Skip to comments.
Fate of huge farm bill crucial to California {One of the biggest environmental votes of the decade }
sfchronicle.com ^
| December 6, 2001
| Carolyn Lochhead
Posted on 12/06/2001 5:49:31 PM PST by expose
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Washington -- One of the biggest environmental votes of the decade will reach the Senate today and pass unnoticed by most Californians.
At stake is more money than the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department combined. The legislation covers more than a billion acres, more than half the U.S. contiguous land mass. And depending on what happens to the bill in the next week, it could provide California with vital funds to preserve wildlife, water and open space or shortchange the state's taxpayers by more than $1.1 billion a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
1
posted on
12/06/2001 5:49:31 PM PST
by
expose
To: Jeff Head
2
posted on
12/06/2001 5:54:17 PM PST
by
expose
To: expose
It seems that a primary function of our government is to transfer wealth to the supporters and contributors of politicians any other transfers are window dressing to obfuscate the real goal.
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Disgusting isn't it? I hope someone takes the time to follow up this story to see the outcome of the vote. I'll try.
To: expose
Aspen? What do they grow there? Snow?
How ironic that Democrats, the Champions of the Poor and Bald Eagle Puppies (TM) would spend our money on multi-million dollar "farms". They wouldn't be trying to buy power, would they? Naw, I'm sure they'ld never do that...
5
posted on
12/06/2001 6:55:45 PM PST
by
Cleburne
To: expose; Carry_Okie; AuntB
$Ka Ching... $Ka Ching... $Ka Ching! One Ringy Dingy... Two Ringy Dingy... Hullo? Anybody home??
How 'bout it Ain't Bea? Ya got a copy? Git Back!
To: expose
That is correct. The Reid bill proposes money for the feds to buy private land for the water use rights. (It says in the "Klamath Basin" but this term is loose and probably includes our area as well.) The water would be purchased by conservation easments for that water or the fee title to the land itself will be purchased, the water use right kept, and the land put baqck on the market.
This will kill us. You can't farm or ranch without water. The assumption that there is a groundwater alternative is falacious. The ag-dependent economy will crash, as will the counties as the tax base deflates. There will be a transition period, then the area will be developed into residental units as the highest and best use of the land.
This is NOT conservation. Please write Reid and your Senators and oppose his Amendment.
7
posted on
12/06/2001 7:10:36 PM PST
by
marsh2
To: Cleburne
wto
8
posted on
12/06/2001 7:14:05 PM PST
by
expose
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Yep, I think so!! This entire article and its subject matter is disgusting.
To: expose
"
Many are pushing the bill as a way to provide food security in wartime."Same argument used to exempt farmers from the draft.
10
posted on
12/06/2001 7:34:58 PM PST
by
bayourod
To: marsh2; expose; SierraWasp
Yep, another real estate subsidy to favored developers of ranchettes, construction unions, budding bureaucrats, and foreign investors in corporate agriculture.
There is an alternative.
To: expose
. . . "Only farmers and ranchers can solve many of California's most serious environmental challenges, including insufficient water in the Bay Delta, . . . The Bay Delta is the transfer point for water deliveries to Southern California.
The reality of farmers "saving the delta" is more water for Los Angeles and San Diego.
"Water laundering" thinly disguised as environmental restoration.
12
posted on
12/06/2001 7:52:36 PM PST
by
Phil V.
To: expose
One of the biggest environmental votes of the decade I love this... the decade just started. Nice to know they can see the future.
To: Phil V.
probably the worst crop we could be growing in CA is cotton. well, rice too. think of how much of this stuff is subsidised and then shipped out of the country and the water resources stripped. the problem is simple, the solution complex. money will do that.
To: davidmoore01
I LOVE exports!
More dams, more water - or . . .
All the developers who wanted to develope the South State could purchase all of those hundreds of thousands of shallow soil under lain with hardpan rice paddies (and their water rights) and build and build where the water IS. Just think of the tens of thousands of acre feet of lost water due to evaporation from the California Aqueduct in it's 300 mile journey to the south!
Move them folks up north where the water IS!!!
15
posted on
12/06/2001 8:19:52 PM PST
by
Phil V.
To: Phil V.
Move them folks up north where the water IS!!! can't, Phil, they hate us! LOL
To: davidmoore01
bump
17
posted on
12/07/2001 6:49:45 PM PST
by
expose
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson