One of the accepted differences between these ideologies is the conservative view that taxation, social contracts and networked and hierarchal systems of organized representative government are bad things.

It comes down to answering the question of just much freedom and independence a society can have before it descends into anarchy – where government is so small that people must live in locally self-sufficient enclaves without a larger entity keeping the peace.

Conservatives speak of small government but have not yet clearly identified just “how small” a government they would prefer.

Reducing government, at the level of population we currently have, with huge infrastructure and national functionality depending, in part, on the government holding it all together, is problematic.

Some think the catch-phrase “small government” is instead a call for the empowerment of individually determined priorities – something that is virtually impossible in light of all the varied interests to be represented.

Liberals espouse a position that demands government take on the responsibility of identifying and measuring both community and individual need within a larger whole, and responding energetically, with sympathy and empathy, to that need with organized action; assuming responsibility – in a very tribal way – for the whole people.

Taking on this responsibility, at the level of population we have, requires a significant contribution from the populace to act as the funding mechanism. Taxation is only acceptable if the services provided are valued, and appreciated, by the populace.

Just as the danger of too small a government is anarchy and loss of freedoms and liberties, the result of too large a government can be tyranny or gridlock, both which result in loss of freedoms and liberties.

In the end, the average liberal can’t tell you just “how large” a government is large enough and how it is to avoid waste and favoritism within the boundaries of a free market system.

Following the crooked path a step further, it seems appropriate to state that we are not now in an infant state, where we can immediately choose to create a brand new paradigm. Many of our politicians, and much of our populace, embrace a sort of mindlessly vague loyalty to nondescript sound bites that represent their platform or ideology.

Taking the conservative view first: Do you want the absolute form of social individual freedom – anarchy? If you answered no, then the next question is, “What do you want government to do for you?”

In the present modern form of western civilization, government usually provides for a common defense, a form of law, and regulation to protect its populace from goons, thugs and fanatics and snake-oil salesmen.

If we were to list the services government actually provides localities, we might come to an idea just how deeply we’re attached to federal and state dollars; what services they fund or help to fund, and what our society would look like without them.

As an example of small government, I have seen local county Web sites that inform potential immigrants to expect unpaved or potholed roads, lack of reliable police or fire service and/or long response times, lack of school bus routes, no athletics, art or music programs in education, no public libraries or pools, unmaintained parks and recreation facilities, etc.

These localities practice small government. They don’t provide services they can’t afford and are content to live with the repercussions of their choice.

The true small-government ideology of conservatism without taxes means the elimination of numerous public services and facilities and a need for localities to become locally self-sufficient; something that is unattainable without local unity and organization toward a single purpose.

At that point, if embraced by every locality, the United States ceases to be. Also at that point, the wealthy have what they want and all the rest have what they can give or take.

Depending on what we keep, We may have no Medicare, no Social Security, no unemployment, no welfare, less fire and police protection, fewer solvent public schools, no central judicial system, greater crime, ultra-expensive utility services, deteriorating infrastructure, increased vigilantism, unregulated drugs and foods, unregulated driving, no public transportation, no care for the needy, and on and on.

What we need is for conservatives to draft a laundry list of the services they consider indispensable and what services will be let go.

Remember, decreasing central authority, though bulky, incompetent and expensive, removes the cohesive glue that allows all these services to exist and be regulated in the public interest.

Conservatism, in its present form, seems to desire to be part of the greater union, but its new primary directive seems to be a narrow effort to preserve the past and profit individually without financial responsibility for the care or condition of neighbors.

I think most reasonable conservatives would agree they prefer some type of central government to coordinate services for so many millions living so immediately adjacent to one another –e specially after having exhausted much of the natural resources.

I don’t know what other form of funding state, federal and local governments have, other than taxation or permit fees, etc., but all these services require some level of public financial commitment.

The idea that all these services could be provided by private for-profit interests at an affordable level goes against the grain of our recent economic experience. Reliance on public generosity has proven unreliable.

What services should government provide? What can you live without? How small is small government?

Liberals have their own problems. Large government is, as stated above, largely inefficient, wasteful, often incompetent – even counterproductive. Regulation in a corporate economy can be stifling and it is essential that the economy be good for large government to continue. The “common good” is difficult to serve from a distance.

Wherever the central government and its policies affect the freedom of a community to develop self-sufficiency, it has overstepped its bounds.

At the point where the populace is unwilling or unable to fund the multitude of special interests that result from having millions of citizens with individual needs and crisis, gridlock results and people are even less willing to contribute to the public coffer even to fund services previously considered indispensable.

The problem, for liberals and conservatives alike, is that we have allowed the Horatio Alger myth to become pervasive among our people.

Much of the younger populace, having been convinced by the entertainment media that “having it all” is a right and not the result of sacrifice and effort, are now too impatient and self-involved to sacrifice the services they have become accustomed to – or to contribute a greater portion of their income to fund the services they have expect.

A large portion of the elderly population, divided into the well-to-do and those dependent on government services for survival, are now faced with giving up a greater share of their hard earned wealth – or with suffering the loss of services they have come to depend on.

The variance in opinions regarding what is an indispensable government service reflect a cross-section of the economic, social, political and spiritual values and views and is a chasm of infinite disagreement.

How will we fund (immediately) the services we want to keep should federal or state sources cease? We have already begun to face these hard decisions in the recent economic crisis and have yet to come to common agreement about the priority of services we desire.

I think it would be an interesting research project to see: 1) What is the actual money brought into Lake County from federal and state grants, projects and programs, and how much of our economy and infrastructure is supported through government funding, activities, offices, etc.; 2) survey 50 local voters respectively from the Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Tea Party on their top 20 indispensable services to be provided by organized local government; 3) survey, from those same voters what percentage of their income they would voluntarily contribute to provide these shared services within the community.

It seems to me that would give us a pretty good idea of what we need and what people would be willing to pay. I fear that the answer would not be what we would prefer.

The distance between those who profess a real desire for the entire populace to share equity in the resources of the nation, including defining what responsibilities each neighbor has for the welfare of the next, is at the heart of this debate.

If you don’t feel a responsibility to share your individual economy in insuring that all people have shelter, food, water, utilities, medical service, police protection or education then your choice is indeed simple – I take mine, you take yours.

For those who profess a desire to assume that responsibility, the problem is thornier. Services offered can only be determined by the percentages of our individual wealth that we are willing to contribute to a central treasury to see that those services, protections, safeguards and benefits are administered,

protected, dispersed and utilized as equitably and efficiently as possible.

Whatever we are unwilling to fund through our own contributions must fall by the wayside. We cannot provide resources for all our population at the current level of consumption indefinitely. We cannot all be millionaires. We must come to agreement on what basic levels of services and benefits we can live with, and/or whether society can survive in a fractured and self-centered environment that decides it is not responsible for the basic necessities of its people.

Finally, when you take a position, remember that as the 3 percent of the earth’s population that uses 97 percent of the earths resources, we will come to a point where we cannot continue our standard of living without commitment to infrastructure redevelopment, higher standards of educational preparation, and commitment to green and energy efficient technologies.

Also remember that the 3 percent of our wealthiest citizens that hold 97 percent of the nation’s wealth have little or no real interest or stake in these decisions and the outcome. These “world” citizens will just pick up their marbles and go to another home if the standard of living retreats to an unacceptable level, leaving the rest behind to fight (literally) over the corpse of the American landscape and our direction as we struggle to cope with the loss of the dream we were told was our birthright.

As a postscript to this essay, we have just experienced a relatively local disaster that bodes ill for our national future. The real picture doesn’t get the visibility it deserves.

In the Bay Area, a 24-foot section of 30-inch natural gas pipe blew out of the ground, killing residents and leveling an entire neighborhood. This is not an isolated event; almost 2,000 of these types of “accidents” occur each year.

Add to that the “other” infrastructure failures occurring at an ever-increasing rate, and we’re in for a rocky road.

Replacing that infrastructure has been left to the private companies that own them, with predictable results. They are now 50 years old and crumbling. Can we afford to replace them by down-sizing government? I doubt it.

Neither will Americans see greater taxation as a solution. Only a huge government (gulp) stimulus could achieve the desired results in time. With the current political environment, a stimulus seems unlikely. So our infrastructure will continue to crumble as we tune our fiddles for the coming winter.

Now that I seem to have traveled the circle of my articles over the last 15 years, I’ll bring this to an end.

James BlueWolf lives in Nice, Calif.

The typical lament is "Arrrgh! Do something! DO SOMETHING!”

Most people are not happy with my response, which in a sentence is, “We are doing all we can.” Not that there isn't more to do, there is.

I do, however, have plenty more to say about this lake which many do not want to hear.

Clear Lake is alive It is communicating with us, and it is “doing what it does.”

The lake is alive. Clear lake is the oldest lake in the northern hemisphere, between one and two million years old. It is amazing and diverse and is a living being. In fact, it may be one of the most biologically diverse lakes in the world ... with a diversity studied by biologists around the globe. It was written about by Rachel Carson in the pivotal book “Silent Spring” where she spoke of the real and potential effects of human activity on wildlife. In essence, Clear Lake is 68 square miles of nature behaving and communicating.

Clear Lake is communicating with us. What is the lake saying? First and foremost, the lake is telling us that our actions, over time, have consequences. Long-term loss of habitat plus people (and their actions) resulted in excess nutrients flowing into the water. To quote Dr. Harry Lyons, biologist and Clear Lake expert, the lake is saying “I am too fat! I have too many nutrients.”

This condition of “extra” nutrients did not happen overnight.

Clear Lake is “doing what it does.” And what is that? It is turning nutrients into life. Clear Lake's excess nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, etc) would be better and more enjoyable to us in the form of wildlife: fish, grebes, otter, etc than algae. These nutrients would be more useful and healthy on the land and in gardens rather than in the water. Instead the nutrients are going into the water and creating extraordinary growth of algae and weeds. This is the lake “doing what it does” only this year, it is particularly difficult.

The lake is alive, it is communicating and it is doing what it does. We impact the lake. We humans create or affect many of the nutrients that flow into it and we, especially over time, have taken actions which affect the form the nutrients take.

To encourage the nutrients to turn into wildlife (instead of weeds and algae) requires that we foster favorable habitat ... namely tules. More than 70 percent of the natural tules around Clear Lake have been removed. If they were here providing aeration, habitat and nutrient removal, the lake would look very different today. Instead, we have lawns and bare soil leaching even more nutrients into the water and the result is lake weeds and algae. So tules are important. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/v/j9rDEyzvMFU?fs=1&hl=en_US.

What we do to the land affects the lake, especially the flow of nutrients into it. Grading land, tule wetland removal, illegal marijuana grows in the wildlands, or even legal fertilized gardens and resulting runoff, septic leach fields, and illegal dumping all impact the nutrients that affect the watershed.

Many projects are under way that are intended to address the flow of excess nutrients – though they are mostly long-term efforts. These projects include preventing sediment runoff from grading and stormwater runoff, agriculture runoff regulation, expansion of the sewer system, getting septics onto sewer systems, cleanup of illegal dump sites and a large project, the Middle Creek wetland restoration.

Over time these actions decrease sediments and other nutrients in the water and at this point they also increase the clarity of the water early in the season, which has the unfortunate side effect of encouraging early season weed growth. The next step is to recreate habitat around the lake so when the lake “does what it does” it will turn into hummingbirds, grebes, otter, fish and even more tules instead of weeds and algae.

If the lake is communicating that our long term actions have consequences, the lake is also telling us that it will respond to our efforts as well. I, for one, would rather see the nutrients in the form of otter and osprey and chi than algae. This is why I put my energies into the projects that I believe will help make this happen. I know that there is not a short-term fix but take comfort in the fact that even one persons efforts can make a difference. Imagine what would happen if we all worked on these projects.

If you want to help the lake, help preserve and restore its natural habitat. At minimum, do not remove tules. They aerate the water, remove nutrients and create beneficial habitat.

What else can individuals to help? Actions include:

• Participate in (or form!) a watershed group;

• Dispose of debris properly;

• Preserve and restore tules;

• Remove (or do not add) extra nutrients;

• Remove and avoid propagating invasive plants and animals;

• Help build awareness about our relationship to the health of our lake.

Working together, we can make a difference.

Denise Rushing represents District 3 on the Lake County Board of Supervisors. She lives in Upper Lake, Calif.

This letter is not about the military, but I noticed you were with the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam. I was with the 173rd Airborne in Afghanistan from 2005-2006 and in Iraq in 2007. It would be cool to talk soldier with you sometime, but my current battle is over the legalization of cannabis.

Many of my friends returning from war have medicinally benefited from cannabis to combat post traumatic stress disorder. Cannabis calms them down while alcohol has been known to intensify the problem, often leading to violence. Fortunately, Veterans Administration clinics will now allow the use of medical marijuana for veterans. You may have even seen some of your comrades return from Vietnam and end up as homeless alcoholics. As a wine vineyard owner, you should at least be concerned.

We need to tax, regulate and control cannabis. At the state level, there is a strong possibility that Proposition 19 (Tax Cannabis Act) will pass this November. Proposition 19 will give local city and county governments the authority to control commercial regulations of cannabis production and sale. Three Democrats (Miller, Lee, and Stark) representing Bay Area districts in Congress have already endorsed Proposition 19. I am aware that as of July 2010, you are still undecided on Proposition 19. You probably do not want to be known as the “weed congressman,” but in fact, that is what you are. You represent the nation’s largest cannabis producing region, but have yet to support a Proposition (19) that will benefit your district. Is it a coincidence that you are from Napa and have deep roots in the wine industry?

More tax money being spent to eradicate a plant that should be legal

The federal government’s uncompromising policy on cannabis is having an extremely destructive effect on our First Congressional District and Lake County in particular. In a November 2008 Drug Enforcement Administration news release, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) announced record-breaking seizures of marijuana from California public and private lands during CAMP season and Operation Green Acres 2, resulting in a record breaking combined total of 5,249,881 plants.

Lake County led with 499,508 marijuana plants eradicated, over 100,000 more plants than any other county in California. Mendocino and Humboldt are also counties in our First District, and also listed in the top five in plant seizures by county.

I’m not sure if you remember the 1960s sitcom “Green Acres,” but don’t you think it is distasteful to name a large-scale eradication operation after a satirical show poking fun at rural livelihood? One eradication operation can take a poor family’s entire annual income.

The issue of cannabis cultivation is dividing the local population of Lake County. An unnecessary drug war is being fought between aggressive police and cannabis cultivators. For example, on June 22 CAMP conducted an eradication operation just eight miles southeast of my father’s house in Lower Lake. A helicopter inserted the heavily armed eradication team into a cannabis cultivation site when they spotted a man armed with a rifle. The eradication team confronted the man at gunpoint and arrested him after a brief struggle. The eradication team recovered a semi-automatic rifle with a loaded magazine and additional ammunition. The man was booked on felony charges of cultivating marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale and committing a felony while armed.

A week later, on June 29, Mendocino County deputy’s truck window was shot out following marijuana raid. Less than 24 hours after the truck window shooting, a man in a cannabis garden was shot and killed by a multiagency drug task force just north of Lake Berryessa. Paradoxically, the police and the cultivators are not to blame – failed policy is the problem.

Cannabis cultivation should be approached like any other agricultural product. Instead of carrying weapons in remote marijuana cultivation sites, cultivators could be employed by a company working a 9 to 5 job, following labor laws and being taxed like every other hard working citizen. This would significantly help Lake County’s high unemployment rate.

Lake County is cutting jobs at schools and hospitals, but in June our Board of Supervisors hastily approved a $550,000 grant for marijuana eradication when the grows are already months into season.

We should at least figure out a way to sell the eradicated plants to the local dispensaries. Revenue would come into the county and strengthen local small businesses and at the same time weaken the illegal grows that are trespassing on public and private property.

We need a system that is designed to reward those who are complying with laws. This system – capitalism – will solve our problems through a market economy. Cannabis will bring revenue into Lake County and other North Coast counties through a regulated legal marketplace. The market will effectively thwart criminal enterprises because they will no longer profit. These “criminals” will soon be sending applications to local businesses for employment; they won't have to bring guns to work.

Investing in local business will show people who are cultivating illegally that they are not making enough money camping out in the forest, eating canned beans and sleeping with their rifles. We need to turn cannabis cultivation into an efficient process.

On July 20 the Oakland City Council voted 5-2 in favor of a plan to license four production plants where cannabis would be grown, packaged and processed. What if Lake County exported cannabis to these production plants? Lake County already has a strong agricultural foundation with pears, walnuts and winegrapes. Cannabis is the largest cash crop in the state of California, it is an extremely lucrative product with high profit yields and it needs to be taxed.

Lake County also is an ideal location for the production of hemp, which is used for many industrial purposes such as nutritional food products, fiber, building materials, paper, fabric, cordage, animal bedding, anti-inflammatory medicine, water, and soil purification and fuel. Because of an irrational federal prohibition, the United States is foolishly the world’s largest importer of hemp.

Irrational policy is impeding the employment potential of Lake County. A huge percentage of people in Lake County already know how to grow cannabis, so let's have them do it legally and efficiently. Producing a quality cannabis product can foster a sense of pride in Lake County, or any other North Coast County.

Not everyone follows medical marijuana laws, or international border laws

A major problem with the medical marijuana laws is that those who abide by them are not as economically efficient as those who ignore them. The larger grows in the North Coast, often reaching tens of thousands of plants, are more profitable because of their ability to produce in mass quantity. The larger grows completely disregard medical marijuana laws and are often run by cartels based out of Mexico, but seasonally located in places like Lake County’s Mendocino National Forest.

However, simple economics tells us that these cartels would be unable to compete with the free market and local labor. Not only is Lake County being environmentally devastated with toxic chemicals, water diversion and other human produced waste from these grows, but our land also profits foreign criminal organizations.

The black market revenue from these grows is not being taxed, and it will not make it back into the local economy. Legalization and the market economy will force the Mexican cartels out of business. Lake County’s local government would then be able to regulate the environmental harm by setting up a system to monitor the large legal grows and make sure they meet environmental standards.

If you are interested in the social consequences of the legalization of cannabis, you may want to read this. It’s simple.

By legal definition, recreational cannabis users in the U.S. are criminals, and this ostracizes a significant percentage of the population. Being stationed in Europe for two years and having visited places where cannabis is decriminalized and regulated, I am convinced that the Dutch model is the most successful. The Dutch have approached the social consequences of cannabis from a health perspective, not a criminal one.

Despite the United States having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, we have the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.

Cannabis does not induce violent reactions. Alcohol is proven to induce violent reactions in some users. Cannabis is not as addictive as tobacco, alcohol, many prescription drugs, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), cannabis can be used for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, anorexia, AIDS, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, pain, spasticity, wasting syndrome. Many doctors believe that cannabis has many more medicinal benefits like treatment for insomnia, opioid dependence, and alcoholism.

Why is Napa County more prosperous than Lake County?

Why is it that vineyard owners are seen as sophisticated businessmen that bring revenue into the region, but at the same time the cannabis cultivators are portrayed as criminals that need to be eradicated?

In June the California Employment Development Department reported that Lake County’s unemployment rate was 17.1 percent. Lake County is down from 18.6 percent in April, but nowhere close to Napa’s comfortable 9.0 percent.

I wonder what Napa County would look like if the federal government had continued its 20th century alcohol prohibition? Let’s examine the alcohol prohibition, while not forgetting about the current cannabis prohibition.

The end of prohibition was the end of the criminal enterprises led by gangsters like Al Capone. The criminal enterprises were no longer profiting when they had to compete with the free market. Now, only legitimate corporations are profiting from alcohol and the illegal distilleries no longer exist. Now, only legitimate corporations are profiting from alcohol and the illegal distilleries no longer exist.

Cartels are not making wine in the Mendocino National Forest. Major support for repeal of the alcohol prohibition came from upstanding citizens that were not fond of the sale and consumption of alcohol. These sober citizens came to realize that the unintended consequences of prohibition were much worse than the social problems caused by alcohol.

Do you know which county made great gains after the alcohol prohibition? Napa County began to produce grapes for wine, and how much money was subsequently invested into their local economy?

Lake County is beautiful, has the cleanest air in the state and the people are very friendly. If you want, we could start a wine and weed tasting tour around Clear Lake. It would bring in tourism revenue. Even our largest tourist attraction, Konocti Harbor Resort, closed down last year. This is the first summer in my life it hasn’t been open. My father worked at the resort for over 25 years and I began working there at the age of 13 (below the legal employment age minimum) and continued to work there until the week before I shipped off to Army basic training.

I hate to bring politics into it

According to your Web site, “The heart and sole of the California wine industry lies within the boundaries of the First Congressional District. As a life-long resident of the Napa Valley, a former winery employee and a current winegrape grower, Congressman Thompson is acutely aware of the impact that the wine industry has on the First District and the state of California as well as the rest of the nation.”

Essentially, you are representing the alcohol industry in Congress. I have also heard your son is a deputy sheriff. I drink wine and like cops. I always select wine from Napa or Sonoma County, and Kendall Jackson is both my mom and my favorite wine. I am proud of our region’s spectacular wines.

But why can’t we have weed and wine? Maybe someone on the Congressional Wine Caucus could answer my question? You are a co-founder and co-chair, so maybe at the next event you could just clink your wine glass, call for a toast and explain to everyone why we need to legalize cannabis. Drunk politicians are very gullible. Or, maybe you could get the large pharmaceutical companies interested in this medicine called cannabis. The pharmaceutical industry would easily out-finance the alcohol and tobacco industry’s longstanding anti-marijuana campaign.

You are supporting medical marijuana at the federal level, and have already succeeded in 14 states. Let’s take it to the next level and support legalization. Now is the ideal time to stand strong on this issue. As Proposition 19 approaches, the federal government will be forced to take cannabis seriously.

Robert Schaerges is a student at UC Davis Law School and was born and raised in Lake County.

On a number of occasions since then, allegations regarding the environmental issues, the purpose of the lawsuit, the adequacy of environmental review, the club litigation process and assorted economic considerations have been made in council meetings, informal gatherings and the public press.

Despite the obvious absurdity of many of these accusations (for example, attempts to blame the club for the city's financial crisis) some of them have apparently gained a certain level of credence.

With litigation in progress, and in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement, Lake Group has refrained from public response up to now, but in the belief that it's time to put an end to the confusion, presents the following fact sheet.

Allegation: There are no important environmental issues surrounding the Lowe's project because it would be built on an industrial wasteland.

The facts: Environmental considerations are not limited to the site of any particular project. Larger development issues regarding sprawl, infill, traffic, greenhouse gases and the preservation of core communities are central to the mandate of the Sierra Club, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically requires evaluation of potential “urban decay” impacts when a commercial development is under consideration.

Allegation: The Sierra Club lawsuit is intended to stop the Lowe's project.

The facts: The lawsuit has one objective only, and that is the preparation of an EIR as the basis for project approvals, as required by California law. The eventual decision on project approval still rests entirely with the responsible public body, in this case the Clearlake City Council/Redevelopment Agency.

Allegation: No EIR is needed because the project has already been studied thoroughly enough.

The facts: Under CEQA, an EIR must be prepared if a “fair argument” can be made that a project “may” cause significant impacts to the environment that have not yet been identified, or that have not yet been fully mitigated. It is not necessary to demonstrate that those impacts will occur, merely that they might occur. This is a very low threshold, designed to ensure that a project’s environmental impacts are thoroughly evaluated, in public, before an agency approves anything. For the airport project, there is strong evidence the project not only may but will have significant environmental effects in the areas of urban decay, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic.

Allegation: A detailed economic study of the Lowe's project has already been provided.

The facts: The study commissioned by the city was restricted to an evaluation of potential municipal revenues (sales taxes, property taxes, and fees), and did not look at the project’s effects on the economy of the city in general, or the specific CEQA requirement to investigate potential urban decay. No attempt whatsoever has been made to evaluate the project’s consequences for Lake County as a whole even though the welfare of the city and the unincorporated county are inextricably bound together.

Even within the narrow context of municipal revenues, the economic study is faulty, both because it fails to take into account possible revenue losses from reduced business at other competing stores, and because it does not consider alternative sources of additional revenues that could be generated by investing Redevelopment funds in the existing business district.

Allegation: Sierra Club demands for an EIR on the Lowe's project are illegitimate because the club did not comment on the Kelseyville Lumber expansion.

The facts: Although the issues surrounding the two projects are so different that no direct comparison would be fruitful, and although Lake Group representatives did speak before the Board of Supervisors in 2003 in opposition to the Kelseyville Lumber General Plan amendment, in hindsight the group regrets not having more vigorously supported the Farm Bureau’s objections to the conversion of agriculturally zoned land across from the current retail store. As a newly formed local organization within the Sierra Club, the group was then just beginning to evolve into its present activist role, and did not pursue the variety of issues that it has later addressed.

Allegation: loss of anticipated revenues resulting from the Sierra Club lawsuit has caused the city’s financial crisis, including substantial staff layoffs.

The facts: Clearlake’s financial problems are the result of decisions made over the course of many years. Many specific cutbacks, including the elimination of the code enforcement department, were proposed at city council meetings before the lawsuit was filed. Even if nothing had happened to delay the Lowe's project, it would not have produced any new sales or property tax revenues for more than two years at the very least.

In the meantime, the only possible offsetting source of temporary revenue was a proposal for the city to borrow $100,000 from the Redevelopment Agency in order to pay a portion of the city administrator’s and city engineer’s salaries.

Allegation: Costs of litigation are making the city’s financial problems worse.

The facts: Testimony provided by the club before the project was approved made the possibility of legal action obvious. Prudent governmental bodies ordinarily require project developers, through indemnity agreements, to assume any costs associated with litigation; if the city administration did not take this standard precaution it neglected the protective responsibility it owes its citizenry. Under these circumstances the administration was particularly rash in failing to accept the club’s offer of a negotiated settlement at the earliest possible opportunity, but instead to drag the process out despite mounting legal bills.

Allegation: Without the Sierra Club lawsuit the Lowe's project would now be moving ahead.

The facts: The sewer district is at the limit of its capacity, with chronic spills of raw sewage during heavy rains, and no new hookups are being approved in the project area without the direct authorization of the Board of Supervisors. The project cannot go forward until sewer service is available. Under the currently projected best-case scenario, this could not occur before the fall of 2011; allowing the project to move ahead on the assumption that additional sewer capacity will be available when needed is not a legally permissible course of action.

Allegation: The Sierra Club is profiting financially from the Lowe's lawsuit.

The facts: So far, the suit has cost Lake Group a substantial sum in legal fees and costs, which it has met through local donations with assistance from the Redwood Chapter (the chapter represents nearly 10,000 club members in northwest California, from Solano County to the Oregon border). If the club prevails in court, a judge may require the defendant to reimburse the portion of these expenses that were incurred subsequent to project approvals, but a plaintiff is never allowed a “profit” in cases of this sort.

Allegation: The local Sierra Club group acted rashly in deciding to bring suit.

The facts: The club never takes legal action lightly. Any decision to litigate must be approved by a series of specified committees, starting with the local entity. In this case the Lake Group Executive Committee’s recommendation was passed on to the Redwood Chapter Legal Committee, then to the Chapter Executive Committee, then to the National Litigation Committee.

Extensive documentation about the case (including legal validity, environmental importance, and financial responsibility) was presented throughout, and every one of the listed bodies had to approve the suit before it could be initiated. Although concurrence by the national club is required for all litigation, no national financial or legal staff support is provided.

Additional information about the local Sierra Club, including a position paper on the airport redevelopment project, is available at the Lake Group Web site, http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake.

Victoria Brandon is the Sierra Club Lake Group legal liaison. Shes lives in Lower Lake, Calif.

August is upon us and we are about to begin another school year. Throughout the summer, many Konocti Unified School District employees have been working hard to prepare for the return of students and staff.

Soon after school ended, the principals began looking to fill any open positions. KUSD takes great pride in its intelligent, talented, hard-working staff and we were unwilling to accept anything but excellence in our new hires.

Fortunately, the pool of applicants was very large and we were able to find just what we were looking for – the best.

Our maintenance crews have been doing major repairs and upgrading the facilities while our custodians have been deep cleaning.

The groundskeepers have been working diligently to keep our fields green and healthy, giving our schools a park-like atmosphere.

The technology staff has been installing new interactive white boards and computers.

A group of our dedicated, highly-skilled bus drivers met to develop new routes and work on our staggered bell schedules – which will save the district tens of thousands of dollars.

Our curriculum coaches worked all of last week to improve our standards-based report cards.

The secretaries put one school year to bed and are preparing for the year ahead.

This summer, we provided enrichment programs for our students that kept staff employed and supported our local community.

We held an algebra academy for our incoming eighth graders that gave them with a vital head start on their algebra skills.

The highly successful science and algebra academies for our ninth graders were offered again this summer and the Lower Lake High School solar car team repeated as county champs.

Migrant Education held a summer school that culminated with wonderful cultural activities.

In cooperation with the Lake County Community Action Agency, we even had a summer camp for the

Highlands Academy students. Highlands students worked on their academic skills, rode horses, learned to swim and engaged in other exciting activities.

Maybe the most heartfelt activity that took place over the summer was the federal food distribution

program.

We served more than 1,000 meals a day to our students. Our cooks prepared breakfasts and lunches and distributed them at the schools and other locations, using vans. These vans went to the youth center and trailer parks where we had a high concentration of hungry students.

Our love and care for students was evident throughout the summer. This program helped raise our total free and reduced meal percentages for the year and thus allowed us to net over $100,000. This money will allow us to purchase high quality food for next year from our local farmers and through our countywide food purchasing consortium.

We have a very exciting year ahead. The general feeling around our district and the county is that Konocti is on the verge of making some huge strides forward.

The primary focus for this year must be to improve student academic performance as measured

through the STAR tests. We have enlisted the help of Dennis Parker to make this happen. Parker's strategic schooling model begins with the development of relationships and ends with strategic test preparation.

We have excellent personnel, facilities and technology in place. We are implementing instructional strategies that have consistently proven to raise test scores and we have eager students in need of academic and physical nurturing.

Our community is counting on us to keep the kids moving forward through these difficult times. We are primed for success and looking forward to seeing students on Monday, Aug. 30.

Dr. William R. MacDougall is superintendent for Konocti Unified School District, based in Lower Lake, Calif.

The AGO process began with a nationwide series of “listening sessions” to allow top level administration officials to hear the voices of the public up close and in-person as we share our own priorities about how to build a 21st century conservation and recreation agenda.

At the behest of Congressman Mike Thompson, one of these forums was held on the UC Davis campus on July 7; besides Representative Thompson, the panel included White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Will Shafroth, and representatives of the federal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency.

Despite unusually short notice for an event of this sort, the Mondavi Center was fully occupied by a diverse and enthusiastic crowd. After a series of brief presentations about several ongoing conservation projects in California, the microphones were opened to the public.

Subjects of conversation included the

• importance of conservation easements in protecting private lands and working landscapes;

• need to ensure full and dedicated funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to strengthen the National Landscape Conservation System;

• multiple ecological and economic hazards posed by invasive species, with particular emphasis on the threats to California waterways posed by Eurasian quagga and zebra mussels.

Many speakers expressed support for the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, a 100-mile swath of public land stretching from Lake Berryessa to Snow Mountain, which has the potential to provide a powerful model for ways to better manage our public lands in an era of climate change.

Another subject of great importance to Lake County – the ecological havoc caused by illegal marijuana cultivation on both public and private lands – didn't come up in the brief open session, but was discussed in detail at a preliminary breakfast meeting with Secretary Shafroth – who took notes.

“America’s Great Outdoors” is about better connecting people both to nature and to each other, acknowledging that the best conservation outcomes occur when people work in parrtnership to protect and restore private lands, working lands and public lands.

The Davis session was brief, but the conversation is ongoing, and we are all invited to participate. To learn more about the AGO initiative, and to submit your own ideas for consideration, visit www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/.

Victoria Brandon lives in Lower Lake.