Have you ever sat in the far back rows of the Soper-Reese Community Theatre, way up in the loges?

Kathy’s mom and dad, Walt and Madelene Lyon, insist on those seats whenever they come to the theater.

It started when they bought tickets to a nearly sold-out symphony concert and got seats in the top back.

They dragged themselves up, only to find the location to be one of the best-kept secrets at the theater.

Since there are no bad seats in the theater, and the best sound is right at the top, the Lyons now are regulars in those top rows.

Michael’s brother had season tickets to the Metropolitan Opera in New York and found the same thing. The sound is unbeatable in the cheap seats. Try the top seats sometime. You might be surprised.

In fact you might just try those top seats for one of our upcoming programs at the theater.

The Third Friday Live series resumed last month with music, dancing, friendship and good old community spirit. Next performance is Friday, October 19.

The symphony concerts return in November and December, the New Year will be welcomed in at the Soper Reese Theatre with the LC Diamonds, and Lake County Live is becoming an institution in our community.

If you missed August’s Lake County Live performance, you should get the CD that is on sale at the theater. The interview with the Coach of the KV Chain Saw Drill Team was a classic.

Doug Rhoades and his band of writers have more in store this month, and you will not want to miss the show at 6 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 28. Come to the theater to participate in the live performance or tune in to KPFZ 88.1 FM for the live broadcast.

We’re proud to announce an upcoming special program on November 11.  We have teamed up with Ginny Craven for this Veteran’s Day benefit for Operation Tango Mike. Hear The Funky Dozen perform, with all the profits going to Tango Mike. You will have a great time while knowing you supported a worthwhile organization.

We have now expanded the role of the Soper-Reese Theatre in the community with the addition of two recently held events.

Late last month we featured the movie “California Indian.” Written, produced, acted and directed by Lake County’s own Tim Ramos, and featuring the Big Valley Rancheria, this encore showing was a very special event.

Last year it was the first movie shown with our new projector, and we had some slight problems with the sound. We were pleased to again show this important film.

The other event recently hosted by the Soper-Reese Theatre was a benefit concert for the Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association (AMIA).

The theater offered to host it in place of the popular annual Bluegrass Festival, which was unable to be held at the Anderson Marsh State Historic Park due to the State closing the park.

Hopefully the Bluegrass Festival will return to the park next year, but the recent event at the Soper Reese was so successful, we may host a benefit event annually for AMIA.

Finally, if you haven’t heard about the special program “Young Music Masters,” we want to let you know of this program featuring our talented local music students.

This concert, performed by young musicians, will benefit the Allegro Music Scholarship program. These scholarships have helped young music students afford private lessons.

Musical talent is alive and well in our community, and unfortunately not all these aspiring artists’ families can afford music lessons.

With the drastic cuts that have been made to music programs in our public schools, there is no more important investment we can make in our young people than supporting the development of their musical skills. We hope you will join us for all these worthwhile events at the Soper-Reese Community Theatre.

Coming up this month: Second Tuesday Classic Movies, “Ghost Busters,” Oct. 9, 6 p.m.; Wild West Saloon, Oct. 12, 7 p.m.; Third Friday Live, featuring Will Siegel and Friends, Oct. 19, 7 p.m.; Lake County Live, live radio broadcast from the stage and broadcast on KPFZ, 88.1 FM, Oct. 28, 6 p.m.; Young Music Masters, Nov. 4, 3 p.m.; Tango Mike Veteran’s Day benefit, Nov. 11, 7 p.m.

Tickets are available at The Travel Center in the Shoreline Shopping Center, Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the theater box office will be open again on Fridays from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. starting on June 22 and is always open two hours before show time on the day of any event.

Tickets also can be purchased on line at www.soperreesetheatre.com .

For all the latest in information, tickets and more go to www.soperreesetheatre.com , and we’ll see you at the theater.

Kathy Windrem and Mike Adams are part of the large volunteer group that run the Soper-Reese Community Theatre in Lakeport, Calif.

On Saturday I attended the funeral service, with military honors, for Sgt. Richard Essex of the United States Army. He was killed in action in Afghanistan on August 16, 2012. Richard was a Kelseyville local, graduating from local schools and enjoying many days with his family and friends here in Lake County.

I didn’t know him, and can’t recall ever meeting him, but perhaps I did. But together with his family and close friends, I and about 1,000 other people attended his funeral. You may ask why so many people, who probably never met him, were there. I have a question in response: Why weren’t there even more?

During World War II, our nation came together because we had initially not wanted to be involved in the “European” conflict, and tried, at least publicly, to maintain a distance from the fighting. That changed with Pearl Harbor, when we were directly attacked.

That event, coming some 12 years after the Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression, may have pulled us out of even greater economic disaster. Husbands, fathers, brothers and sons signed up in droves to go and fight, in Europe, the Pacific, even North Africa and Asia.

Here at home, we honored them and helped the effort by rationing gasoline, rubber, nylon and more to help the “war effort.” We had meatless Mondays, and other special days when our going without for a day meant our fighting men (and women) would have a bit more.

If we couldn’t get gas on the day we wanted it, we waited until our ration letter came up and bought just enough to get us through until we could buy again. We went without, so they would have fuel for trucks, tanks, planes and supplies to fight the war and come home safe.

We repeated those actions during the Korean conflict (not a war, as it was never declared; it was a United Nations intervention). But still men and women were in harm’s way overseas, and they deserved our support and sacrifice.

But starting with the Vietnam conflict, and continuing through Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and countless other combined operations and battles in the Middle East and elsewhere, we now fight our wars by proxy.

Just as we complain about American jobs going to other countries, we have outsourced our wars.

Young men and women from our communities still fight and die, but we are detached, unless it is one we personally know. Otherwise, we have made no sacrifice to support him or her, and every night the overwhelming majority of Americans go to bed without a thought about any soldier, representing our country, in battle somewhere on foreign soil.

We are, as a nation, generally complacent. We complain about the high cost of gasoline when we pull our fuel-guzzling SUVs into the service station.

We worry about the cost of education for our sons and daughters, but still send them to the best schools we can afford, and possibly the best colleges on earth.

We want the taxes and fees we must pay reduced, but always want the cop there when we need him or her, the Post Office to be open when it’s convenient for us, and the DMV to make the lines shorter.

We want cheaper prescriptions, and less expensive medical care, but run to the emergency room when have a cough or upset stomach in the middle of the night.

We want to be rugged individuals who don’t need the government telling us what to do, while depending on zoning laws to keep our neighbors from building their fences too high, or relying on the public utility commission to make the power company provide light in the dark.

I didn’t know Richard Essex. Had I met him, I may have liked him, or not. But he, and countless others are fighting, and sometimes dying because our country said they should. We, collectively, made that decision.

You may say, “I didn’t send him off to war, and I didn’t want him to get hurt.” Did you tell your senator or congressional representative that? Of course not. You didn’t even pick up the phone or send an e-mail. You let someone else make that decision for you. You outsourced that decision.

And just like that decision, you’ll let someone else make the other decisions that directly affect your life, and complain that it wasn’t your fault later.

This of course doesn’t apply to everyone. There are many in our community who are involved with their families and friends and those in the military and those in politic and those who represent us both locally and nationally. Those folks are interested, informed and aware of issues and decisions and consequences. Thank you if you are one of them.

If you are not, why not? Is life just too busy to read a paper, watch an unbiased news report or attend a town-hall meeting about an issue that affects you?

That’s OK, we’ll go for you. Afterwards, we’ll make the decisions for you too. You stay at home and watch “America’s Got Talent” while the real talent is out there fighting our wars, protecting our peace and serving our nation.

They may sacrifice everything they ever had to serve our country, and you can sacrifice being an active and informed citizen. After they render their service, you can say it wasn’t your idea they should do so.

So why weren’t there 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people at Sgt. Essex funeral Saturday? Some were too busy enjoying the freedom and choices that his sacrifice, and the thousands of others who have fallen before him, provided.

Someone said we owe a debt to Sgt. Essex, and his comrades in arms, that can never be repaid. Many know that; many do not.

Be one that knows, and whether you were there Saturday or not, when you go to bed tonight, take a moment to say “Thank you.” It may be the only sacrifice you’re ever called upon to make.

Doug Rhoades lives in Kelseyville, Calif.

For the fifth straight year, the federal deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion. Our national debt recently surpassed $15 trillion. If our debt was divided among the U.S. labor force, every single American worker would owe more than $100,000.

This is unsustainable, a national crisis, and we can’t wait to fix it.

First, our debt is a hidden tax on future generations. Instead of investing in job creation, renewable energy, infrastructure, Social Security and Medicare, our children and grandchildren will be paying back the money with interest that we’re borrowing. The interest alone on our debt currently sits at more than $200 billion a year.

Second, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said, our national debt is the single biggest national security threat facing our country. Much of our debt is held by foreign countries which do not share our values and are not our allies.

Last year, a so-called deficit “super-committee” was tasked with coming up with a solution to this crisis. If it failed, $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts would begin on Jan. 1, 2013.

The cuts would be divided evenly among defense and nondefense spending. These cuts were designed to be so painful that they would force the committee to find a solution.

They didn’t. Ultimately, politics prevented compromise, the super-committee failed to reach an agreement, tax cuts and other programs were left to expire, and our nation was left staring over the edge of a fiscal cliff.

Now the clock is ticking and something must be done. To fix the problem, we need a long-term, balanced plan where nothing is left off the table.

To start, we have to take a hard look at all government programs and make sure taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

We have to get rid of programs that aren’t needed, and if a program is needed we must make sure it’s running as efficiently as possible.

For instance, with information now available online, we were able to cut the Government Printing Office's congressional printing and binding service by millions of dollars. Many more cuts like this can be found.

Defense cuts also must be on the table. A strong national defense doesn’t have to be an expensive national defense, and there are responsible cuts to be made.

Last year, the Commission on Wartime Contracting identified more than $30 billion in waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s $30 billion that should never have been spent.

We can find more areas to scale back, and we can do it without making any cuts that put a single American life at risk.

Next, our tax structure must be reformed so that everyone pays their fair share.

Over the last 10 years, we have spent billions of dollars on tax cuts that weren’t paid for. These cuts played a large part in turning a trillion-dollar surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit, and that is why I voted against them.

We can’t just cut our way out of this crisis. If our tax structure remains the same, our fiscal problems will only get worse.

Finally, any plan must also make job creation investments. More jobs will mean more revenue and these revenues will help get our nation out of the red.

Developing and enacting a long-term plan that puts our nation on a fiscally-sustainable path will not be painless. There will be cuts to programs we all care about, there will be defense cuts, and some taxes will be raised.

It will not be quick. We didn’t get in this hole overnight, and we won’t get out overnight. And it will not be easy. But leadership isn’t about doing what’s easy; it’s about doing what needs to be done to fix the problem.
    
I’m ready to do what it takes to fix the problem, but this can’t just be a Democratic effort or a Republican effort. It will take people on both sides of the aisle.

Some might say that Washington is too divided to accomplish anything of this magnitude. But remember, our nation weathered a civil war, rescued Europe from fascism, created the strongest economy in human history, passed the Civil Rights Act and put a man on the moon.  

We’ve been divided before, but we came together to do what is best for our country. We’ve faced long odds in the past, but we bet on America, and we achieved things no one thought possible.

I know we can do it again. We can solve this problem and shore up the resources we need to grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and protect Social Security and Medicare. It’s what our district and nation deserves.  

Congressman Mike Thompson represents Lake County, Calif., in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This November the voters of California will be asked to vote on Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, which if passed would create a law requiring labeling of any food products containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

This proposition is often referred to as the “Right to Know” proposition. No one in good conscience would ever argue against a consumer’s “right to know” as education and choice are paramount to an informed society.

What isn’t being discussed by proponents of Proposition 37 is that consumers do already have a way to know and make their own shopping choices accordingly. Organic foods are prohibited by law from containing any GE products and are currently available and prevalent in every store and supermarket.

Mention genetic engineering (also referred to as genetically modified organisms or GMOs) or bioengineering and you’re guaranteed to get a reaction. The whole topic is often confusing as multiple labels such as GE and GMOs area used almost interchangeably.

On top of that, the topic tends to engender a lot of emotion in people and sometimes sets people against each other when in reality what would be better than polarization is discussion.

The following is an excerpt from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) which gives a definition of food biotechnology from a federal agency’s perspective. The statement was given before the Subcommittee on Basic Research, House Committee on Science by Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The link is http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm115032.htm .

“FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY: First, let me explain what we mean when we refer to food biotechnology or genetically engineered foods. Many of the foods that are already common in our diet are obtained from plant varieties that were developed using conventional genetic techniques of breeding and selection. Hybrid corn, nectarines (which are genetically altered peaches), and tangelos (which are a genetic hybrid of a tangerine and grapefruit) are all examples of such breeding and selection. Food products produced through modern methods of biotechnology such as recombinant DNA techniques and cell fusion are emerging from research and development into the marketplace. It is these products that many people refer to as “genetically engineered foods. The European Commission refers to these foods as Genetically Modified Organisms. The United States uses the term genetic modification to refer to all forms of breeding, both modern, I.e. genetic engineering, and conventional.”

Much of the argument surrounding GM foods is centered on how and whether they are evaluated as foodstuffs.

Several countries use a concept called  substantial equivalence as a scientifically sound method of safety evaluations of food and ingredients derived from GM plants.

Substantial equivalence isn’t universally accepted and opponents say it doesn’t take into account potential long-term consequences and have lobbied for governmental agencies to use alternative methods of assessment.

But to date in the United States, substantial equivalence is the accepted standard of assessment and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), the World Health Organization (WHO) and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) all accept GE foods as the equivalent of non-GE foods.

This acceptance is based upon assessing foods based on their chemical content, not their means of production.

The AMA announced in a June 21 statement that they saw no health purpose for labeling genetically modified foods – those made with GMOs – as such. “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education,” the statement read in part. Their statement reflects that they do not feel labeling to be scientifically mandated.

What is of concern regarding Proposition 37 is that while it sounds like a no-brainer when referred to as “right to know,” in reality it is much more complex when examined on its merits as a legal mandate and affects much more than whether or not a foodstuff contains GM ingredients and how the proposition as written may impact producers and grocers.

As written it is filled with conflicting exceptions as to what would need to be labeled and what would not. The strange exemptions are located in Section 110809.2 of the proposition and include fruit juice but exclude beer, wine and liquor. They require soup in a can to be labeled but not soup to go in the deli section. Snack food in a grocery store but not snack food in vending machines. Dairy products and meat are all excluded, even if GE crops have been fed. Only products from California, not imported products.

The reasons behind these exemptions are unknown to the average voter, but it would seem reasonable to assume that they were the result of political machinations.

These seemingly arbitrary exemptions are some of the reasons that the California Small Business Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Retailers Association, California Independent Grocers Association and the California Grocers Association have come out against Proposition 37.

It’s estimated that 70 percent of the food we eat contains some type of genetically modified ingredient. Opponents of mandatory labeling are concerned that it is likely to increase prices and decrease consumer choice, hitting the poorest people hardest.

Whether or not this is true is unsubstantiated, but nowhere in the proposition does it suggest any potential economic implications or costs for the bureaucracy to enforce it.

Further concern is the vague language of the proposition and the opportunity for legal misuse. Opponents of Proposition 37 are concerned that if passed its implementation will create the same legal ramifications as Proposition 65, the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.”

They present that since Proposition 65’s inception, more than 16,000 actions against businesses have been filed and nearly $500 million in settlements and attorneys’ fees have been racked up including approximately $3 million of those to California attorney James Wheaton, legal director of the Environmental Law Foundation in Oakland, who was instrumental in drafting the language of both Proposition 65 and who filed the ballot language for the initiative Proposition 37.

Opponents of Proposition 37, such as the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, have expressed concern that the same legally vague language is found in Proposition 37 and opens the door to potential spurious lawsuits with the burden of proof laying on the farmers and the grocers.

Some of that vague language prohibits the use of terms like “natural,” “naturally grown” and “all natural” in labeling as well which will require special labeling for products distributed in California but not the other states.

The legal wording of Proposition 37 would allow private citizens to sue farmers, distributors, grocers, food companies for fines of $1,000 per day and punitive damages if a product is thought to be out of compliance (Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2012/08/20/shoddy-drafting-or-part-of-the-plan-the-natural-problem-in-californias-biotech-food-labeling-initiative/ ).

The independent, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s office states: “Retailers (such as grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled. ... For each product that is not labeled as GE, a retailer generally must be able to document why that product is exempt from labeling. [Emphasis added] There are two main ways in which a retailer could document that a product is exempt: 1) by obtaining a sworn statement from the provider of the product (such as a wholesaler) indicating that the product has not been intentionally or knowingly genetically engineered or (2) by receiving independent certification that the product does not include GE ingredients. Other entities throughout the food supply chain (such as farmers and food manufacturers) may also be responsible for maintaining these records The measure specifies that consumers (and litigation attorneys) could sue for violation of the measure’s provisions under the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In order to bring such an action forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.”

And that is just a brief discussion of why the topic of genetically engineered foods creates such a stir. Many people believe that biotechnology is crucial to our exploration of ways to address issues of concern such as reduced pesticide use and increased drought tolerance and others believe that it is an affront to nature and is motivated by corporations who are driven by their bottom line, at the expense of all else.

The Lake County Chamber of Commerce accepts and respects one another’s personal belief systems regarding genetic engineering and has attempted to provide a brief background on the subject but the focus of our discussion is to provide a commentary on Proposition 37 as written. Another way of looking at “right to know” is to advocate that foodstuffs be advertised voluntarily by the manufacturers and producers as “GE-free” rather than vice versa.

For those who do accept the science that states GE foodstuffs are equivalent to non-GE foodstuffs,  no hazards have been substantiated that would indicate that GE foods should be labeled as such. No one would ever come out and say “I disagree with a consumer’s right to know what they are purchasing” but a consumer’s right isn’t at risk here.

As mentioned above, savvy shoppers educate themselves about their individual dietary concerns, economic choices and make their purchases accordingly. It is relatively easy to find out the most common GM crops (corn, cotton, canola, and soy) and plan your purchases accordingly. Buying organic or eating mostly whole foods rather than prepackaged foods is a great way to ensure a diet low in GM foods if that is your personal choice.

Several alternatives to California’s labeling initiative have been suggested. There’s the voluntary no-GMO label, which many companies already use.

Consumers who want that product have the option of paying a premium for the assurance. We have seen that system in action, with the voluntary labeling of rBST in milk. Another option is to label the specific GM ingredients rather than a generic label for the product.

The bottom line is choice. Does Proposition 37 best serve this? Do we know how it would be implemented, what kind of bureaucracy would institute it, how would it impact small-producers and would there be trickle-down to the consumer in food prices. That is the question for each informed voter to decide.
 
Another interesting link is an interview with Dr. Kevin Folta, professor of Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Florida. He also is a science communicator and his interview on the subject of biotechnology is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/genetically-modified-food_n_1690653.html .

Melissa Fulton is chief executive officer and Jim Magliulo is president of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, based in Lakeport, Calif.

Recently biotech and chemical industry proponents have redoubled their efforts to bad-mouth organic farmers and consumers.

We are getting a concentrated dose of the standard “organic can’t possibly feed the world” line, along with scolding about organic farms encroaching upon the rain forests.

We are supposed to feel guilty for feeding our children peaches and strawberries free of hormone-disrupting pesticide residues.

The timing is too obvious – a successful campaign to labeling of genetically engineered food on the ballot brought about increased awareness.

I’m looking forward to seeing the Organic Trade Association’s figures for both 2011 and 2012 – I believe that shoppers are already voting with their wallets, resulting in a noticeable loss of market share for non-organic processed foods laden with unlabeled GMOs.

The industrial disinformation campaign will intensify, given the expected $100 million that biotech firms like Monsanto and Cargill are devoting to stopping Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

It’s time to start setting the record straight.

Forty case studies of programs in 20 countries, sponsored by the UK Government Office of Science Foresight, were published in the International Journal of Agriculture Sustainability (IJAS) (Pretty et al. “Sustainable intensification in African agriculture” 2011).

These are not tiny test plot studies – they involve programs that benefit 10.39 million farmers and their families.

The results are impressive: Yields more than doubled over a three to 10 year period. Practicing “sustainable intensification” provided farmers with alternatives to the crushing debts incurred to purchase patented seeds and the soil-killing and water-polluting chemicals needed to grow them.

Additional studies recently published by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), compiling the work of over 400 independent scientists, also raised disturbing questions on genetic engineering. Jack A. Heinemann, a professor of genetics and molecular biology at University of Canterbury, New Zealand has written a book, Hope Not Hype, about the findings.

Several chapters are available free at https://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/Home .

Scientists found no evidence of sustained yield increases from GM crops since their commercial release.

For instance, food production in Brazil decreased slightly while the proportion of GM crops has grown to 65 percent.

Studies at Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska suggest that Roundup Ready soy yields 6 percent to 11 percent less than conventional varieties. The research showed the GE varieties were more, not less vulnerable to drought, an increasing problem throughout the world.

Although the biotech industry boasts of drought and salt tolerance, it’s now being found that conventionally-bred hybrids are more likely to excel in these traits. This includes both selection by farmers and use of marker-assisted selection by plant breeders.

This newer and safer technology is not the same as transferring genes from one species to another – it allows very precise selection of naturally-occurring beneficial mutations.

Genetically engineered crops don’t increase profits or decrease expenses for farmers. The higher upfront costs for GM seeds and the fertilizer and pesticides required actually increase the financial risk from crop failure.

Bankruptcies are still commonplace in the US and in several countries, such as India, suicides by debt-ridden farmers have risen rapidly, a horrifying trend.

Furthermore, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, there is already a surplus of food, enough to provide 3,500 calories for each person on the planet.

Even countries with the largest numbers of malnourished people have adequate food – it’s just that many people are too poor to buy it.

Since genetically modified food is not needed to feed the world, it’s important to consider the many reasons we should question the use of this obsolete and ineffective technology.

Industry claims that pesticide use has been reduced are false. Around 85 percent of GM crops are herbicide-tolerant. According to IAASTD, glyphosate use in the United States has increased by 15 times since 1994.

It’s also standard practice for GE seeds to be treated with systemic pesticides. This actually results in an increase in pesticide residue on food.

Monsanto has requested increases in allowable residue, including a request to the EU early this year to increase the allowable glyphosate residue on lentils by 100 times – that is not 100 percent, it’s a 10,000 percent increase!

Predictably the heavy use of herbicides is resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds, which will reduce the production and profits of farmers who do not even grow genetically engineered crops.

In his book, Heinemann points out that a farmer whose crop is contaminated by GMOs is exposed to legal actions, market rejection, and product recalls.

If conventionally-grown or organic crops become contaminated, according to patent law, Monsanto owns those crops and seeds, and can sue the farmers for “patent infringement.”

Their full-time staff of 75 employees has filed lawsuits against hundreds of American farmers, including those who never suspected that their fields had been contaminated.

Farmers typically settle out of court. The average payment to Monsanto is more than $400,000. Those farmers also no longer have the right to either save or plant their own seed or to select for desirable traits.

According to law, the entire genetically engineered plant, including the seeds, are the property of the patent-holder, not the farmer, even if the trait the farmer is selecting for is completely different from, and on a different chromosome from the GE mutation, and even if the gene got into the seed, not through any action of the farmer, but through wind or insect pollination. This violates both fair treatment under the law and common sense.

Domination of the world’s farmers by companies who own patented seeds is damaging to both biodiversity and food security.

The IAASTD provides important new evidence that even without the millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies and research funding lavished upon biotech, agroecological methods of farming are outpacing industrial practices in feeding the hungry in the places that most desperately need both nutritional variety and the local economic benefits of small family-owned farms.

Roberta Actor-Thomas is a software consultant in Lakeport, Calif., and a member of the Committee for a GE Free Lake County.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog, who fears being stung during the trip, is convinced by the scorpion to make the journey because their fates in the river are aligned. The frog agrees carries the scorpion, but while in the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both to drown. When the frog asks why, the scorpion says that this action is in his nature. (Paraphrased from Aesop’s Fables.)

You may be aware that the California Water Service Co. (Cal Water), which provides water service to the community of Lucerne, recently filed for a general rate case in which they are asking for another 77 percent increase over three years for the water system in Lucerne.

This proposed increase comes at an already difficult time, and is placed upon one of Lake County’s already struggling communities.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, at least 92 homes have been lost to foreclosure in Lucerne. This amounts to one displaced family every two weeks.

This issue can be confusing. It is important to point out that the Board of Supervisors has virtually no say in the level of rates in the town of Lucerne.

While the county does not manage the Lucerne water system, the county does pay water bills there and we do share – as all citizens do – in the burden of the economic difficulties in communities that are served by out-of-area water companies.

On Tuesday, Aug. 14, at 11a.m., I am asking the Board of Supervisors to authorize sending a letter to the Public Utility Commission in opposition to Cal Water’s rate increase in Lucerne.

I urge all citizens who are concerned about the fate of our brothers and sisters in Lucerne, to take the next step – share their views with our state legislators and the public utilities commission.

I also need to point out that the entire ratemaking structure is unjust and incentivizes this corporate misbehavior and societal injustice.

While many have portrayed Cal Water as greedy and opportunistic, it is like the above story of the scorpion and the frog. The company is doing what is in its nature – Cal Water is simply playing by the ratemaking rules, and they get paid when they play the game well.  

The rules themselves are fundamentally unfair because they do not have an incentive for Cal Water to share its fate with the community it serves and do not take into account its nature with appropriate disallowances.  

At minimum state regulators need to consider an affordability provision or a cap – and a provision that ties rate increases to the economic well-being of the disadvantaged communities being served. Lucerne should not pay even one penny to remodel corporate offices in San Jose.

It is also important to note that the purpose of the item taken up by our board meeting on Aug. 14 is to enlist the board’s help in speaking out for Lucerne.

My hope is that the citizenry will read the facts I share here and share their own. I also hope to gather stories – how residents are impacted by Cal Waters current rates, what is happening to the community because of it, and I am asking the supervisors to speak for Lucerne to this unjust system.

Our board is often faced with increasing water and sewer rates for the systems in which we manage. In these economic times, we have asked Special Districts and the county in general to avoid any unnecessary expenses – and we look for ways to avoid or at least spread any required costs out to keep the rates affordable. I believe that the public utility commission and Cal Water have that same responsibility.

I would like to suggest that citizens look at the facts and share their own facts and stories as full time residents of this community.

Here are the points I believe that need to be made by citizens to the PUC:

First, we need to note that these “average monthly bills” as stated by Cal Water do not tell the whole story for the average full time resident of Lucerne.

According to the information provided by Cal Water, the proposed rate increase is substantial, effectively doubling Lucerne residents’ water costs within three years, bringing the “average bill” from $62.85 per month to $124.22 per month. Since Lucerne residents are billed every other month, if Cal Water’s calculations hold, the average bimonthly bill would be $228.44.

While the average bill as portrayed by Cal Water is already well above those compared to other communities, it must be noted that are even greater for the actual full-time resident of Lucerne.

In this case, “average” as stated by Cal Water is misleading. Lucerne is a community that has a large number of homes which are used as vacation or second homes and therefore has a vacancy rate of over 25 percent.

While the “typical” current monthly average is listed as $62.85, we have found that the actual bill for a full-time resident is usually much higher. Cal Water’s figures reflect a much lower average bill than is typical for a full-time Lucerne resident.

Second, the community is in a downward economic cycle perpetuated by the fixed costs of the water system.

The American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau, shows that more than 41 percent of Lucerne households earn less than $25,000 per year. This is in stark contrast to just under 20 percent of households for all of California.

Nearly 25 percent of Lucerne residents have had an income below the poverty level in the past 12 months.

Another indicator is that nearly 62 percent (22 percent in all of California) of households that rent have an income of less than $20,000 per year.

Over 42 percent – only 20 percent in all of California – of those households spend over 30 percent of that income on housing costs.

How can these families afford to spend, on average, an additional $735 per year on water?

Again, this increase is based on the numbers provided by Cal Water and we expect that the actual rate increase and burden on Lucerne residents will be much higher than stated. This community is already struggling to survive under its current water rates.

Third, the onerous water bill is a significant factor in the pushing families to the economic brink in the community of Lucerne – perpetuating the downward economic cycle in this community.

The entire ratemaking process does not take into account this destructive cycle – costs are simply allocated to those who remain on the system and the “averages” do not tell the story.

Taken to its extreme – if only two residents remained in the community – would they be responsible for the entire costs of the system?

Fourth, state regulators and Cal Water share the responsibility for turning this downward economic cycle around.

The underlying ratemaking structure is at issue here. At minimum, an “affordability cap” for the fixed costs of any company’s system as reflected water rates would make sense when addressing rates for these disadvantaged communities.

As the Board of Supervisors, and board of directors for many water systems, we take this responsibility seriously when allocating rates for the communities in which we serve water – we would expect Cal Water to do the same.

Finally, we need to question the motivation behind the rate increase.

The Cal Water application states that the increase is necessary due to a decrease in water usage since the last increase, and therefore a subsequent increase is needed to cover the fixed costs of operating the water system.

However, among the top reasons for the increase are $108,000 for salary increases, an additional $38,000 for employee benefits and repayment of cost incurred for a remodel project in 2011 at Cal Water’s office in San Jose.

Cal Water’s application shows that 34 districts are expected to share in the cost of renovations that have already been made to the San Jose facility. The Lucerne ratepayers are expected to pay the second highest share per volume of water of those 34 districts.

A small system, such as Lucerne, requires a large portion of expenditures to be shared by a small number of users. This formula is not fair to a small group of ratepayers, particularly ones with extremely low incomes.  

A larger district with more users to spread the costs can afford new trucks, higher salaries and better benefits, but to expect that same level of support from a small, disadvantaged community is problematic and unfair.

In these difficult times, and with no apparent relief to the economic crisis in sight, the last thing that should be placed on the backs of local residents is the doubling of their cost to access our most essential resource, water.

I call on the citizens of Lake County to support Lucerne’s fight with this unjust ratemaking system.

Ask the PUC to deny the application for a rate increase as proposed by the California Water Service Co. for the Lucerne rate area and request the rate structures for small utility systems be analyzed and revised to reflect the undue and unrealistic burden on ratepayers.

Denise Rushing represents Lucerne, Calif., and the Northshore of Lake County on the Lake County Board of Supervisors.