10-8-09

 
10-8-09
Badlands Journal
News of the Westside water crisis...Badlands Journal editorial board
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2009-10-07/007456
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week. – Nov. 21, 2008, “In Crisis, Opportunity for Obama, Wall Street Journal  
United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 7, 2009   
Senators Feinstein and Boxer Introduce Measure to Allow New Water Transfers in California’s Drought-Stricken Central Valley
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRe...
 -Would authorize voluntary transfers of up to 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet per year of water between sellers and buyers; streamline environmental reviews - 
Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (both D-Calif.) today introduced a measure that would help ease the effects of severe drought in the Central Valley by allowing new voluntary water transfers of up to 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet of water, depending on rainfall that year, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.  
The legislation would grant new authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to approve water transfers between sellers and buyers in the San Joaquin Valley. The measure also would streamline environmental reviews for Central Valley water transfers by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis, instead of project-by-project basis as is current practice. The measure should reduce unnecessary delays in water transfers at a time when Central Valley farmers have been hard hit by a three-year drought.  
A similar but narrower provision to temporarily authorize Central Valley water transfers between Central Valley Project divisions was included in the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy & Water appropriations bill. The conference report was adopted by the House last week and will likely be adopted by the Senate this week.  
“Many communities in California’s Central Valley are in desperate need of more water as a result of a three-year drought, but there are some parts of the Valley that have surplus water to sell,” Senator Feinstein said. “This bill would grant the Bureau of Reclamation new authority to allow surplus water to be transferred to those who need it on an expedited basis. It is a reasonable and timely solution to the water crisis that would streamline the environmental review process and cut out unnecessary delays. It will allow struggling farmers to access roughly 250,000 to 300,000 more acre-feet of water while ensuring that these transfers comply with critical environmental regulations.” 
Senator Boxer said, “We took a critical step toward addressing the water crisis in the San Joaquin Valley when the Senate passed our amendment enabling water transfers between the east and west sides of the valley. This new legislation will build on that effort by extending the ability to transfer water permanently and expanding the transfer program to include even more water users.”
Companion legislation will be introduced today in the House by Representatives Costa and Cardoza (both D-Calif.).
Specifically, the measure (S.1759) would:  
Establish new parameters for San Joaquin Valley water transfers that can be authorized by the Bureau of Reclamation. Previously, the Bureau of Reclamation would not approve water transfers if it was determined that the seller with surplus water could have used the water (i.e., for irrigation or groundwater storage purposes), even if the transfer was proven to have no negative impact on the environment. The legislation introduced today would explicitly grant the Bureau the authority to approve these types of East-West transfers, as long as they qualify under environmental regulations.  
The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that this section of the bill could yield up to 100,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water transfers per year.
Direct the Interior Department to streamline the giant garter snake environmental review for water transfers from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis rather than on a project-by-project basis, which is the current practice. This would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to approve North-South water transfers more promptly and ensure that the endangered giant garter snake is protected sufficiently.
The Bureau of Reclamation and Central Valley water users estimate that this section of the bill could yield up to 150,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water transfers per year.
Direct the Bureau of Reclamation to analyze existing transfers and prepare recommendations on whether there are other ways to facilitate future Central Valley transfers more efficiently. This would include transfers from north to south and from east to west, as well as between California state and federal projects.
The bill is supported by a number of water users across the Central Valley, including:
Friant Water Users Authority
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority
Delta-Mendota Canal Authority
Westlands Water District
Metropolitan Water District
Glen Colusa Irrigation District
Northern California Water Association
Banta-Carbona Irrigation District
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
Association of California Water Agencies
Placer County Water Agency
Conaway Preservation Group
Reclamation District 2035
San Luis Water District
Congressman Dennis Cardoza
18th Congressional District of California
Congressmen Cardoza and Costa introduce bill to ease drought for Central Valley farmers 
Legislation helps facilitate water transfers 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2009 CONTACT: Mike Jensen
(202) 225-6131
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca18_cardoza/PRWATERBILL.html
WASHINGTON – Representatives Dennis Cardoza (D-Merced) and Jim Costa (D-Fresno) introduced a bill today that would help ease the effects of severe drought in the Central Valley by facilitating the transfers of up to 300,000 acre-feet of irrigation water.  
The Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 eases restrictions on the Bureau of Reclamation and would streamline environmental reviews for the giant garter snake. The bill would reduce unnecessary delays in water transfers at a time when Central Valley farmers have been hard hit by a three-year drought.
Congressman Costa introduced the bill and Congressman Cardoza was the original cosponsor. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were expected to introduce similar legislation in the U.S. Senate today.
A similar provision to temporarily authorize water transfers was included in the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy & Water appropriations bill. The conference report was adopted by the House last week and will likely be adopted by the Senate this week. Today’s legislation would make the transfer facilitation permanent.
“I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for years to include common-sense reforms in the Endangered Species Act,” said Congressman Cardoza. “Working on a bipartisan basis, we have tried to get the pumps permanently ‘turned on’ and ensure our Valley farmers have the water they so desperately need to feed our nation. Because it has become abundantly clear this strategy is not working, common sense dictates we need to pursue other workable options like this legislation, which is a significant step forward in providing relief to our growers. As we continue to move ahead, I will pursue every possible, and practical, means of getting water to our growers.”
“Transferring water between and within counties for water districts is a critical tool to use during periods of drought,” Representative Costa said. “While the best solution would be to have the federal and state pumps fully operational, because we have been unable to modify the Endangered Species Act, this change in the law provides us some relief. This legislation makes permanent the ability to transfer water to our Valley’s farms when it is most needed, therefore, allowing our farmers a lifeline to continue to grow crops and help our local economy. More will need to be done to protect the Valley’s water, and I will continue that fight.” 
Specifically, the measure would:
•           Establish new parameters for San Joaquin Valley water transfers that can be authorized by the Bureau of Reclamation. Previously, the Bureau of Reclamation would not approve water transfers if it was determined that the seller with surplus water could have used the water (i.e., for irrigation or groundwater storage purposes), even if the transfer was proven to have no negative impact on the environment. The legislation introduced today would explicitly grant the Bureau the authority to approve these types of East-West transfers, as long as they meet other minimum environmental regulations. 
The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that this provision could yield up to 100,000 acre-feet of water transfers per year. 
•           Direct the Interior Department to streamline the giant garter snake environmental review for water transfers from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis rather than on a project-by-project basis. This would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to approve North-South water transfers more promptly and ensure that the endangered giant garter snake is sufficiently protected.
The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that this provision could yield up to 200,000 acre-feet of water transfers per year.
•           Direct the Bureau of Reclamation to analyze existing transfers and prepare recommendations on whether there are other ways to facilitate future Central Valley transfers more efficiently. This would include transfers from California state and federal water projects.
The legislation is supported by the following water agencies and associations:
•           Friant Water Users Authority
•           Delta-Mendota Canal Authority
•           Glen Colusa Irrigation District
•           Banta-Carbona Irrigation District
•           San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority
•           San Luis Water District
•           Association of California Water Agencies
•           Northern California Water Association
•           Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
•           Westlands Water District
•           Metropolitan Water District
•           Placer County Water Agency
•           Conaway Preservation Group
•           Reclamation District 2035
Congressman Dennis Cardoza
18th Congressional District of California
Final amendments pave way for Valley agriculture water improvements 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 1, 2009 CONTACT: Mike Jensen
(202) 225-6131
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca18_cardoza/
PRFINALH2OAMENDS.html  
WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives today approved the conference report for the FY 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The bill included two provisions authored by Congressman Dennis Cardoza and his colleague Congressman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) aimed at increasing water flows to San Joaquin Valley farmers. 
“As I have said before, we all would like to see the pumps permanently ‘turned on’ throughout the entire growing season and ensure that water is flowing from the San Joaquin Delta to our farmers. For many years I fought to make that happen. Because it has become abundantly clear this strategy is not working, common sense dictates we need to pursue other workable options. These practical amendments are a significant means to help us address our water needs in the Valley,” said Congressman Cardoza.
The first provision will make it easier for water to be transferred from one county to another. Currently, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation restricts such transfers, creating an impediment to efficient and practical water movement during times of need. The amendment also directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement a recovery plan for the giant garter snake, an endangered species. A recovery plan will help to remove the bureaucratic red tape that prevents water transfers from Northern California from moving forward.
The second provision provides $10 million in increased funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program, which will help fund important water projects such as the Two Gates and the Intertie projects. These projects will help to convey and transfer water to the people and farms most impacted by the shortage.
The amendments were introduced by Congressmen Cardoza and Costa and passed the House as part of the House version of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that passed in July. These amendments had provided a clarification in the law that would have allowed the water transfers on a permanent basis. However, in the conference report, language was inserted limiting the transfers to a two-year period. Congressmen Cardoza and Costa, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will soon be introducing a separate bill to make the water transfers permanent.
News From…
Congressman Dennis Cardoza
18th Congressional District of California
USDA declares drought disaster in Valley 
Paves the way for ag producers to receive aid 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2009
CONTACT: Mike Jensen
(202) 225-6131
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca18_cardoza/PRUSDAHELP.html  
WASHINGTON, DC – As a result of the recent drought, the United States Department of Agriculture has declared Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties natural disaster areas, Congressman Cardoza announced today.  
Producers within the three counties are eligible to be considered for Farm Service Agency emergency loans and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program. They were among 21 counties in California to have received the declaration.
Interested producers should contact their local Farm Service Agencies.
Merced County
USDA Service Center
2135 Wardrobe Ave, # C
Merced, CA 95341-6445
209-722-4119‎
Stanislaus County
USDA Service Center
3800 Cornucopia Way,
Suite E
Modesto, CA 95358
209-491-9320
San Joaquin County
USDA Service Center
3422 W Hammer Lane,
Suite C
Stockton, CA 95219
209-472-7127 
Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
July 30, 2009
Commissioner Connor Announces $40 Million in Economic Relief Projects for Drought-Stricken California
Filed under: Bureau of Reclamation —
Date: July 30, 2009
Contact: Kip White
(202) 513-0684
http://recovery.doi.gov/press/2009/07/commissioner-connor-announces-40-m...
FRESNO, CA - The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor announced today that $40 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has been released for drought-relief projects in California.
The commissioner is on a tour of California’s hard-hit San Joaquin Valley, meeting water and irrigation district representatives and getting a hands-on look at the needs of that community.
“In the third year of drought, with hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland idle and 40,000 people unemployed in the San Joaquin Valley, the water situation in California remains dire,” said Commissioner Connor. “These projects, which will benefit water and irrigation districts in the San Joaquin Valley, are focused on solutions that will extend supplies and help prepare for the possibility of continued drought next year.”
Projects include the installation of temporary pipelines and pumps, drilling and installation of new water wells, well-enhancement projects, and a groundwater monitoring effort. These investments will help preserve permanent crops and associated jobs in an area that is experiencing a prolonged drought, economic hardship and some of the highest unemployment rates in the United States.
With the assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Native American projects were identified that will assist in meeting the water supply needs of tribal communities impacted by the drought. The funds for the Gray Lodge, Pixley and Volta Wildlife Refuges will not only assist in protecting the environment by providing more reliable water sources for the refuges but will make more water available for other uses.
The $40 million investment in these projects is part of President Barack Obama’s $1 billion investment of ARRA funding provided by the Department of the Interior for water projects across the West. In April, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced $260 million in ARRA funding to address California’s current drought conditions and meet the State’s long-term water supply infrastructure needs. The total funding for California water-related activities under the Interior portion of ARRA is $391 million to expand water supplies, repair aging water infrastructure and address drought mitigation.
In addition to ARRA funding for drought, Reclamation has approved 265,000 acre feet of water transfers this year to help get water where it is needed most. Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources have created a Drought Water Bank, a measure that will make additional supplies of water obtainable now and in future times of drought or shortage. The Drought Water Bank acquisition team may purchase water from willing sellers upstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and transfer the water to willing buyers using State Water Project or Central Valley Project facilities.
Reclamation also administers the Challenge Grant Program that funds proposals from irrigation and water districts that want to leverage their money and resources in partnership with Reclamation to make more efficient use of existing water supplies through water conservation and water marketing projects. Funding is also available to promote water use efficiency projects such as irrigation system upgrades and water conservation education programs, and address/improve Best Management Practices.
Secretary Salazar has pledged unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Department’s economic recovery projects. The public will be able to follow the progress of each project on www.recovery.gov and on www.interior.gov/recovery. Secretary Salazar has appointed a Senior Advisor for Economic Recovery, Chris Henderson, and an Interior Economic Recovery Task Force to work closely with Interior’s Inspector General and ensure the recovery program is meeting the high standards for accountability, responsibility, and transparency set by President Obama.
Congressman Dennis Cardoza
18th Congressional District of California
Congressman Cardoza announces $40 million for water projects, drought relief 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 30, 2009 CONTACT:   Mike Jensen
(202) 225-6131
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca18_cardoza/PRH2OHELP.html
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Cardoza announced $40 million in economic recovery funds today that will be used for a host of water projects, the bulk of which are in and near the drought-stricken 18th Congressional District and will aid Central Valley farmers.
“I am pleased to see significant federal relief coming to the Valley. This region is in desperate need of funding to help alleviate the impacts of the drought,” said Congressman Cardoza. “I am pleased to see this kind of response after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s recent visit to the San Joaquin Valley.”
The funding will go toward such projects as the installation of temporary pipelines and pumps, drilling and installation of new water wells, well-enhancement projects, and a groundwater monitoring effort. The funding is also aimed at helping three wildlife refuges by providing more reliable water sources and reducing the overall water demand on the Federal Central Valley Project.
“Every bit of help we can get right now is appreciated,” said San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Executive Director Dan Nelson. “This funding will provide additional tools for this region that will assist us with our water supply crisis. We are very appreciative of Congressman Cardoza’s continued advocacy for our Valley’s water needs.”
The following awards were among the funded projects announced today:
Central California Irrigation District, Los Banos: $19,000
Funding will be used for a well enhancement project within the water district. The project will clean, develop, and install a pump and motor on an existing well. The well will then be able to move water within the district as well as to pump water to neighboring districts. The well enhancement project will increase the efficiency and yield of the well to make more water available for irrigation.
Del Puerto Water District, Patterson: $4,260,000
Funding will be used for 35 projects within the water district. The projects include about 2.1 miles of temporary pipeline, temporary lifts pumps, well enhancement and rehabilitation projects, and the installation of 25 new wells. The pipelines and lift pumps will be used to move water within the district as well as to pump water into the Delta Mendota Canal. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation.
Firebaugh Canal Water District, Mendota: $475,000
Funding will be used for a water system improvement project within the water district. The project includes approximately 1 mile of temporary pipeline, temporary lift pumps, flow meters, and water valves. The pipeline and lift pumps will be used to move water within the district as well as to pump water into the Delta-Mendota Canal. The water system improvement project will address the immediate need of additional water within the district’s service area as well as the Delta-Mendota Canal service area and will increase the amount of water available for irrigation.
Grassland Water District, Los Banos: $2,098,500
Funding will be used for two projects within the water district. The projects include enhancement and rehabilitation of existing wells and the installation of new wells. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation and for wildlife habitat. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation and wildlife habitat
Pacheco Water District, Fresno: $755,500
Funding will be used for two projects within the water district. The projects include the enhancement and rehabilitation of seven existing wells. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation within the district’s service area. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation.
Panoche Water District, Firebaugh: $2,600,000
Funding will be used for six projects within the water district. The projects include about 2 miles of temporary pipeline, temporary booster pumps, well enhancement and rehabilitation projects, and the installation of five new wells. The pipelines and lift pumps will be used to move water within the district. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation. The additional wells will increase the groundwater availability of water for irrigation throughout the district’s service area. 
San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Los Banos: $2,264,000
Funding will be used for a groundwater monitoring project throughout the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority service area in coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey. Groundwater wells will be used to document changes in aquifer levels and groundwater quality. Private contractors will be used to install 16 new wells that will be included in the monitoring program. Monitoring will also be conducted for possible land subsidence. The monitoring effort will protect the aquifer from overdraft and alert district member agencies of possible problems associated with groundwater extraction. 
San Luis Water District, Los Banos: $1,450,000
Funding will be used for five projects within the water district. The projects include a well enhancement and rehabilitation project and the installation of four new wells. The well enhancement and rehabilitation project will increase the efficiency and yield of one existing well to make more water available for irrigation. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation. 
West Stanislaus Irrigation District, Westley: $2,515,000
Funding will be used for 13 projects within the water district. The projects include about 1 mile of temporary pipeline, valves, flow meters, required fittings; well enhancement and rehabilitation on three projects, and the installation of nine new wells. The pipelines will be used to move water within the district as well as to pump water into the Delta-Mendota Canal. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation.
Westlands Water District, Fresno: $7,500,000
Funding will be used for two projects within the water district. The projects include enhancement and rehabilitation of five wells and the installation of 15 new wells. The well enhancement and rehabilitation projects will increase the efficiency and yield of the wells to make more water available for irrigation. The additional wells will increase the availability of water for irrigation.
Modesto Bee
Wal-Mart center's benefits far outweigh negatives...David Bultena. Bultena, a retired Merced County deputy district attorney, was a visiting editor with The Bee in 2005
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/v-print/story/883942.html
Now that the Merced City Council has approved the Wal-Mart distribution center for south Merced, everyone is feeling either relieved or put out.
Relief went to those who supported the project and those with environmental concerns are on the other end of the emotional spectrum. When the project is finished, it may well prove that the supporters had it right all along and the project will be a big benefit to Merced.
Opponents should have known at the outset that their efforts would yield few, if any, results. The suggestion that the flow of truck traffic from Highway 99 to the center would increase pollution to dangerous levels gained support only from those committed to "no growth" or "green growth."
The reality is that the truck flow to the center is no greater than and probably less than the overall increase in truck traffic on the Highway 99 corridor through Merced. This is in addition to the overall increased traffic flow up and down Highway 99.
Had the respiratory problems of Mercedians living close to Highway 99 increased in proportion to the increased truck travel on 99, then the environmentals opponents may have had a peg to hang their hat on, but no such information or study was produced.
The U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 Community Survey shows that Merced city and county have the highest poverty rate in the valley and the lowest per capita and median family income for the same area.
How anyone for any reason can oppose correcting this imbalance is beyond my ability to reason. If crud gets in the air, use a breathing filter or mask, but don't penalize the whole community.
Merced City Council member Bill Spriggs hit the nail on the head when he said, "Our largest health problem is poverty."
This doesn't mean Wal-Mart should be given the key to the city or free rein in Merced. They should be subjected to scrutiny to make sure their claims have validity regarding wages and working conditions.
If Wal-Mart completes its end of the deal, Merced will enjoy a modest amount of much needed prosperity. The construction phase will use local labor as well as local contractors to bid on various parts of the building project. In this slow economy, the bidding will be widespread and perhaps very reasonable, at least from Wal-Mart's point of view.
Not only does Wal-Mart sell things locally, it buys things locally. Day-to-day supplies will, no doubt, be a local purchase, again providing a direct benefit to Merced.
But what this all means is that Merced may have turned the corner on the high poverty and unemployment rates. Merced needs more of this type of industry. In view of their stance on the Wal-Mart issue, environmentalists should assume the responsibility for explaining to the unemployed in the Merced area why there aren't more jobs.
Developers face costs for saving frog in Calif....last updated: October 07, 2009 07:37:40 PM
http://www.modbee.com/state/v-print/story/885131.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Federal wildlife officials estimate that measures needed to protect the California red-legged frog will cost developers up to $507 million over the next two decades.
The estimate released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comes a year after the agency designated 1.8 million acres in 28 counties as habitat critical to the frog's survival.
The cost to developers of regulatory delays and of buying land elsewhere to offset projects they are building on frog habitat were among the factors federal officials considered.
Al Donner, a spokesman for the federal agency, says developers could save money if they start the regulatory process early.
The frog, the largest species native to the Western U.S., was listed as threatened in 1996.
Fresno Bee
4 Dems author bill for Calif. water problems...Pablo Lopez
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-print/story/1666450.html
A bill introduced Wednesday in Washington, D.C., was touted by its Democrat authors as a way to help solve the San Joaquin Valley's water problems.
But a spokeswoman for Westlands Water District called it a Band-Aid for the state's water crisis.
Reps. Jim Costa of Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Merced and California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer joined together to introduce the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009.
The lawmakers say the bill would make it easier for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to approve transfers between water sellers and buyers in the Valley.
Also, the bill requires only one environmental study to examine the effect of water transfers on the giant garter snake, a protected species. Currently, each water-transfer project requires a separate study.
According to Costa, the bill has been endorsed by 14 water users including the Metropolitan Water District (the Southern California urban water giant), the Friant Water Users Authority and Westlands Water District.
Sarah Woolf, spokeswoman for Westlands, which spans 600,000 acres from Firebaugh to Kettleman City, said the bill is a good idea, but it won't fix the state's water shortage.
Three years of below-normal precipitation combined with court-ordered restrictions on pumping water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are the leading causes of the shortage.
"This bill will be an intermediate fix, a Band-Aid," Woolf said.
Westlands needs the water because the district received 10% of its allocations this year. The drought, combined with court-ordered water restrictions, have caused more than 150,000 acres of Westlands acres not to be farmed, Woolf said.
Woolf said the state's problem is this: There's an abundance of water north of the delta, but it is difficult to deliver the water to the areas that need it south of the delta. The new bill will eliminate some of the bureaucratic hurdles to water transfers, she said.
Meeting in Sanger on mining proposal...Bee staff
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-print/story/1666545.html
Fresno County officials will hold an information session tonight at Sanger High School to discuss a draft environmental report on the proposed mining of Jesse Morrow Mountain. Cemex Construction Materials is planning to mine rock on the southern side of the mountain about eight miles east of Sanger.
The session will be in the high school's multipurpose room, 1045 Bethel Ave., in Sanger, from 6 to 7:30 p.m.
The company plans to use 824 acres for the project -- 400 acres for mining, 40 for processing facilities, and the rest for a land buffer, according to the county.
The draft environmental report lists a number of potential effects from the project, including noise and diminished air quality.
The county will accept comments on the draft report through Dec. 1. The draft report can be found online at: www.co.fresno.ca.us/departmentpage.aspx?id=4322.
Mountain deserves saving...Bill McEwen
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/mcewen/v-print/story/1666440.html
The Choinumni have a name for the rocky mountain at the base of the Sierra. They call it Wahahlish, meaning "someone cried."
Once the mountain -- and its wildflowers, burrowing owls, coyotes, rattlesnakes and native artifacts -- belonged to the Choinumni, a Yokut tribe whose members lived in villages near the Kings River but also looked for food in the adjoining foothills.
Now Jesse Morrow Mountain belongs to Cemex, which wants to mine and process aggregate there -- an operation that would consume about 40% of the acreage, spoil the views, foul the air and overload local roads.
But, while the global cement company holds title to the land, the mountain really belongs to everybody who has -- or might yet -- admire its beauty.
Yes, this humble mountain belongs to the thousands of tourists motoring along Highway 180 to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National parks. It's the first peak they see as they climb into the Sierra.
It also belongs to the folks who follow the Blossom Trail each spring. And to the people in the bed-and-breakfast stops who soak up the sight of rows of wine grapes finally giving way to the mountain.
Now, nearly a decade after another sand-and-gravel company bought the mountain and its 2,000 acres for $2 million from a cattle rancher, Cemex wants to cash in.
The time to preserve Jesse Morrow Mountain and to stop all who would ruin it is now. Fresno County released the draft environmental impact report for the proposed project Friday, and you have until Dec. 1 to voice your opinions on the county's findings.
Tonight the county will pass out information from the report and accept written citizen comments in a 90-minute meeting that will start at 6 o'clock in the Sanger High School multipurpose room.
Four county planners and two consultants will be available to answer questions one on one, but county planning officials aren't planning a mass discussion of concerns.
"It's peculiar we have a process that minimizes public engagement," Fresno County Supervisor Henry R. Perea says. "It didn't work well for the dairy ordinance" passed by the supervisors in 2007. "The strategy was not to let the people speak. That didn't work; it's not going to work now."
The report, which totals more than 700 pages, has been in the making for several years. It talks a lot about steps Cemex could take to lessen the destruction.
But it concludes that there would be "significant and unavoidable impacts" to the mountain's topography and vegetation. There also would be substantial harm to air, traffic and Choinumni cultural resources.
And while berms would hide some of the mining work while it's in progress, the end result would be a carved-up mountain.
In the report is a snapshot of a proposed deal between the mine operators and the Choinumni: the company would lease 40 acres on the mountain's north side to the tribe for $1 a year for a cultural preservation center and give $40,000 for the first 400,000 metric tons of aggregate shipped from the site. When the mine has all of its permits, the tribe would receive title to the 40 acres.
Grass-roots opposition to mining the mountain emerged when the project was announced in 2002. But volunteer efforts often are no match for corporations with deep pockets, expert lawyers -- and the support of elected officials who've accepted their campaign donations.
Supporters of the mining operation say that there is a shortage of aggregate in Fresno County. They claim that without this mine, building costs will go up. The operation would also create jobs and provide work for haulers.
But what about agricultural tourism, a job cluster that the Board of Supervisors claims to support? With spoiled views and more traffic, the mine might cost more jobs than it produces.
Besides, what price can you put on the sight of this mountain, its green slopes alive with the promise of all that is right with the world on a spring day? Why must Fresno County always cave to the wishes of the profiteers?
Once in awhile, we must protect what is ours. This is such a time. Jesse Morrow Mountain belongs to all of us.
Higher home prices forecast for '10 - with a caveat...Sanford Nax
http://www.fresnobee.com/business/v-print/story/1665980.html
The California Association of Realtors predicts 2010 will bring more of the same, with home prices edging up slightly and robust activity at the lower price ranges.
But the prediction, released Wednesday, rests on one big caveat: that the number of foreclosures will not surge, as some experts believe is possible.
“This is hinging on the assumption that the number of distressed properties will stay fairly even,” said Robert Kleinhenz, the association’s deputy chief economist.
Other wild cards include unemployment levels and the amount of federal stimulus. The association wants an $8,000 federal tax credit, which applies to first-time home buyers and ends Nov. 30, to be extended and expanded to all home purchasers.
Kleinhenz said that predicting foreclosures was the most difficult part of the forecast. He acknowledges a record number of defaults in the first and second quarter, but says those aren’t resulting in significantly higher foreclosures.
“Lenders are not following the normal timing,” he said. “There is no single solution, no one-size-fits-all. Banks are dealing with situations case-by-case. They will modify some loans, but maybe not others. They will issue a notice of default and then do nothing, or they will go lickety-split through the timeline. It’s a very mixed bag.”
The result appears to be a reluctance by banks to flood the market with foreclosures — and what the association’s economists called “the new normal.”
Sean O’Toole, founder of ForeclosureRadar and a real estate analyst, agrees. Banks, he said, are under tremendous pressure from legislators to keep from driving down values.
So they parcel out foreclosures to avoid a glut. The result: low prices and low interest rates that are enticing investors and first-time home buyers to engage in bidding wars, which is helping stabilize — and in some cases push up — prices.
Association economists forecast the median home price in California to increase 3.3% in 2010.
The new normal appears to be strong activity and a shortage of some lower-priced homes, but weakness among higher-end houses.
The move-up market — when people sell their home and progress to something bigger or more expensive — is nearly nonexistent. O’Toole thinks that will change as the new normal settles in.
“If there are no further surprises, people will get the confidence to take advantage of low interest rates and move,” he said.
Unemployment also will be a factor. Kleinhenz’s projections call for unemployment to level off in mid-2010. Until joblessness falls, the housing market can’t recover, added J. Andrew Hansz, a Fresno State University professor and director of the school’s Arnold & Dianne Gazarian Real Estate Center.
Fresno is a center of government employment, so state-mandated furloughs have an effect. Hansz said that “2010 will be a little rough. Job creation is the key.”
Robin Kane, a real estate analyst in Fresno, said 2010 will be a little better than this year, and 2011 will be better than 2010. “The recovery is happening,” he said, but can’t be complete until foreclosure sales [which in August were 67% of the transactions in Fresno] are reduced to about 33%, and when move-up buyers return.
“You can’t have a market of nothing but first-time home buyers,” he said. “It’s a great way to clean up inventory, which has to happen, but not to return to normalcy.”
Sacramento Bee
Delta's future hinges on money as Sacramento legislators debate water-policy bills...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/2238959.html
The first effort in a generation to fix California's all-important water policy appears to be stalled by the only commodity that seems more valuable: money.
Legislators face a self-imposed Friday deadline to deliver a pair of water bills designed to improve conditions in the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, hub of the state's water system.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has demanded a water package this year, and must sign any new laws by Sunday. The governor is withholding action on more than 700 other pending bills, and legislators fear he may veto many of those if the water package doesn't come through.
The first of the bills, SB 68, would reform the complex management of water in and around the Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast and a source of drinking water for 23 million Californians.
Lobbyists are still fighting over details, including important assurances for north-state water interests. But this bill appears to have support from water interests and some environmental groups.
Not so for the second bill, AB 893, a bond measure to pay for a variety of new waterworks and Delta restoration projects. Disagreement remains over how large the bond should be, and what it should or shouldn't pay for.
Cost estimates for the legislation have ranged as high as $12 billion, prompting public employee unions to weigh in against the bill. They worry a new state debt obligation that large could dent state worker pay in the future.
"Given the current economic situation in the nation and the state, it may be difficult to go to the voters with a multibillion-dollar bond," acknowledged Tom Birmingham, general manager of Westlands Water District, the largest agricultural entity that depends on Delta water.
A dispute over AB 893 is whether bonds should pay for water projects that may not benefit all Californians.
Republicans want billions in the bond measure dedicated to building new reservoirs, for instance. But current bill language outlines a competitive process: Storage projects with the most public benefits would get funding, and new dams would have to compete against groundwater storage for funding.
There also is concern that the package doesn't adequately fund important new programs, such as the Delta Stewardship Council, designed to consolidate water management responsibilities now divided among more than 200 agencies.
Creating the council was a key proposal of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, a Schwarzenegger-appointed body that for nearly two years analyzed the estuary.
Phil Isenberg, former chairman of the task force, said there is neither stable funding nor sufficient authority for the council in either bill.
"The game in politics is, if you think you're going to lose the fight over somebody having authority to do something, then you make sure they don't have any money or staff to do it," said Isenberg, also a former mayor of Sacramento and member of Assembly. "It's just the same thing over and over again."
Isenberg's task force described a schedule of actions they deemed necessary to prevent deeper water shortages and further ecological harm to the Delta. Some of those goals have already slipped, and Isenberg said it's important to act on the water bills now.
Others say more time will lead to a better package.
Among them are a number of influential Northern California water agencies, including the San Francisco Public Utility District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and city of Sacramento.
They fear the current bills require them to give up water rights to improve freshwater flows through the Delta. They want amendments that would require the state to first prove that their water diversions harm the Delta.
Randy Kanouse, lobbyist for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, said the current bill language is a tool to ensure enough water in the Delta to fill a controversial new canal, which would divert a portion of the Sacramento River's flow directly into export pumps serving Southern California.
Water agencies that benefit from a canal have agreed to pay for it, and its cost is not part of the proposed bond. It is being studied and approved via a separate process called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The plan includes a host of environmental improvements, some of which would be funded by the bonds.
Local water agencies complain they were left out of the Delta decision-making process, just as they were excluded from negotiations over the water bills.
"Somebody got left out, and the somebody is all of Northern California - all of the communities that have water rights, that take water out of the watershed lawfully," Kanouse said.
The bill package also includes language to achieve the governor's statewide 20 percent water conservation goal by 2020. But Sacramento interests say their share of that goal is another kind of subsidy for Southern California. They claim any water saved here stays in the rivers and can then be diverted south.
"We're certainly behind efficient water use, and have taken a lot of steps in that direction," said John Woodling, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Water Authority. "But we're concerned about the mandatory nature of what's in the bill now."
Capitol Weekly
Governor presided over birth of Latino Water Coalition...Malcolm Maclachlan
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ybp9m22r8xx2n4&xid=ybopgxc5lelik7&done=.ybp9m22r8yg2n4#
The California Latino Water Coalition, often described as a grassroots group representing the Latino community, was born in a closed-door meeting of Gov. Schwarzenegger and local officials at Selma City Hall on March 21, 2007—and was “suggested” by the governor himself, according to a coalition brochure.
Orange Cove Mayor Victor Lopez said the Coalition was his own idea. He acknowledged that city funds were used to help people travel to the Coalition launch event at the state Capitol on April 23, 2007.
“When we went to Sacramento, we went as citizens of the community,” Lopez said. “The city of Orange Cove provided a bus to take our citizens who wanted to speak.”
The origins and financing of the Coalition are important because the group has become an influential voice in water development during the past two years. Generally, it supports the construction of dams, reservoirs and a potential Delta canal –  projects sought by the governor, many members of the Legislature, powerful agribusiness interests and numerous public water agencies.
The Coalition produced a four-page promotional brochure this summer, “California Latino Water Coalition: A New Voice in California’s Water Wars,” that detailed the group’s role.
During the last two and half years since the Selma meeting, the Coalition has become one of the most visible players in the battles over California’s water resources. The group has pushed the issue into headlines with rallies and marches featuring thousands of Latino farm workers. Its critics have called it an “astroturf” group that tries to put a working-class Latino face on the demands of rich farmers.
The brochure tells the story of “How We Began,” and shows a picture of the governor meeting that day with two men who became major players in the Coalition: Lopez and Mario Santoyo, assistant general manager of the Friant Water Authority. It goes on to say how they joined other Central Valley mayors and local officials and “brought these concerns before Governor Schwarzenegger.”
“It was Mr. Schwarzenegger who suggested that the Coalition be formed,” notes the Coalition brochure.
Jessica Szalay, at the time a reporter at the Selma Enterprise, remembers getting a cell phone call as she drove to work that morning.
“We didn’t even know he was coming into town until about a half hour before he showed up,” Szalay recalled.
Szalay said she got to work, walked a block down the street to City Hall, then waited from about 11 a.m. to 12:30 pm while the governor held the private meeting in the City Council chambers. A couple of camera crews showed up from local television stations.
During the brief press conference after the meeting, she said, the governor and local officials “lumped together” several local concerns, not just water but pollution, upgrades to Highway 99 and relief for orange farmers who had lost much of their crop during a freeze the previous winter. Szalay posted a 500-word story about the governor’s visit later that day.
“He came out, said a couple words, got back in into his car and drove off,” Szalay said.
A month later, the governor was present when the Coalition announced its launch with a rally outside the Capitol on April 23. Comedian Paul Rodriguez was also there as the chairman of the newly-minted group.
Lopez said that he started meeting with local officials in late 2006 with the idea of the Coalition. He also said it was he who asked Rodriguez to join the effort. He said he first met Rodriguez when the comedian raised $250,000 in relief funds around 1989 when a freeze decimated the local Orange crop. Rodriguez’s elderly mother still lives on a farm near Orange Cove.
Cash disbursement records from Orange Cove appear to show city funds used on several Coalition activities. For instance, records show a charge of $130 for an April 13, 2007 meeting in Los Angeles between Lopez, Rodriguez, Santoyo and Brenda Quintana, Schwarzenegger’s director of local government and community relations. Lopez said Quintana advised them on how to arrange and make the most of meetings with legislators and other officials. There are also entries showing several hundred dollars in charges for Lopez to travel to a meeting with Rodriguez and others.
The reports also show that $1,564 in city funds were used to charter a bus to the 2007 launch rally in Sacramento, along with three separate $55 charges for “signs for the SB 59 hearing in Sacramento.” SB 59 was the Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of 2008 put forth by local Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno. It failed on a party-line vote in the Senate Natural Resources Committee the day after the launch rally and never moved again.
“It’s not on behalf of the Coalition, I advocated on behalf of Orange Cove,” Lopez said of the charges.
He added that neither he nor anyone else is paid by the Coalition, including Rodriguez.
“We don’t pay Paul nothing,” Lopez said. “Paul has lost a lot by being involved with us.”
The administration has also had numerous contacts with in-house lobbyists for Friant, Santoyo’s employer. State records show several small “gifts” to administration officials — often the indication of a meal or other meeting. Quintana shows up on these reports in 2007 on April 23rd, May 1st and 10th, July 16th, 23rd, and 26th, Oct. 23rd and Nov. 30th, and in 2008 on Feb. 1st and 7th.
Schwarzenegger’s legislative secretary John Moffatt appears on May 10, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2008. Amanda Fulkerson, then the governor’s deputy communications director, appears on July 23rd and 26th and Nov. 30th. Lindsay Barsamian, a district director for Schwarzenegger is listed on March 17, 2008.
When asked about these meetings, the governor’s deputy press secretary Jeff Macedo noted that administration officials constantly meet with various groups and lobbyist from all over the state. He added that Schwarzenegger has also been very upfront about his desire for more water storage and greater water supplies to agriculture.
“When he meets with groups, there are a lot of times he might suggest getting together a coalition,” Macedo said. “He wants to make sure anybody gets a voice in Sacramento, whether it is someone he does agree with or doesn’t.”
Macedo added: “He believes the basic tenets of what they are working towards match with his. He does like the work they have done so far. He does support the group. That’s why you’ve seen him at so many events.”
Schwarzenegger’s support of the group includes a large photo montage promoting the Coalition that has been displayed outside his office for most of the last month. It shows photos from the group’s 10,000-strong “March for Water” from Mendota to the San Luis Reservoir between April 14 and 17 this year. Schwarzenegger spoke to the crowd when the marches arrived, the reservoir visible behind him, as shown in a photo on the cover of the “New Voice” brochure.
The Capitol hallway display led Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio to charge on the Majority Report blog that the governor was “renting” space to “a classic ‘greenwash’ scheme.”
“I think the governor has been more straightforward on his position than a lot of people,” countered Jeff Weir. Weir, a private consultant, is the former publics affairs director for the Contra Costa Water District, which sometimes clashed with Friant, the Westlands Water District and other lower Central Valley water interests over Delta water.
“I don’t attach any negativity or conspiratorial activity to the fact that the governor may have been with these people three years ago,” Weir said. “Meeting with big agricultural interests in the Central Valley would be business as usual. He’s a Republican. It doesn’t mean they get whatever they want.”
The governor himself can’t directly do much about the water situation. The Delta flows to the Valley are controlled under federal water projects. This is why Rodriguez, Lopez and Santoyo were in Washington last week, meeting with Interior secretary Ken Salazar and other officials. Rodriguez was hospitalized with stomach problems during the visit, but is reportedly back in California.  
The governor has been trying to get the federal government to increase flows from the Delta to agriculture, though contrary to calls on Fox News and elsewhere to “turn on the pumps,” Friant users have received most of their allotment this year. Efforts to release even more water have been met with successful federal lawsuits by environmentalists.
George Soares, outside lobbyist for Friant, is also listed on Friant’s lobbying reports, on April 23, 2007. His firm, Kahn, Soares, & Conway LLP, represents about three dozen large agribusiness clients in Sacramento. It was Soares who filed the papers to officially incorporate the Coalition with the state. Jim Cunningham of Kahn Soares said they are not being paid by the group, but have filled paperwork with the IRS and the state Franchise Tax Board to help the group attain 501(c)4 status.
Soares has worked pro bono for the alliance, according to Ron Jacobsma, general manager at Friant.
“George is a big believer in the cause and graciously provided some of his time to get them going,” Jacobsma said.
He’s not the only one. Patrick George, an employee of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, has been fielding press calls for the group for over two years, but said Burson has no formal relationship with the Coalition and that he works for them on his own.
Mike Wade and Mike Henry of the California Farm Water Coalition posted material for the Coalition at www.gotwater.org, for about two years, during which time it was the main website for the group. About two weeks ago, Wade said, the Coalition posted their own website at www.latinowater.com, without notifying them of the change. Wade said when they found out, they changed gotwater to send visitors to the new site.
“It was an offer we made at the time as the Latino Water Coalition was organizing and getting on their feet,” said Wade, executive director with the Farm Water Coalition. “They lacked the resources for doing this kind of work.”
Friant’s Jacobsma said the they have not directly given any money to the Coalition. Santoyo, a full-time Friant employee, has spoken for the Coalition in numerous news stories, something Jacobsma said is not a conflict.
“He participates with that group while he’s an employee of Friant, comparable to when I go to an ACWA meeting,” he said. ACWA is the Association of California Water Agencies, a 99 year-old group representing numerous water authorities in both state and federal matters.
The Coalition has not released a donor list. One of Soares ag lobbying clients confirmed that they donated around “between $500 and $1,000” to help pay for food, transportation and other costs associated with one of the Coalition’s rallies. Kahn Soares’ Cunningham said that it was his understanding that it was improper to disclose donors without their permission; the total donations received by the group will be disclosed when it files its first tax returns later this year.
Weir said that he thinks it would be in the Coalition’s best interest to be more transparent.
“There’s no way you can get 4,000 people to show up for a spontaneous event unless someone is organizing that,” Weir said. “You have to have money, you have to have people with experience.”
He added:  “I’m not against the rallies, I think it’s legitimate for them to hold as many as they want. But to pretend they can do it without disclosure is naive.
Stockton Record
Red-legged frog won't cost as much green as was initially thought...The Record
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091008/A_NEWS14/910080318/-1/A_NEWS#STS=g0ju30j4.23qb
SAN ANDREAS - Designating habitat for the red-legged frog won't cost developers and farmers quite as much as expected, according to a revised economic impact analysis released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The cost to modify developments to accommodate frog habitat over the next 20 years will be about $34 million, down from the $44 million estimate in an initial report issued in April.
The analysis considers the effect of a proposal to designate 1.8 million acres statewide as critical habitat for the red-legged frog, a species that the federal government lists as threatened with extinction. That total includes 4,500 acres of ranchland east of Valley Springs in Calaveras County and a small amount of land in the far southwest corner of San Joaquin County.
The new report estimates that all costs to agriculture, development and other sectors over 20 years would be a maximum of $566 million statewide, down about 25 percent from the April estimate of a maximum of $767 million.
Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Al Donner said the figures were revised for a number of reasons, including a more accurate calculation of how much farmland is likely to be converted to other uses and removing from their estimates the costs of complying with California environmental laws that are not part of the federal government's proposed action.
Donner said the total economic costs within Calaveras County of designating the frog habitat are estimated at $7 million over the next 20 years.
Statewide, development is projected to occur over the next two decades on just one half of one percent of the 1.8 million areas proposed for designation. Designating an area as critical habitat can halt or delay development if scientists find the project could harm the frogs.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says that the habitat designation won't impose costs on ranchers because of a rule that protects the ranchers from liability under the Endangered Species Act if the ranchers continue routine ranch operations
PG&E lands along Mokelumne River could soon go up for grabs...Dana M. Nichols
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091008/A_NEWS14/910080326/-1/A_NEWS#STS=g0ju308p.1ela
JACKSON - It's not exactly an old-time land rush, but the prospect that thousands of acres of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. land along the Mokelumne River will soon be given to new owners is inspiring both hope and concern.
And representatives of the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council - the group in charge of the giveaway - heard both during a public meeting Wednesday in Jackson where they described their suggestions for the fate of those lands.
"It will have a lot of effect on our business," said Elton Rodman, who gave his age as between 90 and 100 and is the patriarch of the family that operates the Roaring Camp Mining Co., a private business that offers camping, tours and Gold Rush-themed school field trips at Clinton Bar in the Mokelumne River Canyon near Jackson.
Rodman was among almost 50 people who turned out for the meeting, which was designed to get community feedback on everything from whether building new recreational trails should be a priority to what kind of organizations should be entrusted to own the various PG&E parcels.
The land giveaway comes with lots of strings attached. Under the 2004 deal that resolved PG&E's bankruptcy, the company will either give to new owners or place conservation restrictions on 140,000 acres it owns statewide. Some high-profile properties such as Kennedy Meadows in Tuolumne County have already had new owners selected and are now in final negotiations on the transfer details.
Meanwhile, a second round of PG&E properties, including 3,445 acres scattered along the North Fork of the Mokelumne River and 1,798 acres near Lower Bear River Reservoir, are up for consideration. The terms of the bankruptcy deal between PG&E and the California Public Utility Commission generally require that the land be managed in ways that benefit the residents of California.
That, in turn, means proposals for the properties range from preserving habitat and open space to managing fire danger, to building new facilities including recreational trails, fishing access points and environmental education camps.
The PG&E bankruptcy deal also provides some money to fund improvements on those lands. Suggested priorities for the Mokelumne River lands include things such as expanded picnic tables and bathrooms at the Electra Power House site on the river just off Highway 49 or reducing fire danger by thinning forests.
Katherine Evatt, president of the board of the Amador County-based Foothill Conservancy, spoke in favor of expanding recreation facilities including trails and the proposed improvements at Electra.
"The more facilities you get there, the more family use you'll get," Evatt said.
Trails are the touchiest issues. Some property owners, such as rancher Carole Marz, are concerned that rebuilding and reopening the historic Standard Canal Trail, for example, would lead to trespassing on her property.
And many longtime landowners are skeptical that trails could even be built in areas where the PG&E land is particularly steep and inaccessible.
"Some of that, there's no way a road or access could even be put on it, unless you're a mountain goat," Rodman said.
The organizations that have applied to be either owners or conservation easement holders for the lands along the Mokelumne include Amador and Calaveras counties, the University of California, and the San Joaquin County Office of Education.
The entire process of recommending new owners, negotiating the details of the transfers, and going for approval by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely take at least until early 2011.
To learn more
The various comments made during Wednesday's public meeting on the future of PG&E lands along the Mokelumne River will soon be posted on the Stewardship Council Web site, said Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council Executive Director Allene Zanger.
Zanger said there would be additional opportunities for public comment in late 2010, when the Council's board will consider recommending the list of new owners for the lands, again when the details of those land transfers are negotiated, and again in 2011 when the final proposal goes to the California Utility Commission for approval.
For information on the proceedings or to sign up for e-mail notifications, go to the Council's Web site at www.stewardshipcouncil.org.
Appeal fails; Trinitas to be auctioned
Owners lose latest bid to legalize golf course on agricultural land...Dana M. Nichols
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091008/A_NEWS/910080325#STS=g0ju2tch.ivb
SAN ANDREAS - The 280-acre Trinitas golf course south of Wallace will go to foreclosure auction Friday after the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors earlier this week denied the owners' appeal to legalize golf on agricultural land.
The vote Tuesday was 3-2, with supervisors Gary Tofanelli and Russ Thomas opposed. That was the same split by which the board back in May voted to deny the request of Trinitas owners Mike and Michelle Nemee to legalize golf by changing the property's zoning to recreation.
After the May vote, the Nemees received a letter from county staff warning that golf is illegal in areas zoned for farming. The Nemees appealed that letter to the planning commission. The planning commission rejected that appeal, and the Nemees appealed again to the Board of Supervisors.
The Nemees and their bankers had said they hoped a last-minute county decision to legalize golf at the site might avert the foreclosure auction.
But a majority of the Board of Supervisors rejected the argument that golf is agritourism and thus legal in agricultural zones under the county's agritourism ordinance.
"That's a stretch," Supervisor Tom Tryon said of the idea that an 18-hole golf course is agritourism. And he also said bankers were unwise to lend millions of dollars to the Nemees when the Nemees did not have the necessary permits to build and operate a golf course.
"The bank didn't do their job," Tryon said.
Tofanelli and Thomas argued for a compromise that might allow Trinitas to continue as a viable business. Tofanelli, in particular, urged his colleagues to direct staff to come back with a proposal on how golf might be allowed as a form of agritourism in at least A-1 zoning.
The Nemees' property is currently zoned AP, or agricultural preserve. But the property should normally soon be transferred to the A-1 zoning because agricultural preserve is linked to Williamson Act contracts, and the contracts for the Nemees' property expired several years ago while the golf course was still under construction. A-1 is a more general agricultural zoning.
Williamson Act contracts grant property owners tax breaks in exchange for promising to keep their land in agricultural production. The Nemees have argued that operating an 18-hole luxury golf course is the best way for them to generate additional income so they can protect the existing olive-growing operation on the property.
Critics of Trinitas have argued that calling the golf course agritourism is an attempt to hijack the county ordinance to allow nonagricultural development on land the ordinance was intended to protect.
"You know you're in trouble when you're discussing an agriculture issue and there are more bankers and lawyers in the room than farmers," said Supervisor Steve Wilensky.
In the end, a cautious board majority directed staff to come back at some point in the future with proposals on how golf and other unspecified forms of development might be allowed in A-1 zoning.
Friday's auction is scheduled for 9 a.m. in front of the Calaveras County courthouse. The minimum bid is set at $2.4 million, the amount Community Bank of San Joaquin says it is owed in defaulted loans on the property.
Costing out the Peripheral Canal...Michael Fitzgerald's blog
http://blogs.recordnet.com/sr-mfitzgerald
Restore the Delta has resleased a cost analysis of the Peripheral Canal by East Bay Municipal Utilities District.
EBMUD, which serves 1.2 million customers in Oakland and environs, and which pipes its Mokelumne River water along March Lane, opposes the south-state water grab for obvious reasons (because it would interfere with its north-state water grab).
The analysis is not up on either Restore the Delta's or EBMUD's website, so I'm reproducing it here. Prepare to be staggered by the cost.
"The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years."
"The state budget deficit for the next three years is projected to be as much as $15B per year, and could climb even higher. Even these dire projections may not represent the worst case, should California's economy continue to slide. The $780M debt service burden would consume an increasing share of discretionary state funding, without counting the $1.3B annually that it will cost to service debt from resource bonds already approved since 2000. Which state programs are we willing to sacrifice to take on this massive, additional debt?"
"State expenditures for resources-related GO bond debt have grown rapidly, from 8% of General Fund spending in 2000-01 to a whopping 36% in 2009-2010. Adding a $12B bond would simply break the bank. According to State Treasurer Lockyer, between now and 2028, the state will assume another $225 billion in general fund bonded indebtedness. This mounting debt burden is an unsustainable trend, and is already interfering with the state's efforts to address its growing environmental and resource needs."
And it's not just costs from a GO bond. It is simply shocking to Restore the Delta staff members that the Governor and Legislative Leaders could be in favor of this package during this time of economic crisis. Look at what California's urban water users will be expected to pay, all to support agribusiness on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. Also, according to the East Bay Municipal Utility District analysis:
"The legislature has embarked on a major reform of the state's water system, heedless of the enormous costs involved, just when the state's financial condition has never been more dire. A realistic assessment of the total costs of the Delta legislation comes to $52B to $78B or more. This includes a series of huge capital projects: new Delta conveyance, construction of several new surface storage reservoirs, construction of other local water management and delivery projects, Delta levee strengthening, ecosystem restoration, and creation of three new state agencies and expanded state programs to prepare and implement the Delta Plan."
"Of this total price tag, urban SWP and CVP customers (who comprise roughly 24 million Californians) located south of the Delta will pay between_$42B and $68B, likely to be amortized over thirty years. First, these customers will pay all of the costs of new Delta conveyance, which are estimated between $18B and $44B. As they comprise 70% of all Californians who reside within the Delta watershed, their cost share of all other components of this water package (totaling approximately $34B) will add another $24B. Paying this huge price tag via water user fees on the water bill will result in more than doubling of the water rates for these customers, as well as additional huge annual water rate increases for many years into the future."
"The costs of new Delta conveyance includes the construction cost of building a canal or tunnel on an eastern or western alignment, plus necessary levee upgrades to continue through Delta operations, new rights of way, mitigation and relocation of impacted facilities/infrastructure. The reason for the range ($18B-$44B) in estimated costs of new Delta conveyance is that a tunnel will be substantially more expensive than an open canal."
"All users of water from the Delta watershed will have to pay the $16B cost of new programs and projects in the "Delta Plan. These costs include:
·$14B in levee repair and strengthening, plus new staffing costs for the Delta Plan.
·$2B for ecosystem restoration not included as part of the new Delta conveyance."
So to be clear, Delta landowners and communities, which have riparian rights and rights to the use Delta water for beneficial use, will now have to pay for the restoration and mitigation needed from 50 years of excessive water exports. And if that's not enough...
"It is expected that these activities will be funded through a surcharge or fee on water use. $16B in state water fees spread over 30 years is approximately $530M per year in new state water fees, not counting the likely fee increases over time. For the same urban customers south of the Delta who are financing the new Delta conveyance, this fee would come to $11B more on their water bills."
The agricultural water districts have repeatedly told the Legislature that they can pay neither the costs of the new Delta conveyance, nor any fee on water use. This would shift all the costs enumerated above onto urban water customers in California. As a result, urban water customers south of the Delta carrying the full cost of a new Delta conveyance, two- thirds of the cost of the Delta Plan, plus their share of surface storage and regional projects. In the absence of drastic cost-cutting, the debt service for these urban customers could come to more than $4B/year.
"The money to pay the $52B to $78B price tag for these programs and projects will be demanded from the same Californians who are enduring the worst recession since the 1930s. The state share of any bond repayments will strain the state's already overburdened General Fund. This long-term over- commitment of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars must be rigorously scrutinized by the Legislature, and the costs scaled down to meet financial reality."
Scaled down? Schwarzenegger has demanded the legislature deliver a water bill this week. There isn't time to scale anything. Only to create a monster. 
San Francisco Chronicle
Boxer plans hearing on toxic school drinking water...GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/07/national/a181938D70.DTL&type=printable
Fresno, Calif. (AP) -- The head of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee said Wednesday that legislators will hold hearings to address toxic drinking water in the nation's schools following an Associated Press probe into the widespread problem.
California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer called for the hearings to be held in Washington this year after an AP investigation revealed unsafe levels of lead, bacteria and pesticides have surfaced in the water supplies at thousands of schools.
In the last decade, contaminants have been found in drinking fountains and school pipes in all 50 states in small towns and inner cities. But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied.
Boxer, who chairs the Committee on Environment and Public Works that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency, has seized on the issue as a top priority, and has asked EPA officials to explain what actions they will take to protect school children from polluted water.
An EPA spokeswoman did not immediately return calls or e-mails seeking comment.
Aides for Boxer and Sen. Benjamin Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who leads a Senate subcommittee on water, attended the hour-and-a-half briefing with top EPA officials on Wednesday afternoon.
Among the issues discussed were the agency's inadequate record-keeping. The EPA only has authority to collect drinking water quality data from schools with wells, which represent 8 to 11 percent of the nation's schools.
In the past, EPA officials have said that schools with unsafe water represent a small percentage of the nation's 132,500 public and private schools. They also have said the agency has no legal power to require that all schools test their water, and can only provide guidance on environmental practices.
EPA officials acknowledge the agency's database of schools in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act is plagued with errors and omissions, however. The problem goes beyond schools that use wells since schools in Baltimore, Seattle, Los Angeles and other large cities that draw water from public utilities also have shown contamination.
Boxer aides were scheduled to meet with agency officials in two weeks to discuss the EPA's progress and any new legal authorities needed to protect students from toxic drinking water, said Peter Rafle, communications director for Boxer.
The hearings will include drinking water problems in schools, as well as broader problems with oversight and enforcement, he said.
Do as I say, not as I do...Cameron Scott...The Thin Green Line
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=49113
The Sacramento city council has banned bottled water at its meetings and has imposed water restriction on residents due to drought But it's welcoming a Nestle bottling plant to the city, although the plant would consume 80 millions gallons a year. Some will be purified and sold at a profit under the Pure Life label.
Although Nestle will have to pay by the gallon for city water (elsewhere in the state, the company sucks up spring water for free), it won't be held to any limits or restrictions.
Nestle will also truck in 20 millions gallons of spring water for bottling. The trade-off? 40 jobs, by the company's estimate.
Thoughts?
Schwarzenegger water drama...Editorial
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/ED9P1A2G6I.DTL&type=printable
Governor, you're making yourself look petty, petulant, even irrelevant. It's time to drop the veiled threat to veto the 700 bills on your desk unless legislators meet your midnight Friday deadline to upgrade the state's water system.
We're with you on your goal of compelling legislators to develop a plan to rescue the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. But we must note that the legislative leaders are engaged in the issue - as you know, since they were working in your office Wednesday afternoon. "Considering we're working so well, it would be silly to try to make a mad rush at the end to meet an artificial deadline," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said by phone Wednesday, predicting that a deal was close.
Governor, as you know from experience, a threat is credible - and effective - only if the threatened are convinced that you might carry it out. Californians are awaiting your verdicts on many matters. Surely you are not willing to toss out a stack of bills of this size and significance and have to answer for costing the state billions in federal funds and shooting down an array of measures to improve education, health and public safety.
Governor, keep pushing, but spare the theatrics. We want legislators to pass a delta bill that you would sign. We also want them to read it - and the affected interests to see it - before they vote on it.
Toss it all away?
Among the 700 bills awaiting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature:
SB84 would ensure that 500 low-performing schools receive the $400 million they are owed in fiscal year 2009-10. Author: Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.
AB1175 would add the Antioch and Dumbarton bridges to a seismic retrofit program. Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch.
AB1383 would create a new fee on hospitals that would allow the state to increase Medi-Cal reimbursement rates - and to leverage more than $2.3 billion in federal funding. Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento.
SBX318 would bring $270 million in savings from the prisons budget, while reducing caseloads for parole officers. Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego.
SB680 would allow parents to enroll children in the school districts of their choice. Sen. Gloria Romero, D-L.A.
AB233 would provide mental health parity in health insurance. Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose
AB962 would require sellers of ammunition to check identification and take a thumbprint of buyers. Assemblyman Kevin DeLeón, D-Los Angeles.
Indybay
Feds Seek Public Comment on Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan...Dan Bacher...10-7-09
The federal government is now seeking public comment on the draft plan to recover Central Valley salmon and steelhead populations.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/07/18624763.php
 The federal government today published in the Federal Register a draft recovery plan designed to restore and stabilize Central Valley salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA's Fisheries Service is now seeking public comment on the plan, with workshops for public comment and information planned in Chico and Sacramento this month.
The document addresses long-needed recovery efforts for endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and threatened Central Valley steelhead. The ESA requires the development of a recovery plan for the successful rebuilding of species identified as being "at risk of extinction."
“This draft plan provides the framework necessary to recover salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act in the Central Valley,” said Maria Rea, Sacramento office supervisor for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “With the public’s input, it will also provide significant improvement for other non-listed salmonid species like the commercially valuable fall run Chinook.”
The document recommends changes in the operation of the state and federal pumping plants in the California Delta, as well as in upstream dam operations, incurring the wrath of corporate agribusiness interests that have exported record amounts of water from the estuary in recent years. The document pinpoints Delta water export operations as a key factor in the demise of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook run and other Central Valley salmon populations.
"The primary factors causing mortality of winter-run Chinook salmon in the Delta are considered to be the diversion of juveniles from the mainstem Sacramento River into the central and southern Delta where environmental conditions are poor and reverse flow conditions exist which may move them into the lower San Joaquin River and into the south Delta waterways (NMFS 1997)," the plan states. "Survival through central Delta migratory routes is substantially lower than through northern routes."
The document was released as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Central Valley Congressmen, under pressure from subsidized corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, have gone to war against the federal biological opinions protecting Delta smelt, Central Valley salmon, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales. The recovery plan is the result of a court order that mandated the Bush administration to rewrite a badly flawed biological opinion that declared that the operation of the state and federal water projects would pose "no jeopardy" to endangered salmon and steelhead.
The writing of the revised biological opinion was initiated under the Bush administration, so "Green Governor" Schwarzenegger, Feinstein and Valley Democrats including Representative Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Dennis Cardoza (D-Merced) have taken environmental positions to the right of the Bush administration. They have repeatedly pressured Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to re-write the re-written biological opinion in order to keep robbing northern California and the Delta of water badly-needed to restore Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
Unfortunately, Salazar has apparently buckled under their pressure. Last week he said he would ask the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review of the science underpinning federal water pumping limits mandated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect Delta smelt and Central Valley salmon.
You can be sure that corporate agribusiness will amp up its astroturfing campaign, orchestrated by Barson-Marsteller, the "Public Relations Firm from Hell," to falsely portray the battle to restore the Delta as being over "fish versus jobs" in coming weeks. You can also be sure that the Latino Water Coalition, a front for Westlands and other corporate agribusiness interests, and the Central Valley Tea Party will marshal their forces at these meetings to pressure the federal government to greatly weaken court-ordered protections for Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt.
This astroturfing campaign takes place as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and agribusiness are relentlessly campaigning to build a peripheral canal and more dams. If built, the canal would drive collapsing populations of salmon and Delta fish over the edge of the extinction.
Schwarzenegger is now threatening to veto all bills on his desk if he doesn’t get the water bill package that he wants, in effect holding the entire state hostage to plans by corporate agribusiness and the Metropolitan Water District to build a canal and more dams to export more water from the Delta, the West Coast's largest estuary.
Faced with these attacks on Delta and Central Valley fisheries, it is crucial that recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, environmentalists, representatives of Indian Tribes, Delta farmers and all of those who care about the future of the Delta show in force at these and other upcoming meetings to raise their voices in support of the strong measures and changes in water policy required to protect Central Valley salmon and steelhead.
"Local knowledge and input from the public on the unique needs of these fish is extremely valuable, to ensure the plan is comprehensive and promotes stakeholder involvement," emphasized Maria Rea. "The plan has already received substantial input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, and their expertise will continue to be tapped as the plan undergoes public review."
NOAA’s Fisheries Service plans to conduct workshops in Chico and Sacramento to provide the public with an opportunity to learn more about the contents of the draft recovery plan and offer any feedback or comments. Federal biologists will explain the steps necessary to recover Sacramento River winter-run Chinook, Central Valley spring-run Chinook and Central Valley steelhead, so that they may ultimately be removed from the Endangered Species List.
Workshops will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and again from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the locations and dates listed below:
Tues., Oct. 20 - Masonic Center, 1110 W East Avenue, Chico
Wed., Oct. 21 - Hilton, 2200 Harvard Street, Sacramento
Public comment and information relevant to this recovery plan must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Dec. 7. Comments may be submitted by e-mail or U.S. mail: • Email to CentralValleyPlan.SWR [at] noaa.gov. Include in the subject line “Comments on Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Draft Plan.”
• Mail to: Brian Ellrott,
National Marine Fisheries Service
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Electronic copies of this plan are also available online at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/centralvalleyplan.htm. If you do not have online access, you can receive a CD copy. Contact Aimee Diefenbach at 916-930-3600 or e-mail your request to
aimee.diefenbach [at] noaa.gov with the subject line “CD-ROM Request for Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Draft Plan.”
On the Web:
Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Draft Plan:
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/centralvalleyplan.htm
Federal Register Announcement: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24224.pdf
Recovery plans for California and southern Oregon salmonids:
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery
Other ESA recovery plans: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov
Governor Holds State Hostage to Peripheral Canal Water Bond...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/08/18624812.php
Governor Arnold "Fish Terminator" Schwarzenegger has told Legislative leaders that he wants a water package including a peripheral canal and dams on his desk by Friday night before he will act on 700 bills sitting on his desk. He is in effect holding the State of California hostage to his plan to build a monument to his gigantic ego, the peripheral canal, a budget-busting government boondoggle estimated to cost $23 to $53.8 billion to build, according to an analysis by economist Steven Kasower.
"Where are the adults in Sacramento?," asks Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, in the latest Delta Flows e-news."Yes, the Governor has told Legislative Leaders that he wants a water package on his desk by Friday night before he will act on the 700 bills sitting on his desk. But with a significant portion of the Legislature not in town, and members scattered all over the world presently, can that really happen?"
Schwarzenegger's strong-arming to produce a water bill on the Governor's desk by Friday night becomes even more absurd with the announcement that next Tuesday's Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife is cancelled. Is Schwarzenegger, the former action hero now transformed into the worst Governor in California history, trying to force the Big Five to agree on a canal/dams water package without any hearings or public input?
"You may have noticed in today's Assembly Daily File that the Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee was scheduled to hold an informational hearing next Tuesday, and you may have read about the continuing discussions on the water package in Big 5 meetings," says Alf W. Brandt, principal consultant for the committee. "In order to maintain our focus on the discussions among the State's leaders, we decided to postpone any water hearings. We will keep you informed when further hearings are re-scheduled."
The "Big Five" is an informal institution of California state government, consisting of the Governor, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee, Senate Ppresident Pro tem Darrell Steinberg, and Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth.
"In an e-mail sent by Steinberg to his caucus earlier this week," according to the Capitol Weekly, "Steinberg told Senate Democrats that the governor had suggested, but not formally asked, that the Senate pull back all bills from his desk until a water deal has been reached."
Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico (D-Newark) said Tuesday the governor's actions "have clearly crossed the line" and accused him of "extortion."
"The legal definition of that behavior is extortion," Torrico told the Capitol Weekly. "I am sending a letter to the Attorney General urging him to investiage the matter."
The Governor's water bond would indebt Californians for years to come to build a project that would economically devastate coastal, Central Valley and Delta communities dependent on Sacramento River salmon and other fisheries and family farms on the Delta.
According to a recently complete analysis by the East Bay Municipal Utility District on the proposed water bond and the Delta Water Package outlined in the latest Restore the Delta e-news alert, "The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years."
"The state budget deficit for the next three years is projected to be as much as $15 billion per year, and could climb even higher," the analysis states. "Even these dire projections may not represent the worst case, should California's economy continue to slide. The $780 million debt service burden would consume an increasing share of discretionary state funding, without counting the $1.3 billion annually that it will cost to service debt from resource bonds already approved since 2000. Which state programs are we willing to sacrifice to take on this massive, additional debt?"
"A realistic assessment of the total costs of the Delta legislation comes to $52 billion to $78 billion or more," the report continues. "This includes a series of huge capital projects: new Delta conveyance, construction of several new surface storage reservoirs, construction of other local water management and delivery projects, Delta levee strengthening, ecosystem restoration, and creation of three new state agencies and expanded state programs to prepare and implement the Delta Plan."
California is in its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. How can Schwarzenegger and pro-canal legislators even consider proposing such an enormously costly and environmentally destructive project when the state budget for game wardens, teachers, health care for children and state parks is being slashed? What parallel universe devoid of logic, intelligence and common sense do the Governor and pro-canal legislators live in?
Below is the Delta Flows e-news from Restore the Delta, including a link to the Capitol Weekly article.
Where are the adults in Sacramento?
Yes, the Governor has told Legislative Leaders that he wants a water package on his desk by Friday night before he will act on the 700 bills sitting on his desk. But with a significant portion of the Legislature not in town, and members scattered all over the world presently, can that really happen?
To read more about these events in Sacramento click here for an update from the Capitol Weekly, http://capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ybnf6scq2y5l9i&xid=ybl6q43i1glqv9&done=.ybnf6scq2yol9i#
Why is the Governor pushing for this water package?
Why are legislative leaders following his lead?
According to a recently complete analysis by the East Bay Municipal Utility District on the proposed water bond and the Delta Water Package:
"The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years."
"The state budget deficit for the next three years is projected to be as much as $15B per year, and could climb even higher. Even these dire projections may not represent the worst case, should California's economy continue to slide. The $780M debt service burden would consume an increasing share of discretionary state funding, without counting the $1.3B annually that it will cost to service debt from resource bonds already approved since 2000. Which state programs are we willing to sacrifice to take on this massive, additional debt?"
"State expenditures for resources-related GO bond debt have grown rapidly, from 8% of General Fund spending in 2000-01 to a whopping 36% in 2009-2010. Adding a $12B bond would simply break the bank. According to State Treasurer Lockyer, between now and 2028, the state will assume another $225 billion in general fund bonded indebtedness. This mounting debt burden is an unsustainable trend, and is already interfering with the state's efforts to address its growing environmental and resource needs."
And it's not just costs from a GO bond. It is simply shocking to Restore the Delta staff members that the Governor and Legislative Leaders could be in favor of this package during this time of economic crisis. Look at what California's urban water users will be expected to pay, all to support agribusiness on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. Also, according to the East Bay Municipal Utility District analysis:
"The legislature has embarked on a major reform of the state's water system, heedless of the enormous costs involved, just when the state's financial condition has never been more dire. A realistic assessment of the total costs of the Delta legislation comes to $52B to $78B or more. This includes a series of huge capital projects: new Delta conveyance, construction of several new surface storage reservoirs, construction of other local water management and delivery projects, Delta levee strengthening, ecosystem restoration, and creation of three new state agencies and expanded state programs to prepare and implement the Delta Plan."
"Of this total price tag, urban SWP and CVP customers (who comprise roughly 24 million Californians) located south of the Delta will pay between_$42B and $68B, likely to be amortized over thirty years. First, these customers will pay all of the costs of new Delta conveyance, which are estimated between $18B and $44B. As they comprise 70% of all Californians who reside within the Delta watershed, their cost share of all other components of this water package (totaling approximately $34B) will add another $24B. Paying this huge price tag via water user fees on the water bill will result in more than doubling of the water rates for these customers, as well as additional huge annual water rate increases for many years into the future."
"The costs of new Delta conveyance includes the construction cost of building a canal or tunnel on an eastern or western alignment, plus necessary levee upgrades to continue through Delta operations, new rights of way, mitigation and relocation of impacted facilities/infrastructure. The reason for the range ($18B-$44B) in estimated costs of new Delta conveyance is that a tunnel will be substantially more expensive than an open canal."
"All users of water from the Delta watershed will have to pay the $16B cost of new programs and projects in the "Delta Plan. These costs include:
·$14B in levee repair and strengthening, plus new staffing costs for the Delta Plan.
·$2B for ecosystem restoration not included as part of the new Delta conveyance."
So to be clear, Delta landowners and communities, which have riparian rights and rights to the use Delta water for beneficial use, will now have to pay for the restoration and mitigation needed from 50 years of excessive water exports. And if that's not enough...
"It is expected that these activities will be funded through a surcharge or fee on water use. $16B in state water fees spread over 30 years is approximately $530M per year in new state water fees, not counting the likely fee increases over time. For the same urban customers south of the Delta who are financing the new Delta conveyance, this fee would come to $11B more on their water bills."
The agricultural water districts have repeatedly told the Legislature that they can pay neither the costs of the new Delta conveyance, nor any fee on water use. This would shift all the costs enumerated above onto urban water customers in California. As a result, urban water customers south of the Delta carrying the full cost of a new Delta conveyance, two- thirds of the cost of the Delta Plan, plus their share of surface storage and regional projects. In the absence of drastic cost-cutting, the debt service for these urban customers could come to more than $4B/year.
"The money to pay the $52B to $78B price tag for these programs and projects will be demanded from the same Californians who are enduring the worst recession since the 1930s. The state share of any bond repayments will strain the state's already overburdened General Fund. This long-term over- commitment of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars must be rigorously scrutinized by the Legislature, and the costs scaled down to meet financial reality."
For more information, go to http://www.restorethedelta.org
Los Angeles Times
Schwarzenegger's heavy-handed threat is justified
The governor vows to kill hundreds of bills unless lawmakers deliver a measure on water. The issue justifies the tough stance...George Skelton, Capitol Journal
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap8-2009oct08,0,3121648,print.column
From Sacramento
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening to kill hundreds of bills unless the Legislature delivers one bill on water. Is that heavy-handed? No question.
Is it bullying? Sure.
Hostage-taking? Political terrorism? Of course.
Misuse of power? Definitely not.
It is a proper use of power.
It's ugly. But it's an available political tool that the governor would be derelict not to use when an issue as critical as water is at stake.
This isn't about some narrow scheme important only to a narrow interest. Nor is it merely about a governor's pet project -- other than his legacy-building, which should be encouraged as long as it helps the state. It's about finally resolving an acute, decades-old problem that is worsening and affects practically all Californians.
The state water system is clogged and rusting. It's a matter of time before the California aqueduct, which funnels Sierra snow runoff from the Sacramento Valley into the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, is shut off. The principal water tank, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, is threatened with potential levee collapses, earthquakes, floods and global warming. And the ecology already is crumbling.
The estuary's fishery is fast disappearing. The endangered delta smelt is a red herring -- a pet target of San Joaquin farmers and the governor who resent federal judges holding back water to save the tiny critter. The real economic tragedy is the decline of the once-abundant king salmon. Their plight has caused a two-year cancellation of commercial fishing for the popular fish, idling boats and shuttering processing plants all along the North Coast.
Nobody argues that the waterworks don't need major repairs and remodeling. But there is a delicate balance that Capitol negotiators have yet to find. It's the balance between investing in a reliable, environmentally friendly water supply and trying to achieve what really must be the state's No. 1 priority: living within its means.
Senate Republicans have proposed a $12.4-billion bond issue that would be paid off by all taxpayers. It would include $4 billion for two or three dams. Additionally, users of the newly developed water would kick in at least that much dam-building money.
The rest of the bond funds would be available for local projects, the delta, conservation, groundwater protection and removing some small, salmon-blocking dams on the Klamath River.
The bond would not include money for a so-called peripheral canal around the delta. This controversial facility would be financed entirely by water users, including customers of the Metropolitan Water District.
That's too steep a bond for many legislators, who worry about repayments carving a deep hole in the deficit-plagued general fund. Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto, the Senate Republicans' go-to guy on water, replies that the bonds could be parceled out over several years. The important thing is to line up the funding authorization for construction projects, he says.
But Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo disagrees. He would prefer a bond closer to $8 billion.
"We're in the biggest recession of our generation," he says. "We need to spend only what is necessary to solve the problem as quickly as possible . . . without some of the Christmas ornaments and largesse -- a scaled-down package that isn't the ultimate solution for every water problem anyone can imagine, funding every possible stakeholder who has a dog in this hunt."
Democratic leaders basically agree. But they would cut back on dam funding before they would eliminate some of the things Blakeslee would, such as groundwater monitoring and treatment plants. "Much of this bill is a wish list of the far left," the GOP leader asserts. "Frankly, I don't think this is the time for a wish list."
But it also may be the necessary makings of a compromise, trade-offs necessary for environmentalist groups to buy the farm lobby's desired dams.
There's also a battle over who pays -- all taxpayers, or mostly the water users. And who pays for the delta environmental restoration? The public exclusively? Or also the water users who drained the estuary?
These and other arguments -- such as details of a new governing system for the delta -- have raged for years. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't much care what the Legislature decides. He just wants it to compromise and send him a bill.
The governor demands a deal by Friday night. Or he'll grab the veto pen, he strongly hints and his advisors tell reporters. Sunday night is the deadline for signing or vetoing more than 700 bills.
Is that threat risky? Somewhat. He's swinging a sledgehammer and could wind up dropping it on his foot.
Assembly Democrats "are very angry" at the governor, says Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). "I'm trying to hold off their anger. I'm worried about a backlash."
Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) calls the governor's extortion "silly."
Even Republican Blakeslee mildly criticizes Schwarzenegger. The bills on his desk should be judged "on their own merit," he says. "Using other criteria is not constructive."
But Blakeslee and Bass doubt Schwarzenegger will carry out the threat. The leaders believe that if the governor and legislators are within striking distance of an agreement -- and they already seem to be -- he'll put away the sledgehammer.
"This is a classic contest of wills between the executive and legislative branches," Blakeslee says. "I don't get too overwrought with some of the positioning and posturing."
But the governor isn't backing down. "It makes sense to use the executive leverage," says Matt David, his chief spokesman. "He's going to use everything at his disposal."
That's what it's for.
For years, many people -- myself included -- have carped at Schwarzenegger for not using all the powers of his office. We shouldn't complain now that he's using the most potent power.
Sacramento's water deadline
The governor should give legislators a bit more time to work out a comprehensive plan...Editorial
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water8-2009oct08,0,4545278,print.story
The Legislature has taken many hits this year for ineptitude and inaction, and much of the criticism is well earned. But amid the fiscal disaster and the delayed response, the Assembly and Senate have moved steadily forward on a solution to the state's decades-long water crisis. That's significant.
After voters rejected a plan to build a peripheral canal near the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in 1982, California's water arteries were largely neglected, stalemate replaced progress, the delta ecosystem degraded and leadership disappeared. But this year, the Legislature, for all its bumbling, began a swift and deliberate march toward breaking the deadlock. Members deserve credit, and they owe it to the state to keep working.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger too deserves plaudits for making a comprehensive water plan one of his top goals. But, as is typical of this governor, his Jekyll-Hyde nature threatens to undermine the very progress he has spurred. Lawmakers couldn't complete a bill by the deadline for passage last month, and now that Schwarzenegger is the one facing a deadline -- to sign or veto the more than 700 bills on his desk by Sunday -- he has delivered an ultimatum: Reach a water agreement by Friday or he will veto everything and render the entire session a waste. It's as if the plumber arrived to fix Schwarzenegger's kitchen sink and instead of handing him a wrench or getting out of his way, the governor decided to "help" by uttering threats.
Meanwhile, counties and water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the delta are seeking more time to make their case for better protection of their water rights. If those concerns can be addressed, the final legislation may come a few weeks later than it otherwise might, but it also would stand a better chance of success, bringing with it the support of more key players.
There are two parts to the discussion. The policy portion would update the way the delta and its water resources are governed, establish bold new conservation goals, provide long-needed enforcement of water rights and establish a mechanism for monitoring groundwater use and quality. Contrary to popular belief, it would not authorize a new tunnel or canal, or divert additional water from the delta, although it would establish a framework under which standards would be set for such decisions. The second portion is funding, in the form of a bond, and much of the contention centers on how big that bond would be and who would get the money.
In the midst of the debate, opponents of a deal have reached back a quarter of a century for outdated warnings and images that were so effective in pitting north against south, farms against cities, fish against people. But if those stereotypes ever applied, they don't today.
Southern Californians may be thirsty, but we also are conservationists. In Los Angeles especially, residents have formed the strong and indispensable core of movements to restore resources that our forebears depleted and to reduce household consumption with relatively easy fixes, such as low-flush toilets, and difficult ones, such as letting the grass go brown in the current drought. While hundreds of thousands of households in delta counties still consume water virtually for nothing, without meters, Los Angeles has begun leading the way on conservation.
The point is not to pit one region against another but to state unequivocally: Southern Californians have shown by their actions a willingness to conserve water and to preserve the environment. The package being hammered out in Sacramento can help.
It would target a 20% reduction in urban water use, city by city, by 2020. Los Angeles and adjacent cities are ready and able, and should step up and show themselves willing, to comply. So should cities in regions without a tradition of conservation; the legislation permits them time to catch up. Exemptions for industry and agriculture are perhaps broader than they should be, but it's important to make a start and to adjust later as necessary.
Although the package does not provide for a canal, it doesn't block one. Some environmentalists and political leaders from the Bay-delta area object that past "conveyances" always have led to an increased flow. Let's be clear: The purpose of any new conveyance to bring water to Southern California from the delta is and should be to protect the complex of inlets, rivers and their fish species, and to secure a reliable -- although not increased -- supply. Water that currently makes its way here would bypass dams, levees and locks that are vulnerable to earthquake and age; officials would be able to adjust flows of different typesand temperatures to protect wildlife and the economically vital fishing industry.
To accommodate a stable, rather than increased, flow, Southern California must rely more on local sources, including groundwater -- and the package that is taking shape helps with that as well by cleaning up contamination.
Urban water users also should support the time-tested method of paying for their portion of California's shared natural resource. Much of the contention in Sacramento focuses on how much of the delta fix should be paid for with a general obligation bond. It's ironic, perhaps, that the Republicans who so often depict themselves as fiscal conservatives favor more long-term obligations from the general fund, while many Democrats prefer revenue bonds paid back by ratepayers. There most likely will be a combination of the two, but lawmakers should stick to this simple rule of thumb: If the money is needed to protect a shared resource, general obligation bonds are the way to go. If it's for one faction or user group, the users should expect to pay.
There is wiggle room in each of these pieces, and that means more time, and more talk, will be needed. The governor should back off and allow lawmakers the additional week or two to craft a package that will work.The Legislature has taken many hits this year for ineptitude and inaction, and much of the criticism is well earned. But amid the fiscal disaster and the delayed response, the Assembly and Senate have moved steadily forward on a solution to the state's decades-long water crisis. That's significant.
After voters rejected a plan to build a peripheral canal near the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in 1982, California's water arteries were largely neglected, stalemate replaced progress, the delta ecosystem degraded and leadership disappeared. But this year, the Legislature, for all its bumbling, began a swift and deliberate march toward breaking the deadlock. Members deserve credit, and they owe it to the state to keep working.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger too deserves plaudits for making a comprehensive water plan one of his top goals. But, as is typical of this governor, his Jekyll-Hyde nature threatens to undermine the very progress he has spurred. Lawmakers couldn't complete a bill by the deadline for passage last month, and now that Schwarzenegger is the one facing a deadline -- to sign or veto the more than 700 bills on his desk by Sunday -- he has delivered an ultimatum: Reach a water agreement by Friday or he will veto everything and render the entire session a waste. It's as if the plumber arrived to fix Schwarzenegger's kitchen sink and instead of handing him a wrench or getting out of his way, the governor decided to "help" by uttering threats.
Meanwhile, counties and water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the delta are seeking more time to make their case for better protection of their water rights. If those concerns can be addressed, the final legislation may come a few weeks later than it otherwise might, but it also would stand a better chance of success, bringing with it the support of more key players.
There are two parts to the discussion. The policy portion would update the way the delta and its water resources are governed, establish bold new conservation goals, provide long-needed enforcement of water rights and establish a mechanism for monitoring groundwater use and quality. Contrary to popular belief, it would not authorize a new tunnel or canal, or divert additional water from the delta, although it would establish a framework under which standards would be set for such decisions. The second portion is funding, in the form of a bond, and much of the contention centers on how big that bond would be and who would get the money.
In the midst of the debate, opponents of a deal have reached back a quarter of a century for outdated warnings and images that were so effective in pitting north against south, farms against cities, fish against people. But if those stereotypes ever applied, they don't today.
Southern Californians may be thirsty, but we also are conservationists. In Los Angeles especially, residents have formed the strong and indispensable core of movements to restore resources that our forebears depleted and to reduce household consumption with relatively easy fixes, such as low-flush toilets, and difficult ones, such as letting the grass go brown in the current drought. While hundreds of thousands of households in delta counties still consume water virtually for nothing, without meters, Los Angeles has begun leading the way on conservation.
The point is not to pit one region against another but to state unequivocally: Southern Californians have shown by their actions a willingness to conserve water and to preserve the environment. The package being hammered out in Sacramento can help.
It would target a 20% reduction in urban water use, city by city, by 2020. Los Angeles and adjacent cities are ready and able, and should step up and show themselves willing, to comply. So should cities in regions without a tradition of conservation; the legislation permits them time to catch up. Exemptions for industry and agriculture are perhaps broader than they should be, but it's important to make a start and to adjust later as necessary.
Although the package does not provide for a canal, it doesn't block one. Some environmentalists and political leaders from the Bay-delta area object that past "conveyances" always have led to an increased flow. Let's be clear: The purpose of any new conveyance to bring water to Southern California from the delta is and should be to protect the complex of inlets, rivers and their fish species, and to secure a reliable -- although not increased -- supply. Water that currently makes its way here would bypass dams, levees and locks that are vulnerable to earthquake and age; officials would be able to adjust flows of different typesand temperatures to protect wildlife and the economically vital fishing industry.
To accommodate a stable, rather than increased, flow, Southern California must rely more on local sources, including groundwater -- and the package that is taking
shape helps with that as well by cleaning up contamination.
Urban water users also should support the time-tested method of paying for their portion of California's shared natural resource. Much of the contention in Sacramento focuses on how much of the delta fix should be paid for with a general obligation bond. It's ironic, perhaps, that the Republicans who so often depict themselves as fiscal conservatives favor more long-term obligations from the general fund, while many Democrats prefer revenue bonds paid back by ratepayers. There most likely will be a combination of the two, but lawmakers should stick to this simple rule of thumb: If the money is needed to protect a shared resource, general obligation bonds are the way to go. If it's for one faction or user group, the users should expect to pay.
There is wiggle room in each of these pieces, and that means more time, and more talk, will be needed. The governor should back off and allow lawmakers the additional week or two to craft a package that will work.
FHA may be setting up repeat of housing bubble, lawmakers worry
The percentage of loans backed by the agency that are delinquent or in foreclosure hit nearly 8% at the end of June. Critics say borrowers don't have enough of a stake in keeping up with payments...Jim Puzzanghera
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fha8-2009oct08,0,3248085,print.story
Reporting from Washington
In the wake of the mortgage meltdown, the Federal Housing Administration has emerged as a pillar of the still wobbly housing market -- providing vital insurance that enables borrowers to qualify for loans with as little as 3.5% down.
This year alone the agency has backed nearly 2 million mortgages worth at least $328 billion. It insured 21.5% of all new mortgages last year, up from fewer than 6% in 2007. Some lawmakers, however, worry that the FHA may be doing its job too well -- enabling too many people with shaky finances to get loans, and in effect setting up a potential repeat of the housing bubble fueled in part by no-questions-asked subprime loans..
Recent numbers appear to underscore those concerns. The percentage of FHA loans that are delinquent or in foreclosure climbed to nearly 8% at the end of June, from about 5.5% in early 2006, according to the Mortgage Bankers Assn. And in the weeks ahead, its reserves for loan losses are projected to slip below federally mandated limits.
"It's not the least bit implausible to be concerned about the ever-deteriorating performance of the FHA portfolio," said UCLA finance professor Stuart Gabriel, director of the university's Ziman Center for Real Estate. "The jury is out as to whether the FHA is going to need a government infusion."
The real estate industry believes the FHA is vital to the housing market because its insurance enables people with modest incomes to buy homes -- people who otherwise would probably be turned away by banks.
But because their initial investment is modest, critics believe, these borrowers have little incentive to stay in their homes if they are hit by a job loss or by another
drop in home values.
"You have to ask the question: Have we figured out what got us here in the first place and are we going to make sure we don't replicate that failed system?" Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said.
Those questions and others will be addressed today, when a congressional committee starts examining how the FHA's reserves for loan losses have dwindled so fast.
One proposed solution to the agency's troubles, backed by Garrett and others, is to raise the minimum down payment on FHA loans to 5%. Backers believe that will encourage borrowers to stay in their homes and not let them fall into foreclosure.
But new FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens said such a move could threaten the nascent housing recovery. A person looking to buy a $300,000 house, for instance, would have to raise an additional $4,500 for the down payment.
"All that's going to do is retard recovery," he said.
Stevens said the agency was making changes to reduce risk, such as lending to people with higher credit scores. And he insisted that the FHA, which has always been funded by mortgage insurance premiums, will not need a taxpayer bailout.
But the FHA is straddling a difficult, and potentially perilous, line -- trying to prime a housing recovery without overextending itself so far that it requires an infusion of taxpayer money.
"On the one hand, it's providing support to the housing market," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers last week. "On the other hand, clearly, I think it's fair to say that given the low down payments, there's certainly greater risk of loss there, which would be ultimately borne by the taxpayer. . . . So I think that's a trade-off that Congress has to look at."
The FHA was created during the Great Depression to help revive the devastated real estate market at that time. In the decades since, it played a vital, though secondary, role in the real estate market by insuring mortgages from approved lenders for people who had steady work but could not afford a large down payment.
The FHA program is funded by premiums paid by homeowners, and those premiums drop off after five years or when the remaining loan balance is 78% of the home's value.
When housing prices were soaring, almost anyone could get a subprime mortgage, and the FHA's importance was diminished. But with subprime lenders gone and banks hesitant to make loans with less than a 20% down payment, the FHA has become the only option for many home buyers.
"With the collapse of subprime, suddenly they're more important than ever," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. "I don't know that they're prepared to take on that burden."
Congress boosted the agency's business last year by more than doubling the limit on the maximum FHA-backed loan, to $729,750, in Los Angeles and other high-cost markets. Through Aug. 31 of this year, the FHA had insured nearly 1.8 million mortgages worth at least $328 billion, or nearly half the total of $675 billion worth of mortgages on its books -- putting it on pace for its busiest fiscal year, which ended last week.
But the agency is also much more exposed to the volatile housing market. Experts worry that if home values start tumbling again, new FHA-insured mortgages would be underwater because of the low down payment.
Fraud by lenders is also a concern, according to an inspector general's report in June. The number of FHA-approved lenders shot up from 692 in 2006 to more than 3,300 last year, and the agency's business picked up in some markets, such as L.A., that were largely unfamiliar to it. Those factors, the report said, increased the risk of such lender abuse as fraudulent appraisals.
Alarm bells went off last month when the FHA projected that its secondary reserve fund would fall below the congressionally mandated level of 2% of all mortgages on its books. The fund was at 6.4% at the end of September 2007.
In the FHA's defense, Stevens points out that it requires borrowers to document their incomes and insures only standard, 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. Raising the minimum down payment would be an overreaction based more on emotion than facts, he said.
"No one's more risk-averse in FHA's history than me, but I do worry about people jumping to legislative solutions that are not based on factual information," he said.
Stevens touted changes he had made to reduce risk and rebuild the agency's reserves without a government infusion. He will appoint the agency's first chief risk officer and wants to require lenders to have at least $1 million in cash and other assets, up from $250,000, so they can cover more losses before they're passed on to the FHA.
"We're not going to need a taxpayer bailout," he said. "It's a fact."
David Kittle, chairman of the mortgage bankers group, said an increase in the minimum down payment would be "catastrophic" for the market.
"Why would you want to deter people further from buying homes when clearly you need to get homes off the market?" he said.
Some members of Congress, however, believe the risk may be too high.
"I'm concerned that the private market for loans with little or no money down has shifted directly onto the books of the federal government," said Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton). "We need to make certain that taxpayers are not again on the hook for the failures of Washington."
New York Times
Supreme Court Weighs Plunge Into Texas Water Fight...JENNIFER KOONS of Greenwire
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/08/08greenwire-supreme-court-weighs-plunge-into-texas-water-f-51676.html?sq=conservation&st=cse&scp=7&pagewanted=print
The Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General's Office to weigh in on a conflict between Texas and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that pits future water needs against conservation.
The case concerns a challenge to Fish and Wildlife's attempts to designate 25,000 acres of forested wetlands in east Texas as a wildlife refuge, blocking state and local plans to build a reservoir along the Neches River in the next 50 years.
The city of Dallas and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) filed suit in 2007, contending that the service established the Neches River National Wildlife Refuge in 2006 without first conducting necessary environmental impact studies.
In separate lawsuits, they argued that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts on Dallas' water supply, economy and future water planning.
In July 2008, U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis denied the motions to require a more detailed environmental study.
A more extensive environmental assessment is not necessary, Solis held, because "establishment of the refuge will not alter the condition of the land as it is today."
Last March, a unanimous three-judge panel on the the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
"The city and TWDB never committed to constructing the reservoir and may never have done so, or may have constructed a reservoir at another site," Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote for the court. "Further, the effects of establishing the refuge, and thus precluding the reservoir, are highly speculative and cannot be shown to be the proximate cause of future water shortages in Dallas."
This June, Dallas and the Texas water board appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, pointing to a circuit split "on the same important matter."
"[FWS] took an unnecessarily myopic view of the State's plans for developing Fastrill Reservoir to provide a water supply for the Dallas metropolitan area and others," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) argued in a petition on behalf of the water board.
"FWS's lack of consideration of Fastrill Reservoir is evident in the service's decision not to perform an EIS pursuant to NEPA's mandates," Abbott wrote, adding: "NEPA requires the performance of an EIS because it was reasonably foreseeable that the refuge determination would significantly affect the quality of the human environment by causing indirect socioeconomic and environmental effects for the city and the state."
On Sept. 15, the Supreme Court ordered Solicitor General Elena Kagan to file a federal response within 30 days.
"The court only orders the respondent to file a response 10 and 15 percent of the time, which is a sign that at least one justice is taking an interest in the case," said assistant city attorney, Chris Bowers, who filed Dallas' petition for certiorari. "It means that our chances of the court agreeing to hear the case have gone up."
The case has generated widespread interest in and around Dallas and has made for some unusual alliances on both sides of the refuge.
"When you have issues like this, nontraditional allies are generally formed -- in this case between land groups and environmentalists," said Gina Donovan, executive director of the Houston Audubon Society, who was formerly with the Texas Conservation Alliance. "This is quite common on reservoir issues -- even timber groups have joined with conservation groups to help protect property."
The Texas Conservation Alliance, the Houston Audubon Society and others have closely followed the legal proceedings and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the government if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.
"This is a critical migratory bird habitat," Donovan said. "We are right in the middle of the central fly zone for waterfowl and songbirds."