Just wanted to get this out there in case anyone wanted to attend!

Hearing at the State Water Resources Control Board on whether the Kern River is fully "appropriated" meaning whether there's any water not already legally claimed.

The city says there is and it wants to run it down the river bed, several ag disticts and the City of Shafter say, no there isn't, but if there is water, they want it for irrigation and housing.

The first phase of the hearing to decide if there IS water will be:

Monday, October 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. and continue, if necessary, on
Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. and Wednesday, October 28, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
in the Sierra Hearing Room
Joe Serna, Jr./Cal-EPA Building
1001 I Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA

I didn't have the time and specific room before.

BE THERE!!!!

This lady thinks I"m all wet when it comes to my desire to see a river in our river bed.

While she has a point about ag and water, she misses a few other key points.

The water the city is after for the river is forfeited water, meaning it wasn't being used, or at least it wasn't being used by the party that was entitled to use it.

Most of the farmers having problems on the west side rely on state water coming down from the delta and this bit of Kern River water isn't used by those westside districts.

We need a much bigger fix, such as the peripheral canal and new storage to really address our long term ag/econ water problems.

And, of course, my point is that having water in the river would replenish the aquifer, which benefits all interests in Kern County, including ag.

Oh, and her assertion regarding 40 percent unemployment is true in Mendota (westside farmers really being hammered by lack of state water up there).

When I looked at farm unemployment locally, the picture wasn't as clear. Employment was actually UP between 2007 and 2008. And both were drought years. Numbers for this summer will likely show a steep drop off.

The first phase of the hearing on whether there's Kern River water available to, um, make a river (only in California does that make sense) happened last week and I feel my hopes rising.

This phase was just procedural, so none of us missed anything by not being there. But from what I understand, the hearing officer made some comments that look good for the prospect we will get a river back in the dry gully that now cuts through town.

Now that the "who goes first" and "what topics are allowed" stuff is out of the way, the actual live hearing will start Oct. 26 before the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento. They've set aside three days, so it may go until Oct. 28.

We can all attend this phase and I plan to be there. We can't speak, but we can show support. I hope a few other river lovers will be there too.

For background, this issue came up after a 12-year-long lawsuit between two water districts ended with a forfeiture of some river water.

The courts found that the water was, essentially loose and it was up to the state board to decide A) if there really was unappropriated Kern River water and B) if so, who should get it.

So the city of Bakersfield filed an application asking the board to hold a hearing to determine the status of the water and, if water was available, to grant it to the city which plans to run the water down the river. I just love saying that -- run the water down the river!

At first, the city's "opposition" (four local powerhouse water districts and the city of Shafter) also wanted the board to find the water was unappropriated and they each applied for it as well, to be used for irrigation or homes.

When they saw how much support the city was getting from us regular schmos, however, they changed tactics and urged the board not to hold a hearing at all because "why, there's no water here, never was, don't know what you're talking about -- scoot along now."

According to the city (and the initial applications filed by Shafter and the water districts) there could be a lot of water available. A lot. The city's estimate is between 50,000 and 60,000 acre feet.

Florn Core, Bakersfield's Water Resources Director and the city's champion for getting water back in the river, filled me in on last week's hearing.

The opposition, again, tried to get the hearing delayed.

The hearing officer stuck to his guns, however, so it's on.

The other issue batted around last week was the "public trust doctrine." This holds that rivers belong to all the people. The State Water Resources Control Board, coincidentally, is tasked with protecting that right.

The opposition lawyers (they had five to the city's one) tried to get the hearing officer to exclude the public trust doctrine entirely.

Here's where I get my hopes up.

The hearing officer said the public trust doctrine wouldn't be discussed at this phase, but will be considered in the next phase.

Hmmmm.

Does that mean the officer has read all the submitted arguments and documentation and expects there will be a next phase???

Be still my heart!

I know there are those of you out there saying, "Hey! We're in a drought, ag needs that water!"

True, the water picture isn't pretty.

But looking long term, the city running the water down the river (water down the river! It makes me giddy) will build up our aquifer.

Considering state and federal officials' penchant for cutting off delta supplies, ag will need more groundwater.

So, water in the river is a win, win, win.

The aquifer is replenished for all users, including ag, the natural riverscape can come back to life and we, the people, would have a beautiful, lush, life-affirming ribbon of water instead of a dry, desolate rut.

Core was hopeful about the October hearing.

"We're ready to go."

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.

KERN RIVER HEARING

When: Oct. 26 (may go through Oct. 28)
Where: 10001 I St., Sacramento, State Water Resources Control Board

Annette Ayala should not be dead.

She should not have been stabbed more than 30 times, her horribly mutilated body left for her grown daughters and baby granddaughter to find on July 13.

I'm not just speaking philosophically and wishing evil men like Louis Ramirez Ayala, who pleaded no contest to second degree murder in the case, didn't exist.

I mean there were so many places where the "justice system" could have -- should have -- stepped in to alter the trajectory of this nightmare, the system itself should be charged with criminal negligence.

Barely a month later, another Annette -- Annette Sowders -- and her mother were gunned down, allegedly by Sowders' estranged husband, Robert Fuller.

Like Annette Ayala, Sowders had tried all legal remedies to keep Fuller away -- to no avail.

The Annettes were just two of this year's 16 domestic violence-related deaths. That number represents about 20 children who lived in these violent homes and often witnessed these brutal deaths.

I'd ask, "What will it take" before this community stands up and says "enough"? But frankly, I'm afraid of the answer.

We absolutely need a domestic violence task force.

I know, you hear terms like "task force" and roll your eyes. But I'm not proposing a group that would do nothing but that sounds good just to make us feel better.

Law enforcement has created similar task forces for crimes the community feels are so serious, rampant and overwhelming that they need extra attention. Gangs, drugs, even rural crimes have task forces where officers, detectives, district attorneys, probation officers and others are specifically dedicated to focus on those issues.

Well? If someone out there doesn't think domestic violence is serious, rampant and overwhelming in this community, they need to pull their head out and look around.

Between January and September of this year the Bakersfield Police Department and Kern County Sheriff's Department responded to a combined 5,374 domestic-related calls for service.

Those calls resulted in 2,277 arrests.

In about that same time frame, Child Protective Services had 1,141 domestic-violence-related referrals, with 2,470 children involved.

Continuing to shrug and tut-tut at this crisis ensures those 2,470 children will likely carry on the violence.

I'm not saying a task force would keep people from beating each other.

But it could help cut down on repeat offenders, flag the more dangerous cases, help victims get away from abusers and provide children with counseling so they don't self-destruct and repeat the violence.

Despite what you see on TV, the justice system is really several different systems -- cops, jail, courts, probation, etc. -- loosely tied together.

It's a net, but not woven as tightly as we need.

Looking at Annette Ayala's case, Nada Yorke, former president of the Domestic Violence Advisory Council, which makes recommendations about how law enforcement can tighten that net, was shocked at the gaps she fell through again and again.

Annette married Louis Ayala on Sept. 23, 2007 about a year after he got out of prison for second-degree robbery.

Right there, Yorke wondered: What was his parole status?

If he was still on parole, perhaps he could have been yanked back to prison the first time the cops arrested him for trying to suffocate Annette in February 2008.

"All of the issues in this case could have been addressed by a task force because there would be better coordination between the agencies," Yorke said.

A task force does require money, in short supply right now, and the Sheriff's Department is actively seeking grants. So there is some hope.

The District Attorney's office has two prosecutors for felony domestic violence, which is great. But if we had one for misdemeanors, we'd likely reduce felonies. Annette's case is a perfect example.

Louis Ayala worked the system.

He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to a few weeks in jail and given 30 days to come back to court to start his sentence. He wouldn't show, a bench warrant would be issued, then he'd go to court and ask for a new date, wouldn't show, a bench warrant would be issued and so on.

A task force with someone monitoring misdemeanor cases would have been more likely to figure out his game and have him picked up.

In October 2008, Ayala finally appeared for one of his court dates, along with Annette.

After one failed attempt to get a restraining order (another area in which a task force could help) Annette finally did have an order in place. But at the October hearing, she requested it be be lifted. They were in counseling, she told the judge.

Yorke said this isn't uncommon. A task force would have had victim advocates on hand to help Annette understand the potential danger of letting Ayala back into her life.

As it was, the judge lifted the order and gave Ayala a new court date because, he said, he had a bad back and couldn't do his jail time just then.

After several more failures to appear, Ayala was arrested in Dec. 2008 for spousal abuse and resisting arrest (guess his back wasn't so bad he couldn't wrestle with a cop).

The spousal abuse was dropped. He pleaded to the resisting charges and was given 20 days in jail, but was allowed 30 days to show up.

A task force DA could have argued to have him sent him straight to jail.

Ayala continued to skip out on his court hearings.

When he was arrested July 14 after Annette died, he had bench warrants from both of the previous cases, which were never combined.

"The system's failure to hold him accountable basically gave him permission to continue his violence against her," Yorke said.

The system has its flaws -- big gaping ones. But so do we.

Where is the community outrage over this and other murders?

It's up to us to demand change. Otherwise, we can expect to bury more and more Annettes.

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

BAIL ISSUES SHOW NEED FOR&nbs p;DV TASK FORCE

The need and practicality of a domestic violence task force was made crystal clear as I was researching today's column.

I asked Nada Yorke, former president of the Domestic Violence Advisory Council (DVAC), to help me review restraining order violation arrests.

I wanted to know how many arrests resulted in actual prosecutions.

But she noticed something else.

Many of the arrests showed bail at only $5,000 to $7,500. One was only $2,500.

That can't be right, she told me.

The bail schedule for that charge was set at a minimum $10,000 and had been since DVAC asked Kern County judges to increase it from $1,500 back in 2002.

I had wondered earlier how Robert Fuller, accused of shooting to death his estranged wife Annette Sowders, had bailed out on two restraining order violations once for $5,000 and the second time for $7,000.

Nada got on the phone and found out a software glitch combined with a data entry error were the culprits. The error was in place since at least January of this year.

It took her a week to get the answer and get the error fixed.

That it took only a week is a testament to the relationships DVAC has built.

The two of us just stumbled on this problem. A task force would never have let it get this far in the first place.

I have no idea if the proper bail could have prevented Sowders death by keeping Fuller in jail longer, if he in fact pulled the trigger.

But had it been $10,000, I would at least feel we'd done the bare minimum to protect her. Can't even say that now.

DVAC will again be asking for a bail increase on this charge, to $20,000, when judges meet this winter to review the bail schedule.

As for whether we're prosecuting restraining order violation cases to the full extent, I never could figure that out because of the byzantine nature of of our system. Which is another good argument for a task force. Because how can we combat the problem if we can't even figure out its scope?

GO TO THIS MEETING!

The Domestic Violence Advisory Council is not just for law enforcement.
Anyone can be involved.
The next meeting is from noon to 1 p.m. Oct. 8 in room US1 on the first floor of the University Square building, 2000 K Street.
No need for reservations.
Show up and find out how you can help stop domestic violence in our community.

BE THERE!

Things you should consider bringing:

Copies of your bills from last year and this year showing your usage and the costs.

Any bills you may have paid when your appliances were blown up by SmartMeters.

A short, concise, written statement that you can read into the record and hand to the clerk.

But BE THERE!!!!

For Immediate Release                & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;  Jennifer Hanson
September 23, 2009       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;      916-651-4016
 
Florez questions wisdom of PG&E’s SmartMeters
 
Senator schedules hearing to facilitate talks between utilities, concerned consumers
 
SACRAMENTO – Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), questioning the wisdom of PG&E’s “smart meters,” will hold a news conference Thursday afternoon in Bakersfield with concerned consumers who have seen a dramatic increase in energy costs even, many feel, as their consumption has dropped.
 
Since 2006, PG&E has been replacing traditional meters which are read manually with so-called SmartMeters, which can be read remotely. All PG&E customers will have the newer devices by 2012, even though they only work optimally if the residents have new or retrofitted appliances and expensive communications devices.
 
PG&E has reportedly said the new meters are accurate and that higher bills are due to increased summer usage pushing consumers into the upper tiers of a new rate schedule. Many of those who have complained say they have decreased their energy consumption and have still seen their bills rise.
 
Florez has invited PG&E, Southern California Edison, the California Public Utilities Commission and concerned consumers to participate in a Senate hearing on the SmartMeter program and how it may relate to dramatic rate hikes on the evening of October 5 at the Kern County Board of Supervisors’ chambers.
 
 

It isn’t big enough. That’s what I think of the venue for the 10th annual Domestic Violence conference tomorrow (8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Hodel’s, cost $35).

I came to that conclusion after watching the documentary that will be screened at the conference titled “Sin by Silence.”

Everyone should see this film.

And afterward, we need to have people on hand like Nada Yorke, Glenda Love, Judy Dulcich, Brenda Clubine and others who can tell us how we can help.

Because when you see this movie, you’ll want to know what you can do.

The film looks at the cases of several women imprisoned at Corona for killing their abusive husbands.

Clubine, until until about a year ago, was among those inmates. She will be the featured speaker at the conference.

The film focuses on a group she started that is dedicated to stopping the cycle of violence that trapped her and her fellow inmates.

The group is called Convicted Women Against Abuse (CWAA). It’s the only inmate-run support group of its kind and was largely responsible for changing state law in 1992 and again 2002 so that courts could consider a woman’s previous abuse in cases where she was accused of violence against her partner.

Clubine killed her husband one night during one of his many rages when she smashed a bottle over his head. In 1986 she was sentenced to 15 years to life. She got out in 2008.

Her story is sadly similar to those of the other women in the film, one of them from Bakersfield — Glenda Crosley.

None of the women in the hour-long film claims to be innocent.

They all wanted to deliver the message out that silence kills, said director/producer Olivia Klaus.

“That’s the core of this problem,” said Klaus, who spent eight years attending CWAA meetings in Corona getting to know the women. “We need to create an environment where victims of domestic violence feel comfortable asking for help. It could save lives.”

That’s where people like Yorke, past president of the Domestic Violence Advisory Council; Love, the current president; Dulcich, a Kern County Superior Court Judge; and others will come in handy at the conference. They can tell us what resources are available, what’s needed and how regular people can get involved and make a difference.

This is an epidemic that needs attention, much more than we’ve given it so far.

Already this year, we’ve had 16 domestic violence fatalities —  according to the advisory council, a  record-breaking year.

If you think domestic violence can’t happen in your world, you’re wrong.

I thought the same thing, as did Klaus, and we were both shocked when we discovered it lurking among our close circle of friends and colleagues.

The worst part is now knowing how to help, even where to go to get information about shelters, legal help, restraining orders, financial aid and so on.

That’s where this conference comes in. Think of it like CPR training, only you’re arming yourself with knowledge.

“While I was being abused,” Clubine told me, “if someone had just said ‘I’ll be there for you,’ I wouldn’t have gotten to the point where I felt like I had to protect my life that night.

“If people had been there for any of us, we wouldn’t be here (in prison).”

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

BAKERSFIELD WOMAN'S STORY

Glenda Crosley killed her husband. Of that, there’s no doubt.

She smashed him between the grill of her car and the trunk of his in a parking lot at Ming Avenue and Real Road on a hot August night in 1986.

During Crosley’s two notorious trials, the community learned how much abuse she suffered at the hands of Sam, her husband of 24 years.

Testimony by her three daughters, a family friend and even Sam Crosley’s own mother was chilling.

They all believed Glenda, not Sam, would wind up dead.

The violence was constant.

“It wasn’t just once a week,” said daughter Stacy Crosley, now 43. “It was every single day.”

And it wasn’t just Glenda.

“The first time I remember him hitting me, I was probably 6 years old,” Stacy told me. Her sisters suffered the same way.

He hit with hands and fists and threatened his family with anything handy — golf clubs, tire irons, broom sticks.

And, yeah, the cops were called numerous times.

“It was the 1970s and ‘80s,” Stacy said. “If no one hit anyone in front of the cops, they didn’t make any arrests. They just got things settled and left.”

Stacy remembered her mother trying to leave several times and her dad coming into the apartment, ransacking rooms and even taking the pink slip to Glenda’s car to maintain some kind — any kind — of control.

The Crosley’s oldest daughter left as soon as she could. Stacy, the middle child, got into drugs, ran away and raised hell. The youngest was in her senior year of high school the night of their father’s death.

Stacy, with a grown son of her own now and a lifetime of experience, still blames herself for the death.

“When I was 11 or 12, I remember plotting ways to kill my dad,” she says matter of factly. “If I’d succeeded, this never would have happened.”

Then when she was 17 and about to be released from a group home in Fresno, a judge said she couldn’t go home unless both parents were living together.

Glenda had again left Sam and was trying to make it on her own, but went back to bring Stacy home.

“In a way, it was my fault.”

Glenda was found guilty in 1988 of second-degree murder.

Despite new laws that allow courts to consider a woman’s previous abuse in such cases, Glenda remains in prison.

The irony is that Glenda falls through the cracks because she was allowed to present a “battered wife syndrome” defense, the first time it was ever used in a California courtroom.

But it didn’t sway the jury.

Glenda and Sam were separated at the time. They had both gone to a church-sponsored singles gathering that night and afterward to a pizza parlor. Sam told people she was following him and others testified she wasn’t invited to the pizza party.

In the parking lot, Sam leaned into Glenda’s car, they had words and witnesses say she rammed him from behind as he was walking away. He got up as she drove away through the lot.

He went to the back of his car and opened the trunk. Glenda came back through the lot, smashed into him and drove away until her car broke down.

“It took me a lot of years to come to grips with everything,” Stacy said. Particularly how her past reached into her future.

“I wasn’t the victim” in later years,  she said. “I was the abuser.”

She was so unnerved by her own actions when she hit her first husband — her son’s father — she left, even giving up custody of her son.

“I knew the cycle was passed down and I didn’t want to run the risk of abusing my son,” she said.

She kept in constant contact with her son, now 18 and now living with her in Bakersfield.

She hasn’t communicated much with her mom over the years, but believes she’s more than paid for her crime.

“She was afraid that night; I know that in my heart,” Stacy said. “She was confused, probably just trying to get out of the parking lot.

“He opened his trunk. That’s where he kept the tire iron, the weapons he threatened her with.

“She didn’t intentionally go after him.”

Glenda’s story is chronicled in the documentary “Sin by Silence,” to be screened today at the domestic violence conference from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Hodel’s. Cost is $35

IF YOU NEED HELP

If you or your children are in immediate danger, call 911.

You can also get help and services quickly if you are working with Kern County Mental Health, Department of Human Services, Child Protective Services, Adult Protective services or any of the local nonprofit health services agencies.

Other specific helping agencies include:
Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, 615 California Ave.; 325-5943; fax: 325-4482; gbla.org/ez.php?Page =3226.

Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault Outreach Center, 1921 19th St.; 322-9199; 24-hour hotline: 327-1091; toll- free: 800-273-7713; kernalliance.org.

So, another legislative session has come and gone and our fearless “leaders” yet again, couldn’t muster out any kind of comprehensive water overhaul.

Good!

The last thing we need is those bozos gumming up the works.

There is a plan in the offing that could really make a difference in California’s mess of a water world — the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

It needs a couple of things — our support, more involvement and commitment by the feds and for our state “looza-lators” to back off.

All the marches and rallies this summer and calls for the Obama administration to “turn on the pumps!” may be exciting and cathartic. But the fact is, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, unsexy as it is, is our single best chance for urban, environmental and ag interests to move forward together.

The hastily drawn up package of water bills that thankfully went down in flames earlier this month actually would have thrown roadblocks in front of this plan.

Thanks, politicians, thanks a lot. Can you please go back to not fixing the budget and leave water alone?

The Bay Delta plan was started about two and a half years ago and includes everyone from all sides of the water wars. And, yes, they’ve been finding common ground.

They’ve been looking in great detail at conservation, habitat improvement, all the issues that might be causing harm to fish species in the delta and best ways to move water safely and efficiently through, or around, the vast estuary.

This is different from other efforts, such as CalFed — a kind of shotgun blast of money that went in all directions — or the Bay Delta Vision, a vague 30,000-foot view of policy goals.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a permitting process. Studies aren’t being done just to have more studies.

They are incorporated in environmental documents as they go along with the intent that at the end, permits will be in place for whatever changes are needed, such as having an inspection point for boats coming into the delta to keep out invasive species.

And that mother of all controversies, a peripheral canal to move water around the delta.

“This is a smaller process, with greater intensity and focus on solving problems,” said

Brent Walthall, Kern County Water Agency’s representative on the plan. “It is the single best effort we have going now.”

And it’s relatively on track with a draft due out toward the end of this year.

Walthall told me the greatest need now is for the federal government to be much more involved.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes has shown some interest,but things are moving quickly for the worse and we need the feds on board.

First, a little background:

Two years ago a federal judge sided with environmentalists over an opinion that said giant federal and state pumps at the southern end of the delta (which bring water to farms in the San Joaquin Valley and drinking water to Los Angeles) were harming a fish — the delta smelt listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.

The judge ordered reduced pumping  and, of course, we went right into a second year of drought, making things dire.

A new biological opinion has since come out looking at other fish species, including salmon, and promises to reduce pumping further, even in wet years.

All of this has affected farmers mostly on the west side of the valley. In Kern County, our westsiders rely on the State Water project and considered themselves lucky to get 40 percent of what they contracted for (they had to pay for the full allotment, however).

The Farm Bureau estimates about 45,000 acres in Kern have been fallowed for lack of water and even more acres of permanent crops are being under-irrigated, keeping trees and vines alive but not producing at their peak.

North of us, farmers in the sprawling Westlands water district in western Fresno County rely on the federal Central Valley Project. They got 10 percent of their allotment.

That’s why you’re seeing the marches and rallies there as unemployment has skyrocketed.

Their immediate anger with the Obama administration involves those two biological opinions, which they want set aside. While the administration can’t ignore the Endangered Species Act, Walthall told me, they can undertake a “reconsultation” when circumstances change or new science is available.

“The second opinion doesn’t mesh with the first,” he said. “It would release water from some reservoirs at certain times of the year to benefit the smelt, which would reduce or eliminate cold water protections for the salmon.”

That conflict alone is reason enough for a reconsultation.

Absolutely.

Hayes and/or Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar need to do more than pop into the valley for photo ops and glad-handing. Get in the game and reexamine these opinions.

What’s the harm in checking your facts?

Meanwhile, local water folks are getting more anxious by the day.

What’s been keeping our farmers afloat, so to speak, is groundwater banking, said Harry Starkey, general manager of Belridge Water Storage District.

“I have landowners now whose accounts are dry now,” said. Without some kind of change, those accounts won’t be replenished.

Even in wet years, “we lost access to all of that water, just with the smelt opinion,” Starkey said. “The salmon opinion is just adding layers to the problem.”

He also was clinging to the promise of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to try and bring some stability back to ag water.

“It’s our only ray of hope.”

Now, if we an only keep bumbling politicians from blocking out the light.

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

Sometimes, it’s the little things that really get under your skin.

When you’re running a business, an incorrect bill from the City Fire Department for $96 may not seem like much.

But for Brenda Barnes, this yearly mistake is one of those “little things” that’s become a major irritant.

Barnes is a podiatrist and as part of the business, develops X-rays, which means she has about a gallon of film developer on the premises.

And that means her business goes into a pot of other businesses in the city that come under a state law regulating hazardous materials. There are about 1,200 in the city overall, according to Howard Wines, director of Fire Department Prevention Services.

The Fire Department is tasked with keeping track of which businesses have which chemicals and how much. They have to maintain that information internally and report it to the state, for which they charge businesses a “handling” or administrative fee.

They’re also supposed to inspect each business at least every three years, which is what the additional $96 is for.

Only Barnes’ business has never been inspected — except for the times she’s complained that she’s getting charged for an inspection that never happened.
It’s almost become a game over the last few years since she first noticed the fee on her bill.

She was charged, complained, got inspected and she paid. Round and round. Last year, she got smart. She waited until the time frame listed on the bill expired, then complained there was no inspection and was told she didn’t have to pay the fee. Only it popped up, again, on her most recent bill.

“It’s weird,” Barnes told me. “Does it bug anyone else? Is it just me?”

When I asked Wines about it, he was frustrated Barnes was still getting charged. He did try and fix that, he said.

And while the department does shoot for yearly inspections, he said, it just can’t get to them all because of staffing shortages.

OK, but that doesn’t explain why Barnes — and presumably other businesses — are getting charged every year.

I asked Wines how many businesses had actually been inspected over the last year and how many had been charged the inspection fee.

Ooo, sorry, I was told. Wines said he is making a report to the state, possibly by the end of this month, but couldn’t lay hands on that info right away.

Hmmm. Now I’m a little irritated.

If the city keeps reports for the state of each business with chemicals, what kind, how many and the last inspection date, that information should be immediately available.

And — call me crazy — but I think the city should be capable of not charging someone for no service.

Meanwhile, Barnes continues to grit her teeth at the bill.

“It’s always there on my desk.”

•        •        •

Crabtree saw the error had not been fixed when she received another notice from the city this month.

The city provides a definition of gross receipts, which has a long list of things that should be excluded, such as cash discounts, gas taxes and so on.

Except the city left off the word EXCLUDING. So the definition appears to INCLUDE a laundry list of things that should be EXCLUDED.

How many businesses, Crabtree wondered, overpaid the city?

City Treasurer Cheryl Perkins assured me forms on the city’s website had been fixed and Crabtree had inadvertently been sent the old notice.

“Very, very few businesses, out of the 30,000 business licenses we send out every year, have any of these exclusions,” Perkins said. “So the likelihood that someone over reported is very slim.”

But how would they know, I wondered?

Crabtree wondered the same thing and noted that one of the exclusions deals with someone employing subcontractors or temporary employees.

“I would think a lot of businesses fall into that category,” Crabtree, a CPA, said.

Clearly, reading the instructions is a must when dealing with the city.

Small and annoying can add up fast, so big kudos to Barnes and Crabtree for picking nits and keeping government accountable.

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

Sure, there might be nothing in the world wrong with PG&E’s “SmartMeters.” But I don’t write fiction, so let’s stick with what’s actually happening.

Hundreds of people in Bakersfield and around the state reported major problems since Pacific Gas & Electric started installing so-called smart meters two years ago. Complaints have spiked as the utility began upgrading local meters with even “smarter” versions.

It’s not just the bills, many of which have jumped 100, 200 — even 400 percent year to year after the install. It’s also problems with the online monitoring function and the meters themselves, which have been blowing out appliances, something I was initially told they absolutely could not do.

Even worse, though, has been PG&E’s response  — accuse, deny, obfuscate and shuffle. (That’s somewhat better than the Public Utilities Commission, I suppose, which never got back to me at all!)

According to PG&E, people are just using more power and either don’t know they are or won’t admit it.

Several residents I spoke with said that yes, the smart meters say they’re using more power. But nothing has changed year over year, no pool additions, no extra people living in the house, nothing.

In fact, with bills this high, many, like June Hahn and her husband, are setting the thermostat at 82. And still they’re getting slammed.

Hahn’s bills went from  $73.63 in July 2008 to $382.69 this July and $140.93 August 2008 to $735.37 this August. Those are 419 to 421 percent increases!

Rate increases that went into effect in March were 15 percent to 22 percent and applied only to those who use large amounts of power.

PG&E will tell you if usage is up, it’s up and that’s all there is to it, pay the bill, thank you.

Hold up there, hoss.

A man in Choctawhatchee, Florida (no, I’m not making that name up) got the same brand of SmartMeter used by PG&E. He was suspicious enough of it to have a load test done.

He had the power company, CHELCO, do the test. Lo and behold the thing was reporting twice as much power as was actually being used.

Hey, that might explain bills that double for no apparent reason, ya think?

Must be a bad apple, CHELCO said. They replaced it with another SmartMeter and whaddaya know? Same problem. The guy demanded CHELCO give him a written report, which is now posted here: http://www.godlikeproductio... Scroll down to about the 20th post to find the link to the document.

I sent a copy of that report and some questions to California’s PG&E rep on all things SmartMeter, Paul Moreno, but he hadn’t seen the report and said he never got my email.

So I never got an answer as to whether PG&E’s SmartMeters might have the same problems. Or whether PG&E would consider doing a random audit of the meters. Or if perhaps PG&E might set up some way for customers who think this is happening to them to have a similar test done.

No matter. I’ve found that with PG&E, answers tend to vary anyway.

Take the appliance issue, for example.

When I first heard about this in February 2008, I was told no way, uh-uh, can’t happen. It’s not the SmartMeters.

Mind you, SmartMeters are designed to eventually be interactive with our appliances. So we can monitor power usage and say, turn on the dishwasher from our computers at work when demand and cost is low.

Still, I was told, the SmartMeters aren’t set up to do that just yet.

Except Hahn’s ceiling fans blew out because of the SmartMeter and when she called PG&E they fixed them — no questions asked.

I personally have watched the fans in my home go on for no apparent reason.

Moreno eventually told me, that yes, some older model fans (mine are only a year old) didn’t have the necessary “shielding” and were very sensitive to changes in voltage from the SmartMeters.

Why couldn’t I get a straight answer before? It took a while for the manufacturer to divine and own up to the problem, he told me. (Wow, a hat trick of excuses. Impressive.)
SmartMeters really could be quite useful. They’ve been installed in countries all over the world where the focus has been on getting consumers real-time information so they can adjust their power usage according to need and cost.

Here, not so much.

In fact, even the power monitoring facet has problems.

As we reported in May, customers checking their usage online saw that the SmartMeters were reporting usage even during power outages.

PG&E admitted there was a glitch in the system, it wouldn’t affect anyone’s bills and the upgraded meters wouldn’t have that problem.

Nope.

On September 3, one of The Californian’s bloggers (check it out here: http://people.bakersfield.c... was monitoring his usage while on vacation and saw it was at five kilowatts per day until — blip — for no reason at all it jumped to 57 kilowatts per day.

First he was told it was a bad read and would correct itself (which it didn’t). Then he was told the information customers get isn’t accurate anyway.

But again, don’t worry, it won’t affect your bill. HUH?

We’ve paid more than $2 billion so far for these meters. A glitch here and there is expected. But these ongoing problems and PG&E’s stonewalling are unacceptable.

Complaints to the PUC have gone essentially nowhere. One woman I spoke with was told by a PUC rep she should move out of Bakersfield.

No.

What we need is to very firmly demand answers from PG&E, the PUC and our local representatives over and over until we’re heard.

PG&E isn’t the only one with power. It is, however, up to us to flip the switch.

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

If you get a power bill that’s just out of whack, do something, ask questions and report problems. Here’s how:

First and foremost, go to TURN’s (The Utility Reform Network) website at http://www.turn.org/ and look at the top right side of the page where it says “FILE A COMPLAINT.” Click there. You can automatically file a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission and TURN will have the complaint on file to follow up for you.

The California Public Utilities Commission
www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/
To file a complaint with the PUC:
www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/forms/Complaints/
The main office is in San Francisco:
505 Van Ness Avenue
SanFrancisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-703-2782
Fax: 415-703-1758
For their Los Angeles office:
320 West 4th Street, Ste. 500
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: 213-5760-7000
Fax: 213-576-7007

Contact PG&E
24-hour customer service number 800- PGE-5000. People can also log onto pge.com and click on "Contact Us" at the top right of the page which will take them to a form that allows e-mail communication. PG&E also offers customer support lines in languages other than English.
Spanish: http://pge.com/espanol 800-660-6789
Chinese: http://pge.com/chinese 800-893-9555
Vietnamese (800) 298-8438
TDD/TTY (Speech/Hearing-Impaired) 800- 652-4712
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf and Other Language Services: http://pge.com/myhome/custo...

The people of this county do not owe developers anything.

We don’t “owe” them a zone change. And we certainly don’t “owe” them a profit.

I don’t understand why that’s such a difficult concept for some people to wrap their heads around — particularly a few members of the County Planning Commission and Kern County Board of Supervisors.

Our government agents are supposed to make sure development is safe, compatible, needed and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws. Period. Making sure Joe Bob Developer gets his percentage isn’t part of the deal.

Most recently, Planning Commissioner Ron Sprague about turned himself inside out trying to get his fellow commissioners to either approve the controversial 846-acre Frazier Park Estates project or speed up the process to benefit the developer, Frank Arciero Jr.

Sprague was concerned that it would not be profitable for the developer to do what Planning Department staff had recommended — cut more than 470 homes (from the 662 sought by the developer) that would have been strung along hillsides so steep they would require massive grading and cut-and-fill operations not allowed under the county’s hillside ordinance.

Staff also recommended the commercial and multifamily parts of the project go forward. The vote was split 2-2 with one commissioner absent. It will come back to the commission Oct. 8.

To Sprague’s concern for the developer’s profit, I have only this to say: So?

That’s Arciero’s business, not Sprague’s.

Sprague also was concerned that this development was seven years in the making and has cost developers $6 million so far.

Again, so?

That’s the nature of the beast when it comes to massive projects in sensitive areas with steep hillsides, canyons and, oh, by the way, with the San Andreas fault as a next-door neighbor.

If Sprague is so worried about Arciero’s paycheck, maybe he can find him a job.

But when a public official — appointed or elected — is doing the people’s business, he should be more concerned about issues related to the project. In this case, county planning staff compiled a laundry list of problems, including water, traffic, severe grading and cut-and-fill, road maintenance and lack of compatibility with an already existing development plan for that area.

As an aside, it was unbelievable to me that Arciero’s representative, Mike Callegy, would complain his people didn’t know about the county’s hillside ordinance, which prohibits construction on slopes at a 30 percent grade and cuts of more than 16 feet. Some cuts in the Frazier Park Estates proposal were 160 feet.

The hillside ordinance wasn’t added to the Frazier Park/Lebec Specific Plan until after the project design was underway, Callegy all but whined at the Planning Commission meeting last month.

Oh puhleeze! That ordinance was adopted in 1986.

This isn’t the first time in recent memory that I’ve been appalled by a public official who seemed more absorbed by a developer’s bottom line than the public interest.

Supervisor Ray Watson (who appointed Sprague, by the way) made an impassioned plea for a leapfrog development proposed in northwest Bakersfield, the Neighborhood Development LLC. It was voted down last month by three other supervisors who appropriately saw it as premature.

Watson’s reason for supporting it was that the developer had gone through such a long process getting to this stage that the project ought to be approved.

Arrrgh!

Bad development is still bad development, no matter how long it ferments.

Maybe if developers knew they actually had to pay attention to Planning staff, development ordinances, specific plans and area residents, they wouldn’t always go for the “Kern County wishbone” play instead. (That’s where they get their project in front of politically sensitive officials to get their go-ahead.)

It’s up to those politically sensitive types to make that happen, though. And judging by Watson’s and Sprague’s recent behavior, I don’t have a lot of hope.

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

I’m not sure what kind of management Bakersfield’s City Council thinks we should get for our money, but I, for one, don’t want to pay people to harass, discriminate and retaliate against employees.

That’s apparently what’s been happening at the Fire Department, according to a jury verdict returned in March. Until recently the council has maintained a deafening silence on this issue.

Last Sunday I wrote a column detailing management practices in the Fire Department that are so poor they cost taxpayers $1 million in a lawsuit by former firefighter Robby Pratt. (At least one prior suit found the department’s practices “arbitrary and capricious” and cost us about $100,000.)

The city lost on all 13 questions in the Pratt case. Most important, jurors said, Fire Department managers did harass, retaliate and discriminate against an employee.

It doesn’t get much worse than that.

What, I wondered, did the City Council intend to do?

Not a peep. Nothing.

I had to call around and put the question to each of them directly.

In fairness, they all (at least those who deigned to call me back) had answers.

But remember, this verdict came down six months ago with zero council reaction.

Monetary issues in Pratt were just recently settled, but that should not have kept council members from publicly seeking some kind of assurance that management had changed, training had increased or something had happened to assure taxpayers we wouldn’t have to walk down this path again and again.

“I would think the city fire department, city manager and council would welcome a review of their personnel and management practices,” said former City Councilman and tireless advocate for open government Mark Salvaggio.

“It doesn’t mean (Fire Chief Ron) Fraze loses his job. It should mean we all become wiser from this, not be afraid of discussing it openly.

“What can it hurt?”

Council members Irma Carson, Harold Hanson, David Couch and Sue Benham all agreed they would be asking for some kind of accounting or report at the city’s next meeting (Sept. 9).

Councilmembers Zack Scrivner and Ken Weir didn’t return my repeated phone calls, nor respond to my emails.

Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan said she hadn’t had a chance to consider fallout from the case and couldn’t comment because “I don’t know the thinking on that.”
Others had given some cogent thought to this issue, which has been going on since 2004.

“The policies we have in place, if they’re being followed, should protect us,” Benham said. “But are we doing business in a responsible way? I would like to have (City Attorney) Ginny (Gennaro) take a look at that.”

Couch told me after last Sunday’s expose, he called Gennaro and asked if there was some way the city attorney could lay out what happened in that lawsuit from the city’s perspective.

“It certainly appears embarrassing,” he said of the verdict.  “We ought to have a case study using this case to say ‘Here’s what went wrong,’ ‘Here’s when’ and ‘Here’s how we’re going to fix it.’

“But I don’t think all of that can be made public because of personnel issues. That’s the frustrating part about what you’re asking.”

Hmmm. I’m not buying it.

That catch-all, government invisibility cloak of “personnel issues,” which has been used to hide a multitude of sins in my opinion, can’t be used this time.

I’d have to be shown the law that says council members can’t examine possible management problems that have already been examined and cross-examined in open court.

Nitpicking aside, I give grudging kudos to those council members who’ve stepped up to the plate on the taxpayers’ behalf, even if belated or half-hearted.

There is one a bright spot to this dingy story.

And that is that Human Resources, which blundered so unbelievably badly on the Pratt case, seems to have turned around and is steaming along under the capable guidance of Javier Lozano, a certified human resource specialist with loads of experience.

Since taking over close to three years ago, Lozano has made sure the city is compliant with state and federal harassment training requirements, launched a supervisor development program, holds twice monthly seminars on diverse topics and has increased outreach to every department in the city.

His philosophy is that HR should be absolutely neutral, take every complaint seriously and make recommendations but not lay down edicts.

His efforts are paying off.

Now, he said, “People are coming to us before they make a mess.”

That’s great, but council members still need to account for the Pratt mess at their feet.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.

Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

I can’t be the only one who’s appalled that Judge Richard Oberholzer reduced by half the bail of accused rapist Richard James Berkowitz last month.

This guy is accused of picking up a nearly incapacitated 14-year-old girl by the side of the road who was passed out from drinking the night before. Police say he took her to his house where he raped her, then made her wash and sent her on her way.

Adding insult to injury he allegedly lectured her that “this would be a good lesson” for her not to drink and it should be a “wake up call” for her.

A slight pause, please, while I ungrit my teeth and try to stop the visions of mayhem I’d like to inflict on the monster that would do and say such things to a child. Deep breath.

OK, back to the bail reduction.

First, I think Oberholzer dropped the ball on this and not just on a philosophical level. He was correct that the “bail schedule” called for $250,000, but that’s not the whole story.

Bail had already been set by another judge at $400,000 at Berkowitz’ arraignment. The District Attorney’s office sent a prosecutor to the arraignment — a rare assignment —  specifically to request an increased bail, Deputy D.A. Lisa Green told me.

Not only was that increase granted, but at Berkowitz’ pre-preliminary hearing Aug. 5, the court asked Probation to conduct a bail review and make a recommendation, which was done. A short time later, Berkowitz’ bail was increased again to $500,000, said Deputy District Attorney Felicia Nagle, who’s now handling the case.

When Berkowitz’ public defender made a motion to reduce bail, which was heard on Aug. 21, Nagle was out of the office and Deputy D.A. Art Norris had to step in, offering a basic objection to the reduction.

Oberholzer ruled that without a basis to keep bail higher, he had to go with the amount listed in the bail schedule. It’s true that Norris wasn’t able to give a heart-wrenching objection with all the specifics.

But here’s a thought: Oberholzer could have opened the file and seen that bail had already been bumped by previous courts, which did have more details.

Instead, he cut it to $250,000. Berkowitz posted bond and he’s out.

The victim’s mother told us she was outraged. So am I.

And not just by how Oberholzer handled this particular case.

I looked over the bail schedule and it’s all over the place with no rhyme or reason for amounts. Each county’s judges set the schedule annually based on what guidelines, I’m not sure.

More importantly, rape and other crimes against women (we are most often the victims of certain crimes) are unconscionably low.

Bail for a charge of rape in Kern County is $50,000.

It’s the same amount for using false documents to conceal citizenship, campaign violations, vandalism to a church or cemetery, interference with civil rights, false personation of another, and so on.

Come on, bail for rape should be far higher. At least as high as “threats to the life of an official or judge,” which carries a $100,000 bail.

A random sampling of bail schedules in other counties showed Kern is in line with valley counties, but we’re low in comparison with others including Los Angeles, Ventura, San Francisco and Sacramento, which all set bail at either $100,000 or $150,000 for a rape charge.

Isn’t protecting women just as important here?

As you can tell, I still haven’t gotten over the fact that Robert Fuller was arrested and allowed to bail out twice for violating the restraining order against him by his estranged wife, Annette Sowders.

His total bail was only $12,500 — $5,000 for one trip to jail and $7,000 for the next with $500 thrown in for a vandalism charge. (The schedule, by the way, sets bail for violating a restraining order at $10,000, so I’m not sure why his were lower even than that low amount.)

Four days after he bailed out the last time, Fuller is accused of killing Sowders and her mother, Sharon Cannon, in their home.

Seems all Kern's "tough on crime" talk is just talk when it comes to brutalizing women.

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