012781743).
Only in Governor Arnold's Schwarzenegger's California would an official entrusted to "protect" marine resources call for new oil drilling off the California coast at a time when the biggest oil spill in U.S. history continues to devastate the Gulf of Mexico.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association and the chair of Governor Arnold Schwarzengger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Task Force for the South Coast, recently affirmed her support for new offshore oil drilling in her commentary, "Gulf Oil Spill Comments," on the association's website, http://www.wspa.org.
Not only is Reheis-Boyd chair of the South Coast panel appointed by Schwarzenegger to design "marine protected areas" (MPAs), but she served on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Central Coast and currently serves on the Task Force for the North Coast.
"The tragic Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in California Governor Schwarzenegger's withdrawal of his support for limited offshore oil development near Santa Barbara," lamented Reheis-Boyd.
"WSPA has not taken a position on specific offshore projects," she stated. "But we have been vocal about our views that California businesses and consumers would benefit from development of the huge reserves of petroleum off the California coast, in both state and federal waters."
Reheis-Boyd then goes on to tout the offshore oil operators in California for their exemplary "record of safety" and "sensitivity" to environmental issues, attempting to portray them as some sort of modern day John Muirs of the Sea, valiantly defending the ocean from atop their oil rigs.
"The record of safety established by offshore operators in California over the past 40 years has been excellent," she gushed. "But we recognize an incident on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico accident is going to influence the public policy debate on offshore oil."
"We don't yet know what caused the accident in the Gulf of Mexico and whether or not there are any lessons to be learned that are applicable to the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf where most offshore oil production in California takes place today," she admitted. "We are waiting for the investigations to be completed."
She also claimed that "The petroleum industry on the West Coast has demonstrated a very high level of sensitivity to environmental issues associated with operating in a marine environment. We are committed to constant improvement in those operations."
"According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, in the past 40 years, more than 1 billion barrels of oil have been produced off the coast of California. During that time, less than 850 barrels of oil have been accidentally spilled into the ocean," she continued.
"The platforms off the California coast produce approximately 36 million barrels of oil per year - about 15 percent of our in-state petroleum production," she said. "Without those important sources of energy, we would need to import more crude oil in tankers. In many cases, that oil comes from less stable foreign sources and with resultant adverse economic consequences for California consumers.
"Oil exploration and production in California ranks among the most closely regulated activities in the world. There are literally hundreds of laws and regulations that govern petroleum industry activities in California. More importantly, though, is the fact that the men and women who work in the industry are committed to doing everything they can to ensure that workers, near-by communities and the environment are protected," Reheis-Boyd concluded.
Unfortunately, fishermen, environmentalists and the general public witnessing the largest oil spill in U.S. history devastate fishing communities throughout the Gulf of Mexico know that Reheis-Boyd's words are hollow in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon tragedy. We were repeatedly assured by oil company, state and federal officials that the Gulf oil spill was "under control." The oil industry in the Gulf is also regulated by federal and state laws, but these did nothing to stop the current disaster from taking place.
How can we believe anything that Reheis-Boyd or other representatives of the oil industry say after the BP Oil spill, which still continues unabated?
And what the heck is an oil industry official, who is now calling for new oil rigs off the California coast, doing on three task forces that are kicking fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters, the staunchest defenders of the ocean and the most vocal opponents of offshore drilling, off the water? Anybody with a modicum of reason, intelligence and common sense has got to realize there is something very, very wrong here!
Environmentalists, Indian Tribes and fishermen have blasted the MLPA Initiative for its numerous conflicts of interests, corruption and open violation of indigenous religious, cultural and subsistence fishing and gathering rights. There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger appointed Reheis-Boyd to safeguard the oil industry's interests in the MLPA process.
There is also no doubt that we need to support a complete ban on new drilling off the U.S. coastline to make sure that Reheis-Boyd doesn't get her way in opening the West Coast to new oil drilling.
"The tragic catastrophe spewing oil in the Gulf of Mexico offers a rare opportunity to achieve long-term protection from this nightmare for the rich upwelling ecosystem off the Pacific Coast of Washington, Oregon and California," according to John Stephens-Lewallen, one of the North Coast's most respected environmental leaders and a foremost opponent of Schwarzenegger's MLPA corporate greenwashing process.
He said companion bills to "permanently" ban new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Pacific Coast of the three states have been introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
The "West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2010" is a one-page bill with only one effective provision: "...the Secretary of Interior shall not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of the State of California, Oregon, or Washington."
"My wife Barbara and I are asking organizations of ocean food providers to formally endorse this simple and powerful bill, and work to get it signed into law this year," he emphasized.
Congressman John Garamendi, who appeared last July at a rally at the State Capitol to speak out against the construction of the peripheral canal and the destruction of the California Delta when he was still Lieutenant Governor, is spearheading the bill in the House, with Representatives Mike Thompson and Lynn Woolsey of Northern California among 35 initial co-sponsors.
Group endorsements can be emailed to Marcus Woodson in Congressman Garamendi's office; or by phone at (202)225-1880.
"For ocean food providers, the stark simplicity of this drilling ban is its beauty," emphasized Stephens-Lewallen. "In one simple statement, it removes the great threat we all face to the purity of the Pacific Coast Upwelling Ecosystem and its renewing abundance of food. Bills with similar wording have been introduced, with heroic pronouncements, in the last several annual sessions of Congress, only to languish in committee without any legislative action."
The Stephens-Lewallens are urging the fishing community and others to "help make this year different" by contacting your federal representatives, and friends throughout the country, in support of the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2010.
While an oil industry lobbyist and "marine guardian" like Reheis-Boyd calls for new oil drilling off the California coast, real environmentalists and defenders of the ocean like the Stephens-Lewallens call for support of Garamendi's bill. I join with the Stephens-Lewallens in urging everybody concerned about the fate of our public trust ocean waters to support Garamendi's bill - and at the same time to call for an immediate suspension of the widely-condemned MLPA Initiative.
Garamendi's simple bill contrasts with Schwarzenegger's Marine Life "Protection" Act Initiative, a privately funded process that does absolutely nothing to protect the California coast from oil spills, water pollution, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing. The initiative, led by executive director Ken Wiseman, is funded by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, headed by Michael Eaton, the foundation's executive director.
The MLPA, a landmark law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, has been hijacked by oil industry, real estate, marine development and other corporate interests under the Schwarzenegger administration. Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative has openly violated numerous state, federal and international laws, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to: http://www.fishsniffer.com/for... and Violet Wilder's facebook page, "KEEP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE COASTAL TRIBES" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105945012781743).
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative has brazenly violated the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, passed by the UN General Assembly in September 2007.
Passed by both houses of Congress, AIRFA became law on August 11, 1978, spurred by the American Indian Movement's Longest Walk from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. that year. The act recognized the "inherent right" of American citizens to religious freedom; admitted that in the past the U.S. government had not protected the religious freedom of American Indians; proclaimed the "indispensable and irreplaceable" role of religion "as an integral part of Indian life"; and called upon governmental agencies to "protect and preserve" for American Indians their inherent right to practice their traditional religions.
AIRFA states, "it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites."
The MLPA process has violated this historic law by banning the Kashia Pomo Tribe from practicing their religion by gathering seaweed and shellfish and conducting ceremonies at their sacred site, Danaka, in northern Sonoma County. In the Kashia Pomo's creation story, Danaka (Stewarts Point) is the place where the tribe first walked on land.
The sacred site is located in a so-called "marine protected area" that was part of a package of reserves that the California Fish and Game Commission voted 3 to 2 for on August 5, 2009, in spite of vocal opposition by the tribe, fishermen and environmental justice advocates.
"They're interfering with our religion, the food that we lived off before the white man came," said tribal elder Violet Chappell during a blessing ceremony off Danaka on April 30, the day before the May 1 closure, hosted by landowner Arch Richardson.
The gathering on a bluff overlooking the ocean drew 145 people, including members of the Kashia Pomo and other California Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, seaweed harvesters and environmental justice advocates to thank and bless the ocean for the food it has provided to native peoples for thousands of years.
"We used this food every day - we call it health food," Chappell stated. "The food was created by our creator - we treated it with care and respect. We are here to say respect us for our food - don't close this area down because it's part of our religion."
"I don't think the Fish and Game Commission would be allowed to close down a Catholic Church, would they?" she asked.
Article 32, Section 2, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People mandates "free prior and informed consent" in consultation with the indigenous population affected by a state action (http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp).
It also says, "States shall provide effective mechanisms for provention of, and redress for: Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources."
Ken Wiseman, MLPA Initiative executive director, and the California Fish and Game Commission violated the UN declaration by never consulting with Kashia Pomo and other tribal leaders over the closure of a sacred site. They also provided no mechanism for redress of this grievance.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) in October 2009 passed a strongly worded resolution blasting the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process for failing to recognize the tribal subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights of California Indian Tribes.
"The NCAI does hereby support the demand of the tribes of Northern California that the State of California enter into government to government consultations with these tribes; and that the State of California ensure the protection of tribal subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights in the implementation of the state of Marine Life Protection Act," the resolution stated.
The MLPA, a law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, has been hijacked by oil industry, real estate, marine development and other corporate interests under the Schwarzenegger administration. MLPA officials have completely taken water pollution, oil drilling, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing in this bizarre parody of marine "protection."
Wiseman and his collaborators constantly claim that the MLPA process is "open and transparent" but the only thing "open" about the initiative is how it has openly violated the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Not only has it broken these federal and international laws, but until recently MLPA officials openly defied the state of California's Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment of the U.S.Constitution by barring reporters from covering "work sessions" of the process with video and audio recording equipment.
It was only after an outpouring of outrage by civil liberties advocates and journalists over the arrest of David Gurney, independent journalist, as he filmed an MLPA "work session" that Wiseman decided to finally obey the law.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to: http://www.fishsniffer.com/for... and Violet Wilder's facebook page, "KEEP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE COASTAL TRIBES" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105945012781743).
If Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative has done nothing else, it has united one of the most diverse coalitions of people ever assembled in California history against it.
The conflicts of interests, corporate greenwashing, cultural genocide and violation of state and federal laws that have occurred under the privately funded initiative have spurred people from a wide variety of political perspectives from left to criticize the unjust process. Those slamming the initiative have ranged from Earth First environmental activists to rednecks, from elders of California Indian Tribes to commercial fishermen, and from sustainable food activists to city councils up and down the North Coast.
Prominent Democrats including State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez of Shafter and Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro of Eureka and Green Party leaders such as former North Coast Congressman Dan Hamburg, now a candidate for the Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County, have challenged and questioned the inequities of the MLPA process.
Now Senate Republican Leader-elect Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga has joined the growing chorus of leading Democrats and Greens in their criticism of the MLPA. In a May 19 letter to DFG Director John McCamman, Dutton asked McCamman how he can justify the implementation of Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative at a time when the state is in dire economic crisis.
"It has come to my attention that the Legislative Analyst has recommended 'suspension of state support' to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)," said Dutton. " Further, the LAO recognizes that there is no long-term comprehensive plan to finance enforcement or management of marine protected areas once established. The LAO cites existing state fishing statutes such as the Marine Life Management Act and traditional fishing restrictions that could be used to enforce fishing restrictions as an alternative to this proposal."
"While the MLPA may be cast as an 'ecosystem approach' to protecting the ocean environment, it appears, according to the California Attorney General, that the only thing that the MLPA can actually do is to restrict commercial and recreational fishing," Dutton said.
Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a September 25, 2009 letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency clearly states on page 9 that "The State Water Resources Control Board maintains primary jurisdiction over water quality and pollution discharges." And, "[the MLPA ... does not grant DFG or DPR new powers to enforce water quality regulations within marine reserves."
After careful analysis, the LAO's conclusions therefore say, in summary, the following, according to Dutton.
1.The state does not have the resources to enforce the MLPA.
2. The state does not have the resources to manage and scientifically monitor the MLPA.
3. Current fishing statutes are working to protect California fisheries and, therefore, the MLPA is an unnecessary program.
"Given California's long-standing budget crisis where we face difficult cuts to health and safety programs, please justify for me why the Department should continue with implementation of the MLPA," concluded Dutton. "As the Legislature is required to pass a balanced state budget by June 15,2010 please provide your response to me by June 1, 2010."
Dutton joins a growing chorus of political leaders, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, environmentalists and tribal leaders that have blasted the MLPA process. The MLPA Initiative is led by Ken Wiseman, executive director, and funded by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a shadowy organization headed by Mike Eaton, executive director.
Senator Dean Florez announced that he planned to conduct a Senate Oversight Hearing about conflict of interest and "mission creep" in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process during his keynote address at the Coastside Fishing Club Dinner in San Mateo in March 2009. Unfortunately, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg squelched the investigation.
On July 10, 2009, Senator Wesley Chesbro stated that he had heard from numerous constituents who had expressed "strong concerns" regarding the development and implementation of MLPA plans for the North Coast and North Central Coast.
"Because of this strong constituent concern, I am skeptical of the process that has been followed in developing proposed plans for these regions," said Chesbro. "The process must be based on sound science. I have been saying, 'show me the science.' So far I'm not satisfied with the answers I've been getting."
As a state senator in 1999 who voted for the MLPA, Chesbro said it was his belief that "the MLPA will be a failure if the plans are implemented without the full involvement of all participants, especially local community members and stakeholders. The economic health of local fishing communities must be balanced with the need for habitat protection."
During the 37th annual California Fisheries Forum held by Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture at the State Capitol on April 28, Chesbro said he plans to hold a hearing on the MLPA Initiative this year.
Dan Hamburg, the Green Party candidate for the Mendocino Board of Supervisors, has also criticized the privatization of public trust resources that has occurred under the MLPA.
"We will work with Humboldt and Del Norte Counties to stop privatization efforts such as the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) - a private-foundation takeover of marine life that threatens local coastal businesses that harvest the ocean for food," vowed Hamburg.
The MLPA, a landmark law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, has been hijacked by oil industry, real estate, marine development and other corporate interests under the Schwarzenegger administration. Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative has openly violated numerous state, federal and international laws, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to: http://www.fishsniffer.com/for... and Violet Wilder's facebook page, "KEEP THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES ACCESSIBLE FOR THE COASTAL TRIBES" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105945012781743).
Early this month, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled in favor of Governor Schwarzenegger's efforts to rob Peter to pay Paul. Except in this case it's the State of California being allowed to steal.....I mean borrow....money from local government redevelopment agencies to help cover the State's massive budget deficits. The monies will be used to cover for cuts made in education funding.
As an employee at a small, non-profit that serves people with disabilities, in three Northern California counties, why should this concern me, especially when the people we help are getting slammed by other budget cuts to state programs/services? We certainly have bigger fights ahead of us (again) due to Arnold's outrageously cruel budget revision. There are several reasons.
However one feels about the merits of redevelopment agency projects, there's something inherently wrong with this. Money raised at the local level, through local taxes, for the purpose of a local benefit that is not being adequately addressed by the state or federal governments, is being taken to help cover for deficits at the state level. Then the Governor (with the support of many legislators) continues to refuse to discuss raising state taxes or fees when, in fact, they're playing a shell game that further puts the onus on already financially stressed local governments. As the state makes still more cuts that burden local governments, and city officials are forced to slash local programs/services, who will citizens be more likely to scream at, but the city hall that is closest to them? Sacramento is just so far away.
One of the primary tasks of a redevelopment agency is to help stimulate employment and economic growth. This makes it more ironic that during a recession, when one focus is (supposedly) on such matters, that the Governor and his supporters undermine efforts to do so at the local level. They bemoan the overall lack of revenue coming into state coffers to fund programs/services as a result of the poor economy then use that as an excuse to further cut those programs/services. If the law requires a certain level of funding then the Governor seeks to backfill by taking from local governments or by redirecting funds designated by citizen initiatives. It seems like another big Catch-22, which is typical of Sacramento.
Redevelopment agencies also serve the less fortunate, who have been slammed from all sides in this recession by program/service cuts, rising prices and unemployment. Redevelopment agencies help provide affordable housing to low and moderate income residents, through rehabilitation loans, grants and assistance to first time home buyers. This is a major issue here in Humboldt County, and the lack of affordable housing is another major impediment to revitalizing the local economy.
Finally, my agency has experienced one (of many) direct, human effects of this redistribution of local tax dollars to Sacramento.
Our agency administers a grant program to help build residential ramps for low-income people with disabilities. In the past, the Eureka Redevelopment Agency has also offered a grant program for this purpose to Eureka residents and we were able to collaborate with them on several projects. This helped to further stretch the resources for both programs, while allowing many people with disabilities the chance to get out of their homes, live more independently and safely, and become more active members of their community. Such collaborations represent wiser use of tax dollars and grant monies and should not be undermined.
Unfortunately, with the support of the District Court, the Governor is now being allowed to do just that. A bad precedent may now become common policy and, once again, local governments get to be the fall guy.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Foundation, is one of the most egregious examples of corporate greenwashing in California history. Rather than actually protect the ocean as the law was originally intended to do, Schwarzenegger and his collaborators have taken pollution, oil drilling, habitat protection and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing off the table.
The MLPA Initiative is responsible for engaging in cultural genocide by banning the Kashia Pomo Tribe from harvesting seaweed and shellfish off their sacred site, "Danaka," in Sonoma County. It has showed no respect for tribal subsistence and ceremonial rights. This is an overt violation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 32, Section 2, of the Declaration mandates "free prior and informed consent" in consultation with the indigenous population affected by a state action (http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp).
The MLPA Initiative is responsible for killing an endangered blue whale off Fort Bragg in October 2009 by contracting out a law-breaking survey operation to survey the ocean bottom.
It is responsible for until recently violating the Bagley-Keene Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by banning video and audio coverage of the initiative's secretive work sessions.
It is responsible for installing an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate interests as "marine guardians" to kick Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the greatest defenders of the oceans, off the ocean.
It is responsible for attempting to divide and conquer environmentalists, fishermen and tribal communities by trying to split them into separate groups in the Regional Stakeholders Group on the North Coast. Ken Wiseman, the executive director of the MLPA Initiative, has also issued a draconian "gag rule" that prohibits members of the stakeholders group from speaking to the press.
It is responsible for completely discarding the results of any scientists who disagree with the MLPA's pre-ordained conclusions. These include the peer reviewed study by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the planet.
It is responsible for completely refusing to acknowledge that the northern California coast has the most restrictive bottomfish seasons of anywhere in the world along with the largest MPA in the United States - the Rockfish Conservation area that extends along the entire continental shelf of California.
Finally, it is responsible for refusing to hear the pleas of the representatives of California Fish and Game Wardens Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves. That's why the wardens refer to MPAs as "Marine Poaching Areas."
Why do NGO advocates of the MLPA process refuse to acknowledge the many problems of the MLPA, rather than showing some integrity by joining with environmental justice advocates, Indian Tribes, fishermen and real environmentalists to call for its suspension? Could it be that they're afraid to challenge their funding source, the Resources Legacy Foundation, the private corporation that also funds the MLPA?
There is nothing "green" about the MLPA. It is part of Schwarzenegger's plan to privatize resource management in California.
It is essential for everybody concerned about the future of California fisheries to understand that Schwarzenegger's MLPA Initiative is designed to greenwash his campaign to build a peripheral canal and more dams and drive Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and other species over the edge of extinction. The same corporate "environmentalists" at the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation and Nature Conservancy who support the peripheral canal as the "solution" to the Delta's environmental crisis are the same ones who back the MLPA all of the way.
The direct connection between Schwarzenegger's MLPA and peripheral canal campaigns is evidenced by the fact that Phil Isenberg has been the top official in both processes. Isenberg was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the Central Coast, the first region targetted in the fast-track MLPA process. Schwarzenegger also selected Isenberg to be chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, a thinly disguised process designed to further the Governor's plan to build a peripheral canal to facilitate massive exports of water from the California Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California. He also recently selected Isenberg to chair the Delta Stewardship Canal in order to make sure that the peripheral canal is built.
More recently, Schwarzenegger on May 14 appointed Michael Eaton, the executive director of the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. It is very clear that the Governor has appointed Eaton, who has presided over the funding of MLPA process, to greenwash his plans to build the canal, an environmentally destructive plan that would cost Californians an estimated $23 billion to $53 billion.
There needs to be an immediate federal and state investigation of the corruption, conflicts of interests, mission creep, violations of human rights and other violations of state and federal laws that have occurred under the MLPA.
For more information about the violation of indigenous subsistence, cultural and religious rights under the MLPA, go to: http://www.fishsniffer.com/for...
