Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds. That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California. I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive. Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns. I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel. Don --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San Francisco making the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt set-up? Why is failing to represent agricultural users in the region NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism exclude diverse users, including agricultural users and those with water rights from engaging in the decision-making process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base. done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict. Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base.
done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California. I grew up in it and know it well. It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds. For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist. Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality. Eric B Martin Zehr wrote:
That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base.
done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara
Eric, I am also familiar with the experience of Owens Lake and the consequences of urban demand. Urban political elites do not represent all the stakeholders inherently engaged in water issues. The progressivism of San Francisco does not extend to to grasping water planning in the context of water that they take from others. This is a political debate, not simply an issue of who is more progressive. Structural reform for a Green political party goes beyond the positions of the interests of one group of stakeholders. I personally believe that the urban progressive perspective has lost itself in the politics of advocacy groups and has lost rural context and a holistic approach. NM had a much better model of water planning then California ever constructed. http://www.waterassembly.org I fully understand your position and consider it as one that needs an open debate. I do not presume to believe in sacrificing our Core values. I am at heart a water planner. I fully grasp the conflicts between urban users and rural users. I see that many wine growers are supportive of the NRDC efforts and look to other constituencies as supportive of Green values. A political party needs to address the political and structural reforms that address the diversity of water users. Mato Ska Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:11:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California. I grew up in it and know it well. It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds. For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist. Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality. Eric B Martin Zehr wrote: That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict. Mato Ska Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base. done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote: Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds. That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California. I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive. Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns. I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel. Don --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM #yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} "They want water, we own the spigot." Don "San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region. Mato Ska "In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region. However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority. I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions: 1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place. cheers Eric B Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Mato- I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction. Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations. They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use? At the time Moran was calling for some type of common watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots. But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners. I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor. Then 911 happened.... Don --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM Eric, help me out here. How is the City of San Francisco making the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt set-up? Why is failing to represent agricultural users in the region NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism exclude diverse users, including agricultural users and those with water rights from engaging in the decision-making process? Mato SKa _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
The California water system and the corporate forces wheeling around it are completely different from the ecosystem and political dynamics in the New Mexico water system. They simply cannot be compared. And the last time we took advice from the corporate front group NRDC, we foolishly deregulated our electricity system... This stuff has much more powerful corporate interests involved in it than you are aware. In California big suburban developers and ag giants control the water, to all of our detriment, and our battle has always been to stop these interests from trashing our state. Recently our main problem has been big real estate developers who seek to vastly and unnecessarily expand the capacity of the Hetch Hetchy system to fuel a suburban building boom. We have had to fight hard to keep them from getting away with it, even here at the San Francisco Utilities Commission. If more voting power were given to the more conservative suburbs, those developers would simply waltz in, buy off all of the politicians in those suburbs and badly bleed the system, and therefore the Tuolumne watershed. Sierra river activists and already struggling fisheries would get squashed like a bug. cheers Eric B Martin Zehr wrote:
Eric,
I am also familiar with the experience of Owens Lake and the consequences of urban demand. Urban political elites do not represent all the stakeholders inherently engaged in water issues. The progressivism of San Francisco does not extend to to grasping water planning in the context of water that they take from others. This is a political debate, not simply an issue of who is more progressive. Structural reform for a Green political party goes beyond the positions of the interests of one group of stakeholders. I personally believe that the urban progressive perspective has lost itself in the politics of advocacy groups and has lost rural context and a holistic approach. NM had a much better model of water planning then California ever constructed. http://www.waterassembly.org I fully understand your position and consider it as one that needs an open debate. I do not presume to believe in sacrificing our Core values. I am at heart a water planner. I fully grasp the conflicts between urban users and rural users. I see that many wine growers are supportive of the NRDC efforts and look to other constituencies as supportive of Green values. A political party needs to address the political and structural reforms that address the diversity of water users.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:11:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California.
I grew up in it and know it well.
It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds.
For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist.
Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base.
done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
I suggest that the same impulses towards sprawl and development were no less relevant in NM than they are here. At issue is a strategy that can unite with a base beyond the urban users. It is not an advocacy group that I seek to represent. I am proposing regional elected authorities of stakeholders. The acceptance of diverse users in proportion to their use of the resource, not the size of their wallet, is the principle. It is just as easy to be suckered into a water war by municipalities claiming environmental principles as it is to be railroaded by developers and agri-businesses. The politics of water is based on allocations and establishing priorities for those allocations that are in the public welfare. A regional water plan, a water budget and a Public Welfare Statement developed by stakeholders are better instruments of determining allocations then the exclusion of particular users. Adaptive governance is a mode of political decision-making that establishes stakeholder buy-in and engagement without predetermined results. Mato Ska Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:20:44 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Hetch Hetchy Water Dynamics The California water system and the corporate forces wheeling around it are completely different from the ecosystem and political dynamics in the New Mexico water system. They simply cannot be compared. And the last time we took advice from the corporate front group NRDC, we foolishly deregulated our electricity system... This stuff has much more powerful corporate interests involved in it than you are aware. In California big suburban developers and ag giants control the water, to all of our detriment, and our battle has always been to stop these interests from trashing our state. Recently our main problem has been big real estate developers who seek to vastly and unnecessarily expand the capacity of the Hetch Hetchy system to fuel a suburban building boom. We have had to fight hard to keep them from getting away with it, even here at the San Francisco Utilities Commission. If more voting power were given to the more conservative suburbs, those developers would simply waltz in, buy off all of the politicians in those suburbs and badly bleed the system, and therefore the Tuolumne watershed. Sierra river activists and already struggling fisheries would get squashed like a bug. cheers Eric B Martin Zehr wrote: Eric, I am also familiar with the experience of Owens Lake and the consequences of urban demand. Urban political elites do not represent all the stakeholders inherently engaged in water issues. The progressivism of San Francisco does not extend to to grasping water planning in the context of water that they take from others. This is a political debate, not simply an issue of who is more progressive. Structural reform for a Green political party goes beyond the positions of the interests of one group of stakeholders. I personally believe that the urban progressive perspective has lost itself in the politics of advocacy groups and has lost rural context and a holistic approach. NM had a much better model of water planning then California ever constructed. http://www.waterassembly.org I fully understand your position and consider it as one that needs an open debate. I do not presume to believe in sacrificing ou r Core values. I am at heart a water planner. I fully grasp the conflicts between urban users and rural users. I see that many wine growers are supportive of the NRDC efforts and look to other constituencies as supportive of Green values. A political party needs to address the political and structural reforms that address the diversity of water users. Mato Ska Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:11:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California. I grew up in it and know it well. It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds. For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist. Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality. Eric B Martin Zehr wrote: That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict. Mato Ska Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base. done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote: Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds. That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California. I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive. Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns. I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel. Don --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM #yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} "They want water, we own the spigot." Don "San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region. Mato Ska "In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region. However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority. I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions: 1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place. cheers Eric B Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Mato- I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction. Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations. They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use? At the time Moran was calling for some type of common watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots. But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners. I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor. Then 911 happened.... Don --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM Eric, help me out here. How is the City of San Francisco making the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt set-up? Why is failing to represent agricultural users in the region NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism exclude diverse users, including agricultural users and those with water rights from engaging in the decision-making process? Mato SKa _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive _______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
That's all desirable, but we need to find a way to get to those goals without allowing corporations and developers to hijack the process. We have to move carefully and slowly. Meanwhile we need to block appointees like Moran who would facilitate such a hijacking in very short order. I agree with the goal. The question is how best to get there. cheers Eric Martin Zehr wrote:
I suggest that the same impulses towards sprawl and development were no less relevant in NM than they are here. At issue is a strategy that can unite with a base beyond the urban users. It is not an advocacy group that I seek to represent. I am proposing regional elected authorities of stakeholders. The acceptance of diverse users in proportion to their use of the resource, not the size of their wallet, is the principle. It is just as easy to be suckered into a water war by municipalities claiming environmental principles as it is to be railroaded by developers and agri-businesses.
The politics of water is based on allocations and establishing priorities for those allocations that are in the public welfare. A regional water plan, a water budget and a Public Welfare Statement developed by stakeholders are better instruments of determining allocations then the exclusion of particular users. Adaptive governance is a mode of political decision-making that establishes stakeholder buy-in and engagement without predetermined results.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:20:44 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Hetch Hetchy Water Dynamics
The California water system and the corporate forces wheeling around it are completely different from the ecosystem and political dynamics in the New Mexico water system. They simply cannot be compared.
And the last time we took advice from the corporate front group NRDC, we foolishly deregulated our electricity system...
This stuff has much more powerful corporate interests involved in it than you are aware.
In California big suburban developers and ag giants control the water, to all of our detriment, and our battle has always been to stop these interests from trashing our state.
Recently our main problem has been big real estate developers who seek to vastly and unnecessarily expand the capacity of the Hetch Hetchy system to fuel a suburban building boom. We have had to fight hard to keep them from getting away with it, even here at the San Francisco Utilities Commission. If more voting power were given to the more conservative suburbs, those developers would simply waltz in, buy off all of the politicians in those suburbs and badly bleed the system, and therefore the Tuolumne watershed. Sierra river activists and already struggling fisheries would get squashed like a bug.
cheers
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
Eric,
I am also familiar with the experience of Owens Lake and the consequences of urban demand. Urban political elites do not represent all the stakeholders inherently engaged in water issues. The progressivism of San Francisco does not extend to to grasping water planning in the context of water that they take from others. This is a political debate, not simply an issue of who is more progressive. Structural reform for a Green political party goes beyond the positions of the interests of one group of stakeholders. I personally believe that the urban progressive perspective has lost itself in the politics of advocacy groups and has lost rural context and a holistic approach. NM had a much better model of water planning then California ever constructed. http://www.waterassembly.org I fully understand your position and consider it as one that needs an open debate. I do not presume to believe in sacrificing ou r Core values. I am at heart a water planner. I fully grasp the conflicts between urban users and rural users. I see that many wine growers are supportive of the NRDC efforts and look to other constituencies as supportive of Green values. A political party needs to address the political and structural reforms that address the diversity of water users.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:11:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California.
I grew up in it and know it well.
It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds.
For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist.
Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base.
done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
In point of fact, the process in NM was so varied that developers had a hard time pushing an agenda. They were surrounded by Green urban users such as myself, environmental advocates, historical users, agricultural users, water managers and hydrologists. from the looks of the news story on the Hetch-Hetchy water that I just emailed to the lists, this is going to be something that we can prepare for now. The problem we had in the Middle Rio Grande regional plan was in implementation once we had it approved even by the municipalities in the region. Indeed, how do we best get there? Through the state legislature? Through the state water plan? through the PUC? This has been my own personal quandry since coming here. I still do not have my bearings as to what the commanding heights are in this battle. I appreciate your engagement with me as it is helping to clarify our common agenda and raises new questions for developing the area of work. Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:48:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: sustainactive@sfgreens.org; active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Hetch Hetchy Water Dynamics
That's all desirable, but we need to find a way to get to those goals without allowing corporations and developers to hijack the process. We have to move carefully and slowly. Meanwhile we need to block appointees like Moran who would facilitate such a hijacking in very short order.
I agree with the goal. The question is how best to get there.
cheers
Eric
Martin Zehr wrote:
I suggest that the same impulses towards sprawl and development were no less relevant in NM than they are here. At issue is a strategy that can unite with a base beyond the urban users. It is not an advocacy group that I seek to represent. I am proposing regional elected authorities of stakeholders. The acceptance of diverse users in proportion to their use of the resource, not the size of their wallet, is the principle. It is just as easy to be suckered into a water war by municipalities claiming environmental principles as it is to be railroaded by developers and agri-businesses.
The politics of water is based on allocations and establishing priorities for those allocations that are in the public welfare. A regional water plan, a water budget and a Public Welfare Statement developed by stakeholders are better instruments of determining allocations then the exclusion of particular users. Adaptive governance is a mode of political decision-making that establishes stakeholder buy-in and engagement without predetermined results.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:20:44 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Hetch Hetchy Water Dynamics
The California water system and the corporate forces wheeling around it are completely different from the ecosystem and political dynamics in the New Mexico water system. They simply cannot be compared.
And the last time we took advice from the corporate front group NRDC, we foolishly deregulated our electricity system...
This stuff has much more powerful corporate interests involved in it than you are aware.
In California big suburban developers and ag giants control the water, to all of our detriment, and our battle has always been to stop these interests from trashing our state.
Recently our main problem has been big real estate developers who seek to vastly and unnecessarily expand the capacity of the Hetch Hetchy system to fuel a suburban building boom. We have had to fight hard to keep them from getting away with it, even here at the San Francisco Utilities Commission. If more voting power were given to the more conservative suburbs, those developers would simply waltz in, buy off all of the politicians in those suburbs and badly bleed the system, and therefore the Tuolumne watershed. Sierra river activists and already struggling fisheries would get squashed like a bug.
cheers
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
Eric,
I am also familiar with the experience of Owens Lake and the consequences of urban demand. Urban political elites do not represent all the stakeholders inherently engaged in water issues. The progressivism of San Francisco does not extend to to grasping water planning in the context of water that they take from others. This is a political debate, not simply an issue of who is more progressive. Structural reform for a Green political party goes beyond the positions of the interests of one group of stakeholders. I personally believe that the urban progressive perspective has lost itself in the politics of advocacy groups and has lost rural context and a holistic approach. NM had a much better model of water planning then California ever constructed. http://www.waterassembly.org I fully understand your position and consider it as one that needs an open debate. I do not presume to believe in sacrificing ou r Core values. I am at heart a water planner. I fully grasp the conflicts between urban users and rural users. I see that many wine growers are supportive of the NRDC efforts and look to other constituencies as supportive of Green values. A political party needs to address the political and structural reforms that address the diversity of water users.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:11:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org CC: active@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska, you simply need to dig deeper into the water wars that have dominated California.
I grew up in it and know it well.
It is urban cosmopolitan elites who lean toward environmental sensibilities who have served as a counterweight (although just barely) to developers and factory farms to keep them from hogging so much water that they destroy rural communities, small farms, fisheries, and mountain and desert watersheds.
For example, without our appeal to the urban dwellers of L.A., Inyo and Mono County, where I grew up, would have been completely devastated, and the precious and unique Mono lake ecosystem would no longer exist.
Keeping decision making weighted in the much larger and more environmentally progressive urban population in San Francisco -protects- the system and the watersheds from overexploitation by rich capitalists who would otherwise buy up and control all of the water for their own selfish gain. It's not precisely democratic, but it's reality.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
That is an issue of regional planning, not of private (or corporate, if you want to) ownership of farms. Agriculture always accounts for the majority of consumptive use. Urban political power is always greater than rural influence. When we accept the urban vs. rural parameters we really fail to acknowledge the potential of agricultural integration in local urban economic development. When we fail to see the distinction between Green urban users and other urban users we fail to present the holistic bio-regionalism that can unify urban and rural users. California Greens are aggressively anti-ag, and often use the expression "agribusinesses" inappropriately without analysis. it is an URBAN impulse, not a Green impulse that acts out this conflict.
Mato Ska
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:09 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: active@sfgreens.org; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Another important point here is that the corporate agribusiness we are talking about uses over 80% of the system's water, much of that very wastefully when it could make small improvements to preserve the water base.
done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds.
That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California.
I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive.
Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns.
I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel.
Don
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777@sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM
#yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1123256795 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
"They want water, we own the spigot." Don
"San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers" Eric
You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture in the region.
Mato Ska
"In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by all citizens throughout the region.
However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the majority of votes on the Authority.
I would be all for a regional decision making body with four strict conditions:
1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto power over all system decisions. 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative numbers on the joint authority to protect residential customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the Los Angeles water system) 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were given strongly weighted representation on the authority and 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was forced to switch to a public power system for its electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place.
cheers
Eric B
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: brookse32@aim.com; active@sfgreens.org;
sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee
Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato-
I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the
decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction.
Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in
suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations.
They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a
bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use?
At the time Moran was calling for some type of common
watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots.
But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in
most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners.
I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as
a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor.
Then 911 happened....
Don
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr
<m_zehr@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC
Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
To: "Eric Brooks"
<brookse32@aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active@sfgreens.org>, sustainactive@sfgreens.org
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM
Eric,
help me out here. How is the City of San
Francisco making
the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt
set-up?
Why is failing to represent agricultural users in
the region
NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism
exclude
diverse users, including agricultural
users and those
with water rights from engaging in the
decision-making
process?
Mato SKa
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
_______________________________________________ SustainActive mailing list SustainActive@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
_______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
participants (3)
-
done7777＠sbcglobal.net -
Eric Brooks -
Martin Zehr