A few years ago, when Mrs. Doud and I were living in Prescott Valley, Ariz., I happened to find myself in a supermarket, in the fruit- and-vegetable section, a few days after we had settled in our new hometown.

I noticed the man with the gun right away.

He was dressed like a cowboy on his way to church, and he was checking out canteloupes, thumping on them and sniffing at the place where the stem had been, just like our moms taught us to do.

The gun on his hip, which he wore in a leather holster, was a big 45-caliber revolver, the kind you would see John Wayne or Dirty Harry shoot in the movies. Because it was a revolver, I could see it was loaded.

I didn’t want to stare at the guy, so I watched him out of the corner of my eye. Had he been wearing a badge, I wouldn’t have given his gun a second thought, but he seemed to be a civilian. It made me nervous.

I went on with my shopping. When I got to the checkstand, there he was again, in front of me.

“What if he pulls that gun on the cashier and holds up the grocery store?” I thought to myself. I looked around for something to crawl under.

But he didn’t do that. He exchanged pleasantries with the clerk, who wished him a good day, and off he went with his groceries.

“Did you see that guy had a gun?” I asked the clerk.

“Sure,” she said.

“Did it make you nervous?” I asked.

“No,” she said. “A lot of people carry guns in Arizona. It’s perfectly legal. Besides, nobody is likely to hold up the store while he’s here.”

I remember this because people are openly carrying loaded guns into Starbucks stores around the country now, and they are welcome, apparently.

The Wall Street Journal reports the baristas aren’t steamed about it at all. The company says it follows state laws, wherever they are.

In California, you can carry, but the gun can’t be loaded.

Reducing effective community mental health services results in an increase of state and local costs elsewhere. Yet, once again, the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to divert Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds to the State General Fund.

Some 66.5 percent of California’s voters rejected an almost identical diversion plan (Proposition 1E) in a special election last May. The current proposal not only ignores the public will, but also purports to double the size of last year’s attempted raid.

Cutting MHSA programs simply doesn’t make economic sense. They successfully direct individuals with serious mental illness away from more expensive, “last resort” options such as emergency medical care, long-term nursing home care, state hospitals, juvenile justice, jails and prisons, into less expensive community based mental health care.

MHSA funds are providing Madera County with an impressive array of programs that deliver a range of services, from prevention and early intervention to intensive wraparound services.

Madera County Full Service Partnerships service people with mental health conditions across the age range from early childhood to older adults. Since they began providing service in 2006 the people enrolled in these programs have experienced an:

– 85 percent decrease in homelessness

– 72 percent decrease in hospitalization

– 74 percent decrease in incarceration

– 81 percent decrease in arrests

– 52 percent decrease in school suspensions

– 75 percent increase in school attendance

– 61 percent decrease in out-of-home placement

– 55 percent increase school grades

If the governor’s proposal is approved, additional statewide costs include losses of:

– At least half a billion dollars in federal Medicaid (Medi-Cal) funds annually.

– County-based mental health assistance for returning Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans.

– Mental health services for the increasing number of inmates being released from state prisons

– A total of $1.75 billion over two years if additional addition federal aid to California is not received, decimating California’s community mental health system.

MHSA is virtually the only funding source remaining for community-based public mental health programs. Given our current economic downturn, diverting these funds to State General Fund obligations is tantamount to completely dismantling public mental health services.

Please, reject the governor’s proposal to divert MHSA funds to the State General Fund. Let your representatives know that it is unacceptable to balance the budget on the backs of California’s most vulnerable populations, while increasing costs to taxpayers.

Gwendolyn Palmer,
Madera

By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune

The H1N1 flu epidemic seems (knock on wood) to have passed us by, and this is leading some to say that maybe health officials overreacted. Maybe H1N1 really wasn’t a problem, they say.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First, ask someone whose friend or relative died from that flu whether trying to vaccinate most of the country against H1N1 was overreacting. Second, ask people who did not get the flu if they think they would have been better off not having been vaccinated.

In both cases, you would hear preponderant gratitude that health officials raised the alarm and put forth the effort to protect the United States against what could have been a serious epidemic.

In Madera County, county health director Carol Barney acted immediately and correctly on information that the swine flu, as it also was known, would be a serious health risk for vulnerable populations. She and her staff went out of their way to make sure anyone who might have been at risk and wanted protection was vaccinated. The fact that large numbers of people in this county have not contracted the disease is a testament to the health department’s vigilance and to its taking the right actions when they were needed.

This normally would be the height of the flu season, but the incidence of flu of all kinds is down. In fact, the season appears to have peaked in October, when the first surge in H1N1 and other flu vaccinations began.

While scientists still aren’t quite ready to credit the efforts to get folks vaccinated against the H1N1 flu strain as being responsible for the general decline of flu cases, there seems no doubt that the efforts of health-care professionals, and especially public health departments, have to some extent kept us well. That’s definitely worth a tip of the hat.

By Lance Johnson
For The Madera Tribune

The federal Bureau of Reclamation’s long-awaited, and delayed, initial 2010 water allocation was finally announced Feb. 26. For CVP Friant Unit contractors like MID, the initial allocation of 100 percent Class 1 and 0.0 percent Class 2 (overall about 72 percent of historic average supply) was welcome news, as it could have been worse.

The story behind that allocation, however, does not bode well for several reasons.

First, this year could have mimicked 2009, when the initial allocation was just 25 percent Class 1 (followed by an unprecedented 21 allocation changes) due to a potential call on Friant water by the Exchange Contractors. That potential call on Friant resulted from the bureau’s uncertainty regarding its ability to deliver the exchange contractors’ water from the delta, and demonstrated an unprecedented “takeover” of early season Friant allocation decisions by the Bureau of Reclamation’s regional office in Sacramento.

Second, on the bright side, useable storage behind Hidden Dam is excellent this year, totaling nearly 40,000 acre feet, higher than it’s been on this date for several years. That is thanks in large part to the Madera Irrigation District’s conserving and carrying over nearly 13,000 acre feet of conserved water from last year. Unfortunately the district cannot expect to have carryover water available every year.

Third, this year’s San Joaquin River Restoration Program interim flows currently amount to (only) about 215,000 acre feet, assuming a fairly dry hydrology for the balance of the season and (only) about 250,000 acre feet with normal precipitation. Obviously both cases are far greater than 2009’s acre feet. Keep in mind also that full restoration flows, scheduled to commence in 2014, would total about 350,000 acre feet under current hydrologic conditions with even greater flows with wetter hydrology.

And fourth, this year’s precipitation could have ended after January, which would have yielded a much lower allocation, somewhere around 60 to 70 percent Class 1.

In short, it’s apparent several bullets have been dodged in 2010.

But there’s much more to the story. To begin with, the Central Valley Project Friant unit could historically have expected allocations to improve markedly between the initial February allocation and late spring as rainfall and snowpack numbers improved. Today, however, as snowpack and runoff forecasts improve, so do the River Restoration flows — so much that irrigators’ allocations increase little unless the year ends up being quite wet.

The year 2010 is a case in point. The Bureau of Reclamation’s initial 100 percent Class 1, 0.0 percent Class 2 allocation assumes the balance of the rainy season will be relatively dry. But even assuming average rainfall through the spring, the Class 2 allocation only increases to about 5 percent to 10 percent, far below what would have historically yielded about 15 to 20 percent or higher Class 2 supplies. For Madera Irrigation District water users, that 10 percent — 15 percent allocation reduction — would mean a water season 2-4 weeks shorter than it otherwise would have been.

As disturbing as that is, 2010 saw the (yet again) unprecedented involvement of even higher levels of USBR into the Friant operations decision-making process. This year the final decisions were reportedly being made by Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in Washington, D.C. — with input and oversight from Congressional representatives, some seeking to shore up Westside delta export water supplies using San Joaquin River Restoration flows.

At the time of this writing, the “debate” as to whether and how SJRR flows could, should and even whether or not the water can legally be used to improve CVP delta export supplies are ongoing. And the Friant Water Authority and MID are heavily involved in this matter as are politicians the likes of Congressman George Miller, the coauthor of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, who never saw a water project, especially the CVP, that he didn’t hate.

There are a few simple, but sad, truths that should be obvious. MID growers should expect that:

* Parties and politics outside of the Friant service area are attempting to exert greater influence and control over Friant allocations and operations,

* Friant water supplies have always been but are now increasingly “wedded at the hip” to and reliant on what does or doesn’t happen in the delta,

* The River Restoration impacts are only this year starting to significantly impact District water supplies,

* District water allocations will, on average, be lower and less predictable than they have been historically,

* District water seasons will be shorter in all but the wettest 10 percent of years, i.e. 2005 and 2006 type years,

* The District’s water delivery system efficiency will be more important than ever,

* Groundwater will be a greater part of grower’s total water supplies making good well and pump maintenance more important than in the past,

* Farm water budgeting using both groundwater and surface water supplies will be increasingly important, and

* Water banking and active groundwater recharge during wet years will be more important than ever before to help shore up dry year supplies and reduce increased groundwater overdraft.

A logical question is what can be done about this situation. During the Madera County Farm Bureau’s recent Water Forum key note speaker Judge Oliver Wanger summed it up pretty well. Judge Wanger accurately stated the solution is not to be found in the courts as judges can only interpret the law. For real change to occur the laws must be changed and that can only occur through the people we elect to represent us at both state and federal levels.

+ + +

Lance W. Johnson is general manager of Madera Irrigation District.

By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune

The law of unintended consequences is always at work.

It turns out the projected demand in the next decade for new electronic devices, such as giant TV sets, video games, computers and other such toys and tools is expected to create another big demand — for electricity.

More than 700 coal and nuclear power plants will be needed worldwide, say power experts. That assumes, of course, that all-electric cars don’t hit the road any time soon. If that happens, it will be Katy bar the door when it comes to electricity demand.

All-electric, or even plug-in-hybrid, cars always sound like a good idea, and they are if you are interested in saving petroleum and cutting down on engine emissions, too.
Those savings, however, will come at a price.

The laws of physics haven’t been repealed. Energy is energy, whether is comes from burning gasoline or a plug in the wall.

The only way to cut back on all this energy demand would be to stay home, turn off the computers and televisions, and walk to where you work, shop or go to school.

Don’t expect that to happen any time soon. Expect the opposite. And expect great angst among people who consider themselves “green.”

Greens oppose coal-fired power plants for two reasons — the mining of coal creates environmental damage and the burning of it creates carbon dioxide, which is considered by many to be a greenhouse gas, which has been blamed for global warming.

Yet, coal-burning is so far the cheapest way we have for generating electricty in much of the world, including the U.S.

Greens also oppose nuclear power, although for fuzzier reasons. They oppose it for what they fear might happen if a plant malfunctions. This is even though the vast majority of nuke plants run safely and dependably.

We have seen in the past decade what happens when the price of electricity heads for the sky. Don’t be surprised to see it again.

Well, I really have seen it all. When will Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and all the people involved in cutting the school budgets get a clue?

The continued intimidations and using our children as the source to make their point is really getting old. How come it comes down to the “school budgets” every time the State of California budget has to be fixed?

There is no communication on cutting future projects, or closing the loopholes in the tax code. What has happened to simple logic, like, children need their education to become self-sufficient adults, but that new buildings or new fuel economy cars for the state workers, could wait until the economy turns around? Why haven’t we heard about the projects up for funding which will be placed on hold until the economy has turned around? Why haven’t we heard about wage freezes, which I experienced many times in the private industry, as a way to cut costs during downturns?

Or, here is an idea — no more meetings out of town, with reimbursements going through the roof for golf, food, etc.? Or, Nancy Pelosi only getting one trip to Washington on a private jet, every month with tax funds.

Why are we still hearing about adding top executives with great benefits, and taking away the basics for our children? Where does this all end up? It is never, “we will do what it takes to make sure our children have the skills they will need to become productive adults.”

Instead, it is, “we will cut this, and close that, and have the kids ride buses for more hours, and less educational time for the kids, unless you give more of your tax dollars so government can make sure that they have the latest fuel economy car, and their lives are not disrupted at all.”

What will be the fuel cost for busing the children from the country into the city? Give me a break. Why haven’t the newspapers shown the budget, and where the dollars are currently going? How many “special projects” are still in the budget so “under the table deals” can be made? How much will be spent on increased costs for fuel, and expenses for moving children from their current school to somewhere else?

What has happened to the common-sense people in the world, wherever they are? We need to find them, and place them in positions which would make common-sense decisions about California and the economy.

We were sold a bill of goods, that if we allowed the gambling casinos to be built, our schools would have more than enough money to take care of current and future needs for our children. Where has that idea gone, as a friend recently told me, “out the back door.” What does that mean?

I’m so tired of hearing about reallocation of funds. Again, common sense is, if we voted on something for the money to be placed in a fund for that reason, then do it.

This whole situation with reprioritizing where the money from the casinos is now going is the same situation that has happened to our Social Security funds. Go in as deductions from our wages for our senior years, “go out the back door” for special projects, but no one can actually say what the project was about, or doesn’t feel it is our business.

Our governments are so corrupted with lies and cheating, I’m not sure whether we should be locking up the thief on the streets first, or all of the people in our government who say one thing, and do another.

Who really is the bigger thief? Why is it possible for Oprah to live in California so many months out of the year and not have to pay the same taxes we have to pay? All these loopholes need to come to an end. Closing the loopholes in our tax code alone would probably pay for our children’s educational needs. And they want us to blindly now give government the authority to determine our health care needs.

Where are the people we voted in, who with confidence we gave them the authority to look at all these situations, and make choices for the whole of California, not just for their buddies, who would make sure they got back into office? Sure Oprah will back so and so, because she knows he/she will make sure she has no disruptions in her lifestyle, but make the children pay the consequences. No new taxes for those guys, right?

How much change will be made to those in Hollywood? Will their children be bused across town, or their schools closed? I think not. I sure would like to see the revenue from taxes from Hollywood, versus the farmers in the valley. It is time for disclosure, not destructive decisions.

Cecelia Jones,
Madera

By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune

Public outrage over budget cuts the Madera Unified School District must make is still cranked up to hot, as you can tell by letters to the editor and outcries at public meetings of the school district board of trustees.

You can understand why teachers who might lose their jobs and parents who may have to make other arrangements for their children are upset.

You can understand why teachers and parents may think that larger class sizes may negatively affect everything from how well kids learn to classroom safety.

Nobody likes change, particularly change that involves personal discomfort.

The outrage is directed at the school board and the superintendent, as though they want to make these cuts, but they don’t.

It’s much easier to be a school board member when there is plenty of money available to run the schools, and all a board member has to do is tell people what good jobs they’re doing.

That having been said, the school board could have done some things differently.

First, it could have done a better job of letting school employees know what was going on. For example, many teachers and parents of students at Dixieland School said they had no idea their school was targeted for closure until a day or so before the public meeting last Thursday.

Second, they created for themselves a public-relations nightmare by giving Superintendent John Stafford a de facto increase in his salary for next year, and doing it in a special morning meeting in a way that made it appear they were trying to slide it by.

As far as the teachers and many in the public were concerned, that decision by the board was an insult, particularly to teachers who were likely to get layoff notices.

The board isn’t to blame for the financial catastrophe that has led to the cuts, but in those two ways it could have handled the situation better.

I would like to remind everyone that our state is in terrible financial shape. Individual school sites must have budgets in place and submitted to the district by a certain date. The district has to have its budget in place and submitted to the state by a certain date. Our local officials do not have the luxury of waiting around for the State of California to pass a budget.

I didn’t attend the budget meeting, but I did watch the reports on the news and read articles in the Tribune. What I saw were hundreds of angry residents, MUSD employees and supporters. Here’s the thing that the Madera Unified School District Trustees are not telling you: They are losing just as much sleep over these decisions as we are.

They understand peoples’ lives are on the chopping block. They understand the hardships families will face with the closing of schools and reduced busing. They don’t want to fire or lay off anyone. They don’t have a choice. Unfortunately, California’s financial stability has been run into the ground. Our local officials may not have caused the problem, but they and we have to help clean up the mess. The Trustees are not the bad guys here.

There are a couple of ways for the public to be involved in the decision-making process at school sites. Parents can get involved with the school site councils at their children’s schools or volunteer on the schools’ parent club. These are excellent ways to learn what is going on and what will happen in the future.

Laura Gutile,
Madera

By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune

The California Legislature is pondering whether to charge sales tax on sales made to Californians by out-of-state e-commerce firms.

Among them is Amazon.com, which has astutely kept from opening any offices, stores or warehouses in the state. As you might guess, Amazon opposes the tax bill, as do other e-retailers.

Lack of a sales tax is one way e-tailers siphon sales from brick-and-mortar merchants in California. Buyers think they’re getting a good deal by not having to add sales tax to their purchases, and as a result choose to buy on line.

If you are wondering whether this tax is wise, consider this: Every sale made by local merchants is taxed by law. Some of those taxes go to the state for state government operations, and some stay locally, where they help pay for local government activities.

If e-tailers paid their taxes on California sales, it would make a big difference in the state’s budget. We’re talking in the billions of dollars.

Not all e-tailers are Amazon, of course. Smaller firms say having to collect a sales tax would add a terrible burden.

That’s ridiculous, on several counts. Main street businesses have to collect sales tax, report it and pay it to the state. When a small main street business opens, its proprietor knows — or should know — that collecting, reporting and passing along sales taxes is as much a part of doing business as is paying suppliers or the light bill.

Why should the government of California give mostly out-of-state merchants a break it doesn’t give to those who do business here?

Also, Amazon’s growth has killed many small, local California businesses without paying one nickel to offset the taxes that were lost.

Other states have closed those loopholes. California should follow suit.

You are stopped at a stop light and a pedestrian is on the corner repeatedly pressing the “walk” button, mistakenly thinking that it will immediately change the light from “don’t walk” to “walk,” when in fact all it does is turn the light to “walk” when the traffic light turns to green and add a few seconds to the length of time it will say “walk” for the average person to walk across the street.

It is a toggle switch (on/off). Any more than once pushed is a waste of effort. The only way it will change it right away is if there is no traffic to control, in which case the pedestrian would probably jaywalk anyway.

How about people driving in the rain without their headlights on? California Vehicle Code 24400A requires you have your headlights on when your wipers are on. Sure, you can see, but that’s not the idea.

The idea is for you to be seen.

Another example: The person driving while talking on a hand held cell phone. Mostly young women. They know that it is against the law, but do it anyway. You can tell it’s just talk and nothing that can’t wait by the smiles on their faces. Pretty sad to think that their whole lives revolve around a cell phone. Advertising and social pressures make them think that way.

This law is poorly enforced and they know it. There are enough distractions built into today’s vehicles already, GPSs, CD players, rear view cameras, radars, etc.

The cost of a Bluetooth headset is a lot cheaper than a ticket and far cheaper than an accident.

You see people walking down the street staring at their cell phones instead of paying attention to where they are going or what they are walking in front of. Some of these people don’t have a pot or a window, but they do have the almighty cell phone. Their use in restaurants is just plain rude and as bad as an unruly child.

Madera Unified School District wants to lay off some 144 employees because of budget problems that stem from mismanagement and misuse of funds, and they will start those layoffs at the bottom.

When they send four guys and four trucks with one shovel to put up a street sign, that’s mismanagement. How about when they send out a road crew and they park for an hour without doing a thing until the potty trucks show up sometime later? More mismanagement.

What does it cost to put up all these “Welcome to Madera” signs on every light pole in the city limits? I counted at least 40 just on Gateway and gave up on Cleveland, Country Club Drive and Yosemite. Now that’s misuse of funds.

Start cutting the mismanagers and the misusers and take away the county vehicles of those whose jobs do not require them on a daily basis. Five or six of those reductions would save some of the lower jobs at stake, allowing them to have more fruitful and productive lives, not to mention their self-esteem and respect.

Larry Turner,
Madera