[GPSCC-chat] I'm back.

[Wes Rolley]

On 7/27/2013 4:42 PM, Gerry Gras wrote:
> That's a disturbing thought.  Can you say anything more
> about how likely / unlikely the fracking or steam recovery
> issues are? 
Gerry and all,
Those are good questions that are easily answered with 1 name: Stewart 
Resnick.  Resnick has a history of making very targeted political 
contributions: Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegget (get the 
picture... it is the office not the party) and most specifically Diane 
Feinstein whose husband is a poker playing, cigar smoking buddy of Resnick.

The connection to Fracking is through the Kern County Water Bank. 
Resnick gained control over the water bank during the Davis 
Administration.  It basically allows the accumulation of water at 
agricultural rates subsidized by tax payers and the resale of that water 
at commercial rates to the highest bidder.  To show just how much profit 
there is to be made, the Santa Clara Valley Water District sets 
groundwater charges for agricultural use at $18.30 per acre ft and for 
residential / industrial use at > $305 per a/f. in S. County and $680 in 
the rest of it's area.

Some good background on the relationship of Kern County Water Bank is 
available in this item by Burt Wilson on the web site of the California 
Water Impact Network:/Will Oil Companies Benefit Most From Delta Tunnels?/
http://www.c-win.org/content/burt-wilson-will-oil-companies-benefit-most-delta-tunnels.html

If we really want to think about this or pursue it as an action area, it 
might be necessary to think about water as an economic issue, something 
that David Zetland does quite well.  Zetland was quoted recently on a 
blog called WaterWired, owned by Michael Campana, Prof of Hydrology at 
Oregon State:
> Yesterday, I moderated a discussion over "Delta exports" (taking water 
> from the environment for farmers), and found people anchored in 
> unrealistic positions. The environmentalists, for example, want to 
> restore the ecosystem at the same time as exports continue. That 
> "cooperative" view is worthless to both sides. Exports need to end if 
> California is going to cope with climate change and move to 
> sustainable water use. A good share of farmers need to go out of 
> business (those without secure water rights already are), and urban 
> dwellers need to stop using 800 liters/capita/day. That can happen via 
> political fiat or *the process I described three years ago 
> <https://exmail.oregonstate.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=vlOAny2MHkyIPlH5LWMFa4A6i9x8XtAIT8R6C0AT_8nQS12POhj7XBf8POovy9uLOa2Wspwch3s.&URL=http%3a%2f%2faguanomics.hosted.phplist.com%2flists%2flt.php%3fid%3dLEUGAwROUAYZAFcC>.*

It is not going to be easy to resolve any of this, but all resolutions 
deserve to begin with the truth of the physical world.


-- 
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, 
then you are wasting your time on this Earth" - /Roberto Clemente/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130728/de47d39a/attachment.html>