 |
News and Views **************************************************************** Letters to the Editor June 8, 2008
MISLEADING HEADLINE
EDITOR: Apparently The Press Democrat has injected its opinion on the front page and called it news. In the 5th District supervisor race, the two winners (Efren Carrillo and Rue Furch) are said in a headline to "mirror the Democratic run for the White House."
This headline seems misleading and incorrect in that it seems to impart the new magic of Barack Obama to Efren Carrillo and the tired old ways of doing business to Rue Furch. This, at the least, gives the appearance of being biased.
The reality, as I see it, is that Efren Carillo is backed by the same old business interests that have been on the political scene for years. Rue Furch, on the other hand, calls for a conciliatory open approach that meets the needs of individuals not businesses.
So, as I see it, Rue is trying to bring a new constituent-involved approach and Efren is apparently going to be backing the interests of the large corporations in the area.
If that is the case, then I think the front page headline has done an injury to the concept of political fair play.
JOHN LYHNE Guerneville _____________________________________________________________________ http://www.sonomanews.com/articles/2008/06/14/news/doc48488ca01be87746254085.txt June 6, 2008
Brown, Pier in runoff Low turnout By Bill Hoban INDEX-TRIBUNE MANAGING EDITOR
First District Supervisor Valerie Brown faces a runoff election in November - probably with challenger Will Pier.
With all 109 precincts reporting in Tuesday's election, Brown led the four-person race with 9,422 votes, or 44.2 percent of the vote, while Pier finished a distant second with 4,796 votes, or 22.5 percent, but because Brown didn't receive 50 percent-plus-one, she doesn't win the race outright. David Reber was third with 4,335 votes, or 20.4 percent, and perennial candidate Lawrence Wiesner finished a distant fourth with 2,705 votes, or 12.7 percent.
Because of the uncounted mail-in ballots that were deposited on election day, it could be two weeks before Brown finds out if she'll face Pier or Reber in the November election. Brown wasn't sure how many votes are uncounted, but Pier estimated it could be as many as 3,000 to 4,000 votes.
Despite being an incumbent and winning two elections handily, Brown said she wasn't surprised she didn't receive 50 percent-plus-one to avoid a November runoff.
"There were four candidates in the race ... we had seven debates and there was $70,000 being spent against me," she said. "We knew it would be difficult."
Even though there are only 461 votes separating Pier and Reber, Brown said she thought the uncounted votes would break the way the rest of the election did.
Brown said low voter turnout was a factor, and she expects about 90 percent of the electorate to turn out for the November election which is also a presidential election.
Pier said he thought the 2 percent margin that separates him from Reber was tentative. But he's proceeding as though he's going to be the candidate.
"We're meeting today (Thursday) assuming we'll be in the race. We're regrouping, contacting people, raising funds and making calls," he said.
"It's fun to have a cliffhanger," he added.
Pier said the energy it took to run the campaign was "amazing." And now he's going to have to continue it through the Nov. 4 election.
He too is looking for a lot larger turnout in November and is hopeful he'll pick up Reber and Wiesner supporters.
"This is going to be a very interesting race," he added. "I'm looking forward to it."
Reber said he wouldn't have any comment until after the official results are in.
Note: Article continues at URL printed above.
_________________________________________________________________________
The True Cost of Gravel Mining in the Russian RiverNorthern California River Watch Activist’s BlogPublished June 7, 2008, at: http://www.ncriverwatch.org/wordpress/2008/06/07/the-true-cost-of-gravel-mining-in-the-russian-river-2/
How the public foots the bill, while miners truck out the profits.
[Editor's Note: Syar Industries, Inc. is requesting a permit for continued gravel mining in the Russian River from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 10, at 2:30 pm. The permit was not approved by the Planning Commission in April but this action may be overturned by the Supervisors. Thanks to the Russian Riverkeeper: http://www.russianriverkeeper.org/gravelmining.html for providing information on the background and the true impacts of gravel mining in the river.] Gravel Mining competes with a healthy sustainable watershed, you can import gravel but you can’t import a healthy fishery or plentiful and clean water supplies for our future! What are the Impacts? In simple terms the largest impact from gravel mining is erosion. When material is removed from a river system it is replaced from increased erosion upstream and downstream. Gravel mining has lead to or increased impacts that damage public trust resources, but we pay for many of these impacts. ————— Gravel mining has caused and continues to contribute to severe channel incision (deepening) that has eroded bridges, property, riparian habitat and led to steep to vertical banks that collapse during high flows.
(THIS PICTURE COURTESY OF HEALDSBURG Geyserville Bridge in 1932 had its support piers deeply embedded in riverbed gravel. Well before its New Years 2006 collapse, gravel mining had largely removed over 20 feet of the riverbed that used to support the bridge leading to a $25 million bill to taxpayers. Gravel mining is the major cause of induced incision of tributaries as gravel removed from the mainstem is replaced with increased erosion of tributaries causing wildlife, property and structural impacts. Gravel mining has caused braiding or splitting of the main channel despite the regulations that do not allow gravel mining to upset the rivers form. Gravel mining has contributed to significant reductions in spawning habitat due to increased turbidity and ensuing embededness of gravels in fine materials that prohibits spawning in many mined sections of the River. Gravel mining perpetuates a greatly degraded state of the River causing more bank erosion that is followed by bank armoring that increases channelization of the river and causes loss of riparian habitat. Gravel mining has caused a drop in Middle Reach aquifer levels roughly equivalent to the loss of 450,000 acre feet of water or six and a half times the current SCWA water usage from the river. These graphics show what has occurred in the Middle Reach of the Russian River between Healdsburg and Forestville, over 25 feet of bed level degradation has lead to a major loss of aquifer storage, it has been calculated to be over a hundred thousand acre feet of water. Gravel mining continues to threaten our naturally filtered water supplies by reducing the natural bedload transport and perpetuating a greatly incised river channel.
Another major gravel mining impact we will pay for as taxpayers is dealing with the hundreds of acres of Open Pit gravel mines that are unstable, pollutant filled holes in our future water supplies. Open Pit mines exist in the Middle Reach below Healdsburg and in the Ukiah Valley. Fine sediment filled pits release fine sediment back into river when floods frequently connect Open Pits to the river called “capturing”. Open Pit mines are far deeper than the River and water always finds a low point as will the River some tragic day in the future. All Open Pits have no engineered levees and instead are just left over strips of unmined land…waiting to collapse. Other damage due to gravel mining:
How do we Pay? Gravel mining companies pass along most of the environmental costs called “externalizing costs” of gravel mining to our community that has paid and will continue to pay for decades after mining has ended. In the last 60 years we have paid for:
Our children will be burdened with the future costs from past and current gravel mining in the Russian River such as:
Why hasn’t Russian River mining stopped? All those gravel industry profits make for great political campaign donations to influence local politics. In many other areas of the state and country, if you want to mine gravel from a public resource like a river you pay the state for the privilege of taking away a public trust resource. Not so in the Russian River. Due to a misguided Supreme Court decision (Rehnquist), the Russian River is treated like private property as far as gravel extraction is concerned so miners can take gravel with no compensation to the state or community. This makes for great profits and the desire to protect these profits. Over the last four election cycles, individuals and companies linked to the gravel mining industry have poured tens of thousands of dollars into Sonoma County Board of Supervisors elections. The results are predictable such as one Supervisor saying, “We are sitting on a gold mine (of gravel) and we should use it”. Of course if this person were working for the community they would have thought - We ARE sitting on a gold mine, a sustainable water supply - and made decisions based on the best long-term use of competing resources. _________________________________________________________________________ CIR will steer us in right direction April 3, 2008, Petaluma Argus Courier Guest Commentary By Paul Francis There has been much talk centered on community impact reports these days. Some of it has been accurate, but much of it has been misreported. In most part, the opinions regarding the intentions behind the inception and implementation of this new policy/ordinance have been distorted. One misconception in need of clarification is that the presentation of an idea like the CIR came from a political body or some other form of organized entity outside of Petaluma. In fact, the CIR requirement was part of a larger list of standards drafted by a group of Petaluma residents over a series of weekends and evenings last year to address their concerns regarding large-scale retail development in our city. This document is titled Responsible Retail Development in Petaluma. It can be viewed in complete form at www.ipetitions.com/ petition/keeppetalumaeggcentric. Later in 2007, after seeing an array of irresponsible decisions being made by four of the seven City Council members, Petaluma residents decided they needed to do more to assure that Petaluma's elected council members heed the community's wishes in making economically prudent dec-isions regarding building more chain-store retail along East Washington Street and McDowell Boulevard. In an attempt to get the City Council and staff up to speed with many other communities, similar to Petaluma, across the country that have already adopted the CIR as a method of analyzing "chain store" impacts on their local economies, the residents found it necessary to form a coalition. By bringing together residents from various other community groups, the intent was to address a few basic fundamental concepts of the General Plan and the city doctrine that were being neglected by some of the council members. The above-referenced Responsible Retail Development in Petaluma document was eventually formatted as a petition and circulated through Petaluma last summer. The document garnered overwhelming support and gathered some 1,700 plus signatures and continues to do so. This document, among other things, includes a CIR requirement for projects over 25,000 square feet. Nevertheless, given the document's clarity of intent and the overwhelming support by the residents, there still lies an isolated minority that continues to oppose the CIR by fabricating fallacies to knock it. One of the fallacies that I, personally, would like to clarify is that the adoption of a CIR ordinance would somehow stop development here in Petaluma. This is a ridiculously made assumption and maliciously hypes an extreme-case scenario that simply doesn't exist here in Petaluma. Frankly, it's insulting to put forth an idea that the residents would be so naïve to think that an economic analysis or any other development requirement would halt development in Petaluma forever. After all, why would we take the trouble to request the implementation of these basic guidelines, for development, if we wanted no development? As the largest investors in Petaluma, we the residents want only the best possible opportunities for our community and its future. A responsible economic plan takes us past the short-term payoff of initial lump-sum development fees and perceived tax revenue and brings us closer to building a sustainable local economy that continues to fund the city for generations to come. A community impact report ordinance will help steer us in the right direction economically while promoting the philosophy of why we live here. (Petaluma resident Paul Francis is co-founder of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association. Contact the group at petalumaneighbors@yahoo.com) ______________________________________________________________________ Big-Box Bingo: Petaluma Grapples with Deciding the Entire Impact-both Fiscal and Communal-of Construction. True Cost Petaluma Considers Evaluating Economic Impacts March 5, 2008, North Bay Bohemian News and Features By Patricia Lynn Henley Everyone wants to make prudent financial decisions, both individually and on a community-wide level. But what's the best way to go about it? How much do officials need to know to make a decision? Nowadays developers expect to do an environmental impact report (EIR) for any large-scale construction project. But are physical results like noise or traffic and the ecological balance the only things decision-makers should evaluate to determine if a proposal will help or harm the local community? In Petaluma, activists are proposing requiring a community impact report (CIR) to assess the true fiscal costs and benefits of potential projects. Environmental impact reports have entered the standard public lexicon. Are CIRs the next step? "Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the environmental impact report was also a new tool, and now it's standard," asserts Marty Bennett, a Santa Rosa Junior College instructor and co-chairman of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition, part of the group that's urging Petaluma to adopt the CIR requirement. "From my point of view, 25 years down the road, we will say that a CIR has become standard in the approval process for new developments. That will be a huge step forward." But Petaluma resident and Sonoma County Planning Commission member Don Bennett (no relation) thinks that's a bad idea. Community impact reports, he says, would be used as "a tool to keep things from happening within the community." He argues that the proposal is anti-chain stores and anti-big-box retailers. "It comes down to a philosophical thing, whether you think the role of government is to control business and management, and who you're managing it for," he says. "Who's going to decide who you want in? That's the problem. Whose will do you impose?" Cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose already require CIRs as part of the approval process for major projects. Usually less than 50 pages, a CIR looks at five main impacts: fiscal, employment, affordable housing, neighborhood needs and smart growth. Unlike an EIR, a CIR isn't binding and doesn't require mitigation of any impacts. "For me, [a CIR] is a win-win for both sides," says Melissa Abercrombie of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association. "You look at the information, you weigh it and you figure out what works." There's an urban-growth boundary to protect Petaluma against sprawl, Abercrombie points out. "Any project that's built within that should be the best, because it's a limited amount of space." Petaluma is already looking at plans for new Target and Lowe's stores within city limits. Among other items, a CIR would evaluate the number and types of jobs, including salary levels, that they would bring to the area. It would look at whether they would bring new sales tax revenues to city coffers or just cannibalize the sales taxes already being collected by other, usually smaller stores. For Abercrombie, a CIR is just a way of looking at the big picture before making a decision. It's similar to what developers do before deciding to build a project, she argues, and isn't at all anti-development. "I would welcome a development that I thought would benefit our community, and I don't think analyzing that makes it not happen." But Don Bennett sees a CIR requirement as a "fact-finding thing to determine what you don't want in your community." The CIR proposal, he asserts, is being supported by those who don't want more chain stores in Petaluma. But if a lot of folks didn't like big-box retailers, he says, they wouldn't exist. "If the majority of people didn't want to shop in those places, they couldn't keep their doors open." In his view, it's more important for people to be able to shop, work and live in Petaluma. A CIR, he argues, is an attempt to have the government decide what can be built on private property based on the social aspects of the project. But Abercrombie sees things differently. "A CIR is just a tool so we can have a clear picture for our decision making." The coalition presented its CIR proposal to the Petaluma City Council in late January. Coalition members are now working with city staff to answer a number of questions raised by the council members, including how much CIRs cost and how they've been implemented in other communities. ________________________________________________________________________ West County Wastewater Tsunami January, 2008 West County Gazette A wastewater tsunami exploded in mid-January, leaving behind a totally altered landscape in western Sonoma County. The repercussions will be vast and no one knows exactly how it will play out! There were four cataclysmic meetings in three days where the drama was intense, and sheer coincidence that they all happened at about the same time. On Monday, January 7th, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board hosted a meeting for community activists, interested citizens, numerous Regional Board staff and County and State agency representatives. It had been organized by Board member Bill Massey. Within the next few years, the Regional Board will conduct studies that will determine whether septics along the river are actually causing pollution problems. Any particular septic found to be causing problems will have to be repaired within legal guidelines. In extreme cases, where repairs simply cannot be made, properties can be condemned. While this situation may be years down the road (studies will take a long time and there will be a public review process before any actions are taken), nevertheless, Director Massey urged those in attendance to begin thinking about possible remedies, including creative solutions using less expensive, innovative technologies. There was also an emphasis on local control. We will write much more about this in future articles. On Tuesday morning, the Board of Supervisors considered and voted to shut down the planned Monte Rio wastewater project that had been eight years in the making, because it was at least $2.6 million dollars short with no additional funding in sight. The County had hit a brick wall in terms of funding problems, which is indicative of the times. While a majority of people in the community twice voted to tax themselves to pay for part of the sewer, there were many concerns that it was getting far too expensive for the number of hookups and didn't even serve many of the properties having the worst pollution problems. Monte Rio property owners are now aware that they have to address these issues in some other manner and will be exploring alternative and affordable solutions to the problem. Meeting number three took place Tuesday evening at the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District. It was a dramatic evening since much of the power was still out for the fifth day because of a fallen tree and the meeting had to be moved from Anderson Hall to the Fire District meeting room. About 30 people were squeezed in the tiny room. The main item on the agenda was a decision to certify the environmental impact report (EIR) on the $22 million dollar pipeline project to the Russian River County Sanitation District (RRCSD). The problems with this project have been frequently described in prior news articles. The drama was intense. Everyone thought that the vote would be unanimous in favor of certification because Occidental was threatened by heavy fines by the Regional Water Board for being out of compliance with their discharge permit. The prevailing idea was that the EIR could be certified, thereby getting Occidental off the hook, but that the project would not be built. At that price, no one wanted it. Yet many in the room felt the EIR was deficient in serious ways noted by Board members, and the project had too many unknowns in regards to needed RRCSD upgrades. We have no space for details now of who did what, other than to say that, of the five Board members, one could not vote because of a possible conflict of interest, two supported certification, and two felt the EIR was deficient and for that reason voted against it. This killed the EIR. The very next morning, our group was scheduled to attend a meeting with key Regional Board staff about West County wastewater issues. All of a sudden, it feels like the dynamic on West County wastewater issues has changed. We don't know where it will go but we hope many people will get involved in seeking new solutions. Our role will be to keep you informed. |
SCCA Report Card Sonoma County Conservation Action’s Environmental Report Card is one of our premium grassroots functions. Created by a team of City Council and Board watchers who attend meetings and study their local environmental politics, the SCCA Report Card evaluates the performance of the local elected officials by grading them on their vote for the environment for the year, and on how well they are listening to their constituents. The SCCA Report Card is a watchdog tool that holds our local elected officials accountable for their actions. Check and see how your local electorate scored! Click here to see the 2007-2008 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2006-2007 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2005-2006 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2004-2005 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2003-2004 Report Card in PDF format. ______________________ CELEBRATING A LIFELONG PARTNERSHIP OF ACTIVISM IN LOVE: BILL AND LUCY KORTUM October 6, 2007 Santa Rosa, CA By Peter Douglas The wellspring of activism is love. And the fuel and fire for sustained activism is enduring, unconditional love. I know no two people who in a lifelong partnership manifest a truer, more profound expression of enduring love than Bill and Lucy Kortum. You enrich the lives of all who have been touched by your genuine warmth of heart and spirit. Your proud legacy of achievement will benefit seven generations and more yet to be. I have known Lucy and Bill for 36 years. I met Bill soon after I began working for then Assembly Member Alan Sieroty in February 1971. My simple assignment was to draft a coastal protection bill. I was idealistic and naïve, driven by youthful enthusiasm and optimism. I immediately identified Bill as mentor, guide and spiritual leader. Our work to safeguard the geographic soul of California, its coast, is living history now nearly four decades later. The lessons I learned from Bill and Lucy are many. First and foremost is the importance of rooting environmental activism deeply in one’s heart and soul: Understanding and internalizing environmentalism as a way of thinking, doing and being, and more fundamentally, as a moral and ethical imperative. Second, that our work conserving Nature is a labor of love that is never done – it is good work always being done. All precious geography everywhere, the coast, forests, mountains, desert and long grass prairie is never finally saved but always being saved. Third, that in our struggle to protect Gaia, our living home, despair and capitulation are not an option. So long as we cast a shadow on this good Earth, we can never and must never give up. Another is to recognize the difference between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle. I was taught this lesson many times during those formative years as we debated what was not negotiable in the Coastal Act. I saw it as well when Bill showed the courage of his convictions, stood by his principles and was recalled from the Board of Supervisors for it. I learned from you to look within for the intangible rewards of environmental stewardship, recognizing our work is noble and ennobling. I learned the importance of stepping back from time to time to remind ourselves why we do what we do and to calibrate our ethical and moral compass to ensure the course we steer remains steady and true. These two remarkable people have always shown us the power of vision and dreams – protection of the entire coast, preserving the public’s right of access, a coastal trail from Oregon to Mexico, and many other causes you have engaged in a lifetime of doing good. Bill and Lucy clearly hold the secret to enduring activism and avoiding burn out. Perhaps you will share it with us later. In our passing years, you remind us that we are only as old as we are young at heart. By that measure, you are youngsters still. In the end, I am most grateful and inspired by your glorious expression of enduring and unconditional love for the activism you share and your love for each other. ___________________
Kortums honored for a lifetime of service to community and environment Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 By Bonnie Allen For the ARGUS-COURIER Bill and Lucy Kortum met while painting fences at the Kortum family ranch on Ely Road. It was an apt beginning for 53 years of hard work together to make the world a better place, on the way imbuing their three children with the same activist drive. Family connections brought them together. Lucy's best friend Jean had married Bill's brother Karl, founder of the San Francisco Maritime Museum. Bill and Lucy cemented the relationship by spending the rest of the summer repairing a sailboat and sailing together. Today, the couple maintains a finish-each-other's-sentences kind of intimacy and shared purpose. On Saturday Oct. 6, Sonoma County Conservation Action, which Bill founded in 1991, will honor the two with a special dinner. The Kortums' imprint on Sonoma County history is everywhere. Bill has been involved in choosing the location for Sonoma State University, purchasing the land for Salt Point State Park, incorporating the City of Cotati, securing Petaluma's urban growth boundary and numerous other achievements. Bill was born and raised in Petaluma, at that time a town of 6,000. "We had free run of town and the hills around," said Kortum. "You just felt you owned the place. That sense of freedom has kind of driven me all these years - the sense of ownership, and sense of responsibility to conserve that great resource." He was 8 or 9 when his family moved from Western Avenue to the ranch on Ely Road, where Bill and Lucy live today, surrounded by abundant vegetable and fruit gardens. Within sight of the house they helped design is the barn Bill built himself as a high school project. The barn is now the family winery. Activism was a family tradition. Bill's grandfather had been a founding member of the Calistoga City Council, and his father and older brother Karl fought to keep Highway 101 from being rerouted through the family ranch. His mother was active in the PTA. "It was a demonstration that you did not have to accept the status quo," said Bill. After a stint in the Merchant Marine during World War II, Bill earned a degree from the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis and established the Cotati Veterinary Hospital. Lucy, born to a Navy family in Coronado, went to Pomona College and later Sonoma State University, where she got her master's degree in history. Through her efforts, both the Sunset Line and Twine building and Petaluma's Carnegie Library (now the Petaluma Historical Library and Museum) are on the National Historic Buildings Registry. Later, a government grant enabled her to survey and research Carnegie Libraries all over the state for her master's thesis. This project sent Bill and Lucy on a series of visits to the small towns of California. For her work as a historian, Lucy received the Petaluma Good Egg Award in 2006, and in 2005, the Jeanne Thurlow Miller Individual Award from the Sonoma County Historical Society. She still works one day a week each at the Petaluma Museum and the history room of the Petaluma Library. In 1960, Bill's veterinary expertise played a significant role in fighting the establishment of a nuclear power plant on Bodega Head. He garnered the support of the conservative Sonoma County dairy industry by showing them tissue samples from cows contaminated with radioactive iodine near the Humboldt reactor and convincing them that no one would want to buy contaminated milk. Sharing a love of the California coast with his brother Karl, Bill responded to the privatization of Sea Ranch beaches by spearheading an effort to keep Sonoma County's beaches public. He chaired the California Coastal Alliance of 110 groups that in 1972 sponsored Proposition 20, the initiative that mandated open beaches in California. The Kortum Trail along the coast near Shell Beach is a tribute to his efforts. Following the family tradition of politics, Bill served as a Sonoma County Supervisor and as a member of the Petaluma School Board and the Democratic Central Committee. He is founder and current board member of the Sonoma County Conservation Action, and is still arguably its most active member, said fellow boardmember John Kramer. Bill Kortum achieved his successes by going directly to the people, knocking on doors to ask in simple language if they really wanted their waste water dumped into the Russian River or a nuclear power plant on their doorstep. Thanks to his efforts, SCCA has reached 70,000 households a year, said Kramer. "Even more than all the great organizations he and Lucy have helped create and build, I think Bill's great gift to the region has been the legions of younger activists he has patiently mentored," said Larry Modell, past chair of Petaluma Tomorrow, which gave Bill the Greening of Petaluma Award in 2006 in recognition of his work on Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary. "Through all these decades, the hundreds of us who have had the good fortune to work with him have learned volumes about how government works, how to change it, and how to have fun doing so." Along the way, Bill said, Lucy's partnership has been essential. Not much for meetings, she has shaped Bill's writing, organized papers and photos and maintained computer files. "He runs around and she organizes it," said SCCA board member Fran Tanti. According to Kramer, it was Lucy who, on her Underwood typewriter, typed the telegram to the state commission that brought SSU to where it is. The Kortum influence has reached far beyond Sonoma County, somewhat to their surprise. As he said, "We protected our coast and the whole coast of California was protected." Now, urban growth boundaries are taking shape in California cities. ___________________
SRJC center welcomed if in city limits SEBASTOPOL - The idea of a Santa Rosa Junior College Sebastopol Center got a good reception from city council members last night, but only if such a center were to be located within city limits and if other questions, such as providing municipal services or annexation, can be agreed upon by the appropriate city agencies.
Welcome to the Legislature! From The Planning and Conser- vation League Newsletter by Rene Guerrero Jared Huffman (6th Assembly District) has a strong backgound in environmental issues. As a Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and as a 12 year Board member for the Marin Municipal Water District, Assemblymember-elect Huffman advocated for sustainable state and federal water policies while also engaged in protecting California's rivers, focusing especially on the San Joaquin River. According to Jared, global warming is at the top of his priority list. PCL is confident he will be an innovator and facilitator of new energy technologies to create emission reduction programs and offer incentives for investments in efficient, renewable, and cleaner burning fuels. Water issues are another area of concern. From urban water conservation to reclamation strategies and desalination, Assemblymember-elect Huffman will use his leadership, experience, and ideas to advance critical legislation. We welcome him to the State Capitol. She is back! Former Assemblymember Patricia Wiggins has now been elected to represent the 2nd District in the California State Senate. Her previous work in the Assembly includes founding the Legislature's Smart Growth Caucus and chairing the Local Government and Banking Committees. She also authored legislation that promoted mixed-use development, and increased funding for agricultural protection. In that role, she was responsible for the most comprehensive state land use planning legislation in the last 30 years. Known as Assembly Bill 857, it set California's spending priorities for future growth to disallow sprawl while promoting compact and infill development, and greater social equity. As a Senator, we can expect as much and more. She will reinstate the Smart Growth Caucus in the Senate; continue her work in providing safe and reliable water supplies to families, and in restoring and protecting watersheds and woodlands. _____________________
|
 |
