The dams have been around for a little less than a century. They are aging and were built to produce electricity and not to store water. They don’t have salmon ladders that would allow native fish to make it upstream for mating and egg laying and have contributed to fish kills largely due to warm water and algal blooms.

Indigenous tribes, like the Yurok Tribe, fought for the removal of the dams. The Yurok still live a traditional lifestyle and depend on the fish and local environment to live.

“This is a good exercise of human kind correcting some of the mistakes in the past,” Brown said.

Brown was joined in Klamath on Wednesday by the U.S. Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Yurok tribal leadership and others.

Dams

The dams are owned by Warren Buffet’s PacifiCorp, which provides hydroelectric power to the local communities. The dams are said to be too old and would be too expensive to re-license, which needed to happen soon.

Government agencies required certain improvements for re-licensing, which would have included building the salmon ladders. Rather than going through the costly re-licensing process, PacifiCorp agreed to remove the dams under the condition that California contribute to the removal costs, said Bob Gravely, senior public affairs specialist for PacifiCorp.

PacifiCorp is responsible for the first $200 million, with California contributing any amount past that up to $450 million, which will help keep the local electricity rates from increasing. The agreement can be found here.

The Bureau of Reclamation estimates it will cost approximately $292 million.

The dams provide only about 1.5 percent of the power in PacifiCorp’s grid, so the power can be generated elsewhere without a major disruption in service.

Prior agreement

The deal actually fell apart once due to congressional inaction. Proponents were able to pull the deal back together by forming a “non-federal entity” corporation — a move not without precedent — with the project being overseen by the Federal Regulatory Commission.

Naturally, this rankled some members of Congress, which no longer has project approval. Although according to an Interior spokeswoman, Congress still has a role in “approving the tribal settlement, restoring land to the Klamath tribes, and providing irrigators with the tools to be more efficient in their water use before the basin is fully restored.”

Controversy

Opponents have complained of meetings where attendees were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and questioned the formation of the non-federal entity, which may not be subject to disclosure requirements. The timing has also been questioned, as drought-stricken California struggles with water-retention.

At a March congressional hearing, Congressman Doug LaMalfa questioned Deputy Secretary of Interior Mike Connor about the non-federal entity, calling the efforts “neck-deep in a shell corporation.”

“This seems like a front company in a process designed to avoid public scrutiny and avoid open government laws,” the Richvale Republican said. “The (Obama) administration is moving forward with its goal of dam removal while ignoring the water supply issues that impact thousands of residents.”

However, Gravely said the dams weren’t built for water storage, nor is that a service that PacifiCorp provides.

–This story has been updated to include a cost estimate and Interior’s position on Congress’ role.

By John Seiler

Governments today wield immense power over every aspect of our lives. That’s why threats by politicians should be taken seriously.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently said he saw “fear in the eyes of Republicans when the tax word is uttered in their presence.” The Sacramento Bee reported:

“To make his point, the Democratic governor recounted a tale from the final week of session (watch the video here) when he lobbied Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, for a 1 percent lumber tax during a chance encounter in the Capitol basement garage.”

Brown, the most powerful person in California, then mocked LaMalfa:

“He kind of got into a little fetal position and started shaking, he literally was shaking. And this big man, he looks like a — wears boots, he’s kind of an outdoorsman, a mountain man kind of. And I saw him kind of start shriveling in fear of, I guess, it was the FlashReport or [Grover] Norquist or whoever the hell it was.”

Jon Fleischman of FlashReport and Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, are two longtime Brown bugaboos. He blames them for threatening Republican legislators who might vote for jobs-killing tax increases.

But neither Fleischman nor Norquist has anything but the power of words. They only can point out when a Republican legislator violates his “no new taxes” pledge.

Powerful Brown

It’s Brown who heads a vast state police and regulatory force that can crush even the biggest business like a mosquito. Look at how he went after even giant Amazon.com.

And with AB 32’s new Soviet-style Cap and Trade regulations now going into effect, businesses are cowering in fear before the governor — or leaving the state for freedom. LaMalfa is a rice farmer directly affected by this and other legislation implemented by Brown and such Brown factotums as CARB boss Mary Nichols.

And now Brown, in his his extreme egoism, is comparing himself to God — literally. He said:

“At the end of the day, vox populi, vox dei. The voice of the people, as they say, the voice of God. It’s either take the money from those who have even more than we can imagine and give it to our schools or not. And whatever it is, I’ll manage it and we’ll make it work. One way would be better, but whatever way the people decide is the way we’ll go and that’s the way it should be.'”

Vox populi

Brown likes to pepper his conversation with Latin tags from his Jesuit miseducation. “Vox populi, vox dei,” means, “Voice of the people, the voice of God.”

In Brown’s parlance, it means, “The people elected me, and the people is God, so do what I say — or else.”

Actually, one of the earliest uses of the phrase was from Alcuin, whose promotion of learning began lifting Europe from the Dark Ages (I mean the one from about A.D. 500-1000, not the current Dark Ages). In a letter to Charlemagne, Alcuin wrote:

“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

Of course, 1,200 years ago was not a democratic age. But even today, it is not true that Vox populi, vox dei. Sometimes the people do insane things. I recently wrote of the incarceration of loyal Japanese-Americans during World War II. The 1932 elections in Germany couldn’t have turned out worse.

The point is that, as with everything else, the voice of the people must be checked by common sense and common decency.

Brown also was deceiving the populi — the people — when he said, “It’s either take the money from those who have even more than we can imagine and give it to our schools or not.” For one thing, in mega-expensive California, $250,000 — the point where his Proposition 30 tax increase would dig in — is not having “more than we can imagine.” You’re certainly well off, but not rich. After all, at that point you’re going to want to pull you kids from the failing government schools and put them in private schools at a cost of $15,000 or so a pop. If you have three kids, that’s $45,000 right there — after taxes.

And many small businesses file as S Corporations, which pay taxes at the individual level. So raising taxes on an S Corporation with $250,000 or more in profits means less money for business expansion and jobs creation. It could mean less business — or a dead business — and job losses.

And the real problem with our “schools” is not a lack of tax revenue, but: 1) they’re badly managed, commonly scoring 46th or worst among the 50 states on test scores; and 2) California’s massive government pension liabilities of at least $500 billion, only slightly improved by the anemic reform the Legislature just passed with Brown’s backing, is sapping school and state budgets.

Keep in mind that image of big Doug LaMalfa cringing before Jerry Brown. That’s how Brown and the rest of the ultra-powerful government functionaries that lord it over us, want us — prostrate in fear.

By John Hrabe

Anti-tax groups face a tall order this November. There’s priority one: defeating the competing multi-billion-dollar tax-increase plans of Gov. Jerry Brown and liberal activist Molly Munger. Both propositions will receive tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from unions and special interest groups.

Even if both measures fail, Democrats have a backup plan to push tax increases through the state Legislature. State tax increases require two-thirds approval of both houses. Democrats are expected to be within just a handful of seats in the state Assembly. In past years, when Republicans held only a notch above one third of the seats, legislative Democrats have successfully picked off a few moderate Republican votes for tax increases.

Thanks to redistricting gains and a chronically underfunded opposition, Democrats are a lock to reach two-thirds control of the state Senate. “A candidate’s view on taxation will be the central issue in swing senate districts,” wrote Joel Fox, editor of Fox & Hounds and president of the Small Business Action Committee.  “A newly Democratic controlled Senate will vote for taxes from time to time. Especially if taxes are perceived to fall on someone else — that famous man behind the tree in the ditty, ‘don’t tax me, don’t tax thee’ tax the man behind the tree’.”

But, before you send a bigger check to Sacramento, consider an ironic scenario that could be taxpayers’ saving grace in 2013. Two even-numbered state senators running in two different congressional races could set off a chain reaction of events that would effectively block tax increases for most of the year.

State Senators Gloria Negrete McLeod and Juan Vargas, both of whom have records of supporting tax increases, have made their respective runoffs for the House of Representatives. If both pro-tax Democrats win their congressional races, their state Senate seats would remain vacant until they could be filled by special elections. The pair’s victories would reduce the Democratic caucus by two members and effectively erase Democrats’ two-thirds’ advantage.

“The vacancies do not change the threshold for the two-thirds requirement, which is 27 seats in the Senate,” confirmed Bernadette McNulty, chief assistant secretary of the Senate. In other words, taxpayers would be temporarily protected with the career advancement of the two pro-tax Democrats.

Vacancies Filled by Special Elections

Prior to being sworn into Congress, the pair would need to resign from the state Senate. Depending on how quickly Gov. Brown called a special election, it could take up to 120 days from the date of their resignation to fill the vacant seats. During that period, Democrats would need to pick up additional Republican votes for tax increases. In 2011, it took approximately 16 weeks for then-Assemblyman Ted Gaines to fill a vacant state Senate seat.

Both Negrete McLeod and Vargas hold safe Democratic seats, so it would be only be a matter of time until Democrats regained their supermajority control of the state Senate. However, it would likely be a zero-sum game for legislative Democrats. Every seat picked up by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, could be a direct loss for Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles.

After all, the strongest contenders in an abbreviated campaigns would be members of the state’s lower house, who have built-in name identification and a proven fundraising network. In the process of filling Senate seats, there could be vacancies in the state Assembly. More importantly, every member of the Assembly to move up to the Senate would trigger another special election process and potential four-month delay.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers: ‘Appreciate Any No Vote’

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the state’s leading anti-tax group, says that when it comes to tax increases, any no vote is a good vote.

“While our first choice is a responsible Legislature that recognizes that taxes are too high, not too low, in the real world we appreciate any ‘N0’ vote, even if that vote is the result of a vacancy,” explained Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “California already ranks at or near the top in tax burden, and taxpayers are grateful for any advantage that helps level the playing field.”

He added that the goal of Proposition 13 “was not to make tax increases impossible, but to create a system that required taxes to be approved with a strong consensus based on clear, demonstrable need.”

An Empty Seat: The Best Representative?   

Not all Republican leaders see the vacancies as a positive development for California, conservative philosophy or the Republican Party.

“If one’s over-riding interest is a narrow definition of tax policy, then, yes, I suppose an empty seat might be preferable to one filled by a hard-line anti-tax conservative who might question the narrow edict of The Pledge in the interest of pursuing the larger strategic priorities,” said former Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello, who broke ranks with his caucus in 2009 to support Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $13 billion dollar tax hike. “But with the tax pledge (and this could apply to others, too), the rigid dogma attached to it has elevated a no tax policy to an over-arching strategy.  That is true dysfunction.”

Niello added that conservative philosophy involves more than just taxes and includes “such things as personal responsibility, free market economy, limited government, effective and efficiently focused government responsibilities and local control.”

Top Two Primary Turns Senators into Strong Challengers

So how likely is it that 2013 turns into another year of special elections? For starters, the pair of Democratic state senators must win their congressional races. Both are plausible candidates; one is almost guaranteed.

Vargas, who is running for the open 51st House seat, faces only token opposition from Republican challenger Michael Crimmins. In the June primary, Vargas’ vote share was more than double that of Crimmins. Altogether the Democratic field combined for more than 70 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, Negrete McLeod’s road to Washington is more difficult. She is challenging fellow Democrat Rep. Joe Baca in the 35th House district. In the June primary, Baca finished first with 45 percent of the vote. Negrete McLeod wasn’t far behind, trailing by only 2,500 votes or 8.5 percentage points. The only other candidate, the Green Party’s Anthony Vieyra, pulled in nearly 19 percent of the vote.

The Top Two primary system could also bolster Negrete McLeod’s chances. There’s likely to be little difference between the Democrats’ voting records in Congress. Republican voters without a Republican on the ballot might be encouraged to support Negrete McLeod, if for no other reason than to temporarily block state tax increases.

State Senate Campaigns: Central Issue Taxes

Of course, this unexpected turn of events also relies on Democrats first taking a supermajority of the state Senate. Most Capitol insiders believe the State Senate is a lost cause for California Republicans, who spent more than $1.2 million on a futile attempt to advance a referendum on the Citizen Redistricting Commission’s Senate maps. Ultimately, that money could have been spent to bolster the campaigns of the party’s three swing candidates in the 5th, 27th and 31st districts.

Democrats need to win just one of three swing state Senate races this cycle in order to reach the all-important two-thirds threshold. Those three seats are the 5th Senate race between Bill Berryhill and Cathleen Galgiani; the 27th Senate race between Todd Zink and Fran Pavley; and the 31st race between Jeff Miller and Richard Roth. 

In addition to the two Democrats, another state senator, Republican Doug LaMalfa of Oroville, has a free shot at Congress. He holds a safe Republican seat and has signed Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

By John Hrabe

Patricia McKeon is the prohibitive favorite to win the 38th State Assembly seat. As the wife and campaign fundraiser of Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, the influential chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, she has built-in name ID and a lucrative fundraising Rolodex. Both are Republicans.

Her frontrunner status has allowed her to avoid public scrutiny. She’s routinely skipped candidate forums and declined media requests. Her campaign consultant told CalWatchDog.com that she is “maxed out going door to door.” But no matter how many candidate forums she skips or press requests she declines, McKeon can’t shake her toughest critic — the anonymous blogger behind the “Really Patricia?” website, whose full URL is: www.patriciamckeonforassembly.com/.

The website has chronicled McKeon’s every move, even detailing minor alterations of campaign photos. And the relentless attacks have had some success in framing the mainstream media’s coverage of the race. Both the Los Angeles Times’ and Ventura County Star’s profiles of the race prominently referenced “the emergence of an anonymous website that lampooned Patricia McKeon” as a defining element of the campaign.

While the anonymous blog is a headache for the McKeons, it could also signal a broader trend brought about by California’s new top-two primary system.  That’s because the top-two primary has, in many cases, expanded the field of competitive candidates. In the past, candidates or independent expenditures that went on the offensive risked turning off swing voters they hoped to court.  However, anonymous websites give candidates a venue of attack that insulates the campaign from voter backlash. The jungle primary free-for-all allows candidates or independent expenditures to point the finger at lesser known, but still viable, candidates.

With two weeks to go until Election Day, two intra-party primary feuds, McKeon’s Southern California state assembly race and a Northern California congressional campaign, have provided insight into this cycle’s use of anonymous online attacks.

38^th assembly race defined by anonymous website

CalWatchDog.com contacted the “Really Patricia?” blogger to get his or her perspective on the motivation for the website, online anonymity and the fear of political retaliation. “Strangely, I personally have not yet faced any threats, but that may be because the McKeons may not have figured out who I am yet,” the anonymous blogger told CalWatchDog.com.  “I run the site because I am a conservative Republican and am disgusted by the ethical murkiness of the McKeons and their lust for personal power and financial gain. No one has the guts to stand up to them and tell the truth about it.”

The blog can be credited with pushing two major developments in the campaign. In February, National Journal reported that Patricia’s state campaign had collected roughly $35,000 from “federal lobbyists, lobbying firms, and their employees, as well as military contractors and executives in firms in the defense and aerospace sectors.” A day before the National Journal story, the anonymous blog had an analysis of McKeon’s campaign disclosure statement, including several defense industry contributions.

The second media controversy propelled by the blog was the endorsement flap involving Republican State Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark. Strickland pulled his endorsement of lifelong friend Scott Wilk, a community college trustee and small businessman, in order to endorse McKeon’s candidacy. The anonymous blog published several posts on the topic and reappeared after a two-month hiatus to reignite the endorsement storyline.

McKeon filed complaint with district attorney

So, who is this mysterious blogger? In January, Patricia McKeon filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office to find out. Her complaint alleged a possible violation of state election rules against cyber-squatting. At first, the complaint was enough to prompt the blogger to pull the plug on the site.

“Consequently, I have consulted with a lawyer and have been assured that they have no legal grounds on which they could actually win a case,” the blogger wrote via email. “I am exercising my 1st amendment right in a political area and they are public figures.”

Free speech experts echoed the blogger’s interpretation of the law. “Generally, a website launched by someone not directly affiliated with a campaign, made up of opinion or parody, enjoys full protection as free speech,” explained Ken Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center. “An internet service provider wouldn’t typically pierce that veil of anonymity absent a court order, and that’s not likely if the content is unflattering, but not defamatory.”

The anonymous anti-McKeon blogger says that a complaint has been filed with the site’s domain registrar for failing to provide accurate contact information. Ultimately, the Los Angeles County DA’s office declined to open a criminal investigation into the matter. When asked about the complaint, McKeon’s campaign consultant Joe Justin said, “With an economy in shambles, there is no place for this type of lame politics of personal destruction.”  The phrase “politics of personal destruction” was popularized by President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings.

“Risks with speaking out”

Anonymous attacks and whisper campaigns aren’t political innovations. “Anonymous political speech is a long-held American tradition and is protected under the First Amendment,” said Paulson. “When the signers of the Declaration of Independence sent that historic document to King George, they didn’t sign it.”

Paulson added, “There are risks with speaking out, and anonymous speech helps preserve the free flow of ideas in a democracy.” Although the First Amendment protects anonymous political speech, online tracking programs and greater public and private surveillance make it harder to pull off. Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, believes the heydays of anonymous activity may be behind us.

“There is an architecting of the world that makes remaining anonymous more difficult,” he said. Nevertheless, Tien says there are a number of reasons why a person might want to remain anonymous. “An Islamic activist or Christian activist or a gay rights activist might worry that their speech will get them in trouble.”

Tien also referenced the Supreme Court’s precedents involving anonymous political activism. In NAACP vs. Alabama and its companion case, Bates vs. City of Little Rock, the court protected the right of political organizations to keep their membership lists private. The unconstitutional laws, which were at issue in the cases, were designed to discourage people from supporting the civil rights movement.

“There is a role for anonymous political activity: the civil rights movement depended on it during the 1950s,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. “But legal and ethical issues arise when it is nothing more than an off-the-books tactic of a political campaign.”

LaMalfa campaign’s off-the-books tactic

A Northern California congressional race offers a case study in those legal and ethical concerns from “off-the books” campaign tactics. Mark Spannagel, the chief of staff and campaign aide to State Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Oroville, was recently identified as the publisher of an attack website targeting former Republican State Sen. Sam Aanestad.

Aanestad filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against LaMalfa for numerous violations of federal election law. Among the worst alleged violations, the website falsely attributed its contents to a lesser-known Republican candidate, Michael Dacquisto. The Redding Record Searchlight reported, “The site initially posted with a disclaimer at the bottom, “FREE THINKERS FOR DACQUISTO,” according to a screen shot submitted by the Aanestad campaign.”

Is a dirty trick worthy of a federal case? After all, the founding fathers commonly employed anonymous attacks and pseudonyms to make their case. We asked Barry Pruett, chief legal counsel for the Aanestad for Congress campaign, to explain why the Spannagel stunt is any different from historical examples of anonymous political speech.

“The Silence DoGood letters and Federalist Papers were anonymous and discussed and analyzed the philosophical nature of the rule of law in a limited government and the concepts of federalism,” he said.  “Neither of these historical documents sought to defame and libel an oral surgeon anonymously and for personal gain like Doug LaMalfa’s fake website.”

There are also campaign finance disclosure requirements that come into play. “It gets murkier if someone inside a campaign launches an attack website because there are expenditure disclosure requirements,” said Paulson. “That’s an accountability matter rather than free speech.”

Government regulators ready to step in

The growing trend of anonymous attacks hasn’t escaped the watchful eyes of government regulators. In the state of New York, two bills are pending that would “virtually do away with anonymous online postings by requiring Web administrators, upon receiving a complaint, to take down any comments to which the writer has not attached his or her name,” writes Gene Policinski, senior vice-president and executive director of the First Amendment Center.

Earlier this year, California’s political watchdog sparked an online uproar after floating the idea of a new disclosure requirement for political blogs. Ann Ravel, chair of California’s Political Practices Commission, declined to comment for this story because the agency may be forced to deal with complaints from the websites in question. However, from our interview with Ravel back in April, she shed some light on her views about the use of anonymity in campaign websites.

“The idea is not to go after anonymous blogs,” Ravel told CalwatchDog.com in an April interview. “There needs to be the ability for people to post online anonymous speech that is grassroots without retribution.”

For now, at least, the anonymous attacks will continue.

By JOHN HRABE

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff flunked Cal State University’s “fuzzy math” and is calling for “substantial changes at the institution.” His action followed CalWatchDog.com‘s investigation into the system’s false and misleading information about the total compensation of its top administrators.

“The California State University system faces a difficult challenge with mounting trigger cuts that have placed enormous financial pressure on the backs of middle class families,” Huff said. “But using fuzzy math to camouflage escalating executive compensation, while student fees are skyrocketing, underscores a need for substantial changes at the institution.”

CalWatchdog first reported this month on the deceptive practices by Cal State to misinform the public about the total compensation provided to the system’s 23 presidents. According to IRS documents of the Cal State University Los Angeles Foundation, CSULA President James Rosser reported receiving $515,612 in total compensation for fiscal year 2009-10, which ended on June 30, 2010. The half-million dollar figure is roughly $200,000 more than CSU’s previously cited base salary of $325,000 per year. In at least five instances, Cal State officials have claimed or implied a lower compensation amount for CSULA’s Rosser.

‘Doesn’t Look Right’

Senator Doug LaMalfa, R-Redding, also criticized Cal State for deceiving the public and providing its executives with high salaries during the state’s ongoing budget crisis.

“It just doesn’t look right.  We are in the middle of a budget crisis with student fees being increased left and right, yet executives are getting six-figure raises and $100,000 perks not even on the books,” La Malfa told CalWatchDog.com. “These are huge salaries for public officials, larger than the governor, yet they have a much smaller portfolio of responsibilities. They can ‘suffer along’ with their current six-digit compensation while the rest of the public weathers the budget crisis and tough economy.”

Following last year’s public outcry over San Diego State University’s $400,000 base salary for new president Elliot Hirschman, Cal State established a special Web page for public information on its executive compensation policies. “As a public institution, the California State University is committed to being as open and transparent to the public as possible,” the website reads. “In response to recent discussions about the California State University’s executive compensation policies and practices, we have created this central page to make the documents related to those policies more readily accessible.”

Senators Huff and La Malfa join a growing number of legislators that are urging greater fiscal accountability at Cal State. Senator Joel Anderson, R-Santee, and Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada-Flintridge, were the first legislators to criticize Cal State for its efforts to mislead the public on executive compensation.

“If it’s true that the CSU has been hiding important budget information from the Legislature and public review, potentially in violation of state law and the CSU’s own rules, then I believe there needs to be consequences,” said Assemblyman Portantino. “It is PAST time for the CSU to be fully and completely transparent. I call on the Assembly Leadership to support my continuing effort to FREEZE the pay and benefits for the CSU executives until we have adequate time to review, line-by-line, actual spending records.”