Wild & Scenic California Politics

 I don’t make suggestions that I don’t follow. So after sending in my prior commentary I tried to email Loni Hancock and others on the State Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water and was not allowed by some of them. This is the message I received in the original red: Address is not in District. Please contact your District Representative. Apparently even I am naïve about the shredding of our democracy. The lights are out in the city on a hill. I cannot email a State Senator who is sponsoring a bill detrimental to my future and that of the county I love.

So I wrote via snail mail every Senator on the committee who would not accept emails from non district residents and said the following: “I am an Amador County resident and I am against designating any part of the Mokelumne River as Wild & Scenic including SB 1199. This designation will restrict property rights, negatively affect local businesses and prevent future gold mining, hydroelectric development or other uses. Also this state designation can lead to the even more restrictive Federal designation. It will probably even require water discharges in drought years to maintain the river’s so-called wild designation.

While this is vital issue for myself and my county, I am prevented from emailing you directly because I do not live in your district. Email is the most common place, affordable and convenient means of contact. Not allowing those directly affected by the actions of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water to email you is an affront to democratic process that I find offensive. Undoubtedly, there are reasons, or rationales, for this policy. Probably limiting the volume of emails and a process by which my senator contacts your office are among them. But are these, and probably others, sufficient to preclude email access and its negative effect upon citizen democracy?”

The following State Senators on the Natural Resources and Water Committee did accept emails from me: Anthony Cannella (R), Noreen Evans (D), Ricardo Lara (D) and Bill Monning (D).

Mark Bennett

Wild & Scenic Amador Politics

Not long after moving here, I became aware that local politics was the biggest intramural sport in the County. This year is no exception. Dropped near my doorstep was some campaign literature from Michael Spence. While this is all to the good, and door-to-door campaigning - the well spring of democracy - there was one problem. I live in a different Supervisorial district.

Sadly, there have been reports of campaign sign vandalism. If the vandals think that they are attacking just a candidate, and are not attacking free democratic expression, may God have mercy on their souls, for I have none.

One of our most polarizing issues is SB 1199 recently introduced into the State Senate by Senator Loni Hancock, who represents Oakland and Berkeley. This bill would designate part of the Mokelumne River here in Amador County as "Wild and Scenic". This state designation can lead to the even more stringent Federal designation. The river is only white water wild because of presently required discharges of dam impounded water. Therefore, the designation itself is inherently dishonest.

This designation will restrict property rights, negatively affect local businesses and prevent future gold mining, hydroelectric development or other uses. It will probably even require water discharges in drought years to maintain the river’s so-called "wild" designation. Will the white water rafters have greater rights than farmers and households? If the poor have no water to drink, will the environmental Marie Antoinettes say: "Let them drink soda?"

The easiest way to voice your objection is to go to the email form on the State Senators’ websites which can be quickly found from the California State Senate home page. You can simply state: “I am an Amador (or Calaveras) County resident. and I am against designating any part of the Mokelumne River as "Wild & Scenic.”

Please send an email to the bill’s sponsor, Loni Hancock, and to our State Senator, Tom Berryhill, and to all the members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water which is now considering this bill. They are: Senator Fran Pavley (Chair), Senator Anthony Cannella (Vice Chair), Senator Noreen Evans, Senator Jean Fuller, Senator Ben Hueso, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Senator Ricardo Lara, Senator Bill Monning, and Senator Lois Wolk. Their email forms, phone numbers and mailing addresses are available on the State Senate website. You may also want to contact our State Assembly Member Frank Bigelow.

Mark Bennett

Board of Supervisors Discuss Wild & Scenic River Designation

On April 15, 2014 the Amador County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the pending state legislation designating a portion of the Mokelumne River as Wild & Scenic. I made the following statement:

“I oppose both the state and Federal Wild & Scenic designations for the Mokelumne River and urge everyone here to also oppose these designations. Those supporting this designation claim economic benefits from tourism without any substantiating information or appropriately detailed analysis of the local tourism industry. I find this position to be absolute baloney, and totally incredulous when compared with gold mining, hydroelectric power generation and myriad other uses. Precluding other uses for future generations is an act of selfishness.

An article entitled “Who Controls the Mokelumne River” on the Foothill Conservancy website some time ago stated that 11 government entities regulate the Mokelumne. While I know this is “pie in the sky”, at present, I advocate reducing this number of entities. Just like the Sierra Nevada Conservancy which commissions studies rather than build fire breaks, we have far too many people pushing paper and not enough building things. Along with our infrastructure our factories are aging. So I also oppose these designations both as restrictive regulation and as a mis-allocation of resources and capital.

Related to this issue is the release of impounded water for weekend white water rafters. I first became aware of white water rafting as a child watching a newsreel at the local movie theater. It presented this activity as an obscure, dare devil sport. Later, I witnessed the white water rafter/ river control battles during my years in Colorado. My personal observation is that the environmental lobby created the contemporary white water rafting industry. It was, so to speak, a self-fulfilling or self-serving prophecy.  On Amador Community Television many years ago I shared this observation with a Foothill Conservancy luminary, and he refused to answer.”

The polarized participants created an intense hearing and admittedly, my opinion contributed. Many were accused of lying. Civil servants doing their essential job were referred to as predatory water agencies. The Foothill Conservancy’s contention that the state designation wouldn’t lead to a Federal designation is apparently unfounded. Clearly, the market for tax free revenue bonds is probably the best it’s ever been, and the Devil’s Nose Dam is more feasible than ever. One person stated that the change in part of Highway 16 from State highway to urban street, which will negatively affect Amador commuters, was caused by uncontrolled development interests. But the opposite is true. The project originated with uncontrolled environmental government requiring an infill project to abrogate market forces. I reviewed the public transit portion of this project in a professional capacity. The work was so abysmal that I felt ashamed to have a degree in planning.

The most impassioned exchange occurred when Supervisor Brain Oneto asked Katherine Evatt, president of the Foothill Conservancy, to produce the petition she claims to have with about a thousand signatures supporting the Wild & Scenic Designation. While I wonder how a secret petition can be a petition at all, she refused. When asked, she replied that Supervisor Oneto had, in the past, called and harassed petition signers. This is a very serious accusation. I wonder what her evidence is?

Fairness and Net Metering for Solar

What follows is a copy of a letter I just sent to State Senator Tom Berryhill and Assembly Member Frank Bigelow:

Of all the issues surrounding solar energy, including some unfortunate scandals, net metering for small producers is probably the most contentious presently. The California Legislature and the California Public Utilities Commission seem engaged in a turf war over regulatory powers. Currently small rooftop producers such as myself in PG&E territory are paid about four cents per kilowatt as spot market producers. But since small business or residential producers cannot sell to anyone else, we are not spot market participants. And while many special treatment environmental proposals abound, the fairest and the one endorsed by conservative economists is receiving the wholesale price for electricity. Assuming that wholesale is half of retail, my rooftop installation would earn me three times as much money as it does now. Multiplying that by all the similar rooftop solar equals a significant amount of money and an unknown amount of PG&E’s revenue.

It appears that all the various subsidies that make small solar installations feasible for homeowners are flowing through indirect means from the taxpayer to PG&E’s bottom line. Having them pay the fair wholesale price and ending subsidies seems like a sensible solution for both the small solar producer and the taxpayer. While some may argue that the subsidies were necessary to jump start the industry, that’s irrelevant now. Subsidies should end, and not surprisingly, they have bred an inefficient industry. The median installation cost of 49 cents per kilowatt in the US compares with 18 cents per kilowatt in Germany. The American solar industry is beginning to make changes and can become vastly more efficient. Also needing to be become efficient and modernized, and essential for national security, is the now underway rethinking of the grid caused in part by the impact of many new small and intermittent producers.

Hardly needing to be repeated, PG&E has a powerful lobby in Sacramento. But I am asking you to take on this issue because of fairness (perhaps crony capitalism?) and because of what I believe is widespread public support as witnessed by the coalition in Georgia between the tea parties and the Sierra Club.