The
proponents of this designation tell us that they are preserving this portion of
the Mokelumne River for future generations. What self-righteous arrogance
allows someone to tell those yet unborn what the water needs, for example, of
future gold mining will be? Will we be free enough to trade our gold for the
Treasury debt held by often hostile foreign powers or will we have to lose our
American souls instead?
How
much water will a “green energy” biomass plant require? We now have burn piles
everywhere that sometimes get out of control, yet in less time that it takes to
burn this waste, it could be hauled to a biomass plant. Shouldn’t those who come
after us have the same opportunity to determine their destiny as we do? This
designation is simply selfish.
This
designation is also being falsely discussed as a stand alone measure. Add up
all the wild and scenic designations, conservation easements, carbon capture
forests and the like and place them upon a map of the United States. The result is the land tenure system of the Middle Ages. This is precisely what most of our ancestors chose to leave behind
when they came to America. If the
reality of private property and land ownership for too many of us disappears
what is the replacement basis for our freedoms?
These
two overriding considerations are as factual, if not more so, that all the
discussions of water rights and acre feet. But the argument of who has “their
facts correct” is used to obscure these broader issues. Some have the time, and outside financing, to
absorb the minutiae and use this to claim superiority over others in the
ongoing public discussion in various local media. This technique was used by
Foothill Conservancy in the early 1990’s as it is today. Others of us just
don’t know the “facts” or we are just uninformed, or something worse.
The
Foothill Conservancy is adamant that the river needs interim protection. From oil refineries? Chemical plants? If
anything is proposed for the Mokelumne the environmental litigation would
probably exceed my expected life span. Beyond a blatant exercise of power this
demand makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Yet they were able to get this river protection added to the
Bigalow/Berryhill bill. This doesn’t surprise me, since both legislators’ districts
include valley agricultural interests. They are down river from us just as East
Bay MUD is. And all the water released for the recreational benefit of rafters
and kayakers ends up under the control of East Bay MUD or others.
When
I suggested “That the East Bay folks want our portion of the river to be wild and scenic is perhaps more than a coincidence” I was accused of “…engaging in
‘Big Lie’ propaganda-say it often enough and people will believe it’s true.” A
coincidence of interests is abundantly evident. The Bay Area sees us as their
recreational resource and little else. Ever try to white water raft down Market
Street? They believe only what fits their narrative. The East Bay Express
characterized us as “…dominated by conservative Republicans who …tend to oppose
all environmental regulations.” What they chose not to see is that almost half
of Amador County is registered Democrat, but that many of those Democrats are
traditional Democrats and still favor economic development. The statement that “tend to oppose all environmental
regulations” is their self defined conclusion and little else.
While
Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy got her letter to the Editor
printed in the East Bay Express, they refused to print my letter criticizing
their article. I then submitted my letter to several other Bay Area newspapers,
some allegedly “conservative” and was rejected every time. Their view of us,
and their right to govern us, was clearly confirmed in this instance. Often,
and naturally, those with a coincidence of interests have disagreements. And quite often, that coincidence of
interests is so strong that it leaves us pondering the meaning of the word "coincidence".
Note:
I am referring to my letter printed here as “East Bay Bias for Wild &Scenic” on 6/13/14.
Copyright
2015, Mark L. Bennett
