9-29-08

 9-29-08Merced Sun-StarIn tough times, more are seeking job training in San Joaquin Valley...SANFORD NAX, The Fresno Beehttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/474603.htmlMore people are seeking out training programs in the central San Joaquin Valley as the tough economy forces companies to downsize.The number of people receiving job-training and placement services through Goodwill Industries increased 52 percent through July compared with the same period last year, said Sally Wooden, director of public relations and development.More of them are older than traditional students, leading organizers to conclude that they were laid off from their last job. The jobless rate in Fresno County last month was 9.7 percent, up more than two percentage points from a year earlier...Other organizations are reporting similar trends. Valley community colleges reported jumps in fall semester enrollments, the Career Advancement Academy at Fresno City College tripled participation over six months and the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency, responding to demand, is targeting laid-off workers from hard-hit industries such as construction, mortgage lending and real-estate financing...Gov. Schwarzenegger has committed $10.5 million to help displaced construction and finance workers "talent transfer" to other careers, said Paul Feist, a spokesman for the Workforce Development Agency."What can I do?" is a common question for people unexpectedly thrust into the job market. The Employment Development Department offers possible answers. It has on its Web site lists of careers that require similar skills...Modesto BeeWho wins, who loses under proposed bailout plan?...TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.modbee.com/business/v-print/story/445505.htmlThe proposal to bail out U.S. financial markets to the tune of up to $700 billion creates a lot of potential short-term winners, as well as some losers.Wall Street and the banking industry are perhaps the biggest winners. Scores of banks and other financial institutions faced with going under stand to gain a lifeline that should allow them to start making loans again.Under the plan that congressional aide sought to put into final form Sunday, the Treasury Department can start buying up troubled mortgage-related securities now held by these institutions.These securities are clogging balance sheets, leaving banks without the required capital to make new loans and putting the banks dangerously close to insolvency.Banks not only have slowed lending to individuals and businesses, they have stopped making loans to each other. The rescue plan should help restore confidence to financial markets.There are other winners, too, if the bailout works as intended: anyone soon trying to borrow money - for cars, student loans, even to open new credit card accounts.Top executives at troubled financial institutions, on the other hand, are in the losing column because the proposal would limit their compensation and rules out "golden parachutes."...Homeowners faced with foreclosure or those who have lost their homes get little help from the agreement. Nor will it help people whose houses are worth less than what they owe get refinancing or take out equity loans.It would do little to halt the slide in home values that are one of the root causes of the current economic slowdown."It doesn't deal with the fundamental problems that gave rise to the problem - or alleviate the credit crisis," said Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of MarylandTreasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke are potential winners.In just a few months, they have remade Wall Street. If the plan helps to get the economy moving again, they may be remembered for having kept the financial crisis from spreading throughout the economy...Investors give $700B rescue plan cool reception...MADLEN READ and JOE BEL BRUNOAP Business Writershttp://www.modbee.com/business/v-print/story/445774.htmlWall Street gave Washington's $700 billion rescue plan for banks, brokerages, credit unions, thrifts and insurance companies a mediocre grade on Monday.As the House prepared to vote on the package that was finalized late Sunday, stocks were poised to open lower on concerns that the measure, aimed at prying open credit markets, would not pass.Stock futures fell sharply and demand for safe-haven Treasuries drove yields lower. The dollar was mixed, gold prices rose and oil fell.President Bush urged Congress Monday morning to pass the banking system bailout bill, saying it is needed to "keep the crisis in our financial industry from spreading" across the economy.Failure could lead to severe market disruptions, analysts said. But even if credit markets start to stabilize, the realities of a weak economy are likely to weigh on markets, they said.Just after Bush spoke, the FDIC said Citigroup Inc. would acquire the banking operations of Wachovia Corp.The move came only days after the government seized Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc., the largest bank failure in U.S. history, punctuating the urgency of passing the plan...Asian markets declined as investors remained wary about the time it would take to rectify the bad debt mess...And in Europe, stocks fell on worries about the plan's effectiveness and about the spreading contagion of banking system problems...Meanwhile, eyes turned to Washington as the House prepared to vote on the compromise bill that lawmakers and regulators hope will set the U.S. economy on the road to recovery...Even if the bailout is passed - the Senate votes on it later this week - the economy remains balanced on the edge of a recession. Unemployment has been rising; it's now at a five-year high of 6.1 percent and is expected to rise as high as 7.5 percent by late 2009.With worries running high about recessions around the world, global stock market volatility should remain elevated. And while anxiety about financial institutions could keep boosting demand for Treasury bills, pushing short-term rates down for U.S. government debt, a glut of new issues with longer maturities that must be sold to finance the rescue plan could weaken the dollar over time.There are also plenty of U.S. banks still in trouble, and it may take time before the plan helps them.Banks and brokerages wrote down about $400 billion worth of toxic mortgage investments since last year. Analysts believe write-downs could reach $1 trillion as rising home foreclosures further erode the values of mortgage-backed securities.In the second quarter, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. estimated there were 117 banks and thrifts in trouble, the highest level since 2003. The threat of more banks failing in the U.S. and abroad forced the government to act swiftly."Without this rescue plan, the costs to the American economy could be disastrous," President Bush said in a statement late Sunday after the bill was completed...After the events of the past few weeks, analysts believe Americans are even angrier and more distrustful of the U.S. financial system. Many have watched their stock portfolios and nest eggs plummet in the past few weeks, and are going to be more unwilling to take risks."Who is going to want to borrow to buy a new home in this environment?" Battipaglia said.Fresno BeeFresno's planning fails three court testsCity wins just one in 10 challenges; settles 6 others...Brad Brananhttp://www.fresnobee.com/263/v-printerfriendly/story/899308.htmlInterest groups and government agencies are successfully suing the city of Fresno, winning cases that raise questions about how the city protects the public from the effects of development. The lawsuits, filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, have accused the city of failing to fully consider air pollution, traffic, historic buildings and other factors when approving development. Since the start of 2005, 10 CEQA actions against Fresno have been decided, and the city won just once. Fresno settled six cases and lost three -- the losses coming in appellate court decisions made during a 14-month period ending in May. The string of higher-court rulings, including a decision on the Fresno 40 project in northeast Fresno, suggests the city isn't always following the law, experts said. Some critics of the city have made that complaint for years. "If I was the planning director, one appellate ruling would have me scratching my head," said Mike McCoy, co-director of the Information Center for the Environment, at the University of California at Davis. "Three would have me in the city manager's office defending my job." But Nick Yovino, who recently retired as Fresno's planning director, said the court decisions aren't the result of problems in the Planning and Development Department. The department handles most of the city's environmental reviews. "Everything we do is in compliance with CEQA," Yovino said, even though two of the appellate rulings involved his department. The third case was handled by the city's Redevelopment Agency. City Council Member Jerry Duncan said the court rulings didn't convince him of the need to change the city's review process. "We could probably make sure we never have a CEQA challenge, but it would probably add a year to each project," he said. "I don't want us to shut down our economy." City Attorney Jim Sanchez, however, said the city has refined its development reviews as a result of CEQA decisions. The city pays greater attention to historic properties, and what development means for air quality and traffic, among other things, he said. The city has spent about $100,000 on legal fees for lawsuits filed over the relocation of historic homes for a redevelopment project downtown, Sanchez said. But typically the city spends less than $10,000 on legal fees for CEQA cases. Former City Council Member Tom Boyajian said the city doesn't worry much about the cost of CEQA challenges. An attorney who served eight years on the council before leaving in 2006, Boyajian often voted against development proposals, saying the city hadn't met CEQA requirements. "It was like a badge of honor at the city not to follow CEQA," he said. "The city is like a prostitute who knows she's going to get caught a few times and considers it the cost of doing business."Fewer reviews in FresnoGovernment agencies must review all development proposals to see whether CEQA applies. If it does, the agency decides whether the project will likely have significant environmental effects. A finding of significance leads to a more detailed study, which can upset developers. The study can take nine months to a year to complete and cost the developer up to $20,000, city officials said. Fresno finds that projects are likely to produce significant effects far less often than other similar-sized cities in California, The Fresno Bee found in an analysis of CEQA records sent to the state.In a 10-year period ending in July, Fresno required a full environmental review for nine out of 73 projects, or 12% of the time, according to the CEQA database. By comparison, California's 20 biggest cities, except Los Angeles and San Diego, required a full environmental review for 26% of projects. The results seem to indicate that Fresno is reluctant to require a full review, said McCoy of the Information Center for the Environment, which maintains the database. Environmental violationsAppellate courts repeatedly have found fault with the city's CEQA standards:In April 2007, an appellate court tossed out the city's approval of a shopping center proposed on North Friant Road near Highway 41. The Woodward Park Homeowners Association sought the decision for the property known as the "Fresno 40," referring to its acreage. The city erred by allowing developer DeWayne Zinkin to pay just $44,000 for the traffic the shopping center would add to Highway 41, when Caltrans estimated the fee at $307,000, the court said. Fresno's decision would leave the public "holding the financial bag," the court said. As a result, the city failed to make a reasonable effort to offset the effects of development, a key CEQA requirement, the court said. The city violated the other key part of CEQA by failing to inform the public about the likely effects of the shopping center, the court found.The court said the city's reviews were "deeply flawed": Instead of comparing the project's expected effects against existing conditions, the city wrongly based its review on a comparison with a "massive hypothetical office park," creating a "misleading report." The city staff misrepresented findings to the City Council, which received them at the last minute, the court said. More than a year after the ruling, Terry Rivasplata, former director of the State Clearinghouse, an agency responsible for reviewing CEQA filings, recalled specifics of the decision. "It just gives you pause about how the city is handling CEQA," said Rivasplata, a planning consultant in Sacramento. "It suggests problems to me -- not keeping up with case law, for instance. Ignoring the Caltrans recommendations for another."...Yovino and Sanchez said the city will make sure the mistakes aren't repeated in the next review of the project, due next year. The Planning Commission and the City Council will have to vote again on the project, having first approved it five years earlier. In February of this year, an appellate court ruled that Fresno botched another environmental review. The review, which found a downtown apartment building wasn't historic, would have allowed developers to tear it down for a parking lot. City staff mistakenly used an earlier decision by the City Council to not list the building on the city's historic register, when a separate decision was needed under CEQA, the court said. CEQA has a different standard than the city's historic register, the court said, and the circumstances of the city's initial decision also made the question worth revisiting. The council voted 4-3 to exclude the building from the register when the city's preservation manager and preservation commission had unanimously recommended its inclusion.The city is waiting to find out whether the developers want to go through the review process a second time. In May, an appellate court found yet more errors in a city review of historic property -- homes that stand in the way of a proposed parking garage for the Old Armenian Town redevelopment project downtown. Preservationists want to keep the homes in Old Armenian Town, saying they represent an important part of the city's history. An initial report by the city found that developers couldn't build the parking garage where they wanted, because the relocated historic homes would need to go there, the court's ruling says.Nevertheless, the city proceeded with the developers' plans for the parking garage, ignoring what its own review had found earlier, the court said. The city "never justified its abandonment of the previously adopted mitigation measure, and no substantial evidence supports the change," the court said. The future of the parking garage, originally approved in 2002, is now in doubt. Without the garage, the developers might also abandon plans to build retail and office space there. The city is waiting to see whether the developers want to proceed.Lawsuits get responseCEQA can invoke strong feelings. Developers worry about costly delays and additional requirements. Interest groups worry about their various causes. And the city tries to sort out the competing concerns. "CEQA is like abortion -- you have your proponents and opponents," said Moses Stites, who reviews CEQA cases for the state Public Utilities Commission. "CEQA is very controversial." Until he left in July, Stites reviewed CEQA cases for 18 years at the state Department of Transportation district office in Fresno. He often butted heads with city officials, trying to get Fresno to collect fees from developers for projects that would add traffic to highways.In one case, developer Ed Kashian had a highly publicized dispute with Yovino over how the city would review his Fancher Creek development. When completed, Fancher Creek will put 700 homes and a shopping center on 500 acres in southeast Fresno. City staffers initially recommended approval of the project without a full environmental review. Fancher Creek would not have a "significant effect on the environment," the city's 2002 report says. But when environmental attorney Patience Milrod and then-Planning Commission Member Lee Brand complained that the project was being reviewed in segments instead of as a whole, the developers withdrew their request to have the environmental review approved.Yovino later met with Kashian to discuss how the city would review the project. At the time, Yovino said Kashian twice threatened to have him fired, although Kashian said he was just joking. "I did not take it as a joke because it didn't seem funny," Yovino said at the time. The city staff eventually required a full environmental review of Fancher Creek, which was approved by the City Council. Milrod, representing a group of doctors called Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, challenged the council's decision in Fresno County Superior Court. The group accused the city of failing to fully consider a number of environmental effects, including air quality and traffic. CEQA requires cities to consider the concerns of the public and other government agencies before making a finding. But Milrod and others said they've had to sue to get Fresno to listen.The city and the Fancher Creek developers settled the lawsuit, agreeing to conduct a transportation study and install emission-control devices on some city buses, among other things. Caltrans also got a better response from Fresno by going to court, Stites said. Caltrans sued Fresno in 2004 over fees for increased highway traffic from new development. Previously, Caltrans had only sued Irvine over the highway fees, but has since filed lawsuits against Monterey County and Elk Grove, according to the department's public affairs office. Fresno also settled two cases filed by Madera County in recent years over concerns about traffic from two shopping centers approved by the city.Fresno settled the Caltrans lawsuit, too, agreeing to a formula to determine how much the city should collect from developers for highway fees. Stites said he spent less time haggling with the city as a result. "When I first started at Caltrans, Fresno didn't stack up very well," Stites said. "Toward the end of my time there, things had changed 1,000%. ... I saw a lot of changes after the lawsuit." Fresno residents could face changes in how they use water...Denny Boyleshttp://www.fresnobee.com/263/v-printerfriendly/story/899309.htmlWould you sell your lawn to the city to save water and cut your utility bill? Would you buy a house with no lawn or with only water-stingy native plants? Both are possibilities as Fresno officials look at ways to conserve water as the city grows. Those ideas, along with more traditional conservation methods, are part of an Urban Water Management Plan approved by the City Council last month. The plan outlines conservation goals for the city and offers ideas to attain those goals -- such as lawn buy-backs.It doesn't detail how some of those ideas would work. But the plan "shows us where we are, and where we're headed," said Garth Gaddy, Fresno's assistant director of public utilities. The plan, which took several years to write, looks at current water usage in Fresno and predicts how growth will affect water resources through 2030, when the city's population is expected to reach at least 760,000. A second plan -- the Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan -- looks even further, forecasting Fresno's water needs through 2060.There is no penalty if the city doesn't follow its plan. But homeowners will see higher water bills if they choose to not conserve after meters are installed citywide by 2013, Gaddy said. Unlike most California cities, Fresno does not charge homeowners for the volume of water they use; an agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, however, requires the city to begin charging a metered rate by 2010."We're offering a lot of carrots with incentives and different programs," Gaddy said. "But that water bill will be the only stick." Fresno gets its water from two sources -- surface water delivered through canals from Millerton and Pine Flat reservoirs, and ground water pumped by 250 wells citywide. The plan calls for more aggressive management of both. "Surface water is really the key to a balanced water budget," Gaddy said. "It needs to be used to offset ground-water pumping, and for recharge." Gaddy said the city is pumping more water out of the aquifer than it puts back in through recharge basins, like those at Leaky Acres, the large complex of ponds near Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The plan calls for buying more land for recharge basins.Conservation will be a major part of Fresno's water future, Gaddy said. Fresno residents use an average of just over 300 gallons of water every day, compared to about 240 in Clovis, which requires residents to pay a metered rate. Earlier this year, Gov. Schwarzenegger called for California cities to cut water usage by 20% by 2020. Gaddy said it's a reasonable goal for Fresno -- especially with water meters...Incentive programs, lawn buybacks and additional infrastructure for recharge and reclaimed water use will help Fresno meet its conservation goals, Gaddy said. But there is a cost. "Even to reduce water waste in areas irrigated by the city will cost money, with extra staff, meters and new plants," Gaddy said. "It all takes money, but we think it's all worth it." TWO VIEWS: Renegotiating NAFTA would hinder our economy...Daniel W. Christman, senior vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce...9-26-08http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/v-printerfriendly/story/896790.htmlWASHINGTON -- As the campaign rhetoric escalated this year, no issue was kicked around quite as unfairly as free trade -- with some candidates calling for a "pause" in pursuing new trade agreements and an "opt-out" of other previously signed deals. What was lost in this contest of populist one-upmanship is the economic truth about trade agreements and the high price to be paid by undermining our progress in this area. While some politicians and union leaders find it easy to call the North American Free Trade Agreement a "failure," the truth is that it has driven considerable economic growth and job creation, and we mustn't let campaign rhetoric cloud reality. First let's consider jobs. Since NAFTA's enactment under President Bill Clinton, more than 28 million jobs have been created. While NAFTA didn't produce all of these, it's absurd to call the job creation record of the past 15 years a failure. Moreover, jobs tied to exports actually pay 15% to 20% higher wages than jobs that aren't link to exports. Next, let's look at economic growth. Since implementing NAFTA in 1994, U.S. GDP has grown by more than 50%. And over the past year while our economy has faced significant challenges, selling our products to other countries has generated an impressive two-thirds of U.S. economic growth. Canada and Mexico, our NAFTA trading partners, now buy a third of these goods. This is why saying "au revoir" or "adios" to trading with Canada and Mexico would mean saying goodbye to millions of good, American jobs. Finally, let's turn to the manufacturing sector. NAFTA has brought great benefits for American manufacturers, which have boosted output by more than 50% since the agreement came into effect. This is one reason the United States remains by far the world's largest manufacturer, and in recent years has seen our factories set new records for output and revenues. Despite the fact that NAFTA has been good for jobs and growth, it has become the proverbial punching bag during this election season. Take Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's comments in February that "We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." Perhaps the renegotiation idea is simply campaign rhetoric; after all, Obama acknowledged in June that, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But merely considering the path toward abrogating this treaty could seriously damage America's reputation in the global economic arena. Re-opening the agreement invites Canada and Mexico to respond with demands of their own, as both have suggested that they would, that could result in a negative for our businesses, workers, and farmers. And any movement away from free trade also means surrendering the playing field to our global competitors, costing us jobs. The next president must assess the challenges facing the country and ensure that the American workforce is as competitive as possible. This means having an education system that prepares workers for the jobs of tomorrow and ensuring that those who are adversely affected by trade are retrained to find new jobs. It also means our leaders must recognize that globalization will not pause just because they want to call "timeout." By sticking to the facts about the economy and trade, candidates perform an invaluable service by exploring issues that sometimes seem too theoretical. For the sake of our country's future, let's see more facts and fewer slogans. Sacramento BeeQ&A: Governor's top water exec is hot for $10 billion bond...Kevin Yamamurahttp://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/1272939.htmlGov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a drought emergency this summer, and he is negotiating with Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state lawmakers on a $10 billion bond for water storage and conservation.In the midst of it all is Lester Snow, 57, who has served since 2004 as Schwarzenegger's director of the Department of Water Resources. The aptly named Snow, a Democrat, previously led the California Bay-Delta Authority, then Cal-Fed, and the San Diego County Water Authority.Where do things stand on water bond negotiations?I believe some good progress was made late in the session within the Assembly Democratic and Republican caucuses based on the (Schwarzenegger-Feinstein) draft. There's very little question, especially given the water circumstances now, about getting the bond before voters in the most expeditious way, whether it's a bond bill at the beginning of session or an initiative.How much of California's water problems are a matter of supply and how much are demand?I don't think you can separate the two. Our approach is that we have to have a lot more conservation going on in California, especially the growing (residential) areas where we're adding houses and new landscaping. And our supply issue is one of managing the irregularities of water supply in California, which are getting more extreme. Climate change has already happened and continues to happen, which makes our water supply more erratic.Why are some areas in California rationing water and others, like Sacramento, not?The difference you're seeing across the state is between those who have a reliable water supply and those affected by the reduced snowpack this year. East Bay Municipal Utility District gets the majority of its supply from Pardee Reservoir and Camanche, and there's just not good runoff there. Sacramento has very senior rights on the American River and is able to meet all its demands. The potential is there for 2009 to be as bad as this year. If it is, 2009 could be the worst drought in California history, and everyone will feel the effects.The worst in history?If you go back in time, you could probably find droughts that were drier. But since then we've added millions and millions of people. We have more protections for endangered species, so you have less flexibility for when you can pump water.Final question: Your last name is Snow; is there any job better suited for you?My name is Lester, and I don't let people call me Les. Because that would be Les Snow, and that just doesn't work in this business.My View: Steinberg's SB 375 isn't a smart growth strategy...Kevin Hanley, member of the Auburn City Council and the six-county Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)  http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/1272872.htmlTime and again, hard-working Californians have told their elected representatives to use their tax dollars to cut the red tape and ease traffic congestion.In a 2005 survey, 93 percent of Placer County residents said that reducing traffic congestion is important. Their priorities were to ease the traffic flow on Interstate 80, widen the interstate and local freeways, and repair city and county roads.Most Californians agree that easing traffic congestion is the No. 1 transportation issue. Not surprisingly, in November 2006, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1B to spend $19.9 billion to improve our roads and transit facilities.The people spoke, but most politicians weren't really listening. The same state legislators who, year after year, can't balance the state budget, even when revenues are flooding into the state treasury like the American River during a March "Pineapple Express," want to enact Senate Bill 375 (authored by state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento), which will force Californians who commute by automobile to waste even more of our valuable time and money sitting in traffic.As a member of the Auburn City Council and the six-county Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), our regional transportation planning agency, I've studied our local transportation system, and here's how I think SB 375 will impact us.SB 375 is a follow-up measure to Assembly Bill 32 of 2006, which mandates that the state reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 169 million metric tons over the next 20 years – a 30 percent reduction from current 2020 projections. Absent a major technological breakthrough in producing a low-carbon fuel, meeting the AB 32 emissions limits will be almost impossible to achieve without destroying lots of jobs.Even supporters of AB 32 know that implementing an experimental "cap and trade system" for greenhouse-gas emissions will significantly raise the cost of energy for residents and job creators. That's a politically risky move in the era of $4-a-gallon gas.Supporters of the AB 32 regime also ignore the need for the thinning of our unhealthy forests and the fact that the last four major forest fires in California (not counting the 2,000 lightning fires of 2008) caused the release of 38 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – the equivalent of emissions from 7 million cars a year.The Assembly's bill analysis of SB 375 says, "According to the author's office, this bill will help implement AB 32 by amending programs that are beyond the current authority of the Air Resources Board (ARB)." SB 375 will mandate that SACOG and the other 16 regional transportation planning agencies around the state adopt, by Sept. 30, 2010, a so-called "sustainable communities strategy" that tells the state how the region will meet specific greenhouse-gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2035, as set by the 11 unelected members of the state Air Resources Board.This unaccountable tribunal can set any greenhouse-gas target for the 17 regional transportation agencies that it wants. If this unaccountable tribunal decides that the "sustainable communities strategy" doesn't cut the mustard, then SACOG will have to submit an "alternative planning strategy" showing how the greenhouse-gas targets will be achieved in the region through alternative development patterns, infrastructure or additional transportation measures or policies. They want to change where we live and how we get to work.We know what will happen next. The politically connected will lobby the ARB members behind closed doors. The ARB members will be tempted to take the easy way out by raising the greenhouse-gas reduction targets for regional transportation agencies and thereby make local officials rezone for much higher density than appropriate.Ultimately, SB 375 will put a fat bull's-eye on future road and highway improvement projects in Placer, El Dorado, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties. The tourniquet will get tighter and squeeze the life out of major highway and road improvement projects. Traffic congestion will get worse because that is the goal.This is all unnecessary. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035, approved by SACOG members last year, increased the transit budget by 21 percent and financial support for pedestrian and bike routes by 56 percent. Steinberg thinks that local officials aren't quite smart enough to plan their communities.SB 375 is not "smart growth" at all. It's just the typical top-down, "state knows best" approach that will erode the quality of life for hard-working Californians.Stockton RecordSpecies law could be alteredConservationists decry proposed changes to act...Alex Breitlerhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080929/A_NEWS/809290307/-1/A_NEWSA crashing Delta ecosystem suggests that now is not a good time to tweak the Endangered Species Act, conservationists argue.But federal officials are proposing the first changes in two decades. In a plan up for public comment, the Bush administration wants to grant federal agencies the power to sometimes decide themselves whether a project, such as building a bridge, is likely to harm threatened or endangered species.Normally those agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Skipping that step would cut down on paperwork and speed up the process.It would also speed up the demise of animals, birds, fish and plants, the environmentalists say."Many aspects of how and when and how much water is moved through the Delta, as well as pollutants that are discharged into the Delta ... might very well no longer be covered" by the Endangered Species Act, warned Chris Shutes of the Stockton-based California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, in written comments submitted to the federal Department of Interior.Over the decades, the 35-year-old act has weathered other attempts to change it - "gut" it, critics would say. In 2005, former Rep. Richard Pombo of Tracy made endangered species reform a primary goal during his tenure in Congress, but the law didn't change.The Department of Interior calls the latest proposal "common sense."Skipping the consultation step would eliminate thousands of reviews that are a "tremendous workload" for wildlife agencies, according to a notice published in the Federal RegisterThe new rule also would make it clear that climate change is not a factor that requires consultation. For example, a road builder need not consult wildlife agencies whether emissions from vehicles on that road would reduce habitat for polar bears thousands of miles away.All in all, the changes aren't likely to harm species, nor change significantly how the law is administered, said Reed Hopper, an attorney for the property rights advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation, based in Sacramento."The arguments that these changes are gutting the act are hyperbole - a gross overstatement," Hopper said.But critics say the endangered species consultations remain important and should not be eliminated, even in cases where it's unclear that a species would be harmed."Wildlife is a great indicator to what's happening out there," said Lydia Miller, head of the San Joaquin Wildlife/Raptor Rescue Center in Merced. "We still do not understand what happens on the ground, how it affects wildlife and how it affects us."In the Delta, there is no one cause for the decline of smelt and other fish, Shutes said. The problems are "systemic;" the cumulative impacts of many projects must be considered.He predicted that altering the act would result in the disappearance of salmon, steelhead and sturgeon from many rivers and streams in the Central Valley."(The changes) seek to weaken the ability of scientists to protect our natural resources," Shutes said.CHANGING THE LAWSome highlights of the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act:• Federal agencies may in some cases decide for themselves if the project they propose could harm a listed species, rather than consulting with wildlife agencies.• There must be "clear and substantial information" to determine that a project might harm species, and not merely a reasonable certainty.• There is no requirement to consult on greenhouse gas emissions' contribution to climate change and its effects on any species.To learn more, or to submit comments, visit www.regulations.gov and search for "Endangered Species Act."Manteca BulletinSSJID sells surplus water for $224,000Conservation allows district to help two neighbors...Dennis Wyatthttp://www.mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=28&SubSectionID=58&ArticleID=59555&TM=46029.05South San Joaquin Irrigation District has helped two neighbors out and received $224,000 for their efforts.The district had 4,800 acre feet of water left from its Bureau of Reclamation allocation after filling Woodward Reservoir so they could have another irrigation run prior to Oct. 15 as well as take care of municipal water needs through next spring and handle of early 2009 irrigation runs for SSJID farmers.SSJID General Manager Jeff Shields said the board had numerous offers to buy the water from up and down the state but opted to keep it within San Joaquin County.The Central Irrigation District north of French Camp took 1,600 acre-feet for agricultural uses at $20 per acre foot. The Stockton East Water District bought 1,600 acre feet at $20 per acre foot for agriculture and another 1,600 acre feet for urban uses in Stockton at $100 per acre foot.The Central Irrigation District was literally out of water while Stockton East is running dangerously low in terms of its surface supplies.The district can't carry over storage for its adjucated water rights on the Stanislaus River under provisions of the deal that allowed the Bureau to tear down the original Melones Dam built in conjunction with Oakdale Irrigation District and replace it with New Melones Reservoir.Both the SSJID and OID get their water from the Stanislaus River watershed where they both operate the Tri-Dam Project that consists of three reservoirs that generate electricity as well as help store water for irrigation.The district can assure full deliveries of water for the start of the irrigation season next year. They were trying to get a contract with the Bureau to pay them to hold some of the water they sold but the federal government was unable to do it."We're keeping our fingers crossed for next year like everyone else," Shields said of the prospect of the drought heading into a third year.The SSJID has made almost $2 million this year on sales of water to help other districts in California thanks to their ability to conserve and manage water supplies. They sold 10,000 acre feet in an emergency sale in the spring when the courts ordered diversions shutdown at Tracy to protect the Delta Smelt.San Francisco ChronicleCalifornia took on energy crisis, now it faces water crisis...Lester Snow, director of the California Department of Water Resourceshttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/29/EDTI136772.DTL&type=printableOnce a week, a truck brings drinking water to the small town of Bodega, just west of Santa Rosa. Without this delivery, the Bodega Water Company could not meet the needs of the town's 150 residents who normally rely on well water. The company expects to step up the trucked-in deliveries to twice a week and then daily as the state's drought worsens and groundwater supplies dwindle. Bodega's water shortage is just one example of how serious the state's water problems have become. While not every community in California is suffering like Bodega, many are facing serious water shortages. East Bay residents have already been asked to cut back their residential water use by 19 percent. In fact, 18 communities across the state have implemented some form of mandatory water rationing. Many other water agencies have asked customers to comply with voluntary conservation programs, have implemented price changes to make conservation a financially appealing choice, or have placed restrictions on water deliveries. Public water agencies are only receiving 35 percent of their annual allocation of water from the State Water Project this year - the lowest level since the severe 1991 drought. In the coming year, deliveries will likely be even less. California is looking down the barrel of a potentially severe, long-term drought. We've had two extremely dry years and initial forecasts from the National Weather Service are that the drought conditions will continue into next year. Our reservoirs are low. Our groundwater supplies are being overdrafted in some areas. And court-ordered pumping limits have restricted our ability to move water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California due to environmental concerns. A third dry year could have devastating consequences to California's economy at a time when many businesses, industries, workers and farmers are already struggling. In June, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought emergency and directed state agencies to take immediate action to address the drought impacts. Armed with the governor's direction, state water managers are addressing the problems created by the drought through a variety of programs, including the Drought Water Bank for 2009. This emergency program will allow the Department of Water Resources to purchase water from willing sellers and sell that water to at-risk water agencies, giving communities that are facing health or public safety issues top priority. We are also working hard to coordinate programs and services to ensure that the state's efforts support conservation efforts at the local level. Mother Nature may prove the weather predictions wrong and give us a long and wet winter. Even if she does, better-than-average rainfall and a healthy snowpack will not solve California's long-term water problems. In addition, climate change is altering our rainfall and snowpack - which the state relies on for water storage. This is something that we must plan for and manage. At the same time, our state water systems are aging and population growth is putting more and more pressure on our existing water supplies. The drought reminds us all of the importance of providing a sustainable water supply system capable of meeting the needs of consumers now and in the future. The governor and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have proposed a comprehensive solution to California's water crisis. It addresses conservation as well as new groundwater and surface storage facilities, conveyance facilities and environmental restoration.But in the end, Californians need to fundamentally change how we use water. California needs to make water efficiency a priority at home, in our communities, on the farm and at the office. We can take immediate actions to conserve, such as adjusting how and when we water our gardens, shortening our showers and running our dishwasher only when it's full. As we buy new appliances for our house or make long-term investments in our outdoor landscaping, our decisions directly affect future water use. Before the state's energy crisis, most Californians used power indiscriminately in their homes. Now many of us avoid peak energy-use times, instead running appliances during the evening hours and using other energy-saving products. This fundamental change has resulted in significant energy savings. It's time to take the state's water supply problems just as seriously. We can do it ... we must do it.To learn moreVisit the state's drought Web page: www. water.ca.gov/drought.Readthe governor's declaration of drought, at links.sfgate.com/ZEYMInvestigateways to save water at home, at links.sfgate.com/ZEYNWarning on lead fallout at gun clubs...Jane Kayhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/28/MN4F12S0O2.DTL&type=printableFor 40 years on clear mornings, avid shooters have turned out at the Petaluma Trap and Skeet Club for the sport of popping away at clay pigeons hurled into the air.The western Sonoma County range looks idyllic with hawks and golden eagles diving over grazing sheep. But in a year's time, the rural outdoor range is strewn with seven tons of lead, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, which owns the land.Health officials worry about even trace amounts of lead in gasoline, paint, plumbing, food and consumer products, which is why conservationists and regulators are warning about letting thousands of tons of lead accumulate at shooting ranges statewide.Despite some cleanups and spotty county inspections, dozens of ranges in California remain under the radar of regulation.Lead litter endangers wildlife and waterways, scientists say. Lead is so toxic that if consumed, it stunts the growth of animals and plants, and causes the loss of biological diversity, according to scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Runoff from ranges can be rich in lead, said Tom Mumley, assistant executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which halted the use of lead shot at shooting ranges near water in the mid-1990s."We think there are solutions that don't require lead shot."But gun clubs, like the Petaluma Trap and Skeet Club, disagree."Lead's not a contaminant. It doesn't run with the water," said Jerry Cossey, club president of the Petaluma club who has been a member for all of its 40 years.But costly cleanups show otherwise. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water customers paid $25 million to clean up the now-closed Peninsula Gun Club near San Francisco Bay in Menlo Park. At Lake Merced, the city told the Pacific Rod and Gun Club to begin a lead study at the club's expense."There could well be more than 1,000 tons of lead remaining at the lake from skeet shooting over the years," said Tony Winnicker, commission spokesman. "That, of course, is a serious concern."Wildlife at riskEnvironmentalists and hunters are still at odds after a state law passed last year banned lead bullets in 14 counties. The law is intended to protect California condors from poisoning because the birds' food, dead birds and mammals, becomes contaminated when the animals consume lead ammunition or are shot with lead.The condor preservation fight highlighted the issue of lead exposure and its effect on the environment, according to a recent report by the American Ornithological Society for Audubon California. Lead shot has also been banned for use at national wildlife refuges and some state parks. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told duck and geese hunters to stop using lead ammunition by 1991 as a way of protecting wetlands and water. "There's no good reason to be putting lead in the environment ... it's clear it's toxic," said Graham Chisholm, Audubon California's conservation director.Diane Hichwa, conservation chair of the local Madrone Audubon Society, agreed. "Lead as an environmental contaminant could be quite detrimental in the area west of Petaluma, which is a wintering area for raptors as they move along the Pacific Flyway."The Petaluma shooting range, scattered with spent shot and broken clay, could attract golden eagles, hawks, peregrine falcons, American kestrels and merlins, said Melissa Pitkin, education director of PRBO Conservation Science.Betty Burridge, famed editor of "Sonoma County Breeding Bird Atlas," singled out birds that would "eat off the ground" - California quails, mourning doves, rock pigeons and wild turkeys. Barn owls, which nest in the area, eat rats and mice that could pick up lead from the ground.Coast Guard monitoringMost ranges aren't required to report the release of lead. The amount of lead left behind by the Petaluma Trap and Skeet Club - which can serve as an indicator for other ranges - came to light only because the Coast Guard must submit an annual report to the EPA.For the first time in 2006 and 2007, the Coast Guard reported that 300,000 shots fired at the club resulted in an annual 14,000 pounds of lead.Patrick Nelligan, environmental protection specialist at the Coast Guard Training Center at Petaluma, said the Coast Guard adheres to the EPA's "best management" practices on outdoor shooting ranges, which outline how lead should be recovered, recycled and kept from moving outside of the range.Nelligan said the club pays for a lead cleanup at least every five years. The top 2 inches of soil are removed and the shot is separated on the 1,000-foot by 225-foot fall zone. The grass seed planted by the club and alfalfa grown by Sonoma County farmers help to inhibit lead runoff from the range, he said.The club is required to hire a company to test the soil every other year.The most recent soil monitoring reported the highest lead concentration of 17,000 parts per million and the average of nine samples taken in the fall zone at 2,165 ppm, said Nelligan, who reviews the results. The lead isn't considered hazardous waste by the EPA because it's on a shooting range - and eventually will be recycled. If it were a hazardous waste site, the ratio would have to be cleaned up to 1,000 ppm.The sampling of soil is limited to the shooting range, Nelligan said. The Coast Guard assumes that the topography and vegetation limit migration offsite of lead, he said. Resistance to changeShooters bristle at the idea that their sport is harmful to the environment and resist changing the shot they use. There appear to be 80 gun clubs in California, according to Clay Targets Online. Lead is the cheapest, most popular shot. If the lead peppered on the range west of Petaluma is any indication of what small outdoor ranges accumulate in a year, lead litter statewide could reach 500 tons a year.Representatives of the Pacific International Trapshooting Association and the California State Trapshooting Association refused to respond to queries about membership and any movement toward replacing lead shot. Skeet aficionados prefer lead shot, saying non-toxic substitutes cost much more. Steel, one alternative, can damage older guns, takes more powder to shoot and is not as effective, they say.Jeff Miller, conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said there are at least 10 approved nontoxic types of shot other than lead and steel and some were designed to approximate the density and weight of lead."As regulations and interest in using non-lead shot increase, the price is going to come down," Miller said. "Lead's been a useful metal. But from what we know... there's no reason to keep using it."Report: Everglades in decline as restoration lags...BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/29/national/a092712D38.DTL&type=printableA multibillion-dollar effort to restore Florida's Everglades has made little progress amid funding shortfalls, bureaucratic red tape and disagreements, according to a congressionally mandated report that warns the vast wetland is in peril.The National Research Council, in findings Monday, warned that degradation of the Everglades could become irreversible if action isn't taken quickly."The Everglades ecosystem is continuing to decline. It's our estimate that we're losing the battle to save this thing," said William Graf, the report's committee chairman and head of the department of geography at the University of South Carolina at Columbia.The South Florida Water Management District, which oversees restoration for the state, said in a statement that it agrees with the report's findings "that restoration progress is hampered by limited federal funding and a complex and lengthy federal planning process."Approved by Congress in 2000, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was originally estimated to cost about $7.8 billion and expected to take 30 years to complete — a price tag that has since ballooned due to construction costs and other inflation.The intent is to help restore some natural water flow after decades of dikes and diversions for development and agriculture, which have shrunk the Everglades to half its historical 4 million acres.The 2000 plan made the federal government and Florida 50-50 partners. To date, the state has committed more than $2 billion and pushed ahead alone with a few projects. Congress has only appropriated several hundred million dollars.Lake Okeechobee, the liquid heart of the Everglades, remains heavily polluted with phosphorous mostly from fertilizer runoff. Wildlife habitat is disappearing and the report noted that at least 67 threatened or endangered species face extreme peril."Unless near-term progress is achieved on major restoration initiatives, the Everglades will likely face further loss of species and habitat deterioration, which could be difficult or impossible to reverse," the report said.Meanwhile, the NRC committee commended Florida for its ambitious land acquisition, including a $1.75 billion proposal to buy some 300 square miles of farmland from U.S. Sugar Corp. that has long been a hindrance to water flow. However, much of that land may remain in agriculture, and the committee noted effects of such a deal may be more than a decade away.Dexter Lehtinen, a Miami attorney who represents the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians living in the Everglades, has consistently fought for restoration. He said the entire effort has been mired in talk and not enough action."That's going to kill the Everglades," he said.On The Net:National Research Council report, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review, 2008: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id12469Inside Bay AreaActivists fight for clean water, burn drugs...Sean Maher, Oakland Tribunehttp://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_10584231OAKLAND — Hoping to prevent mutated and sex-altered fish and other aquatic life in Bay Area waters, a crew of environmentalists set up shop in Jack London Square Sunday to collect several pounds of unwanted personal medication for proper incineration.Many people who find themselves with expired or unwanted meds will simply throw them in the trash or flush them down the toilet not realizing the chemicals are likely to end up in our groundwater, rivers and lakes, or even San Francisco Bay, said Luis Frigo, a spokesman for the Teleosis Institute, a Berkeley-based nonprofit group specializing in green health care issues."Ninety percent of senior citizens in this country are taking between one and 10 regular medications," Frigo said. "And they sometimes switch prescriptions or don't finish treatments, which leaves all these extra drugs left over. They flush them down, and they have no idea the damage it can do."The drug drop-off table was a one-day event leading into No Drugs Down the Drain Week, which will team state and local officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Oct. 4 to 11.The presence of medications in water became a subject of national scrutiny in March when the Associated Press released a months-long study finding small, but measurable amounts of various drugs in the drinking water of 41 million Americans. Oakland was not included in the study but a sex hormone called estradiol was found in San Francisco's drinking water. "It's not like we're getting a high dosage of anything just drinking some tap water," said Morola Adjibodou, membership coordinator for The Teleosis Institute. "But fish live in that water all the time. And we have no way of knowing how all different kinds of drugs will affect them. You put a little Prozac in there, a little birth control and next thing you know fish are changing sex and coming out all mutated. It looks like something out of the 'X-Men.'"Adjibodou said many of the drugs they collected Sunday were over-the-counter items consumers buy in bulk, thinking they'll save money."You see a sale and think, 'Oh my God, 500 pills of Tylenol for just a few dollars!' And you snatch up that big bottle and you use maybe 50 pills, and come back and find that bottle's expired. You didn't save money after all."Even throwing that bottle in the trash might not solve the problem; rain will often carry the drugs' chemicals from landfills down into our groundwater, said Danny Phan, who was at the drug collection table Sunday promoting National Estuaries Day.Alameda County has several drug drop-off spots where people can drop their old drugs off for free.Santa Cruz SentinelUCSC students dine at the 'greenest cafeterias' among colleges nationwide...J.M. BROWNhttp://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_10588163An environmentalist magazine has named UC Santa Cruz's dining halls the "greenest cafeterias" among colleges nationwide for the campus' efforts to buy local produce as well as reduce waste and energy use.Plenty, a New York-based publication about environmental sustainability, said in its "Green Campuses" report this month that UCSC took first place for dining services because its receives 25 percent of its produce from local farms. All coffee on campus comes from fair-trade sources.But the magazine's cataloging of UCSC's environmentally friendly dining credentials -- largely started by students when dining services became an in-house operation four years ago -- barely scratches the surface. In fact, the Crown/Merrill Dining Commons at UCSC was the first restaurant to receive Santa Cruz's Green Certified Business certificate.When the campus reopened for fall classes last week, students found no trays in UCSC's five dining halls. The idea, according to Dining Services and Hospitality Director Scott Berlin, is to cut down on food waste and the water used to wash trays.When trays are available in cafeterias -- especially at all-you-can-eat dining halls like those at UCSC -- diners tend to grab more grub than they need, Berlin said. Now, students take only what they can carry on a plate or in their hands, though they can always go back for more.Berlin said the campus hopes to reduce at least 30 percent of the 5 tons of discarded food collected from the five dining halls weekly and taken to a regional landfill. The campus has a new food pulper stationed at College Eight that will turn more food waste into compost for soil or animal feed. Berlin said another hopeful byproduct of removing trays is that diners will eat less because they can't bring as much food to the table. The campus also introduced a "Be a Taster, Not a Waster" campaign, which encourages students to sample an item they might be curious about rather than dumping a heaping helpful on their plate only to discard it later.Because the five dining halls serve a combined 10,000 meals per week during the academic year, Berlin said he hopes that, just by getting rid of trays, the campus can reduce water use by 300,000 gallons per year.As for produce, the campus draws a quarter of its produce from the UCSC Farm and Garden and a cooperative of 14 farms in Watsonville. The other 75 percent comes from mass food distributor Ledyard, which Berlin still considers a green choice because the company is based in Santa Cruz.Dining Services has taken other green steps. For nearly five years, its staff has driven electric vehicles to get around campus, and now cleans with green supplies. Recently, the department launched a program to recycle preconsumer waste. Fruit and vegetable scraps left over after food preparation are composted at the Buena Vista landfill.The dining halls also use reusable glasses and metal silverware instead of plastic utensils and Styrofoam cups that take years to degrade in landfills. Most of the paper products used are compostable.Clint Jeffries, manager of Crown/Merrill Dining Commons, said all employees are trained annually on composting, and is gentle about reminding them. He said he walks around the kitchen pulling pineapple rinds out of the garbage and a glove out of the compost bin, showing workers as he switches the discarded items. "All of our staff is passionate about being green," Berlin said. "Our customers want us to do it. We're not fighting anybody anywhere. The success we've had is attributed to them."Stephen Lasko, 21, a senior at Porter College whose major is ecology and evolution, said he wishes UCSC would buy even more products from local farmers. But, in the global effort to go green, "As universities go, this university is pretty up there."UCSC has also won praise for its vegan awareness. Its polenta lasagne won best vegan recipe at a national college dining services contest in July and has won past honors from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.Sun-HeraldBreaking News: Heritage Partner’s ‘Gateway’ project on hold...Rob Parsons/Staff Writer...9-26-08http://www.colusa-sun-herald.com/common/printer/view.php?db=cusherald&id=1766Plans for a community of several thousand homes in southwest Colusa County are on hold, at least for now.Pacific Cascade Group, the Orange County developer that had planned the South Colusa Gateway Community, on Friday withdrew its application for a general plan amendment to allow the project.South Colusa, announced in 2004, originally called for as many as 6,500 new homes on more than 3,500 acres of farmland 6 miles south of Arbuckle, along the Yolo County border.Earlier this month, Pacific Cascade and its local wing, Colusa Heritage Partners, announced a scaled-down version with 3,160 homes, meant to attract some 9,000 newcomers to a 1,000-acre site over three decades.Project supporters said the development would bring new money to a county desperately short on cash. Opponents said a new city would cost the county its unique agricultural heritage.In a letter dated Sept. 26, the project’s director, Bruce Bonfield, said developers decided to set aside their zoning application “for the time being.”...Bonfield wrote that two days earlier, Pacific Cascade requested a 60-day delay before Tuesday’s meeting with the Colusa County Board of Supervisors but was rebuffed.Supervisor Kim Dolbow Vann, whose 1st District includes the South Colusa site, said her colleague Thomas A. Indrieri refused the delay because the meeting had been scheduled for nearly a month. She added that withdrawing the application means the developers have essentially scrapped the project in its current form.“It means they would have to start over from scratch if they want consideration for anything,” Vann said Friday.Vann expressed frustration with what she called the developers’ unwillingness to listen to local leadership about the plan.“The county of Colusa is not going to be bullied into anything, period,” she said.Washington PostBottled Water at Issue in Great LakesConservation and Commerce Clash...Kari Lydersenhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802997_pf.htmlCHICAGO -- Even as a 10-year campaign to block wholesale export of Great Lakes water came to a successful conclusion in Congress last week, some legislators and environmentalists vowed to continue their fight to close a "bottled-water loophole," a campaign that taps into a national debate over sales of H2O in disposable containers.A provision of the Great Lakes Compact allows water to be diverted from the basin if it is in containers holding less than 5.7 gallons. The question is whether bottling water from the aquifers that feed the lakes, the largest repository of fresh water on Earth, should be seen as ordinary human consumption, commercial production, or export of a treasured natural resource.In August, Nestle Waters North America was granted permits for a new well and pipeline at its Ice Mountain facility in Mecosta County, Mich., where it bottles 700,000 gallons a day. Nestle also recently renewed permits for its plant in Guelph, Ontario. Both have sparked vocal opposition from those who say the industry is privatizing a public good and harming the environment.Americans drank 8.8 billion gallons of bottled water in 2007, up 7 percent from 2006, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp. But bottled water has drawn increasing criticism, leading San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor, Mich., among other municipalities, to ban buying bottled water with city funds.Nestle spokesman Brian Flaherty said the industry is being unfairly singled out, since it is only one of many commercial sectors that use and export water. More Great Lakes region water goes into soda and beer cans, he said."How do you define a product?" he asked. "Water goes into beer in Wisconsin and radiators in Detroit. Why would you have a separate standard for bottled water versus soda?"Bottled water accounts for less than 0.02 percent of groundwater withdrawals nationally, according to a 2004 University of Maryland study cited by the International Bottled Water Association. Fourteen times as much bottled water is imported into the Great Lakes basin than is exported, a U.S.-Canadian commission reported in 2000.But opponents of bottled water say soda and beer are different because the water is consumed in making something else, whereas they view Nestle as taking a public good, paying very little for it, and making a profit on it.They also fear that since the compact officially treats water as a "product," the door could be opened to further commercialization and sale. It was such fears that in 1998 launched the process that led to the compact, after the tiny company Nova Group obtained a permit from the Ontario government -- later withdrawn -- to ship up to 158 million gallons of Great Lakes water per year to Asia.Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who led opposition to the compact because of the bottled-water loophole, has requested comments from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the State Department about how international trade issues will play out."Call me all wet, but I say, why don't we get the answers? Why are we rushing this?" he said.Anu Bradford, a University of Chicago law professor, said international trade law cannot force a country to extract its natural resources -- such as water "in its pristine form in a lake." But once it is bottled and becomes itself a product, she said, trade agreements would prevent a ban on exports."How do we decide when water is a product?" she asked. "Under the WTO and NAFTA, there is no obligation for a state to extract its natural resources. The difference comes when it makes the decision to allow an entity to commercialize it and they do commercialize it. Then it is a product and you can't ban the export."Doug Roberts Jr., director of environmental and energy policy at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, agrees."We think it's critical that you are able to make products and ship them all over the world," Roberts said. "That's what you do in a free-market economy. We were very concerned groups would target one product and say that product can't be shipped. What's the difference between bottled water and beer or cherry juice? Those all have water in them."Nestle is the biggest water bottler in Michigan but not the only one. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola bottle Detroit municipal water for their Aquafina and Dasani brands, respectively. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have water-bottling plants in Quebec and Ontario.Opponents say Nestle's pumping is lowering water levels in local creeks and lakes -- systems that feed the Great Lakes. In Ontario, a hydrologist hired by a group opposing the Nestle plant reported that the company was using 7 percent of the local water supply and depleting the flow of a creek."As long as the bottled-water loophole remains, it's a gaping hole in the Great Lakes Compact that would lead to potentially sucking the Great Lakes dry," said Meera Karunananthan, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians, a citizen group.In both Ontario and Michigan, many residents are also angry that Nestle gets the water at low cost, paying the same rate as any other water user. But Terry Swier, president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, said she doesn't necessarily want the company to pay for the water. "Then with the financial situation Michigan is in, we would just open up the state to any water bottler," she said. "We have to preserve and protect the waters for future generations."Flaherty said he doesn't think bottled water, in or out of the Great Lakes basin, should get a bad rap."We're one of 70,000 different types of beverages you can buy," he said. "We use the least amount of water and the least amount of plastic, and we're good for you."New York TimesDon’t Blame the New Deal...Editorial...9-28-08http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=printThis year’s serial bailouts are proof of a colossal regulatory failure. But it is not “the system” that failed, as President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who are complicit in the calamity would like Americans to believe. People failed.For decades now, antiregulation disciples of the Reagan Revolution have eliminated vital laws, blocked the enactment of much-needed new regulations, or simply refused to exercise their legal authority.The regulatory system for banks, securities, commodities and insurance is unwieldy and in need of modernization. The system has gaps, like the absence of regulation for “innovations” such as credit default swaps, the insurance-like contracts now valued at $62 trillion whose destructive potential prompted the bailouts of Bear Stearns and the American International Group. But the failures that have landed us in the mess we are in today are not mainly structural. To assert that they are masks deeper failings and sets false terms for the upcoming debate on regulatory reform.Under a law passed in 1994, for example, the Federal Reserve was obligated to regulate banks and nonbank lenders to curb unfair, deceptive and predatory lending. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, ignored his responsibility, even as junk mortgage lending proliferated in plain sight. Mr. Greenspan later said the law defined “unfair” and “deceptive” too vaguely. If so, he should have asked Congress for clarification. Instead, he did nothing — and the Republican-led Congress did not question him. When Ben Bernanke took over as Fed chairman in early 2006, the negligence continued. It was not until mid-2007, after the housing bubble had begun to burst, that federal regulators offered guidelines for subprime lending.The systematic dismantling of laws that called for regulation also contributed to the current crisis. In 1995, Congress passed a law that restricted the ability of investors to sue companies, securities firms and accounting firms for misstatements and pie-in-the-sky projections. That helped inflate the dot-com bubble and contributed to the Enron debacle. It also engendered a sense of impunity that helped to foster the excessive risk-taking so prevalent in the mortgage mess. Then, in 1999, Congress dismantled the Glass- Steagall Act, a pillar of the New Deal, which separated commercial and investment banking. That enormous change was undertaken with no thought or effort — or desire — to regulate the world that it would help to create. Now we know that an entire “shadow banking system” has grown up, without rules or transparency, but with the ability to topple the financial system itself. But perhaps no deregulatory effort had more catastrophic effect than the 2000 law that explicitly excluded derivatives, including those credit default swaps, from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. And there is probably no greater missed opportunity than the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac passed by the House in 2005. If the law had been enacted, the takeover of those companies may have been avoided. It failed in large part because President Bush wanted to fully privatize them and feared that if they were adequately reformed, privatization would lose steam.Indeed, it was in the Bush years that antiregulation and deregulation found full expression, fueled by an ideology that markets know best, government hampers markets, and problems will magically fix themselves.The nation is now painfully relearning that the opposite is true. Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, admitted on Friday that his agency’s “voluntary regulation” of investment banks was a failure that contributed to the current crisis.That is a good starting point for a debate about how to get back on the road to sensible, responsible government regulation. Morgan Stanley Completes Mitsubishi Deal...Louise Storyhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/worldbusiness/30morgan.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print Morgan Stanley announced Monday that it had completed a previously announced deal to raise capital from Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, a large commercial bank in Japan.Mitsubishi will pay $9 billion — or on average, $29 a share — for 21 percent ownership of Morgan Stanley. That is a premium over the investment bank’s share price at the end of last week, when it closed at $24.75.The two companies also announced a strategic alliance with a focus on corporate and investment banking. The arrangement remains subject to regulatory approvals.Mitsubishi rode to the rescue a week ago, after Morgan Stanley’s share price spiraled downward. The Japanese giant has $1.1 trillion in bank deposits, and the deal is meant to reassure Morgan’s investors that it is on firm financial footing. Last week, Morgan received permission from the Federal Reserve to convert itself into a bank holding company. The change in business model means that Morgan will have stricter capital and leverage rules as well as permanent oversight from the Federal Reserve. But it also gives the investment bank access to Reserve’s lending programs. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs remain the only two former investment banks left standing after months of turmoil in the markets, and they are now both becoming bank holding companies. Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were sold to commercial banks, and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Last week, Morgan Stanley announced that it was working on a deal with Mitsubishi. Negotiations took a full week, and there was some investor concern that Mitsubishi might be backing out. John J. Mack, the chairman and chief executive of Morgan Stanley, wrote to all of the investment bank’s employees on Friday to let them know the deal was moving forward.Now that the deal is finalized, Morgan Stanley still faces large challenges to reinvent itself as a bank holding company.“This strategic alliance offers a powerful opportunity to accelerate Morgan Stanley’s transition as a bank holding company,” Mr. Mack said in a statement about the deal. Mitsubishi’s investment, he said, “is also a strong endorsement of Morgan Stanley’s world-class franchise and future potential.”The deal consisted of $3 billion in common stock for $25.35 a share as well as $6 billion in perpetual non-cumulative convertible preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend and a conversion price of $31.25 a share. After a year, half of the preferred stock will convert into common stock at a time when Morgan Stanley’s stock trades above $46.87, a figure that is 150 percent of the conversion price.CNN MoneyBailout plan rejectedHouse leaders scramble for support for controversial Wall Street plan.http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092914NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The fate of the Bush administration's $700 billion financial bailout plan was abruptly thrown in doubt Monday as a House vote turned against the controversial measure.The next steps were not immediately clear but supporters were scrambling to put it up for another vote.What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote stretched past the half-hour mark as leadership scrambled for support. Investors who had been counting on the rescue plan sent the Dow Jones industrial average down as much as 700 points while watching the measure come up short of the necessary support, before rebounding slightly. The key stock reading was down more than 500 points.The measure needs 218 votes for passage, but it came up 13 votes short of that target, as the final vote was 228 to 205 against. About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it.President Bush is "very disappointed" by the House vote, his spokesman Tony Fratto said.A four-hour debate included impassioned pleas for and against the measure from Democrats and Republicans alike. Even some of those arguing the legislation must be approved were quick to point out problems with it.But in the end, the vote began with both Democratic and Republican leadership telling their members the only way to protect the economy from a spreading credit crunch was to vote for the difficult to swallow measure."Our time has run out," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee. "We're going make a decision. There are no other choices, no other alternatives."The vote comes after lawmakers and the Bush administration finalized legislation following a weekend of high-stakes negotiations over the controversial measure, which is designed to get battered U.S. credit markets working normally again."Today is the decision day," said Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House floor. "If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."House Minority Leader John Boehner told his members, many of whom objected the measure, that the had accept something he and many of them found distasteful. "If I didn't think we were on the brink of an economic disaster it would be the easiest thing to say no to this," Boehner said. But he said lawmakers needed to do what was in the best interest of the country.Leading House Republicans signed on to the proposal on Sunday after expressing earlier reservations. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he hoped for a vote in that chamber by Wednesday at the latest.Earlier on Monday, President Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hailed the measure and urged Congress to move quickly to pass it.Bush, speaking at the White House, called the proposed measure "an extraordinary agreement to deal with an extraordinary problem." He said he is confident the measure will win bipartisan support."With this strong and decisive legislation, we will help restart the flow of credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods and meet their payrolls," Bush said. Bush acknowledged that many voters were opposed to helping out Wall Street with tax dollars, but said there is little choice to move forward with the plan. He said most if not all of the tax money spent to buy distressed mortgage-backed securities should be recouped when the Treasury sells them in the coming years. "Every member of Congress and every American should keep in mind - a vote for this bill is a vote to prevent economic damage to you and your community," Bush said. Bernanke, who had spent hours before Congress last week testifying in favor of the measure, issued a brief statement promising that it would restore the flow of credit to households and businesses. "I look forward to swift passage of the legislation," he said.Buying troubled assetsThe core of the bill is based on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions so banks can resume lending and so the credit markets, now virtually frozen, can begin to operate more normally.The crisis and a proposed fixBanks and Wall Street firms, worried about both their own needs for cash and the condition of other institutions, essentially stopped loaning money to one another in recent weeks. That choked off the money being made available on Main Street in the form of mortgage loans, business loans and other consumer borrowing.. The crisis stems from problems in mortgage-backed securities, which saw their value plunge as home prices have gone into their worst slide since the Great Depression and foreclosures have soared to record levels. In turn, the market for trillion of dollars worth of those securities held by major firms evaporated, sending them down to fire sale prices and raising the risk of widespread failures among the nation's major financial firms.Under the plan, Treasury will buy the mortgage backed securities, either directly from the firms or through an auction process. It may also arrange to provide guarantees for the securities up to their original values in return for premiums they would charge current holders of the securities.To make the legislation more politically palatable, the bill calls for the government, as an owner of a large number of mortgage securities, to exert influence on loan servicers to modify more troubled loans to help prevent additional foreclosures. It also provides that the government will take equity in the firms that sell the securities to the government, and limits pay packages for top executives.The legislation comes amid great upheaval in the nation's financial system. On Monday morning, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which insures deposits at failed banks, arranged for the sale of the banking assets of Wachovia (WB, Fortune 500), the nation's No. 4 bank holding company, to Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) for $2.2 billion in stock.That follows three weeks of other shocks: the Treasury Department's seizure of mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500); Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy filing; rival Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500) purchase by Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500). In addition, the Fed bailed out insurance giant American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500), loaning it $85 billion in return for a nearly 80% stake. while Washington Mutual (WM, Fortune 500), the nation's largest savings and loan, became the largest bank failure in history.Credit freeze and your paycheckBusinesses are finding it hard to get credit to fund their daily operations. But experts question the impact on the wider economy...9-28-08http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/main_street_impact/index.htm?postversion=2008092811NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Is it even harder now for businesses to get credit from banks? No question.Does that mean that the American economy will crumble within weeks if the government's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street doesn't pass? No telling.In the wake of last week's demise of Lehman Brothers and last-minute government bailout of American International Group, the credit markets have all but frozen. What this means for businesses is that they are having a tougher time just getting funding even for their day-to-day operations, never mind securing loans for expansion projects.While the credit crunch is more than a year old already, two things have changed in recent weeks. First, investors have cut off a major financing source of large corporations by shying away from buying their commercial paper, or ultra short-term debt. Also, since banks are now holding onto their money even more, they are either not extending lines of credit to companies or are instituting more onerous terms. Businesses of all sizes depend on this funding to buy supplies and inventory, make payroll and extend credit to customers while waiting for payments to come in.Most businesses don't keep much cash on hand. They rely on banks' lines of credit to cover them until they get paid by their customers.What does that mean for companies and their employees? Economists are divided, with some predicting dire consequences and others saying most can weather the financial storm for now.Can't live without creditIf businesses can't access funding on reasonable terms, they will likely either raise prices or curtail their operations or both, said Ken Goldstein, economist with The Conference Board, a business research organization. This could send the economy into a tailspin as everyone from the corner bagel shop to the local hospital to the largest manufacturer suffers...Demise not imminentOther experts, however, say that most companies can get by for the time being. Credit lines, they point out, usually last for at least a year so banks can't start pulling them willy-nilly unless the terms are broken. And business can better survive a credit squeeze than a major downturn in consumer spending, which has yet to materialize."It's not the disaster they are making it out to be," said Amir Sufi, assistant professor of finance at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.Some companies, meanwhile, are coming up with inventive ways to circumvent the funding freeze. Take Drew Greenblatt, president of Marlin Steel Wire Products in Baltimore. He recently asked his bank to add $175,000 to his line of credit so he could purchase steel for two large customer orders. The bank said he could get the funding, but only if he first put $175,000 into a certificate of deposit."We can get the money but the terms are so silly it just doesn't make sense," he said. "It's very frustrating."So instead, Greenblatt is demanding more cash from customers in advance. Those clients with average credit ratings now have to put down a 50% deposit on their orders, whereas two months ago they didn't have to pay anything upfront."We're trying to make sure what's happening in the credit markets doesn't impact us," Greenblatt said. "We will be able to ratchet up sales and not have to deal with the bank." Citigroup buys Wachovia bank assets for $2.2BAs part of all-stock deal, Citi will acquire deposits, loans from nation's fourth largest bank. Citi also to raise $10B in stock sale, cuts dividend...David Ellishttp://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/companies/wachovia_citigroup/index.htm?postversion=2008092914NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Citigroup will acquire the banking operations of Wachovia for $2.2 billion in an all-stock deal announced Monday, following much speculation over the weekend about the fate of the nation's fourth-largest bank. To help finance the transaction, Citigroup said it would raise $10 billion through a sale of common stock and announced it would slash its quarterly dividend yet again, cutting it in half to 16 cents a share to preserve capital. As part of the deal, Citigroup will acquire Wachovia's massive deposit network, giving it more than $600 billion in deposits in the U.S., about a 9.8% market share, and broadening its presence in such key regions as the Southeast and the West.At the same time, Citi will assume about $53 billion in the Wachovia's debt and take hold of the same loan portfolio that ultimately sank Wachovia in the end.Of the more than $300 billion in loans it absorbs, Citigroup said it would cover up to $42 billion of losses on those loans, while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will be on the hook for anything beyond that. In exchange, the FDIC will get preferred stocks and warrants worth about $12 billion.Banking regulators stressed that consumers who bank with Wachovia would not experience any interruption in service and that their deposits remained protected."Today's action will ensure seamless continuity of service from their bank and full protection for all of their deposits," said FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair.The FDIC noted that Wachovia did not qualify as a failed bank, unlike Washington Mutual, which collapsed last Thursday, only to be subsequently purchased by JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).Following a string of high-profile collapses of banks in recent weeks including WaMu and the demise of Lehman Brothers, there has been increasing speculation that Wachovia could be the next one to go.Some top federal officials, including Bair and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, had feared that had a deal for Wachovia not been reached, it could have resulted in further fallout for both the economy and the already fragile financial system."A failure of Wachovia would have posed a systemic risk," Paulson said in a statement.Shares of Wachovia (WB, Fortune 500) were halted Monday morning. When trading resumed, shares fell more than 80% in morning trade to below $2 a share, down from about $10 on Friday. Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) shares fell 5% in afternoon trading following a rise earlier in the day. Citigroup, along with the broader market, fell as the House's vote on a controversial bank bailout bill failed to muster enough support.A 'compelling' dealAfter deploying more than 200 individuals to pore over Wachovia's books over the weekend, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit said that the purchase of Wachovia made the most sense given, among other things, its geographic exposure."We had looked at a number of deals and passed on these because they were not compelling," Pandit told investors during a conference call with investors Monday morning. "This one is compelling."Analysts seemed to agree."This as a strategic positive," wrote analyst Jeff Harte, who covers Citigroup and other financial services firms for Sandler O'Neill & Partners. There had been rampant speculation over the last three days that the Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia would be sold to either Citigroup or Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500). Even Spain's Banco Santander (STD) had been mentioned as a possible bidder. By Sunday evening, a bidding war between the two banking giants was underway, The New York Times reported.Even Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), which recently converted itself into a commercial bank from a stand-alone investment bank, was said to be discussing a possible tie-up with the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank.Like many of its peers, Wachovia bet big on the U.S. mortgage market, which prompted it to suffer painful losses over the past two quarters. Some analysts have blamed the company's ill-timed 2006 acquisition of the California mortgage lender Golden West Financial Corp. for the recent company's woes.Wachovia will still remain a publicly traded company following Monday's deal -- albeit in much smaller form.The Charlotte, N.C.-based firm will hold onto its massive brokerage business, which grew substantially following its $6.7 billion acquisition of A.G. Edwards last year. Wachovia also owns the Evergreen investment management division, which had more than $245 billion in assets as of June 30.Risky move for CitiWhile Citigroup's purchase keeps pace with moves by rivals JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), who acquired Merrill Lynch earlier this month, the deal for Wachovia comes as a bit of a surprise since Citigroup has been no picture of health lately.Citigroup has posted close to $18 billion in losses over the past three quarters, while taking nearly $50 billion in writedowns on its diverse loan portfolio. At the same time, Citi leadership has been working to shrink the company.Citigroup's Pandit, who was installed as the company's chief executive last December, unveiled plans in May to unload more than $400 billion in assets over the next few years in the hopes of turning the company around.Pandit stressed Monday that the Wachovia acquisition did not deter the company from its restructuring plans."Nothing is going to take our eye off the ball on getting fit," he said. "That plan continues in full force."Just hours after the deal was unveiled, Congress voted down a proposed $700 billion bailout for the financial system hinting that another big shake-up of the nation's banking industry loomed.In the past two weeks, the sector has undergone a dramatic transformation, including Lehman's bankruptcy, the acquisition of Merrill Lynch and the government takeover of insurer AIG (AIG, Fortune 500).Wondering which bank is nextAnalysts brace for more bank failures after Wachovia sells out banking assets to Citi; bank stocks plunge after House rejects bailout bill...Aaron Smith http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/companies/bank_failures/index.htm?postversion=2008092914NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Following Citigroup's takeover of Wachovia and the collapse of Washington Mutual, Wall Street is wondering who's next."Clearly we're going to see more bank failures, probably none on the size of whatever we've seen the last couple of days, but we'll see a lot more of them," said Sean Ryan, analyst for Sterne, Agee & Leach.Ryan said regional banks in the Rust Belt of the upper Midwest - with the exception of TCF Financial Corp. (TCB) because of its strong fundamentals - and banks with heavy mortgage-related investments in the hard-hit areas of California and Florida are vulnerable.Before the start of trading Monday, Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) said it will acquire the banking operations of Wachovia for $2.2 billion in stock, in a deal brokered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The FDIC said Wachovia did not qualify as a failed bank.Washington Mutual collapsed last Thursday and was bought out by JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).Shares of many bank stocks were trading lower most of the day Monday but fell even further after Congress rejected the $700 billion bailout of the finance industry.The S&P 500 Banking Index fell more than 6% in late afternoon trading while the Dow Jones industrial average plunged more than 500 points, or 4.6%.Bank sell-offThree Ohio banks in particular were the focus of investor concerns, with shares of Cleveland-based National City Corp. and KeyCorp as well as Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp all plunging.National City's (NCC, Fortune 500) stock plummeted about 60%.Fifth Third (FITB, Fortune 500) was down more than 35% and KeyCorp (KEY, Fortune 500) fell nearly 30%.But Ryan of Sterne, Agee & Leach, who covers National City, stood by the bank as being "fundamentally solvent" with a "much higher component of commercial and industrial loans" than some of the recent failures on Wall Street.Representatives for KeyCorp were not immediately available for comment but spokespersons for the other two firms insisted that their financials were sound."We are far better capitalized than WaMu was, or any other major banks," said Kelly Wagner Amen, spokeswoman for National City. "That gives us better flexibility to address the market changes from a position of strength."Amen said National City raised $7 billion in excess capital back in April. She said National City now has the largest Tier 1 capital ratio of all large U.S. banks and has received "buy" ratings from seven analysts since Friday. Also, she said the company is less dependent on mortgage-related loans than other banks."From a funding and liquidity standpoint, we remain stable," said Amen. "Exposure to residential mortgage markets is significantly smaller than Wachovia. We are a provider of mortgages, but it is not a significant portion of our business."As for the stock price plunge, Amen said, "We believe that the volatility in our stock price is reflective of the volatility in the finance market as a whole, as a result of unfounded and irrational perception comparing us to Wachovia and WaMu."Whitney Ellis, spokesman for Fifth Third, refused to comment on the stock price, but he defended his company as having strong fundamentals. In an e-mail to CNNMoney.com, he said that Fifth Third "maintain[s] a level of capital considerably in excess of the government's definition of a well-capitalized institution. And we remain one of the highest rated banks in the U.S."Money market bank woesOther banks with exposure to sagging money market funds also fell sharply Monday, though an analyst said this was a knee jerk reaction.The Bank of New York Mellon (BK, Fortune 500) and State Street (STT, Fortune 500) fell more than 20% in afternoon trading, while Northern Trust (NTRS, Fortune 500) fell more than 10%.Thomas McCrohan, analyst for Janney Montgomery Scott, said two of these banks - The Bank of New York and Northern Trust - recently said they were prepared to inject capital into their money market funds, if necessary. As a result of the financial crisis, some money market mutual funds, which invest in short-term securities that were billed by most experts as being among the safer investments, have fallen below $1 a share.McCrohan said the decisions by Bank of New York and Northern Trust to prop up their money market funds may have caused some investors to be nervous, but he thinks the fundamentals for those banks and State Street are strong."I think it's totally related to nerves, more than anything else," said McCrohan. "My impression is that they're strong, financially stable companies." Fed battles credit crisisFed triples supply of 84-day cash loans to U.S. banks and expands currency swaps with other central banks...Last Updated: September 29, 2008: 11:27 AM EThttp://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/fed_steps.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008092911WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve and other countries' central banks announced new steps Monday that makes billions of dollars available to squeezed banks here and abroad to battle a worsening credit crisis that threatens to unhinge the U.S. economy.The Fed said the action is intended to "expand significantly" the cash available to financial institutions in an effort to relieve to the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression. In taking the action, the Fed cited "continued strains" in the demand for short-term funding.Central banks will continue to work closely and are prepared to take "appropriate steps as needed" to ease the crisis and get banks lending again, the Fed said.Under one new step, the Fed will boost the amount of 84-day cash loans available to U.S. banks. The Fed is increasing the amount to $75 billion, up from the current $25 billion starting on Oct. 6. Banks bid on a slice of the loans at an auction.Doubling the amount of cashThat move will triple the supply of 84-day loans to $225 billion, from $75 billion, the Fed said.Meanwhile, the Fed will continue to make $75 billion worth of shorter, 28-day loans available to banks.All told, the total amount of cash loans - 84-day and 28-day - available to banks will double to $300 billion from $150 billion, the Fed said.Moreover, the Fed will make a total of $620 billion available to other central banks, expanding ongoing currency "swap" arrangements with them where dollars are traded for their currencies. That's up from $290 billion previously in such arrangements.The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank and the central banks of Denmark, Norway, Australia and Sweden are involved in those swap arrangements.The move comes as the U.S. financial meltdown's tendrils have ensnared banks in Britain, the Benelux and Germany.Bank bailouts sweep EuropeEuropean governments, including Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Britain, intervene to prop up weakened banks as crisis deepens...September 29, 2008: 11:13 AM EThttp://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/international/Europebanks_bailout.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008092911LONDON (AP) -- European governments had to step in with a flurry of major bank bailouts from Iceland to Germany as fear and turmoil from the U.S. credit crisis spread through the financial system.Even as U.S. lawmakers were preparing to vote on a massive $700 billion (€490 billion) rescue of their own banks, the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg took partial control late Sunday of struggling bank Fortis NV (FORSY), while Britain seized control of mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley (BDBYF) early Monday.German credit lifelineGermany organized a credit lifeline for blue-chip commercial real estate lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG, while Iceland's government took over Glitnir bank, the country's third largest.The rapid-fire European bailouts were quickly followed by news that U.S. financial giant Citigroup Inc (C, Fortune 500). was acquiring the banking operations of troubled Wachovia Corp., (WB, Fortune 500) the latest U.S. financial institution to fail or be sold. Citigroup will absorb losses of up to $42 billion in a government-facilitated takeover.European shares fell heavily and money markets remained frozen, with banks refusing to lend to each other for all but the shortest periods."All banks are having difficulty with long-term loans and short-term financing. It's difficult to say which could be affected," said UniCredit economist Alexander Koch in Munich."Despite the rescue packages in the U.S. (and Europe), that doesn't fully correct the problem. I see the problem flowing until late next year," he added.Fortis shares fallShares in Fortis, Belgium's largest retail bank, continued to fall Monday after Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg agreed to an €11.2 billion ($16.4 billion) bailout package late Sunday to avert a run on the bank. The three governments took a 49% stake in exchange and demanded Fortis sell the stake it had bought in ABN Amro a year ago for €24 billion - a move that many analysts believe started its troubles.The bailout was meant to restore confidence in the bank before the reopening of markets on Monday after a tumultuous week of imploding share values at Fortis.There was little likelihood of that, however, amid news of other European rescue packages and investor skepticism about the effectiveness of a tentative deal in Washington on a plan to buy banks' bad assets and stabilize the financial system.In Britain, the government nationalized its second bank this year, taking over Bradford & Bingley's £50 billion ($91 billion) mortgage and loan books and paid out £18 billion ($33 billion) to facilitate the sale of its savings business, including its entire retail branch network, to Spain's Banco Santander."We will do whatever it takes to ensure the stability of the British financial system," British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters."We will continue to do whatever is necessary over the next few days in very difficult times, in turbulent times throughout the world, to ensure that British financial stability is maintained."Europe's No. 2 bankSantander, the second largest bank in Europe, said it will pay £612 million ($1.1 billion) for Bradford & Bingley's 197 branches and £20 billion of deposits.Britain earlier this year nationalized Northern Rock, but not until after the mortgage lender suffered a damaging run on its deposits by spooked customers. The government is keen to move quicker to avert any repeat of that situation.The biggest U.S. bailout in history, which goes to the House for a vote Monday and to the Senate later in the week, would give the administration broad power to use taxpayers' money to purchase billions of home mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms. A decision to break up the total amount into smaller stages may have limited its effectiveness in reassuring markets, one analyst said."The fact the funds won't be released in one lot, but instead a series of tranches, is certainly detracting from its appeal and this, combined with the very visible scars of the credit squeeze, will again weigh on sentiment," said Matt Buckland, a dealer at CMC Markets.In Iceland, the government took control of Glitnir bank, the country's third largest, buying a 75% stake for €600 million ($878 million) in a move it said was to ensure broader market stability.Central Bank of Iceland chairman David Oddsson said that Glitnir, which has operations in 10 countries, would have collapsed if the authorities had not intervened.German commercial property lenderIn Germany, Hypo Real Estate Holding AG became the first German blue-chip company to seek a bailout in the global financial crisis, securing a line of credit of up to €35 billion ($51.2 billion) aimed at shielding Germany's No. 2 commercial property lender as the meltdown expanded in Europe.The government's Finance Ministry said it provided the hefty credit in a consortium with several other banks, though it did not identify them. It said that none of the banks were foreign.  -------------------------------------------------------------CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORKMISSION STATEMENTCentral Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political,and religious groups, and other stakeholders.