11-12-08

   11-12-08Merced Sun-StarRiver restoration gets go-ahead...MICHAEL DOYLE, Sun-Star Washington Bureauhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/268/story/542689.htmlWASHINGTON -- San Joaquin River restoration efforts, a roller-coaster ride if there ever was one, now have cleared what could be the last big hump prior to congressional approval.This week, negotiators resolved some final controversies over the bill's language. This isn't the first time negotiators have congratulated themselves, but the latest Capitol Hill progress sounds final."I think it should satisfy all concerned," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday. "As far as I'm concerned, this is it." The negotiations answered the lingering concerns of the "exchange contractors," who are Los Banos-area farmers irrigating about 200,000 acres on the San Joaquin Valley's Westside. With these farmers mollified about future water supplies, the stage is set for the river restoration bill to be passed as part of an omnibus public lands package.The public lands bill contains upward of 140 separate parks, wilderness and environmental provisions. Feinstein said "the odds are even" the Senate will take up the package during a brief lame-duck session next week; if it doesn't, Congress will consider the legislation next year."It pretty much takes care of it," Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, said Tuesday. "I think this thing is ready to go." Feinstein is the chief Senate author of the river restoration bill, first introduced two years ago in considerably different form.Radanovich has joined with Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, in pushing for the bill as well.The river legislation has stalled since 2006, in part over questions of how to pay for it.The original bill had a federal price tag of $250 million or more. It also alarmed some farmers who worry that restoring water flows and salmon populations to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam will sap needed irrigation deliveries.The farmer alarm remains in some circles, as Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, has been fighting a rear-guard action against a bill backed by the Bush administration, the state of California and several dozen irrigation agencies. The river rescue deal is supposed to settle a 20-year-old lawsuit filed by environmentalists unhappy over the decline of the once-teeming waterway."Restoring the San Joaquin River will benefit millions of Californians," declared attorney Hal Candee, who has represented the Natural Resources Defense Council.Facing tough budget questions, Feinstein rewrote the $250 million river bill so that it only provides $88 million in guaranteed river restoration funding. The rest of the federal funds needed must be sought in future years, though Feinstein maintains the $88 million understates how much funding is likely.The budget maneuver satisfied the congressional "pay-go" requirement that all spending be offset. However, it worried the Firebaugh Canal Water District, San Luis Canal Co. and other exchange contractors, which feared they might be shortchanged.The modified bill is supposed to give high priority to exchange contractor projects, such as installing fish screens or fish bypass facilities along the San Joaquin River south of its confluence with the Merced River. The modified bill also conditions the start of interim flows down the San Joaquin River channel, currently slated for October 2009, upon completion of a big environmental study that is already under way.The final revisions, agreed to late Monday night, are meant to ensure future irrigation deliveries with language stating that the river restoration plan will not modify the exchange contractors' existing federal contracts. The exchange contractors insisted on the language, though some lawmakers thought it unnecessary.Merced County Supervisor candidate Sanders tried to help backerNominated donor for a seat on city business panel...SCOTT JASONhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/542679.htmlMerced Councilman Jim Sanders tried to appoint to a city economic committee a donor connected to his supervisor campaign without disclosing the ties -- a move a public advocacy group called "troubling."Sanders, who lost to Hub Walsh last week, asked that the City Council appoint Doug Fluetsch, with Fluetsch and Busby Insurance, to the vacancy on the Economic Development Advisory Committee.The 11-member group advises the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and staff on business matters. The motion failed, with only Sanders supporting him on the final vote.Instead, Paul Lundberg, a minister with Atwater Baptist Church, was appointed to the eight-year term.While Sanders didn't break any political disclosure laws because he would have had no direct financial gain had the appointment succeeded, an open-government group official said it's more evidence that elections should be funded with public money. Sanders said he discussed financial contributions with the city attorney and believes there isn't a conflict, which is why he didn't mention it during the Nov. 3 meeting."I'm usually fairly conscientious about that stuff," he explained. "I believe people need to know where support comes from."At the same meeting, Sanders made a point of stating that he lives near the G Street underpass that's going to be built. He asked City Attorney Greg Diaz whether he should recuse himself from a vote. It wasn't necessary, Diaz said.Fluetsch is a major donor to Citizens for the Betterment of Merced County, a political action committee that endorsed Sanders and gave $2,583 to his campaign and another $3,750 worth in signs.From the beginning of the year to June, Fluetsch donated $600 to the political action committee, records show.While Sanders' vote for Fluetsch doesn't violate any political campaign rules, it still highlights a system in which donors may appear to get special favors, said Derek Cressman, the Western states regional director of Common Cause, a nonpartisan nonprofit accountability group."It's a blurry line between donating and buying access," he explained. "It casts doubts on the merit of the appointment."It's unusual for politicians to point out their dealings with campaign donors, he said. They're only required to file disclosure reports listing contributions, which Sanders did.Leaders aiming for public office look to their friends for financial support and often turn to them to fill some appointed positions, he said. "It's certainly the way the game is played," he added.Cities and counties should adopt public financing of elections so there aren't any questions about paybacks, he said.Sanders has known Fluetsch for years through the Rotary Club and because Fluetsch's business provides insurance to Sanders' nonprofit, the Merced Community Action Network. Sanders said he's also supported Fluetsch's bids for other committees. He noted he didn't receive any contributions in his bid for Board of Supervisors from the Lyons family, which owned the land where Wal-Mart wants to build a distribution center. That, he said, would be a donation he'd feel compelled to note before voting on the controversial project.Our View: A high-speed future awaitsPassage of rail bond will mean an economic bonanza for Merced, the Valley.http://www.mercedsunstar.com/177/v-print/story/542676.htmlThe passage of Proposition 1A on Election Day means the future of high-speed rail in California has really begun.A new business report released Friday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority shows us the outlines of that future.The plan estimates that when the first leg of the system is up and running -- between Southern California and the Bay Area, by way of Merced and the Valley -- the high-speed trains will generate more than $1 billion annually in excess revenue.That money can be used to repay construction bonds, expand and improve the system or to pay dividends to the private investors who will help build it.It will also help fund the second phase of the project, running south to San Diego and north to Sacramento from Merced.The first phase is expected to cost around $33 billion by the time it's finished. The second phase will add another $12 billion or so to the final cost of construction.It will take about two years before actual construction starts. Detailed plans must be finalized and right-of-way acquired along the 800-mile route. Rail officials are limited in the amount of bond money from Proposition 1A that can be spent before federal and private funding sources are identified.Prospects for that funding are good, despite the gloomy economic situation we currently face. There is a growing bipartisan consensus in Congress that favors passenger rail development, including high-speed rail. President-elect Barack Obama is an outspoken supporter of high-speed rail.Public infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail are sure to be at the forefront of any economic stimulus efforts out of Washington in the coming weeks. Putting people to work is the best way to stimulate spending, and thus recovery, when economies are in recession.Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a powerful voice in Washington, said Wednesday that "There is legislation that will set up 11 regional systems in the U.S. for high-speed rail, and we will qualify as one of them. I think we've now got our ducks in order to be No. 1 on that list, and as an appropriater, that will be a job of mine."In addition, some 40 companies, many of them worldwide giants, responded to the the rail authority's Request for Expressions of Interest last spring. Some of that interest, no doubt, has waned since the global economic meltdown began, but there are sure to be private companies willing to follow where state and federal funds lead.The Valley stands to prosper most from this project. Many of the 160,000 construction jobs generated by high-speed rail will go to Valley workers.The first track is expected to connect Bakersfield and Merced, and will be used to test and certify the trains and cars that are chosen for the system.Air quality improvements -- the trains will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 billion pounds per year and the state's reliance on fossil fuel by 12.7 million barrels of oil per year -- will be felt most in the Valley.The trains will induce growth, but it will be the sort of growth we need: clustered around the downtown station, not sprawling out toward the horizon in every direction.Voters may have taken a leap of faith in approving Proposition 1A, but in a few years it will seem like a sure bet. Modesto BeeLogjam in San Joaquin River restoration bill brokenIrrigation promises help solidify accord...Michael Doyle, Bee Washington Bureau http://www.modbee.com/local/story/495747.htmlWASHINGTON -- San Joaquin River restoration efforts, a roller-coaster ride if there ever was one, have cleared what could be the last big hump before congressional approval.This week, negotiators resolved some final controversies over the bill's language. This isn't the first time ne- gotiators have congratulated themselves, but the latest progress sounds final."I think it should satisfy all concerned," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Tuesday. "As far as I'm concerned, this is it." The negotiations answered the concerns of the "exchange contractors," who are Los Banos-area farmers irrigating about 200,000 acres on the San Joaquin Valley's West Side. With these farmers mollified about future water supplies, the stage is set for the river restoration bill to be passed as part of an omnibus public lands package.The public lands bill contains upward of 140 parks, wilderness and environmental provisions. Feinstein said "the odds are even" the Senate will take up the package during a brief lame-duck session next week; if it doesn't, Congress will consider the legislation next year."It pretty much takes care of it," Rep. George Radano-vich, R-Mariposa, said Tuesday. "I think this thing is ready to go." Feinstein is the chief Senate author of the river restoration bill, first introduced two years ago in considerably different form. Radanovich has joined with Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, in pushing for the bill as well.The river legislation has stalled since 2006, in part over questions of how to pay for it.The original bill had a federal price tag of $250 million or more. It also alarmed some farmers who worried that restoring water flows and salmon populations to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam would sap irrigation deliveries.Representative fights billThe alarm remains in some circles, as Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, has been fighting a rear-guard action against a bill backed by the Bush administration, the state of California and several dozen irrigation agencies. The river rescue deal is supposed to settle a 20-year-old lawsuit filed by environmentalists unhappy over the decline of the once-teeming waterway."Restoring the San Joaquin River will benefit millions of Californians," said attorney Hal Candee, who has represented the Natural Resources Defense Council.Facing tough budget questions, Feinstein rewrote the $250 million river bill so that it provides $88 million in guaranteed river restoration funding. The rest of the federal funds needed must be sought in future years, though Feinstein maintains the $88 million understates how much funding is likely.The budget maneuver satisfied the congressional "pay-go" requirement that all spending be offset. However, it worried the Firebaugh Canal Water District, San Luis Canal Co. and other exchange contractors, which feared they might be shortchanged.The modified bill is supposed to give high priority to exchange contractor proj- ects, such as installing fish screens or fish bypass facilities along the San Joaquin River south of its confluence with the Merced River. The modified bill also conditions the start of interim flows down the San Joaquin River channel, currently slated for October 2009, upon completion of a big environmental study that is under way.The final revisions, agreed to late Monday night, are meant to ensure future irrigation deliveries with language stating that the river restoration plan will not modify the exchange contractors' existing federal contracts. The exchange contractors insisted on the language, though some lawmakers thought it unnecessary.3 groups file suit to protect clean trucks plan...11-11-08http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/495027.htmlLOS ANGELES — Three environmental groups are suing the Federal Maritime Commission over the clean trucks program at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.The suit filed Monday alleges the agency violated environmental laws when it sought a court order to halt parts of the program that could lead to the replacement of about 18,000 older trucks.The two ports began the $1.6 million effort last month, hoping to reduce diesel truck emissions by 80 percent within five years.The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Coalition for Clean Air filed the suit in U.S. District Court, claiming the commission failed to consider public health and environmental damage.The commission says the new rules will reduce competition and either increase transportation costs or reduce service at the port.Fresno BeeSan Joaquin River restoration bill nears passage...Michael Doyle, Bee Washington Bureauhttp://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-printerfriendly/story/1005625.htmlWASHINGTON -- The San Joaquin River restoration effort, which has had many near-death experiences amid federal budget concerns and farmer worries, now appears poised for congressional approval as early as next week. Seemingly endless rounds of negotiations were capped this week when negotiators resolved the lingering concerns of Los Banos area farmers on the San Joaquin Valley's west side. This isn't the first time negotiators have congratulated themselves, but the latest Capitol Hill progress sounds final. "I think it should satisfy all concerned," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday. "As far as I'm concerned, this is it." The negotiations answered the lingering concerns of the "exchange contractors," who are Los Banos-area farmers irrigating about 200,000 acres on the San Joaquin Valley's west side. Exchange contractors agreed to give up their historic share of San Joaquin River water in exchange for delta water via the Delta-Mendota Canal, but they reserved the right to reclaim their river allocation. With these farmers mollified about future water supplies, the stage is set for the river restoration bill to be passed as part of an omnibus public lands package. The public lands bill contains upward of 140 separate parks, wilderness and environmental provisions. Feinstein said "the odds are even" the Senate will take up the package during a brief lame-duck session next week; if it doesn't, Congress will consider the legislation next year. "I think this thing is ready to go," Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, said Tuesday. Feinstein is the chief Senate author of the river restoration bill, first introduced two years ago in considerably different form. Radanovich has joined Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, in pushing for the bill as well. The river legislation has stalled since 2006, in part over questions of how to pay for it. The original bill had a federal price tag of $250 million or more. It also alarmed some farmers who worry that restoring water flows and salmon populations to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam will sap needed irrigation deliveries. The alarm remains in some farm circles, as Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, has been fighting a rear-guard action against a bill backed by the Bush administration, the state of California and several dozen irrigation agencies. The river rescue deal is supposed to settle a 20-year-old lawsuit filed by environmentalists unhappy over the decline of the once-teeming waterway. Facing tough budget questions, Feinstein rewrote the $250 million river bill so that it provides only $88 million in guaranteed funding. The rest of the federal funds needed must be sought in future years, though Feinstein maintains the $88 million understates how much funding is likely. The budget maneuver satisfied the congressional pay-as-you-go requirement that all spending be offset. However, it worried the Firebaugh Canal Water District, San Luis Canal Co. and other exchange contractors, which feared they might be shortchanged. The modified bill is supposed to give high priority to exchange contractor projects, such as installing fish screens or fish bypass facilities along the San Joaquin River south of its confluence with the Merced River. The modified bill also conditions the start of interim flows down the San Joaquin River channel, currently slated for October 2009, upon completion of a big environmental study that already is under way. The final revisions, agreed to late Monday night, are meant to ensure future irrigation deliveries with language stating that the river restoration plan will not modify the exchange contractors' existing federal contracts. The exchange contractors insisted on the language, though some lawmakers thought it unnecessary. JEAN P. SAGOUSPE: New water proposal makes no sense at all...Jean P. Sagouspe, farmer on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley, is the president of Westlands Water District. http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/v-printerfriendly/story/1005531.htmlThe state Department of Fish and Game is proposing a new set of regulations to protect the longfin smelt. If fully implemented, the Department of Water Resources estimates that the proposed regulations could cut off as much as 1 million acre-feet of water deliveries to the two-thirds of California that depends on water pumped through the Delta. That's on top of the 760,000 acre feet we have already lost because of court-ordered restrictions on pumping intended to benefit another species of smelt. And it comes in the middle of one of the worst droughts in history. The restrictions probably won't do any good, because the longfin rarely go anywhere near the pumps. But the department proposes no action at all to protect the longfin from ammonia pollution and the extensive list of other stressors that are impacting the fish. The good news is that even if the new regulations are adopted by the Fish and Game Commission at its meeting Nov. 14, they may never trigger any cutbacks in actual water deliveries, because they address a problem that will probably never arise. So long as the longfin don't move close to the pumps, presumably no additional reductions in pumping will be ordered. The bad news is that this proposal is being raised at all. It points up some serious deficiencies in the way the state is approaching our water crisis. Part of the problem is agencies working at cross purposes. The Department of Water Resources works with public water agencies to mitigate the impacts of drought and court-ordered restrictions on water deliveries by encouraging conservation and other measures. Water shortages have already cost California's economy billions of dollars in ruined crops and business losses. You would think Fish and Game would coordinate with Water Resources before coming up with a proposal that could spill into the ocean another million acre-feet of the fresh water that 25 million Californians need for irrigation and drinking. Responsible administrators would ask not only how to minimize the potentially devastating impacts of this regulation; they'd also inquire whether it was necessary and ask if it would do any good. Fish and Game's proposal fails on all these counts, for the simple reason that its own surveys indicate that the pumps have no effect on the abundance of longfin smelt. The pumps serving all those millions of Californians are located in the south part of the Delta. The longfin are miles away to the north and west. The department wants to start shutting down the pumps if only eight longfin show up next month -- eight fish out of a species numbering in the tens of millions. Why would Fish and Game propose a regulation that will probably do nothing to help longfin but that could have devastating effects on the economy and public health and safety, while also threatening habitat and other environmental resources south of the Delta? The regulators are simply obeying the oft-repeated mantra that whatever ails the Delta, the pumps must be to blame. That's not only false in the case of the longfin, it also may be harmful to the fish. While focusing exclusively on the pumps, Fish and Game administrators are willfully ignoring all of the other factors adversely affecting longfin. Fish surveys from 1977 through 2006, for example, show an important correlation between longfin population, temperature and the concentration of ammonia in the water. The more ammonia, the fewer the fish. We cannot control temperature, but the sources of ammonia contamination are well known. Yet there are no permit requirements for wastewater discharges that increase ammonia concentrations in the Sacramento River. Ill conceived, incomplete and ineffective -- the proposed regulation is all of that and more. It is also illegal. The Fish and Game Code does not apply to water project operations by the Department of Water Resources or the federal Bureau of Reclamation. The Westlands Water District has a responsibility to the public that we serve directly, and to the communities of the Valley whose well-being depends upon the success of families who farm in the district. To protect those interests, Westlands will bring a lawsuit to oppose the implementation of this regulation if the Fish and Game Commission chooses to adopt it. Real estate investors snap up dealsLower price ranges see the biggest impact as investors grab bank-owned homes...Sanford Naxhttp://www.fresnobee.com/business/v-printerfriendly/story/1005563.htmlAfter a two-year absence, real estate investors, reacting to falling prices and an abundance of supply, are back in the marketplace at the levels they were before the crash. "They're banking on a value play," said Robin Kane, a real estate analyst in Fresno. "These are the same guys who sold houses in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and then sat on the sidelines." Now, they're back. Last month, 29% of all resales were to nonowners, which was similar to the percentages in 2005 and 2006, said Tom Hyatt of Hyatt Real Estate, a veteran investor who closely follows transactions. July 2006 was the last time percentages were as high. The percentages of investor purchases were much less during the past two years, ranging from 17% to 23%. The investors are helping stoke sales activity and are responding to a median price that has fallen to $175,000, down 31% in 12 months. According to preliminary figures from the Fresno Association of Realtors, 612 houses and condominiums were sold in Fresno and Clovis in October, up 11% from September and 110% from a year earlier. In addition, 770 sales contracts were pending. Fifty-six percent of the 612, or 343, were bank-owned houses. An additional 50 transactions were short sales, which are deals agreed to by a bank before the property goes to auction. Hyatt said investors are having their greatest impact in the lower price ranges, snapping up bank-owned real estate. "The lower-priced three-bedroom, two-bath market is the investor market," he said. "They will buy, rent it out for three or four years and put it back on the market." Unlike previous years, these investors have cash or are making significant down payments because banks are reluctant to loan money on more than four houses to a single buyer. Don Scordino, president of the Fresno Association of Realtors, said investors are an important part of the market, as long as they are not flippers or short-term speculators. "There is a need for rental housing and for landlords," he said. "Last time, we had too many speculators and flippers -- like day traders in stocks -- who took what was supposed to be a long-term investment and turned it into short-term profits." Increasingly, banks are willing to make short sales. In all of 2007, only 46 short sales occurred in Fresno County, Scordino said. Short sales can be maddening to negotiate -- taking an average of 100 days to close compared with 38 days for a foreclosure -- but the time frames are shortening as banks capitulate. Banks are finally realizing they lose more money when the property goes to auction than by selling it short. "Banks probably lose an additional $50,000 in holding costs and renovation costs," Scordino said. Statewide, the percentage of short sales has increased from 5% in January to 13% in October. "I sense a significant change [on the parts of banks]," said Harold Penner of Guarantee Real Estate in Fresno. "Short sales that have been lingering for months with offers are finally being given attention and are closing." So, what does all this mean? The strong sales activity at the lower price ranges could help blunt price decreases, but it's hard to have any kind of meaningful move-up market because banks are selling the properties. The banks aren't spending the proceeds on a larger house, so the next rung in the traditional real estate cycle is untouched. In addition, no one really expects prices to start climbing until the foreclosures wash through the system -- and another round of defaults could come next year as 5-1 loans issued in 2004 start adjusting upward next year. Those are loans that have a fixed rate for five years and then switch in the sixth year to an adjustable rate. Still, government bailout programs and new workout policies could keep those to a minimum. The Valley is soon entering its fourth year of a real estate downturn. "Any kind of freeze on foreclosures or assistance from the government could all very quickly be influences in hitting the bottom," Penner said. "There is every incentive to buy now." River settlement closerCongressional OK would be hard to swallow for ag, but it's necessary...Editorialhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/v-printerfriendly/story/1005551.htmlThe 20-year struggle to resolve the question of San Joaquin River restoration may be nearing the finish line. Federal legislation essential to the effort appears headed for a vote, either in the lame-duck session of Congress now under way, or by the new Congress early next year. It's not a solution that pleases everyone, but it is in everyone's best interests to settle this issue and move on. The legislation grew out of a settlement of a case brought by environmentalists in 1988. The suit charged that construction of Friant Dam illegally diverted water needed to maintain historic salmon runs in the river. Farmers and water agencies in the Valley reached a settlement in the case that will reduce water for farming as it restores the flow of the river in an effort to bring the salmon back. But they feared they might lose even more if the case ended up being decided by a judge. The settlement requires federal approval and funding. The money was the hang-up over the past two years, as many in Congress balked over the $250 million price tag. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the Senate version of the legislation and worked to sort out the knotty details, rewrote the bill to provide $88 million in guaranteed river restoration funding. That helped break the logjam, but it means the balance of restoration funds must be sought in future years. This has been a difficult two-decade passage. It might have saved everyone a great deal of costly litigation if Friant Dam hadn't been built and water diverted from the river. But then a multibillion-dollar agricultural economy wouldn't have grown up and down the east side of the Valley. Dozens of small communities rely on the farms that are supplied by water from behind Friant Dam, and there are plenty of anxieties about what will happen if that water is restored to the river. In this case the law was clearly on the side of the environmentalists, and there was every indication that the courts would have ordered even more water restored to the river if the case had proceeded. It is galling to many in agriculture, but the settlement is almost certainly the best deal they could get. The restoration bill has bipartisan support in Congress, in addition to Feinstein, from Reps. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, although Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, who represents much of the Valley's east side, has been a persistent foe. It may not feel that good, but it's better than the alternative. Sacramento BeeEl Dorado Irrigation District considers drought rates...Cathy Lockehttp://www.sacbee.com/eldorado/story/1390202.htmlEl Dorado Irrigation District customers could end up paying more for less in a drought.District officials are considering a rate schedule that would go into effect if a drought were declared.Typically when a water agency goes into drought mode, "your costs go up while your revenue goes down," Doug Dove of Bartle Wells Associates, the district's financial adviser, told board members Monday. Stepped-up training for employees, public outreach and enforcement of rules against wasting water boost costs, he said.At the same time, if customers respond as desired and use less water, income from water sales declines.The El Dorado Irrigation District, which serves about 100,000 customers in western El Dorado County, has not declared a drought.But officials say a third dry winter could lead to mandatory conservation measures.District rates are based on metered usage.Even if water is in short supply, the district must generate enough revenue to cover maintenance and operating costs, and meet debt-service requirements.The drought-rate plan would include a surcharge to cover drought-related expenses. The proposed surcharge would range from 45 cents per bill under a Stage 1 drought, requiring a 15 percent reduction in water use, to $1.24 per bill during a Stage 3 drought, or 50 percent reduction in use.As an incentive to conserve, water rates also would be raised during a declared drought.Those who consume large quantities of water would see the steepest rate increases.The board on Dec. 15 will consider approving the drought rates along with a proposed restructuring of its regular water rates.Dove said the proposed rate restructuring would be revenue neutral, but it would change the three rate tiers to encourage conservation, resulting in a rate increase for some customers.Primarily affected among residential customers would be those using more than 4,500 cubic feet of water during a two-month period.They would move into a higher rate category that currently applies only to those using more than 20,000 cubic feet.Before any rates can be raised, the district must give written notice to ratepayers.Under Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," approved by California voters in 1996, public agencies must reject an increase if written protests are submitted by a majority of landowners. Changing the rules in the final daysOUR OPINION: Stop last-minute changes in federal environmental standards...Miami Heraldhttp://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/767478.htmlAs the Bush administration heads for the exit, it is leaving behind a not-so-welcome gift to the nation in the form of new regulations that aren't in the national interest and will hamstring the new leadership in Washington for months, if not years. Most presidents do something similar. Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, rushed through a host of new federal rules in the waning days of his tenure that no doubt bedeviled the new president and his appointees.But there is a difference. Mr. Clinton tightened regulations on the quality of drinking water and other environmental concerns in a way that would benefit the country. Mr. Bush is going in the opposite direction, relaxing environmental and other standards that in some cases date back to the era of Ronald Reagan. This is the same approach that the administration has followed with other environmental standards ever since its first days in office, much to the delight of industry lobbyists and to the alarm and dismay of advocates of clean air and water standards.Some of the new regulations make little sense. They offer narrow benefits while opening the door to great potential danger. One such order likely to go into effect before the inauguration would scrap Department of Interior regulations that protect federal land from certain mining claims for periods extending up to three years. At issue are uranium mining claims -- which have proliferated because of expanded interest in nuclear power -- near the Grand Canyon. Environmental groups claim this would endanger the quality of the Colorado River, which provides drinking water to millions of users in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and elsewhere.Another proposal at Interior would change a rule instituted by President Reagan that says no surface mining may occur within 100 feet of a stream unless the quality and quantity of water would be guaranteed free of harm. The rule change would allow dumping into streams if companies could explain why they can't reasonably do otherwise. On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah near Arches National Park, in some of the most-sensitive and fragile areas of the region. Changes to weaken the Endangered Species Act are also being contemplated.A new administration cannot easily reverse these decisions. The process requires a prolonged period of review and comment, led by officials who may be months away from taking office. It's hard to see how any of these proposals serve the public interest. Mr. Bush should acknowledge that this is not what the public wanted when it voted for change, and leave new rules up to the next president. Stockton RecordLocal impact of river legislation still not clear...The Recordhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081112/A_NEWS/811120321/-1/A_NEWSSan Joaquin County farmers, environmentalists and water supply officials have generally supported the restoration of the San Joaquin River, hoping increased flows would improve water quality in the Delta.Flushing out the San Joaquin could avert algae blooms and fish kills in the Stockton Deep Water Channel, a problem officials have spent millions of dollars trying to control.It also could aid south Delta farmers who rely on highly polluted San Joaquin River water.However, it's not clear how much extra water will actually reach the area, Manteca farmer Alex Hildebrand said. The portion of the river covered by the settlement extends north only as far as the mouth of the Merced River; any extra water may be pumped back upstream to be used again by farmers, he said.S.J. home sales slip but remain highPrices increase slightly, ending string of declines...Bruce Spencehttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081112/A_BIZ/811120319Existing home sales in San Joaquin County slipped last month from a record high in September.Nearly 1,200 house sales were recorded in October, down from a high of 1,254 in September, according to sales figures from the Grupe Real Estate-TrendGraphix monthly sales report, based on Multiple Listing Service data.Still, that was the second-best sales month this year, which has been booming primarily because of foreclosure sales."The reason is prices are really low," said Mike Collins of Collins Realty, Stockton.The median monthly sales price rose slightly, moving from $192,000 in September to $194,000 last month. That broke a trend of continual monthly sales price declines. The median sales price for October 2007 stood at $319,000.Both Collins and Jerry Abbott, president and co-owner of Grupe Real Estate, Stockton, agreed that the flow of foreclosures won't slow anytime soon.Beginning in spring 2007, most foreclosures resulted from homeowners who got into trouble after adjustable-rate mortgages offered at very low introductory interest rates jumped to higher monthly payments as the residential market was grinding to a halt.Most of those ARMs have already adjusted, they said, and those homeowners have already lost their homes.These days, most foreclosures involve homeowners who are so upside down on their homes - they owe far more than the homes are worth because of the long-term slide in home values - that they no longer want to keep making the monthly payments even though they can still afford to, Collins said.Abbott blamed the drop in prices for causing the major part of the foreclosure market right now."Prices have come down so far from what people paid for their property that they'll just walk away," he said. "It's only a two- or three-year hit on their credit score."Ben Balsbaugh, residential sales manager for PMZ Real Estate in Stockton, said the multiple offers on foreclosure homes are driving up prices a bit, but he didn't know whether prices have bottomed out."Foreclosures are still coming," he said. "At what pace next year, we don't know yet. Either way, with inventory levels low, prices will have to creep up."Mountain House awash in debtNearly 90% of mortgage holders 'underwater,' a new report says...The Recordhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081112/A_NEWS/811120336/-1/A_NEWSMountain House may be the highest community in San Joaquin County in elevation, but a new report also makes it the most underwater area in the United States.Nearly 90 percent of mortgage holders in the town owe more than their houses are worth, a situation referred to as being "underwater," because of the housing market collapse, according to a new report from First American CoreLogic.The real estate data company this week released its first state-by-state comparison of negative equity in the United States. It also listed the 20 ZIP codes with the highest percentage of underwater mortgages.Mountain House mortgage holders not only topped the list but owed an average of nearly $122,000 more than their homes were worth. Four ZIP codes in Las Vegas also were among the 10 most underwater communities. Rancho Cordova was ranked fourth worst, with more than 84 percent of borrowers underwater on average by more than $57,000.In Lathrop, mortgage holders also owed an average $57,000 more than their homes' estimated value. With more than 70 percent of them underwater, the city was 11th worst on the list.Of the 1,856 outstanding mortgages in Mountain House considered by First American, only about 200 were not underwater.In Lathrop's 95330 ZIP code, researchers estimated more than 2,600 mortgage holders were underwater out of 3,700 borrowers.The New York Times reported that the housing crisis is contributing to the U.S. economic slowdown as overburdened mortgage holders are cutting back on their spending.Jerry and Marcie Martinez, two Mountain House residents, are among those struggling with mortgage and credit card debt despite both having good jobs, the Times reported. They have cut out family bowling night, dinners out or going to the movies."We make decent money, but it takes a tremendous amount to pay the mortgage," Jerry Martinez, 33, told the Times.The couple bought their house in early 2005, near the height of the housing boom, for $630,000, according to the Times. They have an interest-only loan, which allows borrowers to skip principal payments at first.But eventually, that principal must be paid off at an accelerated rate. By 2015, Martinez told the Times, his payments will be $12,000 a month.With his house now worth about $420,000, he cannot sell it and pay off his loan or easily refinance.First American said more than 7.5 million homes, or 18 percent of those with mortgages, were in that same situation at the end of September. An additional 2.1 million mortgages are close - within 5 percent of being in a negative equity. Together, those account for nearly one of every four mortgages in the country.Mark Fleming, First American's chief economist, said most people will shrug off the issue as long as they can afford their loan payments."They think it's a bummer if the value has gone down, but they are rooted in their house," he told the newspaper.Still, there may be a larger impact."When my house is valued at 50 percent less than it was, does this begin to challenge they way I'm going to behave?" Fleming asked.The Times suggests there's a toll being taken on a Tracy strip mall of about a dozen shop spaces not far from Mountain House. Three shops are vacant. And the active business owners tell of tough times."Before summer, things were OK. Not now," My Phan of Hailey Nails and Spa told the newspaper. "Customers say they cannot afford to do their nails."She and Jason Heinemann, owner of nearby Cribs, Kids and Teens, both said their sales were down by half."Grandparents are big buyers of kids' furniture, but when their 401(k)s are dropping $10,000 and $20,000 a week, they don't come in," Heinemann told the Times.He's laid off his one employee, a contribution to San Joaquin County's unemployment rate of more than 10 percent, the Times reported.First American said the problem of underwater mortgages is highly concentrated, with six states accounting for 58 percent of borrowers who own more than their homes are worth.Nevada led the nation with an estimated 48 percent of mortgages underwater, and Michigan was second at 39 percent. Other states having high rates of negative equity are Florida and Arizona, both 29 percent; California, 27 percent; Georgia, 23 percent; and Ohio, 22 percent.Generally, those problem states tend to fall into three groups, the researchers said.First is a group that experienced the housing-price boom and speculative investments, followed by a price crash. Those are Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida, which also accounted for all 20 of the hardest-hit ZIP codes.Then there are Midwestern states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that were hard hit by the long-term manufacturing decline and have lingering housing problems.First American said a new group is emerging: Southern states that for various reasons have more underwater mortgages than most states. These include Texas, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee.Mall owner in financial troubleChicago company owns Tracy's West Valley Mall...Staff and wire reportshttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081112/A_BIZ/811120316CHICAGO - General Growth Properties Inc. shares plummeted Tuesday after the mall owner, which has the West Valley Mall in Tracy, warned it faces solvency trouble and may be forced to file for bankruptcy if it can't refinance or extend nearly $1 billion in debt due next month.The real estate investment trust, which is the nation's second-largest mall owner whose big-name holdings include Chicago's Water Tower Place and the Fashion Show in Las Vegas, also disclosed in a regulatory filing late Monday that it may default on certain debt obligations.Making matters worse is another $3.07 billion in property and corporate debt slated to come due next year."Given the continued weakness of the retail and credit markets, there can be no assurance that we can obtain such extensions or refinance our existing debt or obtain the additional capital necessary to satisfy our short-term cash needs on satisfactory terms," the Chicago-based REIT said in filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Our potential inability to address our 2008 and 2009 debt maturities in a satisfactory fashion raises substantial doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern."General Growth Properties owns the West Valley Mall in Tracy. Gary Fields, mall general manager, declined comment and referred questions to General Growth Properties spokesman David Keating. Keating couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon in Chicago.General Growth also has been developing a regional shopping mall, the Promenade, in Elk Grove at Highway 99 and Grant Line Road. That project has been delayed several times during the economic slowdown. The latest timetable calls for an opening in fall of 2010, a year later than initially projected.Elk Grove city offices were closed Tuesday for Veterans Day, and city officials couldn't be reached for comment.General Growth, beset by falling funds from operations and plagued by a tightening global credit market that's making it difficult for companies to obtain financing, is trying to sell off properties and cut costs to weather the rocky economic climate. It's also suspended its dividend and ousted a cadre of top executives. But that hasn't calmed investors, who've sent the company's shares into a virtual free-fall since September.After filing the quarterly report late Monday, the company's shares shed another 64 percent Tuesday, to 49 cents.Spokesman David Keating couldn't immediately comment Tuesday.Citigroup analyst Michael Bilerman said General Growth's equity holders may still be at risk, even if the company opts not to file for bankruptcy protection."There is no quick fix in the current capital-constrained environment," he told investors late Monday night.General Growth shares fell 88 cents, or 64 percent, to 49 cents per share in trading Tuesday.Manteca BulletinManteca foreclosures hit bottom?Builder notes demand puts dent into resale housing supply...Dennis Wyatt, Managing Editorhttp://www.mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=28&SubSectionID=58&ArticleID=60211&TM=48781.55The Manteca foreclosure market is at its bottom.It's a bold statement for a builder to make but when you're chief executive officer of a firm such as Florsheim Homes that puts its money where its mouth is, the observation carries a lot of weight.Florsheim CEO Joe Anfuso drew a lot of flack from other builders back in January when his firm started offering price guarantees to homebuyers at their Valley Park and Valley Blossom neighborhoods southwest of Airport Way and Woodward Avenue.It was a simple offer. Buy a house from Florsheim anytime in 2008 and if they lowered the base price during that year you'd get a refund on Jan. 1, 2009 for the difference.It was a risky gambit in the eyes of some other builders who were slashing their prices $5,000 to $10,000 every few months during 2007 to try and compete with the downward spiraling resale market driven by a rising tide of foreclosures. Other builders gritted their teeth at what they thought was another marketing gimmick they may be forced to match especially in light of several builders who had to pacify home buyers who discovered the home they bought just six months previously was selling for as much as $25,000 less when they actually moved into them.Florsheim Homes has only two of the roughly 30 buyers since the first of the year that they will be sending a refund check to when 2008 ends.Floresheim - which shifted its product to a price point that targeted entry buyers when they saw the market changed three years ago - won't debate that its still a rough road for new home builders.But he sees a lot of good news in the feverish pace of home buying in the resale market."It's good for us (new builders) because the foreclosures have to clean up before our demand picks up," Anfuso said.As of last week, there had been 967 previously owned homes that closed escrow so far this year with 750 of those being foreclosures. More telling is the fact there are 393 active resale listings in Manteca - down from a record 670 in September 2007.Anfuso said from the prices that homes are selling for - the median deal price on 160 foreclosures now in escrow is at $192,193 - represent a price point that has brought enough buyers to put a serious dent into foreclosure inventory."It looks like it has pretty well hit bottom in Manteca," Anfuso said, adding that it isn't a straight-line bottom with small dips and rises.He expects the resale market to stabilize in 2009.Anfuso noted that you wouldn't "officially" know the bottom has been hit until after several months when various statistics are examined."It's pretty well there, I'd say," Anfuso said.Last week, as an example, 30 homes closed in Manteca while 32 new listings were added to the Multiple Listing Service for previously owned homes. Eight months ago, the number of homes going on the market exceeded those being sold each week by 50 percent.Anfuso said the current economic problems are the outgrowth of loose lending policies."We found out that if you offer people free money they'll take it," Anfuso said.Now he said buyers are down to earth and are putting "skin" in the game."Buying a home now makes a lot of sense if you're going to hold on to it, live in it, enjoy it, and raise a family in it," Anfuso said.Tracy PressUnderwater epicenter Mountain House  leads the nation in 'underwater' homes — those worth less than what buyers paid. But that doesn't mean every homeowner is getting ready to ditch the planned community at the foot of the Altamont...Jennifer Wadsworth     http://tracypress.com/content/view/16439/2268/MOUNTAIN HOUSE — Stockton claims the most foreclosures in the nation, but it’s the unincorporated town to its southwest that holds the highest number of homes worth far less than the loans that paid for them. Mountain House is awash with properties devalued into negative equity, according to real estate analysts at First American CoreLogic. In fact, a recent report shows that the town of 8,000 has the nation’s highest per-capita rate of what the industry calls "underwater" mortgages — loans that are more than the home’s assessed value.Nationwide, 7.6 million homeowners, as of the end of September, are underwater. Add another 2.1 million inching closer, and the number nears a quarter of all homeowners in the country, based on the same study.Of the 1,856 mortgages in the 95391 ZIP code — which encompasses Mountain House and a few outlying properties — only 209 homeowners owe less on their mortgages than their home is worth. Anne Goodrich and her husband, Darren Clark, both 37, are among the 90 percent of the town’s homeowners whose loans are more expensive than their property’s assessed value. The two bought their four-bedroom tract home for $400,000 nearly 4½ years ago, at the height of the market. Today, Goodrich said she would rather forget that her home is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000. But the news is less dire than it seems, several residents said. Homeowners like Goodrich stuck with negative equity will not necessarily opt to sell at a loss or let the property lapse into foreclosure. The median household income in the planned community is close to $90,000. That’s nearly double the state median and higher than Tracy’s $80,000 average family income. Many who call the bedroom community home can afford to wait out the economic slump, said Andy Su, a local physician and newly elected Mountain House Community Services District board member. "I think the future of the town is fine," Su said. "Markets are cyclical." Matthew Balzarini, another top vote-getter in the election for the town’s inaugural governing board, added that it’s misleading to compare Mountain House to other towns. "It’s not like other cities," he said. "This is not a Mountain House issue. This is partly just that people all bought around the same time, five years ago, when the market was strong. And that’s when everyone moved here. That’s how young the town is." Other cities have enough variance in the real estate market to balance the statistics, he pointed out. Even though Goodrich and Clark owe more than what they signed up for, the couple plans to keep the house. Just because the family dipped into equity and bought on the high end of a since-plummeted market doesn’t mean they’ll walk away. "We’re going to hang on," said Goodrich, a Bethany Elementary School teacher. "We’re just saving like mad right now for when the payment doubles." That happens in June next year, when her five-year adjustable-rate monthly mortgage payment will jump from $1,300 to twice that. "Right now, we’re more worried about saving the house than saving for our children’s college," she said. "We’ll go back to the bank when the loan resets." Recent homebuyers feel the stress, too, but to a lesser extent, because they have less to lose. Dublin adult school teacher Renmani Kapadia, 29, moved into a four-bedroom Mountain House home in June with her husband, Arif Kapadia, 35. The two bought the place for $298,000, and already the market has undermined that value by another $30,000 or so. "But it’s OK," said the mother of one with another on the way. "All these foreclosures up and down the block, they allowed younger people to enter the market who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford it." She said she’s actually grateful for the circumstances and plans to live in her new home for several years. At least, she hopes, until "this all blows over." Don't rewrite history of Delta, Mountain HouseThe general manager of the Mountain House Community Services District says the board's decisions up to now has been made for a reason. Part 1 of 2...Paul Sensibaugh Paul M. Sensibaugh  is general manager of the Mountain House Community Services District. He was appointed in 2000 to begin the implementation stage of the community’s master plan, establish an administration and begin the transition to an independent district.http://tracypress.com/content/view/16436/2244/I have been reading article after article from various newspapers regarding the San Joaquin Delta College Board of Trustees’ lack of control of the Mountain House project. The board has been hung out to dry over half-facts and weak media and grand jury research. Without minimizing the college board’s responsibility, everyone should realize that the board had taken action based on recommendations from well-paid staff and consultants. Unfortunately, until now, many of those recommendations had been politically charged and lacked sufficient project management substance. The reason I am writing is that I do not want to see history rewritten. Every decision that the board has made to date was made for a reason, and only a few votes were the narrow 4-to-3 margin that the opposition likes to quote. Although there have been times of uncertainty and dysfunctional behavior, most of the time the board had a near-unanimous vote because its members were trying to do the right thing at the right time, based on the information provided.This includes the decision to place the south county campus at Mountain House instead of Tracy. In 2002, all the due diligence of the multitude of experts concluded that Mountain House was a better site overall and more cost-effective than any Tracy site. Thus, going forward with the environmental impact report and the Measure L bond was based on the best collective wisdom at the time. When Tracy baited the board to rethink its decision a couple of years later, more money was spent to reconsider the Tracy site, only to find out that it was not really “free,” as was purported. In fact, the infrastructure cost exceeded that of Mountain House, mostly because Tracy had no developers who would take on the project, and the city of Tracy otherwise had no real means to lure the campus there. On the other hand, Mountain House land was purchased at a relatively low cost, and the developer contributed $14 million to the offsite infrastructure costs. Case closed — at least for a while.   Those delays were a pure waste of bond money and were driven by those who have been the most critical of the cost overruns today. The truth is the bond measure was gerrymandered by location and contained unrealistic cost estimates. Otherwise, the bond measure would not have been passed. Now, after the board recently reaffirmed its choice to dedicate the bulk of the remaining bond money to Mountain House, there are newly elected board members who want to beat a dead horse. It appears that instead of facing the financial situation and providing a few quality projects, it is easier to continue the controversy to make everyone happy (or angry) and construct inferior projects. Wouldn’t it be better to think of the needs of the students first and provide facilities that compare with the schools in competition for the student enrollment? Breaking up the Mountain House campus was a bad idea that did not work. To reconsider, for a second time, moving the campus to Tracy is an even worse idea. The facts have not changed since the decision was made to locate at Mountain House, except for one thing: The cost of the land is lower today than it was three years ago. One of the major enticements thrown out by Tracy was that Delta could sell the Mountain House land and pay for the campus in Tracy. You can now chomp that carrot in half, as few today would be misled enough to risk developing that property for anything other than a public institution. • Part 2 of this commentary will be in Saturday’s Voice.San Francisco ChronicleDeal reached on San Joaquin River legislation...GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer. Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/11/state/n100731S52.DTL&type=printableFresno, CA (AP) -- Congress is on track to sign off on a deal to restore California's San Joaquin River, bringing water and salmon back to a now-dry stretch of the waterway that once nourished the state's farm fields, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday.Federal legislation needed to implement a legal settlement for the restoration has been hung up for two years by concerns from various parties.Feinstein told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she had brokered a final agreement with all the parties — including environmental and fishing groups, farmers, irrigation districts and federal agencies — that could get lawmakers' approval during a lame-duck session of Congress expected to begin next week."I think everybody realizes that this has been an 18-year fight," Feinstein said. "Now that everybody's on the same page, my view is that we should pass this bill, as it is, as early as we can."The legislation would implement a settlement that would return water to a dry 60-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River by 2009 and bring back Chinook salmon no later than Dec. 31, 2012.The San Joaquin is California's second-longest river. The lawsuit stems from the opening of Friant Dam in 1949, which transformed the San Joaquin Valley's main artery from a river thick with salmon into an irrigation powerhouse for more than a million acres of farmland.Under the 2006 settlement, the Friant Water Users Authority, which represents 21 irrigation districts that distribute river water to thousands of farms, agreed to relinquish a set portion of their traditional water supplies to help restore the fish.Friant officials viewed that as preferable to letting a judge rule how much water should be released down the old river bed. California farmers are already facing cutbacks in water supplies following two years of dry weather.Negotiators said the new agreement also resolves the concerns of land owners downstream from the dam, who wanted assurances that their farms wouldn't be flooded or otherwise harmed by the new water releases."This process has not been easy, but the future of California agriculture rests on our ability to find solutions," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, who represents areas of the San Joaquin Valley affected by the legislation. "We cannot afford to do nothing and allow the courts to be river masters."Various disputes erupted that stalled a final deal, including how to satisfy congressional "pay as you go" rules that require a loss to the U.S. Treasury to be offset by other income.The total cost of the bill has been disputed, but plaintiffs with the Natural Resources Defense Council estimate it at between $250 million to $800 million.Under the deal Feinstein announced Tuesday, Friant water districts will over the next 10 years pay back about $200 million they owe the federal government for building the pumps, reservoirs and canals attached to the Central Valley Project, plus $100 million for restoration efforts.The state has committed an additional $200 million in bond revenue, bringing the total restoration funding for the next decade to about $500 million, said attorney Hal Candee, lead negotiator for the NRDC."This is the last piece that was needed in order to fully implement this historic accord," said Ron Jacobsma, general manager with the Friant Water Users Authority. "This will help set the stage to overcome protracted litigation and uncertainty in resolving other environmental and water supply issues in the West."Feinstein said she hopes to get the deal through Congress during its lame-duck session as part of a larger package of public lands bills currently pending in the Senate, but it still would have to pass the House before going to President Bush for his signature.If that doesn't work, the bill would need to be reintroduced next year, when Congress reconvenes in January under an Obama administration.Study: Reducing air pollution would save billions...Wednesday, November 12, 2008http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/state/n111229S38.DTL&type=printablePST Fresno, CA (AP) -- A new study says reducing air pollution in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley would save more lives annually than ending all motor vehicle deaths in the two regions.The study by researches at the California State University in Fullerton also says that meeting federal ozone and fine particulate standards could save $28 billion annually in health care costs, school absences and premature deaths.The study looked at the economic costs of air pollution in those two areas that have the worst air pollution levels in the country.Researchers sought to assess the potential economic benefits that could be achieved by reducing air pollution to levels that are within federal standards.Court rules for Navy in dispute over sonar, whales...PETE YOST, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/national/w070745S97.DTL&type=printableThe Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy's use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises off the coast of southern California.Writing for the majority in the court's first decision of the term, Chief Justice John Roberts said the most serious possible injury to environmental groups would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals the groups study."In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet," the chief justice wrote. He said the overall public interest tips strongly in favor of the Navy.The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental organizations had sued the Navy, winning restrictions in lower federal courts on sonar use.Dolphins, whales and sea lions are among the 37 species of marine mammals in the area.The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises.Joining Roberts' opinion were Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.Justice John Paul Stevens did not join the majority opinion, but said the lower courts had failed to adequately explain the basis for siding with the environmental groups. Justice Stephen Breyer would have allowed some restrictions to remain.Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, saying the prospect of harm to the whales was sufficient to justify limits on sonar use.In complicated sonar exercises, ships, subs and aircraft must train together in order to track modern diesel-electric submarines which can operate almost silently.The Navy says the area off southern California is the only location on the West Coast that is relatively close to land, air and sea bases as well as amphibious landing areas.NRDC said the ruling is a narrow one."I don't think it establishes a bright line rule," said Joel Reynolds, director of NRDC's marine mammal protection program. "The court acknowledged that environmental interests are important, but in this case that the interest in training was greater, was more significant than interest in the environment."The Navy challenged restrictions that included shutting down sonar when a marine mammal is spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel.The case is Winter v. NRDC, 07-1239.Los Angeles TimesLong Beach, developer agree to wetlands preservation dealMore than 175 acres of the Los Cerritos Wetlands will be saved under the arrangement...Louis Sahagunhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wetlands12-2008nov12,0,7067767,print.storyLong Beach officials on Tuesday announced a land swap with a developer that would preserve 175 acres of hotly contested urban salt marsh, some of the last remnants of a once vibrant wetland at the mouth of the San Gabriel River.Under terms of the deal, 52 acres of city-owned land would be traded for acreage lying in the heart of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. The city would then sell the marsh to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority for about $25 million.The city would use the proceeds to acquire and develop about 20 acres of property a few miles to the west along the Los Angeles River for recreational space."Once completed, this will place the largest privately owned coastal marsh into the public trust," Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster said in a prepared statement. "Los Cerritos is the final piece needed to complete more than a decade-long effort to restore Southern California's vanishing coastal wetlands."The land swap is the latest in a series of efforts to preserve wetlands that were once a thriving part of Southern California's coastal ecosystem. Two years ago, as part of a $147-million restoration project, barriers were removed to reconnect portions of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange County with the ocean; populations of fish and shorebirds have exploded.The Los Cerritos is already home to a variety of bird species. Flanked by supermarkets, movie theaters, motels and power plants, the wetlands remain a critical link along the migratory bird route called the Pacific Flyway, which birds travel from North America to South America.Dismissed by some as a weedy oil field, the wetlands sustain a surprisingly vibrant ecology. Burrowing tiger beetles thrive on its salt flats, and brackish ponds edged with saltwort and pickle weed are rife with horn snails and minnows. Osprey feast on fish, and coyotes prey on rodents.Rejuvenating the area bordered by Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road and the Los Cerritos Channel would cost millions of dollars. But city officials hope to see the effort partially bankrolled by the Port of Long Beach as mitigation for expansion projects elsewhere in the city."Right now, it looks very poor, but it has the potential to be a real jewel," said Long Beach City Councilman Gary DeLong, chairman of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. "After the first year, we plan to launch a complete restoration of a total of 350 acres. It will involve removal of nonnative vegetation and allow for surges of tidal flooding."The future of the wetlands has been contested for decades.A century ago, the wetlands stretched over 2,400 acres at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. Today, state officials call the remaining 400 acres straddling the Los Angeles-Orange County line in southeast Long Beach a "degraded wetlands."In 1982, the state Coastal Commission approved a plan calling for development of houses, commercial buildings and some light industry on 112 acres in the area. In return for those development rights, 129 acres of wetlands were to be reestablished in areas damaged by oil operations. That plan was never realized.The area gained unprecedented attention two years ago because of local developer Thomas Dean's controversial proposal to build a 16.5-acre Home Depot Design Center retail complex on the east side of the wetlands.The development threatened to trigger yet another prolonged tussle for control of the land. Earlier this year, however, a federal judge tossed out the developer's environmental impact report.In 2006, the wetlands authority bought a 66-acre chunk of the area called the Bryant Property.However, city officials said negotiations to buy a 175-acre parcel in the wetlands' core went nowhere because the parties were unable to negotiate a price.That property, known as the Bixby Ranch Co. parcel, was bought by Dean in 2007.Dean expressed a willingness to consider a land trade rather than an outright sale for 52 acres of city-owned land that are currently vacant, or operated by its public works department and oil and gas company, officials said.Under the pact announced Tuesday, Dean would continue to control mineral rights and to pump oil in the 175 acres of wetlands, but the land would be protected from commercial and residential development in perpetuity."It's a very exciting moment for Long Beach and the state of California because we get the intertidal connection -- or the lungs -- of our local wetlands, without which the restoration of the entire 400 acres out there would not be possible," said Mike Conway, the city's director of public works."It was a complicated deal," he added, "and we still have a lot of details to iron out. But we've completed step one."Is Schwarzenegger reneiging on curbing sprawl?...Margot Roosevelt, Greenspacehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/11/climate-sprawl.htmlWhen Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the nation's first law a few weeks ago to cut global warming emissions from sprawl development and transportation, he made major compromises with the state's powerful building interests, causing several key environmental groups to withdraw their support.  Under Senate Bill 375, certain projects, if included in regional climate plans, were exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law requiring a detailed review of environmental consequences.Now, according to sources in the state legislature, the Schwarzenegger administration is proposing to waive all greenhouse gas and pollution restrictions for large transportation and flood projects as part of the "economic stimulus" package proposed for the legislature's special session, convened last week.Under the administration's proposal, any transportation project funded "in whole or in part" with bond funds would be exempt from comprehensive environmental reviews. That would include most new roads and freeway expansions, which will facilitate millions of new car and truck trips, adding tens of thousands of tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere. The proposed exemptions have shocked environmentalists, concerned by the fact that 38% of the state's global warming emissions come from transportation, much of it from the rapid growth of driving. The state has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas pollution by 15% below today's level in the next 12 years -- a goal that policymakers say will require curbing sprawl.But  builders want the exemptions so they won't be subject to environmental lawsuits. Recently, the state's transportation agency, Caltrans, lost a lawsuit challenging a major east/west highway into the Sierras because it failed to consider resulting greenhouse gas emissions.Downey Financial shares fall below $1 on warning of possible seizureThe Newport Beach mortgage lender says it might be seized by regulators if it can't get a capital infusion by the end of the year...Tom Petrunohttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-downey12-2008nov12,0,6658384,print.storyThe depressed stock of Newport Beach-based mortgage lender Downey Financial Corp. crumbled below $1 a share Tuesday after the company formally warned that it could be seized by regulators if it can't get an infusion of capital by the end of the year.Downey so far hasn't seemed a likely candidate for government help because the Treasury is aiming its massive financial bailout at lenders that have the best prospects for survival.And with investors souring again on banks in general -- an index of major financial stocks sank Tuesday to just above its 12-year low reached Oct. 27 -- the prospects for obtaining capital from private investors don't appear promising either.Downey's stock tumbled 99 cents Tuesday to 46 cents a share. The stock is down 99% in the last year.The bank was a big player in the market for so-called option ARMs -- risky adjustable-rate mortgages that gave borrowers the option to pay so little each month that their loan amounts grew. Heavy defaults on such mortgages are the cause of Downey's problems.In the company's filing late Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Downey noted that it had been ordered by regulators to maintain specific levels of capital, the bank's financial cushion against losses.The company said it satisfied those requirements at the end of the third quarter but wouldn't meet them at the end of the fourth quarter, based on current projections."In the current economic environment," Downey wrote in the filing, "there is a significant risk that the bank will not be able to raise sufficient additional capital to ensure compliance with the capital requirements of the bank consent order by year-end."In that event, regulators could further restrict Downey's operations, impose fines on it or seize the bank and place it into a conservatorship or receivership.Such actions could come even before the end of the year, the company said."If the bank is placed into a conservatorship or receivership," the filing warns, "it is highly likely that this will lead to a complete loss of all value of the holding company's ownership interest in the bank" -- meaning a wipeout of shareholders.Thomas E. Prince, Downey's senior executive vice president, declined to elaborate on the filing.Antelope Valley PressJudge rules entire AV aquifer linkedThis story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press. Tuesday, November 11, 2008...ALISHA SEMCHUCKhttp://www.avpress.com/n/11/1111_s4.htsLOS ANGELES - Antelope Valley water officials welcomed a judge's ruling that "hydrologic connectivity" exists in the Antelope Valley's underground aquifer, which they said will make it easier for the court to decide how much water can be pulled annually from the Valley's wells without permanently endangering the supply.Superior Court Judge Jack Komar handed down his ruling last week during the second phase of the Antelope Valley groundwater adjudication lawsuit, which began in October 1999 when Kern County-based Diamond Farming Co. filed suit against the city of Lancaster, Palmdale Water District, Quartz Hill Water District and other entities regarding groundwater rights. Since then, the case has grown to involve hundreds of parties throughout the Valley - governmental agencies, mutual water companies, farmers and landowners. "We think this ruling is going to make it easier to determine the outcome of the rest of the case," said attorney Thomas Bunn, who represents Palmdale Water District. "There will only be one safe yield to determine, the amount that the basin can supply over the long term." "The court determined the Antelope Valley does not have separate groundwater basins," said Brad Weeks, attorney for the Quartz Hill Water District. "The result of the victory for Quartz Hill Water district customers is they will have more water and a more reliable water supply, and the water will be less expensive. "Because the basin is larger, presumably there will be more water for the customers of Quartz Hill Water District. The more supply, the lower the cost," Weeks said. While water purveyors for the most part took the judge's decision as good news or at least saw it as some support of their contention that the Valley contains one large underground water basin, some land developers and a large farming operator disagree, saying that the Valley aquifer consists of sub-basins. Tejon Ranch Co. officials argued that a ridge of bedrock starting at the Antelope Buttes, in the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, runs north to Rosamond and creates a barrier to underground water flowing east, Weeks said. "The consequence would have been less water for everybody to the east of that," Weeks said. "All the court determined is hydrologic connectivity between the areas," Weeks said. William C. Kuhs, the attorney representing Tejon Ranch, reacted differently to the judge's decision. "Tejon Ranch did not initiate this litigation," Kuhs said. "Tejon is involved in expensive litigation, not by choice. "I am disappointed that the judge did not make a ruling on the question of whether there was one basin or multiple basins," Kuhs added. A decision by the California Supreme Court in a 1975 case between Los Angeles and the city of San Fernando found that "the mere existence of (hydrologic) continuity between groundwater reservoirs does not cause them to become one basin, or one groundwater body." Developers of the Ana Verde master-planned community in southwest Palmdale also were attempting to have its area carved out as a separate groundwater basin south of the San Andreas Fault and west of the Antelope Valley Freeway, Weeks said. Attorneys for Ana Verde could not be reached for comment. Representatives for Crystal Organic Farms LLC, affiliated with Grimmway Farms, also describe the Valley as an aquifer of sub-basins and wanted an area of farmland north of the Willow Springs Fault declared as a sub-basin, according to Weeks. The attorney for Crystal Organic could not be reached. Weeks said the judge's decision essentially concludes the Valley contains "one basin for the purpose of adjudication," the court process that will determine who has pumping rights to groundwater and will set maximum amounts each entity can pump in a given year. "We also think it would have been wrong for the judge to separate out areas that are contributing recharge to where we are," said Bunn, the attorney for the Palmdale Water District. "We rely on recharge for the entire basin." Gene Nebeker, a longtime Valley alfalfa rancher, and John Ukkestad, president of the Antelope Valley United Mutual Group, have been sitting through court hearings in the ongoing lawsuit and consider it a waste of time and money. "I feel I could have told the judge what he needed to know in 10 to 15 minutes," Nebeker said. "I really object that all these people had to hire lawyers and technical experts to tell the judge something that was so technically obvious - that there is connection between these sub-areas and the main basin." Ukkestad concurred. "Anybody that's been in this Valley any length of time that deals in water always believed the sub-basins were inter-tied," Ukkestad said. "We knew from past studies." "To see the amount of lawyers and experts there, to see the amount of financial waste to the Valley, I feel we have to stop this madness," Nebeker said. Ukkestad said the United Mutual Group, a collaboration of 15 mutual water companies, already spent more than $300,000 in attorney fees. "It's a drop in the bucket, compared to what the public agencies have spent, and nothing has been accomplished with the exception of the adjudicated basin boundaries and the certification of the nonpumpers and small pumpers classes," Ukkestad said, referring to landowners with smaller parcels that pump groundwater or have that potential. Nebeker said the next trial date is set for Nov. 25, most likely in Santa Clara County, Komar's home court. The judge "wants recommendations from the lawyers as to what to do next and how to do it." Even some attorneys have said they are anxious to see this decade-long case decided. "I hope we'll be in a position to come to some settlements before too long," Bunn said.Time CNNSpending $700 Billion: Is the Bailout Fund Running Out?...Stephen Gandelhttp://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1858494,00.htmlThe Treasury Department is quickly running out of money to invest in troubled banks. A TIME.com analysis of public records shows that nearly one-third, or $216 billion, of the $700 billion that Congress approved to be spent just six weeks ago has already been spent or will soon be sent to just 67 banks. That's a small fraction of the up to 1,800 financial firms that are expected to apply for government assistance.On Monday, Randal Quarles, a managing director at the Carlyle Group and a former Treasury official, told an audience at a conference on the Treasury's bailout fund — which is called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — that he thought the fund could need to double in size. "The amount of assistance provided so far is not enough," Quarles said. "The losses out there are materially larger than TARP and will likely require more support than the current $700 billion."While the Treasury still has about $480 billion to spend, it's not clear how much of what is left will be used for direct investments into banks. Shortly after the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed by Congress, the Treasury said $250 billion was going to be used to buy shares in banks. That would leave $450 billion to buy up troubled mortgage bonds. (Read "18 Tough Questions [BRACKET "and Answers"] About the Bailout.") But on Wednesday Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress that he believes buying mortgage bonds is no longer the best use for the remaining TARP funds. Instead, he said, Treasury is looking at injecting more money into struggling "banks and nonbanks." He said he plans to use some of the remaining bailout fund to support the market for troubled car loans and credit-card debt, as well as to reduce home foreclosures."The purchase of mortgage assets is going to be the exception," says Thomas Brown, whose hedge fund, Second Curve Capital, specializes in financial firms. "If it does happen, it will be select purchases." Neel Kashkari, who is heading up TARP, has said that $250 billion will cover the demand for direct investments from banks. And Treasury officials say $40 billion of the money that has been spent was a onetime emergency investment into insurer AIG and should not be counted as part of the $250 billion they plan to invest in banks. Still, the AIG investment depletes the amount of money left for buying troubled bank assets. (See activists protest the bailout.)The initial deadline for applying for TARP funds for most companies is Nov. 14. Companies that qualify will be allowed to sell preferred shares to the Treasury. The government's investment is capped at 3% of the bank's highly regarded assets. (Risky investments are excluded.) The banks that receive the shares will have to pay the government a 5% dividend for five years, but that is far less than what they typically pay to borrow.Many of the hundreds of banks left to get funding are small and will qualify for far less than the $25 billion investment that was received by Citigroup, JPMorgan and others. Still, every day new companies are announcing that they will receive TARP funds. Last week, brokerage firm E*Trade said it expects to recieve $800 million. And there are still a number of large banks that have yet to receive TARP funds, including Synovus Financial (of Columbus, Ga.) and Colonial Bancgroup (of Montgomery, Ala.), which could collectively swallow an additional $1.5 billion in TARP funds.Then there are the firms that are not traditional banks that are starting to line up for bailout funds. Earlier this week, American Express filed to change its status to a bank-holding company, which would allow the credit-card giant to apply for TARP funds. Analysts estimate that AmEx could receive as much as $3.5 billion in federal aid. GE Capital is also reportedly looking into applying for a Treasury investment. The troubled finance unit of industrial giant General Electric could receive as much as an $18 billion investment. What's more, a number of members of Congress are pushing for TARP funds to be used to aid troubled automakers. President-elect Barack Obama has said that he favors lending federal financial assistance to Chrysler, Ford and GM. And, like AIG, a number of large insurance companies may soon ask for a piece of the remaining bailout fund as well."We're getting a number of calls from financial firms who want to know if they should convert to bank-holding companies," says Randall Guynn, a partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. "But if you start to add all of these companies to the list, then I am not sure there is enough money to go around."Yahoo.comUS drops plans to purchase toxic mortgage assetshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081112/bs_afp/financeeconomyuspropertygovernment  WASHINGTON (AFP) – US authorities are scrapping plans to buy up toxic mortgages securities and shifting the focus of a massive financial rescue plan, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday.Paulson said the 700-billion-dollar plan would focus now on continued capital injections to struggling banks, but would also look at ways to help the "nonbank" financial sector under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)."Over these past weeks we have continued to examine the relative benefits of purchasing illiquid mortgage-related assets," he said."Our assessment at this time is that this is not the most effective way to use TARP funds, but we will continue to examine whether targeted forms of asset purchase can play a useful role."The program approved by Congress was initially aimed at buying up so-called toxic mortgage securities that were clogging the financial system, but analysts had warned that such a plan could prove difficult to implement with prices hard to fix.In the meantime, US officials had moved to emulate plans in Britain and elsewhere to tackle the credit squeeze by investing directly in banks.Going further, Paulson said the Treasury would look at other types of consumer credit and asset-backed securities that are troubled. These could include credit card and auto loan debt that, like mortgages, are often packaged into securities sold to investors."The non-bank consumer finance sector continues to face difficult funding issues," Paulson said.