Calhouns Can(n)ons

Water, Water, Nowhere. Quick, Git Mah Shovel Ready

Sounds good to me. Los Osos should get in line with a tin cup in one hand and a shovel in another. We’ve still got a whole lot of low-flow change-outs left to do. They’re “shovel ready” right now, aren’t they?

CA485 Water Efficiency Projects Ready-to-go Across California to Create Jobs, Boost Clean Water SupplyAuthor: American RiversPublished on Jan 24, 2009 - 6:59:36 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. Jan. 23, 2009 - At least 485 water efficiency projects in California are ready to go and will create jobs and improve clean water supplies, according to a quick survey conducted by the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The projects which provide a sample of water efficiency projects across the state include retrofitting plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, upgrading water meters, and planting water-wise plants and other vegetation to decrease wasteful water use.American Rivers and the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) are calling for at least 20% of all drinking water infrastructure funding to be dedicated as grants for water efficiency capital projects to create jobs, boost the economy, and ensure adequate clean water supply for the future.
An economic analysis conducted by AWE estimates that total economic output per million dollars of investment in water efficiency programs is between $2.5 and $2.8 million. It estimates that a direct investment of $1 billion in water efficiency programs can boost U.S. employment by 15,000 to 22,000 jobs.
Water efficiency is far cheaper than building new dams and expanding reservoirs, up to 8500 times more cost-effective, at only $0.46 - $250 per 1000 gallons while new dam construction costs $4000 for the same amount of capacity.
"There is a hidden reservoir waiting to be tapped in California. Investing in these water efficiency projects will boost water supplies and create good jobs," said Betsy Otto, vice president of strategic partnerships at American Rivers.
"With California's severe water shortages adding to economic uncertainty across the state, the time for water efficiency investments is now."
"Water efficiency is the cheapest and smartest way to manage and stretch our existing water supplies for economic growth.
And nearly 20% of California's electricity is used to pump and treat water, so using water more efficiently also reduces greenhouse gases," said Mary Ann Dickinson, Executive Director at the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The Alliance for Water Efficiency compiled a list of examples of water efficiency projects in 11 states, including 566 projects totaling more than $2.3 billion that are ready to go within six months.
Water efficiency means using water more wisely - by fixing leaks, replacing old appliances and fixtures, and taking other common sense steps in our homes, businesses and communities.
"Water efficiency isn't about telling people to shower just once a week, or to plant a cactus in their front yards," said Otto. "It's about improving our infrastructure to stop leaks, reduce the water we use for each task, protect healthy rivers, and create long-term benefits for our water supplies and communities."
Website: www.AmericanRivers.org

Uh, Oh, Prop 8 Gets Weirder. Is That Possible?

From Jim Sanders, McClatchy Newspapers, Sacramento: SACRAMENTO – “California’s attorney general and election watchdogs are fighting back against a federal lawsuit seeking to bar disclosure of late donors to the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and the Fair Political Practices Commission jointly filed arguments this week opposing the suit by the proposition 8 campaign.. . . . .

The suit seeks a court order exempting Proposition 8 committees from indentifying people who donated shortly before or after the Nov 4 election. Previous contributors already have been named.

California’s Political Reform Act, approved by voters in 1974, requires disclosures of the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to campaigns.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements, claiming donors to Proposition 8 have been ravaged by 3-mails, phone calls and postcards – even death threats. . . . .

Brown, Bowen and the FPPC counter that disclosure requirements assist the sate in detecting efforts to hide the identities of large donors and illegal spending of political funds for personal use.

“Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors,” Brown said in a written statement.
Victims of harassment should sue or file criminal charges – not strip election records to “carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone,” he said. . . .

And then for the oddest wrinkle. One of the attorney’s for Prop 8, James Bopp Jr.” claimed that the state has no compelling reason to disclose donations as low as $100.

Really? Wasn’t that why the disclosure law was put into place I the first place, to foster “transparency” and prevent “stealth” money from being funneled in late in the game or slid in via $100 increments so the only way to find out who was actually sending the check, someone (like a nosy reporter) would have to spend the time tracking each $100? And in doing so, might uncover the interesting fact that (amazing coincidence!!) every single member (or employee) of a particular church (or business) sent in checks for $100 so the church (business) itself can claim it had NO CLUE it’s parishioners(employees) were supporting anything so the “church” (”business”) doesn’t have to report any involvement since it wasn’t involved, No Sir! No Sir! And that it might be of interest especially in a close election, that a whole lot of money can legally come in past the pre-election deadline, sufficient money for last minute media buys that can change an election with no way of accounting for that money until after the election, when it’s too late to let the voters know just who may be behind the donations, except for later to check into that by tracking those $100 donations? You mean, THAT kind of “transparency?”

Notes Ross Johnson, FPPC chairman, that the suit was “out to destroy campaign finance disclosure by a death-of-a-thousand cuts. I don’t intend to let that happen on my watch.”

Well, now it’s in the hands of the Feds. This “exemption” which the news story reports, “If successful, the suit would apply only to Yes on 8 committees. Besides barring disclosure of late donors, it would ban the public from viewing names previously released.” Hmm, ONLY applies to Prop 8. My, isn’t that . . . . special?