12-3-08

 12-3-08Merced Sun-StarDeeper wells defy droughtAs state dries up, company goes extra 40 feet for water...JONAH OWEN LAMBhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/576019.htmlArmando Blas gripped a 3-foot-long mud-covered metal drill bit as a long drill shaft spun into place from above. The tall rig holding the shaft stood 42 feet above the ground from the back of a truck whose engine was running. On Tuesday afternoon the rig groaned away on a cold, empty lot just north of Merced. Beside the rig, two muddy trenches filled with water. As the drill sunk deeper into the ground, a pump sucked up the muddy liquid from the trench and shot it back down the drill hole to lubricate the two-day well-drilling process.After pushing down past mud and rock and sand, the well will tap 300 feet below the Valley floor. At that depth it won't catch any of the chemical runoff that floats at the top of the water table, said Joe Silveira as he watched Blas at work. In the midst of a drought, with water tables continuing to drop and farms and cities with their never-ending thirst for water, Silveira's Atwater-based Quality Well Drillers has been working overtime to drill ever-deeper holes in the soil of the Central Valley. For Silveira's 12-man crew and its five rigs, this has been a nonstop year. So far, they've drilled about 300 wells, said Silveira. Until Thanksgiving, he employed one agricultural well driller going 24 hours a day. "We've been really busy the last 15 years," said Silveira. "Now, because of the drought, we're doing about 30 percent more than usual."His company's good fortune has come from a sinking water table and a long dry spell.With a three-year drought, the already declining levels of the water table haven't been replenished.But for as far back as Silveira can remember, the groundwater has been dropping in the Valley."Around Atwater we've seen drops of 40 feet in the water level," said Silveira as he leaned against his truck watching the drill dig into the soil.According to the state's Department of Water Resources' California Ground Water Bulletin, Merced's groundwater levels have sunk 30 feet since 1970.The story is similar across much of the Valley. With the drought getting worse, the only place to get water is from the ground.Merced Irrigation District's general manager, Dan Pope, said it has had to increase pumping with reservoir levels almost 50 percent below average. This growing season they ran 170 pumps. Typically, they have 40 or 50 pumps running."This thing's going to get really serious if we don't get some snow and some rain soon," said Silveira.Silveira is no stranger to drought. He first got into drilling during the 1976-77 drought, the worst in recent history. A couple of his friends were working on rigs at the time, and he got a job. Eventually, he bought some rigs of his own and has been sinking holes ever since.Besides the deeper depths, wells are pretty much the same. After drilling down beneath the water table and into sand, a 5-inch PVC pipe is placed down the hole. The perforated pipe is encircled in small rounded beach stones from Monterey that filter the water. Finally, crews cap the well with clay that prevents runoff from going down the hole. "If it's done properly they don't need another filtration system," said Silveira.But with a sinking aquifer and prolonged drought, one day there may be no water to filter.Our View: Reconsider casino siteTight credit creates chance for second thoughts on Highway 99 in Madera.http://www.mercedsunstar.com/181/v-print/story/576013.htmlThe effort to build a $250 million casino on Highway 99 north of Madera has been slowed by the downturn in the economy.This gives the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians an opportunity to reconsider the casino's location and build it in a rural area closer to the tribe's homeland.Station Casinos of Las Vegas, the tribe's partner in the proposed off-reservation casino, could file for bankruptcy, and gambling industry analysts believe that would limit plans to go forward with the project.We have supported Indian gaming on reservation land in rural areas. Our opposition to a casino on Highway 99 is based on its location. We believe the North Fork Rancheria should be able to build a casino if it's in an appropriate location.Building the casino on a major California freeway would turn the 305 acres at Avenue 17 into a congested area. It is not an appropriate location.We understand that the tribe is handicapped when locating a casino site. The North Fork tribe lost its original rancheria decades ago after the federal government terminated recognition of 41 California rancherias.The government, years later, settled a lawsuit by restoring the status of the tribes. But in the case of North Fork, the rancheria was transferred to individuals and the tribe itself was "landless."The tribe could remedy this situation by seeking land in a rural area closer to its traditional homeland.The Highway 99 site was chosen because of its potential to generate gamblers from a long distance.Richard Wells, a Reno gaming consultant, said that it's an attractive project because the casino would be next to Highway 99 and would be highly visible.While that may be a plus for the casino, that's why we oppose the location.Tribal leaders say they still intend to pursue the Highway 99 location, and would like to break ground in 2010. At some point the economy will turn around and the project will be viable again.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has negotiated a compact with the tribe that would pay the state about $25 million a year. That compact still must be approved by the Legislature, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve the casino's site.We believe this is the wrong location and this is a good time to reconsider other sites. Modesto BeeUC Merced plan gets support...Michelle Hatfieldhttp://www.modbee.com/local/story/519906.htmlMERCED -- Overwhelming support was expressed Tuesday night for the expansion of the University of California at Merced and the development of a neighboring village.The statements came during a public hearing on a draft environmental impact report, which enumerates the effect of both projects on the surrounding environment, such as agricultural land, traffic, air pollution and noise.When development will lead to a significant negative impact, officials must show how they will minimize those effects to acceptable levels.About three dozen people attended the Tuesday night meeting on campus. Offi-cials presented plans for the maturing 815-acre campus and a 2,000-acre neighboring community of homes, parks, schools and shop-ping. UC Merced and the adjoining community are years in the making.The public hearing is a requirement of such projects, providing residents a chance to give input. People who were unable to attend Tuesday's meeting can comment via mail or e-mail through Jan. 5.All of Tuesday's 12 speak- ers supported the plans and urged their approval during 45 minutes of comments. They highlighted the educational, economic and other benefits of UC Merced's expansion, and said university officials have made many concessions to reduce the amount of harm to agriculture or wetlands.Speakers also were hopeful that proposals to build high-density housing would be a model for Merced and other Central Valley communities.Many of the speakers represented area groups and politicians who lobby on behalf of UC Merced, such as the economic development agency and the county office of education.The Army Corps of Engineers must approve UC Merced's expansion because the campus sits on federally protected wetlands. In the next several decades, the campus could enroll 25,000 students. Today, UC Merced has 2,700 students in its fourth year.The current development outline is much more satisfactory to the Corps."We've taken a lot and they've given a lot," said Nancy Haley, project director with the corps, about UC system officials.To view the draft EIR, go to http://lrdp.ucmerced.edu.To find out how to comment on plans, e-mail bsamuelson@ucmerced.edu or ucmerced@usace.army.mil; or visit www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/PNs.Fresno BeeEPA to gut mountaintop mining rule protecting streams...RENEE SCHOOF AND BILL ESTEP. Andy Mead of the Lexington Herald Leader contributed to this report.http://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-printerfriendly/story/1049395.htmlThe Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday approved a last-minute rule change by the Bush administration that will allow coal companies to bury streams under the rocks leftover from mining. The 1983 rule prohibited dumping the fill from mountaintop removal mining within 100 feet of streams. In practice, the government hadn't been enforcing the rule. Government figures show that 535 miles of streams were buried or diverted from 2001 to 2005, more than half of them in the mountains of Appalachia. Along with the loss of the streams has been an increase of erosion and flooding. The 11th-hour change before President George W. Bush leaves office would eliminate a tool that citizens groups have used in lawsuits to keep mining waste out of streams. Mining companies had been pushing for the change for years. It also means that President-elect Barack Obama's administration will have to decide whether to try to restore and enforce the rule, a process that could take many months of new rulemaking. Obama's transition team declined to comment on its plans on Tuesday. Another option would be for opponents to go through the courts. Opponents have argued that the rule change is illegal. For now, however, the EPA's approval means there are no further obstacles to the Office of Surface Mining's plans to change the rule. The White House's Office of Management and Budget approved it on Monday. The Department of the Interior, which includes the mining office, plans to make the rule final in December, after briefing members of Congress, and it will go into effect 30 days after that, said spokesman Peter Mali. The timing means the rule is expected to be in effect when Obama takes office in January. In approving the change in writing as required by law, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected the appeals of environmentalists and some coal-country officials, including Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, both Democrats. In a letter in November to Johnson, Beshear said his state had to protect its water and that while coal was important to the economy, it should be mined in environmentally responsible ways. The new rule says the buffer zone around streams would not apply to the disposal of rocks, dirt and sludge from mining. It would allow companies to get a permit for the disposal as long as they show on a case-by-case basis that they are trying to minimize the waste. Carl Shoupe, 62, of Benham, Ky., said mining already had buried many streams and he and others worried that the rule change would lead to more losses. "They're taking our water away. They're taking our mountains away," said Shoupe, a former underground coal miner disabled in a roof fall. "We ain't got all the water resources that we used to have up here." Headwater areas deserve protection because that's where the entire stream system begins, said Shoupe, who also is a member of the citizens group Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. And he said it's not true that the only opposition to the rule change comes from outside the coalfields. "It's ridiculous what they're doing," he said. The EPA said in a statement that the rule would not violate federal or state water quality standards. EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said she could not provide any further explanation. Joan Mulhern, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm that has fought mountaintop mining, said the EPA had failed to do its job. "With less than two months left in power, the Bush administration is determined to cement its legacy as having the worst environmental record in history," she said in a statement. "This is a sad day for all people who are thankful for the clear mountain streams and stately summits of the Appalachians." However, coal mining companies and lawmakers who argued on their behalf in letters to the EPA said the rule change was necessary. Kentucky state Rep. Hubert Collins said that in a national recession, only coal was keeping eastern Kentucky out of a depression. "It's a matter of keeping people working," he said. "It's a matter of keeping food on the table here in the coalfields." Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said the rule change clarifies the intent of the federal surface-mining law. He said the law was never intended to ban putting excess rock and dirt from mining operations into the headwater sections where streams only flow when it rains. "If you can't be within 100 feet of a dry ditch, we're finished," he said. Caylor also noted that the new rule would have little impact because coal companies already work to keep valley fills as small as possible. (EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM) Kentucky's best-known environmentalist, Tom FitzGerald, called the new rule "a regrettable exclamation point on a litany of Bush-era regulatory and policy changes that have weakened the stream protection and mining and reclamation requirements intended by Congress - an early Christmas present to the industry." States had applied the stream buffer rule unevenly and federal enforcement was lax, FitzGerald said. But the elimination of the buffer zone requirement makes it possible for the coal industry to expand dumping in headwater streams, he said. FitzGerald said the rule change applied to mountaintop mining and all other forms of surface mining, as well as disposal of coal mine processing waste, disposal of waste from underground mining and the use of streams for sedimentation ponds.Court urged to side with power plants against fish...DINA CAPPIELLOhttp://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-printerfriendly/story/1046491.htmlThe Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to let the nation's older power plants draw in billions of gallons of water for cooling without installing technology that would best protect fish and aquatic organisms. Lawyers for the government and electricity producers urged the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that says the Clean Water Act does not let the government pit the cost of upgrading an estimated 554 power plants against the benefits of protecting fish and aquatic organisms when limiting water use. They argued that for the last 30 years the Environmental Protection Agency has weighed the costs of controlling power plant withdrawals from rivers, streams and other waterways against the benefits of saving more aquatic wildlife in setting technology requirements. The law already allows such cost-benefit analyses to be performed when facilities discharge pollutants into waterways that could affect human health, the attorneys said. "There is no reason Congress would want greater protection for fish from intake structures than for people through the discharge of pollutants," said Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer. Environmentalists want the decision upheld, an outcome that could prompt the EPA, under a new administration, to require existing power plants to install more costly and protective technology. All new power plants must use closed-cycle cooling, which recycles water using less from waterways to cool machinery. Richard Lazarus, an attorney representing environmental groups, said that by comparing costs to benefits the EPA has underregulated water intake from power plants. "EPA has no authority in any circumstance to decide that fish aren't worth a certain amount of cost," he said. Lazarus, however, said that other parts of the law let the agency evaluate the burden on industry. Maureen Mahoney, who presented the case for power producers including Entergy Corp. and PSEG Fossil LLC, said that if the EPA is not allowed to consider costs it would lead to "irrational results" such as 200-foot cooling towers in historic towns. Some justices expressed skepticism about whether it was possible to weigh the cost of buying and installing new cooling water intake structures against the value of fish and other aquatic organisms. "The difficulty that I have is if you are going to apply ... a cost benefit analysis, I'm not sure how it would work," said Justice David Souter. "Are a thousand plankton worth a million dollars? I don't know." The nation's power plants use billions of gallons of water from rivers and other waterways each year to cool their facilities. But the flow of water can smash fish against grills and screens and smaller aquatic organisms can get sucked into the system itself. In July 2004, the EPA allowed the industry to forgo the most expensive solution, installing closed-cycle cooling systems that would cost billions of dollars and prompt the shutdown of some power plants. An EPA analysis cited by Justice Stephen Breyer found that requiring all facilities to use the technology would require building 20 more 400-megawatt power plants to replace the electricity used to operate it. The same analysis also said electricity costs could rise by 2.4 percent to 5.3 percent. Breyer said the EPA should be able to take into account the environmental costs and benefits, as long as it doesn't overreach. "Why not let sleeping dogs lie? Let the agency take it into account the way it's done it to prevent absurd results, but not try to do it so that it's so refined you can't even take account of what a fish is worth unless they happen to be one of the 1.2 percent that goes to market," he said. The EPA rule allowed companies operating older plants to decide how to comply with the Clean Water Act by selecting among more economical options. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2007 ruled against the companies and government, saying the Clean Water Act does not allow cost to be used when deciding what technology would best minimize environmental impacts. The cases are Entergy Corp. v. EPA, 07-588; PSEG v. Riverkeeper, 07-589; and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, 07-597. Sacramento BeeComments on Delta plan sought at Friday meeting...Matt Weiserhttp://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1444421.htmlThe public is invited to comment on the future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta when a committee of state officials meets Friday.The Delta Vision Committee is charged with recommending projects and policy to the governor and Legislature to improve the environment and water supply in the estuary between Sacramento and Tracy.Committee members are four state Cabinet secretaries and the president of the Public Utilities Commission. They're reviewing two years of work by the Delta Vision Task Force, a seven-member panel appointed by the governor. A draft recommendation adopts many of the task force recommendations, including a new Delta water canal and 100,000 acres of habitat restoration. Its final recommendation must be made by Dec. 31.Friday's workshop is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the Bay-Delta Room of the John E. Moss Federal Building, 650 Capitol Mall. For information, call (916) 445-5511 or visit www.deltavision.ca.gov.Auburn dam officially dies as board yanks water rights...Chris Bowmanhttp://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1444275.htmlThe long-lived federal Auburn dam proposal is officially dead.The state water board drove the last nail into the coffin Tuesday, unanimously revoking the water rights it dedicated to the American River project nearly 40 years ago."This is a death certificate," board spokesman William Rukeyser said following the 5-0 vote. Under California's use-it-or-lose-it water laws, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had to put its rights to American River water to "beneficial use," as it had proposed with a 690-foot-high dam and a 68-mile canal to San Joaquin County.But the bureau halted construction more than 30 years ago because of safety concerns following a 5.7-magnitude earthquake 50 miles north of Auburn. Environmental concerns and ballooning costs have delayed the project ever since, leaving the river's deep north fork canyon heavily scarred but not blocked."You have to use water with due diligence and due faith, and that hasn't been followed here," water board member Arthur Baggett said before casting his vote to rescind the bureau's rights to 2.5 million acre-feet of water a year. An acre-foot of water covers 1 acre a foot deep, enough to supply an average family of five for a year.That's by far the largest amount of revoked water rights in memory, board officials said.The revocation opens the door to other applicants for those American River water rights. The city of Sacramento and San Joaquin County already have filed.The State Water Resources Control Board has rarely taken back water rights. It did so Tuesday only after 37 years had passed with no dam construction in sight."Without a doubt, the water board was patient – 37 years patient," Rukeyser said.The bureau's proposal surfaced in President Harry Truman's administration, won congressional authorization in 1965, was redesigned after the 1975 quake and slowly petered out as cost estimates skyrocketed and the values of an unimpeded north fork of the American River rose.The bureau had planned to store up to 5 million acre-feet for flood control, power generation, recreation and farming and urban consumption.The water board many times had granted extensions to the bureau, which operates a network of aqueducts and giant dams including Shasta, Folsom and Friant near Fresno.In 2001, the board said it could not consider another extension unless the bureau documented the dam's environmental effects on the American River drainage and downstream through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where massive water pumping to cities and farms south and other pressures have decimated fish populations. But the environmental studies never came."The bureau didn't follow through. So the water board had no choice but to move to revoke the water rights," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which formally protested the extension along with the local Friends of the River, Protect American River Canyons and the Planning and Conservation League.The bureau made no comment at Tuesday's water rights hearing in Sacramento. The agency had made its case for an extension at a board hearing in July.The agency had argued that it should retain the water rights until Congress definitively decides whether to pursue or scrap the Auburn proposal it authorized in 1965."We see it as their decision," said Lynnette Wirth, a bureau spokeswoman in Sacramento.A spokeswoman for Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, and representatives of the California Farm Bureau spoke Tuesday against revocation, saying Congress might view the dam proposal more favorably in light of projected water shortages from global warming, population growth and stronger environmental protections.Rukeyser of the state water board said the bureau is welcome to reapply for water rights should Congress have a change of heart. But the bureau doesn't see that happening anytime soon."We don't see on our plate of key issues trying to revitalize Auburn dam," Wirth said.The finale of Auburn dam came as Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, leaves Congress, where he had been a tireless proponent of the project.The prospect of the dam surfaced in the race to be Doolittle's replacement.Republican candidate Tom McClintock said an Auburn dam "could produce the cheapest electricity on the planet." Democratic hopeful Charlie Brown said the $10 billion-plus project cost far exceeds potential energy benefits. Stockton RecordCity approves scaled-down Wal-MartWeston Ranch location could open in late 2010...David Sidershttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081203/A_NEWS/812030325/-1/A_NEWSSTOCKTON - The City Council on Tuesday authorized construction of a Wal-Mart in Weston Ranch, the retail giant having greatly reduced the store's planned size to comply with Stockton's big-box ban.The Wal-Mart is to anchor a planned shopping center near Interstate 5 and French Camp Road. It could open in late 2010, Wal-Mart spokesman Aaron Rios said.Stockton officials and south side residents at City Hall on Tuesday called the store's approval a success for south Stockton. Residents no longer will have to drive miles north to shop, they said."It's about time we have our own shopping center," said Benni Mabini, 67, a Weston Ranch resident and a greeter at the Hammer Lane Wal-Mart in north Stockton.South side Councilwoman Rebecca Nabors said south Stockton has long been underserved, but "this is a beginning."The store's approval followed the council's decision last year to prohibit the construction of stores exceeding 100,000 square feet and containing full-size grocery stores, fearing their proliferation would cripple smaller shops, drive spending from the city core and tarnish Stockton's image.The Weston Ranch Wal-Mart, once planned to be 232,000 square feet, is to be 99,996 square feet and will include a grocery, officials said.Wal-Mart's shrinking of its store plan was a political victory for the council, which was criticized last year by project developer Vestar Development Co. and some south Stockton advocates who said the big-box prohibition would derail the project in Weston Ranch.Council members Susan Eggman and Clem Lee said the project's revision was evidence the city could require more of developers than traditionally has been required. The project was approved without dissent.Jeffrey Axtel of Phoenix-based Vestar said Tuesday that had the city not banned superstores, the project would be twice its size and "probably already would have been built and open for business."Walgreens and other stores are interested in joining Wal-Mart in Weston Ranch, he said.No member of the public opposed the project's approval Tuesday. That was unlike last year, when Weston Ranch residents filled the council chambers to protest the larger store's construction.The Hammer Lane Wal-Mart, Stockton's only store of its size, was not subject to the big-box ban, as it was built before the ban's adoption.Alex Breitler's Bloghttp://blogs.recordnet.com/sr-abreitlerIt's OfficialThe Auburn Dam has been taken off life support.San Joaquin County water officials won't be happy, since the county has long been told that its future water supply will come from the proposed reservoir. Of course, the county does have some other strategies up its sleeve, including plans to divert some -- but perhaps not as much -- American River water at Freeport.Read on, courtesy AP:SACRAMENTO (AP) — A California board has revoked federal water claims that were critical to building a long-stalled dam northeast of Sacramento, effectively ending the project. Tuesday’s unanimous vote by the State Water Resources Control Board comes more than four decades after Congress authorized the Auburn Dam to control flooding along the American River. Board members said the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had not done its job. The state granted water rights to the bureau so it could fill the future reservoir but did so with conditions. The federal government had to complete the dam by December 1975 and start using the water 25 years later. Work on the Auburn Dam stopped after a 1975 earthquake led to the discovery of a fault beneath the site, in the Sierra foothills about 30 miles northeast of Sacramento. The Bureau of Reclamation could apply for new permits, but Congress first would have to reauthorize the project.Biggest Delta lawsuit yet?...Alex Breitler's Blog...12-1-08The "big banana" of Delta lawsuits was filed today by Bill Jennings and fellow Delta environmentalists. It blames the state and the feds for mismanaging water -- reservoirs, rivers, the Delta, you name it.Jennings wants water exports to end. At least, until environmental laws are satisfied and the Delta is on the mend.Read the 27-page complaint here: http://online.recordnet.com/projects/blog/2008/1201deltalawsuit.pdf California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), Felix Smith (an individual)Plaintiffs,                        vs.California Department Water Resources,The California State Water Resources Control Board, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and DOES 1-100, DefendantsSan Francisco ChronicleBusinesses, watchdogs clash on water policies...Kelly Zitohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/03/MNOH14GARV.DTL&type=printableWhat do a computer company, an office chair manufacturer and a soft drink maker have in common?Aside from dealing with the economic slump, all three firms - IBM, Steelcase and Coca-Cola - use vast amounts of water each year. And each is trying to learn to use less.This week, leaders at some of the world's largest corporations are gathering in San Francisco to talk about dwindling freshwater supplies, gray-water recycling technologies and the risks of rising water costs. Among the attendees are Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, MillerCoors, Nestle Waters, Dean Foods, Cadbury, Cisco and Adobe."Water is the most critical ingredient for beverages we make around the world," said Lisa Manley, director of environmental communications for Coca-Cola. "But in doing business in 200 countries, we're also a local business. We know we can only be as sustainable as the communities where we're working because water is the No. 1 resource people need for health and economic prosperity."Manley said the soda company is working on a global program that would return all of the 300 billion liters of water it uses each year back to local communities and the environment. But water watchdog groups compare such statements to greenwashing - the term used to describe companies that tout the eco-friendliness of products and services that may be quite the opposite. "This constitutes 'bluewashing' when you get down to it," said Mark Schlosberg, spokesman for Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group. "We welcome efforts to increase sustainable water use, but such discussions can't be led by the companies that are some of the biggest water abusers in the world."Today, the group plans a news conference and a series of sidewalk skits that parody big corporations' use of a resource that is widely described as "the next oil."The location for the protest and a two-day conference on water that drew not only big industry but government, nonprofits and the scientific community could not be more appropriate. With a continuing drought, crumbling water infrastructure, dying fish populations and hard questions about how water is divvied up, California is home to some of thorniest water supply dilemmas in the nation.Although the food and beverage industry generally has not been an overwhelming part of the water debate in the state, pockets of controversy exist.The Siskiyou County town of McCloud, for example, is embroiled in a bitter battle with Nestle Waters after the company several years ago proposed a 1 million-square-foot bottled-water facility that would have siphoned about 1,250 gallons per minute from tributaries feeding into the McCloud River. According to published reports, the company would have paid about $350,000 to the local water district for a 100-year contract.After protracted community resistance forced Nestle Water to pull out of the contract this summer, the company is asking the McCloud Community Services District to consider a scaled-down version of the plan that would pull about 600 gallons per minute from the waterways.Environmentalists still question the impacts the project would have on the pristine landscape and an important feeder river to the nearby Shasta reservoir. But some local authorities see their rich water supply as a way to create jobs - an alluring prospect for a former lumber town whose economy relies mostly on tourism."There are people who say don't touch the water and leave the springs pristine," said Beth Steele, general manager for the services district. "While I understand the emotional reasons for that, it's not realistic in the state of California."UC chief changes buyout policy...Jim Doylehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/03/MNH614GCU0.DTL&type=printableThe new president of the University of California system pledged Tuesday that employees in his office no longer will be allowed to collect full severance checks and then be rehired at other UC locations.While avoiding open criticism of his predecessor, Robert Dynes, President Mark Yudof noted that the program in which 16 employees got hefty severance checks and landed in other UC jobs this year was created prior to June, when he took the 10-campus university's top job."I and the Regents recognize this may appear to the public as an objectionable use of resources even though the program is reducing our central administrative spending," Yudof said in a written statement. Meanwhile, new details emerged about the buyout program as well as the hiring of Linda Morris Williams as associate chancellor of UC Berkeley, a position that was not advertised for others to apply for. As The Chronicle reported Thursday, Williams, then a top aide to Dynes, was granted a $100,202 buyout from the university's Oakland headquarters and took a six-figure job on the Cal campus a few miles away.On Tuesday, the university released the names of the 15 additional employees of the president's office who received severance pay and then went to work at UC Berkeley and other campuses. Severance payments for those 16 employees totaled $682,431, according to figures provided by university officials.Eight of the sixteen employees were hired by UC Berkeley, two found jobs at UC Davis, one at UCSF and the others at the Irvine, Merced, Santa Barbara, Riverside and Santa Cruz campuses.Ingrid Schmidt, who received a severance payment of $46,100 from the UC president's office, took a job as director of real estate services at UC Davis at an annual salary of $105,000. Karl Engelbach, who received a buyout of $18,827, became director of federal government relations at UC Davis, also at a salary of $105,000 a year. Open recruitments"Both of those positions were open recruitments and were widely advertised," said UC Davis spokeswoman Julia Ann Easley.Under the program, managers and senior professionals were entitled to one month's severance pay for each full year of service to the UC president's office, up to six months pay. Professional and support employees were entitled to one week's severance pay for each year of service, up to 16 weeks. "If the program is offered again, we will include provisions requiring payment of a buyout on a pro rata basis for employees finding new work elsewhere within the university," Yudof said. "I believe this action is important to ensuring the public's trust in our stewardship of resources."The buyout program received Dynes' approval but was not approved by the university's governing Board of Regents. The regents were told about the program's cost savings at a board meeting two weeks ago before they approved Williams' severance payout.Cut personnel and budgetsA total of 155 employees of the UC president's office took buyouts, and university officials said the program will achieve at least $5 million a year in savings by the Oakland headquarters. Previously, the office had 516 full-time administrative positions. Yudof, the first University of California president to be hired from outside the system since 1899, has said that one of his chief objectives is to cut personnel and budgets. He began the job in June after a three-year scandal involving Dynes' propensity to circumvent university policy in order to give special perks and benefits to some UC executives and administrators. Employees who applied for this year's buyout program were given the green light to take jobs elsewhere in the UC system. "If you are separating to take a different job than the one you have now at a different campus, you are eligible to participate in the Voluntary Separation Program," according to the UC Office of the President Web site. In addition, employees were reminded on the Web site that the president's office has a reciprocal hiring preference with the Berkeley campus.Williams said in a written statement that when she applied for the buyout program last Jan. 22, "the Associate Chancellor position on the Berkeley campus was not open and therefore played no role whatsoever in my decision making."Nine days later, on Feb. 1, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Relations Jeannine Raymond granted a request by her boss - UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau - for a special waiver to hire Williams without going through the normal requirement for openly advertising the job or conducting a search to fill the position. Raymond said the waiver was based on "business hardship and special skills."In a written analysis, Raymond described the breadth of Williams' experience in the UC system as a senior aide for Dynes and chief of staff to the chancellor at UC San Diego and concluded: "Ms. Williams' past experience uniquely qualifies her ... ."A hardship"Finally, it would be a hardship to conduct a search for this position given the urgency of the budget situation and related projects as well as the pending retirement of the incumbent," Raymond wrote.It is not clear whether Birgeneau approached Williams about the position, or vice versa. Neither was available for interviews."The position was offered to her on Feb. 8, 2008," said UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof. Mogulof said the associate chancellor position was not created specifically for Williams. Instead, he said, she assumed the job slot occupied by chief of staff John Cummins, who was retiring.She began work May 1 at a salary of $200,400, which UC officials said Tuesday was four dollars less than her previous position paid. Over the past few days, UC officials have provided conflicting figures regarding Williams' salary at the UC president's office.Job not publicly advertisedAmong the eight employees who received buyouts from the UC president's office and were hired at UC Berkeley, Sheila O'Rourke became assistant provost for academic affairs at $157,000 a year even though the job was not publicly advertised, according to Mogulof. The UC Office of the President's program was approved administratively, without action by the regents. However, the $100,202 severance payout for Williams was discussed in closed session at the regents' meeting Nov. 20, shortly before the regents approved it as the last item on the board's agenda.According to a UC document that outlined the voluntary separation program, the program automatically terminated Aug. 31. The regents approved Williams' payout three months after the program officially ended."The commitment had been made previously," said Brad Hayward, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President. He said the delay was attributable to Yudof's desire to present to the regents details of the buyout program's cost savings at the same time as his request for Williams' payout.Sixteen who left system and came right backUniversity of California Office of the President employees who took positions at other UC locations after accepting severance pay. They are among a total of 155 employees who took the buyout earlier this year.NameTitleAnnual salary Severance payNew UC job locationNew salary at new UC jobElizabeth (Liz) Halimah *Director, student affairs $114,424 $57,212Berkeley$130,000Sharon D. Johnson **Principal administrative analyst I$68,996 $21,146Berkeley$72,324Sheila O'Rourke *Director, academic advancement$142,124 $71,062Berkeley$157,000Vernessa R. Parker **Principal administrative analyst$67,000 $20,538Berkeley$63,000Christopher A. Schalck *Manager, provost research $111,601 $55,801Berkeley$108,200Carmen L. Williams **Management services officer II$69,623 $21,338Berkeley$71,000Linda Morris Williams *Associate president$200,404 $100,202Berkeley$200,400Kathleen S. Young **Assistant III, UC press$46,044 $14,113Berkeley$45,792Karl Michael Engelbach *Coordinator, state govt. relations $112,962 $18,827Davis$105,000Ingrid H. Schmidt *Coordinator facilities administration$92,200 $46,100Davis$105,000Larry E. Coon *IT resource manager II, student affairs$100,205 $50,102Irvinen/aEdith Ruth Welch **Executive secretary, student affairs$62,002 $19,004Mercedn/aJo Ann Javier *Manager, agriculture/natural resources $88,473 $44,237Riversiden/aMichael Waldman *Manager, human resources/benefits$92,173 $46,087San Franciscon/aDeborah A. Karoff *Director, education abroad$132,229 $44,077Santa Barbaran/aBlas G. Guerrero *Manager, student affairs$105,170 $52,585Santa Cruzn/a* One month of severance for each year worked. ** One week of severance for each year worked.Source: UC Office of the President Contra Costa TimesEditorials: UC should end lucrative severance policyhttp://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_11120968THE UNIVERSITY OF California could be saddled, if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has his way, with $65.5 million in midyear budget cuts. But the day after the Board of Regents criticized Schwarzenegger's plan, they decided it was a good time to approve nice severance payments for 155 former employees under a voluntary termination program. Footing the bill is none other than state residents and UC students.One of those recipients is Linda Williams, who stands to make $100,202 in severance although she left her job in the UC Office of the President several months ago. Yet Williams gets the severance while remaining in the system as an associate chancellor at UC Berkeley, making an annual salary of $200,400. She receives all of this despite being involved in a 2005 scandal where UC executives were paid bonuses and extra compensation without public disclosure or regents approval, including Williams herself. She received low-interest home loans only given to senior managers and faculty.UC officials say the system was somehow obligated to give Williams this package along with others, and a UC spokesman said the system estimates this will save about $5 million a year, but there are no real guarantees to support that. And, since the program puts no conditions on future employment, people such as Williams can receive severance for one position within the UC system while earning a hefty salary from another position within the same system. There is no requirement for someone to repay the severance in that situation. Does UC consider this fiscally responsible with taxpayer's money? State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, says she will investigate to see if this practice is legal. We are behind her 100 percent. It's no wonder that with flawed programs such as this, some state lawmakers do not take UC's problems seriously. But if state lawmakers follow up on Schwarzenegger's proposal for deep cuts into UC's budget, who stands to lose? The chancellor? The regents? The ones receiving severance? No. Again, the students will lose with higher tuition for lower standards and that is simply wrong.It's imperative during these tough times for UC to be more fiscally responsible and not be so oblivious to the shaky economic world around it. Filling executives' pockets with taxpayer's money is just bad business and reflects poorly on the administration. When senior executives have a higher priority than students, there's something wrong with leadership standards. UC must end these type of policies.Editorial: Tighten conflict laws for legislatorshttp://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_11120986?nclick_check=1THERE ARE MORE than two dozen California lawmakers who hold outside jobs. They are allowed to cast votes affecting their industries or professions as long as the measures apply generally, and do not affect only one company or agency. With this, lawmakers see loopholes so big, you can drive a truck through them.Even though being a California lawmaker is considered a full-time job and is the highest paid state legislator in the nation, a recent report in the Los Angeles Times revealed there are some who do very well outside of Sacramento, and they are certainly adept at driving through those loopholes.Mike Eng is a state Assemblyman who, as part of the Assembly Education Committee, consistently voted for the Los Angeles Unified School District's interests this year, such as helping the district obtain $267 million in extra state money.Eng has a five-man law firm who has a three-year deal with the L.A. school district, and collected $321,000 as part of the deal, with payments often made weeks after Eng's vote. Yet, as the rules are written, Eng violated no laws.State Sen. Dave Cox, R-Roseville, owns Integrated Benefits and Insurance Services, an insurance company that does business with large health-care groups. Cox is on the Senate Health Committee. On four occasions over the past two years, Cox voted against starting a state-operated health insurance program. The main lobbies opposing the bill were Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Health Net. Imagine the surprise to learn that these companies paid Cox's company at least $240,000 since 1999. There's Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, who owns Tom Berryhill Ranch which grows grapes. Berryhill voted in June in favor of legislation allowing winery customers to consume the wine they purchase on winery property. Or how about Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, who calls himself "employee/officer/director" of Niello Company, which owns several car dealerships. Niello voted against legislation last year that would have added a surcharge to new vehicles that emit high amounts of greenhouse gases; a coalition of car makers who were major sources of income for Niello also opposed the bill. The bill, of course, died.If it walks like conflict of interest and talks like conflict of interest, it is a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in the state Capitol where many lawmakers routinely vote on legislation that affects their private income or sit on commissions that oversees legislation governing their professions and industries. How can we expect fair and unbiased decisions under these ridiculous circumstances? California lawmakers need more specific rules when it comes to conflict of interest. We're not saying a lawmaker cannot hold a second job, but if a lawmaker's profession has anything to do with a piece of legislation, that bill must be off limits to that lawmaker. Period. When a person becomes a member of the Legislature, they work for California residents first, not for their own personal gain and those who have given support.It's time to rewrite the rule book to close the conflict-of-interest loopholes.Legislators' outside jobs raise questions about conflicts of interest30 state senators and Assembly members have other jobs, and some vote on issues that may affect their financial well-being...Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times...11-28-08http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-conflict28-2008nov28,0,1830625,print.storyReporting from Sacramento — Assemblyman Mike Eng, one of more than two dozen California lawmakers who hold outside jobs, was a steady vote for the Los Angeles Unified School District's interests this year at the same time his law firm was working for the district under a $550,000 contract.A Democrat from Monterey Park who sits on the Assembly Education Committee, Eng voted multiple times for legislation sponsored by the district that allows it to obtain $267 million in extra state money. His five-man law firm, meanwhile, collected $321,000 as part of its three-year deal from L.A. Unified, sometimes in payments made just weeks after Eng's vote. The payments were reported in district records as compensation for help in getting visas and processing paperwork for foreign teachers."Having legislators voting on bills that affect their sources of income raises questions of conflict of interest," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "Who is their loyalty owed to, the state or their income sources?"Eng didn't violate any laws, Stern said. California allows legislators to cast votes affecting their industries or professions as long as the measures apply generally and do not affect only one company or agency. But the assemblyman's actions highlight what some see as the state's failure to tightly govern moonlighting by lawmakers.California's full-time lawmakers are the highest paid in the nation, earning $150,000 a year including salary and expenses (those in leadership posts make more). The salary is justified, lawmakers often say, because it enables them to live and support their families without outside income.Yet 30 of the state's 120 legislators own businesses or hold other outside jobs, according to their most recent statements of economic interest, and some earn more income away from the Capitol than from the public payroll. They own such enterprises as car dealerships, farms, insurance companies, a plastics firm and a real estate appraisal firm. They work in law, agriculture, health insurance and other medical fields.Some have routinely voted on legislation that affects their private income. Several lawmakers sit on committees that oversee legislation governing their professions or industries.State Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks), owner and president of Integrated Benefits and Insurance Services Inc., an insurance company doing business with large healthcare groups, sits on the Senate Health Committee.In August, and three times last year, Cox voted against the creation of a state-run health insurance program that was lobbied against by four of his biggest sources of income: Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Health Net. Those companies have paid Cox's firm at least $240,000 since 1999. Cox said his vote was philosophical, reflected the position of the Senate Republican caucus and had nothing to do with his business, which he owns with his wife, who runs it."We [in California] do not have the ability to afford universal healthcare," he said.Assemblyman Michael Duvall also voted against the healthcare bill. In addition to being a Republican legislator from Yorba Linda, he is sole owner of the Michael Duvall Agency, an insurance company that received at least $10,000 last year from Blue Cross."I don't want the government in charge of my healthcare," he said to explain his vote, adding that it had nothing to do with his source of outside income.Other legislators with outside businesses include:* Assemblyman Edward Hernandez (D-West Covina). He and his wife are optometrists with private practices; his is in La Puente, hers in Duarte. Hernandez is also past president of the California Optometric Assn., which lobbied this year for legislation that significantly expanded the procedures optometrists can perform. Hernandez voted for the bill (SB 1406) in June as a member of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee and in August on the Assembly floor. Ophthalmologists, who are medical doctors able to perform more extensive treatment, including surgery, opposed it. * Assemblyman Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto), owner and manager of Tom Berryhill Ranch, which grows grapes and almonds. Berryhill voted in June in favor of legislation that allows winery customers to consume the wine they purchase while still on the premises. The bill was pushed by the Wine Institute, a group that includes the Robert Mondavi Winery, a major source of income for Berryhill. The assemblyman said he supervises workers during the pruning season but otherwise doesn't spend much time in the vineyard.* Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks). His disclosure forms call him an "employee/officer/director" of the Niello Co., which owns several car dealerships. Niello voted against legislation last year that would have allowed the state to levy a surcharge of up to $2,500 against new vehicles that emit high amounts of greenhouse gases. The bill, SB 493, was lobbied against by the California Motor Car Dealers Assn., of which Niello's firm is a member. The bill was also opposed by a coalition of carmakers. Niello reported three of the carmakers as major sources of income last year. The bill died.Niello said he has recused himself on occasions when he thought a conflict might be perceived -- as when the Legislature considered raising processing fees for car sales. Government watchdog groups contend that private business can be a distraction from a public official's job and raises questions about whether decisions are made on merit. They note that Congress prohibits its members from engaging in professions that provide services involving a fiduciary relationship. Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, called for similar restrictions in California, saying: "The loophole that allows legislators to moonlight and have an outside business should be closed."In Eng's case, the education bill sponsored by L.A. Unified also affected three small school districts. Eng, who reported more than $100,000 in income from his law firm last year, said he did not see any conflict in his vote because other attorneys in his firm did the work on the school contract. Eng said he works about 60 hours a week on his legislative job. He said it makes him a better legislator because it gives him expertise in the critical area of immigration."I feel I have a special place in the California Legislature because I've dealt with that issue," he said.Others raised the issue of restrictions that term limits impose. Legislators need to keep businesses so they have something to return to when they leave office, said Assemblyman Bill Maze (R-Visalia)."You don't have any kind of retirement [benefit] with the Legislature," said Maze, owner of a farming enterprise and a property-inspection business.One lawmaker who sympathizes with the arguments of the public-interest groups is Assemblyman Mark De Saulnier (D-Concord). He said a factor in his decision to sell his bar and grill when he was elected in 2006 was to avoid the appearance of conflict. Lawmakers are considering a nickel tax on alcoholic drinks, for instance.And he said he did not believe that as a full-time assemblyman he would have time to run a business. "I just couldn't do both," he said.Mercury NewsFresh from election victory, high-speed rail backers look to Obama and D.C. Democrats for next funding wave...Paul Rogershttp://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11127065?nclick_check=1The credit markets are collapsing, the stock market has tanked, and government deficits are sky-high.Sounds like a terrible time to try to construct one of the largest public works projects in California history: an 800-mile-long, $45 billion network of bullet trains linking the Bay Area and Los Angeles, right?Wrong, say state planners and backers of the project, still giddy from voter approval last month of Proposition 1A, which provided it a $9.95 billion down payment.The new tone in Washington, D.C., away from Reaganomics and toward a new version of FDR's "New Deal," means there will be billions for public works projects like roads, bridges, airports — and rail, supporters say."I'm sure there will be federal money," said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, a state agency planning the system. "When we talk about jump-starting the economy, how are you going to do that without creating jobs?"Morshed and other high-speed rail advocates are looking to three potential funding sources from Washington, D.C.First, President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a massive economic rescue package, perhaps worth $500 billion. The package is expected to be heavy with public works spending.Second, a bill introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., would authorize the sale of $23 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance high-speed rail projects around the country, with at least $10 billion of that set aside for California and the Northeast. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is a co-sponsor. Finally, on Oct. 15, President Bush signed the Amtrak reauthorization bill. It included $1.5 billion for high-speed rail projects over the next five years in 11 corridors across the United States, including California."I think high-speed rail now is 'when' not 'if,'"‰" said Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business organization in San Jose that backed Proposition 1A.A business plan released by the high-speed rail authority last month says that it will cost $33 billion to build the system from San Francisco to Los Angeles, with trains zooming at 220 mph and stations in San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield and other large cities.In addition to the nearly $10 billion approved by voters on Nov. 4, the plan seeks about $14 billion in federal money, $7 billion in private funding from companies that would operate trains and sell tickets similar to the way commercial airlines run airplanes, and $3 billion from local and regional sources.Morshed said his agency expects to finish engineering and environmental studies by 2012, with the whole L.A.-San Francisco route completed from 2018 to 2020. Another $12 billion will be needed to extend it to San Diego and Sacramento, the business plan says, with completion estimated by 2030. The state's business plan projects 55 million riders a year and a $1.1 billion profit by 2030.That may be overly ambitious. Most other high-speed rail systems in the world require some government operating subsidies, said Dan Sperling, director of the University of California-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. It is not easy to say now whether the 2030 ridership and profit projections are plausible, he added."It's difficult to design a system and determine its attractiveness," he said, "when the benefits are going to be so far in the future, and with so much uncertainty about where people will be living, how they will be traveling, what fuel prices and global warming policy will be." Critics call the project a boondoggle whose business plan is overstated."We will pour billions into this and it will not perform as prescribed," said James Moore, a professor and director of the transportation engineering program at the University of Southern California. "The entire plan crumbles at the touch. Ridership estimates, capital cost estimates, construction cost estimates, operating assumptions, the attractiveness for private dollars — every assumption is wildly optimistic."In the Bay Area, the plan calls for running trains at up to 125 mph along the existing CalTrain corridor between San Francisco's Transbay Terminal and San Jose's Diridon Station — a 30-minute ride. Two new tracks would be added alongside the two CalTrain tracks, and stations would be located in Redwood City or Palo Alto and at San Francisco International Airport.CalTrain's planned electrification of its system, due for completion in 2015, might lure federal funding of high-speed rail, supporters say, because the coming improvements — including overhead wires — would benefit both projects. The CalTrain partnership also increases the chances that California's first high-speed rail segment would be San Jose-to-San Francisco."What a coup for us that would be," said Christine Dunn, a spokeswoman for CalTrain. "It would bring people from all over the world to come and see what it looks like."The next High Speed Rail Authority board meeting will be held at 10 a.m. today at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors chambers, 70 W. Hedding St., in San Jose. To read the high-speed rail business plan, go to www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.Santa Cruz SentinelTree sitters, UCSC officials enter mediation...Jennifer Squires http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_11126421SANTA CRUZ -- Tree sitters and UC Santa Cruz officials are in talks aimed at reaching a peaceful end to the 13-month protest at the site of a planned biomedical facility on Science Hill.The groups announced their attempt to come to a mediated resolution Tuesday, though Jennifer Charles, spokeswoman for the Science Hill Tree Sitters, said they began meeting at least a week ago."We've already had a few meetings," Charles said. "It's been ongoing."Both sides hope to reach an agreement before winter break begins, though neither group would say what terms would need to be met to end the standoff. The final day of fall quarter is Dec. 11.The tree-sit began Nov. 7, 2007, when demonstrators climbed 75 feet into platforms in a cluster of redwoods amid a clash with university police. The tree sitters are opposed to campus growth outlined in the UCSC Long Range Development Plan.In March, a judge granted an injunction against the tree-sit and anyone sending up food or equipment to the tree sitters. But the protesters did not leave, and the university stopped patrolling the site regularly in the spring and summer, which created relative calm until classes began in the fall. In October, two people were arrested in separate instances and charged with violating the court order.University officials said they proposed the talks."We have consistently said that we prefer a voluntary and peaceful end to this protest," Chico Enterprise RecordDrought emerging as water panel topic...HEATHER HACKINGhttp://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_11126181OROVILLE — Drought-related topics are beginning to be the norm at meetings of the county's Water Commission. With the state's water picture looking more and more bleak, the county's water staff continues to monitor groundwater conditions, which are predictably dropping. In addition to the threat of wells going dry, the county is increasingly on alert that the state will be looking at Northern California to fill in the state's water gaps. Vickie Newlin, assistant director of Butte County's Department of Water and Resource Conservation, said the county has been working with the state Department of Water Resources on the 2009 Drought Water Bank, which is looking for water transfers through crop idling and using groundwater instead of surface water. Butte County has Chapter 33, which is a groundwater ordinance that prohibits transfer of groundwater outside the county and prohibits transferring surface water and using groundwater, unless a permit is granted. However, there are more factors involved. "The projections for 2009 are pretty gloomy," Newlin said. "We don't know what will happen." In Butte, and other counties, many agricultural water users receive water through settlement contracts. These users have water rights that date back before Oroville Dam was built. While these water rights are generally more stable than others, they too can be cut back if water is scarce. Many of those contracts allow for a cutback of up to 50 percent in a dry year, and up to 100 percent decrease over two years. Those cutbacks would not come with a water payment, Newlin explained. Additionally, those water users would likely seek groundwater. "We need to start thinking about how we could help people through that," Newlin said. For example, if the drought intensifies, neighbors may need to organize to talk to one another so that everyone does not start pumping groundwater at the same time, Newlin said. Water Commissioner David Skinner said he recently talked with three groundwater users who use water for orchards and they said they already noted water pressure was down in August. "It seems we're in a precarious situation if we don't get rain," Skinner said. He said people should be aware that things could get very bad next June and July if conditions continue. Butte has been working with the counties of Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama on regional water planning, and a report is due out today on talks. New development, both agricultural and residential, continue to put pressure on the existing water supplies, county water staff explained. Also, as drought intensifies, so have legal challenges to water delivery due to environmental concerns. Kristen McKillop, manager of water program development, gave a report on groundwater levels. Several areas are showing groundwater levels similar to the early 1990s when wells began to go dry, prompting the passage of the county's Chapter 33, groundwater protection ordinance, also known as Measure G. With those low groundwater reports, there will be much more discussion needed. Washington PostRule Would Ease Mining Debris Disposal...Juliet EilperinEnvironmentalists Fear Streams Will Be Harmedhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120203055_pf.htmlThe Bush administration finalized rules yesterday that will make it easier for mountaintop mining companies to dump their waste near rivers and streams, overhauling a 25-year-old prohibition that has sparked legal and regulatory battles for years.The regulation got signoffs from the Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency this week and will go into effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The change is intended to resolve a nearly five-year-old fight over how companies can dispose of the vast amounts of rubble and sludge created when they blow the tops off mountains to get to the coal buried below, although the incoming Obama administration could revisit the issue."This rule strengthens what can and can't be done in streams," said Office of Surface Mining spokesman Peter Mali, whose agency crafted the measure.A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the rule has not been published, said new safeguards in the regulation will reduce the amount of waste deposited in Appalachian mountain waterways and is "going to impose costs on the coal industry."But coal officials, who had lobbied for the change, said it would not burden the industry and would help protect Appalachia's 14,000 mountaintop mining jobs."We had sought clarification on the rule because there had been various court decisions that put a halt to surface mining. This put jobs at risk and mining activities at risk," said Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association.Mountaintop mining, which yields 130 million tons of coal a year and accounts for 10 percent of the nation's coal production, is cheaper and safer than underground mining. But this method of reaching valuable low-sulfur coal seams below ground generates large amounts of rubble and sludge that are usually trucked away to be dumped in the region's steep valleys.Under a 1983 law, mining operators were barred from dumping the massive piles of debris, called "valley fills," within 100 feet of any intermittent or permanent stream if the material would harm a stream's water quality or reduce its flow. But federal and state courts have issued conflicting interpretations of the law, and widespread dumping continued; the government estimated that about 1,600 miles of streams in Appalachia have been wiped out since the mid-1980s, and regulators expect that roughly 100 miles of streams will be legally filled each year under the new rule.The regulation would require companies to avoid the 100-foot stream buffer zone unless they show why they cannot do so. If they do dump the waste in the buffer zone, they must try to minimize or avoid harming streams "to the extent practicable" and compensate for the damage somewhere else.Environmentalists decried the decision, noting that an EPA study in July documented that waste from coal-mining operations in southern West Virginia has been found to be "strongly related to downstream biological impairment," including a drop in the diversity of aquatic life.Vernon Haltom, co-director of West Virginia-based Coal River Mountain Watch, said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson's letter certifying that the new rule complies with the Clean Water Act "is a slap in the face of Appalachian communities, which have already endured enough injustice from mountaintop removal. My home and thousands of others are now in greater jeopardy."Johnson wrote Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne yesterday that he was satisfied that the regulation had enough water-quality protections in it: "Americans should not have to choose between clean coal or effective environmental protection; we can achieve both."Coal industry and administration officials said many of the streams that will be covered in mine waste are small or ephemeral. "You're not talking about big, ecologically valuable areas," the senior Bush official said. "This will not be a negative environmental impact."But Cindy Rank of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy said some of the waterways that have been lost are significant even if they are not major rivers."With this rule change, the outgoing Bush administration is poised to eliminate forever more of our headwater streams -- the very lifeblood of our mountains and the source of healthy water resources that future generations will depend upon," Rank said.U.S. Lags In Providing College Access, Study Finds...Susan Kinziehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120203020_pf.htmlOther countries are outpacing the United States in providing access to college, eroding an educational advantage the nation has enjoyed for decades, according to a study released today by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.The nonprofit research group contends that if left unaddressed, the development will harm U.S. competitiveness in the near future."I don't know what it's going to take to get our nation to wake up to what's happening with regard to the education deficit we're building," said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland, who will present a similar study by the College Board on improving access to higher education next week."We're standing pat while the rest of the world is passing us by. If we continue on this path, our chances of being the leader in the knowledge economy in the decades to come are between slim and none."During the past two decades, some other nations have made the kind of effort to improve access to higher education that the United States undertook in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, said Patrick Callan, president of the research group.In the United States, by contrast, college costs keep rising; more students are dropping out of high school; and large gaps remain in the success rates of students of different races, incomes and states. "We're one of the few countries where our older population is better educated than the younger population," Callan said.The study gives a failing grade for college affordability to every state but California, which received a C because of the relatively low cost of its community colleges. Researchers said the percentage of an average family's income needed to pay for a public four-year college has risen from 20 to 28 percent, after financial aid. For community colleges, the burden has risen from nearly 20 percent to nearly 25 percent."That's a great deal of money for institutions that once served as a safety net for American higher education," said Joni Finney, the center's vice president.In the past decade, student borrowing has more than doubled, and as the economy worsens, the researchers warned, many states have predicted cuts in higher education funding.Since the early 1980s, college tuition and fees have jumped nearly 440 percent, far more than health-care, food, housing and transportation costs. The median family income rose less than 150 percent.Looking at various measures, including academic preparation in high school, high school graduation rates, college enrollment and cost, researchers concluded that although the United States has made modest gains in some areas, many other countries have been far more aggressive about increasing the proportion of students finishing two- and four-year schools.At nearly 40 percent, the United States is second only to Canada in the percentage of adults 35 to 64 with an associate's degree or higher, a result of efforts that include the G.I. Bill enacted after World War II. But the United States is 10th in the world in the percentage of adults 25 to 34 who have such degrees.The study does not include the District of Columbia. Maryland and Virginia score better, in general, than most other states, particularly in how well they prepare students for college. But both need to do "dramatically better" in the amount of need-based financial aid they provide, Callan said.Some schools, including the University of Virginia, have made dramatic efforts in recent years to help lower- and middle-income students. One of the top three reasons that students turned down U-Va. was cost, said Yvonne Hubbard, director of student financial services.Six years ago, Hubbard had a $9.5 million budget that was parceled out to students, based on need, until the money ran out. But for five years, U-Va. has guaranteed that students from poor families will not have to borrow to pay for school. It capped the amount that middle-income students have to borrow, with the school providing grants to cover the rest. This year, Hubbard had a $22 million budget, and U-Va. will spend about $62 million on financial aid overall.The Maryland university system used to have the sixth-highest public college tuition in the country. But tuition has been frozen for three years, and the state system has grown by 15,000 students in that time.Virginia and Maryland have made it much easier for students at community colleges to transfer into four-year state colleges.Private Businesses Shed 250,000 Jobs in NovemberFederal Report Finds Economic Activity Fell in Most Every Industry...Neil Irwin and Howard Schneiderhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120300993_pf.htmlBusiness conditions weakened across the United States and in almost every industry in recent weeks, according to a Federal Reserve report released today. And a pair of other reports indicated that private employers shed jobs at an accelerating rate and the nation's service sector contracted sharply in November.Together, the reports are strong evidence that the recession is deepening as winter approaches. Stocks were up moderately in early afternoon trading, with the Dow Jones industrial average up less than one percent, or 39 points.The Fed's "beige book," a compilation of anecdotal reports from businesses across the nation published roughly every six weeks, found that "overall economic activity weakened across all Federal Reserve districts since the last report."The report amounted to a catalogue of misery across almost all sectors of the economy. Consumer spending weakened almost across the board, especially for vehicles. Tourism activity was "relatively slow." Manufacturing "declined noticeably" since the Fed's last report. Services business "generally contracted in most districts."Part of the problem was that lenders have continued to restrict credit. "Credit standards rose across the nation," the beige book said, "with several districts noting increases in loan delinquencies and defaults, especially in the real estate sector."One bright spot is that price pressures have been dropping, especially for energy, food, and raw materials. The same is true of retail prices. "A number of district reports mentioned that retailers were widely discounting prices in anticipation of a slow holiday sales season," the document said.In its monthly employment report, payroll processors estimated that private businesses shed 250,000 jobs in November on a seasonally adjusted basis. It was the biggest drop in seven years and "offers evidence that the labor market continues to weaken," ADP said in its monthly payroll survey.Based on data from nearly 400,000 companies, the report showed employment declines across the board as large, medium and small companies all shed jobs, and employment contracted in all sectors of the economy.The ADP report sets the stage for the government's next monthly jobs report, due out Friday. Analysts expect that report to show another spike in unemployment and job losses that may approach 300,000.The numbers from the ADP report are "terrible," wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist with the High Frequency Economics consulting firm, in an analysis of the employment numbers.With payrolls deteriorating in both the manufacturing and service sectors "there is nowhere to hide," he said.A separate study by the Institute of Supply Management showed that economic activity in the service sector fell to the lowest level since its index for the sector was first reported more than a decade ago. The ISM surveys businesses for information on hiring, new orders and other data that are formed into an overall index. A reading greater than 50 indicates a sector is expanding. The reading for November was 37.3, compared to 44.4 in October.Even usually positive news -- a rise in worker productivity -- took on a dark hue. The value of hourly worker output increased by 1.3 percent from July through September, a larger increase than originally estimated, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But that upward revision came only because employers cut back workers hours, leaving fewer employees to produce goods and services.New York TimesCoal Mining Debris Rule Is Approved...Robert Pear and Felicity Barringer http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/washington/03mining.html?sq=epa&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=printWASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday approved a final rule that will make it easier for coal companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys.The rule is one of the most contentious of all the regulations emerging from the White House in President Bush’s last weeks in office.James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, confirmed in an interview that the rule had been approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget. That clears the way for publication in the Federal Register, the last stage in the rule-making process.Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, concurred in the rule, first proposed nearly five years ago by the Interior Department, which regulates coal mining.In a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, dated Tuesday, Mr. Johnson said the rule had been revised to protect fish, wildlife and streams. Mining activities must comply with water quality standards established by the federal government and the states, Mr. Johnson said.But a coalition of environmental groups said the rule would accelerate “the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.”Edward C. Hopkins, a policy analyst at the Sierra Club, said: “The E.P.A.’s own scientists have concluded that dumping mining waste into streams devastates downstream water quality. By signing off on this rule, the agency has abdicated its responsibility.”Mr. Bush has boasted of his efforts to cooperate with President-elect Barack Obama to ensure a smooth transition, but the administration is rushing to complete work on regulations to which Mr. Obama and his advisers object. The rules deal with air pollution, auto safety, abortion and workers’ exposure to toxic chemicals, among other issues.The National Mining Association, a trade group, welcomed the rule, saying it could end years of uncertainty that had put jobs and coal production in jeopardy. The coal industry could be the largest beneficiary of last-minute environmental rules.“This is unmistakably a fire sale of epic size for coal and the entire fossil fuel industry, with flagrant disregard for human health, the environment or the rule of law,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund.The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to finish work on a rule that would make it easier for utilities to put coal-fired generating stations near national parks. It is working on another rule that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment. Joan M. Mulhern, a lawyer at Earthjustice, an environmental group, denounced the mining regulation.“With less than two months left in power,” Ms. Mulhern said, “the Bush administration is determined to cement its legacy as having the worst environmental record in history.”At issue, she said, is a type of mining in which “coal companies blast the tops off mountains to reach the seams of coal and then push the rubble into the adjacent valleys, burying miles of streams.”Administration officials rejected the criticism.“This rule strengthens protections for streams,” said Peter L. Mali, a spokesman for the Interior Department office that wrote the regulation. “Federal law allows coal mine waste to be placed in streams, and the rule tightens restrictions as to when, where and how those discharges can occur.”The rule gives coal companies a legal right to do what, in the past, they could do only in exceptional circumstances, with special permission from the government.As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama expressed “serious concerns about the environmental implications” of mountaintop mining.“We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal than simply blowing the tops off mountains,” Mr. Obama told one environmental group. At the same time, he proposed a major federal investment in clean coal technology.Gov. Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky and Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, both Democrats, had urged the Bush administration not to approve the rule. Mr. Beshear said he feared that it would lead to an increase in pollution of “Kentucky’s beautiful natural resources.” Several members of Congress also opposed the rule, including Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky.In giving his blessing to the new regulation, Mr. Johnson, the head of the E.P.A., noted that Mr. Bush had promoted the use of clean coal technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil.“Americans should not have to choose between clean coal or effective environmental protection,” Mr. Johnson said. “We can achieve both.”But environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council see the mountaintop mining rule and pending changes in air pollution regulations as part of a final effort by the Bush administration to cater to the needs of energy industries.The proposal that would give more leeway to coal-burning power plants, to increase their emissions when they make repairs and renovations, was on the original wish list of the energy task force convened by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2001.In 2006, a federal appeals court struck down an effort by the Bush administration to loosen the rules on such coal-burning plants.CNN MoneyVerdict is in: Legal job market tightensEven the legal industry is not immune to the downturn, leaving recent graduates with hefty student loans and no jobs...Jessica Dicklerhttp://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/legal_industry/index.htm?postversion=2008120305NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employment opportunities for legal professionals have traditionally been plentiful - and lucrative. But as the economy has dried up, so too have those jobs. The employment market for new law graduates has remained relatively strong and stable since 1997. And last year was the sector's strongest showing in 20 years, with 92% of graduates finding jobs in their field, according to the National Association for Law Placement. But that's beginning to change. The legal industry lost 1,100 jobs in October, the eighth consecutive month of decline, according to the Labor Department's most recent data. Which means the 150,031 students who were in enrolled in law school last year face a job market that is contracting for the first time in recent history. "Law firms are caught up in the same reversionary concerns that everyone else is," explained John Challenger, chief executive of global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas."There's a lot of legal work generated by the economic growth engine and the financial industry," he added, and with both the economy and the financial industries stalled, the need for law firms shrinks."Large firms are cutting back because of a lack of merger-and-acquisition activity," added Michelle Pierce Stronczer of Pierce Stronczer Law in Cleveland.In the past several months, some of the nation's largest law firms, which also recruited and hired the most aggressively, have started laying off lawyers and staff members. This fall, San Francisco firm Heller Ehrman shut down all together, putting nearly 700 attorneys out of work.That means recent graduates not only face experienced competition for limited jobs, but also hefty student loan bills. "Recent grads are going to have a hard time," Pierce Stronczer said.Law school graduates get benchedAndrew Magdy, 27, is already under pressure. He graduated from Michigan State Law School last year and received an LLM in taxation from Washington University in June. He has been looking for a full-time job since the spring, but "there's not much out there right now," he said."Every day I send out resumes, both electronically and through the mail, and every day I receive responses that the law firms are not currently hiring," Magdy said. "Roughly 300 resumes have landed me one job interview."In addition to his living expenses, Magdy has about $150,000 in student loans and the first payments are due in the middle of this month.With $166,000 in loans and no legal job in sight, Rob Cox, 33, is beginning to question his decision to go to law school. He has expanded his job search to include other industries, but he sometimes finds his schooling works against him."My resume, which consists mostly of schooling and volunteer positions I held during school, is less than appealing to the type of companies I'm aiming for," he said.There is concern among law students that getting a job after graduation may be more difficult this year, said Kim Fields, director of career services at Wake Forest University School of Law."I do think the jobs are out there, you just have to look harder for them. You have to dig," she said. While hiring is slowing in certain areas, including real estate and M&A, there are other opportunities for lawyers that are flourishing in the current climate, Pierce Stronczer said, specifically, "litigation, intellectual property, white-collar crime and bankruptcy, of course."How long will the recession last?Longer than past downturns, and Wall Street's meltdown will slow the recovery...Anthony Karydakis, contributor...former chief U.S. economist for J.P. Morgan Asset Management and currently an adjunct professor at New York University's Stern School of Businesshttp://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/karydakis.recession.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008120312NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Well, now it's official: we're in a recession. And we know when it began: December 2007, according to the official arbiter of business cycles, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which made the announcement Monday. So now the question is: when will it end, and how deep will it get?There are good reasons to be worried about both of these measurements, as the headwinds facing the economy are powerful indeed. But it's best to resist the temptation to give in to predictions of unconditional gloom and take a cool-headed look at how this recession compares so far to the many other downturns we've survived.On the likely depth of the recession, it has been often said that this may be the most severe recession "in decades." This statement is almost certainly true but not particularly informative, as the two most recent recessions, in 1990-91 and 2001, turned out to be famously mild and short-lived by historical standards. So the real question remains: "the deepest recession" in exactly how many decades?The most intuitive, and legitimate, reference is the 1981-82 recession, which lasted a longer-than-average 16 months and led to a peak of 10.8% in the unemployment rate - by all standards, a pretty serious affair. Still, it would take an extraordinary amount of additional severe damage to today's economy over a fairly long period to drive the unemployment rate from its current 6.5% to double-digit territory. It is also important to remember that the 1981-82 recession was almost deliberately caused by sky-high interest rates, in the titanic fight of Fed chairman Paul Volcker to drive inflation out of the system. In contrast, the Fed's response now has been to pull out all the stops in the other direction, including the precipitous lowering of short-term interest rates and a barrage of other actions. A somewhat more plausible comparison to the current downturn is the 1973-75 recession, commonly attributed to the surge in oil prices at the time. That one lasted a longer-than-average 16 months and led to a 9% peak in the unemployment rate.Direct comparisons to the Great Depression have become more common in recent weeks, given the collapse of the stock market and consumer spending. But those comparisons overlook many key facts. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate surged to 25% and GDP contracted by 28% between 1930 and 1932, an unthinkable prospect in today's environment, thanks to a long list of underlying differences between then and now. For example, the banking system collapsed in its entirety during the Great Depression and the absence of bank deposit insurance at the time caused catastrophic erosion to household wealth and consumption. Today, FDIC insurance (and its recently elevated limit to $250,000) provides a significant cushion; the response of economic policymakers is immeasurably faster and more aggressive now; and the coordinated actions among the major economies today to address the root causes of the current episode are both impressive and totally unprecedented.How long will this one last? The prevailing view: probably through the middle of 2009. Two points to highlight here:First, such a prediction is not based on any particularly refined insight that economic forecasters have into the current recessionary dynamic. After all, economic forecasting has a well-deserved reputation for being a notoriously imperfect art (most definitely not a science).The predictions about this recession lasting through mid 2009 are mostly based on the following simple calculation: Until the NBER's announcement on Monday, the prevailing view was that the recession probably started at some point last summer and it was likely to be about average in length, by historical standards. Given that the average length of the ten recessions since World War II has been 10.4 months, with a range of 6 months in the 1980 recession to 16 months in the 1981-82 one, the natural "placeholder" time frame for the end of this recession would appear to be the middle of 2009.However, the fact that the recession is now already 12 months old, and clearly not approaching its trough yet, raises the distinct prospect that it will exceed the length of the 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions (both at 16 months), making it the longest since the Great Depression (43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933). The crowd fond of making comparisons to the Great Depression will be quick to declare some kind of victory on this one.Second, the prediction that this recession may end around the middle of 2009 is not unreasonable, but even if accurate it disguises the critical question: What kind of a recovery is likely to follow? The answer is: probably a gradual one, unlike the more typical (but not universal) pattern of the economy coming out of most past recessions roaring ahead, propelled by pent-up consumer demand.The healing process of a deeply wounded banking system, that has already led to nearly $1 trillion of write-downs, will act as a weight around the neck of any economic recovery in the latter part of 2009. Banks will likely continue the slow process of recapitalization and cleaning up the mountains of toxic assets on their balance sheets for a period longer than just the next few quarters. That task will become even more challenging in the months ahead, as the recession itself will tend to generate an additional amount of toxic assets in their portfolios, impairing their ability to resume a more normal pace of lending. So, even though the economy may technically emerge from the recession in the second half of 2009, the recovery may initially become more of an issue of semantics rather than a robust turnaround in economic activity.To be sure, this is a major recession and its downside risks in the midst of a highly volatile financial market environment shouldn't be underestimated. There are reasons, though, to believe that its severity and length will ultimately be contained by an unprecedented array of economic policy measures, some already in place, others in the pipeline. Despite a series of false starts with some of those measures by the Treasury, the Fed's seemingly limitless reserve of innovative actions and the incoming administration's commitment to put in place a particularly aggressive fiscal stimulus package should gradually gain some traction that will help stabilize the economy within the next three quarters or so.