12-27-08

 12-27-08Merced Sun-StarAndy Krotik: Outlook not good for early 2009Andy Krotik is sales manager of Coldwell Banker Gonella Realty in Atwater. Sources of information for this article were obtained by Gonella Realty research, CAR, NAR, DataQuick and Realty Server MLS. He writes every month.http://www.mercedsunstar.com/115/v-print/story/611749.htmlReal estate in its simplest form is supply and demand. That ingredient usually has the most impact on value. Although demand by buyers remains consistent, bank-owned properties just keep coming and coming. Last month in Merced County there were 479 property sales. That's respectable activity for a county of just under a quarter-million people. The challenge: there were nearly an identical number of foreclosures, 470. Demand for housing locally has been consistent the last nine months, far exceeding 2007 numbers. The number of bank foreclosures has also increased substantially when compared to November a year ago. Year-to-date there have been slightly more foreclosures in Merced County than property sales: 4,443 foreclosures, 4,427 closed property sales. I believe foreclosures will continue to outpace property sales in the first quarter of 2009. Here's why:On July 8 the state Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger enacted SB 1137. The new nine-page law was designed to protect property owners threatened by foreclosure. It comes with new noticing requirements, mandatory loan modification attempts and due diligence requirements by banks before they foreclose. It's supposed to slow down bank takebacks. It was also coupled with a populist message by the governor asking for a temporary "moratorium" on foreclosures. Legislators may have outsmarted themselves, however, as many believe all they have done is pinched the hose.Brace yourself -- another wave of foreclosures is coming. True, workout programs can benefit homeowners, but statistically 70 percent are back in default within six months. Most believe this has simply delayed the inevitable. Fact is some people just don't want to own a property that's worth less than half of what they owe. Some are simply making a business decision. That's not to say there aren't awful situations where a property owner truly gets in trouble. But to ignore the other component is naive.In the end, the oversupply of repos has put downward pressure on prices, which have benefited first-time homebuyers. Currently, 69 percent of those making the median income can qualify for the median price of a home here in Merced County. Some 85 percent of today's buyers are first-timers. They are getting fixed FHA loans. The other 15 percent are investors who are coming back into the market, swooping up what they feel are fair prices. In short, rentals pencil once again. If you can buy and hold, most feel in the end it might be a good investment.Relief for renters in foreclosures is on the way. Fannie Mae announced Dec. 16 that renters who occupy properties being foreclosed on may soon have the option to lease directly from Fannie Mae. That's right -- the feds are indirectly getting into the landlord business. According to the recent announcement evictions, will be halted until Jan. 9. Final details are pending. Fannie Mae also offers relocation assistance to some renters trapped between the banks and the former owners. Fannie Mae is also launching a new financing program to liquidate their dilapidated properties. Because so many properties are in tough shape, The Home Path Renovation Program which starts Jan. 5 will allow buyers to repair properties, with set-aside monies after close of escrow. Details can be found at www.homepath.com In short, Fannie Mae wants to reduce the amount in their inventory.Monthly Tidbit: If you snooze, you lose. One of the biggest complaints I hear from first-time homebuyers these days is that their offer didn't get accepted because the bank received several offers. If you remember one fundamental fact about banks, it's this: Banks aren't in business to give buyers a good deal. They are in business to minimize losses, period. If there is more than one offer on a property, they will take their time deciding. They want a bidding war.There are basically two ways to get a deal on a bank-owned property. First, be the first one to make a qualified offer, which includes documentation of your ability to get a loan, and provide evidence of down-payment funds. It's not uncommon for properties in desirable areas to have several offers and to sell over the asking price. But if you're the only one making the offer, you're well-positioned. So act fast. if you like, write it up posthaste.The other way to get a good deal usually comes in finding a property that has a less than desirable location, condition or if it's been on the market for an extended period of time. If the property doesn't qualify for typical financing, it can be ripe for a steal. More than ever, cash is king. It's not uncommon for banks to take a lower cash offer, instead of higher offer that requires the property and buyer to qualify.Public NoticeNotice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report for the Continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project, 2010-2019, SCH# 2007121110 Draft EIS/EIR http://www.legalnotice.org/pl/mercedsun-star/ShowNotice.aspxNotice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report for the Continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project, 2010-2019, SCH# 2007121110 Draft EIS/EIR: Notice is hereby given that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared by the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (Authority) as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Bureau of Reclamation as Lead Agency under the National Environmental Protection Policy (NEPA). The Draft EIS/EIR addresses the potential environmental effects/impacts that would result from implementation of a new Use Agreement for the Grassland Bypass Project (Project) for continued use of the San Luis Drain for the period 2010 through 2019 to discharge agricultural drainwater into Mud Slough (North). An Initial Study was not prepared for the Project. Project Location and Description: The Project Area is the area that could be affected substantially by actions taken within the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area (GDA)on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, located primarily in the counties of Merced and Fresno. Stanislaus County is also in the Project Area because of compliance monitoring points in the San Joaquin River to Crows Landing. The Proposed Action would continue use of the Drain to convey drainwater around wildlife habitat areas with discharge to Mud Slough. The proposed 2010 Use Agreement for the Drain includes an updated compliance monitoring plan, revised selenium and salinity load limits, an enhanced incentive performance fee system, Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Board, and mitigation for continued discharge to Mud Slough. The San Joaquin River Water Quality Improvement Project (drainwater reuse/treatment facility) would be expanded by up to 900 acres. The Draft EIS/EIR examines two other alternatives: No Action and the 2001 Requirements Alternative. Public Review and Hearing: The Draft EIS/EIR is available for review at area libraries listed below and on Reclamations website: www.usbr.gov/mp/grassland. A public hearing will be held to receive agency and public comment on the content of the EIS/EIR. Hearing Date and Time: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm Location: San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Boardroom 842 Sixth Street, Suite 7 Los Banos, CA. 93635 Your written comments must be sent not later than close of business February 19, 2009, which is 60 days after receipt of this notice by the State Clearinghouse. Please send your comments to: Joseph C. McGahan, Drainage Coordinator, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority , P.O.Box 2157, Los Banos, CA. 93635, fax 209-826-9698, email jmcgahan@summerseng.com, or to Ms. Judi Tapia, Bureau of Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno, CA 93721, via email to jtapia@mp.usbr.gov, or faxed to 559-487-5397. Location of Materials: The Draft EIS/EIR and supporting documents may be reviewed during business hours, by appointment, Monday through Friday, 9:00 am 4:00 pm, during the review period at the following location: San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 842 Sixth Street, Suite 7, LosBanos, CA. 93635, phone: 209-826-9696. Summary of Significant Impacts: The Draft EIS/EIR has evaluated potential environmental effects to surface water, groundwater and soils, biological resources, land uses including Indian Trust Assets, socioeconomics, cultural resources, energy resources, climate change, and environmental justice. Significant or potentially significant impacts were identified as sediment accumulation in the Drain, soluble soil and selenium concentrations in the GDA, effects to biological resources from selenium bioaccumulation and construction/ground disturbance, and reductions in net farm profits from the cost of drainwater treatment after 2015. Mitigation is proposed. 1. Fresno County Public Library Government Publications, San Francisco Public Library Government Documents, Stanislaus County Library, Merced County Library (Merced and Los Banos), USBR Mid-Pacific Regional Office Library and Denver Office Library, UC Berkeley Water Resources Library, and UC Davis Shields Library Documents Department. 2. If special accommodation is required, please contact Susan Mussett at 209-826-9696 or susan.mussett@sldmwa.org by January 30 to enable the Authority to secure the needed services. Legal December 27, 2009 Fresno BeeUrban dwellers can get wildlife peek at basins...Cyndee Fontanahttp://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1096497.htmlSeveral weeks ago, Bob Van Wyk spotted a trio of foxes outside an office window just south of Fresno Yosemite International Airport.Van Wyk was startled -- even though he knows what can draw such four-legged creatures toward the city. It could be one of more than 150 basins operated in the Fresno-Clovis area by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, where Van Wyk is the general manager. The basins primarily catch and store storm water and urban runoff, and provide ground-water recharge. But, as a side benefit, they also offer habitat for wildlife ranging from the occasional fox, coyote and burrowing owl to much more common mallard ducks, Canada geese, American coot and other birds.Much of the district's most attractive wildlife habitat is at more rural reservoirs such as Fancher Creek and Big Dry Creek. Birds are the main tenants of district basins in the metropolitan area.Madhusudan Katti, an assistant professor in biology at California State University, Fresno, said the area is an important migration and wintering corridor for water fowl."Many of the species will come into the urban habitat as well if the basins are available to them," he said. The ponding areas also allow city residents a chance to see and interact with nature even in an urban setting.That can pose one problem, however. Van Wyk said the district discourages feeding birds partly because "sometimes they will get so heavy, they can't fly."Van Wyk saw the three foxes while talking to a colleague in the district's office, which overlooks a large area of open space on East Olive Avenue. The nearest basin is about a mile away.Since basins are fenced, birds and small animals are protected against many predators. District workers and contractors are instructed to steer clear of active nesting areas.Even when a basin is emptied to allow for removal of sediment, officials set aside a small ponding area, Van Wyk said.One of the district's most active urban wildlife habitats is at Oso de Oro park in northwest Fresno. The park includes a lake that surrounds a small island, making that land safe from most four-legged predators."We maintain it so that it has good coverage for habitat," Van Wyk said. The island attracts the usual ducks and geese along with egrets, coots and burrowing owls.On a crisp December afternoon, Margarett Wilkins watched as her 18-month-old son, Isaac, tossed an occasional cracker to dozens of geese and ducks forming at the fence.Wilkins, who lives in Friant, often sees beaver, deer and other wildlife along the San Joaquin River. But she also appreciates the opportunity that Isaac and others have to interact with nature in an urban area.Wilkins said she usually visits Oso de Oro about once a week. Isaac, she said, "loves the birds."Sacramento BeeMy View: Science, not politics, will save Delta...Mary Snyder is district engineer for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. The district provides wastewater treatment service for 1.3 million residents and businesses in the urbanized areas of Sacramento County and the cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove and Folsom. http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/1500302.htmlNo scientific data or evidence exists to support the misinformation campaign being waged by the State Water Contractors, most recently promoted in The Bee's opinion page ("Many Delta regulations miss the mark," Viewpoints, Dec. 21), claiming that ammonia from Sacramento's treated wastewater effluent is impacting the Delta smelt, an endangered fish species that relies on the Delta's unique habitat. But perhaps desperate times call for desperate measures.It is because of the impacts on Delta fish caused by the increasing amount of water they have siphoned out of the Delta that the water contractors now face potentially devastating forced cutbacks to these operations due to recent federal court proceedings and biological opinions issued by state and federal agencies. And while evidence of the water project operations' significant impacts is well established, evidence of actual impacts to the Delta ecosystem from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District's discharge is not.Our current discharge meets or outperforms all federal and state water quality requirements, which are extremely restrictive, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ammonia toxicity criteria. We use a treatment process similar to those used in other major California communities and have conducted years of exhaustive monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the levels of treatment we provide and the pollutant-reducing programs in which we engage are effective. Moreover, the allegation that ammonia is a major reason for the decline of the Delta's health is in stark contrast with the preliminary results of actual studies that are under way. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is now conducting scientific tests of our effluent and its impact on the Delta. Most important, the study designs were developed to produce sound scientific results that all parties can accept, which is the appropriate means of establishing proper public policy that will affect millions of Californians.The first study, started in July 2008, addresses the direct effects of the SRCSD discharge on Delta smelt. Initial findings reveal that the current discharge has no adverse effect on this species. The second study, also underway, is evaluating the effect of the SRCSD discharge on phytoplankton, an important link in the Delta food chain. Preliminary results of this study so far show no reduction in phytoplankton growth.On the other hand, evidence of the impacts of invasive clam species on the Delta food web has been clearly assessed and documented. Furthermore, the enormous water diversion pumps draw in thousands of smelt and other small fish, providing a convenient predation ground for larger native and non-native fish. Despite the evidence, however, the water contractors are not calling out invasive clams and predatory fish. That's likely because these species cannot be tapped to help pay for the multi-billion dollar solution.If the Sacramento region is required to shift to – and pay for – advanced treatment with no assurance of environmental improvement, ratepayers in every segment of the greater Sacramento region – homeowners, businesses, schools, government, etc. – could likely see their sewer rates triple. Depending on the type of improvements mandated, homeowners could receive a monthly bill as high as $100. Large commercial users could see increases in the thousands of dollars. This could have serious financial implications for the region in exchange for no real benefit to the ecosystem.If thorough scientific investigation – not political maneuvering – determines that advanced treatment to remove ammonia is necessary to protect Delta smelt, we will expect to pay our fair share of the costs. Conversely, if our discharge is not found to be a problem, then our ratepayers should not subsidize unnecessary treatment simply so the water contractors can reduce their own treatment costs or move their intake facilities further north as part of the proposed peripheral canal.Cal-Fed was formed 14 years ago to solve these exact problems. Since that time, $5 billion in public funds have been expended, multiple reorganizations have occurred, and over $19 billion in bonds have been passed. And yet the problems in the Delta remain unsolved, and their causes and solutions allegedly remain unknown.If we continue to allow political agendas – and not science – to drive this process, millions more dollars will be spent on "solutions" that will not fix the problem. Prudent fiscal management and policy dictate the largest impacts be tackled first. We know what those are. Let's not allow the water contractors to divert our attention as well as our water. Capital PressBig impact for little fish on California's water outlook...Editorial...12-24-08http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=75&SubSectionID=767&ArticleID=47383&TM=67428.29Like the famed snail darter, which in 1973 derailed construction of a Tennessee Valley Authority dam, the tiny delta smelt has thrown California's cooperative state and federal water projects into disarray.Tellico didn't happen. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld snail darter conservation as more important than building another TVA dam.Unlike the TVA's proposed Tellico dam, California's massive north-to-south water export has been operating for 41 years. Both snail darter and delta smelt enjoy protection under the Endangered Species Act. The delta smelt last week starred in a 180-degree reversal of position for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Acting under a 2007 order from federal Judge Oliver Wanger, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the proposed long-term operation plan of the California State Water Plan and the federal Central Valley Project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta jeopardizes survival of the delta smelt. Wanger found the 2005 Fish and Wildlife Service's opinion "contrary to law," and directed the rewritten biological opinion. Director Donald Koch of California Department of Fish and Game said in a prepared statement, "The information contained in the document clearly underscores the fact that the Delta as a natural community is in trouble."So are two out of three California residents and the farmers who irrigate roughly 3 million acres of the Central Valley. Dozens of irrigation districts and millions of people look to the Delta pumps for part or all of their water supply.Family Farm Alliance, a water-user advocacy group with members in 17 states, filed a request for Fish and Wildlife Service revisions, saying it violates a 2001 law by reaching conclusions not backed by data and relates all manner of degraded ecological conditions to the proposed pumping plan. In addition, parties to the smelt lawsuit, ranging from the city of Redding to the State Water Contractors Association are studying the biological opinion, weighing a legal challenge.The Fish and Wildlife Service alternative to shutting down the whole multi-billion-dollar water transfer system contained in what are called "reasonable and prudent alternatives" in a formal biological opinion, turns out to be just about the same operational strategy Wanger ordered one year ago.The Fish and Wildlife Service, in the 410-page opinion, restricts export pumping from December through June. Added to the Wanger strategy is a set of November and December Sacramento River flows during wet years. Designed to flush smelt into wetland rearing areas, the flows would effectively cancel the ability to replenish Sacramento Basin reservoirs during those months. Some facts may help put all of this in perspective.The Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. Since 1967 it has been the transfer point for a 660-mile canal system with 17 pumping plants, including two near Tracy that often turn estuary flow backward to lift water into the California Aqueduct.Coming down the pike from U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service is a recovery plan for Sacramento salmon and steelhead that's expected to call for flushing flows each spring. Those discharges will short storage, as will the fall smelt flows.Some estimates of the gross impact of this year's Delta pumping restrictions put the shortfall in southbound deliveries around 730,000 acre feet, about an 18 percent reduction from pre-2007 exports. Because the biological opinion dictates flows based on on-going fish counts, the future impact is harder to quantify. Hydrologists say their best guess is a 20 to 30 percent cut in deliveries during "normal" water years and perhaps 50 percent cuts in dry years.Lester Snow, director of California's Department of Water Resources, last week promised the department will stay at it until Delta issues are resolved. Skeptics, particularly in the environmental community, may read that to mean until the controversial peripheral canal is built to route Sacramento water around the Delta. Both the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and the state's Delta Vision initiatives have already been dismissed by some as "political" agendas to justify the peripheral canal voters vetoed in a 1982 statewide referendum.We've had 14 years of state-federal cooperation in the CalFed Delta program. During that time, fish and their habitat seem to have suffered. There are lots of smart people at work in California trying to fix this. They need our support, and a sense that avoiding an economic train wreck with human suffering ranks right up there with survival of a silvery minnow that won't quite fill the width of a human hand.Tracy PressNew Delta board owes taxpayers due diligenceThe decision to build a college campus in Mountain House raises questions... Shelon Arbuckle. Shelon Arbuckle is an 21-year resident of Tracy and has been self-employed for 18 years as a printer repair technician and toner supplier. She lived in Alaska for eight years and served on a parks and recreation commission.    http://tracypress.com/content/view/16860/2244/San Joaquin County Supervisor Leroy Ornellas said nobody put a gun to the head of the San Joaquin Delta College Board of Trustees in regard to the college’s decision to build a campus in Mountain House.That’s probably true, but with a board member (Maria Elena Serna) who was willing to compromise her reputation and ethics for $1,600, future payoffs would have been negotiated and promises made behind closed doors. Dean Andal, who ran for Congress and lost in November, has a stake in future revenues at Mountain House. Thanks to the voters, he didn’t beat out Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton. The only ones now pointing guns at the new board of trustees seems to be Ornellas and Mountain House developer Gerry Kamilos, and now they’re pushing the new Mountain House Community Services District board members to load theirs. What’s in it for them? Property values. What’s in it for the taxpayers? Future commitments involving more bond elections to complete the project and more money to establish public transportation in that area.  I hope that before anything else is done at Mountain House, in reference to the south county Delta College campus, the new board will investigate everything before making any final decisions. The taxpayers made a decision and voted in November to eliminate the old board for the bad choices made in regard to this potential white elephant (the south campus called Mountain House). There are so many unanswered questions: Where are the portables and on whose land will they be placed? Who will receive rent, and for how long will they get it? How much is the rent? Is it, as Ornellas and Delta President Raul Rodriguez have said, too expensive to move out of Mountain House? Where are the binding contracts, what contracts can be relocated and what is just another threat of pending lawsuit by Kamilos? The Mountain House land purchased may not be good in today’s market, but it can be sold by the college when the value returns. We should let our new board members have the time to have every question answered and every rock turned over. They will have to justify this bad decision with truthful facts, not threats, if they continue down this same path. They owe this to the people — the taxpayers and the students — not the few who had and have hidden agendas for this monstrosity of waste. Tracy First has ties to Save Mart A couple of local Wal-Mart critics were recruited to join or speak on behalf of Tracy First by some people with ties to Save Mart. Tracy First has twice sued the city to foil big-box grocers...Eric Firpo http://tracypress.com/content/view/16843/2268/A group that sued Tracy to keep a big-box retailer from getting bigger seems to be a loose affiliation of Wal-Mart opponents who appear to have been recruited by people with ties to Save Mart. But any sort of membership list for Tracy First is a closely guarded secret because some members fear retaliation, says the group’s attorney, Steve Herum of Herum and Crabtree in Stockton. While dozens of people criticized Wal-Mart as a predator that will drive local merchants out of business, Tracy First is a lightning rod for Wal-Mart’s army of fans because it has twice sued the city. Tracy First filed a lawsuit against Tracy on Nov. 21 over a City Council vote earlier that month that allows Wal-Mart to add about 82,000 square feet of space to its 126,000-square-foot Grant Line Road store. Roughly 33,000 square feet will be devoted to a grocery store. Council members voted to support Wal-Mart in part because they wanted to promote competition and because many who shop locally believe they’ll save money. But the lawsuit says the city failed to properly study what a bigger store will mean for traffic and air pollution in Tracy, among other environmental, social and economic effects. The group filed a similar lawsuit against Tracy in April 2007 over its approval of a WinCo grocery store near Wal-Mart. The city won that case, which has been appealed. In the WinCo lawsuit, Tracy First successfully fought an effort to hand over the names of people who are in Tracy First, as the judge thought it would violate the First Amendment right of free association. The city is appealing that part of the ruling.  The most recent effort to get Tracy First to name names came from Councilman Steve Abercrombie, who penned a commentary in Saturday’s Tracy Press.  “If these people are going to continue to file suit against the city, then people would like to know who they are,” he wrote.In City Council meetings this year at which Wal-Mart was debated, several people spoke on behalf of Tracy First.At a July meeting, Greta Yerian of Tracy complained that a bigger Wal-Mart would add traffic to already clogged roads. Yerian, who makes Greta’s Sesame Soy Marinade, which Save Mart has sold for 20 years, said she was asked to speak by Mike Bacchetti, who manages the meat department at the West 11th Street Save Mart. “I’m not a part of the group, though,” she said. “I think a lot of people were confused about that. I just spoke on their behalf, and that was that.”Bacchetti said there are six or seven people in Tracy who are part of Tracy First. He thinks that once WinCo is built and Wal-Mart is expanded, “it’s going to close down a couple of stores. Money’s just being shifted from one side to another.” Marvin Rothschild, a Tracy First member who agreed to put his name on the Wal-Mart lawsuit, was asked to speak at a council meeting by Jim Watt, who Bacchetti said is in real estate but used to work for Save Mart and Safeway. In July, Rothschild criticized Wal-Mart because he said the company pays low wages and because he didn’t want “the big-box feel anymore,” according to minutes of the meeting. Rothschild is one of the many Wal-Mart critics who believe its grocery store will leave a trail of urban decay in other shopping centers around town, which is one of the reasons he willingly joined the group. Watt and Scott Stegeman of Sebastopol, who was part of Citizens Against Wal-Mart in Santa Rosa, also spoke on behalf of Tracy First. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Herum said others in the group “are intimidated in taking on their city. They don’t want to be up front about the potential for harassment they may face.” San Francisco ChronicleTennessee estimate of spilled fly ash doubles...Kristin M. Hall, Associated Presshttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/27/MN1O14VG32.DTL&type=printableNashville -- A burst dike at a coal-fired power plant in eastern Tennessee spilled millions more cubic yards of ash than originally estimated, officials said Friday, and residents fear the muck coating their neighborhood is endangering the area's drinking water.The state, however, said Friday that tests show water entering the local treatment plant is safe.About 5.4 million cubic yards of fly ash, a byproduct of burning coal, broke out of a retention pond at the Kingston Fossil Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority spokesman John Moulton said.The TVA, which as the nation's largest utility supplies electricity to 8.8 million people, first estimated that Monday's breach had spilled less than half that amount.300 acres covered in sludgeMoulton could not explain the discrepancy but said TVA's first tests showed no threat to the area's drinking water. The spill damaged 12 homes and covered 300 acres with sludge in Harriman, about 35 miles west of Knoxville."We are cleaning it up," he said. "That's where our efforts are focused, and we are making some headway."Christopher Copeland, a resident whose land is covered in ash and debris, said he is not drinking the local water and is keeping his children inside until he can send them to a relative's house, "because I don't feel comfortable with them around here."TVA "has done nothing to address our issues," Copeland said by phone Friday from his home on a road partly closed because of the spill.Environmental groups said this week they also worry about the danger to drinking water.An Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman has said some toxic metals could be in the muck, including mercury and arsenic, but EPA tests were not finished. Dead fish were seen floating downstream, but the TVA said that could have been caused by freezing temperatures that may have contributed to the dike bursting.The results of water sampling downstream from the plant indicated the concentrations of toxic contaminants were less than what state standards deem harmful to fish and aquatic life, the TVA said Thursday.Friday evening, the state Department of Environment and Conservation said samples taken around the local water treatment plant show water entering the plant meets public health standards.The department said elevated contaminant levels were present in the immediate area of the spill, but not in the area of any drinking water intake for the Kingston Water Treatment Plant. The state reviewed samples taken by it, the TVA and the EPA.Environmentalists and the coal industry have argued for years over whether coal ash should be regulated as hazardous waste, which would make it subject to more stringent regulations.Ash not hazardous wasteIn 2000, the EPA backed away from labeling it a hazardous waste but encouraged states to strengthen regulations. Rick Hind, Greenpeace legislative director, said his group will ask President-elect Barack Obama's administration to renew efforts to regulate coal ash.Greenpeace is also asking for a criminal investigation into the failure of the pond and whether TVA could have prevented the spill. The pond is used for dumping waste from burning coal at the steam plant.Hind said the new ash spill estimate shows the TVA doesn't know what is going on."In this case, locating it on a hill like this was probably the most foolish plan," he said. "This was so large and out of control that it took out everything in its path."Knoxville's TVA supplies electricity to Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.Wildlife managers are endangering wolves...Jerry GeorgeFreelance writer "Digger" Jerry George sends his journal "letters" home to the Bay Area wherever he happens to be observing nature. He has come to rest for the time being on the Swinomish Indian reservation in the Puget Sound. E-mail him at home@sfchronicle.com.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/27/HORN14OJ9T.DTL&type=printableDang it! The wildlife folks have gone and got my dander up again. And you might say they're shooting themselves in the foot in the process.According to the Associated Press, state and federal wildlife hunters have killed, or looked the other way while ranchers killed, 245 wolves this year in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, under depredation permits.That's about one-sixth of the wolf population in the three states, all of whom are still supposedly protected by endangered species status. The claim is that "problem" wolves are being eliminated so the remaining wolves can coexist with the civilized, honest, upright rural citizenry of the Rocky Mountains.Buffalo chips! There isn't a soul on this blue-green planet, and that includes the most rabid wolf haters, who really believes that one-sixth of the wolves are munching cattle and sheep.But that isn't the crazy part. Wildlife departments in all three states are pushing for the wolf to be downgraded to threatened from endangered so management can be turned over to the states, wolf hunting can be initiated and hunting licenses can be sold.License fees are a major source of operating revenue for these departments. Hunting, you see, has decreased of late, especially by out-of-state hunters who have to cough up huge sums for their licenses. The states are looking at the excitement of being able to shoot a wolf in the Lower 48 as a way to bring the out-of-staters back. The hunters come to shoot a wolf, buy licenses, stay in motels and frequent drinking establishments - all of which contributes to the state's bottom line.Earlier this year, Rocky Mountain wolves were removed from the endangered species list, but before the states had a chance to initiate their hunting programs, a federal district court in Montana issued a stay based on what the court saw as a flawed management plan in Wyoming.Now there is speculation that the Bush administration will downgrade the wolf's status as one of its lame-duck initiatives. Environmentalists say they will file suit on behalf of the wolves if that happens.So it seems to my limited mind that it would be just the slightest bit counterproductive to go out and blast a sixth of the wolves and thereby raise the hackles of environmentalists with checkbooks at the ready to pay lawyers.Not smart, ladies and gentlemen. Even environmentalists can do simple math, and when they add up the number of wolves killed this year, rest assured, they're gonna be as steamed as I am.Now I have to be fair here. What lies at the base of these numbers is a shift of strategy in wolf management. Recently, wildlife managers decided that eliminating individual wolves wasn't solving the problem of predation of ranch animals. The perception, and it is probably correct, is that once a pack learns to kill domestic animals, the whole pack presents a risk and has to be eliminated.Under this strategy, seven packs were killed in Montana this year, the most notorious being the Hog Heaven pack near Kalispell on the north end of Flathead Lake. In all, 27 wolves were dispatched in that pack.It is claimed that wolves killed at least 532 valuable ranch animals this year, 21 of which were llamas, which are used by sheep ranchers to protect their flocks.That's a lot of animals, but the evidence that they indeed fell victim to wolves is inconsistent. Some did, I'm sure, and ranchers have a right to protect their animals. But the picture we have when reading these numbers is of a stealthy, snarling wolf pack slinking into a pasture and feasting on the innocents fenced therein.Whoa! In many cases these incidents take place in national forests where the ranchers have leased grazing rights. The grazing animals are coming into the wolf's territory, not vice versa.Claiming that the wolves have "developed" a taste for domestic animals under those circumstances, and then on the basis of such a claim to off the whole pack, seems unjustifiable.And to commit this mayhem while trying to claim that your wildlife management plans will be executed in the best interest of the wolves?Well, I'm having the devil's own time trying to find it in my heart to trust the very folks doing all this killing today with the management of wolf populations tomorrow.Contra Costa TimesEnvironmental concerns halt state's trout stocking...Paul Thissen...12-26-08http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11306402The foot-long rainbow trout tumble out of the truck through a translucent tube, flying momentarily through the air before falling into the Lafayette Reservoir.This used to be a weekly ritual at the reservoir, but now it only happens every other week. Elsewhere in the state it has stopped entirely. The state is no longer stocking Lake Refugio in Hercules.A lawsuit by environmental groups has prevented the California Department of Fish and Game, which used to stock half the fish into the Lafayette Reservoir, from planting any fish. Now the only fish stocks come from the private Mount Lassen Trout Farm.Superficially, the suit pits environmentalists who worry about the environmental impacts of the trout — planted by the state for more than 100 years — against anglers who want to fish for stocked trout as they have for a century.But for the moment it pits them both against the Department of Fish and Game. The only reason stocking has been halted is that the department failed to meet a court-ordered deadline to finish an environmental review of the stocking program."What's the environmental impact of anything that's been going on for 100 years?" said Jordan Traverso, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Game Department. "That's quite a task to achieve."In November, a judge ordered a temporary halt to the stocking programs until the department can finish the review, scheduled to be complete in January 2010. An eventual agreement between the department and the environmental groups that filed the suit limited the scope of the ruling to affect only small lakes in threatened species habitat that are connected to streams. In Contra Costa and Alameda counties, only the Lafayette and San Pablo reservoirs and Lake Rufigio are affected; other lakes and reservoirs are still being stocked. A complete list of lakes that are and aren't being stocked is available at www.dfg.ca.gov.Lafayette and San Pablo reservoirs are two of only a handful of places where the state is not allowed to stock, but private stocking continues.It's good that anglers can still head to Lafayette and San Pablo, said John Beuttler, conservation director of the California Sportfishing Alliance. They're lakes he, too, has fished."There are so many urban anglers," he said. "These places give them a place to fish that's close to home."Beuttler said he's not thrilled about the limitations on stocking, but he also thinks anglers need to be good environmental stewards. And he recognizes that the lawsuit by environmental groups is the same type of technique anglers might use under other circumstances to preserve fishing areas.He hopes the department does a good impact review that addresses the concerns of both anglers and environmentalists, he said.Thus far in 2008, about half of the trout stocked in the Lafayette Reservoir came from the Department of Fish and Game and half came from Mount Lassen's private farm — about 17,000 pounds each, said Rich Sykes, manager of natural resources for East Bay Municipal Utility District, which operates the Lafayette and San Pablo reservoirs. In the San Pablo Reservoir, 34,000 pounds came from Mount Lassen and 11,000 pounds came from the department, Sykes said. The district also stocks 5,000 pounds of catfish into the San Pablo Reservoir.The district pays for the extra stocking with the fishing access fees it charges, and the fees are set to just cover the program's costs, Sykes said.The utility district is already trying to ensure that the stocking programs will not affect threatened species, primarily the red-legged frog."We're pretty familiar with the native species and the sensitive species around San Pablo and around Lafayette," Sykes said. "We don't believe that the stocking programs have any significant impact on those species."The lakes are within the habitat of the red-legged frog and the foothill yellow-legged frog, said Eric Larson, biological program manager for the Fish and Game Department. But no detailed studies on the frogs' presence at those lakes has been done, he said.There is not too much literature about the effects of trout on the red-legged frog, but there is some that suggests they are affected by stocked fish, said Chris Frissell of the Pacific Rivers Council, which is based in Portland, Ore., and is one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. The effects need to be more closely studied, he said. "Almost all those frogs in that genus, they're almost all vulnerable to fish predation at some life stage," Frissell said. "There can be effects in many different directions and ways, and they can bounce back to affect native species in ways we don't expect."In some places in California, there are studies that show a clear link between the fish stocking and the decline of threatened species.It's a little frustrating that private stocking can continue in the same places the state has to stop, Frissell said, but "we did the best we could."Los Angeles TimesHome prices expected to fall further in 2009Growing unemployment, more declines in consumer spending and a particularly long and deep recession are expected to depress demand, economists say, with falling rents adding to the downward spiral...Peter Y. Honghttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing27-2008dec27,0,2949279,print.storyReal estate experts who were troubled by a 10% drop in median home prices near the end of last year from the previous year probably were stunned by the 35% drop in values since then.But that may be overshadowed by what they now worry lies ahead.Growing unemployment, more declines in consumer spending and a particularly long and deep recession are expected to batter home prices even further next year, they said."As unemployment keeps rising, demand for housing softens. It will probably get worse before it gets better," said Delores A. Conway, director of USC's Casden Real Estate Economics Forecast.And the ripple effect is pushing rents down, which in turn could put greater pressure on home prices and exacerbate the downward spiral.Overbuilding in some areas and hard economic times have driven apartment vacancies up, and that is causing rents to stagnate or fall, Conway said.In downtown Los Angeles, for instance, apartment rents were about the same in the third quarter this year as they were in the same period a year ago, halting the rise in rents in previous years, Conway said. In Hollywood, apartment rents fell 2% in the third quarter compared with a year ago, she said.Data on single-family home rentals are less complete, but real estate agents in areas with numerous foreclosures say rents for houses are falling as the supply of vacant houses for rent exceeds demand.Those falling rents could offset any boost to home sales from currently low interest rates and prices, economists said. For those able to qualify for mortgages and willing to buy a home, terms have become quite favorable.At the end of November, Southern California's median home sales price had fallen to $285,000, from $435,000 in November 2007. If median prices were to continue falling at that pace, they would be below $200,000 a year from now. But even bearish forecasters don't expect so severe a decline. More likely, prices in Southern California will settle in late 2009 at a level roughly 55% below their peak, said Christopher Thornberg, a Los Angeles economist.That would amount to a price near $230,000, a level at which home prices would be roughly in line with incomes by historical norms. The rapid drop in home prices this year has helped to bring previously inflated prices closer to normal levels. About 20% of Los Angeles-area residents could afford to buy a median-priced home at the end of September, according to a National Assn. of Home Builders index. A year before, only 2% could make such a purchase, based on area income levels. The typical monthly payment for such a home in November would be just over $1,300, according to the real estate information service MDA DataQuick. That's down from $2,049 a year earlier. Adjusted for inflation, the $1,300 monthly payment would be 37% below the typical payment in 1989, the peak of the previous real estate cycle, DataQuick reported.Increased government intervention also may help to shore up home prices in 2009. One of the more aggressive measures would be a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to order lenders to reduce principal and payments on troubled mortgages.Supporters, including former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, now a top economic advisor to President-elect Barack Obama, say such an expansion of bankruptcy powers would be a powerful tool to slow the flood of foreclosures.UCLA economist Edward E. Leamer said further government action to stop foreclosures was essential for putting the brakes on falling home values."When you're sick you need medicine for the disease, not the symptoms," he said.In housing, the disease is the deterioration of neighborhoods and home values as houses are foreclosed, abandoned and sold at greatly reduced prices, said Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. He proposes creating a government agency to manage foreclosed or distressed houses as rentals for several years to keep the homes occupied until they recover some of their lost value."We need to eliminate vacancies and bring about their orderly sale," rather than allow lenders to get rid of empty houses at fire-sale prices. Washington PostProtections in PerilA midnight attack on the Endangered Species Act, courtesy of the Interior Department...Editorialhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601555_pf.htmlTHE BUSH administration had the good sense to stop trying to push through last-minute regulations that would have made it easier to build coal-fired plants and other polluting facilities near national parks. It was wise to hold off on changing "new source review" rules that govern when power plants must add pollution-reduction equipment. But it couldn't leave well enough alone when it issued regulations that essentially gut the Endangered Species Act. Because the rule will take effect before Barack Obama assumes the presidency, he's stuck with it. But relief could come by way of the courts.This so-called midnight regulation, despite White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten's directive against such a move, is brought to you by the Interior Department. In May, it listed the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act because global warming is shrinking Arctic sea ice. The law was never intended to make up for President Bush's inaction on climate change. But Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's attempt to protect the polar bear without taking on the larger task of regulating carbon emissions eviscerates the Endangered Species Act.Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act says that "Each Federal agency, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, shall insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat. . . ." Where Mr. Kempthorne got it right is in preventing the effects of "global processes" (climate change) from triggering consultation "because of the inability to separate out the effect of a specific Federal action from a multitude of other factors that contribute through global processes." But Mr. Kempthorne went further by reinterpreting the statute to mean that agencies do not have to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service (or any other service) for actions that may affect any species, not just polar bears.Currently, the give-and-take of the consultation process produces compromises that allow projects to go forward while minimizing the harm to protected species. But Interior's new rule eliminates that vital check on the ambitions of agencies that want to complete projects. Such a check will become increasingly important as President-elect Obama and Congress move to make infrastructure repair and revitalization (roads, high-speed rail, wind farms, etc.) an essential part of an economic stimulus plan.A balance must be struck between that plan and protecting species and the environment. No doubt environmental groups will sue to stop the regulation. By settling out of court on terms that are favorable to the plaintiff and that match the new president's philosophy, Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar and the Obama administration could nullify Mr. Kempthorne's ill-advised rule much faster than by undertaking the long process of issuing new regulations.History Buffs Rise Against Wal-MartStore Planned Near Civil War Battlefield in Va....Nick Miroffhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601620_pf.htmlLike Civil War generals, the generals of modern commercial development are attracted to large open spaces along well-traveled roads, typically on the outskirts of a town or major population center. The former picked those sites for battlefields a century and a half ago; the latter like them today for big-box stores.And once again, great armies are mustering on the Virginia Piedmont -- historians and preservationists on one side, big retail and developers on the other -- this time in cash-strapped Orange County, 60 miles south of the District, where Wal-Mart wants to build a supercenter directly opposite the Wilderness Battlefield.There, in May 1864, 24,000 soldiers were killed or wounded as the first clash between Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant produced famously hellish combat in a burning thicket of scrub oak and spindly pine trees. The National Park Service owns 2,800 acres of the core battlefield, whose larger area extends across nearly 7,000 acres.That land is mostly undeveloped, and to Wal-Mart, it looks like a prime retail location. The parcel where the company plans to build its 138,000-square-foot store and parking lot has long been zoned for commercial development but has little more than a small shopping plaza opposite a Sheetz gas station. There are also preliminary plans for a larger retail, office and residential complex, Wilderness Crossing, that would be built adjacent to the Wal-Mart, although no formal proposals have been submitted.Neither the supercenter nor the larger complex would be built on the core battlefield area. A study commissioned by the company found that the parcel slated for development is not historically or archaeologically significant.But opponents contend that the supercenter would unleash a wave of sprawling development through the area, marring the mostly rural landscape and the memory of the dead. The Battle of the Wilderness was the first clash in the long Overland Campaign that would end the war 11 months later at Appomattox Courthouse, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson."The Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved," read a letter signed by McPherson and 252 other historians and preservationists that was sent recently to Wal-Mart's president and chief executive, Lee Scott. "Surely Walmart can identify a site that would meet its needs without changing the very character of the battlefield."The letter's signatories include a who's who of Civil War heavyweights: filmmaker Ken Burns, Pulitzer winner David McCullough, University of Virginia professor Garry Gallagher, Virginia Tech Center for Civil War Studies Executive Director James I. Robertson and other scholars from across the country."Every one of these modern intrusions on the historic landscape degrades the value and experience of that landscape," said McPherson, who said that he has been to the proposed site and that a Wal-Mart would take development in the area "a quantum leap higher."Keith Morris, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, said that the company has looked at other locations in the area but that none was as attractive. "This is the site we're going forward with," Morris said, describing it as "an ideal location." The land is already zoned for commercial use and targeted for development by Orange County, he said. "There is a void here in this immediate area, especially in retail growth."Preservation groups in Virginia have generally been successful in recent years in steering development projects away from battlefields or reaching compromises with builders that result in partial protection for historic sites. A 214-acre portion of the Chancellorsville battlefield, a few miles down the road from the proposed Wal-Mart, was acquired for preservation by the Civil War Preservation Trust between 2004 and 2006. And in Prince William County, 127 acres of the Bristoe Station battlefield's core section were preserved in a 2002 deal with residential developers who wanted to put hundreds of houses there.But that was before the economic slump."I think economic downturns clarify some things," said R. Mark Johnson, chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which will ultimately decide on the proposal. "In this environment, to have a major retailer like Wal-Mart still want to come in is fairly significant and not something we can be casual about."Johnson said he plans to support Wal-Mart and thinks that a majority of the five-member board will vote to approve the supercenter. The company's proposal first must be reviewed by county planners and state transportation officials and then will go to a public hearing, Johnson said. He said he expected the proposal to come before the supervisors for a vote between February and April.Based on sales estimates, the Wal-Mart is expected to generate about $500,000 a year in tax revenue for Orange County. The county's budget, including its school spending, is roughly $90 million, Johnson said, and tax revenue is falling."In order to have a healthy economy, you need retail in order to satisfy demand," Johnson said. "If [the project] doesn't happen in Orange County, it'll happen in Spotsylvania County, and then we'll lose that revenue." There are three Wal-Mart stores in the Fredericksburg area, including Spotsylvania County, and one in Culpeper.Opponents of the Wal-Mart plan said they are not against the company or its presence in Orange County, only its proposed location. They are urging Wal-Mart to build a few miles down the road, closer to the Lake of the Woods gated subdivision, which has about 4,000 residents and would be the store's major source of customers."It's got nothing to do with Wal-Mart," said Jim Campi, spokesman for the Civil War Preservation Trust, the group leading the fight. "But this is the worst possible location. I believe this is the closest Wal-Mart has ever tried to build next to a national park."The Wilderness Battlefield is part of the National Park Service's Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, which also includes the Chancellorsville Battlefield.Wal-Mart spokesman Morris said the company should be judged only on the merits of its proposed store and not by other development that it might attract. "All we have control over is what we're proposing," he said. "Don't criticize this plan because you're afraid something will get built after that. We shouldn't be held accountable because people's real concern is future commercial development a year or five years down the road."The company has offered to place commemorative markers and other monuments to the battle at the supercenter. "There's no reason why [the battlefield and the store] can't coexist," Morris said.As for residents, some said they were willing to trade a little history for convenience."I think we need it here," said Nina Hudson, who said she drives 30 to 40 miles round trip to shop at Wal-Mart in Culpeper or Fredericksburg."That's the past, and we have to think about the future," said Jackie Lee, who also lives near the proposed store. "The world's growing, and you can't stop that."Stuart Stevens, a naval police officer, said he's dead set against the Wal-Mart. "They don't care about history," he said. "They just care about the almighty dollar."Early this month, not far from the proposed Wal-Mart site, the park superintendent, Russ Smith, and the park historian, Eric Mink, took a walk out to a headstone near Ellwood Manor, a 1790s house that served as headquarters for Union commanders during the battle and is being restored. The view from the front porch has changed little in 150 years, encompassing mostly open fields, old barns and rolling hills."These are sacred spaces," Smith said, worrying that visitors to the historic home would also face views of Wal-Mart.The crudely cut headstone in a cornfield near the house is marked "Arm of Stonewall Jackson," designating the spot where the general's amputated arm was supposedly buried after his accidental and mortal wounding by his own men in the 1863 Chancellorsville battle.The Park Service excavated the site but never found the arm, Smith said.New York TimesE.P.A.’s Doctor No...Editorial...12-25-08  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/opinion/25thu1.html?sq=epa&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=printOn April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Clean Air Act plainly empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks — and, by inference, other sources like power plants. There was great hope at the time that the decision would force President Bush to confront the issue of climate change, which he had largely ignored for six years. Instead, it became the catalyst for a campaign of scientific obfuscation, political flimflam and simple dereliction of duty — which United States Senator Barbara Boxer aptly described as a “master plan” — to ensure that the administration did as little as possible.The guiding intelligence behind the master plan has been Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s point man, in turn, has been Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It was Mr. Johnson who refused to grant California a normally routine waiver that would have allowed it to impose its own greenhouse gas standards on cars and trucks. It was Mr. Johnson who was trotted out to explain why the administration could not possibly fulfill the Supreme Court’s mandate before leaving office. And it was Mr. Johnson, in one final burst of negativity, who declared last week that his agency was under no obligation to even consider greenhouse gas emissions when deciding whether to allow a new coal-fired power plant to go forward. The case involved a proposed power plant in Utah and turned on an arcane regulatory question: whether a Clean Air Act provision requiring the monitoring of carbon-dioxide emissions also meant that they could be controlled. This sort of question would normally prompt careful review. Mr. Johnson responded with a 19-page memorandum that added up to one word: No. Senator Boxer has gone so far as to call Mr. Johnson’s peremptory judgment illegal. The only thing saving this administration from a total wipeout on clean air issues was a timely decision on Tuesday from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It temporarily reinstated the Clean Air Interstate Rule — a 2005 regulation aimed at reducing soot and smog, and the most important clean air proposal to emerge from Mr. Bush’s E.P.A. In July, the court found the rule deficient on several counts, but on appeal it decided that a flawed rule was better than none at all. So there we have it. One original initiative in eight years, saved at the bell. That’s a poor showing, and the Democrats are hardly alone in hoping for better under an Obama administration. Last week, two prominent moderate Republicans — William K. Reilly, who ran the E.P.A. under President George H.W. Bush, and William D. Ruckelshaus, who served as administrator under both Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — sent a little-noticed but eloquent letter to President-elect Barack Obama. The gist of the letter was that the E.P.A. could be an enormously positive force in the fight against climate change and oil dependency. All it needed was someone who believed in its mission and was prepared to use the laws already on the books. Granting California its waiver, carrying out the Supreme Court decision, regulating emissions from vehicles and power plants — all this and more, they wrote, could be accomplished with the statutory tools at hand. This exhortation from two veterans of the environmental wars was designed to encourage not only Mr. Obama, but also Lisa Jackson, the woman he has chosen to run the agency. It was also, however, an arrow aimed at the ideologues who have been running the agency for the last half-dozen years — and a lament for how little they have done with the weapons Congress gave them.