11-4-08

  11-4-08Merced Sun-StarCounty braces for another dry yearState water department will give small fraction of water in 2009...CAROL REITERhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/530212.htmlThe drain of rain leads mainly to our pain.Agriculture and wetlands both depend on water. A lot of it. And this year has water districts across the county worried about their water.The state Department of Water Resources has projected an initial allocation of only 15 percent of the normal amount of water to State Water Project contractors in 2009.Although none of the water districts in eastern and northern Merced County are being affected by this initial cut, that doesn't mean they aren't worried.The Merced Irrigation District, which serves most of eastern Merced County, gets its water solely from the snowpack in the Sierra, through the New Exchequer Dam on the Merced River. But Hicham Eltal, assistant general manager for MID, said if the drought deepens, the state may be asking for water from every water district in the state."The state Water Resources Control Board has certain emergency powers that if the water situation is dire enough, every agency, including ours, can be hit," said Eltal.Currently, there are 257,900 acre-feet of water in Lake McClure, behind Exchequer. The storage capacity of the lake is more than 1 million acre-feet. That's only about one-fourth of the total capacity of the lake. One acre-foot, or 325,851 gallons, is a year's supply of water for an average family in the San Joaquin Valley.This year, MID cut off the water supply to growers on Sept. 30, a full month before their regular cutoff time of Oct. 31.But growers in the Chowchilla Water District, which provides water to about 12,000 acres in Merced County, endured an even bigger cut. They had their water turned on the first week of June, then turned off the second week of August.The Turlock Irrigation District, which gets all its water from the Tuolumne River, which has a huge watershed, irrigates about 35,800 acres in northern Merced County. Michelle Reimers, spokeswoman for TID, said their growers had a longer water year than MID because of the watershed they pull from.And while the water districts supplying growers saw some cutbacks this year, and are ready for more cuts next year, the water districts that supply water for wetlands on the Westside are in even deeper mud.Dave Widell, general manager for the Grasslands Water District, uses all the water in his district to keep the wetlands wet enough to support the wildlife that breeds near Los Banos."If the state contractors are looking at cutbacks, that doesn't bode well for us," Widell said.A third of the water going to the wetlands has to be bought on the open market by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. But because the cost of water has been so high the past couple of years, the federal government has ended up paying up to $300 an acre-foot for water for the wetlands."We are living with shortages, and it's been severe for the past three years," said Widell.The water in Widell's district's wetlands has to be kept at certain levels during the spring and summer, so that mammals, reptiles and birds can reproduce. But autumn is also important, and Widell is looking at having to cut water off now, hoping to keep enough for the early spring."I just hope it isn't too warm in November, and we don't get too much evaporation," Widell said.Although there is a lot of doom and gloom about this coming winter and spring rain and snowfall, there is some good news."We have some predictions that we may get some good storms in December and January," Eltal said. "We are optimistic, but we are also ready for another dry year."Despite objections, council OKs railroad underpass planResidents of nearby neighborhoods clamor for more consideration...SCOTT JASONhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/530223.htmlMerced's City Council moved forward with plans Monday to build a long-awaited railroad undercrossing at G Street, despite pleas from some residents to hold off until they had more time to discuss the plan.In broad strokes, the council told city planners how they want the underpass and the surrounding streets connected. The plan's finer points -- with input from a citizens advisory committee -- will be hashed out in the coming year. Many Ragsdale residents fear that the underpass will ruin their neighborhood because it will send more cars down 26th Street.They, along with two council members, asked that the city postpone any decision for a week or two so there could be more time for discussion. The council had to approve a preliminary design to send to Caltrans by the month's end. "None of these projects are easy," Councilman Bill Spriggs said, referring to past road upgrades. "All of them are disruptive for a time."Spriggs, along with Mayor Ellie Wooten and council members Joe Cortez, Noah Lor and Michele Gabriault-Acosta, voted to approve the basic plans. Councilmen Jim Sanders and John Carlisle dissented. Sanders said he supported the project in theory but wanted more time for public discussion.With $8 million in hand from Proposition 1B funding, the city can build the $18 million underpass that will let cars on G Street drive beneath the northern set of train tracks.The council was faced with making three decisions during the meeting. In an effort to save money, it will close part of G Street during construction, which is expected to begin June 2010 and end fall 2011.It would have cost more than $3 million to build a temporary detour, and it would have tacked six more months on the project. The G Street intersection with East Santa Fe Avenue, just north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks, will be moved south to keep nearby driveways from being inaccessible. With the roadway being lowered about 13 feet, cars wouldn't be able to get into their garages.The council also told city staff to work with the residents on West 23rd, West 25th and East 25th streets to decide whether to keep their roads connected to G Street or turn them into cul-de-sacs.Laura Martin, a nearby resident, feared that the underpass would be an ugly, concrete chute. "This is a main entrance to our city," she said. The city will make every effort to make sure the project is attractive and blends in, Gonzalves promised.Short circuit: Electronics store closesMerced Circuit City among 155 closing nationwide...SCOTT JASONhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/530197.htmlCircuit City is pulling the plug on its Merced store. The Richmond, Va.-based company announced Monday that it will close 155 underperforming stores, scale back opening new ones and renegotiate some leases as part of a massive restructuring.The news is another blow to Merced's economy. It will mean more unemployed, possibly less sales tax revenue and may make recruiting other business tougher.On the brighter side, recent figures show Mercedians spend more in retailers like Circuit City than their counterparts in Fresno and Modesto. That might look promising for new big-box stores.But the giant electronics firm's decision continues an economic downer. Two weeks ago, Mervyns and Linen N Things announced they were going out of business.The city has already projected a 10 percent to 15 percent slide in sales tax revenue, Finance Director Brad Grant said. It's expecting to collect $8.2 million this year. He said it's hard to know whether the stores closing will lead to less city revenue. Circuit City shoppers will go to other stores, such as Best Buy. January may be a telling time for more major retailers calling it quits because the holiday season can be so crucial, he suggested. "There could be a landslide of closures -- or maybe there won't be any," he said. Circuit City expects to have the stores closed by the end of the year. It will continue running 566 stores nationwide.It opened its 19,000-square-foot Merced store in 1995, the same year that Staples, Michaels and Blockbuster opened. The store employed about 40 workers at one point. The city didn't know the level of its current work force. Development Manager Frank Quintero said that the three stores closing makes it harder to recruit retailers who are willing to expand to Merced...County jobs hang in balanceLoss of state funding threatens Human Services Agency at a time when most needed...JONAH OWEN LAMBhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/530210.htmlToday may bring bad news to 35 county employees and one historic downtown theater -- and it's got nothing to do with election results. When poverty relief and social services are most needed, the county may slash the very agency that provides those services to almost a quarter of Merced's population.And Merced County Supervisor Kathleen Crookham, after being turned down once, will try a second time to give county cash to the Merced Theatre Foundation to help restore the downtown gem at the Board of Supervisors' 10 a.m. meeting, a few votes before the group decides whether to make the layoffs.Thirty-five employees would be cut from the county's Human Services Agency, based on losses in state funding. It's up to the Board of Supervisors and whether they vote to amend this year's budget -- on Election Day to boot."It all comes down from funding, from the state," said Supervisor John Pedrozo. "We have to do some cuts." According county CEO Dee Tatum, the proposed layoffs are a direct result of cuts in state funding to HSA in the most recent budget. HSA gets most of its roughly $141 million budget from the state and federal governments. The county is only responsible for about $7 million. This year alone, according to Jim Brown, associate county executive, the county lost $1.6 million in HSA monies from the state; next year the shortfall is projected to be $4.8 million.Besides the layoffs at HSA, several contracts are slated for cancellation, and 58 vacant positions may be removed from HSA alone. Moreover, 31 other vacant positions across the county from the District Attorney's Office to the Health Department won't be filled.These cuts will save the county more than $2.5 million, said Brown. While the county has a rainy-day fund of more than $6 million, using those funds to fill the gap for a year wouldn't be a long-term solution, Tatum said."This couldn't have come at a more horrible time," he added, referring to expected cuts in tax revenues and state funds.Supervisor Mike Nelson agreed. The state's budget woes have affected more than Merced, he noted: "This situation is not unique to Merced County. It's a result of the state not fulfilling its responsibilities." But while the board could cut 35 jobs in today's vote, they received a raise of more than $3,000 in July, according to the Merced County Human Resources Department. Now they will receive more than $96,000 a year, plus just over $13,000 for expenses. Their pay is 25 percent higher then the average Valley board.Tatum himself receives more than any other county employee, $226,330 a year.Despite the budget woes, Crookham hopes to help Merced Theatre and other county institutions. Crookham tried to give $250,000 in her "special project funds" to the theater last May. It failed 2-3, with only Crookham and Supervisor Jerry O'Banion supporting it.This time she's trying to give $150,000 to the restoration, $50,000 to the Snelling Courthouse Historical Foundation and $25,000 to the Merced County Fair.She said she decided to put it on the agenda again because she wants to see the theater restored and wants her fellow board members to support her effort. "They're three projects of countywide significance," she explained Monday. "I do like seeing history preserved."The second project is to help add an elevator to Snelling's historic courthouse, which is in Supervisor Deidre Kelsey's district. Kelsey voted against Crookham's first plan earlier in the summer.The money aimed at the fair is to help organizers build a new animal barn, a facility people across the county can enjoy, Crookham said. Kelsey called Crookham's timing "questionable" and said she's not sure how she'll vote. "We'll see what Kathleen has to say tomorrow," Kelsey said.There are plenty of county buildings and projects that could use extra funding, Kelsey explained. As it stands, the majority is going for city-related projects, not ones in the county.Crookham bristled at the idea that the county should use the money for bridging budget gaps. "Here we go again," she said. "We can go through this litany. I still feel to say that 'It's a bad time' -- I feel like I'm being punished for being conservative."Each supervisor is given an allotment of money for special projects that otherwise may have a difficult time getting funded. In 2007-2008 it was $100,000 each. Most of the time they give $1,000 here or $2,000 there.Crookham saved her money in the plan to make a few large donations, including one to the Merced Theatre, which is owned by the city. Whether her plan has a Hollywood ending will be seen today.Fresno BeeLANCE W. JOHNSON: Legislature is playing with fire on water...Lance W. Johnson, general manager of the Madera Irrigation District...11-1-08 http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/valley_voices/story/980448.htmlFrom the Bay Area to San Diego and along the Central Coast, cities and farms are struggling through the most difficult water shortage in nearly 20 years. That's especially true in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, where hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland have been fallowed and crops abandoned in the field. As a result, thousands of jobs have been lost, unemployment has skyrocketed, cities and rural schools are suffering and government revenues are plummeting at the same time demands on social services are increasing. And what have our state legislators done about it? Nothing! In 2008, state legislators once again kowtowed to environmentalists and buried their heads in the sand rather than placing a water bond - any water bond, good or bad (and none of the three proposed was good) - on the November ballot. Kind of reminds me of the legend of Emperor Nero playing a fiddle while Rome burned. The fact is that, absent gully-washer wet winters and construction of major new water supply infrastructure, there is little relief in sight in the Delta. Even with wet winters, the Delta export water supply outlook for many farmers isn't bright, due to court ordered operational restrictions to protect fish, coupled with water deliveries to cities and wildlife refuges having higher priority. Disturbingly, if this coming winter is dry like the last, 2008 will look like the "good ol' days." And under some scenarios that could also impact our Valley's east side, due to other federal Delta export water supply obligations. If there were any "good news" that would come from a dry 2009, it's that Bay Area, southern California and Central Coast urbanites reliant on Delta export water will finally share in agriculture's water rationing pain by being forced to let their yards and golf courses die. Unfortunately that's what it's likely to take before state legislators get serious about a "real" water bond, as opposed to the laundry list of politically correct parables and platitudes that made up a majority of the money in the three pseudo-water bonds proposed this year. Our state is facing this water supply crisis with hundreds of billions of dollars per year of statewide economic impacts for one reason: the performance (or more accurately the lack thereof) of our Democratic-controlled Legislature. The current water supply crisis was preordained when Assembly leaders started playing their fiddles to environmentalist tunes 20 years ago. Marching in lock step with their environmentalist cohorts ever since, state Democrats have blocked every effort to increase our state's water supply to meet the growing demand for water. And this year they did it again. Not once, not twice, but three times. The question is, what should a "real" comprehensive water bond include? To start with it must include a Delta conveyance system. Next is about 5 million acre-feet of new surface water storage north of the Delta, plus 2 to 3 million acre-feet south of the Delta, which would concurrently enhance needed flood control and provide clean hydroelectric power. Finally, there needs to be 2 million to 2.5 million acre-feet of new groundwater banking facilities south of the Delta to complement the surface water storage and flood control projects. There would, of course, be a conservation element, but let's get real. Low-flow shower heads, low-flush toilets and waste-water recycling are no panacea. Fact is, and it's no secret, while conservation has made great strides in the past 20 years, too little remains to be conserved to solve our state's current water shortage. Finally, a comprehensive water bond must include continuous appropriations and permitting guarantees to prevent environmentalist-controlled legislators from imposing a "Russian veto" to block much needed water projects. What should not be included in a comprehensive water bond is more of the politically correct hallmarks of prior bonds: clean beaches, environmental information centers, aquariums etc. Why? Because all those "feel good" PC projects do is burn up huge sums of money without producing any real, wet, new water. How much would a comprehensive real water bond cost? About $25 billion, roughly half the total cost of a high-speed rail system, the lack of which will not be the economic show-stopper of a continuing water supply shortage. Until our state legislative leadership quits playing the environmentalist's fiddle and addresses our state's water supply infrastructure needs, we will see more lost jobs, more fallowed and abandoned farm land, more business closures, more building moratoriums and a collapsing state economy. Capital Press Legislative report calls for water changesGroundwater supply not sustainable, needs permitting...Hank Shaw...11-3-08http://www.capitalpress.com/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=616&ArticleID=45712&TM=66706.06The state Legislature's top analyst has released a report on California's water supply that could add new life to two perennial issues - regulating groundwater supplies and rewriting the state's water-rights laws.The Legislative Analyst report notes that California is one of just two Western states - the other is Texas - that does not have a state-run groundwater permitting law. The report also suggested that lawmakers revise the legal definition of "reasonable use" when it comes to water rights. Neither proposal sits well with the farming and ranching community.Staffers who deal with water legislation acknowledge that the proposals make sense from a broad view, but they shook their collective heads at the potential legislative war that would ensue should lawmakers take on the issues seriously when they convene in Sacramento this January."This'd go over real well with the aggies," one staffer said, recounting a multi-year row over a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would only assess groundwater levels, not regulate its use.Catherine Freeman, the author of the report, said groundwater permitting just makes sense. "We think it's time we come along with other states," she said.Texas, the other state without permitting, has so severely overdrafted its Ogallala Aquifer that some small towns have had to be abandoned.Freeman's report shows that groundwater makes up nearly 40 percent of the state's water supply in dry years, a level that many experts do not believe is sustainable. Groundwater pumping makes up only 21 percent of the state's water supply in wet years. "In a lot of areas of the state, groundwater is relatively unknown," said Freeman, who noted that much of Southern California already requires permits to pump groundwater. "We don't have a sense of how much the groundwater is holding and what is the quality of that water."Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition says statewide permitting isn't needed. "Local water districts and regions do manage groundwater and have done so for decades," he said.Farmers and ranchers have traditionally opposed government interference in their use of groundwater because permitting and regulation would likely cost them money - and it may even ban them from growing what they want.Indeed, Freeman's report includes a section on how much water the same crops use in different areas. This could lead to policymakers declaring that growing a certain crop in a certain area does not qualify as a "reasonable use" of water, essentially banning it.Alfalfa is one of the main villains for this point of view. California is a leading alfalfa producer and alfalfa hay is a main feed source for the state's livestock - especially its largest-in-the-nation dairy herd.Alfalfa requires a lot of water, and critics say that valuable California farmland would be better used growing higher-dollar crops such as grapes or almonds. "That we should not grow alfalfa in California is a complete falsehood," said Wade of the Farm Water Coalition. "The dairy industry, the beef industry, the horse industry are all highly dependent on alfalfa and if we didn't grow here, we'd have to ship it in from somewhere else."Freeman's report does not single out alfalfa, but it does include a look at "pasture" grown in the Colorado River basin, the area in and around San Joaquin County, as well as the Central Coast.Her report shows that growing pasture in the Colorado River basin requires more than double the amount of water needed to grow it on the Central Coast and nearly double that needed around San Joaquin. She showed similar results for orchard and tomato crops. Wade said economics can trump water costs."Although it may take more water to grow a tomato in the Imperial Valley, we're growing tomatoes during a time of year when tomatoes won't grow in the San Joaquin Valley," he said.Freeman's report also suggests tinkering with water-rights definitions to reflect modern water needs. This has been tried before in the Legislature and agriculture has opposed it as a water-grab by urban dwellers aimed at rural California. The possibilities of much of the report becoming law appear dim - unless the makeup of the Legislature radically changes after Election Day. Republicans have historically opposed any changes to water-rights law and have consistently voted against groundwater legislation. But Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the Assembly and possibly in the Senate; some are even talking about a two-thirds majority, which would eliminate the need for Republican votes on constitutional amendments or tax increases. Still, rural Democrats in the Central Valley could still block changes."I know that there are people in the Legislature who will use this to say we don't need new resources, that we need to reallocate existing resources," Wade said. "It throws farmers under the bus."Stockton RecordPlanners envision a larger LodiGreenbelt between city, Stockton would be created...Daniel Thigpenhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081104/A_NEWS/811040316/-1/A_NEWSLODI - City planners envision a Lodi that, by 2030, will have new neighborhoods along its western boundaries, will preserve farmland between the town and Stockton, will build new industrial and commercial centers to the east, and could be home to 100,000 residents.That's according to a report released Monday, the public's first look at what could become Lodi's new blueprint for growth. The report, a proposal of land-use concepts and potential growth boundaries, is a key step in the city's update of its General Plan.Overall, the proposal can be summarized by one word: compact. While planners envision some growth to the east and west of existing city boundaries, the report indicates Lodi's new General Plan could promote dense, urban development with a focus on downtown and growth that rarely sprawls more than three miles from the city center.That vision is meant to appeal to many Lodi residents' long-held disdain for sprawl and the city's slow-growth mandate while also acknowledging that some growth is inevitable, said Rad Bartlam, the city's interim planning chief."I would consider it a very conservative perspective on growth," he said.City officials will weigh in on the land-use proposals in the coming weeks before more details and policies are hammered out in the coming year.Among planners' suggestions:» A proposed greenbelt between Lodi and Stockton should be incorporated into the plan.City officials, county leaders and landowners in a rural area straddling Armstrong Road are in talks over a proposal to allow limited development while also maintaining an agricultural buffer between the two cities.That Monday's draft proposal acknowledged that potential resolution to the years-long greenbelt debate excited Mayor JoAnne Mounce, who has participated in the negotiations."I think that's pretty amazing," she said. "That means that it's actually a plan."» New neighborhoods should be organized around mixed-use centers, with retail, housing and employment all within reach.These would not be mini-downtowns, Bartlam said but, rather, walkable neighborhoods served by smaller-scale shopping centers and office buildings, such as the area around Lakewood Mall. "That is a classic neighborhood-serving commercial area of Lodi," he said.» The southeast corner of town should be tailored for corporate employment centers, with easy access to Highway 99.Full build-out of the proposed land uses could generate an estimated 47,000 new jobs by 2030, planners said.» The Mokelumne River should remain the city's northern boundary.Lodi's current General Plan was last updated in 1991. The Lodi Planning Commission will take its first look at the proposed changes at its Nov. 12 meeting.Washington PostUSDA Trying to Put Loophole in Organic Dairy Rules Out to Pasture...Cindy Skrzyckihttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110303000_pf.htmlSince you are what you eat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing stricter grazing standards for cows certified to produce organic dairy products, closing loopholes that allowed some operators to cut corners.Regulators found that some producers, though certified organic, were cutting corners on the standards because the current rule doesn't define what "access to pasture" means. Some dairies didn't give grazing time to cows that had just given birth or wouldn't let cows out to pasture in the rain.The Oct. 24 proposal specifies that organic livestock, those raised free of hormones, antibiotics or pesticide-treated grain, must be allowed to graze in a pasture at least 120 days a year. Thirty percent of the cows' feed must be from such grazing, rather than being fed organically produced food in a feedlot or an indoor facility.The change, eight years in the making, is significant because consumers pay up to twice as much for organic milk, whose sales are growing but are only about 6 percent of the $17 billion spent annually on milk."It's a big win for organic integrity," said Samuel Fromartz, author of Organic Inc., a book that examines the organic food industry. "A lot of smaller farmers thought the pasture definition was a big loophole that you could walk 5,000 Holsteins through."There are about 1,800 dairies with some 87,000 organic dairy cows in the United States, more than 93 percent of them small operations in the Northeast or Midwest, according to the 26-page proposal. Though only 7 percent of the farms are in the West, they account for a third of the production."Some producers, with the approval of their certifying agents have used other provisions within the regulations to avoid or minimize the role of pasture," the Agriculture Marketing Service said.Some organic supporters, led by the Cornucopia Institute, an organic advocacy organization, said that industrial-size dairies that supply some of the country's largest retailers with private-label brand organic milk were skirting the standards. That let the companies lower production costs and gain an unfair advantage over smaller producers."It's inexcusable they are not enforcing this program, which has hurt the ethical players in this business," said Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst at Cornucopia, referring to agriculture officials.Since 2005, the agency overseeing the organic program has received 11 complaints requesting enforcement actions against big producers. The dairies have been accused of over-milking their cows, restocking herds with cows that aren't certified organic and skimping on fresh pasture.Cornucopia, a Wisconsin-based institute, filed a complaint in 2005 against Aurora Organic Dairy of Boulder, Colo., which has five farms in Colorado and Texas where 16,000 cows produce organic milk for private-label supermarket and retail brands. With sales of about $100 million annually, Aurora said it accounts for up to 10 percent of the U.S. organic milk market.The department found 14 willful violations by Aurora and proposed revoking its organic certification. The company agreed instead last year to make changes to its operations under a consent agreement."These were allegations, not violations of organic standards," said Sonja Tuitele, spokeswoman for Aurora. "The activists are opposed to scale and the campaign they have waged is not necessarily based on fact."The dairy also is fighting a class-action lawsuit filed last fall. The complaint alleges that consumers were defrauded, even though the milk carried an organic seal of approval issued by USDA.Aurora said it now publishes data on how many acres of pasture it owns and how long cows graze on that pasture. It also has added organic pasture to its farms, Tuitele said.The agency is taking comments on the proposal until Dec. 23. A preliminary proposal on stricter grazing requirements in 2006 attracted about 250 comments from consumers, trade groups, retailers and producers.Though the proposal addresses the "access-to-pasture" problem, some organic farmers say they worry that new issues may slow progress on the rule. For the first time, the agency says it is considering adding bees and aquatic species as organic "livestock." And it includes provisions about beef cattle and whether non-organic heifers can continue to be used as replacements in a herd."There is some fear that big industry packed the rule to slow it down," said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association in Finland, Minn. "It was not done correctly. It makes you really suspicious since it has taken them years and years to close these loopholes."Barbara Robinson, who oversees the National Organic Program at USDA, said the proposal is expansive because the agency wanted to lay out as many options as possible for the organic industry."We have no hidden agenda," she said, adding that she hopes a final rule will be published in the spring. "It's their rule, their industry and their marketing claim."Bush Ocean Plan Is CriticizedCheney Among Those Objecting Because of Economics...Juliet Eilperinhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110303042_pf.htmlPresident Bush's vision for protecting two vast areas of the Pacific Ocean from fishing and mineral exploitation, a move that would constitute a major expansion of his environmental legacy, is running into dogged resistance both inside and outside the White House and has placed his wife and his vice president on opposite sides of the issue.With less than three months before Bush's term ends, his top deputies are scrambling to try to execute a plan that would shield some of the world's most diverse underwater ecosystems. The original plan, which included four potential "marine monuments" and was well received by environmentalists, has already been scaled back.Vice President Cheney and some officials in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have argued that the plan could hurt the region's economy by barring fishing and energy exploration. First lady Laura Bush, along with a number of scientists and environmental advocates, has countered that preserving the region's natural attributes would attract tourism and burnish the president's record for history.Laura Bush has asked for two briefings on the issue from White House staff members, and her aides have conferred with scientists who support the two designations."It's hard, but it should be," said James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality and just returned from an overseas listening tour on the proposal. "These are big, consequential, national decisions that have international ramifications."While environmental groups have pilloried Bush over his approaches to climate change, forest management and air pollution, many marine experts give him credit for his ocean policies.In 2006 he designated the nearly 140,000-square-mile Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, creating what at the time was the world's largest protected marine area. Scientists have advocated designating more such areas to protect them from the effects of overfishing, pollution and global warming, which are degrading oceans worldwide."There's pretty strong evidence that everyone will benefit from the establishment of no-take reserves," said Jane Lubchenco, a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University, adding that fish populations rebound both within the protected reserves and in nearby fishing grounds. "The administration made a major step forward in designating the Papahanaumokuakea National Monument, but that one alone is not enough to protect the full range of places and habitats and species that need to be protected. It will be part of [Bush's] legacy, but his ocean and environmental legacy could be much, much more."Researchers and activists welcomed Bush's August memorandum asking Connaughton and the secretaries of defense, commerce and the interior to assess the two "marine conservation management areas" he might establish before leaving office.One, in the central Pacific, would encompass an area known as the Line Islands and stretch about 2,000 miles from the Johnston Atoll to the Rose Atoll. The memo described the area as "isolated from population centers, mostly uninhabited" and supporting "endemic, depleted, migratory, endangered and threatened species of fish, giant clams, crabs, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds and corals that are rapidly vanishing elsewhere in the world."The other area, in the western Pacific, would include the waters around two northern Mariana Islands and the 6.8-mile-deep Mariana Trench, the deepest ocean canyon in the world.Both regions are treasure troves of biodiversity: Kingman Reef and other islands in the central Pacific area teem with sharks and other top predators; the Mariana Trench and its nearby islands are home to several species of rare beaked whales and the Micronesian megapode -- an endangered bird that uses the heat from volcanic vents to incubate its eggs -- as well as to mud volcanoes, pools of boiling sulfur and the greatest microbial diversity on Earth.No one questions the ecological, biological and geological value of these sites, but supporters of protecting them -- including Connaughton and advocacy organizations such as the Pew Environment Group -- have faced serious opposition in convincing several key White House officials of the value of broad "no-take" reserves. Bush initially explored the idea of establishing other protected areas closer to U.S. shores, including one off the southeastern coast near a group of deep-sea corals and another in the Gulf of Mexico. After commercial and recreational fishing interests and oil companies objected, the administration decided to pursue existing resource-management plans in those areas instead.Despite the islands' distance from the continental United States, the proposal to designate an area around the Northern Marianas -- a U.S. commonwealth between Japan and Guam -- has sparked considerable debate. Cheney and National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey have questioned the impact on the region's economy, a concern some local officials also raised.In a June 9 letter to Bush, Juan Borja Tudela, mayor of the Marianas' most populous island, Saipan, argued that "the loss of extractive privileges of natural resources in over 115,00 square miles of water . . . far outweigh any benefits" that a marine reserve would yield. Another group of local officials wrote to Bush on Sept. 15, saying that the designation "would deny and take away from us the management responsibility of hundreds of years of successful stewardship."The influential Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, a fierce opponent of marine reserves that tried to block the Hawaii marine monument, has also worked to keep the Northern Marianas open to fishing. On Oct. 20, the council, which regulates fishing in U.S. waters in the far Pacific, passed a resolution saying it "is concerned about the magnitude of areas being discussed" and insisted that local residents be allowed to review any proposal before it becomes final.There has been significantly less controversy over designating the Line Islands in the central Pacific; much of the region is federal territory and sparsely populated.Connaughton -- who held meetings last month in American Samoa, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan about the two proposals -- said the administration is sensitive to the issues that Marianas officials have raised."The vice president is flagging something I had already laid out in our policy briefings," Connaughton said. Officials in Saipan "want to make sure that local tourism concerns are going to be taken care of, which includes fishing off of Saipan. They're very interested in the potential of geothermal energy."But other island residents welcome the idea of a marine reserve, which would draw researchers and tourists to nearby diving spots. The Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands has endorsed it, and the Pew Environment Group has collected 6,500 signatures from residents who back the monument.Joshua Reichert, the Pew group's managing director, said that if Bush designates the Mariana Trench and the surrounding area, he will have protected more square miles than any previous president."Protecting places like this is one of the few things a sitting president can do that will live on in posterity and be remembered long after the other decrees and orders have been forgotten," Reichert said. "It would signal to the nation and the world that the sea needs to be treated as a threatened resource, and it will open up an era of global ocean conservation."Claudia McMurray, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, said the administration will be "working up until the last week" of Bush's term on the initiatives."While it would take a significant amount of work, we haven't ruled it out," she said. "We feel fairly confident, scientifically, there are so many unique species in that area, from that standpoint, we think it's important to wall off as much as we can."Deregulating on the Way Out the Door...Lettershttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110302801_pf.htmlNot mentioned in the Oct. 31 front-page article "A Last Push to Deregulate" was a proposed rule that the Interior Department is literally rushing through to gut interagency consultations under the Endangered Species Act.Under this proposal, agencies under ethical clouds, such as the Minerals Management Service, could avoid the checks and balances of a 22-year-old procedure (instituted by that conservation radical Ronald Reagan). The significance of this proposal is immense, particularly given that listed species such as the polar bear, desert tortoise and numerous birds have become crucial indicators of the health of our rapidly warming planet.While industry touts these changes as "common sense," obviously the new deregulatory buzzword, the reality is that the oil and gas industry continues to get special favors from the Bush administration that harm residents and the environment.WILLIAM J. SNAPE III, Senior Counsel...Center for Biological Diversity, Washington…Having learned nothing from how its deregulation of financial institutions contributed to worldwide economic chaos, the Bush administration proposes to extend its bankrupt ideology to consumer and environmental protections. Before it inflicts yet more misery with a last-minute scorched-earth policy, could somebody please check the Constitution's fine print to see if there's an emergency provision for swearing in the president-elect the day after the election?MICHAEL PETIT, ArlingtonNew York TimesThe Biofuel Debate: Good, Bad or Too Soon to Tell?...Tom Zeller Jr.http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/the-biofuel-debate-good-bad-or-too-soon-to-tell/?scp=2&sq=wetlands&st=cseCritics of the growing biofuels market have long worried over its impact on land use across the globe — and their concerns are not unfounded. Cutting down a slice of carbon-capturing forest in order to plant corn for clean-burning ethanol does not always yield environmental gains. But at least the cost-benefit ratio of these direct land conversions can be measured. A much dicier question is whether displacing food and feed crops with energy crops on existing land in one place causes an expansion of crop production into precious forest and scrubland elsewhere — in order to compensate for the lost food and feed supply. These are known as “indirect land use changes,” and they are at the heart of a brewing debate between biofuel critics who say the cause-effect relationship is clear, and biofuels proponents who say the indirect changes are almost impossible to measure given the current data available. The debate is particularly pitched as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares to introduce new rules relating to the biofuels industry this fall. The notion that biofuels represent an environmental bulldozer was crystallized in a Time Magazine cover story last spring, by Michael Grunwald. It was headlined “The Clean Energy Scam.” Wrote Mr. Grunwald: Biofuels do slightly reduce dependence on imported oil, and the ethanol boom has created rural jobs while enriching some farmers and agribusinesses. But the basic problem with most biofuels is amazingly simple, given that researchers have ignored it until now: using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon.Backed by billions in investment capital, this alarming phenomenon is replicating itself around the world. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world’s top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it’s running out of uncultivated land. ...More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it’s subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon. It’s the remorseless economics of commodities markets. “The price of soybeans goes up,” laments Sandro Menezes, a biologist with Conservation International in Brazil, “and the forest comes down.”The Times’ Elisabeth Rosenthal covered the findings: Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”Such concerns, in fact, had been gathering momentum for some time, prompting Congress to tweak the renewable fuel standard of last year’s Energy Independence and Security Act. Among the changes: requiring the E.P.A. to include “indirect land use changes” in analyzing biofuels and their effect on emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases.With the E.P.A. poised to issue proposals for implementing the new renewable fuel standard later this fall, biofuels interests — along with some academics — are urging the E.P.A. to hold its fire, arguing that the science is still out on the question of whether displacing a crop in one place leads inexorably to deforestation and other greenhouse troubles elsewhere. So far, they argue, the embryonic biofuels industry has not yielded enough data for proper “life cycle analyses” — those studies that examine the impact of a product or process over its entire life, from manufacture and transport to consumption and disposal. And just how “indirect land use changes” should factor into such metrics is far from settled, they say. In a letter sent to E.P.A. administrator Sephen L. Johnson last week, five researchers and academics, along with executives from Ceres Inc. and Mendel Biotechnology, both plant-based fuel developers in California, said “what the legislation currently requires is currently impossible.” “We strongly believe that a requirement to account for indirect land use changes in the legislation was premature,” the authors wrote, “as there are generally no accepted methods for determining indirect land use change, or for that matter, any indirect (market-driven) change, and there is no way to apply even current methods in any meaningful way to the choices a farmer makes.” The authors say that while models exist to determine the life cycle greenhouse gas profile of direct land conversions — say, converting a stand of timber to a biofuel crop — there has been little study of indirect land changes. And previous studies that have addressed the issue, they say, fail to take account of other variables, like elasticity in food demand and land productivity and availability.Taking issue with one study that appeared in the journal Science, the authors write:While there can be pressure to free up previously “native” lands, a large number of underutilized acres are available globally, and whose conversion to either food or biofuel production would not necessarily lead to any conversion of “native” lands.The authors of the letter also say that some potential biofuel feedstock crops — including switchgrass and miscanthus — are perennials that sequester carbon into soil and thrive on land often not suitable for other crops. They therefore have the potential, their proponents say, to meet the combined targets of the Energy Act’s renewable fuel standard — energy security and climate change reduction — without wanton land conversion.Whatever the validity of either side’s claims, the message from the biofuels industry is clear: the jury is still out. Speaking to Ethanol Producer Magazine last week, Bruce Dale, the associate director of the Office of Biobased Technologies at Michigan State University and a co-author of the letter, said “We do not have the ability right now, technically, to measure the indirect land use change effects.” The full letterhttp://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/the-biofuel-debate-good-bad-or-too-soon-to-tell/?scp=2&sq=wetlands&st=cseSo Little Time, So Much Damage...Editorialhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04tue1.html?sq=mining&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here’s a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he’s not wasting a minute. President Bush’s aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush’s case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage. Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush’s recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come.CIVIL LIBERTIES We don’t know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background. The administration showed further disdain for Americans’ privacy rights and for Congress’s power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department’s privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans’ privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law “does not prohibit” officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn’t have done better. THE ENVIRONMENT The administration has been especially busy weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species. Mr. Bush, or more to the point, Vice President Dick Cheney, came to office determined to dismantle Bill Clinton’s environmental legacy, undo decades of environmental law and keep their friends in industry happy. They have had less success than we feared, but only because of the determined opposition of environmental groups, courageous members of Congress and protests from citizens. But the White House keeps trying. Mr. Bush’s secretary of the interior, Dirk Kempthorne, has recently carved out significant exceptions to regulations requiring expert scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered or threatened species (one consequence will be to relieve the agency of the need to assess the impact of global warming on at-risk species). The department also is rushing to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list — again. The wolves were re-listed after a federal judge ruled the government had not lived up to its own recovery plan. In coming weeks, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The agency is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value. Interior also is awaiting E.P.A.’s concurrence on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams. And while no rules changes are at issue, the interior department also has been rushing to open up millions of acres of pristine federal land to oil and gas exploration. We fear that, in coming weeks, Mr. Kempthorne will open up even more acreage to the commercial development of oil shale, a hugely expensive and environmentally risky process that even the oil companies seem in no hurry to begin. He should not. ABORTION RIGHTS Soon after the election, Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, is expected to issue new regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options. Existing law allows doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. These changes would extend the so-called right to refuse to a wide range of health care workers and activities including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of birth control pills or emergency contraception, even for rape victims. …The administration has taken other disturbing steps in recent weeks. In late September, the I.R.S. restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now we learn that JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy. One last-minute change Mr. Bush won’t be making: He apparently has decided not to shut down the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the most shameful symbol of his administration’s disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Bush has said it should be closed, and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, pushed for it. Proposals were prepared, including a plan for sending the real bad guys to other countries for trial. But Mr. Cheney objected, and the president has refused even to review the memos. He will hand this mess off to his successor. We suppose there is some good news in all of this. While Mr. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, he has only until Nov. 20 to issue “economically significant” rule changes and until Dec. 20 to issue other changes. Anything after that is merely a draft and can be easily withdrawn by the next president. Unfortunately, the White House is well aware of those deadlines. 2008 A Conversation With Stuart L. PimmAsking ‘Why Do Species Go Extinct?’...Claudia Dreifus http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/science/04conv.html?sq=endangered%20species&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=printFor a man whose scholarly specialty is one of the grimmest topics on earth — extinction — Stuart L. Pimm is remarkably chipper. On a recent morning, while visiting New York City, Dr. Pimm, a 59-year-old zoologist, was full of warm stories about the many places he travels: South Africa, Madagascar and even South Florida, which he visits as part of an effort to save the endangered Florida panther. Fewer than 100 survive in the wild. In 2006, Dr. Pimm, who holds the Doris Duke professorship of Conservation Ecology at Duke University, won the Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences, the Nobel of the ecology world.Q. HOW DOES A PERSON MAKE EXTINCTION THE CENTERPIECE OF A PROFESSIONAL LIFE?A. In 1978, I went to Hawaii, supposedly a tropical paradise. I am an enthusiastic birder, and I looked forward to getting into the lush forest to view the abundant flora and fauna the islands were famous for. Here you had this rich island chain, out in the midst of the Pacific, full of wondrous birds and plants — a place supposedly richer in natural diversity than even the Galápagos. I had brought with me field guides to the fauna and flora, all published in the early 1970s. Yet once in the Hawaiian forest, I had a shock: my books were listing species that were extinct — or about to become so. I was in the forest six days a week and I kept thinking, “If I give it enough time, I’ll certainly see most of the species still left.” But I saw very little. In fact, in Hawaii today, I’d say there are only about 10 remaining native land bird species, with another 10 clinging to survival. So suddenly this extinction business seemed very real. Whenever you’d meet biologists over coffee, there’d be the same conversation: “Do you ever wonder what Hawaii was like before, with 150 species of birds and 1,500 species of plants?” That changed my life.Q. HOW DID IT DO THAT?A. Well, I realized that extinction was something that as a scientist, I could study. I could ask, “Why do species go extinct?” and “How fast does it happen?” Once armed with that information, one might do something about it.I now spend a fair amount of time in Washington, working for laws to protect species. I train young people to do the same. I often tell my students that if they want to become environmental biologists, they have to be prepared to go out into the field at dawn to collect their data and then dress up in a suit in the afternoon to meet the visiting politician.Q. WHICH WOULD YOU SAY ARE, AT THIS MOMENT, THE MOST ENDANGERED OF THE WORLD’S CREATURES?A. There are too many to name. Something like 12 percent of all birds, a third of all amphibians and, likely, similarly large numbers of plants are in serious danger, I’d say. What’s more, about 1 percent of all species on the planet are in such trouble that if we don’t do the right things immediately they will be gone in a decade. The river dolphin in China was declared extinct just last year. Another small dolphin in the Sea of Cortez is in immediate danger. Q. WHAT CAN ONE PERSON DO TO STOP EXTINCTIONS?A. One of the things I’ve done is start an NGO — a nongovernmental organization — called SavingSpecies.org. And it does what its title suggests. We’ve been working with local conservation groups and governments in Brazil and Madagascar doing a variety of projects that we hope will halt the potential extinctions there.One of the things we know is that many endangered animals live over large areas. But their populations become fragmented because of farming and development. The remaining creatures can’t find a date on a Saturday night. So we’ve been trying to buy up degraded land around their broken environments and try to create land corridors for the wildlife.Q. HAVE YOU HAD ANY SUCCESSES YET?A. Yes. On the Atlantic Coast of Brazil, we’ve been trying to help save the golden lion tamarin, an endangered primate about the size of a house cat. Last year, with the involvement of local conservationist groups, we helped purchase about 270 acres of cattle pasture that separated two patches of their habitat. This former pasture is now being replanted with trees. The two areas will soon be bridged, and it will be possible for lonely hearts to meet members of the opposite sex and go forth and multiply. In another South American region I won’t name here, there have been a lot of illegal logs taken. Why? Because a local godfather there was getting kickbacks from loggers. My friends and I decided we’d give him a bit more money and we stopped the illegal logging. I may burn in hell forever for paying protection, but it did help the animals and the indigenous people, who were not subjected to a lot of bad things. In terms of what we got for the money, it was a very good deal. Q. YOUR GROUP HAS BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK WITH INDIGENOUS TRIBES. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?A: Because when you set aside indigenous reserves, it reduces deforestation. There’s another project in Northern Amazonia that my group has been involved in. This particular area is inhabited by indigenous peoples who have clear title to the land in their village. Recently, settlers came into the area, wanting to turn the forests outside of the village — the very places where these people hunt and fish — into rice fields. Their claim was that no one owned the forests. So my Brazilian students and a local Catholic mission have been teaching the tribe’s teenagers the use of modern global positioning technologies — G.P.S. The idea is that G.P.S. can help them can record where they hunt and fish and that will help them define the forest land as theirs. So here’s an example of when we help the local people maintain their traditional ways, we’re helping the flora and the fauna survive.Q. HOW DO YOU FINANCE SAVINGSPECIES.ORG?A. We raise money in the traditional way, but we’re also selling symbolic carbon offsets to sympathetic donors.As you know, when you restore forests, you soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. There are people who’d like to be carbon neutral — they’d like not to burn any more carbon than they are soaking up. So if someone buys an airline ticket and feels badly about all the carbon they’re putting into the atmosphere during that flight, we sell them very beautiful, very cheap offsets from the forest restoration we have done. We hope that this kind of swap will eventually become a financial obligation in a lot of the world. Q. ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?A. I’m a believing Christian. “God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only son.” That’s an injunction from St. John. To me, this says that Christians have an obligation to look after the world — stewardship. We cannot pointlessly drive species to extinction and destroy forests and oceans. When we do that, we are destroying God’s creation. That said, I’m not a vegetarian. I like a good steak now and then. Do I go out and slaughter cattle? Yep.CNN Money2009: Year of the thawWhy the great credit freeze of 2008 won't turn into the Great Depression of 2009...Janice Revellhttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/04/pf/forecast_economy1.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2008110414Money Magazine) -- Well, we were partly right. At this time last year, we said that the stock market would be increasingly volatile in 2008, that home prices would fall further and that a subprime blowup could propel the economy downward.But not in our wildest dreams did we foresee anything like the kind of jaw-dropping, stomach-churning ride that lay ahead. The economy in recession (as most experts now believe)? The Dow off 40%? Credit markets frozen worse than Sarah Palin's hometown? Precious few saw all that coming.Peering into the future is tricky in the best of times. But even though predictions always turn out to be flawed - it's impossible for even the smartest experts to nail this stuff perfectly - you cannot build a future without first guessing what challenges you'll face on the way there.History is your best guide. It has taught us that recessions tend to push inflation lower; that stocks usually recover before the economy does; and that jobs recover later. Most of all, history shows us that downturns don't last forever - and that it's when people are most disheartened that rebounds begin.The economyThe prediction: The recovery will begin in the second quarter of the year.As 2008 draws to a close, fears of a recession seem almost quaint. For many people spooked by the vicious credit crisis and the 2008 stock market meltdown, the real fear now is the D-word. Six in 10 Americans believe a depression is somewhat or very likely, according to a recent poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation.Take a deep breath, people. The catastrophic 10% annual decline in economic output that marks a depression is simply not going to happen, according to even the most pessimistic mainstream economic forecasters. The gloomiest of the bunch aren't calling for anything remotely close to the crushing 25% unemployment rate seen during the Great Depression that began in 1929.That's partly because back in the days when people were cooking up bathtub gin, the unprecedented actions taken by the U.S. and European governments this past fall to help stabilize the global financial system weren't even imaginable.Still, few of us will feel like popping champagne corks in 2009. The consensus among nearly 50 economists polled each month by Blue Chip Economic Indicators is that a recession (officially defined as two or more consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product) started in July and will continue throughout the first three months of 2009...The economists estimate that the economy - staggering under the credit crunch and one of the worst housing busts this nation has ever seen - will continue to shrink by 0.1% in the first quarter. It will then start growing again, but sluggishly. GDP growth is forecast to hit about 2.5% by the end of 2009, below the U.S. economy's long-term annual growth rate of about 3%.But this recession, even if it's relatively short and shallow, is likely to leave you feeling queasy for quite some time after it's officially over. One reason: The unemployment rate is expected to keep rising throughout 2009, to 7% by the end of the year (see the chart). Many other economists think it could top 8%.Talkback: What's your forecast?"If you define recession by GDP, it could be over by the spring," says Maury Harris, chief U.S. economist at UBS. "If you define it instead by the unemployment rate, which tells you a lot more about how people are feeling, you'll probably have to wait until 2010 for things to start improving."To be sure, the U.S. government has been pulling out all the stops to alleviate the credit crisis, including a massive injection of capital into the troubled financial system.But it's not just banks that need cash. Thanks to the bursting of the housing bubble, consumers can no longer borrow against their homes with abandon. Because consumer spending represents 71% of gross domestic product, any reduction in it could be a big drag on the economy.Meanwhile, home prices are set to fall further. "You can throw every policy you want at the housing market, but you can't stop the fundamental price correction that is still required to offset the speculative excesses of the bubble," says Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.Add the cost of the bailout to the record $455 billion federal deficit (some economists think the deficit could reach close to $1 trillion in 2009) and you can expect still more pain - in the form of higher taxes to pay for it all."I don't care who gets elected in November," says Barry Ritholtz, CEO of research firm Fusion IQ. "Your taxes are going up."The wild cardThe mideast tensions over Iran's nuclear program are already mounting. If there's a military flare-up in the region, the price of oil - about $65 a barrel at press time, down from a record high of $147 in mid-July - could skyrocket again, sending the U.S. economy into a much longer and deeper recession.The action planKeep your eye on three key signs that the overall economic picture is improving. These clues can help you decide when to make moves you may have put on ice for now, such as starting a business or moving to a bigger home.Check the three-month TED spreadIt's the difference between the interest rate at which banks borrow from one another (known as Libor) and the rate on three-month T-bills. The wider the spread, the more skittish banks are about lending. It's now just under 3%, far above historical levels; when it drops below 1% you'll know the credit market is almost back to normal.Where to find it: Go to Bankrate.com, search for the three-month Libor rate and the three-month T-bill rate, and then subtract the T-bill rate from Libor.Track real estate inventoryHistorically, the number of months' worth of inventory on the market has reliably predicted home prices. Six months of inventory appears to be the sweet spot for a healthy market; right now it's 10 months. The National Association of Realtors puts out the inventory data each month, usually between the 22nd and the 25th.Where to find it: Go to the Research section of realtor.org.Watch initial jobless claimsThe number of new people filing for unemployment benefits, released every Thursday morning by the Labor Department, has been running between 450,000 and 500,000 a week lately."When you see those numbers start to come down below 400,000, that'll be a very good sign that the worst of the pain is over," says Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors.Where to find it: Do a search for jobless claims on our Web site.