5-31-09

 
5-31-09
Modesto Bee
Local reps need more D.C. clout...Jim Boren 
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/jim-boren/v-print/story/1436663.html
You'd think that Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, would be pleased that his party controls the White House, giving him better access to the executive branch than he had when George W. Bush was president. But Costa seems frustrated that he can't get the ear of the president at a time when his congressional district is suffering as much as any region in the country.
It's an odd dynamic considering that most members of Congress are cheerleaders for a president of their own party. But the usually cool Costa has been simmering lately.
Costa didn't attend first lady Michelle Obama's commencement speech at the University of California at Merced two weeks ago, although he says he didn't snub her. He had commitments in his district, he said. Besides, he invited her to meet with his constituents when she was in Merced, and that meeting didn't materialize.
Costa and four other Valley congressmen were criticized for not attending the first lady's commencement speech to the pioneer graduating class at UC Merced on May 16. That criticism angers Costa, who says the president and first lady have been invited to the 20th Congressional District several times.
Costa, at least, had a better excuse for skipping the first lady's speech than political pal Dennis Cardoza, the Merced Democratic congressman. Cardoza was hosting a fundraiser at the Preakness horse race in Baltimore on the day the first lady was in his hometown. Talk about putting personal politics ahead of your district.
But Costa approached it another way. He says he has sought out opportunities to lobby President Obama to come to the San Joaquin Valley to see the devastating impacts that the economy and the lack of water for agriculture have had on communities in his district. He said he invited Obama after the State of the Union speech and at a meeting in February of the Blue Dog Democrats.
Costa said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has assured him the president will make a trip to the Valley at some point to see the problems in his district, as well as the issues facing Cardoza's district.
The region is having a tough time because of the drought, a meltdown in the dairy industry, home foreclosures being among the highest in the nation. Farmworkers are in food lines and family farms are going out of business. Federal help is badly needed, and that's why it's important for Obama to be here.
The president has made several trips to California, and could have easily diverted to the Valley if it had been a priority. You can get angry over that or keep lobbying for a Valley trip.
That's why some thought it was a tactical error for Costa and Cardoza not to attend the first lady's speech. It would have given the Valley Democrats another chance to make their points about the region's troubles.
Costa said he attended a White House reception prior to the first lady's Merced speech and had a quick conversation with her about the problems in his district.
"I said we need you and the president to come to the Valley and see what's going on," Costa said. "We would love for you to take some extra time when you go to Merced to see what is happening."
He said she was interested, but it never got to the point of working something out because it was only a quick chat.
One of the big problems for this region is the current congressional delegation has little clout, especially when compared to other parts of California. A story in The Bee earlier this month pointed out that the region gets fewer federal funds than other areas of the state.
That leaves Costa and his colleagues with some choices. They can either whine about their plight, or get into leadership positions so they can get something done for their districts.
Some may like playing the victim card, but that doesn't help solve the Valley's problems. Oh, sure, congressional leaders may throw you a bone every once in awhile. But I'd prefer being represented by members of Congress who are handing out the bones.
San Francisco Chronicle
An opportunity to overhaul outdoor agency...Tom Stienstra
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/31/SPK017S48C.DTL&type=printable
The state budget numbers are so grim that some are predicting virtual implosion for Fish and Game, State Parks and Cal Boating.
But maybe there's a way for the Resources Agency to escape this trap door: This crisis might be an opportunity to force long-needed overhauls in its departments. They could still emerge OK.
You've heard the numbers: The state deficit is $24.3 billion. This past week, Gov. Schwarzenegger announced how he would recoup $5.5 billion of it, and as part of it, reports said the plan would close 80 percent of state parks. Well don't jump off the bridge just yet.
The broad-brush strokes to come up with another $18.8 billion, even in relative small departments like Fish and Game, would be devastating, right? Well, maybe not.
Here's how:
FISH AND GAME: The department has been SUBAR (Screwed Up Beyond All Recognition) for 35 years, when it started trying to be an environmental manager (failing in the process) rather than run fishing and hunting programs. In the new budget, the governor proposes to take $30 million out of dedicated funds as a "loan" to the general fund, likely order an additional cut and tell Fish and Game to deal with it. This could devastate matching federal funds the department receives. There's a better way to conduct business.
This is how you fix it: All habitat, conservation and nongame programs should be shifted to the Department of Conservation, which can better allocate priorities. This includes endangered species, non-game management, response to oil spills, toxics, timber review, oversight of pet stores, zoos, live-food animal markets and invasive species, few which Fish and Game does well. The game wardens - only 190 are left in the field, the lowest ratio per state resident in America - should be transferred to the California Highway Patrol and managed out of CHP substations.
This trimmed-down unit would be renamed the Department of Fishing and Hunting, and pay for itself with license fees, stamps and federal excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment. The governor could get his dream answered to cut all general fund money to the department. This new "DFH" would exist to stock trout, improve fishing and create hunting programs, especially for wild hogs.
Right now, Fish and Game is the best example in state government of how charging a lot of money (highest priced fishing license in America) doesn't equal performance (more fish and wildlife). In the past few months, I've asked the director, Donald Koch, and his deputy, Jordan Traverso, several times if money from fishing licenses and dedicated stamp funds is improperly diverted to pay for nonfishing budget items. They have not denied it, not once.
PARKS: Cutting $70 million in general fund dollars to State Parks would carve its heart out, right? After all, just a year ago, State Parks said that a proposed $9 million cut would have closed 48 state park units and another $4 million would cut lifeguard services at state beaches in Southern California. So doomsday has arrived, right? Maybe not.
The proposal to cut general fund money to State Parks could be a scheme to leverage money out of Cal Boating to pay for parks that have boat access.
In any case, the first priority has to be keeping the parks open. This can often be done by installing "iron rangers" at parking lots to collect day-use fees, which can then be spent for restroom maintenance and trash pick-up hired on a contract basis. Many county parks, regional parks and Forest Service trailheads have been kept open without having a ranger on site.
Campsite fees are already high, equivalent or higher than at private RV parks, which make a profit. So park campgrounds should be able to meet the governor's pay-your-own-way mantra. If they're losing money, then hire private concessionaires to run them, just as the Forest Service does with a profit at many locations. At Southern California state beaches, State Parks could charge $1 on top of parking to pay for lifeguards.
But there's another factor: When you look at cost vs. public good, the low cost of State Parks results in the most people deriving good. Last year's proposed $13 million cut would have saved only one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget, yet cost opportunities for 6.5 million people, and the governor was persuaded to restore the money. So here we go again, only this time, it's high stakes poker. One thing is certain: A $70 million cut would end State Parks as it is now known.
BOATING: You might think that Cal Boating is free of risk since it is one of a handful of state departments that pays completely for itself. Nope. For nearly 20 years, Republican governors have tried to divert money from boating to pay for deficits at State Parks.
The proposal on the table is to merge the departments, just as Gov. Pete Wilson tried in the 1990s. The initial idea is to shut down Cal Boating, eliminate paying for management, then shift oversight to State Parks and save only $600,000, none of it from the general fund. Behind this may be another plan to link their budgets, perhaps as an "emergency loan" from boating to keep state parks open. Or perhaps as an outright diversion, like the $20 million Wilson once took (and was forced to pay back) and handed to Parks.
The money to run boating comes from registration fees and taxes on boat fuel. This creates a dedicated account that can only be spent on boating, such as low-cost loans to improve boat launches, docks, marina parking and boating safety material.
These user-funded dedicated accounts drive the politicians crazy. If no one was watching, they'd grab this money, whether it was from boating, fishing licenses or hunting stamps, and spend it on their sweetheart programs.
Contra Costa Times
Editorial: California water banking plan backfires; increased storage more promising...MediaNews editorial
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_12478759
NINE YEARS AGO, CalFed, a consortium of state and federal water interests, pieced together a plan to fix California's water management system. Its purpose was to safeguard the Delta environment and provide adequate and dependable water supplies to agriculture and urban areas in dry as well as wet periods.
One of the chief components of CalFed's plan was the Environmental Water Account, which was supposed to protect sensitive fish species without hurting farmers and other water users.
At first glance, the plan made sense. When supplies were plentiful, water was to be purchased by users under the EWA and pumped south from the Delta to underground storage in Kern County. When Delta pumps had to be slowed to reduce fish deaths, the EWA would buy water from the Kern County aquifer to guarantee users adequate supplies.
However, the state was pumping so much water south that Kern County water agencies often did not store it in the underground aquifers. So large amounts of the water were diverted to the San Luis Reservoir south of Gilroy.
The higher pumping volumes also made cheap water available to Kern County agencies and enabled them to sell it back to the EWA at a huge profit. Kern agencies bought water from the EWA for an average price of $86 per acre-foot and sold it back to the EWA for about $200 per acre-foot.
The EWA spent nearly $200 million over its seven-year life from 2000 to 2007 to benefit users primarily in the Central Valley and enrich landowners and water agencies in Kern County.
Unfortunately, the EWA did nothing to protect the Delta environment because water pumping increased, which is likely a major reason for the sharp decline in several species of fish.
The big losers were the taxpayers, who received no environmental benefits despite their $200 million "investment."
There appear to be two fundamental problems that undermine almost any attempt to deliver adequate supplies to users and still protect the Delta: unrealistic water rights and a lack of storage near the Delta pumps.
Former state legislator Phil Isenberg, who chairs the Delta Vision task force, said that the average natural flow of the Delta watershed is 29 million acre-feet. Yet landowners have water rights to 245 million acre-feet.
Thus there is always on overabundance of demand for water, many times the supply, complicating the legal obligations to water users.
The second, and arguably most severe, problem confronting California water policy is inadequate storage near the Delta and elsewhere.
If there were a large reservoir near the Delta pumps, water could be stored in wet periods for use in dry times, mostly for environmental purposes.
Pumping could be temporarily slowed or even stopped to protect fish, and there would not have to be any special water accounts or dysfunctional trading.
Unfortunately, California's lawmakers do not recognize the severity of the problem and have not approved a major new reservoir for decades, while the state's population has doubled.
In the meantime, long-term water contracts were signed with the expectation that dams would be built in Northern California. They never were.
As a result, California now faces the prospect of losing much of its agriculture or starving urban users. Perhaps a few dry years might alter our state leaders' reluctance to invest in water storage, but we remain pessimistic.
Los Angeles Times
Obama walks a fine line over mining
Environmentalists feel betrayed by the EPA's decision not to block new mountaintop mining projects...Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mountaintop-mining31-2009may31,0,1484453,print.story
Reporting from Washington — With the election of President Obama, environmentalists had expected to see the end of the "Appalachian apocalypse," their name for exposing coal deposits by blowing the tops off whole mountains.
But in recent weeks, the administration has quietly made a decision to open the way for at least two dozen more mountaintop removals.
In a letter this month to a coal ally, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), the Environmental Protection Agency said it would not block dozens of "surface mining" projects. The list included some controversial mountaintop mines.
The industry says the practice of using explosives to blast away a peak is safer and more efficient than traditional shaft mining. But critics say the process scars the landscape and dumps tons of waste -- some of it toxic -- into streams and valleys.
The administration's decision is not the final word on the projects or the future of mountaintop removal. But the letter, coupled with the light it sheds on relations between the mining industry and the Obama White House, has disappointed environmentalists. Some say they feel betrayed by a president they thought would end or sharply limit the practice.
The issue is politically sensitive because environmentalists were an active force behind Obama's election, and the president's standing is tenuous among Democratic voters in coal states. West Virginia, for example, voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election largely because Democrat Al Gore was critical of the coal industry.
Moreover, Obama needs support from local lawmakers for an energy agenda that would further regulate home-state industries, but halting mountaintop mining could eliminate jobs and put upward pressure on energy prices in a time of economic hardship.
Coal advocates have solicited help from officials as high up as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. And the issue has sparked contentious debates within the administration, including one shouting match in which top officials from two government agencies were heard pounding their fists on the table, according to sources briefed on the meeting who requested anonymity when discussing White House dealings.
The White House is "searching for a way to walk this tightrope," said Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America. "They have a large constituency of people who want to see an immediate end to mountaintop removal, and an equally large constituency . . . whose communities depend on those jobs."
Shortly after his inauguration, Obama won praise from the green lobby for taking a skeptical view of the mining process. And in March the EPA announced it would review the mountaintop projects, breaking from the Bush administration's practice of granting permits with little or no scrutiny.
The EPA has the authority to block mountaintop removal under the Clean Water Act. But if the agency raises no objections, the final decision on projects is made by the Army Corps of Engineers, which historically has approved mountaintop mining. The corps previously had indicated its intention to approve 48 pending permits.
Although environmentalists had expected the new administration to put the brakes on mountaintop removal, Rahall and other mining advocates have pointed out that Obama did not promise to end the practice and was more open to it than his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
A review of Obama's campaign statements show that he had expressed concern about the practice without promising to end it. On a West Virginia visit, when asked about the impact of the mining on the state's streams, he said he wanted "strong enforcement of the Clean Water Act," adding: "I will make sure the head of the Environmental Protection Agency believes in the environment."
And his EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, has said that the agency had "considerable concern regarding the environmental impact these projects would have on fragile habitats and streams." She pledged that the agency would "use the best science and follow the letter of the law in ensuring we are protecting our environment."
Soon afterward, the agency in effect blocked six major pending mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio.
But this month, after a series of White House meetings with coal companies and advocates including Rahall and Democratic West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III, the EPA released the little-noticed letter giving the green light to at least two dozen projects.
"It was a big disappointment," said Joan Mulhern, a lawyer for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that has led court challenges to mountaintop removal. "It's disturbing and surprising that this administration, headed by a president who has expressed concern about mountaintop removal, would let such a large number of permits go forward without explanation."
Mulhern charged that the EPA "blew off" Jackson's earlier promises that the agency would adhere to science and would conduct an open process.
Ed Hopkins, a top Sierra Club official, said some of the projects that have now obtained the EPA's blessing "are as large and potentially destructive as the ones they objected to."
"It makes us wonder what standards -- if any -- the administration is using," Hopkins said.
EPA and White House officials say that about 200 proposed mining projects are under review and that the administration already had taken steps to break from Bush-era policies.
"We want to make informed decisions guided by science and the law, and a change in such a practice is not something that happens overnight," said Christine Glunz, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
But after the EPA's initial announcement in March that it would conduct aggressive reviews, Manchin and Rahall took the coal industry's concerns to White House officials, including Emanuel and Nancy Sutley, who heads the Council on Environmental Quality.
Manchin said he told the White House that "we are looking for a balance between the environment and the economy, and they assured me that they will work with us to find that balance."
Environmentalists were stunned to learn from Rahall's office May 15 that the EPA had given its blessing to 42 out of the 48 mine projects it had reviewed so far -- including two dozen mountaintop removals.
The news came in a letter to Rahall from Michael Shapiro, the EPA's acting assistant administrator, who wrote, "I understand the importance of coal mining in Appalachia for jobs, the economy, and meeting the nation's energy needs."