9-1-09

 
9-1-09
Badlands Journal
Dear Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Let's make a deal...Badlands Journal editorial board
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2009-08-31/007391
Let's make a deal
"Dennis Cardoza is the greatest congressman in the history of the world," he announced, quickly repeating it and adding for good measure, "That's my story and, as you can see, I'm sticking to it."
Through the course of our meeting, he repeatedly described Cardoza as a much-needed voice of reason, consensus builder and bipartisan advocate on Capitol Hill.
"Unfortunately, in Congress as in the rest of the country, we're becoming more and more polarized," Hoyer told us. "The real issue in America is that we are compartmentalizing ourselves -- not by force but by choice."
That has shown up most recently in the heated -- and often nasty -- town hall meetings on health care reform. Cardoza has been criticized for not holding town hall meetings, but Hoyer defended the local congressman's decision to instead host telephone sessions, which he described as "much more effective."
"People are afraid, and they're angry," Hoyer said, adding that it's understandable, given the economic crisis, the drop in value of retirement and investment funds, the housing crisis and rising unemployment. "They have a lot of anger at anyone in power. In the midst of this comes health care reform. It has become the focus for their anger and fear."
For his part, Cardoza said he hadn't been asked by one person to hold a town hall meeting. And, though he didn't say so, don't look for him to hold one anytime soon. -- Mark Vasche, Modesto Bee, Aug. 30, 2009
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer believes "Dennis Cardoza is the greatest congressman in the history of the world." If the majority leader believed Cardoza's district thought the same, he probably wouldn't be out here peddling this line of the well-known substance.
We are tempted to imagine that Hoyer sees strong opposition to Cardoza in Mike Berryhill and is either drawing a line in the sand or running a bluff on House Republicans. The message, not really for our consumption, is that the House Democrats will pour in the necessary cash to defend the 18th California Congressional District seat against a well-financed Republican campaign. So, Hoyer might be telling House Republicans, "don't even think about it." But, before local Democrats relax, wouldn't it be nice to hear if Speaker Pelosi, who actually comes from California, thinks "Dennis Cardoza is the greatest congressman in the history of the world."
We suggest an easier way of handling this problem, which is that Dennis Cardoza doesn't like his district anymore and spends more time messing around in other peoples' water politics than working on the economic disaster in his own district. Let's make a deal. This fellow, Rep. John Sarbanes, who represents the district where Cardoza now lives, seems to be intelligent, articulate, he cares about healthcare reform and working people, and practiced law for about 20 years before running for Congress. An added plus is that there is no record of Sarbanes having promoted lady mud-wrestling contests. He might also have a working congressional office. He might also be capable of speaking to people with whom he does not agree. He might even be the sort of congressman that Democrats would not be ashamed to work for.  
If Hoyer truly believes "Dennis Cardoza is the greatest congressman in the history of the world," we propose a deal: send Sarbanes out here and put Cardoza in Sarbanes' Maryland seat. Cardoza seems to prefer the East and perhaps Sarbanes' horizons would be broadened by a few terms in a western district with a median household income half of his Maryland district's, where he can represent the unworking people Cardoza doesn't like to be around or have his children around their children. They are both familiar with polluted estuaries -- the Delta here, Chesapeake Bay there.
This deal may face insurmountable legal hurdles. Sarbanes may not want to move out to this scene of global finance, insurance and real estate fraud, where any public expression for the Endangered Species Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, or a single-payer health plan, is political anathema.  In other words, there is no Democratic Party in the 18th congressional district of California. All we have is a swarm of boll weevils deranged by pesticide.
Merced Sun-Star
Employee files lawsuit against Merced Irrigation District
Allegations include racial discrimination and harassment...JONAH OWEN LAMB
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/1032162.html
A 16-year employee of Merced Irrigation District has filed a lawsuit against the agency alleging racial discrimination, sexual favoritism and harassment.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 27 in federal court in Fresno by Rodrigo Flores, 33, alleges that MID promoted unqualified whites over more qualified minorities with superior experience and credentials.
"MID has a corporate culture of racial discrimination where Caucasians are elevated and minorities are not permitted the same advantages and opportunities of being hired, promoted and other benefits and advantages of employment," the suit stated.
An investigation by the state body responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws found insufficient evidence to substantiate the suit's claims. The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFHE) investigates such claims, yet its findings cannot bar someone from suing in various courts.
Flores' lawsuit is the second such suit to be filed this year. The first was filed by the same law firm for MID employee Lamonte Tumbling.
Flores wouldn't comment on the case.
MID counsel Kenneth Robbins said he couldn't comment on the case either since he hadn't yet seen the suit.
The Flores case describes several instances when Flores was allegedly harassed and passed over for advancement by MID management.
In October 2005, according to the suit, Flores witnessed a female MID employee -- who was allegedly having an affair with an MID manager -- come to work drunk. The next day the manager accosted Flores for not telling him his girlfriend was at work, drunk. According to filings, the manager said, "Real men take care of women," and "Next time you better call me, or she could get fired."
After that incident, Flores claimed the harrasment continued.
Neither the manager nor the unidentified female would comment on the suit. In March 2007 MID hired Janet Hughes, 51, to a human resources position she was unqualified for, according to the suit. Flores, who claims he was qualified, applied for the job and was denied. Hughes had no human resources experience except for working as a secretary at Merced College, the suit said.
Hughes declined comment on the suit.
In another charge, a hiring committee passed Flores over for one of two sales positions, according to the suit. The positions were filled instead by white men with less experience and fewer credentials than Flores.
Flores has a master's degree in business administration, according to CSU Stanislaus. Flores was subsequently told that he wasn't chosen because he wasn't a "team player."
Before Flores filed suit against MID, he appealed to the district's board of directors in August. Flores told the board about harassment and unsuccessful promotions. The meeting's minutes said, "He expressed a desire to resolve his concerns diplomatically, but stated management has no desire for change which may force him to file suit with the Board having no knowledge of the situation."
Flores also filed a complaint with the state's DFHE, which deals with discrimination issues. According to the DFHE, which investigated his claims, there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove any wrongdoing by MID.
In addition to detailing Flores' claims, the case repeatedly mentions a similar lawsuit filed by Tumbling, a black employee at MID who alleges similar treatment. Tumbling claims he was demoted and harassed because he is black, among other charges.
Cardoza's influence in Washington...Off The 99...8-29-09
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/offthe99/
The nation's most pressing challenges -- the troubled economy, the foreclosure crisis, drought, and the health care crisis -- are as present in Merced as they are anywhere. In fact, they are concentrated here. For Congressman Dennis Cardoza, trying to get Washington's powerbrokers to aid the region has been a tough climb.
But recent events have thrust Cardoza and his conservative Blue Dog Democrats into an influential position in Washington. Now to pass controversial legislation the democratic leadership needs the Blue Dogs. Is Cardoza using his position as a go between with the Democratic leadership and his Blue Dog allies in order to bring Merced's issues to the attention of Congressional leaders?
"Off The 99" spoke with reporter Susan Ferrechio from The Washington Examiner to tell us how Cardoza's position in the Washington power structure may be changing and what that means for Merced. We also sat in on a Sun-Star editorial meeting with Cardoza and House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Download the audio file.
Letter: A clever move by Cardoza...RICHARD H. LEWIS, Merced ...8-31-09
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/180/v-print/story/1029971.html
Editor: What a brave soul we have in Dennis Cardoza. He actually brought House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to meet with two of his most ardent supporters in the editors of the Sun-Star and The Modesto Bee.
The story on page one Wednesday quoted him as saying that no one he has spoken with during his visit has asked him to have a town hall meeting to discuss health care reform. Really? No one? Not even you, Mr. Editor?
The story also said he did not invite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to come with him as it might have "tarnished his reputation as a Blue Dog -- fiscally conservative -- Democrat."
No worries there. Dennis Cardoza is not a conservative.
I guess it is just as well there has been no town hall meeting.
Heaven forbid someone might actually question Cardoza's behavior in Washington or his decision to vote for all things Pelosi.
There can be no doubt that he is clever, as his fearless decision to evade those he claims to represent is a masterpiece of bait and switch. I am so proud.
Letter: Letter response...JIM ORTEGA, Merced
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/180/v-print/story/1032157.html
Editor: I just read Richard Lewis' letter to the editor Monday regarding the courageous Dennis Cardoza (I am going to stop calling him congressman because he isn't earning that title) .. And where are you, Mr. Editor? What is your position on the necessity of representatives to actually stand next to their constituents when they talk to them? Where is your powerful voice in this? You haven't exactly taken up the flag and rallied to keep the heat on this fat cat to do his job.
Why can't he have a town hall meeting? I mean he's here in Merced, isn't he? He ain't doing much else.
I'll take my answer off the air, thanks ... a bunch.
Letter: Government jobs...KEITH LAW, Merced
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/180/v-print/story/1032149.html
Editor: I am among the majority of Merced County residents who voted for Barack Obama. Like most, I understood that he would work to reform our ailing health care system.
Like other letter writers, I would like to hear Rep. Dennis Cardoza's views on the issue; however, given the ideological blinders and threatening conduct of the right-wing opponents of real reform I do not blame him for opting out of a town hall meeting.
Anyone who has witnessed the right-wing extremists who are showing up at town hall meetings knows that they do not want a "robust and wide-open public debate" on the issue.
There is no way to have an intelligent debate about health care reform with people who think the very mention of a public option equates to a socialist government takeover.
Anyone who believes the government should not provide services is against the following: Social Security, Medicare, public education, postal services, police services, courts and prison systems, fire departments, the U.S. military, and the list goes on.
Indeed, more than one in every 10 U.S. jobs is directly or indirectly tied to a government job.
Modesto Bee
Don Pedro golf course closes under financial strain...Ron Agostini
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/837259.html
Lake Don Pedro Golf Resort and Country Club, reopened to much fanfare 18 months ago, again closes its gates today.
About 100 golfers squeezed in a final round Monday, though most of the staff was laid off Sunday.
Officials cited insufficient revenue, spiking water bills and, especially, a downsized economy for Don Pedro's shut-down.
"They've done some great things up here. It used to be run-down. Now it's beautiful," said Modesto's Floyd Padgett, a Don Pedro regular who teed it up for the last time Monday afternoon. "We knew there were some struggles."
Head professional Bill Cloud, a Lake Don Pedro resident, said the semi-private club averaged only 60 to 70 rounds played per day and drew only about 75 members -- not enough to sustain itself.
"A lot of people are sad. We just had some people from the Bay Area who wanted to get in one more round here," Cloud said. "Everyone is just flabbergasted that it's going down. It was just a series of things."
Tom Porter, president of the San Ramon-based Deerwood Corporation which pumped $11 million into the Lake Don Pedro restoration, said he'll retain a staff to maintain the 18-hole championship course. Commitments to upcoming company tournaments also will be honored.
"We couldn't get enough players players to come back," said Porter, 78, a resident of Danville who spent portions of his childhood in both Waterford and Oakdale. "We're going to keep it beautiful. If things turn around, we might reopen next spring or sometime a year from now."
Lake Don Pedro, a Billy Bell design which was opened in 1970, rotated through several owners before it was closed in 2001. The course had gone to seed when Porter, a former Navy air crewman during the Korean War, put Deerwood to work to revive it.
The par 72 was lengthened to more than 7,000 yards, and the greens were enlarged and relocated. All the bunkers and irrigation were redone and about 1,000 trees were planted. The par-3 ninth, featuring a waterfall and surrounding landscape, became the signature hole. The project also featured a new clubhouse, bar and restaurant, 18 townhouses and 50 new homes.
Porter still spends about three days a week at his hillside home near the course. Most of the proceeds from his 2007 book, "I Remember," -- which chronicles his rags-to-riches story -- went to Lake Don Pedro schools.
Still, drawing enough customers to the foothill resort remained difficult. Porter said he lost $3 million since it reopened in February of 2008.
"We're not going out broke. We don't owe a nickel to anybody," he said. "I'm not giving up. As long as I'm living and breathing, that (a reopening) could happen."
San Francisco Chronicle
EPA to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant...Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Hearst Washington Bureau
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/01/MNM219GIJD.DTL&type=printable
Carbon dioxide will soon be declared a dangerous pollutant - a move that could help propel slow-moving climate-change legislation on Capitol Hill, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal "endangerment finding," which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, probably would "happen in the next months."
Jackson announced her timeline even as top senators said they were delaying plans to introduce legislation that would set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Senators had been scheduled to unveil legislation next Tuesday, but the date has now been pushed back to later in September.
The House narrowly passed a broad energy and climate-change bill in June, but supporters have moved more slowly in the Senate, where the issue has been trumped recently by work on the health care overhaul.
The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.
A formal endangerment finding would obligate the agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act - even if Congress doesn't pass a final climate-change bill.
President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress - rather than the EPA - take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.
"Legislation is so important, because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly (and) least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," Jackson said. "We get further faster without top-down regulation."
But Jackson insisted the EPA would continue on a path that began when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated if the government determined they threatened the public.
"Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling," Jackson said.
Supporters of climate change legislation are hoping the threat of EPA-mandated limits will spur congressional action.
Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., had been planning to introduce their own climate change bill next week. But in a joint statement Monday, the pair said they were delaying the bill introduction until "later in September" because of the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Kerry's hip surgery in August, and Kerry's membership on the Finance Committee, which is negotiating health care.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee, said the delay "is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic Party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation."
Indybay
Why Is Darrell Steinberg Pushing Dangerous Water Package?...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/31/18620311.php
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is trying to push through a water package (the five proposed bills that are now moving into the conference committee process) that would reshape California water policy - and serve as a road map to the construction of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's peripheral canal. The following is the latest action alert from Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta, http://www.restorethedelta.org:
Greetings!
"Anything that keeps a politician humble is healthy for democracy." ---An Irish Proverb
Quantity Over Quality Legislation
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is trying to push through a water package (the five proposed bills that are now moving into the conference committee process) that would reshape California water policy. The similarities between this backroom water deal, which has left Delta communities and fishing representatives out of the process, and energy deregulation are startling. The proposed package would allow the legislature to give up their authority on oversight and costs regarding future decision regarding the Delta (including new conveyance) to a seven member appointed council, with six of the appointees coming from outside the Delta.
The Council would have the authority to authorize the construction of the peripheral canal, a project that is estimated to cost between 10 and 40 billion dollars before environmental mitigation costs. The canal, a 48-mile long ditch comparable in size to the Panama Canal, won't make more water for California. It will just ship water from the north to Western Central Valley Agribusiness - at the expense of Delta fisheries and Delta family farmers.
Even though Senator Steinberg didn't author the legislation, his participation in moving it through the building leads us to ask the following:
1) Why is he selling out Sacramento (his district) to send water to Western Central Valley Agribusiness?
2) Why isn't he protecting the Delta?
3) Why is he willing to spend so much money on a peripheral canal that won't make more water?
4) Does he think what's in the water bond doesn't matter because it won't get funded? Doesn't he know that Californians want permanent solutions for the state budget and water management practices?
There are better ways in terms of cost and environmental effectiveness to make more water for California, such as water recycling, floodplain restoration, groundwater cleanup and desalinization, stormwater capture and reuse. This needs to be the center of California's water policy, especially in an era of excessive deficits.
Please contact Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg to make clear your displeasure with his promotion of this water package. His Capitol office number is (916) 651-4006.
To Validate What We Are Saying
Restore the Delta staff have known intuitively for some time that their calls for breaking dependence on Delta water exports through regional water self-sufficiency programs have resonated well with the public. Nonetheless, there comes a time when one must quantify one's assertions. Consequently, the following letter and poll results were sent to all legislators this morning from Restore the Delta.
Dear Legislator:
Attached you will find a copy of a statewide voter survey on water issues conducted on behalf of Restore the Delta by EMC Research of Oakland, CA. EMC Research conducted 800 telephone interviews among registered voters statewide in California from August 23-27, 2009.
The poll indicates that while voters are concerned about water and ensuring a long-term reliable water supply is a "very high priority," all segments of voters are strongly opposed to a Peripheral Canal and very close to half oppose a bond for new dams, reservoirs or other water infrastructure projects.
It is clear there is very little support among the electorate for many of the elements included in the 2009 legislative water package.
As the data clearly indicates, voters appear poised to reject the legislation should it appear before them in 2010 either directly (in the form of a bond) or indirectly (as the result of a referendum, for example.)
We hope this information is of value to you as you consider the 2009 legislative water package.
Sincerely, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
Voters Throughout State Are Opposed to Peripheral Canal...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/31/18620296.php
A poll of registered voters throughout California released today indicates all segments of voters are strongly opposed to a Peripheral Canal and nearly half oppose a bond for new dams, reservoirs or other water infrastructure projects.
A poll of registered voters throughout California released today indicates all segments of voters are strongly opposed to a Peripheral Canal and nearly half oppose a bond for new dams, reservoirs or other water infrastructure projects. The poll also disclosed that voters believe that ensuring a long-term reliable water supply is a "very high priority."
Ruth Bernstein and Tom Patras of EMC Research in Oakland, CA conducted the statewide voter survey on water issues on behalf of Restore the Delta. EMC Research conducted 800 telephone interviews among registered voters statewide in California from August 23-27, 2009.
The poll was released as Legislators, including Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), and Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), are trying to fast-track a dangerous package of five bills through the Capitol that Delta advocates say will serve as a road map to the peripheral canal. The bills would establish a politically appointed Delta Stewardship Council, four of whose seven members would be appointed by the Governor. The council would have the power to authorize construction and issue fees and bonds to pay for a peripheral canal.
For over two years, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and corporate agribusiness have been campaigning for a peripheral canal and more dams to increase water exports to Westlands Water District and southern California at great expense to collapsing fish populations. Authorizing the formation of this council with four seats appointed by the Governor amounts to a virtual endorsement of the canal.
"It is clear there is very little support among the electorate for many of the elements included in the 2009 legislative water package," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta (http://www.restorethedelta.org). "As the data clearly indicates, voters appear poised to reject the legislation should it appear before them in 2010 either directly (in the form of a bond) or indirectly (as the result of a referendum)."
Seventy-six percent of voters feel that California is off on the wrong track, compared to only 13% who say things are headed in the right direction, according to Bernstein and Patras.
When asked to use a 1 to 7 scale to rate priorities for the State of California, 68% rate “Fixing the state budget” as a 7, making this the most highly rated priority by California voters in this survey. Other items that received high priority ratings from voters in this survey included: “Improving the economy and creating jobs,” (63% rated a ‘7’); “Reducing the state’s debt,” (56%); and, “Improving public education,” (55%).
"Overall awareness of water issues is quite high, with 40% saying they have heard a great deal recently about water issues in California, and another 39% saying they have heard some information recently," the report stated. "Additionally 51% rate 'Ensuring a long-term, reliable supply of water as a very high priority (a 7 on a 1 to 7 scale) and 35% rate 'promoting water conservation' as a very high priority."
However, when asked about a proposed state bond to fund water improvement projects almost half (48% )of voters say they would oppose a bond for new dams, reservoirs and other water infrastructure that would cost the general fund approximately $700 million per year in debt service. Under half, 44%, of voters say they would support the bond.
When asked specifically about awareness of the Peripheral Canal, about one in five voters (18%) said they had recently read, seen, or heard something about it. Awareness is higher in Northern California with 36% of voters in the Sacramento media market saying they've seen or heard something recently, 24% in Fresno, and 20% in the Bay Area compared to only 13% in the Los Angeles media market.
As expected, many voters have no opinion when asked simply: “Based on what you know today would you support or oppose construction of a Peripheral Canal in California?” But one third (34%) of all voters in California initially say they oppose the canal while 39% are undecided and only 28% indicate support.
Important to note is that intensity of opposition is nearly three times intensity of support with 14% of voters saying they strongly oppose the canal while only 5% are strongly in support. Additionally among those that have heard something recently about the canal, a majority (54%) is opposed while 35% indicate support.
Opposition to canal intensifies to 70 percent as voters are informed about cost
"As voters are educated with some additional information, including some basic facts about the canal and the Delta, opposition increases significantly," the report stated. "A majority moves to opposition after simply hearing that the canal would move water from Northern to Southern California around the Delta, that it would take 10 to 15 years to build, and would be 50 miles long and 1000 feet wide. The vast majority (72%) become opposed when they hear the cost could be as high as $20 billion."
Finally, survey respondents were then read a series of statements that included the positions of both the proponents and opponents of the canal project. After both sides’ positions were presented, respondents were asked one final time whether they support or oppose the Peripheral Canal project.
Once again the results show that as voters learn more, the opposition to the project intensifies. In particular, statements regarding the environment and the state budget compelled many voters to oppose the project:
“Supporters of the canal say it will improve water quality in Southern California and would make the Delta more natural and environmentally friendly. Opponents say diverting water around the Delta would destroy the Pacific Ocean’s largest estuary, and critical habitat for fish, migratory birds, and other wildlife will be lost forever.”
In response to this statement, 50% indicated theye were much more likely to oppose the Peripheral Canal Project (and another 24% are somewhat likely to oppose)
“Supporters of the canal say it will stimulate the economy and create thousands of jobs. Opponents say it will add a billion dollars a year to the state debt, which is already more than sixty billion dollars.”
In response to this statement, 49% indicated they were much more likely to oppose the Peripheral Canal Project (and 25% somewhat likely to oppose).
"The survey data shows that Northern California voters are initially more aware of the canal and have the highest levels of opposition," the report concluded. "However, as voters throughout the state learn more, opposition becomes high throughout the state."
Another interesting conclusion of the poll is that support for the canal project does not appear to be ideologically based with Democrats and Republicans equally in opposition. "Initially, one third (33%) of Democrats are opposed while 31% are in support," the report said. "Among Republicans, 34% are opposed to the canal while only 27% indicate support. After hearing all of the information, 72% of Republicans are opposed (42% strongly) and 80% of Democrats are opposed (50% strongly)."
Restore the Delta, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and other opponents have characterized the water bill package as a "backdoor attempt" to reroute the Sacramento River around the Delta in order to provide increased quantities of subsidized water to grow subsidized crops on vast tracts of desert land in the southern San Joaquin Valley. A peripheral canal would further degrade water quality in the Delta estuary and send endangered salmon and pelagic (open water) fisheries into extinction. And, the general public would be tagged with paying for this scheme to benefit industrial-scale corporate agribusiness at the expense of almost 500,000 acres of family farms in the Delta.
Another looming disaster like the energy deregulation fiasco?
A broad array of fishing, environmental, farming, tribal and community groups and individuals are calling upon the Legislature to put the brakes on the present "Mad Hatter's rush" to enact water legislation in the remaining few days of the session and to carefully deliberate the issue next year.
"Unfortunately, Senate Leader Steinberg seems to believe that, given the Legislature's current 9-11% approval rating, a water package is essential in order to improve the public's perception of the Legislature - regardless of merits of the bills - regardless of their effects on one of the great estuarine treasures of the world," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (http://www.calsport.org).
"It is sadly reminiscent of the mad rush to the $50 billion energy deregulation fiasco," emphasized Jennings. "If Steinberg wishes to avoid becoming the Senator Peace, of energy deregulation fame, perhaps he should consider that a vast majority of his constituents are opposed to a peripheral canal."
Ironically, the same day that the poll was released showing opposition to the canal project, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has presided over the unprecedented collapse of Sacramento River salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish populations, announced the creation of the "Clean Energy Workforce Training Program." He touted the program as a $75 million investment establishing the nation’s largest state-sponsored "green jobs training program" in one of his routine greenwashing opportunities.
"The program leverages federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, public-private partnerships and state and local funding, to train over 20,000 new or re-skilled clean energy workers to build a workforce capable of performing the jobs necessary to meet the state’s goals of renewable energy development, climate change reduction, clean transportation and green building construction for a new green economy," according to the Governor's Office.
My question is: are some of these "green jobs" designed to plan or build the peripheral canal and dams that Schwarzenegger is so obsessed with? I sure hope not!
Methodology:
EMC Research conducted 800 telephone interviews among registered voters statewide in California. The survey results have an overall margin of error of +/- 3.45%. The study was conducted August 23-27, 2009. For more information, contact: Roger Salazar at (916) 444-8897.
Group Sues Water Board Over EID Discharge Permit into Deer Creek...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/31/18620294.php
Below is a CSPA press release regarding a lawsuit filed in federal District Court in Sacramento against the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board over its issuance of a seriously defective wastewater discharge permit for El Dorado Irrigation District's Deer Creek treatment facility. Deer Creek is a tributary to the Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River and the imperiled California Delta. The Regional Board permit violates numerous fundamental regulatory requirements. EID is a Real Party in Interest in the complaint filed Friday and served today.
PRESS RELEASE
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
3536 Rainier Avenue, Stockton, CA 95204
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Information
Bill Jennings, CSPA Executive Director: 209-464-5067, Cell 209-938-9053, deltakeep [at] aol.com
Andrew Packard, Esq., 707-763-7227, Andrew [at] PackardLawOffices.com
Groups Sue Regional Water Board Over EID Discharge Permit
Permit violates fundamental regulatory requirements protecting streams
Stockton, CA - Monday, August 31, 2009. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) has filed a lawsuit against the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for issuing a permit to the El Dorado Irrigation District's (EID) Deer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The facility discharges 3.6 million gallons of wastewater a day to the seriously degraded Deer Creek; tributary to the Consumes River, Mokelumne River and thence the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary. The Complaint, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges the Regional Board failed to comply with fundamental state and federal regulatory requirements in issuing the EID wastewater discharge permit.
“The Deer Creek permit represents another failure by the Regional Board to comply with laws designed to protect the water quality and fisheries of the Central Valley,” said CSPA Executive Director Bill Jennings. “Nondiscretionary requirements crucial to protecting the environment are being routinely ignored by the Regional Board, under pressure from dischargers. Consequently, our rivers, streams and estuaries are becoming increasingly polluted,” he said.
Andrew Packard, an attorney representing CSPA stated that, “As the water quality of our streams continues to decline, the Regional Board is opening the pollution spigots more rather than ensuring that cities and industries take steps to reduce their already dangerous levels of pollution. California's water quality laws are supposed to protect water quality, not shield polluters from their requirements.”
The Petition of a Writ of Mandate alleges the Regional Board failed to comply with state and federal anti-degradation requirements, failed to included effluent limitations for constituents with a potential to exceed water quality standards, improperly established limits for metals, failed to include mandated monitoring requirements, ignored the administrative record and failed to comply with basic procedures for public comment and review.
The Law Offices of Andrew Packard, Michael Jackson Law Office and Jackson & Tuerck, Attorneys at Law, represent CSPA in this matter. _________________________________________________________
CSPA is a non-profit public benefit conservation and research organization established in 1983 for the purpose of conserving, restoring, and enhancing the state's water quality and fishery resources and their aquatic ecosystems and associated riparian habitats. CSPA's website is: http://www.calsport.org.
Bill Jennings, Chairman
Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
3536 Rainier Avenue
Stockton, CA 95204
p: 209-464-5067
c: 209-938-9053
f: 209-464-1028
e: deltakeep [at] aol.com   http://www.calsport.org
Law Professor and Former State Water Board Member Rips Delta Water Bill Package...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/31/18620313.php
Below is an introductory paragraph and an excellent communication from Mark Del Piero to Alf Brandt of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee concerning the Delta Water Bills.
Law Professor and Former State Water Board Member Rips Delta Water Bill Package
In an email communication to Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee consultant Alf Brandt, Mark Del Piero, a water rights law professor and former State Water Resources Control Board Member (1992-99), characterized the proposed water bill package as a thinly disguised attempt to reallocate the state's water and a backdoor attack on 130 years of California water law and legal precedent. Mr. Del Piero's detailed email echoes the concerns of numerous organizations and individuals that the present mad rush to pass these bills in their present form will likely result in disastrous unintended and redirected consequences for the environment, fisheries and the people of California. The communication is reprinted below.
Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:56:48 PM
From: MJDelPiero
To: alf.brandt [at] asm.ca.gov, Alf.Brandt [at] asm.ca.gov
DEAR ALF:
Thank you for talking to me the other day, and for the opportunity to review the legislative package that is to be presented to the Conference Committee of the state legislature. After over twenty-five years in the public and private practice of water law, and as an adjunct professor of Water Law at Santa Clara University since 1992, I am very worried.
These bills, sadly, are just not very good and appear to be a thinly disguised attempt to reallocate the state's water and represent a backdoor attack on 130 years of California water law and legal precedent. The scary part is that it appears that no one understands or wants to publicly admit the unintended consequences that are going to result if these bills go forward without major clarifications.
Suffice to say that I am very, very concerned that this will make the situation far worse in the arena of litigation, and muddy the last thirty years of judicial decisions, which have clarified the Public Trust Doctrine. It's not surprising that the State Water Contractors are supportive of this scheme to enable water exporters, who are holding the most junior water rights, to secure upstream water at the expense of the most senior water rights holders. Incredulously, the scheme then tags the upstream water rights holders with much of the expense for facilitating the reallocation of water and mitigating the environmental consequences of reallocation. This will do great damage to Sacramento Valley farmers and municipalities in the medium and long term, and will be the full employment act for lawyers in the short term.
The package's failure to specifically, and without nuance or ambiguity, define numerous terms like “coequal,” “balanced” or “reliable” ensures twenty years of litigation (and millions of dollars of attorney's fees) as attorneys and the courts battle over their meaning. None of the bills acknowledge the fact that the State Water Board has issued rights to far more water than actually exists. Absent an admission of that TRUTH, there will never be a resolution to our water crisis.
Indeed, the legislation avoids the two actions that would meaningfully address the present water crisis: a mandate that the State Water Board aggressively begin the long overdue process of bringing water rights into conformance and balance with the amount of water that actually exists and an immediate repeal of the Monterey Agreement provisions that eliminated an “urban preference” that originally ensured water for the 20 million people on the South Coast during California's inevitable droughts. Surely, there should be a legislative water preference for 20 million people and the public trust resources of our state over cotton crops in Kern County.
I disagree with the Delta Vision Task Force's findings that new governance is required in the Delta. What is needed now is a legislative acceptance of the truth and legislative directives to reform the system to reflect the truth. An action that is desperately needed is meaningful enforcement of existing legal public trust and constitutional water doctrines and laws through the existing State Water Resources Control Board, not a new layer of bureaucracy and institutional inertia. Consequently, I urge that you recommend to the committee chairs to reject the legislation that promotes more water bureaucracy and wasteful spending on large water projects that will increase legal conflict and reduce water supply reliability far into California's future. "BEFORE ANYBODY SPENDS ANY MORE TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND BUILDS ANOTHER PIPE OR CANAL, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE REAL, WET WATER (TO WHICH THEY HAVE A REAL LEGAL ENTITLEMENT) THAT IS AVAILABLE TO FILL THE PIPE OR CANAL."
The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project have some of the most junior appropriative rights in California, with a face value of approximately 130 million acre-feet. A lot of that water doesn't even exist except in the wettest of years. By themselves, the face value of state and federal water rights in the Delta watershed exceed average annual Central Valley watershed runoff (29 million acre-feet) by a factor of 4.5. The California Department of Finance originally filed for these permits back in 1927, while other rights were filed for in the late 1930s. In terms of water appropriations, this is quite late in California history, since some pre-1914 appropriations date to Gold Rush days.
California has constitutional provisions prohibiting unreasonable use and diversion of water, a comprehensive Water Code, state and federal endangered species acts, water quality acts, environmental review acts and a Fish and Game Code that - while imperfect - are sufficient to equitably distribute available water and protect pelagic and salmonid fisheries. We have regulatory and resource agencies charged with implementing and enforcing these laws. The present crisis would have been prevented had these laws had been complied with and enforced. These laws are sufficient to fix the problem over time, if enforced.
Since at least 1979, it was recognized by the State Water Resources Control Board that “To provide full mitigation of project impacts on all fishery species now would require the virtual shutting down of the export pumps.” See SWRCB D-1485 page 13. Since that time, the export pumping has steadily increased to the point that the courts have recently intervened to curtail illegal export pumping.
In 1992 and 1993, when I was on the State Board, we came very close to adopting a Water Rights Decision (Draft Decision 1630) that would have addressed many if not all of these desired outcomes sought for the Delta today. I supported that draft and its policies. However, the then-administration intervened to keep the board majority from adopting the draft decision, which led to adoption of the Bay Delta Accord in 1994, followed by the establishment of the CalFED process, and the Monterey Amendments to the State Water Project contracts. These compromise actions have now clearly failed to keep the promise of “balance” and to protect the public trust resources in the Delta. Further, the Davis Administration made things even worse by allowing DWR to increase real exports from the Delta since 2001 that pushed the ecosystem into collapse by 2007. The current Administration can't legislatively create water, any more than the Wilson and Davis Administrations could, and these bills don't fix the problem either.
Despite an abundance of rhetoric on the value of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and "the expressed, bi-partisan, good intentions to restore it", the bill package is embarrassingly silent on specific standards, goals, or specific yardsticks that would measure and ensure restoration. It assigns all responsibility to develop protective measures to a Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process that is largely comprised of the representatives of interests, individuals, and agencies that for the last two decades ignored, acquiesced, and chaperoned the complete and practically irreversible collapse of the estuary. In fact, BDCP is largely a conveyance project masquerading as a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Since it is reasonable to assume that a Peripheral Canal would be operated without sufficient respect for Delta farmers and ecosystems, we may all expect the Canal (or other designs, such as “dual conveyance”) would remove fresh water supplies from Delta ecosystems, further reduce the diversity of aquatic habitats for failing species, and literally de-water the water rights of profitable Delta farms and communities with senior water rights. This is not conjecture; this is what will happen given the foreseeable consequences of these proposals within the context of existing laws.
A Peripheral Canal would shift the point at which Sacramento River water is exported to a point north of the Delta. This would shift the impacts of export diversions directly to the Sacramento River (and away from the San Joaquin), the last river in the Valley supporting substantial, but vulnerable salmon and steelhead populations. I believe this poses very grave long-term risks for salmonid fisheries that are already on the ropes. This is well documented by both the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service's recent biological opinion on present operations of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project.
A Peripheral Canal would increase the residence time of river flows reaching the Delta not otherwise diverted into the canal. This will do great damage to farmers and to the Sacramento Valley economy. Without greater regulation of upstream land uses (specifically agricultural practices and development restrictions, slower and lower water flows would increase pollutant concentrations, water temperatures, and dissolved oxygen problems in the Delta-all of which further compromise fish habitat, including the migration corridors of endangered anadromous salmonid fisheries and other beneficial uses of water. Lower freshwater flows to the Delta would increase algal blooms, and would increase exposure of fish larvae and smolts to predators and entrainment in reverse river channel flows heading to the export pumps.
Thank you very much for accepting these comments. As I indicated, I do not represent any clients on this matter, I don't have " a dog in this fight", but, as you know, I served from 1992-1999 on the SWRCB. I offer these comments because our state faces a grave crisis that will be made worse without significant revisions to these pieces of legislation.
This is a lot of information in a single e-mail but, as I said, the potential for a real and potentially irreversible NEW water rights problem will surely present itself unless more specific findings of fact, more legal detail, and more specific standards are included into any legislation before it is passed.
Very Best Regards to you and the Assemblyman,
Marc Del Piero
Press Enterprise
Debt delusions...Editorial...8-31-09
http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_
Opinion_S_op_01_ed_waterbond1.35c9463.html#
A flood of red ink is the wrong solution to California's water woes, particularly in the middle of a financial crisis. The state should not pursue borrowing more money for water needs when it faces huge budget shortfalls and has yet to settle basic water policy questions.
Make no mistake: The state's water system badly needs official attention. The environmental decline of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has endangered a water supply that reaches two-thirds of the state's population and irrigates millions of acres of agriculture. And long-term climate forecasts say California will need to collect more winter rains instead of relying on mountain snowpacks to store the water until the hot summer months.
But rushing to borrow more money now is the wrong approach to those issues. Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, last week announced plans for an $11.7 billion water bond for the 2010 ballot. The details are still vague, but the bond would apparently provide money for a variety of projects, including water storage, cleanup, recycling and conservation.
The timing is simply wrong, however. The Legislature wrestled with a $40 billion budget shortfall in February, and a $25 billion gap in July. Even then, legislators left the state with a deficit for the next fiscal year of at least $7 billion to $8 billion, and probably exceeding $10 billion. And the state's legislative analyst projects that large shortfalls will persist for years.
Adding another $11.7 billion in debt would add hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly interest payments, which the state would repay out of its deficit-ridden general fund. The state paid about $4.4 billion from the general fund in 2007-08 for debt service on infrastructure bonds. But the legislative analyst says that once the state markets all the bonds that remain unsold, annual debt payments would hit $9.2 billion in 2017-18 -- a figure representing about 10 percent of current-year general fund spending.
Additional borrowing is also premature when the state has not even spent all the money from previous water bonds. Including what the state proposes to spend this year, California has nearly $4 billion in existing water-related bond money available. So why the haste to borrow more?
Nor is there any reason to hurry when the Legislature has not even resolved the stickiest issues of state water policy. The state needs to find ways to protect the delta ecology without stopping water exports to the rest of the state. But there is precious little consensus on what the state should do. Any water discussions have been hamstrung for years by a legislative standoff over proposals for new dams.
Ensuring a reliable, sufficient water supply for the state's future will take public investment, certainly. But success in public investment requires a sound strategy, not a rush to fund some unspecified projects with borrowing the state cannot afford.
CNN Money
Pending home sales hit 6th straight increase
Index jumps by 3.2% in July, beating estimates and marking its longest streak on monthly increases on record...Julianne Pepitone
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/01/real_estate/pending_home_
sales_july/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More Americans signed sales contracts to buy homes in July than in June, marking the longest streak of monthly increases on record, said a report released Tuesday.
The pending home sales index from the National Association of Realtors rose 3.2% in July after rising by 3.6% in June. That's 12% higher than July 2008, and it marks the sixth straight increase since record-keeping began in 2001.
The reading far exceeded forecasts of economists surveyed by Briefing.com, who predicted a 1.5% increase.
Signed real estate contracts often take many weeks or months to complete, so they are considered a forward-looking indicator.
A new direction
Momentum in the housing market has clearly turned for the better, said NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun, in a written statement.
"The recovery is broad-based across many parts of the country," Yun said. "Housing affordability has been at record highs this year with the added stimulus of a first-time buyer tax credit."
The first-time home buyers tax credit, passed earlier this year as part of the economic stimulus package, is worth 10% of the home purchase price up to $8,000. People who have not owned a home in the previous three years are eligible for the credit.
However, the tax credit expires on Nov. 30 and it usually takes about 90 days to close on a house after a contract is signed. As of Sept. 1, there were only 90 days left before the credit ends.
Housing affordability has also improved, the NAR said.
The average middle-income family can now spend less than 25% of monthly income to buy a median-priced home, Yun said, adding that housing payments as a percentage of income in 2009 are at a record low.
"As long as home buyers stay within their budget, mortgage payments will be very manageable," Yun said.
Regional sales
The pending home sales index is broken down by regions. The West soared above the rest, jumping 12.1% in July, while the South saw pending home sales activity rise 3.1% for the month.
In the Northeast, activity fell 3%, and in the Midwest saw a decline of 2%.
The housing recovery mirage
With home prices rising even in California, it might seem that the worst is over for the housing market. But the good vibrations may be short lived...Colin Barr
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/01/news/economy/homebuilders.
fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009090106
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Is the housing bust over?
Shares of Toll Brothers (TOL), Hovnanian (HOV) and KB Home (KBH) and other builders have surged. The exchange-traded fund that tracks the group has nearly doubled since March.
Home starts have risen for five straight months, while sales of new homes recently hit their highest level since last September. Prices are up as well: the Case-Shiller index of national house prices rose 2.9% in the second quarter, ending a three-year decline.
These signs -- as well as anecdotal reports about house shoppers growing more willing to write a deposit check -- have executives at homebuilding firms declaring the worst is over.
"We believe declining cancellations and more solid demand indicate that the housing market is stabilizing," Toll Brothers chief executive officer Bob Toll said this month in a conference call with investors and analysts.
But housing boosters have forecast turnarounds repeatedly since the market peaked in 2006, only to be proved wrong by plunging prices. And skeptics say they're wrong again now.
They argue that a deeply indebted consumer, a weak job market, expiring incentives and rising foreclosures spell a quick end to any housing rebound.
"We're entering the phase where the homeowner has to earn his way out of this mess," said Mark Hanson, who runs a California real estate research firm. "This summer is shaping up as the gateway into the next move down."
Sales shift
Hanson attributes the much-ballyhooed recent house price gains to a shift in the types of properties changing hands. Earlier this year, as many as half of all transactions nationally were resales of foreclosed properties, largely at low prices.
Since then, so-called organic sales (those not involving distressed properties) have risen while foreclosure sales have remained stable. This improved mix -- together with cheap financing and a couple of popular tax incentives -- helped to revive prices in some hard-hit areas.
Thus, house prices in California have risen for three straight months, according to data provider MDA DataQuick. Foreclosure sales there have dropped to about a third of recent transactions from a high of 57% earlier this year.
But with schools opening up again and the summer home-selling season winding down, sales by nondistressed sellers are likely to fall in coming months, Hanson said.
Adding to the pressure on prices, the end is in sight (or already here) for some popular housing subsidies. An $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time home buyers is due to sunset in December. A $10,000 California tax credit for buyers of newly constructed houses expired last month.
Prime problems
Another concern is that the housing woes appear to be spreading well beyond the questionable borrowers who were at the center of the first stage of the financial crisis.
While many mortgage defaults in 2007 and 2008 stemmed from frauds perpetrated at the height of the bubble, a greater share of problems now are being driven by the weak job market. That's evident in the fact that more so-called prime borrowers -- those with the best credit histories -- are falling behind on their payments.
Prime fixed-rate mortgages now account for about a third of foreclosure starts, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. MBA chief economist Jay Brinkmann said in a statement earlier this month this is "a sign that mortgage performance is once again being driven by unemployment."
Some 44% of prime borrowers fell behind on payments last year because they lost a job or income. That's up from 36% in 2006, according to data from Freddie Mac.
Other numbers bode ill for a housing recovery as well. The inventory of houses for sale has come down from a recent peak but remains "high on a historical basis," Office of Thrift Supervision economist Sharon Stark said this month.
"The supply of homes continues to be a drag on home prices and the ability for home prices to recover," she added.
An orgy of homebuilding over the past decade has driven vacancy rates higher. The Census Bureau said 14.3% of rental and owner-occupied housing units were vacant in the second quarter, compared with 9.7% a decade ago.
And Hanson said the pace of foreclosures could soon accelerate as mortgage servicers catch up on foreclosures they have delayed while grappling with new mortgage modification guidelines.
"There could be a big wall of foreclosures once the servicers get running again," he said.
Even Toll, who was talking about housing markets "dancing on the bottom or slightly above that" as long ago as December 2006, has been saying lately that the homebuilders could use a hand -- from taxpayers, of course.
Toll said on a conference call Aug. 12 that the government should consider a Cash for Clunkers type plan for the housing market: giving consumers a rebate to scrap an old home and buy a new one.
Toll argued that a four-month program that offered people $15,000 vouchers for new home construction could "put twice as many people to work, twice as fast as what's being done with the auto industry."
It won't be a shocker if Toll finds some takers in Congress for that one, given the growing jobless rolls across the nation. But legislators might first want to consider how effective such a plan might be.
"It took 10 years to create this problem," said Hanson. "Do people really believe we can correct it all in 36 months?"