Showing posts with label Patrick Porgans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Porgans. Show all posts
Friday, January 8, 2016
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Why Is California Giving More Water to Golf Courses Than Wildlife?
Environment
September 21, 2015
Golf courses get 25-year water contracts while a wildlife preserve that shelters millions of birds and dozens of protected species get a 1-year contract. Read more… http://www.alternet.org/environment/lawsuit-claims-socal-giving-more-water-golf-courses-wildlife-
Sunday, February 8, 2015
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (AP) —
Regulators in California, the country's third-largest oil-producing state, have authorized oil companies to inject production fluids and waste into what are now federally protected aquifers more than 2,500 times, risking contamination of underground water supplies that could be used for drinking water or irrigation, state records show.
While the
permits go back decades, an Associated Press analysis found that nearly half of
those injection wells — 46 percent — were approved or began injections in the
last four years under Gov. Jerry Brown, who has pushed state oil and gas
regulators to speed up the permitting process. That happened despite growing
warnings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2011 that state
regulators were out of compliance with federal laws meant to protect
underground drinking-water stores from oilfield contamination.
In
California, "we need a big course correction. We need to get the system
back in compliance," said Jared Blumenfeld, regional administrator for the
EPA. "Californians expect their water is not being polluted by oil
producers ... This poses that very real danger." http://news.yahoo.com/california-permitted-oilfield-discharge-protected-water-175027791.html;_ylt=A86.J7_.yddU2FoAFioPxQt.
Monday, February 2, 2015
If you, like 3.5
million Californians, voted “yes” on the $7.5 billion water bond last year, you
should start paying attention to how Gov. Jerry Brown is planning to spend the
bond money.
It may not be on
building new dams to store water for future dry years like he assured voters,
farmers and legislators before the election.
The governor
recently divulged how he wants to spend the first $532 million: restoring
streams, rivers and watersheds, water recycling projects, upgrading drinking
water treatment plants, rebates for people buying water-efficient appliances
and, finally, groundwater management and cleanup.
Something seems to
be missing from this list. [Note: Yes, something is missing, who is getting all
the money.] FYI: Read
more…
Monday, November 3, 2014
CALIFORNIA’S MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BONDAGE PROPOSITION
Prop. 1 and 2 will cost taxpayers billions and benefit at least four
of California’s 90 billionaires
For more information contact Patrick Porgans pp@planetarysolutionaries.org
3 November 2014
California Governor Jerry Brown is up
for re-election, and, when he wins, will make history as the state’s
first fourth-term governor.
Ironically, Brown is not out
campaigning for his job. Instead, he is the major proponent of two “legislative
sponsored” ballot initiatives, Proposition 1 a water bond” and Proposition 2, a “rainy day” fund, which reportedly
have the overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans.
Brown‘s T.V. ads claim voter approval
of Prop. 1 and 2 will enable Californians to save water and money, and secure
the Golden State’s economic and financial future, increase water supply
reliability, and help it prepare for climate change.
Prop. 1 “Authorizes $7.5 billion in
general obligation (G.O.) bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects,
including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection,
wetlands restoration, and drinking water protection. Voter approval of Proposition
1 would increase state bond (indebtedness) cost averaging $360 million annually
over 40 years,” according to the Secretary of State Office.
Taxpayer groups claim that Brown is
plunging California deeper into debt. Some critics charge that Brown is
promoting his father’s and his legacy to complete the State Water Project
(SWP). Others contend issuance of the G.O. bonds is an ingenious financial
scheme to use the state’s tax-base, credit rating and natural resources to
promote and sustain the fortunes of California billionaires that benefit from
SWP, at the expense of taxpayers.
Brown is viewed as being fiscally
conservative; however, his support for the water bond would not save money it will
cost taxpayers ‘$15 billion in new debt. This debt obligation will be repaid
from the state’s heretofore deficit-ridden General Fund.
California is already inundated with
a total of $147.8 billion in G.O. bonds that have already been
authorized, according to the State Treasurer’s Office; repayment on that debt
is around $300 billion.
Currently, there is $78.5 billion in
outstanding general obligation (G.O.) bond debt. Every dollar the State borrows
in G.O. bonds, it cost two dollars, according to the State Treasurer, Bill
Lockyer. Repayment costs on the outstanding G.O. bonds are in excess of $150
billion. In order to put the magnitude of this debt in perspective, the current
general fund expenditures to keep the state running is $107 billion. The annual
debt service to repay outstanding G.O. bonds is around $8 billion.
Prop. 1 and 2 are inextricably tied
together. The “rainy day fund” requires annual transfer of state general fund
revenues to budget stabilization account. It also requires half the revenues be
used to repay state debts. Limits use of remaining funds to emergencies or
budget deficits.
Critics of both propositions view
them as a backstop that authorizes a legal way to issue more bonds and drain
money from the General Fund that could be used to fund other essential
services. Critics claim that the rainy day fund is just another way of soaking
the taxpayers to pay to provide water projects that benefit at least four of
California’s 90 billionaires , who have a combined acreage in
excess of 720,000 acres that are in need of water and infrastructure. Water
realized from the bond act will be used to plant more permanent crops and
foster additional urban development in Central and Southern California.
Approval of both propositions would
enable Brown and his supporters to open the flood gates and promote more G.O. bonds
to cover the debt for the estimated $63 billion “Delta fix – twin tunnels”
(Bay-Delta Conservation Plan) and the High Speed Rail “Bullet Train”; initially
estimated to cost $40 billion, it is
currently at $68 billion. Recently, the
California Supreme Court refused to hear the case involving the issuance of
bonds for the high speed rail, clearing the way for the state to sell up to $9 billion in G.O. bonds.
Proposition 1 was initially conjured
up under former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Administration, as
was the Bullet Train and the Delta tunnels, all of which are being championed
by Brown. Schwarzenegger, also viewed as
a fiscal conservative, was a strong advocate of G.O. bond indebtedness that
Californians will be repaying into the next century.
Prior to the state’s current budget,
draconian budget cut, effecting safety-net services, education, jobs, parks and
other public services were slashed from the General Fund to offset G.O. bond
debt. The state’s credit and bond rating went down the drain, and major
investment firms lost interest in the bonds.
Brown kept Schwarzenegger’s Director
of Finance, Ana J. Matosantos. During the last two budgets of the
Schwarzenegger’s reign, and the first budget Brown approved, they had made
draconian budget cuts from the General Fund in excess of $100 billion during a
three-year period.
Things went from bad to worse when
the State had entered into a deal in a 2010 failed attempt to sell 11
properties in a sale-leaseback transaction to extract revenue from the state’s
real estate assets to provide revenue for the state’s budgetary shortfalls. This
deal was challenged in the courts, and received a scathing review from critics.
A report on the details of the sale was
published by the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). G.O. bonds are
backed by the full faith and credit of the State, which has the authority to
sell public assets to cover the state’s debt.
While it is not the intent to
discount Brown’s assertions, critics claim it is a matter of interpretation.
For example, since the mid 1990’s, more than $19 billion in G.O. bonds have
been authorized for water supply reliability, safe and clean water programs,
water for fish, drought relief, and habitat improvement. Voters were assuaged to approve those bonds
because they had politicians’ assurances that it would resolve the very water
shortages the state is currently experiencing, since the mid-1990s.
Government records attest to the fact
that California has expended vast sums of money on water development projects
in the past century. The Golden State has the most developed water storage and
delivery system in the United States.
In fact, it was Brown’s father,
Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, Sr., who successfully launched the California State
Water Project (SWP), by getting voters to approve a $1.75 billion G.O. bond, back in November 1960, to build the Project
that sold to the public on the promise it “would pay for itself.”
The concept was prefaced on the
assertion that SWP water and power contractors would be obligated to repay all
of the reimbursable cost for the SWP. The
record does not support that assertion.
Conversely, the data indicate that
project has not, nor will it ever pay for itself. More than a half-of-century
later, there is still $392.9 million in outstanding debt on the SWP $1.75
billion bonds. “Completion of the SWP is now estimated to be more than $50
billion, which does not include all of the costs.
SWP contract require that contractors
pay certain annual cost even if they do not receive water; the revelation of
the SWP’s economic plight surface at the end of the 1987-1992 droughts. In 1994, Senate hearings revealed that the SWP
was not paying for itself and bond syndicates were troubled about the financial
integrity of the Project. Those findings and concerns were affirmed by testimony
from SWP agricultural contractors asserting that they were on the verge of
default. The crisis prompted the state to resort to issuing commercial paper to
make good on the SWP’s financial obligations.
Insiders contend that Proposition 1 is just another in a longstanding series of publicly subsidized bailout for SWP contractors. Governor Brown, Sr. conceded that the SWP was knowingly underfinanced and contractually over committed (“sold” more water than it could deliver), since its inception.
Whichever is the case, the final determination of the fate of Prop. 1 and 2 will be determined by the voters on November 4th. #
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Epic 500 year drought exacerbated and exaggerated by water officials - Part One
Public
Service Announcement
Immediate
Release 3 April 2014Patrick Porgans, www.planetarysolutionaries.org
SACRAMENTO, CA
Water
officials’ and scientists’ claims that the Golden State is in the grips of an
epic 500 year drought is not supported by the facts. Government documents show back
in January that this year’s drought was not the worst in 500 years.
“We
are on track for having the worst drought in 500 years,” 500 years,” said B.
Lynn Ingram, Paleoclimatologist, professor of earth and planetary sciences at
the University of California, Berkeley. That
story was released on January 30.Although an effort was made to reach Ingram to
ascertain the scientific data to support her contention, she has yet to
respond.
Contact
was also made with NOAA’s World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder, Colorado to ascertain quantifiable
data to validate Ingram’s assertion. Based upon a discussion with personnel
assigned to the Center for Paleoclimatology, there is not enough data to say
with certainty that this is the worst drought in 500 years.
Data
obtained from the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Public
Information Office indicate that, at best, the state may be experiencing the
fourth driest water year in recorded history. (A water-year is measured by the
Sacramento River Unimpaired runoff dating back to 1906 and, by definition,
begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year; currently,
we are in water year 2014.) DWR officials depend heavily on Sacramento River
watershed runoff to meet State Water Project demands.
In
DWR’s February 1 report , Bulletin 120, DWR officials’ forecasted water year
2014 for the Sacramento River Unimpaired Runoff at 6.1 million acre-feet (MAF).
One-acre foot of water contains 325,851 gallons of water. Critics point out
that when DWR’s forecast was made we were only 16 weeks into the water year.
However, in DWR’s March 1, 2014 report showed that this water year forecast at
6.2 MAF, stating it as the fourth driest on record. The March rains will require water officials to go back
to the drawing board, casting doubts on the motives and severity of this
drought.
Contrary
to Ingram’s and water officials forecast, public records show that the driest recorded
water year occurred in 1977 (5.1 million acre-feet (MAF), followed by 1924 (5.7
MAF), and 1931 (6.1 MAF); data extrapolated from a 2010 DWR report
According
to the record, the worst set of extended drought events occurred during
1929-1934, the 1976-1977 and 1987-1992 period, respectfully, according to DWR’s
Figure 1. The 1976-77 and 1987-1992 drought occurred post SWP construction, as
indicated in DWR’s graph, Figure 1, Comparison
of Previous Droughts.
.
Figure 1
Government Projects
Operate on Flawed Computer Models
The
facts contained in the public record do not support government officials and
scientists assertion that the Golden State is currently in the grips of an epic
500 years drought. Their comments are prefaced on tree rings and limited
Paleoclimatological information and computer-generated models.
The question is how accurate are models water
officials’ use for management and operation of the State Water Project (SWP).
Ironically, it is common knowledge that “All models
are wrong, some are useful,” according to an article published by Professor Jay Lund, UCD, quoting statistician George Box.
Dependence on tree-ring records have
intrinsic shortcomings, including divergence problems and proxies applied in the models. Furthermore, the
models failed to identify California’s worse drought of record in recent history
(post SWP), which occurred in the 1976-1977 water years.
“Every day this drought goes on we are going
to have to tighten
the screws on what people are doing” said Gov. Jerry Brown, who was
governor during the last major drought here, in 1976-77.
Although
California has experienced its share of notable droughts since 1906, officials
could not provide a drought contingency plan, when requested last month; instead
they are holding public workshop to get the peoples input on what to do about
the drought.
Officials made it clear that there is
no universal definition of when a drought begins or ends. Drought is a gradual
phenomenon, according to DWR.
Figure 2
Figure 1 and Figure 2 failed to list the driest individual water years, 1977 (5.1 million acre-feet (MAF), 1924 (5.7 MAF), 1931 (6.1 MAF), respectfully. however, the recent series of storms experienced in March may require DWR to amend that forecast. Figure 4 does not include the 1987-92 droughts, which was comparable to the six-year drought event that occurred during the 1929-1934 six-year droughts, as shown in Figure 1.
Sacramento River Unimpaired Runoff
Values in Figure 2 represent the estimated unimpaired flow for the Sacramento Valley floor and the minor streams from the Stony Creek drainage area to the Cache Creek drainage area, from the Cache Creek drainage area to the mouth of the Sacramento River, and from the Feather River drainage area to the American River drainage area.
Figure 3
Monthly Average Runoff of Sacramento River
Figure 3, provides the average runoff for the Sacramento River system, which illustrates that March, April, and May as three of the five highest months that runoff occurred historically. All the numbers are in millions of acre-feet of water.
Figure 4, indicates the water year in precipitation, when
comparing the severity of historical drought. Critics point out that this is
where DWR officials began to compare apples with oranges, as it is common
knowledge in the water world water years are measured in acre-feet.
Cloud of Doubt Rising as to the Severity of the Drought
In
the first year of the 1976-77 droughts, DWR officials delivered 600,000
acre-feet of water, stored at the SWP’s Oroville reservoir, to agricultural
contractors in Kern County for $2.95 delivered, even though it was warned that
was not a prudent management decision.
During
the 1987-92 droughts, DWR delivered record-breaking amounts of water to its
contractors in central and southern California in the first four years, playing
the odds that the drought would not continue. DWR officials water management
and delivery practices exacerbated the severity of the droughts.
DWR officials responded to the dry conditions
by exporting and delivering significant amounts of water to SWP contractors; i.e.,
in 2010 it delivered 2.44 million-acre feet (MAF), in 2011, 3.55MAF, and in
2012, 2.84 MAF.
In light of all the recorded data
questions are being raised as to the motive behind Gov. Brown’s, water
officials' and Ingram’s claim that this is the worst drought in 500 years.
Critics claim that it is all about promoting more water development and bilking the
public out of hundreds of millions of dollars for drought relief giveaway
grants, the majority of those funds is borrowed money that is given to some of
the biggest water districts and landowners in the state. Back during the
2007-2009 “drought" DWR held grant giveaway meetings at the Irvine RanchWater District’s Duck Club.
Figure 4
Drought
Proclamation Opens Floodgate Releasing $870 Million in Public Funds
DWR
personnel claim that this is the third dry year in a row, , includes water year
2012, 2013, and 2014, yet it was not until mid-January that California Governor
Jerry Brown issued a Proclamation ,
declaring the drought as a State of
Emergency.
“With
California facing water shortfalls in the driest year in recorded state
history, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today [January 17] proclaimed a State of Emergency and
directed state officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for these
drought conditions.”
Corporate
media ran with the “500-year drought” story, heightening public fears and
uncertainties, claiming that the drought will devastate California’s $44.7
billion agricultural industry and result in massive farm-related
jobs losses, higher unemployment rates, rise in food
prices, relaxation of water quality standards and environmental protections..
The
situation apparently was so bad that President Obama flew in on Air Force One
to Fresno and observed the devastation personally and immediately pledged $183million
from existing federal funds for drought relief programs in California.
Meanwhile,
Gov. Brown’s Administration opened the floodgates and is doling out $687million in
drought relief grants using borrowed money that will ultimately cost state
taxpayers in excess of $1 billion in new debt to offset the devastation.
The
largest share of the drought relief package - $549 million - comes from
accelerated spending of General Obligation (G.O.) bond money voters previously
approved in two ballot propositions.
"This
legislation (appropriating drought relief funds) marks a crucial step - but
Californians must continue to take every action possible to conserve
water," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement.
As
of late, government officials are holding hearings laying out plans for a new
$4 billion reservoir, when the Golden State is already inundated with $74.6
billion in G.O. bond debt, of
which $19.6 billion was expended on water- and drought-related give away
grants.
According
to the state treasurer, Bill Lockyer, it cost $2 for every dollar borrowed
using G.O. bonds. The money to repay the bonds comes from the state’s
heretofore deficit-ridden General Fund.
Ironically,
California agriculture experienced a nearly three percent increase in the sales
value of its products in 2012. The state’s 80,500 farms and ranches received a
record $44.7 billion for their output in 2012, up from $43.3 billion in 2011
and $37.9 billion during 2010, according to the latest published government
reports.
Almond acreage during the period of 2009
through 2012 increased from 720,000 acres to 780,000 acres in 2012; averaging to
20,000
acres a decade.. Between 1995 and 2010,
almond acreage expanded from 440,000 to 870,000 acres in 2010; increasing cash
receipts to growers from $800 million to more than $4 billion, respectively.
Using
a conservative average of 3.4 acre-feet of water per acre to grow almonds
indicate that the demand on California’s developed water supply and groundwater
would have increased by about 1.36 million acre-feet of water.
The
amount of water required to irrigate just the 870,000 acres of almonds planted
would require an estimated 2.9 MAF of water that is about 800,000 acre-feet
more than the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California provides
annually to 18 million urban water users in its service area.
Essentially,
DWR and SWP agricultural contractors gambled on the odds that even if the drought
continued, they would get the unsuspecting public to bail them out by issuing
G.O. bonds.
Because
DWR has not produced all of the pertinent information, it is difficult to
account for the extent and gravity of this drought. Currently, Planetary
Solutionaries (PS) is conducting a forensic accounting of the “management” of
the SWP going back to the worst drought experienced since the SWP became
operable. PS’ findings will be continued in Part two of this series. ###
Part
Two: Government officials dump floodwater during the “Epic 500-year Drought
In the midst of a “500-year drought” it is
difficult to fathom why California water officials would dump million gallons
of “floodwaters” out of State Water Project (SWP) reservoirs in southern
California, while drought police issue warning letters, and stiff fines to
homeowners in the water-rich north state for watering lawns and washing cars.
To be continued…
Previous drought stories:
Duck club link http://www.california%20progressreport.com/site/budget-deficits-bond-debt-billionaires-brown-family-and-big-profits
About the Author: Patrick Porgans completed 75-fact finding volumes on water- and drought-related issues in the Western United States. As a Forensic Accountant, he conducted 15 volumes that assessed every major aspect of the California State Water Project (SWP). Those reports were the subject of legislative hearings that brought to light the intrinsic shortcomings of the Project and the $10s of billions of dollars in cost overruns that have been paid for by the taxpayers that the law requires be repaid by SWP contractors. You can view his work at www.planetarysolutionaries.org or go to www.linkedin.com/in/patrickporgans/
About the Author: Patrick Porgans completed 75-fact finding volumes on water- and drought-related issues in the Western United States. As a Forensic Accountant, he conducted 15 volumes that assessed every major aspect of the California State Water Project (SWP). Those reports were the subject of legislative hearings that brought to light the intrinsic shortcomings of the Project and the $10s of billions of dollars in cost overruns that have been paid for by the taxpayers that the law requires be repaid by SWP contractors. You can view his work at www.planetarysolutionaries.org or go to www.linkedin.com/in/patrickporgans/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)