Fruit of the vine
I wish to thank Bill Clauson for his well stated letter, “Take A Stand for The Valley” (Jan. 14). It’s impressive hearing from a community member who personally feels and has witnessed over decades the ever-changing landscape of this exquisite valley. I understand Mr. Clauson’s concern regarding the Valley now being recognized as “wine country” and the implications that result. Like everything, the wine industry has its pros and cons, and I must admit at times I have wondered how many vineyards are enough? Unfortunately, very little attention is given to the reality that (most) of the vineyards use pesticides to maintain the monoculture of a grape vineyard. Just a few days ago, I passed a vineyard on Alamo Pintado, where two workers in moon suits with gas masks were spraying the grapes. It was alarming. Instantly I remembered the voices of friends who proclaim they live here so they can raise their children in a safe setting. Yet, I can hardly imagine any of them pulling into the vineyard with their children to visit their friendly neighborhood winery at that moment. Who wants to expose themselves, let alone their children, to such bio-hazards? I’m not implying that the county does not adhere to certain pesticide restrictions for agriculture, and I certainly applaud the consciousness of wine makers who are practicing sustainable growing, therefore not in need of chemicals. But as we usher in this new decade, wouldn’t it be nice to start to phase out the use of pesticides and foster in pesticide-free vineyards? Mr. Clauson’s concern about tourist wine tasting and driving drunk certainly deserves acknowledgment. Yet, the on-going threat of pesticide use is also a grave health concern. Healthy landscapes that lean toward bio-diversity create environments where the air we share and of course breathe is not obstructed, (our) fragile water supply is not contaminated and (our) soil is not left depleted. Those who really want to preserve the extraordinary wonder of this Valley might wish to see a chemical-free community. What a provocative way to usher in the new year.
Grace (last name withheld)
Los Olivos
Progressive progress?
I read your article “Abuse” (On the Ranch, Jan. 28) with great interest and deep concern. I too am aware of the constant eroding away of our Constitutional, God-given rights, the lack of honesty and integrity of our elected officials and public institutions. Our government, especially since the last presidential election has become increasingly unresponsive to the voice of the electorate. They seem to view themselves as the ruling elite rather than public servants. I don’t think the Democrats or GOP are to blame for this trend; the people who are pushing the agenda to make our Constitution irrelevant are the Progressives, a new and sanitized term for Liberal. Do a Google search of the Progressive movement in America. Also, do a search on George Bernard Shaw and Shavian eugenics. There is a video of the Progressive playwright advocating the gassing of people who could no longer justify their existence – does death panel ring a bell? To learn more about the rationing board/death panel, Google “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research,” which was created by HR1, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Please keep writing on this topic. Our citizens need to have their eyes opened before it is too late. Also, there is a very good book by Thomas Sowell, “A Conflicting Vision.”
C.M.
Santa Barbara
Waste of time
Congress and the president have wasted a whole year on healthcare and cap and trade legislation. Passing such laws would have inevitably led to more and more control by the federal government over our lives. That would not have been a good thing. Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Rep. Capps went right along with this extremist agenda. Yet Americans have unequivocally asserted, “We don’t want these things! How come Congress isn’t listening?” Stunningly, in their arrogance of power, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and others repeatedly demonized such views of ordinary Americans as somehow unpatriotic or illegitimate. Nevertheless, Congress pressed ahead. Finally, with the special Senate election in Massachusetts of Scott Brown, some Democrats have started to listen. However, it’s too late for this voter. We need replacements for Boxer and Capps this November and for Feinstein in 2012.
John W. Huckle
Santa Maria
Culvert controversy
There was an article in last week’s Journal concerning some metal culverts in the Santa Ynez River. I am the one that reported the culverts to CCRB and requested information on who I should contact to have them removed. The culverts have been there for quite some time and do not belong to Meadowlark Ranches. I felt there was the possibility of the culverts coming lose, they are not secured, and doing some damage downstream. CCRB was extremely helpful and agreeing they were a hazard and found some grant money from Department of Fish and Game to pay for their removal. Now, I read in the paper that the General Manager of ID#1 claims this is a “gift of public Funds.” Who is the gift to? The money was merely for the removal of a hazard in the river, which would be a public benefit. Let us not forget that the money for this project is coming from a “GRANT,” which has to be applied for. The agency making the grant, in this case the Department of Fish & Game, has determined this grant is for the public benefit. In the article, I also referred to the money spent on legal counsel for this matter, which the GM claims is like comparing “apples and oranges.” ID#1 pays their legal counsel $350 per hour and the GM takes legal counsel with him wherever he goes. According to the figures provided by the District, the legal fees for 2007 were $584,700.25 and for 2008 were $838,507.19. This is a rather large amount considering they defended no lawsuits during that time. I also question as to why the General Manager is paid more [$168,464 as of the 07 to 08 budget] than the other local water district’s general managers. He is arguably currently making closer to $180,000 per year, but starting with the 2008-09 budget his salary is included [bundled] with all the employees, apparently to make it more difficult to determine his actual salary. ID1 GM is arguably the least-qualified and oversees the smallest district. Recently, the GM was asking legal counsel to answer requests for records under the Public Records Act. I requested summary information on money spent on legal fees that should have been available at the district office. I was provided this information by the legal firm Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck and later told the firm charged the water district $13,000 for their time in researching this information. Since the shareholders in this firm make $350 per hour, it would have taken them 38 hours to generate these fees. A paralegal, who is paid approximately $200 per hour, and is the one who would have done the research, would have had to spend 66 hours on this project. Using the GM’s analogy, it could be argued his salary and money spent on legal fees could be considered a gift of public funds. In June of last year I hand-delivered a 3-page letter to each board member explaining my concerns about the excess legal fees paid by the district. One of the directors of ID#1, claims that the problem with COMB and CCRB is “bad Management.” I think that is rather ironic coming from someone who is suppose to be providing oversight for ID#1. Show me another 4.5 million a year business that wastes money on legal fees rather than doing routine maintenance, which can be verified by their financial statements? This is a public agency that averaged over $711,000 in legal fees between 2007 and 2008 without defending any lawsuits. This is also a director who sees fit to pay his GM more than the other agencies in the area. I am referring to water districts in Carpinteria, Montecito and Goleta. The General Manager claims the legal fees are being spent to protect the district’s water rights. I strongly disagree. I see no benefit to this Valley for the money spent on attempting to get AB2686 passed by the Legislature. A bill vetoed by the Governor “after extensive consideration of both sides of this issue.” I also see no benefit in the GM taking legal counsel to every meeting with other districts. As much as he is being Paid, he should be able to handle matters on his own. In a letter written to COMB, the President of the Board of Directors claims they are withholding consent for the COMB bond resolution because the removal of the culverts from the Riverbed “project is within ID No. 1’s territory.” The river is NOT within ID1’s territory, which is plainly clear if you look at their district map. The area where the culverts are located is south of their southernmost boundary line. ID#1 is resorting to bullying tactics again, which is what they are known as among their peers. To use the culvert issue to hold up the COMB Bond is immoral. Is the money currently being spent on legal fees for this territorial catfight with COMB and CCRB for our benefit? I think not.
Mike Hadley
Santa Ynez