5-11-09

 
5-11-09
Merced Sun-Star
Letter: Correct the marquee...STEPHANIA SPIELMAN, Merced
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/180/v-print/story/838615.html
Editor: I am not sure who exactly is in charge of the Merced Theatre at Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Main Street.
I make it a habit to check out the marquee whenever I drive past, hoping for upcoming events, some sign that the theater is coming back to life.
However, when I drove past it Friday morning, I noticed a few things that disturbed me.
First, there are three sections to the marquee. The middle section says Art Kamangar Center and below that, "Welcome Michelle." Have we lost all sense of respect in this town? Since when do we refer to the first lady, our president's wife, by her first name?
I cannot even bring myself to call my teachers from my school years by their first names, let alone the wife of the leader of our country.
Secondly, on either side of the marquee. it says "Congrats UC Grads."
Now, the last time I checked, we had two colleges in this town.
I am hoping that you will read this message and adjust your marquee. Please do not devalue what the students at Merced College have done and recognize them for their accomplishments as well.
Fresno Bee
STIMULUS WATCH: Early road aid leaves out neediest...MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writers. Associated Press writer Cal Woodward contributed to this report.  
http://www.fresnobee.com/641/v-print/story/1393064.html
WASHINGTON Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.
One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.
Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.
The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.
The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.
The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.
"It's not fair," said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. "It's a joke because we're not going to get it, because we don't have any projects ready to go."
The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for "folks looking for work" and "folks who want to work."
"That's the core of my plan, putting people to work doing the work that America needs done," Obama said in a Feb. 11 speech promoting transportation spending as a way to expand employment.
Also, Congress required states to use some of the highway money for projects in economically distressed areas, but didn't impose sanctions if they didn't. States can lose money, however, if they don't spend fast enough.
The AP examined the earliest projects announced nationwide, the ones most likely to break ground and create jobs first. More projects are continually being announced, and some areas that received little or no help so far may benefit later. The Obama administration could also encourage states to change their plans.
To determine whether there was a disparity in where the money would go, the AP divided the nation's counties into four groups by unemployment levels. The analysis found that, no matter how the early money is measured, communities suffering most fare the worst:
-High-unemployment counties, those in the top quarter of jobless rates, are allotted about 16 percent of the money, compared with about 20 percent for areas least affected by joblessness.
-In low-unemployment counties nationwide, those in the bottom quarter of jobless rates, the federal government is spending about $89 a person compared with $59 a person in the worst-hit areas.
-In counties with the largest populations, the government is spending about $69 a person in areas with the lowest unemployment and $40 a person in places with the greatest job need.
The analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.
Among them: Wheeler County, Ore.; Steuben County, Ind.; Macon County, Ga.; and Crowley County, Colo.
Many others are getting minimal help in this round: Vermillion County, Ind.; Lapeer County, Mich.; Presidio County, Texas; Tallahatchi County, Miss.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the plan. Even if needy areas don't see transportation projects, workers can compete for jobs elsewhere, even if they are in more prosperous areas, he said. In many counties, particularly rural ones, that means a drive of two hours.
"People from all over the region are going to be working in those jobs," LaHood said Monday. "When it's all said and done, you're going to see an enormous number of people working on these projects this summer."
Joel Szabat, who also oversees the stimulus for the Transportation Department, said the agency presses states to build projects in struggling areas but does not normally consider how much money is going to each county.
Presented with AP's findings, he said: "I will be going back to ask our folks to do this kind of analysis, the overall amount for the projects."
"Our goal, and I think it is a goal that will be achieved, is that you will see that a fair share of this money will go to these areas," Szabat said.
Obama's plan sends $38 billion to states and local governments for roads, bridges, transit and other infrastructure, about 5 percent of the overall program that also includes money for, among other things, schools, community development, technology, worker training and tax breaks.
All counties will receive some stimulus relief eventually. But the haste voiced by the White House is not reflected in the flow of highway money so far.
"We cannot wait," Vice President Joe Biden said last week when announcing a $30 million transit project in his hometown of Wilmington, Del., where the 7.7 percent unemployment rate remains below the national average. "We're spending a lot of time and money. Why? It's about ... jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's why we cannot wait."
Yet residents of Perry County, Tenn., will have to wait. County Mayor John Carroll said he's disappointed his community, which suffers from 25.4 percent unemployment, won't receive a dime any time soon for its road needs.
"It's pretty easy to draw a connection between the high unemployment rate and the lack of any four-lane highways," he said.
Federal auditors acknowledge they can't yet track the transportation money that is leaving Washington and there is no single list of the thousands of projects planned in each state. For its analysis, the AP used lists of projects approved through March by the Transportation Department and collected lists of stimulus projects that have been announced in 49 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Federal officials have approved 2,800 projects. The remaining projects on the AP list represent the states' official plans for the money. Only Virginia, which has not announced its plan, is not included.
As the number of projects grows, places like Elk County, Pa., could still be left out because they could not afford the upfront costs needed to put proposals in the pipeline.
"It's all based on this 'shovel readiness,'" said Elk County Commissioner Daniel Freeburg. "That's been our stumbling block."
Elk County surely could use jobs. The once thriving north central Pennsylvania county is home to metal factories that equip the nation's auto industry. Layoffs are mounting.
Freeburg is pinning hopes on getting future stimulus money, such as for energy conservation programs, that will create jobs and rekindle the local metal and lumber industries.
In promoting his plan, Obama went to hard-hit communities such as Elkhart, Ind., and Peoria, Ill., and promised the jobs would come.
"Now, I know that some of you might be thinking, 'Well that all sounds good, but when are we going to see any of that here in Elkhart?'" Obama said. "'What does all that mean for our families and our community?' Those are exactly the kind of questions you should be asking of your president and your government."
Obama kept his promise to Elkhart, which so far is expected to receive $13.7 million, and Peoria, which should receive at least $10.6 million. But other, similar counties have not been so lucky.
For now, laid-off workers in Elk County, Pa., question why they've missed out, while money flows to more prosperous places.
"Why are they helping them?" asked Wendy Cameron, 50, of Saint Marys, Pa., who lost her job in a metal factory last year. She doesn't have health insurance and would gladly take road work. "They're not in need. We are.
"What are these people going to do? Is everybody going to go on welfare? I've never been on welfare. I don't want to be on welfare."
Sacramento Bee
Prominent power lines dim green enthusiasm for some...Ed Fletcher
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/1850173.html
In the summer heat, Rockney Compton's spring-fed koi pond doubles as a swimming hole for his three kids, and in the spring it is a water bowl for his dogs.
The pond is a centerpiece for an almost postcard-worthy vista of green, tree-lined hills near Round Mountain, a quiet stretch of Northern California's Shasta County.
What keeps this landscape shy of perfect are the high-voltage power lines that cut through Compton's property, built in the 1960s to funnel electricity from mountain reservoirs to urban customers far away.
Compton can't do anything about those lines. He believes he can, however, help halt plans to build two more sets of massive transmission towers and power lines through his tiny community, 28 miles northeast of Redding.
The $1.5 billion project envisions stringing 600 miles of new lines from northeast California to Sacramento and the Bay Area with a targeted completion date of 2014. It would be the largest power infrastructure venture undertaken in Northern California in nearly two decades, sponsored by a consortium of 15 Northern California municipal power providers, including Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the city of Roseville.
But it's also a new front in an emerging, nationwide fight over green power that pits environmental concerns against each other.
In Southern California, opposition – including some from Sen. Dianne Feinstein – is mounting against plans to erect a large array of solar panels in the desert, and the miles of transmission towers needed to connect them to customers in Los Angeles and San Diego.
The Northern California project could help bring online new, renewable sources of power such as wind, solar and geothermal. But it negatively impacts residents, wildlife and ecosystems beneath long, wide power line corridors.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been among those leading the push for big investment in green energy.
"Renewable energy is key for California's energy future," Schwarzenegger said at a San Jose solar summit last week.
Gold in the hills
State energy officials identified Lassen County as the best site in Northern California for wind, solar and geothermal energy generation. The renewable-power plants don't exist yet, but officials are confident that once transmission capability is in place, private industry will follow.
The Lassen area has enough potential alternative energy to generate up to 9.4 billion kilowatt hours annually, enough to serve between 1.3 million and 1.6 million homes, state energy officials said.
State Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, said that adding more renewable energy to the mix is absolutely the right way to go. He wrote California's law requiring power providers to get 20 percent of their electricity from green sources by the end of 2010. Now he's offering one of three bills in the Legislature to boost that requirement to 33 percent.
Wright said large-scale solar and wind power mean going where the sun shines brightest and the wind blows hardest.
"You have to put it where it works," he said. His bill, SB 805, would give power providers an additional 10 years to reach the higher goal for energy from green sources.
But getting that electricity to users means power lines. "If you are building renewables, you have to build transmission lines," Wright said.
He said it's hard to find a development project that everyone likes, but everyone wants their lights to work.
Opposition is spreading
Shasta County residents fighting the power line plan make up just one pocket of resistance. A Yolo County environmental group and the Colusa County Board of Supervisors have expressed concerns about the planning process.
Faced with opposition and mountains of questions, the Transmission Agency of Northern California, often referred to as TANC, extended public comment for the project's environmental study until May 31. Some critics suggest a more radical route: Restart the process from scratch.
Round Mountain is already the site of a Pacific Gas & Electric substation built in the 1960s. The new project would tie two parallel, 500-kilovolt transmission lines to the existing substation and add a new substation.
Between logging, the existing substation and the devastating Fountain fire of 1992, this community of 350 has given enough, residents say. "Why does one community have to always sacrifice for the good of all?" asks activist Beth Messick. "We are not averse to the big power lines. We just don't want them coming right over our community."
Opposition to the plan has galvanized the community, Messick said. In short order, 165 people signed a letter of opposition. And just last week, most of the town showed up for a meeting on the project. Local yokels they're not; they've set up an opposition Web page at www.stoptanc.com.
"This is not a group of people that are going to lay over and say, 'Oh, poor us,' " said Lynn Dorroh, who runs the local medical clinic. This town will fight, she said.
The wrong shade of green
Beyond predictable concerns about power lines encroaching on backyards, Messick and Dorroh also asked whether the state instead should put more energy into conservation programs and smaller, localized solar projects that produce clean electricity for consumers nearby.
That's the preference of Winters resident Kate Kelly.
"We should be focusing more on local generation of power," Kelly said.
The TANC project's $1.5 billion tab could build a lot of solar arrays on top of office buildings and parking garages, she said.
"We should be pursuing things like that rather than building power lines across the state," Kelly said.
She said transmission agency officials did a poor job notifying landowners and should have held community meetings in each affected county.
Winters farmer Stan Lester has his own problems with the process: "It's just incredible how unprofessional they have treated property owners," he said.
His main beef is what might happen to the thousands of walnut, apricot and cherry trees on his 600-acre ranch if 500-kilovolt power lines are dangling overhead.
"There are a lot of consequences to my family and the families that work for me," Lester said.
He said some land will have to be cleared for access roads. Trees under sagging lines may have to be topped.
The agency will pay landowners for the impact to their land.
"I don't want their money," Lester said.
While the contracts may not be in hand yet, agency members won't give the final go-ahead until they are satisfied the plan will pencil out, said Patrick Mealoy, a spokesman for the transmission agency.
Mealoy admitted to some missteps along the way, and said TANC is committed to more effectively communicating with stakeholders. And while this feedback period is important, it's not the end of the road.
"I'm very happy with the dialogue that has been opened," Mealoy said. "We will sit down and talk with all interested parties, and we will make refinements."
SMUD says lines are needed
Aside from questions about the process, critics are asking if the project is needed.
SMUD, the largest participant in the project, says yes.
"We will need access to more renewables than we can get locally in Sacramento," said Jim Shelter, SMUD's assistant general manager for energy supply.
If the project doesn't work out for whatever reason, it still means going elsewhere for green energy that can replace existing plants that run on natural gas. Rooftop solar can reduce the load but isn't the entire answer, Shelter said.
"When you start talking about 33 percent (renewable) by 2020, we have to start going further out to get that additional energy."
If the project is approved, SMUD will pay about a third of the costs, money that is not now reflected in utility bills.
"If we are going to move to renewables at the percentage that we are talking about, the cost of energy is going to go up," Shelter said.
Pacific Gas and Electric is not a participant in the project. The investor-owned utility discussed plans for a separate transmission line to the Canadian border.
Plans for tapping new sources of green power have utility regulators priming the public for erecting new power lines across California.
People should keep their eye on the big picture, said Jeffrey Byron, a member of the California Energy Commission. "If we are going to have to move away from fossil fuels, we are going to have build some transmission lines," Byron said. "I really think we are serving the greater good."
Proposed Power Line Route...Graphic
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1850173-a1850286-t46.html
Chico Enterprise Record
Seniority rules:...HEATHER HACKING
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_12336902
A legal battle for Sacramento River Settlement Contractors reached a conclusion recently when a judge ruled that water users with water rights that pre-date the Shasta Dam and Central Valley Project have the right to continue to receive water deals originally negotiated in the 1960s.
These contracts cover about 440,000 acres of land along the Sacramento River, from Redding to Sacramento, for about 2 million acre-feet of water.
One acre-foot of water equal 325,851 gallons, about the amount of water for two average California households for a year.
VIEW Review of the decision from water contract attorneys
The ruling affects 145 Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, including Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, smaller districts including Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District and Provident Irrigation District, Butte Creek Farms, Maxwell Irrigation District, Meridian Farms Water Co., Reclamation District 108, as well as water for various corporations, partnership and even individuals with water rights as low as 10 acre-feet.
These rights were established before the Central Valley Project was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to store and transport water throughout the state.
Before the Central Valley Project, people established water rights along the Sacramento River. In the 1960s, after Shasta Dam was completed, these water users entered into negotiations with the bureau and came up with contracts that recognized "base supplies" of water for established users.
Under the deals, these settlement contractors also were able to use water from the Central Valley Project.
Mark Atlas, attorney for Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District and Provident Irrigation District, said at that time there was an agreement that in critical drought the water supply supply could be cut by 25 percent.
A critical year is when inflow to Shasta is less than 3.2 million acre-feet.
That means when inflow at Shasta is above that mark, water users with these contracts receive their full supply, even while water users nearby may be getting only a small percentage of water under terms of different contracts with the Central Valley Project.
The settlement contracts were due for a 40-year renewal in 2004, which was approved in 2005, Atlas explained.
A biological opinion was completed that concluded renewal of the contracts would not adversely affect delta smelt, which are listed as threatened on the Endangered Species List.
The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit challenging that opinion.
"They said consultation on settlement contracts was inadequate and that they should renegotiate the contracts and renegotiate the quantity" of water in those contracts, Atlas said.
"We said they don't have the discretion to change the quantities of water," Atlas explained.
During the process, Judge Oliver Wanger, of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California in Fresno, determined the biological opinion was indeed inadequate. That opinion is currently being rewritten.
But Wanger also determined the Bureau of Reclamation "did not have the discretion" to change the quantities of water.
Without that ruling, Atlas predicted there would have been decades of litigation over those senior water rights, many that were established in the early 1900s, and in one case — Glenn-Colusa — back to the late 1800s.
Judge Wanger is the same judge who ruled in this same ongoing case in 2007 that Delta pumping would need to be cut back up to one-third to protect Delta smelt.
There is the possibility of appeal. Kate Poole, senior attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council, said the state is "struggling with limited water supply in this state particularly in a year like this one."
"People throughout the state are being asked to cut back. We think it's unfair for this relatively small group of water districts to receive one-third of the entire Central Valley Project supply in this state," Poole said.
"This year they're getting half of the entire Central Valley Water supply," she said.
"Everybody really needs to contribute if we're going to figure out how to repair a crashing salmon population and maintain sufficient water supply for a growing population," Poole said.
The lawsuit asked the bureau to look at those contracts negotiated in the 1960s and see if they needed to be adjusted for the current water supply.
"We still think that needs to happen," Poole said.
"State law doesn't allow you to claim a water right in the early 1900s, or late 1800s, and say we own this water for all time. That's not the way water rights work," she said.
She used the example of Reclamation District 108, which Poole said recently won an award for investing in efficient equipment that resulted in 25 percent water savings.
"If everybody made those investments, those are the things we want to take a look at," Poole said.
Thad Bettner, general manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, said the judge's ruling is a validation of the district's long-held senior water rights.
Bettner said Glenn-Colusa has been involved in discussions about how to meet delta and ecosystem needs, but the solution is not to take the water from his and other districts and then decide where it goes.
"We think there is a better way to address these cooperatively, rather than legally," Bettner said.  
The ruling
To read a legal report on the ruling from the law firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn: www.somachlaw.com/alerts.php?id=21
San Francisco Chronicle
Berkeley City Council meetings too long?...Carolyn Jones
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/11/BA8U17HDCM.DTL&type=printable
As a council aide, Susan Wengraf had tracked Berkeley City Council meetings for 16 years.
But nothing prepared her for actually sitting through one.
"It was a physical endurance test," said Wengraf, who was elected to the council in November after serving as aide to former Councilwoman Betty Olds. "My opinion is, nothing good happens after 11 p.m. My children wouldn't agree with me, but certainly no good government happens at that hour."
Berkeley City Council meetings are often marathons of democracy, replete with shouting, heckling and threats from the fire marshal. People wear costumes, don matching specially printed T-shirts, shake protest signs and grandstand about everything from Rwanda to the CIA to swimming pool renovations. Added to that, the century-old building where the meetings are held has poor acoustics and insulation, making the standard two- to six-hour meetings sometimes intolerable.
But Wengraf and others hope that moving the most controversial subjects to the beginning of the agenda will help them get business done at an earlier hour, when everyone is more alert.
Members of the City Council are sometimes exhausted before the meeting officially begins because they've often spent the previous two hours in workshops on topics ranging from the budget to crime.
"No question, nerves tend to get a little frayed," said Councilman Max Anderson. "There's a legitimate concern, at that hour, about our acuity."
The tipping point for the marathon meetings came April 21 when the council took up the highly controversial and complicated climate action plan at 10:30 p.m.
After an hour or so of public comment, the council was so exhausted that the meeting degenerated into a quagmire of confusion, shouting and gavel-banging highlighted by a 35-minute argument on what exactly they were voting on.
The meeting ended at 12:15 a.m. with no decision but plenty of frustration.
"We learned our lesson on the 21st," said Mayor Tom Bates. "People get fried. We really have to keep it under 11 p.m. and tackle the important stuff earlier."
At the next meeting, the climate action plan was among the first items on the agenda. The debate lasted about 2 1/2 hours and the council voted by 10 p.m.
Sometimes alertness does not simplify matters, however. That night, the council tacked on 37 amendments to the climate plan, resulting in such confusion that the city clerk required nearly two days to unscramble the record.
Berkeley's City Council meetings are actually shorter and more efficient than they were a decade or two ago. In the 1980s and '90s, public comments lasted for hours.
"It used to be much worse," Bates said. "But in the end, I think these long meetings, with lots of public comment, is a good thing. It slows the process down but the final product is better because of it."
Wengraf isn't so sure. Exhaustion is no condition in which to navigate the complexities of municipal government, she said.
"Tempers are shot. People are hungry, tired, too hot, too cold, whatever," she said. "On days we have meetings, I'm going to start practicing yoga."
Meeting times
Here's a look at the duration of city council meetings among comparable cities around the Bay Area:
Berkeley:Meetings last anywhere from two to six hours. Nine-member council meets two to four times a month.
Walnut Creek:Meetings usually last less than three hours. Five-member council meets twice a month. If an item has not been addressed by 11 p.m., the council postpones it until the next week.
Hayward:Meetings generally last two hours. Seven-member council meets three times a month and limits legislative items to three per meeting.
Palo Alto:Meetings routinely last until midnight or 1 a.m. Nine-member council meets three or four times a month.
Contra Costa Times
Editorial: Excess at the top of the UC system...MediaNews editorial
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_12327983?nclick_check=1
DESPITE A SALARY freeze for UC employees and a 9 percent, $693 increase in tuition (euphemistically called fees), regents approved huge pay increases for two new chancellors.
This display of insensitivity understandably does not sit well with the thousands of students and their families who will suffer a substantial expense in the middle of a recession. Nor are massive salary increases to the highest paid UC administrators fair to the thousands of university workers who will not get any raises.
After explaining how the university is facing tough economic times because of budget cuts, the regents named Linda Katehi chancellor of UC Davis with a salary of $400,000. That's $85,000, or 27 percent, more than her predecessor.
Regents also approved Susan Desmond-Hellmann as the new chancellor of UC San Francisco with a salary of $450,000, which is about 12 percent, or $50,000, more than the former chancellor received.
UC President Mark Yudof says that the higher salaries were required to attract the type of talent that is needed to run the state's public universities and that the pay is comparable to that at similar universities.
We have serious doubts that the pay increases really were necessary, but little doubt that they are demoralizing to students and UC staff.
Yudof argued that the higher salaries were necessary because there so much competition from private industries. That may be true. But Desmond-Hellmann had a base salary of $725,666 and $1.3 million in incentive compensation at Genentech. If she wanted to maintain that kind of pay level she would not be seeking a position in academia.
The same is true of Katehi. Yudof said she has 16 patents and that "private industry would eat her up in a minute and hire her." If she wanted a larger paycheck she would be applying to private firms, which could pay far more than UC is offering.
It is hard to believe the pay increases, which do not bring pay levels of either new chancellor to anything near what they could get in the private sector, were deciding factors in the hiring process.
It appears that neither Katehi nor Desmond-Hellmann are attracted to private industry. That is especially true of Desmond-Hellmann, who is leaving a lucrative position at Genentech.
With money so tight at UC at this time, one wonders why Yudof and the regents did not seek to promote administrators from within the UC system instead of going outside.
Certainly, the two new chancellors have the credentials and accomplishments to lead UC Davis and UC San Francisco, and we wish them well.
But this is hardly the time to be substantially boosting pay for the top-level administrators while other employees get no raises, and students are forced to pay ever-increasing "fees." 
Los Angeles Times
Full speed ahead on Long Beach port improvements
The Middle Harbor project would update old piers to increase cargo capacity while cutting pollution. Posturing by other cities and environmental and labor groups shouldn't be allowed to interfere...Editorial
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-harbor11-2009may11,0,868319,print.story
Southern California's strict environmental rules and green political culture make it notoriously difficult to build industrial facilities here, especially when they're on the coast and bring pollution with them. That's as it should be -- with the worst air quality in the country, Los Angeles and environs have to take extraordinary measures to protect residents' health and welfare. But there are times when the touchy local environmental community doesn't know when to unman the barricades and declare victory.
That time is now in Long Beach, where the City Council on Tuesday must decide whether to approve an environmental study for the first major project at the Port of Long Beach since 2002. The Middle Harbor project would update a pair of old piers to double the amount of cargo they're capable of handling, adding thousands of good-paying jobs. And it would incorporate innovations that would ultimately cut pollution generated by the facility to half the current level, despite the traffic growth.
The project would do this by increasing on-dock rail capacity, meaning most of the added cargo could be carried to and from the docks by train rather than more-polluting trucks. The piers would have clean cargo-handling equipment and would allow container ships to plug in to shore-based power while docked, so they wouldn't have to keep their engines running during loading and unloading. That would cut a tremendous amount of diesel pollution, as would rules imposed on ships using the new terminals -- they would have to switch to low-sulfur diesel fuel when within 40 miles of the port, and slow down to about half their normal speed.
Despite the obvious benefits, several cities and organizations are lobbying the council to send the environmental report back to the city's Harbor Commission for more study, which could further delay an already overdue project. The cities of Riverside and Commerce fear the new terminals would add truck and train traffic in their communities (even though the study shows the traffic increase wouldn't be significant), and environmental and labor groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Teamsters are raising a host of picayune objections, such as the notion that the port should have to account for emissions with only a tenuous relationship to the project -- for instance, the greenhouse gases emitted by ships along the entire journey from their home countries to the port.
That's posturing, not environmentalism; blocking this project would foul both the region's economy and its air. The Long Beach City Council should embrace green growth at the port and approve it.
Washington Post
Project launched to fight frog-killing fungus...BRETT ZONGKER, The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101900_pf.html
WASHINGTON -- Researchers are heading to Central America to develop ways to fight a fungus blamed for the extinction of dozens of frog and amphibian species.
The Smithsonian Institution is leading the Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project announced Monday. It includes six other zoos and institutes.
Scientists say the chytrid (KIH-trid) fungus threatens to wipe out a third of the approximately 6,000 known amphibian species. Already, conservationists say 122 amphibian species are believed to have gone extinct in the last 30 years, primarily because of the fungus.
The fungus is found in dozens of countries, including the U.S.
Scientists will study healthy frogs in Panama to see if their natural bacteria can be used to build resistance to the fungus.