Oh yes, if the Tejon Indian tribe gains federal recognition, Kern County will likely have an Indian gaming casino in its future. Probably somewhere near Mettler, close to Interstate 5.

And I’m fine with that.
 

I’m not a gambler, but other people enjoy it and as long as it’s legal, who am I to stand in their way?
 

As for arguments that Indian casinos don’t play by the same rules as other gaming houses in California, that people aren’t protected by the same liability rules, safety regulations and other laws when they’re in those casinos, I say, yup, caveat emptor, my friend.

Things are different in Mexico, Canada and other countries all over the world.
 

People who harp about how Indian casinos get special treatment because they’re not subject to the same taxation as other businesses sound like they’re talking through a big old mouth of sour grapes to me.

Native Americans weren’t exactly dealt a fair hand back in the day. We (and by that I mean the U.S. government — not you or I personally, so calm down) took their land, killed their people and gave them smallpox in return.

As a small, “’scuse our genocide” token, the federal government created the reservation system, which gave recognized tribes sovereign rights.

Well, they found a way to use those rights to their benefit. Ahhh! The American way!
 

But back to the Tejon tribe. If you’ve never heard of them, don’t feel bad.
 

The Chumash and Yokuts seem to have gotten more notice over the years.
But the Tejon tribe has always been here, according to Jim Appodaca, vice chairman of the tribe.
 

There are more than 200 registered members, many of whom still live in the area. They have regular meetings and four major events a year, he said.

A couple of their members are trained as archeologists and regularly called to check construction sites for Native American habitation. The tribe is also in the process of contacting a linguist to help bring back their language, as the Tubatulabal in the Kern River Valley did several years ago.

Documentation on the Tejon tribe is extensive. The federal government knew about them, set aside lands for them, helped build a church and school on those lands and even sent representatives to check on them after the 1952 earthquake.

The reservation, which was mostly uninhabitable hillsides, was dissolved in the 1960s. Then when the government decided to list all recognized tribes in the 1970s, the Tejon were left off.

“We had always had a government-to-government relationship,” Appodaca said. “Then it just stopped. Our contention is we were recognized but were left off the list through an administrative error.”

(In the interest of full disclosure, Appodaca works for The Californian in new business development, but I did not know about his connection to the tribe until I started making calls looking for a tribal spokesperson. Small world, huh?)

He and his aunt, Kathy Morgan, chairwoman of the tribe, have been working for federal recognition going on 15 years or more, he said.

At the end of September, they met with the undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and showed they had jumped through all the hoops to prove their bloodlines. He was supposed to get back to them in 30 days, which was up on Nov. 1.

Appodaca sighed when I asked what their next move was. That will likely involve lawyers.
 

Speaking of lawyers, the tribe has some good ones through Patton Boggs,  a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm specializing in indian recognition issues.

They were hired in 2008 and since have been paid nearly $300,000 on the tribe’s behalf. Appodaca acknowledged they have a “financial backer” who’s helping them, but he declined to tell me who that was. He wouldn’t even say how the tribe hooked up with this backer.

Clearly, the backer is betting on a casino.
 

“It’s really a crap shoot for him, though,” Appodaca said, noting the ongoing struggle for recognition.
 

If they gain recognition, the tribe will consider a number of economic development methods, including a casino, he said.

The primary goal is to create funding so they can take care of older tribal members and provide for the education of the children. A casino would be the fastest, most effective way to do that.

I spoke with Supervisor Don Maben, who said a casino wouldn’t be a good fit for Kern. He cited law enforcement issues and the arguments I listed already.

Casinos may not be subject to direct taxation, but they bring money in other ways — such as jobs, tourism and other contributions to the community.

Seems to me Indian casino would be a much better fit than prisons and sludge dumps.
 

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

I may have had this info before, but have been asked for it again so here goes:

After State Sen. Dean Florez', hearing in Bakersfield Oct. 5 regarding problems with PG&E's SmartMeters and rate hike, a local group was formed to try and deal with this issue.

TURNaroundBakersfield is a local chapter of the state utility watchdog group called TURN (The Utility Reform Network) based in San Francisco.

The local group hopes to keep pressure on PG&E as well as the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to correct billing problems and get some independent verification of the SmartMeters' accuracy.

The locals are also circulating a petition with a laundry list of demands to the PUC and Legislature including an investigation of the SmartMeter program.

For more information contact Liz Keogh at (661) 872-1898 or elizkeo@aol.com.

After Florez held a similar hearing in Fresno, a local group there was also formed.

For more information on the Fresno group, contact Marin Cantu (559) 224-1935 or mifamiliacantu@yahoo.com. 

Anyone out there know how I can reach any members or leaders of Tejon Indian Tribe?

A lawsuit was filed this week in Kern County on behalf of everyone in California who believes they’ve been ripped off by PG&E’s SmartMeter program.

The suit, filed by El Segundo firm Kirtland & Packard, is seeking class action status and lists eleven charges against the utility.

Among other things, PG&E is accused of knowingly installing meters that overcharge for actual electricity use, lying about the meters’ accuracy and the overall program’s benefit to consumers, ignoring customers’ complaints and misrepresenting rate hikes tied to the SmartMeter program to both consumers and the Public Utilities Commission.

State Senator Dean Florez, who held a hearing on the issue in Bakersfield and Fresno, agreed.

“PG&E’s case to the PUC for smart meters was so shot with bias against consumers that it doesn’t surprise me that PG&E is being taken to court,” he said, though he felt PUC commissioners are to blame as well.

Bakersfield was ground zero for the SmartMeter program, with more than 250,000 new meters installed in starting in 2007. By early 2008, reports began bubbling up about soaring bills.

Then in March of this year, a steep rate hike went into effect and by summer some local residents saw their bills go into the stratosphere with 200 percent to 400 percent increases over the same months for the previous year and no apparent increase in usage.

Complaints flooded in and more than 200 people came Florez’ hearing to vent and try to find answers.

Florez followed up with several demands to PG&E and the PUC, which were answered in lukewarm fashion.

The lawsuit references the hearing and notes that even then, PG&E representatives didn’t take action.

“PG&E has refused to acknowledge to (customers) that there is even a problem, so a lawsuit may be the only way to get at the truth here,” attorney Michael Kelly said in an email statement.

PG&E maintains its SmartMeters aren’t the problem.

“PG&E stands behind its SmartMeter program,” said Denny Boyles, the utility’s local spokesman. “The allegations in the lawsuit are untrue and have no merit.”

One of the demands sent by Florez was for an independent party to test meter accuracy, which the PUC and PG&E have both agreed to.

IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THE& nbsp;SUIT

Kirtland and Packard would still like to hear from other PG&E customers having problems with the SmartMeters.
You can access their investigation form here
Or call them at (209) 795-0271
Or email Heather Peterson at HMP@KirtlandPackard.com

And you can read the lawsuit here

Avoid the rush, buy yours NOW!!! (get two, they're small)

A new device that can help sort out your mutt’s breed, or breeds, can also help other pups in need.

The Tehachapi Radio Shack on West Valley Boulevard, is selling Doggie DNA kits to help Rainbow Rescue, a non-profit organization dedicated to saving animals in the Tehachapi, California City, Mojave, Boron and Edwards areas.

Rainbow Rescue has rescued and rehomed hundreds of puppies, stray, abandoned and surrendered dogs over the last decade.

The DNA kit is $10, of which 100 percent goes to Rainbow Rescue.

Swab your dog’s cheek and send it to the manufacturer along with $49.95 for processing and in two weeks they will send your dog’s full breed composition (up to 5 levels). The information can help you understand the unique personality traits of your dog, warn you about the dog’s predisposition to disease and genetic health concerns.

You can purchase the kits at the Tehachapi Radio shack, 1121 W. Valley Blvd., Ste. A, Tehachapi, CA 93561 (corner of Tucker Road and Valley Blvd.) or you can send a check made out to Rainbow Rescue/Radio Shack to the same address for however many kits you would like.

Chelley Kitzmiller, who owns the Radio Shack dealership and volunteers for Rainbow Rescue, will then send the manufacturer your address and they will send the kits.
 

A bad reputation is hard to shake.

The Department of Fish and Game is finding that out, particularly in the Kern River Valley, as it shops around its environmental review documents on stocking the river with fish.

The department was sued in 2006 by the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity because it had never done an EIR on how fish stocking affects native species.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered Fish and Game to do an EIR by Dec. 30, 2008.

The department couldn’t meet the deadline (that was Strike One to a lot of Kern River Valley folks) and asked for an extension, which they got, but at a price.

All stocking of fish in water that held certain “species of concern,” as outlined by the plaintiffs, had to stop.

Yup, you guessed it, one of those species of concern was wriggling around in the waters of the Kern River — the hard head minnow.

So stocking in the Kern ended a year ago this month.

“There was no notice, nothing,” Donna James, who with her husband runs Camp James on the Kern River near Kernville, said. Almost overnight, she said, fishing dried up — and then so did her business.

Some businesses in the Kern River Valley saw as much as a 40 percent decline, said Jim Hunt, former president of the Friends of the Hatchery, the Kern River hatchery that farms the rainbow trout Fish and Game uses to stock the river.

Strike Two for Fish and Game —  and this was the biggie — came in April when residents like Hunt believe the department welshed on a promise to ask the plaintiffs if they could resume stocking, based on studies showing the rainbow trout has no impact on the hard head minnow.

They had done so with three other bodies of water (and were turned down on all three) but not the Kern.

Fish and Game’s spokesman on this issue, James Starr, said the director decided not to ask for relief on the Kern as the hard head minnow’s status would be explored in the EIR.

Without approval of that document, Starr said, they feared it could open them to legal action.

Umm, I’m not sure how the action gets any more “legal” than it already is.

Maybe the Kern would have been turned down as well, Hunt allows.

But at least residents would have felt Fish and Game had honored a commitment and gone to bat for the community. Hunt resigned his post as president of Friends of the Hatchery in protest.

“We’re past that now. It’s spilt milk,” said Starr, who insisted Fish and Game has been forced to play defense by the environmental groups and had every decision forced on them.

“Right now, we need people to focus on the EIR.”

OK. But the EIR isn’t exactly helping.

Under Alternative 2, Fish and Game’s preferred alternative, it very clearly says the Kern River would not be stocked.

Starr told me you can’t take that sentence out of context. He said the full alternative says the department will operate under current guidelines but will add a mitigation measure, which is a kind of stock/no stock checklist.

Under that checklist one of the questions is whether the stocked fish harm any species of concern. In the hard head minnow’s case, the answer is no, according to the EIR. So, bing, bang, boom, it’s good to go.

Hunt heard the same explanation at several public meetings and isn’t convinced.

“They haven’t been forthright in doing what they said they would do in the past, so it’s hard for anyone in this community to have any confidence.”

While the spotlight has so far been on the hard head minnow, even greater difficulties could be posed by another species of concern: the Little Kern golden trout.

Typically found in the river and its tributaries above Johnsondale Bridge, this guy has been on the protected list for decades and stocking in its range ceased many years ago.

So Fish and Game’s EIR gives it only passing mention.

That may not be good enough for the plaintiffs, according to Chris Frissell, conservation director for Pacific Rivers Council.

“The native trout is our biggest concern,” he told me.
Information is all over the place. Some say there are no true Little Kern left; others say the Little Kern’s population has increased so much that they’re expanding into the stock trout territory. Exactly what’s happening with the Little Kern?

“Will this document tell us that?” Frissell asked.

An initial reading of the EIR shows “uneven coverage,” Frissell said. “We don’t think they’ve considered the full sweep of concerns.”

Uh-oh.

Comments are accepted until Nov. 16 on the state portion of the EIR and Nov. 30 on the federal portion.  It all goes back to the judge Jan. 10, 2010. The judge could OK it, the plaintiffs could sue or it could get shipped back to Fish and Game for revisions.

Either way, Kern River Valley businesses will likely watch their business head for better fishing elsewhere, Hunt said.

Incidentally, Fish and Game was asked twice to do the EIR and gave zero response before the groups sued.

“We’re not anti-fishing,” Frissell said. “Most of our members are anglers.”

Had Fish and Game been forthcoming with the information, Frissell said: “We probably wouldn’t have filed the lawsuit at all.”

Hmmm. Government operating in a transparent, responsive manner. We could all stock up on that.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

HOW TO COMMENT

Go to the California Department of Fish and Game’s website to read the EIR on its fish stocking program.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/...

You can email comments to:
dfghatcheryeir@dfg.ca.gov

Or mail comments to:
James Starr
DFG
Fisheries Branch
830 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
 

Oh brother.

Check out County Govt. Reporter James Burger's blog on how the Board of Supervisors ducked making a hard decision on whether to allow a concrete crushing plant to be plopped right next to houses.

Hey, I wish the guy could just go ahead with his business too. We need the jobs and his land is zoned heavy industrial.

But moronic planning decisions of the past and recent past have not put homes within 500 feet of this proposed noisy, dusty operation. Not to mention, the roads already can't handle the traffic out there. Ten extra truck trips a day are 10 too many.

Supervisors just couldn't do it, though. So the issue is coming back in several months.

Perhaps a magical solution will present itself. But since one hasn't popped up over the last half year, I highly doubt it.

John Balmes, who serves on the California Air Resources Board, didn't like my Oct. 21 column about how the board needs to do some serious clean up after it was revealed one of their lead researchers had lied about his degree.

Oh, and the report this researcher put out was relied on by the board to create strict diesel emissions rules that may very well cripple California's trucking and construction industries.

Anyhoo, I interviewed Balmes for that column.

Here's his reply, which we ran in our op ed pages on Sunday, Nov. 1.

Lois Henry’s Oct. 21 column, “State air board can’t ignore credibility problems,” is another attempt to change the conversation about the reason the California Air Resources Board is working to cut diesel emissions: public health.

Residents of Bakersfield endure some of the nation’s worst air quality while asthma levels are on the rise, particularly in children. Fine particulate matter that can be breathed deep into the lungs is widely recognized by the scientific community to be a cause of asthma exacerbations, hospitalization for heart and lung problems, and even premature death.

Diesel particulate matter, or soot, is the most pervasive toxic air contaminant in California and is considered particularly hazardous because truck drivers and railroad workers exposed on the job have been shown to have increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease.

CARB has already adopted regulations to clean up trash trucks, transit buses, cargo-handling equipment, port trucks, harbor craft and ship engines, as well as diesel fuel itself.  Isn’t it time that diesel trucks and construction equipment do their fair share to clean the air as well?

To ease the cost of compliance for smaller firms, the board rule gave companies subject to the off-road diesel equipment rules an extended deadline to meet the standards, and recently changed the rule to give even more time for all companies to comply.
 

Any attempt to regulate a compound as widespread in our economy as diesel soot must be based on clear and convincing scientific evidence that it is a health threat. It should come as no surprise that the science continues to be debated, or that advocacy organizations will continue to try to discredit or support the studies that the board relied on in making the finding that diesel emissions constitute a toxic health threat.

Research on the relationship between airborne particles (like diesel soot) and health effects has been going on for many years and will no doubt continue as scientists attempt to understand and refine the exact nature and degree of the problem.

 The report that Henry criticizes is a compilation and evaluation of current research reported in the scientific literature.  It was subjected to a rigorous independent scientific peer review prior to its release.  After CARB management was made aware of the fact that a career employee who played a key role in preparing that report had falsely claimed to have completed his Ph.D. from an accredited university, CARB asked the same group of 10 external experts to reconsider their prior comments in light of this employee’s bad judgment. All nine that responded confirmed their original comments on the report. (The employee was also subject to a disciplinary proceeding.)

We support continued debate based on real science and data and believe it can only strengthen our program. Based on the record we have reviewed, we believe that the evidence supports the urgency of reducing public exposure to diesel soot (as do many public agencies and health organizations worldwide), and we continue to support reasonable, technically feasible regulations as well as financial incentives to do so.

John R. Balmes, M.D., has served on the California Air Resources Board since 2007 as an expert on the impacts of air pollution on public health, and is professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and professor of environmental health sciences at UC Berkeley.

A little planning nightmare coming before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone who works in planning, is a politician, a developer, a business owner of any kind, a homeowner, or simply wants a home in a neighborhood they like.

This one, relatively small issue neatly encapsulates our biggest problem — not thinking ahead.

We’ve done a poor job of that over the years (in the city and county) with some pretty necessary items. Roads and sewers come to mind, but also compatibility.

The problem supervisors face on Tuesday is they either have to tell hundreds of residents in northwest Bakersfield to suck it up and deal with a noisy, dust-belching concrete crushing and recycling plant plopped in their midst.

Or, they have tell the guy proposing the plant that stupid planning decisions over the last 30 years mean you can’t trust zoning laws in this community and that, essentially, he’s gonna get hosed.

The County Planning Commission, in my view, really passed the buck on this in August when it approved a two-year conditional use permit for the plant. Neither side is happy with that decision;  both are appealing it to Supervisors.

A two-year permit is not an answer.

For the business owner, Mark Polhamus, it means he has to do just as much work (more given all the conditions on the permit) to open his business, but won’t know whether he can continue after two years. What bank is going to front him a loan on that basis? What businesses will want to contract with him if he might not be around in two years?

For residents concerned about traffic, possibly toxic dust and noise, it would mean two years of frustration and uncertainty about the safety and value of their neighborhoods. 

I would also point out that the intersection nearest the proposed plant, Hageman Road and Santa Fe Way, with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks thrown in just for fun, is already a major problem. It’s level of service is an F now and a major underpass is being planned there. Adding 10 extra truck trips a day is just foolhardy.

I don’t blame Polhamus for this situation. Nor do I blame the neighbors.

In fact, I give a loud, prolonged raspberry to Planning Commissioners Leticia Perez and Chris Babcock for lecturing residents when this came up at their July meeting, telling them they should have done their homework and seen what the zoning was before moving to that area.

PUH-leeze!

The land in question was zoned heavy industrial in 1982.

Homes on the west were approved (by the county) and built in the 1990s, homes on the east were approved (by the city) and built in 2005, the same year Polhamus bought his land.

And they were approved right next to the heavy industrial without a thought to creating a buffer section of light industrial or enhancing roads or anything.

Talk about not doing your homework. Maybe someone in say, the city or county planning departments, on the city or county planning commissions or the a member of the City Council or Board of Supervisors could have stuck a hand up and said, “Hey, looks like we’re approving another mess here, guys.”

This same thing has happened in other areas of town so it’s a train wreck that easily could have been avoided here.

“This definitely shows the weakness in our process,” Supervisor Mike Maggard told me. “We step into a set of facts, make a decision and step out again.”

Same with the City Council.

The General Plan, of course, is supposed to give planners a more comprehensive view.

But again, people go to the separate bodies for plan amendments (hardly any are refused, by the way), neither side really informs the other and away we go.

“We’re better than we were 10 years ago,” Maggard said. “Hopefully we’ll get it right with the new General Plan update.”

I ain’t holding my breath.

In the meantime, Supervisors should deny the conditional use permit and work with Polhamus to find a more suitable location. Traffic alone is enough for a denial. They should also take staff’s advice (which was also given to, but ignored by. the Planning Commission) and down zone the land so these problems don’t crop up again.

Relying on 30-year-old zoning without acknowledging the reality on the ground is a cop-out, frankly. And this temporary “solution” benefits no one. It only pushes the problem into the future.

We’ve done that long enough.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

SACRAMENTO — The best thing about the state water hearing on whether there’s unclaimed water in the Kern River that we might be able to use for an actual river is that it’s over.

I swear, I don’t know which is worse — deadly dull water law or the lawyers who wallow in it.

Anyway, besides me, there were only two other “civilians” attending the State Water Resources Control Board Kern River hearing held Monday and Tuesday.

The others were hearty Bakersfield couple Doug Worley and Cathy Barnes sporting matching “Bakersfield: A riverbed runs through it” T-shirts.

“We came up to support Bakersfield having a river,” Worley said. “Half the town should have come up for this.”

They followed every arcane twist and complex turn in the hearing, cheering on Bakersfield’s attorney, Colin Pearce, as he dueled with no fewer than five attorneys from the opposition who represented four powerhouse ag districts and the city of Shafter.

For a little background, the city petitioned the state board to find there is unclaimed water in the Kern after a 2007 court ruling held that Kern Delta Water District had forfeited some of its rights to the river. The city wants that water, possibly as much as 50,000 acre-feet a year, to run down the river.

The opposition (North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District, Kern Water Bank Authority, Kern County Water Agency and Shafter) want the board to find there is no unclaimed water.

It’s the same “nothing to see here, move along” attitude that has long governed use of the Kern.

It’s interesting to note that initially all those districts and Shafter had also asked the board to find there was excess water on the river and each also petitioned to have it given to them. They changed tactics for some reason, however, and joined forces to oppose the city and try to dissuade the board from even considering the issue.

Despite their best efforts, the state board granted the hearing in near-record time. This first phase is only to determine if there is water available.

Board member Arthur Baggett, Jr., who acted as the hearing officer, told me he expects to make his recommendation to the full board before the end of the year. If the board finds there is unappropriated water, that’s when the real fighting starts.

“Then everyone gets a shot at it,” Baggett, a silver-haired Mariposa lawyer who looks more like a Wyatt Earp stand in complete with black boots and vest, told me.

But don’t hold your breath. Baggett also told me the board just issued the final water right last week on the Santa Ana River, a similar case which came to them 11 years ago.

Ugh.

After watching this week’s hearing, though, I can’t help but have some hope. Because if this was the opposition’s “shock-and-awe” campaign, it was shockingly unawesome.

Their case that the forfeiture didn’t create excess water rests on the idea that the other rights-holders on the river can and have absorbed that water.

After a long series of questions for former city Water Resources Manager Gene Bogart about how he tracked which district got how much water from the Kern on a daily basis, Buena Vista’s attorney Gene McMurtrey smirked triumphantly.

“So, essentially, there's always been a cap, hasn’t there? And the river has always operated the same way,” he said.

His point was that Kern Delta’s forfeiture didn’t create any new water because so many other “buckets” are waiting to be filled down the line.

Interesting theory.

Except those other bucket holders don’t have a right to that water — it’s not theirs. Their rights don’t expand just because Kern Delta’s contracted.

As for the river still operating the same after the 2007 judgment, yes, that’s because the city is waiting for the state board to determine what should be done with that water. Duh!

Either way, it’s in the state board’s hands now.

The really curious thing is why all these districts have closed ranks on this issue.

The water in question is so-called “first point” water. There are only three first point rights-holders including North Kern, Kern Delta and Bakersfield. So if the state board finds some of that water is unclaimed, there’s a strong legal precedent for keeping it in the first-point family rather than letting it go down the river to “second point” or “lower river” rights holders.

You don’t think those districts and Shafter have agreed among themselves to push back on the state in order to dummy up and take the excess water without entitlement, do you?

That would be so, so wrong!

If you think things can’t get that cloak and dagger on the Kern, you’d be wrong. Bogart himself spent four years working in a windowless room with no phone built specifically for him and his precious Kern River flow and diversion records when he worked for Tenneco, before the city bought out its rights, and the city was suing for information contained in those records.

“Don’t talk to anyone,” were his marching orders back then. Apparently some in the water world would like to keep it that way.

These are Lois Henry’s opinions and not necessarily those of The Californian.