12-31-08

 12-31-08Merced Sun-StarCalif. sues to block Bush endangered species rules...SAMANTHA YOUNG - Associated Press Writerhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/280/v-print/story/615811.htmlSACRAMENTO, Calif. California has filed suit against the Bush administration to block last-minute endangered species regulations that are intended to reduce input from federal scientists, Attorney General Jerry Brown announced Tuesday.Brown said the president is trying to gut the Endangered Species Act before he leaves office next month."Unfortunately, the Bush administration has had an antipathy to using sound science," Brown said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This is the latest assault as Bush goes out the door. It's intolerable."The state's lawsuit was filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.The Interior Department issued the revised rules earlier this month. They allow federal agencies to issue permits for mining, logging and similar activities without getting a review from federal wildlife biologists if their own research shows the project will not affect plants and animals.The changes also block agencies from using the Endangered Species Act to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on ecosystems when reviewing projects such as new roads or coal plants on federal land.Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher declined to comment on the California lawsuit. She said the revised rules will continue to protect threatened and endangered species."The law says that all federal agencies will ensure that no take occurs of a listed species whatever it is they are doing," she said.The lawsuit also names the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service as defendants.Brown is asking the court to block the new rules, which could give the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama time to review them.Obama has said he would work to reverse the changes. Because they take effect before he is sworn in, Obama would have to restart a lengthy rule-making process that could last up to a year."If these regulations go into effect, they could be in for many months," Brown said. "By suing, we set up the possibility of a settlement with the Obama administration that could end them."Three environmental groups also have filed lawsuits challenging the revisions, which they say erode protections for endangered species.Current rules require biologists in the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign off on dams, power plants, timber sales and other projects even when it is determined they are not likely to harm species.The revised rules will reduce the independent reviews that government scientists have performed for 35 years. The idea is to accelerate a process that developers and other federal agencies have blamed for delays and cost increases.Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations for projects proposed for federal land. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.California's lawsuit alleges that the Department of Interior failed to adequately consider public comments critical of the revisions before it finalized the rules. It also claims that the revisions, if allowed to go into effect, could lead to the possible extinction of endangered and threatened species, a violation of the Endangered Species Act.California is home to 310 plant and animal species listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government, more than any state except Hawaii, according to the complaint.Interior officials have said agencies still can seek the expertise of federal wildlife biologists on a voluntary basis. They say the new rules include safeguards to ensure endangered species are protected.For example, projects will be fast-tracked only where there is no impact on endangered species, a project might improve conditions for a species or the effect is so minimal that it can't be measured, Kreisher said. Groups aim to save rangeland for cattle, wildlife...CAROL REITERhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/616789.htmlCattle grazing on hilly rangeland ... it could be a postcard from most anywhere in the county.It's a way of life that cattlemen in the area have embraced for more than 100 years.And now a group wants to help those ranchers keep their rangeland safe from development.The California Rangeland Conservation Program is a nonprofit that brings Central California ranchers, environmentalists and resource professionals from federal and state agencies together for a common goal -- saving the land and the wildlife that live there, while helping the ranchers continue their way of life.More than 75 agricultural organizations, environmental interest groups and state and federal agencies have signed up to be part of the program."There are a lot of ranchers facing hard times," said Tracy Schohr, co-director of the rangeland program and a member of the California Cattlemen's Association said. "We help them to find resolutions that will help them keep their land."Some of the ranches that have been helped during the three years of the program's existence have been in families for generations. Many ranchers are grazing cattle on land that's been a part of their family for more than a century."We show the ranchers some of the alternatives to selling their land," Schohr said, "including putting their land into a conservation easement."Conservation easements take away a rancher's right to sell the land, but give financial incentives to keep that land used for grazing.Pelayo Alvarez, program director for the organization, said that along with helping ranchers keep their land in production, the organization helps protect the wildlife that lives on the land."Ninety-five percent of the endangered species (in the Central Valley) live on the grasslands," Alvarez said. "And 90 percent of the water in California flows through the rangeland."Vernal pools are almost exclusively found on California rangeland. Cattle grazing on that land actually help the pools and the wildlife that depend on them, Alvarez said: "Cattle keep the weeds down around the pools and actually help keep the water in the ponds for a longer time."Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo, executive director of the Merced County Farm Bureau, said keeping rangeland in ranchers' hands is vital. "Grasslands are being impacted by development, and we need to take care of the important species on that land as well as keeping the land available to grow food for us," she said.Alvarez said the organization is seeking to help protect almost 7 million acres in California threatened by development. "Keeping that land in production is our main focus," Alvarez said.Schohr said the group is teaching ranchers about their alternatives, while keeping the ranchers' land in production."There is tremendous pressure on ranchers right now," she said. "We want to help keep the land intact and help the rancher, the wildlife and the habitat."Tulare considers its own motorsports park...EDDIE JIMENEZ, The Fresno Beehttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/616795.htmlTULARE -- Tulare City Council members who support the proposed Tulare Motor Sports Complex say the financial boon that the project could bring to a region in need of jobs and economic development is "off the charts." But a City Council member who voted against the plan isn't so sure.Council Member Wayne Ross said he isn't convinced that the project can generate the revenues that have been projected."I'd love to have job growth as much as anyone else," Ross said."I just don't believe the economic numbers that are proposed." A study by a Fresno consulting firm estimated that the project would bring in $1 billion each year for the area and create more than 16,000 jobs.A divided Tulare City Council late Monday night approved the proposed 711-acre complex, which will include a race track, a drag strip and commercial and retail development.The council, in a 3-2 vote, approved the private project after a four-hour meeting.Bud Long of Fresno is the developer of the project, which will now go before the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission. The Tulare Planning Commission had previously approved the project."The city has very little to lose and potentially a whole lot to gain," said Craig Vejvoda, Tulare's mayor, who voted for the proposal. "The economic potential for this project is off the charts." A one-mile oval race track and a drag strip, with a combined seating capacity for 92,400 spectators, would encompass about 135 acres. The development also would include hotels, condominiums, an RV park and entertainment.Long would buy the land -- adjacent to the International Agricultural Center -- and pay for infrastructure improvements such as streets and sewers, city officials said.City Council Member Philip Vandegrift said the development would help diversify the region's agricultural-based economy and create much-needed jobs."Tulare will be a destination as opposed to a spot on the road on Highway 99," he said.Project opponents say the race tracks would bring excessive noise and contribute to the Valley's air quality problems.Vandegrift and Vejvoda don't dismiss those concerns, but they say that the development has tremendous benefits."No matter what you do, there will be impacts," Vejvoda said. "So you weigh the pluses and the minuses." Ross said the council should move slowly before approving such a sizable project that could forever change the landscape of Tulare."I'm not anti-growth," he said. "I just want (this project) to be something I can believe in." Don Sharp, the director of competition at the dirt track just across town from the proposed Tulare Motor Sports Complex, said the Thunderbowl Raceway would welcome the competition if the project is completed."If it does happen, it won't have any negative effect on the Tulare Thunderbowl," Sharp said. "It would help us more than hurt us, frankly." Sharp said the Thunderbowl could benefit from the Tulare Motor Sports Complex much the same way Manzanita Speedway in Phoenix, Ariz., benefits from nearby Phoenix International Raceway, a track that hosts NASCAR races. Sharp said fans who attend afternoon NASCAR races at Phoenix International often trickle over Manzanita to watch dirt-track races that night.The project's developer, Long, was sentenced in 2001 to a one-year prison on tax-fraud charges.He was indicted in October 1999 and charged with evading more than $1 million in federal taxes while diverting more than $500,000 of his company's funds to build his expensive river-bluff home, purchase luxury items including furniture and jewelry and make a down payment on a San Francisco condominium. MID mission much broader than farmers' water...Jonah Lamb, Reporters' Notebookhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/notebook/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ad52b164a-2e8e-48ed-8faf-17332c315410Post%3a7b7440d6-293e-49e8-a575-053ad6082969&sid=pluck.mercedsunstar.comMerced Irrigation District meetings are long and full of obtuse bureaucratic presentations. And MID's last meeting in 2008 was no different from most. But after much of the crowd left the last meeting, Jack Hooper, usually a quiet board member, spoke up. And what he had to say might not have gone down well in front of a room full of farmers. He said that the district should sell water to whoever will pay for it."The only thing MID has to sell is water, and we’ve got to sell it when we need it to the highest bidder," he said in a phone interview about his comments at the meeting. He explained this unpopular opinion simply by saying that they need to sell the water to get out of their current crisis. This may not be what anyone wants to hear, but Hooper is willing to say it, at least at the tail end of a heated meeting over whether the district should be selling its water to outsidersat all. He was reacting to what is so often said by local farmers -- the irrigation district was created and is meant to serve the farmers. They might think that, but MID's mission statement, on its Web site, doesn't say that. In fact, nowhere does it say "MID is only for farmers." The mission statement, which was adopted in 1991, pretty clearly states that the district's purpose is much broader than just serving the farmers. MID's mission, among other things, is to promote a balance between the county's competing water demands--ncluding industry, agriculture, the environment and local cities. Not exactly a mandate to serve just the local growers. Chowchilla NewsWater Talk...Millie Medershttp://www.thechowchillanews.com/100/story/5731.htmlLandowners in the Chowchilla Water District as well as Madera County Farm Bureau members have recently received information sheets offering a perspective of the consequences of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement slated for congressional passage in January.The following Letter to the Editors of Capital Press underscored the dire effects of this seriously flawed legislation. It was written by Kole Upton, CWD Director and member of the original Friant negotiation team.We Americans are a decent people. We decry injustice and strive for our country to reflect the ideas and values we hold so dear. So, it was distressing to read your recent editorial endorsing the San Joaquin River Settlement. This Settlement signed some 27 months ago was a good faith attempt to solve a long standing lawsuit in a true American spirit of common sense and integrity. It involved farmers giving up water to restore a self sustaining salmon fishery that was fried up by Congress in the 1940's. Congress did this to provide surface water to a vast area of the San Joaquin valley to offset the overdraft of the underground aquifer.The program worked remarkably well and resulted in a million acres of the best farm land in the world with embedded communities of one and 1/4 million people.The environmentalists got what they had demanded in court, a fishery that costs the most money and requires the most water. The option of a lesser fishery having less effect on the Friant service area was rejected. However, as part of the Settlement, environmentalists promised to help mitigate the water losses to the area.Instead, they have filed lawsuit after lawsuit over Delta issues that have had the effect of seriously compromising any program to get our water back. In addition, these new lawsuits will require the superior water rights holders (the exchange Contractors) to receive their water in some years from Friant Dam instead of the delta. Thus, instead of being able to mitigate our losses, we have lost a major tool to accomplish this goal, and another straw has been added to the Dam.The result will be the ultimate loss of 200,000 to 300,000 acres of fertile farm land, plus the expected detrimental effect on the communities in the Friant service area. We will see the dame effect visited on our area as happened on the West Side of the valley following the passage of the CVPIA (Central Valley Project Improvement Act) in 1992.More distressing than your recent editorial is the mindset it represents as to how society is viewing this Settlement. Despite the many changes in the intervening months, the public relations campaign promoting it has not wavered. It is being promoted as a victory of reason as opposed to letting a Federal Judge decide a region's fate. Federal Judges are frequently blamed by politicians and society for our water problems. In fact, the judges are merely enforcing the laws passed by our elected officials. In this case, the judge is relying on a California Law (5937) that states there must be a fishery in good condition below every dam.The California legislature could declare that 5937's requirements are fulfilled with a warm water fishery, and society would have alive river without devastating the Friant service area. Don't hold your breath. Most California legislators apparently have already decided common sense is not needed to fulfill their duties.The Settlement is not yet law because Congress has not acted on it. However, this bill is part of an omnibus package of 150 bills that is expected to be passed in January.When the negotiated Settlement was presented to Congress, it was my expectation that Congress would look at it from a broader perspective for society as a whole. However, the government, the environmentalists, and the sponsoring legislators (Senator Feinstein and Congressman Radanovich) viewed this as a rubber stamp endorsing what the Judge had ordered and had been negotiated. The was fine in September 2006, but a lot has happened since then.In our society, we expect our legislators to make responsible decisions. How can the sponsoring legislators ignore the intervening events of the past 27 months? How can they continue to maintain this is a landmark compromise of great benefit to society? How can they ignore the effects of losing 200,000 to 300,000 agricultural acres especially in this time of economic chaos? They will be taking away our most essential input for economic recovery.What they should do is demonstrate the true leadership and stand up to the environmentalists who have reneged on this agreement. They should take the decision out of the federal judge's hands, and enact a law establishing a live river but one that enables the Friant service area to survive. The excuse that they must do what the judge says and appease the environmentalists is a cop out, and an abdication of their responsibilities as representatives of all of the people.Kole Upton, FarmerMerced and Madera CountiesIf you have questions or would like a copy of the CWD mailing referenced at the beginning of this column, call the district office at 665-3747.Modesto BeeContinuing jobless claims rise sharply in December...JEANNINE AVERSAAP Economics Writerhttp://www.modbee.com/2020/v-print/story/549172.htmlThe number of laid-off workers continuing to draw unemployment benefits has surged again, as finding new jobs becomes even more difficult amid a deepening recession.The Labor Department reported Wednesday that people continuing to draw unemployment benefits increased by a larger-than-expected 140,000 to 4.5 million for the week ending Dec. 20, the most recent period for which that information is available. That was the most since early December 1982, when the country was emerging from a deep recession, though the labor force has grown by about half since then.A year ago, the number of people continuing to draw jobless benefits was 2.7 million.The department's report also showed that the number of newly laid-off workers filing first-time applications for jobless benefits dropped by a seasonally adjusted 94,000 to 492,000 for the week ending Dec. 27.That decline, however, didn't signal any improvement in labor conditions. The drop - while bigger than economists expected - was mostly related to seasonal adjustment difficulties and reflected some out-of-work people not making it to unemployment offices to file claims over the Christmas holiday, analysts said.Even with the drop, new filings remained elevated. A year ago, claims stood at 339,000.Similarly, the four-week moving average of first-time jobless claims, which smooths out week-to-week fluctuations, fell last week to 552,250, a decrease of 5,750 from the prior week. A year ago, this figure was 344,500.Economists expected so-called "continued" claims to rise to around 4.38 million, and that first-time applications for unemployment benefits would drop to around 550,000.On Wall Street, investors took some comfort in the drop in first-time unemployment claims. The Dow Jones industrials were up about 60 points in morning trading.Next week's jobless claims report is likely to be distorted by another shortened holiday week because of New Year's Day, analysts said."The bottom line here is that it probably won't be until mid-January that we begin to get a clear picture of what claims are saying," said Abiel Reinhart, economist at JPMorgan Chase Bank.Employers have slashed payrolls as they scramble to cut costs. The deepening recession, disappearing jobs, shriveling nest eggs and tanking home values have forced consumers to cut back, which is hurting businesses.Atlanta-based Interface Inc. on Tuesday said it will lay off about 530 employees to cope with weakening demand for its carpet products.Other companies that announced mass layoffs recently include: technology services provider Unisys Corp., pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., International Paper Co. and Bank of America Corp.The unemployment rate in November jumped to 6.7 percent, a 15-year high, as employers eliminated a staggering 533,000 jobs in that month alone. Since the recession began in December of 2007, the economy has lost nearly 2 million jobs.Spurring job creation is a key priority for President-elect Barack Obama, who takes over on Jan. 20. He is contemplating a massive package of government spending and tax cuts to stimulate the economy.Breslow says he'll continue fight against Yucca...SANDRA CHEREBAssociated Press Writerhttp://www.modbee.com/state_wire/v-print/story/548335.htmlBruce Breslow, a former Sparks mayor and television sportscaster, said Tuesday that in his new job as head of the state Nuclear Projects Office he'll continue Nevada's fight against federal plans to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump."The state policy is not changing toward a new direction," said Breslow, who currently works in commercial real estate and serves on the Sparks Planning Commission."My primary goal is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Nevada as it relates to the Yucca Mountain project."Gov. Jim Gibbons, who grew up in Sparks, appointed Breslow late Monday to replace longtime nuclear projects director Bob Loux, who is resigning after disclosures that he gave himself and his staff unauthorized pay raises."I know Bruce to be a good and a fair man," Gibbons stated. "I trust his leadership of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects will bring new ideas and a renewed level of tenacity to the fight against locating the nation's nuclear dump in Nevada."Loux faces a hearing in early January before the Nevada Ethics Commission. He spent 23 years as the top state official working to block federal plans for building a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.Breslow, 52, was among three finalists recommended for the job by the Nuclear Projects Commission, chaired by former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan.The other finalists, Tim Hay and Keith Tierney - both lawyers with experience in utility or environmental law - received unanimous recommendations from the six commission members present when finalists were chosen. Breslow received four.Bryan on Tuesday said he felt Hay was most qualified, but added that Breslow was highly motivated."Bruce's background is less extensive than the other two, but Bruce had demonstrated a real enthusiasm for the job," Bryan said. "In his oral presentation, he had a grasp of the issues, and I think that was impressive."Hay, former state Consumer Advocate, declined comment on Breslow's appointment.Tierney, an economist and Reno lawyer who worked with state and local governments on other proposed federal programs in Nevada, including the MX Missile project in the late 1970s, said he was disappointed in the outcome."I wish Mr. Breslow a lot of luck," he said.Breslow, who hasn't been to the Yucca Mountain site, dismissed any suggestion he was unqualified for the job."I've done this a few times before," he said of his transition. "People questioned whether I could make the leap from sportscaster to mayor."During his eight years as mayor, the city developed Victorian Square, now a hub for special events, and successfully sued to clean up the former Helms pit, now the site of Sparks Marina and a big retail and entertainment development.Under his tenure, he said, the city embraced master planned communities and lower property taxes by refinancing debt."I had to learn how to do union negotiations, police, fire, public works ... and I left Sparks in good hands," he said.Breslow also served on the Nevada Transportation Services Authority and as chairman of the Nevada State Employee Management Committee, appointed to those posts by former Gov. Kenny Guinn."They've all been great opportunities to quickly grow," Breslow said of his experiences, adding that he will do the same in his new job."I will immediately immerse myself in this, work with the attorney general's office, agency staff, a myriad of expert witnesses and attorneys to get up to speed as quickly as possible and help them develop strategies going into the most important phase of the Yucca Mountain fight - the DOE's application hearing," he said.Breslow said he had the opportunity to tour Yucca Mountain when he was mayor, but "chose not to at the time.""After I catch up, get up to speed as quickly as possible, it would obviously be an important trip to take," he said. "First I need to set up an office and immerse myself in knowledge."Valley VoiceRacetrack Project Approved in 3-2 Voteshttp://www.valleyvoicenewspaper.com/vv/stories/2008/racetrackapproved.htmCalling it a project that could have far-reaching, positive economic implications for Tulare and the surrounding areas, the Tulare City Council approved the 711-acre Tulare Motor Sports Complex proposal in a series of split votes Monday.Councilman Richard Ortega described the vote was “a once in a lifetime” opportunity to do something that could dramatically improve the community. “We’re commonly referred to as ‘The Appalachia of the West’ and I’m not proud of that,” said Ortega, noting the latest figures peg unemployment in the area at 12.7 percent.Mayor Craig Vejvoda, Vice Mayor Phil Vandegrift joined Ortega in casting “yes” votes adopting the final environmental impact report, a general plan amendment, an oversizing reimbursement agreement and a request to initiate annexation proceedings on 965 acres.Councilmen David Macedo and Wayne Ross were opposed. Macedo reiterated his belief voters should decide the matter and Ross said the numbers just don’t add up for him. “Show me the money,” Ross said. “Show me the ability to make this a viable project,” he said.The council, again in 3-2 votes, gave initial approve to ordinances that would pre-zone land earmarked for annexation and establish a development agreement between the city, the Tulare Industrial Site Development Foundation and the Tulare Motor Sport Complex Limited Partnership. Final approval is expected in January.The general plan amendment and annexation requests must go to the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission for final approval.The four-hour council meeting Monday included nearly two hours of public testimony for and against the project and Vejvoda later praised the conduct of audience members, who spoke respectfully and kept tempers in check.“Your decorum has been absolutely exemplary,” Vejvoda said.Among the speakers was Charles Allen, the mayor of Newton, Iowa, a community of 16,000 that experienced vigorous debate before allowing a 267-acre speedway to be built on the outskirts of town in 2006.“We kept our eye on the prize,” Allen said. “Someone wanted to invest $40 million in our community.”The project was very controversial but has made Newton a destination point and increased revenues, he said, noting the city was able to reduce residential property taxes 7 percent even after the loss of its Fortune 500 company, Maytag.The speedway has been open 26 months and holds 13 Indy and other races a year, Allen said.Macedo and Ross were not swayed by his presentation.Macedo called the Iowa project “nothing at all like what we’re facing here” and suggested the council refuse to allow the drag strip portion of the project, since that will be the major source of noise.Ross reported the Newton speedway has 35 full-time employees, whose salaries are not “high-end,” a fact that causes him to continue to question the environmental impact report’s finding that the project will create the equivalent of 16,359 full-time jobs in the area.In addition to a speedway and drag strip, the proposed Tulare project also includes a technology park, retail commercial and office developments, luxury condominiums and a recreational vehicle park/resort.In addition to creating jobs, Ortega said a successful Tulare Motor Sports Complex would ensure the future of the International Agri-Center, which is facing competition from another entity that is planning a show similar to World Ag Expo in Florida, where there are more hotels, entertainment and meeting rooms.The Agri-Center is adjacent to the proposed motor sports site, which would provide World Ag Expo with additional hotel space and parking.Ortega called it “a perfect marriage.”Sacramento BeeEditorial: A half-million on spin, not sciencehttp://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/1507558.htmlWondering why California's water crisis never seems to end? Part of the answer lies with the behavior of individual water agencies.Instead of devoting their ratepayers' money to projects that might increase water supply or resolve environmental conflicts, these districts spend far too much on campaigns to assign blame or divert attention from their own actions.Such a set of campaigns is occurring now. Some of the biggest exporters of water from the Delta – the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Contra Costa Water District, the State Water Contractors and others – are targeting Sacramento for contributing to the decline of smelt and other fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In filings with regulators and in media commentaries, the south-of-Delta water agencies claim that Sacramento's treated wastewater is harming phytoplankton and hurting the ecology and water quality of the Delta."Every day, Sacramento's wastewater treatment plant sends 13 tons of ammonia downstream to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, potentially disturbing the Delta's food web in profound and destructive ways," wrote Laura King Moon, assistant general manager for the State Water Contractors, in a recent op-ed for The Bee.Is Sacramento's ammonia contributing to the Delta's decline? There is cause for concern, as we noted in an editorial in June. Scientists from San Francisco State University have found that high ammonia concentrations reduce production of diatom – a type of phytoplankton – in the San Francisco and Suisun bays, potentially harming fish.Yet if you were to read statements by the water contractors and some politicians, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, you'd think the case against Sacramento was airtight. It's not. Scientists must still determine if ammonia harms phytoplankton in the Delta in the same way it seems to do in the more salty San Francisco Bay. The impacts of ammonia must also be weighed against other stressors of the ecosystem, including exotic clams, pesticides and water diversions.In recent months, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has started to more closely examine these questions, which is appropriate. The Sacramento sanitation district has plans by 2020 to expand its discharge by 40 percent. Before it receives permits to do so, regulators need to understand the consequences.In this effort, it would be helpful if everyone involved – from water contractors to the Sacramento sanitation district – would help to advance the basic research. Determining if ammonia from Sacramento's treatment plant is actually damaging the estuary would be money well spent, especially since ammonia removal could cost the sanitation district up to $1 billion.Sadly, instead of taking such a proactive approach, the Sacramento sanitation district is spending its money in more dubious ways. Last month, the district's board – made up of Sacramento County's five supervisors and other elected officials – hired a local public affairs firm to launch a "strategic communications plan" to counter any suggestion that ammonia might pose a threat.According to a copy of the contract, this strategic plan will cost this public agency and its ratepayers an astounding $532,500 to $630,525.Such is the nature of water politics. Instead of resolving conflicts and letting science drive policy, water agencies devote enormous sums of public money to litigation, perks, wasteful spending and – above all – spin. My View: State's water woes require a broad approach...Steve Danna. Steve Danna and his family farm in Sutter and Yuba counties, growing a variety of tree and row crops. He is chairman of the Northern California Water Association, which represents agricultural water districts and agencies, private water companies, and individual water rights holders.http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/1507534.htmlIt's no secret that California is possibly facing the worst drought year in its history. Two critically dry years combined with Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pumping restrictions, climate change, and population increases have left California in a severe water shortage situation, with water supplies in major reservoirs and the groundwater basins in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California at or below historical lows To help address the state's water needs, the California Department of Water Resources unveiled its 2009 drought water bank. This is the first time the state has established a drought water bank since the last major statewide drought in 1994.The function of this state government plan is to buy water primarily from local water agencies and farmers upstream of the Delta, and make the water available for sale to public and private water systems expecting to run short of water in 2009 due to ongoing drought conditions and regulatory restrictions. Sounds great? To some maybe, but to others, it is concerning.A key concern is that expectations for water transfers are high. The state's and buyers' expectations are that about 600,000 acre-feet of water will be available for transfer. Yet water supplies in major upstream reservoirs have been stressed following the past two years of critically dry conditions. Given normal rainfall for this year, and restrictions that the state has placed on sellers' potential participation in the 2009 drought water bank, about 150,000 acre-feet of water may be a more realistic expectation. However, even that amount may be optimistic.Some claim that the 2009 drought water bank will be a "catastrophe to tributaries" and that there isn't enough water for transfers and still meet in-basin needs. This is not likely; people need to realize that Northern California's local water needs are considered top priority before any water is transferred out of the region.There are a number of policies regarding participation in the drought water bank, including criteria for transfers that are designed to minimally impact Northern California's communities, economy and the environment. Any transfers under the 2009 drought water bank will be made in accordance with state and federal environmental law, as well as local ordinances consistent with state law. This means farmers and other water rights holders in the Northern California region cannot arbitrarily sell water to other entities without regard to the effects of the water transfer on their local environment and economy.While the 2009 drought water bank is merely one component in addressing our state's water woes, it is only a short-term means of addressing the problem and not part of a long-term fix. We need to address our state's aging water infrastructure that has seen little, if any, improvement over the last 40 years despite the state's growing population.California's current and future water needs cannot be addressed in a piecemeal or reactionary manner. A comprehensive program that includes increased surface storage options, environmental water programs, flood protection, groundwater management, intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, fish passage enhancement, waterfowl habitat, watershed management and regionally tailored water use efficiency needs to be implemented. Many see light, some fear more tunnel is ahead...Andrew McIntoshhttp://www.sacbee.com/business/v-print/story/1507867.htmlLast in a four-part series.When Sacramento certified financial planner Tina Florence sat down to write Christmas cards to clients earlier this month, she added four kind words to some that had little to do with holidays."This too shall pass," she wrote, referring to her clients' portfolio account statements that are showing "breathtaking" declines ranging from 19 percent to 50 percent. "The losses have been staggering. There's been no place to hide," Florence said. Almost every type of investment – stocks, bonds, real estate – has been hit.Looking ahead to 2009, most investors fear they could be in for more losses.What should you do with your money in 2009?Florence and another Sacramento financial planner, Steven H. De Jong, echo the advice that Swiss investment banking giant UBS is offering clients around the world: "Proceed with caution."Florence and De Jong said strategies depend on individual investment goals, tolerance for risk, intended retirement dates and level of comfort with market swings.Florence says she's telling her clients not to panic and liquidate either stocks or 401(k) equity funds, though it is a good time to re-evaluate risk tolerance.De Jong doesn't think it wise for an investor to move everything into cash. But he's not against it."It's an emotional response. Some investors are overreacting," De Jong said. "But I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if you've got millions and you're losing sleep and it's affecting your health."Based on conversations with financial experts, here are some ideas about what the new year might mean for investors.U.S. stocks will probably recover. What to buy?Bob Gorman, chief portfolio strategist for TD Wealth Management, thinks the key issues in 2009 for average investors – those with 401(k)s or individual stock portfolios – are straightforward."When will the heavy volatility end? What will the floor level of the current bear market be? When will stocks begin to recover?" he said.With the Dow Jones industrial average up more than 10 percent since its November low, Gorman predicts 2009 may be a good year for U.S. equities. He believes they will recover as tax-loss selling ends and mutual fund redemptions slow – and federal stimulus policies start working.Others agree that stocks will likely recover in 2009 after a rough quarter or two. The financial Web site Kiplinger.com says the market may rise 5 percent to 8 percent for the year.UBS predicts a recovery "in the latter half of 2009," but warns that risks remain high.Dutch investment firm ING is urging its clients to buy "defensive" stocks. It likes giant multinational companies in the pharmaceutical, telecom, food and oil sectors that pay solid dividends.Gorman said he's recommending U.S. large-cap or big-company stocks and mutual funds featuring them. He thinks they offer the lowest risk and most potential rewards because valuations are low and they're more stable."These securities by just about any standard are cheap," he said.There is some belief that many investors are sitting on the sidelines waiting – with cash to invest – for signs of recovery."Once the mood shifts, we believe the flow back to equities could be dramatic," said Liz Ann Sonders, chief strategist at Charles Schwab, who made her remarks in a commentary headlined " 'Tis The Season to Be Jolly?" on Schwab's Web site.Europe, yes. Emerging markets? Not so muchFund managers like the prospects for European stocks and markets in 2009 but are less enamored with stocks from emerging markets.Standard & Poors analysts said Europe offers low risk and better rewards, with average expected yields of 6.1 percent.Not so with stocks or funds from places like China and India. TD Wealth Management, Standard & Poors and UBS suggest avoiding these markets, even if fund and stock prices are low.TD Wealth Management's Gorman – who warned about emerging-market investments in 2007 and watched the Shanghai Composite Index plunge 60 percent – says $110 billion in emerging-market corporate debt must be refinanced in 2009. "That could prove problematic," he said.That view is not unanimous. Mutual fund giant Fidelity said in a Dec. 12 note to clients that the fall of emerging-market stock values means there are deals to be had."Their stocks never became as cheap as they are now … offering historically low valuations to long-term investors," Fidelity advised.Is it time to think about rebalancing?With markets so volatile and portfolio values falling, local financial planners Florence and De Jong urge investors to watch their holdings and rebalance portfolios – but no more than twice a year."Time frames shorter than that and you're almost starting to day trade," Florence said, jokingly.De Jong prefers annual rebalancing when markets are calm, but the market turmoil has compelled him to change: He's re-examining his portfolio after six months.Despite the advice of planners like Florence and De Jong to stay invested, skittish investors have dumped stocks and funds and gone to cash. Some folks, however, have decided to turn back to equities.Public-company insiders – senior executives and directors on their boards – are heavily buying their own stock, usually a positive indicator, according to TD Wealth Management's Gorman and Schwab's Sonders. "It's broadly based and pretty meaningful," Gorman added."Corporate insiders are buying their stocks at a pace rarely seen in the past 40 years," Sonders wrote in a commentary on Schwab's Web site.Insiders at Rancho-Cordova-based American River Bankshares, parent of American River Bank and Bank of Amador, are among buyers.After its shares sank to $10 from a $22 high in 2007, five American River Bankshares' directors and its chief financial officer have bought their own stock since July.Director Amador Bustos bought two blocks of 5,000 shares at $10 each, a $100,000 bet on the company's future, reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission show.Chief executive David Taber said the group thought the shares are a good investment."We can't predict when the stock will go up, but we're getting paid to wait with a dividend yielding 6 percent," Taber said.Another investment worth a second look is corporate bonds, which will outperform state and municipal bonds in 2009, analysts said.Potential returns available from some corporate bonds are so alluring, they more than compensate for the risk of a default, UBS argues."For long-term investors, unprecedented credit valuations offer very attractive return opportunities," ING said. Stockton RecordPotato, pot-ah-to...Alex Breitler's Bloghttp://blogs.recordnet.com/sr-abreitlerTwo headlines tell a seemingly different story behind yesterday's snow surveys:"Sierra snowpack thicker than last year" (San Diego Union Tribune)"Sierra snowpack below normal, surveyors find" (San Francisco Chronicle)Both are accurate. That's how bad the water picture is in California.Sierra snowpack thicker than last year...JUDY LIN, The Associated Press...San Diego Union-Tribune http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/30/ca-sierra-snowpack-123008/?zIndex=29820SACRAMENTO, Calif. — State officials on Tuesday reported a deeper Sierra snowpack than last year but cautioned that California needs a much wetter winter to recharge its water supplies. The state Department of Water Resources reported from its first snow survey of the season, taken at an elevation of 6,800 feet near South Lake Tahoe. The snow depth measured 41 inches, compared to 29.2 inches a year ago, while the water content was 83 percent of normal. Electronic sensor readings taken throughout the range show the overall water content of the Sierra snowpack at 76 percent of normal, compared to 60 percent last year. "While today's conditions are an improvement over last year's initial snow survey figures, the strain on California's water supply persists," Lester Snow, director of the Department of Water Resources, said in a statement. Measurements of snow depth and snow water content are important because they help hydrologists forecast water supplies and deliveries for the coming year. A series of late-arriving winter storms boosted the snowpack just before Christmas, but officials say it's too early to tell whether the wet weather will continue in the months ahead. Last year, California marked its driest March and April on record. The state's water system continues to be strained by drier-than-normal weather and court-ordered restrictions on pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The reservoirs that are most crucial to the state's water-delivery system are at historic lows. Lake Oroville north of Sacramento is at 28 percent capacity. "Storage is obviously way down from where we'd like to have it," Department of Water Resources spokesman Ted Thomas said. Tuesday's results were the inverse of what officials had hoped. While snow levels in the southern Sierra are near normal, the snowpack throughout the northern Sierra is off by half. That's critical because the north supplies most of the water during the spring and summer runoff. The northern Sierra's snow water content was 54 percent of normal on Tuesday. A combination of dry weather and court-ordered restrictions have forced the state to announce it will deliver just 15 percent of the amount that local water agencies throughout California request every year. That has triggered warnings of water rationing from farmers in the Central Valley and cities from the San Francisco Bay area to San Diego. This year, water agencies received just 35 percent of the water they requested. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a drought in June after two dry seasons while court orders have restricted water pumping out of the fragile delta to protect native fish. The Bush administration told state and federal officials earlier this month to slash the amount of water sent to irrigate crops and fill city taps to save the delta smelt – a tiny, silvery fish listed as a federally threatened species. A recommendation from the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect salmon and steelhead is expected in March, adding more pressure to reduce pumping. Snow said the governor has called for building more dams and designing a new way to channel water around the state. Schwarzenegger's proposals, however, have failed to gain adequate support in the Legislature. Sierra snowpack below normal, surveyors find...Kelly Zito. Chronicle staff writer Jill Tucker contributed to this report...San Francisco Chroniclehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/MNGD150KFJ.DTL&type=printableDespite recent storms, state surveyors reported Tuesday that snow levels in the Sierra Nevada are below average for this time of year, making water rationing almost certain in 2009 with California's water supply in crisis.The water content of the snow - the key measurement for how much water will flow into reservoirs - was 83 percent of normal in Tuesday's survey, officials said, indicating a moderately dry start to the snow season after two consecutive dry years."Over the last two weeks, the snow has been good and there have been some strong storms," said senior state meteorologist Elissa Lynn. "But we're certainly not at any point yet in making up for the deficit from the last two years."In a fluffy, white field at an elevation of 6,800 feet near the base of the Sierra-at-Tahoe ski resort off Highway 50, officials took the first measurement of the season: 10 inches of water content in 41 inches of snow. Normal water content for that location is 12 inches this time of year.The information will prove critical to water managers around the state because California's water system is crumbling under the pressure of a booming state population, aging infrastructure, ongoing environmental battles and a two-year drought that has left reservoirs at rock-bottom levels and forced water cutbacks among farms and cities.Forecasters predict this will be another dry winter, based on ocean temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific that are cooler than normal, which affects global weather patterns."Unfortunately, that's frequently the sign of a dry West," Frank Gehrke, chief of snow surveys for the state Department of Water Resources, said. In October, the agency announced that it would deliver just 15 percent of the water requested by cities and farmers statewide in 2009 - the second-lowest level since deliveries began in 1962.Surveyors measure several components of the snowfall throughout the Sierra Nevada - the source of a majority of the state's water supply - at monthly intervals during the winter season. The most important reading is the snow's water content. The higher the saturation, the more potential runoff.Last season's levels were below average at the turn of the year, but sunny, windy conditions in late winter made things worse, sublimating the snowpack, Lynn said, meaning that snow evaporated from the slopes.When March and April turned into the driest spring months on record, conditions got even worse. Because the 2006-2007 winter was also dry, the parched soil soaked up even more water than usual, helping reduce runoff to only 57 percent of normal.As a result, the East Bay Municipal Utility District imposed rationing, urging single-family homes to cut water use by 19 percent, and set an overall conservation goal of 15 percent for the district's 1.2 million customers.Central Valley farmers, meanwhile, received only 40 percent of their usual water allotment - lower than the 45 percent originally estimated.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought and called on Californians to slash water use by 20 percent.Complicating matters further, a federal judge in 2007 ordered operators of the giant water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta - which funnels water to two-thirds of California - to decrease water exports by one-third in order to protect the endangered delta smelt.Against that backdrop, most water agencies are preparing for the possibility of another dry year. "It's really important for us to watch the precipitation but also our water conservation efforts," Andrea Pook, a spokeswoman for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, said Tuesday.Customers are falling short of the 15 percent conservation goal, cutting usage by 10.7 percent, she said, while the district's reservoirs are at 54 percent of normal levels.Still, forecasters cling to the hope that the rest of the season will bring a stream of cold, wet storms."It's still early on," Lynn said. "November (precipitation) was below average and we got nothing in the first two weeks of December, but January and February are usually big producers. We have a long way to go."The first part of January doesn't look good, according to the National Weather Service. A small storm is expected to reach the Bay Area on Friday and drop about one-quarter of an inch of rain, but little more is expected through the first half of the month, said Warren Blier, science officer for the agency.Folsom TelegraphStorms help bolster Folsom reservoir Rain gives lake an additional five-foot cushion ...Don Chaddockhttp://folsomtelegraph.com/detail/100934.htmlRecent storms have helped bolster Folsom Lake, replenishing what it lost during the first half of December and adding 8,500 acre feet of water. In the first two weeks of the December, the lake was down approximately 10,000 acre feet and within just 46 feet of the intake pipe that feeds water to the residents of Folsom. The intake pipe now sits a more safe distance of 51 feet below the water’s surface when measured at Folsom Dam, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In early October, Folsom Utilities Director Ken Payne said the city hoped to keep the lake’s level around 390 feet. A stage two water alert went into effect in September. The lake now sits at 371 feet and was at its lowest on Dec. 14 when it was at 366.77 feet. The intake pipe is at the 320-foot mark. "We’re in a stage two now and we operate as we are now and hope there’s a lot of rain," Payne said. According to USBR Deputy Area Manager Rick Johnson, who oversees Folsom Dam, the bureau is very aware of the water level and they are keeping a close eye on the situation. “We are watching the lake levels pretty closely,” he said. “We’re still have a way to go before we reach (the) intake (used by) the city of Folsom, Roseville and San Juan Water District.” He said the recent rainfall has meant fewer releases from the reservoir. The lake is a prime source of fresh water that can be used quickly to “flush” the Delta as part of the Central Valley Project. Even if the water dips below the 320-foot mark, Johnson doesn’t believe it will be an issue. “I’m not anticipating that (getting water to the pipe) will be a problem,” he said. Less than two years ago, the bureau floated pumps in the reservoir to get water into the pipeline while maintenance work was completed on the intake. He said if the water got too low to reach the intake, they would most likely use the same approach. The lake is still at less than 25 percent capacity. If the lake gets below 320 feet, where the city’s pipeline puts in at the dam, then the city, in theory, could run dry. “Then we actually get worried about getting water into our pipeline,” Payne said. The low lake drew the attention of state Assemblyman Ted Gaines last month when he toured the lake to see firsthand how dire the situation is. “The historic low levels at Folsom Lake are a cause for great concern not only here in Northern California, but throughout the state,” Gaines said. “California is facing a water crisis and we need to take action now to ensure we can meet California’s future water and flood control needs.” Gaines said he toured the lake to highlight the need for better water use and storage planning in the state. “We haven’t added a new water storage facility in decades,” he said. He was also concerned about the bureau releasing water from Folsom Dam Reservoir, known as Folsom Lake, to protect fish in the Delta when the water level has gotten so low. “Any release of water out of Folsom Dam should not be at the detriment of our citizens,” Gaines said. “The priority should be people get water first and environment gets water second.” Gaines said it’s time the state invested in water infrastructure needs. “The fix is additional water capacity – not only for homeowners, but for our prospering agricultural economy,” Gaines said. “Last year, in the Fresno area, we had land go fallow because of the Delta smelt issue. You could not get water down south. We’re hurting our economy and not getting water to citizens. (Water capacity) is something we’ve ignored.” Folsom City Councilman Andy Morin urges residents to continue conserving water. “As far as changing our conservation alert level in Folsom, it would be a couple of more months as we see how the winter season develops,” he said. On a recent sunny afternoon, the lake was seeing some recreational use. “I’m here for the first time this summer,” said Alex Kolisa, on vacation from the Ukraine. Kolisa and two friends were fishing along the shoreline, but hadn’t caught anything yet. “Last year, water was up here,” he said, pointing higher up Brown’s Ravine, which is now empty. At the old Red Bank ruins, featured in The Telegraph’s “From the depths” series in October, Robert Whorton walked along the remains of the old 1872 winery that is usually underwater. The winery was halfway submerged when The Telegraph visited the site the first time. It was now at least 30 feet from the water’s edge. Whorton drove from Sacramento to see the ruins and says he’s familiar with the lake. “I’ve been out here before,” he said. “When I was a kid, my folks would drive out to the overlook so we could watch them building the dam.” He expected to see the water as low as it was, he said. “I’m not really surprised,” he said. “This is probably the second lowest the lake has been.” Don Chaddock may be reached at donc@goldcountrymedia.com. Check out how the lake has turned up hidden secrets with The Telegraph's "From the Depths" series. San Francisco ChronicleAG joins environmental fight...Wednesday, December 31, 2008http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/EDPA151558.DTL&type=printableWhat we said: "The countdown to January has begun, and the Bush administration is starting to roll out a long, foul list of last-minute policy changes. If its proposal to gut the Endangered Species Act is any indication of what it has in mind, we all have cause to be frightened of the next several months. The proposal, which does not require congressional approval, would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether or not that highway, dam or mine they want to build would adversely impact any endangered species - instead of turning the matter over to independent government scientists in the Fish & Wildlife Service, the way that they've done for 35 years." - Editorial, Aug. 17, 2008What happened:The Bush-proposed regulations became final on Dec. 16, despite vigorous opposition from environmentalists and members of Congress.What's next:A legal fight. California Attorney General Jerry Brown jumped into the fray this week by filing suit in federal court over what he called an "audacious attempt" by the Bush administration to undermine the core of an Endangered Species Act that has been on the books for 35 years. Three similar suits had already been filed by environmental groups.{rdrsp}What you can do:Encourage Brown to stay in this fight. For contact information, go to ag.ca.gov/contact/index.php. Or send postal mail to him at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento CA, 94244.California joins groups in species-act suit...Bob Egelkohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/BAH5151F6E.DTL&type=printableState Attorney General Jerry Brown is challenging the Bush administration's attempt to narrow scientific review of development that might hurt endangered species, joining environmental groups that have sued in San Francisco over the government's hotly disputed regulatory changes."The Bush administration is seeking to gut the Endangered Species Act on its way out the door," Brown said in a statement Tuesday after filing suit a day earlier in U.S. District Court.Major environmental organizations went to court two weeks ago to contest the regulations, which took effect Dec. 16. Although the suits claim the regulations violate the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws, none of the plaintiffs has asked for an order halting enforcement of the new rules before President-elect Barack Obama takes office Jan. 20."We'd like to give the new administration a chance to respond," said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed the first suit. He said the Obama administration, after taking over defense of the suit, could agree to suspend the regulations while it works on new rules.The regulations apply to federal agencies that approve projects on land owned or regulated by the federal government - for example, logging or mining in national forests or underwater drilling or dredging. In the past, agencies have been required to consult with scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service about whether a project might affect an endangered species or its habitat, and, if so, what protective measures are needed. The new regulations allow an agency to decide whether effects on an endangered species are too trivial to require that government scientists be consulted. The rules give a scientific agency 60 days to object to being bypassed. Environmental groups say it is virtually impossible for an agency to respond that quickly because of a huge volume of cases.The Bush administration's regulations also declare that global warming is not covered by the Endangered Species Act, and that federal agencies have no duty to consider the possible effect of development on climate change before deciding whether a project threatens a species. That provision followed Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's announcement May 14 that he was listing the polar bear as a threatened species because of its dwindling sea ice habitat, but that the listing would not lead to restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases from any specific source such as power plants, cars or oil drilling in Arctic waters.Asked Tuesday about the new regulations, Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher cited Kempthorne's comments."The secretary said the Endangered Species Act was never intended to be a way to address global climate change," she said, because the law focuses on the effects of individual development projects on species and their habitat.Overall, she said, the Bush administration's new regulations allow federal agencies to "do more to protect species." That's because the rules require consultation with government scientists only on projects that could cause significant harm, she said. But Brown and environmental groups say the changes strike at the heart of the law."It's a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse," Greenwald said, because the same agency that has been promoting a project will decide whether it needs to consult with scientists.Brown called the new regulations "an audacious attempt to circumvent a time-tested statute that for 35 years has required scientific review of federal agency decisions that affect wildlife."His lawsuit drew criticism from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a property-rights group that often represents developers. Its president, Rob Rivett, said the Bush administration regulations allow federal agencies to rely on in-house experts to conduct their own environmental assessments "without redundant bureaucratic reviews."The attorney general's "showboating threatens to stall America's economic recovery," Rivett said, "because we need the regulatory streamlining that Brown is opposing."Who loses when the state plants trout? Maybe the angler...Roland A. Knapp. Roland A. Knapp is a research biologist at the University of California Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory in Mammoth Lakes and has conducted research on California's mountain lakes for more than a decade.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/EDRV150OSL.DTL&type=printableCalifornia anglers are concerned that an agreement to limit stocking nonnative trout in California lakes and streams in 2009 while the state prepares an environmental impact report on the stocking program will rob them of opportunities to fish. Not so. The agreement allows stocking to continue in all large reservoirs, by private businesses and in areas where the state Department of Fish and Game knows there are no sensitive native species. The areas where stocking will be limited offers a reasonable compromise that balances the interests of anglers with the need to protect native species. It is not true that these waters will never be stocked again. Futue stocking will depend on the results of the EIR and whether it is determined that these waters can be stocked without contributing to the extinction of native species. Research shows, for example, that the California golden trout, our state fish, is at severe risk of extinction because of predation by introduced brown trout and hybridization with introduced rainbow trout. Likewise, species like the mountain yellow-legged frog, Cascades frog, and long-toed salamander rarely survive where nonnative trout have been stocked. Stocking of nonnative trout is also a potential vector of diseases like the amphibian chytrid fungus that is having devastating consequences for many native amphibians. In addition, trout stocking can result in the inadvertent introduction of harmful invasive species like the New Zealand mud snail, a species found recently at the department's Hot Creek Hatchery. The fact that trout stocking has been ongoing for more than 100 years does not mean it is benign. The EIR will provide the public with their first opportunity to take a careful look at all aspects of the state's trout stocking program. The paradigm that more fish stocking makes for better fishing underlies much of the stocking program and deserves particular scrutiny. Recent research conducted in the High Sierra shows that most stocked lakes actually harbor self-sustaining trout populations and that ongoing stocking has no effect on trout densities. So, in these hundreds of lakes, stocking is just a waste of angler dollars. Similarly, studies in Montana conducted in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that stocking of catchable trout into rivers and streams actually caused decreases in overall trout densities. Based on the results of these studies, in 1974 Montana stopped all stocking of flowing waters (to large protests from anglers) and the result was dramatic increases in trout populations.Clearly, a long, hard look at California's fish stocking program is long overdue.Agreement to take down Klamath dams? Not likely...Ani Kame'enui. (Ani Kame'enui is the Klamath campaign coordinator for Oregon Wild, an educational and scientific organization that works to protect and restore Oregon's wildlands, wildlife and water. www.oregonwild.org.)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/EDRV150MGT.DTL&type=printableThe Klamath Basin agreement for removal of the river's lower four dams, is 32 pages long. I am beginning to wonder if those commenting in support of the it only made it through the first two-and-a-half pages. A thorough read of the document reveals that the devil is most certainly in the details.A diverse group has worked for dam removal in one of the West's most debated and ecologically valuable watersheds. Unfortunately, rather than a road map for dam removal, the recently signed tentative agreement is the dysfunctional product of a Bush-led Department of Interior - an agency that has failed the Klamath time and again over the last eight years. It is a mystery why cooperating parties, including the states of Oregon and California, would allow a lame-duck president to lay a faulty foundation for Klamath Basin policy for President-elect Barack Obama. There is no doubt that dam removal is necessary to restore the Klamath River's salmon runs, and the cultures and wildlife that depend on a healthy river. However, the agreement would delay any work to remove the harmful dams until 2020.While the delayed time line is troubling, even worse is the provision that strips Oregon and California of their ability to keep Klamath River water clean. The agreement allows PacifiCorp to bypass Clean Water Act certification, a process viewed as an insurmountable hurdle on the road to dam relicensing. Rather than mandating a change from conditions that led to toxic water and dead salmon, the agreement guarantees status-quo management for at least another decade.Read deeper into the document and realize it is rife with "get out of jail free" cards for dam-owner PacifiCorp. To start, the agreement isn't even a final dam removal deal; it's simply a commitment to talk about a deal.Long before any dam is removed, the agreement requires a cost-benefit analysis of dam removal (even though such studies have already been done); and legislation in by both Oregon and California to raise a combined $450 million from a general bond paid for by taxpayers and rate increases to power customers (despite the fact that PacifiCorp's parent company holds assets worth nearly $40 billion). It is no wonder PacifiCorp has signed onto this deal.There is no guarantee PacifiCorp will ever be required to remove the Klamath River dams.Perhaps the greatest flaw in the agreement is its link to the Bush-backed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which requires nearly $1 billion from federal taxpayers at a time when the national economy is suffering. It would also require Congress to lock in Klamath River flows that fail to meet the scientifically established needs of salmon, and extend commercial agricultural development for another 50 years on the two most important National Wildlife Refuges in the western United States.In order to create long-term resolution to the Klamath Basin's water resource challenges, we must develop a plan that brings water demands back into balance with what the region can naturally provide. Such a balance can be better accomplished through a realistic plan for dam removal without making sacrifices for PacifiCorp, by phasing out commercial agriculture on National Wildlife Refuge land, and using good science to inform local and federal management of river flows and wetlands in the basin. Getting past the hoopla that talk of tearing down dams always creates, we can see the recent agreement on the Klamath for what it really is: an empty promise. Toxic algae will still flow in the river; threatened salmon may still die by the tens of thousands; bald eagles will still alight in a National Wildlife Refuge planted with potatoes bound for market. It is certainly time for a new direction in the Klamath. Sadly, we are being offered more of the same.To learn more Read The Chronicle report by Peter Fimrite, "Step taken toward removing Klamath River dams, " Nov. 13, www.sfgate.com/ZFTXRead The Chronicle editorial, "A plan to unleash the Klamath River," Nov. 14, www.sfgate.com/ZFTYIf it's American honey, it's likely not organic...Andrew Schneider, Seattle Post-Intelligencerhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/31/MNH4151KSU.DTL&type=printableWhen it comes to sizing up the purity of the honey you buy, you're pretty much on your own.You may be paying more for honey labeled "certified organic" or feel reassured by the "USDA Grade A" seal, but the truth is, there are few federal standards for honey, no government certification and no consequences for making false claims.For American-made honey, the "organic" boast, experts say, is highly suspect. Beekeepers may be doing their part, but honeybees have a foraging range of several miles, exposing them to pesticides, fertilizers and pollutants on their way back to the hive.And while they're required to put the country of origin on the label--a fact that could help guide wary consumers--some honey producers don't bother.The head of one major honey company advises caution and warns that in the United States there's confusion over label terminology and inconsistent enforcement of labeling laws."There is honey out there that is illegally and purposely mislabeled, an adulterated product that is very difficult to stop," said Dwight Stoller, chief executive of Kansas-based Golden Heritage Foods. "There's probably not a lot, but it's still a real issue and consumers must be aware of that."Unless a shopper buys honey from a farmers market, where they can talk to the person who raised the bees and bottled the honey, they're relying on what's printed on the label.Major supermarkets offer dozens of different brands, sizes, types and flavors of honey for sale. Consumers might walk away with the finest-tasting, highest-quality honey there is. Or they could end up with an unlabeled blend, adulterated with impossible-to-detect cheap sweeteners or illegal antibiotics.Part of this is because of the government's failure to define what true honey is, but the blame also goes to a handful of sleazy honey packers who buy and sell cut-rate foreign honey, which usually has little problem slipping past overstretched customs inspectors.The Seattle P-I surveyed 60 honey products commonly sold in the Pacific Northwest and found glowing praises of healthfulness, sincere promises of quality and an endless selection of advertising adjectives touting honey as the true elixir."100% Pure." "U.S. Grade A Pure." "U.S. Grade 1." "America's Best Honey." "U.S. Choice." "Natural and Pure."The list goes on and on, but it's mostly hype, experts say."If somebody puts 'U.S. Grade A' on there, who's going to say it isn't?" said Harriet Behar, outreach coordinator with the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service. "There's no enforcement, so people can say whatever they want."The government takes a minor role in the grading of honey. It's left entirely up to the industry.Stoller was the only one willing to discuss it openly. His company, with beekeeping roots going back 90 years, is one of the nation's largest suppliers of honey to retail outlets, the food-processing industry and food service and restaurant-supply companies.The government, he said, doesn't have the resources to set and enforce needed standards. And that leads to inaccurate or misleading labeling."Some packers just slap on whatever they feel like," he said. "Whatever they believe will attract the shopper to their product."Where things really get sticky is the selling of "organic" honey--sold in some form by every major chain.Government, academic and industry experts insist that U.S. organic honey is a myth. With rare exceptions, this country is too developed and uses too many agricultural and industrial chemicals to allow for the production of organic honey."Like other foods from free-roaming, wild creatures, it is difficult--and in some places impossible--to assure that honey bees have not come in contact with prohibited substances, like pesticides," said Chuck Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center, a national advocacy group for the research and promotion of organic food.Recent U.S. Department of Agriculture research, he said, shows that the average hive contains traces of five or more pesticide residues.Arthur Harvey of the International Association of Organic Inspectors, who doubles as a Maine beekeeper, said two factors must be considered when attempting to produce organic honey: what the beekeeper puts into the hive, such as chemicals or medication of any kind; and the location of the hive.Can the bee fly to a place that can be a source of potential contamination?Harvey shares the concerns of many that there are no real USDA standards for organic honey."What USDA has said is that you can certify any product as organic as long as you comply with existing regulation, but there are no regulations for honey," he said. "That means the green USDA organic sticker on honey is meaningless."Across the globe, there are 30 different, wide-ranging certification standards for organic honey, but there's no way for inspectors to detect fraud, Harvey said. The USDA, he said, has never levied a fine for a violation of organic rules--for honey or any other product.The Naturally Preferred honey brand, widely distributed by the Kroger supermarket chain, has a USDA seal on the front label. On the back, it boasts, "Certified Organic by the Washington State Department of Agriculture."Not so, say state officials.The Washington State Department of Agriculture doesn't certify honey "because we have no standards for organic honey," said agency spokesman Mike Louisell."It shouldn't have WSDA on its label," he said, "because we don't do it."Jerry Hayes, chief of the apiary section for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said there are no organic standards for honey in the United States because honeybees forage in a 2 to 2 1/2-mile radius of their colonies."They're flying dust mops and will pick up unbelievable amounts of environmental contaminants," Hayes said.Unlike most states, Florida has 15 full-time inspectors, a lab and other resources dedicated to ensuring honey quality, and the state is poised to do what the federal government hasn't--pass a law defining what honey is.Consumers stand to benefit, said Dr. Marion Aller, who heads Florida's food safety division."This will make enforcement of food safety easier," he said.Aller said the honey industry supports the move because it's increasingly concerned that products touted as "pure" actually may be cut with other sugars or syrups.Washington has no apiculture inspectors, largely because there isn't the budget for it.Claudia Coles, food safety manager for the Agriculture Department, said her staff inspects Washington's honey producers for sanitary practices only, as it does with 1,700 other licensed food processors statewide."But the quality analysis of honey - determining what's really in the bottle - isn't something we have funding for," she said. "We struggle first with issues of E. coli,pathogens that make people sick with acute illnesses."Some U.S. producers say they're confident offering certain foreign organic honeys to the public.Mike Ingalls, president of Pure Foods Inc. in Sultan, recently stood beside a stack of brown steel drums in his warehouse. It's all marked "Organic Honey" and "Product of Argentina" - and each drum carries a sticker with a tracking number."I can use that number to track the honey back to the supplier in Argentina and the specific beehives in latitude and longitude and degrees, minutes and seconds," he said, "so I can plot precisely where those hives were, and that they were at least six miles away from any cultivated crop."While Canada also produces some authentic organic honey, Ingalls said that product is currently in short supply so he's had to turn to South American imports.As for the domestic variety, he added: "We don't produce any organic honey in the United States."The industry hopes Florida's proposed honey standard is adopted by other states and the USDA.If so, it may provide law enforcement the tools it needs to stop the flood of adulterated honey products.Honey brokers and scientists say that not only is Chinese honey being laundered in other countries to avoid stiff U.S. tariffs and inspections, but also it's being sold as "malt sweetener," "blended syrup" and "rice syrup."Florida's inspectors say some honey exported from China and India is put through an ultra-filtration process that is meant to remove contaminants. Honey is heavily diluted with water, then repeatedly boiled and filtered until it returns to a more natural consistency. Those who have tested and tasted the filtered brew said the process can completely remove all traces of contaminants, "including the color."But there's a downside."In the process of taking out the chemicals, they also take out all the good qualities of the honey. What the consumer is left with is a very low-quality, sweet product--but certainly not honey," said Mark Brady, president of the American Honey Producers Association."If it is cheap and packers can use it to blend into other dark, cheap honey to make it lighter in color and taste a tad better, the ignorant general consumer is none the wiser. Caveat emptor," he warned.A warning consumers should be getting, but often don't, is a disclosure of where their honey came from.Federal law requires that the country of origin be printed on food labels, but many companies offer no clue.Nondisclosing companies range from small producers, such as Haggen Honey, distributed from Bellingham, Wash., and Anna's Honey, distributed by Seattle Gourmet Foods, to national distributors such as Target and Wal-Mart.A Target spokeswoman wouldn't disclose where the discount retailer's honey came from. But she said the Market Pantry Grade A honey "meets all USDA and FDA inspection standards."Linda Brown Blakley, a Wal-Mart senior spokesperson, said it's her "understanding" that "if the honey is produced domestically, country of origin need not be included on the label."However, USDA says honey is considered a "perishable agricultural commodity" and country of origin is required.The label on Heins Organic Trail Honey, packaged by Pure Foods, errs on the side of overdisclosure, listing five countries of origin: U.S., Canada, China, Argentina and Australia. Ingalls, however, said that, too, isn't exactly right: He no longer imports from China and is just using up old labels.Besides its certified organic claims, Kroger's Naturally Preferred honey also carries the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.That puzzles honey experts such as Behar."I don't know how Good Housekeeping can do this. They don't know anything about honey standards," she said.Good Housekeeping--a magazine owned by Hearst, the P-I's parent company--confirmed that, in 2005, Naturally Preferred honey qualified for the seal, a status that expired last month.A magazine spokesperson said food products considered for the seal of approval are evaluated for nutritional value based on "federal, standard guidelines."The USDA, however, said it doesn't have such standards for honey.Consumer advocates warn shoppers not to put too much stock in seals of approval--or even claims that the supermarket product with "honey" in the name actually contains any.Pringles' Honey Buttered Wheat Stix, for example, doesn't list honey among its 30-plus ingredients.A company representative said the snack is made in Thailand and contains artificial honey flavoring, not real honey. "We call it 'honey butter' because that's what it tastes like," she said.Honey Graham Crackers do contain honey--it's on the ingredient list after sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Ditto for Nabisco's Honey Maid Grahams and 16 other brands of "honey" crackers, snacks and cereals the P-I inspected.Paul van Westendorp, the provincial apiculturist for British Columbia's Ministry of Agriculture, said that in Canada, there are renewed calls to tighten the regulations of honey labeling."The erosion of the label 'honey' has been going on for decades and beekeepers have often been frustrated by the big food processors such as General Mills, Kellogg's and many others for using honey in their product-line advertising while the product contains little or no honey," he said."Is the consumer getting cheated? That depends entirely on what the label says. The difference, of course, is that this type of product is typically sold to the . . . uninformed consumer."That practice is commonplace, said Diane Dunaway, who has studied honey marketing and is editor of Bee-scene magazine, produced for Canadian beekeepers in British Columbia and elsewhere."It's come down to consumers taking the time to read the ingredients list on the product label versus the marketing text," she said."The folks who make Pringles aren't the first to exploit the health-inspiring word 'honey' for profit. Companies like these and other food processors are relying on the dumbing down of consumer awareness," Dunaway said.As warm and cuddly as the honeybee is to Madison Avenue, she warned food processors to tread carefully."Hell hath no fury like a soccer mom scorned!" Contra Costa TimesWeather signs point to another dry year...Mike Taugherhttp://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11338884Despite recent storms, California's snowpack remains below average, with more bad news on the horizon — ocean conditions have shifted in a way that probably means Southern California will be thirstier than normal in 2009.The return of La Niña conditions after a six-month hiatus does not guarantee a third dry year in a row, but state water officials say it could signal a repeat of last year, when a fairly normal-looking snow season ended in drought.That would be bad because the state's reservoirs are depleted from back-to-back dry years. Making matters more difficult is that the Delta environment, the hub of the water system on which most of the state depends, has deteriorated so badly that courts and regulators are imposing tougher restrictions on water managers.News that ocean conditions switched from neutral to La Niña comes as state snow surveyors announced the results of an end-of-the-year check — the snowpack is about 76 percent of average nearly halfway through the water year. "Even though the last few weeks have been great, it's still below normal," said Department of Water Resources senior meteorologist Elissa Lynn. "The worry now with La Niña back, there's a concern that the second half of the winter or the spring could shut off," Lynn said. "We were hoping we weren't in one and that we could have a whole winter."La Niña is associated with cooler ocean temperatures off South America's western coast. It usually means dry conditions in the Southwest — though last year was an exception — and wet conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Northern California, between those two regions, cannot use either La Niña nor El Niño as a reliable predictor of weather.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in an update Monday that La Niña conditions were present and likely to continue for the next several months. A La Niña has to be in place for a longer period of time before it is characterized as a full-fledged "episode."But what concerns water managers is the possibility that, like last year, the snow season could end abruptly. "Last year, we didn't get anything (rain or snow) in March and April," Lynn said. "One of the reasons it stopped last year on March 1 was we were in La Niña."Water managers were caught badly off-guard last year because a healthy looking snowpack vanished, either soaking into the dry ground or being converted, or sublimated, into water vapor instead of melting into streams.As a result, state and federal water managers promised more water to contractors from the Bay Area to San Diego than was available and had to deplete reservoirs more than they would have otherwise. Lake Oroville, the main source of stored water for the State Water Project, which sends water to parts of the East Bay, Kern County, the Central Coast and Southern California is about 28 percent full — less than half of normal for this time of year.With water getting scarcer and the water deliveries being blamed for the steep decline of fish species in the Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast, 2009 is likely to be pivotal as state officials push plans for new canals and dams, regulators impose new restrictions on water supplies to protect the environment and several lawsuits challenging water decisions make their way through the courts.Los Angeles TimesCalifornia sues federal government over changes in Endangered Species ActThe state attorney general's office says new rules put California's threatened and endangered wildlife in greater danger and could cost the state more to protect the plants and animals on the list...Julie Carthttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-species31-2008dec31,0,6226081,print.storyCalifornia Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown filed suit against the federal government Tuesday, charging that a recent rule change by the Bush administration illegally gutted provisions of the Endangered Species Act, essentially quashing the role of science in decisions made by federal agencies.Ken Alex, senior assistant attorney general, said the state took the action because it has both the legal right and the moral responsibility to protect California's environment and resources. The new federal rules, he said, could put California's threatened and endangered wildlife in greater jeopardy and could ultimately cost the state more to protect plants and animals on California's Endangered Species List.The federal rules, made final on Dec. 16, eliminated mandated independent scientific review of federal agency plans if the agency determined the projects pose no threat to protected species. Further, the new rules removed the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gases on protected species and their habitat.Critics argued that agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management do not have sufficient scientific expertise to properly evaluate threats to wildlife. And, they said, the rules would make it more difficult to protect animals such as the polar bear, which was placed on the Endangered Species List because of the effects of climate change on the bear's melting habitat.In announcing the new rules, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne emphasized that the modifications were minimal and did not amend the law. He said the changes were common-sense streamlining of bureaucratic processes and would not imperil protected species."We absolutely disagree," Alex said. "These regulations are illegal. It's consistent with the Bush administration's attack on science."Several environmental groups have also sued over the changes, and Alex said it was likely the cases will be combined, possibly in a California court. An Interior spokesman said the agency does not comment on lawsuits. It is not uncommon for California to sue the federal government. In recent years the state has taken on Washington regarding federal forest policy, clean-air and clean-water rules, and automobile emissions standards.Alex said California has won practically every case that has been ruled on.Advocacy group criticizes California transportation wish listThe state plans to spend 31% of federal road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects, the group says...Patrick McGreevyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transpo31-2008dec31,0,2270943,print.storyCalifornia officials are counting on Washington to inject billions of dollars in transportation money to help revive the state economy. But a public advocacy group said the state's wish list of projects would undermine efforts to repair and modernize the state's crumbling infrastructure and reduce U.S. dependence on oil. The California Public Interest Research Group reports that the state plans to spend 31% of road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects. By contrast, the group said, Massachusetts would commit 100% of its road funds to repairs. "We can't afford to waste precious resources on new highways at the expense of ready-to-go projects to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges and expand public transportation," said spokeswoman Erin Steva. The group also faulted the California Department of Transportation's list, saying that only 37% of the funds would flow to public transportation. The group called for a higher percentage, citing the record ridership on California's mass transit systems, which have been hit by severe cutbacks in recent years. The proposed percentage isless than what is being planned in Tennessee, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, CALPIRG said. Caltrans spokesman Benjamin DeLanty defended the list, saying that it was an initial response to a request from members of Congress for possible projects and may change as federal legislation and state needs evolve. "We note that the list provided included a fairly even distribution among capital, maintenance and mass transportation projects," DeLanty said. "However, that list continues to be a work in progress and is not definitive."North County TimesTEMECULA: Milestone in water rights negotiationsPechanga, agency put together framework for a lasting agreement...AARON CLAVERIEhttp://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/12/31/news/californian/temecula/zdc4ff9cd702b635e882575240071f968.txtTEMECULA ---- Leaders of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the Rancho California Water District say they have put together the framework for lasting water rights peace in the Temecula Valley.Whether this framework turns into actual legislation that is approved by the U.S. Congress remains to be seen. Matt Stone, Rancho Water's general manager, said recently that he is cautiously optimistic.But he added, "there is still more work to do."Congress is part of the equation because any money given to the Pechanga tribe as part of the Indian Water Rights Settlement must be approved in a piece of legislation.Under the 1908 settlement, the federal government pledged to provide sufficient water resources to tribes forced to live on reservations.The work Stone referenced is complicated because a sovereign tribal nation, the federal government, the Santa Margarita River Basin and the always politically sensitive resource of water are involved.Both the tribe and the district draw water from aquifers in the basin ---- 750 square miles stretching from Southwest County to northern San Diego County.In the last few years, the tribe and the district have been trying to cordially hash out competing claims to the water in those aquifers without going to court, an expensive and time-consuming process that both parties said they are hoping to avoid.This month, the tribe and the district sent out a press release announcing the completion of a framework that could lead to a settlement of the claims.Normally, a framework wouldn't rate a press release, but Stone said the negotiations that produced the it were noteworthy due to the participation of the Metropolitan Water District and a team appointed by the U.S. Department of Interior.The huge district, which supplies water to much of Southern California, has agreed to supplement the Santa Margarita River Basin's supply if the federal government pays for it, he said.One of the details left to be ironed out is the price the federal government is willing to pay for that water.If an agreement is reached on that item, an expenditure of federal funds ultimately will need to be approved by Congress.Stone said the negotiations with the Pechanga are complicated by the sovereign status of its neighbor.A matter of competing claims would be settled in California courts if the district was negotiating with just another community or water district, he said.When a tribe is involved, all of the laws governing a tribe's water supply and federal law are added to the mix.Pechanga officials said Metropolitan and the Interior team worked cooperatively with the tribe and Rancho during the negotiations to address the tribe's claims and the need to manage effectively the scarce water resources in the basin.Under the framework, Pechanga ---- which means "place where the water drips" ---- will secure physical access to water supplies equal to the amount they were awarded in a federal court order called the "Fallbrook Decree," about 5,000 acre-feet of water a year.An acre-foot of water equals 326,000 gallons, about the amount two families use in a typical year.A "decreed amount" ---- or paper rights ---- is comparable to an IOU. Physical access, also called "wet water rights," serves as the payment of that IOU.In addition to firming up the tribe's supply in the negotiations, tribal officials said they expect Rancho will sign off on providing more water from the Wolf Valley Basin and other sources as outlined in a new agreement.In early 2007, the tribe and the district each agreed to draw up to 489 million gallons per year from Wolf Valley's aquifer. District officials said they expect this 2007 agreement will be finalized and folded into the new agreement.In exchange for that increased supply, the Pechanga have agreed to provide to Rancho Water a portion of federal funds the tribe expects to receive as part of its rights settlement.That money ---- which could run from $10 million to $20 million, according to district officials ---- will be used by the district to build a new desalination plant to treat wastewater, said Meggan Reed, a spokeswoman for the district.The new supply of treated wastewater will be sold to farms, freeing up enough water for 70,000 homes, Reed said.Another part of the negotiations involves the tribe and the district agreeing on what's called a "dry year supply agreement." This agreement, when finalized, would provide the district with access to additional water resources during periods of drought.The details of how that access would be accomplished are still being worked out, Pechanga officials said.CNN MoneyThousands of stores to disappear in 2009Experts say disastrous holiday sales will force many more merchants into bankruptcy - and ultimately into liquidation...Parija B. Kavilanzhttp://money.cnn.com/2008/12/31/news/economy/retail_closures/index.htm?postversion=2008123113NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The ugly sales year that was 2008 will haunt U.S. retailers in 2009, with industry experts warning that disastrous holiday sales will spark a domino effect of store closures and bankruptcy filings.And, with thousands of fewer stores, the "shop-'til-you-drop" mentality that has characterized American consumerism could be coming to an end. "There's going to be a massive sea change in the retail landscape," said Nina Kampler, executive vice president with Hilco Real Estate, which advises retailers on their property management. She said many strip shopping centers already have multiple big-box vacancies after several large stores filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Some eventually went out of business. When that happens, the smaller stores in the strip centers can't attract the requisite customer traffic to stay productive and profitable. Michael Burden, principal with industry adviser Excess Space Retail Services, expects as many as 14,000 stores will close in 2009. "We could see among the highest ever number of closures," he said.He said states such as Nevada, California and Florida will be especially hard hit.The International Council of Shopping Centers estimates that chain store closings could exceed 3,100 in just the first half of the year.Burden's firm, whose 450 U.S. retail clients include Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), Home Depot (HD, Fortune 500), J.C. Penney (JCP, Fortune 500) and Sears (SHLD, Fortune 500), helps retailers in the disposition of their surplus real estate.He said most merchants will be in a "bunker" mentality. "It's about survivability," he said. "Retailers have to really fight to live another day and do what they can to get through to 2010."Burden said that means closing underperforming stores, shedding stores under bankruptcy restructuring, and even "right-sizing" stores - shrinking the store size or moving to a smaller location."We'll see a lot of shaking out of the industry," he said, adding that no sector will be spared. "Apparel, home furnishings, home improvement, electronics, luxury sellers will all close stores."Consumer impactFor consumers, it will mean both fewer stores to shop and possibly less brand variety on shelves."Retailers across the board from top-end luxury to mom-and-pop stores on Main Street are feeling a gigantic consumer [spending] choke from people's perceived and actual loss of wealth," said Kampler."At the end of the day, people are buying far less stuff. They are buying what they need as opposed to what they want," she said.This spending slump, which started in early 2008, has already claimed a number of retail casualties. Prominent national chains such as Linens 'n Things, Steve & Barry's, KB Toys, Whitehall Jewelers and Shoe Pavilion have gone out of business.Still others such as No. 2 electronics seller Circuit City are barely surviving, hoping to find a lifeline while in bankruptcy protection.But after suffering one of the worst year-end shopping seasons in decades - November and December combined can account for half of merchants' annual profits and sales - experts predict that many more chains will disappear.Kampler said she personally knows of "dozens" of retailers who are taking a very hard look at their entire business. She declined to identify them due to confidentiality agreements."They are considering closing entire divisions or restructuring parts of their business that they want to keep," she saidAs retailers' sales continue to tumble and mall traffic evaporates, one of the biggest challenges for sellers is their rent occupancy costs. Kampler explained that the amount of rent a retailer can comfortably pay for a given store location is proportionately related to the volume of sales generated at that location. Ideally, she said a retailer's occupancy cost should be equal to 10% of its sales. But a long stretch of slumping sales and rising mall vacancies can dramatically push up the occupancy costs. "Once rent and occupancy costs hit the 20% to 25% of sales threshold, you are treading water," she said. "You can't run a viable business with those numbers". Also, once a retailer faces a cash shortage, the likely next step is to file for bankruptcy protection. To that end, Kampler predicts that retail bankruptcy filings will " be huge" in January.But given the implosive impact of the overall economy on the retail sector, Kampler said filing for bankruptcy could be the death knoll for those merchants. "It used to be that when [a company] filed for bankruptcy, it was to restructure its debt and realign its operations in order to emerge alive," she said."Now it's almost impossible to restructure," she said, pointing out that a significant number of retailers that did file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this year have eventually gone into liquidation. Burden agreed with Kampler."Companies in bankruptcy aren't getting debtor-in-possession financing," he said. "This will continue in 2009."Burden said his firm historically advised retailers to always re-evaluate the bottom 10% to 15% of their store base, or the poorest-performing stores in their portfolio, for closures.But given the level of anxiety in the industry about a severe spending freeze, he said many retailers are already looking at closing up to 25% to 30% of their store base."Obviously fewer stores means less choice for consumers," he said. "I think the whole consumer economy is being recalibrated," said Kampler. "It's something that's not been done in decades. I think it will be a three-year recalibration of consumer behavior and expectations."While it's something that she believes is "unavoidable" and will hit the economy in terms of more job losses, she hopes it will also change the consumers' buy-at-all-cost shopping mentality."Consumers are used to thinking about buying 50 T-shirts, 10 pairs of jeans and 6 sneakers," she said. "Do we really need all this stuff? Ultimately we will all be buying less."