Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong
compares California water plan with Klamath dam-removal Agreement,
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, 7/24/08 The
California Water plan publishes a periodic update
http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/enews/index.cfm They have
been working on an implementation of a watershed model where land,
water and other resource use planning would be done on a watershed
basis - crossing jurisdictional lines. They would use the "Shared
Vision Planning" protocols
http://www.svp.iwr.usace.army.mil/index.cfm
In the July 16 Water Plan update bulletin, they referenced
some articles. If you look at the articles, they reference the
European Water Framework Directive and models of “sustainability.”
Linked articles discuss studies on “social learning” and
“governance” : The Growing Importance of Social Learning in Water
Resources Management and Sustainability Science
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art24/ and
Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art3/ and Social
Learning and Water Resources Management
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/
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/ A “governance” structure
appears to be 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.
|