San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor, says the various special interests must rethink their positions on the water issue and be willing to compromise to solve this growing California crisis. He said he would consider building dams as part of a comprehensive solution to the problem.
Now that's the moderate position on water, not the lefty position you'd think you'd hear from the mayor of San Francisco. Of course, his city has a dam of its own that supplies water from Yosemite National Park's Hetch Hetchy Valley. Newsom opposes efforts by environmentalists in his own city who want the O'Shaughnessy Dam removed in Yosemite.
The dam on the Tuolumne River is part of a system that provides water and electricity to 2.4 million people in San Francisco and surrounding counties. That dam is crucial to the city of San Francisco, and Newsom said there is no viable alternative to replacing the water that would be lost if the dam came down.
During an interview prior to a town hall meeting at Fresno's Wawona Middle School, Newsom said he has the skill to bring the parties together to solve the state's water problem.
He said he supports the water bond being proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The $9.3 billion state water bond offers an approach that includes $3 billion for water storage and $2 billion for improving the efficiency of the water system.
About 250 people showed up for the town hall meeting with Newsom. He said this was the 16th town hall that he's held around California since beginning his quest to become governor.
The Democratic nomination for governor is expected to come down to Newsom, Attorney General Jerry Brown and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
With a $400 million budget deficit in San Francisco under Mayor Newsome, his credentials for running California are right in line with our political leaders in Sacramento.
WHO has assigned a Level 5 to the swine flu phenomenon and you have two discussions practically back to back on Newsome.
Hopefully the current public health event will qualify for your funny question segment. I have one for you:
What form of transportation does Vice President Joe Biden say he would avoid now after all these years.
1) Subways. 2) Airplanes. 3) Any public transportation with groups in confined areas. 4) High Speed Rail. 5) All the above.
Look what I found:
Bart Turnipseed | July 13, 2008 10:14 PM
Like many progressive ideas, this one may have a few bugs in it that are worth our consideration. CDC warns that there are numerous viruses on the horizon which we should be concerned about. In the event of an epidemic, this transportation system (high speed, high volume, long distance) may turn out to be the ideal vehicle for some of these viruses to spread between our major population centers very rapidly. I am not interested in supporting a test of that possibility.
Gavin Newsome already has the governor race all wrapped up......whether you like it or not, haha.
Doesn't Gavin have to "register" as an offender when he travels to another county?
yeah right. gavin can do anything he wants, whenever he wants. he gets a free pass and a few extra blonde mistresses in every county he visits. he's the man!!
Wow, not one comment actually on topic. Great job, guys.
Frankly, while I would likely oppose new surface storage depending on circumstances it is nice to see someone on the left open to compromise on the water issue. Whether these are just empty words remains to be seen however.
He said he would consider building dams not that he would do it and where do you suppose he will get the money for it? He is just another say what you want to hear politician. He wont get my vote since he is just another arrogant womanizing politician.
Brandon
He might consider it because it will happen without him or not, and we don't need him to muck up the process. Enjoy your bird bath.
He is a low life that needs political quarantining, preferably where he came from.
He doesn't need the Central Valley's vote to be elected, although this area has turned blue by a slight margin..
Ex Governor Jerry Brown is intellectually and politically more than qualified to stir the state-ship California out of troubled waters. But can he overcome the years and years of character assassination spread by the plebeian mob. Californians more than people from other states (Oregon for instance) have an overt dislike for Intellectualism and good breeding. It's evident even in this blog, a limited communication medium. The patricians are no longer the standard bearers for the Republic.
Ms. Lawson is bringing up all the less than important aspects of Browns history in office. He is proactive and has vigorously supported the wrong issues helping the left bring this state to its knees. He is part of the problem, not the solution.
Allthough for once, Mr. Turnipseed, your post is lucid and debatable, it is too little to late for me to pick up the challenge.
Bart,
Noooo, can't you see? The liberals are allowed to blame Reagan and two Bushes, while completely skipping Clinton, but conservatives aren't allowed to bring up the past poor decisions made by liberals.
Brown and Davis are flawless, and all of CA's problems are on the shoulders of Duke, Wilson, and Arnold.
Kim,
I like the "womanizer" comment. How can we trust a governor who won't even honor a promise he made to his own wife?
...oh, yeah, Brandon. About that topic. Why build surface storage when some stupid little fishy will block pumping any water to it anyway? Wait, Gavin--how 'bout building some new pumps & canals to bypass the smelt's territory? Naw, too practical a solution, I guess.
Wait, Gavin--how 'bout building some new pumps & canals to bypass the smelt's territory? Naw, too practical a solution, I guess.
Apparently you're not one of those guys who think the government is spending too much money, or want to get the government "off our backs."
Mike D.
Since the eco-fascists have effectively started shutting down a large portion of the valley's farmland because they have designed a law that apparently can never be challenged, then yes, I think we should put some money into a water delivery system that bypasses the sacred Delta Smelt territory. It would be a one-time, proactive expense that would cheaper than welfare & lost tax base revenue for the thousands of unemployed workers the valley normally supports through agriculture, including packaging plants, wholesalers, & retailers. I have 4 friends who could possibly be out of work if the valley loses a large portion of farmland. 3 work in the packaging industry, and 1 is a "middleman" who buys for retailers. Your neighbors might repair tractors, sell seed, drive trucks that carry produce, or perform some sort of daily work that is directly connected to agricultural activity. If no action is taken, all of our neighborhoods will suffer as scores of unemployed people foreclose and/or move out of state. The long-term cost of inaction would be much greater than the cost of constructing a few miles of canals.
I'm detecting mild sarcasm in your comment. Do you think the government should spend more, and get on our backs even more?
Back to the point. I wouldn't trust Newsome any farther than I could throw Bart. If Newsome's wife can't trust him, why should we? He's a pretty-boy, slick talking, narcissistic, power-hungry jerk. Apparently his mistress(es?) like that kind of guy.
A drought is "an extended period of months or years when a region notes a deficiency in its water supply." Although having a water delivery system that bypasses the delta sounds good the fact still remains that the water all comes from the same watershed. You can have all the canals in the world but if there is a shortage of water to supply them, the results are the same. The solution to this problem is ten years too late. We should have already built water storage facilities to "save" surface runoff to use in drought years. Dams and canals won't help us right now. They will help for future droughts however. We should also look into ways of reducing the cost of salt water conversion process into fresh water. I think the water problem will get worse and worse as we go through this global warming trend, regardless of whether it is a natural trend or human induced (I think it is a combination of both). Working to solve this problem is of highest priority. The greatest inventions have come from need. I'd say water supply is a significant need. Why does Sacramento keep ignoring it?
It is interesting to me that the folks that insist on blaming the smelt refuse to address the salt water intrusion issues that will destroy businesses, industry and lands for a significantly larger population than west side farmers farming in a desert region, that has always been a desert region. The risk to the supply of drinking water is also in jeopardy. Why do they ignore this and focus on a cute little fish?
Some people seem to be stuck on building the peripheral canal and more dams as the only possible solutions to our water issues. It's like those who want us to drill everywhere for oil, but won't consider conservation, efficiency or alternative fuels. As Kim pointed out, building a canal won't produce another drop of water, and the studies that show it will provide more water for the south without harming the Delta are highly suspect. And building more dams in the hills and mountains will be hugely expensive for the limited amount of water they will hold. Face it - the best spots are already taken. There was a good post on the Bee News Blog today on this subject - the author recommended percolating water into acquifers in sandy soil on the Valley floor as a much more cost-effective way to store spring runoff. This whole subject deserves a much more in-depth and balanced treatment than it's been receiving in the local media.