9-16-09

 
9-16-09
Badlands Journal
The price of dirt, Part 5 -- the Medical Assistance Program, Auditor/Controller Report, and budget passage…Badlands Journal editorial board
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2009-09-16/007407
Item 22: Health, Reconvening the Beilenson Hearing of Medical Assistance Program
Chairwoman Deidre Kelsey: We will reconvene the Beilenson hearing and I’ll have Mr. Volanti get us back on track.
Merced County Director of Public Health John Volanti told the board that when the program was reviewed staff recommended reducing services by $103,000. Those services would include optometry, podiatry, dental, audiology and speech therapy, and they would match the cuts in Medical optional services, which took place in July of this year. We also recommended limiting eligibility for Medical Assistance Program (MAP) to 100 percent of federal poverty level for a savings of $300,000 and that affected approximately 400 clients annually, and there was also a request to eliminate retroactive coverage in the emergency room, which would impact 280 people, for a savings of $42,000.
Kelsey: Retroactive in the emergency room? That means that after they’ve been seen and ... what do they have, 30 days to apply or something?
Volanti: The way it works now is if someone is not on MAP, but is eligible for MAP and happens to be in the emergency room, they are currently retro-covered to the point when the entered the emergency room. We would no longer do that. Under normal circumstances, either SCIAP or EMSA dollars would cover those physician services, but those programs have been cut this year, so it’s just that we will cover when they actually apply for MAP.
Kelsey: Any questions or comments from the board for Mr. Volanti at this point? … And your suggested action is the same as it was last time, two weeks ago?
Volanti: Right. So, those three items.
The tones of both their voices is one of defeat – the public health director cannot provide health services to the most needy in the county and the chairwoman of the board of supervisors can’t find the money, unless, perhaps, the county could dip into the rainy day fund, but that is off the table.
Kelsey opens the hearing for public comment. If you’d like to come to the podium, state your name and address and limit your testimony to five minutes, that would be good.
Clara Bareto, Merced: (she can’t take her hands off her glasses): I was a former MAP, before, and I was let go because I didn’t meet the 200 percent. I’m self-employed – housekeeper and caregiver. Now I feel bad because I’m the hospital’s problem now if I have to go. So my message is that knowing that our leaders – you leaders here – are unwilling … being God’s servants and all, so I pray for you all the time, because I know this is really hard. So the message is from the Central Valley … for Justice, Merced, I oppose to support this action and to not cut the MAP program because I feel it will cut – because it will cost us more if we get disabled or we lose our jobs. And, if there is any possible way to be able to have the supervisors dip in like everyone has been asking – across – I thank you.
Kelsey: Thank you.
Man in a wheelchair. Gets out of wheelchair at podium. Hi, my name is Jeff Martinez, Merced. I’m currently on MAP and this is a bag of all my prescriptions (holds up a plastic shopping bag half full of pill containers). My meter is in there. In the morning I start out by taking 10 pills, one inhaler, and foot cream. I think MAP is important to keep, because on May 5, I had my foot amputated and luckily I was on MAP and I would hate to think if someone else was without MAP and they had a major surgery such as mine that they wouldn’t have been retroactively covered. I mean that’s just pretty horrible. As a matter of fact, MAP is not covering my prosthetic. We’re trying to go to MediCal but MediCal is sitting on it, too. In the meantime, I’m pretty much in the chair. I just came to say that it is needed. I know that there is a lot of problems – everybody has a problem – my home was foreclosed upon, we had to move, and that happened this year as well. Everybody’s going through the same problems and money is really tight. I just showed up just to say that MAP is needed (hand over his heart), and if I hadn’t of had MAP, I don’t know where I would be now because of my diabetes and there was a foot infection, so, at the time, MAP really came through for me. Thanks for your time.
Gloria Sandoval: From here in Merced. I would just like to mention once again that our country right now is going through the debate and discussion about health care and I would like to request that the board of supervisors from Merced County take a stand to support single-payer, universal health care. This will bring savings to employers. It will bring savings to the County, and it will leave no one without medical care and I really think that that is the solution we need and you wouldn’t have to feel bad about people not having health care. Besides that, we’re already paying for that health care but we are not getting it. I hope that if some of you have not checked out HR 676 that you will do that. That is the best that we can have in Merced County and I hope that you will give a resolution to support that. This is connected to MAP, because I would not like to see people without health care, period. Thank you.
Bill Hatch, Merced: I was unclear about the total number of people that will be affected by this and I was unclear from what Mr. Volanti said, what actually is going to happen to these people in the emergency room.
Kelsey: Before I close the public hearing I would like Mr. Volanti to answer those questions. I assume that’s the number of residents. (Hatch agrees from audience)
Volanti: Well, potential MAP is something else. Of the current MAP clients, the service impacts are this: for optometry, 290 clients would be impacted; for podiatry, 15 clients would be impacted; for dental services, 475 clients would be impacted; and for speech therapy and audiology, no current clients would be impacted. No services had been requested in the 12 months for either of these services.
For the limiting of eligibility from 200 percent to 100 percent of federal poverty level, there would be approximately 400 clients that would be affected. (Hatch asks if there is overlap). Some of those are overlap, yes.
Kelsey: Now, stay there John. It looks like Mr. Nelson has a question and Mr. Pedrozo.
Nelson: No question, just a comment. I want to thank you, John, for the work you’ve done on this. I appreciate the information yesterday about prescription drugs. The example you gave us was interesting. It gave us a heavy prescription load yet by comparison shopping it could potentially save quite a bit of money on their prescriptions. And also, I want to point out, too, that we have the … drug card that is available to residents of Merced County and the United Way also have a prescription drug card as well.
Pedrozo: I, too, want to thank you, John, for briefing me numerous times so I could get a better understanding of the severity of this. And again, it’s another one of those nightmare things that we never thought in a million years was gunna affect us as bad as it has. But after meeting with you numerous times, I’m not happy with it but I can live with it knowing that – and this – what you did show us on your report or breakdown – that with the right guidance – which we could provide if someone needed to call – we could provide – to give them assistance in finding the price of their meds, medications, at a way lower level than one of my constituents has showed me. That’s first and foremost. So I felt better with this travesty if you want – of this whole mess – but I can’t thank you enough for breaking it down and I thank Mr. Brown also making it a little more clear for me – I mean it’s about as clear as mud but I mean I understand what’s going on here – so – and it’s unfortunate but it’s just the way it is – so, thank you.
Kelsey. OK. Mr. Walsh.
Walsh: Mr. Volanti. Thank you very much. I’ve got a couple of questions. In terms of the proposal, the effective date for this, since we have continued it, would be …
Volanti: September 1.
Walsh: And, in other discussions with providers, we are still at least pursuing and seeking possibility of movement of MAP discussions to the Alliance.
Volanti: We have broached the subject with the Alliance and actually we have – Mme. Chair and other members of the board, the Alliance is the Central California Alliance for Health, a MediCal-managed care program, which will begin operating MediCal in Merced County October 1. We actually had discussions with them before they even became the MediCal provider that this is something we would be interested in looking at. They have told us that both Monterey and Santa Cruz counties are also interested in having their indigent programs administered by the Alliance so there might be some way that we could something on a tri-county basis.
Kelsey: Right. I also got your memo, your little booklet of information on some of the options and some of the things regarding the pharmacy program. Is counseling of MAP patients on pharmaceuticals and where to buy them and proper generics for those prescriptions – is that something you already do?
Volanti: I think it’s done on a limited basis but the pharmacy services provided to MAP patients are part of the hospital contract. The hospital provides the MAP pharmacy and the MAP pharmacy program. There was a time – and maybe Mr. McLaughlin (representing the hospital) could answer this – but there was a time when the hospital actually enrolled all the MAP patients in the various programs that the various pharmaceutical companies have so that they could get really reduced meds. But the hospital does also get medications at a reduced price through the 314 D program. But, in terms of individual counseling, no more than the law requires, which is to counsel patients on new …
Kelsey: But, if we were to refer someone to the Public Health Department …
Volanti: Absolutely.
Kelsey: If there are questions about their medications, you could do that.
Volanti: Yes, we could do that. But, if you’re asking if we could do that on a regular basis that would be a new program that I would like to come back and talk to you about. But, certainly for the 400 MAP clients that are affected by this proposed reduction, we would be very happy to work with them and do similar kinds of finding for them so that their medication cost could be reduced.
Kelsey: Well, I know that there is a trick to the whole thing. Does the HI-CAP or anyone else do that?
Volanti: HI-CAP does do that for seniors and those under Medicare.
Kelsey: OK. OK. All right. I think that somehow that information needs to be made available if you are a senior that this is available. And MediCal, where do they go? Do they get …it’s just reimbursed, right?
Volanti: Yes.
Kelsey: OK. It’s important to me that people know that they can get medications at a reasonable price. There’s no sense – if you can get the medication cheaper that you shouldn’t be able to.
Volanti: With a little guidance – in the example that was provided, the – you can request the doctor to change the medication from one within that class to another and WalMart will make it a $4 drug and change it from an $80 or $100 drug. And it does take a little guidance, so …
Kelsey: Right. And somebody needs to ask the question…With that, I will close the Beilenson hearing and we will consider what to do with this item. Mr. O’Banion.
Supervisor Jerry O’Banion: I would move to approve the recommendations as presented in the staff report and take all actions that are recommended.
Kelsey: Is there a second? … All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the recommended actions. Any further discussion? Mr. Walsh.
Walsh: Would the maker of the motion – I mean I’m not opposed to those recommendations but – also include in there at least a request an update on the option for exploring the medicine education and counseling option? You know, an option for a more educational – because when I was sitting there going through that – you were showing us that scenario where there’s information – and I think I am a – I don’t say the best consumer of medicine but I am somewhat informed and I was surprised by that. So, sort of educational – bring it back to us at least if there’s a possibility?
Kelsey: If I may, I would wonder if we couldn’t do that through our county public relations, you know if it’s something that could be put together in a brochure as an example of how that might work and have that brochure available, you know …
Walsh: I think we could brainstorm ideas. I was just wondering if we could include …
O’Banion: Maybe add it on to the brochure that Mike Nelson brought to us as far as the prescriptions from …
Kelsey: Right.
O’Banion: Maybe elaborate it and have more of a folder than just the one program, maybe add the two programs we have currently but I don’t think it’s necessary – I mean I think it’s a good idea but I don’t know if it necessarily needs to be a part of the action …
Walsh: OK, then.
Kelsey: OK. All right. Mr. Walsh, did you have anything else? Mr. O’Banion, are you finished? All right, I’ll call for the question and all those in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye… Any opposition? So carried.
What do we have left? Ah, Ms. Cardella-Presto. You are one and I won’t even put the button on you so go ahead and take your time and tell us what we’re doing here.
Merced County Auditor/Controller Lisa Cardella-Presto: Mme. Chair and the board, this item before you is a request for adoption of the 2009-2010 budget schedules. These budget schedules display the components of fund balance, reserves, and changes in reserves for all general, special revenue, debt service and capital project funds. Following the accounting standards and procedures for counties, prescribed by the state Controller pursuant to the County Budget Act, our office compiled these schedules as outlined in the Government Code. I’d like to thank my staff in the Auditor/Controller office for their timely and professional work They have worked diligently through this process and are to be commended for a job well done, especially in light of a new department head. I had to say that for Hub. (This is evidently county humor beyond the understanding of ordinary citizens.)
I’ll give you some details so bear with me for just a moment. The general fund balance has decreased by $14.9 million as a result of expenses exceeding revenues by $12.4 million and changes in encumbrances and reserves, the net $2.5 million. Special revenue fund balance increased by $13.6 million, mainly due to changes in encumbrances over all in these funds, which includes roads, MAP, SCIAP, Affordable Housing, Sheriff Inmate Welfare, RDA, Spring Fair, Fish and Game, Child Support, First Five and Workforce Investment. Debt service fund balance decreased by $1.1 million due to debt service payments exceeding revenues. Capital projects fund balance increased due to a decreases in encumbrances of $7.4 million and expenses exceeding revenues by $1.9 million.
These schedules reflect the final recommendations brought before you today. We have worked closely with administration to analyze and estimate revenues in a time when the state is looking to raid our government to balance their budget.
I would like to just briefly reflect on some major influences that have affected the property tax revenue specifically this year. Changes in general fund property tax revenue between proposed budget and final budget can be attributed mainly to an overall decrease in the county’s assessed property values and state legislative actions. This last fiscal year brought with it a rapid decline in Merced County’s property values and this is reflected in an estimated 15-percent decrease in property tax revenue for ’09-’10. Also affected by property taxes is in lieu vehicle license fees, part of which is referred to as the ‘triple flip.’ This calculation, established by R&T Code, Section 97.7, requires that the controller calculate the percentage variance from year to year. This calculation for property tax in lieu decreased by $3 million. General fund items for these line items were appropriately reduced in these schedules to reflect changes from proposed to final budget.
On July 28, 2009, the governor signed into law AB 15, dealing with property tax revenue allocations. Part of this bill has been discussed today with regard to the securitization of the future repayment of what is being called the state Proposition 1A loan. Existing property tax requires the auditor to allocate property tax revenue among local jurisdictions. This includes counties, cities and special districts. I wanted to make you aware of the implications of this bill to our office. These property tax allocations are done in accordance with specified formulas and procedures and generally require that each jurisdiction be allocated an amount equal to the total amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year as well as that jurisdiction’s portion of the annual tax increment, which is also referred to as growth. This new bill requires the auditor to reduce the amount of ad valorum property tax revenue apportionments to each local agency for the ’09-’10 fiscal year by 8 percent. Of the total amount of the property tax revenue apportioned to that agency in the ’08-’09 fiscal year. These funds are then to be transferred to a supplemental revenue augmentation fund. These funds will then be transferred to the County Office of Education and by them to the state Controller in amounts as directed by the Department of Finance. This is to reimburse the state for costs for providing various services in the county.
In addition to this, the auditor shall report to the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and each local agency located in the county, including cities and special districts, with information detailing how each local agency’s reduction amount was calculated. The amount calculated to loan to the state from Merced County is $4,998, 552.
These additional reporting requirements and calculation processes continue to increase and the demand for timely and accurate financial information in a time of fewer resources in a major concern of mine. Thank you for an opportunity to comment on these schedules.
Kelsey: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. O’Banion.
O’Banion: Mme. Chair. I would like to have a copy of those written comments if you please. And with that, I would move to approve the budget schedules … including the reserves and appropriations for encumbrances and carryover for the 2009-2010 budget year.
Kelsey: OK. Is there a second? OK. We have a motion and a second to approve the budget schedules … as well as the appropriation limit for the fiscal year 2009-2010.
Now, Mr. Walsh? OK. You had nothing else. Mr. Pedrozo? … If there is no further discussion, I’ll call for the question. All those in favor, please signify by saying Aye. Any opposition. So carried.
Then the supervisors considered Item 1, concerning population figures.
Kelsey: We have a motion and a second to approve the population statistics and the appropriations. …
It passed.
The last item was adoption of the budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Walsh: Two questions real quick. One, with regard to the library and our estimated dollars for this year, we’re estimating – and this is a question, Mme. Chair for Mr. Brown and Mr... …, we anticipated for the library redevelopment dollars from the city … the amount of the previous years or less? Or more … as a step up?
Merced County Librarian: I guess the nice thing about being last is that you are in a room full of friends. I think at budget time when we were conversing we decided to go with what was in the contract, with what was supposed to receive. Of course that was before the state budget came out and the governor is taking some RDA money. So …
Walsh: We have to revisit this at some date later if the dollars were realized to be less.
Kelsey: No one seems real interested in answering that question tonight, but I’m sure that we’ll bring it up.
Librarian: We’ll have to. I’ve already panicked.
Kelsey: Um hmm. OK.
Walsh: My final two recommendations or suggestions are – and I don’t know if this is the right place – is we had a lot of discussion today about budget reduction days and my suggestion would be we … by the example and the example would be that we forego 5 percent of our salaries starting effective whenever so as to set that example for budget reduction days. Just a thought.
O’Banion: A response to that thought. I don’t have any problem with the budget at this point but there are going to be some continued discussions as far as on furlough days and things like that and I am sure that we will share in the agony that everyone else shares in. So I would say that at that point is went we do, and not determining that we are going to take 5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent – whatever we work with the rest of the employees of this county appropriately should be adjusted with us also. I have some other things after he’s through.
Walsh: This really is my last – that we consider because of the discussion today that we consider some adjustment to our special district funds beyond the 35 percent, simply in keeping with the discussion that folks had had about in these tough times might be to reduce it to a lower figure and/or might it simply be that those folks who have some kind of balance in theirs reduce theirs to a lower figure. I don’t know if this is a place to have that discussion or if that will be part of our future discussions.
Kelsey: All right. Thank you Mr. Walsh.
Walsh: Sorry.
O’Banion: When there’s no money, there’s no really big fighting and I think the case again – there were 15 … 18 action items were unanimously approved, there were two that were 4-1, and there was one that was actually kind of a fight and that was 3-2. Of course there was one that was 3-0 which I didn’t get a chance to participate in. I would just say that I respect the decision that you folks made while we were out. It wudn’t an easy decision. Probably I would have went along with that decision. I can’t tell you for sure. But, you know what, there was discussion about it and you came to some recommendation and consideration for the future. The only thing in regards to the hearings, the only thing I was offended by was the email that we received a copy of that basically said that we know that there are some supervisors that would like to use this as a stepping stone to destroy the Williamson Act. That’s terrible to send an email like that out publicly saying that this board, which excluding Hub, were on the board when the Williamson Act was enacted. And they think we’re trying to kill it.
Kelsey: The only ones on the board at that time I think were Jerry and I. Yeah. So, we’re the only ones left.
Walsh: I find it intriguing about that email. I didn’t get a copy of it. I haven’t seen it. (O’Banion gives him a copy). But being one of the folks that would be designated clearly up from that I was going to be able to address this because I didn’t have a conflict, I can tell you – No one talked to me about the Williamson Act in advance of our discussion.
O’Banion: Anyhow, there wasn’t a lot of fighting and arguing with regards to the budget. We’ve got an approved budget, I think, we’ll find out in a few minutes, and I would like to thank all the staff that have worked on the budget. It was probably one of the most difficult situations that we have had as far as budgets in the last 19 years. And it’s even tougher than it was back in the early 1990’s, I think. I mean when you affect people’s lives like we’ve had to affect them, it is not an easy decision to make. Hopefully, we can do some things to help improve the environment for those individuals who are still here and maybe bring some of the individuals back in the future.
Nelson: I also want to thank staff, especially those that are still here….don’t necessarily have to be. Good to see a friendly face out in the audience. I’ll just piggyback a little on Mr. O’Banion’s comments on that email. I agree with you. It isn’t right and it’s always amazing to me how some people will come before us asking us to vote their way in their favor and yet they insist on making derisive comments about certain board members.
Pedrozo: I want to thank all the staff that has worked on this. I know that this has been a challenging, challenging, challenging budget to do and I,I,I – this is probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. I think of the poor people that it’s affected and it’s beyond our control and I hate that when we can’t solve something because it just bugs the hell out of me. But, it’s affecting me too. My daughter’s lost her job. She had a signed contract, a teacher in Fresno. She lost her job. My brother had a job, he lost his job. So I know somewhat of what the pain is and I just hope and pray that somehow, someway this thing gets better because this is really taking effect on all of us and I want the people that make this county what it is – and that’s all our employees – to realize that we feel their pain and we are going to do all we all that we can to help them.
Kelsey: I just want to say that this is the worst meeting if not almost the worst meeting I’ve ever attended just because of the nature of what we had to do today and the questions that were before us and the pain that we knew we were going to be inflicting. It’s really sad that we’ve dismantled so many programs and dismantled, in my opinion, much of the safety net that we’ve been able to provide our county – especially during this critical time. I’m not a very happy camper and I’m hoping that things don’t get worse.
But, the other question is, how the heck to you ever put the whole thing back together? You know, you break it and it goes into a million pieces and how are you going to pick it all up? I don’t know but I do appreciate the work that the staff has put into this and their efforts in helping us make the hard choices and all the research and effort that’s gone into the budget. All the budget guys have done a good job.
Thank you. We will persevere and see what the new day brings.
It passes unanimously.
Kelsey. Oh, yeah, I forgot. Is there any more public comment? Is there anyone who wants to say anything else? … Seeing no one come forward, I will close the public comment and adjourn the meeting. 
Merced Sun-Star
Would-be developer of homes in Los Banos, Fox Hills behind on taxes
No progress has been made on large development planned for Westside...CORINNE REILLY
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/1059506.html
Developer Fox Hills, which once planned to build thousands of houses near Los Banos, owes more than $1.5 million in delinquent property tax payments.
A group of limited liability companies owns the land where Fox Hills hoped to build. Collectively, they owe $1.58 million in overdue taxes, including interest, according to public records.
By state law, the county tax collector must publish a list annually of all property owners who have failed to pay their taxes for the past three years. This year's delinquencies were made public last week. Together, the Fox Hills LLCs owe more than anyone else on the list.
No one associated with Fox Hills could be reached for comment Tuesday, but by all available accounts, plans for the development are long dead.
Envisioned to cover 1,250 acres southwest of the city of Los Banos, Fox Hills was billed as an upscale, country-club community of low-density homes that would eventually include a golf course and more than 7,000 residents.
A group of investors proposed the project's first phase in the early 1990s. The Board of Supervisors handed them their last approval in 2006, but Fox Hills never built any houses.
The California Farm Bureau sued the county in 2007 over the board's decision to OK the cancellation of a state preservation contract that was meant to prohibit development on a small part of the land where Fox Hills hoped to build.
The Farm Bureau lost, but the preservation contract has remained in place because Fox Hills never paid fees associated with the cancellation, county officials said.
The county's assistant planning director, Bill Nicholson, said Tuesday that it's been more than a year since anyone from Fox Hills has taken steps to move the project forward.
Some of the Fox Hills LLCs that owe the late taxes have been suspended, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.
When property owners fail to pay taxes, the county tax collector's office must charge steep interest. But the government has little other recourse for the first five years that taxes remain unpaid, tax collector Karen Adams said. If an owner fails to pay for longer than five years, the property can be auctioned.
The only other property owner on the delinquencies list owing close to what Fox Hills owes is a company called Point Center Financial, Inc., based in Aliso Viejo, in Orange County. Point Center owes roughly $835,000, according to the tax collector's office.
Struggle of Merced County agriculture reflected in crop report
Prices have gone down further in grim portent...CAROL REITER
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/1059519.html
The roller coaster is on its way down.
After a record-breaking year in 2007, agriculture in Merced County saw a drop in total worth in 2008. And those lower numbers may be just the beginning.
The crop report for last year shows that, despite a second year of drought, the worth of the county's commodities was nearly $3 billion. Nearly $1 billion of that worth was wrapped up in milk.
But with dairies getting slammed at the end of 2008 because of low prices for their milk and high prices for feed, the drop in value from 2007 may be a view into the future.
"Last year, the worth (of ag commodities) was just over $3 billion," said David Robinson, agricultural commissioner for the county. That was the first time the commodity value was more than $3 billion.
Although 2008 started out well, commodity prices started to bottom out at the end of the year, according to Robinson.
"The price of milk dropped 5.2 percent last year, which was a $55 million reduction," Robinson said.
While milk made up a solid third of the total commodity worth, chickens held fast on second place. The worth of those chickens was down 1.3 percent, mostly because of a reduction in flock size.
Almonds came in at third, despite being substantially down in value from 2007. The price was down 40 cents a pound, and that led to an overall value of about $255 million, down from a value of about $311 million in 2007.
"The price was down, but the production was up," said Mark Smith, deputy ag commissioner and an almond farmer. "That low price led to some growers pulling out their older trees."
Production was up because young trees were just starting to produce, Smith said.
Coming in fourth was cattle and calves, which includes both beef cattle and dairy cattle. Karen Overstreet, a beef rancher and deputy ag commissioner, said a lot of beef producers were slammed by high feed prices and the drought.
"The rangeland had very little feed, and cattlemen had to do a lot of supplemental feeding," Overstreet said. Cattle and calves were worth about $246 million, up from last year's $236 million.
Sweet potatoes, which came in fifth in value, were planted on 1,500 more acres in 2008 than 2007, for a total worth of about $162 million.
Smith said sweet potato growers are finally seeing their market open up. "Sweet potatoes can be used for a lot of things now, like fries," Smith said. "Before, it was either fresh market or baby food."
Eggs, which came in sixth, saw a dramatic drop in production from a reduction of the number of laying hens. The egg industry voluntarily decided to reduce the number of layers per cage. Eggs still raised in value almost 9 percent over 2007 because of a 22.5 cent increase in the price per dozen eggs.
Although 2008 saw only a small drop in the total worth of ag commodities, Robinson isn't so optimistic about 2009.
"The situation is dire for dairy farmers, and several have quit milking," Robinson said. "That's a third of our ag economy, and it could be bad news next year."
Our View: Shame for failure to pass water bill
For Legislature, this is too urgent an issue to wait until next session.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/181/v-print/story/1059526.html
The Legislature finished its regular session Saturday morning without producing a comprehensive water plan -- one of the most critical issues for the San Joaquin Valley.
Some key players, including Sens. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, and Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the president pro tem, said they made serious progress in recent weeks.
That sounds great, but where's the finished product? Democrats and Republicans must make more compromises to get water solutions moving.
The longer they delay, the more serious the consequences and the greater the public sentiment that the Legislature just can't get the job done on the most important issues facing the state.
We acknowledge that there are many interest groups and many elements surrounding a major overhaul, and it's impossible to satisfy everyone.
But the answer is not perpetual delay.
These water issues have been on the table for years.
The problem is not with new information or a lack of information; it's an inability to compromise.
In our view, any overhaul must:
Promote conservation by urban, agricultural and industrial users and spread the conservation mandates equitably across the state.
Provide additional water storage, in reservoirs and underground.
Address the serious environmental degradation of the delta.
Provide a way to pay for the improvements through a water bond.
Farmers and other businesses that benefit directly should contribute to their construction and upkeep, but a comprehensive water plan must recognize the collective benefit of water.
Gov. Arnold Schwarze-negger insisted he would not sign a water package without the bond, and in the end, Democratic leaders pulled back their package of bills.
While his threats are getting tiresome, this one was well used.
If legislators are getting close to a meaningful compromise, then they should keep on it.
A special session is in order. Water is too urgent an issue to wait another year.
Fresno Bee
Northwest salmon recovery plan may include breaching dams...LES BLUMENTHAL,McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-print/story/1639180.html
WASHINGTON In a case closely followed by environmental and business interests, a rewritten plan for restoring endangered and threatened wild salmon runs on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Washington state and Idaho includes studying the possibility of breaching four major hydroelectric dams if other steps don't reverse the decline.
The revised Northwest plan, known as a biological opinion, was submitted Tuesday by the Obama administration to U.S. District Judge James Redden in Portland, Ore., who had been critical of a previous plan submitted by the Bush administration that rejected even a study of breaching the four dams on the lower Snake River.
The Obama proposal leaves much of Bush's plan intact. But it now includes an "aggressive" implementation section: A precipitous decline in the Snake River runs would trigger the dam breaching study. Congress would have to authorize any actual breaching.
"This is considered a contingency of last resort and would be recommended to Congress only when the best scientific information available indicates dam breaching would be effective and is necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the affected Snake River species," the administration said.
The "best available science" does not justify moving forward with dam breaching now, the administration said.
The string of more than a dozen federal dams on the two rivers is not the only problem the salmon face. Loss of habitat, climate change, questionable hatchery policies, increasingly warm water and invasive nonnative fish all take a toll. But breaching the four dams has always been the most controversial proposal for recovering the 13 wild salmon and steelhead runs protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The Obama plan drew sharp criticism from environmentalists who felt the dams should be breached immediately and from lawmakers who said dam breaching shouldn't even be studied.
Michael Garrity, Washington conservation director for American Rivers in Seattle, said the salmon runs were already in near desperate shape and that the threshold for triggering a study was set so high that it might be too late to revive the runs.
"Unfortunately, the new administration has kept the 2008 Bush salmon plan intact, which sets the bar so low that many Columbia and Snake river salmon and steelhead runs will remain at high risk of extinction," Garrity said.
Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, whose eastern Washington district includes large swaths of the Columbia River Basin, said the Obama administration was catering to environmental extremists.
"The Obama administration has put dam removal back on the table and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding," Hastings said. "No one should be fooled by talk of dam removal as a last resort when the Obama administration is immediately launching studies and plans for action."
Groups representing farmers, utilities, ports and other river-related businesses praised the administration for supporting much of the Bush plan, but they were critical of the dam-breaching study.
"Even talking about destroying the dams is nonsensical," said Terry Flores, executive director of Northwest RiverPartners.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who opposes breaching the dams, noted that the Obama plan was "scientifically and biologically sound" and was developed following meetings with various groups in the region.
At one time, the runs totaled an estimated 10 million to 15 million salmon. No one is quite sure how many there are today.
The four dams - Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite - produce enough cheap electricity to supply a city roughly the size of Seattle. The dams also have allowed barges to carry wheat from as far away as the High Plains downstream to West Coast ports for export overseas.
But critics say that since the last dam was completed in 1975, the Snake River runs have all but disappeared. Some of salmon journey 900 miles from central Idaho to the Pacific Ocean, only to return two or three years later to spawn. The dams present major hurdles for the juvenile fish headed downstream and the adults headed upstream.
Redden has rejected two previous plans for restoring the runs and made clear he was not happy with the 2008 plan submitted by the Bush administration. In a letter to the Obama administration earlier this year, Redden listed a number of problems with the Bush plan including the lack of a "rational contingency plan" if the runs don't improve. If other measures fail, Redden said, other options, specifically dam breaching, should be considered.
ON THE WEB
The salmon recovery plan: http://tinyurl.com/quaewv
Obama administration unveils fuel economy rules...JULIE PACE and KEN THOMAS,Associated Press Writers
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-print/story/1638660.html
WASHINGTON With global talks on climate change looming, the Obama administration sought to gain momentum Tuesday by unveiling its plan to require better gas mileage for cars and trucks and the first-ever rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson released the proposed regulations at the White House, the follow-up to President Barack Obama's announcement in May that the government regulations would link emissions and fuel economy standards.
"This action will give our auto companies some long-overdue clarity, stability and predictability," Obama said Tuesday during a visit to a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.
"This marks a significant advance in our work to protect health and the environment and move our nation to a sustainable economy in the future," Jackson said.
The new standards call for the auto industry's fleet of new vehicles to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
The proposal will cover vehicle model years 2012 through 2016, allowing auto companies to comply at once with all federal requirements as well as standards pushed by California and about a dozen other states.
The administration estimated the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 - but that it would take just three years to pay off that investment and that the standards would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.
Jackson said the new standards will have the effect of taking 42 million cars off the road.
The proposal is expected to increase vehicle fuel efficiency by about 5 percent annually and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons. The plan would also conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil, Jackson said.
Administration officials noted that the new standards are four years ahead of a 2007 law that would have required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average in 2020.
The proposed rules are expected to provide automakers some flexibility in meeting the requirements in exchange for building advanced vehicles. Some luxury automakers and foreign manufacturers who sell a limited number of vehicles in the United States could meet a less-stringent standard in the early years of the regulations.
The agencies must finalize the proposal by March 30 to give automakers enough planning time for the regulations to take effect in the 2012 model year.
Tuesday's announcement could provide the Obama administration momentum on climate change in advance of a series of high-level talks on a new international agreement to curb heat-trapping gases and a speech by the President next week on global warming at a special U.N. summit.
The administration's lead climate negotiator just last week acknowledged that negotiations have so far failed to bridge the divide between developed and developing nations, saying that action on the part of the U.S. by passing legislation to limit greenhouse gases was urgently needed. But with the bill delayed in the Senate by the health care debate, the chances that Congress will act before more than 180 nations gather in Copenhagen, Denmark in early December to work on a new treaty are growing dimmer.
The new fuel economy standards, in the meantime, could serve as a placeholder - a concrete step that the Obama administration is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In another prelude to Copenhagen, the Obama administration announced Tuesday that the U.S., Mexico and Canada would ask 195 nations that ratified a U.N. ozone treaty to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, powerful greenhouse gases used as coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners.
The State Department said that the proposal, if adopted, represents "a significant down payment" on efforts to broker a new climate change agreement later this year and would help the U.S. achieve the president's goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent come 2050.
Hydrofluorocarbons account for only about 2 percent of the globe's climate-warming gases, but their share is expected to grow to up to a third of all greenhouse gases by mid-century. That's because the 21-year-old ozone treaty, known as the Montreal Protocol, promoted their use to replace chlorofluorocarbons, which harm the ozone layer.
LaHood, meanwhile, said the administration had paid out $2.5 billion at this point for the Cash-for-Clunkers program under which auto dealers sold more than 700,000 vehicles in 30 days. LaHood said the remainder of federal payments to dealers under the program would be paid by the end of the month, taking government payments to a total of $3 billion.
EPA to place limits on power plant water pollution...DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-print/story/1638793.html
WASHINGTON For the first time in nearly 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to limit the quantity of toxic metals that coal-fired power plants release into waterways.
The agency said Tuesday that equipment required to reduce pollution in the air has increased harmful contaminants in water discharged by power plants, particularly heavy metals such as selenium, cadmium, mercury and lead. Current regulations do nothing to control metals and are not enough to protect water quality and wildlife, the agency said.
The agency said the new rules will be unveiled in 2012, but EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for an earlier target date.
In a preliminary study released last year, the EPA found that only a fraction of the nation's power plants were using readily available technologies to remove pollutants before they are released into waterways. The water pollution comes from scrubbers that strip gases of acid-raining causing sulfur dioxide and coal ash storage ponds where power plants store the leftovers of burning coal.
A spill at a coal ash pond in Tennessee late last year, which flooded hundreds of acres of land, damaged homes and killed fish in nearby rivers, helped raise awareness about the toxic contents of coal combustion waste and has put increasing pressure on the government to take action.
The announcement comes a day after three environmental groups threatened to sue the EPA for failing to update its regulations, first put in place in 1982. Federal law requires the agency to review regulations annually and revise them if necessary, which the advocates say the agency failed to do.
"EPA should have limited these discharges decades ago as the law requires," said Eric Schaeffer, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which along with the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, informed the EPA Monday of its plans to file a lawsuit.
Representatives of those groups said Tuesday they still planned to pursue the case, and pressed EPA to set a firm deadline for the new rules.
But Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies, urged EPA to take its time. He also said the agency is obligated to consider the cost of any new regulations.
"The power sector is already heavily regulated," Segal said. "Failure to adequately consider cost hurts consumers."
Stockton Record
Stockton may feel pinch from salt water ruling...Alex Breitler
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090916/A_NEWS/909160323#STS=fzocyman.1aah
STOCKTON - Hold the salt and pass the cash.
For the first time, state water cops are requiring Stockton to limit the amount of salt in its wastewater - a demand that could require costly new treatment methods.
At worst, the city could consider reverse osmosis, said Mark Madison, director of the Municipal Utilities Department. That method - squeezing water through membranes with microscopic holes to separate salt - could cost $295 million, with yearly operational costs of $21.6 million, according to a 2004 city estimate.
Such costs would be passed on to ratepayers, Madison said.
"Those facilities would be horrendously expensive," he said.
Also, new restrictions could be put in place on the residential use of water softeners as well as on industrial operations in Stockton.
The state's salt crackdown comes during a time of increasing pressure to reverse the decline of the Delta. Stockton is one of more than a dozen cities to discharge treated wastewater into the estuary, and powerful Southern California and San Joaquin Valley water exporters - whose supplies have been cut to protect endangered species - have pointed an accusatory finger at these cities for adding contaminants to the system.
The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District have argued that Stockton's new permit, issued last year, should include strict salinity standards. So, too, has the environmental group California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, based in Stockton.
But an attorney representing the city told the water board Tuesday that cutting back on salt will do little for the Delta.
"The city's salt loads in its discharge are trivial. It's a trivial amount and impacts the Delta in a trivial manner," attorney Theresa Dunham said.
The city releases its wastewater into the San Joaquin River six miles downstream of a key salinity monitoring station and thus does not impact whether Delta salinity standards are met, the city argues. Nor, officials say, does the salt harm upstream farmers in the south Delta.
That's not entirely true, Manteca farmer and longtime water warrior Alex Hildebrand said.
The force of the large water export pumps near Tracy causes south Delta channels to flow backward, meaning Stockton's treated wastewater travels uphill toward farmers who long have struggled with a salty water supply and lower crop yields.
That said, Hildebrand believes the water exports themselves are a much bigger problem than Stockton's wastewater.
Delta water is pumped to farms on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, whose salty runoff trickles into the San Joaquin River and returns to the Delta, only to be pumped south again in a salty vicious cycle.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of salt enter the Delta via the San Joaquin each year, Hildebrand said.
"It's true those city treatment plants have those problems, but what they add is a drop in the bucket," he said.
Tracy faces a similar problem to Stockton's. It has already filed suit over salinity standards contained in its new wastewater permit.
Building a reverse osmosis plant in that city would cost more than $100 million and would raise average water bills from about $30 to more than $100 a month, said Steve Bayley, Tracy's deputy director of public works.
Reverse osmosis also brings up the tricky question of what to do with the brine that is left once treatment is complete. Madison said it might have to be shipped out of the area via barge, an added expense.
The state board took no action Tuesday on Stockton's permit, which has been appealed. A draft order says the city's claims that it should not be required to reduce salinity are "radical."
"The San Joaquin River and the Delta are impaired by salinity. The facility discharges salinity into these waters. Of course it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, for the permit to require the city ... to reduce salinity and protect this valuable resource," the order says.
Wetlands numbers already for birds...Peter Ottesen
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090916/A_SPORTS03/909160327#STS=fzodnkdt.1jeh
With elegant silhouettes that blacken the sky, and calls and whistles that break the early-morning silence, the fall migration of millions of waterfowl into California's Central Valley brings solace to outdoors enthusiasts that all is well with the natural world.
At least the world of ducks and geese.
At a time when there is so much wrong with our environment, these amazing birds, some of which fly 2,000 miles and more without stopping to rest, are proof that hunter-conservationists and habitat managers do make a difference. A huge difference.
Scientists for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, their counterparts in Canada and non-profit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and California Waterfowl, believe more than seven million ducks will winter here this year and most every species will migrate along the Pacific Flyway in numbers meeting or exceeding North American goals. Hunters, bird watchers and those who care about migratory waterfowl - amazing birds that have the ability to "home" back to breeding sites in the spring and wintering sites each fall - have much to celebrate.
The largest increases reported are in shoveler ducks, up 25 percent from 2008 and 92 percent above its 54-year long-term average; green-winged teal, up 16 percent and 79 percent, respectively; and gadwall, up 12 percent and 73 percent respectively.
Overall, the 10 most common species of ducks are up 13 percent and their total is 25 percent above the long term. Mallard are up 10 percent, pintail 23 percent and canvasback up 35 percent. This also was a good production year for most flyway goose populations, which will result in larger fall flights of cackling, Aleutian, white-fronted and lesser snow geese.
Waterfowl hunters have good reason to be encouraged by the surveys and projected fall flight. Most parts of the state, including the Central Valley and Delta, will have a 100-day hunting season that commences Oct. 24 and concludes Jan. 31, and daily limits of seven ducks and eight geese.
Chief biologist Dale Humburg of Ducks Unlimited cautions that a larger fall flight doesn't necessarily guarantee more birds in the bag for hunters.
"As always, weather and local habitat conditions will have a big influence on the distribution of migrating and wintering waterfowl," he said.
Bird watchers are rejoicing, too. Ducks and geese already are "stacked" in Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge near Willows, just off Interstate 5, where a six-mile public tour route provides one of the greatest wildlife shows on earth. There are so many white-fronted geese and pintail ducks that it is hard to fathom. A visitor center, complete with dioramas, interactive displays and videos, and staffed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, make this destination a "must" for everyone who cares about or marvels at migratory waterfowl.
Tens of thousands of pintail began arriving in the 180,000-acre Grassland Wetlands of Merced County the second week of August, when temperatures were above 100 degrees. The early migrants focused on Volta Wildlife Area where there was ample water to accommodate them. Since Sept. 1, seasonal water is being applied on privately held wetlands all along Santa Fe Grade, a dirt road that extends from Highway 140 east of Gustine to Highway 152, east of Los Banos, where the sights and sounds of dense flocks of ducks is mind-boggling.
There are pleasant surprises, too. Wading birds such as black-necked stilt, long-billed curlew and white-faced ibis have gained in population. Ibis now number more than 2,500 breeding pairs in the San Joaquin Valley alone. By contrast, in the early 1960s, there were no confirmed breeding pairs in the valley, a sure sign that a guaranteed supply of well-timed, good-quality water to the Grasslands - such as provided by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in 1992 - has made a huge difference to all wetland-dependant birds.
Also making a difference have been the efforts of Ducks Unlimited, which, since its formation in 1937, has restored more than 12.6 million acres of continental wetlands; funds from the Federal Duck Stamp, begun in 1934, which has purchased or leased 5.2 million acres of wetlands in the U.S.; and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which, since authorized by Congress in 1989, has restored and enhanced some 25.4 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands.
There's reason for hope. Waterfowl prove it.
Best places to observe waterfowl
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge: Located near Williams via Interstate 5 — (530) 934-2801.
Gray Lodge Wildlife Area: Located west of Gridley via Highway 99 — (530) 846-7500.
Los Banos Wildlife Area/Grassland Wetlands: Located in Merced County via Interstate 5 and Highway 152 — (209) 826-0463
Manteca Bulletin
Manteca’s elected leaders want South San Joaquin Irrigation District to be the city’s retail power provider...Dennis Wyatt
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/7101/
The City Council, convinced the South San Joaquin Irrigation District has the resources and knowledge to lower retail power rates 15 percent across the board and improve reliability, went on record unanimously Tuesday to urge the San Joaquin County Local Area Formation Commission to approve the SSJID application to allow them to enter the retail power business in Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon. Ultimately the SSJID would replace PG&E.
The decision before an audience packed with PG&E workers is a far cry from two years ago when Manteca’s council opted to stay neutral. Mayor Willie Weatherford explained the big difference was that SSJID has provided more data, has established a firm track record including reducing city power costs 15 percent to run the water treatment plant, and that PG&E power rates continue to climb.
Two years ago, Councilwoman Debby Moorhead – who was not an elected official at the time – was the executive director of Stop the Power Grab. It is the group created by PG&E to try and sway public opinion against SSJID entering the retail power business. On Tuesday, she was on board with the rest of her council colleagues in backing SSJID’s request before LAFCO.
PG&E government relations manager Emily Barnett characterized the SSJID proposal as “ill advised” saying it is essentially the same application the LAFCO board rejected prior as well as two court decisions. Actually, the LAFCO staff in 2007 recommended approval saying it met the needed criteria to proceed. PG&E successfully lobbied majority of the LAFCO members to vote against it by framing the argument against eminent domain which PG&E contends SSJID will ultimately have to use to get the territory from them. Eminent domain, as LAFCO staff noted in 2007, isn’t a concern that the LAFCO board is required to judge service applications on under state law.
Courts didn’t rule on validity of previous SSJID application
The subsequent court decisions Barnett referred to were filings by the SSJID to argue LAFCO didn’t have jurisdiction because SSJID was already in the wholesale power business so retail power wasn’t a new service for them. The courts disagreed twice noting that the fact SSJID went before LAFCO in the first place re-enforces that it was LAFCO’s call to make. The court decisions had absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the SSJID’s application or whether it was feasible.
It was a point re-emphasized in a follow-up question by Weatherford when it was noted that the California Public Utilities Commission did not take issue with the SSJID’s proposed move into retail.
Bob Brock, a Manteca resident and PG&E employee of 26 years who is supervisor of the PG&E’s Manteca electrical distribution, voiced concerns about his future employment and that of others should PG&E have to divest itself of the Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon retail electric territory.
He also zeroed in on language in the SSJID application that said it would initially hire 11 linemen to serve retail power system.
Brock noted he was part of crews that worked 27 hours straight after this past weekend’s lightning storm to get power up and running. SSJID General Manager Jeff Shields, later in response to council questions, said SSJID has plans to hire “as many linemen as it takes.” The application states they will start with 11 and operate with additional contract employees to get a year’s operations under their belt initially before hiring more permanent staff. The upfront employment number for full-time positions for SSJID is 68.
Councilman Vince Hernandez surveyed various Manteca residents and businesses whose power bills ran the gamut from $39 a month to $2.3 million a year. He said the group that had the concern were seniors on fixed income and low-income families. Hernandez was concerned that those people would lose their discounts that run as high as 20 percent.
Shields noted those discounts would remain in place and that SSJID will give them “15 percent discounts on top of the 20 percent discount” they are now receiving.
Shields emphasized everyone except one group of people would receive a 15 percent reduction in their power bill sunder the SSJID plan. That one group is PG&E employees who reside within the 72,000 acres of the SSJID. Currently, PG&E grants them 25 percent discounts.
“They (the PG&E workers) will get the same 15 percent discount as everyone else,” Shields said, adding SSJID employees will not get any break simply because they are SSJID employees.
PG&E regardless would continue to provide natural gas
Other points brought up include:
•PG&E will continue to remain as the natural gas provider in Manteca regardless of what happens at LAFCO.
•The California Public utilities Commission has determined PG&E’s remaining customers will not be impacted by SSJID taking PG&E territory. There are 5.1 million PG&E customers system wide and just 38,000 within the boundaries of the SSJID.
•SSJID will pursue the production of even more zero-emissions power generation within the district by working with people for roof-top, farm and business solar installations. All of SSJID’s energy generation portfolio is green.
•In at least four instances PG&E came to agreement to sell parts of their system instead of being forcing use of eminent domain. Those instances are Trinity, Lassen, Turlock, and Redding.
• The 15 percent rate reduction would pump $11.6 million a year back into the economy, reduce a family’s yearly power bill that uses 1,000 kilowatt hour s month by $349, and slash the City of Manteca’s annual power use costs by $300,000.
•SSJID will provide local control and accountability.
“If you’re not reliable them accountability will fall on your doorstep like lightning,” Weatherford said at one point, noting there are reliability concerns now with PG&E service.
Barnett made a pitch to put the proposal to a vote of residents. PG&E is underwriting a statewide initiative that would require just that should any future segments of its territory want to form their own retail public power concern. The PG&E measure would require a two-thirds vote.
Councilman Steve DeBrum pointed out that not only are four of the five SSJID board members currently elected in at least part by Manteca residents but all five have a fiduciary responsibility to the entire district including Manteca. Voters do not elect PG&E directors.
Shields – and council members – emphasized that there is no issue with PG&E’s rank and file but with how the corporation is run.
Shields noted that the battle is “Beale Street (PG&E’s corporate headquarters in San Francisco) with (SSJID).
Tracy Press
Power plant gets initial thumbs down...Eric Firpo
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Power+plant+gets+initial+thumbs+down%20&id=3608288-Power+plant+gets+initial+thumbs+down&instance=home_news_bullets
A subcommittee has recommended the state’s energy commission reject a request by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. that would have give the company more time to build a power plant just west of San Joaquin County.
If the energy commission at its Sept. 23 meeting also rejects the request, it likely kills a project that activist and Tracy shoe store owner Bob Sarvey argued would have given nearly all the financial benefits to Alameda County, while sticking Tracy and San Joaquin County with virtually all of the air pollution.
Sarvey, energy commission staff and a consumer group called The Utility Reform Network all opposed the extension.
PG&E on Sept. 23 will try to convince the energy commission to extend the deadline, said PG&E spokesman Blair Jones.
PG&E agreed to buy the Tesla Power Project in July 2008 from Midway Power LLC, a subsidiary of Florida Power and Light that had applied in 2001 to build a 1,120-megawatt plant just across the Alameda County border west of Tracy and Mountain House. PG&E wanted to shrink it to a 560-megawatt power plant. (One megawatt can power 750 homes.)
In April of this year, PG&E asked for a five-year extension of the construction deadline, which was scheduled to end in July before the commission gave the company until Tuesday to argue for an extension.
But the commission decided against PG&E’s request for several reasons, one of which was that the smaller power plant proposed by the company was not what the commission agreed to back in 2004.
The commission also noted that the public utility failed to diligently begin to build the plant once it bought the rights to it, and it waited until April 2009 to ask for an extension though it knew in 2008 that the deadline loomed.
In its ruling, the subcommittee noted Sarvey’s contention that, on the one hand, PG&E wanted to extend the deadline to build the plant, yet on the other hand, it asked permission to have customers pay $4.9 million in “abandoned project costs.”
Sarvey speculated that PG&E might try to pass onto ratepayers the expense of buying the rights to the plant in the first place.
“If PG&E makes a bad business decision, the shareholders should pay for that, not the ratepayers,” he said.
Chico Enterprise-Record
Editorial: Water solution isn't taking ours
http://www.chicoer.com/advertise/ci_13347241?IADID=Search-www.chicoer.com-www.chicoer.com
Our view: Southern Californians seem to think there's an endless supply of water up here and will do anything, except perhaps pay more, to get it.
Faced with a midnight deadline to solve one of the state's big problems, the Legislature solved nothing and said, in effect, "We'll just deal with this crisis later."
How many times have we seen that before?
Unlike the Legislature's habit of ignoring budget deadlines, however, this delay actually may be a good thing.
A special committee was given the unrealistic goal of hammering out a comprehensive plan to address the state's water issues in a mere week and a half. Unlike the often-ignored constitutional deadline to pass a state budget before the fiscal year begins, this deadline was an artificial one. The governor and legislative leaders wanted a solution and a vote before the full Legislature went into recess at midnight Friday.
Instead, according to north state Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, the 14-member committee met until 6:45 a.m. Saturday before finally adjourning. They agreed to meet for a "special session" sometime soon — one of the few things the committee agreed upon during its negotiations.
This is one of the few cases where missing a deadline is actually better than the alternative, which would be an ill-conceived solution done for the sake of expediency.
California's water problems are extensive. It is not as simple as putting one or two multibillion-dollar bonds on the ballot. The
San Francisco Chronicle
Strict conservation plan for Northwest salmon...William McCall, Associated Press
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/16/MN7819NLD5.DTL&type=printable
Calling it an "insurance policy" for salmon, the Obama administration has developed a tougher conservation plan for the Pacific Northwest that includes monitoring for climate change and possible dam removal.
But a top official also said the original plan drafted during the Bush administration and completed last year was "biologically and legally sound" when combined with measures added by the Obama administration.
Jane Lubchenco, chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the plan submitted Tuesday to a federal judge for approval sets specific triggers for taking quick action to save salmon if conditions change in the Columbia River Basin.
"The key to this insurance plan are contingency measures that will be implemented in case of a significant decline in fish abundance," Lubchenco said.
One of those contingency measures would be possible removal of four lower Snake River dams, a measure that she said would be a "last resort."
The plan drew immediate criticism from both sides of the long debate over Northwest rivers that provide fish, hydroelectricity, irrigation and cargo routes.
"The Obama administration has put dam removal back on the table and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Breaching the four Snake River dams would take a "terrible economic toll" on the Northwest, including higher energy prices and thousands of lost jobs, without any assurance it would lead to fish recovery, Hastings said.
But Nicole Cordan, legal and policy director of the Save Our Wild Salmon coalition, said the revised Obama administration plan simply repeats what the coalition believes are the same mistakes made by the Bush administration.
"They adopted Bush-era science and politics," Cordan said.
U.S. District Judge James Redden rejected plans in 2003 and 2005, threatening at one point to take control of salmon recovery efforts.
The new plan would immediately boost mitigation programs to help salmon survival, expand research and monitoring, and set specific biological triggers for even stronger measures, if numbers of threatened fish fail to reach certain benchmarks.
Walkout called over UC budget cuts...Nanette Asimov
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/16/BAKV19N5S5.DTL&type=printable
(09-15) 14:45 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Hundreds of faculty, students and staff from the University of California's 10 campuses are calling for a systemwide walkout Sept. 24 to protest UC's handling of its budget crisis.
The protest is intended to disrupt classes to call attention to the deep impact of millions of dollars of budget cuts on the quality of education throughout the UC system.
What began in recent weeks as a proposed faculty walkout coinciding with the first day of school next Thursday at some campuses - including UCSF, UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz - has grown to include graduate and undergraduate student groups, and labor unions representing thousands of employees.
"We hope to accomplish a freeze on tuition increases, protection for the most vulnerable employees, and a return to respect for democratic process," said Joshua Clover, an associate professor of English at UC Davis who helped draft a petition urging the walkout that has been signed by 743 faculty members representing each campus.
UC's governing Board of Regents is meeting in San Francisco today and will hear a proposal by UC President Mark Yudof to raise student tuition by about 30 percent by fall 2010. The university says it is trying to close a budget shortfall of at least $753 million for this year and next.
In July, the regents approved a furlough plan requiring every employee to take between 11 and 26 days off during the school year without pay. Employees with higher pay would take off the most days. Each campus was to decide how the furloughs would be implemented.
Faculty anger fermented at the end of August, when interim Provost Lawrence Pitts announced that faculty would not be permitted to take their furlough days during teaching days.
This was not what faculty groups had decided. Assuming they had a voice on instructional matters under UC's system of shared governance, they had voted to split the days off among teaching, research and office hours "to send a message that budget cuts do in fact negatively impact the University's instructional mission," Mary Croughan, then chairwoman of the Academic Council, representing faculty, had written in a memo last month to Pitts.
The petition calling for a walkout began as growing numbers of faculty complained that UC had flouted their will. It demands that furloughs be permitted on teaching days and that there be no pay cuts for employees earning less than $40,000.
Pitts, flooded with letters of protest, said in an open letter to faculty last Thursday that furloughs on teaching days would be too hard on students and would be perceived as using them "to make a political point in Sacramento."
Yet support for the walkout has been growing. The Graduate Assembly, UC's graduate student government, and the UC Student Association both approved resolutions in recent days supporting next week's walkout.
"I'm absolutely supporting this walkout, and am working to educate other graduate students about it," said Annie McClanahan, a doctoral student in English at UC Berkeley who is organizing a noon rally on Sproul Plaza on the day of the walkout against employee pay cuts and student tuition hikes.
McClanahan said she knows of many faculty members who, instead of walking out of class, say they will use the day to teach their students about UC's budget crisis.
UC employs more than 12,000 faculty members and about 3,500 lecturers. It's unclear how many plan to participate.
Coastal environmental concerns and ocean policy forum, September 17...John Maybury...Peninsula Coastside Blog
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inpeninsulacoastside/detail?entry_id=47648
Coastsiders are urged to attend Thursday, September 17, when the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is having a public meeting on ocean policy. The meeting will be chaired by CEQ director Nancy Sutley and attended by NOAA director Jane Lubchenko, as well as other agency directors from EPA, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Navy. You can come and express your concerns about the ocean, and offer your suggestions, or just attend and let these agencies know you care about the ocean. Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting, Thursday, September 17, 2:30 – 6:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency, 5 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco. You can also submit a comment online at WHITE HOUSE
StopExtinction.org
Help Create a National Healthy Oceans Policy...Sarah Matsumoto, Deputy Director Endangered Species Coalition
http://www.stopextinction.org/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_cause&cause_id=1704
We need you to come to San Francisco to help shape this policy!
When: Thursday September 17^th 2009, 2:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Where: San Francisco, California - at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco at Embarcadero Center, Ballroom A
Note:  Public comment can also be submitted online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/oceans
What's the Problem?
Our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources are under enormous strain as a result of overexploitation, habitat degradation, coastal pollution, and climate change.  To complicate matters, these vital water resources are currently governed by more than 140 laws and 20 different agencies, each with different goals and often conflicting mandates.  It is time to bring these laws and regulations under the umbrella of a unifying national oceans policy that requires sound stewardship.
The Solution
On June 12 the President created a 90-day task force process to analyze management challenges and to propose a national policy for oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes. Now is the time for the President to hear from you! What's a solid, direct solution to reduce user conflict, promote stewardship and protect the enduring economic benefits our national waters provide? We need the establishment of a comprehensive national policy that protects, maintains, and restores the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. We need President Obama to declare a national policy through an Executive Order that:
•    Creates a governance system to implement a new national policy;
•    Restores our marine and Great Lakes fish and wildlife;
•    Protects and restores key coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes habitats;
•    Cleans our oceans, beaches and Great Lakes waters;
•    Safeguards oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes from climate change and ocean acidification; and
•    Creates an adequate funding mechanism to implement this policy.
How You Can Help
President Obama can establish a strong, protective national oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes policy by issuing an Executive Order. The first step is to make sure he hears from you.  The Presidential 23-member Ocean Policy Task Force is scheduling at least five listening sessions around the nation to gather public input. The Task Force is required to propose a policy by Sept. 12. It is critical that we speak in favor now of a comprehensive national policy that promotes sound management and environmental sustainability.
When: Thursday September 17^th, 2009, 2:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Where: San Francisco, California - at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco at Embarcadero Center, Ballroom A
Note:  Public comment can also be submitted online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/oceans
Click here to email Sarah Matsumoto and let her know you plan to attend!
Please let your friends and family know about this historic opportunity to create a National Policy to protect our oceans
Thanks for all you do to protect wild things and wild places!
Sarah Matsumoto
Deputy Director
Endangered Species Coalition
The Endangered Species Coalition is a national network of hundreds of conservation, scientific, sporting, religious, humane, business and community groups across the country working to protect our nation's wildlife and wild places.
Indybay
Jennings Responds to Environmental Defense's Praise of Failed Water Bills...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/15/18622080.php
Bill Jennings responds to Environmental Defense's defense of the failed water bill package pushed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assemblymember Jared Huffman. A broad, grassroots coalition defeated this road map to the peripheral canal, at least temporarily. He takes particular exception to the back room negotiations that Environmental Defense, NRDC, the Bay Institute and the Nature Conservancy engaged in with the Metropolitan Water District, Westlands and Kern County - without any input or consent by grassroots environmentalists, fishermen, farmers and Delta interests.
Jennings' comments are preceded by the piece that Jennifer Witherspoon of Environmental Defense posted on her blog.
"NRDC, TBI, EDF and TNC cannot negotiate backroom deals with MWD, Kern and Westlands and expect the excluded grassroots and Delta interests to simply acquiesce without explanation," Jennings emphasized. "Especially, when we're the ones in the trenches. Frankly, the legislation, while containing some very good points, read like CalFed 2."
Jennings Responds to Environmental Defense's Praise of Failed Water Bills
Hi Cynthia:
Many of us always read the EDF blogs and comment letters. But, communication needs to be a two-way street. NRDC, TBI, EDF and TNC cannot negotiate backroom deals with MWD, Kern and Westlands and expect the excluded grassroots and Delta interests to simply acquiesce without explanation. Especially, when we're the ones in the trenches. Frankly, the legislation, while containing some very good points, read like CalFed 2.
As someone who regularly appears before the State Board in both water quality and water rights proceedings, I have a somewhat different take on the enforcement provisions of the legislation. If the State Board cannot bring itself to enforce existing law, additional requirements for them to ignore are of questionable value. While new reporting requirements and fees are a small step in the right direction, Sections 1110(b), 1111 and amended Section 2525 are essentially meaningless, as the State Board has long had that authority but refused to use it.
Just this year I was a party and testified in four evidentiary hearings as virtually all of the D-1641 standards for protecting the Delta have been violated.
1. In February, DWR and the Bureau illegally diverted more than a fourth of outflow requirements, yet the State Board couldn't bring itself to sanction them in evidentiary hearings in March.
2. In June, the Bureau absconded with more than 40% of required San Joaquin River flow (1250 cfs versus 2150 cfs) and, again, the Board ignored the matter.
3. South Delta salinity standards have been violated since last December. Responding to our request, the Board issued a Cease & Desist Order in 2005. DWR/Bureau failed to comply with the terms of the Order from inception and this year, less than a month from the final compliance deadline, asked for another extension. Even though the Board stated in 2005 that it would not consider an extension of the C&D (for standards initially adopted in 1978 and never enforced), the Board held a hearing in June. A decision has yet to be issued. We intend to sue.
4. In a related matter, DWR and the Bureau have been using the Joint Point of Diversion (JPOD) even thought they are explicitly prohibited from doing so when salinity standards are violated. Protests from us and South and Central Delta Water Agencies have been ignored - as were our protests last year. Again, we're going to have to sue.
5. The Board approved DWR/Bureau's request to consolidate their respective places of use following an April hearing despite extensive testimony/evidence that it wasn't needed and violated numerous requirements. A petition for reconsideration is pending and we may incorporate that into the Drought Water Bank lawsuit against DWR/Governor for waiving CEQA for droughts that occur a third of the time in California.
6. After more than a decade, the Board finally had no alternative but to schedule a hearing stemming from our protest of the Bureau's time extension request for its Auburn Dam water rights. Those rights were revoked following a July hearing. An easy decision as the Auburn Dam project had died long before.
The preceding doesn't include numerous protests of water transfers that have been essentially ignored; even though many of them are for water that Westlands is diverting to storage and will not use this year. Interestingly, DFG has not commented on transfers and staff was explicitly prohibited from testifying in the above hearings.
The Board's response to public trust and unreasonable use petitions is just as deplorable. They ignored a remarkable hearing record on the Mokelumne, issued increased flows on the Yuba that didn't include protective temperatures in the spring and then took back much of what they had granted by reducing spring flows in order to facilitate water sales by Yuba County Water Agency. They haven't addressed the Calaveras petition. They finally got around to conducting a required Triennial Review of the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan in 2005 but failed to make any significant changes despite the collapse of pelagic and salmonid fisheries. They ignored our public trust, unreasonable use and method of diversion complaint. The Board has a huge backlog of protests and petitions.
It's little different on the water quality side of the ledger. Responding to our petitions, the State Board remanded four permits back to the Regional Board over the last seven months and is considering three more tomorrow. But, we still have more than 50 petitions pending and have had to recently file lawsuits over the NPDES permits for the City of Tracy and El Dorado Irrigation District's Deer Creek POTW (and have three more in preparation). These are for some of the most fundamental permitting requirements in the SIP and federal Code of Regulations.
Responding to a few other of your ten points:
1. It requires the State Water Board to do a public trust analysis of the flow needs for the Delta ecosystem within nine months - well in time for the analysis to be of real value to the BDCP process. Granted, the bill does not require the BDCP to use this analysis (let me spare you the long, dull, lawyerly reasons for this), but the State Board is the public trustee for the state's fish and wildlife and - if the legislature provides it with the resources it requires to do the job - is the right place to get this done.
The requirement to conduct a flow assessment for the Delta ecosystem within nine months evidences a lack of understanding of how the Board works and its diminished staff and lack of resources. The State Water Board is already required to do a public trust analysis of flow needs for the Delta under existing law. The State Board is also required under existing law to have an EIR certified before they do so. Under the proposed legislation there is no time to do an adequate environmental document and Governor Schwarzenegger's handpicked Board will make the decision on flows.
2. It precludes the start of construction of any canal until the State Water Board issues certain permits. This addresses concerns that a canal could be built first, or construction begun, prior to a Board determination of flow needs. Moreover, those permits would be required to include flows for fish and wildlife protection.
Construction of a canal is already precluded prior to the State Board's issuing a change in the point of diversion. The rushed nature of this legislation simply caves in to the exporter's desire to approve this project before Schwarzenegger's appointees leave office.
3. It requires that an Independent Science Council must be involved with the BDCP. This Council would be charged with ensuring that the BDCP passes scientific muster. The last thing we need is another plan that fails to keep its ecosystem restoration promises.
CalFed had a science program. Actually, the CALFED environmental standards were higher than what we see in this program. The scientists will have no more authority and influence that they had in the CALFED program. They will be funded to do science that is disregarded if good, and praised if bad.
4. It requires that the BDCP must meet the recovery standard, and all of the other requirements, of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act and be certified by the fisheries agencies to be a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) before that plan can be eligible for any public funding or other important benefits.
CALFED had a Multi-species Conservation Plan and a NCCP in its programmatic environmental document that was signed off on by DFG. That NCCP was no protection for the Delta species and didn't work at all to prevent the collapse of the Delta ecosystem.
The same Schwarzenegger appointees that will decide the flow determinations by DFG will approve this NCCP. All this NCCP will do is protect the peripheral canal from endangered species lawsuits.
5. It requires fishery agencies to establish new performance measures critical to achieving a healthy and resilient ecosystem in the Delta and its watershed, and includes a host of additional ecosystem health considerations that must be included in the BDCP and broader planning for the Delta estuary.
There were no standards protecting fisheries or water quality in the proposed legislation. It is far weaker than the protections in SB 200 in 1980 and ACA 90 in 1982. It is far, far weaker than the protections in the draft Water Quality Control Plan in 1988 that was pulled back by Deukmejian. It is far, far, far weaker than the protections in draft D-1630 in 1992 that was pulled back by Wilson. It is even less protective than the ratio-of-survival-at-Chipps Island doubling standard that was contained in USEPA's Bay Delta standards in 1995. Has no one retained any institutional memory?
DFG is little more than a subsidiary of DWR and the time period in the legislation (12 months) to develop standards makes it clear that Schwarzenegger will decide what DFG thinks is necessary for the environment.
The bottom line is that the estuary has collapsed because of an egregious failure to comply with and enforce existing law. We have a Water Code, state and federal endangered species, environmental review and water quality acts and a Fish and Game Code that would have prevented the present crisis. If agencies won't comply with existing law, new ones will make little difference.
We cannot continue to ignore the elephant in the room. We've simply promised more water than we can deliver and we can't solve our water problems without biting the bullet of adjudication. A good initial step would be for the legislature to restore the urban preference. The urban preference was an original part of the State Water Project because they knew they lacked the water rights to supply everyone during inevitable drought sequences (especially, when they failed to get 5 million AF off the north coast).
It is absurd to pretend that Kern County Water Agency (supplying several tenths of one percent of the California economy) is entitled to an equal amount of water during a drought as MWD (supplying 19 million people and almost half of the state's economy). It is absurd to penalize Delta farmers, irrigating some of the richest soils in the world with senior water rights, in order to supply subsidized water to irrigate impaired soils in the desert that belch toxic wastes back to the environment. I'll close with four questions:
1. Show me an estuary or river that was restored by diverting massive inflow around it.
2. Show me a situation where water quality standards were met or improved by diverting dilution flows and increasing residence time.
3. How do you successfully complete the most complicated HCP ever envisioned in history, married to a massive hydraulic modification of an estuary and segregated from its upstream tributaries in less than two years?
4. How will increases in “habitat” under BDCP miraculously restore fisheries considering that Delta habitat acreage has essentially remained the same over the last 30-50 years (perhaps even increased with mitigation banking) and the pelagic crash occurred within the last ten years, as exports were ramped up.
There were a number of positive aspects in the legislation. Unfortunately, they were overwhelmed by the bad.
Cheers!
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
Environmental Defense Praises Water Bill Package As 'Pretty Good'
Dear interested editors and journalists:
With the very real possibility that a special session could be called in the California Legislature to cover proposed water legislation, The Environmental Defense Fund wants to stay in touch with you on priorities that we are working to include in legislation. Please feel free to contact me to interview one of our policy staff working on the water policy to be included in the legislation. You can get frequent update on California water policy at our blog here: http://blogs.edf.org/waterfront/
Thank you
Jennifer Witherspoon
California Communications Director
Environmental Defense Fund
"...America's most economically literate green campaigners"
- The Economist
http://blogs.edf.org/waterfront/
http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/
Whither water?
September 14, 2009 | Posted by Spreck Rosekrans in Bay Delta, Legislation
Cynthia Koehler is Senior Consulting Attorney for EDF.
The demise of a package of five water policy bills in the state legislature late Friday night, while predictable given end-of-session deadlines, had this sliver of surprise buried in it: the 5 policy bills taken together were pretty good. By “pretty good,” I mean good in the sense of “an important and meaningful advance over the water policy status quo for the environment” as opposed to “guaranteeing the water policy outcomes that would be ideal” from an environmental perspective.
How can the policy package possibly be construed as good, when it was linked to a water bond that included billions for construction of new dams under a poorly-defined assumption that they would provide public benefits?
Let’s stipulate that the longstanding practice in California of holding solid water policy reform hostage to a massive public spending commitment is of questionable wisdom at best. (I’ll let you come up with your own descriptions of the “at worst” side of this equation.) Let’s further stipulate that water bond proposals in play could lead to the construction of controversial dams and other water projects that could cause substantial environmental harm.
Nevertheless, it is still extremely important to talk about the water policy piece in the light of day and determine whether – on its own merits – that policy is pretty good or not. The fact is whether the state builds dams or not, California’s water policy is broken and it needs to be addressed if we are to move past the hand-wringing stage and into the fixing things stage.
The tug of war between our highly degraded ecosystem with its barely surviving salmon on the one hand, and the two massive water projects that provide 15% of the state’s water supply to farms and cities on the other, has dragged for decades. The Bay Delta Conservation Planning process (BDCP) is the place where much of the current action to find a solution is taking place. However, there are serious concerns about whether this will just be another in a litany of failed efforts and broken promises leaving the estuary, our salmon, and our state in even worse shape than before. It is of particular concern that a potential peripheral canal lies at the center of the BDCP’s work. The Governor’s Delta Vision Task Force has proposed a set of policy course corrections. The Environmental Defense Fund does not concur with every one of the Task Force’s recommendations, but believes that its Strategic Plan has real merit. In particular, its recommendations that the legislature must act to correct certain out-dated water policies and give guidance to the BDCP process.
So why is the water policy package that emerged just before Friday’s deadline pretty good? Here’s my top ten:
1. It establishes a state policy of reducing reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by increasing water recycling, cost-effective efficiency, and regional self-sufficiency.
2. It substantially increases the State Board’s power to enforce water rights and stop illegal diversions of water.
3. It substantially expands groundwater management and monitoring efforts.
4. It requires the State Water Board to do a public trust analysis of the flow needs for the Delta ecosystem within nine months – well in time for the analysis to be of real value to the BDCP process. Granted, the bill does not require the BDCP to use this analysis (let me spare you the long, dull, lawyerly reasons for this), but the State Board is the public trustee for the state’s fish and wildlife and – if the legislature provides it with the resources it requires to do the job – is the right place to get this done.
5. It precludes the start of construction of any canal until the State Water Board issues certain permits. This addresses concerns that a canal could be built first, or construction begun, prior to a Board determination of flow needs. Moreover, those permits would be required to include flows for fish and wildlife protection.
6. It requires that an Independent Science Council must be involved with the BDCP. This Council would be charged with ensuring that the BDCP passes scientific muster. The last thing we need is another plan that fails to keep its ecosystem restoration promises.
7. It requires that the BDCP must meet the recovery standard, and all of the other requirements, of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act and be certified by the fisheries agencies to be a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) before that plan can be eligible for any public funding or other important benefits.
8. It requires fishery agencies to establish new performance measures critical to achieving a healthy and resilient ecosystem in the Delta and its watershed, and includes a host of additional ecosystem health considerations that must be included in the BDCP and broader planning for the Delta estuary.
9. It requires Delta agencies to respond to climate change and the threats it presents to the Delta communities.
10. It contains a substantial new water conservation program, which, while watered down from earlier versions — and less likely to reach its lofty objectives — still represents an important advance from today’s more anemic conservation efforts.
Is this nirvana? If this bill were enacted today, would we be assured that the conflicts discussed above will be finally resolved, that the salmon fishery restored to health, and that threats to our ecosystem will be banished? It’s probably safe to say that this is unlikely. But would these measures together represent real improvement over the status quo, do they provide important levers for moving decisions and processes in a more productive direction; do they provide greater hope for the future? I believe so. Taken together they give the Delta a fighting chance, while still recognizing the need for a reliable water supply for cities and farms, a threshold test any viable legislation will have to meet.
But what of the linkage between the water bond and the policy bills? At the end of the day, who cares if you have a pretty good water policy bill if you only get it by agreeing to a water bond that could fund new infrastructure that threatens new harm to the ecosystem we are working so hard to restore?
This is a fair and reasonable question, and it is the reason that EDF is taking different positions on these two pieces of legislation. But we need to be able to talk seriously and clearly about policy on its own, first, and then work to de-couple discussions about water bonds from discussions about policies to address water supply reliability and ecological devastation that have been the scourge of this state for decades.
To do otherwise is simply giving in and allowing the hostage taking to continue, to be party to the unending ideological standoff. At that point, California’s only hope is the one we have relied on to date – pray for rain.
We’ll post again soon on the legislative process and continue to explain why policy reform is necessary – not just for the environment but for California’s cities and farms as well.
Contra Costa Times
Demonstrators arrested in protest at UC regents meeting...Matt Krupnick
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13348816
SAN FRANCISCO — Police arrested 14 protesters today after they delayed a University of California board meeting.
The demonstrators, most or all UC employees, were handcuffed by UC police as they chanted, "Whose university? Our university." They were cited for trespassing and unlawful assembly and released, a university spokesman said.
With the arrests, the action, which protesters said was in response to budget cuts, layoffs, furloughs and student-fee increases, went a step beyond the usual brief, loud demonstrations hat have come to characterize Board of Regents meetings.
"We don't accept those things without (UC leaders) opening their books," said protester Jillian Marks as she was led away in handcuffs.
Regents cleared the room during the disruption, during which the protesters stood shoulder to shoulder with a banner reading "People's Board of Regents."
The meeting reconvened a few minutes after the arrests in front of a largely empty room on UC San Francisco's Mission Bay campus.
Los Angeles Times
New Northwest salmon plan modifies Bush approach
Monitoring could trigger dam removals in Washington state. Some conservationists aren't satisfied...Kim Murphy
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-salmon-dams16-2009sep16,0,626775,print.story
Fisheries managers announced Tuesday that they would enhance but not significantly alter the government's current strategy for saving salmon from extinction in the rivers of the Pacific Northwest, drawing criticism from conservationists.
The long-awaited review left intact key components of the George W. Bush administration's controversial 2008 "biological opinion," which concluded that salmon could be kept alive on the Columbia and Snake rivers without removing dams or significantly increasing water flows.
But the plan submitted Tuesday for a federal judge's approval calls for extra measures to protect the fish -- including an additional $940 million in habitat improvements and expanded efforts to control predators and invasive species.
It also proposes rigorous scientific monitoring that would automatically put into play a broad range of additional protection measures -- even removal of four dams in Washington as a "last resort" -- if salmon and steelhead trout numbers plunged.
The four small dams on the lower Snake River stand between the salmon and millions of acres of pristine wilderness habitat.
The new plan orders the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin outlining the studies that would be needed to demolish them.
"We took a very good, hard look at all aspects of the biological opinion," said Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"We determined that the science . . . was fundamentally sound, but that there were considerable uncertainties in how all of the parts of that would play out. . . . As a result, we have brought to the table a more aggressive -- a more enhanced -- plan that is much more precautionary."
The plan was endorsed by a coalition of farmers, utilities, ports and businesses that support maximum economic development of the rivers and their hydropower systems.
"The plan, while expensive, holds the most promise for the region to move forward collectively to do things that actually benefit fish," said Terry Flores, executive director of Northwest River Partners, who put an estimated $10-billion price tag on the salmon restoration measures.
The Bonneville Power Administration, which operates the biggest dams on the Columbia River, said that the bulk of the costs would be paid by $100 million a year in electricity rate hikes scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.
Conservationists, however, expressed misgivings Tuesday over what they saw as the Obama administration's failure to make the substantial changes needed to protect the fish.
Todd True of Earthjustice, who represented fishing and conservation groups that sued over the Bush-era plan, said:
"The government has failed completely to use the last four months of review for a serious, substantive or cooperative effort to build a revised plan that follows the law and the science and leads to salmon recovery. Instead . . . they are offering a plan for more planning and a study for more studying."
The Northwest's 13 stocks of endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead are a symbol of the West's once wild, free-flowing rivers and a backbone for the region's $3-billion-a-year sport and commercial fishing industry.
But taking the steps conservationists say are crucial to their survival -- funneling more water into the river instead of through electricity turbines, and removing some dams upstream -- poses formidable political hurdles.
Hydropower dams provide nearly half of the region's electricity and are a crucial navigation link for barges that ferry wheat and other production from eastern Washington and Idaho to the Pacific.
Although some salmon stocks are at unusually robust numbers this year, at least one was unexpectedly low.
Conservationists said the healthy returns resulted from U.S. District Judge James A. Redden's 2007 order that federal officials allow more water to spill into the rivers to help juvenile fish during their crucial migration to the sea.
That strategy, environmentalists said, would be rolled back under the government's latest plan.
However, Brian Gorman, spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said that there was no evidence that increased flows affected salmon survival, which he said was more dependent on ocean conditions.
Nicole Cordan, legal director for the Save Our Wild Salmon coalition, said that conservationists also were concerned about the Obama administration's decision to adopt the current standard for measuring success -- which requires only that the fish be "trending toward recovery."
"If nothing else, this is a unique and new way of interpreting the [Endangered Species Act]," she said. "That low benchmark has never been applied before."
But Lubchenco said that the plan meets federal requirements by providing a means for the fish to survive with "an adequate potential" for recovery.
Two more L.A. water mains burst overnight, bringing more questions
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/2-more-la-water-main-burst-overnight-bringing-more-questions.html#more
Two more water mains broke overnight in the San Fernando Valley, the latest in a rash of problems hitting L.A.'s water system. 
The first break occurred around 2:30 a.m. on Corbin Avenue in Warner Center, sending water into the street. The second break occurred around 4:30 a.m. on Burbank Boulevard in Winnetka. 
Both incidents are under investigation.
Underground water pipes in Los Angeles have suffered significantly more "major blowouts" in the last three months, officials confirmed Tuesday after analyzing dozens of ruptures, some of which flooded streets, damaged vehicles and buildings and, in once case, created a sinkhole so big that it almost swallowed a firetruck.
And the city's engineers don't know why.
It could be fluctuating temperatures. It could be a statistical anomaly. It could be something else.
"It's strange," said William Robertson, general manager of the Bureau of Street Services, which repaves the ruined roads after the water recedes. "The thing that is puzzling is they are so spread out . . . all over the city. You can't link them to anything."
L.A. engineers are puzzled by uptick in water pipe failures
The sharp rise in 'major blowouts' along L.A.'s underground water delivery system has no clear cause...Jessica Garrison. Times staff writer Robert Lopez contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-leaks16-2009sep16,0,6776781,print.story
Underground water pipes in Los Angeles have suffered significantly more "major blowouts" in the last three months, officials confirmed Tuesday after analyzing dozens of ruptures, some of which flooded streets, damaged vehicles and buildings and created a sinkhole so big that it almost swallowed a firetruck.
And the city's engineers don't know why.
It could be fluctuating temperatures. It could be a statistical anomaly. It could be something else.
"It's strange," said William Robertson, general manager of the Bureau of Street Services, which repaves the ruined roads after the water recedes. "The thing that is puzzling is they are so spread out . . . all over the city. You can't link them to anything."
What Department of Water and Power officials can say with certainty is they want more money to fix the problem and plan to ask for a water rate hike. The blowouts underscore the fact that the city's aging water system, which has 7,200 miles of pipe and moves 600 million gallons of water a day, needs an upgrade, officials said.
"This all requires a lot of money," said Jim McDaniel, head of the city's water system.
But some City Council members, who would have to approve any rate increase, did not appear convinced.
"They have to make a case for that," said Councilwoman Jan Perry. She added that she is concerned about the rise in blowouts. "We have to get to the cause," she said. "People can get hurt. Property can be lost."
Los Angeles' water system was put in place by William Mulholland, who figured out how to tap water from the Eastern Sierra and the Owens Valley and designed an aqueduct system that let it flow to Los Angeles on the force of gravity alone.
The influx allowed the semi-arid Los Angeles to boom -- and subdivisions marched outward in the 1920s and the years just after World War II.
The system remains a marvel to many engineers and still sends water over the Santa Monica Mountains from Sylmar to San Pedro using gravity. But parts of it are now almost 100 years old, and many of the pipes are wearing out. At the same time, new water quality standards are requiring the DWP to cover many reservoirs at great expense.
The age of the pipes has long been a concern to engineers and officials at the DWP, but most Angelenos were unaware of the urgency until earlier this month.
On Sept. 5, a 95-year-old trunk line ruptured under Coldwater Canyon Avenue, sending a torrent of mud and water shooting 10 feet into the air and then into the streets of Studio City.
Less than 72 hours later, a broken main created a sinkhole in Valley Village -- and nearly consumed a fire truck that responded. Days later, another broken main flooded Melrose Avenue near Fairfax High School.
And on Tuesday there was another on Exposition Boulevard, which caused officials to close the thoroughfare between Crenshaw and Degnan boulevards and cut off water to several businesses.
DWP officials say the number of leaks was not out of the ordinary.
City pipes fail about 1,400 times a year, a rate per mile of pipe that is actually much lower than in other big cities.
But what is unusual is the increase in "major blowouts" in which pavement is ruptured and the leak causes problems.
McDaniel said that there have been 13 such incidents in the first 14 days of this month. By comparison, there were 13 in all of September 2006, 17 in September 2007 and 21 last year. July and August saw a similar jump, he said.
"At this time, I don't have a definitive cause," he told DWP commissioners Tuesday.
To fix the system, officials last year persuaded the City Council to approve a water rate increase of about $2 per month per customer. That will allow the DWP to spend about $1.3 billion over the next five years.
But officials would like an additional $1.4 billion to accelerate the replacement of water mains and to make other water quality improvements.
"We need to have a conversation with the people of Los Angeles if we're going to enlarge and accelerate the program, which is what we'd like to do," said DWP General Manager H. David Nahai.
DWP officials have proposed additional rate increases for 2010 and 2011.
Awash in water trouble, it's time to spout off at DWP
For some customers, bills are rising faster than a gusher from a broken main...Steve Lopez
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16-2009sep16,0,986634,print.column
Until further notice, it might be wise to carry a life preserver with you at all times in Greater Los Angeles, which had yet another water main eruption early Tuesday.
It's like a geyser park out there, and fittingly, the latest gusher was near an L.A. Department of Water and Power distribution station in South Los Angeles.
Where and when will the next one blow?
I'm visualizing a news conference at which Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa tries to explain the DWP's latest troubles or persuade us he can avert a city budget disaster, and suddenly he's shooting skyward, riding a gusher.
But even before rotten pipes gave way to raging rivers, I was working on a column about the DWP. I was working on it before the City Council rejected yet another rate hike request, before Villaraigosa buddy Fabian Nuñez's PR firm was tapped for a $120,000 annual contract, and yes, even before the news that another Villaraigosa pal swept in and bought a wind farm that the mayor wanted and then tried to sell it to the city at an inflated price.
It began with a seven-page letter from JoAnn Yuster of North Hollywood, who was steaming about how she and her husband were using less water but paying more for it. Her letter was loaded with quotation marks and exclamation points, and the handwriting got worse as she picked up speed.
"P.S.," she wrote. "I am really not a crazy lady. Just angry at what has happened to our city & state!!!"
When I went to visit JoAnn and Richard Yuster, their neighbor Beth Morgan dropped by, and they all took turns complaining about their ever-growing DWP bills.
"My husband said it's like another mortgage payment," said Morgan, whose $927 DWP bill for July and August was the same amount, almost to the penny, as her Social Security check.
Morgan said she called the DWP to complain that it was difficult to understand the bill, as well as the explanation of a two-tier billing system that's in effect because of the drought.
"They said, 'You don't gotta understand it, you just gotta pay the bill,' " said Morgan, whose husband is a TV producer who works intermittently. "They said, 'Honey, nobody understands this.' "
DWP did send an explanation to the Yusters, but language such as, "Your first tier allowance (usage block) will be reduced by 15%," doesn't exactly make things crystal-clear. Imagine thousands of seniors training a magnifying glass on words like those, trying to make sense of what the DWP is telling them now.
What was perfectly clear to Yuster was the fact that, this year in July and August she used 25% less water than she did last year during the same period. She's pretty sure she paid less last year, despite the greater usage, but she couldn't find the bill to prove it. She did find her bill from two years ago, though. Then, she used 14% more water than she did this year, yet her water bill was $56.42 less. Add in electric, sewer, the city utility tax, solid resources fee and the state energy surcharge, and this year's bill was $783.80 for July and August versus $417.29 for the same period two years ago.
Like the Morgans, the Yusters downsized in recent years, moving to a less expensive neighborhood to prepare for retirement that now seems impossible to consider. At 69, Richard Yuster is still working two jobs in the garment industry, and 66-year-old JoAnn works as a school registrar. They don't see an end in sight. Don't misunderstand, Richard says, they're not poor. They're just fed up about rising costs, corporate greed and political corruption.
Yuster swallowed his teeth over a recent Times story about six-figure pensions and cost-of-living increases for 841 former city employees, including $327,000 a year for a former DWP general manager and $290,000 for an assistant general manager.
He nearly choked when the state's high-speed rail commission, dominated by Gov. Schwarzenegger appointees, preliminarily picked a company led by two former Schwarzenegger cronies as likely recipients of a $9-million PR contract.
And he recently found out the burial plots he bought for himself and his wife might be gone, thanks to the demise of the company he bought burial insurance from.
"What can we do?" he asked. "There's nothing to do. We keep working."
Yuster said he and his wife have always supported social services for those less fortunate than themselves.
"But I can't even pay for myself anymore," he said.
"We're middle America," his wife added. "We're the backbone of this country and you wonder what's happening."
The Yusters have lots of good questions and legitimate beefs. But when I looked into their situation, I learned that although they've definitely cut back, they're still using quite a bit of water. I compared it with my own bill, for a house roughly the same size as the Yusters', and I'm using less than half as much water.
Joe Ramallo, a DWP spokesman, said 68% of the agency's clients stayed within their Tier 1 limits, which come to roughly 326 gallons of water a day. The Yusters, who used 748 gallons daily on average, ended up paying a big surcharge for exceeding the limit. It's possible they've got a leak, said Ramallo, who offered to send workers out to check. He also said DWP would pay $1 for every square foot of landscaping the Yusters convert to native plants.
Richard Yuster said his front lawn, which he waters twice a week, may indeed be the culprit and he's considered ripping it out to go native. But indoors, he said, the Yusters are taking short showers, washing dishes in a small tub and turning off the spigot while brushing teeth.
Given drought conditions, we all need to do a better job.
And so do DWP and the mayor.
Villaraigosa's goal of making renewable energy 40% of the DWP supply by 2010 is commendable, but as with his bungled solar energy plan, he seems more concerned about getting credit for an idea than making it a reality. My colleague Dave Zahniser had a nifty little example in the paper on Tuesday, and while reading it, I was slapping myself in the forehead.
The city was eyeing some land in Kern County on which it wanted to put a wind farm, but then a former campaign fundraiser and pal of the mayor grabbed it for $48 million. Since he didn't need it all, he graciously offered to sell half of it to the city for -- are you ready for this? -- $65 million. The city said no, so thank your lucky stars for that. Then the guy sold it to the city of Vernon for $42 million, and now the mayor's minions are wondering whether to buy the land or sue Vernon.
So, what should we do? Laugh? Cry? Call for an investigation?
I say all of the above.
Meanwhile, the DWP may ask for rate increases to cover the recent water main breaks. We've also had electricity rate hikes every three months for the last three years, and now DWP is rewriting its request for another hike. As Councilwoman Jan Perry said two weeks ago, we're tired of handing a "blank check" to the DWP for a renewable energy plan with few details and no known cost.
Sure, wind farms would be swell. But shouldn't we fix the broken water mains first, before we're commuting to work by canoe?
Washington Post
EPA scraps Bush-era smog rule and will start over...DINA CAPPIELLO, The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091602069_pf.html
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration signaled Wednesday that it would scrap a controversial Bush-era rule that set stricter limits for smog but fell short of scientific recommendations.
In a notice filed Wednesday in a federal appeals court, the Justice Department says there are concerns that the revision made by the Bush administration does not adhere to federal air pollution law. The Environmental Protection Agency will propose revised smog standards to protect health and the environment in late December.
"This is one of the most important protection measures we can take to safeguard our health and our environment," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in a statement. "Reconsidering these standards and ensuring acceptable levels of ground-level ozone could cut health care costs and make our cities healthier, safer places to live, work and play."
Smog is a respiratory irritant that can aggravate asthma and has been linked to heart attacks.
The Bush regulation, announced in March 2008, was the subject of much controversy although it was estimated that it would have prevented thousands of hospital and emergency room visits and 1,400 fewer heart attacks.
While stronger than the previous rule, it wasn't as tough as the government's independent scientific advisers had recommended. Documents later showed that President George W. Bush had intervened personally on the level of smog protection for wildlife, farmlands, parks and open spaces.
EPA officials had wanted to make this secondary standard stronger than the one to protect human health. But the White House sided with its budget office, where officials argued that the two standards should be the same.
Eleven states and a number of health and environmental organizations filed suit against the Bush regulation, arguing that it ignored the recommendation of a key panel of scientists that had recommended more stringent smog standards. Industry groups, whose emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds form smog in sunlight, also sued to weaken the standard.
In March, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay the legal proceedings so the EPA could review the standards.
The Bush regulation set a maximum airborne concentration for ground-level ozone at 75 parts per billion.
EPA's science advisory board - and most health experts - had recommended a limit of 60 to 70 parts per billion to adequately protect the elderly, people with respiratory problems and children.
Environmentalists applauded the agency's decision Wednesday.
Frank O'Donnell, president of advocacy group Clean Air Watch said that if EPA follows the science and the law "it will inevitably mean tougher smog standards than those issued by the Bush administration."
The brief filed Wednesday indicates that the agency will attempt to reach some sort of agreement on the case in coming weeks.
On the Net: Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone
New York Times
EPA to Limit Metal Discharges From Coal Plants...TARYN LUNTZ of Greenwire
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/15/15greenwire-epa-to-limit-metal-discharges-from-coal-plants-62391.html?sq=epa&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=printU.S.
EPA today said it intends to widen its rules for coal-fired power plants to include limits on toxic metal discharges.
The move would for the first time regulate the millions of pounds of arsenic, mercury, selenium, lead and similar pollutants released annually in the plants' wastewater streams, which can seep into waterways and contaminate local drinking water supplies.
"Current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades," the agency wrote in an announcement.
While EPA has focused on reducing air pollution from the power plants' smokestacks, the process often simply shifts the pollution from the air to the water that is used to "scrub" the boiler exhaust.
"Treatment technologies are available to remove these pollutants before they are discharged to waterways, but these systems have been installed at only a fraction of the power plants," the agency said.
Toxic waste from coal plants became a national concern in December after a Tennessee Valley Authority plant spilled millions of pounds of coal ash into a river, an accident that experts called the biggest environmental disaster of its kind. Coal ash ponds contain most of the toxic discharges from power plants.
Federal law requires EPA to review its power plant discharge rules each year and decide whether to revise them. But the agency has not made a decision on the rules since 1982, saying in each of the past five years that it was continuing to study the issue.
That study is now complete, and the agency will propose a rule revision in mid-2012, EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said.
Environmental Integrity Project, Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club yesterday announced they would sue EPA in 60 days if the agency did not produce the rule (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
EIP attorney Jennifer Peterson called EPA's announcement "great news" but said the groups still intend to sue the agency to force it to act quickly.
"These rules are nearly 30 years overdue, and we need a deadline for regulation," Peterson said. "That is what our lawsuit is about."
CNN Money
Builder confidence up, but tax fears loom
An industry group says the nascent recovery in residential real estate could be derailed if a popular credit isn't renewed...Ben Rooney
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/real_estate/homebuilder_
confidence/index.htm?postversion=2009091615
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An index of home builders' confidence rose in September for the third month in a row, but an industry group said Wednesday the fragile residential real estate market recovery could be cut short if a popular government tax credit isn't extended.
The National Association of Home Builders said that its Housing Market Index, which it compiles for Wells Fargo, rose one point last month to 19 -- the highest level since May 2008.
The index, which fell to an all-time low of 8 in January, has increased steadily in 2009 as the housing market picked up in many parts of the country.
According to NAHB, the rebound in builder confidence is largely due to a temporary tax credit that the government created last year for first-time home buyers. Low mortgage rates and rock-bottom home prices also helped boost confidence, the group says.
The credit, which can be as high as $8,000, was established as part of the government's economic recovery act to help stimulate demand and revive the battered housing market.
As the market begins to show some sings of life, however, builders are becoming worried that the credit, which is set to expire Nov. 30, will not be renewed.
"The window is now basically closed for being able to start a new home that can be completed in time for buyers to take advantage of the tax credit," said Joe Robson, NAHB's chairman and a home builder from Tulsa, Okla, in a statement. "Builders are concerned about what will keep the market moving once the credit is gone."
To that end, the index component that measures builders' expectations for sales in the near future fell one point in September to 29, after rising for five months in a row.
More than 1.5 million taxpayers are expected to claim the credit, according to an NAHB spokeswoman.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Realtors said earlier this month that the credit has already brought 1.2 million new buyers into the market, including 350,000 buyers who would not have purchased a home without the credit.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the Obama administration is evaluating how the tax credit has impacted home sales and could recommend that the President extend it.
While the tax credit has helped stabilize the housing market, falling home prices are the real reason why sales have begun to rebound, according to Mike Larson, real estate and interest rate analyst at Weiss Research.
"I believe the tax credit is the icing on the cake of this housing market recovery, not the cake itself," Larson said in a research report.
Indeed, a government report released earlier this month showed that roughly 315,000 people have claimed the tax credit so far. However, industry analysts point out that those figures reflect a small portion of homebuyers who could ultimately claim it.
For buyers interested in taking advantage of the credit, time is of the essence.
Because it usually takes around 90 days to close on a house after a contract is signed, buyers have very little time left to act. As of Sept. 16, 78 days remain before the credit ends.
In addition to uncertainty about the tax credit, builders are also wary about a "critical lack of credit" for new home construction projects and ongoing problems related to appraisals that NAHB says are sinking one quarter of all new-home sales.
"These concerns need to be addressed if we are to embark on a sustained housing recovery that will help bolster economic growth," said NAHB chief economist David Crowe, in a statement.
California seen lagging behind U.S. recovery
World's eighth-largest economy is expected to see unemployment at 10% or higher through late 2011, says UCLA Anderson Forecast group.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/news/economy/california_
economy_lag.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009091606
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -- California will lag the United States as the country recovers from a deep recession, with normal growth in the most populous U.S. state not seen resuming until 2011, the UCLA Anderson Forecast group said Wednesday.
Although there are signs now of a recovery beginning to take hold in California, the state's unemployment rate is expected to stay above 10% until late in 2011, the forecast group said in a report.
The report comes a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the worst U.S. recession since the Great Depression was probably over, though he warned that recovery and job creation would be slow.
California's economy, the world's eighth largest, is suffering record unemployment as it staggers under the combined weight of the recession, a sharp drop in consumer spending, reduced trade flows, financial market turmoil, the mortgage crisis and a prolonged housing slump.
"Overall, the outlook for the balance of the year is for little to no growth," UCLA Anderson Forecast said in its report. "The economy will begin to pick up some tail winds towards the end of 2010 and by the beginning of 2011 we will get off the tarmac and begin to grow at more normal levels.
"The keys to California's recovery remain a recovery in U.S. consumption, which increases the demand for Asian imports, and for products from California's factories, increased public works construction, and increased investment in business equipment and software," the report said.
Over the near term, California will be hurt by reduced public spending. The state in July closed a budget gap of more than $24 billion opened by a plunge in personal income tax revenues. Retail sales tax revenues have been hurt by weak consumer spending, denting the coffers of both the state and local governments.
The combined blow of lower income tax and sales tax revenues "implies declining government employment through the end of the 2010 fiscal year," the report said.
High unemployment to persist
California's unemployment rate will peak at 12.2% in the fourth quarter and average 11.6% this year, the report said.
"Though the California economy will be growing in 2011, it will not be generating enough jobs to drive the unemployment rate below double digits until the end of the year," the report added. It forecast an average jobless rate next year of 10%.
The report forecast California's total employment will shrink by 3.7% this year and grow only at a 0.2% rate next year, then expand by 1.9% in 2011.
The report did offer glimmers of optimism: the housing market is beginning to pick up, existing homes are more affordable, "conditions are becoming ripe for new residential construction," and demand for the state's export goods is starting to increase.
"Though the consumer goods and services sectors remain very weak, consumer confidence surveys and the response to the 'cash for clunkers' program provide indicators that consumer demand may be on the verge of recovery and the implosion of hospitality, retail, wholesale and transportation employment may be coming to an end," the report said.
"Everything that happens at the end of a recession is happening now," said Jerry Nickelsburg, a senior economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast unit. "But what doesn't happen at the end of a recession is an end to job loss, so in that sense there will still be some more bleeding."
Anti Corruption Republican
David Lopez & Greg Orlando…9-15-09
http://anticorruptionrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/09/david-lopez-greg-orlando.html
Beth Sussman at National Journal provides us with the latest witness list in USA v. Kevin A. Ring:
John Albaugh, former chief of staff to Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.
Michael Deaver, Department of Justice
Ann Copland, former staffer for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Su Daly, Department of Justice
Greg Harris, Department of Justice
Todd Boulanger, former lobbying associate of Ring and Abramoff
Tim Peckinpaugh, former lobbying associate of Ring and Abramoff
Jason Hickox, former vice president of company that owned Abramoff's Signatures Restaurant
Emphasis in original
Ms. Sussman notices a couple of conspicuously absent names:
Several anticipated witnesses were not on the list, most notably David Lopez, former chief of staff to Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Greg Orlando, Doolittle's former legislative director.
Emphasis in original
We know that Mr. Lopez has received immunity for any Abramoff-related crimes. Mr. Orlando is more of a mystery. We don't know of any immunity or plea deal involving Mr. Orlando, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Orlando would have appeared on the government's witness list without some sort of certainty regarding his legal status. But that isn't what we find most interesting.
Back in July, an adroit commenter observed that neither Jack Abramoff nor Mike Scanlon would testify in Mr. Ring's criminal trial. Here is a point I made at that time:
Great catch! The defense's claim that neither Jack Abramoff nor Michael Scanlon are likely to testify is right there in black and white. I can't explain how I missed it.
I think this is rather significant, Anon. This is a clear signal that the DoJ is not done with prosecutions. They are saving Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon for the highest value targets .... CONGRESSMEN. The government doesn't want to expose Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon to cross examination yet. No need to let future defense teams see what works and what doesn't work in impeaching the two men.
If, as some commenters in the past have suggested, Kevin Ring's trial is the last one, there wouldn't be a reason to hold Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon back. We'd see these big guns come out to nail Mr. Ring.
Emphasis in original
The ACR Blog thinks something similar is going on with Messrs. Lopez and Orlando. The government is saving the two men for a higher value target than Mr. Ring. The government doesn't want to expose Messrs. Lopez and Orlando to cross examination yet.
Where is this going? Well, there's no way to be 100% certain. But John Doolittle ought to be afraid. Very afraid.