12-2-08

 12-2-08Merced Sun-StarMerced County farmers object to sale of waterDozens crowd Merced Irrigation District advisory meeting to protest proposed plan...JONAH OWEN LAMBhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/574258.htmlPut more than 40 farmers into a small room and ask them if local water should be sold for any reason outside the area and they will give you one answer -- no. But the two proposals before Merced Irrigation District's Advisory Committee board and a large group of farmers on Monday night left them with two options. They didn't like either. Both involved selling water. The committee's choices both entailed sending water out of Merced in order to raise revenue. Either sells 10,000 acre-feet to farmers outside the irrigation district, in the neighborhood or farther afield. MID's problem has nothing to do with savings. Currently it has a nest egg of about $15 million. What MID needs is more earnings to prove that it can repay its bond obligations by creating a higher revenue stream. That means it needs to sell some of its water or raise its rates. "The issue at hand is to increase revenue," said Dan Royer, a local farmer at the meeting. Ultimately the committee voted 10-1 to send the proposals on revenue in the budget back to MID's board for changes.Scott Hunter, a MIDAC committee member and almond farmer from Livingston, said that the committee made its decision because the budget had too few options on how to fill the revenue gap. "I don't think it's this committee's responsibility or mission to tell the board what kind of motions to make," he said on why his committee didn't come up with its own ideas.The issue was further complicated by what is expected to be the third year in a row with below-average rainfalls. Lake McClure is currently at 57 percent its average capacity, and local rainfall is at 40 percent of average for this time of year. The state's water problems are no better.In June, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared nine counties in the Central Valley, including Merced, disaster zones because of drought.Now, for the first time since the early '90s, the state has set up a drought water bank and has begun sending letters to local water agencies asking if they want to sell water. If it comes down to it, the state could force MID to give up its water if the drought gets worse, said Dan Pope, MID's general manager. The high turnout for the meeting will hopefully send a message to MID's board to listen to what local farmers are saying, said Dug Wells, who grows almonds in Livingston. "It'd be nice if they listen." Suzy Hultgren, one of two board members at the meeting, said that this much input from farmers has not been the norm. "This was a great opportunity to hear from the growers," she said.Whether MID's board will hear the message at its Dec. 16 meeting remains to be seen.Fresno BeeEco groups ask judge to stop delta water flows...last updated: December 01, 2008 06:05:44 PMhttp://www.modbee.com/state_wire/v-print/story/518323.htmlFRESNO, Calif. -- ] Environmentalists and sportfishermen asked a judge Monday to stop all water flows to farms and Southern California to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.The lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court claims the state is violating the public trust and the California constitution by allowing water from the delta to irrigate salty, contaminated croplands.The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and California Water Impact Network also allege pumping plants are endangering native fish populations. They asked the court to force state and federal water managers to turn their pumps off.Stopping water deliveries could have disastrous economic consequences, said Ted Thomas, a spokesman for the Department of Water Resources.Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for the State Water Contractors, which represents 29 water agencies, added that the lawsuit disregards long-term collaborations between environmental groups, state and federal fishery agencies, and other local organizations to restore the delta.Officials with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Stockton RecordLawsuit targets exportsHalt Delta water shipments, environmentalists contend...Alex Breitlerhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081202/A_NEWS/812020324/-1/A_NEWS14SACRAMENTO - Water exports from the Delta should cease until government agencies comply with the law, environmentalists said Monday in a far-reaching lawsuit.State and federal water managers have increased exports to farms and cities south of the Delta even as fish populations plummet, says the lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. Northern California reservoirs have been "cannibalized" for the sake of Southern California, and irrigation of drainage-impaired lands in the western San Joaquin Valley is a waste of water, the groups say.The federal Bureau of Reclamation and state Department of Water Resources, both of which export Delta water, are targets of the lawsuit. So is the State Water Resources Control Board, which is charged with regulating water rights and ensuring water quality in California. The board has failed to provide important oversight, environmentalists say."It's clear that if the Delta, this estuary and its fisheries are to be saved, it will be under a court's jurisdiction," said Stockton-based Bill Jennings, whose California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is among several plaintiffs. "This may be the last, best chance for California fisheries."A federal court has already restricted exports from the Delta to protect threatened smelt, and the state is enduring its second year of drought. That double-whammy has triggered water rationing from portions of the Bay Area to San Diego.Ted Thomas, a spokesman for Water Resources, said the department was "disappointed once again that everyone focuses only on the pumps," just one factor in the decline of fish. Shutting down the pumps would be Draconian, Thomas said.While the Delta is already a magnet for litigation, Jennings called Monday's lawsuit the "big banana." It makes a wide range of assertions:» The export pumps near Tracy are the primary cause of the decline of fish, including smelt and salmon.» The continued delivery of water to tainted farmland in the west Valley is in violation of the state constitution, which requires water be used reasonably.» So much water has been taken from Northern California reservoirs, including New Melones Lake east of Stockton, that little cold water is left for fish below the dams.» A plan requiring the doubling of chinook salmon has failed, with no consequences.» Water quality flows on the San Joaquin River at Vernalis have not been met nor enforced.Environmentalists asked the state water board for a formal hearing on the Delta earlier this year. The board declined, saying that a new strategic plan should in the next five years address water quality and water rights issues."These fisheries may not last another five years," Jennings said.Water board spokesman Bill Rukeyser said he understands the worries of the environmental groups.But we are concerned that a hasty 'solution' could have unintended consequences," he said.Shutting down the pumps would not be unprecedented. Jennings' group filed suit two years ago claiming the state never got a permit to accidentally kill fish at the pumps. An Alameda County Superior Court judge agreed and ordered exports to cease. The order was stayed pending appeal.Later, in June 2007, the state temporarily shut down its pumps to protect smelt after large numbers were killed at the facility.San Francisco ChronicleGroup wants chemical-filled farmland retired...Kelly Zitohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/02/BAOH14FHR2.DTL&type=printableThe giant state and federal pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that funnel water to 25 million Californians should be shut down until certain Central Valley farmers retire hundreds of thousands of acres of chemical-laden farmland, according to a lawsuit filed today by a state water watchdog.Irrigating agricultural land in the western San Joaquin Valley tainted with selenium, mercury, boron and other toxic substances constitutes an unreasonable use of a public resource protected by state laws and has contributed to the sharp decline of endangered fish species, said the California Water Impact Network."We think there is a simple solution to California's water problems - to retire all of the drainage-impaired lands in the Central Valley. A second is water conservation - agriculture uses 80 percent of the developed surface water," said Carolee Krieger, president and founder C-WIN.The lawsuit marks the latest twist in the continuing Delta drama. The hub of the state's 1,300-square-mile water system is also at the heart of the fight between uses for food and human needs, and those of wildlife and rare plants. In recent years, failure of the ecosystem forced legal rulings that curbed water exports - a move made more complicated this year by a drought and fears of another dry winter. In the 27-page lawsuit filed in superior court in Sacramento , C-Win, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and an individual, Felix Smith, lays much of the blame for the system's problem on water over-allocation. One culprit, the lawsuit said, is the State Water Resources Control Board, which issues all water permits in the state. Also named were the state Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the two operators of the huge pumps and pipelines that send water, mainly from the north, to water users throughout California.Although turning off the pumps would impact residential, industrial and agricultural users, plaintiffs in the case, as well as environmental and other groups contend that recent, increased pumping by the state and federal agencies through the Delta has killed millions of protected and endangered fish species, including the Delta smelt. Much of the water has gone to watering cropland laden with chemicals that filter into the San Joaquin River and back to the southern Delta.Poor regulation decried"California has regulated its waters like the feds have regulated Wall Street and the result has been a collapse of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems," said California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Chairman and Director Bill Jennings. "We have little alternative but to turn to the courts to prevent the extinction of our historic fisheries."Officials at the state Department of Water Resources, the Water Control Resources Board and the Bureau of Reclamation could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for the largest irrigation district in the country, located around Fresno, called the lawsuit "disappointing." To date, about 100,000 agricultural acres have been taken out of production due to poor drainage and chemical saturation, said Sarah Woolf, of the Westlands Water District, which serves 600,000 acres and about 700 farms.Working with stateAt the same time, the agency has been working with state and federal legislators over the past 25 years to craft a deal that would fix the drainage problems with funds from the water district and landowners. Westlands estimates there are about 100,000 more acres of contaminated acres with poor drainage; Krieger put the number at closer to 1 million acres."We're moving forward and being aggressive about it," Woolf said. "But really it's the environmental community that's holding it up."Last year, in an effort to curb the fish population decline, a federal judge ordered reduced Delta pumping - a move that critics like Westlands claim has not helped boost the smelt or other fish species."In the last year we had the biggest cutbacks in pumping in the history of the entire system," Woolf said. "Six hundred acre feet were dedicated to helping fish, and the numbers of the Delta smelt are still down."But Krieger, of C-WIN, said the rapid die-off of the Delta smelt adds more urgency to fixing the ecosystem. "You can't interrupt the food chain without having dire consequences," she said. "It's not just a little fish. It's the bellwether of the Delta." Court urged to side with power plants against fish...DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/02/national/w001644S29.DTL&type=printableWASHINGTON, (AP) -- The 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 allow the government to 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.Richard Lazarus, an attorney representing environmental groups, told the court that the "EPA has no authority in any circumstance to decide that fish aren't worth a certain amount of cost."The outcome could determine whether existing power plants need to make costly upgrades to reduce the number of fish and aquatic organisms trapped in their cooling systems.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.Contra Costa TimesActivists sue to shut down Delta pumps...Mike Taugherhttp://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11115464?nclick_check=1Reaching back to the laws of ancient Rome, environmentalists sued Monday to cut off Delta water operations and dramatically shake up the long-term balance between economic and environmental needs in the region.If it succeeds, the lawsuit would shift the focus from the worsening conflict between individual species of fish and the amount of water pumped out of the Delta to a comprehensive attempt to balance competing interests."The only things that are already protected are already endangered," said Michael Jackson, a lawyer for the environmental groups. "But what's happening is the whole bottom is falling out of the ecosystem. You cannot list everything (as an endangered species) and you can't protect species by species."By invoking the public trust doctrine, a legal concept that dates to the Roman Empire, the environmental groups seek to force regulators to consider the environment, recreation, aesthetics and other values to be passed to future generations in the Delta much more rigorously.The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network and retired federal biologist Felix Smith, seeks to stop water deliveries from the Delta until the massive state and federal pumping stations near Tracy come into compliance with laws that the environmentalists say are being broken. A spokesman for the state Department of Water Resources said the lawsuit could lead to "draconian" cuts in the East Bay and South Bay and threatens what little stability is left in the state's water supply outlook. "It used to be that drought was determined by hydrology. Now, it is determined by hydrology and by regulatory and judicial constraints," said water resources department spokesman Ted Thomas. "This condition could toss us into the worst drought in California history very easily."Water users have opposed application of the public trust doctrine in the Delta, and in October the State Water Resources Control Board rejected a petition from the environmental groups saying they planned to take actions over the next five years that would largely address the issue."We just don't think it (the Delta ecosystem) will last that long," Jackson said. "They don't want to do it and so we're going to try to force them."In addition to the public trust doctrine, the lawsuit invokes clean water law, constitutional prohibitions against "unreasonable" uses of water and a law that requires dams be operated in a way that conserves fish.It singles out the Westlands Water District as an unreasonable water user because one-quarter of the sprawling, 600,000-acre-district is on poorly drained soil that, when irrigated, can increase pollution into waterways that lead back to the Delta.Westlands deputy general manager Jason Peltier accused environmentalists of unfairly focusing on Delta pumps as the culprit while ignoring invasive species, upstream pollution and other problems that might be driving the apparent collapse of the Delta ecosystem."Their fixation on the water projects over the last 20 years is probably one of the biggest reasons for the fisheries' decline," Peltier said. The lawsuit is the latest variable to be thrown into a mix that appears to be making 2009 a pivotal year for decisions in the Delta.Since 2000, water deliveries from the Delta have accelerated and fish populations have declined dramatically, though researchers say it remains unclear how much of the problem is because of Delta water pumping.But the widespread decline has led some biologists to fear one fish, Delta smelt, is near extinction while the collapse of the fall-run chinook salmon population led to an unprecedented closure of the ocean salmon fishing season this year. There is precedent for use of the public trust doctrine in California water conflicts: In 1983, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Water Resources Control Board had the authority and the duty to apply public trust values to Mono Lake, which has since been restored and widely hailed as an environmental success story.Federal government hires firm to remove toxic paint from ships docked in Suisun Bay...Thomas Peelehttp://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11113869The U.S. Maritime Administration announced Monday that it has hired a Concord company to clean up toxic paint falling into Suisun Bay from dozens of obsolete ships anchored there.The Certified Coatings Company will remove exfoliating paint from the ships under a five-year contract that could be worth as much as $3.5 million.U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton said Monday that the ships would be "put in a big bubble" and the paint removed in a way to keep it out of the water. The company has experience working safely in marine environments, he said.Work could "start almost immediately" if state permits are quickly acquired, he said.The announcement comes nearly 18 months after the Times reported that administration documents showed more than 21 tons of paint containing lead, zinc, barium, copper and other toxic metals had fallen or washed away from 40 ships that were examined.There are at least 57 decaying, obsolete ships in the fleet east of the Benicia Bridge. Some date to World War II. The anchorage also contains mothballed Naval vessels, such as the battleship USS Iowa and others.Documents prepared in early 2007 contain estimates that 65 tons of additional paint remained on the vessels and endangered local waters. Much of it is peeling from decaying hulls and external portions of superstructures. The ships also contain hundreds of tons of fuel oil and large amounts of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and other toxins. State clean-water regulators, environmentalists and Bay Area members of Congress demanded action after the reports were made public. Connaughton visited the fleet on June 29, 2007, and vowed reforms.Connaughton said the contract is the "end result of the year of work" that included environmental reviews of the Suisun fleets and similar anchorages in Texas and Virginia. Other issues remain before ships can be removed from the fleet.Several environmental groups — Arc Ecology of San Francisco, The Natural Resources Defense Council and San Francisco Baykeeper — have sued in federal court in Sacramento to force a faster cleanup. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board joined the suit last month."The ships have been poorly maintained and are in a highly deteriorated condition, with large amounts of paint, rust, hull fragments and other pollutants flaking "... into Suisun Bay on a daily basis," state lawyers wrote in a court filing in the case dated Nov. 14.Connaughton said the exterior hull cleaning could remove one of the issues in the litigation.Work is continuing on another issue: how to safely clean the underwater sections of the ships so they can be towed to Texas scrapping yards for disposal. "There is no agreement on the removal of ships," he said. Monterey HeraldEditorial: CSU raises come from bare cupboardhttp://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_11118436?nclick_check=1The budgetary debate in Sacramento centers on two options—deep cuts or new taxes. But some who make the decisions on state salaries and hiring apparently haven't seen the memos or read the papers. More than 200 legislative staffers received raises over the past year even as the state was sliding deeper into a financial hole. And just as the depth of the hole was becoming fully understood, officials of the California State University system in recent weeks have handed out raises weightier than necessary. For instance, Chancellor Charles Reed approved salary increases of up to 19 percent for nine vice presidents at four of the system's campuses, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week. He also approved 11 appointments of campus vice presidents at salaries reaching $225,000. We are acutely aware of the arguments that good people deserve good wages, and that California universities need to compete for staff, and that the state budget, especially one this out of whack, cannot be balanced on the backs of the employees. California's 11-figure deficit won't be eliminated by nickel-and-diming state employees. But, at the same time, legislative leaders cannot expect rank-and-file state employees to accept pay freezes or 1 percent raises when they see legislative staffers receiving bumps in the 5 percent range. Legislative leaders cannot expect taxpayers to pay higher taxes when they hear that Reed filled a long-vacant position in his office by hiring someone at $240,000. The raises have not been outlandish, but they come at a time when university presidents across the country are giving up increases or even rolling back their salaries. They come a time when proposed budget cuts could drive more than 250,000 students away from California community colleges next year and enrollment at several of the four-year schools is being capped for the first time. Sunday was the application deadline for many students applying to CSU schools and the University of California system, which, you guessed it, is also contemplating an end to its tradition of finding space for all qualified freshmen. The 23 schools in Reed's system have been instructed to trim budgets by 7 percent. Part-time instructors are being moved out and an across-the-board wage freeze is likely. A freeze would be "good for the optics," meaning appearances, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi said last week, demonstrating that he gets it but only sort of. Appearances are important, said Garamendi, who sits on the CSU system's board of trustees, because "unless we get the public's support, we won't get the funding we need." Garamendi is right but it will take more than symbolic gestures and appearances to regain public confidence. California's budget deficit has grown so large and the state's political leaders have shown themselves so ineffective at addressing it that most Californians are barely paying attention to anything going on in Sacramento. Expectations have been lowered, but the expectation remains that officialdom not do anything to make the situation worse. Unnecessary raises and injudicious raises are steps in the wrong direction. Los Angeles TimesRegulate global warming now, urge attorneys general...Margot Roosevelthttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/12/obama-global-wa.htmlOn the eve of an Obama administration, pressure is mounting to use the 1990 Clean Air Act to crack down on global warming emissions. The law already covers ozone, nitrogen oxides, particulates and other health-damaging substances. But the Bush administration says it is "ill-suited" for controlling carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and 13 other attorneys general on Monday called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use the 1990 act. "It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems...and it has done so without harming the economy," they wrote in a letter to the agency.Using the Clean Air Act would likely be the fastest way for the United States to crack down on its global warming emissions. Barring that, it will be up to Congress to pass a new law to regulate climate-related pollution -- an effort that will entail a lengthy political wrestling match. Last spring, the U.S. Senate failed to pass a bill, as industry lobbyists outfoxed environmentalists."After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming," said Brown, a likely gubernatorial candidate who has made global warming one of his signature issues.The California Air Resources Board, which also signed the letter, is expected to adopt its own comprehensive plan next week for slashing the state's planet-warming emissions -- the first state to do so. If the EPA were to regulate global warming under the Clean Air Act, then California could apply for a waiver that would allow it and other states to adopt even stricter rules than the federal government might pass -- an effort sure to rouse vigorous opposition from coal, cement and other heavily-polluting industries.James L. Jones' energy views worry some environmentalistsJames L. Jones is Obama's new national security advisor. But he leads an institute that has challenged global warming...Tom Hamburgerhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-jones2-2008dec02,0,7585130,print.storyReporting from Washington — When President-elect Barack Obama introduced James L. Jones Jr. as his national security advisor Monday, he emphasized the retired Marine general's understanding of "the connection between energy and national security."Obama sees that as a plus, but some environmental groups and global warming activists view Jones' environmental record with suspicion.Jones will not be responsible for environmental policy, but he has said energy is a vital national security issue. It affects domestic economic stability and international geopolitical relationships, particularly in the oil-rich Middle East.Jones sits on the board of Chevron Corp., and since March 2007 has been president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, which has been criticized by environmental groups."They have a reprehensible record," said Frank O'Donnell, the outspoken leader of Clean Air Watch, of the institute led by Jones.The institute calls for the immediate expansion of domestic oil and gas production, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology, in addition to investment in renewable and alternative energy sources.O'Donnell criticized institute reports under Jones that challenged the use of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming and the right of states, such as California, to impose environmental standards that go beyond those set by the federal government."Since global warming is a security threat, this selection raises a real eyebrow," O'Donnell said in an e-mail. "Will Jones be predisposed to compromise the new administration's environmental agenda, both at home and in the international arena? . . . Stay tuned."O'Donnell said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had "the worst track record" of any business advocacy group when it came to global warming.Chamber officials dismissed concerns that they represented extreme pro-industry views on climate change."If you look at our reports, one thing you will see is balance," said David Chavern, the chamber's chief operating officer. "The general is a balanced, rational guy. That will serve him well as national security advisor."The nonprofit institute is an arm of the chamber, the country's leading business lobby. Chamber officials declined to reveal the budget or who finances the institute.Today, an institute executive will hold a chamber-sponsored discussion about global warming featuring Lawrence Solomon, the author of a book questioning whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.The book, "The Deniers," will be the subject of a teleconference, which will include a scientist from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change taking the opposite view. The discussion will be moderated by Stephen Eule, who works with Jones at the institute.Many environmental advocates contacted Monday were reluctant to discuss Obama's selection of Jones. Previously, environmental scientists from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations have knocked the chamber and the institute. The chamber opposed global warming legislation backed by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.).Daniel Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said Monday that in its official statements "the institute failed to make a clear call for action on global warming." But he said Obama had "made such a call, so I am not concerned that Obama is going to change his position on that."In a "transition plan for securing America's energy future" prepared for Obama, the institute called for laws that would promote nuclear power, encourage drilling on federal land and offshore areas under a moratorium. The report also called for Congress to make clear that the Clean Air Act would not be used to regulate greenhouse gases, and to make sure that federal rules preempted state regulations, a long-standing position among business organizations.Those two points were of some concern to California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who coincidentally urged the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to use the Clean Air Act to take action against global warming."After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change," Brown said in a letter to the EPA.In an interview, Brown said the appointment of a chief executive of an organization that opposed his viewpoints was not terribly concerning."You want to have talent and wisdom among your advisors, and [Jones] is bringing some key qualities" to the Obama administration, he said. Still, "the federal government has been a laggard for decades, and the last thing we want to do is destroy the innovative contributions of states like California. The labs of the state innovate often in the face of congressional paralysis."In a speech last fall introducing an institute report, Jones acknowledged the conflicts that emerged when energy policies were set."Energy is a vital national security issue," he said in remarks posted on the institute's website. "Every industry, think tank and advocacy group has its interest, but everyone is going to have to step back and look at the bigger picture. The institute believes that an affordable, diverse and secure energy supply is fundamental to our security and to the expansion of economic opportunity and prosperity. We are equally convinced that this energy can be secured while making further progress in the fight for environmental quality and significant contributions to the management of climate change."Asked about the concerns expressed by environmental advocates, an Obama spokesman referred to the president-elect's statements at the Monday news conference introducing Jones and other members of the national security team."I assembled this team because I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions," Obama said. "I think that's how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in group think, and everybody agrees with everything and there's no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I'm going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House. But understand, I will be setting policy as president."New tack in old battle over California delta pumping...Bettina Boxall, Greenspace http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/12/new-tack-in-old.htmlAdd another lawsuit to the the seemingly endless legal battle over pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, the troubled heart of California's water system.In a complaint filed Monday in Sacramento County Superior court, two small but dogged environmental groups are taking aim not just at the pumping, but at agribusiness that uses water from the delta on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley.The suit argues that irrigation of several hundred thousand acres of west-side land should cease because it violates the state's constitutional mandate that water be used in a beneficial manner. The land has a high water table and drains poorly, promoting the buildup of toxic elements such as selenium and boron that contaminate farm runoff and make their way into the San Joaquin River and eventually the delta.The complaint, filed against state and federal agencies by the California Water Impact Network and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, also seeks to curb delta pumping to protect dwindling populations of several species of fish that swim in the delta.Pumping has already been cut as a result of rulings filed in another environmental case dealing with the tiny delta smelt, which is found only in the delta and is nearing extinction.Southern California water agencies say the cutbacks, coupled with a parched spring this year, may soon force them to ration water deliveries.Washington PostEPA to Curb Medical EmissionsRule Would Sharply Cut Air Pollution From Incinerators...Juliet Eilperinhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102577_pf.htmlThe Environmental Protection Agency moved yesterday to curb pollution released by medical waste incinerators, ending an 11-year battle over how to best regulate the emissions.Environmentalists hailed the move as an important precedent for controlling toxic releases into the air, saying EPA based its calculations on the availability of technologies to significantly clean up incinerator pollution. The facilities can install fabric filters to trap toxic particles or scrubbers to capture gaseous releases."This is the first time I've ever seen them do an air toxic rule right," said Jim Pew, a lawyer at Earthjustice, a Calif.-based environmental advocacy group that sued the agency over its initial proposal for regulating the incinerators more than a decade ago. "It's a big cut in emissions."EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said no one from the agency was available to comment on the rule, which was technically promulgated Nov. 14 but published in the Federal Register yesterday. It is subject to public comment for 75 days before being finalized.Medical incinerators account for a fraction of the country's air pollution, but the toxic emissions from some of the facilities can have a significant local effect on public health. The Curtis Bay Energy incinerator -- which serves the Baltimore area and the mid-Atlantic region -- is one of the nation's major such facilities and would not be in compliance with the new standards. The company could not be reached for comment yesterday.When EPA first issued standards, in 1997, for medical incinerators -- which burn biological waste, needles, plastic gloves and batteries, among other items -- it estimated that there were 2,400 incinerators nationwide burning about 830,000 tons of medical waste per year. Most hospitals that were burning their own waste at the time decided to ship the waste to larger incinerators. Now, EPA estimates that 57 medical incinerators remain, burning 146,000 tons annually.EPA estimates that the proposed rule would cut the amount of air pollution from medical incinerators by 468,000 pounds to 1,520,000 pounds per year, though it did not provide an estimate of current emissions. Mercury emissions, which cause neurological damage in children, would drop by 637 to 682 pounds annually, and cancer-causing dioxin emissions would drop by about 40 grams.According to an agency fact sheet, "The proposed emission limits would require improvements in performance for all of the 57 currently operating" medical incinerators. It will cost these facilities $21.1 million a year to comply with the new standards, though they could use alternative disposal methods to meet the rules at half the cost, the agency said.The rules represent a significant change from the EPA's 1997 proposal, which Earthjustice successfully challenged in court on behalf of the Sierra Club. In almost every instance, the agency has reduced the amount of allowable pollutants by at least a factor of 10: Acceptable hydrogen chloride levels will drop from 15 parts per million in the atmosphere to 0.75 per million."This is really remarkable," Pew said.CNN MoneyHome sellers suffer amid wave of foreclosuresOrdinary home sellers have a hard time competing against the cut-rate bank owned properties that are currently dominating the market...Les Christiehttp://money.cnn.com/2008/12/02/real_estate/REOs_tough_on_sellers/index.htm?postversion=2008120203NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Selling a home in this market is hard enough. Competing in a neighborhood flooded with foreclosed homes that are heavily discounted is nearly impossible.There are nearly a million repossessed homes on the market right now. And these homes, dubbed in the industry as REO (real estate owned) properties, are being marketed by the most motivated of all sellers - that is, the lenders stuck holding the bag when homeowners default.On average, foreclosed homes are priced almost 40% lower than normal real estate listings, according to data supplied by Trulia.com, the real estate Web site."Distressed sales [like foreclosures and short sales] put pressure on the whole market," said Robert Kleinhenz, an economist with the California Association of Realtors.The lenders selling foreclosed homes have already taken a financial bath, in missed mortgage payments and administrative costs. And every month that an REO home sits empty means another month that the lender has to pay to cover property taxes, insurance and maintenance. What's more, as home prices continue to fall throughout the country, these homes are rapidly depreciating as they sit on the market. With foreclosures priced so low, there is just only so much an ordinary seller can charge for a comparable house. Consider these figures: In California, the median price for an REO listing was $259,000 during the week of November 10, 23% lower than the non-REOs on the market according to Trulia.com.In Nevada, REOs list for 16% less than non-REOs; in Florida they go for 22% less and in Arizona, for 25% less. The disparity is even greater in Midwestern states hard hit by economic woes. In Michigan, REOs list for 26% less, in Indiana, 48% less and in Ohio, 57% less.As a result, many sellers are holding off. And those that have to relocate are taking a beating.A losing battleRoy Uhl, an agent with Shear Realty in Phelan, Calif. recently had a client who had to sell in order to take a job on the East coast. The sale took more than a year and several price cuts.Uhl originally wanted to list the property at $320,000 but the client had gotten the home appraised for much more - $360,000 - and wanted to hold out for something near that.But foreclosures mounted in the community about 75 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The house sold last August for just $230,000."The foreclosure crisis probably cost that seller $50,000, $70,000, easy," said Uhl.In some areas virtually all sales are REOs. Four out of every five listings in Stockton, Calif. for instance are foreclosures."The traditional market is on hold," said Brian Mikelbank, a Cleveland State University associate professor of urban studies. "Sellers are simply not selling," he said.Having a large number of REO properties for sale in a community hurts regional prices in three different ways, according to Dan Immergluck, a Georgia Tech professor who has testified before Congress on the impact of foreclosures on home prices.First, a jump in REOs is a supply-side shock; markets have trouble handling such a sharp increase in inventory. Plus, vacant foreclosures often fall into disrepair, blighting neighborhoods and attracting crime. Finally, although appraisers generally try to disregard REOs when searching for comparable home listings, they just can't do that when foreclosures account for 40% or 50% of the market. "A lot of people would love to buy now because home prices have come down," said J.L Jennings, owner of Pyramid Real Estate in Oakland, Calif. "But they can't compete when they sell their old homes against REOs."Homeowners in hard-hit areas that have to sell right now are advised to price their properties as aggressively as the lenders that they are competing with, according to Mark Fleming, chief economist for First American CoreLogic. And prices are still coming down fast. A median-priced house in Stockton, for example, saw its value decline by 44% in the 12 months ending September 30, according to the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500). For desperate sellers, that means keeping up with highly-motivated banks and steeply-falling prices - no matter how much it hurts.