- a weekly column published in the Pioneer Press

FIRE EMISSIONS: Almost 100,000 acres have already been burned in Siskiyou County. The three large fires in Western Siskiyou County have been burning for more than a month and are no where near containment. They may burn into fall. At the time of this writing, 1,032,722 total acres have burned in California this summer and 717,304 or 70 percent were fires on federally managed land. 

According to a study on greenhouse gas emissions from fire, the Angora fire was estimated to have emitted 46.2 tons of greenhouse gases per acre. (http://www.calforestfoundation.org/pdf/FCEM-2.pdf ) That would mean the California fires may have emitted 47.7 million tons of greenhouse gases so far. The EPA estimates that an average car driven 15,000 miles annually produces 6.5 tons of carbon emissions annually. That means that the fires could have produced emissions about the equivalent of 7.3 million cars. The study also indicated that if thinning, reduction of ladder and other fuels had been done in the forests where the Angora fires occurred, emissions could have been dropped to 12 tons per acre, instead of 46.2.

In 2006, the State of California passed AB 32, which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and marketing mechanisms to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Mandatory caps on emissions from industry and other sources will begin in 2012. A draft scoping plan for actions is available now at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm  (Comments are due shortly.) Among proposed actions is the implementation of “smart growth” to discourage sprawl and encourage concentrated development where rapid transit is available. It would seem to me that a comprehensive and aggressive strategy to reduce fuels on our National Forests would not only protect the health and safety of forest communities, cost less in the long run in comparison to fire suppression, but make substantial strides in accomplishing greenhouse emission reduction goals under AB 32.

CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE: Among other scary things happening at the state level are proposals for the management of watersheds and water resources. This also has a climate change angle and comments are also being solicited. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/index.cfm and http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/enews/index.cfm

The plan states that watersheds have been found to be a good organizing unit for natural resource management. Management measures and policies can be adjusted to meet both local and statewide goals. These “units” will transcend jurisdictional lines. Land and water use planning can be done in alignment with total watershed impact. A statewide watershed management program is under development based on the collaborative model and the internationally developed Water Evaluation and Planning system (WEAP.) Watershed Management will use the “Shared Vision Planning” process http://www.svp.iwr.usace.army.mil/index.cfm

Instead of protecting the integrity of private property rights, California appears to be embracing collectivism. The July 16  “CA Water Plan Update” references a guest article on the European Water Framework Directive and models of “sustainability.” Linked articles discuss studies on “social learning” and “governance” http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art24/  

According to the article, “new “governance” models will replace the system of elected representative government with its constitutional and statutory delegations of authority. Public policy will be developed and implemented in a collaborative process by “stakeholders” - government bodies, companies, interest groups, non-government organizations and individuals, (European HarmoniCOP  -Harmonizing Collaborative Planning.) http://www.harmonicop.uos.de/  As an aside, a “governance” structure is exactly what is proposed to be created for the Klamath River system in the proposed Klamath Restoration Agreement (dam settlement agreement.)    

Of course, in America, our elected governments are constrained in the exercise of their “police powers’ of regulation to protecting the general public health and safety from substantial injury. The Supreme Court in Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912),  ruled that community committees controlling, disposing of or establishing standards governing the property rights of others did not constitute the reasonable exercise of the police powers for a legitimate public purpose. The new governance bodies will have no such constraints. It appears their purpose is to get around the limitations in order to reallocate wealth by undermining private property rights.   

Scary, scary stuff.