[AT] OT - but NOT: conflict versus cooperation and commonsense

[Grant Brians]

I came across an article that I am very glad I did - there is a proposal 
to build a large dam up-creek from us. It would likely replace the dam 
that farmers built / had built in 1939 to reduce the flooding and 
increase the water-table recharge for our area. The article did a pretty 
good job of describing the proposal with some modest mistakes because of 
not knowing this rural area and the geology and history of the area. No 
surprise because the news organization is professional if severely 
understaffed thanks to the changes in the media business.
      Why do I think this is pertinent to our list? Well, in the article 
there were descriptions of who came out for and against the current form 
of the proposal (it involves buying a 12,000 acre piece of rangeland 
most of which is relatively steep) and some of their basic arguments. 
The arguments did involve some of the growth concerns for the booming 
and crowded greater San Francisco Bay Area. So far all pretty standard.
      But then the comments section had many people assuming from short 
statements that they were either immediately politically "other" - i.e. 
stupid or misguided, some people jumped to conclusions without 
presenting their reasoning, and some seemed to have an extreme agenda.
      Now this has become the norm too often on the Internet and in our 
life today. I miss the adherence to restraint  in temper and the 
presentation of well thought out arguments being the expected behavior 
of everyone, even as I recognize that we humans have NEVER managed to do 
so uniformly.
      So, like I try to do when I comment on a subject on this list, I 
posted a comment that I hoped will help people recognize the aspects 
that need examining on the proposed dam. I also noted that if the 
project were done properly it likely would benefit people in the urban 
areas some miles away, but if it were done wrong that it would harm us 
here downstream from the proposed new dam. Like a NY Times columnist 
challenged his readers last week to do, I hope that everyone will 
examine a viewpoint with which they do not agree and see why those 
holding the viewpoint do so. It could help us all to get along better 
and make better decisions.

      If anyone is interested in reading the article and my comments, 
here is the link:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/18/california-drought-water-district-looking-to-buy-land-to-construct-largest-bay-area-reservoir-in-20-years/

And, to make it easier to see my comments, here they are (warning I try 
to be accurate so they are not short):

I farm vegetables and other crops along Pacheco Creek and other 
locations here and we sustained severe damage from the floods this year 
resulting in extensive financial losses to my farm and family. The major 
reason we sustained damage to our farm fields (that I am still fixing) 
was thatthe creeks have not been cleaned in over 25 years and the 
regional water quality agencies and California Department of Fish and 
Game would not allow cleaning to be performed in the dry years when it 
traditionally had been done by farmers. Misapplication of risk analyses, 
not environmental laws led to this result and only city dwellers can 
help us in the country to solve this problem.

The current 1939 Pacheco Creek North Fork reservoir (built by my 
neighbors now deceased) helps reduce flooding by releasing water over 
the course of the year instead of only in the winter. As a San Benito 
County resident and farmer, I and my neighbors would be affected by this 
project. In reading the proposal, the placement of the dam could make 
sense because it is the LEAST close to a faultline of any location in or 
near the Santa Clara Valley. Unlike the statement that it is near the 
Calaveras Fault, the distance is moderately significant and the 
underlying rock for the location could work well.

BUT, the devil is in the details in so many ways. I also would say that 
maintaining the non-flooded portion of the property in sustainable 
grazing of cattle would be the best scenario for species in general. 
Additionally, unlike the statement made about the wild pigs being part 
of nature, they are non-native destruction machines that need to be 
aggressively controlled by hunting to keep environmental damage under 
control. Wild pigs are actually wild European Boars that dig up soil in 
our semi-arid to arid climate in ways that might be fine in the moist 
parts of Europe they are native to, but not here where they are the 
second leading cause of soil erosion in our county!

This proposal would not help us here in San Benito County, but it could 
be beneficial to the environment in the Santa Clara Valley in general by 
helping trees survive during drought years. That would be the main 
benefit to the area it this were to be built. Also, it is true that the 
proposed reservoir would only be filled very occasionally, but that 
could make sufficient difference to be very helpful. All told this 
proposal has enough merit to suggest that it should be investigated and 
discussed publicly including the land price which is very high for 
rangeland....