Would Tom McClintock do this?
“It’s a political event rarer than a green-sturgeon sighting: Rep. Wally Herger this week lined up with his usual nemeses at the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups and against a farm-friendly water bill promoted by some of his fellow House Republicans from California,” according to the Record-Searchlight.
“That bill — the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare — had already drawn widespread opposition from environmentalists and fishing groups. The measure would boost water supplies to San Joaquin Valley farms primarily at the expense of set-asides for California’s ailing fisheries, which motivated the environmental outcry. In the process, though, it would also put the north state’s senior water rights at risk and generally topple California’s tenuously balanced water-priority system. Both of California’s Democratic senators — including Dianne Feinstein, no foe of agriculture — also opposed it.
“Herger? Until Wednesday, he’d taken no official stand. Loyalty to GOP colleagues and Herger’s philosophy that resources should be put to productive use would argue in favor, but his own district’s direct interests pulled in the other direction.”
The rest of the editorial is here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Answer, yes. Similarly to Congressman Herger, Congressman McClintock wants water restored to the farmers in the Central Valley, but will not support a bill that takes away senior water rights of the constituents of his district. The bill will be amended and changed signifigantly through the committee process before seeing the light of day. It will not come out of his committee in its current form. The Congressman is committed to restoring prosperity, and utilizing our resources back to the principle of abundance, he is also a strong property rights advocate and will not see the senior water rights taken away from our constituents here. Hope this answers your question.
@Kim. Then the correct strategy would be to introduce a bill that protects our water rights, restores fisheries, protects the environment and then debate amendments to the bill later. Taking up the cause of big agribusiness at the expense of local rights and the environment while hoping to amend the bill does little to engender your boss to his constituents, and I really wonder what his internal polling numbers show?
Thanks Kim. Similarly, will Tom stand with the enviros on opposing the reopening the Idaho-Maryland Mine? Lots of “dewatering” going on for that project!
http://www.yubanet.com/regional/Special_Report_Golden_Gamble_in_Grass_Valley_Part__19799.php
The Congressman will do what is right as far as restoring the abundance principle back to our policies with our Natural Resources in a responsible manner. That includes minerals, timber, water,etc…,if you read any of his statements, speeches on this issue he is very consistent in his views. His main objective is to restore prosperity to the Region through utilization of our Natural Resources, of course in a responsible way.
“The Congressman will do what is right as far as restoring the abundance principle back to our policies with our Natural Resources”
The only accurate way to put those two words, “abundant” and “natural resources” together is when describing the level of denial and ignorance that white settlelment in America had towards any understanding with how finite those natural resources really were. The only thing abundant about California’s hydroloogic system is its level of over allocation and contaminant load from industrial agriculture.
OK. Thanks. One thing we agree on: “He is consistent in his views.” Have a great Father’s Day and thanks for commenting.
I am sure we agree on more than one thing
Have a wonderful Father’s Day!
I’m glad to hear that Congressman McClintock wants to restore prosperity in a responsible way. I assume this means he will be reviewing and reconsidering his previous ill-considered public statements in support of re-opening the Idaho-Maryland Mine, since the strongest argument against the mine is a business argument.
The controversy over re-opening the IMM is usually mis-characterized as one between pro-business types and tree-hugging environmentalists.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the strongest argument against re-opening the mine is that it will undermine the long-term prosperity of our region.
Why?
The massive scale of of the project — which almost no one on either side of the argument yet grasps — would so degrade the quality of life here that in the long run both high-tech industries and the kind of skilled workers they attract would not want to locate and live here.
A few facts:
“The proposed ceramics plant, if located here, would double Nevada County’s total yearly natural gas consumption. (1,100M cu. ft. per year)”
“No natural gas service exists to the old mine site, and Nevada County may not have enough total pipeline capacity to supply the plant.”
“The proposed mining operation yearly electric consumption is more than one third of the 2006 PG&E total supplied to all of Nevada County. (172GWhr per year)”
Enough diesel trucks will be operating “to fuel between 60 and 128 outgoing 20-ton trucks per day, every day.”
The impact on local wells is a huge unknown. The proposed dewatering of the old mine shafts could destroy wells halfway to Colfax. The full geographic extent and hydrologic impact is simply unknown. And while Emgold, in its project description, has promised to compensate victims of catastrophic well failure by the provision of NID water via an NID trunk line, the truth is that no plan has actually been negotiated with NID. I understand that such NID projects typically require at least a two-year planning and lead time.
Has the City of Grass Valley weighed the prospect of a massive number of lawsuits from aggrieved homeowners who are likely see their property values fall even farther?
The one positive promise of the IMM project is jobs, but the number off jobs promised falls apart under scrutiny.
In truth, the IMM project raises the specter of turning Grass Valley into an old-style company town based on a single resource-extraction industry, which has always and ever been the surest recipe for creating a ghost town.
We must use hard-headed business logic and think long-term. Green and high-tech jobs won’t arrive in sufficient numbers soon enough to save us from the ravages of the recession. Neither will the inflated promises of mine jobs.
The sad truth is that no local initiative will save us from the recession.
But … the recession will run its course. And when it does, we must be ready to build a diverse, sustainable and thriving local economy that will serve the many generations to come (and not just the short-term profit interests of a Canadian penny-stock company that — inn its 20 years of operation — has mined only investors, but never an ounce of gold).
Good points Don. We spent the weekend mingling with Truckee residents, who brought up the same issue when it comes to growth. It’s simplistic to frame such issues as Business v. Enrviros. One person, who is liberal, made it clear she embraced growth in Truckee/Tahoe — and pointed to examples of projects she supported. The idea is growth that compliments the surroundings. In our neck of the woods, we still suffer from the CABPRO/Todd Juvinall mindset of the ’70s or ’80s: “You’re either with us or against us.” It just not that simple. Truckee, with a well-liked GOP-registered supe in a liberal area, has gotten past this. Can we? The mine will be a real test of this.
Well said, Jeff.
With all due respect to your analysis Jeff, we are getting past the “growth vs. environment” debate but we are not quite there yet.
Traditionally there have been ‘two-sdies’ to this debate; the development community that says growth is inherently good and productive to the economy and thus regulatory barriers and restrictions should be reduced; and the environmental and neighborhood advocacy community that says growth is a threat to the environment and community character and thus regulatory barriers and restrictions should be maintained or increased.
These ‘two sides’ have been slow to adopt innovations in both the field of environmental redevelopment on the part of developers (green building standards, low impact development standards, commercial mixed-use development, mobility planning, infill/affordable housing, and conservation development) and market based conservation finance (voluntary conservation easements, on-site restoration, mitigation standards, voluntary property transfer fees, carbon offsets, etc) on the part of the enviro/neighborhood groups.
Because of this we see a good deal of conflict over projects like the Truckee Railyards, Boulder Bay, Homewood, Martis Valley, Donner Summit, and others.
What we need more than anything else is good examples of environmentally minded redevelopment done on the ground that have metrics for direct environmental or social benefits. We need to be able to clearly show the ‘third way’
We are getting there here, and I think we have advanced beyond the western County, but we are not there yet.
Poor Todd:
“Unfortunately we have urban nuts like Jeff Pelline who move up here and continue to tear down the hope of people wishing to succeed. I and CABPRO and some other individuals and organizations saw twenty years ago the course we should take to keep hope and prosperity alive here in our County. We lost, the regressive left won and now I am too old to get in the big fight anymore. I’ll have a cold one and watch the Giants.”
http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com/
I’ve been coming to the foothills since childhood when my uncle owned a mining claim. We fished, camped and hiked in the Downieville area, stopping in Nevada City. We saw what was unique, so we fully understood the need to embrace “smart” growth to keep it unique. Not “no growth,” mind you, but smart growth. It’s a business strategy, not an environmental one.
People like Todd never gave a hoot about anybody but themselves. Make a buck and move on to the next project. I’ve never seen such unbridled self-interest, greed and avarice, masquerading as a “do gooder.” It’s sort of like modern-day hydraulic miners. Build a spec home, sell it to an urban person, then call them a “nut” once the check clears. Bully city officials with the promise of jobs. Use your money and small-town influence to get your like-minded candidates elected. Personally attack your opponents.
Guess who’s going to clean up this mess and pick up the tab around here when it comes to poorly planned infrastructure, inadequate roadways, leaking septic tanks, poor regional septic planning, foreclosures from overzealous real estate dragging down everybody else’s property values, etc., around here? Families like ours. Nuts like me. My son and his friends. Todd, meanwhile, will be downing a cool one, watching TV and telling us about the good old days and how grateful we should be for his principled efforts and “legacy.”
Kim, I am wondering if you could do us all a favor and lay out exactly what the ‘abundance principle’ is?
I am familiar with the Taoist, Hindu and Christian abundance concepts, which essentially hold that one can view the world as as we know it as a limited resource or as an infinite resource.
As I understand it, the concept of scarcity drives our economy, as manifested in the cycle supply and demand. Wealth is created when supply is low and demand is high, in other words, scarcity. The philosophical basis of the sustainability movement is also founded on the concept of scarcity, we must conserve and steward resources because they are finite.
The spiritual traditions listed above define abundance as the concept that life’s possibilities are endless, that we expand to meet our goals, and find ways to overcome all obstacles regardless of scarcity, as exemplified in John 10:10 “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
Could you please describe for us the ‘principle of abundance’ that is at the heart of Congressman McClintock’s philosophy?
HA!
I GUARANTEE that there is no correlation to the spiritual concept of Abundance in the exploitative carpetbagger’s ‘philosophy’!
The worst from the crowd is that their God, via the Earth’s bounty, will provide the necessary balance and sustenance until his Will be done; all the while looking to play on the fears of the filthy unwashed that they will not share in those resources should they not march lock step with those charged with carrying out his plan!
And if you believe McClintock is ‘fighting’ for Central Valley water rights on behalf of agriculture, I gotta bridge to sell ya. At a time when the valley crops are at their peak in terms of market worth, due largely to corporate farming, the OC repub is simply pushing for more boomtown supply-side principles that created the foreclosure-villes of Stockton, Tracy, et al.
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=18685
Don’t LA Nor Cal!
I do believe the following:
1. If the mine can be done in a responsible manner with all of the environmental safe guards in place, which in my mind include a full time Environmental engineer (24/7) who reports to, and is paid by the City of Grass Valley, to monitor the activities onsite to assure the community that the site is being handled in a proper manner then I’m “OK” with it moving forward. If this person see that something is not going the way that it should be, then this person should have the ability to shut down all operations immediately
2. The NID water must be available to any water user (in a timely manner) that loses water from the Dewatering, then I’m good with it. You’re right with the meeting with NID’s management and the possible timeline for this aspect of the project, but that is something that will need to be handled.
3. If the site needs additional gas then they will need to work out this problem with PG&E, as were stupid to think that PG&E would allow for any shortages to occur without having the proper infastructure in place.
4. The traffic issue….. That seems to have disappeared with the installation of the round-a-bout. From the numbers listed above (128 trucks) that would be one truck every 11.25 minutes or @5 trucks per hour. We get more trucks coming up the road from the Hansen’s Rock Quarry than 5 per hour, but I don’t hear anyone crying about that?
This is a business, and if it’s allowed to operate, then I want it run responsibly, with oversight from the City Management.
Brad:
I appreciate your thoughtful comments about how the mine might be regulated. In fact, your thoughts pretty much parallel Emgold’s optimistic predictions about how it might work.
Here’s the problem, though:
Studies of the history of hardrock mining show conclusively that such promises are more often betrayed than honored.
The watershed study in this regard is:
“COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY AT HARDROCK MINES”
by Jim Kuipers and Ann Maest
http://www.earthworksaction.org/publications.cfm?pubID=211
This study shows that it’s not realistic to ever expect the sort of oversight you describe.
I don’t agree that the roundabout solves the “traffic problem” at all, since the problem is not flow, but rather incessant truck traffic spewing diesel exhaust. The roundabout has no effect on the magnitude of the truck traffic, but only its direction. And the magnitude is the problem.
It’s clear that the timeliness of the NID water is gravely in doubt. It will be years before that issue alone can be resolved.
But over and above all that, my original point was that — even if perfect oversight were possible, which it isn’t — a massively-scaled hardrock mining operation in the heart of Grass Valley is incompatible with the kind of diverse, sustainable and variegated economy which we should strive for here in the future.
Grass Valley has already worsened our prospects for this sort of future merely by considering this project.
Hey Jeff. Loved your rant about who will clean up the mess.
Very bracing.
I was holding back.
Don,
do you know if there has there ever been a facility where a “outside” inspector was involved to the manner that I spoke about?
Brad, as one long involved in actions, discussions, and meetings on the application of Emgold for the IMM project, and a 25- year resident here, I appreciate your efforts to contribute opinions and suggestions, but to be honest with you, they show a very inadequate knowledge of the issue. If you have not as yet read and studied thoroughly the DEIR prepared by consultants employed by the GVCC and paid for by the applicant Emgold, do so. It is available through G V Planning Dept. and will cost you $15. Then you must also read the 900 plus comments filed by groups such as Sierra Club and Save the Air GV, Wolf Creek Community Alliance,CLAIM GV, and others and government agencies and interested residents, all also available at GV Planning, to even have a minimum of background on the topic. Perhaps you have done so, but I would consider that had you, you would demonstrate a greater understanding of the problems involved in re-opening an old gold mine in an area since highly populated
Pat, I have looked through much of the documentation and I don’t see the difficulties that people keep bringing up.
A listing of the Natural Gas issue is a example…. Now if they need additional natural gas, then this is a business transaction and PG&E will address it in a business like manner where PG&E will address this issue, if not then the mine won’t open….
I have opened manufacturing facilities in Thailand, Korea, Japan (definitely not nuclear!), and in the Philippines and all of these were opened using a California “Standards” for every aspect of the facility, even though they were opened in Countries with no restrictions on industrial activities, and waste handling.
I know what it takes to open manufacturing facilities, and this experience is similar to the processes that will need to be addressed to get this mine to the preliminary opening stages.
I have never opened a mining facility, so I cannot say that I’m a “expert” on this specific area, but I have read the DEIR, as well as a number of the comments, and a majority of these issues are ones’ that can be addressed, while others are what I call “oh my god, the sky is falling”. Now I’m not saying that every issue can be addressed to the satisfaction of every concerned citizen, but I just wish that the “false issues” could be toned down and the actual factual issues could be addressed.
A good example of this is that now the premise that the de-watering of the mine will affect the water tables in the Colfax area.
I have a Agricultural Engineering Degree with a lot of hydrology and geology mixed in there, so I know that statement such as this are nothing but “the sky is falling logic”. When you pull water (i.e. a well is a good example) from the ground is does not lower the whole water table in a aquifer. It will look like a upside down umbrella with the point of removal (the well or in this case the mine) being the lowest point. The surrounding areas will drop (that’s a given) but to say that your pulling water from wells that are 4-8 miles away is a bit far fetched.
I have gone to a couple community meetings on the mine reopening and walked away shaking my head wondering “what the heck are these people talking about”!
The one thing that I’ve really wondered is why there is not intelligent discussion on this issues, as I’ve even gone to a meeting where people disrupted the discussions about the mine to the point that I should have stayed home and watched “Survivor”.
I’m not for or against the mine, I am for intelligent discussion on the future of this project whether it be turning this area into the world biggest dog park, or opening the mine.
This is a good comment Brad. I think it fits within the “purple” zone.
But your comment is solely about the viability of “company x” extracting gold from this de-watered, legacy mine. Your comment does not address “company x” as being Emgold.
I think that mineral extraction in general, as a part of a diverse local economy, deserves at least a debate, as long as that debate centers around responsible mitigation of the obvious ecological disruption that is caused by mining. I have found that one of the easiest ways to determine if a given project is worthwhile is to take a look at the company involved in the project. Are they sound, i.e. how long have they been in business and what is their track record?
From my review of Emgold, I have determined that this project is not viable. That is not to say that another company could not make the project pencil out.
Have you read these sorts of documents about Emgold? If not, start here: http://www.emgold.com/i/pdf/2010-Q4.pdf