11-20-08

 11-20-08Merced Sun-StarOur View: Help spend $270,000Supervisor Crookham is out of ideas for her 'special project funds.' How would you spend it?http://www.mercedsunstar.com/177/v-print/story/556550.htmlPoor Supervisor Kathleen Crookham.She's got $270,000 in "special project funds" that she's been saving up for years. She's got to spend all that money before her last meeting with the Merced County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 16.Crookham, like all the other supervisors, gets $100,000 a year -- it varies from year to year -- to spend on pet projects in her district. She's been saving to give a big donation to the renovation of the Merced Theatre, a city of Merced project.But she was turned down for the third time Tuesday by a vote of 3 to 2.Crookham thought she had finally worked out a deal to spend her project funds. She was going to give only $100,000 to the theater foundation, $187,000 to the Human Services Agency and $5,000 to the Merced County Arts Council.In November, she had offered to set aside $150,000 for the Merced Theatre and $50,000 for the Snelling Courthouse Historical Foundation to win Supervisor Deidre Kelsey's vote. She lost that vote, too.After the vote Tuesday, Supervisor John Pedrozo criticized Crookham for wanting to spend $100,000 when the county is facing layoffs. He was also upset because the Merced Theatre is in his district and Crookham never talked to him about the donation.Afterwards, Crookham seemed dismayed, "I have a golden egg, but it just won't hatch."She wondered, "If you have an idea how I should distribute these funds, please let me know."So there you have it, readers. Got any ideas how Supervisor Crookham can spend the money?Buy turkeys for all the county's homeless?Rescue a couple hundred dogs and cats?Free drinks for all Merced College and UC Merced students at The Partisan?Buy a couple dozen more Tasers for the sheriff?The Merced Sun-Star has some movie tickets we're just dying to give away. (Sorry, not at the Merced Theatre.) Write us with your suggestions. Send them as you would a letter to the editor. Write "Poor Kathleen" on the envelope or the subject line. Please keep these to 50 words or less.The editorial board will select the winner well before the supervisors meet. Modesto BeeNew rail proposal stuns Stanislaus County officialsCrows Landing project part of a larger system...Tim Moranhttp://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/505742.htmlA proposal to acquire the old Southern Pacific Railroad right of way from Bakersfield to Tracy and through the Altamont Pass for a short-haul rail system to move valley products to the Port of Oakland is creating controversy in Stanislaus County.The plan, in a preliminary draft version, incorporates short-haul rail and inland port proposals at Crows Landing and Shafter, with potential connections to cross-country routes at the Tehachapi and Donner passes.The old Southern Pacific line through the valley would serve as a "backbone" connecting a series of inland ports, railroad hubs and distribution centers with major rail yards, said Rob Ball, a senior planner with the Kern Council of Governments. The tracks are owned by Union Pacific Railroad.The proposal was put together by transportation planners in Kern, Fresno, Tulare and San Joaquin counties. Stanislaus County was not part of the effort, and county officials say they only became aware of the proposal this week."We are not an advocate of this in any way," county Chief Executive Officer Rick Robinson said Tuesday night. "We just barely learned about it in the last 48 hours."Supervisor Jim DeMartini had stronger words for the proposal. He said it was an effort to "highjack" money from the recently approved high speed rail bond initiative and use it for freight service rather than passenger service. "It makes a sham out of the initiative process," DeMartini said at the Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday night.DeMartini is a vocal opponent of the PCCP West Park LLC proposal to build a short-haul rail connection from the Port of Oakland to a 4,800-acre business park to be built near Crows Landing.West Park developer Gerry Kamilos said this week that he had no knowledge of the plan to acquire the Southern Pacific tracks. "We are looking at it. Like everyone else, it's new to us," Kamilos said.Ball said the high speed rail initiative sets aside up to $900 million for passenger rail service linking to the high speed rail line. Those passenger links could use the Southern Pacific tracks during the day, with freight trains using them at night, Ball said.While freight would be the economic driver of the concept, the rail right of way could be used by passenger trains, including Amtrak and the Altamont Commuter Express, Ball said.The rail system also would help the valley meet air quality standards by removing trucks from the road, Ball said.In addition to the Shafter and Crows Landing inland ports, additional freight links could include the ports of Stockton and Sacramento and an intermodal rail facility in Lathrop, the proposal says.There are challenges involved beyond the opposition from Stanislaus County's West Side: The right of way has gaps where tracks have been removed or buildings constructed over it. They include a 20-mile gap south of Los Banos and a nine-mile gap in Tulare and Kern counties. Another segment near Exeter is proposed to be abandoned, which the project would have to prevent, Ball said.Filling in those gaps shouldn't prove any more challenging than some of the highway projects the counties deal with, Ball said.Money is another stumbling block.The Crows Landing and Shafter inland port proposals have applied for state transportation bond money to get off the ground. Ball mentioned the high speed rail bond money as a potential source of funding.The bulk of the investment, however, will have to come from shippers and receivers, he added. The cost of diesel fuel has risen 100 percent in the past three years, Ball said, making the short-haul rail proposals an attractive alternative. The trains are ten times more efficient than trucks, according to Ball.Stanislaus County deputy executive officer for economic development Keith Boggs, who oversees the West Park short-haul rail and inland port proposal at Crows Landing, said the larger rail proposal echoes many of the arguments made in favor of West Park."The underlying premise of the export of agriculture products on rail to the Port of Oakland is something consistent with what we are doing," Boggs said. "It's a very strong and logical approach."The West Park proposal is very controversial on the county's West Side, however, and the larger project is likely to draw opposition there.The city of Patterson has filed a lawsuit against the county over West Park and objects to the increased number of trains running through the city with the development.Kamilos claims six short trains would come through per day when the West Park project is completed. The larger short-haul rail proposal likely would send many more trains through the city.Patterson Councilwoman Annette Smith said she isn't surprised by the proposal and suggested Kamilos is "playing coy" in contending he had not seen the study."It's exactly what I anticipated," Smith said. "We are looking at mitigating six trains a day, and he is negotiating with shippers from Fresno and Kern counties. ... This whole project is much bigger than anyone admitted to."The city will continue to press its lawsuit and push for West Park to come up with strategies to alleviate problems the trains will cause, she said.The next step for the Southern Pacific short-haul rail proposal, Ball said, is to gauge support from shippers and receivers in the valley and update studies of the economics of short-haul rail in the valley.California's trout, salmon species face greater threat, study finds...Matt Weiserhttp://www.modbee.com/local/story/505627.htmlA study by UC Davis scientists, released on Wednesday, predicts 65 percent of California's salmon and trout species may become extinct within a century.The research was commissioned by the environmental group California Trout to call attention to the plight of 31 native salmon, steelhead and trout species in the state. Three researchers from the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences examined threats to the fish and estimated their likelihood for extinction.The study was led by Peter Moyle, professor of fish biology at UC Davis and a leading authority on salmon and trout."I had a feeling that things were not good," Moyle said. "But I did not realize how many collectively were actually in serious trouble and how underestimated the threats to many of these fish were."Among the most threatened species are coastal coho salmon, which require cold streams shaded by thick wooded habitat. Instead, many of those streams have been degraded by logging and development.Less threatened are Central Valley fall-run chinook, the most abundant species in California and a foundation for the commercial harvest. However, Moyle warned this may be changing. This year the run collapsed, causing the closure of commercial fishing and limited recreational fishing to brief seasons on the Sacramento and Klamath rivers.These and several other salmon and steelhead species must navigate treacherous waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where they're all threatened by pollution and some are killed in water diversion pumps."The fish don't lie, and they are right now telling us the truth about the future of the water in our state," Moyle said. "We have a choice right now. We can allow the degradation of our waters to continue … or we can take action and bring them back from the brink of extinction."Like freshwater trout, salmon and steelhead are born in California's streams and rivers. But unlike trout, salmon and steelhead migrate to the ocean as juveniles, then return to freshwater to spawn near their birthplace. The study found threats to these ocean-going species are even worse: 83 percent are at risk of extinction, Moyle said.But trout are at risk as well. The inland species face threats including pollution and loss of habitat from land development, logging, cattle grazing, mining and competition by foreign species. Among the threatened species is the state's official fish, the California golden trout.Brian Stranko of CalTrout warned that the state risks losing an estimated $2 billion in annual economic benefits generated by recreational angling, and billions more from commercial fishing."Each of the salmon, trout and steelhead species occupies an essential niche in the food web," said Stranko, the group's CEO. "We need cold, clean water for our fish, our people and the economy of California."Just how much water is needed to protect native fish – including endangered Sacramento River winter-run chinook and threatened Delta smelt – is the subject of two cases before a federal judge in Fresno. Water agencies say a court order restricting their water deliveries to protect smelt has already caused them to fallow fields and impose water rationing.The advocates didn't call for further cutbacks but said California must find a way to fully fund the Department of Fish and Game to enforce existing laws. The department doesn't have the money to hire enough game wardens, biologists and permit analysts, and more budget cuts loom.They also recommend overhauling hatchery and fish-stocking practices, which may weaken the species by erasing wild genetics.The department is conducting an environmental study of its hatchery and stocking practices. A Sacramento judge this month ordered the state to negotiate with two environmental groups, which challenged current practices, to agree on interim changes until the study is done.Advocates: California salmon in rapid decline...GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/505252.htmlFRESNO, Calif. —  Anglers and salmon lovers beware: Some of the state's most prized native fish could disappear by century's end, according to a new report by the advocacy group California Trout.Without a renewed effort to restore ailing waterways, nearly two-thirds of the state's salmon, steelhead and trout species will go extinct within the next 50 to 100 years, said University of California, Davis biologist Peter Moyle."The fish don't lie, and they are right now telling us the truth about the future of the water in our state," said Moyle, a fisheries expert and the lead author of the report released Wednesday. "We have a choice right now: We can allow the degradation of our waters to continue ... or we can take action and bring them back from the brink of extinction."Concern for the health of California's fish has mounted since the collapse of one of the West Coast's biggest wild salmon runs earlier this spring, which caused a virtual shutdown of the summer fishing season.Salmon, steelhead and some trout species are born in California's streams and rivers and migrate to the ocean when they're juveniles, but return to freshwater to spawn near where they were born.In between, many of those fish navigate the treacherous pumps and canals linked to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where environmentalists and fishermen have argued they are sometimes ground up in the process.Native fish also face hazards in inland waterways, where dredging, pesticides, cattle grazing and timber removal can disrupt stream bottoms, disturb sediment and harm their habitat, said Brian Stranko, CEO of California Trout.If populations continue to decline, Stranko warned the state risks losing the $2 billion in economic benefits generated each year by the 2 million people who buy fishing licenses, and perhaps billions more in revenue from commercial fishing operations."Each of the salmon, trout and steelhead species occupies an essential niche in the food web," Stranko said. "We need cold, clean water for our fish, our people and the economy of California."Just how much water should go to safeguarding native fish populations - including the endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and the threatened delta smelt - is the subject of two cases before a federal judge in Fresno. Farmers and urban water districts say a court order restricting their water deliveries to protect the smelt has already caused them to fallow fields and impose water rationing.The advocates didn't call for further cutbacks, but suggested California could head off population decline by hiring more game wardens to enforce existing laws that protect watersheds. They also recommended overhauling management of the state's hatcheries.The Department of Fish and Game did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment about the findings.Knights Ferry blocks river habitat project...Tim Moranhttp://www.modbee.com/local/story/506159.htmlMaybe the David and Goliath thing isn't so far-fetched.The town of Knights Ferry, population 98, has fended off a plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to build a side channel and install gravel processing equipment on the Stanislaus River bank opposite the town.The side channel was to have provided new habitat for young chinook salmon and steelhead trout to grow and be better able to survive the trip to the ocean. The salmon runs in the Central Valley have declined by 88 percent in the past five years.But residents of the town and the Knights Ferry Municipal Advisory Council opposed the project because they believe it would disrupt the nature of the community. Knights Ferry is zoned as a historic district and is on the county, state and federal historic registers.The project would include heavy equipment to dredge and grade the land and equipment to sort and clean gravel to restore the riverbed.Residents recruited county Supervisor Bill O'Brien and U.S. Rep. George Radan- ovich, R-Mariposa, to convince the federal agency that Knights Ferry wasn't the right place for the work."The whole plan came forward without getting Knights Ferry involved," O'Brien said. "They want to keep the historic portion of Knights Ferry intact."Radanovich got involved to confirm that there had been an agreement between then-Rep. Gary Condit, D-Ceres, and the Army Corps of Engineers, which owns the 20-acre site along the river. The two had agreed in 1998 that the property would be kept in a natural state, O'Brien said.There are alternative sites for the fish habitat, O'Brien added. "The salmon still get the attention they need without damaging Knights Ferry," he said.The Fish and Wildlife Service is considering nearby locations up and down the stream from Knights Ferry, O'Brien said.Sally Goehring, who lives along the river opposite the proposed site, said the decision was "just common sense.""Everyone is anxious to see the salmon survive," she said. "But the Knights Ferry historical district is not the place to put that kind of project."Fresno BeeSupporters of delta smelt lose legal bid to cancel water deals...John Ellishttp://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1024796.htmlA federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request by environmentalists that could have slowed the flow of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to agricultural interests to the south. The 92-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger is the latest in a case involving the tiny delta smelt, which environmentalists say is facing extinction largely because of reduced water coming into the delta, and from increased pumping. The environmentalists wanted Wanger to cancel long-term contracts for more than a dozen west-side water districts that get water from the delta. But Wanger's ruling said that it would be pointless to renegotiate the contracts to help the smelt, because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation already has the ability to stop water deliveries to the affected districts to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The districts -- which include the James Irrigation District, centered on the town of San Joaquin, and the adjacent Tranquillity Irrigation District -- said Wanger's ruling gives them a sense of stability. It also likely sets a legal precedent for nearby water districts with similar contracts that the environmentalists didn't challenge. That includes the massive Westlands Water District on the Valley's west side. Wanger also wants more information before ruling on more than two dozen other contracts that the environmentalists challenged. Those contracts involve districts that have rights to Sacramento River water that predate the areawide Central Valley Project's construction starting in the late 1930s. The complicated legal wrangling on the Sacramento River contracts ultimately could result in not only less water for Westlands and other west-side districts, but also could hurt water districts on the San Joaquin River. Wanger wants the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento River districts to provide evidence that will help establish the amount of water those districts are entitled to under their historic rights. These are 19th century rights that can't be cut by the federal government for a reason such as meeting Endangered Species Act requirements. That could affect how much water is available to help the smelt. Besides that, every drop of water they're entitled to under historic claims means less potential water for districts south of the delta. Among them: the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority, which represents owners of 240,000 farmland acres in Fresno, Madera, Merced and Stanislaus counties on the San Joaquin Valley's west side. Unlike water users such as Westlands, the exchange contractors have historic rights to San Joaquin River water. The contractors agreed to take delta water as part of the Central Valley Project, but they also reserved the right to reclaim their share of San Joaquin River water. If the contractors' supply of delta water is reduced, the contractors could turn to their historic San Joaquin rights, which could mean less water for the Valley's east side, including for the Friant Water Users Authority. The Sacramento River districts face another uncertainty. Wanger found that the Bureau of Reclamation erred in negotiating contracts for the Sacramento River districts. The problem, he ruled, is that the bureau relied on a key opinion that he has invalidated regarding the effects of the Central Valley Project on the smelt. That part of the ruling heartened environmentalists. Wanger scheduled a Dec. 3 hearing to discuss the next steps involving the Sacramento River districts. Fishing on: State works out dealInterim pact allows limited stocking of trout to resume...Marek Warszawskihttp://www.fresnobee.com/sports/outdoors/story/1024812.htmlTrout planting has resumed in most central San Joaquin Valley reservoirs and rivers following a judge's decision earlier this month that could significantly alter how state-grown hatchery fish are stocked throughout California. After blowing a court-imposed deadline to prepare an environmental impact report on its trout and salmon stocking programs, the Department of Fish and Game was ordered into talks with two plaintiffs on how to minimize the negative impacts these programs have on environmentally sensitive species. During the past two weeks, DFG officials and representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pacific Rivers Council have made enough progress in their discussions to continue stocking trout in man-made reservoirs, said Neil Manji, DFG's fisheries branch chief. Stocking is limited to larger-sized lakes where none of the 25 sensitive species identified in the lawsuit are present, Manji added. The interim agreement includes all area lakes except Hume, which is smaller than the agreed upon 1,000 surface-acre size threshold, plus tailwater sections of the Kings and San Joaquin rivers. Hume Lake does not get stocked this time of year. "Every day we chip away a little," Manji said. The two sides are due back in front of Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette on Monday The DFG has been stocking non-native fish for more than 100 years, a practice some environmentalists have long called into question. The debate reached a tipping point in May 2007 when the two non-profit groups successfully sued the DFG. Marlette ruled fish stocking has "significant environmental impacts" on "aquatic ecosystems" and "in particular on native species of fish, amphibians and insects, some of which are threatened or endangered," and ordered the DFG to prepare an EIR on how to mitigate those impacts. The EIR was supposed to be completed last month. But the DFG, citing personnel and funding issues, asked for an extension until January 2010. Marlette did not grant the extension. Instead, he ordered the two sides to seek interim measures that would allow the DFG to continue stocking in agreed-upon, non-sensitive areas pending the EIR's completion. Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center of Biological Diversity, said the plaintiffs are most concerned about hatchery-raised fish preying on native fish and frogs at high-altitude lakes, possibly driving them to extinction. "It's certainly not our goal to shut down all fish stocking," Greenwald said. "Fish and Game should still be able to stock hatchery fish, but in places where they won't harm native species." Dr. Chris Frissell, director of science and conservation for the Pacific Rivers Council, said the "far-reaching, often disastrous" consequences of stocking hatchery fish have been known for decades. "It is far past time the Department of Fish and Game completed a credible review," Frissell said. Manji does not dispute that native amphibians such the mountain yellow-legged frog have seen their numbers and range greatly reduced in areas where non-native, hatchery trout are introduced. However, the DFG fisheries branch chief would prefer to manage fish and frogs together in the areas they inhabit rather than as individual species. For example, a lake in a certain basin popular with anglers and known to produce large fish would continue to be stocked while others that aren't as popular would not. "If we stick to 'fish eat frogs, therefore fish are bad,' there would be a lot of waters that by definition would not get stocked," Manji said. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the judge indicated he would consider limiting stocking only to water bodies where no at-risk species have been found. Such an outcome could have far-reaching effects for California anglers. For example, residents who spent $38.85 this year for annual fishing licenses may no longer find plentiful trout in high-altitude lakes that have been stocked for decades. Last week, as word spread that the San Joaquin and Kings would not receive their weekly allotment of rainbows, San Joaquin Hatchery manager Greg Paape said his office received about 40 phone calls. Making matters worse, hatchery staff had planned to stock the San Joaquin with 1,000 pounds of jumbo-sized trout weighing up to 6 pounds apiece in addition to the usual half-pound "catchable" fish. "It really stirred up a hornet's nest, especially when people found out we were supposed to plant the big fish," Paape said. Thanks to the interim agreement, the first allotment of jumbo trout will be stocked in the San Joaquin on Friday at several locations below Pine Flat Dam. Dems look to stop endangered species rule changes...DINA CAPPIELLOhttp://www.fresnobee.com/news/national-politics/v-printerfriendly/story/1024503.htmlWith the Bush administration on the verge of relaxing regulations protecting endangered species, Democratic leaders are looking at ways to overturn any last-minute rule changes. The Bush administration has until Friday to publish new rules in order for them to take effect before President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in. Otherwise, Obama can undo them with the stroke of a pen. A rule eliminating the mandatory, independent advice of government scientists in decisions about whether dams, highways and other projects are likely to harm species looked likely to meet the deadline, leaving the only chance for a quick reversal to Congress. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the House will be looking at ways to overturn the final endangered species rules and other one-minute-to-midnight regulations. "The House, in consultation with the incoming administration and relevant committees, will review what oversight tools are at our disposal regarding this and other last-minute attempts to inflict severe damage to the law in the waning moments of the Bush administration," Hammill said. A Nov. 12 version of the final endangered species rules obtained by The Associated Press has changed little from the original proposal, despite the more than 250,000 comments received since it was first proposed in August. The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself whether the project is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants. Current regulations require independent wildlife biologists to sign off on these decisions before a project can go forward, at times modifying the design to better protect species. The regulations also bar federal agencies from assessing emissions of the gases blamed for global warming on species and habitats, a tactic environmentalists have tried to use to block new coal-fired power plants. But the Bush administration feels that endangered species laws should not be used to regulate greenhouse gases. Tina Kreisher, an Interior Department spokeswoman, could not confirm whether the rule would be published before the deadline, saying only that the White House was still reviewing it. She said it was possible more changes could be made. "We started this; we want to finish this," Kreisher said. If the rules go into effect before Obama takes office, they will be difficult to overturn since it would require the new administration to restart the rule-making process. Congress, however, could reverse the rules through the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows review of new federal regulations. It's been used once in the past 12 years, but some Democratic lawmakers have said they may employ it to block the endangered species rules and other last-minute regulations by the Bush administration. "This is a shining example of the brash giveaways to industry we expect to see during the Bush administration's final days, and a new Congress will stand at the ready to use our authority to overturn this and other harmful rules," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House select committee for energy independence and global warming. The Bush administration has made no secret of its intent to complete the endangered species changes quickly. When the proposal was first announced in August, the public was given 30 days to comment. That period was doubled after Democratic lawmakers pressed for more time. Then, last month, the head of the endangered species program corralled 15 experts in Washington to sort through 200,000 comments in 32 hours. "This is definitely lightning quick," said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative. "I would be surprised that they spent all this time rushing it through if it wasn't greased." If successful, the Bush administration will accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects. Supporters of the changes also expected it to be finalized later this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which advocates for property rights, urged that the rules be approved. "Litigious activists have used the Endangered Species Act to fight projects," Reed Hopper, the foundation's principal attorney, said in a statement. "The administration's current proposal is a step toward curbing these abuses." Court rules air officials need to prove public health benefit...The Fresno Bee...11/19/08 22:29:20http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-printerfriendly/story/1024790.htmlRegional air officials must prove that public health will benefit from a rule to clean up pollution caused by the dairies and other animal operations, an appeals court ruled Wednesday. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's 2006 rule on such pollution did not contain studies on its effects, said the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno. The court said that without the studies it is impossible to know whether the rule helps the public. District officials will consider an appeal, according to executive director Seyed Sadredin. But he said that including a public-health analysis would not be difficult, and the court upheld most of the district's rule. Officials said the rule will annually remove more than 7,500 tons of ozone-making emissions called volatile organic compounds, associated with animal feed and waste. The ruling Wednesday upheld the district's decision to limit the rule to ozone and particulate matter. Activists, who are considering a further appeal to the state Supreme Court, contend ammonia also should be included. The Valley-based Association of Irritated Residents had earlier sued the district over the rule and lost in Fresno County Superior Court. Prospect of sewers strikes horror in rustic Malibu...NOAKI SCHWARTZhttp://www.fresnobee.com/641/v-printerfriendly/story/1023987.html"Sewer" has always been a dirty word in this celebrity-studded community, which has avoided the sprawl that pervades much of the Southern California coast in part because it has refused to install the plumbing for it. The city has long resisted switching from septic tanks to sewer pipes, concerned that it would open the door to massive development projects that are currently out of the question because septic systems can't support them. But after a prolonged battle over bacterial pollution in nearby waters, the city may soon be forced to change. Water regulators plan to vote Thursday on a proposed ban on septic tanks in the heart of Malibu, a move some fear could forever alter the city's rustic character. "If you come to Malibu you can look up and see the hills still, unlike cities where it's covered in development," Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich said. "For people who live here and visit, it's a sanctuary. We're famous for our beautiful beaches." But those beaches can harbor unhealthy bacteria as human waste leaks from septic leach fields into groundwater, then trickles into creeks and makes its way to the sea. Even visiting surfers in Malibu know to keep their mouths closed when riding the breaks at famous Surfrider Beach - one of the state's most popular, scenic and polluted stretches of coast. "People are always getting sick - sinus infections, stomach, gastrointestinal viruses, and you just chalk it up to this is where I surf," said Joe Melchione of the Malibu Surfing Association. For years, the city has weathered lawsuits from environmental groups and threats of fines from regulators. But city leaders argue that the occasional stench and pollution come from other things, including a wastewater treatment plant outside the city, storm runoff and animal droppings. Resident Walt Keller, who paid just $26,000 for his house decades ago, thinks the septic system works just fine. He worries that his beloved city of multimillion-dollar beachfront homes, oak-shaded canyon roads and locally owned shops could become wall-to-wall condos if a sewer line is allowed to snake in. "We've beaten them before," said Keller, the city's first mayor, who was elected on a wave of anti-sewer support. "I think we could beat them in court again based on the fact that septic tanks work everywhere else." In 2004, the city finally approved a plan to turn 15 acres of dirt in the city center into an "environmental cleaning machine" that would scrub storm and wastewater before it polluted Surfrider and other nearby waters. The idea - essentially a wetland - sounded so promising that environmentalists lobbied for about $10 million in state funding. A long list of high-profile residents, including Tom Hanks and Courteney Cox Arquette, donated money to the cause. Pierce Brosnan, Cindy Crawford and Perry Ferrell of Jane's Addiction autographed a surfboard to raise money. Over time, however, critics said the project, estimated to cost more than $40 million, had deteriorated into little more than a pricey city park. City officials argue that the park will take care of some stormwater pollution, but that they need more time to resolve the wastewater issue. Patience, meanwhile, is running out. Some residents say they have to watch what kind of puddles they step into at shopping plazas, and say they drive through neighborhoods ready to roll up the windows in case an assaulting stench drifts in. "The problem is you have this 18-year history of the city not wanting to deal with its wastewater problem," said Mark Gold, who heads the environmental group Heal the Bay. "All of this is going to blow up." Despite the incomplete wastewater plan, the city has approved downtown commercial development - a move that rankled the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition to considering a ban on septic tanks in the city center, the board will consider yanking the city's ability to manage commercial septic systems. The board approved a similar ban in parts of Oxnard in 1998 after septic tanks were found to be polluting drinking water. Those areas are now on sewer lines, which can be expensive to install. "We don't have time or the resources to play games," said Tracy Egoscue, the board's executive officer. City Manager Jim Thorsen said Malibu officials are taking the threat seriously, but he noted that a septic tank ban probably wouldn't take place soon. "We received criticism for years on programs or elements of our basic water quality programs," Thorsen said. "We feel we've done a fantastic job." Pollutants in Santa Monica Bay have been a problem for decades. The water quality drastically declined in the 20th century as the Los Angeles area boomed and dumped sewage and trash into the ocean. Water quality has improved through programs mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and the efforts of various conservationists. One of them is Mark Abramson, director of watershed programs with Santa Monica Baykeeper, who predicted a "blood bath" if the board approves the septic tank ban. Still, he told members that it is time to take bold steps with a seaside city that has not done enough to clean up its world-famous beaches. "We're glad they're saying they want to clean up the water, but we've been talking about it since 1997, and guess what?" he said. "The water still ain't clean." U.S. Senate puts off resolving river settlement funding again...Editorialhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/v-printerfriendly/story/1024534.htmlIt's unfortunate, but politically predictable, that the U.S. Senate has decided to postpone action on a public lands bill that includes funding to restore the San Joaquin River. The river issue has been dragging on far too long, and its status must be resolved. The river funding legislation grew out of a 1988 case in which environmentalists charged that construction of Friant Dam illegally diverted water needed to maintain historic salmon runs in the San Joaquin River. Fearing they would lose the case, farmers and water agencies in the Valley reached a settlement that will reduce water for farming while restoring the flow of the river in an effort to bring the salmon back. But had the case been decided by a judge, farming interests could have lost even more water, and the compromise made sense. Some farmers don't agree, and the settlement has become controversial in the agriculture community. We believe the deal is still the best compromise available. The settlement requires federal approval and funding, which is what brought this issue to the Senate. However, lawmakers decided that the massive lands bill, which contained several items, was too ambitious for the lame-duck session, and it will be put over to next year. The settlement will cost $250 million, but the funding proposal will only provide $88 million to get the issue moving. If the smaller amount passes, the remainder of the river funding will have to be sought in future years. Capitol WeeklyEconomic turmoil derails water plan – for now...John Howardhttp://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cxkczeafth7tciu&xid=xkc4clbml7dvqb&done=search.php%3Fsearchparams%3Da%253A5%253A%257Bs%253A9%253A%2522issuedate%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A6%253A%2522author%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A5%253A%2522title%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A4%253A%2522body%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A12%253A%2522article_type%2522%253Bs%253A16%253A%25221192656587025_25%2522%253B%257DA long-simmering effort to craft an omnibus state water package in the Legislature is being put on hold because of the faltering economy and deep-seated disagreements between rival interests. But players in the on-again, off-again negotiations remain hopeful, in part because an agreement nearly was reached earlier in the year before it got snared in budget politics, in part because new Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, a mediator by profession, has publicly made water a top priority. And pushing the discussions is the drought outlook. “The economy and the severity of the drought, the wildfires and everything else: It’s frustrating for many of us that we haven’t done anything in the way of infrastructure before now, and those things just heighten the criticality,” said Senate GOP Leader David Cogdill of Fresno. “The infrastructure will take a couple of decades, and we want to get started.”Rarely in the state’s history is a need for a comprehensive, workable water plan greater than it is now. The state intends to cut water deliveries to cities and farms by 85 percent for the upcoming water year – the lowest since the drought of 1976-77, and less than half of the current deliveries.Delivery projections can change – three weeks of rain would make a dramatic difference – but water agencies are bracing for potential rationing. Reservoirs are at their lowest level in more than 30 years.“The only thing that will solve our problem is a comprehensive package, with all the pieces working simultaneously,” said Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. Recycling, desalination, flood control, storage – all belong in the mix, and the public believes they are worth the cost, he added. “The big projects were approved during the Great Depression. ACWA did polling, and even though the voters recognized that the economy was weakening, they recognized that the water system was in crisis and needed to be improved,” Quinn said. Water districts, local officials, lobbyists and others are closely watching the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the huge water wholesaler that serves two dozen counties and half the state’s population.  The MWD is considering what it describes as an “allocation plan” – rationing – to its member counties and rate increases, which in turn likely will be passed on to local customers.If that happens, the pressure on the Legislature to act will increase. Environmentalists sense that pressure, too, but whether it will push legislators in the direction of dam construction. “We need to change some fundamental things about water policy before we throw money at large infrastructure projects,” said Jim Metropulos, a water specialist for the Sierra Club, which opposes new dam construction. He noted that the governor, in his public appearances, “is not missing an opportunity to talk about his water bond,” referring to the unsuccessful $9.3 billion proposal that Schwarzenegger unveiled in July but was rejected just weeks later. In the Capitol, the fundamental division is over the construction of reservoirs. For environmentalists, dams are anathema. “In its California Water Plan, the state says the most possible amount of water at the cheapest cost is conservation. That’s not me saying it; that’s the state,” Metropulos noted. Generally, reservoirs are sought by Republicans as a necessary means to capture water, but opposed by Democrats as costly and inefficient. But there other differences, too, including the best way to restore and protect the delta east of San Francisco, through which most of California’s drinking water flows. Somehow, those opposing views have to be reconciled. “The only thing that will solve our problem is a comprehensive package, with all the pieces working simultaneously,” said Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. Recycling, desalination, flood control, storage – all belong in the mix, and the public believes they are worth the cost, he added. “The big projects were approved during the Great Depression. ACWA did polling, and even though the voters recognized that the economy was weakening, they recognized that the water system was in crisis and needed to be improved,” Quinn said. The sprawling Central Valley Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct, for example, were both approved and financed during the Depression, while the jewel of the state’s water system, the State Water Project, was approved in November 1960 in the midst of a recession. The Republican governor, backed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a conservative Democrat, proposed a $9.3 billion package that included conservation and watershed protections, flood control projects, two reservoirs, groundwater protections, species protections, and coastal and inland water-quality programs. The package died – for environmentalists and many Democrats the breaking point was the pair of reservoirs, and for some Republicans, it was the price tag. There also was – and still is - uncertainty over whether the general obligation bond issue could go before voters in 2009. But the state Elections Code does appear to allow such a bond issue on the ballot – in June, for example - and officials note that a general obligation bond went before voters in a 1993 special election. Feinstein, a popular California politician who supports reservoirs and is often viewed suspiciously by environmentalists, later upbraided the Legislature for the water plan’s failure. “The last major addition to California’s water system was in the 1960s,” Feinstein noted in August at a Press Club luncheon. “Our state had 16 million people then. We have 38 million now, and we have the same water infrastructure.” The governor’s proposal remains a starting point for new discussions, say supporters and critics alike. But Feinstein’s influence on the Legislature is marginal, at best. The real drivers of legislative policy come from the leadership.“Senator Steinberg and I have talked about this, and we will try to do something next year. Right now, we are embroiled in the budget,” Cogdill said. “The issue,” he added, “certainly hasn’t gone away.” DWR warns of drought, water rationing in 2009...Sarah Kay Hannonhttp://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cxkczeafth7tciu&xid=xkc4i4tvlf9vyf&done=search.php%3Fsearchparams%3Da%253A5%253A%257Bs%253A9%253A%2522issuedate%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A6%253A%2522author%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A5%253A%2522title%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A4%253A%2522body%2522%253BN%253Bs%253A12%253A%2522article_type%2522%253Bs%253A16%253A%25221192656587025_25%2522%253B%257DCalifornia faces another drought as 2009 approaches, and the state’s top water officials say they’re doing what they can to prevent water shortages. But projections show that 2009 could look like the early, parched 1990s — or even worse. Nine counties have already requested emergency drought assistance, including Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern. Wendy Martin, statewide drought coordinator for the state Department of Water Resources (DWR), said the state has informed contractors they will only receive 15 percent of their normal allocation. As of Sept. 1, the drought has cost farmers of the Central Valley $260 million, a figure that doesn’t factor in the amount for crops that won’t be harvested this fall. Many farmers are being forced to make difficult choices, including abandoning harvesting some crops this year altogether.Many nut crops, especially almonds and walnuts, are being abandoned. These crops are being hit worse than crops toward the north of the state because they are down-stream from the Delta.“The North is okay,” Martin said. “The South is more dependent on imported water… It has a cascading effect.”Some farmers are also selling off livestock they can no longer afford to take care of. The Department of Food and Agriculture says the number of California cattle dropped by 6 percent from January 2007 to January 2008. More declines are expected in January 2009.While farmers are getting used to the idea that they will not be able to have all the water usage that they prefer, many consumers are still blind to the problem. University of California economist David Zetland compared the situation to the rise and fall of gas prices, and said that price of water should be raised. “When gas prices hit $4 a gallon, people were more careful with their usage,” Zetland said. “Let’s avoid rationing.” Zetland said the next step after raising prices of water usage would be increasing a block-rate by around 40 percent in utilities.How water is managed is also becoming a local issue. For instance, the largest water district in the East Bay has taken local control over how consumers mange their water usage. As of September and October, customers billing rates have been raised by 10 percent. Surcharges of 15 percent have been added to bills belonging to customers’ who have no intention to cut back on water usage.Global warming might be partially to blame for the dry conditions. A study released last week by a pair of researchers at the University of California Berkeley Department of Agricultural and Resources Economics predicted that climate change could end up costing California $300 million to $3.9 billion a year. The Sierra snowpack, an important and free source of water storage in the state, could decline by 30 percent to 80 percent by late century. The loss of water resources could end up costing the state $5 billion, according to researchers Fredrich Kahrl and David Roland-Holst.But California droughts are not anything new. “We are experiencing more dramatic storms instead of consistent rain,” said Martin. “But no, I do not think that global warming itself is the cause.” Zetland and others have argued that farmers are contributing to the drought by the unregulated use of well water. Farmers are allowed to take as much ground water as they want. “There is no monitoring of ground water,” Zetland said “More monitoring is what we need.” Zetland went on to say that water managers are “creating” the next shortage. “What are water managers doing? They’re telling people that they’d better use less -- or face rationing,” he said. “So, business as usual. Too bad, because that won’t work… It is the engineers and the DWR that screwed up.” “I wish we were that clever,” Martin said. Stockton RecordLodi ramps up greenbelt talk...Daniel Thigpenhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/A_NEWS/811200323/-1/A_NEWSLODI - Efforts to preserve farmland between the borders of Lodi and Stockton appear to be gaining a momentum not seen in years.The Lodi City Council on Wednesday approved an agreement to pay up to $483,488 in planning costs for a proposal to create a rural land designation on county land between the two cities.The key, 4-1 vote greatly increases the chances that county officials, within a year or so, could be considering a plan for the unincorporated, agricultural area south of Lodi.Many believe that's a monumental feat considering the idea has been debated, by some estimates, for two decades with little progress until now."This appears to be a reasonable compromise," City Manager Blair King said.Wednesday's vote does not guarantee a greenbelt proposal will come to fruition. San Joaquin County's elected leaders will have the final say.But city leaders and property owners said the council's decision greatly helped the proposal's chances.Many Lodians have for years longed for a permanent stretch of agricultural land between their city and Stockton to help maintain the smaller town's rural ambiance and keep Stockton's urban growth at bay.In 2006, Lodi city leaders proposed the city include a section of Armstrong Road, just south of the city limits between Interstate 5 and Highway 99, in its planning boundaries and designate it as open space.Farmers and landowners along the rural corridor feared losing their property rights, as well as millions of dollars in lost development potential.So they came up with their own proposal: a new land-use zoning that allows one residential building permit for every 5 acres owned in the area. Those permits would be used to build and sell homes on 1- to 5-acre lots.Landowners who support the proposal say it will allow them to focus their land on the type of agriculture-based tourism - wineries, for instance - on which Lodi has pegged much of its long-term economic future.County officials have said it is unlikely they would support such a proposal if Lodi does not shoulder much of the costs.Councilwoman Susan Hitchcock, one of the leading voices in the pro-greenbelt debate, said the landowners' pitch is not perfect but is fair, and she enthusiastically endorsed the idea. "That's what life is - a series of compromises," she said.Councilman Bob Johnson voted against funding the proposal because the city is grappling with a $1.9 million budget deficit. But he said he supports the landowners' idea.Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to 16-year high (7:45 a.m.)http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/A_NEWS/81120005WASHINGTON (AP) — New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to a 16-year high, the Labor Department said today, providing more evidence of a rapidly weakening job market expected to get even worse next year. The government said new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 from a downwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That’s much higher than Wall Street economists’ expectations of 505,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters. That is also the highest level of claims since July 1992, the department said, when the U.S. economy was coming out of a recession. The four-week average of claims, which smooths out fluctuations, was even worse: it rose to 506,500, the highest in more than 25 years. In addition, the number of people continuing to claim unemployment insurance rose sharply for the third straight week to more than 4 million, the highest since December 1982, when the economy was in a painful recession. The financial markets fell on the news. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped about 160 points in morning trading, and broader indexes also fell. The jobless figures come as the Senate is expected to vote today on legislation that would extend unemployment benefits. The White House said President George W. Bush would quickly sign the bill. The measure would provide seven additional weeks of payments to those who have exhausted their benefits. Those in states where the unemployment rate is above 6 percent would be eligible for an additional 13 weeks beyond the 26 weeks of regular benefits. Benefit checks average about $300 a week nationwide. Without the legislation, its proponents say, 1.1 million people will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of the year. Elsewhere today, the New York-based Conference Board said its monthly forecast of economic activity declined 0.8 percent in October, worse than the 0.6 percent decrease analysts expected. The economy’s health worsened last month as stocks, building permits and consumer expectations all fell, the private research group said. Over the last seven months, the index declined at a 4.7 percent annual rate, faster than any decline since 2001. The high level of continuing unemployment claims partly reflects growth in the labor force, which has increased by about half since the early 1980s. The percentage of workers continuing to receive benefits — which is different from the unemployment rate — increased to 3 percent, the highest since June 2003. Less than half of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance. Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., a consulting firm, said the four-week average of continuing claims is 49 percent higher than it was a year ago. That “indicates that those who are unemployed are finding it increasingly difficult to get re-employed.” Shapiro wrote in a note that the number of claims indicates that net job reductions by employers could top 400,000 this month, up from 240,000 in October, when the unemployment rate reached 6.5 percent. Companies have cut 1.2 million jobs so far this year. Many economists expect unemployment to reach 7 percent by early next year and 8 percent by the end of 2009. Last year the rate averaged 4.6 percent. The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released projections that the jobless rate will climb to between 7.1 percent and 7.6 percent next year, according to documents from the Fed’s Oct. 29 closed-door deliberations on interest rate policy. Initial claims have been driven higher in the past several months by a slowing economy hit by the financial crisis, and cutbacks in consumer and business spending. Economists consider jobless claims a timely, if volatile, indication of how rapidly companies are laying off workers. Employees who quit or are fired for cause are not eligible for benefits. Companies from a wide range of sectors have announced layoffs recently, including Citigroup Inc., Union Pacific Corp., Boeing Co., Wyeth, Sun Microsystems Inc., and poultry maker Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.Few changes to final Delta audit...Alex Breitlerhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/A_NEWS/811200330/-1/A_NEWSSTOCKTON - Despite protests from San Joaquin Delta College, state officials made few changes in a final audit released Wednesday criticizing the college's use of Measure L bond dollars.While the report marks the end of a months-long review, the audit by the state Controller's Office could have ramifications for California community colleges seeking bond funding in the future.The Controller's Office charged that Delta spent $11.5 million on state-of-the-art athletic fields and electronic signs, used tens of thousands of dollars of bond money for travel expenses, failed to have adequate citizen oversight and relied on less-than-meaningful audits.The college disagreed with most of the findings.But President Raul Rodriguez said Wednesday he did not think the auditors would not alter their initial findings, revealed earlier this month in a draft version of the audit."We did not expect the state Controller's Office team to change any of their comments or admit to any errors," Rodriguez said.The outcome of the audit may extend beyond Delta's district. The Controller's Office recommended new legislation to outline the roles of citizen oversight committees, clearly define audits of bond spending and impose sanctions when colleges fail to meet standards.Furthermore, a cover letter attached to the Delta audit warns that even though the Controller's Office cannot force Delta to make any changes, the college may be vulnerable to lawsuits from any property-tax paying landowner within its boundaries.The college's "actions lacked necessary oversight, and could lead to costly litigation," Controller John Chiang said in a statement. "I am concerned the example set by Delta College could endanger voter-approved bond funding for future public works projects."Rodriguez said he is confident Delta would prevail in a citizen lawsuit because the college believes that every project was acceptable under Measure L, approved by voters in 2004.Among the issues raised in the audit:» The college devoted Measure L funds to state-of-the-art athletic facilities. Old fields were uneven and full of potholes, Delta officials wrote in their response to the draft audit. Also, upgrades were needed to provide equal access for female athletes and the handicapped, the college said.The auditors countered that athletic spending exceeded expectations held by the public. "Delta College clearly believes that it can disregard the priorities of voters," auditors wrote. Those priorities included establishment of satellite campuses in Lodi, Manteca and Mountain House, projects which have since been either scaled back or canceled.» Delta officials also said that $68,718 in travel expenses related to new financial accounting software, while initially allocated to the bond, was later taken out of a general fund instead. Even though the money was reimbursed, auditors said they were concerned about a lack of oversight.» Members of a citizen's oversight committee "worked diligently ... to protect the taxpayers," the college said. Auditors found members of this committee made just one site visit more than three years ago.» The college also said it "more than sufficiently met the requirement and objective" of performance audits. Auditors disagreed.The Controller's Office said it would forward the audit, which was requested by state Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden, to the California Little Hoover Commission for further recommendations on bond accountability.To read the entire Delta College audit, including the college's response, visit www.sco.ca.gov. Scroll over "News" and click on "Press Releases" for a link to the report.San Francisco ChronicleTorching The National Parks On The Way Out...Cameron Scotthttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=32825Today, I begin a dark challenge: Find at least two rule-gutting maneuver by the out-going Bush administration to blog on each week (environmentally related and worthy of comment only, never fear!).The administration is attempting to loosen significantly the rules that control pollution near national parks and other sensitive (or "Class 1") areas.Pollution hoisted into the air near national parks can fall on them as acid rain, harm wildlife and habitat, and impair views by creating smog. The move comes despite the formal protests of five of the 10 regional EPA administrators, and written objections of an addition four. Seven of these nine are political appointees made by the administration itself. Is my outrage subtly implied? I hope so, because I'd like to save the big editorializing for later: I have the feeling I'm going to need it. Bush rushes to weaken endangered species law...Dina Cappiello, Associated Presshttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/MN8M1483F2.DTL&type=printableAnimals and plants in danger of becoming extinct could lose the protection of government experts who make sure that dams, highways and other projects don't pose a threat, under regulations the Bush administration is set to put in place before President-elect Barack Obama can reverse them.The rules must be published Friday to take effect before Obama is sworn in Jan. 20. Otherwise, he can undo them with the stroke of a pen.The Interior Department rushed to complete the rules in three months over the objections of lawmakers and environmentalists who argued that they would weaken how a landmark conservation law is applied.The latest version has changed little from the original proposal, despite the more than 250,000 comments received since the change was proposed in August, according to a Nov. 12 copy obtained late Wednesday by the Associated Press.The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself it is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.Current regulations require wildlife biologists to sign off on these decisions before a project can proceed, at times modifying the design to better protect species.The regulations also bar federal agencies from assessing emissions of the gases blamed for global warming on species and habitats, a tactic environmentalists have tried to use to block new coal-fired power plants.Tina Kreisher, an Interior Department spokeswoman, could not confirm whether the rule would be published before the deadline, saying only that the White House was still reviewing it. But she said changes were being made based on the comments received."We started this; we want to finish this," said Kreisher.Most state native game fish face extinction...Jane Kayhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/MN3E147V6I.DTL&type=printableMost of California's native salmon, steelhead and trout species face extinction by the end of the century unless the state acts quickly to provide adequate freshwater and habitat, according to a study released Wednesday by the state's leading salmon expert.Twenty of 31 species of the prized fishes are in sharp decline, including the Sacramento River winter run of chinook salmon, the Sierra's California golden trout and coastal coho, according to the study by Peter Moyle, a nationally known UC Davis professor of conservation biology.The fish advocacy group, California Trout, that commissioned the study will use the results to try to help persuade legislators and the governor to direct and help the California Department of Fish and Game to better carry out its mission of conserving the state's wild fish.Decades of lax controls on farming, logging, grazing, mining and road-building have filled and polluted streams, the study said, while the removal of streamside vegetation on the North Coast, in Sierra creeks and on inland lagoons has warmed the water and harmed fish.For the past 50 years, ocean salmon that spawn in rivers from the Klamath south to the Sacramento have been blocked by dams and other barriers and deprived of water diverted to farms and cities by state and federal water projects.In some recent years, salmon returning to the ocean to feed and grow have found a poor food supply of krill, squid and smaller fish caused by higher water temperatures that could be related to global warming."Our fish need cold, clean water to survive, but they're getting less and less of it," Moyle said. "Dams block access. Climate change is now looming to exacerbate the threat, and it increases the urgency. All of these things are pushing our fish toward extinction."If we allow these fish to go extinct, we've allowed the deterioration of the streams and rivers," Moyle said, adding that the same waterways supply clean drinking water to humans.One species, the bull trout, already has disappeared. The fish was last seen in the McCloud River in the 1970s, and scientists link its disappearance to the Shasta and McCloud dams.In the 316-page study, Moyle calculated the survival chances into the next decades of 12 kinds of salmon, 11 kinds of trout, eight kinds of steelhead and one species of white fish.He based the assessment on size of the habit and population, dependence of the fish on human intervention to save it, tolerance to environmental stressors, vulnerability to genetic disruption and likelihood of doing worse under global warming.Fish and Game Director Donald Koch, in a statement released Wednesday, said the agency looks forward to reading the report."We thank California Trout for their dedication to California's native fish species," he said. "We appreciate their support and look forward to engaging them and other stakeholders in finding solutions to further our efforts to conserve the state's valuable fish and wildlife resources."Sport and commercial fishing and environmental groups have complained that the agency is mismanaged and underfunded, resulting in a shortage of wardens and other staff members charged with preventing poaching, checking stream quality, running restoration projects and monitoring logging and development plans.Brian Stranko, CEO of the 7,500-member California Trout, praised recent progress in aiding the state's fish. There were two preliminary agreements last week to remove four dams on the Klamath River and a court settlement involving restoration of the San Joaquin River, which aims in part to bring back the spring run on the river that was wiped out by the construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s.Restoration measures work, Stranko said. Volunteers working with state and federal agencies, conservation groups and private parties have begun to bring back the California golden trout in the southern Sierra and the Goose Lake redband trout near the Oregon border.But the most important changes must come from Fish and Game, an agency legally mandated to manage and conserve fish and wildlife, Stranko said.Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, the new chairman of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, said the state's fiscal crisis will prevent expansion of Fish and Game's resources, which have been depleted by cuts.But Huffman, who plans hearings on the salmon problem early next year, said the state can find other sources of revenue and can consider other ways to reconfigure the agency "so it can fulfill its missions." In some states, the wildlife agency is combined with the parks agency, he said."The department is understaffed and underfunded. The answer is more than money," Huffman said. "We need a department that is fundamentally more committed to its resource-protection mission. That means it can't be subservient to political interests."The fishery watchdog agency hasn't had a good track record," he added, referring to court orders to protect smelt that have stopped water deliveries from the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. In 2007-2008, the Sacramento's fall run of chinook was the second lowest on record in recent times."This is no longer a hook-and-bullet agency," Huffman said. "It has a serious resource mandate as well."State Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, said she would have hearings on Moyle's findings."It wasn't too long ago that salmon flourished throughout Northern and Central California. In just one generation, we have lost significant salmon and steelhead runs in the Russian, the Eel and the Klamath rivers as well as rivers in the Central Valley," she said in a statement.Wiggins' bill, SB562, was signed into law last year, providing $5.3 million in funding that will be used to gain federal money for salmon monitoring and restoration. She intends to bring a package of bills to the Legislature in January.Unless immediate changes are made to protect the environment, she said, "wild salmon as we know it will disappear from our dinner plates."Fish in peril-- Read the 316-page study at links.sfgate.com/ZFKN.-- For a summary, go to links.sfgate.com/ZFKO.New report shows peril to California fish...Editorialhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/EDFC147QAG.DTL&type=printableA downward slide showing dozens of native freshwater fish fading to extinction may not bother Californians who never see a tumbling mountain stream or deep-blue lake.But a report on the declining numbers makes a bigger point: fresh, clean water is in short supply for fish, and it's needed by humans, too. At first glance, the two-year study by California Trout is all about fish. Of 31 trout, salmon and steelhead species, 65 percent are headed toward extinction this century.Like redwoods, deserts and seashores, these native fish are icons of the state and deserve protection. This heritage must be protected, the organization rightly argues in the 350-page report researched by a team that included Dr. Peter Moyle, a UC Davis professor of fish biology.A combination of factors - farming, timber practices, development and harsh weather brought on by global warming - is the culprit. Water is siphoned off, dirtied or blocked behind dams. The flows that are left are sluggish and warm, unsuitable for wild fish.So far, the state's official answer is a feeble one: a Fish and Game department saddled with increasing duties and a declining budget. As one example, there are 100 fewer game wardens today compared with 2000. These outdoor cops do more than check fishing licenses. They spot illegal water diversions and activities that damage streambeds needed for fish spawning. With a state budget deficit predicted at $28 billion over the next 18 months, it may be foolish to wish for miracles. But an agreement last week holds out hope for removing four dams and restoring fish-friendly flows on the Klamath River. Also, the San Joaquin River is in line for major restoration. The report suggests pushing these plans further via a slice of the sales tax or user fees if the political will is there. There are convincing reasons to safeguard the state's native fish from extinction. But maybe the best reason of all is that by saving these ancient species, California is also saving itself. Washington PostChanges to Species Act Are Said to Be Near...Juliet Eilprerinhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111904585_pf.htmlThe Bush administration is "close" to finalizing a regulatory overhaul of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be harmed by agency projects, according to the Interior Department.In an interview yesterday, Interior spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said the Office of Management and Budget was reviewing the rule, which could be finalized in a matter of weeks."I believe that we're close, but there's no final determination from the OMB," she said.For more than 30 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service have reviewed any federal plans that could potentially protect endangered animals or plants. Under the administration's proposed rule, these independent scientific reviews would no longer be required if the agency in question determined that its activities would not hurt the imperiled species.Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne introduced the rules change in August, angering environmentalists who warned that the shift could undermine critical safeguards for vulnerable plants and animals.New York TimesHonesty About Ethanol...Editorial...11-18-08http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18tue2.html?sq=epa&st=cse&scp=10&pagewanted=printOne of the 2007 energy bill’s most ambitious provisions — the ethanol mandate — has turned out to be its most troublesome. The provision would boost ethanol production from 7-plus billion gallons today to 36 billion gallons by 2022. In practical terms, this means doubling the production of corn ethanol until advanced forms of ethanol and other biofuels kick in.Corn ethanol came under fire earlier this year when evidence mounted that the diversion of cropland from food to fuel had contributed to the spike in worldwide food prices. What is less clear is whether corn ethanol is good or bad for the planet — whether it emits fewer or more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline. The answer turns on how you measure emissions.Congress stipulated that ethanol be cleaner than gasoline and handed the job of measuring emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has found itself under ferocious pressure. The ethanol industry wants its product shown in the best possible light. Environmentalists want an honest accounting, which the publicdeserves but which they do not think an industry-friendly Bush administration is capable of. The most contentious question involves the emissions caused by direct and indirect changes in land use associated with growing biofuels. Until late last year, corn ethanol had been seen as at least carbon neutral — and thus much cleaner than gasoline — because the greenhouse gases it absorbed while growing canceled out the gases it emitted during combustion. This made it a win-win fuel — even a win-win-win fuel — because it also encouraged the construction of ethanol refineries in the American heartland and eased, to some extent, America’s dependence on imported oil. But then came a spate of new studies arguing that earlier calculations had failed to account for the emissions caused when land is cleared and tilled, releasing large quantities of stored carbon. In particular, the studies said, the earlier scenarios had overlooked the indirect or ripple effects of ethanol production — the carbon released when the diversion of land from food to fuel in the Corn Belt causes farmers elsewhere in the world to clear untouched land to make up for the loss. The studies also said that some biofuels — waste material, forest residues, certain grasses — can be produced without harmful changes in land use and with benefit to the atmosphere. But the indirect effects of converting food crops to fuel production were found to cause net increases in emissions in almost every case.The industry says that such indirect effects are impossible to measure and that the studies are premature. One industry group has asked the E.P.A. to ignore them entirely. But it seems clear on its face that some land-use changes — e.g., cutting down rain forests to plant crops — would have seriously negative effects.In any case, it is the E.P.A.’s duty under the law to give the most unbiased, accurate accounting it can. The issue here is the fate of the planet, not the fate of a particular industry.The New TeamMary D. Nichols...Felicity Barringerhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19web-nichols.html?_r=1&sq=epa&st=cse&scp=7&pagewanted=printAs he prepares to take office, President-elect Barack Obama is relying on a small team of advisers who will lead his transition operation and help choose the members of the Obama administration. Following is part of a series of profiles of potential members of the administration.    Being considered for: Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or another environmental and climate-change policy post.Would bring to job: Expertise in environmental issues, particularly air pollution, experience in carrying out policy and familiarity with both state-level initiatives and the inner workings of the E.P.A. As an assistant administrator for the agency during the Clinton administration, her efforts led to the first federal standard regulating potentially deadly fine-particle pollution. Most recently, as chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, she is leading the efforts to achieve the reduction in greenhouse gases mandated by the state’s far-reaching 2006 law, working with regulators, economists and interest groups to administer the state’s climate-change policies.Is linked to Mr. Obama by: Few direct links, but because of her years in the Clinton administration, she has ties to many of the people involved in the transition, including Carol Browner, the former head of the E.P.A. who has been advising the campaign on environmental issues. She is also close to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, chairwoman of the Environment and Publics Work Committee.In her own words: On using government mandates to ensure emissions reductions from green building practices: “If buildings are built that draw nothing from the (electrical) grid, but all of the materials in that building were built in China using machines from factories that were all powered by Chinese coal, I don’t think we would have made the globe a cleaner, safer place. So we’ve got to think about life-cycle emissions in a whole different way then we’ve ever had to do before. If we’re not thinking at a truly global level, we’re not actually going to save our planet.” — Panel discussion at Stanford University, March 4, 2008. On California’s efforts on climate change: “Especially in times like these, we must be extraordinarily mindful of the economic effects of our actions. We know that the economic crisis we will face from unmitigated climate change could dwarf anything we have ever seen. That alone is a compelling enough reason to take swift action. But there’s another reason also, which is that developing a new clean energy economy that drives and rewards investment and innovation, creates jobs and serves as the engine for sustainable economic growth is exactly what we need at a time like this.” — Speech at University of Rhode Island, Nov. 12, 2008.Used to work as: A lawyer and administrator with decades of policy and enforcement experience, primarily in addressing air pollution (she told The Los Angeles Times that she became “hooked on smog” early on). She fell into her specialization as a lawyer working for the Center for Law in the Public Interest when, in the first federal test case, she forced a state, California, to impose standards under the federal Clean Air Act. Previously, from 1975 to 1982, she was chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board and a member of the board of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation’s largest municipal utility. While at the E.P.A. in the 1990s, she was an assistant administrator for air and radiation and was involved in nitty-gritty negotiations with the utility industry, manufacturers of diesel engines, environmental groups and other government agencies. Also known for: Was one of the first female journalists hired by The Wall Street Journal soon after graduating from college in 1966; served briefly as campaign manager for Tom Bradley, the mayor of Los Angeles, in his unsuccessful 1986 run for governor.Carries as baggage: The suspicion of transportation and utility industry representatives, who see her push on climate change regulation in California as evidence of an ingrained pro-regulatory bias. And while she is well known among policy wonks, she lacks the name recognition or political heft of former administrators like Christine Todd Whitman and Michael O. Leavitt.Résumé includes: Born April 10, 1945, in Minneapolis. ... graduate of Cornell (major was Russian literature, minor in drama) and Yale Law. ... married to John F. Daum, a lawyer who represents Exxon Mobil. They have two grown children, both lawyers. CNN MoneyNo job, bad mortgage - out of luckMore homeowners are falling behind on their mortgages because they've lost their jobs. And there's little help coming their way…Tami Luhbyhttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/20/news/economy/unemployed_foreclosure/index.htm?postversion=2008112007NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- All the foreclosure prevention plans announced to date will do little to help the next wave of delinquent homeowners, who can't make their monthly payments because they've lost their jobs.But something needs to be done for them, experts said, or the country will sink deeper into an economic recession."Because of the financial crisis, they can't afford their mortgages on any terms," said Kathleen Engel, associate professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. "None of the federal or bank programs will provide them any relief at all."Loan modification plans have focused on assisting borrowers facing interest rate resets or other mortgage terms that have rendered the monthly payments unaffordable. Most proposals have attacked the problem by adjusting the interest rate or length of the loan so that the monthly payments drop to what is considered an affordable level, or between 31% and 38% of a borrower's gross income. This, however, does little for people whose monthly income is virtually nothing. Representatives from lenders and firms that service loans say the unemployed have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and can't be part of the streamlined modifications underway."This is a different problem and a more challenging problem," said Tom Kelly, spokesman for JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), which last month unveiled a loan modification plan aimed at helping 400,000 delinquent homeowners. "If you are unemployed for a long time, there is no affordable range."A record 1.2 million homes were in foreclosure during the second quarter of 2008, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Consumer advocates, as well as certain Democratic lawmakers and officials within the Bush administration, have pushed banks and government officials to do more to help struggling homeowners. A new wave of empty homes on the market won't help anybody. In fact, it will just lead to further price declines, which in turn, will further weaken the economy. Until this cycle is broken, everyone suffers, experts say.The problem of rising foreclosures due to unemployment is only expected to get worse. With companies announcing mass layoffs almost daily, more people will fall behind on their payments. Already the unemployment rate is at 6.5%, its highest level in more than 14 years.The effects are already showing up in the housing market. In June, 45.5% of all delinquencies reported by Freddie Mac were due to unemployment or the loss of income, according to the company. That's an increase from 36.3% in 2006.The problem won't go away anytime soon. Some estimates say another 2 million families could lose their homes to foreclosure in the next two years.More unemployed homeowners callingAlready overwhelmed with calls from families plagued by rate resets, servicers said they are now seeing an increased number of calls from the newly unemployed. At this point, they have to handle each case individually.For those with good prospects of landing another job with a comparable income, banks might offer the homeowner a short-term modification or forbearance. This allows borrowers to make smaller payments - or in some cases, no payments - for up to a year until they find new employment. The bank would then increase the monthly payments until the borrower is caught up or add the missed months back into the principal and recalculate the monthly payment over the life of the loan. "It depends on the likelihood of finding a similar job with similar income," said Terry Francisco, spokesman for Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which has announced a plan to help 400,000 troubled borrowers. "In a declining economy when unemployment is rising, more people are facing this situation. We realize more people may need short-term modifications."But borrowers who may have trouble getting another good job have fewer options, experts said. In these cases, the servicer may offer the homeowner a short-sale, in which the bank forgives the difference between the sale price and the mortgage balance."If it's driven by unemployment, they may not be able to keep the house," Kelly said.Homeowners are often left in the lurch. Take Dave Breitenbach, who lives in an upscale condo apartment with ocean views in Fort Lauderdale Beach. He had no trouble making his $5,000-plus monthly payments when he was employed. But now that he's lost his executive job at a fitness chain, he's struggling. After hearing in October that his bank had launched a program to help troubled homeowners, he called. But representatives said there was nothing they could do."They said we can't help you because you don't have any income," said Breitenbach, who has started his own business and is trying to sell the place, but has seen little interest. "You don't qualify. They said once I get a job, I could call back and they could try to help me then."Something must be doneIf the wave of job-loss foreclosures isn't addressed, home values will continue to drop, preventing the economy from recovering, economists said. This, in turn, will spur more job loss, creating a vicious cycle.The solution, this time, may not lie with the servicers."When it was simply a matter of the amount of the payment, there were more options for servicers," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp. "When the income is gone, the flexibility of the workouts diminishes considerably."Instead, the government needs to stop the cycle by spurring job creation, experts said. The quickest and most effective measure could be an economic stimulus package aimed at boosting employment."Just giving consumers money won't help," said Alan White, assistant professor at Valparaiso University School of Law. "We need government spending to create jobs."Mounting job losses fueling foreclosuresBad loans were originally the main culprit driving homeowners into foreclosure. But now it's unemployment that's fueling the mortgage meltdown...Les Christiehttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/04/real_estate/job_losses_fuel_foreclosure/index.htm?postversion=2008110705NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For years, bad loans and their aftershocks have been sending homeowners into foreclosure. Now it's lost jobs that are putting troubled borrowers over the edge. As the economy tanks, unemployment is the major factor driving a much larger proportion of foreclosures now than in the earlier stages of the mortgage meltdown. In June, 45.5% of all delinquencies reported by Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) were due to unemployment or the loss of income, according to the company. That's an increase from 36.3% in 2006."The two economic factors that most contribute to foreclosures are falling home prices and rising unemployment," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist for National City Corp (NCC, Fortune 500). "It's hard to pay your mortgage when you don't have a job." And that's a situation that more and more people are finding themselves in. Nearly one million Americans have lost their jobs in 2008. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in early October that 159,000 private sector jobs were lost in September, and on Friday, economists expect the BLS to report that 200,000 jobs were lost in October. "The rise in job losses will increase and extend the delinquency trend," said Doug Duncan, the chief economist for mortgage giant Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500). Foreclosures spiked 71% in September alone according to RealtyTrac. A double whammyChris Berio of Long Island, N.Y., worked in two industries that have been hit particularly hard by layoffs. During the boom he worked in construction as a steam fitter, while also moonlighting as a mortgage broker. Berio, 28, was very confident when he bought a $350,000 fixer-upper in Deer Park in 2006 and took an 11% mortgage to finance it.In 2007, he lost both of his jobs in quick succession. "I went from making good money to nothing," said the married father of two. Berio was one of the lucky ones: His mortgage was modified in September and its interest rate reduced to 5%. "The number of people we're helping has tripled," said Sal Pane, founder of the for-profit Amerimod Modification Agency, which helped Berio. "And much of the increase in our business is due to job loss."Berio has found a new job in what should be a growth industry for years: He's become a foreclosure prevention counselor.Of course the housing crisis is driving unemployment, which in turn has exacerbated the housing crisis - particularly in bubble states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona.The unemployment rate in Florida was just 3.3% in May 2006, when the subprime crisis began to emerge - far below the national average of 4.7% at the time. Today Florida's rate stands at 6.6%, well above the current national average of 6.1%Jacksonville, Fla., resident Paula Seabrooks lost her mortgage brokerage company this year in the wake of the Florida economy's deterioration. She has worked in the industry since 2001, first as a contract underwriter for companies such as Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500). She then opened her own business. Her income dropped from nearly six figures in 2006 to less than $20,000 last year. Seabrooks bought a $165,000 home in March 2006 and financed it with a hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage, which recently reset to 8.375% interest."I thought I'd be doing well," she said, "I took the low rate, intending to refinance within two years."Seabrooks has a new job, but it pays only $38,000 a year. That is not nearly enough to afford her $1,400 monthly mortgage bill, much less make up the five months of missed payments and fees that now total about $11,000. She's seeking a loan modification with the help of counselors from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.Ironically, her new job involves handling applications from people seeking to refinance their own unaffordable mortgages into FHA-insured loans. "Every other loan application I get, it seems, either the wife or the husband is unemployed," Seabrooks said.Dark days in the Golden StateLike Florida, California has seen its economy devastated by the housing meltdown. Foreclosure prevention counselors now have far more clients seeking help because their jobs disappeared, rather than because their adjustable-rate mortgages are resetting.Wes Lobo, a foreclosure counselor for the Community Housing and Credit Center in Chico, Calif., said that his last three clients on Wednesday were victims of job or income loss. Lobo says that his clients are mostly middle-class Americans who have lost their jobs and exhausted their savings and investments and can't pay their bills.One of his clients was employed for years by a used car dealer and had worked his way up to a management position. With auto sales way down, he got laid off and now can't pay his $240,000 mortgage or his $60,000 home equity loan.With the auto industry on the ropes, his chances of finding work in his original line of work are diminishing. The unemployment rate in the Chico metro area has climbed to 8.1%, up two percentage points over the past 12 months.If that keeps up, more Chico homeowners will be visiting both the unemployment office and their local foreclosure prevention counselors.Saudi prince to boost stake in CitigroupPrince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the embattled bank's largest individual shareholder, is raising his stake back to 5%; but stock continues to plunge...David Ellishttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/20/news/companies/citi_stake/index.htm?postversion=2008112016NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Citigroup's largest individual shareholder, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, said Thursday he planned to increase his stake in Citigroup back to 5%. But the stock continued its painful slide despite this news.Shares of Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) cratered 25% Thursday, extending the brutal losses from Wednesday, when the stock plunged 23%.The stock down 83% so far this year.The move by Alwaleed, a long-time investor in the bank, follows the U.S. government's decision to inject some $25 billion into the New York City-based bank. That left Alwaleed with about a 4% stake in Citigroup.In a press release from his holding company, Alwaleed expressed his faith in Citigroup management, including CEO Vikram Pandit, and added that he believed the company was doing what is necessary to weather the current economic crisis.Alwaleed's firm did not provide terms of the purchase including how many shares he would purchase or at what price.Based on the most recent securities filings, Alwaleed and his holding company owned more than 250 million shares of Citigroup. Alwaleed, worth about $21 billion according to Forbes, is one of the world's richest people. The Saudi prince first acquired a stake in Citicorp, which later became Citigroup, in 1991. According to filings, Alwaleed also is a big investor in media company News Corp and online travel site Priceline.com.Earlier this year, he was among a group of investors who invested $12.5 billion in Citigroup, as part of an effort by the bank to raise capital.Citigroup, the nation's fourth-largest bank in terms of deposits, has been one of the hardest hit financial firms during the credit crisis.Earlier this week, the New York City-based bank unveiled plans to cut its staff levels by more than 50,000 in an attempt to reduce expenses as it braces for what many are anticipating will be a difficult economic climate in 2009. There has even been talk that changes could come at the top of the organization although the company has strenuously denied such speculation.At the same time, analysts have warned that the company still faces a large exposure to problem assets, such as mortgages, credit cards and commercial real estate.Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller analyst David Trone noted in a report earlier this week that the bank would likely be forced to take additional writedowns and report another loss in the fourth-quarter.The bank has lost more than $20 billion in the past four quarters.Citigroup is also bracing for a tough economic climate in 2009, which could translate to rising losses tied to consumer and business loans. 11-20-08 MeetingsMerced CountyMerced County Hearing Officer meetings Dec.   01   agenda                    http://www.co.merced.ca.us/planning/pdf/hearing/                   2008/Agenda/120108.pdf           15   Merced County Planning Commission meetingsDec.   03          17Merced County Board of Supervisor meetingsDec.   09         16 City of MercedDec. 01 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 7:00 PM       03 PLANNING COMMISSION, 7:00 PM       04 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, 10:00 AM       15 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 7:00 PM       18 MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS,             3:00 PM       25 HOLIDAY – (CITY OFFICES CLOSED) MCAGDec.  04 - Technical Planning Committee Meeting         05 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting         10 - Technical Review Board Meeting           16 - Public Mtg., Atwater-Merced Expressway Draft EIR        18 - Governing Board Meeting