I have a new title:  Enemy Of Fun.

If your idea of fun is setting off combustibles that shoot sparks, smoke, magnesium, copper and barium into the air (i.e. fireworks), then yes, I’m the Enemy Of Fun.

We need to ban all personal fireworks in Bakersfield, Kern County and the entire state, for that matter.

I’ve heard all the arguments against a ban —  too much government intrusion, one night of fireworks isn’t that bad for our air, it penalizes responsible people, non-profits depend on fireworks sales for fund-raising.

Sorry. None of those tip the scales for me when I compare the costs of  personal fireworks.

Last year, personal fireworks caused 88 fires in Kern County and 26 in the city. Three of those city fires were full-on structures.

It’s harder to pin down fireworks related injuries. Hospitals don’t note the cause of a burn or lost finger.  And people don’t tend to call the authorities if they blow out an eye using an illegal firework.

Anecdotally, I’m told by Kern Medical Center that its emergency room sees about eight to 10 fireworks burn cases over the holiday.

Please recall, though, that in 2004, Raymond Reilly III, 45, was killed by a modified legal firework. That’s a cost that can never be recovered.

Air readings from every 4th of July since 2004 show particulate matter, known as PM2.5 — tiny bits of soot and smoke that lodge deep in lung tissue causing major problems for anyone with a respiratory condition — goes through the roof between 9 and 10 p.m. It happens all over the valley, but Bakersfield has higher readings by far.

We had been just barely squeaking under the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for PM2.5 and that standard was lowered in late 2006 by nearly half. There’s no way our air will meet the standard now, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District tells me. Firework smoke, even just one night, does not help.

The PM2.5 spike has been so consistently bad the district is going to study whether a new fireworks rule is needed. That study won’t be done until 2012. I don’t know why it would take that long to figure out that we shouldn’t needlessly add more junk to our already crummy air.

The county and city each have enforcement teams of 15 fire fighters paired with 15 law enforcement personnel that try to keep up with the hundreds of calls. So many people called last year, the teams were running an hour behind.

“People are fed up with the illegal fireworks,” Kern County Deputy Chief Brian Marshall told me. The county issued 100 citations last year and seized 2,500 pounds of illegal fireworks.

But catching people using the illegal stuff isn’t easy, Fire Chief Ron Fraze said.

Unless you see someone shoot off a bottle rocket or M-80, you can’t arbitrarily check every package, especially at some of the large block parties.

I wondered why the fire departments need Johnny Law riding along since any firefighter can cite you for illegal fireworks.

Protection.

Firefighters have been threatened and assaulted (live fireworks thrown at them) by rowdy revelers who mix alcohol with their pyrotechnics.

Lovely.

And, of course, our beleaguered animal shelters can hardly handle the extra dogs running wild and crazed with fright by what sounds like a war zone. The Kern County Animal Control shelter took in about 30 more dogs last year during the July 4th week than an average week earlier in the year.
 

The only real challenge to an outright ban, in my mind, is how non-profits can make up the money they’d lose.

The city permits about 70 organizations to sell fireworks, the county permits nearly 200.

Those groups make a lot of money from fireworks sales.

I doubt there’s a way to entirely make up for that loss. But there are plenty of ideas out there such as phasing out the sales over several years to give the groups time to develop other fund-raising avenues or allowing the non-profits to sell tickets to community shows and take a cut of the proceeds, or sell concessions at the shows.

That’s how they did it in Torrance, even expanding their community show into a daylong event.

“They make much the same or more (money),” according to Bob Gebel with the Torrance Fire Department. “There are associated city costs but...we were willing to absorb (the costs) for common sense safety.”

So far, there has only been one real champion for a ban locally and that’s Fraze.

It hasn’t won him any friends. He even got threats on his home phone. Threats!

But what a fireworks ban really needs is political leadership. After a round of phone calls to all our city council members and county supervisors, I only found one supporter.

“I would support a ban, realizing that it would need to be countywide,” said Bakersfield City Councilwoman Sue Benham. “It would not be effective to do in just the city.”

Air quality was her No. 1 issue.

“There are so many things about our air quality that we can’t control and this is one we can,” she said.

OK, so it’s Fraze, Benham and me against, oh, pretty much the rest of Kern County.

It’s a start!

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

Some rules about fireworks

With smoke blanketing California from so many fires, officials from the Governor to Kern County Supervisor Ray Watson are urging people to voluntarily not use personal fireworks this year.
But if you must do so, please remember that if it shoots off the ground or explodes, it is illegal.
Only “safe and sane” fireworks are legal in California.
And even some of those aren’t OK within Bakersifeld City limits.
Piccolo Pete and Ground Bloom fireworks are illegal in Bakersfield, though they’re still legal in the county portion of the metro area.
Fire officials are encouraging neighbors to report any illegal firework use by calling 868-6070 in the county and 326-FIRE (3473) in the city.
 

Community fireworks shows
July 3
• The KERN 1410 AM Independence Day fireworks spectacular follows the Bakersfield Blaze baseball game against the San Jose Giants at Sam Lynn Ball Park, 4009 Chester Ave. Gates open at 6:30 p.m.; game starts at 7:30. The show is included in the price of admission. Tickets are $5 to $9. 716-4487.

• Fireworks in Shafter with live entertainment and food at the Shafter High School football field, 526 Mannel Ave. Barbecue starts at 6 p.m., fireworks at 8:45 p.m. Free, but donations welcomed. 746-2600.

• McFarland fireworks show with water amusements for the kids, T-ball games, food and live music by country/classic rock band The Fugitives, at McFarland High School, 259 Sherwood Ave. Starts at 5:30 p.m., fireworks at 9 p.m. Admission: $1 children, $2 adults. 792-3187.

July 4
Tehachapi goes all out for America’s birthday, small town-style.
The Hot Dog Festival starts with an 8 a.m. “Bun Run” 5K walk/run starting at Jacobsen Middle School, 711 Anita Drive.
Pancake breakfast begins at 8:30 a.m., $5 a plate, with games, a petting zoo and entertainment at Central Park, East E and South Mojave streets. The children’s parade starts 11 a.m. at Jacobsen Middle School. Bratwurst, chili dogs, buffalo dogs and more will be available at Central Park.
Bullriding at the Tehachapi Rodeo Grounds on Dennison Road starts at 6 p.m., gates open at 4 p.m.
Presale is $8 children 8 to 14 and $10 adults; at the gate, $10 for children and $12 for adults. Children 7 and under free. Available at tehachapiprorodeo.com.
The annual July Fourth concert features patriotic songs, showtunes, jazz and light classical music at Coy Burnett Football Field on Tehachapi Boulevard. Gates open 4 p.m. First band at 5 p.m. featuring traditional sing-along. At 7 p.m., the Tehachapi Community Orchestra performs. Pack a picnic dinner.
Fireworks begin at 9 p.m. Admission free, donations welcomed.

• Taste of Tehachapi Food and Wine Festival, 4 to 8 p.m. on South Green Street from Tehachapi Boulevard to F Street. Features 12 restaurants, a beer garden and five local wineries. Music by Friends of Cheap Yellow Mustard.
Tickets $20 in advance, $25 at the door. Purchase tickets at the Tehachapi Farmer's Market (today from 4 to 7 p.m.), Mama Hillybeans, 426 E. Tehachapi Blvd., or e-mail info@TasteofTehachapi.com. 816-0529.

• 54th annual "Red, White and Boom" Fireworks Show presented by the Bakersfield Firefighters Relief Association, with performances by Sanctus Real and 800lb Gorilla, gates open 6 p.m., concert at 6:30, fireworks at 9. Bakersfield College Memorial Stadium, 1801 Panorama Drive. $10 to $15. $2 parking donation. Tickets available at any city fire station or jesusshack.com. 324-0638.

• Spotlight Theatre debuts “The History of Rock & Roll: Born in the U.S.A.,” a musical, at 4 p.m., with a barbecue at noon.
Presale tickets are $15 adults, $12 students with ID, seniors 50 and up and military, $7 children under 12. Barbecue purchased separately.
The musical follows the experiences of two couples, one black and one white, from the 1960s to present day.
“The History of Rock & Roll: Born in the U.S.A.” plays through August 9 on Thursday nights at 7 p.m. and Friday and Saturday nights at 8 p.m.
Spotlight Theatre, 1622 19th St. 634-0692.

• Fireworks show in Taft at 8:30 p.m., Franklin Field, Highway 119 and Cedar Street. Free. 765-2165.

• Fireworks show in Wasco at dusk in Babe Ruth Ball Park, Poplar Avenue and 11th Street. Free. 758-3081.

• Independence Day Celebration in Ridgecrest starting 5 p.m. with motorcycle racing at Desert Empire Fairgrounds, 520 S. Richmond Road. Features live music, barbecue and fireworks at 9 p.m. Free, $10 to watch racing. (760) 375-2715.

July 5
• Fireworks show at Isabella Lake at 9:15 p.m., shot over Engineers Point. Free, but donations welcomed. (760) 379-5236.

• “Star Spangled Spectacular” in Delano starting at 5 p.m. at Delano Memorial Park, Lexington Street and Garces Highway. $8 for meal, free fireworks show. The Prisoners of Love, a Latin/old school dance band and barbecue by the Kiwanis Club of Delano from 5 to 8 p.m. Fireworks begin at dusk and will be fired from the north end of Delano Municipal Airport. Guests encouraged to bring folding chairs, blankets, or shade setups that can be carried. 725-1286.

I got a great email the other day from a reader in the oil biz locally who had some really interesting suggestions for how we can ease the pain of our current oil crunch.

He does support more drilling, both coastal and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (I'm not with him on that) but beyond that, his conservation ideas were very intriguing.

Got any conservation ideas of your own?

Here's his short list for what we could do if we SERIOUSLY wanted to curtail our oil use:

1.     Give State and Federal tax credits for individuals that use public transportation.  I don’t care where they are going the users get tax credits.  Helps our failing public transportation systems and gets people out of vehicles.

2.     Take all school buses off the streets if there is a close or duplicate public transit system working in the cities.  In California it is estimated that at least 10% of all diesel burned in the state is in school buses.  90% of the school bus systems parallel public transportation systems.

3.     Can’t get Big Auto to build cars that are high gas mileage?  Pick a weight limit of say 2,000 lbs for all passenger vehicles (cars, SUV’s, vans, and trucks) any vehicle sold over that weight pays a penalty of BIG BUCK$ per pound over.  If you buy one that is under the limit you get BIG BUCK$ per pound back.  I do mean BIG BUCK$ like $10 per pound.  Do the same for gas mileage at about 30 MPG only add in motorcycles.  Make this one at $5,000 per MPG.  The government only gets an 8% handling fee for the service of handling the money. (Happens to be the PUC government set rate for electricity and gas.  Also Exxon’s profit last year.)  We could do this by individual States or Nationally.  You want to drive the big ugly Hummer it’s now OK.  You want to drive the supper fast gas guzzling Viper it’s OK.  All you got to do is PAY.  Shouldn’t have any guilt about that.

4.     Require all vehicles or engines to be tuned and smoged every year.  Establish spot road checks that can impound vehicles that are not certified as checked and smoged.  I really do mean all: big trucks, boats, airplanes, cars, SUVs, scooters, any thing with a damn motor.  AND yes all vehicles must go through spot check if one is established.  So all government vehicles get the same crappy & shabby treatment, only I would add that government drivers of these vehicles should get a special fine for knowingly driving a polluting vehicle.

5.     Pass a 60 mph speed limit and enforce it. Bust the police if they don’t enforce it.  And make the fine BIG or impound the vehicle.

 

Waaaaay back in the 1970s, when cranky old people like me were once young and impressionable, the nation became “environmentally conscious.”

I know because it was on TV.

We had commercials that told us kids to “Give a hoot, don’t pollute.” And the crying Indian chief, who could forget that?

Ah, the simplicity of those times. If you were “environmental” you didn’t dump trash on the road and turned off the lights when you left a room.

These days, it seems, you need a research grant from MIT and a score card to figure out whether something is good or bad for Mother Earth.

Here’s my take on a few conflicted issues.

Light bulbs vs. CFLs

Regular bulbs use more energy. But CFLs — fluorescent bulbs — have a small amount of mercury and can’t just go in the trash. Plus, they’re made in CHINA and have to be transported here at what energy/carbon cost?

Personally, I prefer regular bulbs with a cheapskate’s eye to flicking the switch when not in use. But Congress is phasing out incandescents by 2012 unless repeal legislation intervenes.

Tap vs. bottled water

OK, so tap water is every bit as good for you, maybe better, than the stuff they’re selling as “spring mountain crystal clear” or whatever. In fact, in some cases it turned out those plastic bottles were filled with regular tap anyway. Sheesh.

Plastic bottles in the landfill are bad, but they can be recycled. So you shouldn’t duck your head in shame at the market if you buy a case now and then, as long as you recycle.

Oh, and it seems Bakersfield was ahead of the curve (even San Francisco!) on bottled water. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently voted to stop spending tax dollars on bottled water for employees and official functions, such as city council meetings.

The Bakersfield City Clerk’s office confirmed that at Bakersfield’s council meetings water has always been tap, served iced in pitchers with clean glasses for council members and staff. Chalk one up for us.

Paper or plastic?

Paper bags consume trees and don’t decompose well in landfills. Plastic bags are petroleum based, with us forever and can kill marine life if they drift into waterways.

“We do live in a world of tradeoffs,” acknowledged Kevin Barnes, Bakersfield’s Solid Waste Director.

The proposal to ban plastic bags at large groceries appears to have died a quiet death locally while council members see what the state will do. There’s a bill (AB 2058) that would require stores to charge customers 25 cents for a paper or plastic bag unless the store shows that it recycles at least 70 percent of the bags it gives out through a take-back center on site.

Charging for the bags is a great idea in my view. That way, if you absolutely MUST have your plastic bag, go for it. But you’re gonna pay to play. If that bag is now worth a quarter, a lot fewer people will chuck it in the trash.

I called the Environmental staffers in San Francisco to see how their plastic bag ban is going since it became effective last December and they said they've had miniscule negative reaction.

They actually had wanted to do a charge per bag, but the grocery lobby succeeded in getting state law changed to prohibit government agencies from forcing a bag charge, so they were stuck with the ban.

“We’d love to charge a fee, that’s the best policy,” said Mark Westlund, spokesman for the San Francisco Environment Department.

Solar power vs. ugly transmission lines

I recently read that the Center for Biological Diversity (an environmental group if ever there was one) is opposing a solar power plant because the transmission line would run through the  Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Environmentalists opposing renewable energy?

I’d love to say this is a difficult question. After all, giant power poles don’t exactly mesh with a pristine environment.

But, come on — which is worse? I’d rather see power poles in a park than tons more pollution being belched into the atmosphere from an oil-fired power plant.

It may be a tradeoff, but to me, this is a pretty simple one.

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

Want to join the recycle revolution?
Bakersfield and Kern County have a joint, voluntary recycling program. Each household in the program now recycles about 800 pounds of stuff a year, according to the city’s Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes.

“So that’s 800 pounds of material per household that doesn’t go in the landfill each year,” he said.

If you’d like to sign up for the “blue cart” recycling program and live in the city limits, you can call 326-3114.

If you live in the county but are in the metro area, you should call your trash company and they can provide a blue cart.

Cost is $4 a month.

If Kern County were in charge of responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor, you’d be reading this in Japanese today.

We’re not exactly Johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to dealing with a “crisis.”

More than two years ago, the Kern County Board of Supervisors created the Animal Control Commission to deal with the county’s massive pet overpopulation problem. It was a “crisis,” everyone agreed, and must be dealt with “urgently.”

This March, after two  years of foot dragging, supervisors demanded the Commission bring recommendations to the board by June 10  —  or else!

On June 10, recommendations were made, much discussion ensued and supervisors promptly sloughed off the issue until Aug. 26.

Two years and four months (from the Commission’s first meeting in May 2006 to August 2008) is a long time in the cast-off pet world.

More than 21,900 cats and 18,500 dogs will have been killed at the Kern County Animal Control Shelter in that time frame, based on euthanasia rates from the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 fiscal years.

That’s a lot of animals destroyed while we dithered.

Supervisor Mike Maggard, who had asked that staff come back earlier with more information, wants to know how some of the Commission’s recommendations would be implemented.

Such as, “enhanced” enforcement of existing laws.

“Ok, but how?” Maggard asked.

And he was concerned that the recommendations regarding enforcement made no mention of how to better operate the shelter, particularly how to better use volunteers and outside agencies.

“There seems to be all this energy about vigorously pursuing registering and spaying dogs, which is good, but it won’t take dogs off death row in the short term,” he said.

I wondered if Maggard’s attention toward shelter operations had sharpened and his view of Animal Control in general had dimmed after a highly critical report of Kern’s shelter by researchers at UC Davis was recently discovered. (I would say “released” but it apparently languished in Animal Control’s hands until a local animal activist got a hold of it and spread it around. Note to Animal Control: Supervisors hate worse than anything being kept in the dark.)

I asked. Maggard paused.

“(The report) gave an objective, outside view that there are numerous problems in the department,” he said curtly.

That sounds like a “yes.”

I understand Maggard’s desire to get more info before running off half-cocked with new ordinances, but I believe we could have done more by now, much more.
Supervisor Don Maben, who has been part of the Commission since its inception, agreed.

He wanted to vote June 10.

“I’m ready to put survey teams out in the county,” he said referring to one of the recommendations that would increase Animal Control’s staffing so enforcement teams could proactively seek out owners of unlicensed dogs and work with to get them licensed and vaccinated.

Only 10 percent of the dogs in Kern are licensed, Maben said.

“That’s an ultimate failure,” he said.

Yeah, it would cost money to increase staffing. But those employees’ efforts would bring in more money via licenses, which would pay for the increased costs.

“That how most counties work,” Maben said. “For God knows what reason, this county doesn’t do it that way.”

If he sounds frustrated, it’s because he is.

There are a lot of angles to Kern’s animal overpopulation and it’s hard to pick which to attack first.

We don’t have a low-income spay/neuter program, though that could be changing (see box on spay/neuter options).

Our shelter is understaffed and disorganized, according to the UC Davis report.

We don’t have enough people to enforce existing licensing laws.

It seems overwhelming, but there are several things we can do fairly quickly.

Work much more closely with the numerous rescue organizations locally and statewide. There are people who want to save these animals. Use them!

Organize and better use volunteers. People want to help. Use them!

Redirect a small part of Animal Control’s $4.6 million budget toward spay/neuter for low-income families.

Other counties and states have done this and seen dramatic reductions in the number of unwanted animals in a relatively short amount of time. But the program has to be targeted and sustainable, according to Peter Marsh, a director of Solutions To Overpopulation of Pets in New Hampshire.

He’s a numbers guy and here’s what he said about Kern’s numbers:

If we’re killing 8,700 cats and 7,800 dogs a year, for a population of 790,000 humans, that’s 22 animals per 1,000 population. The national average is 12 animals euthanized per 1,000 people.

If we took $400,000 a year, or 10 percent of the Animal Control budget, and spent it on spay/neuter surgeries, assuming we spent $100 per surgery (vets would have to discount their prices) and families would have a co-pay of $10 for cats, $20 for dogs, we could do 4,000 surgeries a year.

That would make a huge dent in the number of unwanted puppies and kittens born each year.

If we can’t skim that much money from Animal Control, what about raising fees for unaltered animals? Or grants? There are ways to find the money, he said.

It’s true that such a program might not work here given our demographics and other factors. “There is no one-size-fits-all fix,” Marsh acknowledged.

There are plenty of other programs, policies and ideas that have been tried elsewhere that we could crib off of to find what will succeed here.

But we have to actually get off the pot first. And that’s where we seem to be stuck.

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

Spay/neuter options increasing

SPCA

The HOPE foundation of Fresno is coming back to Bakersfield.

The low-cost spay/neuter foundation had been transporting Bakersfield animals to its clinic twice a month but quit because so many people made appointments and didn’t show. They needed a local organization to take on the logistics and when no one stepped forward, the transports stopped.

The SPCA has stepped in and will be taking appointments for the HOPE transports, which will start up again on July 14 and July 28, registration opens June 30 to get your animal on board.

They’re starting small this time around, with 26 animals each transport and hope to build to 100 animals per transport in coming months, according to Executive Director Sandy Dralle.

Prices aren’t set in stone yet, but Dralle expected them to be in the $45/$50 range for cats and $65/$115 for dogs (depending on weight). The SPCA will be adding a $10 charge to HOPE’s basic fees to pay for administrative costs.

Any animal that has not been vaccinated will receive a vaccination for $10 extra.

She said the Kern Humane Society can help defray costs and interested families can call for vouchers. The Humane Society is also kicking in $10 per animal to help pay for gas for the transport.

The SPCA is also continuing its feral cat program where people can get up to three vouchers at a time to reimburse vets for spay/neuter surgeries.

Dralle recommended that people catch the cat(s) first as the vouchers are only good for 30 days.

And the SPCA and Kern County will hold another “neuter fest” for low-income families June 29.

They will do 75 dogs that day, so call ahead. 323-8353

Kern County

The county is continuing to work on developing a spay/neuter voucher program for low-income animal owners, according to Resource Managment Agency Director Dave Price.

They’re in “phase 2,”  figuring out what services they want performed.

Then staff will survey local veterinarians for prices and work with the County Auditor on the easiest way to pay the vets.

Price said he’ll get the money from the $80,000 that is left from a $100,000 grant from the Board of Supervisors intended to pay for spay/neuter. About $20,000 of that grant has been spent on one-day spay/neuter clinics.

“My plan is to use up that $80,000 and go back to the Board and show that what we’ve accomplished and ask for more,” Price said.

News moves fast and furious around here. But I wanted to update you on a few “hot” topics from previous columns.

Bakersfield National Cemetery

The government and Tejon Ranch are finalizing the “offer to donate” document for 500 acres of rolling hills near highways 58 and 223. The document will then be shipped to the Department of Justice for review. And a quick six to eight weeks later title will likely be transferred, according to James Rich with the Veterans Administration.

They expect all the i’s to be dotted and t’s crossed by August (back from last fall, and back again from May or even June by the last estimates) and development of the first 20 acres will begin immediately afterward. Burials will likely begin in the 2009 “calendar year,” Rich said in an e-mail.

With veterans dying at an average 1,800 each day and 10 percent of those being buried in the nation’s 125 national cemeteries, according to an AP story, the Bakersfield cemetery can’t open soon enough.

And Rich confirmed to me that the plan is to use water-wise landscaping, meaning very little grass.

“We will use existing mature native trees to the fullest extent possible as design features and focal points. All new plant material will be indigenous plants or native plant material accustomed to the low-water environment. Irrigation will be limited to mostly drip irrigation that is much more efficient than spray irrigation. Our goal is to create a national shrine set in the natural beauty of the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains,” Rich said.

I think that’s smart.

The area doesn’t have enough water to support a traditional Arlington-type cemetery.

And I don’t think it needs to look like that anyway — it’s beautiful as it is. I’ve also been told by friends who live in the area that having a watered lawn is a major attraction for the wild pigs that root around and tear up grass.

Rich told me grass at our cemetery will be limited to common areas where services are conducted. The actual grave sites will be covered in crushed granite. I thought that might look odd, but he sent photos of Fort Bliss National Cemetery in El Paso and it looks very nice.

We’ll also have upright headstones instead of flat plaques, like those at the national cemetery in Phoenix, so we will have a more traditional feel.

Smart meters

When I last looked into this, Diane Tifft and others were steaming mad about a spike in their energy bills last winter that they attributed to the so-called “smart meters,” which Pacific Gas & Electric company began installing in Bakersfield last fall. The meters zap energy use info directly to PG&E billing rather than requiring a meter reader to physically look at your usage. Bakersfield was the starting point for this program and now has more than 180,000 installed so far.

Tifft’s bill more than doubled in December, same thing with dozens of other people.

PG&E denied the smart meters were at fault but Tifft couldn’t find any other explanation.
After my column ran, PG&E sent several teams to Tifft’s house to investigate, they even put on a second meter to see if the smart meter was reading correctly.

Her bills before and since were all normal and she said the investigators couldn’t figure out the reason for the spike (especially considering she was gone for two weeks that month).

They looked at her past December bills and decided to charge her the average amount she had being paying for many years and refund her the rest. She felt that was fair but when the investigators presented their idea to the higher ups it was kiboshed, so Tifft is back to square one.

Is anyone surprised that this giant, state-authorized monopoly would rather tussle over a couple hundred bucks than really look at whether their equipment had a glitch? Course not! It’s not like Tifft can take her account elsewhere.

For the record, Tifft received a PG&E bill Tuesday and without explanation, it showed her account credited with a $80.22 bill “adjustment” and $2.91 bill “correction.”

She’s going to stop seeking the full amount overcharged.

Oh, and FYI, PG&E is rolling out a new program in Bakersfield to show off how these smart meters can help us SAVE money.

The “SmartRate” program is a voluntary plan to get people to reduce energy usage at peak times, including up to 15 “SmartDays” — really, really hot days — between May 1 and Oct. 31.

Customers who sign up will get a slightly reduced rate during those months. But the catch is, you will pay extra for energy used during peak periods on one of those super hot “SmartDays.”

If you sign up, you’ll get online access to see your exact energy usage. When a “SmartDay” is expected, you’ll be notified by 3 p.m. the previous day and urged to cut down your energy usage between 2 and 7 p.m. on the “SmartDay.”

It sounds really “smart” but I have an inkling that in the end, we’ll be the ones “smarting” with no relief from either the heat or high prices.

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

Water is all over the news these days and if you’ve been paying attention at all, you know it isn’t good.

Actually, it hasn’t been good for a long, long time but, mostly for political reasons, you’re gonna hear about it BIG TIME now.

Amid all the clamor and clang, however, you will never hear these words — building moratorium.

I’ll say them because, well, it’s time to tell the truth about water.

There isn’t enough.

We absolutely must stop or drastically slow development in this state so we can get a handle on our true water supplies, how to make the most of them and how to develop more, if possible.

Otherwise, we’re going to race to the end of our finite water string and then what? Armed conflict?

Hey, thirsty people are angry people.

I’ve been told that no, no, no, we don’t have a supply problem, we have a regulatory and distribution problem.

Maybe so. But that still adds up to a supply problem.

In fact, our surface water has been quantified by the state board that oversees California’s water permits and it is not good.

The State Water Resources Control Board found that “current permitted water appropriations, amount to about five times California’s average annual surface water supply,” according to its strategic plan released in January. 

That means we are beyond maxed out.

So far, the only options being batted around the Legislature, including the Governor’s latest attempt to get a bond ($11 billion this time) onto the November ballot, have looked at some conservation methods, new dams and the politically radioactive peripheral canal, which would skirt water around the ailing San Joaquin/Sacramento delta.

Some believe the governor’s official drought announcement recently and his emergency water declaration for nine valley counties, including Kern, are ploys to boost support for his bond measure.

Probably. But I’m more interested in what his, and others’, list of solutions leave out.

What about development?

Apparently, that’s even more politically radioactive than the ol’ p-canal.

I actually don’t have a lot of faith that a gigantic state fix is in our future. But we can work at the city and county level with local officials reigning development in to match our supply, even if it means delaying or denying some projects. In other parts of California, even rampant growth areas like Riverside, it’s already happening.

Once those houses are built, you can’t shut off the water when things get tight. They can’t be plowed under, as 45,000 acres has been so far in Kern this year because the state only delivered 35 percent of our anticipated water allotment. 

State law does require developers prove their water supplies for a 20-year period. That law increased water responsibility. But why just 20 years? Do the houses go away after that? In Arizona, the rule is 100 years.

In eastern Kern County, three developers ditched their proposed projects because the water district requirements made water too expensive, the county planning department told me.

Bakersfield, of course, is different. And we do have a good supply considering our aquifer, Kern River rights and extensive banking program.

“We have enough to sustain our growth for the next 30 to 50 years,” Bakersfield’s Water Resources Manager Florn Core has told me ad nauseam when I ask.

But we seem to be the exception even in our own county.

Outlying areas are struggling. Consider Delano, which just announced major water restrictions after two years of scant rainfall caused a 20-foot drop in the water table.

The County Planning Department is taking a stricter look at proposed developments in outlying areas, even refusing to allow developers to cite the State Water Project as a source. After a judge last year curtailed pumping from the delta to protect the threatened smelt, the state project is too unreliable to base a housing development on, I’m told.

The county will also be taking a hard look at how much growth can be accommodated given our water issues as part of the General Plan update.

Whoa! Linking growth to water supply!

Hopefully, it will be a concept that catches on.

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

Please beware! This reader did not like my Ann Barnett column and demands several times that I "pucker up to his posterior." Though in a more crude vernacular.

So if you abhor vulgar language, do NOT open this!
 

In some ways, I don’t give a rip that Ann Barnett, Kern’s Auditor/Controller/County Clerk, has “taken her ball and stomped home” when it comes to performing civil wedding ceremonies.

Sure, canceling the services and refusing to deputize anyone else to perform civil weddings is unfair and incredibly petty.

But what’s more galling is that this elected official won’t answer questions about what she’s done and why. She refuses to stand up and talk to the public — us little people who PAY her and have ENTRUSTED her with this office.

Come on, Barnett! Time to put on your big girl pants and act like a grown-up.

You lit the fire.

You can’t possibly expect to issue some lame press release claiming “budget” issues and then walk away without justifying your actions. (She has also, so far, refused to give this newspaper and the County Administrative Office budget figures showing how much money the county takes in for performing weddings and how much they cost. Is it really possible that the Auditor doesn’t have that absolutely public information at her fingertips?)

Her actions bespeak a breathtaking arrogance that, to me, exceeds the issue of the moment.

It’s an arrogance we’ve seen before, as well as her “mole” behavior.

Since issuing her press release last week, she’s put her second-in-command, Glenn Spencer, in the line of fire while she stays comfortably hidden in her office.

Same thing back in 2006 after an election snafu brought a Senate committee to town seeking answers.

Barnett stuck Elections Chief Sandy Brockman on the hot seat that was meant for her.

Barnett was on vacation but was in town, I’m told. Hmmm. Deja vu all over again.

Barnett did make an appearance before the Board of Supervisors in 2006 when her office was found to have handled the election problems appropriately. Supervisors apologized for having earlier accused her of bungling and asked for more information ahead of the next election.

Barnett used the moment to remind the board of her position.

“I don’t want to feel like I have to report to your board,” she lectured. “I want there to be a clear understanding that elections are under the auditor-controller.”

She was accountable only to the public, she said.

Fast forward to today.

Well? Here we are. Your public. And we want some answers.

(Crickets chirping.)

I went to the Supervisors meeting on Tuesday where dozens of people gave heartfelt speeches on both sides of this issue. Of course, Barnett couldn’t be troubled to attend, even sending ever-ready Spencer in her place when Supervisor Ray Watson had a question on an audit.

Many of the speakers Tuesday supported Barnett.

They did so, they said, because Barnett was taking a moral stand to uphold “the will of the people.”

How the heck would they know that?

If we’re to believe what Barnett has actually said, via press release only, she suddenly no longer has the staff or space to accommodate weddings  — any weddings. She hasn’t said a thing about the people’s will. Or morals, or anything.

I find it hard to laud someone for taking a stand based on their principles, whether I agree with them or not, when she’s not even doing that.

She’s trying to have it both ways. But no one, not even her supporters believes the tripe she’s dishing about staffing problems.

Someone’s gonna sue no matter what. Why not just be honest and go out with some dignity?

Speaking of out, it’s time to “out” Barnett.

Her term is up 2010.

That’s plenty of time to find someone who can treat us — her constituents — with more respect.

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

This reader didn't like my opinion on other people's opinions on Target.

Even Bruce Freeman, California president of Castle & Cooke, laughed at me when I interviewed him for this column.
 

“You?! Siding with a developer?”
 

My reputation (such as it is) may be forever besmirched, but I really do think Castle & Cooke has taken an unfair beating over its decision to bring in Target as an anchor store in its Shops at River Walk development.

Critics, including City Manager Alan Tandy, have accused the developer of a bait and switch, promising high-end retailers to get project approval and then delivering low-brow goods.

I don’t buy that.
Sure, a Target store, no matter how gussied up, is not a Nordstrom. But Nordy’s wouldn’t come to Bakersfield. Castle & Cooke tried. Neither would a host of other department stores. Or they would only come if their rent was $1 (Dillard’s). Or they would need more than the 100,000 square feet allowed in the plan (Macy’s).

My point is Castle & Cooke was clearly out there pitching. They had no economic reason not to, since the other “lifestyle” stores they wanted, such as Coldwater Creek, had already said they wanted an anchor before they signed on.

In fact, Freeman told me, Castle & Cooke lost some of the high-end tenants it was talking with because it took so long to get an anchor. Where’d they go? Valley Plaza Mall — which is also getting a Target in the old Robinsons-May spot, by the way.

“I was really surprised at the reaction,” Freeman said of the negative comments toward Target. “I’m not a shopper, but I asked my wife and her friends if they have a problem with Target and they don’t at all.”

They shop other places, too, of course. And with an anchor finally in place, the Shops at River Walk will have that kind of diversity, Freeman said.

Some people probably truly felt Castle & Cooke was trying to pull a fast one with the Target move. But I can’t help thinking there’s a “snoot” factor here on the part of a healthy portion of the protestors.

And although Target isn’t Saks Fifth Avenue, it is a good store with good quality merchandise that a lot of us can actually afford. Sorry snoots, I’m a Target shopper and proud of it!

Target also happens to be a healthy company that didn’t balk at paying actual rent, Freeman said. It’s also very popular with younger people.

Architecturally, this isn’t going to look BIG box. It’s going to be nicer than The Marketplace, according to city planners and Freeman.

So what, really, is the big deal, especially Tandy’s last-minute objections?
 

“I don’t know what to tell you,” Freeman said.
 

The biggest concession the city got from Castle & Cooke, it seems, was getting a Planned Commercial Development overlay on the entire project. That means any future changes have to go before the Planning Commission at a public hearing, rather than being hashed out with staff.

City staff had feared the Target move meant Castle & Cooke was so anxious to generate money it was going to go after big-box stores whole hog, scrapping the original plan entirely. The overlay gives the city enough control to keep that from happening, I was told.

Though Freeman said the city already had 68 conditions on the development and any substantive changes would have to be made at a public hearing anyway, I think the overlay is a good idea. That way, even if there are changes the public won’t feel hoodwinked.

I wondered if it was that perception that created the angst over Target in the first place.
 

I’ve heard numerous complaints that Castle & Cooke throws its weight around and has a habit of writing checks it doesn’t cash, so to speak.

Yes, Castle & Cooke is a powerful company that commands a lot of attention with the city, no denying that.
 

But talking with city planners and going through our archives, I didn’t find a string of broken promises for public amenities. I also didn’t find a history of slipshod building.

Mostly, Castle & Cooke has asked for, and received, changes in the General Plan, allowing it to build offices or single-family homes instead of apartments, or commercial instead of offices. Several times the requests were denied by the Planning Commission and then OK’d by the City Council  — clearly a more politically sensitive body.

Freeman argued the city has never gone easy on Castle & Cooke regardless of politics. In fact, he thinks it’s the opposite.

Take the company’s 2,000-acre, 7,500-home West Ming development, he said. It took Castle & Cooke five years to get that approved. Meanwhile, Old River Ranch, a 2,000-acre, 6,400-home development seemed to win approval in just a year.

“They just whipped them through,” Freeman said.
 

Not exactly. Both projects put in their applications in December of 2003 and Old River Ranch got approval in November 2005 while West Ming’s approval wasn’t until November 2007. But West Ming, I was told, used a different kind of plan that went back and forth as Castle & Cooke argued for its design. Then Shafter brought up issues of the Buena Vista shrew and Castle & Cooke chose to recirculate its environmental impact report, all of which added time, planners told me.

Still, Freeman was a little frustrated that after nearly 20 years of Castle & Cooke proving itself a responsible developer in this community, there isn’t at least a little more trust. Before he got too far out on the pity branch, though, he reeled himself back in with a self-deprecating chuckle.

“Yeah, no one’s gonna feel sorry for a developer.”
 

Nor should we. But we should give credit where credit is due.
 

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

So, we had an election on Tuesday and someone, apparently, forgot to tell the voters.
Turnout in Kern County looked to be 20 percent or slightly higher. Twenty percent!

Former Congressman Bill Thomas told me years ago that even a dead person could get 20 percent of the vote.

What’s that say about Kern County voters that only 20 percent of those eligible — fewer than one in four — could be bothered to take a minute or two out of their day to vote?

And here’s the worst part: about 121,000 absentee ballots were sent out this year, according to Kern County Elections Chief Sandy Brockman.

Ballots come to you in the mail. You fill them out at your leisure and mail them in, without having to drive to a church or community hall and rub elbows with regular “poll” voters.

Only 48,000 absentee ballots had come in by Tuesday evening, causing a deflated  Brockman to predict the 20 percent overall turnout since absentee voters are largely more faithful than poll voters.

The presidential primary in February generated much more interest with turnout of 54.6 percent. But this election was no less important considering the issues at hand.

Issues like:

What hoops should government have to jump through to take your private property?

Who should be a Kern County Superior Court judge, making life and death decisions over our residents?

Is the current District 4 Kern County supervisor, Ray Watson, making the right decisions about roads, housing, county costs? Or would someone new do a better job?

Do you think it’s time someone else took over as Bakersfield’s mayor and gave Harvey Hall the heave-ho?

If you didn’t vote, you either don’t care or you must like other people making decisions for you.

People like me, perhaps. (See how scary things get when you don’t take your civic responsibility more seriously?)

I’m not one of those people who believes you lose the right to complain if you don’t vote.

The First Amendment guarantees all of us — even slackers — the right to blather on about whatever sticks in our craw.

But it’s hard to take non-voters very seriously when they throw away their opportunities to make a difference.

The other issue I had with Tuesday’s election was, yet again, the lack of female candidates.

When I looked at this issue last year, I was appalled at how few women are politically involved in Kern County. Only three of 33 judgeships back then were held by women.

No women graced either the Kern County Board of Supervisors or the Kern High School District board.

There was only one woman candidate in Tuesday’s election, Holly Mitchell, who ran for judge. She was up against five (all white males) opponents for Judge Clarence Westra’s position.

No women ran for Judge H.A. “Skip” Staley’s seat.

And the supervisor’s race was just mano a mano — Watson against Taft resident Cliff Thompson.

I suppose I shouldn’t single out women for not stepping up to the political plate.

Sadly, Kern County voters shirked their privilege of living in a free society in droves Tuesday.

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

The lady who called me mouthy and disrespectful saw that I posted her call and called again today to clarify a few things.

This is a bit longer than the first. The gist is that I need more finesse, quite lot more.

This reader didn't appreciate Sunday's column, nor my photo, nor my attitude, nor my anything, apparently. Listen to her phone call here.