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
"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
We aren't talking about 'agriculture'. We are talking about massive factory farming corporations that destroy the environment and the water supply and treat undocumented workers like crap. Martin Zehr wrote:
"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
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market. There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted. Don Martin Zehr wrote:
"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
Don, This is EXACTLY the substance of debate around water and bio-regionalism. As long as cities, whether run by "progressives" and Greens or by Republicans and apparatchniks try to divorce use from supply, cities will seek to politically dominate. Bringing organic agriculture into the mix is a separate issue. It deserves to stand and to be supported where it is economically viable. it deserves to be promoted by providing local markets in neighboring urban areas. Advocates of organic farming need to structure the markets and distribution and to increase the consumption of organic produce that will benefit organic farmers. Planning that is based bio-regionally needs representation of stakeholders and not presume pre-determined allocations or be over-represented by urban users. A water budget can be formulated based on a holistic review of use and priorities. We have within the Green Party substantive differences about what this means. I make no claim to speak on behalf of agricultural users, but neither can I blindly deny farmers the water they need. We all need to use water to grow our food, to wash ourselves, to live day-to-day. I don't seek to deny it to agricultural users to penalize them for overuse or for polluting water through the use of pesticides or for providing meat and other foodstuffs. Our water authorities need to be more representative than our city councils because the uses of water are so much more diverse, and have so much more significance, then the political differences in a certain geo-political region. Bio-regionalism is the structural form of decision-making and not a matter of who has the pull to make the decisions. Ecological democracy means recognizing that we live, not only within our ecological context, but also in a community of varied water users. Our decisions affect others. Decentralizing the economy means developing urban gardens as well as developing local food industries provided by local agriculture. The Central Valley seems remote to San Franciscans but we are still able to see and hear the voices of concern and protest in Fresno. Regionally planning means developing priorities for allocations in an equitable manner. It means incorporating the hydrology, the diverse users, the water managers and the environment and proposing sound recommendations capable of addressing the variety of issues and needs. It means not making farmers the enemies when they face drought that urban users rarely feel the consequences of. Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:20:38 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: m_zehr@hotmail.com CC: brookse32@aim.com; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market.
There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted.
Don
Martin Zehr wrote:
"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
Mato Ska, The regional planing democracy that you lay out below is a utopian fantasy in California and is simply not the way things would turn out in real life. And the 'farmers' you refer to are not in fact farmers, they are huge agribusiness corporations which hire exploited undocumented workers at slave wages to do the actually farming. Giving those corporations an equal seat at a regional decision making table would simply be a continuation and expansion of the intolerable and unconstitutional granting of 'personhood' to corporations which began in the 1800s. This would subvert regional democratic process, not strengthen it. Eric B Martin Zehr wrote:
Don,
This is EXACTLY the substance of debate around water and bio-regionalism. As long as cities, whether run by "progressives" and Greens or by Republicans and apparatchniks try to divorce use from supply, cities will seek to politically dominate.
Bringing organic agriculture into the mix is a separate issue. It deserves to stand and to be supported where it is economically viable. it deserves to be promoted by providing local markets in neighboring urban areas. Advocates of organic farming need to structure the markets and distribution and to increase the consumption of organic produce that will benefit organic farmers.
Planning that is based bio-regionally needs representation of stakeholders and not presume pre-determined allocations or be over-represented by urban users. A water budget can be formulated based on a holistic review of use and priorities. We have within the Green Party substantive differences about what this means. I make no claim to speak on behalf of agricultural users, but neither can I blindly deny farmers the water they need. We all need to use water to grow our food, to wash ourselves, to live day-to-day. I don't seek to deny it to agricultural users to penalize them for overuse or for polluting water through the use of pesticides or for providing meat and other foodstuffs.
Our water authorities need to be more representative than our city councils because the uses of water are so much more diverse, and have so much more significance, then the political differences in a certain geo-political region. Bio-regionalism is the structural form of decision-making and not a matter of who has the pull to make the decisions. Ecological democracy means recognizing that we live, not only within our ecological context, but also in a community of varied water users. Our decisions affect others. Decentralizing the economy means developing urban gardens as well as developing local food industries provided by local agriculture.
The Central Valley seems remote to San Franciscans but we are still able to see and hear the voices of concern and protest in Fresno. Regionally planning means developing priorities for allocations in an equitable manner. It means incorporating the hydrology, the diverse users, the water managers and the environment and proposing sound recommendations capable of addressing the variety of issues and needs. It means not making farmers the enemies when they face drought that urban users rarely feel the consequences of.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:20:38 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: m_zehr@hotmail.com CC: brookse32@aim.com; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market.
There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted.
Don
Martin Zehr wrote:
"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
Eric, As I have stated THAT is the substance of the debate. How farmers are characterized as water users and how they are to be represented in a planning process lies at the heart of whether it is just a matter of changing faces or instituting real change. NOT representing them is undemocratic and presumes the right for others to represent them. Real politics is the conflict between various groups with divergent interests. See how people feel when famine becomes a consequence of failing to address substantive issues in a manner that is inclusive. Stalin tried to declare war against the kulaks with disasterous consequences. Restructuring agricultural policies and reforming of agricultural labor laws and wage standards are separate issues. As much as San Franciscans may think they can speak for farmworkers they do so at the risk of their own credibility. Regional planning is already taking place throughout the United States. It is far from utopian. It represents the convergence of local people who see no solutions in the arbitrary processes that have no authority attached to them. The role of Green urban users is vital in uniting with various groups and forgoing the traditional urban-rural water conflicts. Green urban users do have a unique perspective to bring to the table and certainly it is not my intention to minimize it. Our ability to function beyond the "progressive" agenda requires a populist recognition of the importance of farmers politically and economically. For Greens it means recognizing the world as it is and the world as it can be. it means going beyond the politics of environmental groups and beginning to speak for broader constituencies. As a political party, as with nature, we either grow or die. Mato Ska ----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska,
The regional planing democracy that you lay out below is a utopian fantasy in California and is simply not the way things would turn out in real life.
And the 'farmers' you refer to are not in fact farmers, they are huge agribusiness corporations which hire exploited undocumented workers at slave wages to do the actually farming. Giving those corporations an equal seat at a regional decision making table would simply be a continuation and expansion of the intolerable and unconstitutional granting of 'personhood' to corporations which began in the 1800s.
This would subvert regional democratic process, not strengthen it.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
Don,
This is EXACTLY the substance of debate around water and bio-regionalism. As long as cities, whether run by "progressives" and Greens or by Republicans and apparatchniks try to divorce use from supply, cities will seek to politically dominate.
Bringing organic agriculture into the mix is a separate issue. It deserves to stand and to be supported where it is economically viable. it deserves to be promoted by providing local markets in neighboring urban areas. Advocates of organic farming need to structure the markets and distribution and to increase the consumption of organic produce that will benefit organic farmers.
Planning that is based bio-regionally needs representation of stakeholders and not presume pre-determined allocations or be over-represented by urban users. A water budget can be formulated based on a holistic review of use and priorities. We have within the Green Party substantive differences about what this means. I make no claim to speak on behalf of agricultural users, but neither can I blindly deny farmers the water they need. We all need to use water to grow our food, to wash ourselves, to live day-to-day. I don't seek to deny it to agricultural users to penalize them for overuse or for polluting water through the use of pesticides or for providing meat and other foodstuffs.
Our water authorities need to be more representative than our city councils because the uses of water are so much more diverse, and have so much more significance, then the political differences in a certain geo-political region. Bio-regionalism is the structural form of decision-making and not a matter of who has the pull to make the decisions. Ecological democracy means recognizing that we live, not only within our ecological context, but also in a community of varied water users. Our decisions affect others. Decentralizing the economy means developing urban gardens as well as developing local food industries provided by local agriculture.
The Central Valley seems remote to San Franciscans but we are still able to see and hear the voices of concern and protest in Fresno. Regionally planning means developing priorities for allocations in an equitable manner. It means incorporating the hydrology, the diverse users, the water managers and the environment and proposing sound recommendations capable of addressing the variety of issues and needs. It means not making farmers the enemies when they face drought that urban users rarely feel the consequences of.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:20:38 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: m_zehr@hotmail.com CC: brookse32@aim.com; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market.
There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted.
Don
Martin Zehr wrote:
"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 wrote:
From: Martin Zehr Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Eric Brooks" , "SF Active Greens" , 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
See the attachment for the character of California farms. From: m_zehr@hotmail.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:40:14 -0700 Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment Eric, As I have stated THAT is the substance of the debate. How farmers are characterized as water users and how they are to be represented in a planning process lies at the heart of whether it is just a matter of changing faces or instituting real change. NOT representing them is undemocratic and presumes the right for others to represent them. Real politics is the conflict between various groups with divergent interests. See how people feel when famine becomes a consequence of failing to address substantive issues in a manner that is inclusive. Stalin tried to declare war against the kulaks with disasterous consequences. Restructuring agricultural policies and reforming of agricultural labor laws and wage standards are separate issues. As much as San Franciscans may think they can speak for farmworkers they do so at the risk of their own credibility. Regional planning is already taking place throughout the United States. It is far from utopian. It represents the convergence of local people who see no solutions in the arbitrary processes that have no authority attached to them. The role of Green urban users is vital in uniting with various groups and forgoing the traditional urban-rural water conflicts. Green urban users do have a unique perspective to bring to the table and certainly it is not my intention to minimize it. Our ability to function beyond the "progressive" agenda requires a populist recognition of the importance of farmers politically and economically. For Greens it means recognizing the world as it is and the world as it can be. it means going beyond the politics of environmental groups and beginning to speak for broader constituencies. As a political party, as with nature, we either grow or die. Mato Ska ----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska,
The regional planing democracy that you lay out below is a utopian fantasy in California and is simply not the way things would turn out in real life.
And the 'farmers' you refer to are not in fact farmers, they are huge agribusiness corporations which hire exploited undocumented workers at slave wages to do the actually farming. Giving those corporations an equal seat at a regional decision making table would simply be a continuation and expansion of the intolerable and unconstitutional granting of 'personhood' to corporations which began in the 1800s.
This would subvert regional democratic process, not strengthen it.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
Don,
This is EXACTLY the substance of debate around water and bio-regionalism. As long as cities, whether run by "progressives" and Greens or by Republicans and apparatchniks try to divorce use from supply, cities will seek to politically dominate.
Bringing organic agriculture into the mix is a separate issue. It deserves to stand and to be supported where it is economically viable. it deserves to be promoted by providing local markets in neighboring urban areas. Advocates of organic farming need to structure the markets and distribution and to increase the consumption of organic produce that will benefit organic farmers.
Planning that is based bio-regionally needs representation of stakeholders and not presume pre-determined allocations or be over-represented by urban users. A water budget can be formulated based on a holistic review of use and priorities. We have within the Green Party substantive differences about what this means. I make no claim to speak on behalf of agricultural users, but neither can I blindly deny farmers the water they need. We all need to use water to grow our food, to wash ourselves, to live day-to-day. I don't seek to deny it to agricultural users to penalize them for overuse or for polluting water through the use of pesticides or for providing meat and other foodstuffs.
Our water authorities need to be more representative than our city councils because the uses of water are so much more diverse, and have so much more significance, then the political differences in a certain geo-political region. Bio-regionalism is the structural form of decision-making and not a matter of who has the pull to make the decisions. Ecological democracy means recognizing that we live, not only within our ecological context, but also in a community of varied water users. Our decisions affect others. Decentralizing the economy means developing urban gardens as well as developing local food industries provided by local agriculture.
The Central Valley seems remote to San Franciscans but we are still able to see and hear the voices of concern and protest in Fresno. Regionally planning means developing priorities for allocations in an equitable manner. It means incorporating the hydrology, the diverse users, the water managers and the environment and proposing sound recommendations capable of addressing the variety of issues and needs. It means not making farmers the enemies when they face drought that urban users rarely feel the consequences of.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:20:38 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: m_zehr@hotmail.com CC: brookse32@aim.com; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market.
There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted.
Don
Martin Zehr wrote:
"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 wrote:
From: Martin Zehr Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment To: "Eric Brooks" , "SF Active Greens" , 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
This data does not tell the story that most farm activity is big factory style mono-cropping which is governed by seed, chemical and other ag giants. Data put out by USDA needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Martin Zehr wrote:
See the attachment for the character of California farms.
From: m_zehr@hotmail.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:40:14 -0700 Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Eric,
As I have stated THAT is the substance of the debate. How farmers are characterized as water users and how they are to be represented in a planning process lies at the heart of whether it is just a matter of changing faces or instituting real change. NOT representing them is undemocratic and presumes the right for others to represent them.
Real politics is the conflict between various groups with divergent interests. See how people feel when famine becomes a consequence of failing to address substantive issues in a manner that is inclusive. Stalin tried to declare war against the kulaks with disasterous consequences. Restructuring agricultural policies and reforming of agricultural labor laws and wage standards are separate issues. As much as San Franciscans may think they can speak for farmworkers they do so at the risk of their own credibility.
Regional planning is already taking place throughout the United States. It is far from utopian. It represents the convergence of local people who see no solutions in the arbitrary processes that have no authority attached to them. The role of Green urban users is vital in uniting with various groups and forgoing the traditional urban-rural water conflicts. Green urban users do have a unique perspective to bring to the table and certainly it is not my intention to minimize it. Our ability to function beyond the "progressive" agenda requires a populist recognition of the importance of farmers politically and economically. For Greens it means recognizing the world as it is and the world as it can be. it means going beyond the politics of environmental groups and beginning to speak for broader constituencies. As a political party, as with nature, we either grow or die.
Mato Ska
----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com To: sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
Mato Ska,
The regional planing democracy that you lay out below is a utopian fantasy in California and is simply not the way things would turn out in real life.
And the 'farmers' you refer to are not in fact farmers, they are huge agribusiness corporations which hire exploited undocumented workers at slave wages to do the actually farming. Giving those corporations an equal seat at a regional decision making table would simply be a continuation and expansion of the intolerable and unconstitutional granting of 'personhood' to corporations which began in the 1800s.
This would subvert regional democratic process, not strengthen it.
Eric B
Martin Zehr wrote:
Don,
This is EXACTLY the substance of debate around water and bio-regionalism. As long as cities, whether run by "progressives" and Greens or by Republicans and apparatchniks try to divorce use from supply, cities will seek to politically dominate.
Bringing organic agriculture into the mix is a separate issue. It deserves to stand and to be supported where it is economically viable. it deserves to be promoted by providing local markets in neighboring urban areas. Advocates of organic farming need to structure the markets and distribution and to increase the consumption of organic produce that will benefit organic farmers.
Planning that is based bio-regionally needs representation of stakeholders and not presume pre-determined allocations or be over-represented by urban users. A water budget can be formulated based on a holistic review of use and priorities. We have within the Green Party substantive differences about what this means. I make no claim to speak on behalf of agricultural users, but neither can I blindly deny farmers the water they need. We all need to use water to grow our food, to wash ourselves, to live day-to-day. I don't seek to deny it to agricultural users to penalize them for overuse or for polluting water through the use of pesticides or for providing meat and other foodstuffs.
Our water authorities need to be more representative than our city councils because the uses of water are so much more diverse, and have so much more significance, then the political differences in a certain geo-political region. Bio-regionalism is the structural form of decision-making and not a matter of who has the pull to make the decisions. Ecological democracy means recognizing that we live, not only within our ecological context, but also in a community of varied water users. Our decisions affect others. Decentralizing the economy means developing urban gardens as well as developing local food industries provided by local agriculture.
The Central Valley seems remote to San Franciscans but we are still able to see and hear the voices of concern and protest in Fresno. Regionally planning means developing priorities for allocations in an equitable manner. It means incorporating the hydrology, the diverse users, the water managers and the environment and proposing sound recommendations capable of addressing the variety of issues and needs. It means not making farmers the enemies when they face drought that urban users rarely feel the consequences of.
Mato Ska
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:20:38 -0700 From: done7777@sbcglobal.net To: m_zehr@hotmail.com CC: brookse32@aim.com; sustainactive@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
For bioregionalism, the ideal would be to work with local organic farmers to supply food locally while protecting water sheds, not working with the agriculture industry to pollute the water and export the produce to the highest paying market.
There have to be protections set in place against agribusiness taking over water policy. Food production is important and should be given special consideration when allocating water resources. But how food is grown is equally important and needs to be promoted.
Don
Martin Zehr wrote:
"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 wrote:
> From: Martin Zehr > Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment > To: "Eric Brooks" , "SF Active Greens" , 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
participants (4)
-
Don Eichelberger -
done7777＠sbcglobal.net
-
Eric Brooks -
Martin Zehr