The scorecard in the recent “sign-gate” debacle is both sad and disturbing.

From my perspective, it reads like this:

Holy-rolling Kern High School District trustee Chad Vegas and KERN 1410 AM radio talk show host Scott Cox: 1.

Media and public: 0.

Only two people benefited from this (whether they intended to or not) and those are Vegas and Cox.

For Vegas, seriously, all the money in the world couldn’t buy this kind of publicity. And make no mistake, it will continue. I can already see a heartfelt forgiveness/come to Jesus press conference.

As for Cox, his bosses have already ended his suspension and he’ll be back on the air Monday. The fall ratings book just started and I’ll bet KERN gets a bump from this. Who’s gonna kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

Early last week, Cox stole 15 of Vegas’ four-foot-by-eight-foot signs in what he says was a gag for his radio show.

Vegas wasn’t laughing and neither were Sheriff’s investigators who are still looking into the case.

Given past practice in Kern, there’s a strong possibility Cox will face charges.

Back in 2002, then-Rosedale Union School Board trustee Ken Mettler, who now shares the dais with Vegas at KHSD, was accused of vandalizing an opponent’s sign by covering portions of it with white paper.

When the case went to trial, the judge dismissed it, saying the alleged actions didn’t meet the definition of graffiti under the penal code section that Mettler was charged with.

(Note to Cox: It’s never too early to lawyer up.)

Meanwhile, all us schmos in the media played our roles hook, line and sinker. I’m not saying we were suckered, or that it wasn’t “news.” Just that it played extremely well for Vegas, who capitalized on every twist and turn, feeding the media just enough to keep us in the chase.

But here’s why I think the public is the biggest loser in all this.

Elections are sacred. Just like free speech.

You don’t mess with either.

Stealing yard signs may seem like a prank, but it is, in effect, tampering with the process.

Just as the absence of signs reduces a candidate’s visibility, the added attention from the hype could influence some voters.

It’s unfair to the public and dirties the process.

This election, in particular, is serious business.

KHSD’s dropout rate is high, its test scores are low (especially when compared to other districts with even worse demographics than ours) and our grads aren’t exactly jamming the halls of the state’s universities. In fact, KHSD grads often need a lot of remedial attention to succeed at even the community college level.

Getting the right people on that board is crucial.

As anyone who’s read this column previously knows, I do NOT believe Vegas is one of them. His repeated forays into cultural politics — getting winter/spring breaks renamed Christmas/Easter and mandating “In God We Trust” posters in every classroom — are so divisive and distracting they outweigh any work he’s done on purely academic issues.

All of that said, I would never tear down, steal, deface or otherwise molest his campaign signs. Just as I would never deny his right to express his opinions.

That’s all part of this crazy thing we call the Constitution, which sets us apart (or at least is supposed to) from garden spots like Cuba, Russia, China and Myanmar.

I had hoped with a host of challengers, Vegas would at least have to sweat a little over this race.

Cox’s little “joke”, however, will only help deliver another four years of Vegas’ attempts to shove his religion down our throats.

And I don’t find that funny at all.

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.

Though this lady takes issue with the part of my column where I list two acts that reduced or eliminated certain banking regulations and led to at least some of the problems we're seeing now, she's incorrect that Clinton signed off on those.

He may have signed off on looser regs for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but not derivative trading (2000, Sen. Gramm) and bank mergers, which allowed these companies to get so huge that we can't allow them to fail (1999, Sen. Gramm)

Hope her valium hasn't worn off!

If Congress approves this murky and obscenely expensive $700 billion bailout without a whole lot more information they should all get a one-way ticket to the funny farm because they will have engaged in the very definition of crazy — doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I do not agree that if we don’t act now — NOW! RIGHT NOW! — the market will “collapse.”

I’m no econ expert, not by a long shot, but the administration screamed “market collapse!” when it backed the take over of investment bank Bear Stearns with $30 billion in taxpayer dollars (and offered 20 other Wall Street firms direct emergency financing the same day), then the same again when it bailed out AIG, and again when it took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Oh, and then there was that $180 billion the U.S. Federal Reserve made available to banks earlier this month to keep up the flow of credit.

Each time we’ve been told the sky would fall unless taxpayers came to the rescue with buckets of cash.

Well, the cash is gone and here we are, yet again, with the sky apparently still falling, according to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Of course, it only seems to be falling, in Paulson’s view, in the bad mortgage debt arena.

And the only solution “One Trick Hank” can think of is another infusion of tax dollars that will go to the very same fat-cat companies that created, bought, sold, traded and swapped those so-called “toxic mortgages” that are causing the sky to fall in the first place.

I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire. I can’t even look at my 401(k) right now. I’ll have to write this column into my 80s to make up the losses, which is something I know many of you will consider worse than dire!

Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are urging Congress to pass the bailout, otherwise, Bernanke predicted Tuesday, jobs will be lost and more homes will be foreclosed on.

Hmmm. If that’s all they’re worried about, why not put all that money directly toward small business loans to create more jobs and work with homeowners to negotiate more reasonable mortgages? Just a thought.

The basic premise, as I understand the bailout, is that the government will use our money to buy the bad mortgage debt from financial institutions so their ledgers go from red to black. Then we, the taxpayers, will hold on to those debts and if the housing market goes up, we may get a profit and if not, we’re sucking wind.

I talked to Congressman Kevin McCarthy Tuesday and, amazingly, we’re both looking at this proposal with the same jaundiced eye.

“We’re talking about taking the free market out of the system, and government taking on all this debt so that taxpayers are ultimately held accountable,” he said. “That’s a fundamental flaw for me right off the bat.”

He also wondered at the wisdom of continuing to pour good money after bad and likened the piecemeal approach of these constant cash infusions to a drug addiction.

The market gets a shot and it goes up but only temporarily.

And he really didn’t like the push to move so quickly on such a major issue.

“This is likely to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, votes we’ll ever have in Congress,” he said.
 

High-ranking officials from the White House have been in a virtual parade appearing before Congress making the case for the bailout, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

The high pressure sales job is reminiscent of another sales job by this administration, the march to war in Iraq.

Boy, they were right on about those WMDs, weren’t they?

Though McCarthy, like many others, said this isn’t the time for politics, cracks were evident along party lines when I asked Congressman Jim Costa, D-Fresno, his thoughts.

“A combination of a rescue plan that recovers American taxpayer dollars and a stimulus package is what we are trying to fashion, working in a bipartisan manner,” he sent in a statement.

Oops.

That economic stimulus, an extra $50 billion, isn’t sitting well with Republicans, McCarthy included. But so far, they seem to agree that any bailout should have accountability and oversight, yes good, and no greenback parachutes for CEOs.

So far, there’s been no real discussion of replacing regulatory protections on derivative trading and bank mergers that Republicans succeeded in doing away with in 1999 and 2000, which is a must unless we want to stay on this merry-go-round.

As far as the bailout, McCarthy was frustrated by the lack of discussion on other possible options — like a market solution, or perhaps a scaled-back insurance plan, or maybe they don’t need a full $700 billion — and the lack of clarity on exactly what the Paulson plan entails.

Congress was given a vague three-page bill over the weekend and then a 42-page document earlier this week that administration officials said still wasn’t solidified.

This smells like another “trust us” plan. And, frankly, all my trust went out the window with my 401(k) money.

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

I’m not among those on the bandwagon who are condemning the Kern County District Attorney’s crime lab as too cozy with law enforcement. Don’t tell D.A. Ed Jagels, though, it’d ruin his lunch!

Yes, the lab had a major, MAJOR, screw-up on a high-profile vehicular manslaughter case.

And in cases where law enforcement officers are involved either as victims or perpetrators, we should probably have evidence tested at an independent lab to avoid the perception of bias.

And I think some of its reporting protocols need to be tightened.

But here’s why the lab has my confidence overall: It’s hanging its dirty laundry out for all of us to see.

Believe me, when I first read about how the lab messed up I thought we should have the state Department of Justice take over. (I even called and asked if they do that sort of thing. They don’t.)

In case you haven’t been following this case, a Pasadena attorney named Daniel Willsey is accused of driving under the influence of meth when he hit Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy Joe Hudnall head on in the Kern River Canyon in November 2006. Hudnall died in the wreck.

Willsey’s blood, which the lab says contained meth, has its own story.

First, it was learned that a friend of Deputy Hudnall’s family who works in the lab inappropriately handled the blood. That’s not good, but it wasn’t hidden. The incident was detailed in in a prosecution report that the defense attorney had access to.

Next, and far worse, the lab destroyed the blood sample back December 2007. That’s the big mistake, and to this date, no one knows how it happened.

Then, come to find out, an independent lab had a second sample from Willsey and its results were significantly different from those of Kern’s lab. This lab found higher amounts of meth in Willsey’s blood. I’m sure prosecution and defense experts will argue over the reasons for that, but, again, the information was not kept secret.

“We made a mistake,” Assistant District Attorney Dan Sparks acknowledged. “But we did not try to hide it. No matter how bad or embarassing — and this is damned embarassing — we reported it and we will learn from it.”

He stressed that none of what happened was an error in the science.

I know what some of you are thinking because I thought the same thing, if these kinds of blunders can happen on such a high-profile case, what about the cases without intense media interest?

Sparks said the proof is in the courtroom.

The defense can do its own testing or have experts watch the DA criminalists do the testing and present their evidence and arguments in court.

I talked with a number of defense attorneys and got all different answers from “nope, never had a problem with the crime lab” to others who said they have serious misgivings about bias toward the prosecution and just plain sloppy work.

The lab is accredited, since 2006, by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, a privately run, national organization.

To be accredited, the lab had to go through rigorous testing and defend its protocols on everything from chain of custody to how it double checks work. Sparks told me blind tests are a daily routine, they keep detailed logs and all results are peer reviewed.

The accredidation group also requires that labs report any significant problems with procedures or personnel.

The D.A. crime lab did not report the Willsey anomolies, I was told by the accreditation group’s CEO Ralph Keaton, who has since contacted the lab for an explanation.

As I said, the lab’s reporting protocols need tightening.

In recent years, a number of reports have come out by different groups saying crime labs run by law enforcement agencies (and nearly all crime labs in California are run by law enforcement agencies) have a natural bias toward the prosecution.

The reports recommend labs be made independent and a special commission created to oversee them. Oh, and it should all be properly funded.

Yeah, like that’s gonna happen in a state that can’t even pass a budget on time!

Even in theory, though, I wonder if independence is the best course. We rely on law enforcement officers to conduct interviews and investigate cases, don’t we? Well, a crime lab is an investigatory tool.

I’m not sure putting that in the hands of a totally separate entity is the best answer.

We’re extremely lucky that for once, Kern County is ahead of the game.

We actually have our own crime lab. Most counties don’t, they have to rely on the state and wait in line for results.

The lab is not perfect. Certainly not “beyond reproach,” as Sparks has said previously, and the lab has a big hole to climb out of on this Willsey case.

But it is an incredible asset to this community, as long as it operates openly and is upfront about its flaws.

My response follows Nicole's letter.


September 17, 2008

Lois Henry
Bakersfield California
1707 Eye Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301

Dear Lois,

It is with extreme disappointment that I read your article in today’s Californian.  Disappointment because you seem to have completely dismissed the real impact of my tenure in the State Assembly and commitment to my constituents in the 30th Assembly District, just for one of your cheap headlines.  Being an Assemblymember involves introducing and passing bills, which I have successfully done.  But more importantly, being an Assemblymember requires one to introduce issues into public debate, and fight for your people and priorities.  This I have done with much effectiveness, often bringing Legislative leaders from Los Angeles and the Bay Area into the District.

During my six years in office, I have brought a number of key policy makers into Kern County and the 30th Assembly District to witness first-hand the needs and concerns of my constituents.  Rather than making decisions in a vacuum from their offices in Sacramento, I brought Assembly Speakers, Committee Chairs, and fellow legislators to the District so they see the impacts of their decisions on the fantastic people of the Central Valley.

Since you have blatantly failed to notify the readers of this newspaper, let me remind you of just a few of the things I have accomplished.  Former Assembly Speakers Herb Wesson and Fabian Núñez, and current Speaker Karen Bass came to the 30th Assembly District to gain a greater understanding of the impact of water and agriculture on our communities.

Working with Occidental Petroleum and others, I brought a number of legislators on a tour of Kern County’s oil-producing lands and facilities.  Kern County is the leading oil producing county in California and legislators were able to better grasp the economic importance of this energy activity on our towns.

I have served as past Chair of the Select Committee on Water Infrastructure and the Economy, holding an informational hearing on the status of the restoration of the San Joaquin River and its impact on surrounding communities.  Last year, I brought together local potable water supplier entities in the 30th Assembly District and the State agencies of jurisdiction for an open dialogue to discuss water quality, reliability, and availability within the Southern San Joaquin Valley.  The meeting included approximately 35 representatives from the District – from Alpaugh to Arvin – and numerous state agencies.

Any journalist worth their salt knows that the Valley cares about solutions, not ideologues.  And my record of working across the aisle is both well known and very productive.  Always working in a bi-partisan manner, as my constituents have repeatedly asked their elected officials to do, I have worked on important economic development issues.  In 2005, I held an economic development conference in Bakersfield with State Treasurer Phil Angelides to address job retention, development, and tax credits.  From getting Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the Executive Order creating the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley to leading the fight to protect jobs at Lemoore Naval Air Base from federal cuts, I have been there in the trenches for our communities when they needed it most – providing economic opportunities for our families and neighbors.

On the Assembly Floor, I have effectively and judiciously used my vote to protect the interests of Kern County and my constituents.  When the Kern County Board of Supervisors asks me to oppose cuts to funding for critical services, I have stood firm in my opposition, even when that meant going against well funded special interests.

In short, I have been a dedicated stalwart for the people of Kern County and the 30th Assembly District.  That is why I have been elected three times in three vigorous contests.  The people recognize that I consistently stand up for their issues, for their concerns, and for their priorities, even when that means I have to buck my party and pay a high price in Sacramento.

Lois, get your facts straight.  You have been sitting alone at your desk for over a decade.  Get out from behind your blinders, get out in the real world, and you’ll see and hear that Nicole Parra has been a champion for the wonderful people of Kern County and my district, because these great people deserve nothing less from me.

Sincerely,
NICOLE M. PARRA
Member of the Assembly
30th District

 

Nicole,
 
Thank you for proving my point.
 
You mention numerous field trips. But you don’t list a single piece of meaningful legislation that has helped any of the valley’s problems  — health care, transportation, air quality, poverty, water, jobs, etc. Bringing legislators on tour is an outing, not a solution.
 
Working across the aisle is important. But you’re in the majority party! As such, you could have, and should have, been pushing for our interests.
 
Instead, the most memorable piece of legislation you championed, extending Megan’s law, was handed to you by the Democratic leadership in order to make you look “tough on crime” so you could fend off challenges to your seat.
 
It may be expedient for you, now, to say that you’ve bucked the party in interest of serving your constituents, but for the last five and a half years, that has not been the case. You were quite content to play the political game and remain protected by the majority.
 
Claiming the “maverick” mantle in the last six months of your tenure as you prepare to leave office and begin your lobbying career is really the height of hypocrisy.
 
Lois Henry

OK, OK! We get it, Assemblywoman Nicole Parra needs a job.

And she’s apparently set her sights on a lobbying career with the two biggest money makers in the Central Valley, ag and oil.

Either that or the soon to be ex-assemblywoman has a severe case of senioritis. Color me cynical, but I say it’s the former.

How else do you explain the longtime Democrat (who owes her political career to the state’s Democratic machine) signing a letter sent out earlier this week by the Assembly Republican caucus in support of Big West of California’s proposed refinery expansion in Bakersfield? The vague letter is bizarre enough in its own, which I’ll get to later, but back to Parra.

Just as with her grandstanding refusal to vote for a state budget unless a water bond made it on the ballot, I have to ask: Where have you been on these issues during your six years in office?

Nowhere, frankly.

Which is why her latest ploy, again, strikes me as feathering her nest for the future rather than any real desire to watch out for her constituents in the present.

I suppose I should consider this sudden interest in the two biggest economic drivers in this valley a better-late-than-never scenario. But considering the lame-duck box she’s put herself in because of her antics, it all boils down to too little, too late.

Out of the more than 100 bills Parra introduced during her tenure, only one addressed water supplies and none addressed oil and gas production.

The water supply bill, first introduced last session and reintroduced this session, would require the Department of Water Resources to study the economic impact of water supply reduction on certain counties in the San Joaquin Valley.

Aside from the “Duh! No water ain’t good” factor of that bill, it and all other Parra bills were sent down the rat hole after she enraged the Democratic leadership by refusing to vote on a budget and was sent packing, literally, out of the Capitol building.

I tried to get a hold of Parra, but she didn’t return my calls. I’m not sure how a budget you have categorically stated you will not vote on (why even bother to read it then?) takes up so much time that you can’t return a phone call, but apparently that was the case. And no, she did NOT vote on the budget early Tuesday morning.

Here’s the irony of my diatribe: I agree that we need a water bond and ASAP. We can quibble over dams and the need for a peripheral canal, but there’s no doubt we need big vision on water and that only comes with big money or a big crisis.

I also agree that a Big West expansion is a good idea, with certain caveats, such as building it sans dangerous hydroflouric acid, modified hydroflouric acid or even sulfuric acid.
Which brings me back to that letter Parra signed along with Assemblymembers Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, and Mike Villines, R-Fresno, in support of the expansion.

First, the letter never says how the expansion should be built. There are several ways it could be done, each with its own flaws, including hydroflouric acid, which can be deadly. Second, it says the expansion will bring 1,000 high-paying permanent indirect jobs and be one of the least polluting refineries in the country.

The largest job numbers we’ve ever seen from Big West’s own calculations are 1,200 construction and 100 permanent.

As for lowest polluting, I’m not sure how they gauge that since there isn’t a scale comparing refineries currently. Yes, anything built with newer technology will be cleaner, but we’re talking about a refinery with a poor record of gas releases into the air, as well as significant past ground spills that have yet to be cleaned up.

I support the expansion, yes, but not kneejerk, without a clear view of the work that needs to be done to make it a good, safe, clean operation.

What Parra seems to be doing is more of a “throw it on the wall and see what sticks” method of policy development that I think hurts what credibility she has left in Sacramento.

The valley already suffers a lack of serious political clout. We don’t need flash, we need substance.

In that vein, I’d hoped something might actually come of the much-touted California

Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, a state board created in 2005 by executive order of the governor and designed to focus attention on the valley’s issues — poverty, air quality, water, health, unemployment, transportation, etc.

Parra had sponsored legislation to extend its life by 10 years, which got nowhere. So, much like Parra, it is set to expire at the end of this year, barring another executive order.

Perhaps if Parra had spent time working with her caucus, instead of thumbing her nose at the leadership over the budget and parading around Republican Danny Gilmore who’s running for her seat this November, her bills would have gotten more support and WE, her constituents, at least a nod toward our many problems.

If Parra stays in politics, and there are rumors she’s still eyeing a Senate run, she would do well to remember the reason she’s in Sacramento, to represent the interests of the valley, not build her own lucrative client list.

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
 

Secrecy destroys trust.

Especially when it surrounds the suspicious deaths of two children.

Too bad the state Department of Social Services doesn’t understand that.

And because of that, the local Child Protective Services agency, which may or may not have had dealings with the boy and girl whose decomposed remains were found Aug. 19 in a storage shed, looks like its got something to hide — again.

This agency has worked hard in the last two years to climb out of a deep hole of community mistrust created not only by a series of blunders on several abuse cases, but even more so by the secrecy the agency clung to when it was called on those blunders.

Kern’s CPS probably didn’t drop the ball in the case of Tricia and Victor Reyes. At least that’s the sense I’ve gotten after talking to the Sheriff’s Department.

But because state Social Services won’t allow the local agency to release information it has on the Reyes family, we can’t be sure.

I’d like to just go ahead and trust the agency, but two things are stopping me:

“If your mother says she loves you, you better check it out,” an old editor of mine was fond of reminding me. And he was right.

And Kern’s CPS has an extremely checkered past when it comes to the safety of kids under its watch.

I’ll never forget the story of a little girl who told school counselors on a Friday back in 2003 that she was worried because her mother had locked her 2-year-old brother in a closet for several days.

CPS waited until the following Monday to check on the boy! He was alive, but terribly ill and malnourished.

Oh yeah, and CPS had visited the family for neglect/abuse reports eight times before this.

We didn’t get that information from CPS, of course. We only got it through the court file when the mother was tried and convicted on abuse charges.

That story ignited a firestorm of criticism and calls for reform, one of which was that the public wanted more information on how CPS was handling cases when similar tragedies occurred.

Senate Bill 39 went into effect this January. It requires child welfare agencies to open up their files to public review whenever a child they’ve had contact with dies as a result of abuse or neglect. It also includes “near fatalities.”

And the law allows officials to redact names and information in the files not directly relevant to the deaths.

As soon as the Sheriff’s Department told us CPS had multiple contacts with the Reyes family, we asked for that information.

We got nothing. Why?

The law only applies to deaths after Jan. 1, 2008, when the law took effect. The Reyes children are estimated to have died between two and four years ago.

Also, there must be a “legal conclusion” that the child died as a result of abuse or neglect. Because the Reyes children’s bodies are so badly decomposed and the prime suspect, their mother Alicia Valadez, is also dead, we may never know what really happened to Tricia and Victor.

Considering the family told the Sheriff’s department the children suffered “significant abuse” and their bodies were stuffed in a storage shed, I think those are pretty flimsy excuses and smack of a department that would rather hide behind technicalities than live by the spirit of the law, which is to create trust through transparency.

Even Pat Cheadle, who took over the embattled Kern County Department of Human Services last summer and has worked hard to create a more accountable system, seemed frustrated.

“Unfortunately we have to live within the constraints of confidentiality regulations and that can sometimes give the perception to the public that we are trying to hide information,” Cheadle told me.

After the little boy in the closet incident, Kern’s CPS underwent extensive audits by the Child Welfare League of America, which found troubling systemic problems and made 22 recommendations for reform.

As of June, Cheadle had finished  or was in the process of implementing all 22 of those recommendations.

The department now has numerous checks and balances in each division, better communication and much, much lower turnover. Its employee vacancy rate in the child welfare division has gone from 24 percent to 5 percent.

The caseloads are still high (20 children per worker per month in the emergency response team) compared to state recommendations (10 children). But they’re no higher than comparison counties and are lower than the Child Welfare League recommendation of 24 children per worker per month.

“We want the community to know as much about us as possible so they understand what we do and what our processes are, so when something like this happens, no one jumps to conclusions that the department has done something wrong,” Cheadle said. “You only get there by being as transparent as possible.”

The good news: Cheadle gets it.

Too bad the state doesn’t.

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

Readers have been sending in lots of interesting ideas on this issue.

1. Can't pass a budget? Then the current one stays in place for the next year.

2. Redistricting by computer! Politicians are too extreme because of the gerrymandered districts. Let a computer do it and get some level-headed moderates in there.

3. If they can't get a 2/3 vote to pass the budget by June 30. It goes to a simple majority on July 1 and the majority can then negotiate directly with the Governor.

4. Restore the 2 percent tax on upper incomes.

5. The VLF should not have been rolled back.

Any other ideas?

Don’t give up on the Kern River!

We still have a shot at getting real river water back in that dry brown gulch running through town.

But you —  yes, you — have to pay attention and stay involved.

The State Water Resources Control Board is still deciding if it will hold a hearing on whether river water forfeited by a local irrigation district last year may be claimed by the City of Bakersfield, which has vowed to run it down its natural channel.

I know, I know, glaciers have formed and melted while this board ponders a hearing.

Makes you wonder if we get a hearing, how long it will take to get an actual ruling? Don’t ask.

I’m being told there may be a decision soon, so this is where you come in. Notes, emails, postcards, smoke signals — send them.

Even if you’ve written before, if you really want that river, write again, call, stand on the Padre and holler until Sacramento hears you. Our voices count, but we have to amp up the volume.

Because despite what local ag water districts have said — that the Kern is all tied up and not a drop to spare  — there is something known as the public trust doctrine that figures heavily into the mix. The public trust doctrine holds that rivers belong to all the people and, coincidentally, the board has a duty to protect that right.

But the public has to demand its share.

Meanwhile, the city is still hammering away. Last month it filed a 35-page brief with the board explaining its view of Kern River water rights, who owns ’em, who doesn’t and why Bakersfield should get any “loose” river water.

Basically, the city’s argument is a court found that the Kern Delta Water District forfeited a portion of its river water for lack of use. Even if someone else was using that water, the city argued, that doesn’t mean they have a “right” to it.

Bakersfield is asking the board to A) determine if surplus water is available and B) protect the public interest in that water by allocating the rights to Bakersfield, which will run it down the river channel. It would restore and enhance the natural environment, provide recreation and increase our groundwater supply.

Some have questioned whether Bakersfield would use the water for development.
Bakersfield’s Water Resources Manager Florn Core told me the city will run that water down the river. Period. It will increase our groundwater and that water could later be used for development.

“The primary focus for that water is the environment,” Core said.

I’ve also been told the forfeited water is only available in the winter months so it wouldn’t provide for recreation. As with all things water, that’s true and not so true.

The city can, Core told me, pull that water out of Isabella Lake during spring and summer as long as it works out agreements with the power plants up river.

I am in absolute, total support of the city.

It's important to recognize, though, that they have  heavy opposition — four local ag water districts and the City of Shafter — which are arguing against the board holding a hearing at all,  saying there’s no water to be had. Move along, nothing to see here!

That’s pretty interesting considering each one of those entities initially filed petitions asking that the board give the unappropriated water to them.

Then the city and the public got involved and suddenly, whoops! No water here! Never!

If there isn’t any water because the river is oversubscribed why not have the board make that ruling?

Makes me wonder if some district(s) have been using that forfeited Kern Delta water all along without rights or even paying for it and now that the door has cracked open on that cozy little deal, they’re rushing to push it shut again.

As for needing Kern River water to grow crops and maintain our ag industry, well, again, yes and no.

Some Kern water goes to ag, some to drinking water and some is being used  like a cash machine by the very ag districts that would have us believe we’ll never grow another carrot if Bakersfield succeeds in running water down the river channel.

Buena Vista Water Storage District, one of the entities that applied for the water and is now fighting to keep the state from hearing this issue, has rights to Kern River water in “high flow” years. It also gets water from the State Water Project.

Two years ago, the district began selling 11,000 acre feet of water a year to Castaic Lake Water Agency for $500 an acre-foot.

Dan Bartel, general manager of Buena Vista, told me the district typically moves its state water to Castaic so the higher quality Kern River water isn’t  leaving our water basin.

He acknowledged that with the unreliability of the State Water Project and continuing drought, there could come a time when he would have to pump stored Kern River water to meet his obligation to Castaic. But he wasn’t too worried about that possibility.

I am.

I don’t like the idea of any Kern River water leaving out county. That’s our main native source of water and we should fight to keep it here.

The city’s policy is that none of its river water will ever leave the county.

Hey! One more reason the state board should grant Bakersfield rights to that forfeited water.

Be sure and remind them when you write.

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

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

Write or email the State Water Resources Control Board and let them know you want a river in Bakersfield.
There have been so many people writing in, however, it may be difficult for them to send each person an individual reply, so be patient.

Here’s the info you need:

Kathryn M. Gaffney, P.E.
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights
1001 I St., 14th Floor
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Or e-mail her at:

kgaffney@waterboards.ca.gov

High points to hit:
• Urge the SWRCB to assume jurisdiction over the forfeited Kern River water and find that the river is not fully appropriated.
Then state your support for Bakersfield's application for the water as it would:
• Increase flow in the natural Kern River channel benefitting residents, the environment and economy.
• Ensure Kern River water stays in Kern County.
• Protect and maintain the quality of our drinking water.
• Preserve river habitat.
• Enhance recreational opportunities.
• Return at least a portion of the river to public use.

Sure, there are lots of reasons — we’ve heard them from both sides, over and over — why our alleged state leaders can’t pull a budget out of their collective you-know-whats.

But who cares?

At this point, I’m just annoyed and looking for ways to hurt them as much as they’ve hurt this state.

How about a constitutional amendment that instantly throws them all out of office if they can’t come up with a budget by the June 30th deadline? And then prohibits them from running again for at least one term? Maybe two terms.

Not practical?

OK, then NO pay. No salary, no per diem (living expenses), no benefits, no car, no staff, no office. Nothing. They can sit in a dark capitol with the air conditioning off eating stale Twinkies until they pass a budget that they should have been working on for six months!

And none of this “deferred pay” business, where they get their salaries retroactively once a budget is finally passed. If they can’t do the job, they don’t get paid.

That’s the way it is for us peons out here in “real world” land.

The situation is especially dire in health care as state Medi-Cal funding dried up in July.
Health care providers are being forced to cut hours, lay off workers, delay hiring and defer care.

For every one of those decisions, there’s someone — sick, elderly, helpless — at the other end who is hurting.

“This borders on criminal. It’s already passed incompetence, now it’s criminal!” growled Steve Schilling, CEO of Clinica Sierra Vista, one of Kern’s largest non-profits providing health care to Kern’s poor and elderly.

Schilling said he hasn’t had to cut services only because he sets aside money each year for just this eventuality and he’s established low- and no-interest lines of credit he’s been able to tap.

That money won’t last forever, though, and if the budget stalemate goes on much longer (as of today it’s a record-breaking 69 days late) he’ll be forced to borrow more or make some drastic decisions.

“I don’t know what the hell these people do all year that they can’t get together on this one important issue,” Schilling said.

Neither do I.

So I called our legislators (I urge you to call them as well!) — Senators Dean Florez, D-Shafter, and Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, and Assemblymembers Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, and Nicole Parra, D-Hanford.

For the record, they all feel terrible about the budget situation. Just awful. Thanks. But what are they doing about it?

Nothing.

Since all the regular bill business was taken care of late last month, they’ve been waiting for another budget proposal to vote on.

Now they’re just twiddling their thumbs hoping the “Big 5” (the governor and majority/minority leaders of both parties from either house) can come up with a compromise their caucuses will buy into.

Regardless of the problems with this particular budget, all of Kern’s legislators agreed that it’s the system that needs fixing. OK, whatta they got?

• Revamp term limits.

This came (ironically) from both Parra and Florez.

I’ve never thought term limits were a great idea the way we did them. The time frame is too short, which doesn’t give legislators the ability to develop relationships and understand issues. I think that’s reflected in the ineffective leadership of both houses, where political posturing seems to be more important than working together.

When you’re not able complete your most basic task (the budget), though, it’s hard to argue that you should have the job longer.

• Budget reform.

Ashburn, who is one of the only people up there who has said for weeks that he is willing to compromise and vote for the governor’s proposed temporary 1-cent sales tax increase, advocated a number of reforms including a constitutionally mandated “rainy day fund” that can’t be raided on a whim. And he wants to restore power to the governor to make mid-year cuts. Both items are also contained in the governor’s proposed budget.

• Income tax reform.

Another Ashburn idea: Let’s look at a flat tax, which conservatives love, and try to join it up somehow with a tax rate, something the Dems prefer, and even out the state’s revenue. He also co-signed on an idea floated by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, to form a tax commission to modernize California’s tax codes.

• Start early.

Florez suggested the process start much earlier, perhaps in February rather than May and that both parties should be involved in the debates and discussions rather than the majority party concocting its budget and then presenting it to the other side.

• No ultimatums.

I’m not sure how you achieve this without curtailing legislators’ First Amendment rights, but I’m willing to consider it at this point!

Florez brought this up in regard to Republicans’ vow to not allow any new taxes, even signing a pledge to that effect, and, of course, Parra’s vow not to vote for a budget unless a water bond gets on the ballot. And, of course, there’s the governor’s vow not to sign bills until a budget is done.

All equally silly. I want legislators who think on their feet and react to current situations, not draw lines in the sand and refuse to move even as the tide overwhelms us. (Kudos to Ashburn for not blindly sticking with fellow Republicans on the absolute no-tax stance.)

• Cap the number of bills.

Fuller mentioned this to me not as a budget fix, but as a legislative reality, which I think might be a hindrance to concentrating on the budget. Each of the 120 legislators can introduce up to 30 bills  per session. That’s a lot of paper flying around.

Limit that to five and you’d probably get more meaningful legislation and legislators would have to work together more often if they wanted to have a hand in more bills.

I’m sure other people much  smarter than I have much better ideas on how to fix the system. Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, for instance, wants to bring an initiative to the voters that would allow a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority, to pass the budget. Not sure that’s the way to go, but at least he’s got an idea.

Given the Legislature’s inability to get over this budget hurdle, however, I have no faith they can work on the larger issues.

“We passed term limits because people got sick and tired of games in the Legislature,” Schilling told me. “I don’t know what about that message they didn’t get.”

Looks like it’s time to send another message.

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

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS

State Senator Dean Florez
(916) 651-4016
661) 395-2620
Or email him through his website at:
http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov...

State Senator Roy Ashburn
(916) 651-4018
(916) 322-3304
Or email him through his website at:
http://cssrc.us/web/18/cont...
   
Assemblymember Jean Fuller
(916) 319-2032
(661) 395-2995
Or email her through her website at:
http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov...

Assemblymember Nicole Parra
(916) 319 - 2030
(661) 334 - 3745
Or email her through her website at:
http://democrats.assembly.c...