No holds barred - noholdsbarred's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Buster was taken to a new home

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:53:02 PDT

Chevron no longer has to worry about Buster, the longtime mascot out at the company’s 17-Z gas plant in McKittrick.

A contractor took him home Wednesday evening, I was told by plant employees.

Workers got an e-mail Thursday saying while Buster had done OK on the drive, he’d had a “rough night” in the unfamiliar surroundings and without the 24-7 companionship he’d grown used to.

They promised to keep me apprised of how Buster is doing and will let me know if his new home doesn’t work out.

Meanwhile, the guys at the plant were melancholy Thursday.

“It’s just sad,” one worker told me. “You see his water bowl, scratches on the door...little things. Everybody misses him.”

The old stray had lived at the plant for the last 15 years, eating scraps from the workers who gave him a bed and chipped in for occasional medical care. He’d become so much a part of the plant, he was known up and down the state and was even in some official plant photos.

Workers were told last year that Buster, now arthritic and incontinent, could live out his days there but after he died, no more dogs. Last month, however, management changed its mind and said Buster had until this Friday to find a new home.

Everyone who cared for Buster worried that being in a strange place, confined to a yard and without his “pack” around him, would kill the aging dog.

But Chevron was adamant that he go now, saying it was an employee safety issue.

If anyone would like to contact Chevron about this issue you can contact Roger Christy locally at 654-7152 or the San Ramon headquarters at (925) 842-1000 or comment@chevron.com

Note to Chevron: Let old dogs lie

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:46:56 PDT

Rules are rules.

Yes, yes, we all know. We’ve heard it since we were kids.

In the case of Buster, however, a stray dog who’s spent the past 15 years at Chevron’s 17-Z gas plant in McKittrick, the mega corporation’s sudden adherence to a no-pets-at-work rule is downright mean-spirited.

I’m not saying it’s a bad rule. Much as I’d love to have my pets at work every day, it’s a hassle fraught with all kinds of potential problems that I, my co-workers and my company don’t need.

But come ON.

Buster’s been at the plant since he wandered in as a pup, long before the current management regime existed. The German shepherd mix has never caused a problem, never bitten a soul, torn the place up, harassed or otherwise annoyed endangered species outside the plant or caused any problems whatsoever.

He’s accustomed to the 24-7 operation, knows where he can and can’t go, who will and won’t feed him. He even knows who’s who by the trucks that come in for loads.

Just about everyone in the gas biz up and down the state knows good old Buster. In fact, it was a trucker from another county who called to tell me about Buster.

“He was plant security before we had security,” a worker told me. (I’m not using names to keep peace with management.)

Over the years, the workers have fed Buster their leftovers, chipped in to have him neutered and cared for by a vet, given him a bed. In return, he’s always there — so much a fixture that he’s even in some official plant photos.

Now, he’s arthritic, incontinent and probably not going to last much longer.

Common sense should tell Chevron to let the old fellow live out his final days where he’s been safe, comfortable and happy. After Buster’s gone, no more dogs for 17-Z.

That’s what the workers want, it’s what they said they were told would happen a year ago.

Then someone in management lowered the boom last month. Buster has until Friday.

Everyone is hoping he can find a good home. If not, who knows what Chevron will do with him. I was told Alpha Canine, a dog rescue operation near Bakersfield, was an option.

Really? Moving him to a rescue with its unfamiliar smells, schedule, confinement and proximity to so many other dogs would probably kill him.

Not to mention, Alpha Canine is already overwhelmed by pleas for help and Buster has a perfectly good home at the plant.

“We’ve been told three or four people have offered to take him in so there’s a very good chance he’ll find a loving home,” Chevron spokeswoman Carla Musser told me. “That’s what we all want, for Buster to have a good home.

“But our primary focus has to be the safety of our employees.”

I don’t usually feel sorry for company spokespeople, or “flaks” as we call them in my business.

But I did feel an infinitesimally small twinge of sympathy for Musser trying to defend Chevron’s “Simon Legree” stance on poor Buster, who’s only ever given employees friendship and warmth in exchange for a scrap of food.

Workers told me that, yes, a number of people have talked about taking Buster in. Again, he’d be in a yard, possibly with other dogs and, more important, without the constant companionship he’s used to.

“We all pretty much think that would break his spirit, if it didn’t kill him outright,” another long-time worker told me.

One guy even floated the idea of euthanizing Buster themselves so he could die happy, in the place he’s known all his life. No one really liked that idea. Talking to the guys out there, it was evident Buster’s fate is of deep concern.

“This shouldn’t be happening,” another worker said. “But it’s out of our hands.”

That’s too bad. Those hands have given Buster a darn good life so far.

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

Head of CPUC admits it was a mistake to let PG&E run w/smart meters

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:41:04 PDT

Well isn't that great. Course, they still haven't DONE anything about the problems and meanwhile people in Kern County are practically being run out of their homes because of high bills...but oh well,..

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=7332225

Lack of activity

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:17:40 PST

Sorry for the bland blog. I'm working on a project right now.

If I have something short and sweet, I'll try and post.

Meanwhile, isn't this PG&E turn of events fun?! Guess they're getting a little nervous.

I'm going to try and find the report Supes did in 1996 about creating a municipal or local utility district. I wrote about it all those years ago, but it's long since been gathering dust over at the county, I'm sure.

Lois

Ashburn dodges gay question

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:19:20 PST

By LOIS HENRY
Californian columnist
lhenry@bakersfield.com

Last summer an editor heard that a Sacramento publication with a gay
audience might "out" state Sen. Roy Ashburn as being gay.

So I called Ashburn and asked him flat-out: "Are you gay?"

His response: "Why would that be anyone's business? Including The
Californian's?

"I think there are certain subjects that are simply not relevant and this is
one of them. It has no bearing on the job I do."

During the course of our conversation I listed several instances in which a
politician's sexual orientation, or even just their sexual activity -
straight or gay - would be relevant.

If Ashburn were a staunch anti-gay activist but was secretly gay, I said,
that would be a legitimate concern to his constituents.

Ashburn agreed but said he didn't believe he had been such an activist. I
pointed out he had voted conservatively on gay issues throughout his career.

Yes, he said, but he¹d done so on almost all social issues. He represents a
conservative district and votes as his constituents would want him to, he
said.

Several political organizations have ranked Ashburn's voting record as
extremely unfriendly to gays. (I'm not sure where those organizations rank
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, a Democrat, who initially voted against
all gay issues for much the same reason, but since has turned a new leaf.)

And Ashburn did organize a "Traditional Family Values" rally in 2005 to drum
up support for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But he kept a low profile during the Proposition 8 campaign.

In my mind, the importance of his sexual orientation relative to his work on
the public's behalf is still debatable.

During my conversation with Ashburn last summer, we also agreed that if he
were having an affair, regardless of gender, with a lobbyist, someone who
worked for him or someone under age, those would also be legitimate public
concerns.

No, he said, none of those situations applied to him.

"Do you think I'm that stupid?"

I thanked Ashburn for talking on the record and then talked with my editors
about what to do with the information.

It's a conversation we'd had once before. We'd heard rumors and in 2004,
another Californian reporter asked Ashburn if he was gay. He would only
reply, "I'm surprised you're asking that."

We discussed Ashburn¹s cryptic responses, which proved nothing about his
orientation, and debated pursuing the story, but kept coming back to the
issue of relevance.

Other than that 2005 rally, Ashburn hadn¹t authored any anti-gay legislation
himself, nor led the charge against equity for gays.

Too many stupid bills, not enough time

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:26:26 PST

I have some advice for Assemblyman Anthony Portantino: “Don’t let the door hit you in the *** on your way out, dude!”

Seriously, Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada, ought to be run out of Sacramento for putting up a resolution (approved Thursday, for Pete’s sake!) to make the first week of March a “cuss free” week. What an incredibly ridiculous waste of time, paper and effort from the few functioning brain cells left in the capitol.

We’re looking at a potential $40 billion budget gap come June, prisoners are being released early, education is laying off teachers in droves, the poor and elderly can’t get basic services, police and firefighter ranks are dwindling, and on and on.
In the face of all that, this goofball spends his time on cussing?

If you want a cuss free week, here’s an idea: DON’T CUSS.

Sheesh!

In reality, though, that stupid resolution was just the cherry on top of the sundae of idiocy that is our state government.

I noticed, from the Sacramento Bee’s invaluable Capitol Alert, that legislators spammed the system with 1,321 new bills between Feb. 16 and Feb. 19, the deadline for this session. That brought the grand total of regular bills for the 2009-2010 session to 1,476.

That’s actually down from 2005-2006, when over 1,800 bills were introduced. But it’s still absurd.

Considering that on average only 15 percent will make it into law, does anyone think California really needs 221 new laws?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say not “no,” but “H*&% NO!”

We need our Legislature to fix the budget and get this state moving again.

If you’re not prepared to get serious and focus on those issues, find a new line of work.

Of course, when you talk to politicians one-on-one, they’ll agree that too many bills is one of the state’s perennial juggernauts. All of Kern’s representatives certainly did.

Their bill counts varied from a high of about 40 for Senator Roy Ashburn to a low of seven for Assemblywoman Jean Fuller.

Even Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, long known as the king of the press conference touting his own bills, said the legislation parade is a problem.

“The schedule is we all arrive on Monday and first thing we do is vote on bills,” he said. “Then on Tuesdays and Wednesdays you’re in committees all day hearing more bills. Thursdays you go to the floor and vote on bills, then you’re back in the district on Thursday evening or Friday.”

That leaves precious little time to focus on the bigger issues, like the budget, or oversight — making sure already enacted legislation and state agencies are doing what they were intended to do.

To that end, Florez said he and Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg have been working on a plan to divide the legislative session in half, allowing new bills to be introduced in the first year but none in the second year (except emergency and budget measures as needed).

The second year, he said, would be devoted to the budget and oversight hearings.
“If we didn’t have new bills for one year would California fall apart? No,” Florez said. “It would be a period of quiet and clarity to really look at things in depth.”

Steinberg’s office said they’re already putting a greater emphasis on oversight this year by scheduling 70 such hearings and directing policy committees to pick several areas of interest to delve into.

I have to say I like the idea.

Yes, one reform measure could be to simply cut the number of bills legislators are allowed to introduce, which has already been done, down to 40 from 50 in previous sessions. Fuller, in fact, has a bill to cut the number back to 10, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.

But the no-bill/oversight year sounds even better. It got me thinking of all the things legislators could review, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger’s old “CPR” (California Performance Report) proposal.

It’s ancient history now, but back in 2004, the governor put up a proposal to “blow up the boxes” and reduce the size of government by eliminating or consolidating boards and commissions.

The governor estimated a savings of $32 billion over five years starting in 2004-2005. The Legislative Analyst’s office wasn’t quite as rosy about the savings, bringing it down to $15 billion over five years.

Either way it would have streamlined government and saved money in the B range — billions, not millions. It wasn’t a new idea, actually, having come first from years of audits, then years of Little Hoover Commission reports.

Not a single piece of the proposal succeeded, Ashburn recalled.

As an aside, Ashburn is on the audit committee and has proposed going back through existing audits to implement recommendations rather than spending money on new audits that just get shelved. We’ll tuned to his progress.

Back to the idea of an “oversight year,” Florez speculated that legislators could use that time to really dig into things like the CPR report and put pieces of it into action.

“We’ve just been kicking the can back and forth to each other and no one’s put their foot down to implement drastic changes,” he said. “This (an oversight year) would really change the nature of what people do up here.”

Drastic change. Yes, let’s try that.

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

More on PG&E just for grins

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:49:40 PST

Here is a link to a San Francisco CBS TV news show from earlier this week on smart meters and how the Bay Area is getting sticker shock, just like we did, as the new meters are installed. (Because of the incredible heat wave they're suffering???)

Oh, and PG&E has to eat crow after the news crew proves that one man's "smart" gas meter was installed improperly and was recording/charging him DOUBLE his actual usage!

Sound familiar?

Here's a note from Helen Burt, Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer trying to smooth over the ruckus.

She doesn't address how PG&E's own rep, Andrew Tang, admits in the CBS piece that when PG&E was telling us the problem was our old meters weren't accurate, it was a lie and that the "customer response was inconsistent."

Sheesh.

From Burt:

Team:

This evening, KPIX-TV (Channel 5, San Francisco) is scheduled to air a story about PG&E’s SmartMeter™ program. It may feature a customer whose gas meter was installed and set up incorrectly, resulting in his bill being double what it should otherwise have been, as well as other topics. The customer, who is on a fixed income, spoke with PG&E on multiple occasions about his concern, but the process moved far too slow. He alerted the media sometime before PG&E finally conducted a meter test. After that test, we determined the issue was our fault, immediately apologized to the customer and corrected his bill.

As every employee knows, we are committed to delivering the highest quality of service to every customer. Unfortunately, as hard as we try, mistakes happen. When they do, we are committed to correcting them as quickly as possible and taking steps to ensure the same mistakes don't happen again. In this case we are improving our internal quality assurance processes both in the billing and call centers to prevent the likelihood of future occurrences. In this case we fell short of our standard, and we aim to do better in the future.

Senior Director of Customer Care Andy Tang has personally apologized to this customer for our mistake. That information has been shared with KPIX with our hope that they will include it in their story. Going forward we will strive to continue delivering on the expectations that our customers have come to expect from PG&E.

PG&E can't tell a straight story with a ruler

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:07:07 PST

There could be many reasons your PG&E bill is delayed.

Sure, three months or more is an awfully long time. But it’s a big company with lots of moving parts. I’m sure we’d understand a reasonable explanation, like say a glitch in the billing software.

But here’s what I and the handful of bewildered and annoyed customers who contacted me don’t understand — doubletalk, conflicting stories and, above all, a stubborn insistence that SmartMeters are NOT at fault.

Right.

Terry Tsitakis, who went three months without receiving a bill, was told this week by one PG&E rep that it was, indeed, a SmartMeter system problem. The meter, he was told, was recording his energy usage but the system wasn’t sending a bill.

“They said they had to prompt the meter to get the information, give it a jolt or something,” Tsitakis (pronounced tykas) said.

James Welch, who also wasn’t billed for three months, was told the same thing.

“They said my usage was being recorded, but they couldn’t say why a bill wasn’t being generated,” he said. Welch said the same thing happened to a neighbor.

Another woman, again, three months with no bill, told me the same thing and said she spoke with a SmartMeter representative at PG&E who said this was happening to “hundreds of customers” in Bakersfield and that they had to get the usage information “by hand” from the SmartMeters.

Local spokesman Denny Boyles, however, told me that no, no, no it’s not a SmartMeter thing. Though he couldn’t say why the customers’ bills were delayed nor whether PG&E has had an uptick in delayed billings.

“...every now and then some bills may be delayed for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons have anything to do with the type of meter the customers have at their homes,” he said via one of our interminable and unhelpful e-mail exchanges that went on for nearly two weeks as I tried to learn why customers weren’t being billed.

In Tsitakis’ case, Boyles said, he couldn’t say what was causing the problem, but he could say what wasn’t causing the problem — the SmartMeter.

“He had good reads for the entire period, so it’s not the SmartMeter.”

When I explained that Tsitakis was told that the SmartMeter wasn’t coughing up his usage to billing, Boyles only said that information did not appear on Tsitakis’ account.

Oh for crying out loud. This really shouldn’t be that difficult.

PG&E obviously has a hiccup in its SmartMeter system.

It isn’t the first. Since the company beginning the new meters in Bakersfield homes in 2007, customers have complained of spiking bills and appliances believed to be damaged by the meters. On top of that, we can’t use the meters to control our energy consumption or even know our real-time usage, which is what we were promised when we paid for the things.

Instead of this ridiculous tap dance of denial, the company should just acknowledge there’s a problem, inform its employees about the glitch and where to direct customers for help and then tell the public what it’s doing to correct the situation.

All this other malarkey just breeds anger and suspicion.

Case in point: Tsitakis had tried unsuccessfully for weeks to find out what he owed and why he wasn’t getting a bill. All he got was the runaround until he came to the newspaper.

Finally, customer service called and told him what his bill was, but he’s still irritated.

Not with the back bill, which he said seemed fair. But with his treatment and the continued lack of real information.

“I shouldn’t have to drop the name ‘Lois’; that’s not right,” he said. “And I should understand exactly what happened with my bill.
“I’m the consumer. I have a right to know.”

Considering the bite PG&E is taking out of all our budgets these days, a few missed bills can quickly turn into a major financial hardship.

At the least we deserve some straight answers from PG&E.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The 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.

Can Kern River interests find a local solution?

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:55:32 PST

If you were one of the more than 4,000 Bakersfield citizens who sent a letter to the state begging to have a river back in our river bed and you’re still looking at an ugly dirt gully wondering, “What the heck?” I have two words for you — patience, Grasshopper.

We cleared a major hurdle — and in record time — when the State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously last week that there is unappropriated water in the Kern River.

But now we have to think long- term and resolve ourselves to working through the process, no matter how long it takes.

I came to that realization after speaking with Doug Headrick, general manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, which just recently got its permit for extra water on the Santa Ana River —16 years after its first application.

The two rivers and their issues are very different, but Headrick’s experiences with the state process, I think, are very instructive for us now.

A new dam was going to be built on the Santa Ana and the San Bernardino district saw a chance that more water would be captured, meaning more water that could flow to their users. So in 1991, they asked the state to declare the river not fully appropriated and applied for that anticipated “new” water.

In 1999, the state finally declared the river not fully appropriated.

Comparatively, the Kern River has so far moved like greased lightning. Petitions to change the river’s status were filed in 2007 and the status was changed in 2010.

Don’t break out the champagne yet, though.

“Once we got the declaration to overturn the river status, it took another 10 years to secure our water rights permit,” Headrick said.

Even so, he said, he found the state board extremely logical, consistent and predictable.

“There weren’t any big surprises. It just took an awfully long time.”

The majority of time was taken up by wrangling between the rights holders.

“You, as the applicant for new water, have to prove to the people who already have rights or are also filing for new water that you’re not going to hurt what they have,” he said.

The law does protect prior rights holders. But that didn’t assuage the Santa Ana interests and it likely won’t calm the Kern interests either.

By 2006, San Bernardino and all but one protester had settled their differences among themselves and presented a solution to the board.

“The board encourages that,” he said. “They don’t want to be the arbiter for local water rights because it’s so difficult for staff to get up to speed local rights.”

Like the Kern River, the Santa Ana is governed by more than 100 years of agreements, legal settlements and court orders.

Having the state board sort through all that would be like, “asking someone from another country to come here and solve your problems,” Headrick warned.

I like the idea of a local solution (one that guarantees water in the river, of course).

For the first time on Friday, I heard two of the main players in this drama, Richard Diamond, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District, and Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency, both say they want a local solution as well.

Wow, that’s great, just GREAT! Pardon me, though, if history and recent rhetoric dampen my hopes.

This dispute all began in the 1980s between North Kern and the Kern Delta Water Storage District. They tried mediation countless times to no avail. So off to court they went. Two trials, two appeals and 12 years later, here we are at the state’s mercy.

Now, North Kern (along with the agency, the Kern Water Bank and Buena Vista Water Storage District) is crying that the city — which was dragged into the lawsuit kicking and screaming, by the way — is trying to “grab” water by “opening up our river” to the big, bad state.

Oh boy.

Guess I’ll be “wading” in the sands of the mighty Kern riverbed a while longer.

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

City clears first Kern River water hurdle

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:57:54 PST

I know the State Water Resources Control Board’s unanimous vote finding there is loose water on the Kern River was just the opening battle in what will surely become a very long war to actually get water back in our river.

But it felt good to win — GREAT, as a matter of fact.

It felt particularly good to know that the citizens of Bakersfield — who sent thousands of petitions and hundreds of individual letters pleading with the board to consider our parched riverbed in making its decision — were heard.

The board has only decided to reopen California rivers twice before, the Mokelumne in 1998 and the Santa Ana in 2002. So this was a big, BIG win for us peon citizens.

Yes, the order approved Tuesday is specific to flood waters on the river. And, as the districts that oppose this have pointed out to me several times, that won’t get us a year-round river, just a floodtime river, which we’d have anyway.

But the order went beyond flood waters. It leaves the door open to continue arguing over water that the Kern Delta Water District forfeited per a court ruling in 2007. That water would get us closer to a year-round river than we’ve been in decades.

It is now up to us citizens to stay vigilant and keep sticking our noses in the process at every opportunity as things move forward. And believe me, movement is already afoot to try and cloak the process from public scrutiny.

At Tuesday’s meeting Kevin O’Brien, attorney for the Kern Water Bank Authority (which petitioned the state board to find the river not fully appropriated and give any excess water to them, as did Bakersfield, North Kern Water Storage District along with the city of Shafter, Kern County Water Agency and Buena Vista Water Storage District) urged the board to delay voting on the appropriation order for six months and let the various parties reach a settlement privately.

Hey, great idea. Oh wait, the city tried that numerous times over the years and got, well, a bone-dry riverbed.

Even so, Bakersfield’s attorney, Colin Pearce, told me he would assume the city would be willing to negotiate a local solution.

“But any negotiation would have to involve the City Council and input from the public,” he said. “It would have to involve a significant amount of water in the river because that’s what the people want.”

The water districts fighting this would do well to remember that.

The public wants its river back. That’s no small thing as water board commissioner Arthur Baggett Jr. pointed out during his comments at Tuesday’s meeting.

California water law is clear, he said, that water belongs to the people and can’t be allowed to go to waste or for an unreasonable use.

Standards of what constitutes waste and unreasonable use change over time, he reminded the audience, alluding to environmental issues holding more weight now than in the past.

“This is not a static world,” he said.

Indeed, the order states the board will “comply with its obligation to consider environmental and public interest issues” as it considers applications for the water. That may not bode well for the other petitioners who all want any excess water for irrigation and municipal uses.

Only the city of Bakersfield has promised to run it down the riverbed to replenish the aquifer, restore the environment and for public use.

As I said earlier, this is just the beginning of what likely will be a long fight.

In the most immediate future, anyone opposed to the board’s order has 30 days to file a petition for reconsideration. Starting today, the board has 90 days to rule on any such petition. I’m told this part of the process can go on for quite some time.

Any and all petitions for reconsideration have to be decided first before moving to the next step, figuring out how much water is actually out there.

Estimates vary wildly from an average of 60,000 acre feet a year by Bakersfield to more than 2 million acre feet a year by the Kern County Water Agency.

There’s some “proving” that has to go on here, one water board staffer told me.

That won’t be easy considering the near paranoia most districts have about opening up information about the Kern River. Gee, I wonder why that is? (Cough, selling river water outside the basin, cough, cough.)

Throughout this process and again at Tuesday’s meeting, the water districts have tried to cast the city as the villain, as if it’s “stealing” water from rightful users to — gasp! — run in the riverbed. Never mind that they’re all trying to get the water, too, and never mind that the board found there is excess water not being used under a specific right.

O’Brien and the other water lawyers and district officials lamented the many years and potentially millions of dollars they would now be forced to spend on litigation over this issue. If only the city would drop its petition and play nice, the districts implied.

Right back at ya, I say.

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.

Married guys swimming in love's fortunes

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:00:33 PST

Attention all single men: The tables have turned.

In the not-too-distant future instead of catching the game over a bucket of wings at Hooters, you and your buddies may be watching your figures and swapping advice on how to land a wife.

Forget love and companionship. Marriage is now better for a man financially than ever before.

No longer are married guys the sole breadwinners hauling wife and kids along on one income.

More women, married and single, are working. In fact, we’re on track to pass men as the dominant workforce group in the near future.

We’ve already passed men in numbers of college graduates.

While our incomes still lag behind those of men in comparable jobs (we typically make 71 percent of what men earn for the same work), we’re closing the gap fast.

Women’s earnings grew 44 percent between 1970 and 2007 compared to 6 percent for men, according to a study on the state of marriage released last month by the Pew Research Center.

From a purely pocketbook point of view, marriage is good for men.

The numbers hold true in heavily blue collar Bakersfield as well, so it’s not just an “ivy league” phenomenon.

Between 2000 and 2007, married guys in Bakersfield went from 11 percent more likely than all men to have household incomes of $75,000 and above to 25 percent more likely, according to The Californian’s Scarborough Research.

Married men were 21 percent more likely to own a home, up from 16 percent more likely in 2000.

They were 24 percent more likely to hold investments compared to only 10 percent more likely than all men in 2000 to have investments.

The likelihood of a married man in Bakersfield having a college degree compared to all men went from 18 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2007. (Probably trying to keep up with wifey.)

It’s not just that being a married guy is fiscally better. Apparently, being a single guy is worse, according to that Pew research.

It found that median household incomes for married men, married women and unmarried women were 60 percent higher in 2007 than 1970.

For unmarried men, however, the increase was only 16 percent.

Even married men who only had high school diplomas saw their household incomes grow faster than unmarried men with college degrees, 33 percent to 15 percent.

Sure, as a single dude you’re foot loose and fancy free but that may be ‘cause it’s all you can afford.

Sorry if it sounds like I’m gloating. I’m trying not to.

But if you haven’t been a single gal from a certain era (and I really hope things have changed for young women today) you can’t fully appreciate the maddening drip, drip drip in our cultural background telling you that no matter how successful you are, without a man you’re half a step away from being a bag lady.

Now, who knows? Maybe at the next wedding you attend, it’ll be the guys tussling like idiots on the dance floor for the garter instead of the bouquet smackdown of the past.

One cautionary note, however, research shows that after the knot is tied, women still do the majority of housework regardless of earnings.

According to 2008 figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for married folks, women spent an average 2.53 hours per day on household activities (cleaning, cooking, bills, lawn, etc.), while men spent 1.5 hours per day.

And that’s more than married men ever did before — about .85 hours a day back in 1976, according to a 2008 report by the Michigan Institute for Social Research.

What are guys doing while we’re cooking and scrubbing? Bureau of Labor stats show that while women spent an average 4.44 hours a day on “leisure and sports,” which includes TV, men spent an average 5.17 hours per day.

Aside from being patently unfair, guys, you’re missing a key entré to, ahem, entré.

Married women report they’re much more interested in S-E-X if they can get a little help with the housework.

So, in summation: Single men might want to step it up this Valentine’s Day and show the gal of their dreams they’re worth the gamble.

And married guys — pick up a mop!

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

Love for the river pours out of Bakersfield citizens

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:37:30 PST

Holy moly!

I really don’t know what else to say after seeing the responses sent to the State Water Resources Control board regarding the Kern River.

More than 150 individual letters, note cards and emails.

And nearly four thousand — 3,850 to be exact! — signed copies of the petition The Californian ran over seven days.

It was crucial for the board to hear from us before their Feb. 16 meeting, when they’ll vote on whether to approve a recommended order finding there is unappropriated water on the river, the first step of a long journey to get that water back in the riverbed.

Well, I don’t think anyone can say Bakersfield sat silent on this one!

I had hoped the citizens would speak up, but I was astounded by how much you all want your river back.

I wasn’t the only one awed and humbled by the responses, some hand-written by people who remember swimming in the Kern in the 1940s and ’50s, others formal emails from newbies just arrived in Bakersfield from other parts of the state.

Even Merle Haggard came through for the Kern, albeit a little late, sending the paper two petitions on Friday one signed by himself and the other by his wife, Theresa Haggard.

“It’s absolutely amazing to me that there’s this much public support for this project,” said Florn Core, former manager of Bakersfield’s Water Resources department who had spearheaded the city’s efforts to get water in the river.

“This should tell everyone who’s been poking at the city that it’s the people in this community who want to see this happen,” he added in reference to the digs some water district officials have taken at the city for pursuing this water.

Speaking of that, I just can’t let the latest one go unanswered.

Richard Diamond, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District wrote that I made false and misleading statements regarding North Kern’s rights to the river.

He says his district had purchased through an agreement “the right in perpetuity” to water accruing under a variety of different rights now owned by the city.

Yes, North Kern does have a contract to use water owned by the city. That’s not the same as OWNING a water right. The city still owns the rights to the water.

But even if Diamond’s sleight of words on the meaning of water rights were correct, we’re not talking about that city water. North Kern will still get that water in full per its contract.

The water rights in question were owned by Kern Delta Water Storage District.

North Kern got into a scrap with Kern Delta 15 years ago over Kern Delta’s so-called “first-point” rights. (The city is the only other first-point rights holder.)

North Kern had been using some of Kern Delta’s first-point water. Then Kern Delta began using more of its water, dipping into what North Kern had been taking. So North Kern sued, saying Kern Delta hadn’t been fully using all its water rights so some of those were forfeit.

Lucky North Kern. They won.

But the court did not agree that Kern Delta’s rights would automatically go to North Kern.

The court said the question of whether there’s unappropriated water on the river belonged in the lap of the State Water Resources Control Board, which also would decide where it would go.

So far, the state board has come up with a recommended order that there is unappropriated water on the Kern as evidenced by high flow years in which water is allowed to slip away into the California Aqueduct. They also left the door open to continue arguing whether the Kern Delta forfeiture means that water is also available.

Oh, and the order indicates that North Kern failed to establish that the forfeited water had, in fact, been properly diverted and used per valid rights known as pre-1914 rights.

So if Diamond feels I’m wrong, I guess I’m in good company, since I’m just repeating what the experts at the state board have said.

I find Diamond’s last zinger, “In the end, everyone will suffer the consequences of the city’s plan to turn local control of the Kern River over to the state,” pretty hypocritical.

Citing the city as some kind of spoiler here has become a real “talking point” among the opposition, including North Kern, Kern Water Bank, Kern County Water Agency and Buena Vista Water Storage District.

I suppose it’s meant to cast the city in some kind of “big government/anti-local control” light, but it’s just plain silly.

North Kern started this whole thing by suing Kern Delta. Once the water’s status was thrown into question, every district listed above filed a petition with the state to open up the river and, if there was water, give it to them.

The city, on behalf of us crazy river-lovin’ citizens, is just trying to stay in the mix.

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

Family, environmentalists strike green deal

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:31:53 PST

By LOIS HENRY
Californian columnist
lhenry@bakersfield.com

The local Sierra Club chapter and the Nickel family have reached an agreement on global warming measures for the massive Rio Bravo Ranch development just west of the mouth of the Kern River canyon.

“The Sierra Club is a tough negotiator,” Nickel patriarch Jim Nickel said. “But the end result is we achieved what we were looking for as far as long-term goals and our vision for the ranch.”

The development, which has already received the OK from the Bakersfield City Council, will cover 1,878 acres and contain 4,688 residences and half a million square feet of commercial uses.

Nickel said full buildout will take many years.

“We never thought we’d develop overnight,” he said. “This is good planing on a big piece of property and it’s smart to do it early.”

Sierra Club Kern-Kaweah chapter vice chair Gordon Nipp had been frustrated by Bakersfield’s lack of mitigation requirements for greenhouse gas emissions when it approved the Rio Bravo project.

“We hope this agreement sets a new benchmark for climate change mitigation for large developments,” he said in a statement. The Sierra Club was largely responsible for pushing mitigation measures for air pollution caused by development as well as farmland set-asides.

As a result of the Rio Bravo negotiations, the Nickel family has promised a number of new measures:

• Residential buildings will accumulate 90 points on the Build It Green checklist and commercial buildings will build to LEED Silver standards.

• At least 25 percent of the residences will have solar photovoltaic panels.

• The Nickels will build $1 million worth of solar photovoltaic panels to generate electricity for their agricultural operations.

• They will prepare a new Focused EIR relating to global climate change before any building occurs.

Arguments against a river don't hold water

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:53:04 PST

It’s been more than a few years since I was called to the principal’s office. But the feeling came right back when the Buena Vista Water Storage District general manager emailed to say he and his board would like me to attend their Tuesday meeting in Buttonwillow to discuss my recent columns on the Kern River.

He might as well have added, “young LADY.”

Ulp!

OK, it wasn’t that bad; they were very polite.

And general manager Dan Bartel very politely lectured me that my columns supporting the city of Bakersfield’s quest for loose water on the Kern River really made his hair curl.

In particular, he disagreed most vehemently with my view that if the State Water Resources Control Board rules this water is unappropriated Feb. 16 and gives it to the city to run in the river channel, it won’t hurt agriculture.

“Yes, it would hurt ag,” he argued at the meeting and later during a lengthy phone call. “It’s going to hurt somebody.

“If there’s 50,000 to 60,000 acre feet a year that’s currently being distributed to some users, the truth of the matter is if it’s taken away, it’s going to impact someone, some business owner somewhere.”

We argued about a lot of other things and eventually agreed this Kern River issue means a lot of water lawyers’ kids will attend fine colleges, drive fancy cars and have grand weddings long before it’s ever settled.

Back to his main point — that this could hurt agriculture.

That is the single largest concern of most people I’ve spoken with about this fight. No one in Kern County wants to do anything to harm ag. We know where our bread is buttered.

I respectfully disagree with Bartel for a number of reasons.

The Kern is divvied up by different rights holders. It’s very complex but lets just look at “first-point” and “second-point” rights holders.

There are only two first-pointers, Kern Delta Water Storage District and the City of Bakersfield. Buena Vista is a second-point right holder.

North Kern Water Storage District is not a right holder, but has had a contract with the city since 1952 to use some of its first-point water.

About a dozen years ago, North Kern sued Kern Delta, saying it wasn’t using all its water rights. In 2007, a court agreed and Kern Delta had to forfeit some of those very precious first-point rights. Now the state board has to decide if the forfeiture means there is unappropriated water and, if so, who should get it.

Which is where we find ourselves now.

Bartel’s contention is that North Kern farmers have been using that water in a “junior rights” capacity. So if the water is taken away, they’re hosed.

No such rights have ever been established, however, and my contention is if they’ve been using that water, they’ve done so improperly. The right should be established and users should pay the rights holder for that water.

Bartel agreed with me on that last bit, but then we got caught in another loop.

I say if the water is run in the river channel, it benefits growers, including North Kern, by replenishing our seriously depleted aquifer.

Yes, but if farmers are shorted surface water, they’ll increase pumping defeating any gain to the aquifer, Bartel countered.

We went back and forth but I still say water in the river is a greater overall benefit than if any of the other four petitioners vying for the water gets it, including Buena Vista.

When the scent of possible loose water on the Kern first wafted up from that 2007 court decision, the city, Buena Vista, North Kern with the City of Shafter, Kern Water Bank and Kern County Water Agency all petitioned the state to A) revise the status of the river to not fully appropriated and B) give them the water.

All the other petitioners would use the water for irrigation, storage or municipal uses. And there would be nothing to keep any of them from selling it out of the county.

The city is doing exactly what each of the other petitioners is doing, except it’s the only one promising to keep the water in county by running it down the riverbed.

Which brought up another argument from Bartel, and this is one I’ve also heard from KCWA General Manager Jim Beck and others — if the city wants a river so bad, why doesn’t it just use its own water? (It’s actually us citizens who want water in the river, but lets not quibble.)

Indeed, the city has rights to an average 160,000 acre feet a year of pristine Kern River water. That’s a lot.

In order to pay for those rights, purchased from Tenneco in the 1970s, though, the city entered into long-term contracts with several ag districts. The water was purchased with the express intent of accommodating Bakersfield’s growth. Since the real estate crash there may not be as much of a need right away. But like all good water stories, there’s another catch.

The contracts allowed the city to short contractors in dry years as long as they make it up later. So even after 2012, the city will owe its contractors another 100,000 acre feet or more.

Bartel, Beck and others also argued that that the city “chooses” to deliver water to second point users in a lined canal rather than the river channel.

“The city cries that it can’t put water in the river and they’re the ones who decide to divert it into a canal,” he said.

I asked former Water Resources Manager Florn Core about that.

“The city couldn’t meet the second-point demand if we ran the water down the river because of seepage,” he said. “The city’s obligation is to deliver second-point water ‘undiminished.’”

That means the city has to absorb any evaporation or seepage losses, which can add up to more than 20,000 acre feet a year, and could endanger their other demands.

Ah, the twists and turns of the Kern are never ending.

I truly appreciate Bartel’s time, his arguments and his concerns. But I remain steadfast in my support of the city’s efforts.

Don’t feel bad, Dan — there’s a long line of frustrated principals ahead of you.

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

No time to lose in fight for the river

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:24:52 PST

You may have noticed that The Californian is neck deep in a campaign to urge the State Water Resources Control board to approve a staff recommendation finding that the Kern River is not fully appropriated, meaning there’s loose water on the river.

If they approve the recommendation, the City of Bakersfield has applied for that water to run down the riverbed.

Imagine, a river in our river.

We have until Feb. 9 (tomorrow!) to get our comments to the state board, which will vote on the issue Feb. 16.

That means you have to get it in gear NOW! TODAY!!!!!

You can sign the petition, which you can find in today’s Californian, and send it off on your own, or drop it off at our downtown office (17th and Eye streets) and we’ll FedEx it for you.

But you MUST DO IT TODAY!!!

Meanwhile, I’ve had a number of questions that have popped up and, with an assist from Florn Core, former water resources manager for Bakersfield, I thought I’d answer those here.

Q: Will running water in the riverbed cost taxpayers more money?

A: No. The State Board assesses a fee on an annual basis for keeping the permit to use the water, but the fee is relatively small. Any costs for handling and delivering the water to the river channel will most likely be absorbed within the city’s water operations department and that department is not taxpayer funded. The city paid the initial filing fees to apply for the water and is providing staff time out of the Water Resources Department non-taxpayer enterprise operation.

Q: If we get the water, will we have a river year-round?

A: Not quite, but close. Several factors will be in play to achieve a year-round flow through Bakersfield. First and foremost will be whether the state awards some or all of the water in question to the city. Remember, there are other entities that have filed in competition for the water. Next would be the annual availability of the water based on snowpack. The Kern River has one of the most widely fluctuating annual flow records in the state. Assuming “full” award to the city, average runoff conditions and use of the city’s storage facilities, a flowing river could be available most months of the year. The city may augment the flow with its existing Kern River rights in low months, but that is a decision the city will need to make.

Q: Will running this water down the river hurt ag?

A: The sandy Kern River channel through Bakersfield is the entryway to feed the vast aquifer that lies below. Water flowing in the river channel naturally percolates into the our groundwater basin. The aquifer underlies a huge swath of land and is heavily pumped by both ag and urban users. River water flowing in the channel benefits both interests. Keeping water in the river also keeps it from being transported out of the area.

Q: Where is this water coming from?

A: Physically, the water is from the melting snows of the Kern River watershed, which is a 2,400-square-mile basin ranging from Mount Whitney to Bakersfield. The water in question before the State Water Resources Control Board is from high-flow years and water rights held by a local water district that were “forfeited” due to non-use. A court proceeding declared the water forfeited and said the state should decide the fate of that water.

Q: Why doesn’t the city use its own water to run in the riverbed?

A: The city does own rights to a substantial amount of Kern River water that is tied up in long-term contracts to several ag districts until 2012. Those water rights were purchased in the 1970s with the express purpose of the water going to homes. So once those contracts are up, some water may be available for the river channel, but much of it will be used to accommodate Bakersfield’s growth.

Q: Considering the state’s reduction in water deliveries to farmers because of the endangered delta smelt, shouldn’t we reserve this Kern River water for our farmers?

A: The proposed river flow program would benefit agricultural users and keep Kern River water for local users. It would prevent the exportation of this high-quality water source to areas outside the county. As stated previously, water percolating into the underlying aquifer benefits all users over the groundwater basin.

Q: Will running water in the river year-round draw down Isabella Lake?

A: The state board’s decision will not have any effect on Lake Isabella levels. The issue is where the water is diverted and where it ends up on the valley floor. In fact, if the city of Bakersfield prevails and the extra water is integrated into current city supplies, there is a possibility that more water may be stored in the reservoir over certain periods in the winter and spring. But again, overall, there will be no effect on Isabella levels due to the water-in-the-river program. The current hot issue of the U.S. Army Corps’ restriction on reservoir levels for the next seven or eight years (or until the remedy is in place), is the real limiter on how big the lake is, year-round. Everyone should continue writing and communicating with Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Jim Costa to keep the pressure on the Corps to fix the dam as quickly as possible.

Tell the State Water Resources Control Board what you think...but do it NOW

Here are the high points to hit:
• You agree with staff’s finding that the there is water available on the Kern River.
• You support the City of Bakersfield’s application to run available water down the riverbed.
• Running water in the riverbed will help replenish the aquifer, restore the natural environment, provide recreation.

Send comments to:

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Or by fax to:
916-341-5620

Or by e-mail to:
commentletters@ waterboards.ca.gov

Subject line must include “COMMENT LETTER - 2/16/10 BOARD MEETING ITEM: ORDER - KERN RIVER”

Any faxed or e-mailed items MUST be followed by a mailed or delivered hard copy with an original signature.

You may also speak at the Feb. 16 meeting but you have to limit your statement to three minutes and must focus only on the recommended order.

Read the draft order at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/kernriver_fas/index.shtml

Kicking us off our own land just flat wrong

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:22:18 PST

I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but apparently no one’s listening and since I have nothing better to do, here I go again:

We, the public, must have access to our own land.

That is, or it should be, the guiding principle behind managing public lands.

Alas, administrators at the Sequoia National Forest apparently disagree.

I mentioned a couple columns ago that I thought they did a relatively good job with the Isabella Lake travel plan, negotiating between vehicle access to the lakeshore and environmental demands.

But the seasonal trail closures included in that plan go way, way too far, aren’t needed and, in some instances, appear to favor one group of users over all the rest.

The way it’s worked up till now is Forest Service roads were closed to motorized traffic based on weather. Snow on the ground? Trails closed. No snow? Good to go.

In this area, there typically isn’t a lot of snow, even in winter, so trails have only been closed sporadically and the system has worked well for years.

Under the plan recently adopted by the Forest Service, however, more than 180 miles of trails in the Greenhorn Mountains north of Isabella Lake will be closed — snow or not — from Dec. 31 to April 15.

This isn’t just going to affect off-highway vehicles, so don’t think you’re exempt.

If you have to drive on a Forest Service road to almost any trailhead in the Greenhorns, whether you intend to hike, cycle, horseback ride or hit your favorite secret fishing hole, you’re either hoofing it in or you’re not going.

Some trailheads and use areas are miles off main roads.

The popular roadside fishing spot Bull Run Creek, for instance, will require a five-mile hike.

If you like taking your horses to Evans Flat Campground, you’ll have to park on the paved road and ride eight miles just to get into camp.

Accessing the famous Just Outstanding mountain bike trail will require cyclists to pedal three miles uphill first.

Of course, off-highway vehicle users are flat out of luck.

And a new wrinkle just discovered by Chris Horgan, president of Stewards of the Sequoia, a group dedicated to multiple use of forest lands, seems to show the Forest Service is favoring hikers over other groups.

After closely examining the many miles of roads closures in the plan, he found that a section of road 24S15 won’t be subject to the seasonal closure. This road just happens to lead to the popular Sunday Peak hiking trail.

“Apparently the Forest Service has the time to open and close this one road as needed based on weather for the hikers, or perhaps the vehicles the hikers drive do not cause the kind of damage that everyone else’s vehicle cause,” he said.

Over in the Breckenridge Mountains, on the other hand, only one road will be subject to seasonal closure, the Mill Creek road No. 31E78. And its closure will be extended to May 1.

This is a very popular trail for hikers, particularly in the late spring during wildflower season, Horgan pointed out.

“Only this one trail is being closed to allow exclusive hiking use,” he said. “It’s very selective and indicates the closures are not based on weather concerns at all.”

I contacted the Forest Service for comment and was told Forest Supervisor Tina Terrell would get back to me, but I never heard from her.

Here’s the deal, this is a bad plan.

But it’s already been adopted. Follow up meetings and public outcry haven’t budged the the Forest Service at all. So now it’s in the “appeal” stage.

Horgan said his group is definitely appealing and Supervisor Jon McQuiston told me the county is also filing an appeal.

I’m urging all of you interested in access to your own lands to appeal as well. But there’s a trick. You can only appeal if you’re a “stakeholder,” meaning you made comments during the environmental review process.

That stinks, if you ask me. It’s just one more way to keep the public out of its own government’s business. Lame.

But there is a way around it. You can send your thoughts to Horgan and he can add them to his appeal.

You only have until Feb. 10, this coming Wednesday, so you’ll have to get busy.

I understand that these lands have to be protected. We can’t just let people run wild and tear ‘em up without a thought to the future.

But arbitrary closure is wrong on so many levels.

First, if people aren’t allowed to use the land, bring their kids up and create memories that last a lifetime, they won’t give a rip about it.

Which kind of eliminates any incentive for us to hand our tax dollars to the Forest Service to protect beautiful, pristine places we aren’t allowed to see.

Second, and more important, it’s OUR LAND.

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

HELP STOP THIS PLAN

You can send your comments supporting Stewards of the Sequoia’s appeal of the Forest Service’s pending closure of 181 miles of trails in the Greenhorn Mountains several ways.
Send your comments, with your name and contact information by Feb. 10, directly to Chris Horgan, president of Stewards at:
chris@stewardsofthesequoia.org

Or Stewards has set up a website to facilitate letters to Cong. Kevin McCarthy urging him to send a letter to the Sequoia National Forest asking them not to implement the closure.
The website is at:
http://www.savethetrails.us/Default.aspx?PetitionID=43

Or you can contact McCarthy directly at:
http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/

Or by mail
Congressman Kevin McCarthy
4100 Empire Drive Suite 150
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Or by phone
661 327-3611

Scott Cox invading The Californian Monday!!!

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:30 PST

Local radio personality Scott Cox, KERN 1180 AM, will do his show Monday from 6 to 9 a.m. on the steps of The Bakersfield Californian to promote the campaign to “Take back our river.”

Come down to 1707 Eye Street, meet Scott, sign a petition and help get the river flowing again!

It's up to you to take back our river

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:01:58 PST

Remember when I told you a few months ago to keep your powder dry on the quest for water in the Kern River?

Well, it’s go time. FIRE AT WILL!

Wait! I forgot this was Kern County. I mean fire off e-mails, letters, postcards and faxes to let the State Water Resources Control Board know how much we support the recommendation to declare the Kern River “not fully appropriated.”

We have until noon Feb. 9 to make our voices heard. Then the board will meet Feb. 16 in Sacramento to give a thumbs up or down on the recommendation.

If it’s a thumbs up, (I’m not even considering the alternative right now) then the real war begins and we all need to commit to winning each battle.

You can bet I will be right here reminding you, cajoling you, outright nagging you to be a full participant in this effort.

The Kern River has been locked up and hidden from the citizens of this city long enough.

We have a right to our river and we want it back.

This all started when North Kern Water Storage District sued Kern Delta Water Storage district saying Kern Delta had forfeited some of its Kern River water and North Kern wanted it.

A short 12 years later, the court agreed Kern Delta had forfeited some of its rights. But whether the river was no longer fully appropriated, as the state had declared in 1964, and who should get any loose water was up to the state, according to the ruling.

The city of Bakersfield quickly applied to the state to find that water was available and, if so, the city wanted it to run down the riverbed.

That’s not a frivolous thing.

The aquifer for this water basin, which has served cities and farms for generations, is fed by the Kern River running its natural course. Water levels are (or were) highest under the riverbed and the water spreads to all users from there. Through these years of drought, however, that has reversed as no water has run in the bed and farmers have had to draw more groundwater as state supplies dried up.

That mound of water under the riverbed has become a trough. Outlying groundwater is now flowing in toward the river, users are having to dig deeper wells and some wells have simply dried up.

Water in the river is essential to us all.

Now we’re on the cusp of stage one to get that water back. The state board first must find there is loose water. After that, the fight is on for who gets it. Five other entities — Kern Water Bank Authority, Kern County Water Agency, North Kern along with the city of Shafter and Buena Vista Water Storage District — have also applied for the water.

So this will not be a quick or easy fight.

The city’s quest for a river has been years in the making.

Back in the 1970s, city voters passed a bond to help pay for the Cross Valley canal, a treatment plant for drinking water and 77,000 acre feet of water a year for city use. Improvement District 4 (ID4) was created to run the plant with operation and maintenance costs paid through selling the treated water and property and well pumping taxes.

It was all administered by the Kern County Water Agency with the understanding that more than half of that 77,000 acre feet of water would be run down the river channel to replenish the aquifer.

The plant has contracts to deliver 25,000 acre feet a year to serve its wholesale customers. And even though we don’t get all 77,000 acre feet each year (due to drought or endangered species issues in the delta), there’s often a lot left over to run down the river.

That hasn’t happened most years.

While Jim Beck, general manager for the Agency, told me the river channel is the priority recharge area, that water doesn’t usually make it below Manor Street, leaving a dry ugly scar cutting through the majority of town.

“Our goal is to recharge the groundwater as far up into the district as possible,” he said.

I would have a better time accepting his reasoning if ID4 didn’t stretch all the way out to Allen Road. That means those of us who live west of Manor are paying for water we don’t use in our taps and we never see in the riverbed.

Essentially, it’s bye-bye river.

The city then cut a deal with the Agency in about 2000 for winter flows from the state that came at the wrong time for growers but could be exchanged for water the city had rights to in Isabella Lake and run in the river at least during the summer months.

“That worked fairly well until about 2005 when the Agency sent a letter to the city terminating the flow agreement,” former Bakersfield Water Resources Manager Florn Core told me. “They were expanding the treatment plant and said there would be no water available.” The plant, though, wouldn’t be operational until 2010 or later.

Bye-bye river, again.

The city also tried teaming up with the Agency in 2000 to lobby the state to get $23 million of a $1.9 billion water bond (Proposition 13) to build a series of wells and pumps to have a “recirculating river” during the summer months.

About $3 million was set for the river project with the rest going to a laundry list of improvements for the Agency. Again, the Agency controlled the money.

The wells and pumps were built, but have never been turned on because it would cost about $1 million a year. The city didn’t have the money.

Here’s what galls me though. As we reported in 2003, $1.55 million of the original $23 million allotted to the Agency had not been “earmarked,” meaning it was left over. But still the Agency wouldn’t kick in to run the pumps.

Bye-bye river, again.

Well, here’s our chance to take back what we never should have lost in the first place.

I know a lot of you will say, “What about ag?”, particularly during this drought and under regulatory issues keeping more water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

But it’s clear from the staff report at the State Water Resources Control Board there’s Kern River water available. It’s not being used for ag.

We a have right to our own public waterways through something called the public trust doctrine.

River flows feed the aquifer that benefit both the city and ag. We’ve given up our share for for long enough.

So let’s hear it Bakersfield, tell the state to GIVE OUR RIVER BACK!

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

TELL THE STATE YOU WANT OUR RIVER BACK

Submit written comments supporting the recommended order finding unappropriated water on the Kern River by noon Feb. 9.

Send comments to:
Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Or by fax to:
(916) 341-5620
Or by email to:
commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov

Subject line must include “COMMENT LETTER - 2/16/10 BOARD MEETING ITEM: ORDER - KERN RIVER”
Any faxed or emailed items MUST be followed by a mailed or delivered hard copy with an original signature.

You may also speak at the Feb. 16 meeting but you have to limit your statement to three minutes and must focus only on the recommended order.

Read the draft order at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/kernriver_fas/index.shtml

You can check who’s made comments on the Kern River issue here:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/comments/index.shtml

"No hablo" not good for taxpayers

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:34:32 PST

Oh look, I’m about to step on a bilingual hornets nest.

Lucky for me I’m not allergic to stinging criticism. Here goes...

The head honchos at the Kern County Assessor-Recorder’s office sent out a memo earlier this month limiting “translation” time for bilingual employees to 20 minutes per day per employee.

After that, “no translation services will be availalbe for the rest of the day.”

Se acabó el tiempo! (Time’s UP!)

I have a couple problems with that.

One, the county pays a stipend to bilingual employees for those skills. Not just for 20 minutes a day but for their entire 40 hours. It’s not much of a stipend, $25 to $50 extra per pay period, but they still get it. They also have to apply and pass a test to get the stipend.

Two, and more importantly, if a homeowner owner needs information about how the government is taxing their property, I expect the government to respond quickly and effectively, not turn them away because of some arbitrary time limit on their ability to communicate — in whatever language.

Yes, yes, yes. I agree that people who come to this country ought to learn English. It benefits everyone, most particularly the immigrant.

But sticking your head in a big ol’ pile of “English only!” sand doesn’t change the fact that we have a very large population of Spanish speakers (not to mention Punjabi and others) here who work, own property, pay taxes and generally participate in all walks of society.

I’m not advocating that every single piece of written or spoken material be bilingual. But when it comes to government interaction, clear communication is essential — especially when its non elective, like taxation.

I asked Assessor-Recorder Jim Fitch about the memo and he explained it’s really a resource issue.

“We’re down from 119 to 99 people, and our workload has doubled and even tripled in some areas,” he said.

That’s mostly due to the real estate crash and the need to reassess properties at lower levels.

And, of course, more people are calling and coming to the office for information. At least two or three a day (on average) are Spanish speaking.

This isn’t simple stuff, and it’s not uncommon for a taxpayer to work with Assessor staff

for an hour or more to get issues resolved.
With only four bilingual staffers — two auditors, one auditor/assessor and one clerk — accommodating Spanish speakers was taking a toll, according to Fitch.

“I got complaints from staff saying they couldn’t get their own work done because they’re constantly interrupted to go to the counter. The stipend is really not a lot of money, particularly if they’re falling behind on their own work, which is what they’re judged on.”

Besides, said Asisstant Assessor Anthony Ansolabehere, working the counter isn’t the job of assessors and auditors.

“It was frustrating for them,” he told me. “They went to school and got certified to do this job and then they’re stuck at the front counter being an interpretor all day.”

Which brings up the county’s bilingual pay policy.

The criteria is position based, County Administrative Officer John Nilon told me.

Indeed, the policy states “The position must be in a work setting with a demonstrated flow of clients, phone calls, or correspondence where bilingual skills are regularly needed to meet the needs of the public, such as a direct public contact position.”

I would think that applies much more to counter help than assessors and auditors.

But even so, assessors and auditors are experts who can directly help customers.

They’re not just passing words back and forth, i.e. translating, they’re solving taxpayer’s questions and concerns.

Fitch told me his stance has been that translating is “strictly voluntary” on the part of the employee. He can’t force someone with bilingual skills to translate, he said, and he certainly can’t lay off a monolingual employee to hire a bilingual one.

“It’s truly a dilemma,” he said.

Yes and no.

The county’s bilingual pay policy puts the onus on department heads to identify the need for services in a second language and work with the CAO and Personnel departments to recruit for and fairly compensate bilingual workers.

Seems until now, crunch time, that’s been an afterthought at the Assessor’s office.

It’s been whispered to me that the real crux of this issue lies in that “English only!” attitude I spoke of earlier. As a side note, Fitch did tell me that when his sons did business in Japan they didn’t feel anyone “owed” them an English translation.
But both he and Ansolebehere assured me they are absolutely committed to serving homeowners no matter what language they speak.

In fact, Fitch said he would clarify the time limit memo to say that if staff is too busy to attend a non-English speaker when they call or walk in, they should make an appointment to help them later.

That’s good because when I spoke with Supervisors Mike Maggard and Michael Rubio, both were overwhelmingly against any kind of roadblocks to communication.

Maggard suggested setting aside certain days or times of the day when Spanish speakers can be assured they will get help. Rubio talked about perhaps a roving translator to work between departments.

“Any such policy that limits anyone’s ability to communicate with a constituent is just another example of bureacratic government not making sense and eroding the confidence of the public that government is there to work on behalf of them,” Rubio said.

He was glad Fitch was having second thoughts about his memo.

Yo tambien. (Me too.)

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

Perhaps a diagram would help

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:42:58 PST

The Obama administration’s water cred with valley farmers was shaky enough after it stymied the so-called “two gates” experiment earlier this month, saying it needed more scientific study.

The experiment was an attempt to keep more endangered delta smelt away from massive pumps that bring water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to farms and towns throughout California. It was hoped the project might ease current pumping restrictions.

Expectations were high after Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar made positive comments about two gates last year. But then he pulled the rug out from under it citing a need for more study.

Okaaaaay. But aren’t experiments scientific studies, by their nature? Moving on.

Now Salazar has apparently stepped in it again afer issuing a press release this week outlining “additional actions to assist water users in California” on the part of his agency.

This mostly affects users of the federal Central Valley Project, not the State Water Project, which services Kern County’s westside farmers and provides some drinking water to Bakersfield. But locals were keenly interested in Salazar’s “additional actions.”

He announced the Bureau of Reclamation would make 350,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of water available for westside farmers March 1 and said that recent storms had created a near “average” water year.

Except this isn’t new water and it’s not even new news.

This is water Westlands Water District in Fresno County had purchased and stored in the San Luis Reservoir over the last two years and the Bureau had already notified them in

July they would have full use of that water starting March 1.

“When I first read the secretary’s press release it sounded like he’d found 400,000 acre feet of new water for this portion of the valley and I knew our growers would immediately wonder where it came from and why isn’t the state project getting any of that water,” Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency told me.

After figuring out there was no real action being taken by Salazar, Beck, like most growers, district people and politicians I spoke with, was “disheartened” to say the least.

“It’s very misleading and shows a real lack of understanding,” Beck said. He was also concerned about the administration’s level of “straightforwardness.”

When Salazar was in Fresno last June he said he would push the Bureau to issue water guidelines to growers earlier and that did happen a month later, said Sarah Woolf, spokeswoman for Westlands.

“This is just sidestepping the fact that it’s raining, however they’re still going to announce a zero allocation on February 15 and they’re doing nothing to help the water supply for south of the delta users.”

She said there is flexibility in the system to move more water south and still adhere to biological opinions protecting the smelt and salmon, but the administration refuses to budge in that direction.

Yes, Salazar knew the 350,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of water was previously bought and paid for, I was told by an Interior Department spokeswoman.

“We’re not trying to say this is new water,” Kendra Barkoff said.

Salazar had urged the Bureau to let farmers know they’d have access to this water much earlier, she said.

“It’s something he’s been working on for some time.”

But that happened in July, so what’s new here?

She said she’d check that and get back to me. Then I got this:

“Below is a clarification on the press release we issued yesterday.

“Yesterday’s announcement was intended to provide better and earlier guidance to the affected communities about the availability of water in 2010.”

I still don’t understand why they needed to issue a press release about an action that was taken six months ago. But then, I don’t work for the government.

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