2-6-09

 
2-6-09
Merced Sun-Star
Saying it's a bargain, Merced renews lobby deal
Lobbying firm will represent city's interests in Sacramento and Washington...SCOTT JASON
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/676553.html
It may be the best return on investment, or simply evidence of how complicated government, even at the state level, has become.
Merced this week renewed its $65,000 contract with Townsend Public Affairs, the lobbying firm it hired two years ago to represent its interests in Sacramento and, when warranted, Washington, D.C.
In a report to the City Council, city administrators touted Townsend with helping them land $21.5 million in grant funding for three projects.
While state and federal leaders work on behalf of the areas they represent, it's often the lobbyists -- and their relationships with behind-the-scene players -- who grease the wheels of government.
"It's so large, and there are so many nuances," city spokesman Mike Conway said. "Even a city the size of Merced needs the help."
So does the county. It has a state lobbyist on a yearly $45,000 contract. It pays $56,700 to a federal lobbyist.
"It should be money well spent," county spokeswoman Katie Albertson said. "(Lobbying the government) is very competitive these days. It's the way it works."
City leaders credit Townsend with helping land $9 million from Proposition 1B for the G Street undercrossing, another $12 million for the first phase of the Campus Parkway and $500,000 from the federal government to study how to keep Black Rascal Creek from flooding.
The Irvine-based firm, with offices in Sacramento, Oakland and Washington, includes a transportation expert who knows how to tweak grant applications so they're more likely to be approved, Conway said.
With the G Street underpass project, for example, the city touted how it would improve air quality and help commerce because delivery trucks wouldn't be stalled at train crossings. It won approval last year.
The city's also hoping its lobbyist can help it get a piece of the federal government's economic stimulus package as its details are hashed out, Conway said.
Christopher Townsend, president of the firm, likened lobbying to hiring an attorney to deal with a court case. People can represent themselves, but it doesn't always result in the best outcomes.
His firm mainly represents cities, including Oakland and Fresno, as well as nonprofit agencies.
This year, his staff is trying to secure park funding for Merced from Prop. 84, a $5.4 billion bond measure passed in 2006. It has also set up meetings between Mayor Ellie Wooten and key state decision-makers, he said.
His staff is also talking with state and federal officials in case more foreclosure aid becomes available.
Merced's state representatives are always fighting for their districts, but don't always know the back-channels of government, such as the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, which gave $1.9 million to the Merced Theatre restoration effort.
As government revenue shrinks, the knee-jerk reaction might be to cut lobbyists in the face of City Hall layoffs, Townsend said.
However, the federal government is set to send out billions of dollars. Even the state, despite its massive budget shortfall, has billions more in bond money to hand out.
"The smart cities, including Merced, are gearing up for that," he said. "There's going to be a lot at play."
Modesto Bee
Riverbank group objects to city plan...Leslie Albrecht
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/590369.html
RIVERBANK -- Riverbank is poised to approve its first general plan update in more than 20 years, but one community group wants the city to delay the vote because of changes to the plan's farmland preservation policies.
Riverbank Watch says it was left out of discussions about changes to the general plan's ag policies -- including deleting a provision to preserve one acre of farmland for every acre that gets developed. That move has drawn criticism from some farming advocates, who say the revised ag policies don't do enough to protect prime soil.
Riverbank Watch wants the city to hold a public hearing on the ag policy changes before the council votes on the general plan. City officials say the changes aren't significant enough to trigger another round of public input.
The city has been drafting its new general plan for almost four years. The update is the first major overhaul since the late 1980s. The new version will guide Riverbank's growth for the next 25 years. The new general plan covers 6,010 acres; it sets aside 1,220 acres for farmland.
Riverbank Watch member Annabel Gammon calls the city's new general plan a "visionary" document that will help Riverbank preserve its small-town feel while encouraging smart growth. Gammon says her group was involved in the update from the start, attending public workshops and submitting comments.
But when it came time to discuss changes to the general plan's ag policies, Riverbank Watch wasn't at the table, said Gammon.
Groups' gripes led to revision
The ag policies were reworked in October, after the Building Industry Association of Central California and the Stanislaus Property Rights Institute objected to the acre-for-acre mitigation measure, said Community Development Director J.D. Hightower. The BIACC sued Stanislaus County over a similar ag preservation policy last year. The lawsuit is set to go to court in March, said Tom Orvis, governmental affairs director for the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau.
When Riverbank planners sat down to write a new ag policy, a farming group -- Central Valley Farmland Trust -- was at the table, said Hightower. City staff also checked in with the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau and state Department of Conservation for guidance, said Hightower. Riverbank Watch wasn't included because its members aren't farmers, said Hightower.
If Riverbank Watch had been invited to those meetings, it would have lobbied to keep the acre-for-acre farmland preservation, said Gammon. She said a general plan without such a measure leaves Riverbank's prime farmland too vulnerable to development.
But Hightower said the policy that replaced the acre-for-acre mitigation plan gives the city more flexibility to preserve farmland.
Instead of a fixed acre-for-acre ratio, the new ag policy uses a point system that rates the value and productivity of ag land. The more valuable the land that a developer wants to build on, the more land he must preserve elsewhere. In some cases, that could mean ag land would be preserved at more than an acre-for-acre ratio, said Hightower.
Fees keyed to type of housing
The policy also will factor in whether a developer's proposed project is well-planned. Developments with high-density housing will pay lower mitigation fees. Single-family homes on oversized lots will pay higher fees, said Hightower. He said the policy goes beyond simply preserving farmland as open space. Instead, it puts the focus on promoting a viable ag industry, said Hightower. "We want it to be that ag remains the number one industry in Stanislaus County," said Hightower.
The Farm Bureau's Orvis said he was skeptical about replacing the acre-for-acre mitigation with a rating system.
"They are some interesting concepts, but at the end of the day, are they really going to save any ground?" said Orvis. "We can't make any more land."
If Riverbank is worried about a BIA lawsuit, it shouldn't be, said Orvis. Other cities and counties have adopted one-to-one mitigation measures without ending up in court. Davis, Yolo County and San Joaquin County all have such measures, he said.
The City Council was scheduled to vote on the general plan at its Jan. 26 meeting, but put off the decision because of last-minute changes to the wording in the resolution adopting the plan. The vote is now scheduled for March 4.
Agencies seek to preserve water in Calif lakes...SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer...Garance Burke in Fresno contributed to this report. .
http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/v-print/story/590028.html
SACRAMENTO -- State and federal water managers Thursday asked for permission to keep more water in California's reservoirs this month so there will be enough cold water for salmon later in the year.
Facing the possibility of a third dry year and record low reservoirs, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and state Department of Water Resources want to be excused from state water-quality standards that require them to increase water releases each February.
The releases come from dams that feed into the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and are intended to benefit fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The dams are also a critical water supply for two-thirds of the state's residents and millions of acres of farmland.
The water agencies made the emergency request in a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board. It's the first such request since the 1977 drought.
Jerry Johns, deputy director at the Department of Water Resources, said the move is an attempt to preserve water supplies for spawning and migrating salmon later in the year.
"Our principle concern here is the salmon and making sure they have water," Johns told The Associated Press. "After the water is gone, it's gone."
California's reservoirs are dismally low after two dry winters. Shasta and Oroville are less than half as full as they should be for this time of year and below the levels recorded in 1977.
There's been little snowfall so far this winter, which is needed to build a large snowpack in the northern Sierra Nevada mountains that is critical to replenishing California's reservoirs and its water supplies.
The state has said it will deliver just 15 percent of its water contracts this year because of the low reservoir levels and pumping restrictions designed to protect a threatened fish that lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation intends to release its annual delivery estimates later this month.
Delta river flow standards for the month of February were set in 1994 to protect Bay Area fish, including the longfin smelt, Johns said. State water officials say those standards are outdated and reducing the river flows would have little, if any, impact on the native fish.
Central Valley farmers say the request to preserve more water in California's reservoirs indicates the precariousness of the state's water supplies.
"This is how desperate things are getting and how inflexible the system now is," said Daniel Errotabere, a Riverdale grower who serves as president of the Fresno County Farm Bureau. "They're just trying to find some wriggle room for the crisis we're in."
Dante Nomellini Sr., a delta water rights attorney, said state and federal water agencies have only themselves to blame for years of mismanagement of California's water supplies.
"The predicament we're in is because they drew down the reservoirs and exported more water than they should have," Nomellini said.
The state plans to file a formal petition Monday for an emergency hearing before the water resources board. The petition will not be filed Friday because state water employees are furloughed the first and third Fridays of the month as a cost savings measure imposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to help balance the state budget.
Fresno Bee
Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club Sue EPA for Failing to Properly Regulate Air Pollution From Nitric Acid Plants...Environmental Integrity Project, Washington, D.C.; Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT; Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA...Press Release 
http://www.fresnobee.com/556/v-print/story/1179841.html
Case Could Prompt EPA to Start Regulating Greenhouse Gases WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ In a case that could prompt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit yesterday against EPA for violating its duty to review and update its emission standards for nitric acid plants, which produce chemicals used in the fertilizer and explosives industries.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to update these standards every eight years, and EPA is already more than 16 years late. EIP and the Sierra Club are represented by the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic (ENRLC) at Vermont Law School.
Nitric acid plants generate nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide. EIP and Sierra Club hope the information developed during the review will persuade EPA to start regulating N2O emissions. Nitric acid plants are, by far, the largest industrial source of N2O in the United States, with emissions that could be controlled easily.
Eric Schaeffer, director, Environmental Integrity Project, said: "EPA would get a lot of bang for its buck by regulating N2O emissions from nitric acid plants. The technology for controlling N2O is cost-effective and, because N2O is such a powerful greenhouse gas, removing even a little of it would make a big difference."
Nitric acid plants also generate nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are the raw ingredients of ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. EPA has recently discovered that these types of air pollution are much more dangerous to public health than was previously suspected. It is now clear that these pollutants cause respiratory problems, heart disease, and many premature deaths. In addition, better and more cost-effective technologies for controlling NOx emissions have been developed since the last standards were set 24 years ago.
David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel, Sierra Club said: "Our goal is to prompt EPA to review its standards for nitric acid plants, as it should have done years ago. The review will give the public a chance to show EPA that dangerous NOx emissions from nitric acid plants can be reduced at a reasonable cost."
EIP and the Sierra Club are hopeful that, under the Obama administration, EPA will move quickly to review and revise the NSPS for nitric acid plants. Patrick Parenteau, senior counsel, ENRLC, said: "It's a new day at EPA and we fully expect a favorable reaction from Administrator Jackson."
Indeed, in a memo to EPA employees, Lisa Jackson, the new EPA Administrator, has committed to giving "personal attention" to "reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and "improving air quality."
EIP and Sierra Club notified EPA of their intent to sue the agency in an October 7, 2008 letter. Because EPA did not commence a review of the emission standard for nitric acid plants during the 60-day notice period, the parties are now seeking a court order compelling EPA to review its outdated rule. The standard has not been revised since it was adopted in 1971, and the last review took place twenty-four years ago, in 1984.
EIP and Sierra Club believe EPA should move quickly to review and revise the emission standard for nitric acid plants. Texas and Louisiana, for instance, are home to several large nitric acid plants. The people in these states, particularly in the Gulf Coast region, are suffering from serious air pollution problems. Moreover, both states have been ravaged by hurricanes and other impacts from climate change.
Teresa Clemmer, associate director, ENRLC, said: "We're hopeful this lawsuit will focus EPA's attention on its outdated rules for nitric acid plants. Once EPA takes a close look at the cost-effective new technologies available for controlling both NOx and N2O, we believe EPA will update and improve its regulations in a relatively short period of time."
EIP and Sierra Club hope their effort will prompt EPA to take action on greenhouse gas emissions from other sources as well.
A copy of the complaint and the October 7, 2008 notice of intent letter are available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org.
ABOUT THE GROUPS
The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP has three goals: 1) to provide objective analyses of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and affects public health; 2) to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and 3) to help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws.
The Sierra Club members and supporters number more than 1.3 million. Inspired by nature, the Sierra Club and its members work together to protect communities and the planet. The Club is America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. For more information, go to http://www.sierraclub.org on the Web.
Vermont Law School (VLS) -- a private, independent institution -- is top-ranked in environmental law by U.S. News & World Report. VLS offers a Juris Doctor (JD) curriculum that emphasizes public service, a Master of Environmental Law and Policy (MELP) degree for lawyers and nonlawyers, and two post-JD degrees, the Master of Laws (LLM) in Environmental Law and the LLM in American Legal Studies (for international students). The school also features innovative experiential programs and is home to the Environmental Law Center and the South Royalton Legal Clinic. For more information, visit http://www.vermontlaw.edu.
SOURCE Environmental Integrity Project, Washington, D.C.; Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT; Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA
Sacramento Bee
Delta drought response could pit fish against fish...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/1603598.html
It's come to this.
A drought approaching epic status in California may force the state to choose one imperiled species of fish over another.
On Thursday, state and federal water agencies petitioned regulators to relax standards for flows of fresh water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, hub for most of California's water supply.
This means holding fresh water in the state's severely depleted reservoirs. Water officials fear there won't be enough cold water behind those dams this fall to trigger and sustain the Central Valley's fall run of iconic chinook salmon.
But the controversial move would leave less fresh water for other fish species breeding in the Delta now – namely the threatened Delta smelt and its cousin, the longfin smelt.
"We pray it won't be the extinction of these species," said Spreck Rosekrans, an analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund. "This is unprecedented."
Smelt and salmon are both already severely depleted. Ironically, the longfin last week was recommended for threatened status under the state Endangered Species Act by the Department of Fish and Game.
The state's water shortage threatens to become a death blow.
Jerry Johns, deputy director at the state Department of Water Resources, said the proposed changes are unlikely to severely affect smelt. He also said similar actions were taken during the 1976-77 drought, one of the worst on record.
"This drought we're in currently is looking pretty dismal to us," Johns said. "So we just want to make sure people understand how bad it could get, and we're taking proactive actions early to make sure we can preserve species later in the year."
But critics say that without adequate freshwater flow now, the agencies are clearly making a choice that may be harmful to smelt.
Reducing freshwater flows could leave smelt without enough habitat to breed successfully. They may also be more likely to die in the massive water export pumps that deliver Delta water to California's parched cities and farms.
Johns said holding water in reserve for salmon also means it may be available for diversion to people during the fall – often the worst of the dry season in California.
But he said that depends on many other variables, and he emphasized that their primary concern is balancing needs of fish species.
The state Water Resources Control Board received the agencies' request Thursday but won't review it until Monday, because the entire department is on furlough today in response to the state budget crisis.
Board spokesman Bill Rukeyser said the board's executive director can approve the request administratively, so it could happen quickly.
As evidence of its determination to respond rapidly to the drought, the water board on Thursday approved an urgent request to transfer 10,300 acre-feet of water from Delta Wetlands Properties, owner of Bouldin Island and Webb Tract in the Delta, to the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
That transfer requires pumping more water out of the Delta, which could further imperil smelt.
DWR and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation control two massive pump and canal systems in the Delta that divert drinking water to two-thirds of California residents and millions of acres of farmland.
Those diversions, along with water pollution and invasive species, have contributed to the decline of the smelt species.
The two water agencies propose to begin the Delta flow reductions this month. They also warn that further actions may be needed in subsequent months if the drought worsens.
The state's reservoirs, they note in the letter, are at historic lows – lower, even, than during the 1977 drought.
But if winter conditions improve and bring a significant increase in snow, the agencies say they will restore normal outflow conditions.
Their request means salty water from San Francisco Bay could intrude into the Delta even more than is typical during dry years. This may compromise farming in the Delta and water quality for urban agencies that draw directly from the Delta, such as the Contra Costa Water District.
"It's unfortunate, with all the forecast and planning tools that the agencies have available, that we couldn't have foreseen this situation," Rosekrans said. "We're at a situation in California where we've been trying to do too much with a limited resource, and we're caught with an empty bank account."
Stockton Record
Judge upholds city's pay-to-pave program
Developers sued over ag land fee...David Siders
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/A_NEWS/902060315/-1/A_BIZ
STOCKTON - A judge has upheld a controversial city measure requiring developers who pave over farmland to pay to preserve an equal amount of land elsewhere.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Carter P. Holly on Monday dismissed a lawsuit in which the Building Industry Association of the Delta claimed the rule was a discriminatory tax, imposing on developers - but no one else - the responsibility of preserving farmland.
Unlike a tax, Holly ruled, the fee imposed by the city is one "voluntarily chosen by project developers" seeking to develop farmland.
Mayor Ann Johnston on Thursday called the decision a validation of a significant city policy.
"We have to start preserving our agricultural land, and this is one way to do it," she said.
BIA Chief Executive Officer John Beckman said his group is considering an appeal.
"We're still of the opinion we're right," he said.
The City Council voted in 2007 to force developers of farmland to put an equal amount of farmland elsewhere into preservation. The city has allowed developers to instead pay a fee - rather than buy preservation easements themselves - of $9,600 per acre to buy easements preventing land elsewhere from being developed. The measure was expected to preserve some 20,000 acres over 20 years.
The city announced last month that since 2007 it had collected from developers and made its first payment, of $2 million, to the Central Valley Farmland Trust.
Litigation similar to the BIA's was filed by developers including A.G. Spanos Construction Inc. and Grupe Investment Co. Inc. That litigation is pending.
Conserve water now
Once a drought is declared, it's often too late to do much good...Editorial
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/A_OPINION01/902060306/-1/A_OPINION
Perhaps by the time you read this, it will be raining, but lately the weather has been clear. And warm. Windless. Only a touch of morning fog. That's too bad.
January is usually the wettest month in California. It wasn't this year. February hasn't shown a lot of promise, either.
Snow pack surveys show the water content of snow in the Sierra, on which we depend to replenish our reservoirs, is well below normal. Reservoirs are seriously low.
It will be a year of conservation at best, rationing at worst. We shouldn't wait to conserve. Leaky faucets should be fixed. Showers shortened. Lawn and garden watering minimized. The time to begin dealing with what could become a huge problem is before it begins.
The water storage numbers in our reservoirs are grim:
» Shasta, 45 percent of normal.
» Oroville, 43 percent.
» Folsom, 48 percent.
» New Hogan, 59 percent.
» Camanche, 57 percent.
» New Melones, 84 percent.
The 34 reservoirs from the Trinity River on the north to the Kern River on the south are at about 60 percent of normal. And most are well below capacity. Shasta is at only 31 percent of capacity; Oroville, 29 percent; Folsom, 25 percent; and New Hogan, 26 percent.
It would take an extraordinary year to fill the reservoirs; it would take considerable precipitation just to bring them to normal.
What's the likelihood?
No one can say what Mother Nature has in store.
In 1991, a multiyear California drought was considerably eased - but not broken - by what came to be called the March Miracle. It rained steadily all month.
What we do know is that in most of the big Sierra snow basins, the water content of the snow is 60 percent to 65 percent of average. Absent big storms this month and next, what's in the mountains now won't begin to provide all the water we normally use.
We tend to think of water as an inexhaustible resource. It's not, certainly not in California, with its seasonal rains and Mediterranean climate.
We can hope for the best in the two remaining rain months, but we should be doing now the things that will ease problems later if the rains don't come.
San Francisco Chronicle
Obama reverses Bush effort in pollution case...(02-06) 10:01 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/06/national/w100108S76.DTL&type=printable
President Barack Obama is reversing a previous Bush administration effort on pollution, pulling back legal arguments in a lawsuit over mercury.
The case was soon to come before the Supreme Court. The Obama administration submitted papers Friday to the court asking for the appeal to be dismissed.
An appeals court last year rejected a Bush administration plan for regulating mercury emissions. It said the plan should not have included allowing utilities to purchase emission credits instead of actually reducing emissions.
Scientists fear mercury pollution leads to neurological problems in infants.
The power industry still has a separate petition challenging the appeals court ruling, which is unaffected by the Obama administration's action.
EPA begins greenhouse gas waiver review...(02-06) 08:32 PST Washington, CA (AP)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/06/state/n083251S30.DTL&type=printable
The Environmental Protection Agency is beginning its review of the controversial 2007 decision denying California the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made the announcement Friday. It follows an order from President Barack Obama last week to revisit the waiver denial issued by the Bush administration.
Obama has supported letting California and other states set stricter standards for vehicle emissions than the federal government's — something the auto industry and the Bush administration opposed.
Jackson's statement said Obama's EPA believes the waiver denial was "a substantial departure from EPA's long-standing interpretation of the Clean Air Act's waiver provisions."
Chu On This...Cameron Scott, The Thin Green Line
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=35484
With experts predicting an historically dire drought in the state due to limited snowpack in the Sierras, Californian Steven Chu, Obama's Secretary of Energy emphasized in his first interview since taking office how big the economic hit to the state and nation would be if water supplies stopped supporting California's agriculture.
Chu said that in a worst case scenario, 90 percent of the snowpack could disappear, virtually wiping out the state's vast agricultural networks. California, the world's seventh largest economy, is by far the largest agricultural producer in the United States. Such catastrophic changes are possible if climate change continues unchecked.
Chu said he didn't think the public has fully grappled with the seriousness of climate change. He indicated that public education would be part of the Obama team's efforts to green the country, and that lower gas prices would not divert the Energy Department from looking at cleaner alternatives.
With experts predicting an historically dire drought in the state due to limited snowpack in the Sierras, Californian Steven Chu, Obama's Secretary of Energy emphasized in his first interview since taking office how big the economic hit to the state and nation would be if water supplies stopped supporting California's agriculture.
Chu said that in a worst case scenario, 90 percent of the snowpack could disappear, virtually wiping out the state's vast agricultural networks. California, the world's seventh largest economy, is by far the largest agricultural producer in the United States. Such catastrophic changes are possible if climate change continues unchecked.
Chu said he didn't think the public has fully grappled with the seriousness of climate change. He indicated that public education would be part of the Obama team's efforts to green the country, and that lower gas prices would not divert the Energy Department from looking at cleaner alternatives.
Comments
Here is something California can do long, long before any measurable change is possible in atmospheric CO2 concentrations: Start charging real prices for water.
According to DWR, 48% of California water goes to environmental uses (ie maintaining flow in streams for fish), 41% to agriculture and 11% to urban uses. So about 80% of water used by people in California goes to agriculture, the rest to homes and industry.
California has taken some good steps to eradicate the massive historic subsidies of agricultural water, but the job is still not done. There are still tons of crops grown in California that don't make any sense if those farmers were paying a true clearing price for water.
Even in the home market, there are still, incredibly, towns and utility districts that have no variable rate charge for water -- the homeowner might pay a flat $15 a month no matter how much water they use. This is insane!
We have the exact same problem in Arizona. There is no other way to properly incentivize and promote conservation than charging the right, probably higher, price. There are too many different types of use for government to try to command and control manage use, and public exhortation campaigns to shame people into better use are at their limit. Charge the right price, and water use comes into line. There might be a lot fewer golf courses and alfalfa fields in California, but I am not sure that environmentally, that wouldn't be the right answer anyway.
Posted By: climate_skeptic | February 05 2009 at 02:02 PM
Chu is a dope.
If you want the real scoop on global warming look at this guy's site: http://amccright.blogspot.com
Posted By: SchuylerKing | February 05 2009 at 04:21 PM
UC workers must pay into pension plans again...Patricia Yollin
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/06/BAPB15ODL2.DTL&type=printable
The holiday lasted almost 19 years. Now it's over.
On Thursday, the University of California Board of Regents, meeting at UCSF-Mission Bay, decided that university employees must start contributing again to their retirement plan.
Beginning next year - on Tax Day no less - they will be putting 2 percent of their earnings into their pensions. The amount will increase gradually, probably 1 percent a year.
"You shouldn't have a plan that for 20 years has no contributions from anyone," said UC President Mark Yudof.
The board, which manages the retirement fund, voted in October 1990 to suspend contributions and allow surplus investment earnings to cover operating costs. Given the abysmal economic climate, that is no longer feasible, regents agreed.
The 2 percent will not be reflected in employees' take-home pay because it will be redirected from mandatory payroll deductions for savings plan contributions.
However, many view the change as a de facto pay cut.
"For the amount of money I make, it's significant," said Michele Hammond, 40, a staff research associate at UC Berkeley who grosses $50,000 and has worked for the university 10 years.
Paul Brooks, 54, is a spectroscopist hired 29 years ago.
"We do not feel the regents are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility, and it's difficult to get numbers," said Brooks, who is among the employees who want the regents to share governance of the fund with workers.
"We won't pay without a say," they told the regents on Wednesday with their signs, chants and public comments.
However, as of April 15, 2010, they'll be paying.
On the same date, the university will also resume its contributions, giving 4 percent the first year and more in succeeding years.
Paul Angelo, the regents' actuary, told the board Thursday that 80 percent of UC workers have never contributed to the plan, which has about 115,000 participants and is currently worth about $41 billion.
On June 30, the overall market value of plan assets was $42 billion, down from $48.1 billion for the prior year, according to an actuarial report.
Also on Thursday, the regents approved a major shift in UC admission standards, starting in fall 2012.
They dumped the requirement to take SAT subject tests and guaranteed entry to California high school graduates in the top 9 percent - statewide or within their class. And they pledged a full review to any applicant eligible for UC by virtue of test scores, grade-point average and number of required college-prep classes.
The board also voted for Yudof's Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan, which will subsidize the tuition and registration fees of students from households earning less than $60,000 a year.
The plan will cost $3.1 million a year and affect freshmen entering UC this fall.
Contra Costa Times
Drought means water quality standards must be eased, managers say...Mike Taugher
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11639949
The drought took an ominous turn Thursday when state and federal water managers said they cannot meet a standard that protects Delta fish habitat without the risk of running out of cold water salmon must have in the months to come.
In effect, the managers can either release water from reservoirs to increase flow to improve Delta water quality and fish habitat or save that water to provide cold water to salmon in upstream rivers later in the year.
The water managers said they will ask state regulators to relax water quality standards to retain water for salmon and drought supplies.
"It's disappointing that we've got to the point where we've got to choose between protecting salmon and protecting Delta fish," said Spreck Rosekrans, an economic analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund.
"We're left with very little in the bank and we've got to make these tough choices," Rosekrans said.
Relaxing the water quality standard would worsen water at the Contra Costa Water District's Delta intakes. That would force the agency to draw water from Los Vaqueros Reservoir at a time of year when it is normally filling.
The district's 500,000 customers would see no immediate effect, but tap water could worsen if the reservoir gets too low later in the year.
"We're looking at our options for how we're going to manage around this drought through the summer," said assistant general manager Greg Gartrell.
The problem is the state's reservoirs are about one-third full and some are lower than they were in early February 1977, when a severe drought ravaged the state.
Meanwhile, water managers are having difficulty meeting water quality rules that dictate how much water they must send through the Delta to prevent salinity from creeping too far in from the Bay. Those rules make accommodations for dry years, but they are much tougher in February than in January.
In the past week, state and federal water managers have reduced deliveries from massive pumps near Tracy to less than 20 percent of capacity.
Meeting the water quality standards through the month will require major releases from reservoirs.
That could imperil salmon because they rely on cold-water releases from reservoirs to survive.
Easing water quality standards could "preserve cold water needed for salmon habitat as well as water supplies needed for drought relief," the letter said.
The letter was sent to the State Water Resources Control Board, which regulates water quality. It was signed by Lester Snow, director of the Department of Water Resources, and Don Glaser, regional director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
State water officials could not be reached by phone Thursday.
Study: Climate change may reshuffle western weeds...MIKE STARK, Associated Press Writer
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_11643444
SALT LAKE CITY—Climate change will likely shuffle some of the West's most troublesome invasive weeds, adding to the burden faced by farms and ranchers in some areas and providing opportunities for native plant restoration in others, according to a new study.
In many cases, a warming climate will provide more welcoming conditions for invasive plants to get a foothold, spread quickly and crowd out native species, the study by Princeton University researchers said.
But some invasives may retreat from millions of acres in the West—at least briefly—and offer an opportunity for land managers to re-establish native plants, the study said. The window for action, though, will probably be limited.
"We're going to have to be in the right place at the right time before something else gains a foothold," said Bethany Bradley, a biogeographer at Princeton and lead author on the study.
Nonnative weeds and plants followed in the footsteps, sometimes literally, of European settlers as they spread across the West. Even one of the West's most famous symbols—the tumbling tumbleweed, also known as Russian thistle—isn't from these parts. Its origins are in Russia.
Today, nonnative plants across the West cost millions of dollars in damage to farms and ranches, alter the flow of water and function of ecosystems, provide fuels for fast-burning wildfires, and force government agencies to spend millions in response.
"Every county that I know of in the West has got nonnative or invasive weeds in it," said Steve Dewey at Utah State University's extension office. "My advice to county weed departments is to give new invaders high priority, to stop them before they get out of hand."
Bradley and two other Princeton scientists wanted to look at how changing climate conditions would effect the spread of weeds.
They used 10 atmospheric models predicting how the West's climate will change by 2100. Then they compared predicted changes in precipitation and temperature with the most hospitable conditions for five of the West's most obnoxious noxious plants: cheatgrass, spotted knapweed, yellow starthistle, tamarisk and leafy spurge.
The results were published in the latest edition of the scientific journal Global Change Biology.
Cheatgrass, for instance, will likely retreat from strongholds in southern Nevada and Utah and make further inroads into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The wispy grass that dominates vast stretches of the Intermountain West, might struggle in some places with warmer temperatures and less water, the study said.
Yellows starthistle may expand in California and Nevada as the climate changes while spotted knapweed moves toward higher elevations and spreads in Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, the study showed.
Leafy spurge will probably fade from portions of Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa and Oregon. Tamarisk is likely to be unchanged.
The models take into account many of the possible scenarios of a warming climate, but it's still difficult to predict changes at a local level. That's especially true for precipitation, including when it will fall and how much.
"It's a big wildcard out there," Bradley said. "Even small changes in precipitation can have big impacts on invasive and native plants in the western U.S."
And just because climate may drive out one invasive weed, it doesn't mean another won't quickly set up shop, she said. That's why it's important to find viable native plants—even those that are only native regionally, not locally—that can get established before the arrival of another invader, she said.
"The question for policy makers and land managers is, 'What do we want these lands to be?' " David Wilcove, one of the researchers on the study, said in a statement. "These lands will change, and we must decide now—before the window of opportunity closes—whether we do nothing or whether we intervene."
Models like those in the study should play a part in managing weeds in the West in the coming decades, said Dave Burch, Montana's weed coordinator and, until December, chairman of the Western Weed Coordinating Committee.  
In many cases, the predictions will help weed managers know which plants to be on the lookout for and prepare for their arrival. Reacting to weed infestations gets expensive. Montana, for instance, spends $21 million a year on fighting weeds and needs to be spending $58 million just to deal of 5 percent of the weeds it already has, Burch said.
"Prevention is the cheapest way to go with weed control," Burch said. "Once you get something here, it's usually too late."
On the Net: http://www.weedcenter.org/wwcc/
NM senators oppose moving labs to defense...The Associated Press...2-5-09
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_11635293
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—New Mexico's U.S. senators oppose the idea of moving the nation's nuclear weapons complex, including Sandia and Los Alamos labs, from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense, which would put weapons development under military control.
The Obama administration is considering the shift. A memo from the Office of Management and Budget directs the two departments and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration to study the idea.
The memo asks the agencies assess the costs and benefits of transferring NNSA to the defense agency beginning in fiscal year 2011. It sets a Sept. 30 deadline for a final report to the OMB.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said similar ideas have been debated for more than six decades.
But he believes the Department of Defense is the last place that should control nuclear weapons programs.
"I think it's a bad suggestion and one I strongly oppose," he said. "The initial concern is that we should have a separate system for nuclear weapons than we do for conventional weapons, because nuclear weapons are different and much more deadly."
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who represented the 3rd District that includes Los Alamos when he was in the House, also strongly disagrees with the proposal, and said he told OMB Director Peter Orszag that.
Moving labs to the Department of Defense "would change the fundamental mission and purpose of the labs, and would discourage exactly the kind of science that is now most needed," Udall said.
Both senators pointed out the labs do more than work on weapons.
Their research and development has contributed "to countless innovations that have benefited our economy and our well-being," Udall said.
"The research our nation needs in nuclear nonproliferation, renewable energy, homeland security and more is being done, and should be done, at these labs," he said.
Bingaman said the DOE is able to attract scientific and technical talent to the national labs.
"We have been able, through the management of these weapons in a civilian agency, to attract high-caliber scientists and engineers," Bingaman said. "I think it's harder to do that in a defense agency."
As defense agencies, the labs' missions likely would not be as broad, and that could hurt the state's economy, he said. "I think there'd be a lot less technology spin-off because there'd be a lot less nonweapons work," he said.
New Mexico Reps. Ben Ray Lujan and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, also expressed concern about the prospect of switching control.
Under the DOE, Los Alamos is "uniquely positioned to address the energy and economic crisis by solving many of the problems holding back large-scale renewable energy and development," Lujan said. ".... We should focus on expanding energy research and development programs at Los Alamos. A move that could eliminate these programs is shortsighted and harmful."
Greg Mello, head of the watchdog Los Alamos Study Group, said he's concerned such a shift in control would result in less overall scrutiny over nuclear weapons management and development.
"With the present level of militarization in our society and the enormous secrecy and lack of oversight at the Pentagon, we would have great reservations about putting the nuclear weapons program there," Mello said.
Former Sandia National Laboratories director C. Paul Robinson—who for years supported keeping the labs under the DOE—has changed his mind since retiring in early 2006.
He told the House Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces subcommittee last summer that it's time for Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, along with other nuclear weapons facilities and programs, to be transferred to defense.
The weapons program doesn't align very well with DOE, which has more than enough work to keep it busy with the nation's overall energy problems and the new administration's push for alternative energy, he said. of science that is now most needed," Udall said.
Both senators pointed out the labs do more than work on weapons.
Their research and development has contributed "to countless innovations that have benefited our economy and our well-being," Udall said.
"The research our nation needs in nuclear nonproliferation, renewable energy, homeland security and more is being done, and should be done, at these labs," he said.
Bingaman said the DOE is able to attract scientific and technical talent to the national labs.
"We have been able, through the management of these weapons in a civilian agency, to attract high-caliber scientists and engineers," Bingaman said. "I think it's harder to do that in a defense agency."
As defense agencies, the labs' missions likely would not be as broad, and that could hurt the state's economy, he said. "I think there'd be a lot less technology spin-off because there'd be a lot less nonweapons work," he said.
New Mexico Reps. Ben Ray Lujan and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, also expressed concern about the prospect of switching control.
Under the DOE, Los Alamos is "uniquely positioned to address the energy and economic crisis by solving many of the problems holding back large-scale renewable energy and development," Lujan said. ".... We should focus on expanding energy research and development programs at Los Alamos. A move that could eliminate these programs is shortsighted and harmful."
Greg Mello, head of the watchdog Los Alamos Study Group, said he's concerned such a shift in control would result in less overall scrutiny over nuclear weapons management and development.
"With the present level of militarization in our society and the enormous secrecy and lack of oversight at the Pentagon, we would have great reservations about putting the nuclear weapons program there," Mello said.
Former Sandia National Laboratories director C. Paul Robinson—who for years supported keeping the labs under the DOE—has changed his mind since retiring in early 2006.
He told the House Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces subcommittee last summer that it's time for Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, along with other nuclear weapons facilities and programs, to be transferred to defense.
The weapons program doesn't align very well with DOE, which has more than enough work to keep it busy with the nation's overall energy problems and the new administration's push for alternative energy, he said.
Los Angeles Times
California close to waiver to regulate car emissions...Margot Roosevelt, Greenspace
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/02/california-cars.html
The long battle between California and the federal government over whether the state can adopt its own standards to control greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles appears to be drawing to an end.
President Obama had signaled in his campaign that he supported the state's right to set its own rules, which more than 15 states plan to follow.
Today the Environmental Protection Agency set in motion a review which seems likely to grant the state's waiver to the Clean Air Act. The crackdown on automobile emissions is a key component of California's plan to slash its carbon footprint over the next 12 years by 15%. See our colleague Jim Tankersley's poston the Washington blog the Swamp.
EPA rethinks CA emissions plan...Jim Tankersley, The Swamp
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/
california_emissions_global_wa.html
The Environmental Protection Agency announced this morning that it has reopened consideration of a request by California and more than a dozen other states to set strict standards for greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles - hinting strongly that it's just a matter of time before they're approved.
Following a directive issued by President Obama late last month, the EPA said it will begin accepting public comments for 60 days on the request, which proponents call a major step toward curbing global warming. Critics say allowing the states to set tougher rules than the federal government would batter the domestic auto industry, by forcing carmakers to produce two sets of vehicles or to restrict production of big-selling - but heavy emitting - trucks and SUVs.
"EPA has now set in motion an impartial review of the California waiver decision," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a press release. "It is imperative that we get this decision right, and base it on the best available science and a thorough understanding of the law."
But the next two paragraphs of the release strongly suggest the agency will approve California's request.
"The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to allow California to adopt its own emission standards for motor vehicles due to the seriousness of the state's air pollution challenges," it reads. "There is a long-standing history of EPA granting waivers to the state of California.
"EPA believes that there are significant issues regarding the agency's denial of the waiver. The denial was a substantial departure from EPA's longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act's waiver provisions."
Washington Post
Lawsuit alleges Netflix, Wal-Mart acted improperly...Reporting by Sue Zeidler; Editing by Andre Grenon, Reuters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502773_pf.html
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Several lawsuits filed across the country in the past two weeks allege Netflix Inc and Wal-Mart Stores Inc improperly negotiated Wal-Mart's departure from the online video market in 2005 to enable both companies to benefit illegally, said a lawyer involved in two suits on Thursday.
"There's a giant investigation by a number of law firms throughout the country regarding anti-trust collusive behavior between these companies," said lawyer Daniel Becnel of Reserve, La., who filed one suit in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and one in New Orleans earlier this week.
Becnel said about 40 similar lawsuits had been filed throughout the country in the last two weeks.
Netflix declined to comment, while Wal-Mart said it did nothing wrong when it decided to stop renting DVDs.
"We made our own independent decision to exit the DVD rental business and our subsequent agreement with Netflix is entirely proper," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Michelle Bradford in a statement. "We intend to defend vigorously our decisions regarding the products and services offered to our customers."
Lawyer alleges price fix in Wal-Mart-Netflix deal...KELLY P. KISSEL, The Associated Press, 2-4-09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020402928_pf.html
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A series of lawsuits filed across the country allege that Wal-Mart and Netflix benefited illegally when the world's largest retailer exited the online DVD rental business in 2005.
Lawyer Daniel Becnel of Reserve, La., complained in a lawsuit filed Monday in Baton Rouge that Wal-Mart and Netflix improperly negotiated Wal-Mart's departure from the online video market that previously had only two major competitors, Netflix and Blockbuster.
According to Becnel, Wal-Mart's presence drove down prices and Netflix suffered reduced profits. Wal-Mart would have suffered, too, if Netflix began selling DVDs, so the companies entered an improper agreement, Becnel says in the lawsuit, which alleges antitrust violations.
When Wal-Mart quit the online DVD rental business, it converted its customers' accounts to Netflix accounts. Netflix then began promoting Wal-Mart and Walmart.com as places to buy DVDs.
"Don't conspire to artificially raise the price to the consumer," Becnel said. The lawsuit says Netflix customers are paying artificially high prices and are entitled to refunds with interest.
A Netflix spokesman said the the company does not comment on pending litigation. Wal-Mart said there was nothing wrong with its decision to stop renting DVDs.
"We made our own independent decision to exit the DVD rental business and our subsequent agreement with Netflix is entirely proper," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Michelle Bradford said in a statement. "We intend to defend vigorously our decisions regarding the products and services offered to our customers."
When it started renting DVDs online in 2003, Wal-Mart charged between $15.54 and $21.94 monthly, depending on how many videos were out at once. Netflix prices ranged between $13.95 and $39.95.
By May 19, 2005, when Wal-Mart left the online DVD rental business, most Wal-Mart customers were paying $12.97 monthly for the right to have two movies at a time while most Netflix customers were paying $17.99 per month for up to three titles.
Netflix currently charges $16.99 monthly for up to three titles _ a dollar less than in 2005. Blockbuster charges $19.99 for three rentals at a time in a program that allows exchanges at local stores.
Becnel said the current rates are higher than they would have been if Wal-Mart had remained in the online DVD business.
"Defendants would not have entered into their Market Division Agreement absent an illegal, anticompetitive agreement not to compete," Becnel's lawsuit says.
Other similar lawsuits were filed in other jurisdictions, Becnel and Wal-Mart said Wednesday.
New York Times
Farmers Relax (a Little) After Cow Tax Scare...Kate Galbraith, Green Inc.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/farmers-relax-a-little-after-cow-tax-scare/?scp=1&sq=cows&st=cse
To ranchers, they were two of the most absurd and terrifying words in the English language: “cow tax.”
Last last year, rumors that the Environmental Protection Agency was considering a tax on methane in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused angst in the farming community.
Methane, which the E.P.A. considers over 20 times more potent as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is emitted when a cows burp. The New York Farm Bureau calculated that such a tax could amount to $175 per dairy cow, and about half that for beef cattle.
The outrage was palpable.
“Before white men came over here, there were thousands and thousands and thousands of buffalo,” said Bob Duke, who manages about 100 head of Brangus cattle at a ranch in Utopia, Tex. “They didn’t change the global warming deal.”
“How are they going to tax cattle without taxing all of the town dogs and cats?” he added.
Richard Daugherty, a past president of the Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association, called it the “economic persecution of a minority.”
The hysteria, however, is now dying down — largely as the ranching and farming communities have come to realize that the E.P.A. was never seriously pursuing a methane tax.
“After the dust kind of settled, why, us producers sort of had a chuckle over it,” said Mr. Daugherty. “Admittedly it was a nervous chuckle.”
Many farm and ranch owners suggested that the idea of a methane tax was particularly nettlesome for them because the gas causes no obvious disturbance to the local air.
“It would be different if we had a hazy cloud over our livestock operation all the time, but we don’t,” said Mark Huseth, who runs about 500 cows near McLeod, N.D. “It’s clean and fresh all time.”
Still, some farmers remain worried that the Obama administration, which has signaled that climate change will be one of its signature issues, will regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
“A cow tax is clearly a bad idea and, if implemented, would have huge impacts on U.S. agriculture,” wrote Cynthia Cory, the director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, in an article on the organization’s Web site this week. “But since no one proposed a cow tax, the question instead is: Should President Obama’s administration use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?
“If the administration is listening,” Ms. Cory continued, “the answer is, ‘No.’”
Commentary: 'Cow tax' or hot air: It's time to focus on a solution...Cynthia Cory, director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation....California Farm Bureau Federation...2-4-09 
http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1230&ck=4122CB13C7A474C1976C9706AE36521D
You may have seen recent news headlines reading things like "Cow tax uproar underscores greenhouse-gas divide," or "Plan for tax on cows stinks, US farmers say." These headlines originated from allegations that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal suggested that livestock be taxed because they emit greenhouse gases.
At the core of this issue is a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health. The EPA then published a very technical, 570-page notice that drew no conclusion on that question, but asked for comments and suggestions instead.
While much concern has been expressed in the agriculture community about this so-called "cow tax" rumor, it seems to have sidetracked us from providing suggestions on the question at hand. If the EPA regulates greenhouse gases, should it do so under a dated regulatory framework that was developed 40 years ago for an entirely different purpose?
A cow tax is clearly a bad idea and, if implemented, would have huge impacts on U.S. agriculture. But since no one proposed a cow tax, the question instead is: Should President Obama's administration use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?
If the administration is listening, the answer is, "No." The agricultural community in California has been at the forefront of being regulated under the Clean Air Act and has repeatedly proven the flaws in applying a regulatory framework to living ecosystems that was designed for major, industrial, stationary sources.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California dairy farms are starting to become a poster child for regulatory train wrecks. While the state touted dairy digesters as a way to manage manure and reduce methane, one of the greenhouse gases, farmers are now finding that—despite significant investments—it is extremely difficult to obtain local air quality permits because of the minor nitrogen oxide emissions that occur during the digester process.
This is just one example where the effort to regulate traditional-criteria air pollutants (those now regulated under the Clean Air Act) runs contrary to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This conflict promises to get worse if we do not take this opportunity at the national level to develop a more refined system that reduces criteria pollutants while also reducing greenhouse gases.
It must be a whole-system approach where the entire operation is evaluated for all environmental factors, not just air quality. We are at a crucial time in history and EPA needs to begin the complex tax of designing a new regulatory oversight system that takes into account the net environmental benefit. It will take thinking outside the old regulatory framework box, but we need to start immediately. A national climate change policy is being developed as you read this and this approach needs to be built in from the beginning, not be an afterthought.
Air pollutants now regulated by the Clean Air Act are local in nature, and their emissions are localized. Greenhouse gases are global in nature and do not stay local, but are spread throughout the world. While the Clean Air Act has been an effective tool in cleaning the air, the control measures typically put into place to help an area reach an air quality goal will not work on greenhouse gases. Emissions reduced will be replaced by emissions coming from other parts of the world. The net result is that the American economy—including agriculture—will suffer, with little or no benefit.
A pilot project could be developed to provide an example of how to start rethinking environmental regulation. This can and must be done while insuring no backsliding in environmental protection. But if done right, it will support innovation and economic growth instead of creating regulatory inertia, which is where we are quickly headed.
The "green" technologies and jobs that are popular ideas for aiding the economic downturn will never come to fruition if EPA instead tries to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If the act is not significantly revised, it will only serve as a barrier to addressing climate change, which is an important goal of the new administration.
The California Farm Bureau has been very active in working with the California Air Resources Board and the agricultural, academic and environmental communities during AB 32 implementation. We plan to continue that involvement at the national level and look forward to working with EPA and all federal agencies that will be involved in this important undertaking, as they develop a national climate change policy.
CNN Money
Job loss:  Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%...Chris Isidore
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_
january/index.htm?postversion=2009020610
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.
The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.
The loss since November is the biggest 3-month drop since immediately after the end of World War II, when the defense industry was shutting down for conversion to civilian production.
January's job loss was also worse than the forecast of a loss of 540,000 jobs from economists surveyed by Briefing.com
The rise in the unemployment rate also was worse than the 7.5% rate economists expected. The unemployment rate is now at its highest level since September, 1992.
As bad as the unemployment rate was, it only tells part of the story for people struggling to find jobs. Friday's report also showed that 2.6 million people have now been out of work for more than six months, the most long-term unemployed since 1983.
And that number only counts those still looking for work. The so-called underemployment rate, which includes those who have stopped looking for work and people working only part-time that want full-time positions, climbed to 13.9% from 13.5% in December. That is the highest rate for this measure since the Labor Department first started tracking it in 1994.
More job pain ahead?
Some economists are worried that the labor market is poised to get worse still.
"This has just begun," said Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University-Channel Islands. He projects an unemployment rate rising above 9% by the end of the year, while the monthly job losses could soon top 800,000.
"Hiring is falling off dramatically and layoffs are accelerating," he said. "The layoffs have become an almost popular thing to do for corporations. Many businesses are scared. They want to take precautionary steps."
January was a brutal month for layoffs, as major companies ranging from Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500), Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) and Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500) to Home Depot (HD, Fortune 500) and Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500) all announced substantial job cuts.
Announced layoffs so far this year have already topped 300,000. In addition, payroll services firm ADP estimates that small- and mid-sized businesses trimmed 430,000 jobs in January.
"The breadth of job losses now surpasses the prior two recessions," said John Silvia, chief economist for Wachovia.
The report showed the already battered manufacturing sector shedding 207,000 jobs last month, while the construction industry cut 111,000 jobs.
But it's not just the goods-producing sector that is losing jobs. The services sector, which now provides more than two-thirds of the nation's employment base, also reported widespread losses.
Business and professional services, the sector that includes lawyers, accountants and tech services, lost 121,000 jobs. Retailers cut 45,000 workers, while the finance sector trimmed 42,000 workers and the leisure and hospitality sector lost 28,000.
The number of temporary workers, viewed as another indicator of business and labor market strength overall, fell by 76,000.
Among the only sectors posting narrow gains in jobs were education, health services, and the government.
Weak numbers to take center stage in stimulus debate
The jobs report comes as the Senate debates the Obama administration's proposal for a nearly $900 billion economic stimulus bill. During a debate late into the night Thursday Republicans and some Democrats questioned the bill's mix of measures and its size.
The White House released a statement saying the January report was proof that quick approval of the stimulus bill is needed.
"These numbers, and the very real suffering of American workers they represent, reinforce the need for bold fiscal action," said Christina Romer, the chair of the President's council of economic advisers. "If we fail to act, we are likely to lose millions more jobs and the unemployment rate could reach double digits."
Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist for research firm Global Insight, said how quickly the stimulus plan is passed, and how effective it is in jump-starting the economy, will determine whether the recent job losses are the peak, or if they continue to climb.
He argues that stimulus needs to be for programs that get money into the economy as quickly as possible.
"Business confidence is extremely weak right now," he said. "They've taken a show-me-the-money attitude. What you need to stop more job losses is a series of very effective policies. That's the only thing that will help here."