Goodbye
to Ag
Many pieces of information pass by my desk every week
having to do with all kinds of topics. Many of the articles are about other
states or other countries and as I try to keep the topics local, I rarely
mention those that don’t seem to have a nexus to the valley.
These days, however, it seems increasingly likely that
trends that are happening elsewhere are bound to come here, some sooner than
others. We have issues similar to communities across the country, particularly
with those that have casinos in their midst and because casinos are illegal in
California, it stands to reason that the casinos in question must be on
reservation land held in trust by the Federal government.
Other issues in rural areas such as ours focus mainly on
the loss of agriculture while completely ignoring the consequences of that
loss. It is not enough to sound the alarm on just how much agriculture is being
lost but rather it is critical to first identify the culprit or culprits and
then to reverse the trend. Maybe, particularly for urban folk, we need to first
educate people as to the value of agriculture to their everyday lives. Have we
become so detached from reality that we no longer realize where the majority of
the products we use every day come from? Do they no longer teach the source of
things to schoolchildren so that they understand their place in the world at
large?
It seems to me that many people do not feel that the loss
of agricultural land is important enough to speak up about as I have heard some
say that we’ll just all get our food from other countries. Do we really want to
increase our dependence on other countries for not only our energy supply but
our food supply as well? Do we really want to leave those basic needs to the
responsibility of some other country enabling it to blackmail us should they so
desire in order to keep from starving? Do we really want to lose control over
how our food supply is produced?
Do we want to leave control over our food supply to
politicians who seem bent on radical agendas that will lead to the destruction
of the food industry? I talked a few weeks ago about a bill SB416 banning the
use of subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock
and poultry in California.
This bill was defeated but the author Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) amended a bill originally dealing with a
citrus inspection program and inserted this idea again including a requirement
that by Jan 1, 2011 warning labels be placed on any animal product for human
consumption in which the animals have been treated. I don’t know where this guy
gets his information but it is clearly flawed and totally ignores the need and
the withdrawal information that any livestock producer knows.
Next, on June 15 the Budget Committee voted to eliminate
subvention funding for the Williamson Act program. I realize that the State is
worse than broke due to irresponsible spending on the part of our “elected”
officials, but this program is one of our biggest tools in keeping agricultural
lands in agriculture rather than seeing a sea of houses sprout up in the place
of fields and crops. The issue is not completely dead yet, so we are hoping
that someone in Sacramento has some common sense left who will stand up and
keep the ag lands safe from
development.
Then we have Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee who along with his committee passed the Food
Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 2471) that will make even more regulations
to be followed that have no obvious benefit to food safety but will require additional
audit requirements on ranchers.
As if that wasn’t enough, S787, the Clean Water
Restoration Act of 2009 passed the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Gee- another Californian out
there destroying the very industry that pays the politicians’ exorbitant bills!
How intelligent! What this bill represents is the end of any drop of water in
this state to be unnavigable and now will be under
total control of the EPA. Currently, the federal government only has control
over navigable waters likely to affect interstate commerce. This could now
apply to any seasonal stream or lake, ditches, stock ponds, groundwater,
irrigation ponds, mud flats or prairie potholes.
What I am trying to say here is that it is the
responsibility of every resident of this valley and this state to demand of
their officials that they clearly understand the ramifications of their votes.
Losing control of one’s water supply is like losing the lifeblood of one’s
property. When parts of the San Lucas Ranch were being condemned in the 1940’s
for the building of Cachuma Dam, my father spent nine
years in federal court fighting to retain the ranch as the original effort was
to take it all. When the property line between the ranch and the federal
property was being established, the judge remarked to my father that Hilton
Creek was an important water supply for the ranch and that, in his words, “It
wouldn’t be much of a ranch without it”, so the boundary was set to include
that creek as part of the remaining ranch property.
Why a California “representative” would not bother to
reflect that understanding is beyond me and perhaps no longer is able to
properly represent this state. Agriculture is such a huge part of California’s
economy that to strangle it to death is beyond my comprehension.
It is the major industry that does not fluctuate with
good and bad economic times like the tourism industry because we all have to
eat, wear clothing and use medicine. I will keep you posted as to the progress
of these bills that will have an impact on the future of this valley.
PTO
PTO stands for “peeling the onion,” not an original
phrase, referring to a discussion of local people and events that are related.
Often it is difficult to understand the full scale of a given issue because one
does not know the people involved, what they stand for
and how they are meaning to accomplish their agenda, whatever that might be.
Occasionally I would like to paint the picture for you of some of the very
well-established connections there are between people and local groups and what
they support.
The word “progressive” by dictionary definition means
moving forward, advancing promoting or favoring progress towards better
conditions of new policies, ideas or methods as opposed to maintaining the
status quo.
This sounds harmless enough, even positive until one
realizes that it doesn’t stand for what one might think. Depending on one’s
perspective of things, it could be positive or negative.
On pursuing information from the sb4all group that I
mentioned last week including a deputy director of county Planning and
Development and a co-director of sb4all who is very much involved in the
District 3 election, I followed the trail and found more interesting ties.
While researching the term progressive, I found a list of
them including Tom Hayden (Jane Fonda’s ex), the president of SEIU, the sb4all
co-director and her husband who is associated with the activist group Santa
Barbara County Action Network.
I have mentioned SEIU before with its relation to our
last election and the enormous amounts of money given to one of the candidates
and also the Measure A campaign. What I learned with
this foray through the internet was the following: There is a Coalition for a
Fair Measure A made up of 30 local groups representing “environmental causes,
labor and social justice”.
The goal was to have 40% of the budget of $1billion over
30 years go to buses, rail, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other
“alternative” programs.
Some of the groups include Coalition for Sustainable
Transportation (COAST), SB Bicycle Coalition, SB County Action Network,
Citizen’s Planning Association, Environmental Defense Center, PUEBLO, Sierra
Club, Committees for Land, Air, Water and Species (CLAWS), SB League of Women
Voters, Community Environmental Council, SB County Democratic Central
Committee, Democratic Women of SB County, SEIU Local 620, and the Central Coast
Chapter Democratic Club of Santa Maria Valley to name a few.
I discovered that the widening of highway 101 was not
destined to actually add another lane to help reduce the crush of cars during
rush hour but rather to provide a lane, at taxpayer (i.e. you and me) expense
for buses and other modes of public transportation which is one of the goals of
these social engineering groups.
The idea is to get all of us out of our cars and make us
totally reliant on some form of public transportation rather than to allow us
the freedom to travel where and when we choose.
I invite you to go on the websites and learn for yourself
what plans are being hatched by these folks to change your life forever. After
all, didn’t we all vote for change?
Perhaps a discussion of what kind of change you were
voting for might be useful.