9-20-09

 
9-20-09
Counterpunch
Draining the San Joaquin
The Water Privateers...KATHRYN GRAY...8-27-09 
http://www.counterpunch.org/gray08272009.html
The next time you're driving on California's Highway 5, and you see a grove of dead trees sporting those "Congress Created Dustbowl" signs, hold off reaching for your hankie. If you're watching a Fox News feed of farmworkers who were paid a day's wages for "protesting" at a Democratic Congressman's office, wielding commercially produced signs, and chanting "Aqua now," sit back and do a reality check. And if you've read about the Pacific Legal Foundation's petition to call in the "God Squad" to dump the Endangered Species Act, and get those pumps on to save beleaguered Westside San Joaquin valley farms, stop and hum your bible school hymn "All creatures great and small... the good Lord made them all..."
The demonstration you're seeing on Fox was staged, one way or another. The Delta pumps Pacific Legal Foundation has been having a prolonged constitutional hissy fit about have been on for quite some time, and San Luis Reservoir is filling. Their petition is nothing but a sham attempt to get the Federal Government to consign yet more species, this time several fish which support the entire Pacific Coast Salmon fishery, to extinction. And those very dead trees? Chances are that deceased almond grove belongs to a farmer who's crying all the way to the bank.
Yesterday, the Hanford Sentinel broke the news that Sandridge Partners, a Westside "family farm", was planning on selling 14,000 acre-feet of Sacramento San Joaquin Delta water a year to the Mojave Water Agency, San Bernardino County, for a mind boggling 5,500 dollars an acre-foot.
Who wants to be a millionaire? This deal will yield 77 million dollars to, wait for it, multimillionaires. Sandridge Partners is owned by the Vidovich family of Silicon Valley, who already amassed a considerable fortune turning Silicon Valley orchards into housing tracts. More recently, according to the Environmental Working Group, as detailed in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sandridge Partners were the biggest 2008 recipients in the entire nation for federal subsidies for thirsty cotton, wheat, and peanuts for their farms in three San Joaquin Valley counties. Think of them as Kern County's Welfare Kings.
Sandridge farms is now, according to the article in the Hanford Sentinel, planning on cutting down 2,500 acres of almond trees along Hwy 5 near Kettleman City, and selling the California Aqueduct water they've contracted for, for 77 million dollars, to enable more sprawl in California's Mojave Desert.
Should our eyes all be glazed over, as this is just another example of Pork du Jour, this time slightly Selenium laced? Absolutely not! Right now there are 5 bills on a rush job in Sacramento, which were ostensibly written to deal with Sacramento Delta water and environmental issues. In reality, these bills, which seek to enact Governor Schwarzenneger's Bay Delta Conservation Plan, are a giant red herring, not aimed at protecting the very frail Delta, or helping small family farms in the Delta and other parts of the state, but are instead directed at aggrandizing the rights of junior westside water rights holders, and developers in Southern California.
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta is "the next Katrina" according to Senator Joe Simitian, Palo Alto, an early and vociferous proponent of a revitalized Peripheral Canal. The somewhat endearing, but also alarmingly naif former NRDC attorney Jared Huffman, assemblyman for Marin County, seems to truly believe that his bill, which will allow Governor Schwarzenneger to stack a committee to okay the Peripheral Canal, will pull the Delta and the Pacific Coast Salmon fishery back from the brink of doom.
These two unlikely Northern California legislators are the face of the new water buffaloes; instead of driving us to the desert in Cadillacs, so old school, it's all now a Prius Desert, where environmental greenwash is the order of the day. Their proposed legislation puts paid to the Public Trust Doctrine, which saved Mono Lake from being drained to the dregs by the Metropolitan Water District, a smooth suitor for yet more Sacramento San Joaquin Delta water, ably abetted by the even greedier Los Angeles Times.
To make matters worse, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, BDCP, aka Big Dumb Canal Plan, that they seek to enact had "environmental" groups sign on early. It's a sad litany, and even sadder considering a Five Delta Counties representative testified at an August 25th Legislative hearing that agreeing to the necessity of an "alternate conveyance"(aka Periperheral Canal) was a "litmus test" for being allowed to join BDCP.
The (dis)honor roll of BDCP participants includes: Bay Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, and Nature Conservancy. In addition, it must be noted that Natural Resource Defense Council's Barry Nelson has been active in supporting the "Delta Fix" legislation, including testifying on behalf of Jared Huffman's bill.
But back to greenacres, and when we say green, we mean money. The very able PR Groups pushing new dams and a peripheral canal in California have perfected the "Dustbowl" meme. From Newsweek to BBC, they've all suddenly discovered the plight of farmworkers, and marvel at unemployment statistics that actually haven't budged in decades. They ignore the inconvenient truth, that, as many farmworkers are illegal aliens, they are reluctant or unable to join farmworker unions that could offer them protection from abuses, better access to clean drinking water, and better working conditions in the central valley. By the way, better working conditions encompasses not dropping dead from heat exhaustion, because your employer has made you work, or has not provided shade, in deadly 100+ degree temperatures.
Senator Joe Simitian, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, and all those who are maniacally attempting to push their "Delta Fix" bills through in the waning days of this California legislative session endlessly recite, regarding the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, that the "status quo is not acceptable." In reality, their legislation does nothing but support more of the same. Those who've got, like Sandridge Partners, get.
Water privatization moves forward, and the inequities of California water law, where water supposedly belongs to the people, are ignored to make sure big money interests, whether corporate farms, or developers, prosper. The real family farmers, whether in the San Joaquin Valley, or the rest of the state, are left staring at a world of hurt, where lipservice is paid to Agriculture, and water is sold to the highest bidder.
And the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta? Let's hope it's not "sic transit gloria mundi", but if the water privateers, abetted by Senator Simitian and Assemblyman Huffman, and their chorus of greenwashers have their way, the largest estuary on the West Coast will die to ensure California water is sold at the highest price, to the highest bidder, with the proceeds pocketed by "family farms" and developers.
Kathryn Gray was genuinely shocked to see how state and federal subsidized water continues to line the pockets of the very, very, very rich. To find out how you can speak out against this, and save the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, and, while you're at it, the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery, which has been closed for two years, please visit www.calsport.org
Modesto Bee
Keeping our water supply flowing...Robert Glennon, THE WASHINGTON POST. Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona, is the author of "Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It."
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/v-print/story/861402.html
In the United States, we constantly fret about running out of oil. But we should be paying much more attention to another limited and arguably even more critical natural resource: water.
It's not just California and the rest of the arid West that is drying up; many parts of the country are facing the same crisis. Consider some examples:
In 2008, metro Atlanta — home to nearly 5 million people — came within 90 days of seeing its principal water supply, Lake Lanier, dry up. Rain eased the drought, but last month a federal judge ruled that Georgia may no longer use the lake as a municipal supply. The state is scrambling to overturn that ruling.
Lake Superior is too shallow to float fully loaded freighters, dramatically increasing shipping costs.
The Ipswich River near Boston has gone dry in five of the past eight years.
In 2007, the hamlet of Orme, Tenn., ran out of water entirely, forcing it to truck in supplies from Alabama.
In Florida, excessive groundwater pumping has dried up scores of lakes.
In South Carolina, a paper company recently furloughed hundreds of workers because low river flows prevented the company from discharging its wastewater.
South Carolina's battle with North Carolina over the Catawba River has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Nationwide, more than 30 states are fighting their neighbors over water.
The real problem isn't shrinking water levels but population growth.
Since California's last major drought ended in 1992, the state's population has surged by 7 million people. Some 100,000 people move to the Atlanta area annually. Over the next four decades, the country will add 120 million people, the equivalent of one person every 11 seconds.
Another problem comes in something that sounds relatively benign: Renewable energy, at least in some forms, such as biofuels. Refining one gallon of ethanol requires four gallons of water. And that's only a drop in the bucket compared with how much water it takes to grow enough corn to refine one gallon of ethanol: as much as 2,500 gallons.
We have traditionally engineered our way out of shortages by diverting more from rivers, building dams or drilling groundwater wells. But many rivers, including the Colorado and the Rio Grande, already dry up each year. The dam-building era from the 1930s to the 1960s tamed so many rivers that only 60 in the country remain free-flowing. Meanwhile, we're pumping so much water from wells that the levels in aquifers are plummeting. We're running out of technological fixes.
Some dreamers gaze upon distant sources of water and imagine that the problem is solved, by diverting water from rivers in British Columbia or towing icebergs from Alaska.
But those dreamers tend not to address the associated immense costs, significant environmental objections or regulatory nightmares.
More viable solutions include desalination of ocean water, reuse of municipal waste and aggressive conservation strategies, but none of those is a cure-all.
What we need is a new water policy in the United States. Americans don't pay the real cost of the water that we use. In fact, we don't pay for water at all. The check that citizens write to their municipal water department or private water company covers only the cost of service, plus a small profit for the private company. There is no charge for the water itself.
Last summer, as gas prices inched up over $4 a gallon, Toyota dealers couldn't keep fuel-efficient Priuses in stock. We should apply that pricing lesson if we want to conserve water, using increasing block rates to discourage profligate water use. Tucson, Ariz., does that and adds a surcharge for excessive use in the summer.
Some people think charging for water would be like charging for air. Is it immoral to extract fees for an essential resource? Precisely because water is a public — and exhaustible — resource, the government has an obligation to manage it wisely.
The West is developing a system that should lead the way: the use of market forces to reallocate water.
A great example of this is found in eastern Oregon, along the Middle Fork of the John Day River, where the Oregon Water Trust persuaded ranchers Pat and Hedy Voigt to turn off their irrigation system each year from July 20 until the end of the growing season.
The 6.5 million gallons per day that would have been diverted to grow alfalfa now augment river flows and improve the habitat of endangered salmon and steelhead trout.
And, the $700,000 paid to the Voigts allowed them to make substantial on-farm improvements.
Taking their straw out of the glass is one step toward keeping us all from getting parched.
Fresno Bee
Hannity stumbles upon cause of west side water issues...Bill McEwen
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/mcewen/v-print/story/1644349.html
Sean Hannity came to the San Joaquin Valley a few days ago and did what he does best. He exaggerated, distorted and turned a complex situation into a hysterical rant.
But I'll give the Fox News right-wing shouter this: citing all the wrong reasons, he unintentionally fingered the right culprit for the economic disaster unfolding on the Valley's west side and in Northern California.
To hear Hannity and his cast of local enablers tell it, farmers and farmworkers in the Westlands Water District are suffering the pain of a water shortage caused by activist federal judges, the delta smelt and President Barack Obama's administration.
Not much of that -- or anything else he said -- is true. But, in fact, the federal government does bear much of the responsibility for the mess entangling the west side, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the decline of salmon along California's coast.
Decades ago, federal authorities promised more water to farmers than they could deliver. They compounded the mistake by offering subsidies and incentives that encouraged small farmers to become mega-farmers.
Then they turned around and -- again with incentives -- encouraged small fishermen to build bigger boats and bigger fleets, further endangering salmon.
The whole time, few in the federal bureaucracy had either the wisdom or the courage to ask how much water would be needed to sustain California's fish and wildlife, much less the state's population growth.
Hannity, of course, didn't say this. He's incapable of anything but shouting, mugging to his fans and palming off his made-to-fit lies and omissions as facts.
The activist federal judge ruling on many issues affecting the delta, farmers and fishermen is Oliver W. Wanger, a conservative Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
Hannity called the Central Valley "a Dust Bowl." It's not. Millions of acres are being farmed, and most farmers are getting their water deliveries. In a one-hour show alleged to be about water, there wasn't a single second devoted to an explanation of the hierarchy of water rights under California law. Or a single word about the fact that Westlands' farmers have junior water rights, meaning that by law they get what is left after all the other interests have dipped into the state's sprawling water system.
Nor did Hannity bother to explain that Westlands' water comes from the Trinity River 400 miles away and that some Valley farmers sell their water rights to cities and developers.
And somehow Hannity, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration, didn't get around to noting that some of his newfound friends in agriculture rely on illegal immigrants to harvest their crops.
Hannity came here for two things: to tell the nation that a "2-inch minnow" is killing farming in the food basket of America, and to tell Obama to turn on delta pumps that send water to Westlands.
Never mind that the pumps have been on since June 30 -- too late for spring plantings, admittedly, but on nonetheless despite claims otherwise by three local congressmen and comedian Paul Rodriguez.
In a fake attempt at balance, Hannity conned Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, to be on the show. Hannity began the short segment by calling Grader "a wacko environmentalist from San Francisco" and any chance to have a thoughtful discussion about the destruction of the salmon fishing industry was lost.
All this said, the Obama administration's response to the economic hurt on the west side has been disappointing. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made it clear during a recent interview at The Bee that the president isn't interested in entering California's water wars.
If heavy rains don't come this winter, a good argument can be made for keeping the pumps on next spring so that Westlands' soil can be planted and watered -- particularly since there is evidence suggesting that pollution and non-native species also are contributing to the decline of fish in the delta.
But the long-term answers aren't that simple. Simple, unfortunately, is the only thing that Hannity understands.
EDITORIAL: Need special session on water
Legislature must compromise and act on this vitally important issue...9-19-09
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/1643963.html
The Legislature let time run out on this year's session without solving the California water crisis, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must push lawmakers to get the job done in a special legislative session on water. We urge the governor to call the session immediately.
We have a water system in the state that is straining to serve California's 38 million residents. That's not surprising since the water system was built to handle half that many people. But state lawmakers have not solved this problem because they've have allowed special-interest politics to block various pieces of the solutions.
All sides must be willing to compromise on this, including environmentalists, farmers and other big water users. The longer lawmakers delay, the bigger the crisis becomes.
The ingredients for a water solution are obvious: The state must provide additional water storage in reservoirs and underground water banks. The serious environmental degradation of the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta must be resolved. The state must promote conservation by urban, agricultural and industrial users and spread the conservation mandates equitably across the state.
The structural improvements must be funded, and we have long supported 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 being able to store additional water. The federal government also must help in funding the improvements.
The problems in the Delta must be resolved quickly. The outdated levees could collapse and the ensuing damage would be costly financially and to the people who live in the area.
Lawmakers also must deal with all the problems that cause environmental degradation in the Delta. Farm-water pumping has an impact, but so does the dumping of treated sewage by Sacramento and other communities that use the Delta as a toilet. That dumping must be severely curtailed.
This is a crucial part of our state. The Sacramento River flows south into the Delta and the San Joaquin River flows north into the same area. The meeting at the 1,000-square-mile Delta is a pivotal point for California. The two rivers provide drinking water to 25 million people and water to about 5 million acres of farmland.
We cannot continue to ignore a comprehensive solution to the water crisis. The governor should call a special session on water, and the Legislature must finally act on behalf of all Californians.
'What a waste'...Jonalyn Young, Clovis...Letters to the editor 
http://www.fresnobee.com/277/story/1644339.html
The San Joaquin Valley is sometimes called the breadbasket to the world. So many people rely upon the farming industry in the Valley. Why is the water that we have being sent to other areas, when the farmers, who feed the world, are not able to farm?
I have friends who pray for water, which they will not receive because the water rights have been sold to the highest bidder - a developer. I wonder why it is going into new development, when the real estate market is so bad.
As I drive down the street, I see so many developments with partially completed houses that need to be removed because of weather damage.
What a waste! I think that the water should go to the farmers, so they can continue doing what they do so well, feeding the world. I don't think you can put a price tag on water, when the world is going hungry.
Sacramento Bee
California's high-speed rail project sparks residents fears...Jeff Mitchell
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/2195147.html
PALO ALTO – Voters warmly embraced Proposition 1A and the idea of bringing a bullet train system to the traffic-choked Golden State last November.
But since the election, life for the California High-Speed Rail Authority has been anything but easy.
Ten months later, with the glow of the initiative's remarkable electoral success beginning to fade, authority board members and staff are finding the actual process of preparing to build the $40 billion, 800-mile system is far more difficult than selling the dream of the sleek, fast trains.
With $9.9 billion in bond sales authorized by voters, the authority has suffered fits and starts as it begins to identify and study the paths where the trains will actually run.
Observers say the authority's somewhat flat-footed efforts in explaining how the system will work have allowed its critics and the "not-in-my-backyard" contingent to largely overshadow the community discussion to date.
Already, communities along certain proposed train routes – fearing their towns will be adversely affected – have complained that the authority often acts in an arrogant and commanding manner.
Residents in certain cities along the legs of the system are just now beginning to express their concerns. But those voices pale in comparison to the chorus of criticism coming from the San Francisco Peninsula area.
Jeffrey Barker, a CHSRA deputy director, acknowledged some of the recent communication difficulties.
"What this tells me is that we haven't done a good enough job in reaching out to them," Barker said. "It tells me we need to step up our efforts in terms of educating the public of what can and cannot be built."
Most importantly, Barker said, the system's environmental impact studies and reviews are still being conducted. Once those studies are completed, the best and most optimal solutions for the environment, the community and the rail system will be selected.
Yoriko Kishimoto, chair of the so-called Peninsula Cities Consortium, an organization representing the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Redwood City, said she agrees with Barker's self-assessment.
"Just because most of us supported Prop. 1A last year doesn't mean that we're willing to give away the store, and it doesn't mean that we will allow this project to diminish the quality of life in our cities," said Kishimoto, a member of the Palo Alto City Council and an announced candidate for the 21st Assembly District in 2010.
She added that some of the authority's board members have acted "arrogantly" in response to community criticisms.
The $9.9 billion bond sale Californians authorized when they approved the proposition last fall is designed to kick-start a massive public-private partnership to build the statewide rail system.
Laboring in relative anonymity since its creation in 1996, the CHSRA promises to eventually whisk travelers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in about 2.5 hours with a fare under $75.
While the sleek blue-and-yellow electric trains would travel at a modest 125 mph through the peninsula and other more congested areas, they are designed to travel as fast as 220 mph in straight, flat areas.
The main area of controversy has centered on the so-called "alignment" or paths the CHSRA system would take leaving its San Francisco terminus.
One route has the trains traversing eastward over the Altamont Pass to get to the Central Valley.
The other goes south down the peninsula and over the valley via the Pacheco Pass. The latter path was selected because it would cause the least amount of damage to the environment, federal railroad and environmental officials said.
But the selection of the peninsula-Pacheco Pass route immediately set off howls of protests by local residents and city officials in the consortium.
Fueling this were fears that some of the authority's planned elevated tracks along the Caltrain right of way would physically divide the communities.
The authority has also come under legal fire. One lawsuit by the cities Atherton and Menlo Park sought to overturn the selection of the peninsula-Pacheco Pass route. Another, filed by a Menlo Park man, seeks to block any construction until right-of-way issues with the Union Pacific Railroad on tracks south of San Jose are resolved.
The project's up- and downsides have also stimulated an unusual amount of resident interest, Kishimoto noted.
Forums, scoping sessions and workshops have repeatedly attracted standing-room-only crowds. One "teach-in" event held earlier this month drew more than 250 attendees, she said.
Kishimoto said she appreciated the authority's efforts to smooth local feathers by recently agreeing to adopt a so-called "Context Sensitive Solutions" approach to its planning efforts on the peninsula.
CSS is a well known design and decision-making technique sought by the consortium that forces all parties to carefully balance the need to efficiently and safely move – in this case – high speed trains with other issues such as quality of life, the environment and historic preservation.
Authority board member Quentin L. Kopp said he welcomes spirited civil public discussion of the CHSRA and its mission.
But Kopp, a former state lawmaker and retired Superior Court judge who has been largely credited with leading Prop. 1A's victory, says he has grown tired of some critics, who he believes will say and do anything to stop the ambitious transportation project.
Kopp pointed to the "myth" that peninsula cities will face nothing but "Berlin Wall"-like conditions when the CHSRA's tracks are finally installed.
"Sure, there will be some areas with vertical walls, but there will also be instances where we will depress roadways underneath the tracks. In other cases, we will need to build streets so that they span over our tracks. And yet in other places we will have to lift the tracks over streets," Kopp said. "The reality is that our public outreach and public education efforts are in my estimation about 10 months behind where they should be. We need to catch up and quickly."
One effort to help the CHSRA catch up on that front recently crashed and burned when authority board members killed the awarding of a $9 million public relations contract to a Sacramento-based firm.
Board members said they lacked sufficient information on the finalists, including a staff-recommended firm with close ties to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The board subsequently ordered its staff to start the contract process over from scratch – a decision that will delay the arrival of additional public affairs help to the authority by months.
Donald Koch: Logging rules do help fish...Donald Koch is the director of the California Department of Fish and Game.
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/2193433.html
I do not agree with the conclusion drawn from the Sept. 12 news article "New logging rules may hurt, not help salmon," about the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection unanimously passing logging rules aimed at protecting salmon and steelhead.
The result of this rules package is that logging practices on private forest lands will minimize adverse impacts and facilitate the recovery of salmon and steelhead. The unanimous (9-0) vote by the board to establish additional restrictions on timber harvesting expressly to conserve salmon and steelhead is a significant positive statement about this board and is a major beneficial action.
The Department of Fish and Game is engaged in numerous actions to return salmon and steelhead populations to levels where they no longer need threatened or endangered species listing protection, and commercial and recreational fishing can resume. While much remains to be done, significant progress must be recognized. The salmon protection rules unanimously approved by the board are the most important advancement to that end, ever, in California forestry.
In 1999, the board adopted enhancements to the forest practice rules that improved protective measures for fish bearing streams, but left prescriptions for smaller tributaries in place. The Department of Fish and Game has consistently taken the view that additional protective measures are needed upstream from fish-bearing streams.
The board sponsored a years-long literature review of the best available, current science to guide them in formulating additional rules to improve habitat conditions for salmon and steelhead on private timberlands. Fish and Game participated in this review process in collaboration with the California Department of Forestry.
In 2008, Fish and Game made this rule-making function one of our highest priorities. Our investment resulted in the board adopting all but one of our recommendations, the lone exception being a single section of technical language on methods to determine which non-fish-bearing streams receive certain protections.
Our representative informed The Bee of this fact, but based upon the structure of the article, a reader might incorrectly conclude that his quote was critical of the entire rules package, rather than a single technical element within the rules which can be easily addressed with training and developing procedures for identifying such streams.
The process leading up to the board's recent action, although contentious, has been methodical and made good use of available science, culminating in a major step toward conservation of salmon and steelhead.
Editorial: Water reform package is worth saving
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/2193442.html
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers came very close earlier this month to a historic pact aimed at restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ensuring the future of California's water supply. They should get back to work and close that deal.
The package that died at the end of the legislative session was like a glass half full. It was missing some crucial elixers – the result of some hasty, last-minute bartending. But now there is time to finish the job and give the proposals the public vetting they deserve. Why wait?
This package included some attractive elements, including provisions for conservation and groundwater management. The bills would set a statewide goal of reducing water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, and they would expand the state's role in monitoring the overdrafting of groundwater.
The package includes proposals for governing the Delta that improve on the status quo. But certain parts of the state could potentially be harmed by decisions made by this new governing board. They need assurance that they will have reasonable representation on that panel.
Under the legislation that died, a proposed Delta Stewardship Council with wide power over the region's future would include just one member from the area. That's not enough.
We like the proposals for a Delta Conservancy to watch over the environment, a science board to ensure that the Stewardship Council's decisions are based on facts, and a single water master to focus decision-making and accountability for the movement of water through the Delta.
The legislation also would require the State Water Board to study how much water is needed for fish and wildlife in the Delta. The same board would be one of several agencies with authority to issue or deny permits for a proposed canal to move water around or through the Delta to the south.
One condition of those permits would be that sufficient water remains in the Delta to preserve and enhance its habitat. That's a good idea, so long as water sufficient to protect upstream tributaries – such as the American River – is part of the deal.
The financing plan is the weakest link in the package. The governor and Republicans in the Legislature have, oddly enough, pushed for more than $10 billion in general obligation bonds to finance Delta protections and, possibly, two new dams and reservoirs. When they are all sold, these bonds would drain nearly $1 billion a year from the state's general fund.
A far better way to pay for these improvements would be to assess a fee on the users of the water that is moved, stored or diverted from the Delta.
This kind of user-pays system is more equitable and smarter than bonds because it would provide an incentive to encourage conservation. In the case of proposed reservoirs, it would also ensure that these controversial new projects get built only if there are people who need the water they would store and would be willing to pay for it.
There is hardly an issue more important to California than the future of its water supply. The governor and lawmakers deserve credit for getting this package so close to the finish line. They can't quit now.
Issue backgrounder: Water...Published: Sunday, Sep. 20, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 6E
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/v-print/story/2193444.html
What's at stake: California's water supply, economic growth and environment – and the future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the largest freshwater estuary on the West Coast of the United States.
The players: San Joaquin Valley farmers, Southern California governments and businesses, and Silicon Valley interests, among others, want to assure their supply of water flowing from Northern California through the Delta.
Environmentalists, commercial fishing interests and government regulators want to ensure that fish and wildlife habitat damaged by water diversions is restored and preserved.
Delta farmers want guarantees that the islands on which they farm will not be inundated and that their water supply will remain fresh and protected from seawater.
Background: Most of the water that flows from the northern Sierra to the San Joaquin Valley, the Silicon Valley and Southern California moves through a series of pumps and canals built through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Left to its own devices, that water would flow to the sea. Diverting its path has changed the Delta habitat, endangering several species, including the chinook salmon and the Delta smelt. A three-year drought has worsened those conditions.
Under the threat of court orders, California must restore and preserve the Delta ecosystem, in part by allowing more fresh water to flow into it.
But the state is still growing by nearly 500,000 people a year. Most of those people will live south of the Delta. They will need water.
To resolve these conflicts, the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have been working for more than two years on a package of legislation meant to restore and protect the Delta while assuring a clean and reliable water supply for the state.
The latest version of that package failed in the final hours of this year's legislative session.
Key dates in California water history...Source: "California Water: Challenges and Crises" by Erwin Cooper.
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/v-print/story/2193443.html
1919. Lt. Col. Robert B. Marshall, chief geographer for the U.S. Geological Survey, publishes a pamphlet that first lays out a vision for moving Northern California water south. Bills to turn his vision into law are defeated in 1922, 1924 and 1926.
1920. Irrigated land in California totals about 4 million acres.
1928. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is organized.
1933. California voters approve the Central Valley Project to move water from Northern California to the Central Valley, and $133 million in bonds to begin building it. But because of the Depression, the state never sells the bonds, and the project languishes.
1935. President Franklin Roosevelt approves federal funding for the Central Valley Project as an economic stimulus measure. Construction begins in 1937.
1945. Shasta Dam is completed.
1951. The Delta-Mendota Canal and its pumps near Tracy begin operation.
1956. The Legislature creates the Department of Water Resources.
1960. Voters approve $1.75 billion in bonds proposed by Gov. Edmund G. Brown to finance the State Water Project.
1961. The first serious study of Delta fish and wildlife begins.
1968. The first significant diversions of water from the Delta to the State Water Project begin.
1970. Gov. Ronald Reagan signs the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Endangered Species Act.
1972. State Water Project water is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains to Los Angeles for the first time.
1973. President Richard Nixon signs the federal Endangered Species Act.
1981. Irrigated land in California peaks at 9.7 million acres.
1982. Voters reject construction of a peripheral canal to move water from north to south without going through the Delta.
1993. The Delta smelt is declared a federal endangered species.
1994. The Sacramento River's winter-run chinook salmon is declared a federal endangered species.
2000. A special state-federal commission issues a plan for restoring the Delta and ensuring California's water supply, including ecosystem restoration, groundwater recharge and conservation, with additional dams planned for later. Most of the projects are not built.
2006. Voters approve $10 billion in two bond measures for levee repairs and other water project work.
Stockton Record
Fish kill after first fall rain...The Record
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090920/A_NEWS/909200317#STS=fzu2vsoy.1urj
STOCKTON - The advocacy group Friends of the Lower Calaveras River reported numerous dead fish this week near the University of the Pacific campus.
A bicycle commuter noticed the fish in the Calaveras just east of the Pershing Avenue bridge on Wednesday morning and reported it to the group.
Large catfish, carp and small shad were among the dead species.
Such incidents are common on Stockton waterways after the first rains of the fall. Those rains scour away a summer's worth of gunk and ooze from city streets and carry toxic substances - motor oil, for example - into storm drains that empty into the Calaveras and other channels.
Those channels drain into the sensitive Delta.
Some tips on preventing future fish kills:
» Don't dump waste in or around storm drains;
» Pick up after your pets so that their waste isn't washed away;
» Use less fertilizer or pesticides on your lawn and garden;
» Don't apply too much water to your lawn, since that causes more runoff;
» Plant vegetation in bare areas to decrease soil erosion;
» Inspect your car for leaks and keep it maintained;
» Don't wash your car in the driveway; and
» Sweep sidewalks and driveways rather than hosing them down. Use cat litter to clean up spills and do not sweep debris into the storm drains.
San Francisco Chronicle
Pesky starlings endanger planes, damage crops...Mike Stark, Associated Press
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MNFT19JHHG.DTL&type=printable
Salt Lake City -- The next time the sky darkens with a flock of noisy unwelcome starlings, blame Shakespeare - or, better yet, a few of his strangest fans.
Had the Bard not mentioned the starling in the third scene of "Henry IV," arguably the most hated bird in North America might never have arrived. In the early 1890s, about 100 European starlings were released in New York City's Central Park by a group dedicated to bringing to America every bird ever mentioned by Shakespeare.
Today, it's more like Hitchcock.
Some 200 million shiny black European starlings crowd North America, from the cool climes of Alaska to the balmy reaches of Mexico's Baja peninsula. The enormous flocks endanger air travel, mob cattle operations, chase off native songbirds, roost on city blocks, leaving behind corrosive, foul-smelling droppings and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage each year.
And getting rid of them is near impossible.
Last year U.S. government agents poisoned, shot and trapped 1.7 million starlings, more than any other nuisance species, according to new figures, only to see them roaring back again.
"It's sort of like bailing the ocean with a thimble," said Richard Dolbeer, a retired Wildlife Services researcher in Sandusky, Ohio who spent years trying to figure out ways to keep starlings - which he calls "flying bullets" - and other birds from causing problems at airports. Federal aviation officials say they have caused $4 million in damage since 1990.
After the starlings' introduction, they quickly expanded west, taking advantage of vast tracts of forested land opening up to agriculture and human development, Dolbeer said. By the 1950s, starlings had reached California and nearly all parts in between. Today, it's one of the most common birds in the U.S.
Their prodigious presence is no mystery. Starlings breed like crazy, eat almost anything, are highly mobile and operate in overwhelming numbers. They're also expert at nesting in protected nooks and making an intimidating statement as they swirl in vast clouds called "murmurations."
"They're great survivors and quite the biological machine," said Greg Butcher, director of bird conservation at the National Audubon Society.
They're also responsible for the most deadly bird strikes in aviation: a 1960 civilian crash in Boston that killed 62 and a 1996 military cargo plane crash that killed 34 in the Netherlands. Since then, there have been close calls, including a Boeing 747 that ran into a flock in Rome last fall. No one was killed but the badly damaged plane had a rough landing.
Those kinds of scenarios are why wildlife biologist Mike Smith has been tweaking a series of traps used at Salt Lake City International Airport, where there have been 19 reported starling strikes since 1990. The traps use dog food to attract a starling or two. Hundreds more soon follow, driven by their innate desire to flock with each other. He once caught 800 in a single day.
The most popular lethal tactic is a poison called DRC-1339, which is often sprinkled on french fries, a favorite starlings snack. Within a day or two, starlings keel over from organ failure.
No other state poisoned more starlings last year than Washington. Starlings there caused $9 million in damages to agricultural operations over five years. Nationwide, starlings cause $800 million in damage to agricultural operations each year, according to a Cornell University estimate.
At one feed lot, some 200,000 starlings gathered each day, lining fence tops, wires, water troughs and even perching on top of cows. They've learned to steal the most nutritious morsels from the cattle troughs and pose an ever-present threat of moving disease from one ranch to another, said Roger Woodruff, director of Wildlife Services in Washington.
Nearly 650,000 starlings were poisoned last year in the state, an all-time record, he said.
When killing's not an option, agents often turn to harassment campaigns.
In downtown Indianapolis, flocks as large as 40,000 show up around dusk in the winter to hang out, find food and keep warm. They quickly wear out their welcome with their noise and their mess. Crews are deployed nearly every night to scare them off with lasers, pyrotechnic explosions and noise devices with names like "screamers" and "bangers."
Like other urban areas, they've had some success shooing them out of downtown and onto undeveloped land, said Judy Loven, director of Wildlife Services in Indiana, but it's likely going to be an ongoing battle.
"They're pretty much wise to our ways and pass that information along," said Jeff Homan, a wildlife researcher in Bismarck, N.D., who's part of a team focusing on starlings and blackbirds.
It's unlikely those who engineered the starlings' release in Central Park - including its leader, New York drug manufacturer named Eugene Schieffelin - could have fully imagined the consequences of their experiment, said author Kim Todd, who wrote about the introduction in her 2001 book "Tinkering With Eden: A Natural History of Exotic Species in America."
"It's sad but true that we often only see a creature's beauty when it is out-of-reach or rare," Todd said in an e-mail. "I can't imagine that Schieffelin, who appreciated starlings on the page and in small groups, would have the same affection for them in their enormous, pesky flocks."
California plans to levy greenhouse gas fees...Kelly Zito
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MNCK19O6HC.DTL&type=printable
More than a year after Bay Area air pollution regulators became the first in the nation to charge businesses for pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the program has raked in close to $1.7 million. And as early as this week, the state may follow suit by imposing similar fees on large California polluters as part of an ongoing effort to cut greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020.
The proposed program from the California Air Resources Board and the fledgling regional effort are designed to use the fees to pay for measuring, monitoring and studying the emissions blamed for global climate change.
While health and environmental advocates say tracking greenhouse gases is an important step in the state's plan to battle climate change, big emitters say there is a risk of creating an unfair hodgepodge of regulations and fees.
"We continue to have a lot of problems with (the program)," said Dennis Bolt, manager of the regional office for the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents many of the Bay Area's largest oil refineries. "If every district, county, city in the nation does this ... when you roll that up, it's pretty punitive."
Last year the Bay Area Air Quality Management District voted to charge about 2,500 businesses for emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The fee, which currently amounts to 4.5 cents per metric ton of greenhouse gases, is widely seen as too small in most cases to deter the discharge of carbon dioxide and other gases. Instead, the fees were set to generate money for further study.
The largest emitters - refineries, power plants and cement factories, for example - must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Other businesses - including auto shops, coffee roasters and restaurants - pay $1 or $2 per year.
A bigger role
The district already regulates smog-forming volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxide, as well as particulates that come from wood-burning fireplaces, diesel generators and construction equipment. Though the majority of the Bay Area's air emissions come from cars and trucks, the local air district does not have the authority to regulate those sources.
Yet in expanding their purview to include greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as smokestacks at major refineries, the 16-member district leap-frogged state and federal regulators.
"The air district sees itself as being in a leadership position on air pollution areas," said Brian Bateman, director of engineering at the Bay Area air district.
The state, however, is finally closing the gap.
This week, the California Air Resources Board is expected to approve a new rule that would levy a fee of 12 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide on the state's largest polluters beginning in late 2010 or early 2011, according to agency spokesman Stanley Young. The fee would decrease to 9 cents per ton over three years.
Like the Bay Area measure, the state fee would cover the administrative costs of implementing the greenhouse gas-reduction goals detailed in AB32. The 2006 law requires California to cut its overall greenhouse gas emissions by about 174 million metric tons over the next decade, bringing the state's emissions to 1990 levels.
For a company such as Chevron, whose Richmond refinery is the largest in the Bay Area, the local district fees come to about $200,000 per year - about 9 percent of the total fees paid to the air district each year.
If the California fee goes into effect as planned, the refinery would have to pay more than $700,000 total to both state and local regulators.
Broader goal
While the companies say the two sets of fees create a duplicative, patchwork effect, environmental and health advocates say the programs are a necessary interim step toward creating a more comprehensive statewide system that puts a price on carbon. That could mean an outright carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would set an emissions limit and require companies to buy credits to pollute above that level.
Eventually, argues Shankar Prasad, a fellow with the Coalition for Clean Air and former deputy secretary of science at the California Environmental Protection Agency, the cost of carbon will be built into just about everything producers and consumers create and use.
"The end goal is that we have to reduce carbon and that means we have to put a price on it," he said. "It's not a question of one business or industry or person paying for it. There's a societal cost. All of these costs will eventually be passed on."
On sfgate.com:Search a database of the Bay Area's largest carbon dioxide emitters and recent fees paid to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Plan for solar plant in Mojave scrapped...Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL&type=printable
Oakland's BrightSource Energy Inc. said this week that it has scrapped a controversial plan to build a major solar thermal power plant in eastern Mojave Desert wilderness that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants to transform into a national monument.
The announcement ended a long-running dispute between backers of renewable energy and environmentalists strongly opposed to the idea of creating an industrial zone within 600,000 acres of former railroad lands that had been donated to the Department of Interior for conservation.
The acrimony even triggered a nasty public squabble between Robert Kennedy Jr., a senior adviser at VantagePoint Venture Partners, which raised $160 million for BrightSource, and David Myers, executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy, which raised $40 million to buy the railroad lands and protect them from development.
Of particular concern was BrightSource's application to develop a solar power plant on a portion of the donated lands known as Broadwell Dry Lake, which lies within Sleeping Beauty Valley. The scenic, near pristine region is home to Big Horn Mountain Sheep and a variety of plants and reptiles found nowhere else.
"We have ceased all activity at the Broadwell site," BrightSource spokesman Keely Wachs said Thursday. "We will not build inside of a national monument."
"Our core mission is to protect the environment and reduce carbon emissions," he added. "We share Sen. Feinstein's values on this matter."
News of the company's announcement came as a welcomed surprise to environmentalists. "BrightSource should be saluted for their corporate responsibility," Myers said. "A major conflict between renewable energy and environmentalists has just evaporated."
Elden Hughes, former chairman of the Sierra Club's California-Nevada Desert Committee, called the company's announcement "fantastic news." "Broadwell is one of the most beautiful vistas in the desert," he said. "I've seen it covered with yellow flowers to the horizon in all directions."
The BrightSource application was one of 19 under review by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Wachs said the company had ceased activity at the Broadwell site a few months ago.
Around the same time, the company began seeking alternative sites for that project "in and outside of the state," he said.
$30 billion home loan time bomb set for 2010...Carolyn Said
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MNOR19N2B1.DTL&type=printable
Thousands of Bay Area homes have a ticking time bomb embedded in their mortgage. The homes were purchased with loans known as option ARMs, short for adjustable rate mortgages.
Next year, many option ARM payments will begin to readjust, slamming borrowers with dramatically higher monthly mortgage bills. Analysts say that could unleash the next big wave of foreclosures - and home-loan data show that the risky loans were heavily used in the Bay Area.
From 2004 to 2008, "one in five people who took out a mortgage loan (for both purchases and refinancing) in the San Francisco metropolitan region (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Mateo counties) got an option ARM," said Bob Visini, senior director of marketing in San Francisco at First American CoreLogic, a mortgage research firm. "That's more than twice the national average.
"People think option ARMs (will be) a national crisis," he said. "That's not really true. It's just in higher-cost areas like California where you see their prevalence."
Of the 10 metro areas nationwide with the most option ARMs, three are in the Bay Area, according to Fitch Ratings, a New York research firm. They are the East Bay counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the South Bay area of Santa Clara and San Benito counties, and the counties of San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo.
Together, these areas account for the second-most option ARMs in the country, although they are still far behind the greater Los Angeles area (including Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties), according to Fitch data.
Understated data
First American shows more than 54,000 option ARMs issued here with a value of about $30.9 billion. Fitch shows more than 47,000 option ARMs here with a value of about $28 billion. Both say their data underestimate the totals.
Why are so many option ARMs clustered here?
"In markets where home prices were going up rapidly, more and more borrowers needed a product like this to afford something," said Alla Sirotic, senior director at Fitch Ratings. Option ARMs were designed for savvy real estate investors and people whose income fluctuates, such as those paid on commission. Instead, the loans became a tool for regular people to "stretch" to buy homes that were beyond their means.
That's because option ARMs let borrowers choose to make very low payments for the first five years. During that initial period, borrowers can pick their payment option - they can pay interest and principal, interest only, or a minimum monthly payment that doesn't even cover the interest.
Fitch said 94 percent of borrowers elected to make minimum payments only. The shortfall gets added to their loan balance, which is called negative amortization. The amount they owe can grow substantially.
The mortgages 'recast'
After five years, or once the loan balance reaches a certain threshold above the original balance, the mortgages "recast" and borrowers must make full principal and interest payments spread over the loan's remaining life. Fitch said that new payments average 63 percent higher than the minimum payments, but could be more than double in some cases.
"When option ARMs recast, the payment shock is much more intense than we've seen (with other types of loans, such as subprime)," said Maeve Elise Brown, executive director of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in Oakland, a consumer advocacy group. "That makes them potentially much more damaging."
Unlike subprime loans, which were more commonly used for entry-level homes, option ARMs started out with high balances. In the five-county San Francisco area, option ARMs average about $584,000 and were used to buy homes averaging $823,000, according to an analysis of First American data.
That means they'll spawn foreclosures among upper-end homes.
"The mid- to high-end real estate market is already stranded right now," said Mark Hanson, principal of Walnut Creek's the Field Check Group, a mortgage consultant. "Any sort of extra inventory is not going to be welcome for that market whatsoever."
Option ARMs became widespread starting in 2005, which is why the recasts and higher payments will hit starting in 2010, five years later.
Joey Amacker of Newark, who works as an account manager for a catering company, refinanced his home with an option ARM for $624,000 so he could pull out money to build an addition. The friend who sold him the loan assured him that an option ARM was a safe and affordable product, he said.
Amacker said he initially made only the minimum monthly payment of $1,800, which covered part of his interest and none of the principal. The amount he owed grew to $660,000 by November 2008, according to loan documents.
Meanwhile, payments that would cover both interest and principal also escalated above his reach, said Amacker, a single father of twin teenage boys. Although he wanted to pay more than the minimum, "it was a struggle, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul," he said. His 21-year-old daughter moved in to help out, and he rented out the addition he'd built. But he couldn't keep up with the payments. He's been trying to get his bank to modify the loan, but says it doesn't get back to him. The bank did not respond to a request for comment.
Between the negative amortization and his missed payment and penalties, Amacker's total debt has ballooned to $725,000, while the house is probably worth about $500,000, he said.
"I feel so ashamed of how I could have gotten myself in such a bad situation," he said.
Like Amacker, most option ARM borrowers owe much more than their homes are worth, so they cannot refinance their way out of trouble.
'Significantly underwater'
"The average option ARM borrower is significantly underwater, so much that they don't think they'll get out," Sirotic said. On average nationwide, option ARM borrowers started out with loans for about 79 percent of their home's value (the other 21 percent may have been covered through a down payment, a second loan or a combination of the two). But now, on average, the amount these borrowers owe is 126 percent of their home's value, based on depreciation and not including the effects of negative amortization, Sirotic said. That means, for instance, someone with a $600,000 mortgage might have a home now worth only $476,000.
That could explain the ominously high default rates. Even though most option ARMs have not yet adjusted higher, 27 percent of option ARM loans in the five-county San Francisco metro area are at least 90 days past due or in foreclosure, First American said.
The option ARM scenario will unfold over several years, which offers some hope that there may be time to avert a deluge of foreclosures. The bulk of option ARMs recast dates are spread out from 2010 through 2012. Especially for the loans that recast later, it's possible that a solution will arise, either through rising home prices allowing them to refinance, or through extra intervention from the government or lenders to help these borrowers.
"This will be another factor keeping home prices from recovering," said Cynthia Kroll, senior regional economist with the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "It should be a message to policymakers in Washington that there is a big group out there that falls outside the parameters of what's being addressed by current policy."
Bay Area option ARMs
From 2004 to 2008, almost one-fifth of all mortgages, for both home purchases and refinancing, in the San Francisco and San Jose metro areas were option ARMs - more than double the national average. Option ARMs were even more common in the suburban counties of Sonoma (25% of home loans) and Solano (28%). Though most option ARMs have not yet recast and hit borrowers with higher payments, they are going into default at extremely high rates. One quarter or more of all option ARMs in the regional areas are more than 60 days delinquent or already in foreclosure. Analysts say option ARM borrowers are so underwater that they may be choosing to walk away.

Metropolitan statistical area

% of all home loans originated 2004-08 that were option ARMs

% of 2004-08 option ARMs that are 60-plus days delinquent or in foreclosure

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo counties)

19.52%

27.23%

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara (Santa Clara and San Benito counties)

19.32%

28.36%

Santa Rosa-Petaluma (Sonoma County)

25.31%

24.94%

Vallejo-Fairfield (Solano County)

28.12%

36.91%

$584,000
Average option ARM loan in 5-county S.F. metro region
54,000
Number of option ARMs in Bay Area
$30.9 billion
Bay Area option ARM loan balance
Source: First American CoreLogic
94%
Borrowers who make minimum monthly payments
79%
Average loan-to-value ratio when loans were made
126%
Average loan-to-value ratio now
39.3%
Option ARM borrowers who are 60+ days delinquent
Source: First American CoreLogic and Fitch Ratings
Contra Costa Times
Farm baron gets high-level help...Mike Taugher
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_13377530
Acting at the request of Beverly Hills billionaire and Kern County water baron Stewart Resnick, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is seeking a high-level scientific review of new endangered-species permits that farmers and others blame for water shortages.
The Sept. 11 request to two members of President Barack Obama's Cabinet carries striking parallels to a 2001 gambit, reportedly initiated by former Vice President Dick Cheney, to seek a similar review in hopes of relieving pressure on water supplies for farmers in the Klamath River basin. That review sowed initial doubt about the environmental permits on the Klamath and led to a temporary, and controversial, increase in water supplies.
Critics say Resnick is trying to use the science review process to expose potential flaws that can be used to challenge the Delta permits, known as "biological opinions," in court, or the court of public opinion, as part of a campaign to loosen permit conditions and increase the flow of Delta water to San Joaquin Valley farmers.
"Part of what he's asking is questions that will give him leverage to overturn the biological opinions," said Glen Spain, northwest regional director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, a commercial salmon group. "We're not afraid of a science review. But you have to ask the questions that have to be asked but never have been answered — how much water do we have to leave in the Delta, not how much water do we take out."
The request, which follows the Obama administration's refusal to rewrite the two biological opinions that regulate water deliveries from the Delta, specifically tells Cabinet secretaries of Resnick's desire to complete an initial study within six months and encloses his team's ideas on how a series of three studies could be designed.
In addition to being one of the state's most influential individual farmers, Resnick is a major campaign contributor and owns the largest share of the Kern Water Bank, an underground storage facility that the state Department of Water Resources turned over to Resnick and other Kern County water interests in the mid-1990s.
Resnick has a huge stake in the outcome of numerous lawsuits swirling over environmental regulations in the Delta. One group that has filed some of those lawsuits, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, is housed in Resnick's Bakersfield offices.
"He's an individual with very deep ties to a number of politicians, and obviously he's using those connections to get something he wants," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center of Responsive Politics, which monitors money in politics. "It's a lot easier for you to do what's being done here because you have status, and you've purchased that status."
In a letter forwarded by Feinstein to the Obama administration, Resnick accuses the agencies of using "sloppy science" to inappropriately attribute the Delta's environmental problems to state and federal water projects.
"I believe that the (National Research Council) is the only body that has the reputation, credibility and expertise to conduct a truly independent science review in the requisite time frame," Resnick wrote.
The research council's reputation for credibility, rigor, integrity and independence is hardly in question, but several experts raised concerns about the advisability of a research council review.
"It's a completely reasonable thing to do, but we've done it," said Bruce Herbold, a fisheries biologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who was on a panel of scientists that reviewed the Delta smelt permit issued in December.
Convening another science panel would either take Delta experts away from important ongoing work or would take a long time to bring outside scientists up to speed on a highly complex problem, Herbold said.
The new Delta permits were issued last December and in June after previous versions were invalidated by a federal court because they failed to protect Delta smelt, salmon and other fish from extinction.
Despite claims to the contrary, those permits have had relatively little impact this year, having cost water users several hundred thousand acre-feet of water in a year when their overall supply is down more than 1 million acre-feet.
The bigger problem this year is a run of three dry years. Still, the permits will cut deeper into water supplies in average years and wet years and will, over the long term, substantially reduce water supplies to California's farms and cities.
A panel of the National Research Council would likely hold the permits to a higher standard than is required by endangered species laws, something farmers say is a good idea given the potential economic impact they carry.
'Best available'
Endangered-species laws require the "best available" science be used, while a research council review could demand more certainty in any conclusions that are reached.
"If every decision made under the Endangered Species Act had to withstand that rigorous level of review, there would be no decisions under the Endangered Species Act," said J.B. Ruhl, a Florida State University law professor who was part of the research council committee that studied the Klamath permits.
"The Endangered Species Act would grind to a complete halt," he added.
Before issuing the permits in December and in June, federal agency managers went beyond the law's requirements by seeking outside peer reviews, at least in part because of the certainty that any decision they reached would be challenged in court.
Like the conflict in the Delta, the Klamath was the scene of massive farmer protests in the early 2000s after endangered species permits for salmon and suckers cut into farmers' water supplies by requiring, on one hand, that water be kept in storage to benefit one kind of fish and, on the other, that river flows be increased for other kinds of fish. Either of those requirements can affect water supply, but in the Klamath and in the Delta both of them are in play, further cutting into how much water goes to farms.
Lacking options to get around the Klamath permits' conditions and increase water deliveries to farms, Cheney opted in 2001 to get an outside scientific review, The Washington Post reported six years later.
It paid off in increased farm deliveries in 2002.
Klamath questions
In the Klamath, the research council made an initial finding in 2002 that the regulations were too focused on the level of river flows, a conclusion that water managers interpreted to mean they could reduce river flows further. That decision was blamed for a salmon kill-off later that year.
"The Bureau of Reclamation did not faithfully apply ... the NRC's conclusions," Ruhl said.
Courts have since been running the river.
"The genius of the Klamath thing was the way they asked the questions," said Jeff Mount, a UC Davis geologist who also was on the NRC committee. "Someone who is clever can design the questions in a way they can get the answer they're looking for, or that they're hoping for."
"I hate it that I feel like we were manipulated for political reasons," Mount said, adding that the panel's final report was comprehensive.
Mount and others praised the NRC's independence, but he said a study that relied on scientists not familiar with the Delta would take too long.
A critical scientific review could find flaws, but there is little opportunity in the Delta for "advocacy science" to creep into permits as it did in the Klamath because Delta science takes place is a more rigorous environment, Mount said"I believe that
Salazar, Locke contacted
A Feinstein spokesman said there was nothing unusual about forwarding Resnick's concerns and recommendations for a study design because he "has been acting as a spokesman for many of the farmers here."
Feinstein is seeking $750,000 in next year's budget for the study, but she asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to begin work on a study now.
"She thinks it's good to have an independent study," said Gil Duran, the Feinstein spokesman. He rejected any comparisons to the Klamath or Cheney's involvement.
The final report on the Klamath by the National Research Council concluded, among other things, that endangered fish could not recover unless regulators broadened their focus to include other environmental threats.
That is exactly the case that many of the Delta's largest water users have been making — that they are bearing the brunt of regulators' rules even though there are plenty of other problems to deal with.
They might be right. The Delta is under assault by many environmental threats.
But the permits acknowledge that water deliveries from the federal Central Valley Project and the state-owned State Water Project are not the sole cause of the Delta's decline. And the Delta smelt permit makes the case that the projects worsen other environmental problems, like pollution and invasive species, by reducing and altering flows.
Still, relatively little attention is paid to upstream water diverters.
The projects cranked about 6 million acre-feet of water a year out of the Delta in a series of record-breaking years recently that coincided with the collapse of fish populations, but about 9 million acre-feet of water is taken out each year before it ever reaches the Delta by San Francisco, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Sacramento and upstream farm districts, all of which have so far remained unaffected by the Delta's crisis.
Mercury News
With expenses rising California college kids have another way to get great education...Lisa M. Krieger
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13361974
Snowboarding, trout fishing and challenging academics — all for less money than the University of California?
Evan Feuerbach left Los Gatos to find just that at the University of Montana's flagship campus in Missoula. The 20-year-old Environmental Sciences major and about a dozen other Californians discovered an alternative to the Golden State's rising cost of higher education in Big Sky country through a little-known program called the Western Undergraduate Exchange.
As California's universities become increasingly crowded, stressed and expensive, more than 5,000 of its college-going youths have left the state to attend 140 of the exchange-program's member universities, up from only 1,800 five years ago. From urban University of Nevada-Reno to isolated Bismark State, most are less expensive than the total price of $25,000 to study at UC.
For years, the program offered little appeal to California's youths because the state so generously funded its universities, making them the envy of the world. But rising tuition at UC and California State University campuses are suddenly making other states' tuition under the exchange — 150 percent what is charged their own students — much more attractive.
Under a plan proposed by UC Regents this week, undergraduate fees would rise to $10,302 next year. That is more than double the $4,900 tuition charged by UC just five years ago.
Financially stressed California campuses are also shedding courses, slashing enrollment and compelling faculty and staff to take unpaid furlough days. Library hours are down, class sizes are up.
In contrast, the University of Montana — with its own white-water rapids and a wilderness refuge only five minutes away — charges Feuerbach and other out-of-state WUE students about $7,800. It lacks racial diversity and travel costs must be considered. But it offers far cheaper housing, smaller class sizes, access to coursework and other non-California experiences students value.
"Going to a school at the University of Montana gave me a chance to broaden my horizons, meeting people with different backgrounds, experiences and an interesting political and social environment — as well as just experience the natural beauty that's wildly rampant in the state," said Feuerbach, a Scotts Valley High School graduate.
"Getting outside of the general California culture was a great benefit to me," he said. "Needless to say, the WUE made it a little bit more financially viable."
California students have long left the state for other universities, paying private or full out-of-state tuitions which are usually steep. But admissions officers — from Duke University in North Carolina, to the University of Washington in Seattle — say this year's crop of California applicants was larger than ever.
The WUE program, run by the Boulder, Colo.-based Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, lets residents of Western states enroll at programs outside of their home state at a reduced rate. Students have to apply early and meet each school's eligibility requirements. (California's WUE kids aren't invited to apply to the University of Oregon because the state says it couldn't handle the deluge.)
Of the nation's four regional exchange programs — in New England, the South and Midwest — the Western exchange is the largest and broadest
"Historically, California students have had pretty broad access to higher education because of the large community college system and large CSU system. But as budgets get tighter and low-enrollment programs are dropped, courses aren't offered as frequently or full programs are eliminated, they need to find other options," said Jere Mock of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
"Students and their families are finding affordable and high-quality educations at other institutions in the West," she said.
The program was created as a "relief valve" for Western states facing opposing problems. Some places, like California, have too little money and too many students — while other states, such as Montana and Wyoming, have healthier state budgets but too few students to build the state's future economy.
"What happened was that states built many schools in many different locations, then the more rural areas didn't have the demand," said Louise Lynch of the University of Arizona, a major participant. "You're better off filling seats at a discount than keeping them empty."
Educational analyst Christopher Morphew said "Helping students migrate between states that face opposing enrollment problems makes sense."
"State borders are quite permeable, particularly for students," he said. "The college-age population migrates at a rate greater than that of any other population segment."
California offers WUE space at just a handful of campuses, including CSU East Bay. About 500 WUE students came to the state last year, one-tenth of what was exported.
Welcoming Californians, "Colorado has strong universities with lower tuition, and the ability to expand," said John Karakoulakis of the University of Colorado.
"We're very interested in California students, for their diversity and perspective," he said.
Monterey Herald
River heals as lawsuit against Big Poultry looms...JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS, Associated Press Writer
http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_13381963
SCRAPER, Okla.—David Overbey is no scientist, but he says a person doesn't have to be to see how much the Illinois River has improved in recent years.
Overbey, a 67-year-old retired laborer who spends his days fishing the river in the foothills of the Ozarks in eastern Oklahoma, said the water is clearer now than it was 30 or 40 years ago, and the drum and channel catfish he catches are bigger. And other locals, too, say the river is slowly beginning to heal after decades of deterioration.
Some trace the roots of the recovery to 2005, when Oklahoma brought a pollution lawsuit against the Arkansas poultry industry, suggesting the threat of legal action may have spurred the companies to do better at policing themselves.
"The water quality is getting better, and this year, especially, we had very little algae," said Archie "Trey" Peyton III, 35, a former environmental consultant who now runs the Peyton's Place float company.
"There's got to be a reason for that, which to me it follows that the last two years that most of the poultry litter in this region has been trucked out. But it looks to me like that's making an impact on the river," Peyton said.
But Oklahoma says the industry needs to do more, and its closely watched case against 11 companies—including food giants Tyson Foods Inc. and Cargill Inc.—goes to trial Thursday.
It's been a long-standing practice among poultry farmers in the Illinois River watershed to spread their chickens' droppings on their fields. But as big business took over the production of broilers, the amount of waste being spread on local fields ballooned—to an estimated 345,000 tons annually in recent years, according to Oklahoma.
Rather of disposing the waste in safer but more expensive ways—including burning it as energy, processing it into pellets or composting it—the state argues that Big Poultry has chosen the easiest, and cheapest, route. Runoff from the waste spread on the fields has polluted the Illinois River with harmful bacteria, degraded its water quality and caused algae blooms, the state argues.
The bacteria in the water threatens the health of the tens of thousands of people who use the river recreationally each year, and of the many businesses that rely on it.
The industry argues that Arkansas and Oklahoma sanctioned this practice by issuing farmers permits to spread the inexpensive waste.
The companies say they've also taken steps to reduce the amount of waste spread on the fields. Records provided to The Associated Press by the poultry industry show that nearly 290,000 tons of chicken waste have been trucked out of the area between 2005 through last month.
The four-year estimate, which does not include litter hauled away by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, still is about 55,000 tons less than the amount of waste produced in just one year in the watershed.
But the industry says it's a start, and says it's spending millions of dollars researching alternative uses for chicken waste and has bankrolled various river improvement projects.
Other states considering taking on Big Poultry are closely watching the Oklahoma case, which is expected to last several weeks.
In the meantime, the poultry and tourism industries will continue to share the lush, 1 million-acre swath of land that extends from northeastern Oklahoma into western Arkansas, with its thick forests, babbling brooks and 1,800 low-slung chicken houses that dot the landscape.
Those who live and work along the river say its health appears to be improving. There's the fatter and more plentiful fish, for one, and less of the thick algae that once coated the river's bottom like shag carpeting. Local merchants say they logged banner seasons outfitting the tens of thousands of tourists who flock to the river each year.
"This river is better now than it was 20 years ago," said Jack Spears, a retired college professor who owns Arrowhead Resort, the second-largest float company in the area. His operation equips roughly 20,000 customers a year for trips down the river.
Spears has spent most of his 75 years in this county and remembers when he could look at water so clear in the Illinois that 10 or 12 feet down seemed like 6 inches.
"If I was in (the poultry companies') position, I'd say, 'hey, let's police our act. Let's clean up our act, or they'll be forced to by someone else,'" Spears said.
The other defendants named in the lawsuit are Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.; Tyson Poultry Inc., Tyson Chicken Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Cargill Turkey Production L.L.C., George's Inc., George's Farms Inc., Peterson Farms Inc. and Simmons Foods Inc.