Environment

Sierra snowpack problem

Submitted: Jul 12, 2006

Viewing Al “the former next president” Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” at the State Theater in Modesto the other night reminded me of the political disaster of the last six years and taught me that the velocity of climate change is faster than I had imagined. The installation of the Bush regime by the US Supreme Court in 2001 inaugurated a period of pure destruction in the US, a rampage of injustice, imperialism and greed, an orgy of lawless aggression by the wealthy against the rest of us few if any living Americans have ever seen. One casualty of the war of the Bush regime against the world was any concern for the environment. Fortunately, there were a number of wise laws in place and although they have been attacked and weakened greatly, and although enforcement of them has been savaged by this regime, most of them are still in place.

One has to wonder how this purely destructive policy over the last six years has contributed to the increased velocity of global warming, in view of the fact that the US is the world’s top producer of greenhouse gases. Perhaps if Gore had been chosen by the high court instead of Bush, we might be watching a decline in greenhouse gases; perhaps the US would be trying to do its duty, trying to be responsible, trying to help, instead of merely destroying everything on behalf of a plutocracy in favor of the government.

When we come to the problem of the decrease in the Sierra snowpack, however, we must consider that the closest contributor to the conditions causing it is the Central Valley between Sacramento and Fresno. Rampant, uncontrolled, irresponsible growth in this region has roofed over and paved over hundreds of thousands of acres of farm and ranch land that absorbed heat rather than radiating it. Yet, despite the research, all the state seems to be able to conclude from it is that our water supply will change – there will be less water stored for shorter periods as snow and more flooding from rain. Practically speaking, all this means in the near term is that the Great California Water War will continue and become more fierce because, clearly, we are all victims of each other and, of course, the fish or the laws that protect them.

We will think and say absolutely anything to avoid responsibility for our profound and growing contribution to melting the snowpack that provides most of our water. There is no malefactor too bogus to attract the enmity of our leaders, whose fingers are resolutely pointed outward. This is because the Central Valley, particularly the San Joaquin Valley, has clawed its way up from being a large, wet horse pasture to the verge of becoming the next San Fernando Valley, almost entirely as a result of the willingness of government to make the investment in irrigation systems that converted the Valley into an agricultural marvel. People in Bangor, ME, Mobile AL, Chicago, Beaumont TX, Helena MT, Las Truchas NM – people from all over the US contributed taxes to create the federal water projects that got the Valley past the horse-pasture stage. As they contributed to the construction of the railroad before the water.

As a result of this government largesse, our leaders believe that everything is nothing but another deal. But if Gore and the abundant responsible science behind him are correct, global warming cannot be solved by another political deal. Even the perpetually gullible, generous federal government cannot bail us out of this one.

The irresponsibility of the lastest speculative building boom, induced locally by the arrival of UC Merced, is reduced by the local McClatchy chain outlet to a story of how a DA and a sheriff ripped off a prisoner in a land deal. While it is evidence of the general stupidity, venality and political corruption occurring during any huge speculation, and “personalizes” the story, it diverts our attention from the problem. The public did not protect itself from its politicians. The public did not stand up for its own interests against the small, powerful cabal of businessmen, landowners, investors, politicians and their obedient propagandists. The public did not stand up against the awesome, amoral authority of the University of California and its edifice complex. The public in this region, contributing so much greenhouse gas to the Sierra, no longer seems capable of critical thought, can be bullied by two-bit frauds in office, accepts the lies of the local media at face value, is effortlessly intimidated by any authority, and is losing power economically, socially and politically the larger its population grows because no population anywhere near this size was ever intended to live in this place and support itself.

The only real question in the minds of our leaders today is how can the federal and state government fix the Sierra snowpack problem. They will rally prominent citizens and go to Washington and Sacramento and make their Big Whine again. It’s their one tune and it is getting more ridiculous by the year. Our leaders want clean air, more clean water, a healthy environment and, most of all, more growth. Now that we have the UC among us, ghoulishly planning medical research into lung disease with such a growing population of subjects, we are told that through the magic of UC marvelous technological inventions, it will all soon be OK again, we can become the new San Fernando Valley with a wonderful environment.

Our leaders have created a perfect set of mirrors to conceal reality and to admire themselves.

Bill Hatch
-----------------------------------------
Notes:

Sacramento Bee
Climate report sees a thirsty future...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/v-print/story/14276733p-15086051c.html
As global warming continues and California's mountain snowpack decreases, the state can expect to see a drastic drop in its drinking and farm water supplies, as well as more frequent winter flooding...findings in a report released Monday by the state Department of Water Resources...338-page study, offers the most detailed look yet at how climate change could affect California water supplies. Average deliveries to cities and farms from state and federal water systems could shrink by more than 10 percent, according to the report. Called "Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water Resources," the report employs two climate-change models and two emissions scenarios, one involving rapid growth and the other presenting a slower, more sustainable growth pattern. The results were not ready to be included in the California Water Plan Update, a report released last year that helps plan the state's growth. But Kelly said it offers a vital message for local governments.

Merced Sun-Star
Spencer purchased land from jailed man...Chris Collins
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12425122p-13147572c.html
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has launched a third investigation into Merced County District Attorney Gordon Spencer, this time examining whether Spencer committed a crime when he and a group of local investors bought a piece of property from a man who was sitting behind bars and facing charges from the District Attorney's Office. The latest investigation comes on top of an ongoing criminal probe into Spencer's potential embezzlement of public funds and an inquiry last December that found Spencer had impersonated an investigator. The attorney general is now looking into a 21-acre lot on Bellevue Road that Spencer, Sheriff Mark Pazin, Ranchwood Homes owner Greg Hostetler, and five other prominent locals purchased in 2004. The intersection of the two events created a clash that was "absolutely impermissible" by attorney ethics standards, said Weisberg, the Stanford law professor. "There was a conflict of interest. " Dougherty, the county's presiding judge, said Spencer never told Byrd's attorney about his involvement in buying Byrd's land. Kelsey said she always has been troubled that the sheriff and district attorney joined one of the county's biggest developers to buy the land.

Modesto Bee
Valley's environmental problems don't get fair hearing...Brad Baker
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/12409164p-13133834c.html
Are you ready for the equivalent of 10 new Fresnos? That's how many new people are expected in the San Joaquin Valley by 2040, according to experts from the Great Valley Center.... it's time to update the old cliché, "Growth is inevitable." Here are the replacements: Soul-sucking monstrous growth is inevitable. Don't like that one? How about: Cookie-cutter developments covering the most productive farmland in the history of the world are inevitable. Or maybe: Growth that is extremely unhealthy for children and other living things is inevitable. Which is your favorite? I moseyed down to Fresno last week for the Blueprint Summit. I hope for a fair presentation of the environmental perspective; I'm always disappointed. A token environmentalist often is included in the program...the "environmentalist" was a river runner from ElDorado County. His remarks avoided the most pressing environmental issues of the valley: air quality, sprawl, farmland preservation and the influence of the building industry on local politics. Sprawlocrats rule. In local elections, our only choices are the candidates who seem least likely to receive text-message instructions from the building industry during public meetings.

Los Angeles Times
Repeat of tragedy feared in San Joaquin Drainage Plan. Proposal for tainted San Joaquin drainage raises concerns about causing a new ecological disaster....Bettina Boxall
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kesterson8jul08,1,3140367,print.story
LOS BANOS, Calif. — More than two decades after toxic farm drainage emptying into a small wildlife refuge stilled the chatter of migrating waterfowl with death and deformity, the federal government is on the verge of deciding what to do with vast amounts of tainted irrigation water still produced by San Joaquin Valley croplands. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is under court order to do something about the drainage problem. But its proposed solutions — which involve treating the tainted water and taking a huge chunk of farmland out of production — have raised alarms that they could wreak more environmental havoc while costing federal taxpayers a potentially enormous sum. Now, the Bureau of Reclamation's proposal to create at least 1,270 acres of evaporation ponds as part of the drainage treatment has again raised the specter of Kesterson. A final decision is expected this summer.

Stockton Record
Delta salt battle intensifies...Warren Lutz
http://recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060709/NEWS01/607090319/1001
STOCKTON - The fight over salt in the Delta appears headed to court. Several groups, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, have filed lawsuits against state water officials over new salt standards. And the Department of Water Resources, the other main supplier of drinking water to 23 million Californians, is considering the same. They are not the first legal actions involving Delta salt levels, which plague local farmers with lower crop yields. But they are the first since the state Water Resources Control Board ordered water exporters to meet a new salt standard or risk losing permits that allow them to control the bulk of the state's water. Agencies that buy Delta water also are suing the water board. One of them, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, claims the water exporters are not the only ones responsible for high salt in the Delta. Several lawsuits were filed against the state Water Resources Control Board on June 15 in Sacramento County Superior Court. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also has filed a federal lawsuit, a water board spokeswoman said.

Modesto Bee
We're ready for next step to improve valley air...Seyed Saredin, executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/12432034p-13154335c.html
The San Joaquin Valley's severe air-quality problems present an opportunity for the valley to shine. Success will require bold, innovative actions by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; the public's willingness to make air-friendly behavioral changes; better land-use decisions and design for communities that will minimize vehicle travel; and continued investment by valley businesses in technology and pollution control...we will need the state and federal governments to do their share through funding and regulatory assistance to reduce emissions from cars, trucks and locomotives. Ours was the first region in the nation to take steps to regulate emissions from on-field agricultural operations and dairies; to require mitigation from new commercial, residential and industrial developments; and to control emissions from large wineries. The San Joaquin Valley air district was the first in the state voluntarily to expand Smog Check II, a model now used to check Bay Area vehicles for emissions compliance. We have successfully implemented some of the toughest air regulations in the nation, while offering businesses reasonable operational flexibility. Over the next year, the district will formulate a plan to meet new standards. We will hold town hall meetings... The first meetings are July26 in Bakersfield and Delano, July27 in Fresno and Huron, and July28 in Modesto and Stockton. Please visit www.valleyair.org for more information.

There's plenty of water -- we just need to manage it intelligently...Dan Walters
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/state/walters/story/14277088p-15086272c.html
All Californians should know that their water doesn't come from a faucet, but is collected, stored and distributed through monumental arrays of dams, reservoirs, canals and pipelines that supplement nature's own impressive water systems. It's an imperfect system, to be certain, but it has worked admirably... California must expand and refine its waterworks. To do nothing in the face of that change is to move backward. The governor's warning about potential flood peril was underscored by the 338-page Department of Water Resources report on potential effects of global warming... DWR also noted that as the weather warms, California may receive more of its water in the form of rain and less in the form of snow, which could heighten winter flood dangers and reduce the natural reservoirs of mountain snowpacks. In truth, California has lots of water, more than enough to satisfy all reasonable demands for human and natural uses, if it's managed intelligently and with users paying its full, unsubsidized costs. We do not need to radically change our lifestyles or adopt doomsday scenarios. Even if the effects of global warming seen in the DWR report come true, stronger winter flows can be converted into better summer supplies, if we do what's needed and stop circular debates that serve other ideological agendas.

Sacramento Bee
Water's coming battle...Editorial
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/14277040p-15086253c.html
A new report warning of global warming's effect on California highlights the different approaches for solving the problem of a shrinking water supply. When it comes to calibrating water supply and demand, two opposing political philosophies rule. There is the concrete crowd that wants to increase supply. And there is a conservation crowd that seeks to lower the demand. The singular political fixation on reservoirs as good or evil creates a set of false choices. On the supply side, there is groundwater storage or better groundwater management... The right mix of solutions depends on the specific circumstances and terrain. The wrong solution is to think concrete or conservation alone can solve all our problems.

Stockton Record
Smelt still at record lows...Warren Lutz
http://recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/NEWS01/607120330/1001
STOCKTON - The Delta smelt are hanging on, but just barely. The endangered fish that are used to gauge the overall condition of the Delta remain at record lows, according to the latest survey. Meanwhile, scientists studying the decline are being asked increasingly how to reverse the trend. Last week, the federal government said it would re-examine the effects of pumping Delta water, but there has been no formal discussion about changing the way the pumps are run, said Louis Moore, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation spokesman. The California Department of Water Resources, the other agency responsible for exporting Delta water, will draft a Delta smelt action plan by October. Johns agreed scientists are under pressure for answers, not just data.

Los Angeles Times
Schwarzenegger acts to guard State Wilderness. The governor will ask federal officials to ban new roads for mining and other development in 4.4 million acres of national forest...Robert Salladay
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-roads12jul12,0,7373545,print.story?coll=la-home-local
SACRAMENTO — Ending one of his remaining fights with environmentalists, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will ask the federal government today to protect 4.4 million acres of national forests from any new roads for timber, oil or gas exploration or other development. If approved, the Schwarzenegger plan would allay environmentalists' fears that national forest land in California would be opened to development, endangering fish and wildlife. The governor's request was in response to a controversial Bush administration rule that opened millions of "roadless" areas nationwide.
Seabird slaughter in a 'Safe' Harbor. Could the deaths of thousands of terns in Long Beach have been prevented?...Kimball L. Garrett and Kathy C. Molina
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garrett12jul12,0,5232993,print.story?coll=la-home-commentary
IT SHOULD SURPRISE no one that the coast of Southern California is a difficult place for wildlife to make a living. Tens of millions of people, busy ports, toxic urban and agricultural runoff, overexploitation of marine resources and the relentless destruction of rivers and estuaries make it astonishing and somehow reassuringly life-affirming that thousands of terns - slim seabirds related to gulls - manage to nest along our shores. But the events of last week - when the bodies of several hundred young Caspian and elegant terns were found littering the Long Beach Harbor shore, and the nesting efforts of perhaps 2,000 adult terns on two barges in the port were carelessly erased - underscore the clumsiness of our wildlife-protection efforts and the tenuous threads that sustain our remaining natural heritage. "Terngate" also points to a fundamental problem: Our management of wildlife is disproportionately centered on the protection of the few species that have met the proper political tests to earn and keep an "endangered" or "threatened" designation. The only tern colony site in Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor that has received protective management is for the California least tern, listed by the state and federal agencies as endangered. That's insufficient when species such as the Caspian and elegant terns are kept on the run.

| »

Just one more day in Corruptionville

Submitted: Jul 10, 2006

The land speculation that has set in on Merced County has turned men into pigs. It seems that one of the parallel phenomena to real estate speculation in the county was a renewed focus on "leadership." Suddenly, everybody was talking about "leadership." "Leadership" got as popular as huge, oversized, flipping real estate investment, stacking water allotments on the west side, and gutting the federal Endangered Species Act.

Lord save us from "leadership" like this.

Bill Hatch
-------------------------------------------------
Attachment:

Spencer purchased land from jailed man...Chris Collins
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12425122p-13147572c.html
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has launched a third investigation into Merced County District Attorney Gordon Spencer, this time examining whether Spencer committed a crime when he and a group of local investors bought a piece of property from a man who was sitting behind bars and facing charges from the District Attorney's Office. The latest investigation comes on top of an ongoing criminal probe into Spencer's potential embezzlement of public funds and an inquiry last December that found Spencer had impersonated an investigator. The attorney general is now looking into a 21-acre lot on Bellevue Road that Spencer, Sheriff Mark Pazin, Ranchwood Homes owner Greg Hostetler, and five other prominent locals purchased in 2004. The intersection of the two events created a clash that was "absolutely impermissible" by attorney ethics standards, said Weisberg, the Stanford law professor. "There was a conflict of interest. " Dougherty, the county's presiding judge, said Spencer never told Byrd's attorney about his involvement in buying Byrd's land. Kelsey said she always has been troubled that the sheriff and district attorney joined one of the county's biggest developers to buy the land.

| »

Valley blueprint for speculator exploitation and ecological disaster

Submitted: Jul 06, 2006

Last week, the Great Valley Center held a special conference in Fresno, called the “Blueprint Summit,” where, according to conference propaganda, “citizens and leaders from throughout the San Joaquin Valley launched a regional effort to plan for the future of the region.”

There was clearly something being launched out of a backroom somewhere – probably the state Capitol. The majority of roughly 600 participants were staff of state and local government and representatives from the development industry, among a smattering of elected officials, and a few “citizens.” Audience launching activities consisted of listening to a number of impassioned harangues from speakers cued into the program, drawing a few lines on maps, and responding to a few cooked questionnaires.

The sample was fatally skewed and certainly not representative of citizens and leaders. It was representative primarily of paid government staff and growth-related industries.
In short, the poll it pretended to be was rigged. The GVC, now a partner of the University of California, Merced, should be called the UC/GVC. And because UC is involved, polite editorial opinion cannot admit the poll was rigged. UC Merced, although perceived by Valley economic elites as the Golden Egg Itself, still must be handled very gently for fear it could break.

Badlands, which is an honest journalism organization, doesn’t mind special interests standing up and telling the public what they want. But, Badlands insists they be honest enough to be moreorless believable. And they aren’t. It leads us to speculative that what they really want is absolutely against the public interest, the common good, and the Public Trust.

The purpose of the meeting seemed to be to convince the media that 600 members of the Valley UC/GVC-designated “leadership” decided emphatically that regional planning was obligatory to override the weak, corrupt, legally attackable planning processes of eight counties and their cities to find an acceptable political way for these jurisdictions to override existing legal environmental review processes.

Why would UC/GVC want to do that? First, because there is grant money in it. As people in the Valley are beginning to resist more development for public- health as well as quality-of-life reasons, developers are turning up the political and propaganda heat.

The scale of recent UC/GVC events has grown massive. They feature audiences in the hundreds, large central podiums winged with huge monitors magnifying in triplicate the face and gestures of every speaker. These gatherings give us the disturbing feeling of having wandered into the wrong hall, where there is some sort of faith rally taking place. Everything in the room and every word from the speakers’ lips is one great exhortation to believe.

The good news is we’re all dead and this life is but a dream. The bad news is that, instead of going to Heaven, we got stuck in a Sinclair Lewis novel.

Marjie Kirn, deputy executive director of the Merced County Association of Governments, actually led the group in a short pep rally:

“Give me an S. Give me a J. Give me a V. San Joaquin Valley, Rah!”

The “citizen” component of the crowd felt uncomfortable. Perhaps, however, the terms of UC/GVC grant required Kirn to lead this yell as a demonstration of how the audience was actually launching “a regional effort to plan for the future of the region,” instead of doing something useful like:

launching a regional moratorium on growth until air quality improves, until groundwater supplies and quality are at least stabilized, and until general plans are updated through the legal processes that mandate full citizen participation;

launching a regional moratorium on sales tax increases to fund growth-inducing transportation expansions; or

launching a regional moratorium on the illegal taking of protected wildlife habitat.

Give me a M-O-R-A-T-O-R-I-U-M! Rah!

The majority of the crowd, state and local government staff, were all for the program outlined by their superiors. It was a little creepy for the few “citizens” in the audience to see quite how determined to see how our “leaders” are leading us over a cliff, which GVC calls a bump in the road, and UC sees as an opportunity for medical research.

Two speeches stood out for the Badlands editorial staff: the first by the executive director of the Tulare County Farm Bureau, the next by UC Merced Chancellor, Carol Tomlinson-Keasey.

The Farm Bureau man said California agriculture was headed for another round of concentration into fewer corporate hands. Then he took his gloves off. He wrote off any future for family farmers, except perhaps in a few “niches.” To the extent these niches would be organic, genetic pollution from the rising tide of genetically engineered crops will insure they are temporary, last-gasp niches – a prospect the did not dismay the Farm Bureau man. Below Fresno, they see the future as Big Dairy and perhaps, Big Cotton, if Boswell can figure out how to keep the subsidy without calling it a subsidy. Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties are bitter about the Friant decision that will take some water out of the Friant-Kern Canal to let the San Joaquin River flow in western Fresno County for the first time in 50 years. Agriculture, particularly in Tulare, will suffer somewhat. But family farming in Tulare to southern Kern County has been dying since the late 1940s. The Farm Bureau man assured us marketing orders are things of the past, neatly nullifying the efforts of several earlier generations of farm leaders and legislators to help stabilize smaller farms by this means of cooperative marketing.

It is likely Rep. RichPAC Pombo, Buffalo Slayer-Tracy, poised to leave his chairmanship of the House Resources Committee to become chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in a Farm Bill year, will find a way to take cotton and dairy money, convince the public agricultural subsidies are finished, and continue agricultural subsidies.

Valley agriculture is far too important to ever be left to the leadership of the Farm Bureau. Its future, as Farm Bureau members throughout the Valley daily sell off prime farmland to developers, is in fact the most important subject of all for the Valley non-farming public outside of air quality, the deteriorization of which is a direct result of selling off prime farmland for real estate development.

This is a clown character of the sort Luis Valdez used to present on flatbed trucks. On the el teatro campesino stage, he would have worn a big card saying “Corporate Agribusiness Clown” over his T-shirt and the workers would have laughed. But at UC/GVC nobody laughs, at least out loud, when the corporate agribusiness clown says his lines, because there is no form of political corruption – from a Pombo Farm Bill to a San Luis Drain from Kesterson to the Delta to a Peripheral Canal to the next new town on prime farmland on the Valley floor – in which this mob of true believers would not put their faith.

UC Merced Chancellor Tomlinson-Keasey told the audience that the Valley needs to recapture the medical insurance dollars now leaking over the hill to Bay Area health facilities. To do that, we must back UC Merced’s campaign for a medical school, which will offer aspiring research physicians ample opportunity to study pediatric and geriatric respiratory disease as the speculative housing boom, in part inspired by UC Merced, continues to shoulder its way forward, ever year insuring that the San Joaquin Valley will attain and maintain its designation as the worse air pollution basin in the US. She emphasized that the Valley doesn’t have as many doctors as other regions of California. Familiar as some are with the chancellor’s statistics, we take that with a grain of salt. But, if it were true, it would point to the good sense of physicians to not take themselves and their families into an area so environmentally unhealthy as well as unremunerative.

She also discussed UC Merced plans for research and development of new solar technologies to make at least the campus the true environmentally friendly campus of the future.

From the beginning of the UC San Joaquin Valley land deal, the chancellor has emphasized that the Valley needed to train its children with a UC education so that they would come back and serve it. We do, in fact, export a lot of children to college who never find their way back, and the amenity of a UC could make a difference. But there seems to be an on-going neurosis at UC Merced about creating a curriculum that responds to the Valley. This medical school campaign is typical of a sort of frantic dithering, changing directions, unsteadiness, that tells at least critics of the project that although the regents and the administration and the politicians had a very clear idea about starting a speculative real estate boom around the campus, they’ve paid little or no attention to the education offered. Students, justifiably as near as one can tell, are not responding well. The reputation of UC Merced is not helped by announcements this winter and spring that the chancellor, the provost, one vice chancellor, the dean of social sciences, and the environmental compliance director, have all left.

This is not really the best example of “service to the Valley.” It is not the sort of instability the Valley respects or trusts, and it justifies every suspicion about this campus being nothing but a “boondoggle” and a “land deal.”

Now that UC Merced and the Great Valley Center have formed a partnership, we are being suffocated in a completely technocratic discussion, no more than a fig leaf over development deals to be done anyway, on topics of the most profound ethical importance. Each time one goes to these conferences, one hears participants grasping fragments of technological or financial information as if they were planks from a wrecked ship as we tread water in a deep, filthy sea.

In the interests of the “moral clarity” so highly prized by Valley true believers, let us suggest that is it immoral:

to create the worst air pollution basin in the US;

to concentrate Valley agriculture into as few corporate hands as possible;

for the UC Regents and a few landowners, investors and politicians to have stimulated this speculative real estate boom by siting a campus here;

for the UC Regents to encourage the gutting of the Endangered Species Act so that they can develop UC Merced on protected habitat;

to dry up the biggest river in the Valley for the benefit primarily of agribusiness.

to make this contribution to global warming;

that UC leadership consists in nothing more than an immortal corporate campaign for research funds; there is no intrinsic relationship between that research and the location of the campus;

to conduct weapons-of-mass-destruction research. UC cannot say that, because they are completely involved in it. The Valley can say it and must say it and act on the statement, if the Valley doesn’t want it going on in the backyard;

for the development industry to engage in the wholesale corruption of local, state and federal environmental law and regulation – designed to protect human health and natural resources.

Absurd as it sounds, there is no ethical content to the UC/GVC, official, “public,” “ground-up” debate about the future of the San Joaquin Valley. First, there is nothing “ground-up” about having a room stacked with government staffers and representatives from the development industry writing answers on questionnaires prepared by their own consultants. When discussing these matters publicly, as “leaders,” yhey babble like mechanical rabbits. They do not speak like human beings in search of values, as all human beings must be. We are behaving as if this speculative boom is a virtual moral vacation.

Carol Whiteside, founder and CEO of the Great Valley Center, concluded the conference with a warning that “leaders” will have to have “courage” to face these problems. Badlands agrees. Eventually, with the kinds of decisions being made today, the public is going to get very angry at the daily amoral “decision-making process,” the Old Valley Whine about how if you don’t approve the next subdivision the economy will fail, all the moribund, wrong slogans they use, and the wholesale destruction of the habitat for wildlife. People do not like to see their children and grandparents in asthmatic distress. People wonder where all the birds went. People resent their waterways being turned into agricultural sewers. It will take “courage” to stand up against rising resistance to go on approving subdivisions for one’s campaign contributors.

Whiteside’s exhortation to “courage” was intended for the majority of the audience who were local and state government staff. “Courage,” in this sense, means turning a blind eye to environmental devastation and deteriorating quality of life, and a deaf ear to members of the public who resist them.

Although there have been better and worse moments through the years, it must be said, overall that the UC/GVC is in the business of converting the charitable crumbs from corporate tables, in the form of its grants, to manipulate Valley public opinion into a state of timidity, anxiety and – above all – political impotence when perfectly good local, state and federal law stands ready to be used if only the public would have the courage to use it. If UC/GVC did anything else, they would not get those grants. It cannot do other than support more urbanization – a disastrous and unconscionable policy.

What ought to anger the Valley public is that, just at the moment when resistance to growth and environmental devastation is beginning to have some effect, the governor, elected officials, the Central Valley councils of government, CalTrans, the developers and UC/GVC are trying to change the rules. They justify this in terms of all the usual deal clichés: “win/win, public/private partnerships,” “consensus,” all managed by corporation-trained “value-free facilitators.” The public mind fogs over, as it is intended to fog over, and as it will continue to fog over as long as it expects help from anyone but itself and as long as it cringes before the possibility of political and legal conflict.

To save itself from a really wretched – perhaps unprecedented – ecological disaster with consequences far beyond its own discomfort, the Valley public needs to use existing law created for its protection right now. It also needs to simply oust from power cynical politicians. It needs to just ignore the UC/GVC and get on with the business of saving its communities, including developing economies to cope with ecological realities – one at a time.

D-O-N-T R-U-I-N O-U-R H-O-M-E! Rah!

Until the Valley begins to make decisions that are intelligent and ethical, it deserves the reputation it has:

a region so stupid and corrupt it elects representatives like Pombo and Dennis Cardoza, Shrimp Slayer-Merced, Devin Nunes, Rightwing Babbler-Visalia, and George Radanovich, Bankrupt Winemaker-Mariposa;

permits a speculative real estate boom to occur on some of the finest farmland in the world;

allows subsidized corporate agribusiness to continue to squander public water;

allowed the west side to pollute groundwater, create an environmental disaster at Kesterson, and still be considering draining that toxic soup to the Delta;

allows the state to let the Delta levees disintegrate while developers build on flood plains;

does nothing to promote and protect family farming;

allows what may soon be a disastrous interruption in the Pacific Flyway for migratory waterfowl;

permits the destruction of its own environment;

prefers to seethe in resentment against the criticism it so justly deserves for having allowed the creation of an extremely unequal society on top of extremely rich land – for having preferred country clubs and homeless people to good small farms.

However, there was a saving grace to the UC/GVC conference, a special survey of the Central Valley by the Public Policy Institute of California. This opinion poll revealed the information that people in the Central Valley consider air pollution a big problem, in percentages that follow the amount of air pollution in their area – from 26 percent in the North Valley to 59 percent in the South Valley.

The most interesting section of the survey, and the most threatening to UC/GVC and its stacked audience, showed the following:

Seventy-three percent of all Valley adults favored “protecting the wetlands and rivers, and other environmentally sensitive areas, even it this means there will be less commercial and recreational development;”

Sixty-seven percent of Valley adults favored “restricting the development of housing on land that has a significant risk of flooding, even it this means there will be less housing available;”

Sixty-five percent favored “restricting urban development on farms and agricultural lands, even if this means there will be less housing available.”

These findings indicate there is a clear majority of public opinion against most of the decisions that many in the audience are making. The UC/GVC Blueprint Summit is part of a vast propaganda effort by developers and politicians to stay ahead of this growing negative public opinion.

This returns us to the Pomboza, that strange, congressional wannabe Endangered Species Act-destroying monster out of the North San Joaquin, Rep. Pombo in front, Rep. Cardoza behind. The Pomboza was created on the day last year when San Joaquin developer, Fritz Grupe, who is the vice chairman of the governor’s California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, had Pombo and Cardoza to a joint fundraiser with other developers at his Lodi ranch.

On Tuesday, Cardoza and Pombo split roughly $50,000 raised at a bipartisan fund-raiser sponsored by prominent developer Greenlaw “Fritz” Grupe. Grupe is active in both San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, with subdivisions underway in Modesto, Turlock, Hughson, Waterford and Stockton.

Grupe also favors the kind of collaborative work Cardoza and Pombo have done on the Endangered Species Act and other issues. While agreeing the joint fund-raiser held at the developer’s Lodi ranch was “rather unique,” Cardoza said it sent the right kind of signal.

“Frankly, if we cooperated more aggressively, we would all be better off,” Cardoza said … -- “Valley political bonds strong,” Oakland Tribune, April 1, 2005, Michael Doyle, Modesto Bee.

It sent a “signal” that politicians and the developers who own them are now “more aggressively” cooperating against the public opinion of those in the impacted political districts.

The “signal” sent by the fundraiser may have spurred the political efforts to create this partnership, certainly a “more aggressive” way for developers and politicians to cooperate.

But, because all that this more aggressive cooperation between politicians and developers can produce is a lower quality of life, which is beginning to impact voters to the point they are talking about it and becoming bolder by the month before local land-use authorities, what else becomes crystal clear to voters is that the so-called strong valley political bonds are in fact nothing but strong financial bonds between developers and politicians.

If more evidence is needed, consider the Pomboza’s attempt in recent days to make FEMA hold off publishing new flood-plain maps until after the election.

Bill Hatch
-------------------------

Coalition Statement on Merced County Planning Process

We call for a moratorium on County General Plan amendments, variances, minor sub-divisions changes to existing projects, zoning changes, and annexations of unincorporated county land by municipal jurisdictions, MOU’s and developments with private interests and state agencies, until a new County general Plan is formulated by a fully authorized public process – and approved locally and by the appropriate state and federal agencies.
The continual process of piecemealing development through amendments, willfully ignoring the cumulative impacts to infrastructure and resources, for the benefit of a small cabal of public and private special interests, is illegal and reprehensible conduct on the by elected and appointed officials of local land-use authorities.

We also call for a permanent moratorium on indemnification of all local land-use jurisdictions by private and public-funded developers.

Indemnification is the widespread, corrupt practice in which developers agree to pay for all legal costs arising from lawsuits that may be brought against their projects approved by the land-use authority — city or county. Without having to answer to the public for the financial consequences of decisions made on behalf of special interests, local land-use authorities can be counted on to continue unimpeded their real policy: unmitigated sprawl, agricultural land and natural resource destruction, constant increases in utility rates, layering of school and transportation bonds on top of property taxes, and the steady erosion of the county’s infrastructure.

Adopted 2006

San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Central Valley Safe Environment Network
Merced River Valley Association
Planada Association
Le Grand Association
Communities for Land, Air & Water
Planada Community Development Co.
Central Valley Food & Farmland Coalition
Merced Group of Sierra Club
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge VernalPools.Org
California Native Plant Society
Stevinson Citizen’s Group
San Bruno Mountain Watch
San Joaquin Valley Chapter of Community Alliance with Family Farmers

CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORK
MISSION STATEMENT

Central Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of “Eco-Justice” — the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political, and religious groups, and other stakeholders.

P.O. Box 64, Merced, CA 95341
-------------------

Governor knows Valley's needs...Our View
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/12295162p-13030255c.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger's big green bus rolled into Modesto on Thursday... Voters will decide whether to climb aboard the governor's "Protecting the California Dream" bus in November, when they choose between Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides, who won the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's primary. But regardless of their political persuasion, Valley residents should know -- and be pleased -- that we have, for the first time in memory, a governor who is impressive in his interest in and knowledge of our region. It's refreshing to finally have a governor willing to use his political influence -- and in this case his celebrity power -- to advocate for the Valley.
----------------

Forum looks at valley issues...Garth Stapley
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12295194p-13030298c.html
California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley - The valley's work force already suffers from lack of vocational training, several speakers said. Keith Boggs, senior management consultant for economic development in the Stanislaus County chief executive's office, described a dearth of "human infrastructure." The Modesto-based Great Valley Center is spearheading portions of the governor's partnership effort, including a review of growth policies that could lead to regional land-use recommendations. The Building Industry Association of Central California's Kevin Stone warned against taking growth control too far..."We propose that economic development in the Central Valley supersedes the interests of those who simply desire no change at all," he said. The partnership hopes to circulate a draft "strategic action proposal" in mid-September andpresent a final version to Schwarzenegger in November.
On the Web: www.bth.ca.gov/capartnership/sanjoaquinvalley_moreinfo.asp#meeting0607_0906.
--------------------

6-29-06
Merced Sun-Star
Hundreds help map Valley's blueprint...Russell Clemings, Fresno Bee
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12385361p-13111938c.html
FRESNO -- Land use planning seminar...650 people attended the kickoff of a two-year effort to define what the San Joaquin Valley will look like 20 years from now...San Joaquin Valley Blueprint project will spend $2 million in state funds to plan for a population that is expected to double by 2040. By late 2007, the effort is expected to publish a set of goals for areas such as transportation, economic development, housing and environmental protection. Other products will include plans for better coordination of major infrastructure, such as highways, with local land use decisions, and a joint pool of data to analyze planning decisions and their effects. ...it is likely to meet with skepticism if not resistance among local leaders reluctant to cede control over land use and related matters. Mark Baldassare, director of a newly released Public Policy Institute of California survey of 2,000 Valley residents, said the results showed widespread public support for regional planning to deal with issues such as air pollution, population growth and loss of farmland.
----------------------

Modesto Bee
UC Merced plan for medical school must be a priority...Editorial
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/12385466p-13112083c.html
A medical school proposal by University of California at Merced represents the best opportunity for the San Joaquin Valley to get a medical education facility in a region that desperately needs doctors. This project is as important as any public-policy initiative in the valley, and it's time our community leaders give it the attention it deserves. The UC Merced proposal is a visionary plan that would leverage current medical facilities in the valley by using partnerships with regional health providers. It also would utilize the resources of sister campuses UC San Francisco and UC Davis. UC Merced said the intention is to attack the physician shortage in the valley, and have an emphasis on training physicians who are competent in multicultural health care and committed to serving the needs of the San Joaquin Valley. There's strong evidence that new physicians settle into practice near where they train. Having a medical school can help.
-----------------------

Stanislaus grappling with growth...Tim Moran
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12385476p-13112069c.html
How can the county's cities and county government make sure there are enough homes, roads, sewers and water to accommodate them? How can they avoid the turf wars and other impediments to good planning that have marked development in the past? How can they preserve agriculture as an industry in the face of such growth? The county's board of supervisors and its cities' mayors met Wednesday to grapple with those issues...discussion dealt mostly with how to frame the solution. Land use attorney George Petrulakis said planning could start by identifying areas that shouldn't be developed. Another suggestion was a strategic investment plan to put limited public dollars into the roads, parks and sewers that will most effectively shape the county's growth.
----------------------

Proposed half-cent road tax gains speed with Turlock's approval...Michael R. Shea
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12385475p-13112068c.html
TURLOCK — The City Council backed a $1 billion countywide traffic plan. Voters likely will have their say on the tax in November's election. The Stanislaus County Council of Governments has proposed a half-cent sales tax increase that could bring $34 million a year over 30 years to pay for road improvements. But before the plan reaches the taxpayers it needs city, then county approval. Turlock joined Hughson, Riverbank, Patterson and Newman in voting in favor of the plan. The plan needs nods from five of the nine councils, representing more than 50 percent of the county's city-based population...consumers would pay 7.875 percent sales tax, up from 7.375 percent. The lion's share of the money would be dedicated to maintenance and improvement projects.
------------------------

Fresno Bee
City seeks way around a land law...Tim Sheehan
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/sv/story/12385418p-13112007c.html
VISALIA — City leaders hope to enable long-term conservation of prime farmland while also stemming the flow of local money to Sacramento. Officials are exploring a way for farmland owners who wish to develop their property to cancel conservation contracts by putting money toward the permanent preservation of equal acreage elsewhere near the city. The examination is being spurred by Mangano Homes, a Visalia development company planning a major project on 580 acres in northwest Visalia. 450 acres of the proposed Lowrey Ranch project is under Williamson Act. Bob Dowds, vice president of Mangano Homes, said his company hopes to take advantage of a process known as "1240 exchanges." In a 1240 exchange, instead of the cancellation fee going to the state, it would be used to purchase development rights on nearby farmland, creating a permanent "agricultural conservation easement."
-------------------------

Modesto Bee
Bridge plan spurs talk in Waterford...Adam Ashton
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12390340p-13116397c.html
WATERFORD — The city's new growth plan could set it up for the construction of at least 1,300 homes, but so far, one proposed bridge is channeling the discussion on how fast the community should grow...bridge would connect older neighborhoods on Bentley Street to an area where Stockton-based Grupe Co. wants to build a 350-acre subdivision. Pattie Hulst...it's unrealistic to plan on linking a new subdivision to downtown. "There's going to be two towns." Mayor Charles Turner said he doesn't like the idea of a bridge crossing the canal. Turner backs limited growth in Waterford. Grupe helped pay for the general plan update that could allow its subdivision's construction. The plan is expected to be finished by the end of the year, and Grupe would then be able to pursue annexations for the Lake Pointe development.
-------------------------

Contra Costa Times
Council blasts UC proposal for campus projects...Martin Snapp
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/alameda_county/berkeley/14937626.htm
The Berkeley City Council reacted angrily Tuesday night to the University of California's draft environmental report for its Southeast Campus Integrated Projects plan. Planning Director Dan Marks delivered a blistering critique of the report that barely stopped short of accusing the university of bad faith. Among his complaints:
· Conclusions based on inadequate information: "The draft EIR continues to fail to provide sufficient information for adequate analysis,...
· Insufficient analysis of alternatives: "The city requested that the university not identify self-serving 'straw men' alternatives that were clearly infeasible or did not meet project objectives,"...
· Continuing lack of evidence to support that "Best Practices" mitigates impacts: "The university intends to rely on a series of so-called "continuing best practices" to mitigate the impact of the projects,"...
· Poor evaluation of seismic safety and traffic impacts:...
Mayor Tom Bates hinted that the city might not be as cooperative as before regarding town/gown projects, including the proposed multi-million dollar downtown hotel/convention center the city and university are developing together.
-----------------

Badlandsjournal.com

The Blockhead Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006
The newest “vision” for the San Joaquin Valley, according to the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, which graced us with its prestigious presence last week in Merced, is composed of four elements:
· rapid urbanization;
· destruction of local, state and federal environmental law, regulation and resource-agency enforcement;
· demand for state and federal public funds to pay […]
Posted in Environment, State government, Growth
----------------------

Grassland Water District letter to county Board of Supervisors re: amendment policies during the General Plan update process
Sunday, May 14th, 2006
The following letter was submitted by attorneys for the Grassland Water District and Grassland Resource Conservation District to the Merced County Board of Supervisors for its May 2 hearing on General Plan Amendment policies and procedures during the General Plan Update process. The letter has been transcribed from a facsimile. – Bill Hatch
Posted in Environment, Federal government, Agriculture, Water, Growth,
--------------------

Merced County
Below the tipping point
Wednesday, May 17th, 2006
This year’s Great Valley Center conference was unusually duplicitous, even by the Center’s relaxed standards. Its title, “At the tipping point,” contrasted to the presentations throughout the two days, creating a sense of cognitive dissonance attributable, no doubt, to the Center’s recent merger with the University of California.
The conference poster invited its viewers to look […]
Posted in Environment, University of California, San Joaquin Valley, Growth
What’s a county General Plan review steering committee, anyway?
--------------------

Monday, May 15th, 2006
This letter was submitted to the Merced County Board of Supervisors for its May 2nd continued hearing on proposed General Plan Amendment policy and procedures during the General Plan Update process. The board decided that day, among several options presented by the General Plan Review Steering Committee, to continue business as usual. The representative for […]
Posted in Law, Merced County
-----------------------

Some things to think about on Measure A
Sunday, June 4th, 2006
URGENT
City of Merced Measure C raised sales tax to 7.75%. With passage of Measure A, Merced City sales tax would be 8.25%. A half a cent less than the highest sales tax rates in the state. Sales taxes fall hardest […]
Posted in Environment, Public health and safety, Growth, Merced County, Public works, Economy
------------------

URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT

A flyer against the Merced County Transportation Tax Measure A appeared in the Merced Sun-Star Monday morning. We have included it below and attached it to this message.

We urge you to read and share these flyers with Merced County residents before the Primary Election on Tuesday, June 6.

We should not use a sales tax to raise money for transportation funds to benefit special interests because a sales tax has an unfair impact on lower-income residents. (1) Merced County ranks fifth from the bottom of California’s 58 counties in per capita income. (2)

Sincerely, Central Valley Safe Environment Network

Correction in CVSEN Sunday's emailer contained inaccurate information. The amount is 5 cents on $10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOTE NO on Measure A Tax

MAKE Residential and Commercial Development Pay Its Own Way!

REJECT Welfare Subsidies for the Building Industry Association!

In 2002, the Citizens of Merced County VOTED DOWN the Measure M road-improvement tax. Merced County and its cities went right on approving thousands of new homes. This RECKLESS action is destroying hundreds of miles of our existing streets and roads because new development just doesn’t pay for itself.

Facts vs Claims on Measure A Tax

Measure A Claim: "We can be sure one thing won't go to Sacramento ... Every single dime of Measure A funds will stay right here in Merced County"

Fact: The Major funder behind Measure A is the California Alliance for Jobs, a consortium of statewide highway construction contractors and unions. We can be sure this additional sales tax will go here, there, and everywhere, including Sacramento.

Measure A Claim: "The state and federal governments cannot take one dime of Measure A funds"

Fact: Measure A is a matching fund gimmick to attract more than a billion dollars in state and federal highway funds that may arrive and be spent as state and federal government agencies decide. Your potholes are not on their lists. This is a make work scheme for statewide contractors and out- of- town union members.

Measure A Claim: "We're not betting the farm"

Fact: Measure A is certainly betting Merced County farms will be absorbed by urban growth. Even the Measure A “farm picture” appears to be out-of-state. Minnesota, perhaps?

Fact: Fresno County has had a transportation sales tax in place since 1986. Since that time, entire farming districts in Fresno County have been swallowed by urban sprawl. Fresno citizens are paying for development that does not pay for itself.

Fact: Measure A will induce Fresno-level sprawl, Fresno-level air pollution, Fresno-level asthma and Fresno-level political corruption investigations.

Fact: But even Fresno subjected its reauthorized transportation tax plan to public environmental review. Merced leadership wants you to pay the Measure A tax before they begin any public environmental review of the consequences of the sprawl these funds will induce.

Measure A Claim: "Projects include: Ensuring safer routes to school for local children"

Fact: The highest priority project Merced County leaders have is the Yellow Brick Beltway to UC Merced, connected to Highway 99 south of Merced and north of Atwater. There are less than a thousand UC Merced students and they come from all parts of California.

Measure A Claim: “using developer impact fees to supplement Measure A funds so that new growth pays its share of transportation costs”

Fact: Special interests want you to tax yourselves so they won’t have to pay for their impacts on your county. These special interests include: public developers like UC Merced and CalTrans; local, national and international homebuilders; highway construction companies and their unions; the statewide and international aggregate companies mining your rivers and creeks; your elected public officials and their staffs; and the local media.

Measure A Claim: "Citizen oversight: An independent taxpayer watchdog committee and annual third-party audits will ensure that Measure A funds are spent wisely"

Fact: Presently Merced County oversight is by ‘special interest’ only: This conversation between Ranchwood Homes owner and county supervisor Crookham shows how economic development really works in Merced.

Feb. 3, 2006: Mrs. Crookham, this is Greg Hostetler calling. My cell number actually is 704-13** if you need to call me. I’m on a cell phone cause my other battery I’m trying to save that, preserve it you know. I’m into preserving things too from time to time, but anyway, uhm, I’m just calling you, uh, to let you know that…ah if you don’t already know… that we’ve had a lot of drama and trouble in the county … everywhere I do business [inaudible] apparently I guess because of Mrs. uh…Mrs. Deirdre Kelsey ah… thinks staff may need some help, because she’s climbing all over them… using [inaudible] staff for her personal pit bulls…trying to bite our people, and our staff — this is my opinion — causing a lot of drama in Livingston, for the City of Livingston and we’re trying to uh in the progress of uh in the process of installing a sewer line over there. If you haven’t talked to Dee Tatum, he could fill you in on what’s going on over there. But uh this probably will not end any time soon. So, I just wanted to give you the update, and if you could give staff any help I’d appreciate it… Thank you! ..."

Here is a partial list of residential developments ALREADY planned for Merced County

Atwater - 1,584 units, Atwater Ranch, Florsheim Homes 21 Units, John Gallagher, 25.2 acres.

Delhi - 1,100 units, Matthews Homes, 2,000 acres.

Fox Hills - 907 units, Fox Hills Estates north 337 units, Fox Hills Estates, central- 1,356 units.

Hilmar-JKB Homes, over 3,000 units.

Livingston - 1,200 units, Ranchwood Homes 420 acres. Del Valle, Gallo Ranchwood, 1,000acres,

Los Banos -, Ranchwood, 932 acres 323 units, Pinn Brothers, 34 units, Court of Fountains, 2.7 acres 95 units, Woodside Homes,

City of Merced - 11,616 units, UC Merced Community Plan 1,560 acres; 7,800 units,

Ranchwood Homes, 2,355 acres, 7,000 units, Bellevue Ranch, 1,400 acres,

Vista Del Lago, 442 units, Weaver Development, 920 units, Fahrens Creek II, -1,282 units,

Fahrens Creek North, 1,093 units, Hunt Family Annexation,

Planada - 4,400 units, Village of Geneva at Planada, Hostetler 1,390 acres.

Felix Torres Migrant Megaplex 127 units, Park Street Estates, 31.8 acres, 200 units.

San Luis Creek 629 units, F & S Investments, 180 acres.

San Luis Ranch - 544 units, 237 acres.

Santa Nella - 8,250 units - Santa Nella Village west 881 units, 350 acres,

The Parkway, phase III, 146 acres - 138 units, Santa Nella Village, 40.7 acres - 544 units,

San Luis Ranch, phase II - 232 units, 312 acres - 182 acres, Arnaudo 1 &2

Stevinson - 3,500 units, Stevinson Ranch/Gallo Lakes Development - 1,700 units, 3,740 acres.

Winton - 50 units, 17 acres- Gertrude Estates, Mike Raymond, 18 acres - 142 units, Winn Ranch

Commercial Development

WalMart Distribution Center, Riverside Motorsports Park and a growing number of Strip Malls ….and the list goes on!

What You Can Do:

Vote No on Measure A Tax
Demand to participate in General Plans and community plan update process
Support public statements advocating slow growth or no growth until General Plans and Community Plans are legally compliant.

Paid for by the Committee Against Measure A Tax

| »

Saving the edges of the Central Valley

Submitted: Jul 05, 2006

Throughout the borders of the Central Valley where cattle graze, although the great fields of vernal pools in pasturelands are being illegally taken, individuals and groups are finding positive ways to work together to try to stop the destruction of this unique ecology, home to a number of endangered and threatened species, essential for groundwater storage, open space that does not contribute to air pollution, and productive cattle land.

We include a several pieces:

"Easy on the land," by Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, July 2, 2006;

The California Rangeland Resolution, an unprecedented agreement among local ranchers and their industry groups, farmers and their industry groups, state and federal resources agencies and local, state and national environmental groups, that this land must be saved. There is even one local land-use authority, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors;

A US Fish & Wildlife Service white paper, “Wetlands Creation in existing vernal pool landscapes.”

Bill Hatch
-----------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/02/MNGOQJO6P41.DTL

EASY ON THE LAND
Ranchers and farmers, spurred by the growing market for natural foods, are finding a silver lining in the conservation cloud
Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer

Sunday, July 2, 2006

Darrell Wood drove slowly across his land near Chico, a battered cowboy hat pulled down over his forehead, his eyes darting back and forth as he sized up the Black Angus cattle grazing nearby. In the back of his truck, three border collies stood at attention, ready to work.

The cattle looked in prime shape as they stood in lush pasturage dotted with sapphire vernal pools. Large flocks of northern pintails dabbled in the water, while white-tailed kites hovered overhead and red-winged blackbirds called from the sedges along the pools.

"This ecosystem is like anything else," said Wood, gesturing across the gently rolling plain that stretches all the way to the foothills of the Sierra. "Properly managed, it flourishes. Improperly managed, things start falling apart. We're doing everything we can to manage it properly."

Not too many years ago, that kind of talk might have sounded strange coming from a cattleman. But Wood represents a new breed of rancher. He and hundreds of other ranchers and farmers in California and across the nation are part of a growing private initiative that "embeds" wildlife habitat into the working agricultural landscape.

The trend is driven more by market incentives than bunny-hugging sentiments: The natural and organic food business is now a multibillion-dollar industry. But farmers and ranchers who produce for this market find they also have the opportunity to improve or create wildlife habitat on their land.

Adding to the incentive for wildlife-friendly agriculture are conservation easements -- essentially, cash payouts by government agencies or private conservancies in voluntary exchange for future development rights. The trend for such easements is bullish. In the last 20 years, about 260,000 acres of land have been protected in California through conservation easements --Â with 85 percent of that land set aside in the last decade.

Increasingly, environmentalists see easements and similar management tools -- and the ranchers like Wood who utilize them -- as key elements in 21st century conservation efforts.

"To a large degree, our society has become reluctant to fund large-scale national park and wildlife refuge acquisitions," said Dawit Zeleke, the Central Valley eco-regional director for the Nature Conservancy's California program.

Wood and his family own 10,000 acres and lease 100,000 acres from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management near the Lassen County town of Susanville, which they use as summer pasturage for their stock. They also own 2,700 acres and lease 10,000 acres from the Nature Conservancy on the Vina Plains near Highway 99 between Red Bluff in Tehama County and Chico in Butte County.

The area is considered a top priority by environmentalists because of its vernal pools -- seasonal wetlands that support several native plants and animals. The conservancy requires ranchers to pay fair market value for leased land. In the Vina Plains area, that averages about $12 an acre, said a spokeswoman for the California Cattlemen's Association.

Wood said he manages his stock to mimic the way tule elk once grazed the land.

"We allow the cattle to graze very intensively for short periods, then move them off," he said. "When the elk came through, they did essentially the same thing -- they ate everything and moved on. That keeps all the indigenous vegetation in the system. It's adapted to that kind of cycle."

When the land was managed more traditionally -- with cattle allowed to graze moderately, rotated off when the grass got shorter and moved back on when the grass grew back -- the vernal pool ecosystems suffered, Wood said: Noxious nonnative plant species, such as yellow star thistle and Medusa head, took over.

Wood's family has been ranching in Northern California since the 1860s, but in recent years he found it tough making a profit by raising and selling his cattle in the standard ways.

"Several years ago, cattle prices were at all-time lows, and I didn't know if we were going to survive," he said. "A guy approached me and asked if I was interested in raising natural grass-fed beef -- no hormones, no grain or antibiotics. I went for it. Right from the start, we got better prices than we did for standard beef."

The natural beef business has steadily expanded since 2000, and Wood's production has grown with it. He has enlisted neighboring ranchers into his operation, and the partnership now ships 130 to 160 cattle weekly, mostly to Whole Foods Markets and Trader Joe's, but also to several restaurants.

While Wood allowed he isn't getting rich, the future looks brighter than it has in some time. But if you're going to make it with natural beef, he said, profits must come from conservation easements and grants as well as cattle sales.

In addition to the Vina Plains programs, Wood's family is restoring wetlands, riparian corridors and upland sage-hen habitat on their property in Susanville, east of Mount Lassen, with funding from the National Resource Conservation Service, Ducks Unlimited, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Environmentalists have long criticized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service for allowing excessive livestock grazing on federal lands. But grazing levels are about a third of what they were in the 1950s, said Ralph Mauck, a rangeland management specialist for the bureau's Eagle Lake district office, which manages about 1 million acres of rangeland near Susanville.

The district allows about 9,000 cattle and 5,000 sheep on its range, and ranchers are paying the district assessments of about $85,000 this year, Mauck said. Federal wildlife habitat can be improved by improving cattle range, he added.

"If it's done right, when you do one, you do the other," Mauck said. He said his agency is emphasizing management policies that incorporate wildlife values -- fencing off sensitive habitat areas, reseeding range to native plants and protecting riparian zones.

While ranching naturally lends itself to habitat restoration because the landscape is left more or less intact, intensive farming -- the cultivation of grains, vegetables or fruit -- is another matter.

To grow these crops, the face of the land must be changed radically, and usually little room is left for critters. In California's Sacramento Valley, there is one exception to this broad rule: rice lands. They can provide vast expanses of prime seasonal habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds and raptors. Environmental impacts can be further reduced by growing the grain organically, or with minimal fertilizer and pesticide applications.

Lundberg Family Farms in Butte County has been a prime mover in the promotion of eco-friendly rice farming. The company and its contract growers cultivate about 12,000 acres of rice around the crossroads hamlet of Richvale, and markets a wide array of products, from organic brown rice to rice cakes, rice syrup, rice chips and rice milk.

The Lundbergs don't have any acres in true conservation easements, said the company's board chairwoman, Jessica Lundberg, but they participate in a U.S. Department of Agriculture initiative known as the conservation security program. Under the program, farmers are paid an incentive to maintain and improve environmental soil and water standards on their lands over a 10-year period.

The Lundbergs enrolled 3,500 acres, comprising their core family holdings, into the program and received $45,000.

The enterprise's patriarch, Albert Lundberg, came to California with his wife, Frances, in 1937, having fled the dust bowl in Nebraska, said CEO Grant Lundberg, the grandson of the founders.

"The complete environmental collapse they witnessed in the Midwest was due mainly to terrible farming practices, and it made a tremendous impression on them," he said. "When they came out here, they were determined to improve the condition of the land, not degrade it."

The Lundbergs were at the forefront of organic grain production in California, obtaining certification for organic rice production in 1980. Today, about 9,000 acres of rice land under the family's control is certified, with the remainder managed for "natural" rice produced with minimal pesticides and artificial fertilizer.

Organic and natural rice fetch higher prices than standard rice. Another attraction, Jessica Lundberg said, is that the land fares better under organic production. The regular use of cover crops for fertilizer improves the tilth and net fertility of the soil, she said, and shunning chemicals and artificial fertilizers saves money -- and is a boon to wild creatures.

During a recent tour of the Lundberg fields, wildlife was omnipresent. Pheasants burst from ditch side coverts, and scores of ducks and shorebirds foraged in the soggy fields.

The Lundbergs also pioneered post-harvest field flooding. Throughout most of the last century, Sacramento Valley rice farmers burned their rice stubble after harvest to dispose of the straw and reduce disease pathogens. But the family always felt flooding was a better way, said Jessica Lundberg.

Such "decomp" rice flooding is now standard for the industry. It wasn't wildlife concerns that drove the trend -- rather, stringent air quality standards in the 1980s and 1990s required an alternative to stubble burning. But birds and other wildlife have been major beneficiaries of the practice.

"It attracts all the ducks and geese that over-winter in the valley," she said. "They eat the waste rice, trample the stubble down, incorporate it into the soil where it degrades. That gets rid of the straw and increases the volume of organic matter in our soil -- makes it richer and healthier."

The Sacramento Valley's flooded rice fields now amount to hundreds of thousands of acres of seasonal wetlands, said Greg Mensik, the deputy refuge manager for the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which administers six refuges in the Sacramento Valley.

Zeleke of the Nature Conservancy said educating American city dwellers about private conservation efforts will be the next great challenge for the movement.

"As the population becomes more and more urbanized, people lose touch with the essential qualities of sustainable, wildlife-friendly ranching and farming," he said. "But I think we'll see increased public access to these properties -- guided tours, fishing and camping, maybe even some new variations of the classic dude ranch. We have to get people out there so they can understand the stakes."
-------------------

The California Rangeland Resolution

The undersigned recognize the critical importance of California’s privately owned rangelands, particularly that significant portion that encircles the Central Valley and includes the adjacent grasslands and oak woodlands, including the Sierra foothills and the interior coast ranges. These lands support important ecosystems and are the foundation for the ranching industry that owns them.

WHEREAS, these rangelands include a rich and varied landscape of grasslands, oak woodlands, vernal pools, riparian areas and wetlands, which support numerous imperiled species, many native plants once common in the Central Valley, and are home to the highest diversity and density of wintering raptors anywhere in North America;

WHEREAS, these rangelands are often located in California’s fastest-growing counties and are at significant risk of conversion to development and other uses;

WHEREAS, these rangelands, and the species that rely on these habitats, largely persist today due to the positive and experienced grazing and other land stewardship practices of the ranchers that have owned and managed these lands and are committed to a healthy future for their working landscapes;

WHEREAS, these rangelands are a critical foundation of the economic and social fabric of California’s ranching industry and rural communities, and will only continue to provide this important working landscape for California’s plants, fish and wildlife if private rangelands remain in ranching;

THEREFORE, we declare that it is our goal to collaboratively work together to protect and enhance the rangeland landscape that encircles California’s Central Valley and includes adjacent grasslands and oak woodlands by:

Keeping common species common on private working landscapes;

Working to recover imperiled species and enhancing habitat on rangelands while seeking to minimize regulations on private lands and streamline processes;

Supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry and its culture by providing economic, social and other incentives and by reducing burdens to proactive stewardship on private ranchlands;

Increasing private, state and federal funding, technical expertise and other assistance to continue and expand the ranching community’s beneficial land stewardship practices that benefit sensitive species and are fully compatible with normal ranching practices;

Encouraging voluntary, collaborative and locally-led conservation that has proven to be very effective in maintaining and enhancing working landscapes;

Educating the public about the benefits of grazing and ranching in these rangelands.

Current signers of the California Rangeland Resolution include the following:

Alameda County RCD
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
American Land Conservancy
California Cattlemen’s Association
California Resources Agency
California Wildlife Foundation
Central Valley Land Trust Council
Bureau Land Management
Defenders of Wildlife
Butte Environmental Council
Environmental Defense
California Audubon Society
Institute for Ecological Health
California Cattlemen’s Association
Natural Resources Conservation Service
California Dept of Fish and Game
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
California Dept of Food and Ag
San Joaquin Valley Conservancy
California Farm Bureau Federation
Sierra Foothills Audubon Society
California Native Grasslands Association
The Nature Conservancy
California Native Plant Society
Trust for Public Land
California Oak Foundation
US Fish and Wildlife Service
California Rangeland Trust
US Forest Service
California Resource Conservation Districts
VernalPools.org
Wildlife Conservation Board
----------------

US Fish & Wildlife Service white paper

Wetlands Creation in existing vernal pool landscapes
04/02/2006

For the past couple of years (and probably before) we have been reviewing
and accepting the creation of vernal pool features/wetlands within existing
vernal pool landscapes as a means to address the no net loss of wetlands
policy. Specifically I am talking about the practice of creating vernal
pools in existing vernal pool landscapes where none occurred previously (as
opposed to restoring or re-creating vernal pools where it can be determined
they did occur previously). Each time we are asked to accept this practice
we have difficulty determining that this mechanical ground disturbing
activity does not significantly affect the function and value of existing
vernal pools landscapes (uplands as well as wetlands) and also result in
adverse impacts to listed species like plants, salamanders and shrimp.
Each time I see another one of these creation proposals, the densities go
up and the project seems more like the creation of a Frankenstein type
creature than "enhancing" or complimenting the processes of a natural and
dynamic ecosystem

The only compelling reason I can see for these types of creation proposals
are that this is the most cost effective approach for the regulated
community. That is, credit can be given for preserving existing vernal
pools (which are difficult and costly to develop on in the first place) and
creation can be accomplished without purchasing additional ground.

I can see no real biological benefits of this approach that do not outweigh
the impacts, nor do I see any credible scientific evidence that this is an
appropriate approach for vernal pool conservation. In fact the more and
more we analyze and discuss this issue in the scientific and academic
community, the more and more evidence is presented that we are likely
causing great harm to an existing functioning landscape. Impacts to upland
components/habitat for listed plants, pollinators, salamanders and kit fox,
hydrology, water chemistry, microclimate, etc are just a few of the impacts
that have been brought to my attention.

I know there will continue to be great debate about the pros and cons of
this practice, and we should continue have this discussion in the
academic/scientific community. It is just getting very difficult to have
this debate in the regulatory process.

Thus, my thoughts for the day. We are reviewing several of these types of
actions in the office now and we will continue to work with the proponents
to minimize the impacts to listed species and if necessary to suggest the
appropriate compensation to avoid significant impacts and likely have to
prepare additional biological opinions on the proposals.

However, in the future, my strong recommendation is to look for
restoration/creation sites that are not within existing vernal pool
landscapes. There are numerous areas where vernal pools have been lost or
impacted due to agricultural or other practices that are prime candidates
for creation/restoration. If we are asked to evaluate the creation of new
vernal pools in existing landscapes that have impacts to listed species it
will be very difficult to justify these proposals on biological grounds
without out considerable analysis of effects to uplands, wetlands,
hydrology, etc. Please, consider looking away from existing vernal pools
for your creation component. thanks

Ken Sanchez
Assistant Field Supervisor
Endangered Species
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way-Suite W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 414-6671

| »

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Submitted: Jul 01, 2006

Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is being shown at the State Theatre in Modesto. See show times below. It is about global warming.

We thank UC Merced Chancellor Carol Tomlinson-Keasey for mentioning at this week's Great Valley Center conference in Fresno that Gore's documentary is also being shown in Clovis. In keeping with the prevalent theme of denial of global warming, the chancellor said that "climate change" was the subject of the film. However, she again vowed that UC Merced would be environmentally sensitive, and talked at length about UC research into solar power.

Gore, who would have been elected president in 2000 if the president's brother had not been the governor of Florida, reminds us by the making of this film what we have lost since that election was decided in the US Supreme Court on a straight Party vote. We will have lost eight extremely critical years of attention to the environmental, and quite possibly more than 2,500 dead and 18,000 wounded US soldiers. What industry pollution standards have not been relaxed are planned to be relaxed, the US was not one of the 140 nations that ratified the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming in 2005, the new Bush US Supreme Court just rendered a mischievous decision on the Clean Water Act that will be a boon to the legal profession, the House Resources Committee chaired by Rep. RichPAC Pombo, Buffalo Slayer-Tracy, has turned into a one-stop shop for natural resource exploitation, and Pombo and Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Shrimp Slayer-Merced have led a series of assaults on the Endangered Species Act that grow more radical with each passing year -- to name only a few of the glaring examples of the works of the present, illegal, anti-environmental, dynastic regime ruled by bribery and corruption, hell-bent for Armageddon.

The following is a sample of reviews of "An Inconvenient Truth." Since it doesn't seem to be showing in Merced, we're planning to go see it in Modesto and report more on it later.

Bill Hatch
--------------------

Scientists Give Gore Movie Five Stars for Accuracy

By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
posted: 27 June 2006
04:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,'' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent,'' said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right.''

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate,'' Corell said. "After the
presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error.''

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right.''

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue,'' said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,'' said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth,'' Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day.''

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair.''
--------------

'Inconvenient' doesn't duck harsh truths

By BETSY PICKLE, Scripps Howard News Service
Merced Sun-Star
Last Updated: June 15, 2006, 09:00:00 PM PDT

(SH) - Stop me if you think you've heard this one before: Humans are using so much energy and producing so much waste that they've thrown Earth's heating and cooling system out of whack, and within the foreseeable future, unless people change, the planet will become unfixable - and, sooner than it's comfortable to contemplate, it will become unlivable.

Not exactly a news flash, is it? But in "An Inconvenient Truth," the message takes on the urgency it deserves. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and melting ice shelves are only the most obvious of all the signs that should not be ignored.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a documentary, but not one that tries to look at both sides of a debate. The point that director Davis Guggenheim wants to convey is that there is no debate, only facts, many of which have been impugned by spin masters.

Here to present the facts is Al Gore, the man who "used to be the next president of the United States," as Gore quips. Most of "Truth" is a film of Gore's slide show on global warming, a show he's presented hundreds of times through the years.

A film of a slide show? That sounds almost as scary as glaciers melting and causing the oceans to submerge New York and California. But this is not an ordinary slide show, nor is it an ordinary presenter.

Gore's song-and-dance routine puts visuals and data together in an entertaining way. It incorporates photos, film, even animation. Although he uses plenty of science - not just heartrending pictures of the world's most beautiful landscapes under assault from the ravages of mankind - Gore never sends viewers into that lecture-hall haze that afflicts so many in college.

In fact, if this charming, confident speaker had been on the campaign trail in 2000, the presidential election probably would not have been decided by the Supreme Court. Gore is in his element here, speaking passionately about something every human should be passionate about.

Guggenheim gets Gore to put his motivations in context with a few detours into his personal life. It's done with taste and never takes away from the heart of the film. Nor does the film come across like a political platform. This is a problem that everyone must solve.

As photographs take viewers from the Arctic to South America to Asia, and charts and graphs bluntly (and humorously) spell out the differences between cyclical weather patterns and the mess the world is in now, Gore calmly and rationally reassures the audience that there is still time to heal the hurting Earth.

"An Inconvenient Truth" contains bits and pieces most people have heard before, but it puts the big picture together so that it's impossible to miss. That's what this film should be - impossible to miss. Anyone who skips it is a coward.

Rated PG for mild thematic elements.

Five stars (out of five).
------------------

Mercedsun-star.com
undated
Movies: PG
An Inconvenient Truth

Rated PG, for mild thematic elements. 100 min.

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced- a catastrophe of our own making. If that sounds like a recipe for serious gloom and doom -- think again. From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, "An Inconvenient Truth," which offers a passionate and inspirational look at one man's commitment to expose the myths and misconceptions that surround global warming and inspire actions to prevent it. That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on an all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his 'traveling global warming show,' Gore is funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our 'planetary emergency' out to ordinary citizens before it's too late.

Director:
Davis Guggenheim

Cast:
Al Gore
---------------

Local Showtimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing today at the following theaters:

Clovis - UA Movies 8 - Clovis
(11:50 AM) (2:10) (4:40) 7:10 9:40 PM

State Theatre of Modesto, Inc.
1307 J Street
Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 527-4697
fax (209) 523-0201

http://www.thestate.org/Home.cms?section=home
Dates & Times

Friday, June 30 - 6:00, 8:15 PM
Saturday, July 1 - 6:00, 8:15 PM
Sunday, July 2 - 3:00, 5:30 PM
Monday, July 3 - 7:00 PM
Tuesday, July 4 - 7:00 PM

Friday, July 7 - 6:00, 8:15 PM
Saturday, July 8 - 6:00, 8:15 PM
Sunday, July 9 - 3:00, 5:30 PM
Monday, July 10 - 7:00 PM
Tuesday, July 11 - 7:00 PM

--------------------------

| »

Friant settlement reached Friday

Submitted: Jun 30, 2006

AP Newsbreak: Deal reached to restore salmon in San Joaquin River

By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer
fresnobee.com-- June 30, 2006, 6:55 p.m.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A settlement was reached Friday in an 18-year-old court battle over how much water should be allowed to flow from a dam on the San Joaquin River to restore the salmon population, attorneys said.

Terms of the settlement won't be released, and the agreement won't take effect, until all parties - environmental and fishing organizations, farming interests and irrigation districts, federal agencies and the court - approve them, attorneys said.

When Friant Dam started operating in 1949, it transformed San Joaquin Valley's main artery from a river thick with salmon into an irrigation powerhouse that nourishes more than a million acres of farmland in some of the country's highest-grossing agricultural fields.

But the 314-foot barrier also dried up long stretches of the river below the dam, making it a more likely home for tumbleweeds and lizards than spawning salmon.

In 2004, Sacramento U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton agreed with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which claimed the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency that built and maintains Friant Dam, had broken the law by not letting enough water flow down the river to sustain the salmon that once lived there.

Since then, environmentalists, federal water authorities and the farm interest that depend on that water had been trying to come to a mutually acceptable settlement and avoid a court-ordered solution.

"We're very encouraged that all these parties were able to work diligently over the last nine months to come to a place that seems to be a reasonable compromise," said Ron Jacobsma, general manager with the Friant Water Users Authority, a party in the case. The irrigation district distributes San Joaquin River water to thousands of farms in the valley.

Kate Poole, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the approval process for the settlement will take up to six weeks.

"We are hopeful that these approvals will be obtained rapidly, and that the parties to this historic settlement can begin a new chapter - working together to restore the San Joaquin River in a manner that will benefit not just the environment, but millions of people around the state, including Northern California salmon fishermen, Delta farmers and Southern Californians who will drink cleaner Delta water," she said in a statement.

Among the sticking points in negotiations were how much water should be sent down the river, and how to finance and carry out what will likely be one of the most ambitious and expensive river restoration projects in the country, parties said.

"What we're trying to do is provide the conditions for salmon to return above the Merced River without sacrificing the country's most productive agricultural economy," said Gregory Wilkinson, attorney for the Friant Water Users Authority.

Legislators and state officials who have played an important role in pushing for this resolution likely will be important actors in the financing and implementation of the settlement, according to the court document filed in Sacramento Superior Court announcing the deal Friday.

The state's participation is key, since it's responsible for maintenance of some levees that hold back the San Joaquin River as it flows into the delta, and out into the San Francisco Bay, said Jeff McCracken, spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the first governor to intervene in this water fight when he wrote Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, encouraging the federal agency to join in the settlement.

The governor's letter expressed his "strong support for this potential settlement to restore the San Joaquin River in a reasonable and practical manner."

Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein also played a key role in bringing the parties back to the table for this final round of negotiations.

The court document filed Friday said the settlement includes proposed legislation that will be presented to Congress.

| »

Some things to think about on Measure A

Submitted: Jun 04, 2006

URGENT

City of Merced Measure C raised sales tax to 7.75%. With passage of Measure A, Merced City sales tax would be 8.25%. A half a cent less than the highest sales tax rates in the state. Sales taxes fall hardest on people with fixed incomes ( senior citizens and citizens with special needs) and low incomes. Merced leaders constantly repeat that Merced County is poorer that Appalachia.

So why are they asking us to pay close to the highest sales tax rate in the state?

Rankings by per capita income of California’s 58 counties whose sales tax measures are mentioned in articles below (http://www.answers.com/topic/california-locations-by-per-capita-income):

1st -- Marin ($44,962)
4th -- Santa Clara ($32,795
5th – Contra Costa ($30,615)
7th – Alameda ($26,860)
8th – Santa Cruz ($26, 396)
9th – Napa ($26,395)
21st – Solano ($21,731)
23rd – Sacramento ($21,142)
27th – Monterey ($20,265)
39th – San Joaquin ($17,365)
42nd – Stanislaus ($16,913)
49th – Fresno ($15,495)

54th – Merced ($14,257)

One proponent of Merced County’s Measure A advanced the following argument:

Small price, big benefit...Connie Warren, Merced...Measure A will increase the Merced County sales tax by one-half of one cent per dollar: This means an increase of 5 cents on a $10 purchase. You would need something in the $1000 range before the increase would impact a 16-year-olds (allowance driven) buying power. Ever heard the phrase "New York minute"?

In fact, Measure A would add 50 cents to a $10 purchase, not a nickel. If Measure A sales tax passes, the City of Merced would have a one(1%) percent tax increase within a year.

It is also important for Merced County voters to note well (from the articles below) that, once these sales tax measures are voted in, local governments come back again and again asking for extensions for them and additions to them.

Central Valley Safe Environment Network
------------------------

Mercury News
Sun., June. 4, 2006
Support health and transit; vote for ethical leadership...Mercury News Editorial
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14739038.htm
Nothing on Tuesday's ballot is more important to Santa Clara County than approving Measure A. The additional half-cent sales tax will finance badly needed road and transit improvements as well as help preserve the county's public-health system, which under current state and federal funding trends is spiraling toward disaster.
The last Measure A sales tax in 2000 was supposed to cover the local share of the costs of bringing BART from Fremont to San Jose and improving other mass transit, including the bus system. Nobody predicted the subsequent plunge in the local, state and federal economies after Sept. 11, or the failure of the local economy to completely recover.
Money from all sources now is short, but the need for transportation improvements -- including road improvements that were not part of the last measure -- is as strong as ever. And the cost of building mass-transit systems will only increase if we don't build now for the future.
The same plunge in revenue from all sources now endangers the health and social-service safety net that the county has provided for decades.
As the pot of money shrinks, the need for county public-health programs grows greater, from threats of a pandemic to growing numbers of people needing expensive, publicly funded emergency room care because they can't afford routine doctor visits. There is no sign that the state or federal governments will remedy the health care crisis in this decade or even the next. If we want a sure safety net here, we need to pay for it.
Measure A would take our sales tax to 8.75 percent, tying Alameda County and several other cities as one of the highest in the state. But contrary to what a group of anti-BART opponents of this measure say, business leaders from large and small companies strongly support this tax. They believe that a good transportation system and a healthy community are as essential to the business climate as they are to our quality of life. And they join an amazing coalition of labor leaders, social-service and housing advocates and other community leaders urging a yes vote on Measure A.

6-3-06
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Santa Cruz seeks sales tax hike...Shanna McCord
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/June/03/local/stories/05local.htm
SANTA CRUZ — City leaders are preparing to ask voters to boost the sales tax in Santa Cruz to 8.5 percent, a quarter-cent increase. Santa Cruz would join San Francisco as one of the few cities in the state with an 8.5 percent sales tax, among the highest sales tax rates in California. First, voters must choose to make permanent the temporary quarter-cent sales tax hike known as Measure F, approved in March 2004 and set to expire in 2009. Second, voters must approve the proposed additional quarter-cent hike. Both would be on one ballot measure.

6-3-06
Merced Sun-Star
Attachments(4):
VOTE NO on Measure A Tax....Merced Sun-Star Flyer Insert
Front - flyer insert
MAKE Residential and Commercial Development Pay Its Own Way!
REJECT Welfare Subsidies for the Building Industry Association!
In 2002, the Citizens of Merced County VOTED DOWN the Measure M road-improvement tax. Merced County and its cities went right on approving thousands of new homes. This RECKLESS action is destroying hundreds of miles of our existing streets and roads because development doesn’t pay for itself.

Reverse - flyer insert
Here is a partial list of residential developments ALREADY planned for Merced County
Atwater - 1,584 units, Atwater Ranch, Florsheim Homes 21 Units, John Gallagher, 25.2 acres.
Delhi - 1,100 units, Matthews Homes, 2,000 acres.
City of Merced - 11,616 units, UC Merced Community Plan 1,560 acres; 7,800 units,
Commercial Development
Wal-Mart Distribution Center, Riverside Motorsports Park and a growing number of Strip Malls
….and the list goes on!

Letters to the Editor Merced Sun-Star B2 Saturday, June 3, 2006
Measure questions...Ronald Ashlock, Atwater...Measure A, the half-cent sales tax...leaves serious doubts...Citizen Oversight Committee only has auditing and advisory rights. To whom do we turn...if money going for private benefit. Who is the Transportation Alliance and the Alliance for Jobs? and who has spent all the money for the vigorous campaigns to pass this measure...mailers and television ads?

Leaders are the problem...Marvin R. Wallace, Merced...Measure A must be defeated...Measure A will mean a Merced sales tax of 8.25 percent on every dollar we spend to purchase merchandise. For years we've been paying premium prices for gasoline...because of the huge federal and state fuel taxes... Those funds were intended to maintain the roads... Between sales tax, income taxes, and property taxes, we're all being made poor by the tax and spend inefficient people voters have put in office.

Officials should do job...Pat Shay, Atwater...Measure A should NOT be passed. I am very concerned that local elected officials support this proposal. If they had been doing their job in the first place...Why should tax payers in Merced County pay TWICE to maintain roads?

Vote no to developers...Bobby Avilla, Stevinson...Measure A is being funded and driven by developers. Developers are pay for studies on roads, financial feasibility studies for incorporation (Delhi), pay for the costs to lead steering committees...(Stevinson). If developers can pay to make sure they can keep on paving over our farmland...let them also pay for the infrastructure...

Small price, big benefit...Connie Warren, Merced...Measure A will increase the Merced County sales tax by one-half of one cent per dollar: This means an increase of 5 cents on a $10 purchase. You would need something in the $1000 range before the increase would impact a 16-year-olds (allowance driven) buying power. Ever heard the phrase "New York minute"?

Let's look out for selves...Margaret M. Randolph, Merced...As an advocate of Measure A...it is also true that in order to compete for those funds with other counties it is necessary to step up to the plate and become a "self-help county."

6-1-06
Modesto Bee
Incomes in valley keep pace with rest of state...Ben van der Meer
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12259133p-12997240c.html
Merced County moved up in rankings of the state's 58 counties, to 50 from 52. Snaith and Mark Hendrickson, president of the Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce, said the University of California at Merced, being built at the time, did play a role...he expected Merced's upward trend to continue as the university, which opened in the fall, develops and a motor sports park and Wal-Mart distribution center come on-line.

Modesto Bee
Sales tax in trouble...Tim Moran...5-31-06
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12254662p-12993245c.html
A proposed initiative for a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Stanislaus County appears to be in trouble, according to the Modesto Bee-California State University, Stanislaus, poll. Slightly less than half the county voters polled in mid-May said they would support the tax... planned for the November ballot, needs a two-thirds majority to pass. Many proponents are watching to see how the Merced County transportation sales tax initiative fares on Tuesday, Madison said.

Fresno Bee
A crucial consensus...Editorial...2-28-06
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/11873741p-12645476c.html
The group planning an extension of Fresno County's Measure C has overwhelmingly signed off on a spending plan for the half-cent transportation sales tax...plan must now be approved by each of the county's 15 city councils, the transportation authority itself, and finally by the Board of Supervisors. If all goes well, it will appear on the November ballot. This is not a new tax, but the extension of the current one. The original Measure C was passed in 1986. Its 20-year run expires next year...effort to extend the measure failed in 2002... extension would run for another 20 years.

Measure C plan is approved...Russell Clemings...2-25-06
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/11848579p-12561582c.html
The committee working on plans for extending Measure C — Fresno County's half-cent transportation sales tax — finished its work Friday by approving a plan that devotes large shares to public transit, local street work and major highway construction...proposal goes to the Council of Fresno County Governments, which consists of mayors or other leaders from each of the county's 15 cities and the county Board of Supervisors. Then it will be submitted to each city council, the county Transportation Authority and the supervisors. A final vote on whether to place the extension plan on the November general election ballot is expected to be made by the Board of Supervisors sometime this summer.

Committee hones Measure C...Russell Clemings...1-7-06
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/11663200p-12391447c.html
A committee drawing up plans to renew the Measure C transportation sales tax made its last major decisions Friday. committee also voted to add to Measure C's expected proceeds by devoting 75% of Fresno County's state highway funding to Measure C projects over the next 20 years. But it left details vague on another supplement — a proposed fee that would be charged to new development for road impacts. Like the current Measure C, passed by voters in 1986, the extension would be for 20 years.

Sacramento Bee
Arena's strategy for tax assailed...Terri Hardy...5-27-06
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/v-print/story/14261224p-15074828c.html
A strategy to finance a new Sacramento arena with a quarter-cent sales tax approved by a majority of voters would likely violate state law, according to the author of the state proposition that outlined how such levies are imposed. Any proposed sales tax to be used for a specific purpose, such as an arena, would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote -- not the simple majority that arena backers have stated, said Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on Friday. "If this (proposed) tax is intended to pay for an arena, it's a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote."

Stockton Record
Plan to put Measure K back on ballot nears OK...Erin Sherbert...4-23-06
http://recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060423&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=604230313&SectionCat=&Template=printart
STOCKTON - Transportation leaders are poised to approve a plan to place a major transportation tax renewal proposal on the November ballot despite wavering support among Ripon city officials. The San Joaquin Council of Governments, the county's transportation planning agency, on Thursday will consider adopting the new spending plan for a renewed Measure K, the county's half-cent sales tax voters passed in 1990. Without renewal, it would expire in 2011. If voters renew Measure K, it will generate about $2.5 billion over 30 years. If the COG board adopts the spending plan, it will go to the cities for final approval from their councils, as well as the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. The county government and four cities - one has to be Stockton - must approve the spending plan before it can be placed on the ballot. Ripon city leaders say they believe more of the tax money should come back into local coffers instead of paying for regional transit and highway projects, said Ripon Mayor Chuck Winn, who sits on the COG board.

Supervisors ready for battle over Measure K...Greg Kane...3-28-06
http://recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/NEWS01/603280321&SearchID=7324639488627
Measure K, half-cent sales tax adopted by San Joaquin County voters in 1990, is expected to generate $750million for county roads by the time it expires in 2010. The San Joaquin Council of Governments, the county's primary transportation planning agency, wants to bring a $2.5billion, 30-year extension before county voters in November.

San Francisco Chronicle
Voter's guide to the June 6 California Primary...Michael Cabanatuan, Simone Sebastian, Patrick Hoge...5-28-06
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/28/INGNKJ2GIR1.DTL&type=printable
Separate measures to raise sales taxes in Napa and Solano counties by one-half cent to fund transportation improvements in the only two Bay Area counties without such self-help taxes for streets, highways and public transit. Approval by better than two-thirds of those voting is required. Napa County -- Measure H: $537 million over 30 years...county's first attempt to pass a transportation sales tax. Solano County -- Measure H: Would raise $1.6 billion over 30 years... county's third attempt to pass a transportation sales tax.
Napa, Salano counties to vote on sales levy...Michael Cabanatuan...5-15-06

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/15/BAGS8IRUB01.DTL&type=printable
Seven of the Bay Area's nine counties have sales taxes that raise money for transportation improvements. Residents of Solano and Napa counties will face separate ballot measures on June 6. A two-thirds majority vote is needed for the measure to pass. In Santa Clara County, where voters in 1984 passed the state's first transportation sales tax, community leaders are trying a different approach. Voters are being asked to approve a half-cent sales tax to fund general county services -- affordable housing, health care and transportation, including the proposed BART extension to San Jose. A simple majority vote is needed for the measure to pass. Eighteen of the state's 58 counties have transportation sales taxes, and the residents of those counties combine to make up about 80 percent of the state's population. Measure H is Solano County's third attempt to pass a transportation sales tax. Napa County voters are being asked to approve their own Measure H, also a 30-year, half-cent sales tax measure. It is the county's second attempt to pass a transportation sales tax. Santa Clara County's Measure A also proposes a half-cent sales tax that would last 30 years...
Contra Costa Times

Measure would benefit transportation projects...Danielle Samaniego...5-31-06
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/14705571.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Solano County is hoping the third time is the charm for a sales tax to finance transportation improvements needed throughout the region. Voters have rejected similar measures twice. Measure H would authorize the Solano Transportation Improvement Authority to impose a half-cent sales tax for 30 years to fund traffic safety improvements, projects and programs identified in the county's transportation expenditure plan.

Mercury News
Tax increase advocates raise more than foes...Barry Witt...5-26-06
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14672741.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Measure A - The campaign for a half-cent increase in Santa Clara County's sales tax reported Thursday that it raised more than $1.3 million in 10 weeks, with much of the cash coming from the county's biggest labor union, major Silicon Valley employers and contractors working on the planned BART extension to San Jose...that needs 50 percent, plus one vote to pass, there are no restrictions on how county supervisors can use the estimated $160 million a year in new revenue the tax increase would provide. If approved, the county's sale tax rate would be 8.75 percent, tying Alameda County for highest in California.

Monterey Herald
Measure A campaign picks up big boosters...Larry Parsons...5-26-06
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/community/14677167.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
The campaign to pass Measure A, the half-cent transportation sales tax on the June ballot, is picking up major financial support from expected sources -- Monterey County's agricultural, tourism and construction industries. Measure A would impose a half-cent sales tax for 14 years to raise an estimated $350 million for regional highway and transportation projects. Opponents contend the tax would be a wasteful burden on county residents for a badly conceived, pork-barrel package of highway projects and other transportation programs.Two of the biggest contributions to the Measure A campaign came from the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, $25,000, and Granite Construction Co., $20,000.

Tax measures articles...Modesto, Santa Clara, Napa, Solano

Modesto Bee
Sales tax in trouble...Tim Moran
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12254662p-12993245c.html
A proposed initiative for a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Stanislaus County appears to be in trouble, according to the Modesto Bee-California State University, Stanislaus, poll. Slightly less than half the county voters polled in mid-May said they would support the tax... planned for the November ballot, needs a two-thirds majority to pass. Many proponents are watching to see how the Merced County transportation sales tax initiative fares on Tuesday, Madison said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/31/EDGDOIJLR81.DTL&type=printable

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invest in valley's future
-
Wednesday, May 31, 2006

MEASURE A, the half-percent sales tax increase on Santa Clara County's June 6 ballot, should get a "yes" vote from every voter with an interest in Silicon Valley's transportation and health-care systems.

Measure A is proposed as a general-fund tax because those require only a simple majority to pass. (In 1996, a similar measure eked by with just 51.8 percent of the vote.) But its backers are lobbying for the annual revenue increase of up to $180 million to fund public health and transportation improvements.

This strategy worked well in the 1996 measure -- the county Board of Supervisors respected the voters' wishes, and virtually all of the funded projects, such as the construction of a new interchange at the junction of Highways 101 and 85 in Mountain View, were completed on time and on budget.

To ensure the same results, Measure A's backers have written it in a responsible, thoughtful manner. An independent citizens' review committee will report progress to the community. There's a 30-year sunset clause. Because Measure A is the result of nearly two years of brainstorming with different interests -- business and labor groups, families and religious organizations -- it has an outstanding slate of sponsors. Its biggest supporter is the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents 200 of the valley's largest companies.

The only problem with Measure A is it will lift Santa Clara County's sales taxes to 8.75 percent. But this is the path we've set out for ourselves in California, where local governments have few places to turn for revenue.

Our roads, buses and hospitals are worth the investment. We recommend a "yes" vote on Santa Clara County's Measure A on June 6.

Page B - 8
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/31/EDGDOIJLR81.DTL

VOTER'S GUIDE TO THE JUNE 6 CALIFORNIA PRIMARY
BAY AREA MEASURES
- Michael Cabanatuan, Simone Sebastian, Patrick Hoge
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/28/INGNKJ2GIR1.DTL&type=printable

Sunday, May 28, 2006

TRANSPORTATION TAXES
What's on the ballot

Separate measures to raise sales taxes in Napa and Solano counties by one-half cent to fund transportation improvements in the only two Bay Area counties without such self-help taxes for streets, highways and public transit. Approval by better than two-thirds of those voting is required.

What they would do

Napa County -- Measure H: Would raise $537 million over 30 years to pay for local street and road maintenance and improvements; widening and improvement of Highway 12 through Jamieson Canyon; a commuter trip-reduction program; express bus service from Napa to Fairfield/Suisun City; a mobility program for senior citizens; pedestrian improvements and a Napa downtown transit center. This is the county's first attempt to pass a transportation sales tax; voters approved an advisory measure in 2004.

Solano County -- Measure H: Would raise $1.6 billion over 30 years for a new interchange at the junction of Interstates 80 and 680 and Highway 12 in Cordelia; widening and improving Highway 12; new commuter rail service to and from the Bay Area and Sacramento; expanded Vallejo Baylink ferry service and expanded express bus service serving all Solano County cities. This is the county's third attempt to pass a transportation sales tax. Measures in 2002 and 2004 received a majority of votes but fell short of the two-thirds requirement.

Fiscal impact

In Napa County, would raise the sales tax from 7.75 percent to 8.25 percent beginning Jan 1. In Solano County, would raise sales tax from 7.375 percent to 7.875 percent beginning Oct. 1.

-- Michael Cabanatuan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCHOOL TAX AND BOND MEASURES
What's on the ballot

A dozen school and community college tax and bond measures in the Bay Area that would raise nearly $2 billion for school repairs, remedial education programs and classroom technology upgrades. Nine school districts in the region are seeking voter approval of parcel tax and bond measures, while three community college districts -- Peralta, Contra Costa and Foothill-De Anza -- have bond measures on the ballot. Bond measures need 55 percent approval to pass. Parcel tax measures need two-thirds.

What they would do

Oakland Unified -- Measure B: The $435 million bond measure is the largest school tax measure in the region. It is the second of three bond measures the district says it needs to fulfill a $1 billion wish list of school improvements -- the first measure, which raised $303 million, was approved in 2000. Measure B would replace hundreds of decaying portable classrooms on campuses throughout the district with permanent buildings, according to district officials. Some of the portables date back to the 1970s and are suffering from rot and water damage.

"Who knew (back then) that you were going to need phones, intercoms and computers; things that in many classrooms are now regular resources," said Jody London, co-chair of the Yes on B campaign. "We need to give these kids nicer facilities."

Tamalpais Union High School District -- Measure A: Voters in the Marin County school district will consider an $80 million bond. About $20 million would go toward rebuilding a 22-classroom building at Tamalpais High School that was closed in August because of mold. Another $15 million would go toward reconstruction of swimming pools at the district's three comprehensive high schools to give them the depth and size necessary for more athletic competitions, according to district officials.

Fiscal impact

If approved, the Oakland measure will cost residents a maximum of $48 per $100,000 of assessed property value.

The Tamalpais district measure, if approved, will cost residents a maximum of $19 per $100,000 of assessed property value. -- Simone Sebastian .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAPA LAND-USE COMPENSATION
What's on the ballot

Measure A would require property owners in Napa County to be compensated for property value losses resulting from new county policies. Sponsored by the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance, it is supported by the Napa County Republican Party. It is opposed by most of the county's political leaders, the Napa Valley Vintners Association and the Napa County Farm Bureau, police and firefighter unions, business chambers and environmental groups including the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance. A majority vote is needed.

What it would do

Measure A would require that the county financially compensate property owners if their land is devalued by future county regulatory or policy decisions. County supervisors could avoid paying for impacts of their actions by getting their acts ratified by voters, or by exempting specific property owners. The measure grew out of a successful 2004 referendum campaign that nullified a county ordinance restricting development near streams. Critics said the ordinance's definition of watercourses needing protection was so expansive that it would have rendered significant portions of properties unusable.

Fiscal impact

Critics say Measure A would wreak havoc on local land-use planning and produce a tidal wave of expensive litigation that could drain funds from other county programs. Administrative and legal costs alone could be almost $3 million annually, not including awards for successful damage suits, according to an analysis that the county commissioned. Backers say such claims are overblown.

-- Patrick Hoge

Page E - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/28/INGNKJ2GIR1.DTL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORK

MISSION STATEMENT

Central Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political, and religious groups, and other stakeholders

P.O. Box 64, Merced, CA 95341

| »

Vote No on Measure A Tax

Submitted: Jun 03, 2006

URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT

A flyer against the Merced County Transportation Tax Measure A appeared in the Merced Sun-Star Saturday morning. We have included it below and attached it to this message.

We urge you to read and share these flyers with Merced County residents before the Primary Election on Tuesday, June 6.

We should not use a sales tax to raise money for transportation funds to benefit special interests because a sales tax has an unfair impact on lower-income residents. (1) Merced County ranks fifth from the bottom of California’s 58 counties in per capita income. (2)

Sincerely,

Central Valley Safe Environment Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOTE NO on Measure A Tax

MAKE Residential and Commercial Development Pay Its Own Way!

REJECT Welfare Subsidies for the Building Industry Association!

In 2002, the Citizens of Merced County VOTED DOWN the Measure M road-improvement tax. Merced County and its cities went right on approving thousands of new homes. This RECKLESS action is destroying hundreds of miles of our existing streets and roads because development doesn’t pay for itself.

VOTE NO on Measure A because it doesn’t fix the problems. It adds to them! The intent of this tax measure to improve highways 99, 152, 59, and 33, and to build the Mission Ave. Interchange, is to attract more urban growth, not to fix local potholes. The only “economic engine” helped here is the profits of developers who want you to pay for the impacts of their projects while they plant the last crop in the San Joaquin Valley- subdivisions!

VOTE NO on Measure A because the county General Plan is an absurdly outdated, non-compliant hodge-podge of amendments and conflicting goals and policies. About 20 citizens’ groups petitioned the Merced County Board of Supervisors to slow growth until county and city general plans and community plans are legally compliant. Special interests – not the public – are controlling the Merced County planning process. Use your vote to send a message to government highway funders that these special interests do not speak for us!

VOTE NO on Measure A because UC won’t pay more than $350,000 to cover the $200 million cost of it’s impacts to local streets, parks and schools. Measure A will be used to finance the Mission Ave. Interchange off Hwy 99, the Yellow Brick Beltway to UC Merced and west to Atwater. This will hasten sprawl and will eat away productive agricultural land. This UC beltway will draw business away from downtown Merced. The Mission Ave Interchange will become the location of a Wal-Mart Distribution Center, bringing in about a thousand diesel trucks a day to increase our air pollution.

VOTE NO on Measure A because it is a matching fund gimmick created by special interests. Your supervisors have used your tax dollars to create a lobbying group called the One Voice Committee that speaks for special interests, not for you. VOTE NO on Measure A to tell state and federal highway funders “One Voice” speaks for special interest, not for you.

VOTE NO on Measure A because the sand and gravel trucks supplying these proposed highway projects tear down our county roads and degrade our waterways. Spending dollars on new roadways instead of for maintenance and repair of existing county roads and city streets is a misappropriation of public funds for special interests.

VOTE NO on Measure A because you’re tired of government by and for special interests – from UC Merced to local, national and international development corporations – making land deals for their profits and your losses. An estimated 100,000 new homes are already in the planning process in Merced County.

VOTE NO on Measure A because you will have no vote on the projects it will fund. Special interests have already decided how that money will be spent and will continue to decide how it will be spent.

VOTE NO on Measure A now and you may prevent Measure Z later, as special interests continue to pile on special taxes for schools, water, sewer, electricity, parks and recreation, libraries, solid waste, emergency services, police and fire protection – like Measures S, M and H, and the Merced City Hotel Tax for a UC Olympic-size swimming pool.

PAID FOR BY MERCED COUNTY RESIDENTS AGAINST MEASURE A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOTE NO on Measure A Tax

Here is a partial list of residential developments ALREADY planned for Merced County
Atwater - 1,584 units, Atwater Ranch, Florsheim Homes 21 Units, John Gallagher, 25.2 acres.

Delhi - 1,100 units, Matthews Homes, 2,000 acres.

Fox Hills - 907 units, Fox Hills Estates north 337 units, Fox Hills Estates, central- 1,356 units.

Hilmar-JKB Homes, over 3,000 units.

Livingston - 1,200 units, Ranchwood Homes 420 acres. Del Valle, Gallo Ranchwood, 1,000acres,

Los Banos -, Ranchwood, 932 acres 323 units, Pinn Brothers, 34 units, Court of Fountains, 2.7 acres 95 units, Woodside Homes,

City of Merced - 11,616 units, UC Merced Community Plan 1,560 acres; 7,800 units, Ranchwood Homes, 2,355 acres, 7,000 units, Bellevue Ranch, 1,400 acres,

Vista Del Lago, 442 units, Weaver Development, 920 units, Fahrens Creek II, -1,282 units,

Fahrens Creek North, 1,093 units, Hunt Family Annexation,

Planada - 4,400 units, Village of Geneva at Planada, Hostetler 1,390 acres.

Felix Torres Migrant Megaplex 127 units, Park Street Estates, 31.8 acres, 200 units.

San Luis Creek 629 units, F & S Investments, 180 acres.

San Luis Ranch - 544 units, 237 acres.

Santa Nella - 8,250 units - Santa Nella Village west 881 units, 350 acres,

The Parkway, phase III, 146 acres - 138 units, Santa Nella Village, 40.7 acres - 544 units,

San Luis Ranch, phase II - 232 units, 312 acres - 182 acres, Arnaudo 1 &2

Stevinson - 3,500 units, Stevinson Ranch/Gallo Lakes Development - 1,700 units, 3,740 acres.

Winton - 50 units, 17 acres- Gertrude Estates, Mike Raymond, 18 acres - 142 units, Winn Ranch

Commercial Development

WalMart Distribution Center, Riverside Motorsports Park and a growing number of Strip Malls

….and the list goes on!

Measure A gives the green light to all this proposed new residential and commercial development!

VOTE NO on Measure A Tax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
(1) http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072554096/student_view0/chapter_15/economic_naturalist_exercises.html
Sales taxes are regressive taxes. This means that the proportion of income paid in taxes declines as income rises. That is, people with low incomes pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people with high incomes. But what makes a sales tax regressive?
People with low incomes tend to spend a high percentage of the income they receive. At higher income levels, people begin to save (not spend) larger parts of their income. A person is able to save (not spend) part of their income only after they are able to take care of buying necessities like food, housing, clothing, and medical care. Therefore, low-income consumers will spend most of their income while higher income consumers can begin to save more and more.
Since a sales tax falls on income that consumers spend, and low income people spend a larger part of their income, the sales tax falls more heavily on low income consumers. This makes the tax regressive ...

(2) http://www.answers.com/topic/california-locations-by-per-capita-income
Merced ranks 54th in per capita income among California's 58 counties. Only four counties have lower per capita incomes.

CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORK

MISSION STATEMENT

Central Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political, and religious groups, and other stakeholders

P.O. Box 64, Merced, CA 95341

| »

More benefits of a UC campus in the Valley

Submitted: Jun 01, 2006

The University of California and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which UC manages, recently announced plans to build a level-4 bio-defense lab near Tracy. Level-4 labs store the most dangerous diseases known to man -- Ebola, dengue fever, Lassa fever and "other illnesses for which there are no known cures." (1)

Opposition to UC Davis establishing a level-4 lab in Davis was so strong -- including a unanimous vote against it by the Davis City Council -- that the federal government dropped plans to fund a $59-million National Biocontainment Laboratory there in September 2003. (2) Opponents argued that such a lab would be an attraction to terrorists and that UC doesn't have adequate security to obstruct them from spreading the lethal contents of a level-4 bio-defense lab to contaminate the surrounding community.

Proximity to a UC campus, former UC Merced Chancellor Carol Tomlinson-Keasey never tired of repeating, creates an ambition to go to college. It also creates a fear of UC weapons-of-mass-destruction research and mistrust of the bland assurances of adequate security.

At least one Tracy city councilwoman, Irene D. Sundberg ... "noted that the city abuts Site 300 -- as the possible location for the second lab is known -- and new housing is planned nearby.

"'The (UC Regents) should be putting it in their backyard and not mine,' she said."

Whose backyard the most dangerous, incurable illnesses in the world should be stored, is the question being argued in federal court. Livermore-based Tri-Valley Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment has appealed their case to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, after their district court suit to stop UC from locating the facility in Livermore. CARE argues that it is madness to locate such dangerous substances in such a heavily populated area, where, in case of accident, under certain wind conditions, plumes of deadly diseases could blow all over the Bay Area, where a number of regents live.

Meanwhile, enter the sheer magic of UC flak. The closer you get to weapons of mass destruction the more magical becomes the UC flak. UC is saying:

By contrast, researchers at the second (Tracy) lab would concentrate to a greater degree on natural- or terrorist-caused agricultural diseases, but might also have the authority to work on extremely virulent human diseases such as Ebola, research on which is not permitted in the lower-ranked lab.

UC mentions hoof-and-mouth disease, for example, keeping the door open for anthrax, Ebola, etc, of course.

The situation seems to be that if UC/Lawrence Livermore wins its appeals court case, the deadliest human diseases will be stored and studied in the Bay Area, the most densely (human) populated area in northern California, while hoof-and-mouth disease, for example, will be studied in the San Joaquin Valley, which contains the densest population of cows in the nation.

This is undoubtedly why our wise leaders invited UC to establish a campus in Merced. This is the kind of enlightened, scientific guidance we dumb farmers need down here in the Valley.

My personal favorite from the selection of UC flak was:

"Lawrence Livermore has a long history of safely and securely working with biological agents," Colston said. "There are hundreds of these facilities in the United States with proven track records."

This rises to the level of fabulously fatuous UC Flak. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported in 2002:

On March 14, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) detailed their research priorities for countering bioterrorism. Their broad goals include increased funding for treatment, diagnostics, and vaccines, as well as projects in applied immunology and genomics. These include studies on how pathogens affect humans as well as the genetics of biowarfare agents. [10] The NIH also plans to construct six to 10 new biosafety level-3 and-4 facilities to supplement the seven level-4 facilities that already exist or are nearing completion. In response, several other countries have announced plans to build their own high-containment facilities. This is a recipe for disaster. (3)

Here's the political dilemma. Suppose Councilwoman Sundberg is able to rally as many opponents to the establishment of a level-4 bio-defense lab on the outskirts of her town as citizens of Davis were able to muster to oppose a level-4 lab in the middle of their town on the UC Davis campus. It would seem, in view of several factors, that UC Merced would be the next logical step for UC to take to get the millions in federal grants.

As a university, UC Merced is floundering badly. It appears, according to intermittent word from students, to be operated like a genteel prison camp. Its course offerings are meager, some would say eccentrically high-tech. Its chancellor has just quit. Its vice chancellor spent most of her career at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Its provost departed precipitously for University of Nevada Las Vegas two weeks ago. UC Merced has posted no information on its search for a new chancellor.

First, UC Merced was going to be the UC campus for all the Valley's Hispanics, who according to UC, wouldn't move away from home to go to college. Then it was going to be the environmental campus. This was the period of the Sierra Nevada Institute and the big Nature Conservancy easement program. In fact, due to vicissitudes in the careers of Gov. Gray Davis and Rep. Gary Condit, D-Ceres, UC was unable to fully complete the railroading of all local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations the campus violates, leaving the actual location of future phases of UC Merced up in the air. Lately, more of its flak has been about being a "bio-tech engine of growth."

Labeled both a "land deal" and a "boondoggle" in the state Capitol, so far UC Merced has produced nothing but a huge speculative real estate boom in eastern Merced County, from which various regents and legislators and their families have personally benefited, along with local landowners, developers and realtors. The huge amount of investment capital in the area is flooding in from elsewhere, the same elsewhere where the big profits will go.

What if Tracy develops some backbone? Now that so many Pombo Real Estate Ranches have been filled up with Bay Area-commuter, labor-camp subdivisions, Tracy shows more signs of regarding itself as a part of the Bay Area every day. They may well argue among themselves quite eloquently and persuasively that the best place for a level-4 bio-defense lab also studying hoof-and-mouth disease should be the second largest dairy county in the United States, Merced.

Whereas San Joaquin County supervisors and Tracy City Council members may choose to dodge their patriotic duty to accept a level-4 bio-defense lab, one has no doubt about the patriotism of Merced County supervisors on anything pertaining to UC Merced's memorandum of understanding with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

That only leaves the problem of providing the amenities to attract the top-notch scientists we need to study hoof-and-mouth disease, Ebola, Lassa fever and other fatal, incurable diseases in our neighborhood. Our local leaders, speaking with One Voice, have already taken a positive step in this direction -- improving the roads to UC Merced. Next Tuesday, our leaders invite one of the poorest counties in the state to vote for a sales tax increase -- the most regressive tax possible -- to raise transportation funds.

With leadership like this, Merced should get a level-4 bio-defense lab in less than a year. And what a boon it would be to our stay-at-home minorities, our cows, and our environment!

Bill Hatch
-------------------------

Notes:

(1) San Francisco Chronicle
Livermore considers bio-defense lab in Tracy. Proposed research site might store deadly human diseases...Keay Davidson
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/28/BAGLSJ3NVT1.DTL&type=printable
The University of California and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which are already pushing for federal court approval to store and study dangerous microbes at the Livermore lab, have expressed interest in building a second bio-defense lab near Tracy -- a lab that could experiment with even deadlier bugs...if approved and funded by the Department of Homeland Security, the 50,000-square-foot facility near Tracy could come with a ranking of "Biosafety Level Four," a status granted in the United States only to biological labs that store and analyze the world's scariest pathogens, both human and animal -- and lab officials refused to rule out the possibility that they'll study human diseases as well. The proposal for the second lab angered Tracy City Councilwoman Irene D. Sundberg, who noted that the city abuts Site 300 -- as the possible location for the second lab is known -- and new housing is planned nearby..."The (UC Regents) should be putting it in their backyard and not mine." UC officials expressed interest in the possibility of constructing the Tracy facility in a March 31 letter to Homeland Security. UC officials refused to release copies, explaining their letter is "confidential and proprietary" and releasing it might leak secrets to potential competitors for the project. "Lawrence Livermore has a long history of safely and securely working with biological agents," Colston said. "There are hundreds of these facilities in the United States with proven track records."

(2)http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7356341p-8300182c.html
Huge blow for UCD's lab quest
University fails to win key federal funding.
By Pamela Martineau -- Bee Staff Writer
September 5, 2003

UC Davis' bid for a proposed biolab suffered a crushing setback Thursday when federal officials denied the university funding for a critical research consortium that would have operated out of its proposed facility.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services named eight institutions that will receive five-year grants to operate Regional Centers of Excellence (RCE) where scientists would study infectious diseases and defenses against bioterrorist attacks. University of California, Davis, was not among the grant recipients ... Most opponents say they fear the lab could become the target of terrorists and could spread dangerous pathogens through the community through accidents or safety breaches. Marches and silent protests also have been staged to oppose the project ... Don Mooney, an attorney for the group Stop UCD Bio Lab Now, said he has read the NIH's request for proposals for the National Biocontainment Laboratory thoroughly and he believes UC Davis' loss of the Regional Center of Excellence "should be the end" of the biolab proposal. Davis City Councilman Mike Harrington agreed ...

(3)http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so02choffnes
Bioweapons: New labs, more terror?
By Eileen Choffnes
September/October 2002 pp. 28-32 (vol. 58, no. 05) © 2002 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

(4) http://www.counterpunch.com/zeese06012006.html
June 1, 2006
Return of the Petri Dish Warriors
A New Biowar Arms Race Begins in Maryland
By KEVIN ZEESE
... Expansion of Bio-Weapons Activity Will Make America, and the World, Less Safe

Not only is this a multi-billion dollar misuse of federal funds, but it will encourage our adversaries to develop similar programs, lead to the invention of new, infectious agents and increase the risk of diversion of U.S. made bio-weapons to our adversaries. If the government really want to increase the safety of Americans the U.S. would invest in the public health system, strengthen international controls and work to remove pathogens from the face of the earth, rather than creating new ones.

The only modern bio-weapons attack was the use of anthrax in letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy at the time the Patriot Act was being considered. There is no question the anthrax used in this attack was produced in the United States and came through Ft. Detrick. The type of anthrax used was the "Ames strain," with a concentration and dispersability of one trillion spores per gram--a technology that is only capable of production by U.S. scientists...

| »

Some reasons that could explain the Modesto Bee endorsement of Pombo (if stupidity is not the whole answer)

Submitted: May 31, 2006

In a quiet little editorial on May 18, the Modesto Bee endorsed Rep. RichPAC Pombo, Buffalo Slayer-Tracy, against Republican challenger, former Rep. Pete McCloskey.

The Bee says that although Pombo is a (as yet unindicted) crook, he "has been effective in many ways."
McCloskey, is described as a quixotic, 78-year-old renegade, an author of the Endangered Species Act angry over Pombo's attacks.

Pombo's gut-the ESA bills are co-authored by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Shrimp Slayer-Merced, who represents most of the Modesto Bee distribution area. A practical political consideration not mentioned by the editorialists is that without Pombo's hip pocket to ride in, Cardoza would lose influence in the one-party rightwing House. Rather than register as a Republican, Cardoza is a rightwing Democrat, of use to the House rightwing leadership as "bipartisan" cover for Pombo's radical rightwing legislation and decisions in the Resource Committee.

The Bee notes that Pombo was elevated over more senior House Republicans to the chairmanship of the Resources Committee. The Bee fails to mention that Pombo was also elevated several months ago over more senior Republicans to become vice chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

These important offices, once earned through years of service to the still untermed House, are now doled out by the radically rightwing Republican leadership to bolster its strengths here, fight off a challenge there and especially to reward loyalty to their radical rightwing policies. Once, even under periods of Republican control, the Congress chose its committee leaders on the basis of seniority, encyclopedic knowledge of esoteric subjects like dairy pricing, cotton and rice subsidies (especially at the beginning of a new Farm Bill debate), ability to compromise and negotiate across the aisle, and perhaps, from time to time, even a for little integrity, civility and authenticity.

In Pombo's case, the radical rightwing Republican leadership of the House, whose guidance the Modesto Bee has followed slavishly, has made Pombo as powerful as it could have in two areas -- resources policy and farm policy -- at a time when north San Joaquin Valley special interests are intent on liquidating both natural resources and agricultural land for a huge speculative housing boom.

It is a moment when the Bee editorial board should have stood for a principle. In fact, the "should" word was used:

It is highly unlikely they will pick McCloskey over their homegrown congressman. And we don't think they should.

The Bee editorialists give no reason why 11th congressional district Republicans "should" choose Pombo, but here are a few I imagine might have persuaded the editorialists:

Get rid of the ESA so developers can build from the Altamont to Bakersfield without any interference from environmental law and regulation, despite the air quality disaster unfolding in the San Joaquin Valley;

Let the government buy up agricultural land at development prices;

Get rid of that 3-cent per hundredweight dairy tax proposed for the new Farm Bill;

Continue strong subsidy support for cotton and rice;

Keep the cabal of Pombo, Cardoza and Valley congressmen Radanovich, Nunes and Costa in control for continued pro-growth, anti-environmental, agribusiness-subsidy and racist policies;

Keep out McCloskey, an independent candidate with a proven record for courageous, principled political positions, who would be no tool for regional special interests;

If necessary (if Pombo is indicted before November), elect one of the Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to see who can be the biggest tool of special interests;

Neither Pombo or the Democrats would be votes to impeach the president; McCloskey has shown he has the courage to take that position if he decided it was the right thing to do.

The Modesto Bee sold its readers down the River of Stupid with this endorsement. It was cowardly, corrupt and dumb -- a combination of components in political policies we are finding more common by the day whenever our leaders speak.

Bill Hatch
-----------------------------

Pombo best among GOP options, but he'll have explaining to do later

Last Updated: May 18, 2006, 04:23:03 AM PDT

With his close ties to disgraced Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, contributions from clients of admitted criminal Jack Abramoff, and his off-the-wall plan to sell national parks, Richard Pombo looks to be ripe for defeat in the 11th Congressional District.
We don't think so; not this time. None of Pombo's problems will matter to the majority of Republican voters in a district that includes most of San Joaquin and parts of Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. In this primary, the district's Republican voters are unlikely to vote against their seven-term representative. After all, he is the same big business-friendly, hardball playing, conservative Republican they've been electing since 1992.

As a protegé of DeLay, Pombo was elevated over more senior members to the chair of the House Resources Committee. From that position, he has forged a valley coalition that includes Democrats and Republicans. While we often disagree with the direction he has taken the committee, he has been effective in many ways.

In the primary, Republicans must choose between Pombo and 78-year-old renegade Pete McCloskey (retired Tracy rancher Tom Benigno is a nonfactor). It is highly unlikely they will pick McCloskey over their homegrown congressman. And we don't think they should.

Angry over Pombo's attacks on the Endangered Species Act, of which McCloskey was co-author, Pombo's opponent moved into the district last year to give GOP voters an alternative. This has provided a loud and healthy airing of issues and a real campaign instead of the proforma exercise Pombo usually goes through to win re-election.

We admire McCloskey's quixotic quest, but we doubt that the district's Republicans are interested in an alternative. Besides, even a deeply flawed Pombo has more to offer the district than McCloskey.

It could be a different story in November. Then, a well-financed Democrat with distinctly differing views will present a clearer alternative. Then, Pombo will have to explain why 15 American Indian tribes, all with business before his House committee and some represented by Abramoff, have been so generous to him; why he has voted to protect oil companies' royalties and increase their profits; why he worked so hard to protect DeLay's power, and why he wanted to sell off pieces of15 national parks.

Republican voters should stick with Pombo — at least until they have a better alternative.

| »


To manage site Login