9-9-09

 
9-9-09
Badlands Journal
The price of dirt, Part 2...Badlands Journal editorial board
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2009-09-08/007402
Next the supervisors took up state cuts to funds provided through Proposition 1A (2006, Legislature’s ability to divert gas tax funds for other uses, treating the diversion as a termed loan). Assistant CEO Brown told the supervisors that the state has taken $6.1 million in county funds. It’s a loan the state has to pay back by June 2013. However, the supervisors could choose to securitize the loan and get the county’s money back this year in the market, Brown suggested. The caveat is that because of the creditworthiness of the state, the security instrument may be discounted so deeply in the market that it may be a significant hit. At this point, the CEO’s office was asking authorization to explore securitization.
Securitization would mean that the loan, presumably a cash-flow producing asset, would be packaged into a security instrument and sold to investors.
The supervisors’ wrath against the state knew no bounds.
Walsh fulminated that the only people that will lend money to the state are people who have no choice -- the counties.
Chairwoman Deidre Kelsey said, “The state got its big bump on property taxes just like we did. We saved ours. WE were pretty damned prudent. The state spent every cent it had. When you see the state approving purchases of wetlands around Long Beach while other things are going on, it’s shocking to me. We are a subdivision of the state and they have the opportunity to pick our pockets at will.”
In California, development projects are decided by local land-use authorities, like Merced County and its cities. The state did not make Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties the foreclosure-rate capital of the nation. That was achieved by its local leaders' land-use policies.
The item passed unanimously.
The next item was about staff reductions in the Mental Health Department, reductions of outside contracts, cutting back a mental clinic in Livingston from five to three days a week, and eliminating six vacant positions and laying off 34 Mental Health employees.
Manuel Jimenez, who has been department director for four months, talked about trying to find a design the department’s core mission assuming 10, 20, 30, or 40-percent cuts. “Unfortunately, the rain came before the ark was built. We couldn’t save all the programs but we are saving Community United by Empowerment (CUBE) with staff reductions,” he said, adding that he may be able get three back as interns because they are in college. The state cut managed care by 50 percent and eliminated Prop. 36, a drug rehabilitation program, he added.
The public comment on this item began with an Atwater contractor for the department. “We will be providing services to other counties, not yours as a result of these cuts,” she said.
A recovering addict and county employee said that three family members also ex-addicts and that three members of family work for the county. She works in dependency drug court, helping to restore families, she said. She has served more than 40 clients in 4 years, and only lost two, she claimed.” These were hard core addicts probably going to lose their kids.” Her program claimed nearly 50-percent success with long-range addicts.
She noted that the state is going to be releasing addicts from prisons soon. “We are already overwhelmed. People don’t stay clean when they are on a waiting list. They continue to use and commit crimes.” She mentioned that she has two foster kids, orphaned by murder, they need psychiatric care and won’t be able to get it with the cuts in Mental Health.
“I lived inside a problem, heroin addiction, for 25 years,” she said. “Now I am a hope fiend. Now I find solutions. This county helped me live that way. I know that together we can.”
A woman who provides food for the CUBE said that she did not get benefits, retirement, but has complete job satisfaction providing for hungry, often sleepless, homeless teenagers with place to bathe wash their clothes, sleep and do homework. She said she would prefer that “big people take larger cuts to let the people really serving the community go on doing it.” In this crisis, she said, she though “paper pushers” ought to be sidelined in favor of people actually working in the community.
 A mental health clinician, whose position may be cut, said, “Our services bring in the dollars. When line staff is cut, the services eventually stop …The board of supervisors doesn’t know what ‘clients first’ means.”
Kristie Waskiewicz, the AFSCME rep, said: “Bumping rights was in the contract language in 1981 when I got here. I know we have tried to amend that language to bring it more into line with HSA and Child Support Services that doesn’t penalize people for switching jobs. At that time, the county wasn’t interested in ‘rewarding people for department hopping.’ We’re delighted to talk about it now if the county is interested.”
She added that there is no effective date for managers to throw in their 5-percent cuts. “If we’re going to do anything to save these people we’ll have to do it, not just talk.”
Waskiewicz complained of inadequate time to review the budget. She said she received it late in the afternoon on the previous Friday. Local environmentalists give her the Boo-Hoo of the Week Award.
She noted that the Mental Health budget looked like the cuts exceed the revenues and that some of the contract cuts exceed the mandates of the contracts and jeopardize other grants” If you lose what little you have, your problem only gets bigger,” she warned. She added that the budget information was incomplete, a reason for not taking a decision on it. She spoke as if she imagined the supervisors had actually read the budget anymore than they’ve ever read an environmental impact report.
“In Mental Health you’re proposing to eliminate the revenue producers,” she said. “How is that fiscally sound? Their services are billable. Do we want more untreated addicts and mentally ill that have not been diagnosed? What about danger to rest of community. We’ve seen how untreated mentally ill can be a real danger to everybody else…You have a moral, ethical as well as legal obligation to explore other options before lay offs. Do the right thing and reject these layoffs.”
A CUBE staffer told the supervisors, “You guys are our parents. We depend on you for our support, to help us get along in our lives. By firing our staff, crime rate might go up, more homeless on the streets.”
A homeless man threatened to just jump in front of a train noting that a man who couldn’t get his medication stormed the courthouse last year. “Who would I have to talk to without Mental Health Services,” he asked. “And if I don’t have anyone to talk to I might listen to that little voice saying, well I can’t get my medication anymore because you cut my resources so I might just go out and kill myself. So maybe drop down some of the higher staff whose making uh uh big 401 K money and all that just to keep these little people here who’s helping, because these people are doing a very good job of take care of us. Please don’t cut the resources.”
Holly Karem, social worker, gesturing to youthful clients around her in the audience, asked, “What do you think of my youth? If we’d had more notice we would have been able to bring more. I do more than provide transportation services – when everyone else doesn’t answer their calls, they call me. I do crisis intervention, self advocacy, job searches. Removing these positions will likely result in more hospitalization, increased crime rate, severe loss of services. Continuing will ultimately cost the county less and will create more taxpaying members of society.”
A 10-year veteran mental health worker said she’d started at bottom, extended her education to become a therapist to serve children and teens, some of them in the room. “One of our mottos is ‘Continuity of care.’ What does that mean with all the cuts going on? I’ll participate in furloughs if it will save my jobs and my colleagues’ jobs.”
CEO Tatum asked Mental Health Director Jimenez, “Could we have helped ourselves with billable hours?”
Jimenez replied, “Yes we could have. Goal is 65-percent billable per staffer,” which, if you will notice, is not quite an answer to the question.
Supervisor Walsh asked how close he was to that goal.
Jimenez blamed the departmental computer system for not being able to answer the question; however, he said that two months ago it averaged 20 percent across the board. “We’re also decreasing doctors’ appointments from 30 to 20 minutes,” he added. “The state will reimburse for Medical as much as we can bill. That’s the only revenue we really have control over.”
Supervisor Nelson asked, “How do you get from 20 to 65 percent?”
Jimenez said that those come out of realignment dollars (Prop. 1A).
Nelson: “Those on the chopping block.”
Jimenez: Yes.
Kelsey said that she “totally understands need for mental health services. Delivery is always a financial scramble. No stable source of funding but an on-going problem in society. I betcha nobody in this room doesn’t know someone affected by mental illness or drug addiction, closely linked. The governor is devastating the entire state. How far can we reach into our reserves when we can’t predict the economic future? It is a matter of how much risk the board agrees is acceptable.”
Nelson moved to accept staff’s recommendations. He said he’s not heartless, just more logical. He said he recognizes “these are our friends and neighbors whose jobs we’re cutting here. Government employees pay taxes and provide vital services out here.”
Supervisor Pedrozo opened his mouth but in this instance was not able to connect with a coherent phrase, let alone a full sentence.
Walsh blathered in high dudgeon at the state because of cumulative damage, “The state is decimating our safety net. We haven’t even gotten to health and human services yet. We need to revisit this depending on Jimenez’ redesign.”
He seconded the motion.
Supervisor O’Banion said: “It is a shame what the state’s done, may not get any better in the years to come, and we have two or three more terrible decisions to make today. Thanks the young folk who came in to testify, means a lot to the social workers, hopefully some of the programs will be saved.”
Nelson asked Tatum to confirm this is a several-year downturn.
Tatum said, “We’re looking at a $15-billion hole the state has for the coming year. They paved over their roads with your property taxes, paved over the budget with reductions in mental health and human services cuts – we just don’t know what else they’re going to do, which leaves you vulnerable We offer you caution.
The staff recommendation to reduce outside contracts, cut back a mental clinic in Livingston from five to three days a week, eliminate six vacant positions and lay off 34 Mental Health employees passed unanimously.
The peculiar thing about what Tatum said is that the state has been looking at $9-15-billion holes in its budget since the energy companies gamed electrical deregulation in 2001. It’s more than that. It has to do with great decreases in property taxes and sales taxes. What the state Legislature was dealing with this year was a $42-billion deficit, nearly twice as big as the deficit at the end of 2001, when the real estate bubble was beginning to take off. And while Kelsey is appalled at the state buying wetlands in Southern California, the governor has been proposing another bond initiative of more than $10 billion for a peripheral canal and two reservoirs. Bonds have to be repaid and the lowest bond rating in the nation requires the state to repay them at junk-bond interest rates.
Our leaders, who rolled over for the developers, beginning with the largest -- the University of California -- are now rolling over on the most vulnerable of their citizens. It's a crummy show and in the coming parts of "The price of dirt," it will get worse.
End Part 2.
Merced Sun-Star
Sides still at odds over water
Republicans upset there is no water bond in current package...E.J. SCHULTZ, Sun-Star Capitol Bureau
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/268/v-print/story/1046123.html
SACRAMENTO -- With three days left in the session, Democrats and Republicans are still struggling to reach a deal on legislation to overhaul the state's water system.
The latest ominous sign came Tuesday, when Democratic leaders postponed a vote by a special bipartisan committee formed to consider bills that would increase conservation and groundwater monitoring while creating a new council to oversee the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
In a statement, Senate Democrats said the panel would convene today, which would "allow for a floor vote on Friday." Republicans oppose the policies as written and have also complained that the package does not include a water bond to pay for new projects, including dams.
Democratic leaders can pass the policy changes without Republican votes. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto the bills if they don't include a bond, which requires GOP votes.
In a move to put more pressure on lawmakers, the governor is threatening to veto other bills awaiting action on his desk until the Legislature acts on water and other big issues, including changing prison policy to save money.
"The governor believes that we must act on the major issues facing our state ... before we consider other issues," Schwarzenegger's Communications Director Matt David said in an e-mail.
Assembly Member Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, accused Schwarzenegger of extortion, noting that it is illegal for lawmakers to barter actions on unrelated bills.
Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has committed to including financing as part of any final water deal. But most of his caucus is pushing for a smaller bond than the $12.4 billion measure favored by Republicans.
He told reporters "we are still on track to get a comprehensive package done by midnight Friday" -- but added: "No guarantees." Republicans have criticized the committee as a "dog and pony show," saying in a statement Sunday that "what's currently on the table does not reflect any Republican input." One of the biggest sticking points is the proposed delta council.
Environmentalists want the council to have strong oversight over a proposed canal to move water around the delta southward. They worry the project might steal water needed for the ecosystem, which is suffering so badly that fish populations are dwindling.
Farm groups -- including the Westlands Water District -- fear the council, if too powerful, could sidetrack planning for the canal, which they support as a way to bring more reliability to their supplies.
Fresno Bee
Groups say they'll sue to stop Grand Canyon mine…The Associated Press
http://www.fresnobee.com/641/v-print/story/1630522.html
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. Environmental groups have given notice that they'll sue the federal Bureau of Land Management over its decision to allow a uranium mine to reopen near the Grand Canyon.
Canadian mining company Denison Mines Corp. says it could reopen its mine about 20 miles north of the canyon by the end of the year. Dennison received the final state permit it needed last week.
The BLM says Denison has an approved mine plan and should be allowed to resume operations after closing the site about 20 years ago.
But the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust and the Sierra Club argue that the BLM is relying on an old environmental analysis and isn't considering potential impacts on endangered species.
The notice the groups filed Tuesday says they plan to file a lawsuit in 60 days.
San Francisco Chronicle
Federal judge says gray wolf hunts can continue…MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/09/national/a075030D18.DTL&type=printable
Billings, Mont. (AP) -- A federal judge said Wednesday that gray wolf hunts in the Northern Rockies can go on, denying a request by environmentalists and animal welfare groups to stop the first organized wolf hunts in decades in Idaho and Montana.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said plans to kill about 20 percent of the two states' estimated 1,350 wolves would not cause long-term harm to the population. He said federal biologists had shown the animal could sustain a 30 percent annual reduction without long-term harm.
But Molloy added that by carving Wyoming out of the recent decision to remove wolves from federal protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeared to violate the Endangered Species Act by making its decision based on political boundaries.
Molloy said that means environmentalists could ultimately prevail in their bid to restore endangered species protection for the animals.
"The Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science," Molloy wrote in his 14-page opinion. "That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious."
Doug Honnold, the Earthjustice attorney who had argued the case on behalf of 14 groups opposed to the hunts, had a mixed reaction to the ruling.
"If they violated the endangered species act, then this population eventually is going have to go back on the (endangered) list," Honnold said. "Obviously we're disappointed he did not issue an injunction."
He added that he "took no comfort" in Molloy's statement that the population could withstand this year's hunt.
Representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service could not be reached immediately for comment.
Hunters in Idaho have so far taken three wolves since wolf season opened there Sept. 1. The state has a quota allowing as many as 220 wolves to be killed. Montana's season is set to begin Sept. 15, with a quota of 75 wolves.
Jim Unsworth with Idaho Fish and Game said his state's hunt so far has gone smoothly.
"Everything is working just like we planned, which shouldn't be a surprise since we've done this for years with other critters," Unsworth said.
Last year, Molloy sided with environmentalists in a similar case. As a result, the federal government kept about 300 wolves in Wyoming on the endangered list but in May took them off the list in Montana and Idaho.
Los Angeles Times
L.A. County supervisors oppose environmental waivers on proposed NFL stadium
Legislative leaders indicate they may grant waivers because the project would create thousands of high-wage jobs. Supervisors argue that would let the developer bypass local concerns such as traffic...Garrett Therolf. Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-football9-2009sep09,0,2702156,print.story
Los Angeles County supervisors on Tuesday ordered the county's lobbyists to oppose any legislation in Sacramento that would ease environmental and planning regulations in order to clear the way for a proposed 75,000-seat professional football stadium to be built in the city of Industry.
Gloria Molina asked her fellow supervisors to take that stand after recent reports indicated that backers of the stadium were aggressively lobbying state legislators. The Times reported last week that aides to top lawmakers appeared receptive to issuing California Environmental Quality Act waivers for the stadium, in light of the tough economy. Such legislation would have to pass by Friday, county officials said.
"While there are many reasons to support the development of a new NFL football stadium in Los Angeles County, there are just as many reasons to ensure that the project complies with the same environmental regulations that govern virtually all projects in California," Molina wrote. "Hospitals, police stations, freeways and all sorts of valuable projects manage to be built without the necessity of CEQA exemptions."
Molina's policy director, Gerry Hertzberg, said that if Sacramento waived the rules, it would probably mean more games per year and less effort from the developer to alleviate traffic congestion created by such a large venue.
"It would have a horrible impact," Hertzberg said.
State lawmakers last week said they would consider waivers for the project after meeting with Ed Roski, the billionaire real estate developer backing the stadium. Roski met Thursday with Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, also attended.
After the meeting, Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for Steinberg, said he was considering Roski's proposal.
"The project may be an important opportunity to create thousands of high-wage jobs," Trost said.
Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Bass, said: "If there's a way to maximize jobs with minimal impact on the environment, this speaker's going to look at it."
The proposal also would protect the stadium project from lawsuits, such as one filed by the adjacent city of Walnut in an attempt to block it. Roski's lobbying worried Walnut officials.
"If the California Legislature gets involved, it certainly takes away local control," Walnut City Manager Rob Wishner said last week.
Hungry coyotes are hunting near homes
Yorba Linda, close to one of last year's major burn areas, is among cities trapping and killing the predators. Animal activists object, and more debate is planned...Tony Barboza
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-coyotes9-2009sep09,0,2797578,print.story
The coyote perched atop the cinder-block wall 25 feet across the lawn from Candy Julian's screen door, dangling its paws and eyeing her family's two miniature schnauzers.
"We started screaming. My son grabbed a shovel," the 45-year-old fitness instructor said of her run-in with a coyote one evening late last month in her Yorba Linda backyard. "I was screaming 'The dogs! The dogs!' "
Her family chased off the coyote. But some neighbors haven't been so lucky, losing cats and small dogs and fearing for their children's safety.
Julian's neighborhood is not far from Chino Hills State Park, which borders Yorba Linda on the north and east and which is the usual home of wildlife. But the burned hills from last year's massive Freeway Complex fire and an extended drought have driven prey and predators into much closer contact with humans.
Over the last year, coyotes have increasingly strayed into the landscaped backyards and parks of the 65,000-person suburb, sizing up dogs, cats, chickens -- even toddlers -- as their natural food supply dwindled. They're using the town's trail system to get around and drinking from an artificial lake surrounded by houses.
Complaints to city officials and animal control officers soared, and street signs became bulletin boards for missing-pet fliers about small dogs and cats that were more than likely snatched up by coyotes.
The problem was alarming enough that the city posted coyote alerts and set up a hotline that now receives about four calls a day reporting coyotes scurrying over backyard fences or making off with a cat or dog.
And last month, after tracking the creatures for six months, the city hired a trapper -- at a cost of $3,500 for 10 days -- who roamed four areas of the foothills, using scents to attract and snare nine coyotes, which were euthanized.
"We really feel terrible about this whole situation, but if we had to beat up a coyote with a shovel, we'd do it in a second, because they're just eating up so many animals around us, it's just crazy," Julian said.
Yorba Linda is not alone. Huntington Beach and Los Alamitos, among others, also have hired people to trap and destroy problem coyotes.
The city's tactics do not have universal support. Some residents have complained, calling the killings inhumane. Wildlife authorities question whether the effort will do any good.
Animal advocates and conservationists say that killing individual animals will do nothing to curb the population because the numbers will bounce back in less than a year.
The problem, they say, is as much human as coyote: Development and wildfires displaced the coyotes, and humans ought to adapt to the creatures, not view them as interlopers that must be eliminated.
"This is their natural habitat, and people seem to be attracted to these areas for the beauty and for the nature, but they need to accept that wildlife comes with that bargain," said Julie Curran-Meskell, co-director of Orange County People for Animals, who opposes Yorba Linda's actions.
The City Council will hear more testimony from residents this month when it considers authorizing additional coyote trapping and killing.
"You should be able to go into your backyard and be able to play with your kids without worrying about a coyote scaling the wall and attacking your cat or dog," said Lauren Cochran, a management assistant for the city who became a coyote expert of sorts as sightings have increased over the last year.
But Laura Simon, field director of the Humane Society of the United States' Urban Wildlife Program, contends that Yorba Linda's approach is a misguided, knee-jerk reaction, especially if alternatives, such as keeping pet food indoors, spraying coyotes with hoses or shooting them with rubber bullets or paint balls, could be more effective.
"Lethal control should only be a last resort," she said. "If the habitat is not hospitable for coyotes, they're not going to come."
Trapping programs may simply be a way to appease residents who have developed exaggerated fears of coyotes, Simon suggested, since coyote attacks on humans are rare but highly publicized.
"Coyotes are looking for small, easy prey, like mice, not infants," she said. "They're not the menace they're made out to be. It's the human fear factor that really creates this escalating panic in communities [and] leads to killing programs."
The threat to small children can be real, however.
Last year, for example, several toddlers were attacked by coyotes in a Chino Hills park, just across the hills from Yorba Linda. In one incident, a baby-sitter rescued a 2-year-old girl playing in a sandbox who was snapped up by a coyote and carried away.
The state Department of Fish and Game dispatched trappers who found and killed 15 coyotes in the Chino Hills State Park area that they considered threats to public safety.
Fish and Game officials, their hands full with mountain lions and bear incursions across the state, don't have enough manpower to respond unless a coyote bites or charges a human. That means city officials are often left to deal with the problem.
"It is not our intent to thin the population but merely to eliminate those that exhibit no fear of humans," Cochran said in defense of Yorba Linda's coyote control effort. "They're getting too bold."
Julian, meanwhile, has instituted a "dogwatch" -- her two dogs must be supervised by shovel-wielding guardians when they go outside -- and installed an enclosed outdoor kennel. She is investing thousands of dollars in raising her backyard wall to 6 feet and putting rollers on top so coyotes can't climb over.
"Otherwise they'll just stare you down," she said. "They're not afraid of people at all, and really that's the scariest part." 
Washington Post
Environmental Groups Wait to See Definitive Action From Obama...David A. Fahrenthold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090803575_pf.html
The abrupt resignation Saturday of White House "green jobs" adviser Van Jones has focused new attention on one of the Obama administration's top priorities: the environment.
While Jones was criticized as a left-wing zealot, the Obama team's record so far on the environment has been far from radical.
The White House's main effort has been to undo several Bush-era policies on climate control, air pollution and the regulation of roadless forests. Those actions, combined with court decisions that have struck down other rules, have given President Obama a relatively blank canvas on which to redraw U.S. environmental policy. But the administration has been cautious, leaving key issues in limbo and questions unanswered about the way it would balance environmentalism and the economy.
"The Bush administration's eight-year assault on the environment has built up a ton of demand, and that has led to tremendous opportunity -- that has yet to be seized," said Marty Hayden, a vice president at the environmental group Earthjustice.
This week, the Obama administration will have to do more, as it faces a deadline to flesh out a promise on the Chesapeake Bay.
In May, Obama ordered an overhaul for the faltering cleanup of the estuary, which remains heavily polluted 25 years after federal and state governments first pledged to save it. On Wednesday, federal agencies will announce the first drafts of their plans to do so.
Environmentalists say it will be a crucial test: How will the Environmental Protection Agency deal with pollution from farms, septic tanks and suburban lawn fertilizer? All send downstream pollution that causes "dead zones" in the Chesapeake.
But to clamp down on them -- imposing new pollution rules on farms, or vetoing new suburbs -- would mean kicking political beehives.
"What the bay has got to hear, what the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has got to hear, is that the EPA is ready to take definitive, direct action," said William C. Baker, president of the nonprofit foundation. "They've got to show us right away that they're willing to do something different."
On the campaign trail, Obama made more than 50 environmental promises, according to the watchdog site Politifact.com, as big as capping U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and as small as providing new habitat for the Osceola turkey.
Obama's administration has pleased environmental groups by spending economic stimulus money on loans for clean-energy companies and by promising to cut greenhouse gases from automobiles.
It has also sought to reverse Bush administration changes to the 2001 rule protecting "roadless" forest areas and reconsidered rules limiting pollution from cement plants.
"There's a certain thing about the continuity of government," which these moves do not respect, said Jeffrey Holmstead, an EPA official under President George W. Bush who is now with the lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani. He said the new administration's moves are "fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law."
When Obama administration officials talk about the strategy they will use to write new policies, they do not talk details. Nancy Sutley, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the administration's legacy would be: "We made smart decisions based on science, based on the law, based on open and transparent processes."
One of the examples of translating these ideas into new policy has been on mountaintop coal mining, also called mountaintop removal. In March, the administration said it would reexamine dozens of pending permits for this type of mine, in which Appalachian peaks are blasted off to reach coal underneath.
Environmentalists, who said the Bush administration was too lenient with the mines, rejoiced. But weeks later, the federal government reported that 42 of the 48 permits it had examined were within the limits of environmental laws.
"We got cold-cocked," said Rob Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He and other environmentalists are expecting another announcement this week, about the fate of dozens more permits. "That is really a bellwether. What happens with these . . . permits is what's going to tell if the administration is going to really change."
An even more complicated test awaits this fall, on the subject Jones had focused on: climate change and energy.
The administration, following a campaign promise, is pushing for a bill that would limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, using a system of tradable pollution credits.
Battle lines are being drawn, and activists on both sides say the administration will have to make choices.
In the climate debate, said Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association, "you will be able to see how they view the relative importance of both. And you cannot have both."
New York Times
Obama Admin Confronts 'Candidate Species' Backlog...ALLISON WINTER AND PATRICK REIS of Greenwire
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-obama-admin-confronts-candidate-species-backlo-22609.html?sq=epa&st=cse&scp=15&pagewanted=print
The Obama administration is moving to accelerate Endangered Species Act listing decisions for hundreds of plants and animals, some of which have languished on a waiting list for more than 25 years.
At issue are 250 or so "candidate species," a designation that offers no legal protections for affected species and is intended to be temporary. But nearly 100 species have been on the ESA waiting list for more than 10 years, and 73 have been waiting more than 25 years, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group.
The group has sued the Interior Department in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over its use of the candidate species list, saying the government's failure to promptly decide on listings violates the species law.
The law says Interior must issue a "finding" -- a decision on whether a species deserves a listing -- 12 months from its receipt of a listing petition. But petitions are going unanswered for an average of 11 years, the center says, and often are not addressed until forced by a judicial order.
The Obama administration says it is going to change how candidate species are handled. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior agency responsible for the management of endangered species, is working on an accelerated listing process, said Doug Krofta, the service's listing chief. With new techniques and more funding, Krofta said, the service can trim the candidate list by 25 percent by the end of 2010.
"I think we're getting closer to ... getting that 12-month finding within 12 months," Krofta said. "If you were to give me a petition now ... I'll likely be able to respond within a year. Where we were a couple years ago, it would be four to five to six years."
The service is planning to attack the backlog on two fronts.
First, it plans to focus on sweeping, ecosystem-based listings that would address many species at a time. And second, it is putting more money into the endangered species program. The budget has more than doubled since early in the Bush administration, going from $9 million in 2002 to $19 million in fiscal 2009.
But environmentalists say the funding boost is far from what is needed to clear the candidate species backlog: $153 million over five years.
Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity maintains that funding for the program should be doubled again to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to keep pace with new listing petitions while reducing its backlog.
"I think we've only scratched the surface of the problem," Greenwald said, "and it is going to require more resources as time goes on to save species from extinction."
Ecosystem approach
In part, the service's move toward ecosystem-based listings is an attempt to save money on listings while trying to bolster conservation of several imperiled species at a time.
The idea is to cluster multiple species from an ecosystem into a single ESA listing, instead of going species by species, the traditional approach.
Overall, federal biologists say, the strategy allows for the management of an entire ecosystem, rather than going species by species. It also condenses the listing process for many plants and animals into one proposal.
Sam Hamilton, the Fish and Wildlife Service's new director, said following his Senate confirmation hearing in July that he would "get deeply immersed in" addressing the backlog. Ecosystems-based listings, he added, were among the tools he would use for that job.
The push for an ecosystem-based approach to ESA began in the waning days of the Bush administration, which proposed listing 48 plants and animals on a Hawaiian island. Instead of writing separate proposals for each species, the service grouped them, proposing the protection of more than 27,000 acres of habitat in a single recovery plan.
The service is continuing that approach under President Obama. Its biologists are working on two similar listings for other islands in Hawaii, which has 67 species on the candidate list. The two proposals, which would protect 71 species, have not been formally proposed but are being reviewed by Interior officials in Washington, D.C., and biologists in Hawaii.
"Part of the reason we wanted to do this was to address the backlog of candidate species, but we look at it more as this approach is benefiting the ecosystem as a whole," said Ken Foote, a service spokesman in Hawaii. "Instead of just one endangered species, if we protect the habitat and protect multiple endangered species, it's a win-win situation for everything."
Environmentalists also like the approach, saying the ecosystem approach could be critical to saving multiple species whose survival is threatened by climate change.
"In order to address the gap that exists between the list of species currently and those not protected but considered by scientists to be imperiled, it will require the service to make decisions for dozens of species," said Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. "If we have any hope of bridging that gap, they need to take action on dozens of species at once."
Money
Regardless of what approach the service takes to species protection, nothing gets done without adequate funding.
While Krofta, the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing chief, said his agency has sped through its work because of the increase in funding to $19 million in fiscal 2009, environmentalists say that is not enough.
The average cost of a complete listing decision is $85,000 and of a single designation of critical habitat is $515,000, the service says.
Environmentalists say the agency needs about $30 million a year to eliminate the listing backlog.
The Center for Biological Diversity's Greenwald believes a doubling of the current "paltry" budget is politically possible, given the Democratic Party's hold on the White House and Capitol Hill.
ESA funding "went up under a Republican administration," Greenwald said. "I'd like to think that with a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress it could go up substantially more."
The Obama administration proposed just under 4 percent more funding for the entire endangered species program for fiscal 2010, while other environmental programs saw larger proposed increases. In total, the administration's 2010 request for Interior was more than 17 percent higher than the department's 2009 budget, and the request for U.S. EPA was nearly 40 percent more than last year.
Cooperative agreements
To be sure, not all candidate species have been ignored during their long stays on the ESA waiting list.
Some species -- the sage grouse, for example -- have been the focus of "cooperative conservation" agreements between the government and private landowners.
Under such agreements, landowners manage properties to benefit the species in exchange for special consideration from the government if the species is listed under ESA. There are 19 such agreements covering 13 candidate species. And another 120 species, some of them on the candidate list, are involved in other conservation agreements, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
But environmentalists say voluntary agreements do not ensure species protections. An ESA listing, on the other hand, includes regulatory safeguards, funding and habitat protections.
"In some cases, good things do happen from these agreements for these candidate species, but it's spotty," Greenwald said. "The majority of candidate species receive virtually no attention whatsoever, and there is often continued habitat loss and the situation gets worse."
'Little urgency'
Though the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to address such concerns by attacking the candidate species backlog, its efforts fall short of what is needed, Greenwald said.
"Of the 251 candidates included in the most recent review by FWS, 145 are listed as being the highest priority, reflecting high-magnitude, imminent threats," Greenwald said. "It is very likely that with further delay, one or more of these species will go extinct, yet [the Fish and Wildlife Service] exhibits little urgency."
The additional funding and new techniques won't solve the problem, he said, unless the service approaches ESA issues with more enthusiasm than it showed during the Bush administration. Over the last eight years, he said, the agency put species on the candidates list to delay protections for any species.
"They had a clear ideological opposition to protecting endangered species," Greenwald said. "When you look at what they actually have accomplished, it's all been because of litigation."
But Krofta, the service's listing chief, argues that litigation is part of the agency's problem.
A string of court losses in the 1990s left the service under judicial order to propose critical habitat for hundreds of species, Krofta said, tying up agency resources and leaving little money to address new species petitions and tackle the candidate backlog.
"The litigation has been very disruptive to the program," Krofta said. "When all we're able to do is respond to the litigation, it takes away our ability to prioritize."
RFK Jr., Enviros Clash Over Mojave Solar Proposal...COLIN SULLIVAN of Greenwire
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-rfk-jr-enviros-clash-over-mojave-solar-proposa-98645.html?sq=conservation&st=cse&scp=22&pagewanted=print
SAN FRANCISCO -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is no stranger to hardball politics.
The environmental attorney has confronted polluters of the Hudson River, been arrested in Puerto Rico for trying to block U.S. Navy training operations and scrapped with oil companies looking to drill in remote parts of Alaska.
Along the way, he has worked for environmental groups large and small, lending his famous name to a burgeoning movement fighting to bring attention to macro-issues like climate change while protecting local wildlife habitat. In 1999, he was named a Time magazine "Hero of the Planet" for his work with the advocacy group Riverkeeper.
But in California's emerging battle over renewable energy development, Kennedy has gained new enemies: fellow environmentalists.
Kennedy, the son and namesake of the late Attorney General and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), is at the center of a nasty dispute among environmental groups, energy developers and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) over the future of federal lands in the sun-soaked Mojave Desert.
The Mojave's 22,000 square miles straddle California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. Given its elevation, heat, aridity and proximity to population centers on the California coast, the region is viewed by many as the ideal venue in North America for building a new generation of large solar-thermal power plants, especially in a state where utilities are required to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010 and likely 33 percent by 2020.
Among the leaders in a group of aggressive solar prospectors is an Oakland-based company called BrightSource Energy Inc., which has been making a splash lately for its plans to build 2.6 gigawatts of power for California's investor-owned utilities, much of it to be located -- on paper, at least -- in the Mojave Desert.
But some California-based activists are worried that solar developers like BrightSource are getting a free pass in a headlong rush to build clean energy and capitalize on federal stimulus dollars now available for such projects. These activists have enlisted Feinstein to push for the declaration of a national monument in the desert and intend to unveil legislation with the senator in September that would apparently protect 1 million acres in the eastern Mojave to limit development.
Enter Kennedy, who calls the national monument, as it is likely to be drawn, a bad idea. To Kennedy, the instinct to protect local ecosystems has collided with the goals of a progressive national energy policy.
"I respect the belief that it's all local," Kennedy said in an interview. "But they're putting the democratic process and sound scientific judgement on hold to jeopardize the energy future of our country."
But here's the rub: Kennedy has a stake in BrightSource through VantagePoint Venture Partners, a venture capital firm based in Silicon Valley that was instrumental in raising $160 million in financing for the solar startup. Other investors include Chevron Corp., Google.org and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
That Kennedy is a senior adviser at VantagePoint, and an open promoter of BrightSource in public speeches, is an irony not lost on David Myers, an activist who charges Kennedy with shilling for a company intent on using his political clout. To Myers, the lure of profit if BrightSource makes it big is why Kennedy, a cousin of California's first lady, Maria Shriver, wants to stop the national monument before it ever gets off the ground.
"I'm getting pretty tired of BrightSource using their Kennedy connection," said Myers, executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy. "BrightSource [is pursuing] the worst projects in the worst locations, but they have the best PR firm, because Robert Kennedy is involved."
Feinstein's monument
Next, enter Feinstein, a longtime advocate of desert conservation and lead appropriator for the Interior Department in Congress. Her office is working on a bill to be released this month that some sources said will cut off 1 million public acres in the desert -- up from a previous estimate of 600,000 acres -- to protect a threatened species of desert tortoise and preserve its habitat.
Feinstein, according to several sources who spoke anonymously, is livid about the pace of development on public lands and has bluntly told the solar developers not to challenge her on the national monument designation. Calls to several solar companies seeking comment seemed to bear this out, as none would take a position on the measure.
Myers has been instrumental in developing the boundaries of the monument, sparking rumors that he is cozy with Feinstein and is dictating the terms of the legislation. The boundaries would stretch from Joshua Tree National Park to Mojave National Preserve, including nearly 100,000 acres of National Park Service lands and 210,000 acres spread across 20 wilderness areas controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.
That area includes lands previously owned by Catellus Development Corp., a real estate subsidiary of the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad. Myers insisted that the purchase was made years ago in the name of conservation, a promise that he says Feinstein takes seriously.
And though he would not release details of the bill, Myers said none of the land would come from the federal energy zones marked by the Interior Department for development. Nor does he believe solar companies will have trouble finding land to build on elsewhere in the region.
"The land in the monument is minuscule," Myers said. "There are so many other places where solar is being proposed throughout the state."
But Kennedy disagrees. BrightSource and 19 other companies have petitioned BLM and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to build in an area called Broadwell that would be shut off under the Feinstein bill. Those applications represent about 10,000 megawatts of power, or 30 large-scale solar power plants; and though much of that would never get built, Kennedy says closing down Broadwell is a significant blow to the companies that have invested there under the guidance of federal land managers.
"This area is probably one of the best solar areas in the world," Kennedy said. "All that the solar industry has said is, 'Look, let's respect the robust process in place,' a process that is among the most transparent in the world through the CEC and BLM."
That process is still proceeding. BLM has received 66 applications for solar, totaling 577,000 acres, most of which would be located in the desert, an agency spokesman said. BLM is also processing 93 wind applications, representing 815,000 acres.
Yet the monument bill may have already produced a chilling effect. John White, a renewable-energy policy expert at the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, says the proposal has cast a "shadow" over these projects just as they are vying for financing and federal stimulus dollars only available until 2010. To White, setting aside 1 million acres in the eastern Mojave would mean "less land for solar than for off-road vehicles ... in the very best land that has the highest solar radiation."
"I'm astonished that nobody's said that," said White, who refused to comment further on the political wrangling.
Myers countered that most of those 19 companies have agreed, in private discussions with Feinstein, to build elsewhere. Florida Power & Light Co., Cogentrix Energy LLC and Stirling Energy Systems Inc., among others, have informed Feinstein that they filed "shotgun applications" in the Broadwell area and are more than willing to drop those and find other areas, he said.
"They're fine going outside the monument," Myers said. "BrightSource is the laughingstock of the industry right now."
Kennedy vs. Myers
For his part, Kennedy was unfazed by Myers' allegations or his harsh take on BrightSource, calling the political heat familiar territory, given his family's unique place in U.S. history. In the same breath, he urged Feinstein to take a step back before proceeding with the monument.
"I don't think it does anybody any good to start making personal attacks," Kennedy said. "Let's argue this on the merits. I think if we argue this on the merits, I think BrightSource and 19 other companies are going to win the debate."
Kennedy added that he has a "limited stake" in VantagePoint and denied asking for special treatment through Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) or anyone else in the state government.
"I don't care enough about BrightSource to compromise my integrity or the national interest," Kennedy said. "I've never talked to anyone about choosing BrightSource over anybody else. I've never asked for any favors from any politician or any regulator or any human being, ever."
In the next breath, Kennedy went negative himself and questioned Myers' relationship with a competitor to BrightSource, Pasadena-based eSolar Inc. Like BrightSource, eSolar is a solar-thermal outfit whose business model is built around reflecting radiation from mirrors into a large tower to convert steam into electricity. Unlike BrightSource, eSolar has no stake or planned projects in the Broadwell region.
Myers, Kennedy pointed out, has his own overlap issues with Silicon Valley money through eSolar. A major donor to the Wildlands Conservancy is the venture capitalist David Gelbaum, who has poured his own funds into eSolar and reportedly owns a fat stake in the company. eSolar would stand to benefit from the national monument, several sources said, because it is not involved in the Broadwell area.
Adding to the fire is Myers himself, who recently appeared at an eSolar press event in person to praise the company for siting projects on industrial lands near power lines in Lancaster, Calif. Yet Myers denies an inappropriate relationship and blamed Kennedy and BrightSource for stoking the rumors.
Gelbaum, Myers said, donated $45 million seven years ago to help acquire the Catellus lands. Myers said the donation and pledge to keep the lands off-limits took place well before BrightSource came into being.
Not stopping there, Myers slammed Kennedy for opposing a wind project off the coast of Nantucket, Mass., and questioned his recent environmental credentials. He said Kennedy is hiding behind the local versus national environmental debate when his real motivation is turning a profit through VantagePoint.
"Bobby Kennedy told us they did not want to see windmills in Cape Cod, that they had to put it all in the California desert," Myers said. "The real story here is, Bobby Kennedy is on the side of major industrial development, and he's against distributed generation."
Kennedy responded in kind. "He is very focused on a narrow piece of land, which I respect," he said of Myers. "All I've ever asked for is a rational process that is democratic, that is transparent, that is robust. That process is in place."
View from the bleachers
Spectators on the sidelines were hesitant to comment on the flare-up between Kennedy and Myers or the shape of the monument designation. Most said they could not take a position on the forthcoming Feinstein bill until it is publicly available, which a spokeswoman said has not been finalized.
Officials at BrightSource, who contacted Kennedy for an interview after receiving a call for this article, said the focus had been placed unfairly on their company when the future of the entire solar industry is at stake.
"The debate over renewable development and desert protection is not adversarial," said Keely Wachs, a spokesman at BrightSource. "We all have the same end goal of protecting the environment."
White, whose organization is meant to bridge industry and environmental groups, said "a little bit of land rush" followed the stimulus frenzy and perhaps led to tense feelings on both sides. He urged the players to learn from the experience, even as he cautioned that the political process has yet to play out.
"It's one thing to introduce a bill and another thing to get it through both houses," White said. "I think that this really is the beginning of a long conversation about where and how to put solar in the desert."
Elden Hughes, a former chairman of the Sierra Club's California-Nevada Desert Committee, blamed BLM for promoting lands bought from Catellus years ago and said officials there should have respected a promise that those lands be conserved. He said BLM has only recently changed its tune.
Calling BLM officials "two-faced SOBs," Hughes said, "For some months, they were telling us they were protecting the land, while at the same time they were taking developers out there."
BLM spokesman John Dearing would only say that the agency's job is to process applications. BLM has no right to block any entity from seeking a right of way on the Catellus lands, he said, adding that the agency will pursue "high-level reviews" for any proposed impacts to lands meant for conservation.
"They might want to steer away from that area," Dearing said of the developers. "But they're not prohibited from making an application."
Anti Corruption Republican
DOJ won't Immunize Laura Blackann...9-6-09
http://anticorruptionrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/09/doj-wont-immunize-laura-blackann.html
In a document filed in USA v. Kevin A. Ring, the Justice Department tells us that it has refused to grant immunity to Laura Blackann (nee Laura Brookshire), communication director to former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). Mrs. Blackann is married to admitted scandal felon Trevor Blackann and she is a former staffer to Tom DeLay.
The government recently told Ring that it would not immunize David or Laura Ayres, or Laura Blackann ...
Blackann was then-U.S. Representative John T. Doolittle's Communication Director when, while helping Ring with an issue in February 2004, she emailed Ring, "Haha! just earning my Sigs Sushi ;)." Ring replied, "Exactly. I will keep you occupied." The government interviewed Blackann on July 11, 2007 and November 21, 2008. By letter dated November 21, 2008, the DOJ Criminal Division, Public Integrity and Fraud Sections agreed to give Blackann, for purposes of those conversations, immunity largely coextensive with 18 U.S.C. [Section] 6002.
Based on those conversations, the government believes that Blackann would testify that her email described above was a joke. However, the government believes Blackann would also testify tat she usually did not have to pay for drinks or food, including sushi, at Signatures restaurant. Blackann would likely testify that she did not know Ring before she began working for Doolittle. Moreover, Blackann would likely testify that Ring had a unique relationship with Doolittle's office and that at times her interactions with Ring were unusual as compared to other lobbyists. Though Blackann did not admit committing a crime, she would likely testify that in hindsight, Doolittle's staffers should not have asked for or accepted tickets and other things of value from Ring ...
Turning to Blackann, her likely testimony would do little more than impeach her "Sigs Sushi" email. Indeed, the government believes that Blackann would testify to instances in which she treated Ring differently, and more favorably, than other lobbyists. Lugg is clear that this sort of "questionable impeachment" of the government's evidence would not allow the Court to compel the government to immunize Blackann ...
Here are my thoughts:
1. Mr. Doolittle is no longer referred to as "Representative 5".
2. The fact that the DoJ wouldn't immunize Mrs. Blackann obviously does not augur well for her.
3. The fact that the DoJ characterizes Mrs. Blackann's likely testimony as "questionable impeachment" suggests to the ACR Blog that the DoJ thinks that Mrs. Blackann's likely testimony would be untruthful.
4. If we understand Mrs. Blackann's position correctly, she indeed received free sushi at Mr. Abramoff's restaurant, and she also treated Mr. Ring more favorably than other lobbyists. Even though Mrs. Blackann connected these two events in an email, we are supposed to believe the email is "a joke" and that those two facts are completely unrelated. Uh-huh.
5. Mrs. Blackann obviously thinks that Mr. Doolittle's staffers acted, at the very least, inappropriately when they accepted tickets from Mr. Ring.
6. Notice that the Justice Department interviewed Mrs. Blackann on November 21, 2008. That was the very day after her husband pleaded guilty to income tax charges. The ACR Blog can't help but think the two events are related.