11-15-08

 11-15-08Merced Sun-StarMerced County gets $7 million to fight home woesOur area gets about a quarter of what was requested...SCOTT JASONhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/548554.htmlMerced County and its cities are eligible for up to $7 million to buy up foreclosed homes and demolish ones that have become eyesores, the state announced Friday.The money is part of a $3.9 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Program package passed by Congress during the summer.Merced County has led many lists chronicling the foreclosure crisis. Local leaders urged the state to give them a fair amount.The county's foreclosure rate, 12.5 percent, ranks as the highest in California. In the Central Valley, about a quarter of the loans were high-cost. Federal agencies reckon that 5,913 homes within the county have gone into foreclosure.While the money will help the problem, it's far from a solution, as homes continue to go back to the banks."This is true everywhere: It's a drop in the bucket," Merced County Association of Government spokeswoman Candice Steelman said.The key, she explained, is trying to stretch the money as far as possible so home values stabilize and the number of vacant homes decrease.One option that's been considered, she said, is having Habitat for Humanity refurbish foreclosed homes rather than build new ones.California's Department of Housing and Community Development is tasked with dividing up $145 million. It announced how it planned to split up the money.Cities and counties can spend the next 15 days trying to convince the state to give them more before it sends the final plan to the federal government.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), based on a formula, gave $384 million directly to cities and counties throughout the state that the agency believed needed help immediately. Merced's absence from the list sparked angry letters from Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, to HUD. Despite his fist-shaking, nothing changed."This money is not nearly sufficient to address the foreclosure crisis throughout the Central Valley. However, this is a significant step forward and I was pleased to see Merced County at the top of the list after it was unfairly overlooked in federal allocations," Cardoza said Friday in a statement. "I will continue to do all I can to bring resources to the Central Valley to stabilize the housing problem."State officials held a meeting last week so Valley officials could offer suggestions on how the money should be diced up. Merced County and city leaders demanded that the area collectively receive $30 million -- an ambitious request meant to punctuate the need for help.Merced spokesman Mike Conway said the city was pleased to be included, but could use more money to deal with foreclosures. "It certainly will not solve all of our problems," he said. Last month, the county saw 315 more homes fall into foreclosure. Just under 500 houses were sold.Councilman Bill Spriggs said he was frustrated to see cities such as Modesto and Stockton receive millions from Washington D.C., while others were overlooked. "They didn't have to stand with their hat in their hand and go to the state," Spriggs said. The growth of UC Merced and the city's typical population growth, about 3 percent each year, will slowly chisel away at the mountain of vacant homes. Still, that will take at least a year or two to work through. "I'm still not happy," he said, "but at this point, you can't say no to $1.4 million."The payoutsMerced County -- $2.18 millionMerced -- $1.42 millionAtwater --$724,333Livingston -- $201,907Los Banos -- $1.67 millionGustine -- $128,332Dos Palos --$157,331Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development City Council to talk about underpass panel...Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/548539.htmlThe Merced City Council said it will consider at its next meeting the composition of a Citizens Advisory Committee for the G Street/BNSF Railroad undercrossing project. The committee would provide design suggestions on the undercrossing and the connecting roads.Also on its agenda:Consider issuing around $13 million in redevelopment bonds to fund capital improvements in the Gateways Project area.Authorize staff to apply for a $400,000 CalGRIP grant to fund a youth jobs training program, expanded summer recreation programs and hire a crime analyst to serve with the Merced Multi-Agency Gang Task Force.Approve an agreement with the Sierra Portal Mobile Home Park to provide access through Joe Herb Park because of the Caltrans Bradley Overhead replacement project.The council will meet at 7 p.m. Monday in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Merced Civic Center, 678 W. 18th St. Smoking wars at UC Merced...TOM GUSTAFSON, freshman at UC Merced, hails from San Diego. He'll probably major in philosophy and is a staff writer and photographer for The Prodigy student publication.http://www.mercedsunstar.com/177/v-print/story/548516.htmlWhen the vast majority of people see a pack of cigarettes today, the first thoughts that come to mind are most likely addiction, cancer, emphysema, coughing, heart attack, pregnancy defects and so on. However, as dangerously as nonsmoking ads facilitated by organizations such as "Truth," portray smoking, cigarettes are still a top commodity, at least in the world market.Here at UC Merced, despite countless statistics, surgeon general's warnings and an overall lack of social acceptance, people still smoke. Recently, a controversy has developed among smokers on campus, other students and members of UC Merced. The source of this disturbance lies in a contradiction of the enforced campus rules and state law.The original housing agreement, which all residents have signed, stated that smoking rules on campus were synonymous with those across California state jurisdiction. That is: no smoking within 20 feet of a building or doorway.However, the contract has since been amended to exclude smoking except in designated areas, such as the parking lot and the newly created smoker's lounge (located just on the outskirts of housing).This amendment required no signatures to take effect, as there was a clause in the original housing contract that implied one's acceptance of any future amendments. Smoking rules on campus conflict with state-mandated law, even though the University of California is a state-run institution."There's a 20-foot distance from any building (state law), but the UC campus is like a municipal county (which are able to enforce their own laws over the state's), in itself ... able to make rules as they see fit," said officer Nick Navarrette, a campus policeman.Unfortunately, as it stands, many agree that smokers' civil liberties and rights are of little, if any, concern to the vast majority."The school treats us like uncivilized beasts, as outcasts of the school. I think it's unfair that certain RAs (resident assistants) are actually civil about enforcing the rules, while others treat us like demon-children spreading the cancer plague, enforcing the rules with a total misuse of power and lack of knowledge. Until they've walked in our shoes, they don't know what it's like. They over-enforce unjust policies," said freshman Chris Ganser. Ganser said the smoker minority on campus is being oppressed by power-thirsty RAs. He sees this as an encroachment on his civil liberties. He is not alone."I am a Republican, and being a Republican means that I coincide with the 20-feet law set forth by the Supreme Court," said junior Bryant Ziemba. "I am doing nothing wrong, I am complying with state law. Personally, I define myself as a 'smoker,' therefore, smoking is my freedom of self-expression, protected by the First Amendment."I contacted RAs, but they declined to comment. Not all smokers are quite so concerned about the policies.Freshman Mike Urner referred to an incident in which an RA confronted him for smoking, then proceeded to indicate that the freshly watered grass was a potential flammable hazard."It is a private property (housing), and UC has jurisdiction, but the fact that we're smoking on wet grass, 20 feet from a building, the RAs shouldn't be so anal about it," said Urner.Beyond the mere issue of state law vs. housing's rules and regulations lies a greater problem: A feeling among many smokers that RAs have been treating them unfairly.With so much freshman controversy on campus, whether it's fiddling with door locks, alcohol abuse or drug-related issues, smoking on housing property finds itself in a large drawer of problems. With so many enthusiastic people (both staff and students), one may wonder just where this controversy will end.I've gotten reports of groups forming to ban smoking on campus entirely.Beyond that, RAs citing smokers for smoking on their grounds have begun telling them of an upsurge in pressure to fine smokers.But to what end could these citations truly affect those smokers living on campus?An increased enforcement of policies could lead to the ultimate eviction of those smokers who've been cited. With the lines for on-campus housing piling up, could this surge in smoking-policy enforcement be aimed at clearing the way for new residents? Since RAs have declined to comment, nothing is known for certain, and this is just purely speculation. Perhaps the smoke-free campus campaigns are behind the increase in enforcement. Whether smokers are being targeted to clear the way for more residents, the controversy over smoking rules remains strong. It is only perpetuated by their increased enforcement.Whichever side of the issue people are on, one thing is universally clear: housing holds the right to supersede state law. While smoking may not be an issue of top concern for most people at UC Merced, housing's ability to override state law is surely a potential issue for everybody.Police release report in death of UC worker...JONAH OWEN LAMBhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/220/story/548552.htmlThe strange death of Karen Gallaher, a UC Merced employee found dead in the back seat of her car earlier this year, may have moved one tiny step closer to resolution.The Merced County Coroner's office released its toxicology report on Gallaher this week. The report noted that the probable cause of Gallaher's death was environmental hypothermia and ethanol intoxication, said Detective Sgt. Scott Skinner of the Merced Police Department. No evidence of struggle or foul play was discovered at the crime scene, said Skinner, but the mysterious nature of her death cast doubt on accidental death.Gallaher, 55, was found dead in the back seat of her car on Aug. 5 of this year, one day after she went missing. Police found a partially consumed bottle of liquor in the car. No sign of robbery was discovered, and her wallet was found in the front seat.UC professor published in Science...Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/548505.htmlMERCEDUC Merced said professor Elliott Campbell joined several colleagues in a new study in the current issue of the journal Science to outline a method for measuring photosynthesis -- an important part of climate change.The study quantifies the relationship between CO2 and another form of carbon, carbonyl sulfide, or COS, in the atmosphere. His results -- obtained in collaboration with 15 other scientists from around the U.S. and other countries -- will allow accurate information about photosynthesis to be incorporated into major climate models, helping make climate change forecasts much more reliable.Research for the paper was conducted before Campbell arrived at UC Merced earlier this year. Modesto BeeMajor water restrictions approved to protect fish...Garance Burke, The Associated Presshttp://www.modbee.com/local/story/499729.htmlFRESNO -- California fish and wildlife managers approved major new restrictions on water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect a native fish, triggering protests from farmers and cities reeling from water shortages.The Fish and Game Commission voted 3-0 Friday to enact emergency regulations to scale back water pumping for 90 days starting Dec. 1 to safeguard the longfin smelt, considered a bellwether species for the estuary."Clearly as a society we haven't erred on the side of the fish in the past, we've erred on the side of the water supply," Commissioner Michael Sutton said. "We have to come down on the side of the fish. If we don't take care of these ecosystems, they're not going to yield us the services for much longer."The latest round of pumping cutbacks will slash state and federal water deliveries by as much as 1.1 million acre-feet, bringing California's water supply to slightly more than half of what it would be in an average year.That's in addition to recent water cutbacks imposed by the state Department of Water Resources, which plans to deliver 15 percent of the amount that local water agencies request every year.The combination "could create a water supply and delivery crisis the likes of which Californians have not seen in decades," Director Lester Snow warned in a statement.Major agriculture groups said the new cuts could be a death knell for farming families struggling to do business since a federal judge ordered federal and state water authorities to restrict pumping to protect the delta smelt, the longfin's cousin.Patterson IrrigatorCity, county both say court ruling is on their side.James Leonardhttp://pattersonirrigator.com/content/view/2509/42/The city of Patterson believes a recent California Supreme Court ruling supports its case against a proposed 4,800-acre industrial development in Crows Landing. Stanislaus County and the project’s developer, however, say it supports them.A hearing is set for Nov. 21 in Fresno Superior Court to determine whether Patterson’s lawsuit — which claims that the county violated state law by approving PCCP West Park as the developer for the former Crows Landing Naval Airbase before a full environmental review had been done on the project — should be dismissed.Both sides in the West Park case filed briefs last week offering their interpretations of how the recent Supreme Court ruling supports their arguments.On Oct. 30, the state Supreme Court ruled in the case Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood that the city violated state law by joining two developers and obtaining a federal grant for a senior citizen housing project before an environmental review had been completed.The ruling determined that a full environmental impact report on a project must be completed at the time of the governmental agency’s earliest commitment to the project, rather than at its final approval.The question courts must answer, then, is what constitutes commitment to a project.Stanislaus County argues in its brief that the agreement between West Hollywood and the developers differs fundamentally from the “memorandum of understanding” between Stanislaus County and PCCP West Park.West Hollywood’s agreement, the county argues, contained strong language indicating its commitment to the project and was accompanied by a $1 million loan to facilitate its development. It believes that represents a stronger commitment to the project than the county’s commitment to West Park, and therefore the West Park agreement did not need to be preceded by an environmental review.Both sides noted the Supreme Court’s statement that courts should look at surrounding circumstances — such as the $1 million loan from West Hollywood — in addition to the language of the agreement in determining whether a project has been prematurely approved.The county points to “surrounding circumstances” in the West Park case, such as the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors being told the agreement would not become binding until the environmental review had been completed, along with comments by supervisors indicating they reserved the right to back out of the deal at any point.The city, in its brief, looks at other surrounding circumstances as proof that the project has gained the “bureaucratic and financial momentum” that the court said could compromise an environmental study conducted too late in the process.The $1 million loan in the West Hollywood case is similar, the city says, to the 170 acres of land — valued at $12.5 million — that the county said it would provide for the West Park development in the memorandum of understanding. The city also points to language in the agreement indicating the county’s commitment to the project. The city also cites the county’s application to the California Transportation Commission for bond money to be used for the short-haul rail needed for the project. The application, according to the city’s brief, discloses the county’s financial commitment to the project, its plans to enter into an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad and its intent to make the West Park project the county’s No. 1 priority.Sacramento BeeResearchers hope radio-tagged salmon provide clues to migratory habits...MATT WEISER...11-14-08 http://www.sacbee.com/702/story/1399537.htmlSACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A swarm of 6,000 bionic salmon has become the latest tool in an ongoing struggle to protect declining fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California.Researchers began releasing the radio-tagged salmon into the Sacramento River on Friday. It's an unprecedented effort to answer one of nature's mysteries: Why do young salmon choose one fork in the river instead of another on their migration to the sea?Results of the $6 million study may show that both natural signals and human manipulation of water flows hold the answer. The 8-inch chinook salmon, reared in a hatchery, each has a tiny radio transmitter implanted in its belly, which emits a signal unique to each fish.The first 300 salmon were released Friday into the Sacramento River just downstream of the Tower Bridge in Old Sacramento.The U.S. Geological Survey, which is leading the study, has installed more than 50 sensors in the river between Sacramento and Pittsburg to pick up signals from the fish."This is pretty bleeding-edge stuff," said Jon Burau, USGS project chief.Data from the study may also be used to show how a proposed water canal around the Delta might affect salmon.The canal is similar to one rejected by voters in 1982. It is being sought by statewide water interests to protect another native fish, Delta smelt, which are killed by water deliveries from the Delta.But a new canal's intake would be located somewhere south of Sacramento, potentially harming salmon instead."The data could be used for that, and I'm sure will be," said Jim Wilde, the study's coordinator at the California Department of Water Resources, which is funding the research. "What we want to get out of this is management tools."Water interests got another reason to press for the canal Friday, when the California Fish and Game Commission added new Delta pumping restrictions to protect another smelt, the native longfin. The interim rules could mean a 50 percent cut in water supplies for Southern California next year.DWR estimates the longfin protections will cut Delta water deliveries by 1.1 million acre-feet, or enough to serve more than 2 million homes."This is not people vs. fish," Commissioner Cindy Gustafson said after voting for the limits. "Because at some point, everything we do in our environment is coming back to affect the people. When we start damaging our ecosystem, it will have impacts."The study will help improve existing water operations to protect fish, Wilde said.Salmon survival in the Delta varies depending on how long fish stay in the estuary, where they go and how they migrate through its braided channels. Some water operations can be adjusted to vary these effects.The research is important for both the endangered winter-run chinook salmon and the fall-run chinook. The latter make up nearly all of the West Coast's commercial salmon catch. A sudden decline in the fall run prompted the first statewide closure of salmon fishing this year.The USGS equipped two key Sacramento River "intersections" with extra sensors to produce three-dimensional images of salmon behavior in the water column. These intersections, both near Walnut Grove, are at the Delta Cross-Channel Gates, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and at Georgiana Slough.Salmon taking these detours leave the main river channel and end up in the Central Delta, where they are exposed to more predators and their path to the ocean becomes more complicated.Surface currents may drive salmon into these detours. Researchers will deploy two custom-built robotic boats to measure those currents.The aluminum craft, painted yellow, look like torpedoes with outriggers. As long as a kayak, they bristle with antennae and sensors. Computer programs and GPS signals will steer the boats in precise patterns to map the currents.Results could prompt operational changes to persuade salmon to avoid the detours. It could also determine the best site for a canal intake. For instance, it might be bad to place the intake near a river bend, where currents could sweep fish into the canal."We want to be able to predict what the effect might be with future operations of the (water) system," said Burau. "We can do a pretty good job predicting where the water's going to go. We're trying to do that with salmon, too." Market WatchPublic Agencies Oppose New Threat to Statewide Water Supply...The State Water Contractors...Press Release...11-13-08 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Public-Agencies-Oppose-New-Threat/story.aspx?guid=%7B0BB97282-1691-4D5E-B409-7C75B865FCEF%7DSACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov 13, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- California Fish & Game Commission's Proposed Restrictions to Address Fish Decline Called 'Major Threat' And 'Without Merit' The State Water Contractors, a statewide organization of 27 public water agencies, voiced serious concern today regarding California Fish & Game Commission proposed regulations that could impose drastic new restrictions on pumping out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) to protect longfin smelt, a small fish species that is found in several estuaries along the northern Pacific Coast. The Commission will consider these proposed regulations, which public water agencies consider a major potential threat to statewide water supply, in a hearing this Friday. The California Department of Water Resources estimates these restrictions could reduce water supplies by approximately one (1) million acre-feet in wet and average year conditions and by 600,000 acre-feet in dry conditions from both the State Water Project (SWP) and federal Central Valley Project (CVP). In average year conditions, these constraints represent approximately 17% of anticipated supply for the two projects, which serve as California's primary water delivery systems. These proposed restrictions are in addition to severe cutbacks already imposed to address the decline of another similar fish species, the Delta smelt. Last year, a federal judge cut 660,000 acre-feet from the water system, a 31% reduction that could have served 5.3 million Californians for one year. In a worst case scenario, restrictions to protect both Delta smelt and longfin smelt in 2009 could amount to nearly a 50% slash in water deliveries from the state's primary water delivery systems. "If the Fish and Game Commission adopts these draconian proposals, we'll be looking at a scary situation," said Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors. "The significant drawbacks of this proposal are way out of proportion to its benefits -- there's no guarantee that these restrictions will even protect the fish. We are in the midst of a governor-declared drought and the worst economic downturn in recent memory. This is the wrong time to propose regulations that could have severe impacts on California's economy while offering little, if any, help to the longfin smelt." These proposed regulations for longfin smelt could impact pumping levels in December, January and February, but are most likely to impact operations in January and/or February. The consideration of these cuts would be triggered at the sole discretion of one individual -- the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game -- if as few as six fish are present near the SWP and CVP pumps during these months. Public water agencies are critical of the proposed restrictions because they only focus on project pumping operations. Ignored in the proposal are other potential causes for the decline in Delta fish species currently being explored by scientists, including invasive species, ammonia discharges from wastewater treatment plants, other toxics, power plant operations and numerous local diversions. Fish surveys have repeatedly shown that the bulk of the longfin smelt population in the Delta is miles to the west of the water projects and out of their influence. The Fish and Game Commission is reviewing new restrictions for pumping operations in December even though the two projects have not salvaged a single longfin smelt in this month since 2003. "These proposed restrictions continue the past practice of narrowly focusing on project pumping to protect Delta fish species, an effort that lacks scientific merit and hasn't demonstrated any benefit," said Moon. "Trying to protect fish in the Delta in this manner could devastate our water supply and is an irresponsible strategy," added Moon. "Rather than continually chipping away at water supply, we need a comprehensive strategy that protects fish in the Delta and ensures Californians have water for their farms, homes and businesses. Unprecedented cutbacks are not the answer, especially in these tough economic times." In addition to regulatory cutbacks, California has been hit with ongoing dry conditions. State reservoirs are drying up and many are at their lowest levels in years. To make matters worse, the water crisis goes beyond these regulatory and weather conditions. Twenty-five million Californians and more than three million acres of agricultural land currently get their water supplies moved through the Delta. However, the water delivered through the Delta is at risk because of the estuary's failing condition, antiquated levees and the threat of natural disaster. Public water agencies, environmental organizations, and state and federal agencies are working together to develop a long-term solution. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a comprehensive conservation plan for the Delta, is researching new ways to protect the struggling ecosystem by physically separating its natural tidal movements from the conveyance of water supplies, a strategy that has been identified as the best way to restore and protect the Delta ecosystem and ensure a reliable water supply for California. For more information on the BDCP, please visit http://www.resources.ca.gov/bdcp/. The State Water Contractors is a statewide, non-profit association of 27 public agencies from Northern, Central and Southern California that purchase water under contract from the California State Water Project. Collectively the State Water Contractors deliver water to more than 25 million residents throughout the state and more than 750,000 acres of agricultural lands. For more information on the State Water Contractors, please visit www.swc.org. Stockton RecordState extends protections for longfin smelt...Alex Breitlerhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081115/A_NEWS/811150319This is how severe California's water and fish crises have become:If surveyors find as few as six longfin smelt near the Delta export pumps this winter, water deliveries to farms and cities throughout the state could be cut by 1.1 million acre-feet - enough water to serve more than 1 million families for a year.That was said to be the worst-case scenario Friday after the California Fish and Game Commission voted to extend protections for the longfin smelt. Combined with drought and court-imposed water restrictions, the action could lead to "a water supply and delivery crisis the likes of which Californians have not seen in decades," said Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources.But Fish and Game officials said the 1.1 million acre-foot cut cited by Water Resources is unlikely."Nothing is automatic," said Fish and Game attorney Ann Malcolm. The plan "requires the exercise an informed judgment after dealing with both science and policymakers."The debate illustrates how close some fish species are to extinction - every single longfin smelt is significant, one Fish and Game expert said Friday - and how close the state's water system is to buckling under the weight of the finger-length longfin smelt and its close cousin, the Delta smelt.The latter species is already protected under state and federal law. Seeing the smelt's recent nose dive, a federal judge last year reduced water deliveries from the Delta by roughly one-third.Now debate has shifted to the longfin smelt.The Fish and Game Commission agreed in February to consider listing the longfin smelt as a threatened or endangered species.The process takes 12 months, and in the meantime, the longfin smelt legally must be protected as if it was already listed.While the pumping restrictions aiding Delta smelt may also aid longfin smelt, there is one significant difference: The longfin smelt tend to migrate into the area of the pumps for spawning earlier in the year, meaning additional pumping restrictions may be necessary in December, January and February.The Fish and Game Commission voted to grant those protections."This is not people versus fish," Commissioner Cindy Gustafson said. "We're part of the ecosystem as well. When we start damaging our ecosystem, it will have impacts" on humans.Water users were not appeased by Fish and Game's reassurances that drastic water cutbacks were unlikely."It's kind of insulting to hear, 'Don't worry, it might not happen,' or 'It's highly unlikely to happen,' " said Jason Peltier of the Westlands Water District in the southern San Joaquin Valley. "Any chance that it could happen is taken as a given that it will happen, from our perspective."Water exports are only one factor known to harm smelt; other threats include discharge from sewage treatment plants, diversions by Delta farmers, toxic chemicals and invasive species.For their part, the state and federal pumps near Tracy at times cause the Old and Middle rivers to run backward, sucking the fish to their likely demise.Tracy PressMountain House: the only logical site for a south-county campus The general manager of the Mountain House Community Services District wants to keep the San Joaquin Delta College campus in Mountain House. Part 2 of a two-part series...Paul Sensibaugh, general manager of the Mountain House Community Services District     http://tracypress.com/content/view/16454/2244/Abandoning the San Joaquin Delta College campus in Mountain House is a particularly disastrous idea. When it re-raised its ugly head a year or so ago, I brought up the downsides of selling the Delta property in Mountain House. It is zoned for public facilities, so a sale of the land would require a rezoning to make the property usable. Any change in that zoning must go before the San Joaquin County Planning Commission and be approved by the board of supervisors. Such a change would take years and affect the following: • Job/housing balance of Mountain House.  • Relocation of an elementary school/park.  • The entire Specific Plan III process, which would have to be repeated. • The developer contribution of more than $14 million. • Annexation fees for the site, which would be more than $30 million. (Delta had much lower rates.) • Land use — the site would have to provide at least seven additional acres of parkland and parking to the Mountain House Community Services District. • The water, sanitary sewer and storm systems, which would have to be redesigned and reconstructed. • The traffic study, which would have to be repeated and some major roadways widened. • Land values, which would be lowered, because no final maps would be able to be issued.• Central Parkway, which would have to be redesigned and moved from the site.  • Developers, former property owners and public agencies, including Alameda County, all of which would likely sue.  • The environmental impact report, which would have to be redone.  • The affordable housing plan, which would require a revision.  • The Public Land Equity Program, which would need to be revised.   • Loss of the water tank site as salable property. • Potential encumbrance of the land by the Caltrans’ proposed truck-climbing lane (several acres). • A redesign and construction of the recently completed water booster pump stations to serve the higher Delta land. • Potential revision of the newly completed Interstate 205 interchange, which could cost several million dollars. • Development problems with existing utility and fuel line easements. • Great Valley Parkway on the west edge of the site, which would be needed and would cost several million. • The possibility of a new development impact fee from city of Tracy and Alameda County. • The possibility of a new fire station. • The possibility that the land couldn’t be rezoned because of limited water and wastewater treatment capacities. • Loss of water and wastewater treatment. • Expansion of the storm water quality basin south of Grant Line Road. Since these critical issues are just the ones off the top of my head, it is safe to conclude that moving the campus would result in the absolute loss of the 114-acre site at Mountain House.Any reopening of the argument to relocate the campus to Tracy or any action to downsize the campus would be a great disappointment to the residents of Mountain House and their new service district board of directors. There will no doubt be vented anger from the county supervisors if Delta decides to pull out of Mountain House at this late date, especially because Delta’s president stood before the supervisors when the specific plan was approved in November 2005, basically guaranteeing that Delta was at Mountain House to stay. MHCSD has acted as a partner to Delta during its entire development process over the past six years, and I hope that our good-faith efforts and countless hours of involvement have not gone unappreciated. Reducing the scope of a leading-edge campus at Mountain House is irresponsible, and I urge everyone to thwart such a notion.    Track meet At its next meeting, the City Council will discuss a proposal to build new race tracks on land near the old Holly Sugar plant...Tracy Press http://tracypress.com/content/view/16468/2268/Owners of the Altamont Motorsports Park want to lease city-owned land near Holly Sugar so it can build paved as well as off-road tracks for cars, trucks and motorcycles to race on.It’s one of two items the City Council will discuss related to the 1,100 acres of land it owns around the old Holly Sugar plant north of Interstate 205. The council is also set to get a look at a "conceptual design" for 150 acres of youth sports fields. The city has set aside $11 million for the first 50 acres, where it plans to first build four soccer fields and two baseball fields on land next to Tracy Boulevard. In addition to the fields, the city will put in storm drains, sewer and water pipes, and 60-car parking lots for each field, as well as shade trees and some sort of wind break. It will build to the east when it has more money. The council will also consider whether it should use an extra 132 acres north of the sports fields for disc golf, bike paths, trails, an arboretum or as a planting buffer. City Manager Leon Churchill said at least part of the use of city-owned land around the old plant seems to be evolving into family-oriented recreation. Whether that will include new racetracks remains to be seen. But Altamont proposed in a Nov. 7 letter to the city to build a 3.7-mile road course, a half-mile all-dirt motocross course, a 1-mile off-road track for trucks, cars bikes and buggies, and a 0.6-mile dirt track for non-motorized BMX bicycles for youngsters ages 6 to 18. City officials said they had plans to build, in partnership with San Joaquin County, a meandering wetland with raised boardwalks on a few hundred acres of land near the plant.During the controversial debate about the youth sports fields, some, including Councilwoman Evelyn Tolbert, complained that noise generated by youth sports games would ruin the serenity of those trying to enjoy the wetlands. San Francisco ChronicleWater supplies may drop for Calif. cities, farms...GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/14/state/n132804S25.DTL&hw=endangered+species&sn=002&sc=767California fish and wildlife managers on Friday approved new rules that could severely restrict pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect a native fish, triggering protests from farmers and cities reeling already from water shortages.The Fish and Game Commission voted 3-0 to enact emergency regulations that may scale back water pumping from December through February to safeguard the longfin smelt, considered a bellwether species for the estuary."Clearly as a society we haven't erred on the side of the fish in the past; we've erred on the side of the water supply," said Commissioner Michael Sutton. "We have to come down on the side of the fish. If we don't take care of these ecosystems, they're not going to yield us the services for much longer."Pumping restrictions would only kick in if scientists find a certain number of dead or living longfin smelt in various sampling locations throughout the delta, including near the massive pumps that send water to more than 25 million Southern Californians.Water officials say they expect some reductions will happen.The regulations could slash state and federal water deliveries by up to 1.1 million acre feet, bringing California's total water supply to slightly more than half of what it would be in an average year.That's in addition to recent water cutbacks imposed by the state Department of Water Resources, which plans to deliver just 15 percent of the amount that local water agencies request every year.The combination "could create a water supply and delivery crisis the likes of which Californians have not seen in decades," warned Director Lester Snow in a statement.Another dry winter may prompt widespread water rationing in cities from the San Francisco Bay area to San Diego, and a drop in the diversity of crops planted over the coming months, said Carl Torgersen, who operates the State Water Project for the department.Major agriculture groups said new cuts could cripple farming families already struggling to do business since a federal judge ordered federal and state agencies to restrict pumping last year to protect the threatened delta smelt, the longfin's cousin."So much uncertainty around the water supply will make it hard for farmers to get crop loans," said Sarah Woolf, a spokeswoman for the Westlands Water District. "Growers will have to give their first priority to permanent crops like almonds and pistachios and grapes, rather than planting things like lettuce and broccoli."The new regulations for longfin smelt will be in force only while the fish migrate, spawn and hatch in the estuary, for a 90-day period starting Dec. 1.If scientists find fish in dangerous conditions during that timeframe, the rules will trigger an evaluation process that involves five state and federal agencies and ultimately falls to Department of Fish and Game Director Don Koch for a final decision.Koch said he reserves the right to take no action, especially if a forthcoming federal plan to protect the delta smelt is found to also protect the longfin.Until Feb. 4, when the commission is scheduled to decide whether the longfin smelt qualifies for listing under the state Endangered Species Act, the fish will enjoy the same protections as endangered species. In the meantime, any dredging in the estuary also will be temporarily banned so the species' floating larvae can develop safely.Laura King Moon, whose organization represents districts that provide water to Los Angeles and Alameda counties, said the regulations risked slowing California's economy in the midst of a downturn."This may not be felt in residential neighborhoods immediately, but it will add to our cities' calls for increased voluntary conservation and increase water prices," said King Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors. "This will eat further into drought reserves that have been set aside in the event of another dry year."Without the protections, however, biologists warned the silvery, 5-inch-long fish might not survive.The population of the longfin smelt is 3 percent of the level measured less than 20 years ago, according to a petition filed by the Center of Biological Diversity, which asked the commission to list the species as endangered.Governor tells staff to prepare for warming...Mathew Yihttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/15/BA9N144TDG.DTL&type=printableGov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order Friday directing state agencies to study the effects of global warming and recommend how the state needs to adapt to such changes in land use planning and building new infrastructure."Given the serious threat of sea level rise to California's water supply, population and our economy, it's critically important that we make sure the state is prepared," Schwarzenegger said in a written statement.The executive order was signed after a conference Friday in Long Beach on global warming and water infrastructure that was sponsored in part by the state Department of Water Resources, said Tony Brunello, a deputy secretary for climate change and energy for the state Resources Agency.While California has embarked on an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, the effects of climate change - higher temperatures, less precipitation and higher sea levels - are inevitable, Brunello said.Two years ago, Schwarzenegger signed the landmark legislation AB32, which requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020. The California Air Resources Board, which has been charged with implementing AB32's goals, is set to consider Thursday its draft blueprint on how to limit California's greenhouse gas emissions."But even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases in California today ... the carbons that have already been emitted would still be with us and those impacts are still going to happen," Brunello said.He said that while figuring out how to limit green house gas emissions has been receiving a lot of attention, how to adapt to the changing climate has been largely ignored. And while there are other states and nations that are researching how to adapt to the effects of global warming, Schwarzenegger's order is among the first directing agencies to put together a comprehensive plan, he said.The executive order directs the Department of Water Resources, the California Energy Commission and the state's coastal management agencies to submit a request with the National Academy of Sciences for a sea level rise assessment report to be completed by Dec. 1, 2010.The order also requires state agencies that build new infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, to factor in rising sea levels in their planning.The governor also wants the California Department of Transportation to figure out which transportation projects would be vulnerable to the effects of climate change and has ordered that state agencies use a uniform standard in measuring the effects of climate change. He has also asked state agencies to develop a process on how to better coordinate planning efforts in the future.Bill Magavern, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said he agrees with the governor's notion that the state needs to prepare for climate change."He's doing the right thing by calling for sound science and coordination among different government agencies," he said. "As we see impacts like rising sea levels and diminishing snowpack, we're going to have to adapt." Monterey HeraldDiver suffers pain from Navy sonar tests...JAY R. MURRAY, Guest commentaryhttp://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_10993293?nclick_check=1I am a Professional Association of Dive Instructors dive master. I worked in Monterey at Aquarius Dive Shops during the mid-1990s. I used to take people on dive tours of our area. I'm still a registered divemaster, but on Aug. 25, 1994, while on a dive off Point Lobos with friends, I was exposed to a new, very unusual sound. It sounded like a low frequency "boom box." The sounds were short pulses about one second long, repeated every five to 10 seconds. I could actually feel my lungs vibrating from each pulse. I immediately surfaced to see if any vessels might be in the area. I saw none. Within a few days, a friend and I made an underwater videotape that our Naval Postgraduate School analyzed. They said I had captured the sound but they didn't know the source. They said they called Washington and were told officials there said they didn't know what was going on. NPS said the sound could be coming from either oil and gas exploration, Navy fleet operations beyond the horizon, or oceanographic research. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary officials also suggested they had no idea of the sourceThen, one person at the Washington office of the National Marine Fisheries Service said that what we had been exposed to was a "classified government test." We laughed at that point. How could it be classified if scuba divers were exiting the water complaining of weird sounds that made our lungs vibrate? Many divers reported the sounds. These events were broadcast over all the local and major national TV newscasts. About a month into the experiment, I went on a dive trip with the owners of Aquarius and several friends to Fiji, 5,000 miles away. Sure enough, the same sounds, only fainter. I recorded them. When this data was presented to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, I was finally told what was going on. The name of the experiment was the Magellan 2 Sea Trials. It was being conducted northwest of the Farallon Islands about 150 to 300 miles to the north. It was called Magellan because it's the "sound heard around the world." The surface vessel Cory Chouest lowers an array of 18 car-sized transducers into the depths and transmits sounds as loud as a Saturn 5 moon rocket all the way across ocean basins. When the Cory Chouest first tested the system, it went to the southern Indian Ocean and conducted the Heard Island Feasibility Test. Here in Monterey Bay, scientists lowered listening devices to see if they could detect the 57 Hz sounds. Sure enough, they had traversed the Indian Ocean and then traveled across the entire Pacific Ocean to be received here. The same transmissions were received in Bermuda. The technology has been developed to hunt for quiet diesel electric submarines that some rogue states like North Korea and Iran possess. Basically, the louder the blasts of sounds, the further their sonar system will detect threat vessels. And, like a boom box in a car, the lower the frequency/tone, the further the transmissions go. Our Navy has conducted an environmental impact report on the sonar system. It's called Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS). It steadfastly refuses to acknowledge it was responsible for the diver disruption issues in the Pacific Ocean during Magellan 2. They say the recordings I possess must be some problem with my breathing apparatus. In the years between then and now, it has been found that "standard" Navy sonar, which has been used for decades on the bows of our warships, causes acoustic trauma in marine mammals, causing them to strand and die. The impact of the sonar blasts on marine life ruptures ear cavities and other air spaces. It also has been postulated that the animals are being scared into surfacing too fast and they suffer a malady similar to the bends in divers. There have been many instances when Navy sonar operations are directly linked to these stranding events. As it turns out, I and a boatload of paying customers went on a dive off Hawaii in 1997, where we were exposed to this type of midfrequency (3,000 Hz) sonar. All the divers heard it. That was my last recreational dive. There are other military systems operations that use sound to send communications to submerged vessels. The Supreme Court has now sanctioned the testing as critical for national security. While I am not opposed to a strong military, I am against use of technology that disregards the other inhabitants of earth. We have no right to expose all living things in our oceans to these signals, which are known to harm and kill. I feel the court has made a serious mistake in allowing humans to degrade the oceanic environment. If the justices hopped in the water with the technology at full power, they would change their minds. If they survived.Los Angeles TimesTell it to the whalesThe Supreme Court was wrong to eliminate some of the Navy's precautions that help protect marine life...Editorialhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sonar15-2008nov15,0,7567957,print.storyNational security is the most crucial responsibility of the federal government, taking precedence over most of its other functions -- including the protection of wildlife and the environment. So when a narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled this week that military readiness is more important than the safety of whales and other marine life, many people, especially on the right, cheered.But the case of Winter vs. the Natural Resources Defense Council isn't quite that simple.At issue were 14 training exercises off the Southern California coast being conducted by the Navy, which was sued after it refused to prepare an environmental impact study. The reason isn't hard to guess: Evidence is accumulating that the high-powered sonar used in these exercises causes hearing loss, panic and death among whales and other marine mammals, and the Navy didn't want to have to take steps to minimize the damage. After a few legal twists, a U.S. district judge issued an injunction ordering the Navy to take six precautions anyway.Even though the Navy has already performed 13 of the 14 exercises using the precautions, with no apparent effect on sailors' readiness and few disruptions, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court bought the Navy's argument that the restrictions pose a threat to national security. So the two strongest precautions -- ordering the Navy to turn off the sonar when a marine mammal is spotted within 1.25 miles of a ship, and during certain atmospheric conditions that allow the sound to carry farther -- were eliminated. The Navy still has to abide by the other four when it conducts its final exercise in December.Aside from the faulty logic of the majority, which blithely ignored the Navy's record of successfully conducting exercises in Hawaii and off the Atlantic coast using precautions very similar to those ordered in California, it's questionable whether the ruling will have much effect because it was narrowly tailored to this particular case. It doesn't get the Navy off the hook for performing environmental studies preceding future exercises -- although, if the Navy or other branches of the military decide to ignore such regulations again, it might make it harder for judges to issue injunctions to restrict their activities. Courts traditionally give broad deference to the military when it claims that national security is at stake, and the Supreme Court seems to have made that deference a little broader.Still, the zeal with which the military wields such powers depends on who's sitting in the commander-in-chief's chair. We trust President-elect Barack Obama to take a wiser course when balancing biological diversity against a few inconveniences for the Navy.Hey, your shade trees are blocking my solar arrayGoing green is creating a new kind of tension between neighbors, as a Culver City dispute shows...Marla Dickersonhttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solarspat15-2008nov15,0,2305505,print.storyOne neighbor loves his solar panels, which have cut his energy bill and are helping to combat global warming. The other neighbor adores his trees, which boost his property value and capture greenhouse gases. ¶ So what happens when one guy's greenery casts a shadow on the other fellow's solar array? ¶ It's an environmental battle that's heating up. And not just on Helms Avenue in Culver City, where the two neighbors -- furniture maker Gary Schultz and architect Michael Rachlin -- have begun using some decidedly un-sunny language to describe each other. ¶ "He's arrogant," said Schultz, who installed the solar panels.¶ "He has been a chronic sort of complainer," said Rachlin, who planted the stately date palms. ¶ Testy letters and e-mails have been flying between the two. There is talk of litigation. ¶ California has embarked on an ambitious program to install photovoltaic panels on 1 million roofs in California by the end of 2017. So it was perhaps inevitable that property owners, who already fuss with one another about everything under the sun, would end up feuding about that as well.Complaints are arising from an obscure state law known as the Solar Shade Control Act. It protects homeowners' investments in solar panels, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Property owners whose trees block the sun from more than 10% of their neighbors' panels can be fined as much as $1,000 a day if they refuse to trim them.Signed in 1978 by Gov. Jerry Brown, the law was little noticed until this year, when a solar spat ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court.A judge convicted a Sunnyvale couple of violating the shade law -- an infraction on par with a parking ticket -- for refusing to trim a stand of redwoods that were causing power losses on their neighbor's solar array. The couple eventually pruned some branches to avoid the fine, but only after spending $37,000 defending themselves in court. The criminal prosecution attracted international attention and some "only-in-California" snickers. But with more installed megawatts of solar photovoltaic panels than in any other state in the nation, Californians have good reason to take their solar seriously. Just ask Schultz.A furniture and cabinet maker who uses lots of heavy equipment at his Culver City shop, Schultz was fed up with Southern California Edison bills that averaged around $5,000 a month -- more than the mortgage on his buildingHe decided to go solar. Schultz researched the technology and took classes so that he could install and maintain the panels himself. The cost of the 28.8-kilowatt system after the state rebate was $80,000, Schultz said. That's a hefty sum. But when the system came on line in May 2006, it immediately reduced his power bill to zero."I was ecstatic," said Schultz, 48, a short, stocky surfer who favors T-shirts and shorts. "It was working exactly as I had designed it to work."Then came the palms. Rachlin planted six of them in December 2007 along the property line he shares with Schultz. The 15-foot trees were the exclamation points on his firm's new headquarters in an abandoned shoe-polish factory, an eyesore turned showplace after a long renovation.The trees cost $10,000 each to purchase, transport and plant, he said."They're beautiful," said Rachlin, a dapper man whose knowledge of environmentally friendly building principles has earned him so-called LEED accreditation by the United States Green Building Council.But one man's palm-line paradise is another's power-blocking purgatory. Schultz said his system was producing less electricity than it did before, causing him to write at least $8,500 in checks to Edison this year.Schultz hired a solar consultant to document his power losses and presented it to Rachlin and to Culver City officials, who Schultz said should never have approved the offending landscaping because it violates the Solar Shade Control Act.Rachlin said he hired his own expert, who concluded that the palm shading was insignificant and that Schultz's power losses were a result of poor orientation of his solar panels. Rachlin said he had offered to pay a portion of the cost of relocating Schultz's panels to a sunnier spot, an offerSchultz rejected because it would require him to make expensive roof reinforcements and because it would make his panels visible to potential thieves."I have tried to be a good neighbor," Rachlin said. "This is just a guy that keeps just coming, coming at you."Schultz said he wouldn't be kvetching if Rachlin hadn't insisted on planting enormous palms near a solar panel of which he was fully aware."He is supposed to be a LEED expert?" Schultz said. "He needs to do the right thing and remove those trees."Schultz said that he didn't want to go to court but that he was prepared to take legal action. Culver City officials are scrambling to come up with a compromise.Councilman Andrew Weissman said he didn't think the city was culpable in the flap. Still, he said, there has been discussion about whether Culver City could purchase Rachlin's trees and relocate them for use somewhere else in town.An attorney by profession, Weissman said trees have long been the subject of neighbor disputes, be they over leaves littering a swimming pool or roots clogging drainage pipes. But he said this was the first feud that he had heard of involving shade and solar paneling."It's a reflection of how new the technology is," he said. "It's an area we're going to have to pay attention to." State rules that take effect Jan. 1 aim to avoid another solar scandal like the one in Sunnyvale. Violations of the Solar Shade Control Act will no longer be considered a crime and will have to be enforced in civil court. And trees and shrubs planted before someone installs solar panels will never have to face the ax, no matter how tall they grow.Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Assn., sighed when told of the Culver City dispute. She said the solar squabbles, though rare, could deter some consumers from purchasing panels. And she said they detracted from the larger issue of climate change and its potentially disastrous effects on the planet. "It makes a joke out of the serious business of trying to reduce energy consumption," Kateley said. "Global warming is real. . . . To diminish it to some kind of barking-dog dispute is sad."Washington PostHigh court to rule when judges must bow out...MARK SHERMAN, The Associated Presshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111401977_pf.htmlWASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court stepped into a sensitive dispute Friday over a state judge's decision to participate in a case that involved a key campaign supporter.The justices typically avoid cases about judicial ethics, but they agreed to review the actions of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice whose vote overturned a $50 million verdict against a company that is run by the most generous backer of his election.The high court's decision comes amid growing concern over the role of money in electing state judges. Campaign spending on state supreme court elections rose by 25 percent to nearly $20 million from 2006 to 2008, a national justice reform group said.Don Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy Co., spent more than $3 million to help elect Justice Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia high court. Benjamin twice was part of 3-2 majorities that threw out a verdict in favor of Harman Mining Co. in its coal contract dispute with Massey.Harman said Benjamin's participation in the case created an appearance of bias strong enough to violate its constitutional rights.The American Bar Assocation and other legal ethics groups have taken Harman's side.In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has said that judges must avoid even the appearance of bias.Benjamin repeatedly rejected calls to recuse himself from the case when it was before the state high court. He has since said that he fairly judged the dispute.Benjamin issued a lengthy defense of his actions, pointing out that he had no financial interest in the outcome of the case and the campaign money went to an independent group, not his campaign. He had no comment Friday after the court accepted the case for review.Massey vice president and general counsel Shane Harvey said, "We are confident that the Harman case was properly decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court."David Fawcett, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents Harman and its founder, Hugh Caperton, said, "The question at issue here is central to the future of our court system." Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson will argue the case for Caperton at the Supreme Court, probably in March or April.Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has not commented on the West Virginia dispute, but she has bemoaned the role of money in state judicial elections."There is too much special interest money and influence in state court elections," O'Connor said recently. "It endangers the public's faith in the justice system. If courts are going to stay impartial, leaders in every state need to get moving on reforms."Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, an advocate for ending partisan election of judges, said the case may get "people to pay attention to the problems partisan fundraising creates." Kourlis is executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, which provided the figures on spending in judicial elections.The Supreme Court case stems from a jury verdict in 2002 that concluded Richmond, Va.-based Massey hijacked a coal supply contract from Harman, plunging both it and Caperton into bankruptcy.Massey contended Harman filed for bankruptcy because of mounting losses at a mining facility and other problems that had nothing to do with Massey.The case is Caperton v. Massey, 08-22.New York TimesDick Cheney’s Last-Gasp Fight Against Clean Air...Editorialhttp://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/dick-cheneys-last-gasp-fight-against-clean-air/?pagemode=printWhatever his shortcomings, one has to marvel at Vice President Dick Cheney’s persistence. Years ago, riding high and wide as the administration’s energy czar, Mr. Cheney promised — privately in meetings with corporate contributors, and publicly in his infamous 2001 energy report — to strip the Clean Air Act of an important provision that had driven his friends in the electric power industry to distraction.So far, he has not succeeded. Congress has ignored him and the courts have rebuffed him. The Clean Air Act remains (as of now) more or less intact, while the embarrassment to Mr. Cheney has been considerable. (Among other things, his efforts to undermine the law as well as other slights effectively drove Christie Whitman, Mr. Bush’s first administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, into retirement.)Still he soldiers on, a kind of Don Quixote of environmental de-regulation, and if he has his way, the administration is likely to make one last effort to undermine the law.The provision in question is called “new source review.” Its basic purpose is to clean up old power plants (and make them more like new power plants) by requiring utilities to install cutting-edge pollution controls every time they upgrade an older plant to produce more power. Pollution controls cost the utilities big money, which is one reason Mr. Cheney targeted the new source review provision for extinction.The administration’s first gambit was to propose a change in the regulations to allow utilities to make incremental capital improvements in older plants under the guise of “routine maintenance.” Over time, this would have allowed utilities to completely overhaul an older plant and greatly increase its capacity without installing costly controls. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit saw through this and struck it down in 2006.Next, with Mr. Cheney’s tacit support, several utilities filed suit demanding that the government change the way it measures emissions. Under current law, older power plants must install pollution controls whever they make renovations that increase their annual emissions. The companies argued that these emissions should be considered on an hourly basis. This did not fool Judge Richard Posner of the Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, who pointed out that even if hourly emissions remained constant, a renovated plant could be run longer hours, resulting in greater annual emissions. The Supreme Court later took the same view. But here’s the remarkable thing: Within months of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EPA went ahead, prodded by Mr. Cheney, and proposed a rule that would make the hourly standard the test. It’s as if Judge Posner and the Supreme Court had never existed. The public comment period has expired and a final rule could be issued at any moment. The word from inside EPA is that even Stephen Johnson, the agency chief who has routinely done the administration’s bidding, is not eager to water down the Clean Air Act at this late date. And of course an Obama administration could overturn any such rule, and probably would. But Mr. Cheney sunk his teeth into this one seven years ago, and if we’ve learned anything about the outgoing vice president, it is that he is not going to slide gently into political retirement without a few final fusillades at a clean-air regime that, for whatever reason, he is dead-set against.