And, while you’re at it, go ahead and show it as another major defeat for good old fashioned commonsense. So, what else is new these days you ask. The Tranquillon Ridge Project, a proposal to allow extraction of oil leaking from state waters off the coast of Santa [...]]]> Well, score another victory for our environmentalist friends.

And, while you’re at it, go ahead and show it as another major defeat for good old fashioned commonsense. So, what else is new these days you ask. The Tranquillon Ridge Project, a proposal to allow extraction of oil leaking from state waters off the coast of Santa Barbara, now appears officially dead. Too bad.

According to a State Lands Commission report, it was estimated the ongoing leakage is reducing the ultimate amount of oil reserves the state could recover by as much as 260,000 barrels a month. That’s $4 million per month in lost revenue to the state. But, then again, it’s not like we really need the money now do we?

Approval of the Tranquillon Ridge Project was largely contingent upon passage of Governor Schwarzenegger-backed Assembly Bill 23. But, inevitably, that was not to be.  The measure was soundly defeated recently in the Assembly along party lines, going down in flames 28 for and 48 against. All but 8 democrats voted against the measure, along with a single republican. The same measure had earlier barely squeaked through the Senate with the minimum 21 votes required.

Apparently ashamed and perhaps even a bit embarrassed by the outcome, if that’s possible, legislators moved swiftly to cover their tracks by expunging the official record of any evidence how individual members had voted. Mmmmm….I wonder why?

Chief sponsor of the Tranquillon Ridge Project, Texasbased Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), had high hopes of bringing the Project on-line. Although current California law forbids new oil drilling in state waters within 3 miles of shore, PXP hoped to take advantage of a little-known loophole that allowed tapping an oil field in state waters if some of the oil seeps into a federally controlled field beyond the 3- mile line.

Using what’s known as slantdrilling, PXP had planned to start in the federally controlled portion of the seabed, then travel underground into the state area where it could then recover the seeping oil. If approved, the Tranquillon Project would not have required any new oil platforms and could have been pumping as early as late 2010.

Knowing full well project approval was contingent upon appeasing the demands of various environmental groups and local area concerns, PXP worked hard to forge an unprecedented agreement with a coalition of 25 environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out! and the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara.

But, PXP had to agree to some pretty demanding and, I would suggest, unreasonable terms not necessarily in the best interests of California’s long-term energy needs.

As part of the deal, PXP agreed to pay the state an immediate $100 million royalty advance and about $1.6 billion over the next 14 years. They would also shut down 3 existing oil platforms in 9 years and another platform in 13 years..  Current law pretty much allows existing platforms to operate indefinitely, in this case for possibly another 30-40 years.

Upon completion of the project, PXP also agreed to remove oil processing facilities in the cities of Lompoc and Gaviota and to turn over some 3,900 acres of Central Coast property for permanent conservation and public use.

Originally, most environmental groups were on-board with the deal, thrilled that existing oil platforms and infrastructure would be removed at the end of the project..

Even Linda Krop, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center, couldn’t contain her excitement. “This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put an end to oil drilling off the coast of California.” And that’s a good thing? Personally, I don’t think so.

Others, though, considered the agreement bad for California, setting an awful precedent and potentially paving the way for the first offshore oil drilling project in state waters in 40 years.

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, Chairman of the State Land Commission, which ultimately voted down the project when it was brought before them, was certainly no advocate. He proclaimed, “This proposal is not in the best interests of California.  Approval of this lease would be the first time new offshore oil drilling leases were issued in California waters in more than 40 years…since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.”

And I say, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the ban given our ever-increasing demand for energy.

Another ardent detractor, Assemblyman Pedro Nava, DSanta Barbara, certainly didn’t like the idea of pumping more oil in his district. But, I find his rationale seriously disconcerting when he says, “The symbolism of drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel is like the symbolism of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuse. It means you can drill anywhere.”

Seems a real stretch to assume approval of the PXP Project implies permission to drill anywhere. Further, making such important decisions based on possible symbolic meaning is intellectually immature at best and downright reckless at worst.  How about just considering all the relevant facts and then making a thoughtful, unemotional, common sense decision that serves the public interest. Now, wouldn’t that be a novel idea.

Anyway, after the State Land Commission killed the project back in January 2009, Schwarzenegger inserted it in his May budget revise, obviously attempting some sort of endrun around the commission.  Politically speaking, that was probably a death nail to the Project.  Hard political and environmental lines were drawn as a consequence.  Reason, commonsense, and interest in the common good quickly became inconvenient, unimportant, meaningless stumbling blocks to be discarded in pursuit of personal and political agendas.

In the end, the Tranquillon Ridge Project died a slow, agonizing death. There was neither outpouring of grief nor expressions of condolence.  No public hand-wringing.  Not even an apology.  Just a secret little vote intended never to make the light of day. A vote that clearly catered to the special few whose motives and interests do not necessarily jive with those of most Californians.

The Tranquillon Ridge Project was about as win/win as you can get. The facts show, unquestionably, that PXP was willing to go the extra mile to address the concerns of interested parties.  And, early on, an agreement was reached. At least until the harsh political winds began to blow. PXP did what they thought they had to do. In the end, though, it wasn’t enough. It never is.

In the long run, politics and personal agendas prevented the deal. Too bad for PXP. Too bad for those who truly care about the environment. Too bad for the citizens of California. For they, in the end, are the ones who must pay the ultimate price.

Guess that’s just the way it is.

If successful, local government entities, as well as individuals and businesses throughout the North State, should prepare themselves for serious repercussions.

Establishment of the ‘mother of all councils’ is but one of the major changes coming your way soon.

There [...]]]> Your California Legislature appears ready to expedite passage of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009.

If successful, local government entities, as well as individuals and businesses throughout the North State, should prepare themselves for serious repercussions.

Establishment of the ‘mother of all councils’ is but one of the major changes coming your way soon.

There exists a confusing mix of state agencies, with varying degrees of authority, involved in administering programs related to water supply, water quality and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Apparently, this multi-layered state agency approach just isn’t getting the job done.

According to a legislative declaration included in the proposed legislation, “The Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta watershed and California’s water infrastructure are in crisis and existing Delta policies are not sustainable.”

Sponsors of the proposed legislation, coincidentally all democrats, feel they have the solution in hand. According to them, their legislation will fix Delta management problems by establishing a governance structure that will “direct efforts across state agencies to develop a legally enforceable California Delta Ecosystem and Water Plan.”

Turns out there are five separate, but related, pieces of legislation on the agenda for discussion at a joint informational hearing of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife and Senate Natural Resources and Water Committees beginning Aug. 18.

Collectively, this legislation is referred to as the 2009 California Delta-Water Package.

From all indications, it appears the package is being fast-tracked to arrive on the governor’s desk before the Legislature adjourns in September. This being the case, there likely won’t be much time for committee review and discussion or legislative and public input.

In this columnist’s humble opinion, that’s definitely not the best way to gain bipartisan support and probably a lousy way to formulate critical public water policy with potentially far-reaching affects.

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, recently expressed serious concern with the proposed legislation and the direction it will take the state’s water policy.

“The proposed water legislation is an egregious diminution of historic water rights. It does nothing to ensure and, in fact, undermines area of origin water rights.” says the Assemblyman.

“It gives near dictatorial power to a ‘Delta Stewardship Council’ and a ‘Water Master’ while guaranteeing that environmental uses of water are superior to domestic, agricultural or business use of water..”

I spent the other night reading the five bills that make up the Package. All 135 pages mind you. Yes, just another wild and crazy night for the old guy. But, I was glad to make the sacrifice if doing so served the public interest. This is important stuff and folks need to be aware of what could happen.

Should you be so inclined, the bills are available for viewing at www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=26.

Glance on over to the left-hand margin, click on 2009 Proposed Delta/Water Legislation and look for AB 39 and 49 and SB 12, 229 and 458.

Like most things, the devil’s always in the details. And there are plenty of details, some good and some, frankly, troubling.

Here’s just a quick sampling of some possible areas of concern that jump off the pages.

The bill establishes an allpowerful Delta Stewardship Council or what I affectionately refer to as the ‘Mother of All Councils.’ Appears the council’s responsible for overseeing development and execution of a new Delta Plan and all that it entails. A pretty daunting task to be sure. Its powers, as identified within the legislation, appear nearly unlimited and unbridled, with little to no outside oversight.

That’s a concern.

Of the council’s seven members, four will be appointed by the governor, requiring Senate confirmation. You can expect some pretty tough sledding for nominees not meeting Senate majority philosophical, political and environmental muster. Always got to inject some degree of politics into these matters don’t we?

Powers granted the council include the ability to adopt regulations, develop the Delta Plan, establish the Delta Independent Science Board, determine in-stream flow needs, define ‘reasonable use’, assess fees, seek remedies, implement near-term restoration projects, obtain and hold regulatory permits, to sue, to approve any water conveyance facility proposed to be constructed within or around the Delta, and a heck of a lot more.

So, in my opinion, a strict oversight mechanism is critical. Let’s try and avoid some of the same mistakes we made with our Air Resources Board and Water Resources Control Board.

Then, there’s the Watermaster.

Vested with the statutory enforcement authority necessary to direct daily operations of all surface water diversions within the Delta watershed, this individual will likely be the most feared individual around and a force to be reckoned with. Other powers include enforcement of the California Endangered Species Act and judgments as to reasonable use. Decisions made by the Delta Watermaster are only appealable to an administrative law judge. Once again, lots of power with little apparent day to day oversight.

Although espousing a stated intention of supporting the coequal goals of “…assuring a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem…,” emphasis appears heavily slanted in favor of the latter. Makes you wonder if this is truly an effort to reach balance or simply an environmental sledge hammer for restoring the Delta at any and all costs.

And finally, buried in the language is also an apparent major policy shift that reads, “The policy of the State of California is to reduce dependence on water from the Delta watershed, over the long-term, for statewide water supply reliability. Each region that depends on water from the Delta shall improve its regional self-reliance for water through investment in water-use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply projects, and improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts.”

Does this mean we can anticipate significant water curtailments in the future with local jurisdictions left holding the bag? Clearly, this policy announcement screams out for clarification.

The warning flag has now been raised. The rest is up to you. As for me, I’ll be sharing my concerns in a letter to the governor and to Secretary Mike Chrisman, head of the California Natural Resources Agency. I’m going to tell them to slow this train down and take the time necessary to get it right. I’m going to tell them we need a full hearing on the matter, along with ample opportunity for public comment. And finally, I’m going to tell them the last thing we need is the ‘Mother of All Councils’…unregulated, undisciplined and unaccountable..

There’s an old saying most of us have heard many times before . . . “As California goes, so goes the Nation.” Short and sweet, it’s intended to recognize Californians for consistently being on the cutting edge of new developments and innovations that eventually end up sweeping the rest [...]]]> As California Goes, So Goes the Nation

There’s an old saying most of us have heard many times before . . . “As California goes, so goes the Nation.” Short and sweet, it’s intended to recognize Californians for consistently being on the cutting edge of new developments and innovations that eventually end up sweeping the rest of the nation. Culturally, politically, economically and otherwise, Californians have often rightly earned the distinction of being national trend-setters. For better or for worse.

To be sure, imitation is the best form of flattery. And, in many instances, California deserves such flattery for her many cutting-edge ideas in technology, the arts, manufacturing, agriculture, education and the like. Likewise, there are also plenty of examples where the rest of the Nation might be better off going it alone rather than following our lead. How about our current dysfunctional state government. Think it’s worthy of export? Or, how about the way we handle our budget? Doubt it, you say. Okay. Maybe someone would be interested in our prison system management techniques or tips on reducing recidivism rates. You don’t think so?

Mmmmm. I’ll keep trying. Well, I’m sure the business climate we’ve created might be of interest to someone, somewhere. And don’t tell me no one would want to copy our finely honed strategies for dealing with a host of environmental concerns. Of course not you say? Well then, how about our strategic plans to ensure plenty of water and power are available to sustain us in the future? And, our ‘nanny state’ approach to government has got to be of interest to someone. Oh, come on now, you’re being overly critical. There must be something here worth exporting to our neighbors to the East. I don’t mean to be overly flippant nor make it sound like everything in California has gone to pot. It hasn’t, not yet anyway. But, literally speaking, it’s about to. That’s right….gone to pot. That’s grass, weed or reefer for you old guys and gals from the ‘60s. For you younger folks, maybe you’ll find terms like Aunt Mary, skunk, boom, gangster or wacky terbacky a bit more familiar. No matter what you call it, it’s all the same . . . we’re talking about marijuana. Yep, that’s right. And, if some folks get their way, California may soon have the distinction of being the first state in the Nation to legalize its ‘recreational’ use. Now, how’s that for being a trend-setter? According to the State Board of Equalization, it’s conceivable legalization might generate nearly $1.4B annually in tax revenues. Their analysis also suggests marijuana use would likely increase by about 40%, along with a resulting 50% drop in street value. As you’ll recall, voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996 legalizing medical use of marijuana. Many opponents claimed then that medical use was only a ruse in order to get the proverbial foot inside the door, eventually achieving the ultimate goal of legalizing recreational use as well. Appears they may have been right. Since passage, state and federal officials have been at odds, with the feds holding firm on their outright ban on all marijuana use. Federal law seems to trump state law you know. Recently, however, US Attorney General, Eric Holder, has indicated the Justice Department would now defer to state marijuana regulations. How’s that for fair and impartial enforcement of our nation’s laws. Guess the AG gets to pick and choose which laws are worthy of enforcement. Interesting! Now, right on cue, first term legislator Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has introduced AB390, intended to legalize recreational use of marijuana. If put into law, it would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. Ammiano is promoting his bill as a way to help solve the state’s ailing budget problems. Interestingly enough, though, his bill as written does not allow the state to start collecting taxes until the federal government legalizes marijuana. That could be a long wait my friend. Fortunately, Ammiano’s bill hasn’t apparently received much support thus far. Should he fail this time around, he’s vowed to reintroduce the legislation again next session. Apparently, as a way to cut the legislature out of the process, two initiatives seeking to legalize recreational use of marijuana were also filed with the Secretary of State’s office in July 2009.. They include the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 and the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Although similar in name, the details of each differ considerably. But all have legalization of marijuana as their ultimate goal. If enough qualifying signatures are received, expect to find one or both initiatives on the 2010 ballot. Strong opinions exist on both sides of the marijuana legalization debate.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the following are good reasons to be against it:

“1) Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users, 2) Marijuana has no medical value that can’t be met more effectively by legal drugs, 3) Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like cocaine and heroin than non-marijuana users, and 4) Drug legalizers use “medical marijuana” as a red herring in an effort to advocate broader legalization of drug use.”

On the flip side, proponents of legalizing, regulating and taxing recreational marijuana use, to include the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, suggest it would 1) Help fight crime by producing cheaper drugs, thereby driving drug cartels out of business, 2) Provide about $1.2 billion in badly needed revenue to the state, 3) Save over $170 million in law enforcement costs, and 4) Generate such spin-off industries as coffee shops, paraphernalia and industrial hemp, creating thousands of new jobs and the accompanying additional income and business tax revenues.

Wish I could be assured California voters, when given the chance, will do the right thing and vote all these pro-marijuana measures down. But sadly, I am not. An April 2009 Field Poll showed 56% of the state’s registered voters supporting legalization and taxing of marijuana for recreational use. That’s pretty darn disturbing!

As for me, I’m sticking with the American Medical Association and their recommendation that marijuana remain classified a Schedule 1 drug with a “high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use,” and “a lack of accepted safety.” Folks, it’s time to draw a line in the sand and say no more. It’s time to stand up and do what we must to defend our society from further moral decay. It’s time to stop thinking only of ourselves and our selfish needs and begin to consider the interests and welfare of those who will follow in our footsteps.

And remember, “As California Goes, So Goes the Nation.”

“Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country.”

How many of us today have asked what we can do for our country?

I hazard to [...]]]> Public service is good for America and good for the character of her citizenry.  Long ago, JFK put it so eloquently when he said,

“Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country.”

How many of us today have asked what we can do for our country?

I hazard to guess not many, certainly not enough.  I believe it’s time to reexamine America’s public service policy.  Day I say perhaps we should consider requiring all able bodied high school graduates perform some manner of public service before entering college or the workforce.

My own military experience afforded me countless opportunities to serve others and, in the course of doing so, develop a greater appreciation for America.  A remote tour to Cambodia as a United Nations Military Observer in 1992-1993 serves as one good example.

For six months, I patrolled the jungle areas of Cambodia.  My mission was to enforce a UN-sponsored peace accord between the Cambodian People’s Party and the Khmer Rouge.  I witnessed the many hardships and suffering so prevalent in third world countries.  It was truly an eye opening experience.

Children with grossly swollen stomachs from malaria parasites with little hope of surviving; injured pedestrians left along roadsides to die for lack of emergency services; villagers trekking great distances to fetch dirty river water used for cooking and bathing; school age boys on “cyclos” searching for fares or working all day on delicate pieces of jewelry or furniture for sale; happy children dressed in ragged school uniforms proudly hiking long distances to attend school in makeshift shanties with no books, no chalk, no paper to write on; farmers in hospitals suffering lost limbs from mine explosions while working their fields; wind, sunlight and rain streaming in through large cracks in hospital walls, no electricity to illuminate or cool rooms and no doctors; the maimed and distitute, many cradling babies, hobbling along streets begging for mercy and a handout; young girls working long into the night at rickety old tables along busy streets supporting their parents and families.

There were no emergency services, no clean, fresh water from the tap, no fancy schools, no modern, state-of-the-art hospitals, no sewage treatment facilities, no refrigeration, no electricity.  There was nothing.  Just the daily grind of a very hard life, the will to live, to make the best of each day, to survive and to love and care for their families the best way they could given their fate in life – the fate of being born into a third world country.

The experience changed me greatly.  I discovered a deep, profound appreciation and love for my country, for all it offered, for all its blessings and all its riches.  It was a change brought about by this unique Cambodian experience and by the opportunity to serve others less fortunate.

I felt humbled, thankful, honored, fortunate and blessed to live in the greatest country in the worl,the USA.  I had grown in so many ways, and would never be the same again.

I think it’s time America reexamined her public service policy.  Public service by all high school graduates prior to entering college or the work force isn’t asking too much.  A national program with options to include service in the military, Peace Corps, inner cities, hospitals, Salvation Army or other similar agencies and organizations should be considered.

Let’s at least begin the conversation.  Service before self has always been an American value.  It must remain so for the sake of our next generation of leaders, for the sake of America.