May 22, 2013
Southern California weighs in on Jerry Brown's water plan

     Weather, terrain, culture, beach sandal-to-hiking boot ratio -- there are plenty of things to distinguish the north state from Southern California. Add to that list where congressional delegations stand on Gov. Jerry Brown's divisive plan to construct a massive new water delivery system.
     The Bay Delta Conservation Plan builds on a familiar dynamic: water from the rainier north goes to quench the thirst of the more heavily populated south. So it should come as no surprise that members of Congress representing the two halves of California have distinctly different reactions.
A group of Southern California lawmakers has sent a letter to Brown and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell trumpeting their "continued strong support" for the Delta plan and asking that it "remains a top priority of the Department of the Interior and the State of California."
     "Our ability to increase our water supply depends on the reliability of water imported into the region," reads the letter, which is signed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and U.S. Representatives Grace Napolitano (Norwalk), Henry Waxman (Los Angeles), Jim Costa (Fresno), Lucille Roybal-Allard (Los Angeles), Linda Sanchez (Lakewood), Judy Chu (Monterey Park), Brad Sherman (Sherman Oaks), Janice Hahn (San Pedro), Adam Schiff (Burbank), Tony Cardenas (Sylmar), Karen Bass (Los Angeles) and Julia Brownley (Santa Monica).
     The letter adds that "California's economic and social future is tied to safe supply of reliable, high quality water" and cautions against "half measures."
Contrast that with the tone of a March missive from a Northern California delegation that called the Delta plan "flawed" and "reckless" and dismissed it as a "an expensive plumbing system that doesn't add a single drop to the state's water supply."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/southern-california-weighs-in-on-jerry-browns-water-plan.html#storylink=cpy

Pesticides Make a Comeback

Many Corn Farmers Go Back to Using Chemicals as Mother Nature Outwits Genetically Modified Seeds

By Ian Berry, NY Times, 22 May 2013

     "Insecticides sales are surging after years of decline, as American farmers plant more corn and a genetic modification designed to protect the crop from pests has started to lose its effectiveness.

     The sales are a boom for big pesticide makers, such as American Vangiard Corp. and Syngenta AG." read more...www.nyt.com/pesticidesmakeacomeback

Health and Safety Gaps in Safe Drinking and Clean Water Acts

By Patrick Porgans and Lloyd G. Carter

Part One of a two-part series

 

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: Health and Safety Code sections 116270, subdivisions (a) and (b).

   (a) Every citizen of California has the right to pure and safe drinking water.

   (b) Feasible and affordable technologies are available and shall be used to remove toxic contaminants from public water supplies.

  In the heart of California's farm country, San Joaquin Valley growers get better quality river water for irrigation while farmworkers, farm families and rural communities often get polluted groundwater unfit to drink.

Making matters worse, California officials have known for decades that groundwater used for drinking and home use is polluted by pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, industrial wastes and "treated" city waste water, but have done little to take advantage of nearly half a billion dollars in federal low interest loans available to address  the problem.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water.  Under SDWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.  

The 1996 amendments to the SDWA created the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SDWSRF). The SDWSRF is a loan program that provides low-cost financing to eligible entities within the state and tribal lands for public and private water systems infrastructure projects needed to achieve or to maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect public health. Small water systems and disadvantaged communities are given higher funding priority. Under the SDWA, the federal government makes available to the states low cost loans for drinking water projects, provided they are timely.

However, according to an April 19 letter from EPA’s Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, to Dr. Ron Chapman, Director of the California Department of Health (CDPH), California has failed to properly administer and disburse $455 million of the $1.5 billion made available beginning in 1996.  Blumenfeld said California has the worst record of all 50 states in failing to take advantage of the federal grant money.  In recent years, California has received an estimated $80 million in federal money annually for the fund. The state provides a 20 percent match and manages the loan repayments which helps replenish the fund, according to the Associated Press.

Blumenfeld's letter is the first “Determination of Noncompliance” notice issued to the CDPH, according to EPA staff.  However, back in 2002 EPA issued a determination of noncompliance to the State Water Resources Control Board, for similar reasons, citing mismanagement and misuse of federal funds provided to the State under the provisions of the Clean Water Act section 602(b) and 40 CFR part 35.3013(c).  According to EPA the State Water Board has been in compliance since the 2002 notice.

In his letter to CDPH, Blumenfeld cited administrative problems, insufficient staff and unqualified personnel at CDPH as causes for non-compliance. However, EPA allows for the state to use four percent of the grant and loan funds towards administrative and personnel costs.  Ironically, EPA reported that CDPH had more than $6.4 million at its disposal for such costs but did not use it.

Since 1978 the State has received on average $600 million to $800 million annually for clean water programs that are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.  EPA officials estimate California needs $39 billion in capital improvements through 2026 for water systems to continue providing safe drinking water to the public.  Instead, Gov. Brown is pushing a $14 billion twin tunnel project to ship relatively clean Sacramento River water around the beleaguered Delta estuary.

Under the revolving fund, the State Water Board is supposed to provide financial assistance through various State and federal loan and grant programs to help local agencies, businesses, and individuals meet the costs of water pollution control, development of locally available sustainable water supplies, and cleanup.

But what has happened is that significant portions of those federal funds have been expended on band-aid attempts to deal with the discharge of billions of gallons of highly contaminated wastewater and runoff resulting from agricultural drainage; one of the State’s major unresolved sources of pollution of both surface and ground water supplies. This farm drainage water discharged into the lower Delta contains pesticides and the trace element selenium, which caused the poisoning of fish and birds at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County three decades ago.

Another major source of surface and groundwater contamination results from the annual application of toxic pesticides. “Pesticide use in California rose in 2010 after declining for four consecutive years," according to data released in December 28, 2011 by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).   "More than 173 million pounds of pesticides were reported applied statewide, an increase of nearly 15 million pounds – or 9.5 percent – from 2009. The increase reflected a 15 percent jump in acres treated with pesticides – up 9.7 million acres to a total of 75 million acres in 2010," The DPR data stated. 

Pesticide use varies from year to year depending on many factors, including weather, pest problems, economics and types of crops planted. Increases and decreases in pesticide use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years do not necessarily indicate a trend.

The greatest pesticide use occurs in the San Joaquin Valley.  Indeed, the San Joaquin Valley is probably the most chemically-drenched landscape in the world.   The top five counties in order of most pesticide pounds applied in 2010 were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin and Madera. All are major producers of agricultural products. All of those counties receive subsidized water from government projects. . read more...

TRUTH DE-CODE-IT AVAILABLE AT AMAZON.COM+

PUBLIC RELEASE: Message-Empowerment: Global change; sustainable and mutual coexistence
                                via-passive resistance.

                                 Truth De-Code-It available on line. Author, Patrick Porgans

                              

 

MUTUAL COEXISTENCE: Truth De-Code-It is a reflection upon an Era of Deception ending as we awaken out-of-necessity, from the Goldman Sachs' Wall Street worldwide-banking cabal, into a Golden Age-of-Global Change.

 

The handwriting is on the wall, natural and human-induced conditions necessitate a change; as the systems upon which we have become dependent, and the manner in which we live, are not only unsustainable, they're not working.

Change is a constant, and when all else fails it's back to Mother Nature.

Noted Greek Philosopher Plato reportedly said, “The true creator is necessity, who is the mother of all invention”. Einstein, paraphrasing Plato, said, “Necessity is the mother of all invention”. The level of deception and impending-global crises (real or orchestrated) invoke the creative-necessity to implement a naturally-sustainable way out of this human-induced mess commonly referred to as Manifest Destiny.

Truth-De-Code-It is a reflection of what was, is now, and what is written to be, as an era of deception comes to an end, we awaken to become empower to change the world for the betterment of all life forms as we journey within a millennium of new beginnings.

Eschatology prophecy bears witness to the presence of Parousia; at last, the Second Coming is at hand, all things are to be reconciled accordingly.

Evil is on the way to burning it's’ greedy-self out, raising fears, rising doubts, “We the People” are calling for a global turn-about that will empower each of us, one at a time, to change our ways and the world around. There is no signing up, sending donations or endless meetings as you alone are empowered to change, and as an inhabitant of this earth a decision to live in accordance with Nature’s laws is your contribution. Please share this information with a friend. Thank you.

FYI: Order book(s) www.amazon.com/Truth_De-Code-It,    http://www.pr.com/press-release/469265 or http://gudelnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1424405

Wholesale books – 10 or more $5.00 each…Contact Bridgette at Outskirts Press 1-888-672-6657 Ext. 719

Send comments to Patrick Porgans at pp@planetarysolutionaries.org

Napa Wine Country Water for Fish Showdown at Kimball Creek

by Patrick Porgans, Planetary Solutionaries (Initially released 5 Feb. 2013)

 

Chris Malan, representing Living Rivers, is dead set on keeping fish alive in Kimball Creek, a tributary on the upper Napa River. Public records indicate that the City of Calistoga would be at fault for dead fish if it fails to release adequate flows from Kimball Dam and Reservoir, which are required to protect downstream fishery.

 

In Malan’s latest salvo “City must act now to protect fish” she makes a compelling argument, by backing up her stance on “water for fish now", pointing out the fact “it’s the law,” placing the city on a major “fault-line” and in the line-of-sight of the State Water Resources Control Board.

Formal complaints have been filed against the city for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a State Water Board issued permit associated with the right and use of water stored behind Kimball Dam.
 
Added pressure on the city’s fault-line is mounting due to the fact it is under a court order, Reynolds v. Calistoga, requiring water for fish releases from the dam, as prescribed in California Fish & Game Code Section 5937. This fish protection law was enacted in 1937; even fishery agencies acknowledge time for the fish is running out.
 
It’s a law that has never been enforced in a way consistent with the plainly stated language and requirement to maintain below-dam fish in good condition, according to a recent UC Davis law review article.

Section 5937 is being put to the dam test. Reynolds’ attorney, Bill McKinnon, appears to have his mind set on ensuring city leaders, so to speak, get-it-right up at the dam. City officials claim that they are cooperating with the court order. Critics claim officials are stalling.

Malan’s move to have the matter before the State Water Board is the next-dam step to get water for fish before it’s too late. As is the case with migrating salmonid species there are many hurdles to leap; reportedly steelhead have been known to leap up and over 17 feet.
 
As fate would have it, the State Water Board has its own set of “circumstantial setbacks,” such as the protracted implementation and subsequent litigation surrounding a Board adopted Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Streams, commonly referred to as the North Coast Instream Flow Policy. It contains Instream flow and other requirements to “protect fish,” which, believe it or not, was about a decade in-the-making; adopted in 2010. In 2012 the State Water Board retracted (vacated) its Instream Flow Policy.

In addition, Living Rivers has the State Water Board adopted Wine Country “Frost Protection regulations” in a legal freeze, asserting deficiencies contained in the environmental impact report (EIR). Living Rivers expressed concerns regarding such issues as groundwater availability and use of water by vintners during a freeze and its detrimental effects on fish; causing streams to dry up and fish to die.

According to the provisions contained within the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), creating, aiding or abetting stream dewatering which results in killing or loss of listed steelhead and other salmonid species, constitutes a “Take” under federal law.
 
Malan’s concerns of fish kill and “Take” resulting from frost protection and stream dewatering in Wine Country are valid and supported by the record.

Several years ago, frost-protection-fish kills were documented in Wine Country’s Russian River watershed prompting National Oceanic & Atmospherics Administration's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) agents to take an ESA action against a few “mom and pop” vintners. As it turned out the long-awaited OLE enforcement actions, resulting in “documented” frost-related “Take” of listed salmonid species “was all bark and no bite”.

Another added factor to support Malan’s position resulted from a 1976 Napa case, People ex rel, State Water Resources Control Board v. Forni et al, the State’s Superior Court issued a permanent injunction against certain vintners in the Napa Valley from drawing water directly from the Napa River to their vineyards for frost protection.

The court ruled water diversion for frost protection constituted an unreasonable method of diversion within the meaning of Article 14, Section 3, of the California Constitution and Section 100 of the Water Code. That case was prompted by a State Water Board action against the vintners in 1973.

To sum it up, the State Water Board has the ultimate responsibility to compel compliance on water rights and related uses, including water for fish.

In this case, its members are going to have to step up to the plate and sink their regulatory teeth into the water for fish issue. Essentially, adding all of the factors into the equation it appears to be show-time for the State Water Board, fish or cut bait.

Whatever the case, at this point, State Water Board members are going to be damned if they do or don’t. Knowing full well water for fish will generate some sour grapes in Wine Country, while Malan and others may find comfort knowing fish have water to propagate. The fish have, if you will, a swimming chance.

From out in Wine Country it is looking like the State Water Board can count on a standing room only crowd hooked on making “water for fish” a long-dam overdue reality.

For more information send email to pp@planetarysolutionaries.org

Signing of Homeowners Bill of Rights Three Years Late Anda $1 Trillion Short

 By: Patrick Porgans
Planetary Solutionaries

On Wednesday, California Gov, Jerry Brown, signed the “Homeowner Bill of Rights” into law (SB 900 and AB 278. This bill purportedly will curtail banks from fraudulent foreclosures.

Reportedly, Brown tweeted that “this law will stop banks from foreclosing on Californians who are trying in good faith to renegotiate their mortgages.”

State Attorney General Kamala Harris campaigned for the legislation, and added a presentation on her website on how it will benefit California families.

Critics point out that the bill does not take effect until the beginning of the year and servicers aren’t obligated to consider applications for loan modifications or appeals submitted before Jan 1, 2013. Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a subcommittee of Occupy LA, is calling for an immediate moratorium on foreclosures to protect the thousands of families facing foreclosures right now.

In the meantime, there are many among the millions of foreclosure victims of the bank-induced subprime-mortgage crisis, robo-signing; derivatives-hedge betting, Wall Street bailout and fraud view it as more political grandstanding, years late and, according to some estimates, $1,000,000,000,000.

In California alone, the total cost of the foreclosure crisis to homeowners, the property tax base, and local governments could add up to at least $650 billion and possibly reach as much as $1 trillion? That’s just one of the major findings of a report, released by a coalition of faith, community and labor groups in California that are demanding that Wall Street pay its fair share to helping California recover from this devastating crisis.

Many are questioning the government’s ability to use or enforce existing laws designed to protect victims of crime. Others question the need for such a law so late in the game; after all, it is estimated that by year’s end two-million foreclosures would have taken place in the Golden State.

Government insiders contend the new law is a clever way to promote the illusion of protection and accountability. They may have a point, the fact that the state’s Constitution, Article I, already provides protection for victims of crime. Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill.

Critics question why make new laws when existing ones are not being enforced. Although the banks have agreed to a multibillion dollar settlement, and have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines levied by the Security Exchange Commission; all this has been without an admission of guilt.

A ranking Congressman recently summed it up like this during a hearing attended by the major bank executives testifying before Congress. He said, members of his constituency have and continue to rob banks, should we grant them the same prosecutorial discretion and/or immunity as the banks’ are presently seeking?

The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.

Political insiders recognize that Brown and state’s attorney general Kamala Harris can make a lot of political “hey” out of the enactment of this new victims’ rights law, which, coincidentally, came out after the signing of the attorneys generals settlement with the five major banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis.

The promises made by five of the nation's largest banks under the much-ballyhooed $25 billion mortgage settlement have a surprisingly short shelf life. Read more

Signing of homeowners bill of rights three years late and a $1 trillion short

Planetary Solutionaries, Article by Patrick Porgans, Solutionist

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT – IMMEDIATE RELEASE     11 July 2012
Los Angeles, CA USA 

Today, California Gov, Jerry Brown,signed the “Homeowner Bill of Rights” into law (SB 900 and AB 278. This bill purportedly will curtail banks from fraudulent foreclosures. 

Reportedly, Brown tweeted that “this law will stop banks from foreclosing on Californians
 who are trying in good faith to renegotiate their mortgages.”

State Attorney General Kamala Harris campaigned for the legislation, and added a presentation on her website on how it will benefit California families.

Critics point out that the bill does not take effect until the beginning of the year and servicers aren’t obligated to consider applications for loan modifications or appeals submitted before Jan 1, 2013. Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a subcommittee of Occupy LA, is calling for an immediate moratorium on foreclosures to protect the thousands of families facing foreclosures right now.

In the meantime, there are many among the millions of foreclosure victims of the bank-induced subprime-mortgage crisis, robo-signing; derivatives-hedge betting, Wall Street bailout and fraud view it as more political grandstanding, years late and, according to some estimates, $1,000,000,000,000.

In California alone, the total cost of the foreclosure crisis to homeowners, the property tax base, and local governments could add up to at least $650 billion and possibly reach as much as $1 trillion? That’s just one of the major findings of a report, released by a coalition of faith, community and labor groups in California that are demanding that Wall Street pay its fair share to helping California recover from this devastating crisis.

Many are questioning the government’s ability to use or enforce existing laws designed to protect victims of crime.Others question the need for such a law so late in the game; after all, it is estimated that by year’s end two-million foreclosures would have taken place in the Golden State. 
Government insiders contend the new law is a clever way to promote the illusion of protection and accountability. They may have a point, the fact that the state’s Constitution, Article I, already provides protection for victims of crime. Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill. 
Critics question why make new laws when existing ones are not being enforced. Although the banks have agreed to a multibillion dollar settlement, and have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines levied by the Security Exchange Commission; all this has been without an admission of guilt.

One ranking Congressman recently summed it up like this during a hearing attended by the major bank executives testifying before Congress. He said, members of his constituency have and continue to rob banks, should we grant them the same prosecutorial discretion and/or immunity as the banks’ are presently seeking?

The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will. 

Political insiders recognize that Brown and state’s attorney general Kamala Harris can make a lot of political “hey” out of the enactment of this new victims’ rights law, which, coincidentally, came out after the signing of the attorneys generals settlement with the five major banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis. 

The promises made by five of the nation's largest banks under the much-ballyhooed $25 billion mortgage settlement have a surprisingly short shelf life.

Under the deal struck in February, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial pledged to stop the illegal practices that sparked false documentation and "robo-signing," which helped push many homeowners into foreclosure and caused endless headaches for millions of other borrowers.

But the legal agreements among the banks, and the states and federal government hold for only three-and-a-half years; the pledge runs out in 2015.

Others argue that Golden State’s Constitution, Article I, already provides a Victim’s Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, at this point, concerns as to the applicability of the existing victims’ rights law, left unchallenged, may become a moot point, upon signing of the new law.

Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill, and as a step forward. Opponents contend that it is more like two-steps backwards. 

Planetary Solutionaries point to the simple fact that both Brown and Kamala had the authority to stop foreclosures at least three years ago, and failed to do so. 

To Brown’s credit, he did threatened to stop foreclosures when he served as state attorney general; however, that did not happen. 

Kamala reportedly ran her campaign on the hold the banks accountable and stop bank foreclosures.
Despite all the rhetoric the Golden State and its taxpaying residents are the victims of the bank-induced mortgage crisis causing significant economic impact and financial disruption.

Brown could have also exercised his authority to “Declare a State of Financial Emergency”, which is also provided for in the State’s Constitution, Article IV, section 10(f). 

Brown exercised this authority in January 2011, at which time he “declared a state of fiscal emergency in California" due to the state’s unrelenting budget crisis. 

Although foreclosure victims appealed to Brown to and Kamala to exercise their respective authority to stop the bank-induced foreclosure, they opted not to do so. The appeal was meant as a means to stabilized the crisis and ensure a flow of much needed tax revenues to aid the state’s deficit-ridden General Fund.

California's lawmakers approved a $92.1-billion FY2013 budget on June 15, 2012, with a Senate vote of 23-16 and an Assembly vote of 50-25, along party lines. Gov. Brown signed the budget on June 28, 2012, after vetoing $195 million in spending, $91.3 million from the general fund and $66.8 from special funds and federal funds.

The money to fund the General Fund comes predominately from sales, income, real estate and property taxes.

Brown critics claim that as a two-time governor he should have known that the mortgage crisis and related foreclosures would take a terrible toll on tax revenues used to for the deficit-ridden General Fund.

The cost to the taxpayers for each of those many foreclosures will amount to an estimated $38 billion, alone. The loss in property values exceed $600 million, combined with the loss in tax revenue to local and state treasuries more than $1,000,000,000,000, The nationwide government-bank settlement amounted to just $25 billion.

Although contact was made with the designated agencies responsible for collecting and distributing taxes collected by the state, none could provide the amount of tax revenue losses and related foreclosure costs incurred to date.

Instead of stopping the financial hemorrhaging, and ensuring anticipated tax revenues, Brown, along with his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeded in axing out more than $100 billion in General Fund budget cuts in the previous three state approved budgets.

California’s Draconian budget cuts continue to take their toll on education, safety-net services, jobs, and, other related taxpayer-funded social programs.

Under Brown and Schwarzenegger’s fiscal austerity plan, using the same finance director, Ana Matosantos, they have been pushing the issuance of tens-of-billions of dollars in new debt, via the sale of General Obligation (GO) bonds, for water and water-related programs, and the high-speed rail; a plan that could cost taxpayers as much as $68 billion. 

Currently there are $147 billion in authorized GO bonds; $80 billion of which has been issued. According to state treasurer Bill Lockyer, It will cost us two dollars for every dollar borrowed and spent.... “

Bond measures that appear on statewide ballots include a disclaimer that goes something like this: “This measure appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.” 

Translation:“This measure does not raise your taxes to repay the bondholders.” Instead, bond debt is repaid from the same limited pot of money that funds our schools, universities, safety-net programs, criminal justice system, and other key public structures. Because voters don’t have to weigh the value of what the bonds would buy against their willingness to pay for them, bonds may look a bit like free money to many California voters, according to the California Budget Project.

However, a recent report from State Treasurer Bill Lockyer makes clear that bonds are no free lunch. Debt service – principal and interest payments – on outstanding bonds will cost the state an estimated $6.9 billion in 2011-12, equal to 7.8 percent of General Fund revenues.

At its peaking 2007-2008, General Fund spending was $103 billion. Given the deep spending cuts included in the 2011 Budget and the 2012 Budget, overall General Fund spending is now $91.3 billion, $11.6 billion lower than five years earlier. General fund spending as a share of the state’s economy is down to its lowest level since 1972-1973, when Brown served as governor.

The repayment of those bond come essentially off the top of the taxes paid into the General Fund. Currently, depending on government’s numbers, the debt service represents about eight or nine percent of the fund. Estimates by the state indicate that total annual debt service on GO bond could eat up as much as 12% of the fund in the near future.

Although, the use of GO bonds is an established method of funding state projects, serious questions have been raised, that remain unanswered, regarding the alleged misuse of GO bonds.

About a half of dozen of the state’s 100 billionaires have and continue to be the recipients of billions of dollars of profits and give-away programs derived from the issuance, sales and distribution of GO bonds which are repaid from the deficit ridden General Fund.

Brown recently said that the lion’s share of the state’s portion of the settlement will go into the General Fund. A matter that will be the subject of an upcoming series of articles, which raises doubts about the seriousness of the state’s recurring budget and general fund crises and examines how the issuance of GO bonds amount to a shift in the state’s annual debt load. 

Essentially, how some of California's billionaires are using the public’s credit rating, tax base, natural resources, and key-politically held offices to amass and sustain their fortunes as the expense and to the demise of its residents.#

For more information contact pp@planetarysolutionaries.org