Legislature
to renew debate over rural fire fee [Associated Press]
An
annual fire-prevention fee that is unpopular with some rural property owners is
headed back before the state Legislature, as Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to
expand its use and opponents try to kill it. The fee was imposed for the first
time last year and helps fund the state's firefighting agency. It has run into
two new hurdles in recent weeks that are feeding criticism and uncertainty
about its future….Republican lawmakers have introduced at least five bills to
repeal or restrict the new fee. Meanwhile, the administration wants the
Legislature to amend the property fee so the money collected can be used for
fire-prevention efforts in areas that border the regions where the fee is
assessed. That bill would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and
officially turn the fee into a tax. The property fee was approved on a simple
majority vote in 2011. Its opponents argue in their court filings that it
actually is a tax that required a two-thirds vote by the Legislature.
Landowners
told how to protest state fire fee [Santa Maria Times]
Local
owners of rural property who have been assessed a new fee for state
fire-protection services got a lesson Friday in how to protest paying it and
how to claim a refund. A representative of the California Farm Bureau
Federation presented the how-to guide to about 30 people at a session in
Buellton that was organized by the Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau. Paul Van
Leer, president of the county Farm Bureau, said the fee assessed on habitable
structures in what is known as the State Responsibility Area (SRA) is really a
tax, and John Gamper, director of land use and taxation for the state Farm
Bureau, echoed the comment during the free workshop at Farm Supply Co.
Wildlife
agency tries to bridge divide [San Francisco Chronicle]
The
recent coyote hunt in Modoc County that sent environmentalists into conniptions
illustrates a growing philosophical divide in California that has placed
wildlife officials in a political and cultural crossfire. The rage is over
whether Californians should be able to kill predators like mountain lions,
bears, bobcats and coyotes. At the center of it all is the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has managed fishing and hunting since
1872 when it was the Board of Fish Commissioners….Farmers, ranchers and many
rural residents are afraid that the department is turning away from them as
they struggle to hold on to their heritage. To conservationists, the name
change represents a rejection of an archaic view that wildlife is meant to be
shot and mounted on a wall. Chuck Bonham, the director of the Department of
Fish and Wildlife, said it is neither.
Obama’s
plan sees 8-year wait for illegal immigrants [New York Times]
A
plan by President Obama for an overhaul of the immigration system would put
illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship that could begin after about eight
years and would require them to go to the back of the line behind legal
applicants, according to a draft of the legislation that the White House has
circulated in the administration….The disclosure of the document’s existence,
by USA Today on Saturday, set off a series of political recriminations and
questions on Sunday about Mr. Obama’s promise to allow bipartisan Congressional
talks to take precedence. The furor also offered new evidence that Republicans
could use the president’s direct involvement as a reason to reject a potential
compromise….The draft does not yet include any proposed legislation for a guest
worker program to handle future flows of immigrants for agriculture and other
low-wage industries, the administration official said. That intensely
contentious issue is the subject of parallel closed-door negotiations between
labor leaders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Farmers
won’t see cut to water rates [San Diego Union-Tribune]
Escondido
farmers won’t get the 44 percent water rate cut they wanted, but their rates
will remain flat while the city’s merchants and residential customers face
sharp increases March 1. Seeking to help Escondido’s agriculture industry
survive, City Council members voted Wednesday to shield farmers from 12 to 14
percent rate hikes the council approved for the city’s 26,000 other water
customers….Council members wanted to help farmers even more, but said they were
forced to reject a recent rate proposal from agricultural users because it
might violate state law.…The reasoning behind the proposal was that local farms
will be the No. 1 customer for recycled sewer water when Escondido completes a
recycled water line in about two years. Recycled water is not safe enough to
drink, but it can be used for irrigation.…“When the recycled water is ready to
deliver, you need the farmers there to open the valves,” Eric Larson, executive
director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, told the council Wednesday.
Editorial: Shore up the
state’s imperiled water supply [Riverside Press-Enterprise]
An
interruption in water deliveries to much of the state offers a clear reminder:
The state’s water supplies are at risk without prompt action. The Legislature
needs to end the ideological gridlock and start shoring up the state’s primary
water system. California will not thrive if the state cannot ensure a reliable
supply of water for its cities and farms….The state has a water bond measure on
the 2014 ballot to fund much of that work. But that measure is also bloated by
pork projects that have little relation to any pressing state water need.
Legislators have already twice postponed putting the measure before voters for
fear it would not pass. More waiting will just waste time. Legislators need to
slash this measure down to an affordable package tightly focused on
high-priority water projects. Federal wildlife officials last week lifted some
of the restrictions on pumping, but that is only a temporary reprieve. The
water supply for much of the state will remain under threat as long as
legislators prefer dawdling to action.
Ag
Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for
information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com.
Some story links may require site registration. To be removed
from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your
name and e-mail address.
No comments:
Post a Comment