12-7-08

 12-7-08Modesto BeeUC workers paid $682,431 to leave, then rehired...last updated: December 06, 2008 03:18:12 PMhttp://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/524406.htmlSACRAMENTO — More than half a dozen employees at the University of California each received thousands of dollars in severance payouts even though they landed new jobs within the system.The Sacramento Bee reported in its Saturday edition that 16 employees at the UC President's Office collected a total of $682,431 from buyouts. They then returned after landing positions at various campuses.Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, says taking a severance package from one arm of the university and getting rehired is abuse of the system.UC President Mark Yudof issued a statement saying he's concern about the buyouts, but hasn't asked for employees to pay that money back. Yudof says only 16 of 155 employees who accepted buyouts landed new UC jobs.CommentsCrooks...Posted by: guitarrman 2008-12-07 10:38:52We have crooks teaching our youth. And teaching them that its OK. Wonder why tuition is going up? Just wait till these future CEOs learn how its done by the staff and apply their dark knowledge to the 401ks of innocent hard working people. Only this time, they will know how to get away with it. They should fire everyone from the president on down who new about this.Paid to leave, then rehired...Andrew McIntosh...Sacramento Bee...12-6-08http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/1453208.htmlUniversity of California employees Ingrid H. Schmidt and Karl Michael Engelbach may well remember 2008 as the year they received sweet severance packages, without really being severed.In January,each applied for and received five-figure severance packages to voluntarily leave jobs in the UC President's Office.A day after leaving those positions in Oakland, they started new jobs at UC Davis. Schmidt kept $46,100 in severance from her old UC job, and got a 13 percent raise at her new post. Engelbach received an $18,827 payout before UC Davis hired him.Engelbach and Schmidt are among 16 employees paid a total of $682,431to leave jobs in the UC President's Office who then secured jobs at UC campuses in Merced, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, university documents show.Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said taking a severance package from one UC arm and getting rehired by another is wrong. "It's abusing the system.""The UC, when they found out about it months ago, should have cracked down faster, harder," Stern said.On Valentine's Day, Schmidt left her $92,200-a-year job as a facilities coordinator for the UC president.The next day, she became real estate services director at UC Davis. Her newsalary: $105,000.Schmidt didn't return calls seeking comment.On Feb. 29, Engelbach, 42, left his UC job in state government relations. On March 1, he started as director of federal government relations at UC Davis. His $105,000 salary is down from the $112,962 he was paid inOakland.Engelbach, a UC Davis graduate with a master's degree in business administration, said he had no qualms about accepting the $18,000. He said he believes his departure saved others in Oakland from being laid off.His old and new jobs are different posts for two organizations, he said. The buyout payments for employees who then got new jobs at other UC entities were reported by the San Francisco Chronicle this week.Another recipient was Edith Ruth Brisco (Welch), an executive secretary paid $19,004 to leave her $62,000-a-year job in the President's Office. UC Merced then hired her for a similar job, at $69,440.Julia Ann Easley, a UC Davis spokeswoman, said Schmidt and Engelbach did not receive special treatment when they were hired."UC Davis held recruitments to fill the positions of director of real estate services and director of federal government relations," Easley said."These recruitments were open and well advertised."Easley said 55 people applied for the government relations job; eight were interviewed.Engelbach said he had sought a UC Davis job for months,and that he had three interviews with panels before he was offered the post."I had applied for other jobs, but I did not succeed,"he said. "I wanted to work for my old alma mater and put my knowledge and 25 years' experience in higher ed to good use."Mark G. Yudof, the new UC president, issued a prepared statement saying he and several UC regents are concerned the buyout program let some staffers get rehired immediately by the UC system with severance payouts untouched."This may appear to the public as an objectionable use of resources even though the program is reducing our central administrative spending," Yudof said.He added that 155 people took buyouts from his office and only 16 landed new UC jobs.Yudof said the buyout program was initiated prior to his appointment in June and that it has helped cut $5 million a year from his office's budget.If UC opts to offer voluntary buyout packages again, they will be different, Yudof said, citing "the public trust.""We will include provisions requiring repayment of a buyout on a prorata basis for employees finding new work elsewhere within the University," he wrote.There was no mention of asking the 16 employees who landed payouts and new UC jobs to pay back their severance. Statement of UC President Mark G. Yudof on UCOP Voluntary Separation Program...University of California...Sacramento Bee...12-6-08 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/19081Date: 2008-12-02Contact: University of California Office of the PresidentPhone: (510) 987-9200Email: As part of an effort to restructure and downsize the central administrative operations of the University of California system, the University offered a Voluntary Separation Program to employees at the Office of the President in January 2008. The program was one of several initiatives launched by the management of the Office of the President to reduce the spending and workforce in the central administration while minimizing the need for involuntary layoffs. The program has successfully achieved substantial savings for the University. However, I and a number of members of the Board of Regents are concerned about one outcome of the program: Employees who accepted a financial buyout to leave the Office of the President could be immediately re-employed elsewhere in the University with no impact on the amount of the buyout. 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.If this program is offered again in the future, I and the Regents believe it should be structured differently. The program was implemented prior to my administration, and members of the Board of Regents only were asked to approve one payout under the program -- not the program itself -- after being advised that an obligation to do so had already been established. I and the chairman of the Regents' Committee on Compensation agree that if the program is offered again, we will include provisions requiring repayment of a buyout on a pro rata basis for employees finding new work elsewhere within the University. I believe this action is important to ensuring the public's trust in our stewardship of resources.We will fulfill our obligations to the employees who applied for and accepted a buyout under the terms we offered in the Voluntary Separation Program of earlier this year. These individuals are in no way at fault for agreeing to an offer we made them, and their integrity should not be impugned for doing so. A total of 155 Office of the President employees accepted a buyout under the Voluntary Separation Program, which required them to leave the Office of the President no later than June 2008. Of these, 16 found new positions elsewhere within the University of California system. On an ongoing basis after the first year, we estimate that the Voluntary Separation Program alone will save at least $5 million per year in spending at the Office of the President. In total, the various efforts to restructure and downsize the Office of the President have now achieved more than $30 million in administrative savings.PDF: Buyout recipients rehired at UC campuses (.pdf)...Sacramento Bee...12-6-08http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/12/05/17/VSP_list.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdfVSPs Who Took Positions at Other UC LocationsFresno BeeCleaning our air will be worth the costAir board should adopt new rules governing diesel engines...Editorialhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/1058645.htmlThe state air board will meet this week to consider tough new rules governing diesel engines and the emissions they cause. We urge the board to adopt the rules for the sake of cleaner skies and a healthier California. The new rules are on the agenda of the California Air Resources Board for its meetings Dec. 11 and 12. They are opposed by the trucking industry, among others, as too burdensome in this time of economic crisis. And we acknowledge that the cost will be high. But the cost of the status quo is even higher. Diesel emissions are the single-most damaging form of pollution in California's air. Trucks and buses are responsible for 40% of the harmful particulate matter and 50% of the nitrogen oxides -- the main component of smog -- in the state. Particulate matter is very pernicious, especially in the Valley, where pollution is exacerbated by the combination of geography and climate. The tiny particles can penetrate deeply into human lungs and other organs. There they can cause or aggravate a whole array of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments, including asthma. Worse, the children exposed to diesel emissions are at special risk. Particulate exposure can retard lung development in the very young, and has been linked to damage suffered by fetuses and other serious health and reproductive problems. Those emissions are directly responsible for several thousand deaths each year, and cost billions in added health expenses. A telling figure: Truck drivers themselves are almost twice as likely to develop lung cancer as people not so closely exposed to diesel exhaust. School children are exposed to high levels of diesel pollution on their school buses. And 50% of all Californians live within one mile of a freeway. Very few of us escape the damages from diesel pollution. CARB is considering two rules. One would require more efficient diesel engines, better aerodynamic designs of vehicles and fuel-efficient tires. The second rule would require particulate filters and other emissions controls on trucks and buses. The cost is steep -- CARB estimates it at $5.5 billion over the next 15 years; the trucking industry and others set the figure much higher. And the timetable is tight. Diesel particulate filters would be required by 2014. The new efficiency rules would apply to 2011 models; older trucks and buses would need upgrades by 2012-13. But we have little choice, and over the same 15 years, the savings in lives, health costs and reduced diesel fuel consumption could amount to nearly $50 billion, in CARB's estimate. It won't be easy for truckers to cover the costs of the upgrades, just as it wasn't easy for Valley farmers to comply with new air regulations that began several years ago. The state is committed to easing the truckers' burden with financial help, just as it did with farmers. In fact, the eminently successful Carl Moyer program is a good model for such aid. Under the Moyer program, farmers are given help by the state to replace or retrofit older stationary diesel engines used to power irrigation pumps in the fields. The program has helped remove tons of emissions from thousands of older engines. Such public help is appropriate, because all of us will benefit from cleaner, healthier air. We should all help pay for the cost of those benefits. None of this will be easy, especially given the fragile condition of both the state budget and the economy. It may take longer than planned to see the benefits of these new rules. But they are badly needed, and we hope CARB will adopt them this week. Sacramento BeeThe Conversation: Something in the airTo fight global warming, a single state board could affect our economy to an unprecedented degree...Daniel Weintraubhttp://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/1452652.htmlCalifornia's commitment to limiting its emission of carbon and other greenhouse gases in hopes of fighting global warming is about to get real with the adoption as soon as Thursday of a sweeping plan that might ultimately represent the biggest government intervention in the economy in the history of the state.The cars we drive, the electricity we use to light and heat our houses, and the location of our future homes, jobs and businesses all could be directly regulated by the state's powerful, appointed Air Resources Board. Industry, meanwhile, will have to find ways to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases or else face huge fines levied by the state.The risk is great and the reward uncertain. Coming at a time when California's economy already is reeling from the collapse of the housing industry, the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and a general slowdown in investment and retail activity, the new policy will add higher costs on employers that could force some to curtail operations or even leave the state. Supporters of the policy, however, contend that the changes will eventually mean a net benefit to the economy as the state uses less energy and learns to rely on cheaper, cleaner-burning fuels.The environmental benefit is also uncertain. Greenhouse gases themselves – mainly carbon dioxide – are not a health hazard when dispersed into the atmosphere, although global warming could eventually have catastrophic effects on our way of life. And by unilaterally reducing its emissions, California cannot guarantee a slowdown or reduction in global warming, because the state accounts for only a tiny percentage of worldwide emissions, and any reduction here is likely to be swamped by increases in fast-developing countries, such as China.But the great hope behind Assembly Bill 32, the 2006 law that started California down this path, is that two things will happen. First, California's leadership will prove to be an example for the nation and ultimately the world. And second, that by declaring itself a leader in the move toward a low-carbon future, California will become a hub of research, development and manufacturing for new industries that arise to meet the needs of a post-carbon world.First, though, the Air Resources Board must work through the nitty-gritty details of limiting carbon emissions from tens of thousands of sources around the state. The board plans to do so with a mix of direct regulations and a market-based program that will give businesses the economic incentive and the freedom to find solutions on their own.The board's first steps will be targeted at relatively few entities – large companies and industries that account for most of the greenhouse gas now emitted in the state.Transportation, for example, is expected to account for about 37 percent of greenhouse gases by 2020 if nothing is done to reduce them. One part of the plan targets the automobile companies with a regulation that would force manufacturers to change the way their engines burn fuel so that they produce less carbon dioxide in their exhaust. Another regulation would force oil companies to reduce the carbon content of their fuels by 10 percent. Another would hold local governments accountable for reducing emissions caused by new development, potentially forcing builders to design more densely populated communities where links between jobs and housing make residents less reliant on the automobile.Utilities, meanwhile, will be required to increase their use of renewable energy sources until those sources account for 33 percent of the electricity generated in the state. Homeowners will be given incentives to install solar roofs and water heaters.Other regulations will target smaller segments of the economy that produce large amounts of especially potent gases that are thought to contribute far more to global warming, on a pound-for-pound basis, than does carbon dioxide. Most of these emissions come from chemicals involved in refrigeration and air conditioning, and the air board's plan contemplates an entire new regime of regulations aimed at homeowners, motorists and business, with new fees, reporting requirements and inspections designed to reduce the release of these gases.In addition to all the new direct regulation mandating or banning specific practices, major industries will be subject to a blanket cap on their emissions and will have to obtain permits allowing them to produce a certain amount of greenhouse gases in a year. The idea is that those permits will then be bought and sold in an exchange, leading companies that can reduce their emissions the most at the least possible cost to do so.All of this comes at a huge cost, estimated by the air board to be almost $25 billion a year in today's dollars. But the board also projects that the changes will save Californians more than $40 billion a year, for a net benefit to the economy of about $16 billion.The problem is that the costs are more concrete than the benefits, which are more dependent on changes in the economy and worldwide energy prices. It is possible, as the board's staff believes, that the benefits from its policies are understated. But if the costs are overstated, the effects could be disastrous. Anyone who lived through California's attempt to restructure the electricity industry in 2000 and 2001 knows how easy it is for government intervention in the economy to throw thousands of complex financial relationships out of whack.At this point, with the Democrat-controlled Legislature, a Republican governor, his appointees on the air board and the general public all in support of California taking on this challenge, it seems all but inevitable. About the only thing likely to change that would be a quick, aggressive move by the federal government to take over the field, but even if it did so, much of what is happening now in California would probably continue, with more oversight and involvement from Washington.California led the nation in fighting smog, cleaning its water and regulating land use. It is now destined, for better or worse, to find itself on the cutting edge of using public policy in an attempt to battle global warming. What the carbon emissions plan would do...Sources: Legislative Analyst's Office and California Air Resources Boardhttp://www.sacbee.com/740/v-print/story/1452650.htmlHoping to fight global warming, California's Air Resources Board is scheduled to vote by Dec. 12 on a plan to require Californians to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases by about 29 percent below what they would otherwise be in 2020. The plan envisions at least 30 new, specific regulations requiring changes in business or personal practices to achieve reductions. Also included is a flexible, market-based system that would cap annual emissions for certain sectors of the economy while allowing businesses within each sector the freedom to decide how to achieve those reductions.TransportationBusiness as usual: 37 percent of state's greenhouse gases Expected reduction by 2020: 27 percentKey measures:• New limits on vehicle emissions• 10 percent reduction in carbon content in vehicle fuels• Rules forcing new housing and commercial developments to reduce reliance on automobiles• Big trucks required to be more aerodynamic; ships in port must use electricity rather than diesel fuel to power operations• High-speed railProjected cost of changes: $16 billion annuallyProjected savings from changes: $30 billion annuallyElectricity generationBusiness as usual: 23 percent of state's greenhouse gasesExpected reduction by 2020: 32 percentKey measures:• Produce 33 percent of electricity from renewable sources• Stricter energy-efficiency requirements• Produce more electricity from waste heat• 1 million solar roofsProjected cost of changes: $7.4 billion annuallyProjected savings from changes: $8.6 billion annuallyIndustryBusiness as usual: 17 percent of state's greenhouse gasesExpected reduction by 2020:1 percentKey measures:• Energy-efficiency audits• Reduction of leaks from oil and gas transmission• Stricter regulation of oil refinery flaring stacksProjected cost of changes:$11 million annuallyProjected savings:$71 million annuallyNote: Significant reductions from industry are expected to result from a market-based "cap-and-trade" system that limits emissions but gives companies freedom to choose how to reduce them.Consumer, industrial and commercial gases with high global warming potentialBusiness as usual: 8 percent of state's greenhouse gasesExpected reduction by 2020:43 percentKey measures:• New regulations on air- conditioning refrigerants, including new inspections as part of vehicle smog check• Fees on the sale of industrial gases thought to have a high potential to cause global warming; fee would generate $300 million to $1 billion per year and the revenue would be used for programs that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases• Limits on use in consumer products, including boat horns, pressurized gas dusters and tire inflators.• New regulations on about 86,000 large commercial and public facilities using air conditioning requiring them to monitor, report and repair leaks from refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.Projected cost of changes: $159 million annuallyProjected savings: $30 million annuallyCommercial and residentialBusiness as usual: 8 percent of state's greenhouse gasesExpected reduction by 2020: 9 percentKey measures:• New energy-efficiency regulations• Solar water heatersProjected cost of changes: $963 million annuallyProjected savings: $1.4 billion annuallyRecycling and waste managementBusiness as usual: 1 percent of state's greenhouse gasesExpected reduction by 2020: 13 percentKey measures:• Better control of methane gas releases from landfillsProjected cost of changes: $52 millionProjected savings: none"Business as usual" represents the air board's projection of emissions from each sector in 2020 if nothing is done to reduce them.Cap and tradeUnder this system, the state will set limits on the amount of greenhouse gases that each sector of the economy can emit each year. The air board will then issue permits allowing companies within each sector to produce emissions. The permits will either be given away or auctioned, but once they are distributed, they will take on a value of their own, because existing or new companies will not be able to emit greenhouse gases without a permit.The permits will be tradable, so companies that can eliminate some of their emissions for less than the cost of a permit will be likely to do so and then sell their permits to companies that would find it cheaper to buy a permit than reduce their emissions. This flexibility is supposed to lead to a large reduction in emissions at the least possible cost to society. In the end, the cap-and-trade system is expected to reduce emissions by about 35 million metric tons, equivalent to about 6 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions expected by 2020 under the "business as usual" scenario. That reduction would be about 20 percent of the total reductions expected by 2020.OffsetsOffsets allow companies that would otherwise be required to reduce emissions to instead pay another entity to do so on their behalf. Depending on how the system is set up, those selling offsets might be limited to California, the western United States, the entire country or be anywhere in the world. The main requirement would be that the sellers be those not otherwise required to reduce their emissions. One example might be timber land owners, who by preserving their forests instead of cutting them can store carbon emissions rather than releasing them. A cement plant that finds it too expensive to reduce its emissions could instead pay a timber company to keep a defined amount of land in its natural state. Under the air board's plan, no more than 49 percent of the emissions reductions in the cap-and-trade program could come from the purchase of offsets.Air plan will boost economy and environment...Published: Sunday, Dec. 07, 2008 | Page 2Ehttp://www.sacbee.com/740/v-print/story/1452669.htmlSolving global warming will put people back to work, revive our economy and protect our environment.The California Air Resources Board AB 32 Scoping Plan - the blueprint for achieving California's global warming goals - is a road map for economic vitality with a long list of tried-and-true strategies heavy on renewable electricity and energy efficiency. Californians are already seeing the benefits of global warming solutions.Workers in the Central Valley are building solar cells; manufacturers in the south are making energy-efficiency technologies; residents of inner cities are learning how to install solar panels. To turn this trickle of green jobs into a torrent of economic opportunities, the Air Resources Board must get one important detail correct. Rather than giving away the right to pollute for free to oil companies and other polluters, the ARB should require companies to pay for every ton of pollution emitted. Such a system is called an auction. By auctioning 100 percent of California's pollution permits, the Air Resources Board could redirect billions of dollars toward solutions like efficiency, renewable power and a cleaner transportation system. An auction also helps avoid windfall profits. The European Union learned this lesson the hard way when it gave pollution permits away for free. The European Union is now looking to correct this problem. The Air Resources Board has the chance to get it right from the start.We can repower for the 21st century, cleaning our environment while revitalizing our economy. California has a golden opportunity to chart a new future and lead the nation, too. The time to begin is now. At 13 months and counting, no one sees end to recession...Kevin G. Hallhttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/57234.htmlWASHINGTON — Now that the U.S. economy officially has been in recession for a year, it's certain that this downturn will be deeper and more punishing than the past two, in 1990-91 and 2001. That makes it harder to gauge where the end may be and what's necessary to restore the world's largest economy to health.Falling home prices, a deep freeze on lending and turmoil in financial markets all helped create the current recession, which started in December 2007. Friday's grim jobs report, with employers shedding another 533,000 positions in November, was an exclamation point for a worsening recession.The credit crunch, falling home values and shaken consumer confidence all hurt consumer spending, which drives two-thirds of all economic activity. There's no quick or easy way to turn them around, especially at the same time.Since the end of World War II, there have been 10 recessions before this one. The bust of 1973-75 followed oil-price shocks and failed attempts at government price controls. The skid of 1981-82 was triggered by high interest rates needed to quash runaway inflation and a banking crisis rooted in a real-estate crash. Those were the two worst recessions in the postwar era, and each lasted 16 months.Another real-estate and banking crisis led to the recession of 1990-1991. Later that decade, overvalued technology stocks collapsed and sparked the 2001 downturn, which lasted eight months."All recessions start with the economy trying to absorb an economic loss associated with the correction of previous excesses. The last three are similar in that the private sector provided some excesses," said Vincent Reinhart, a former top economist at the Federal Reserve. "In this case, as opposed to the previous ones, (financial) markets amplified to a remarkable extent that economic loss."Today's recession was brought about by a rapid growth in home prices and home construction that was unsustainable. Under normal circumstances a price correction would occur and the economy would quickly return to growth. That's why the average length of recessions since 1945 has been 10 months.These aren't normal times, however. The U.S. economy is entering its 13th month of recession, and no one sees an early end."It's going to be a longer recession than any in the postwar period, because I don't think we will get out of it before the middle of 2009," said Lyle Gramley, a governor Federal Reserve governor from 1980 to 1985. "The primary reason we're going through this is we have a credit crunch that is literally strangling the economy."His view is widely shared."We continue to believe that this will be the longest and, possibly, the deepest recession of the post-war era. If the recession runs through May 2009, this will qualify as the longest recession since the 1930s," John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros, partners in the New York research firm RDQ Economics, said in analysis for investors.Unemployment hit its highest postwar peak — 10.8 percent — in 1982. Today, it's 6.7 percent and rising fast.If there's agreement that this recession will be long and deep, there's also consensus that a stimulus plan will be needed to jolt the economy back to life."Only a concerted, comprehensive and consistent policy response will bring this downturn to an end by this time next year. This response should include a zero effective funds rate and quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, a large foreclosure mitigation plan, and a big economic recovery package," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, a forecaster in West Chester, Pa.President-elect Barack Obama has signaled that he'll push a massive economic stimulus plan that's expected to include a middle-class tax rebate, big spending on public works projects to create jobs and aid to states."My guess is the fiscal-stimulus package is going to be very large, a package spread over two years that will total at least $700 billion over those two years, front loaded to get big" results fast, said Gramley, now an adviser at the Stanford Washington Research group in Washington.The stimulus is needed to create jobs. During the Great Depression, one in four Americans was unemployed. The current recession has seen almost 2 million jobs lost, but remains more than 2.2 million jobs short of the depth of layoffs seen during the early 1980s.To turn things around, the plunge in consumer confidence must be halted."Once the consumer stops spending, you get this vicious circle. A decline in consumer spending leads to declining business spending. Factory operating rates fall," said Daniel Meckstroth, chief economist for the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a trade group for U.S. manufacturers. "What has to be done, someone has to make up for this lack of demand — someone or some act."The worst is still ahead, he warned, because business spending and commercial construction are poised to fall dramatically in 2009. Following this year's sharp drop in consumer spending, he said, "the other shoe is about to drop."Economists think that the Federal Reserve, which has been bold in attacking problems in credit markets, is about to become even more aggressive in stimulating the economy. It's widely expected to cut its benchmark lending rate below the current low 1 percent rate when Fed governors meet on Dec. 16.That would drive the cost of borrowing money for banks to almost zero. Some economists think that the Fed may also begin purchasing Treasury debt in an attempt to knock down all sorts of lending rates to consumers and businesses that are set based on the yields of Treasury bonds and bills."When you make money free, or virtually free, there's got to be some projects that are viable," said Meckstroth, who doesn't believe the manufacturing sector will return to growth until 2010.External factors will also be important in ending the recession. Usually a U.S. downturn doesn't correspond with a recession in Europe or Japan, but this time they do."The business cycles don't coordinate, but this time they are international. In this sense, this downturn is worldwide," said Harry Veryser, the director of graduate economic studies at the University of Detroit and an expert on business cycles. "This means it's going to be hard to get out of it by exporting."U.S. exports of manufactured goods and farm products have helped moderate the U.S. downturn for much of this year.Then there's the China factor. China is a key market for the world's goods and services. Its growth is sure to slow, but if its drop in growth is steep, the global slowdown will deepen, making U.S. recovery harder."I think the aggressiveness of policy (solutions) is going to limit the depth of the outright recession, but that doesn't mean that the recovery won't take awhile," said Reinhart, the former top Fed economist, now a commentator for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy group.Bad as things are, some analysts suggest that things aren't as bad as advertised."If you look objectively at the current economy and factor out what is read, written, and spoken about, you see a mild recession, which is not good for people, but modest can be almost predictable" said Brian Hamilton, the chief executive of Sageworks Inc., a data-research company in Raleigh, N.C.His is a minority view among analysts.San Francisco ChronicleCourt upholds public river access in Montana...Rob Breedinghttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/07/INJV14GCC6.DTL&type=printableDEVELOPMENT: Public stream access wins in MontanaWHAT IT MEANS:Montana's Supreme Court has decided that Mitchell Slough, a side channel of the Bitterroot River, is a natural waterway, and thus access to it is guaranteed to the public.Though wealthy landowners have tried to bar people from Mitchell Slough since the early 1990s, this battle was never just about the slough. It occurred because those landowners directly assaulted a unique state law that allows public recreational access between a stream's high-water marks. If a lower court ruling that banned access to the slough had stood, access to every river and stream in Montana would have been threatened.Fortunately, in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision Nov. 17, Associate Justice Jim Rice wrote that prohibiting public access to the slough was nothing less than an "absurdity."You may think that means I'm rigging up the fly rod and making plans to go wet a line in the slough from the banks of rock singer Huey Lewis's backyard. I'm not. But the next time I fish any river in Montana, I won't forget the battle that was waged and won over Mitchell Slough. It was a fight to preserve what makes Montana special.Unhappiness After Stream in Montana Is Open to All...Jim Robbins...New York Times...12-1-08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/01trout.html?_r=1&sq=mitchell%20slough&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1228683601-mYCA8Sp6z4%20li7n9XX2Xtg&pagewanted=printHELENA, Mont. — A group of landowners, including several wealthy out-of-staters, are none too happy that their exclusive use of a scenic trout-rich stream in the Bitterroot Valley is coming to an end. The Montana Supreme Court ruled here recently that the 16-mile-long stream, Mitchell Slough, is open to the public and that the landowners are not entitled to fence it off as part of their private sanctuaries. Montana law is firm in allowing the public access to streams and rivers that flow through private land, up to the high-water mark. The law states that fishermen can walk in a stream or along the bank up to the high-water mark if they enter the waterway from public land like a bridge. They may not cross or walk on private land above the mark without permission.In this case, though, two dozen landowners — including the rock singer Huey Lewis and Charles R. Schwab, founder of the brokerage firm that bears his name — argued that irrigation diversions had so thoroughly altered Mitchell Slough that it was no longer a natural waterway and that therefore the stream access law should not apply. To reinforce that belief, they began calling it Mitchell Ditch.But in a unanimous ruling, the State Supreme Court here ruled that in spite of the changes, the slough was still a “natural perennial flowing stream” and public access was warranted.The stream, which is outside Victor, south of Missoula, is known for its abundance of large trout and is expected to attract fishermen from all over. The landowners are preparing to have far less privacy.“I’m crushed personally,” said Kenneth F. Siebel, managing director of Private Wealth Partners, a money management firm, who is the owner of the Bitterroot Springs Ranch, along Mitchell Slough. “We were totally surprised. A populist Supreme Court came to the conclusion they wanted and worked backward.”Mr. Siebel, who has lived here for 29 years, said he had spent millions rebuilding, narrowing and deepening the slough. “I’ve put time and energy and love into the property,” he said, “and it’s all gone. And it’s a shame.” A home belonging to Anthony Marnell II, the head of a casino construction company, is built over a tributary to Mitchell Slough. Robert N. Lane, the chief legal counsel for the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, said he thought the public would soon be able to gain access to fish the tributary. “I guess they’ll have to portage around his living room,” Mr. Lane said of Mr. Marnell. Mr. Marnell did not return telephone messages seeking comment. Mr. Lane hailed the ruling as “great — a significant decision” that would continue public access to other streams. “It’s not the only place in the state,” he said, “where people could say, ‘It’s altered enough, it’s no longer public.’ ”Despite having supported the landowners, Edith L. Wark, a rancher from just outside Victor, said she did not expect many problems. “I don’t think a lot of people will stampede through the place,” Ms. Wark said.Mr. Lane said his department would watch for any conflicts. He added that the stream would not officially open until the completion of paperwork, expected in a couple of weeks.At least one fisherman was not willing to wait. “I took a picture of a guy fishing there this morning,” said Michael Howell, publisher of The Bitterroot Star and a member of the Bitterroot River Protective Association, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to the court ruling. “The same guy who was arrested there in 1991, Randy Rose.”Mr. Rose was arrested on trespassing charges for fishing on a section of stream that runs through Mr. Lewis’s property, but he was found not guilty by a justice of the peace. His arrest eventually helped to spark the association’s lawsuit, which challenged a 2003 decision by the Bitterroot Conservation District that the slough was not a natural stream for permit purposes.As for Mr. Siebel, he said he and other landowners would be watching. “Anyone who trespasses,” he said, “will be arrested.” Water is definitely for fighting in Montana...Rob Breeding. Rob Breeding is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News in Paonia, Colorado (hcn.org). He writes in Kalispell, Montana...High Country News...7-16-08http://www.hcn.org/wotr/16996One constant in the fierce debate over the public’s access to Mitchell Slough in Montana's Bitterroot Valley has been the complaint that generous landowners are being vilified despite their considerable efforts to restore the waterway. It's instructive that one of the arguments used by supporters of the landowners is this "heroic restoration" tack. It's instructive because it's a red herring. A decade or so ago, landowners -- most notably rocker Huey Lewis and businessmen Charles Schwab and Ken Siebel -- decided they wanted the public out after restoring much of Mitchell Slough, and in grand Bitterroot tradition, a fight over water ensued. When it comes to matters of stream access, however, noble intentions don't exempt landowners from the law, and Montana’s law regulating stream access applies to watersheds whether they’re pristine or degraded, restored or run down. Today’s public spat obscures a larger question, and this is the more important one. Is Mitchell Slough a ditch, or is it part of the Bitterroot River? The answer matters because if it’s a ditch, the state’s Stream Access Law does not apply. If it’s part of the river, the public is entitled to access the waterway up to the high-water mark. Apparently, that high-water mark runs within a few feet of Siebel’s backdoor. The evidence that Mitchell Slough is part of the river is considerable. Surveys conducted in 1872 show the slough as part of the river. In fact, much of what we now call Mitchell Slough may have been the main stem of the Bitterroot River, according to those surveys. The three irrigation canals that draw water from the slough all designate their point of diversion as the river. The Bitterroot Conservation District has a file full of 310 permits issued on the slough when landowners set about restoring the waterway two decades ago. Why are 310 permits important? You need one to work in or modify a natural waterway. You don’t need a 310 permit to fix your ditch. Siebel himself acknowledged the slough was part of the Bitterroot River in water rights applications he filed in the 1980s, designating his point of diversion as a spring creek that was a tributary of the Bitterroot River. Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary, landowners along the slough now have a District Court ruling in their favor. Its decision essentially creates a new class of water under the Stream Access Law: If waters that were formerly rivers and streams have been modified, the Stream Access Law no longer applies. The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for an appeal sometime later this year. I'm guessing the court will toss out the previous decision. To do otherwise would reverse its decades-long history of supporting stream access rights. Meanwhile, the District Court’s decision creates a road map for wealthy landowners to put previously accessible streams off-limits to the general public. “It’s a devastating decision,” said Michael Howell, a founding member of the Bitterroot River Protective Association, which is fighting to preserve access to the Slough. “It pretty much stands the law (on stream access) on its head.” Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer agrees. “This decision had to be appealed because it affects streams, creeks and sloughs all over Montana,” Schweitzer told the New York Times in July. “It’s a natural body of water, and by my reading of the stream access law, it should be open to the public to fish and recreate.” Appeals filed with the Supreme Court describe the potential impact if the ruling stands: Any side-channel or any branch of a stream or river that has had some sort of a flow-control structure, and that has been changed by construction so that it looks different or is in a different location than it would be without human intervention, could be claimed and controlled for private ownership. This might affect an entire stream or river if it has been altered or controlled enough. The Stream Access Law is about as close to a sacred text as one will find in these parts. If the Mitchell Slough landowners think Montanans will take lightly the efforts to eviscerate the law, maybe they need to step out from behind their "No Trespassing" signs and gated playgrounds and get a better sense of public opinion. What they'd find is that a lot of Montanans are fighting mad about what they're trying to pull at Mitchell Slough. Prairie pothole filler in trouble with law...James Macpherson, Associated Presshttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/07/MNQJ14F5DV.DTL&type=printableBismarck, N.D. -- Armed with a tractor or a backhoe, Alvin Peterson moves dirt to drain prairie potholes on his land, saying he's putting the land back to the way God intended.The 78-year-old retired farmer from Lawton, in northeastern North Dakota, has been in hot water with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wetlands for more than 40 years. The agency had an easement contract with his father for the potholes to house and feed wildlife.Federal authorities, after dealing for decades with Peterson's pothole-emptying antics, began cracking down on him. Last month - and for the second time in four years - Peterson was convicted of illegally emptying wetlands. Now he faces stiff fines and jail time.Peterson remains unfazed."I didn't make the waterways, the good Lord did," Peterson said.The Fish and Wildlife Service, along with hunting and conservation groups, views wetlands as an environmental oasis for waterfowl and other creatures. Peterson sees the potholes as a pain, swamping his land with water and weeds and preventing him from raising crops."Alvin Peterson is somewhat of a government protester," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron Hayden, who has prosecuted Peterson. "He inherited the farm from his father and never liked the easement. He began a system of draining every prairie pothole he could find with his tractor."Peterson claims his dying father was tricked by government officials into signing an easement in the mid-1960s. He said his father was given a one-time payment of about $4,700 that forever keeps dozens of acres on the farm free of crops and under government ownership."They've done this in a sneaky way - you'd think you were living in Russia," Peterson said. "I've had trouble with them ever since they stole this land from my father."Peterson was found guilty Nov. 11 of two counts of improper drainage of wetlands, after a trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal in Grand Forks.A sentencing date has not been set. Peterson faces up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine.Hayden said Peterson will likely be hit with a heavy fine but won't be locked up."I will not be requesting that he go to jail," Hayden said. "I see no point in that."Peterson was first convicted in 2004 of draining four wetlands protected by an easement held by the Fish and Wildlife Service. He was sentenced in 2005 to two years of probation and ordered to restore the four wetlands and pay a $4,000 fine.Federal wildlife officials, under the protection of armed U.S. marshals, filled in a waterway to re-establish the potholes.Peterson said the show of force on his farm was unnecessary."I'd never hurt a Fish and Wildlife man," Peterson said. "They suffer by living."Authorities say Peterson drained some of the once-restored wetlands again last year, immediately after his probation expired. Peterson maintained that he was only cleaning out waterways."It was plugged up," Peterson said of a 30-foot-wide, 2-foot deep slough. "I got it wide open and running like it's supposed to."Except for two years he was in the Army in Korea in the 1950s, Peterson said, he has spent his entire life on the Ramsey County farm, northeast of Devils Lake."I was born 20 feet from where I'm talking to you on the telephone," he said. "I've walked every foot of this land, poisoning gophers and riding ponies."He said that the government's efforts to create wetlands on his property have failed and that there was more wildlife on the land before the government-established wetlands."Those wetlands - the ducks can't survive there," Peterson said. "They're so full of cattails, there is no place for them to breathe and no place for them to land."Lloyd Jones, the Dakotas refuge manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said wetlands provide crucial habitat for wildlife, even with cattails.Jones, a biologist, has been working on wetlands issues for three decades in the prairie pothole region of the Upper Midwest.The government began buying conservation easements in 1958, he said. It has spent about $60 million to acquire some 1.5 million acres, of which 900,000 acres are in North Dakota and 500,000 in South Dakota. Montana, Minnesota and Iowa account for the remaining acres, Jones said.Money for the program comes largely from the sale of federal duck stamps.The program has not been without challenges, both legal and otherwise. In the 1960s, the government funded competing programs - one that paid farmers to drain wetlands and one that paid farmers to preserve them, Jones said."Preservation won out," he said.In 1995, two Hope-area farmers were charged with draining three Fish and Wildlife easements the agency purchased on their land. The farmers, brothers Mike and Kerry Johansen, challenged the agency, saying they drained potholes outside the original easements.Federal authorities argued that the wetlands, which had expanded after years of wet weather, were covered under the original easement. The government lost its case, and charges were dropped.Jones said disputes over the easements typically are settled through negotiations."Ninety-nine percent can be worked out," he said. "Alvin would be the 1 percent. Negotiations with him, unfortunately, have not proven to be successful."Scientists put high-tech tail on salmon...Tom Stienstrahttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/07/SP1N14GUMV.DTL&type=printableHow many young salmon get sucked down the Delta pumps and other water diversions?How many are confused by the Delta's maze of cross-channels and reverse pumping amid the government's mission to get water south? How many end up in dead-end sloughs and rivers to nowhere?These mysteries may finally be answered this month. Scientists tagged thousands of juvenile salmon with transmitter beacons and released the fish last week in the Sacramento River near Sacramento. The U.S. Geologic Survey also set up dozens of antenna-like receivers between Sacramento and the Lower Delta to allow scientists to track the downstream migration of each fish.Some blame the salmon decline on the mosaic of hazards that young salmon must migrate through to reach the bay and ocean.The key area for out-migrating salmon smolts is on the Sacramento River between Walnut Grove and Locke. This is the location of the intake for Delta Cross-Channel and Georgiana Slough. The problem is that salmon that choose either of those routes end up exiting in the San Joaquin River, where they are vulnerable to getting sucked down the Delta pumps. This is why so many out-migrating endangered winter-run salmon have gotten ground up by the water pumps.One insider's note: Due to a court decision designed to help the salmon, the Delta pumps are running at a much reduced rate right now. That could skew the test.Salmon rumor clearedA wild rumor this past week was that the Coleman National Fish Hatchery was killing 5 million ready-to-hatch salmon eggs because they were not natural. Not true. The hatchery is at full capacity, with 12 million salmon smolts scheduled for release in the spring, said hatchery manager Scott Hamelberg, and about 3 million additional eggs were surplus. "We don't have any more room," he said.Hatcheries are a key to the future of salmon fishing in California. Hatchery fish and wild fish are genetically identical, and genetic diversity is guaranteed at the hatchery by how the milt and eggs are randomized and mixed. In addition, hatchery-reared salmon can later spawn as a wild fish, and unless fins are clipped, it is impossible to tell the difference between a wild-born fish and a hatchery-born fish.Nominations openNominations are now open for the California Outdoors Hall of Fame. Anybody can propose a nomination for the award, but qualifying and voting is based on two factors: 1. The nominees must have inspired thousands of Californians to take part in the great outdoors and/or conservation. 2. The nominees must have taken part in paramount adventures. Send a 200-word biography, address and contact phone number for nominee to tstienstra@sfchronicle.com.Notes from near and farLandmark duck bust:Duck hunting success has been very poor this year in the Sacramento Valley and Bay Area's Suisun Marsh, but Fish and Game wardens reported that Peter Ciraulo of Gilroy was convicted of taking 253 ducks and 58 geese. The limits are 14 ducks and eight geese. "Not since the market poaching of the early 1900s have we seen waterfowl poaching of this scope," said Nancy Foley, Fish and Game's patrol chief. Now here's the ugly part: He was sentenced to only two years probation, fined $7,105, required to serve 100 hours of community service in waterfowl conservation, and was barred from hunting for, get this, only one year. That's right: No jail time.Look to the southwest:Just after dusk, look to the southwest sky to see the moon, Venus and Jupiter in near alignment. Won't happen again until 2058.Eagle squadron: At a ranch near Stafford Lake in Novato, Chick Kretz and Jerry Gause caught the amazing sight of 10 golden eagles, soaring, banking and arcing across the sky with "nary a wing flap," Kretz said.Loch Lomond Navy:At Loch Lomond Marina in San Rafael, Deidre Moy saw a pair of sea otters swimming about the marina last weekend. "Swam back and forth, then climbed up on the breakwater ... incredible sighting." Rare, too, for the bay.Eagles nest cam:The best time to see bald eagle mates in their nest is at dawn or dusk on the eagle nest cam. Check it out: http://turtlebay.org/caltranseaglecam.php.Incomprehensible: The inside word from Fish and Game this week is that the base price of a fishing license is being jacked up to $40.20 for 2009, despite the lowest number of trout plants on record. That double whammy guarantees no young people will buy licenses, and in turn, makes Fish and Game's future bleaker than ever.Contra Costa TimesMassive restoration project to turn salt ponds into wetlands...Julia Scott, San Mateo County Timeshttp://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11156517MENLO PARK — The Ravenswood salt ponds do not look like a place where wildlife would thrive. Decades of being cut off from the Bay by a tall levee has turned this national wildlife "refuge" into a lifeless expanse of mud flats, silent but for the hiss of nearby traffic climbing onto the Dumbarton Bridge, with former salt production ponds crusted in white and tinted the red-brown color of iodine. Starting in January, this unlikeliest of places will become a staging ground for the biggest wildlife comeback in Bay Area history. Ravenswood will be the first major part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to be transformed into tidal wetlands, a 50-year, $1 billion project that will boost habitat for endangered species at former salt ponds from Hayward and Menlo Park to San Jose. The prospect of finally seeing the changes take place visibly energized Mendel Stewart, refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as he carted a series of brightly-colored maps along on a tour of Ravenswood in October."In the springtime, in the summer, there should be thousands of birds nesting out here," said Stewart brightly, his eyes sweeping the landscape.Specifically, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project will restore habitat for endangered species like the California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse, which require varying degrees of salinity to survive, as well as American avocets, black-necked Stilts, and delicate western snowy plovers. A handful of levees will be breached to allow the Bay tides to wash into certain salt ponds over the next 10 to 15 years, and these sites will act as test cases for the future success of the project on a wider scale.By 2060, officials hope to open at least 50 percent and someday, hopefully, up to 90 percent of the project's 15,100 acres to tidal action."It will compensate for many of the things that have happened since people got here," said Stewart. "If it's successful and we can manage it, it shows that over time we can bring it back."A new home on the flatsBringing life back to the former Cargill salt ponds, acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service for $100 million in taxpayer dollars in 2003, will not be as simple as poking a hole in a levee and watching the water rush in.It took a long time to engineer the salt ponds into being — first by the Ohlone and then by Spanish padres who started solar saltworks projects near San Jose in the 1800s. Most of the South Bay had become a compartmentalized network of levees by the time the Leslie Salt Company came in and absorbed the competition in the 1930s.Cargill bought Lesley Salt in the 1970s and perfected the five-year process of crystallizing and harvesting salt, a technique resembling a gigantic conveyor dumping water and collecting salt around the Bay. Machines wrote the legacy of the salt ponds, and machines will be needed to restore them due to the fragility of wildlife the restored ponds will be put in place to protect.Rather than fully breach the handful of levees designated as part of Phase 1, officials will allow a certain amount of water to enter particular ponds up to a specific level, depending on which birds they are trying to attract.The ponds near Alameda Creek in Hayward at Eden Landing Ecological Reserve — 6,300 acres in all — will be divided into six mini-compartments of increasing salinity, with Bay water brought in and evaporated out of them in succession in an effort to lure species of shorebirds, including eared grebes, which prefer saltier environments and like to feed on super-salty brine shrimp.At Ravenswood, a single large pond will be divided in two. One part will be transformed into a marsh filled with a foot of water with and raised mounds of dirt to create a habitat coveted by black-necked Stilts. A rear open area closer to University Avenue will be retained as a dry mud flat for nesting Western snowy plovers, which Stewart hopes they will find reminiscent of the beaches where they usually like to lay their eggs. "They like the blasted moonscapes, is what I call it," he said.That sinking feelingIf Cargill's legacy made the salt ponds inhospitable for many forms of wildlife, the salt ponds had the opposite effect on promoting growth in Bayside communities. Millions of residents have settled into homes and offices on dry land protected from flooding hazards by a system of levees that are in some areas nearly a century old. In the meantime, much of the land has sunk beneath them.Parts of the South Bay near San Jose have subsided by as much as 14 feet due to groundwater extraction starting in the 1930s. Places like the Google headquarters and Moffett Field in Mountain View only exist because of the levees protecting the shoreline from incoming tides, according to Stewart.That's why Phase 1 of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project will only affect areas that don't present flood control problems — all the crucial levees will stay in place until new ones are built closer to the shoreline to raise or replace them.That also accounts for the $1 billion price tag. Planning, building, and maintaining levees is notoriously expensive. In 2007, taxpayers spent $2 million just to maintain levees around the Bay for habitat value and flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers isn't expected to present a new design for local flood protection for at least another decade. When they do, most of the cost will be borne by flood control districts that represent the Santa Clara Valley and Alameda County respectively.San Mateo County, however, has yet to come up with a funding source for its levees at Ravenswood and elsewhere. That could eventually become a major problem, especially considering Ravenswood Point is the most exposed portion of all the salt ponds in the Bay Area. On a map, it sticks out like a fist into the Bay. Keeping those levees intact will cost a lot of money. "It's flat as a pancake out there. If those levees don't hold up, the water could come in there and top Bayfront Expressway," warned Steve Ritchie, executive program manager for the restoration project. "It's a good reason to make sure we do something sooner than later."Facing down a floodThere's another good reason to try to speed up the process: sea level rise. Scientists have predicted the oceans could rise by as much as one meter, or 3.3 feet, over the next 90 years. If the water comes in more quickly than that or in the form of a New Orleans-type epic flood event, it could overtop some levees and utterly thwart the benefits the wetlands officials are working so hard to create. "If sea level rise starts to occur too fast, we will end up with large areas of mud flat and open water and we will have lost the opportunity for tidal marsh. By then we'll be building flood walls as opposed to a levee-wetlands combination," said Ritchie. An area of transition between open water and dry land, tidal marsh has more hidden benefits than any inventor could have imagined. Its spongy surface, filled with plant life, actually absorbs storm surges and deflects the pressure of wave action, removing the need for levees the size of castle walls. Tidal marshes are one of the most productive ecosystems on earth, producing plant material to absorb carbon from the air at a rate scientists believe rivals that of trees. Saltwater tidal zones, like the ones around the Bay, also do not emit high levels of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) like freshwater marshes — so there's no risk of further polluting the atmosphere. Wetlands even solve water pollution by binding to pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and even oil and heavy metals, and breaking them down over time before they are buried in the sediment. "I had a friend who used to refer to (tidal marshes) as the lungs of the bay, breathing in and out," said Ritchie.Walking along a levee at Ravenswood that will be closed to the public when construction begins next month, Stewart said locals have so far failed to grasp that this site and a handful of others will be part of "the next big thing" for the coming decade — an enterprise so ambitious in its proportions that other cities around the world with the potential for similar projects will be watching to see what happens.More than anything, he would like to see locals begin to bridge the disconnect between their notion of nature and the rich diversity of life of taking shape in the salt ponds they pass every day on their way to work. "They go to Yosemite, they go to other parts of the Bay Area for nature," said Stewart. "This project is all about changing that."Editorial: Don't cause major drought in attempt to protect Delta ecosystemhttp://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_11139672?nclick_check=1THE FUTURE of the Delta and the stability of much of California's water supply could be decided next year. That's when an environmental lawsuit that threatens to shut down Delta water pumping will be considered.The lawsuit was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network and Felix Smith, a retired federal biologist.Unlike other legal actions taken to protect the failing Delta environment, this lawsuit is based on the public trust doctrine, an ancient legal concept that attempts to broadly balance competing interests.Environmental groups hope that by using the public trust doctrine it will force water regulators to consider the overall environment, recreational, aesthetics and other public values as well as economic interests in deciding water policy.Michael Jackson, a lawyer for the groups that filed the lawsuit, is concerned that trying to save individual species of fish one at a time is not the best way to protect the Delta environment.Several species of fish are in danger of extinction, and the large volumes of water that are being pumped out of the Delta could be a major cause of environmental deterioration.Westlands Water District deputy general manager Jason Peltier, however, says environmentalists should not focus just on the pumps as the sole cause of Delta degradation.He's right, there may be other causes of the loss of fish such as invasive species and pollution from agricultural and urban runoff. While we support a broader consideration of the entire Delta ecosystem and all of the public benefits it offers, this latest legal action could do major economic harm in the middle of a recession.The plaintiffs seek to stop water deliveries from the Delta until huge state and federal pumping stations near Tracy fully comply with laws environmentalists say are being broken.Limits on pumping already have been imposed by the courts. But the curbs are not sufficient to satisfy the groups that filed the lawsuit. They argue that the Delta ecosystem is collapsing rapidly and that more drastic action is necessary.Perhaps, but we urge the court to carefully consider the enormous negative impact that is likely to result if the Delta water pumps are shut down. After all, the judicious use of water for agriculture is also a part of the public trust.The state water resources department is understandably worried that closing the Delta pumps could cause the worst drought in California history. Such a calamity must not be allowed to happen.No wonder water users are opposed to the use of the public trust doctrine in the Delta. Besides, the State Water Resources Control Board already is planning several actions over the next five years to address the Delta environment, conservation and efficient water use.But that is not good enough for the groups pressing the lawsuit. They claim that the Delta ecosystem will falter in less than five years.We doubt that will happen as long as pumping is decreased and is done in a manner that protects fish. Environmentalists point to the successful use of the public trust doctrine in saving Mono Lake. However, far more users rely on water coming through the Delta than did those using water from Mono Lake. Also, there were adequate alternative water supplies. Generally, that is not the case regarding Delta water users.A water policy that broadly considers all of the public interests in protecting the Delta makes sense. It is also likely that water shipments from the Delta will have to be diminished.But if environmental, recreational, agricultural and urban interests truly want a long-term solution to California's water problems, they are going to have to work together to significantly increase water storage in new or enlarged reservoirs.That is the only way to assure adequate supplies of freshwater to meet the state's urban, agriculture and environmental needs — and save the Delta.Los Angeles TimesMost local markets show net growth in home valuesFederal data show the steep decline in prices since the end of the boom is concentrated in just a few areas, mainly in California, Florida and Nevada...Kenneth R. Harneyhttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harney7-2008dec07,0,5766148,print.storyReporting from Washington — The latest federal statistics on housing prices in hundreds of local markets reveal patterns that haven't been making the nightly news: Although on a national basis homeowners have lost more than $1 trillion in equity since the end of the boom, the overwhelming majority of local markets continue to show net cumulative value growth over the last 60 months.In fact, according to the third-quarter survey released Nov. 25 by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, out of 292 metropolitan markets, 273 showed positive net home values over the course of the previous five years, while 19 were negative.That may be of little comfort to consumers who bought houses late in the boom in 2004 and 2005, and are now underwater on their loans. But it's important for anyone who wants to understand real estate cycles and may be considering a purchase for the long term.Unlike stocks, where your asset vales can go from peak to zero in a matter of weeks, house values tend to be far slower moving and can be more durable over extended periods of time. Buy a house and hold on to it for five to 10 years in all but the most severely depressed local economies and you're likely to see positive growth in its value, even if a rough patch of price deflation intervenes.The FHFA's quarterly data track price changes in several hundred local markets stretching to 1975. Unlike other indexes -- which may omit entire states and give extra weighting to high-cost, historically volatile areas -- the FHFA covers every metropolitan market nationwide. Its data are based on repeat home sale and refinancing transactions where mortgages were funded, owned or contained in securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result, the properties tracked do not include houses financed with jumbo loans and the survey data underrepresent the subprime slice of the total marketplace.In the latest quarterly FHFA study, dozens of local markets showed positive appreciation for the last 12 months, despite negative national numbers. Most of them are in areas with moderate housing costs that never experienced the hyperinflation of the boom. The FHFA index, however, is not adjusted for inflation; the appreciation figures are nominal only.For example, Austin, Texas, saw average housing prices gain by 5.6% during the last 12 months and by a cumulative 35.3% since the third quarter of 2003. Houses in Grand Junction, Colo., increased in value by 4.7% during the last 12 months and by a cumulative 66.1% over 60 months. Prices in Syracuse, N.Y., were up by 2.8% over the last year and by 29.9% during the last five years.Forty-three metropolitan markets saw appreciation gains of 2% or higher in the last year, while others -- mainly in California, Florida and Nevada -- experienced double-digit deflation. Twenty-seven metropolitan areas around the country have racked up 50% or higher cumulative gains since 2003. (The complete 85-page survey is available at www.fhfa.gov.)The data also provide an overview of home values in many metropolitan areas that have seen losses in the last 12 months but are net positive over the last five years. For example, Chicago prices dropped 3.8% in the last year but are up a cumulative 28.3% since 2003. If you bought a $200,000 house in late 2003, in other words, it's likely to be worth $256,600 today. In Los Angeles, where prices exploded during the boom but plunged 18.8% last year, the cumulative value gain from third quarter 2003 through the same period this year is 45.6%, according to the FHFA data.In Washington, D.C., and its suburbs, which saw a 12.5% price decline in the last year, the cumulative gain for homeowners over the last 60 months has been 43.7%. Other examples include Phoenix (negative 16.6% one year, positive net 48.3% over 60 months); San Francisco (negative 8% one year, 31.9% gain over five years); Seattle (down 3% the last 12 months but up 54.9% for 60 months); and Tampa-St. Petersburg (down 15.1% for the year but up 37.6% since 2003).Among the top markets for cumulative gains over the last five years: Honolulu (up 78.7%); Virginia Beach, Va. (72.6%); Flagstaff, Ariz. (66.5%); Bellingham, Wash. (65.6%); Wilmington, N.C. (62.1%) and Baltimore (60.6%). Worst performers: Detroit (down 18.4%) followed by Merced and Stockton, Calif., both down 15%.The take-away: There's no question that there have been some painfully deep localized declines in the last two years. But the statistical fact is that values in the overwhelming majority of markets are positive over a five-year timeline.Financial TimesForeclosures threat rises amid arrears crisis...Saskia Scholtes in New York...12-5-08 http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto120520081624126414The number of US borrowers behind on their mortgage payments or facing foreclosure rose to record highs in the third quarter and threatened to escalate as job losses mount, the Mortgage Bankers’ Association said on Friday.Almost 7 per cent of mortgage loans were in arrears in the third quarter, while a further 2.97 per cent were at some stage of the foreclosure process. The MBA estimates that about 2.2m homes will have entered foreclosure proceedings by the end of this year.Higher unemployment in the midst of what many economists fear will be a deep recession points to an ever gloomier outlook for the mortgage market in 2009, said Jay Brinkmann, chief economist at the MBA.“Job losses are adding to the problems that already existing in the housing fundamentals,” he said. While much of the pain in the mortgage markets of states such as California and Florida has continued to centre on building, poor underwriting and incorrect credit pricing, fundamental economic factors have become more important as labour markets have slumped in those states. Over the past year, Florida led the nation with job losses, at 156,200, with California losing 101,300. The bursting of the housing and credit bubble, however, means that compared with previous recessions, it is harder to predict when the housing and mortgage markets will find a bottom. “We have not gone into past recessions with the housing market as weak as it is now so it is likely that a much higher percentage of delinquencies caused by job losses will go to foreclosure than we have seen in the past,” Mr Brinkmann said. For example, while the number of borrowers falling behind on their first payment remains below levels seen as recently as 2002, the total of borrowers who subsequently fall behind on second and third payments and ultimately enter foreclosure has already soared. In past recessions, this so-called “roll rate” has hovered between 12 and 15 per cent. The national roll rate is 30 per cent at present, however, while in California and Florida it is 75 and 65 per cent respectively, according to the MBA. With struggling borrowers finding it harder to make good on late payments, the US recession makes it likely the slump in the housing market will get much deeper before it finds bottom.