Do Forest Service Assumptions Make Sense?

This summer’s fires were a grim reminder of the need to clean our forests. Also, the futile efforts of half dead trees to stay alive uses up an unnecessary amount of our water supply. As announced in the local media just recently, the Forest Service is burning dead trees at various locations. Ideally, this material should go to a biomass plant for energy production, wood pellets for export and other possible uses. But inhibiting this possibility the Forest Service makes two assumptions that I question.

First, they say that hauling this stuff out of our forests doesn’t pencil out. The material doesn’t contain enough value to support individuals or businesses to do this. Given the need for a decent wage, benefits, depreciation on chain saws, a truck, etc they are right. But they are assuming that this is a full cost business. I submit that it works as a marginal cost business. Most of the firewood for sale in our county is produced as a marginal cost business. Enterprise such as this occurs when someone is out of work, between situations in their life or just wants to pick up some extra money. While an individual may not do this for very long, there is always a supply of new people taking their place. A retired person buying and selling knick-knacks from their home could be an example. The jitneys of the post WW1 period, where people with cars picked up passengers just before the crowded street cars arrived, is a classic example. These still survive is some cities, and have been resurrected in the form of Uber and the other new technologies disrupting the overpriced taxis. They are very worthwhile for their participants. Someone I know of recently made over $500 on a weekend evening in San Francisco. Given this context, I think that hauling biomass from our forests would work economically.

The Forest Service also states that the other inhibitor of economically cleaning our forests is the remote locations of the about to be wastefully burned material. In some situations this is undoubtedly true. But in how many real locations is this true? Given the American can do spirit this is only a challenge, not a problem. What better satisfaction is there in knowing that you did something that someone else told you that you couldn’t do? How many rusty tractors did we haul out of dangerous ravines in 1942 to feed our steel mills when our nation was under attack? We won back then, but have we given up now? This spirit of resignation that grips us today is seemingly given official expression when the Forest Service says too remote. Maybe we would all be better off in damp Atlantic coastal cities all still drinking English Tea and reading amusing books about the fall of Rome?

I certainly believe that there are many sincere people in the Forest Service, but there also appears to be some that think that documenting the situation for bigger appropriations next year is more important than cleaning out our forests now.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Newman Ridge at Ione City Council

A few weeks ago the City of Ione held a public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors had, to re-certify the EIR for the Newman Ridge project. Sondra West-Moore came up from Southern California to lead the project opponents. In her now standard melodramatic fashion, she attacked the project with distortions, misrepresentations and phony figures.  This time, however, people with real life hands on experience discredited every one of her contentious claims and those of the few other objectors.

One of the speakers related the story of how he was contacted by a wide spread search for a world class deposit of andesite ideally located by a railroad, and became involved in an earlier quarry on the site. Another speaker spoke of long trains of rock having moved safely along the track (I would add that those criticizing the track condition are ignoring the required regulatory inspections before freight increases can occur, as well as Southern Pacific’s liability concerns). One proponent noted that the prior plant and the two proposed are behind the ridge line, exposing the false and subjective assertion of “visual pollution”.  It seems that those protesting mineral extraction and manufacturing must believe that goods magically appear in stores.

A speaker that had done his homework cited West-Moore’s phony traffic figures by showing how she derived them from adding up different parts of the EIR along with confusion from the temporary construction phase. Another spoke of the insult assumed by those claiming danger from trucks passing by the elementary school by stating: “Those children are the trucker drivers’ children and grandchildren.” Since sympathy was presumed to be gained by West-Moore’s having her 90+ year old father there, hobbling on his cane in full veterans regalia, one attendee remarked that his father is the same age, also a decorated WW2 veteran, and strongly supports the project. The attempted theatrics failed. But reality returned when one speaker stated that these are jobs for our children and grandchildren. This saves our community and keeps our families intact.

When my time at the podium came, I related my weeks reading the EIR and the adventure of following the project opponents’ worldwide propaganda campaign. They changed the Supervisors and Planning Commissioners with being in the pocket of exploitive interests in a bias press release that, after a few internet repostings, became transformed into a news article. The companion petition gathered signatures from counties that some many people would need an atlas to locate. I also noted that having hot mix close at hand would reduce costs for the county road department. Concluding with the statement that I came of age in the 1960’s and had long ago internalized an expression of that time: “Tell it like it is, baby; tell it like it is,” I said that I consider the project opponents to be the pro-poverty lobby.

I spoke with many of those attending, including a gold miner, who thanked me for my presentation. Almost all of those in attendance were in favor of the project, probably because most of those at the hearing worked during the day. As hard working as our supervisors are, and with as many evening meetings as they already have to attend, we would all still benefit from having an occasional evening hearing that would draw a different demographic.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Around and Around We Go With Roundabouts

Communities across America are being coerced into roundabouts with ensuing controversy. Amador County has been no exception. Fortunately we have defeated all of them except perhaps one in Plymouth. They are being pushed by the Federal Government, which of course controls the purse strings. Roundabouts take up a lot of land, can be confusing to motorists-especially those new to an area, are dangerous for trailer trucks and homogenize us to look like Europe. I can’t imagine riding a bicycle through a roundabout. While they may be safer for pedestrians in some instances as the proponents argue, they are appreciably less safe for pedestrians in other situations. And they have the fatal flaw of being complicated and expensive to expand unlike the relative ease of change with our current signalized intersections. When they exceed rated capacity at some future date they will have created another unnecessary crisis.

Ever though you have to stop sometimes, like at a stop sign, they generally do move traffic along without idling behind a traffic light. For this reason, they have been deemed the way to go. While this need is primarily based upon the total fraud of CO2 feared global warming, it’s all to the good to reduce unnecessary vehicle emissions. But what if roundabouts presumed advantage proved meaningless? What if this same reduction in emissions were achieved without the extravagant costs and inconveniences of roundabouts?

I have read repeatedly, and fully agree with, the prediction that the next advance in auto technology with be new batteries, probably lithium ion, that allow idling without internal combustion. Certainly the experience with hybrids has paved the way. The major new investments of Tesla and others in battery production should drive down the price. How soon will it be before all new vehicles, and perhaps even retrofitted late model vehicles, idle at traffic lights with their engines off? Will it be soon enough to make most roundabouts sheer folly?

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Lynn Morgan says "Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too"

Lynn Morgan says Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

In my Lynn Morgan’s “Buckhorn Community Plan Effort and Her Ideological Beliefs” posted both on Facebook and on Amador Community News, I said that Lynn Morgan was a member of the Foothill Conservancy. Katherine Evatt, president of the Foothill Conservancy, replied on Facebook that Lynn Morgan was not a member. Since I have no reason to doubt Katherine Evatt, or my friend who was told by Lynn Morgan that she was a Foothill Conservancy member about two years, there is only one logical conclusion. Lynn Morgan dropped her membership in preparation to become an “unbiased” candidate and so called Upcounty advocate. But I doubt that her adherence to their beliefs has changed. This all smells duplicitous to me.

This same on the fence post attitude continues in her recent website statements on water policy. Since this is a severe drought year full of the gray skies from forest fires her prior ambiguous positions and procedural machinations on the gravity supply line, UpCounty fire hydrants, wild and scenic and water issues, in genera,l have come to haunt her. So she has developed a “please everyone” position that perhaps raises more questions than it answers. She refuses to directly support wild and scenic, and didn’t say if she did in its prior form, but asserts that if it passes, existing water rights and/or amendments to the bill will give us enough water for future residents. But the deal includes surrendering rights beyond those agreements. What about water for a biomass plant, expanded gold mining and expanded agriculture? She has made some controversial statements about curtailing agriculture during drought years on Facebook. Are future residents to sit in their well-watered homes and collect welfare since no water for employment possibilities exists?

She proceeds with “More information” about wild and scenic that supports it without stating it directly. She states that wild and scenic will prevent “large, outside urban water agencies from building new dams on those 37 river miles.” Does she realize that this is one of the two best dam sites in California, and is rumored to have Jerry Brown’s support? That a Devil’s Nose Dam could be a cost effective solution that prevents building several other dams at less desirable locations as substitutes? Is the phrase “large, outside urban agencies” supposed to make us feel that we, the powerless are now protected by this designation? Isn’t the opposite true, given generous foundation funding for wild and scenic promotion, and the environmental lobby in the legislature? Why does water development have to mean what she implies? What about PG&E or the county(s)? A local project could be easily financed by tax exempt project revenue bonds in today’s market. It could even be owned by county residents, and pay everyone an annual check the same way Alaskan oil revenues do. While I am not proposing any of these ideas, I am saying that those decisions belong to future generations, and that it is selfish to straight jacket them from dealing with future circumstances of which we have no knowledge.

Lynn Morgan has chosen to ignore the fact that the State designation with the compromises she seems to endorse, can become with the stroke of the governor’s pen, the much more restrictive federal designation. So almost everything she has stated is meaningless at the very least, but mentioning that likelihood is beyond her campaign persona. She partly supports her case with the 5-0 vote in support by the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. But that vote was for general support and not for SB119, and was engineered by Supervisor Chris Wright, former Foothill Conservancy president, in violation of their standard procedures. Since that vote, one supervisor has changed his mind and two supervisors lost their re-election bids. Certainly the vote next year will be different. While some Lynn Morgan supporters may not know this, she certainly does. This omission apparently meets her definition of transparency.

She continues with: “Wild and Scenic proponents include thousands of local residents and many local businesses as well as regional economic development organizations.” Who are these thousands of local residents? The petition numbers claimed by the Foothill Conservancy, but never seen, have been discredited several times. They are said to be cumulative over a decade therefore containing people who may have changed their minds and with possible serious double or more counting. Are these the thousands she is referring to? I really wonder who the tourist and regional economic development organizations she cites are. My suspension is that they are environmental organizations masquerading themselves under the guise of economics. A simple Internet search of Sierra Nevada + conservation shows so many of these groups that they seem to outnumber the trees, dead or alive. But a closer look reveals that they are often the same people financed by the same foundations. Could Lynn Morgan tell us who these groups really are?

She reminds us that dams could be built on other parts of the Mokelumne. If we were to build more dams, do we want three to five inefficient ones that also submerge more land or one efficient one on the best site?

Did she support wild & scenic before the current amendments? She seems to support it now with the possible amendments, but it’s all vague under “More Information”. But it seems apparent since she implies that it should have been accepted by decrying the Amador Water Agency’s participation in killing SB1199. While she bemoans what they spent on lobbyists, she ignores the vastly greater sums spent by environmental groups. Often these funds come from tax exempt “charitable” foundations and sometimes they are public tax money gained through the sue and settle scam. And totally forgotten are the millions lost to defend the Water Agency from environmental lawsuits. I am glad the water agency is doing its job and defending our water rights.

What she neglects to mention is that if wild and scenic doesn’t pass, nothing will change. FERC required discharges of impounded water to create a faux wild river will continue. If anyone proposed a new dam the environmental review and ensuing litigation will probably last longer than the lives of most people reading this.

As illustrated repeatedly above, does Lynn Morgan represent the straight forward leadership we want in Amador County?

Save Our Railroad plus Silence Newman Ridge Critics

Amador County’s freight railroad goes from Ione to Galt roughly along the alignment of Twin Cities Road. It carries just enough freight to remain open, but not enough to finance its improvement. Purchasing this spur from Southern Pacific, or entering into any sort of track improvement agreement with them, according to a Board of Supervisors discussion a few years ago, is prohibitively expensive. While this is understandable, it leaves us with few options. But maintaining this rail line is essential for the industries that currently use it and for attracting new industry. It is a far more efficient and far greener than diesel trucks. If gold were to ever be mined here again in large quantities, it would be shipped elsewhere for refining.

One of my primary reasons for supporting the Newman Ridge project is the significantly added rail traffic it will provide. That rail traffic, even on poor track that requires slow movement and several minute waits at grade crossings, along with added truck traffic are manageable. They are insufficient to stop the project, but they are inconvenient and, to some, unpleasant. Many trucks will travel through downtown Ione. The proposed Ione bypass or parkway eliminates this and was a consideration in the project approval. While this is a needed improvement - with or without the added project traffic, and its construction timing uncertain - it seems desirable to extend the track to the part of the project now dependent on truck access. It also seems desirable to upgrade the track so that trains can move more quickly and not tie up highway traffic.

I have a suggestion. It’s not a proposal, since I don’t have the knowledge and specialized expertise to call it a proposal. But it’s a valid suggestion that seems worthy of follow up. Why can’t this entire spur be purchased by a short line railroad company? There are many of them across the country, with some active in California. They are profitable and well capitalized. Could such a company purchase this orphan spur from Southern Pacific? Perhaps they have looked at it in the past, and are unaware of the new development along its route. If this spur was owned by a smaller, more responsive enterprise, could the county have more influence over its future? Could a new railway owner help attract more industry? Would they invest in railway improvements?

So I am asking the Amador Business Council, the Amador County Transportation Commission, the Amador Chamber of Commerce and any agencies or organizations interested to see if this suggestion could become a viable and doable proposal.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Lynn Morgan’s Buckhorn Community Plan Effort and Her Ideological Beliefs

In 2012, at the instance of former Upcountry Council chair Debbie Dunn, the then UCC chair Lynn Morgan leap frogged into designing the Buckhorn Town Center based upon our yet unadopted General Plan. Three UCC meetings were devoted to this project along with questionnaires, emails, etc. While many questionnaires were handed out, few people showed enough interest to actually attend the discussion meetings. But Lynn Morgan wanted to hire a consultant to format the survey data and without consulting with UCC or gaining their approval on the matter she hired one. While perhaps she held the naive notion that members would chip in, she ended up paying for the consultant herself. It certainly seems that her cause over-weighed other concerns. How she ran UCC clearly foreshadows her behavior in other potential offices.

The survey participants wanted a well organized community but were divided about whether the proposed design review committee should enforce a rustic or alpine style. They also had a wish list that favored and promoted certain businesses such as “natural wood products store(s)” rather than have the law of supply and demand prevail. Of course many of these enterprises, as desirable as they may be, would require government subsidy. This key element was left undiscussed. However, factors like those didn’t deter Lynn Morgan from presenting this Town Center Plan to Supervisor Ted Novelli and Planning Commissioner Denise Tober. But she never spoke to the Board of Supervisors about the Upcounty support for the Gravity Supply Line or for fixing the fire hydrants with their inadequate pipes.

I applaud her generosity for paying for the consultant and for her hard work. But this dedication also shows her adherence to a very specific political agenda. As UCC chair she avoided the wild & scenic issue. Perhaps afraid that the members would vote contrary to her liking, no wild & scenic petitions, pro or con, were circulated at UCC. But at the same time she inhibited support for the gravity supply line and favored the Fire Safe Council which refused to support the GSL.

She disallowed circulating a petition against the illegal fire tax because the petition heading denoted a political organization not to her liking. She also stonewalled UCC members’ requests to distribute materials objecting to the fire tax. Later she hemmed and hawed about informing fixed income seniors of their rights when their fire tax bills became due. Her website states: “While the state fire fee makes its way through the courts, push the state to spend the fees that have been collected in Amador County IN Amador County’.” She appears ignorant that the money has already been appropriated elsewhere or could be returned by court order. A firmer leader would oppose an illegal tax and realize that it is just the power of urban areas in the legislature, not in Upcountry’s interest and is a horrid precedent as well. Where is the LA earthquake tax, etc?

While it is common knowledge that Lynn Morgan supports impounded water discharges in drought years for white water rafter thrills and supports the wild & scenic designation for parts of the Mokelumne River, her website vaguely states: “Support continued recreation and increased tourism on the Mokelumne River.” But this statement could even mean the recreation and tourism opportunities of a new dam and lake. She also says: “Protect the county’s water rights and water resources for use by county residents.” What about future residents and businesses? Are we really clear on her position on wild & scenic position now? Other similar statements from her website are: “Direct economic development to town centers including...More retail services” and “Through the general plan update, focus development in towns and existing communities where infrastructure, services, and jobs are available.” This could sound like she supports the Dollar General store in Pine Grove, but we all know she does not.

Her website continues with: “Creating more opportunities for diverse citizen participation in the democratic process by valuing all opinions and points of view.” Anyone can speak at the general comment period before the Board of Supervisors, as I and many others have. There have been screaming matches and harsh words instigated by various vociferous individuals. In other jurisdictions, such behavior has led to arrest. But the Supervisors have always let everyone speak. Ms. Morgan’s words sound nice, but there is no problem to begin with.This is typical of most of her website statements.

Lynn Morgan’s glib positions are like one size fits all clothing which means it tries to fit everyone but in reality fits no one. While she says that she belongs to no “contingent” her belief system is clear. She is a member of the Foothill Conservancy that has a very specific agenda. Her record shows that she is more than willing to bend the rules for her beliefs. Is this what people really want?

I’m asking the undecided voters to ask Lynn Morgan for specific positions and hard answers to the nice, but essentially meaningless pronouncements on her website. Where does the money for the things she wants come from? What are the most pressing priorities for our county? Is turning Buckhorn into a smart growth, high density community that may replicate the European villages our ancestors chose to leave behind one of them?

It’s easy to see, for a newcomer or an outsider to political process, the present Board of Supervisors as “entrenched”. It’s easy to conclude that a fresh new face could be productive. But that is a superficial look. You undecided voters must dig deeper. Lynn Morgan represents an agenda against your self interest and that of our county. Our future depends on your decision.