12-28-08

 12-28-08Modesto BeeHope seen in valley housing market; ag outlook mixed...John Hollandhttp://www.modbee.com/business/v-print/story/546114.htmlEconomic forecasts can be murky, but one thing is clear: Any improvement over 2008 would be welcome to many people.The year brought job losses in Stanislaus County and beyond, and a rise in foreclosures as home prices slid.Wall Street plunged and some financial titans tumbled, in large part because of the real estate troubles. Investors large and small took hits to their portfolios.The new year will dawn with hopes that the housing market will revive, that unemployment won't go much higher, and that stocks will turn steadily higher.As it has for the past few years, The Bee sampled business people in the area for their thoughts as Jan. 1 approaches.Here are their outlooks:REAL ESTATEThe housing slump will enter its fourth year in January, but Chad Costa sees reason for hope.The Modesto real estate agent said plenty of people will benefit from the reduced prices and mortgage rates."I think what has to be identified here is that the affordability is back," said Costa, who specializes in selling property that has gone through foreclosure. "That's the upside of this, and you don't hear a lot about that."The median price for a Stanislaus County home peaked at $396,000 in December 2005, according to MDA DataQuick, a research firm based near San Diego. Last month, the median price was $160,000.Three years ago, just 3 percent of county residents could afford the median-priced home, according to an index compiled by the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo Bank. The index now stands at 59.7 percent.Costa said he does not expect prices to drop much further in 2009, or to start rising again "anytime soon." He noted that many people still are going through foreclosure.He has another concern for the new year: The jobless rate -- 12.4 percent in the county in November, the highest in nearly a decade -- could bring even more foreclosures.AGRICULTUREFarming has done fairly well amid the troubles gripping the economy, but the outlook for 2009 is mixed, said Tom Orvis, governmental affairs director for the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau.He noted dropping prices for almonds and walnuts, two major products from the county, and the rising cost of producing crops.Then there's the drought. In 2008, its second year, rangeland dried out fast and several irrigation districts cut back water supplies."If the rains continue," Orvis said amid the Christmas Eve storm, "everybody in ag will smile. The key is still going to be the water supply."Orvis, a cattle rancher in the Oakdale area, said he has a "wait-and-see" attitude on President-elect Barack Obama's approach to agriculture and the environment.He also worries that the state's Williamson Act, which cuts property taxes for farmland preserved from development, could be weakened if state officials end reimbursements to county governments.But overall, Orvis said, "agriculture has probably been the shining star of the economy."DININGKeeping a restaurant strong in tough economic times means putting the customer first as much as ever, said Jennifer Doerksen Bethel, owner of Bistro 234 in Turlock."If you have a certain amount of money that you can spend on lunch, you would go to the place that treated you the best the last time around," she said.The downtown eatery has not had a drop in business this year, which Bethel credits in part to an experienced staff in the kitchen and out front. But she said she has friends who have lost their restaurants recently, as well as acquaintances who are having trouble in the job market in general.The National Restaurant Association is confident that this sector will get through the recession fairly well. It projects a 2.5 percent increase in sales at U.S. dining establishments next year, to $566 billion.Bistro 234 will enter the new year with that focus on customer service and with no increase in menu prices, Bethel said."We have extremely loyal customers, and we have many regular patrons," she said.MANUFACTURINGProgressive Powder Coating, which applies nick-proof surfaces to farm machinery parts and other items, has a way of protecting itself, too, during the recession.The Modesto company is concentrating on ag equipment, commercial fencing and other strong areas to compensate for the reduced demand for coating residential fences, ski boats and other items, manager Dave Racher said."It's all about not keeping your eggs in one basket," he said. "You've got to open up to other industries.Progressive, owned by Leonard Turner, bakes its coatings onto many of the pesticide rigs, harvesters and other equipment used on farms in the region. It also does railings, playground equipment, benches and a host of other large and small projects."As of right now, probably 90 percent of it is ag equipment," Racher said. That reflects the relative strength of agriculture amid the economic unease."The kind of work we do, there's generally a need for it," Racher said.Fresno BeeFirst-time buyers can get homes cheaplyFresno Co. median house price dropped sharply from November 2007 to 2008...Sanford Naxhttp://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1097127.htmlHome prices are plummeting and foreclosures may be piling up, but the worst real estate downturn in decades is a godsend for certain people who traditionally are shut out of the market: first-time homebuyers.One of them is Nohemi Gutierrez of Fresno. The best part? "Our house payment will be $15 less than our rent," she said.Harold Penner of Guarantee Real Estate said he's sold four houses in the last two weeks to first-timers. "It is amazing how many are in that category," he said. First-timers are defined as buyers who haven't owned a primary residence in three years. That could be a recently married couple with kids in tow to a retiree looking for a small house.No local statistics are available, but interviews with agents suggest that many, if not most, of the buyers now hunting for homes are first-timers. Statewide, they made up 36% of the market this year, up from 30.4% in 2007, the California Association of Realtors said. Agents say the percentages likely are higher in the central San Joaquin Valley, where prices have fallen to 2003 levels. First-timers are snapping up bank-owned properties at a rapid clip."They are snatching them up because banks are taking whatever they can get," said Guy Willis, a loan officer at Guarantee Home Loans. He said 90% of the foreclosure sales he finances are to first-time homebuyers.The median house price last month was $160,000 in Fresno, Clovis and Fresno County. That compares with $246,500 in November 2007 -- and more than $300,000 the year before. And that's why Gutierrez just signed loan documents to buy her first house, a four-bedroom, 7-year-old foreclosure near Jensen and Clovis avenues."We looked two years ago, but prices were way out of our price range," she said. "We stopped, didn't look any more and kept on renting."But that changed a few weeks ago when her father, Alberto, encouraged her to look again. "We saw prices go down and my dad was a big motivator," she said.Gutierrez liked the first possibility real estate agent Michelle Ennis showed her, a house for $150,000 that would have cost $350,000 new. The down payment was only $5,000, or 3%, because the buyers used an FHA loan.It was in good shape for a foreclosure. "It needs a couple minor things, like lights and window blinds," Gutierrez said.Danielle Christensen also is buying her first home. The 35-year-old Fresno woman originally hoped to use a city-sponsored first-time homebuyer-assistance program, but it ran out of money.However, prices fell so much she didn't need it. She also found an active market; seven houses had competing offers that beat her out. Her eighth offer was accepted; she's buying a three-bedroom, two-bath, 1,388-square-foot bank-owned house for about $120,000.Christensen said she is excited and scared at the same time."Until escrow is completely done, it's kind of scary," she said. "It's money that I have out and I have no control over. But just having my own place that I know is mine and that my stuff is in ... I want to go home knowing it is completely mine."Christensen said she looks forward to buying a washer and dryer, and to having a covered garage.Don Scordino, president of the Fresno Association of Realtors, said first-time homebuyers are crucial to a balanced market. "These are new beginnings," he said. "It strengthens the foundation out there." What's cost of breathing dirty air?Billion-dollar Valley estimate stirs emotions and confusion...Mark Grossihttp://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1097146.htmlThe more than 800 people who died prematurely this year from breathing dirty San Joaquin Valley air are worth $6.63 million each, economists say.Relatives don't collect a dime, but society is willing to pay someone this price. Confused? You're not alone.The figure -- which surfaced in a report last month -- is commonly misunderstood. People sometimes think it means missed wages, a payout from some global life insurance policy or health expenditures. After hearing the amount, a government wonk privately suggested cleaning up the Valley's air and using the savings to balance the state's budget. The grand total for more than 800 lost lives is $5.2 billion.But this is no pile of cash.It's a statistic -- the amount of money that society would be willing to spend on preventing premature death due to bad air, economists say. Government agencies routinely use such estimates to establish new safety regulations.Such a price tag stirs emotions. To some people, it sounds too high. To respiratory therapist Kevin Hamilton, a health advocate in air-quality issues, the number seems low."How do you place a value on my wife?" he asked. "How do you represent hope and dreams? It doesn't sound like there's nearly enough value built into it."The value is based on decades of studies that set value on human life for decision-making agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation.A central factor in the value: the amount of extra money industries are willing to pay for more risky jobs. Another part of the equation is how much less money people would accept to get a safe job.For years, these statistical values on human life have been used in cost analyses of new federal cleanup or safety rules."It's just like any other risk in society," said economist Jane V. Hall of California State University, Fullerton. "When we choose to pay for widening a bridge, for instance, we do it based on reducing the risk. We do it to protect human life. We need to know the statistical value of a life."Hall, fellow economist Victor Brajer from Cal State Fullerton and Frederick Lurmann at Sonoma Technology used such a statistic in a report they released last month on the benefits of meeting federal standards in the Valley and the South Coast Air Basin.The death and dollar figures are staggering, by most accounts. There are 3,800 premature deaths each year in the Valley and the South Coast Air Basin, which have the worst air pollution in the nation.Using established studies from the California Air Resources Board, the economists determined the air-related deaths occur about 14 years sooner than they should.The annual value of those early deaths is $24 billion, economists said. That hefty value should help influence decisions on rules and investments in air cleanup, they said.For instance, the number helps justify a $5.5 billion cost for cleaning up on-road diesel truck and bus fleets in California. Diesel trucks and buses are among the biggest sources of toxic diesel particles and ozone-forming oxides of nitrogen.But don't get the idea that the value of life could be the basis of a lucrative lawsuit.The $6.63 million doesn't apply to the life of one individual, such as your uncle or your best friend. Economist Katie Winder, a professor at the University of California at Merced, said the value is not customarily part of lawsuits or other legal proceedings.Said Winder, "The statistical value-of-life estimates don't take into account variation between individuals in terms of education, productivity, age and other factors."Adding to the complexity and the confusion, the value does not remain the same for various federal agencies as they consider new safety regulations.When the Department of Transportation changed child-restraint rules for motorists a few years ago, the cost of each life saved was pegged at between $1.5 million and $4.9 million, based on studies of what society would pay to protect the children.At the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, members of the public have incorrectly used the value as a health expense. Officials worry about the misunderstanding, saying the money is not real.There are estimates of actual health costs and related spending included in the study from Hall, Brajer and Lurmann. But the estimates amount to a small fraction of the total cost of dirty air cited in the study.Of the more than $6 billion in annual Valley cost for bad air, less than 15% applies to health expenditures and days missed for school and work.But Hall said in the research that the value of life is real money. Industries are willing to pay more for dangerous jobs. People are willing to take less money for safer jobs.For instance, a steel mill might pay $700 extra per year for a job with more risk. For a safer job, people would have to accept less money. That difference represents a way society values life."That is real money," she said. "It shows how much money people would sacrifice for a safer job." New transportation mix needed for U.S.More emphasis on 'green transportation' needed in future...Editorialhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/1097141.htmlThe team planning the incoming Obama administration's stimulus proposal has some very difficult choices to make when it comes to transportation: Should the money be spent largely on conventional projects, such as roads and highways, or should more of it be spent on "green" transportation such as transit and high-speed rail?The question is vital to the Valley, where the need for both jobs and better transportation is critical.The problem for the planners is that the stimulus must be geared toward putting people to work as fast as possible. That, many believe, argues for the traditional sort of public works, such as highways. In many cases, plans are already in place to replace crumbling roads, highways and bridges. By contrast, plans for urban transit systems and intercity high-speed rail are less firm, meaning it may take more time to actually start turning dirt and generating paychecks.There are strong competing interests at the table. Environmentalists want to see more transit systems built and fewer highways, and that's clearly the path for America's future. But many unions and their supporters in Congress argue that the greatest economic bang for the stimulus bucks will come from the more conventional sort of projects.President-elect Barack Obama has come down on both sides of the debate. He has said he wants the package to include "shovel-ready projects," such as highway and bridge construction, but he has also advocated more spending on environmentally conscious projects such as transit and high-speed rail.Somewhere a balance must be found.Environmentalists must understand that roads, bridges and highways are going to be an important part of our transportation infrastructure for a long time to come. We have neglected that infrastructure to the point of real danger, and that must be urgently addressed.But proponents of the conventional wisdom in transportation must also recognize that we cannot build our way out of congestion and air quality problems by simply adding more freeway lanes. That contributes to urban sprawl, with its attendant environmental damage, and does nothing to reduce our dependence on imports of foreign oil. Also, transit and rail systems are often less expensive to build than more highways to carry similar capacity.One thing is clear: The time has passed for the heavy emphasis on roads and highway now enshrined in federal policy. The current federal funding formula sets aside 80% of the money for roads, highways and associated infrastructure. A mere 20% is normally targeted for transit and other environmentally friendly systems. That imbalance must change.Another change that's needed is to include local governments and agencies in the planning and funding process. Typically, federal transportation funds are handed over to state governments, whose transportation agencies are often wedded almost exclusively to the old pattern of building roads and highways. They rarely give much support to transit and other needs.And so far there's not much to indicate that the thinking is changing. Transportation for America, a coalition of housing, environmental, health, planning and transportation, has studied infrastructure proposals from 15 states. They found that 75% of the funding requests are for roads and highways.That's hardly the sort of innovative thinking that Obama and others have called for.Perhaps the problem can be solved by phasing in the stimulus spending. The first phase could be repair projects on roads, highways and bridges that are deemed most urgent. A second phase could focus on transit and rail, giving agencies time to craft plans for those projects. That's a solution that's getting some discussion in Congress, and could be an effective compromise to meet competing needs.We're confident that a solution exists that puts people to work right away and also lays the groundwork for a new approach to the nation's transportation needs. It won't be easy, but it has to happen. We can't continue to simply build more transportation infrastructure on a model that's now more than a half-century old. A new model for transportation is part of the change we need. Group: Stronger warnings needed in Tenn. ash spill...Kristin M. Hall, Associated Press Writerhttp://www.fresnobee.com/641/story/1096768.htmlNASHVILLE, Tenn. Authorities need to more strongly warn residents that muck left from a major coal-ash spill in eastern Tennessee could pose health risks, a southern environmental group said Saturday.The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation said Friday that the mixture of coal fly ash and water coating a neighborhood near the Kingston Fossil Plant didn't pose an immediate risk to residents unless they ingested it.But Stephen Smith, executive director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said officials should more strongly encourage residents to avoid the sludge that surrounds their homes. About 5.4 million cubic yards - more than a billion gallons - of coal fly ash, a byproduct of burning coal, broke out of a retention pond Monday at the Kingston Fossil Plant, flooding nearby houses, the Tennessee Valley Authority said. The spill damaged 12 homes and covered 300 acres with sludge in Harriman, about 35 miles west of Knoxville.Smith said his group is not trying to create panic, but that federal and state authorities and the TVA should be erring on the side of caution in what he considers the largest coal-ash spill in the eastern U.S."I think all three agencies have been irresponsible in not accurately warning citizens," Smith said.Barbara Martocci, a spokeswoman for TVA, the nation's largest utility, said Saturday that while the company has not issued an official warning not to come in contact with the ash, she encouraged people to avoid the area."If they do touch it, they should wash their hands," she said.The safety of drinking water also is a concern to residents and environmentalists.Elevated contaminant levels were found in water samples in the immediate area of the spill, including lead and thallium, but TVA said those chemicals are filtered out through the normal water treatment process.Water sample data from the intake for the Kingston Water Treatment Plant, which supplies drinking water to residents, showed slight elevations in iron and manganese concentrations, but they were still within drinking water standards, TVA said.TVA also said Saturday that the residue floating on top of the water was caused by cenospheres, a sand-like material that is being skimmed off the surface and sucked up by a flat barge."We are continuing to take samples to determine what is there and the drinking water still meets all the standards set by the EPA," Martocci said.But the agencies have not yet released details on the toxicity of the ash itself, which could contain heavy metals including mercury and arsenic, according to the EPA.Other spills such as a pond break in Kentucky in 2000 dumped about 250 million gallons of coal slurry into nearby creeks were much smaller than this one, Smith said."When TVA issues a statement that the drinking water is safe, that this material is inert ... it leads the community to believe that there's really no problem," Smith said. "That is absolutely not true."Martocci said cleanup was continuing through the weekend and that crews had made progress clearing 1,000 feet of a local road that had been covered by the ash slide. TVA officials have said six inches of rain in 10 days and overnight temperatures in the teens contributed to the rupture of the dike on the retention pond.State officials were also trying to stem the flow of the ash by building a submerged dam, or weir, across the channel of the Emory River to allow water to flow while catching the ash at the bottom. The power plant is along the Emory River, which joins the Clinch River and flows into the main Tennessee River.The retention pond was one of a series of holding areas where ash generated by one of TVA's 11 coal-fired plants was dried until it could be buried or recycled for road beds and concrete. The ash piles at times reached 55 feet above the water.Environmentalists and the coal industry have argued for years over whether coal ash should be classified as hazardous waste, which would make it subject to more stringent regulations. In 2000, the EPA backed away from labeling it hazardous but encouraged states to strengthen their regulations.Greenpeace, an environmental activist group, is asking for a criminal investigation into the failure of the pond and whether TVA could have prevented the spill.Knoxville-based TVA supplies electricity to Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. Sacramento BeeOrganic farms unknowingly used a synthetic fertilizer...Jim Downinghttp://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/1501772.htmlFor up to seven years, California Liquid Fertilizer sold what seemed to be an organic farmer's dream, brewed from fish and chicken feathers.The company's fertilizer was effective, inexpensive and approved by organic regulators. By 2006, it held as much as a third of the market in California.But a state investigation caught the Salinas-area company spiking its product with ammonium sulfate, a synthetic fertilizer banned from organic farms. As a result, some of California's 2006 harvest of organic fruits, nuts and vegetables – including crops from giants like Earthbound Farm – wasn't really organic.According to documents obtained by The Bee through a Public Records Act request, California Department of Food and Agriculture officials were notified of the problem in June 2004 but didn't complete their investigation and order the company to remove its product from the organic market until January 2007.State officials knew some of California's largest organic farms had been using the fertilizer, the documents show, but they kept their findings confidential until nearly a year and a half after it was removed from the market. No farms lost their organic certification.The nonprofit California Certified Organic Farmers, which certifies about 80 percent of the state's organic acreage, decided not to penalize farms that had used the product on the grounds that farmers did not know they were using an unapproved chemical.The state could have pursued harsher penalties against California Liquid Fertilizer, including violation of the California's organic product law, which carries fines of up to $5,000, according to agriculture department spokesman Steve Lyle. It also could have referred the case to the attorney general's office for civil action as an unfair business practice."We did not pursue those courses of action because our priority was to remove the product from the market," Lyle said. "More process would have delayed that." The investigation took as long as it did, he said, because the case was complex.The trouble has continued. In November 2007, the distributor of another organic liquid fertilizer, representing about 5 percent of the market, pulled its product in the middle of another state investigation. Rumors in the industry point to another major disclosure as soon as this month.Synthetic fertilizers don't present food safety risks, but the organic movement has always opposed them because they take a great deal of energy to produce, decrease natural soil fertility and can pollute water.Above all, the California Liquid Fertilizer case shows how much the organic regulatory system depends on trust.Organic changesOrganic farming started with small operations that rejected modern agriculture's huge, chemical-dependent fields in favor of diversified plots fertilized with old-fashioned compost, manure and cover crops. Today, organic farms still do without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. But much else is radically different.Sales of organic products have soared from $5 billion nationwide a decade ago to $24 billion today, according to the Organic Trade Association. California accounts for nearly 60 percent of the U.S. harvest of organic produce.The biggest organic operations now cultivate thousands of acres and sell to mainstream buyers like grocery chains.With farms under pressure to cut costs and deliver big harvests, demand has grown for a new class of potent liquid fertilizers that help crops thrive."Organic agriculture is becoming very dependent on these amendments," said Thaddeus Barsotti, who runs Capay Organic farm in Yolo County. "If you don't use them, and your competitor is using them, you're going to suffer."Liquid fertilizers work particularly well for cool weather crops like strawberries and salad greens, and market leaders Earthbound and Driscoll's became big customers for California Liquid Fertilizer, according to executives from those companies.But liquid fertilizers are used on farms producing virtually every variety of organic fruit, nut and vegetable. On his mid-sized farm, Barsotti likes to give his bok choy, cabbage and pepper crops a nitrogen boost early in the growing season, though he said he never used California Liquid Fertilizer's products.As organic farming has gotten big, it also has struggled to maintain shoppers' trust in the integrity of its products.Most shoppers interviewed at the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op and the Whole Foods Market on Arden Way were a bit cynical about the industry – and they weren't surprised to hear that a major violation of organic standards had slipped through the regulatory system."There's a large amount of money to be made as we get more into paying for the quality of our food," said Emmi Felberg of Plymouth.As a gardener, Felberg knows it's tough to get concentrated nitrogen from true organic sources. She said any farmer ought to be suspicious about fertilizers that seem too good to be true."These guys are professionals," she said. "If it looks like a chemical and smells like a chemical, it probably is a chemical."The investigationThe state learned of the problems at California Liquid Fertilizer from a whistleblower. In a June 18, 2004, complaint, the former employee alleged that for five years ammonium sulfate had been used in the company's liquid fertilizer.A year later, according to state records, state Department of Food and Agriculture inspector Pierre Labossiere took the first sample of Biolizer XN, the company's leading product, from Tanimura & Antle Inc., an Earthbound Farm partner in Salinas.Laboratory analysis supported the allegations, and in July 2005, Labossiere asked California Liquid Fertilizer to explain why, the records show. He never got an answer, and during multiple follow-up visits to the firm's factory near the town of Gonzales was told that the fish and feathers used to make the product were unavailable for sampling.Over the next year, Labossiere followed up, finding indications of ammonium sulfate in six more samples at farms and fertilizer dealers around the state. In February 2006, he twice intercepted tank cars of ammonium sulfate in a Salinas railyard. Receipts showed the liquid had been shipped to California Liquid Fertilizer from a plantin Decatur, Ill.California Liquid Fertilizer's then-president, Peter Townsley, did not respond to repeated phone calls from The Bee or to a written request for comment.Labossiere had caught the fertilizer maker red-handed. But the product remained on the market for nearly six more months before state officials took action.The state had other things to worry about that fall. In September, an outbreak of a deadly strain of E. coli was traced to Salinas Valley spinach packaged by the parent company of Earthbound Farm. For weeks, national news media scrutinized the government's oversight of the produce industry.In January 2007, the agriculture department agreed to a settlement with Townsley that removed his product from the market but kept the reasons obscure. The violation was recorded as "improper labeling." In a letter to the Eugene, Ore.-based nonprofit Organic Materials Review Institute, which had approved the product for use on organic farms, Townsley said he was pulling the product because of an inadvertent chemical substitution.The outcome of the case surprised Dave DeCou, the Oregon institute's executive director. State investigators had contacted him for information about Biolizer."I was expecting (the state) to come out with some kind of indictment," he said. "My sense was that they didn't want to have another dirty mark on California agriculture."Temptation to fakePer pound of nitrogen, synthetic fertilizers like ammonium sulfate and urea cost as little as one-twentieth as much as approved organic sources like ground-up fish carcasses."If you could take urea and sell it organic, you could make a lot of money," said Jim Coburn, marketing manager for Western Farm Service, a major agrochemical retailer.Under federal standards, the nitrogen in a fertilizer for organic farming must come from a natural source. But standard laboratory analyses used by organic regulators tell only how much nitrogen is in a fertilizer, not where it came from.More sophisticated chemical-isotope tests can give an indication – though not definitive proof – of a fertilizer's origins, said Sam Myoda, executive vice president of IEH Laboratories, near Seattle.Myoda has been hired both by fertilizer makers wanting to prove their product genuine and big growers that want to make sure they aren't being duped. In tests this past year, Myoda said, he has found that a number of fertilizers sold to organic farmers show signs of being from synthetic sources.Regulating 'certified organic'The U.S. Department of Agriculture decides what materials may be used on an organic farm, and the state agriculture department plays a role in keeping the industry honest – mainly by investigating complaints.But the review of specific brands of fertilizers, pesticides and so on falls mostly to the Organic Materials Review Institute, which is federally authorized to evaluate organic farming products.That approval process, though, is based on information submitted by manufacturers. In the case of California Liquid Fertilizer, the fertilizer investigated by the state had been certified by the institute, but the company hadn't been truthful about what it contained, state documents show.The Organic Materials Review Institute does investigate complaints and now gives special scrutiny to fertilizers, according to spokesman Miguel Guerrero. But each year the organization routinely inspects only about a dozen of the 570 companies whose products it certifies. If it finds a violation, the institute can withdraw certification, but it lacks the authority to pursue stiffer penalties.The state Department of Food and Agriculture, by contrast, can issue fines as well as tell manufacturers to remove products from the market. Spokesman Lyle said staff members recently have stepped up oversight of the organic fertilizer sector. In 16 inspection visits since February 2007, officials have found only minor violations, he said.Though the state forced California Liquid Fertilizer to pull its leading product, Townsley stayed in business at the Gonzales plant. In January 2008, the factory was sold to Converted Organics Inc., a publicly traded fertilizer maker headquartered in Boston. Townsley is now a technology officer for Converted Organics. His base salary is $200,000 a year. My View: Conservation of resources is for people, too...Mike Eaton. Mike Eaton has been an advocate for farmland protection and sustainable land use in the region for 30 years. He serves as Executive Director of the Resources Legacy Fund. http://www.sacbee.com/1190/story/1500306.htmlThe miracle of bird migration is on full display in the Sacramento region for the next few months, as the large birds – cranes, swans, geese, ducks, and hawks – that nest and raise their young in the far north take a seasonal respite from the harsh arctic winter to enjoy the temperate weather and abundant food sources of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.By March, most of these birds will be winging their way northward once again, to repeat a cross-hemispheric cycle of birth and renewal that has been going on since long before humans began measuring time.While the large birds are here, thousands of local residents and many visitors will make the pilgrimage to the important protected areas – the Cosumnes River Preserve, Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge, Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, Gray Lodge Wildlife Area and others – where they can be seen in dramatic numbers. The big winter birds are just the most visible of our avian visitors. The region supports a broad range of avian life for precisely the same reasons that it attracted humans – rich open lands for food production, abundant wetland and water resources, and a highly productive climate.As the large birds depart, the late winter and early spring will witness an influx from the south of hundreds of species of songbirds, returning from their wintering areas in Central America. And in the spring and late summer, this part of the Valley will host vast numbers of shorebirds (mostly of the large sandpiper family), providing a critical link in their life cycle.Map all of those migrations – myriad invisible tracks in the sky – and the Sacramento region's global significance as a hub for migratory birds becomes strikingly clear. It also becomes apparent that existing permanently protected areas constitute only a small fraction of the landscape needed if we are to avoid continued serious decline in key bird species.Open farmed lands – and farmers – are a critical part of the equation.Over the past generation, unfortunately, we have altered the regional landscape in a way that calls into serious question the future of these bird populations, and seasonal surveys record gradual (and in some cases, dramatic) declines. Suburban sprawl and large-lot rural development – squandering farmland, water, and energy resources on a staggering scale – are the primary culprits.Change is in the air, as the realities of a warming climate, waning petroleum resources and the seriously negative health consequences of our current way of living on the land begin to influence regional thinking. Unfortunately, initial efforts have been faltering.The region's acclaimed "blueprint," for example, ignored significant natural assets and major natural hazards, and its modest, common-sense prescriptions have been met with hostility by leaders of most outlying local governments.New efforts, like those of Valley Vision and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to develop a complement to the "blueprint" – a "greenprint" identifying rural-urban dependencies and important natural resources – offer promise and merit support.As our economic institutions teeter, it's long past time to place a value on the natural capital that supports all life, and to resolve to do a far better job of protecting that foundation – and not just for the birds. Here's hoping that a new generation of local elected leaders will correct the mistakes of the predecessors. Experts debate role of housing in Sacramento economy's recovery…Jim Wassermanhttp://www.sacbee.com/business/v-print/story/1501773.htmlFirst of four partsSix months ago, with the economy on the skids, Mark Wintz and Bruce Evans made an expensive bet on economic recovery. They moved to Sacramento to open a home building venture at McClellan Park."We looked at the West Coast and decided Sacramento was the best location," said Wintz, a custom builder from Ventura. "It's on the 80 and the 5, with access to the Bay Area and the Sierra, up and down the Valley and access to Oregon and Washington." It was a leap of faith. Most builders called 2008 the worst year of their professional lives.But Wintz and Evans have an angle that hints at better days to come in real estate. They believe central cities will be the West's first markets to roar back. When that happens, Details, their McClellan prefab home factory with thousands of square feet of expansion space, will supply a new generation of urban infill housing."We wanted to enter near the bottom and be prepared for an emerging market, one that you can grow with," said Wintz.On the surface, this startup seems a reassuring signal from a battered business world that this, too, will pass. These are some of the darkest economic days in generations, yet Wintz's and Evans' $4 million investment points to a key element that some say may lead to an eventual recovery: a resurgent real estate market, the same real estate market that sent the economy into a deep tailspin."One bright note is that the (housing) sector that led the economy into this morass is about to turn the corner, perhaps as soon as this summer, and will start to lead us out," said Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co.It's still too early to declare real estate's revival. And others will argue forcefully that consumer debt, the collapse of esoteric global financial instruments and the abrupt and almost unprecedented freezing of credit have created an immense disaster far beyond real estate's reach.But 2008 could also be seen as the year Sacramento-area real estate began to show signs of stabilizing, and the idea that housing might help establish a foundation for the economy here is something experts are starting to debate. Prices and inventory are down and sales are up, even as foreclosures continue. Mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest levels in at least 37 years. The correction has been enormously painful, but there are believers who contend Sacramento will be among the first U.S. markets to recover.• Supply is down. It would take 3.9 months to sell today's nearly 11,000 listings in Sacramento County and West Sacramento. A year ago: 12.2 months.• Sales are up. After 37 months of declines in the region, something new began in April: eight months of year-over-year sales gains. Prices better match area salaries.• Conservative lending and safe loans are back. Nine in 10 California mortgages this year had fixed rates, according to the California Association of Realtors. At the height of the boom, two-thirds of all new mortgages in California were loans with adjustable rates. The new lending portends a stable base of homeowners.But not even the most optimistic forecasters see housing as the ultimate solution to all that's wrong with the local, state or national economies. We're beyond the point when a single sector – even one so pivotal as home sales – can alone propel the financial sector to new heights.• American households have lost $10 trillion in the collapse of the stock market and the plunge in home values, according to Merrill Lynch economist Sheryl King.• More than 2 million people nationwide have lost their jobs this year, and many of those still working are fearful and cutting their spending. November unemployment in the Sacramento region reached a 15-year high at 8.1 percent; California's tops out at 8.4 percent.• Banks have dampened the economy by not lending. Until lately, they've been slow to modify mortgages, enabling foreclosures that kicked the economy into a tailspin.• State government – Sacramento's lead employer – is paralyzed by estimates of about $40 billion in deficits through June 2010. Tax revenue of all sorts – income, sales and property – has crashed. The governor is proposing furloughs and layoffs of state employees.In this fog of dire news, it is hard sometimes to remember that real estate once drove a booming economy, here and across the country. Yet that boom is also how we got here.Real estate propelled a spectacular wealth effect with housing values soaring in the first half of this decade. Cheap, easy financing created an area buying frenzy of 75,738 home sales in 2004 – nearly twice the number sold this year.The real estate boom fueled jobs and population growth, driving home prices higher. The higher they went – the median more than doubled in the region between 2001 and 2006 – the richer people felt. They borrowed and spent, a phenomenon that accounts for 70 percent of the economy, according to experts. In El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties, people tapped $22 billion in home equity loans and lines of credit from 2002 to 2005 – a bonanza of cash for pools, patios, vacations, motorcycles, cars, boats and more, according to La Jolla-based researcher MDA DataQuick.Investment portfolios also swelled. A little more than a year ago, on Oct. 9, 2007, the Dow Jones industrial average touched 14,164, a record.But 14 months is a long time. On Friday, the Dow closed at 8,515.55. Now home equity loans are rare. Many homes in Sacramento County are worth half as much as they were in 2005.For better or worse, real estate's imprint on the economy for worse couldn't be clearer. What once drove consumer confidence has shattered it. Its role in restoring the faith is open to debate.Neither Jerry Nickelsburg, senior economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast, nor Chris Thornberg, head of Beacon Economics in Los Angeles, is betting on home sales doing the trick.Nickelsburg said he thinks the Barack Obama administration will be key to consumer confidence, fueling the public's belief that it's OK to start spending again."History tells us consumers don't stay out too long," he said. "But we do need to have some feeling that our economic leaders know what they're doing."Thornberg said the country should be ready for a prolonged downturn."What's going to fix this problem? How is this economy going to recover? Who is going to be the miracle worker? There is none," he said. "It's just a matter of working through this period.Americans "need to tighten up, batten down the hatches and start saving again. It's that situation that's going to keep the economy in a bad situation for a year or more," he said.Jeff Michael, director of business forecasting at Stockton's University of the Pacific, said the economy's troubles are now well beyond housing's woes. Earlier this month, he predicted California will lose 300,000 jobs in 2009 – after losing 100,000 this year.But he does believe that "real estate stabilizing is a precondition to the financial markets stabilizing and credit flowing again." And home prices in the region will stabilize over the next year, Michael said.In the meantime, he thinks lower mortgage rates – he recently refinanced – and cheaper fuel – he lives in Elk Grove and commutes – will be a key part of any recovery. Michael said the fall of both has put an extra $400 a month in his family's pockets."That frees up our budget a little to do other things. Go out to eat," he said. "And we're not the only ones."Daniel and Kathleen Alcantaro hope Michael is right. This year the pair invested $100,000 in Buonarroti Ristorante, a new eatery at Town and Country Shopping Center on Fulton and Marconi avenues. It opened in October as the economy swooned."There was nothing we could do; we already had said we were going to open it," said Daniel Alcantaro.The restaurant is their second. Five years ago they opened a place in downtown Lincoln, and then in September they placed another bet on better days by adding a wine bar."I'm a bit of an optimist," said Kathleen Alcantaro. "I think people are looking for ways to escape. … From our perspective, people are going to want to go out to eat. … If we can hang tough, I think the strong will survive."At Details in McClellan Park, Wintz's view is that confidence in real estate has started to grow."Surprisingly, in the last 30 days we've had a handful of clients show interest, and a few who were on the sidelines make preparations to move forward in the first quarter," he said.Partly, that's due to upscale clients. Since opening, the company has built and trucked homes to Shasta County, Lake Tahoe and Silicon Valley for executives and surgeons with income for extras like $10,000 German-built doors.So Wintz is counting on the second quarter of 2009 to offset overhead expenses – and more."That will be a milestone for us, and, in my opinion, a marker of an initial regional recovery as well," he said.Mercury NewsCalifornia taxpayers paying millions extra as state borrows to pay bills...Judy Lin, Associated Presshttp://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_11320806?nclick_check=1SACRAMENTO — California's need to borrow billions to handle its basic government expenses in a soured credit market is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in heightened bank fees. State treasury figures reviewed by The Associated Press show California paid $11.5 million to dozens of banks and financial firms for selling a $5 billion short-term loan in October. In comparison, California paid $3.8 million in fees when it took out a $7 billion note last year. Put another way, state taxpayers went from paying roughly $5.40 for every $10,000 borrowed to $23. California will continue paying high bank fees in the months ahead because it needs billions more to cover basic operating expenses. The higher fees represent just a fraction of California's $14.8 billion budget deficit this fiscal year but anger taxpayer advocates. "Big banks seem to find a lot of ways to gouge the taxpayers," said Doug Heller of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based consumer advocacy group. "Between overcharging us for their bank work and then asking for free money in the form of massive bailouts, it's like they're getting us coming and going." The banks that charged California the most for selling bonds last fall, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, declined to respond when asked to comment on their fee structures. Government bonds are harder to sell these days, in large part because institutional investors rocked by plummeting investments tied to the housing industry have fled the market. That has left many state governments paying more to find individual investors who will loan them money and searching — sometimes in vain — for investors willing to buy. Banks act as middlemen of sorts, trying to find investors willing to buy municipal bonds. Fees have gone up as that has become harder. California is hit hardest by the rising costs in the bond market for two reasons: its issues are so much larger than other states (in the multibillions of dollars); and it has come to rely on borrowing money each year to pay its day-to-day operating expenses until most income tax receipts arrive in the spring. That leaves the state no choice but to wade into the bond market at a turbulent time. Nevertheless, other states and public entities are not immune to the tighter credit market for municipal bonds. The New York-New Jersey Port Authority received no bids when it offered a competitive sale of $300 million in short-term notes in early December. The state of New York halted a $161 million general obligation bond offering in September, and this month Louisiana postponed a $185 million bond for the state's technical and community college campuses while it waits for the market to stabilize. "New York will continue to have a strong credit (rating), but at the same time we are seeing a change in demand for bonds. Rates are up and there's volatility," said Jim Fuches, a spokesman for the New York state controller's office. Municipal borrowing has contracted across the country, said Matt Fabian of Municipal Market Advisors, based in Concord, Mass. He estimated that infrastructure projects worth between $100 billion and $125 billion have been postponed this year. Unable to find good deals in the private credit market, some state leaders have asked for federal assistance to help pay for public works projects. The National Association of Governors recently suggested that President-elect Barack Obama cover $136 billion in infrastructure projects such as road and bridge repairs when he takes office next month. "It makes a great deal of economic sense to provide economic stimulus so all layers of government are working in concert to get the economy going again," said Jeff Esser, executive director of the Government Finance Officers Association. Earlier this month, a state investment board halted lending for about 2,000 public works projects in California worth more than $16 billion because the state could not afford to fund them. State finance officials say California will not be able to take out bonds to restart the projects until lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agree on a plan to tackle the state's growing deficit, projected to hit $42 billion over the next 18 months. Taxpayer groups blame lawmakers' inaction and banks for adding to the public's burden as California's budget morass drags on. The most the state paid in short-term loans during the past five years had been $3.8 million in 2004. But California's situation is uniquely difficult. As home to the world's eighth largest economy, no other state comes close to the amount of cash California borrows. In October, individual sales helped California raise $5 billion to pay its operating costs. Schwarzenegger even went on air in San Francisco and Los Angeles encouraging people to buy the notes. Without the money, the state would have run out of cash at the end of that month. Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office, defended the state's decision to pay the higher bank fees to secure the operating bonds. "We were facing a situation of running out of cash and not being able to make payments," he said. "We had a market that was virtually frozen, particularly on the institutional side. We knew in order to make it work, we had to rely on retail. That is a labor-intensive endeavor." Without as many banks, insurance companies and hedge funds buying, the state structured the bond sale differently by having more firms selling directly to investors. Bank of America collected $2.4 million in sales fees, Goldman Sachs $1.3 million and Morgan Stanley more than $900,000. Merrill Lynch and Citigroup rounded out the top five as nearly 50 firms participated in the sale. The figures include a $400,000 management fee paid to each Bank of America and Goldman Sachs for leading the sale. When contacted by phone and e-mail, representatives of both banks said they would decline comment because they don't discuss fee structures. California also paid a slightly higher interest rate, in addition to the boost in fees. For the $5 billion transaction last fall, the state has committed to paying a rate of up to 4.25 percent, compared to 3.37 percent on bonds sold in 2007. In the meantime, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer has halted additional cash borrowing, including a $750 million general obligation bond. If lawmakers pass a midyear budget fix soon, the treasurer's office would go back to the bond market. Dresslar, Lockyer's spokesman, said higher bank fees and interest rates should perhaps be one of the least of the state's worries given the scope of its budget problems.Los Angeles TimesCalifornia is home to 9 of the 10 areas where housing prices have fallen the mostNationally, home prices marked nine straight months of depreciation in October, for a 10.4% decline from October 2007...Lauren Bealehttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-realblog28-2008dec28,0,1351130,print.storyU.S. home prices marked nine straight months of depreciation in October, according to statistics released last week from First American CoreLogic, for a 10.4% decline from October 2007.But the headline for Californians: The state is home to nine of the 10 worst-performing markets. The statistical areas are Salinas, -29.06%; Merced, -28.97%; Stockton, -28.86%; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, -28.79%; Vallejo-Fairfield, -28.65%; Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, -28.55%; Modesto, -28.41%; Bakersfield, -28.01%; Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, Fla., -27.34%; Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, -26.95%. California was the decline leader, down 28.3% annually. Nevada dropped 25.4%, Arizona fell 20.1% and Florida decreased 17.8%. The only states showing what number crunchers considered "meaningful price increases" were West Virginia, up 5.9%; South Dakota, up 2.9%; and Texas, up 2.7%.Lawsuit on whales and sonar is settledEnvironmental groups concerned about the effect on whales claim victory, as does the military. The Navy says the deal does not expand protections. The Supreme Court recently decided a similar case...Tony Perryhttp://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-whales-lawsuit28-2008dec28,0,4089819,print.storyReporting from San Diego — The Navy and several environmental groups settled a lawsuit that challenged the Navy's use of sonar around the globe as dangerous to whales and other marine mammals, the two sides said Saturday.Both portrayed the settlement as a victory. The case is separate from one in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the Navy could not be unduly required to protect whales.The Navy said the settlement -- reached Friday but announced the next day -- does not require protective measures for whales beyond those it had agreed to in 2005. Nor does it require that additional funds be spent on marine mammal research beyond the $14.75 million the Navy has already earmarked for the next three years, the Navy said."The settlement protects the public interest in national security by preserving the Navy's ability to conduct realistic anti-submarine warfare training," said Cmdr. Cappy Surette, a Navy spokesman.A lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the settlement is a victory for whales because it sets up a schedule for the Navy to implement mitigation measures and opens the training process and scientific research to civilian review."This does not resolve all of our disputes with the Navy, but it sets in place a process to deal with future disagreements," said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney and marine mammal protection specialist with the NRDC. "We're hopeful it will lead to a much more effective dialogue."The litigation deals with what is called midfrequency sonar.If the plaintiffs had been successful, the Navy said, that could have led to restrictions in some 370 training and testing activities around the world.Under the settlement, the Navy agrees to:* Use shipboard software to scan training areas for marine mammals and to plot a course meant to avoid sensitive areas when possible.* Look for whales through passive sonar, lookouts and aircraft during training so that the animals can be avoided.* Reduce or shut down sonar when whales or dolphins are spotted close to ships.The settlement comes after the Supreme Court sided with the Navy in the similar lawsuit, which was aimed at restricting the use of sonar during exercises off Southern California and Hawaii.Reynolds said his side had already begun negotiating with the Navy about a settlement before the Supreme Court's decision.Environmentalists contend that the Navy's use of active sonar is hurting and perhaps killing whales by sending out high-pitched tones.They say studies show the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic or to dive too deeply.Whales have been found beached in Greece, the Canary Islands and the Bahamas after sonar was used in the areas, and necropsies have shown signs of internal bleeding near the ears.The Navy disputes this and says sonar training is essential for sailors to be prepared to detect super-quiet diesel submarines that are being purchased or built by rogue Third World nations, including Iran and North Korea.In the settlement, filed before U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper in Los Angeles, the Navy agreed to pay $1.1 million in attorney fees for the case that was decided by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are largely the same in both cases.In addition to the NRDC, plaintiffs were the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Cetacean Society International, the Ocean Futures Society, the League for Coastal Protection and Jean-Michel Cousteau.Several months before the current case was filed in 2005, the Navy, under pressure from environmental groups, submitted a plan to the National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration that was meant to limit the whales' exposure to sonar.In the case that went to the Supreme Court, Cooper had called the Navy's measures inadequate.The judge ordered the Navy to avoid using sonar within 12 miles of the coast and in areas where marine mammals congregate. She also said crews must turn off the high-intensity sonar when a marine mammal was spotted within 1.2 miles of a ship.In January, President Bush moved to exempt the Navy from key environmental laws to override the judge's restrictions. That led to the high court's November decision.Energy dispute over Rockies richesA trove of oil shale may be a boon. But the science to extract fuel is imperfect, and locals worry about their water supplies, which ultimately feed Southern California reservoirs...Julie Carthttp://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-oil-shale28-2008dec28,0,1005019,print.storyReporting from Salt Lake City — A titanic battle between the West's two traditional power brokers -- Big Oil and Big Water -- has begun.At stake is one of the largest oil reserves in the world, a vast cache trapped beneath the Rocky Mountains containing an estimated 800 billion barrels -- about three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.Extracting oil from rocky seams of underground shale is not only expensive, but also requires massive amounts of water, a precious resource crucial to continued development in the nation's fastest-growing region.The conflict between oil and water interests has now come to a head. On Oct. 31, Congress allowed a moratorium on oil shale leasing to expire. That paved the way for the Bush administration to finalize leasing rules last month that opened 2 million acres of federal land to exploration.Oil companies say that at a time of increasing foreign oil dependence, it would be unconscionable to forgo exploiting oil shale's potential."Considering the magnitude of this resource -- it is so huge relative to other hydrocarbon resources around the world -- it merits taking a look at trying any method we can, safely and responsibly, to get at it," said Tracy C. Boyd, communications and sustainability manager for Shell Oil Co.Oil shale companies acknowledge that the technology required to superheat shale to extract oil is unproven. They also acknowledge that they are uncertain how much water would be needed in the process, although some experts calculate it would take 10 barrels of water to get one barrel of oil from shale.That water-to-oil equation has inflamed officials in the upper Rockies, who are raising the alarm about the cumulative effect of energy projects on the region's water supplies, which ultimately feed Southern California reservoirs via the Colorado River."There are estimates that oil shale could use all of the remaining water in upper Colorado River Basin," said Susan Daggett, a commissioner on the Denver Water Board. "That essentially pits oil shale against people's needs."Even with the precipitous drop in oil prices and the staggering start-up costs and risks associated with oil shale exploration, oil companies are rushing ahead."As long as we continue to be a nation that is hooked on liquid fuel," said Boyd, "we need to look at anything we can do to tap the sources of energy in this country."Prospectors have known about the oil shale deposits in the Rockies for more than a century, but the technology to extract it has remained imperfect, expensive and polluting.A variety of experimental methods have been developed. Although details are closely held, the broad outlines are similar.Shell has the most mature technology, which it has been experimenting with at its Mahogany test site, near Rifle, Colo. Tucked into a rolling landscape of empty range land, the company has sunk heaters half a mile into oil shale seams and subjected the rock to 700-degree temperatures. Over weeks or even months, a liquid known as kerogen is produced, which can be refined into diesel and jet fuel.To prevent the brewing hydrocarbons from spoiling groundwater, the heated rock core is surrounded by 20-to-30-foot-thick impermeable ice walls, frozen by electric refrigeration units.Other companies' methods are more akin to open pit mining, in which millions of tons of rock are excavated and then fed into a massive above-ground cooker.All of the processes require prodigious amounts of water, either for the electrical plants needed for heating and freezing or for the web of industrial facilities needed to extract the oil.But for all the years of research into oil shale extraction, there is little hard information on exactly how much water would be drained from the region.In its recent environmental review of proposed oil shale projects, the federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees energy leasing on public lands, was unable to estimate the industry's region-wide water use.Mike Vanden Berg, the Utah Geological Survey's principal researcher for oil shale projects, said, "I still don't know how much water is used. . . . No one does."Meanwhile, already- parched Western states bracing for more growth are completing water supply inventories. A Colorado study projected that by 2050, with the state's oil shale operations at full capacity, the industry will require 14 times more power than currently generated by the state's largest power plant.The study's sobering bottom line is that meeting oil shale's energy demands could require more water than Colorado is entitled to under an interstate compact."Can groundwater be protected?" asked Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. "Areas where this technology will be used are all tributaries for the headwaters for all of the seven Colorado Basin states."Despite the objections, oil shale development has been pushed forward by a series of recent actions. In an effort to encourage the fledgling industry, officials said, new regulations allow oil shale operators to pay unusually low royalty rates. The system calls for producers to pay 5% for the first five years, increasing 1% each year until reaching 12.5%, the standard federal oil and gas royalty rate.In recent weeks, the industry was included in the $700-billion government bailout package with investment and tax incentives to help oil shale producers build refineries and other expensive infrastructure.Though the region's elected officials support efforts to discover new sources of domestic oil, they say that with so many unanswered water questions, public land managers should be slowing the pace of development, not speeding it up.The governors of Colorado and Wyoming have expressed concerns about the venture's effect on water in their states.Not so, Utah. The state contains the least-rich shale deposit but is the most enthusiastic booster of the unconventional oil source. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. recently declared Utah "open for business as it relates to oil shale."The renewed push for oil shale development comes at a time when conventional energy companies are being blamed for squandering and fouling water across the West.Wyoming and Montana are squabbling over water quality concerns about coal-bed methane drilling. Colorado and New Mexico towns have discovered benzene and other dangerous chemicals in their wells, with energy projects the suspected culprits.Ranchers in the region say their crops and livestock suffer as oil and gas production drains underground aquifers. Sportsmen complain that rivers and streams are being compromised by the energy industry.The Environmental Protection Agency, in official comments to the Bureau of Land Management, expressed concerns about the possibility that oil shale production would deposit "salts, selenium, arsenic, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in groundwater."Craig Thompson found many of the same compounds when he studied groundwater pollution from an abandoned oil shale project in western Wyoming that began during the last oil shale boom, in the 1970s. Despite 30 years of cleanup efforts, he said, the aquifer is still not free of chemicals."Development of oil shale is a groundwater nightmare," said Thompson, a chemist. "Oil shale serves as the floor for the aquifer. When you heat up the aquifer, it dissolves nasty stuff like fluoride and arsenic and selenium and cyanide . . . the list goes on."For now, with the support of Congress and the Bush administration, oil companies appear to have the upper hand.That might change with President-elect Barack Obama's selection this month of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, a former water lawyer, to head the Department of Interior.Salazar, a Democrat, has criticized the breakneck speed at which oil shale efforts are advancing."Over and over again the administration has admitted that it has no idea how much of Colorado's water supply would be required to develop oil shale on a commercial scale, no idea where the power would come from and no idea whether the technology is even viable," Salazar said last month.But as long as the demand for fuel remains high, the dream of squeezing oil from rock will probably persist."Oil shale is the last refuge of the hydrocarbon pioneers," Thompson said. "It's always been that last refuge because it's such a poor excuse for a fuel. Here's a commodity that's been developing for 100 years, and we still don't know anything about it."Protesting Utah oil and gas leasesAn environmental activist who caused chaos at an auction may face prosecution...Editorialhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-protest27-2008dec27,0,1785843,print.storyWhat's a legitimate form of protest? Is it OK to throw a shoe at the president whose army invaded your country? To firebomb the house of a UCLA scientist whose work includes experimenting on animals? To create a blacklist of Proposition 8 supporters? To help plant a bomb in the Pentagon because you believe that a war is unjust? Protest can take many forms -- violent or peaceful, legal or illegal. Sometimes it is clearly beyond the pale. (Yes, that's you, Bill Ayers.) Sometimes it's illegal but morally defensible. (No reasonable person today thinks Rosa Parks should have given up her seat on the bus to a white man.) Sometimes people just can't agree on whether it's right or wrong. (As in the case of protests at abortion clinics or efforts to get Proposition 8 backers fired from their jobs.) Into this moral morass steps Tim DeChristopher, a 27-year-old economics student at the University of Utah who objected so strenuously to last week's auction of oil and gas drilling leases in southern and eastern Utah that he decided to attend. He then proceeded to bid up prices by hundreds of thousands of dollars for some parcels and acquired about $1.8 million worth himself -- before it became clear that he had neither the means nor the slightest intention of paying for the leases. He threw the process into chaos, and bidding was briefly halted. Prosecutors are weighing possible fraud charges against him. Was DeChristopher justified? The leases offered at the controversial auction permitted drilling on more than 110,000 pristine acres of public lands in Utah, including some of America's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive red-rock desert. Although the Bureau of Land Management had, under pressure, withdrawn some parcels from its original list, the auction nevertheless represented an eleventh-hour assault on the environment by the Bush administration, eager as always to satisfy the oil and gas industry while continuing to feed our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels. DeChristopher, who says he acted only after years of marching, writing letters and signing petitions, didn't take any enormous risks with the lives or property of others. He didn't spike a tree, as some environmental activists have done, posing a danger to loggers. He didn't commit arson or vandalism. More theater than guerrilla warfare, his stunt -- like that of Muntather Zaidi, who threw his shoes at President Bush last week -- got its point across reasonably safely. Yet DeChristopher may have accomplished something significant. The auction, or parts of it, may have to be rescheduled, possibly by a less eager-to-lease Obama administration. If prosecutors decide his actions were illegal, DeChristopher must face the consequences, and maybe even go to jail. That's the price of civil disobedience. You break the law, you take the rap. Still, we can think of worse ways to make a point.