Friday Readers' Forum

[No on S]

No on Measure S wrote:

Measure T is simple and straight forward. It requires a public vote before millions more are spent implementing a $400,000,000 San Rafael desalination plant. Measure S proponents claim that Measure T would preclude "long-term water supply planning" This is simply false. Measure T applies only to the much-studied and already planned San Rafael plant. The Water Board intends to use Measure S as a mechanism to delay a public vote and in the meantime spend millions more permitting, designing and engineering for the San Rafael plant. Ratepayers need to weigh in before millions more are spent on desalination. Vote "Yes on Measure T" - the Citizens' Initiative signed by over fifteen thousand voters and Vote "No on Measure S" - the Water Board's effort to undermine the will of the people.

The desalting factory salesmen have a lot of our money invested in their pro-development urban sprawl scheme and they are worried.

[No on S]

James C wrote:

...report on clim,ate change....

Does not disagree in any way that we will see much wetter weather in our region with increased flooding.

[James C]

Apparently, you failed to read about the drought part. There is no dispute that rainfall events will get more intense, but the long-term average level of precipitation will decline and the droughts will get worse. Water suppliers like MMWD have to plan for when there is no water, not when it rains a lot.

[No on Measure S]

James, that report states that parts of the world will be getting drier whilst our region will be getting a lot wetter. This is what everyone has been saying. It's not news and it is at odds with your supposition.

Now back to the measures. The desalt plan is complete. Move on.

Vote T so that our options remain open.

[James C]

Apparently you have trouble reading documents and maps, too, No on Measure S. The document clearly shows that California will be seeing a reduction in precipitation of 4-8%. Only when you get north of Seattle will there be any increase in precipitation. Clearly, desalination will be needed in California and likely in Oregon and Washington, too.

Measure T would be a prescription for doom.

Measure S is the only responsible approach. It's the one that leaves options open.

[Drink The Hive]

The Result Of Focus Of Life - Intention @ Energy = RADIANT Point Of Power?

[No on S]

James you are being an idiot. There, I said it and I mean it. You need to zoom in on the maps.

The IPCC forecasts a big increase of waterfall in our already wet Marin.

[No on S]

No on Measure S wrote:

James, that report states that parts of the world will be getting drier whilst our region will be getting a lot wetter. This is what everyone has been saying. It's not news and it is at odds with your supposition.
Now back to the measures. The desalt plan is complete. Move on.
Vote T so that our options remain open.

Well said.

[James C]

No on S - you need to read the literature before you spout off. The 2008 IPCC report, the 2007 California Climate Change Science program report and now the UCAR report all clearly show California experiencing lower rainfall in the future. Storms will be more intense, but so will droughts.

You and James Fryer seem to want to rely on fuzzy maps of the globe to make your predictions. Go to the source data and read the reports, then come back and we can talk.

Until then, it's not worth responding any further to your uninformed rantings.

[Do The Egger Raindance]

Let's face it -- Egger is an idiot. Of course we will have another drought and we will need more water in the future. Conservation is fine on the surface but the less water used the harder it is to pay the district operating bills.

Get desal going and let's open up a waterpark at the Marin Town and Country Club.That's another great plan Egger had for us all. Just do nothing.

Not only will desal help solve our water shortages but it will reduce our rising sea levels and save us from the threat of Global Warming.
Just a theory - I'm sure the water "experts" know all the answers.

The good news is that Egger knows all the Miwok rain dances and he has assured us that there will be "plenty of rain" in our future.

[James C speaks no truth]

James C wrote:

No on S - you need to read the literature before you spout off...

James C has a complete inability to objectively discuss the science behind climate change analyses and predictions.

FACT: The California Dept. of Water Resources runoff MEASUREMENTS in Northern California show an increasing runoff trend since the 1950s.

FACT: The IPCC report predicts increasing rainfall and runoff for the region of California that contains Marin.

FACT: The models in the Scripps report that MMWD leadership frequently cite have serious calibration problems.

Interested readers can read about this for themselves in an objective report:

Climate Change and Environmentally Friendly Responses for the Marin Municipal Water District Service Area

Found at:

www.marinwatercoalition.org

[James C]

James C speaks no truth wrote:

<quoted text>
James C has a complete inability to objectively discuss the science behind climate change analyses and predictions.
FACT: The California Dept. of Water Resources runoff MEASUREMENTS in Northern California show an increasing runoff trend since the 1950s.
FACT: The IPCC report predicts increasing rainfall and runoff for the region of California that contains Marin.
FACT: The models in the Scripps report that MMWD leadership frequently cite have serious calibration problems.
Interested readers can read about this for themselves in an objective report:
Climate Change and Environmentally Friendly Responses for the Marin Municipal Water District Service Area
Found at:
www.marinwatercoalition.org

I thought that Jim Fryer had moved over to Alameda and now it's been confirmed.

King James - the models in the Scripps report are the same ones that the IPCC uses and that the UCAR report uses. They ALL show declining precipitation for Califorenia, including Marin and northern California. Your latest report for Food and Water Watch about climate change can't even get the results from the modeling exercise correct.

Just like you insisted that MMWD's pipes leak by 10% or more of production (the real number is in the 2-3% range), the real fact is that MMWD faces declining water supplies in the future. And the Russian River won't solve the problem. Nor will asking everyone in Marin to let their multi-billion dollar landscaping die. You think people will let their property values plunge? Get real.

[James C speaks no truth]

James C, I guess you believe you are a King, but I doubt many other do!

But thanks for demonstrating that nothing you say in any of your posts, under various pseudonyms, is anything more than self serving attempts to mislead MMWD ratepayers.

You are clearly a MMWD employee spending your working hours online protecting your poor work performance. You may even be Helliker, the MMWD GM. Too bad you do not spend your time responsibly managing MMWD. Then, MMWD would not be suffering from serious financial problems, constantly raising rates, and wasting such large sums of ratepayer money on self serving projects and employees like you. You apparently see misinformation as your only hope.

The public has the right to be every bit as outraged as in the early 1990s when the incumbents were voted out and a new more responsible board was elected.

Anyone who bothers to read the many independent reports on MMWD will quickly see that the MMWD staff reports are loaded with unreasonable assumptions, downright falsehoods, and self serving conclusions for MMWD staff, not for the ratepayers. The board is elected to control this tendency, but the incumbents have completely failed in this key responsibility to the public.

By the way, James C, using staff time and MMWD computers to lobby for the election with your propaganda may well be illegal. Does anyone doubt that a trace of the postings from James C and his many pseudonyms will lead right to a MMWD staff computer?

Your incessant need to support your conclusions with obviously false statements demonstrates that you have no validity. MMWD ratepayers would be very wise to remove the incumbents and the inept MMWD employees such as you.

[Hank]

The public was outraged in the early 1990's because MMWD had imposed rationing seven times in ten years. They also raised rates by 50% in a year, and then it rained like the dickens and they lowered them again. They had also been dilly-dallying with additional supplies from the Russian River, which they finally passed a bond to secure in 1992.

The current MMWD Board has been doing everything possible to solve its water supply and demand imbalance issues, including investing in conservation (at a rate 4 times higher than any other water district in the country), investing in recycling, investing in system improvements and investing in the early stages of desalination. All of those are very responsible approaches, and they all have widespread support in Marin.

So, Jim Fryer - just because you can't read scientific reports correctly doesn't mean that others can't present the facts in a straightforward manner. James C seems to have turned you into someone who can only launch frantic accusations and scurrilous attacks, since you don't have any data to back up your claims.

The Yes on T supporters and the anti-desalination candidates are going to be sorely disappointed today when they get crushed by the rational and reasonable forces in Marin. It's an election that has statewide importance, as Sunday's Chronicle so clearly noted.

[Hank speaks no truth]

Hank's desperate attempt to rewrite history, like James C's bogus efforts, does not hold water.

The MMWD ratepayers VOTED DOWN Measure W for more Russian River water in the early 1990, during a drought. The much scaled back Measure V, with increased conservation first and a citizens advisory committee to determine if more Russian River water was really needed was then approved by the voters. The citizen's committee met for over a decade, with a series of new members, and never agreed that more Russian River water was needed. The new board was elected in the early 1990s on a platform of more conservation and improved fiscal responsibility.

You have an impressive inability to comprehend anything other than old school mentality for water planning. You still cannot accept that MMWD ratepayers rejected your approach in the 1990s, and are faced with doing it again now. Your kind has reeked havoc with California's water systems and it is time for true change.

If the PR misinformation campaign supported by you and James C succeeds in confusing the public into voting against their own interest and throwing tremendous sums a money away to unnecessary projects, Marin will continue to be poorly served by a poorly managed water utility.

As you and James C prove, it will require serious reform candidates on the MMWD board to turn things around. MMWD ratepayers would be wise to elect the reform candidates so that the agency can be turned around to better serve the ratepayers including responsible, environmentally sensitive water planning, serious water conservation programs, and fiscally responsible management.

I'm sure you will respond with more ridiculous claims in your desperate attempt to confuse the public and justify your outdated and broken approach to water management. Anyone who reads any of the independent reports will immediately see that you are completely bogus in you claims. A good place for interested readers to start is:

www.marinwatercoalition.org

[Hank speaks no truth]

Hank's desperate attempt to rewrite history, like James C's bogus efforts, does not hold water.

The MMWD ratepayers VOTED DOWN Measure W for more Russian River water in the early 1990, during a drought. The much scaled back Measure V, with increased conservation first and a citizens advisory committee to determine if more Russian River water was really needed was then approved by the voters. The citizen's committee met for over a decade, with a series of new members, and never agreed that more Russian River water was needed. The new board was elected in the early 1990s on a platform of more conservation and improved fiscal responsibility.

You have an impressive inability to comprehend anything other than old school mentality for water planning. You still cannot accept that MMWD ratepayers rejected your approach in the 1990s, and are faced with doing it again now. Your kind has reeked havoc with California's water systems and it is time for true change.

If the PR misinformation campaign supported by you and James C succeeds in confusing the public into voting against their own interest and throwing tremendous sums a money away to unnecessary projects, Marin will continue to be poorly served by a poorly managed water utility.

As you and James C prove, it will require serious reform candidates on the MMWD board to turn things around. MMWD ratepayers would be wise to elect the reform candidates so that the agency can be turned around to better serve the ratepayers including responsible, environmentally sensitive water planning, serious water conservation programs, and fiscally responsible management.

I'm sure you will respond with more ridiculous claims in your desperate attempt to confuse the public and justify your outdated and broken approach to water management. Anyone who reads any of the independent, data filled, reports will immediately see that you are completely bogus in you claims. A good place for interested readers to start is:

www.marinwatercoalition.org

[Yes on Measure T]

James C wrote:

No on S

Agreed.

Now it is true that other parts of the state of California will most likely receive less, the fact is that the forecasts show that our region (Marin) will be receiving a lot more precipitation because of Global Warming (including increased flooding).

[Hank]

Well, Yes on Measure T, because you have provided no facts or citations to refute the reports from the IPCC, Scripps and UCAR, we can conclude that you have no basis on which to make your erroneous assertions.

And James Fryer, you and your cronies at the Marin Water Coalition have really done yourselves a disservice. The outrageous and false claims that Larry Rose makes about the quality of desalinated water, and the bogus lawsuit filed by Frank Egger, Peter Lacques and Ford Greene - which they have yet to provide any facts to substantiate - are all acrimonious attempts to befuddle and bamboozle Marin residents.

Probably the biggest lie of all is the claim put out by Food and Water Watch that $30 million would be spent by MMWD before a vote on desalination. Not one person who knows anything about desalination or the Marin project believes that number. So, the lies and obfuscations seem to be coming from one direction only - and that's from the anti-desalination zealots.

And, by the way - Measure V in 1992 was all about water from the Russian River, and included $40 million to pay for the pipeline. It passed overwhelmingly.