Three (3) Fracking bills clear the Committee
The Assembly Natural Resources Committee were passed and headed toward the Appropriations Committee before they go tot he floor.
AB 1301 -- Richard Bloom's bill -- would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" until conditions may be studied.
AB 1323 -- Holly Mitchell's bill - would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" until and advisory committee can review the methods.
AB 649 -- Adrin Nazarian's bill -- would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" any where near an aquifer or use clean fresh water until a report can be prepared and studied.
The same three Assembly members voted against all three bills -- Grove, Bigelow and Patterson. All three are from the Central Valley area.
Bigelow's spokesperson said that he voted against these bills because they are already regulated and studied.
Article here
AB 1301 -- Richard Bloom's bill -- would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" until conditions may be studied.
AB 1323 -- Holly Mitchell's bill - would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" until and advisory committee can review the methods.
AB 649 -- Adrin Nazarian's bill -- would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" any where near an aquifer or use clean fresh water until a report can be prepared and studied.
The same three Assembly members voted against all three bills -- Grove, Bigelow and Patterson. All three are from the Central Valley area.
Bigelow's spokesperson said that he voted against these bills because they are already regulated and studied.
Article here
Delta Council and ACWA oppose Wolk's Bill
State Senator Lois Wolk who represents the Northern Counties along the California's Delta introduced SB 735, that fights for Delta Counties and business interest to have a voice in the current Delta Plan.
Delta Stewardship Council Chair, Phil Isenberg, Vice Chair Randy Florini, and Council Member Patrick Johnson wrote a letter objecting to her bill saying that the value of coordination with the plan's other co-equal goal must be considered.
Isenberg a former Mayor of Sacramento worked for years on the Delta issues. Florini is from Turlock, CA a farming community heavily dependent water from the delta. Johnson is from the Stockton community.
She also calls for maintaining the current regulations on Endangered Species and the Fish and Game. The Delta Stewardship's Board has not agreed to all the current regulations and she has concerns about this potential problem in the future.
Some of the signatures in the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) include Burbank water and power, Glendale Water and Power, Kern County Water Agency, Southern California Water Committee, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Mojave Water Agency and, yes of course, Westlands Water District.
I posted the link to Wolk's bill on the "Water at the State Level" page for your review.
Delta Stewardship Council Chair, Phil Isenberg, Vice Chair Randy Florini, and Council Member Patrick Johnson wrote a letter objecting to her bill saying that the value of coordination with the plan's other co-equal goal must be considered.
Isenberg a former Mayor of Sacramento worked for years on the Delta issues. Florini is from Turlock, CA a farming community heavily dependent water from the delta. Johnson is from the Stockton community.
She also calls for maintaining the current regulations on Endangered Species and the Fish and Game. The Delta Stewardship's Board has not agreed to all the current regulations and she has concerns about this potential problem in the future.
Some of the signatures in the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) include Burbank water and power, Glendale Water and Power, Kern County Water Agency, Southern California Water Committee, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Mojave Water Agency and, yes of course, Westlands Water District.
I posted the link to Wolk's bill on the "Water at the State Level" page for your review.
It's about time for some GOOD News
As of today (April 19, 2013) Halliburton's stock has DROPPED 1.33%. The problem, according to them, is the weak North American land-based drilling and higher raw material costs.
Halliburton's revenue went up by 3%. That's an income of around $7.3 billion. But their operations fell by 35% to $592 million.
Here's something I found most interesting. According to the Forbes article: Halliburton "expected to record a $30 million charge related to foreign exchange losses in Venezuela.
The article said that the company's drilling activity in North America has been sluggish because gas prices are low. (You think they might manipulate this market to change that?) The experts complained about "Over Competition."
In plain English: THE FRACKING MARKET IS WEAK.
Analysis of the Halliburton Company
Halliburton's revenue went up by 3%. That's an income of around $7.3 billion. But their operations fell by 35% to $592 million.
Here's something I found most interesting. According to the Forbes article: Halliburton "expected to record a $30 million charge related to foreign exchange losses in Venezuela.
The article said that the company's drilling activity in North America has been sluggish because gas prices are low. (You think they might manipulate this market to change that?) The experts complained about "Over Competition."
In plain English: THE FRACKING MARKET IS WEAK.
Analysis of the Halliburton Company
Fuzzy Math when it comes to the Delta's water
Here is some funny math. Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin said that Delta water deliveries "could" (not would) be reduced by 10% or increased by 5%
But this is the fuzzy part -- He's starting with 5.3 million acre feet a year figure.
That's the number in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan's proposals.
But wait a minute. The state's Natural Resources Agency has typically exported 4.8 million acre feet. That's moving the starting point UP 9.4%.
The 2009 "Delta Reform Act" clearly stated "The policy of the State of California is to reduce reliance on the Delta.
Fuzzy math!
But this is the fuzzy part -- He's starting with 5.3 million acre feet a year figure.
That's the number in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan's proposals.
But wait a minute. The state's Natural Resources Agency has typically exported 4.8 million acre feet. That's moving the starting point UP 9.4%.
The 2009 "Delta Reform Act" clearly stated "The policy of the State of California is to reduce reliance on the Delta.
Fuzzy math!
Fight over Fracking in CA is taking another step
Environmental groups have filed suit against the sale of 18,000 acre oil lease sales. The groups won their lawsuit just a couple of weeks ago on the ground that the Bureau of Land Management failed to perform the proper review of it's environmental impact on the area.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not going to sit and wait for the Bureau to start all over again. The group wants BLM to stop and look at the serious impact on the area, not to mention the limited water supply.
Story here
Here is a good story of the "Debate" over fracking here at KQED
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not going to sit and wait for the Bureau to start all over again. The group wants BLM to stop and look at the serious impact on the area, not to mention the limited water supply.
Story here
Here is a good story of the "Debate" over fracking here at KQED
States demanding testing for toxic chemicals
Haliburton says they are trade secrets
West Virginia is fighting to stop legislation that would protect Haliburton from revealing what toxic chemicals they are pumping into the ground. Normally a company would not be allowed to put anything toxic in the ground, but in 2005 President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act where it said that since the United States was suffering in an "Energy Crisis" Hydraulic-Fracturing would be exempt from the Clean-Air-Act and the Clean-Water-Act better known as the Haliburton's Rule.
“It’s pretty ludicrous to say, ‘We’re gonna pump secret chemicals into the ground, and we’re gonna transport them through your towns, past your schools. And I’m sorry, you just can’t know that they are, “ said Chuck Wyrostock, Outreach coordinator of West Virginia Sierra Club.
How can landowners know what to test for in their well water if they don't know what to look for? How can doctors know how to treat their patients if they don't know what they have been exposed to?
West Virginia Article Here
FYI -- Here are some of the Bills in California:
Any fracking would use water, water that we are fighting over, so I have a problem with anything that doesn't address the available water for all Californian PEOPLE first.
“It’s pretty ludicrous to say, ‘We’re gonna pump secret chemicals into the ground, and we’re gonna transport them through your towns, past your schools. And I’m sorry, you just can’t know that they are, “ said Chuck Wyrostock, Outreach coordinator of West Virginia Sierra Club.
How can landowners know what to test for in their well water if they don't know what to look for? How can doctors know how to treat their patients if they don't know what they have been exposed to?
West Virginia Article Here
FYI -- Here are some of the Bills in California:
- AB 7 (Wieckowski) - would provide comprehensive framework for fracking regulation. Chemical disclosure post-fracking, trade secret protection and notice-of-intent for fracking required (among other provisions). It is before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
- AB 288 (Levine) - would provide general principles to fracking to protect public health and safety. It is before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
- AB 669 (Stone) -would require more tracking, approval reporting related to produced water and related information. It is before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Any fracking would use water, water that we are fighting over, so I have a problem with anything that doesn't address the available water for all Californian PEOPLE first.
Fracking is a Danger to clean safe water, but where's the protection?
This is a website dedicated to protecting our water and it looks like Fracking creates the greatest danger to the quality of of our water, and State and Federal Regulators are more interested in keeping the Industry happy instead of protecting our water.
A UC Berkeley report, on the Document's page, says that California needs to tighten their regulations. Just look at the story below and we can see the flagrant disregard for regulations.
Now we have the U.S. Coast Guard submitting a proposal to move this toxic water. What are they going to do with this toxic water? Southern California has to fight for the water needed for it's community. Can we really be dumping dangerous chemicals in our valued resource and then haul it off to be disposed when our back are turned.
A UC Berkeley report, on the Document's page, says that California needs to tighten their regulations. Just look at the story below and we can see the flagrant disregard for regulations.
Now we have the U.S. Coast Guard submitting a proposal to move this toxic water. What are they going to do with this toxic water? Southern California has to fight for the water needed for it's community. Can we really be dumping dangerous chemicals in our valued resource and then haul it off to be disposed when our back are turned.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board took action
Well they asked Vintage Production to report back about the specifics in this video. I guess you could call that action.
Is this going to be one of those cases where they says "It's not my fault. It's his fault"?
The Link to the actual Press Release is here.
Is this going to be one of those cases where they says "It's not my fault. It's his fault"?
The Link to the actual Press Release is here.
These "Fracking Problems in California" stories just never seem to end
KBFA/KBFX (Bakersfieldnow.com) Someone showed the Central Valley Water Board a video where Vintage Production California, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., dumped "significant quantities" of hydraulic fracking wastewater into an unlined pond.
The procedure for processing the toxic water is to put them into heavy plastic lined evaporation ponds where the toxic fumes expel into the air OR to drill a well into the ground and pump these toxic fluids into the bed-rock below.
The procedure for processing the toxic water is to put them into heavy plastic lined evaporation ponds where the toxic fumes expel into the air OR to drill a well into the ground and pump these toxic fluids into the bed-rock below.
Is Fracking Happening or NOT?
No Says U.S. Magistrate Paul Grewal of the U.S. District Court in San Jose ruled on March 31. He said the Bureau of Land Management failed to properly assess the environmental dangers to California's water and seismic activity. Does this stop it? No it voids the selling of leases to property in southern Monterey County. Article Here
At the same time the public hears that news the California Senate Committee approves SB 4 -- This bill still allows Fracking -- They still can pump water + toxic chemicals and they can still break the rock bed underneath but now they have to tell us what they are doing.
Look at the picture below..... You see that well under the #1. That's a disposal well. Where they put the toxic water. The Bill still allows oil companies to do that too.
Some of the other bills working their way through the California Legislator:
Related legislation (all 2013)
SB 395 (Jackson) -would move all produced water under the
purview of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
not DOGGR. (before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee)
SB 665 (Wolk) - would raise the bonding requirements for oil and
gas wells. (before the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee)
AB 7 (Wieckowski) - would provide comprehensive framework for
fracking regulation. Chemical disclosure post-fracking, trade
secret protection and notice-of-intent for fracking required
(among other provisions). (before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee)
AB 288 (Levine) - would provide general principles to regulate
fracking to protect public health and safety. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 649 (Nazarian) - would provide for a ban on hydraulic
fracturing and sets up a distinguished panel to investigate
fracking. If the panel decides fracking is safe then fracking
can be approved later (time frame is 4 - 5 years). The bill
would ban the use of fresh water in fracking as well as fracking
within an unspecified distance of an aquifer. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 669 (Stone) -would require more tracking, approval and
reporting related to produced water and related information.
(before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 982 (Williams) - would require extensive groundwater
monitoring in the vicinity of fracking. (before the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee)
AB 1301 (Bloom) - would ban fracking until the legislature
specifically acts to authorize it. (before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee)
AB 1323 (Mitchell) - would ban fracking until a study shows how
it can be done safely. It provides for an advisory council of
specified membership (appointed by 2014), a study due in 2016,
formal public review of the study, and a 2019 time frame for
further action. (before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee)
At the same time the public hears that news the California Senate Committee approves SB 4 -- This bill still allows Fracking -- They still can pump water + toxic chemicals and they can still break the rock bed underneath but now they have to tell us what they are doing.
Look at the picture below..... You see that well under the #1. That's a disposal well. Where they put the toxic water. The Bill still allows oil companies to do that too.
Some of the other bills working their way through the California Legislator:
Related legislation (all 2013)
SB 395 (Jackson) -would move all produced water under the
purview of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
not DOGGR. (before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee)
SB 665 (Wolk) - would raise the bonding requirements for oil and
gas wells. (before the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee)
AB 7 (Wieckowski) - would provide comprehensive framework for
fracking regulation. Chemical disclosure post-fracking, trade
secret protection and notice-of-intent for fracking required
(among other provisions). (before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee)
AB 288 (Levine) - would provide general principles to regulate
fracking to protect public health and safety. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 649 (Nazarian) - would provide for a ban on hydraulic
fracturing and sets up a distinguished panel to investigate
fracking. If the panel decides fracking is safe then fracking
can be approved later (time frame is 4 - 5 years). The bill
would ban the use of fresh water in fracking as well as fracking
within an unspecified distance of an aquifer. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 669 (Stone) -would require more tracking, approval and
reporting related to produced water and related information.
(before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee)
AB 982 (Williams) - would require extensive groundwater
monitoring in the vicinity of fracking. (before the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee)
AB 1301 (Bloom) - would ban fracking until the legislature
specifically acts to authorize it. (before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee)
AB 1323 (Mitchell) - would ban fracking until a study shows how
it can be done safely. It provides for an advisory council of
specified membership (appointed by 2014), a study due in 2016,
formal public review of the study, and a 2019 time frame for
further action. (before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee)
National Geographic's photos on Fracking
Who is really going to get the Water from the Delta?
(I apologize for for the errors in this first post. Looks like I was hacked in the middle of writing this.)
The State is busy with numerous meetings on studies of fish and water quality and construction diagrams. It reminds me of the magician who distracts you with one hand while his other hand is doing something else.
1. The state legislators are making some serious changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with State Senator Steinberg's bill SB 731. It hasn't gone to Committee yet. I'm hoping I can catch some of those hearings.
2. The state had a presentation on some of the issues with FRACKING. The State Water Resources Control Board said that no one had jurisdiction over a business before they violated the Water Quality Act. Really? We just sit and wait until the damage is done before the California residents can stop it? Sort of like Love Canal. Remember that big mess in New York, I think. Then there is the "Haliburton Loop Hole" The Energy Policy Act of 2006 --
This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of Hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.[19] It created a loophole that exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations that would normally be required under federal clean water laws. The loophole is commonly known as the "Halliburton loophole" since former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was reportedly instrumental in its passage.[20] The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.(From Wikipedia page)
Water Contractors who receive Delta water (via the Tunnels) can SELL their water leases for use elsewhere in California -- the Central Valley Project Imporvement Act in 1992. Kern County water uses have already said they are going to provide the oil companies the water they need for Fracking.
The State is busy with numerous meetings on studies of fish and water quality and construction diagrams. It reminds me of the magician who distracts you with one hand while his other hand is doing something else.
1. The state legislators are making some serious changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with State Senator Steinberg's bill SB 731. It hasn't gone to Committee yet. I'm hoping I can catch some of those hearings.
2. The state had a presentation on some of the issues with FRACKING. The State Water Resources Control Board said that no one had jurisdiction over a business before they violated the Water Quality Act. Really? We just sit and wait until the damage is done before the California residents can stop it? Sort of like Love Canal. Remember that big mess in New York, I think. Then there is the "Haliburton Loop Hole" The Energy Policy Act of 2006 --
This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of Hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.[19] It created a loophole that exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations that would normally be required under federal clean water laws. The loophole is commonly known as the "Halliburton loophole" since former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was reportedly instrumental in its passage.[20] The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.(From Wikipedia page)
Water Contractors who receive Delta water (via the Tunnels) can SELL their water leases for use elsewhere in California -- the Central Valley Project Imporvement Act in 1992. Kern County water uses have already said they are going to provide the oil companies the water they need for Fracking.
Supreme Court agrees to hear dispute over Forest Plan
The environmental group, Pacific Rivers Council, took the U.S. Forest Service to court over a 2004 management plan for 11 national forests in the Sierra Pacific Mountain Range.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmental .group saying that the Forest Service had not given proper consideration to the impact on fish, per the National Environmental Policy Act.
The federal government disputes the environmental group's legal standing to challenge the plan because the group has not been injured by the plan.
Oral arguments will be heard in the court's next term which runs from October 2013 to June 2014.
The case is U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-623.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmental .group saying that the Forest Service had not given proper consideration to the impact on fish, per the National Environmental Policy Act.
The federal government disputes the environmental group's legal standing to challenge the plan because the group has not been injured by the plan.
Oral arguments will be heard in the court's next term which runs from October 2013 to June 2014.
The case is U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-623.
Legislators changing the CEQA process
The Sacramento Bee's columnist Dan Walters reported on how the steps to the California Environmental Quality Act has changed.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) introduced a rough draft that limits public comment. This not only limits the grumpy-old-man complaining about noise, but it also limits whole communities calling for their voices to be heard when a "Project" will impact their homes and lives.
I just find this very interesting after Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit right after a chairing the Environmental Quality Committee and going to work for Chevron.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) introduced a rough draft that limits public comment. This not only limits the grumpy-old-man complaining about noise, but it also limits whole communities calling for their voices to be heard when a "Project" will impact their homes and lives.
I just find this very interesting after Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit right after a chairing the Environmental Quality Committee and going to work for Chevron.
State Senator sitting on Major Environmental Committees
abruptly leaves
Senator Michael Rubio, Bakersfield-D, abruptly resigns with little explanation. He was chair of the Environmental Quality Committee that is expected to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a major factor in future decisions concerning the delta.
The new regulations would have to balance in water quality and water shipment down south from the Delta.
Rubio also worked on the Natural Resources Committee and they had a hearing on Feb. 12 about Fracking in California.
The shocker was that he said he was going to work for Chevron. No delay? No time to think?
Then to make things worse, the Sacramento Bee reported on Feb. 28, that Rubio was financed by DCM Assets Management to finance his home in Shafer, near Bakersfield AND a house worth over $600,000 in El Dorado Hills.
DCM Assets Management is owned by Majid Mojidi, President of San Joaquin Refining Co. Inc.
The Sacramento Bee story
The new regulations would have to balance in water quality and water shipment down south from the Delta.
Rubio also worked on the Natural Resources Committee and they had a hearing on Feb. 12 about Fracking in California.
The shocker was that he said he was going to work for Chevron. No delay? No time to think?
Then to make things worse, the Sacramento Bee reported on Feb. 28, that Rubio was financed by DCM Assets Management to finance his home in Shafer, near Bakersfield AND a house worth over $600,000 in El Dorado Hills.
DCM Assets Management is owned by Majid Mojidi, President of San Joaquin Refining Co. Inc.
The Sacramento Bee story
Westlands Water District is not getting the water they wanted
Fresno's ABC30 reported that the Bureau of Reclamation is only going to allocate 25% of the water they wanted.
Video
So the water wars have begun...
Full story here
Video
So the water wars have begun...
Full story here
EID Fights off the SWRCB and Kern County's water grab
It's really sad when the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) works hand-in-hand with the Industrialized Agri-business mogul, Westlands, in an attempt to force Northern California's residents and communities to give up their long established water rights and area-of-origin water rights.
But the California Appellate Court stood up for the Northern California Water Purveyor and said, "No.".
SWRCB is desperate to maintain some kind of control over the state's water rights allocation and still meet federal standards of fresh water in the Delta.
Big powerful Corporate moguls such as Westlands are demanding the State give them the water promised in good times. Westlands says they are a "Private" Water Agency serving thousands of customers. The problem is that no one can verify that. Several reports say that they only serve a few farms and count their "Employees" and "Family members" as customers. Westlands does serve the biggest Corporations of Industrialized farming known in the United States. These Corporate Farmers with offices in Los Angles screamed loud and long when the state turned off their water during dry years to protect the Delta.
They fought against taking ANY environmental responsibility, such as the 10 Million Fish that died from Ammonia-Nitrogen fertilizer dumped in a canal next to their property. Taking around 15,000 to 9,000 acre-feet of FRESH water off of the TOP of Fresh water coming into the Delta leave us, Northern California, to make up for the environmental impact that would have on the Delta.
What SWRCB tried to do was attach "Term 91" to ALL of EID's water permits when they applied for new water permits, and set a Precedence for turning all "Senior-Water-Rights-Holders" into "Junior-Water-Rights-Holders" and leaving Northern California Watershed communities at the mercy of the Delta's water demands.
Various times through California's history, the sea water creeps in when the fresh water is low, such as the drought back in the late 70s or the time when a levy breaks such as Jones Island about 15 years ago (See Photo).
The Court ruled that SWRCB had over stepped their authority, but Westlands fought to overturn that ruling, so the water-poor Corporate Farmers in Kern and San Joaquin County would have a better chance in getting the fresh water a rock bottom prices and in turn receive Tax-dollar subsidies. That is another long story, that I will report on later.
Court Ruling Here
But the California Appellate Court stood up for the Northern California Water Purveyor and said, "No.".
SWRCB is desperate to maintain some kind of control over the state's water rights allocation and still meet federal standards of fresh water in the Delta.
Big powerful Corporate moguls such as Westlands are demanding the State give them the water promised in good times. Westlands says they are a "Private" Water Agency serving thousands of customers. The problem is that no one can verify that. Several reports say that they only serve a few farms and count their "Employees" and "Family members" as customers. Westlands does serve the biggest Corporations of Industrialized farming known in the United States. These Corporate Farmers with offices in Los Angles screamed loud and long when the state turned off their water during dry years to protect the Delta.
They fought against taking ANY environmental responsibility, such as the 10 Million Fish that died from Ammonia-Nitrogen fertilizer dumped in a canal next to their property. Taking around 15,000 to 9,000 acre-feet of FRESH water off of the TOP of Fresh water coming into the Delta leave us, Northern California, to make up for the environmental impact that would have on the Delta.
What SWRCB tried to do was attach "Term 91" to ALL of EID's water permits when they applied for new water permits, and set a Precedence for turning all "Senior-Water-Rights-Holders" into "Junior-Water-Rights-Holders" and leaving Northern California Watershed communities at the mercy of the Delta's water demands.
Various times through California's history, the sea water creeps in when the fresh water is low, such as the drought back in the late 70s or the time when a levy breaks such as Jones Island about 15 years ago (See Photo).
The Court ruled that SWRCB had over stepped their authority, but Westlands fought to overturn that ruling, so the water-poor Corporate Farmers in Kern and San Joaquin County would have a better chance in getting the fresh water a rock bottom prices and in turn receive Tax-dollar subsidies. That is another long story, that I will report on later.
Court Ruling Here
Fracking in California
I can't figure out how Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of Western States Petroleum Association, became th "Chair" of the Marine Live Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force -- but she did. And it didn't stop there. She is now pushing for "unregulated" Hydraulic fracturing, something that is running a muck at the federal level.
When the environmental goo is pumped down and fractures the rock bed, contaminated water bubbles up and needs to be processed (cleaned) before it can be released. The problem is comes down to "Who" is going to be responsible for cleaning that mess up? The fracking industry? or the State? And it takes WATER, clean fresh WATER, to clean it.
Aren't we already in a fight over who gets what water? Now we are going to let a run-away industry, uncheck, and unaccountable, step in and contaminate our fresh water with no plan who will have to clean up the mess or who will regulate it from contaminating OUR drinking water?
Back in 2005 Fracking was exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by the "Bush/Cheney Energy Bill" called the "Haliburton Loophole" California doesn't have that exemption, but that didn't stop the latest attempt to do new fracking projects..
So on Jan. 24, in Alameda County, a lawsuit was filed objecting to the lack of oversight with the new fracking plans.
As usual Dan Bacher is on top of it:
http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher-Lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-as-oil-lobbyist-says-it-39-s-39-safe-39.php#.UQxluPLEle8
He also has another article about Ms. Reheis-Boyd's "Marine Reserve" decision.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/new-marine-reserve-network-doesnt-protect-ocean
When the environmental goo is pumped down and fractures the rock bed, contaminated water bubbles up and needs to be processed (cleaned) before it can be released. The problem is comes down to "Who" is going to be responsible for cleaning that mess up? The fracking industry? or the State? And it takes WATER, clean fresh WATER, to clean it.
Aren't we already in a fight over who gets what water? Now we are going to let a run-away industry, uncheck, and unaccountable, step in and contaminate our fresh water with no plan who will have to clean up the mess or who will regulate it from contaminating OUR drinking water?
Back in 2005 Fracking was exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by the "Bush/Cheney Energy Bill" called the "Haliburton Loophole" California doesn't have that exemption, but that didn't stop the latest attempt to do new fracking projects..
So on Jan. 24, in Alameda County, a lawsuit was filed objecting to the lack of oversight with the new fracking plans.
As usual Dan Bacher is on top of it:
http://yubanet.com/california/Dan-Bacher-Lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-as-oil-lobbyist-says-it-39-s-39-safe-39.php#.UQxluPLEle8
He also has another article about Ms. Reheis-Boyd's "Marine Reserve" decision.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/new-marine-reserve-network-doesnt-protect-ocean
Group is fighting to reduce the size of the tunnels
Sac Bee Article by GOSIA WOZNIACKA
Jan 26, 2013
FRESNO, Calif. -- A half-dozen water agencies have cast their lot with environmental groups in calling on California to study a scaled-down alternative to the $14 billion Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnels endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown to bring water from north to south.
Proponents say a single, smaller tunnel coupled with investments such as water recycling and desalination would result in more water for cities and farms. They say it also would be better for the environment and cost less - with construction estimated at $5 billion to $7 billion.
Agricultural groups say a scaled-down water conveyance would be devastating to farmers in the Central Valley, who rely on the delta to irrigate thousands of acres of crops.
The proposal is a sign of how California's water wars have evolved.
"The big fight over the delta used to be between environmentalists and thirsty cities who wanted more water," said Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst at Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the alternative. "But now, there's a growing list of cities whose plan it is to become less reliant on the delta and to invest in local solutions. There's common ground there."
The health of the delta, the hub of California's water delivery system, has long been deteriorating. Massive pumps which draw drinking water for more than 25 million Californians and irrigate vast expanses of crops are blamed for declines in once-abundant fish populations.
Declines in tiny delta smelt, salmon and other species have spurred regulations that curtail delta pumping. In dry years, limited water deliveries have led some farmers to let fields lie fallow and communities to impose water-use restrictions.
In July, Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced support for massive 35-mile twin tunnels to carry water south. The proposal also includes plans for more than 100,000 acres of floodplain and tidal marsh habitat restoration.
The project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, must satisfy two goals: restore the estuary's fragile ecosystem and provide a more stable water supply to residents and farmers.
Officials say the tunnels would divert water beneath the delta, lessening the impact of pumps on fish. The amount of water to be diverted would be determined once the project is built, based on the health of the species.
The entire project would cost $23 billion. Water agencies would pay $14 billion for construction and $5.8 billion for operations. Some $3.2 billion for habitat restoration would come from a voter-approved bond on the November 2014 ballot.
During his State of the State address Thursday, Brown said construction costs would be similar to the London Olympics. "But this project will serve California for hundreds of years."
Environmental groups and seven water agencies want the state to examine their newest proposal as a stand-alone alternative during the environmental review process, which is be completed by the end of the year. State officials will decide whether to include the new alternative for consideration.
In addition to a smaller conveyance and investment into local projects, the new proposal includes strengthening delta levees to protect the water supply from earthquakes, investing in more south-of-delta storage, and 40,000 acres of habitat restoration. Total cost is estimated at $14 billion to $16 billion.
Following the Legislature's 2009 mandate to reduce reliance on the delta, many urban and agricultural water agencies have been developing innovative local projects and water efficiencies. But those measures are not being considered by the state, said San Diego County Water Authority's assistant general manager Dennis Cushman. San Diego, which supports the new proposal, serves 3.1 million residents in San Diego and 23 other cities and agencies.
"It's critically important to first understand what the real demand for water from the delta is, before decisions are made about project size, scope and cost," Cushman said.
The San Diego County Water Authority once got 95 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, the giant Los-Angeles based wholesaler which gets water from the delta and the Colorado River.
But by developing various local projects, San Diego now gets only half its water from MWD.
Cushman said investing in two pricy delta tunnels might not make sense for his district.
"The state's approach right now is to build the biggest project they can build, invest $14 billion and find out 10 years down line what supply water districts get," Cushman said.
To environmentalists, making a water project affordable for the water agencies that will finance it is key.
"If the project proposed by the governor cannot be paid for, that would leave us with the status quo and the species would continue their march to extinction," said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser for the Planning and Conservation League.
State officials say they already are examining a smaller tunnel alternative. That alternative does not include local water supply development or other aspects of the new proposal, because the BDCP is focused on delta conservation, said Karla Nemeth of the California Natural Resources Agency.
"We won't get any credit for preserving the delta smelt because of a local water supply project in San Diego," Nemeth said.
Agricultural groups and water districts say the new proposal would leave farmers high and dry.
"The proposal doesn't provide enough water to meet agricultural needs," said Mike Wade, executive director for the California Farm Water Coalition. "Developing local supply projects is a fine idea, but they don't address water reliability."
A scaled-down conveyance, Wade said, could lead water contractors who serve farmers to continue relying on the existing delta water conveyance - meaning fish would continue being dragged into the pumps and killed.
A small tunnel would also not allow the shipment and storage of larger amounts of water during wet years, thereby making the water supply less reliable during dry years, he said.
While agricultural water districts are developing water efficiencies, they'll still need plenty of water from the delta to irrigate crops, said Brent Walthall, assistant general manager, Kern County Water Agency, which mostly serves farmers and has not taken a position on the tunnel proposals.
"We're hoping the water project will be successful," Walthall said, "and that it's affordable for us."
Jan 26, 2013
FRESNO, Calif. -- A half-dozen water agencies have cast their lot with environmental groups in calling on California to study a scaled-down alternative to the $14 billion Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnels endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown to bring water from north to south.
Proponents say a single, smaller tunnel coupled with investments such as water recycling and desalination would result in more water for cities and farms. They say it also would be better for the environment and cost less - with construction estimated at $5 billion to $7 billion.
Agricultural groups say a scaled-down water conveyance would be devastating to farmers in the Central Valley, who rely on the delta to irrigate thousands of acres of crops.
The proposal is a sign of how California's water wars have evolved.
"The big fight over the delta used to be between environmentalists and thirsty cities who wanted more water," said Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst at Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the alternative. "But now, there's a growing list of cities whose plan it is to become less reliant on the delta and to invest in local solutions. There's common ground there."
The health of the delta, the hub of California's water delivery system, has long been deteriorating. Massive pumps which draw drinking water for more than 25 million Californians and irrigate vast expanses of crops are blamed for declines in once-abundant fish populations.
Declines in tiny delta smelt, salmon and other species have spurred regulations that curtail delta pumping. In dry years, limited water deliveries have led some farmers to let fields lie fallow and communities to impose water-use restrictions.
In July, Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced support for massive 35-mile twin tunnels to carry water south. The proposal also includes plans for more than 100,000 acres of floodplain and tidal marsh habitat restoration.
The project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, must satisfy two goals: restore the estuary's fragile ecosystem and provide a more stable water supply to residents and farmers.
Officials say the tunnels would divert water beneath the delta, lessening the impact of pumps on fish. The amount of water to be diverted would be determined once the project is built, based on the health of the species.
The entire project would cost $23 billion. Water agencies would pay $14 billion for construction and $5.8 billion for operations. Some $3.2 billion for habitat restoration would come from a voter-approved bond on the November 2014 ballot.
During his State of the State address Thursday, Brown said construction costs would be similar to the London Olympics. "But this project will serve California for hundreds of years."
Environmental groups and seven water agencies want the state to examine their newest proposal as a stand-alone alternative during the environmental review process, which is be completed by the end of the year. State officials will decide whether to include the new alternative for consideration.
In addition to a smaller conveyance and investment into local projects, the new proposal includes strengthening delta levees to protect the water supply from earthquakes, investing in more south-of-delta storage, and 40,000 acres of habitat restoration. Total cost is estimated at $14 billion to $16 billion.
Following the Legislature's 2009 mandate to reduce reliance on the delta, many urban and agricultural water agencies have been developing innovative local projects and water efficiencies. But those measures are not being considered by the state, said San Diego County Water Authority's assistant general manager Dennis Cushman. San Diego, which supports the new proposal, serves 3.1 million residents in San Diego and 23 other cities and agencies.
"It's critically important to first understand what the real demand for water from the delta is, before decisions are made about project size, scope and cost," Cushman said.
The San Diego County Water Authority once got 95 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, the giant Los-Angeles based wholesaler which gets water from the delta and the Colorado River.
But by developing various local projects, San Diego now gets only half its water from MWD.
Cushman said investing in two pricy delta tunnels might not make sense for his district.
"The state's approach right now is to build the biggest project they can build, invest $14 billion and find out 10 years down line what supply water districts get," Cushman said.
To environmentalists, making a water project affordable for the water agencies that will finance it is key.
"If the project proposed by the governor cannot be paid for, that would leave us with the status quo and the species would continue their march to extinction," said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser for the Planning and Conservation League.
State officials say they already are examining a smaller tunnel alternative. That alternative does not include local water supply development or other aspects of the new proposal, because the BDCP is focused on delta conservation, said Karla Nemeth of the California Natural Resources Agency.
"We won't get any credit for preserving the delta smelt because of a local water supply project in San Diego," Nemeth said.
Agricultural groups and water districts say the new proposal would leave farmers high and dry.
"The proposal doesn't provide enough water to meet agricultural needs," said Mike Wade, executive director for the California Farm Water Coalition. "Developing local supply projects is a fine idea, but they don't address water reliability."
A scaled-down conveyance, Wade said, could lead water contractors who serve farmers to continue relying on the existing delta water conveyance - meaning fish would continue being dragged into the pumps and killed.
A small tunnel would also not allow the shipment and storage of larger amounts of water during wet years, thereby making the water supply less reliable during dry years, he said.
While agricultural water districts are developing water efficiencies, they'll still need plenty of water from the delta to irrigate crops, said Brent Walthall, assistant general manager, Kern County Water Agency, which mostly serves farmers and has not taken a position on the tunnel proposals.
"We're hoping the water project will be successful," Walthall said, "and that it's affordable for us."
Jerry Brown's water plan faces mixed reviews
By David Siders and Jim Sanders dsiders@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Nearly lost in the flurry of praise for Gov. Jerry Brown's State of the State address on Thursday were a handful of tersely worded statements from lawmakers objecting to his plan to build two water-diverting tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The controversy is decades old. Yet the pointed nature of the criticism – and the eagerness of even Democratic lawmakers to challenge Brown on a day in which tradition suggests restraint – laid bare how significant a test of Brown's political abilities the $14 billion project may be.
Immediately following Brown's speech, Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, issued a statement panning the Democratic governor's plan to divert water to the south. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said the project is "expensive and controversial, and the science is not there."
Less than a year after Brown persuaded lawmakers to approve a $68 billion high-speed rail project, Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, said, "I think he gets the train or the tunnels. I don't think he gets both."
For years, California politicians have struggled to mediate the competing water interests of farmers, environmentalists, Delta residents and Southern Californians.
Brown may not be asking the Legislature for its approval. The water project he proposes would be financed by water users and permitted administratively by the state and federal governments, and there is no technical requirement that Brown obtain the Legislature's blessing.
Yet the project is tied politically to an $11.1 billion water bond scheduled for the November 2014 ballot. The Legislature has withdrawn the bond from two previous elections, in 2010 and 2012, and Brown has urged lawmakers to revise the measure to reduce its cost and improve its chance of passing.
Funding included in the bond for dams, wastewater treatment and other water infrastructure projects could be necessary to ease opposition to Brown's plan.
The support of key lawmakers could also help head off litigation by foes of the project.
The water diversion tunnels Brown proposes are intended to improve the way water is diverted from the Delta. Rather than diverting from the south Delta, which alters habitat by reversing the natural flow direction, the tunnels would divert freshwater directly from the Sacramento River near Courtland.
Proponents of the project say it will improve the Delta ecosystem and protect from levee failures and sea level rise a water supply used by some 25 million Californians. Critics fear it will harm the Delta ecosystem and farm economy.
Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said Friday the administration is seeking input from every stakeholder, including lawmakers. "We want to work with the Legislature to do whatever can be helpful to people around the state on water," said Laird, a former assemblyman. "Everything is balancing interests, and it's our goal to balance the interests as fast as possible after including everybody and talking to everybody."
As governor before from 1975 to 1983, Brown did seek – and obtained – the Legislature's support for a water project similar to the one he is proposing now.
In a State of the State address more than 30 years ago, Brown called the project "an investment in the future." The project was undone by the electorate, defeated in a referendum in 1982.
In his speech on Thursday, Brown spent less than two minutes on the subject.
"My proposed plan is two tunnels 30 miles long and 40 feet wide, designed to improve the ecology of the Delta, with almost 100 square miles of habitat restoration," Brown said. "Yes, that's big. But so is the problem."
Brown has Democratic supermajorities this year in both the Assembly and the Senate, but it is unclear how helpful that will be. Divisions over water in California have traditionally been – and are still – more regional than partisan.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said Brown's proposal is "one very good option," but not the only one.
"The final determination on what those infrastructure decisions are will be something that all members of the Legislature will be engaged in," the Los Angeles Democrat said. "Look, you can look at the pre-existing plan, and if you go and ask the 120 members of the Legislature, you'll get 143 different ideas."
The project is part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. A draft environmental report is expected next month.
Meanwhile, Brown is just beginning to interact with new members of a Legislature that convened its largest freshman class this year since 1966.
"I think he's smart enough and experienced enough to know that water politics in California is always contentious," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College.
Pitney described Brown's prospects for the water project as "tough, but I wouldn't rule it out."
Even with skeptical lawmakers, he said, "You know, governors do have leverage. There are other things that these folks want."
Both Pérez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, have rallied support in their houses for Brown before, including on high-speed rail.
"I'm not ready to sign off on any particular size tunnel, but I think the idea that we both have to restore the ecosystem of the Delta and at the same time provide water reliability conveyance for the entire state by going around the Delta is true, and accepted," Steinberg said. "And I accept it, and I'm ready to work with the governor to figure out the details."
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Nearly lost in the flurry of praise for Gov. Jerry Brown's State of the State address on Thursday were a handful of tersely worded statements from lawmakers objecting to his plan to build two water-diverting tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The controversy is decades old. Yet the pointed nature of the criticism – and the eagerness of even Democratic lawmakers to challenge Brown on a day in which tradition suggests restraint – laid bare how significant a test of Brown's political abilities the $14 billion project may be.
Immediately following Brown's speech, Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, issued a statement panning the Democratic governor's plan to divert water to the south. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said the project is "expensive and controversial, and the science is not there."
Less than a year after Brown persuaded lawmakers to approve a $68 billion high-speed rail project, Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, said, "I think he gets the train or the tunnels. I don't think he gets both."
For years, California politicians have struggled to mediate the competing water interests of farmers, environmentalists, Delta residents and Southern Californians.
Brown may not be asking the Legislature for its approval. The water project he proposes would be financed by water users and permitted administratively by the state and federal governments, and there is no technical requirement that Brown obtain the Legislature's blessing.
Yet the project is tied politically to an $11.1 billion water bond scheduled for the November 2014 ballot. The Legislature has withdrawn the bond from two previous elections, in 2010 and 2012, and Brown has urged lawmakers to revise the measure to reduce its cost and improve its chance of passing.
Funding included in the bond for dams, wastewater treatment and other water infrastructure projects could be necessary to ease opposition to Brown's plan.
The support of key lawmakers could also help head off litigation by foes of the project.
The water diversion tunnels Brown proposes are intended to improve the way water is diverted from the Delta. Rather than diverting from the south Delta, which alters habitat by reversing the natural flow direction, the tunnels would divert freshwater directly from the Sacramento River near Courtland.
Proponents of the project say it will improve the Delta ecosystem and protect from levee failures and sea level rise a water supply used by some 25 million Californians. Critics fear it will harm the Delta ecosystem and farm economy.
Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said Friday the administration is seeking input from every stakeholder, including lawmakers. "We want to work with the Legislature to do whatever can be helpful to people around the state on water," said Laird, a former assemblyman. "Everything is balancing interests, and it's our goal to balance the interests as fast as possible after including everybody and talking to everybody."
As governor before from 1975 to 1983, Brown did seek – and obtained – the Legislature's support for a water project similar to the one he is proposing now.
In a State of the State address more than 30 years ago, Brown called the project "an investment in the future." The project was undone by the electorate, defeated in a referendum in 1982.
In his speech on Thursday, Brown spent less than two minutes on the subject.
"My proposed plan is two tunnels 30 miles long and 40 feet wide, designed to improve the ecology of the Delta, with almost 100 square miles of habitat restoration," Brown said. "Yes, that's big. But so is the problem."
Brown has Democratic supermajorities this year in both the Assembly and the Senate, but it is unclear how helpful that will be. Divisions over water in California have traditionally been – and are still – more regional than partisan.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said Brown's proposal is "one very good option," but not the only one.
"The final determination on what those infrastructure decisions are will be something that all members of the Legislature will be engaged in," the Los Angeles Democrat said. "Look, you can look at the pre-existing plan, and if you go and ask the 120 members of the Legislature, you'll get 143 different ideas."
The project is part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. A draft environmental report is expected next month.
Meanwhile, Brown is just beginning to interact with new members of a Legislature that convened its largest freshman class this year since 1966.
"I think he's smart enough and experienced enough to know that water politics in California is always contentious," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College.
Pitney described Brown's prospects for the water project as "tough, but I wouldn't rule it out."
Even with skeptical lawmakers, he said, "You know, governors do have leverage. There are other things that these folks want."
Both Pérez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, have rallied support in their houses for Brown before, including on high-speed rail.
"I'm not ready to sign off on any particular size tunnel, but I think the idea that we both have to restore the ecosystem of the Delta and at the same time provide water reliability conveyance for the entire state by going around the Delta is true, and accepted," Steinberg said. "And I accept it, and I'm ready to work with the governor to figure out the details."
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
ACWA and Mountain Counties Water holding a General-Joint Meeting
December 11, at the El Dorado Irrigation District is holding a joint meeting about some of the most important issues in our state,
Location: El Dorado Irrigation District
The joint Mountain Counties Water Resources Association and Association of California Water Agencies Region 3 general meeting and program will be on December 11.
The guests will hear from featured speaker Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester for Resources, about the National Forest’s role in California water issues.
The program will also include an attorney panel discussion on water rights, covering everything from “Water Rights 101” to a discussion on the history of water rights; vulnerability of water rights; protecting water rights and renewing/updating water rights.
About the speakers:
BARNIE GYANT is the Deputy Regional Forester for Resources for the Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service. He oversees the areas of Program Development and Budget, Ecosystems Management, Ecosystems Planning, Information Management, and Tribal Relations. Gyant was previously the Deputy Director of Ecosystem Management in Region 5 from September 2009 to June 2012. He successfully completed a temporary promotion to Director, Ecosystem Management for four months in 2010 and for five months in 2011. Gyant has an extensive background including work assignments as Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, Deputy District Ranger, and Resources Program Manager. Early in his career, he was a Fisheries Biologist. Gyant has 20 years experience as a line officer and natural resources manager working on eight different national forests and in four different regions. Gyant earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology from East Carolina University. He has a strong background in natural resources and ecological restoration and strong communication and collaboration skills.
DAVID ALADJEM is with the Law Firm of Downey Brand. He regularly serves as counsel for public agencies in connection with complex multiparty water negotiations throughout California. Currently, he represents two municipal water districts in Southern California that have just acquired water rights that would provide a permanent water supply serving between 100,000 and 125,000 people. This effort has included overseeing the preparation of an environmental impact report under the California Environ-mental Quality Act; a contested water right hearing before the California State Water Resources Control Board; and multiparty negotiations with water districts, environmental groups, and state and federal regulatory agencies. Aladjem also recently served as counsel for three statewide and national associations in connection with the successful negotiation of a statewide policy regarding the use of recycled water. For that agreement, he was awarded the 2009 Excellence in Water Leadership Award from the Association of California Water Agencies. This past year, he was deeply involved in the legislation that culminated in the landmark water conservation legislation that will require 20% water conservation in urban areas of California. Aladjem was named by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as one of its “Citizens of the Year” in 2005. He attended law school at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
THOMAS D. CUMPSTON is General Counsel for El Dorado Irrigation District. He joined EID as its first in-house General Counsel on October 1, 2002. Prior to that, he served as Principal Assistant County Counsel for El Dorado County and counsel to the El Dorado County Water Agency. Cumpston joined the County Counsel’s office in 1993 after four years with Berliner Cohen law firm in San Jose, including two years as Deputy City Attorney for the garlic capital of the world, Gilroy. He graduated first in his class from King Hall School of Law in Davis in 1989. Cumpston obtained his undergraduate degree, Phi Beta Kappa, from Washington University in St. Louis. He is a California native and a devotee of music, baseball, and backcountry skiing.
ROBERT E. DONLAN, is a partner with the Law Firm of Ellison, Schneider & Harris L.L.P. He specializes in water and natural resources law, with emphasis on surface water and ground-water rights and related matters involving state and federal Endangered Species Acts and fisheries laws, the California Environmental Quality Act, water quality permitting, and other state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements affecting water users and water managers. Donlan is experienced with water transfer and water supply agreements, recycled water use, and also with public agency governance, administration and project finance. He regularly represents public agencies, utilities, large private institutions and private parties before the California courts, the State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other administrative agencies. Donlan also advocates before administrative and legislative bodies on
behalf of water users concerning policy matters involving water rights and water management.
ROGER B. MOORE is a partner with Rossman and Moore since 2003. He has practiced land use, water, natural resources, constitutional, environmental and administrative law with the firm since 1992. As a litigator, negotiator, and advisor, Moore is a veteran of major disputes involving the regional and statewide consequences of water projects, water transfers and development decisions. He has expertise in the enforcement of environmental, transportation, energy and nuclear waste laws, and in the interface of water supply, water quality, land use and climate change planning. Moore currently serves on the Executive Committee of the California State Bar’s Environmental Law Section. He graduated with highest honors from Swarthmore College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. Before joining the firm, he served as a teaching fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and as a research associate at the University of California’s Office of General Counsel and at the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. He clerked for the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
Location: El Dorado Irrigation District
The joint Mountain Counties Water Resources Association and Association of California Water Agencies Region 3 general meeting and program will be on December 11.
The guests will hear from featured speaker Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester for Resources, about the National Forest’s role in California water issues.
The program will also include an attorney panel discussion on water rights, covering everything from “Water Rights 101” to a discussion on the history of water rights; vulnerability of water rights; protecting water rights and renewing/updating water rights.
About the speakers:
BARNIE GYANT is the Deputy Regional Forester for Resources for the Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service. He oversees the areas of Program Development and Budget, Ecosystems Management, Ecosystems Planning, Information Management, and Tribal Relations. Gyant was previously the Deputy Director of Ecosystem Management in Region 5 from September 2009 to June 2012. He successfully completed a temporary promotion to Director, Ecosystem Management for four months in 2010 and for five months in 2011. Gyant has an extensive background including work assignments as Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, Deputy District Ranger, and Resources Program Manager. Early in his career, he was a Fisheries Biologist. Gyant has 20 years experience as a line officer and natural resources manager working on eight different national forests and in four different regions. Gyant earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology from East Carolina University. He has a strong background in natural resources and ecological restoration and strong communication and collaboration skills.
DAVID ALADJEM is with the Law Firm of Downey Brand. He regularly serves as counsel for public agencies in connection with complex multiparty water negotiations throughout California. Currently, he represents two municipal water districts in Southern California that have just acquired water rights that would provide a permanent water supply serving between 100,000 and 125,000 people. This effort has included overseeing the preparation of an environmental impact report under the California Environ-mental Quality Act; a contested water right hearing before the California State Water Resources Control Board; and multiparty negotiations with water districts, environmental groups, and state and federal regulatory agencies. Aladjem also recently served as counsel for three statewide and national associations in connection with the successful negotiation of a statewide policy regarding the use of recycled water. For that agreement, he was awarded the 2009 Excellence in Water Leadership Award from the Association of California Water Agencies. This past year, he was deeply involved in the legislation that culminated in the landmark water conservation legislation that will require 20% water conservation in urban areas of California. Aladjem was named by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as one of its “Citizens of the Year” in 2005. He attended law school at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
THOMAS D. CUMPSTON is General Counsel for El Dorado Irrigation District. He joined EID as its first in-house General Counsel on October 1, 2002. Prior to that, he served as Principal Assistant County Counsel for El Dorado County and counsel to the El Dorado County Water Agency. Cumpston joined the County Counsel’s office in 1993 after four years with Berliner Cohen law firm in San Jose, including two years as Deputy City Attorney for the garlic capital of the world, Gilroy. He graduated first in his class from King Hall School of Law in Davis in 1989. Cumpston obtained his undergraduate degree, Phi Beta Kappa, from Washington University in St. Louis. He is a California native and a devotee of music, baseball, and backcountry skiing.
ROBERT E. DONLAN, is a partner with the Law Firm of Ellison, Schneider & Harris L.L.P. He specializes in water and natural resources law, with emphasis on surface water and ground-water rights and related matters involving state and federal Endangered Species Acts and fisheries laws, the California Environmental Quality Act, water quality permitting, and other state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements affecting water users and water managers. Donlan is experienced with water transfer and water supply agreements, recycled water use, and also with public agency governance, administration and project finance. He regularly represents public agencies, utilities, large private institutions and private parties before the California courts, the State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other administrative agencies. Donlan also advocates before administrative and legislative bodies on
behalf of water users concerning policy matters involving water rights and water management.
ROGER B. MOORE is a partner with Rossman and Moore since 2003. He has practiced land use, water, natural resources, constitutional, environmental and administrative law with the firm since 1992. As a litigator, negotiator, and advisor, Moore is a veteran of major disputes involving the regional and statewide consequences of water projects, water transfers and development decisions. He has expertise in the enforcement of environmental, transportation, energy and nuclear waste laws, and in the interface of water supply, water quality, land use and climate change planning. Moore currently serves on the Executive Committee of the California State Bar’s Environmental Law Section. He graduated with highest honors from Swarthmore College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. Before joining the firm, he served as a teaching fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and as a research associate at the University of California’s Office of General Counsel and at the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. He clerked for the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
