6-26-09

 
6-26-09
Merced Sun-Star
Showdown on Wal-Mart distribution center near
Final environment report should be in city's hands...SCOTT JASON
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/920742.html
By the first Monday in July, Merced planning officials should have the final report that chronicles how the proposed Wal-Mart distribution center will change the city.
EDAW, the consultant writing the massive environmental review, is scheduled to turn over the final draft July 6 for city staff and attorneys to proofread.
It had offered a deadline of July 1, though it was revised Thursday.
After any changes are made, the project -- first proposed in 2005 -- will head to the Merced Planning Commission and City Council.
Wal-Mart plans to build a 1.1 million-square-foot distribution center on 230 acres between Childs and Gerard avenues. Supporters point to the added full-time jobs -- 600 when the center opens and 900 after a year of operation -- as a clear-cut reason why the project is essential for a community with an unemployment rate of 17 percent, representing about 18,000 people.
Opponents think the center's a bad idea, citing the added traffic on Highway 99 from big rigs and the poor air quality. (Wal-Mart has said its fleet will be green. Opponents worry that most of the trucks will be owned by outside contractors and not be clean-burning.)
The timeline for a vote on the controversial project remains tentative, though it could be as early as September, Merced Planning Manager Kim Espinosa said Wednesday.
The project must first go before the Planning Commission, which will offer a recommendation to the City Council.
Merced must publicly notice all meetings in advance. If Wal-Mart's project was to go before the commission Aug. 19, it'd have to be announced weeks ahead of time.
The center could then be before the council Sept. 21.
The draft environmental report, mandated by state law for large projects, was released in February for a 60-day public comment period. After about 300 letters of support, opposition and lingering questions, the report went back for revision.
EDAW, the consultant writing the report, is required to address all the questions raised by people. The public will be able to give their thoughts on the project during the public hearings before the commission and council.
Due to the amount of attention paid to the proposed Wal-Mart distribution center, the city's anticipating one council meeting to hear testimony and a second one the same week to vote.
Loose Lips:
Airing air board grievances
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/v-print/story/920741.html
The air-board paratroopers trying to drive Supervisor Mike Nelson from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District board should've consulted Lips before launching their blitzkrieg.
Rather than this public-relations campaign that's only going to have Nelson bunkering down to hold his position, the group should've found a replacement and offered Nelson a six-pack to quietly give up his seat.
Though Nelson maintains his most recent quote that brought out the bombers was taken out of context, he has referred to his term on the air board as a "sentence." Lips can't help but think he would prefer to spend his time elsewhere, such as working to expand Castle's enterprise zone designation.
The Battle of the Bored continued Monday with Sen. Jeff Denham, R-I got your back, defending Nelson in a public letter to the air board. The counteroffensive came after Sen. Dean Florez, D-Leader of the Pack, pounced on the county supe for creating "unwarranted level of hostility" during the meeting.
"Nelson is a believer that scientific facts, not shrill and emotional appeals, should be the grounds for decision-making," Denham wrote, adding that such criticism is "self-serving."
Of course, they both may be guilty of that. The two could face off in the 2010 lieutenant governor race. Denham won the battle, but this war may have just begun.
Driving Mr. Denham
Speaking of Denham, he put his perks where his mouth is when it came to cutting the state's budget. Not only did he agree to a pay cut, he turned in his state car -- a Toyota Highlander hybrid -- and the gas card. No word on what he's now driving, just that it's his personal vehicle.
Lips understands Merced County needs to trim its budget by $18.5 million. Perhaps the supes can follow suit and shave their salaries.
Los Banos Enterprise
General plan goes to council...Corey Pride
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/114/story/40509.html
The outline for guiding Los Baños' growth and development through the next two decades will finally go to the City Council for review after nearly four years of planning.
Wednesday night the Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised version of the city's general plan.
The general plan was last updated in 1999. The new version will guide nearly every aspect of city development and its impacts through 2030. At that time, according to the plan, Los Baños will have 90,400 residents. The plan also predicts that at maximum build out the city will boast 46,400 jobs and 32, 500 employed residents. Today those numbers are 4,540 and 11,100 respectively, according to the revised plan.
Commissioner Tom Mello asked city staff about some additional plans for industrial parks being included in the document. Mello had a concern that truck traffic using an industrial area near the Rail Trail would create problems as the city grows.
"You might want to consider moving that nearer to the (Highway) 152 bypass," Mello said. "I think it's a difficult situation for them to get in and out of right now. If you did bring industry into town, which we need desperately, it's not a very accessible area on either end."
Aside from industrial space near the Rail Trail, the general plan also provides for it at the extreme eastern and western edges of Highway 152 within the city's sphere of influence.
The plan calls for expanding low and medium density housing in the northern and southern portions of town. Mercey Springs Road will see more commercial development. The area near the western entrance of the Highway 152 bypass and the Merced College Los Baños Campus will also see commercial business built around them.
The eastern Sante Fe Grade portion of the bypass will be surrounded by an agriculture designation, but the Mercey Springs Road exit will be next to commercial development.
Mixed use designation -- meaning combinations of housing, commercial and civic uses -- are reserved for the city's downtown area and Rail Trail.
Shirley Napolitano, a commissioner and general plan steering committee member, said she particularly likes the provisions in the general plan dealing with air quality. She said the Central Valley has not achieved anywhere near what it needs to as far as improving air quality.
Commissioner Ann McCauley said she likes the greenbelts that surround certain areas within the general plan. McCauley also is fond of the commercial development near portions of the bypass.
Commissioners acknowledged that the general plan will likely undergo additional revisions before 2030.
"You have to have a plan; a place to start, and that's what this is," Napolitano said.
Commission Chairman Norm Donovan said he believes the new general plan will work very well.
The city began work on the general plan in November of 2005.
Modesto Bee
Revision of development fees put off...Garth Stapley
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/759515.html
Home builders Thursday persuaded officials to postpone a controversial overhaul of fees on all development throughout Stanislaus County.
A public hearing scheduled for Tuesday will occur as planned, but county supervisors aren't expected to vote on the comprehensive revision for six months or so.
That will give officials time to update their capital projects plan, which is a wish list of improvements to be funded by developer fees, said Stan Risen, county assistant executive officer.
Until Thursday, officials had insisted that number-crunching was solid in an exhaustive fees study. They changed course Thursday, Risen said, when Building Industry Association officers said the capital projects list must first be revised.
"They didn't threaten anything," Risen said. "We just said, 'Yep, you're right.' "
The proposed fees would raise $1.2 billion through 2030, with most proceeds helping to finance road projects such as an expressway from the foothills to Salida and various Highway 99 interchanges. Such fees also pay for county buildings, vehicles and equipment in animal control, mental health, the sheriff's department and more.
Paying sharply steeper public facility fees, according to the tabled proposal, would be builders of industrial plants, gas stations and drive-through businesses. Store, office and hotel developers, however, would pay less.
Home builders would pay 27 percent higher fees in the county's northern half, according to a new formula that splits the county in two, divided by the Tuolumne River. Houses south of the river would be charged 5 percent more than the current level. Apartment construction in either zone would pay lower fees.
Leading up to Tuesday's hearing before the county Board of Supervisors, critics had assailed the idea of asking construction, largely dormant in a bruising recession, to pay more. Higher fees could delay a rebound, they said.
Until Thursday, officials countered that it's wise to prepare for the next building wave. Modesto lost millions of dollars in uncaptured Village I fees when its leaders were slow to raise fees after an economic rebound in the late 1990s.
Manufacturers group objects
Even though developers are idle, fees are out of whack, said Risen and county Assistant Executive Officer Keith Boggs. The goal is to require development to pay for itself, they said, so the county sponsored many meetings with their consultants and all kinds of builders.
"We can't support the program," said Jan Ennenga, executive director of the Manufacturing Council of the Central Valley. Her members would be among the hardest hit, if the proposed fees eventually are adopted.
"It looks to us like a departure from the county's long-standing policy at encouraging and not discouraging development and expansion of high-value jobs," Ennenga said.
Joy Madison, chief executive of the Modesto Chamber of Commerce, also frowns on the proposal, saying, "This certainly will affect the ability for all of us to develop. You can raise a fee hundreds of percents, but if the market can't bear it no one will build. And that doesn't improve the tax base for the county."
Carol Whiteside, president emeritus of the Great Valley Center and former Modesto mayor, said officials must balance the building industry's health against the public's demand for services.
"If they don't charge the documented cost, they're subsidizing the private sector," Whiteside said.
Planners in Modesto, Riverbank and Waterford said they are closely watching the county's process. Builders in a given city pay the county's development fees as well as the city's.
Postponing fee increases shouldn't hurt anyone, said Steve Madison, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Central California.
"Right now is a real good time for stakeholders to work with the county and make sure everything is correct," Madison said, "because nobody's pulling any (building) permits. I don't think anyone will be out anything by taking the time to get it done correctly."
Enterprise zones are just corporate welfare...Willie L. Pelote Sr....Pelote is an assistant director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees...6-18-09
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/v-print/story/748733.html
Chambers of commerce and other free-market ideologues routinely claim that ending tax breaks in enterprise zones and-or raising taxes on businesses will cause companies to flee California for more tax-friendly pastures.
What these proponents of so-called free markets and free trade (aka laissez-faire capitalism) generally forget or fail to mention is that countless businesses have long since left California and the rest of the United States for low-wage, low-cost markets overseas, and this has been happening for some time.
The loss of America's manufacturing base to outsourcing and globalization is undisputed.
Now, a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California confirms the hollowness of the economic development strategy that California and other states have been pursuing to address the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base caused by capital flight, outsourcing and foreign direct investment.
After comparing job growth in enterprise zones with employment in comparable areas, PPIC found that California's enterprise zone program, which relies on tax breaks and tax credits to businesses to spur job creation, "has no effect on job or business creation." In other words, providing state subsidies, tax breaks, credits and other incentives to companies in the hope that they will create jobs to alleviate poverty and unemployment not only fails to increase jobs, but this approach is basically akin to flushing taxpayer money down the toilet.
Supporters of this method of economic development are likely to disagree. Understandably, if we all owned companies that received annual gifts from the state in the form of taxpayer dollars, we too might readily see the benefits of such a program.
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of us who don't own businesses that rely on state- sponsored subsidies, what this practice amounts to is the outright theft of our tax dollars.
As the state's largest economic development program, the enterprise zone program costs California taxpayers half a billion dollars a year.
This means that every year $500 million worth of our hard-earned tax dollars are transferred to select individuals and businesses in the private sector who have made some vague promises of using the public purse to do some public good.
The dubious results of this strategy in the area of job creation show that using taxpayer funds to subsidize private sector growth is a losing proposition for the state and all its citizens, as the quality of public services such as education, health care, infrastructure, transportation etc. continue to deteriorate due to a resultant lack of funds.
In light of California's ongoing budget crisis and as a general proposition, all tax breaks associated with the enterprise zone program and similar types of programs aimed at channeling taxpayer money to subsidize economic development by private sector companies should be quickly eliminated.
This and similar proposals are contained in an alternative budget proposal prepared by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, which has found $44 billion worth of recurring revenues to balance this year's budget and all future budgets in California.
As we look across our state and our country, it is clear that outsourcing, capital flight, the loss of our manufacturing base and the tax-breaks-for-business approach have created an economy where the remaining jobs consist of low-wage, low-skill service jobs and high-wage financial, entertainment and telecommunications jobs.
Those lucky enough to be employed in high-wage positions like the ones mentioned above may have little problem with the way economic development has been occurring in California and the rest of the nation over the last 30 years.
However, for the vast majority of us who have failed to share in this wealth, it is about time for us to put an end to this system of welfare for the business community. Such a system is both unsound and un-American.
Dan Walters: Do enterprise zones really generate jobs?...Dan Walters
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/walters/v-print/story/759359.html
On June 10, the Public Policy Institute of California issued a report that was highly critical of California's "enterprise zone" program that gives tax breaks and other economic incentives for employers to establish new facilities in areas of high unemployment.
The 42 zones, established by local governments with state permission, cost local and state governments about a half-billion dollars a year in lost revenues but have "no statistically significant effect on employment," the PPIC study concluded.
"The state can ill-afford to continue the enterprise zone program without clearer evidence of its benefits or a well-defined plan to make it more effective," said Jed Kolko, co-author of the PPIC study.
A few hours later, the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business re-released a study it had originally issued in February, declaring that California's enterprise zones had "statistically significant" positive impacts on employment and incomes of affected households.
"For California, we found that enterprise zones increased employment by 2.2 percent and increased the fraction of houses with wage and salary income by 2.1 percent," USC researcher Charles Swenson said, adding that California's positive results mirrored those of other states.
The juxtaposition of these obviously disparate evaluations of the state's largest economic development effort was scarcely a coincidence. And they illustrate how difficult it is to evaluate the efficacy of costly economic development programs.
If equally well-qualified academics can look at essentially the same data and come to such conflicting conclusions, how can the public, the media and, most importantly, the politicians who control the purse strings ever judge enterprise zones and myriad other efforts at economic stimulation?
It's a particularly vexing question because California's economy is in obvious crisis, with nothing in sight to jump-start recovery, and because if that half-billion dollar subsidy is not effective, it should be recaptured and spent on something else, given the state's chronic budget deficits.
Scarcely a year passes without Capitol politicians enacting some new program they claim will generate economic returns. In fact, even as they were imposing heavy new taxes on Californians as part of a budget deal in February, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers enacted a couple of new corporate tax breaks, including a big one for the governor's old chums in the movie industry.
One might think that those we elect to office would be willing, even eager, to re-examine their handiwork from time to time to learn whether the oft-promised public benefits come to pass. But the "economic development" programs soon develop political constituencies that resist any evaluation, much less modification. So the easiest path, politically, is to continue adding such programs, which is why they stack up in ever-growing layers.
Bassitt: Enterprise zone working well here...Bill Bassitt. Bassitt is chief executive officer of the Stanislaus Economic Development and Workforce Alliance
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/v-print/story/759345.html
A recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California claimed, and was cited in a piece in The Bee ("Enterprise zones are just corporate welfare," June 18, Page A-9) by the chief lobbyist from the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees union as evidence, that enterprise zones are not meeting employment expectations and should be ended.
For the record, the act that created enterprise zones speaks only of the creation of job opportunities and says specifically, "it is declared to be the purpose of this chapter to stimulate business and industrial growth in the depressed areas of the state by relaxing regulatory controls that impede private investment."
It states further, "It is in the interest of the state to have one strong, combined and business-friendly incentive program to help attract business and industry to the state, to help retain and expand existing state business and industry, and to create job opportunities for all Californians."
Short of a national industrial policy that prohibits states and localities from employing any type of incentive program to attract businesses to locate in their areas, success will be afforded to those that recognize the needs of business and respond with incentives that encourage expansion and growth that would not occur without them.
There is a record number of unemployed in the state of Georgia. That state recently spent $96 million in incentives to entice NCR to locate a corporate headquarters and a production facility with 2,120 jobs into the state.
Connecticut, with a two-year billion-dollar budget deficit, is offering loans and tax credits to encourage companies to expand or locate into the state.
North Carolina has enacted legislation giving corporate income tax relief to companies willing to locate in distressed areas. Most states have multiple incentive programs for business.
California is the eighth largest economy in the world. Certainly lots of companies need to be here. But it also is the sixth most expensive state for businesses.
For this state to be business competitive, incentives of a comparable nature must be offered to companies who have a choice on their operational locations. The California Enterprise Zone program is one type of incentive that businesses can use to help calculate the bottom line cost of operating in this state.
Zone 40, the original enterprise zone designated for Stanislaus County, was authorized in 2005.
Following several expansions to allow equal participation for all communities in the county, the zone encompasses approximately 75,000 acres of predominately industrial- and commercial-zoned land.
In the past 18 months, 683 people have been employed in new positions with companies located in the county. In that same period, 4,489 people have been hired for existing positions. More than 250 companies have participated in hiring more than 5,000 county residents, employing many who could not have found work without this program.
This proves, in spite of the PPIC's claim, that the enterprise zone is working well for Stanislaus County.
Others agree that enterprise zones work.
A new study from USC professor John Ham and others reveals that enterprise zones are bright spots in areas lagging in economic development and employment. California's Housing and Community Development department commissioned a study shows that compared to the rest of California, the enterprise zones had a 7.35 percent drop in poverty rates; a 7.1 percent increase in household incomes; and a 3.5 percent increase in salaries. Further, they concluded that enterprise zones increased employment by 2.2 percent.
As we face double-digit unemployment, any increase in jobs looks pretty good.
Fresno Bee
Calif. denies legal protections for pika...The Associated Press
http://www.fresnobee.com/384/v-print/story/1497737.html
SAN FRANCISCO State wildlife officials have rejected a petition seeking protections for the mountain-dwelling American pika under the California Endangered Species Act.
The California Fish and Game Commission's decision Wednesday comes after a judge last month ordered the state to reconsider a previous denial.
Researchers at the Center for Biological Diversity argued in their petition that global warming is destroying the habitat of the tiny pika. The pika live in the cooler, upper reaches of California's Sierra Nevada, and the mountains of 10 other western states.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also studying whether the pika should be protected by federal law.
The center says it is considering a legal challenge to the state's decision.
EDF, Rancher Group Praise New Montana Strategy to Save Declining Sage-Grouse...Environmental Defense Fund...Press Release 
http://www.fresnobee.com/556/v-print/story/1496525.html
Groups Call Strategy Model for 10 Other States Where Bird Species Still Exists BOZEMAN, Mont., June 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ Montana's new strategy to utilize farm bill conservation programs to conserve habitat for the greater sage-grouse on private lands is a model for the 10 other states where the bird still exists, according to the Montana Stockgrowers Association and Environmental Defense Fund. Historically, there were more than a million sage-grouses spread across the western U.S. and Canada, but today they are rare in most places with the total population estimated at 100,000-500,000 birds. The bird's remaining U.S. strongholds are in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Documented declines of the sage-grouse population and rising threats to their survival have caused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to reevaluate sage-grouse for protective listing under the Endangered Species Act. If USFWS lists the grouse as an endangered species, ranching, mining, energy development and other activities could be subject to additional scrutiny to protect the bird (see bird photo: www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=9405).
Recognizing the threats the bird faces and the fact that USDA conservation programs can be used more effectively to address those threats, the Montana NRCS developed the Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy in consultation with many stakeholders and management agencies. They included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Bureau of Land Management; University of Montana; Montana State University; Montana Stockgrowers Association; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Intertribal Agricultural Council; The Nature Conservancy; and private landowners. This strategy better aligns NRCS practice specifications and programs with the latest scientific information on the bird.
"This strategy is a win-win proposition for both sage-grouse and private landowners," said Malta rancher Dale Veseth, a member of the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the 2008 Montana and Region V Environmental Stewardship Award winner. "It provides ranchers like me economic support so we may continue to participate in cooperative, scientifically-based, on-the-ground conservation efforts for sage-grouse. If more proactive, cooperative efforts are initiated on private lands, perhaps we can avoid listing the species."
"Dale's comments are right on the money," said Malta rancher Leo Barthelmess, a northeast district director of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, and winner of the Montana Environmental Stewardship Award and NCBA Regional Environmental Stewardship Award in 2004. "As a director of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, I've worked to build broad-based support for private and public lands conservation of sage-grouse and other bird species known to share similar habitats."
The strategy:
    1. Prioritizes protection of habitat in key "core" habitat areas
        through conservation easements;
    2. Aligns specific practice specifications, and adds new ones,
        with the recommendations of leading sage-grouse 
        scientists;
    3. Commits to work with partners to develop more intensive
        outreach, education, and monitoring efforts in the state.
Among the benefits of the strategy are:
    1. Improved practices and incentives available to private
        landowners to manage for the species;
    2. Reduced negative impacts of fencing, watering facilities,
        transmission lines, etc.; and
    3. Improved education for landowners and resource
        professionals on how to apply beneficial management
        practices.
"We commend Montana NRCS for taking this much needed action to save sage-grouse," said Ted Toombs, Rocky Mountain Regional Director of Environmental Defense Fund's Center for Conservation Incentives and a member of several NRCS State Technical Committees. "We look forward to working with NRCS scientists and partners to ensure monitoring is conducted and the results of new research are incorporated on the ground through adaptive management. We strongly urge NRCS to develop similar strategies in the 10 other states where sage-grouse still exist."
Montana NCRS will utilize six of the conservation programs the agency administers to implement the strategy, including the
    --  Conservation Cooperative Partnership Initiative (CCPI)
    --  Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
    --  Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA)
    --  Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
    --  Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
    --  Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)
    --  Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Unfortunately, in an effort to cut the federal deficit, the Obama administration's budget asks Congress to cut funding for two of these conservation programs, including EQIP (by $250 million) and WHIP (by $43 million).
"This strategy is significant step toward utilizing farm bill conservation programs in ways that will help prevent the sage-grouse from being listed on the U.S. Endangered Species List, as it already is in Canada," concluded Toombs. "We urge Congress not to cut these vital conversation programs."
Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 700,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org.
Contact:
    Sean Crowley, (202) 572-3331-w, scrowley@edf.org
    Dan Cronin, (202) 572-3354-c, dcronin@edf.org
    Ted Toombs, (303) 447-7210-w, ttoombs@edf.org
SOURCE Environmental Defense Fund
Sacramento Bee
Longfin smelt declared endangered in California...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/378/v-print/story/1978874.html
The longfin smelt on Thursday was declared a threatened species in California, officially adding another imperiled fish to the problems affecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The California Fish and Game Commission in March ruled there was enough evidence to protect the longfin under the state Endangered Species Act.
This began a review period that concluded Thursday with a formal vote in Woodland to list the fish as threatened.
The 5-inch longfin – similar to its cousin, the Delta smelt – is sensitive to water quality in the Delta that's been altered by pollution and water diversions.
It has been declining since 2000 as problems in the Delta have multiplied.
Calif. board postpones decision on pollution tax...SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/v-print/story/1978367.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California regulators on Thursday delayed a decision on whether to implement the nation's first statewide carbon fee on utilities, oil refineries and other polluting industries.
The move came after several electricity providers expressed concerns that California might inadvertently level a charge on energy that is moved through but not used in the state. That would violate federal energy laws.
Mary Nichols, who chairs the California Air Resources Board, says regulators still favor a carbon fee to raise the money to implement California's landmark 2006 global warming law. But they want to ensure they do so legally.
"We want this thing to be air tight," Nichols said. "We don't want to proceed with anything until we're absolutely confident what we're doing will meet every legal and constitutional test."
She said a vote will be held on the carbon fee at the board's July meeting.
The delay gave California businesses that have opposed the fee a short reprieve. Oil companies, manufacturers and utilities complained Thursday that the proposal has unfairly singled them out to pay for the fee.
Industry has also argued the fee would impose another burden on California businesses while the state is mired in recession and experiencing its highest jobless rate - 11.5 percent - in modern times.
"Every additional cost burden adds to the already very high cost of doing business in the state," said Dorothy Rothrock, vice president of government relations at the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
If it is adopted next month, the fee would be imposed beginning in 2010 and would raise $51.2 million annually during its first three years, leveling off at $36.2 million during the fifth year. The average cement plant would pay about $200,000 a year, while the average oil refinery would pay about $1.3 million a year.
The air board targeted the fee to industries it considers the starting point for roughly 85 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions. For example, refineries and utility plants are the first handlers of the fuel and electricity that Californians consume every year.
About 250 businesses in California that make, sell or import gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal would be charged roughly 12 cents per ton of carbon dioxide that they and their customers emit.
Cement plants also would be subject to the fee because the chemical process to make cement produces greenhouse gases. The charge would drop to 9 cents per ton of carbon dioxide in 2014.
Industry representatives said the air board's approach unfairly holds them accountable not just for their own emissions, but for those generated by the millions of Californians who use their products. They would like the fee spread across a broader cross-section of the economy.
"Fuels in and of themselves are not sources of greenhouse gas emissions," Michaeleen Mason, director of regulatory issues at the Western States Petroleum Association, told the board Thursday.
"Fuel producers and importers cannot be considered sources of greenhouse gas emissions," she said.
Air regulators say they need the fee to carry out the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which seeks to reduce emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020. It is intended to cover the salaries of 174 people hired to implement the law since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it.
The air board staff projected businesses asked to pay the fee could pass along its costs to consumers.
The average restaurant, for example, would see an increase of roughly $14 a year in its electricity and natural gas costs, said Jon Costantino, manager of the climate change section at the air board. The cost to each Californian would amount to between $1 and $1.50 a year.
A few local government entities have adopted similar fees. Last year, air regulators in the San Francisco Bay area imposed a 4.4 cent per-ton carbon fee on businesses that emit greenhouse gasses. In 2006, voters in Boulder, Colo., imposed a carbon tax on their own energy use.
Contra Costa Times
Falloff in Port of Oakland container traffic could impact region's economy in many ways...George Avalos
http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_12689866
The Port of Oakland has slumped into a double-digit decline for its container volume and that ailment could infect a wider stretch of the East Bay's wheezing economy, industry executives and analysts warn.
During the first five months of 2009, compared with the same January-through-May period of 2008, container traffic fell 13.8 percent at the Port of Oakland.
"That is a significant decline," said Robert Bernardo, a port spokesman.
The decline in container traffic at the Oakland port comes at the same time that Marcus & Millichap, a commercial property investment brokerage, is warning that a decline in activity at the port could jolt the economic structure of the entire East Bay.
And the slump in port activity could also erode demand for warehouse, distribution and industrial space generally in the East Bay. Plus, the commercial property brokerage, according to its new report, doesn't expect an upswing in East Bay port activity any time soon.
"Last year, container traffic at the Port of Oakland posted the most significant decline since the tech bust earlier this decade," Marcus & Millichap stated in its report on the industrial property market. "A rebound is unlikely this year."
The port estimated that 163,881 container units were handled at the maritime complex during May 2009, down from 183,800 units in May 2008. That was a 10.8 percent decline.
"The problem is definitely the global recession," Bernardo said. "That is having a profound effect on West Coast ports in general."
All six major West Coast ports suffered a double-digit decline in total container activity during the first five months of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008, statistics from the individual ports show.
But Oakland endured a smaller percent decrease compared with the ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, which are Oakland's primary rivals in the western United States.
"We are doing O.K., compared with the numbers from the other ports on the West Coast," Bernardo said.
The declines ranged from a relative low of down 13.9 percent for the Port of Tacoma to a worst mark of down 27.1 percent for the Port of Long Beach. The Port of Los Angeles was down 16.6 percent. All of the figures compared the first five months of 2009 to the same period in 2008.
"To some extent, decreased port traffic is an indicator of decreased activity in other areas of the economy in the region," said Jeff Michael, director of the Stockton-based Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific. "But weaker activity at the port has a ripple effect in the area."
The downturn at the Port of Oakland could have triggered some erosion in the local job market, based on industry trends in the latest report from the state's Employment Development Department.
During the 12 months that ended in May, East Bay employers shed 1,900 transportation jobs, a 6.7 percent decline from the job totals for that industry the year before, the EDD figures show.
Over the same one-year time period, the East Bay lost 100 warehousing jobs, a decrease of 2 percent over 12 months.
The Interstate 880 corridor was particularly hard hit by the port's struggles, according to Marcus & Millichap.
"Much of the East Bay's warehouse and distribution space is concentrated in this region," the commercial property brokerage stated in its report.
Despite ongoing leasing activity, the area wound up with far more vacant industrial space in March than it had in December 2008. Industrial building vacancies increased by a net total 1.3 million square feet.
"Mervyn's, for example, recently abandoned its 300,000-square-foot regional distribution center," Marcus & Millichap stated.
The realty brokers predicted that industrial vacancies would rise to 10.6 percent in the East Bay in 2009, up from 9.3 percent in 2008 and 7.4 percent in 2007.
Asking rents for industrial buildings will fall 5.9 percent, Marcus & Millichap reported.
The health of the ports are crucial, officials and an analysts said.
"Ports are major employers, they create good jobs, and they have an impact on the rest of the economy," Michael said.
TRAFFIC SLUMP
Container traffic, as measured by TEUs, or 20-ton equivalent units, has slumped throughout the West Coast. But the Port of Oakland is in better shape than its rivals. The chart shows TEU totals for the first five months of 2009 and the percent change from the same period in 2008.
PORT Containers (in thousands) Percent change from year before
Oakland 792.7 -13.8%
Tacoma 650.6 -13.9%
Los Angeles 2,634.4 -16.2%
Seattle 563.3 -24.1%
Long Beach 1,919.7 -27.1%
Portland 75.7 -27.2%
Sources: Port information 
Los Angeles Times
Culligan lobbies hard as water softeners become a drought issue
The company is fighting a state Assembly bill that would let regulators ban devices that discharge salt into municipal sewer lines, rendering water difficult to recycle...Marc Lifsher
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-culligan26-2009jun26,0,5400596,print.story
Reporting from Sacramento — Government bureaucrats want your water softener.
The Culligan Man is fighting back.
The company behind the renowned "Hey Culligan Man!" advertising campaign of the 1950s has launched a political and public relations offensive to kill a bill targeting its signature product.
That proposal would allow regulators to ban conventional water softeners that discharge salt into municipal sewer lines. The mineral makes it tough for sanitation districts to clean and reuse their sewage, which is an increasingly crucial source of irrigation water in drought-plagued California.
The bill pits giant Culligan International Co. and smaller water-softener manufacturers and their dealers against a broad coalition of interests that includes California cities, water districts, big farming groups, chicken ranchers and even the golfing industry.
"It's a water-quality issue," said Mike McCullough, the director of environment and water resources for the Northern California Golf Assn. "If you have better-quality recycled water, obviously the turf can respond accordingly."
But Culligan, based in Rosemont, Ill., contends that it's not to blame for California's water woes. It's portraying the legislation as a Big Government grab of private property.
It's "an unprecedented step to take something from your home that you legally purchased to better the quality of your life," said Culligan General Counsel Susan Bennett. The privately held firm, which does not divulge sales figures, is by far the largest player in the California market.
The industry is running ads, including a recent full page in the Sacramento Bee, showing a man in a business suit wielding a plumber's wrench and a briefcase, ostensibly to rip the water softener from the utility closet of a hapless homeowner.
"The Sacramento Politicians are at it again. They're back to try and take your water softener away," the ad warns ominously, directing readers to visit www.savemysoftener.com.
Industry officials said they hoped the campaign would help customers avoid what happened to Vern Crawford, a retired Santa Clarita carpenter, who had to yank out his water softener after a local ordinance made it illegal.
"I do think it's a little unfair to target just the soft-water people," he said.
Dollars at stake
Water softening is a $500-million annual business in California. Units can cost about $2,300 plus periodic servicing. One in 10 Golden State homes, or an estimated 1 million households, have them.
The industry has made $117,000 in political campaign contributions since 2000. It gave $1,000 to one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's committees in April 2008. The governor last year vetoed legislation seeking to regulate water softeners.
Proponents of the current bill aren't amused by the industry's cheeky campaign. They say decommissioning of existing units would be a last resort and that homeowners would be compensated. Consumers, they note, still have access to alternative water-softening systems that do not pollute rivers with salt.
"It's hyperbole. Clearly, it's a very reckless and irresponsible attempt to engender fear at the expense of . . . a very important issue," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), the author of the legislation, AB 1366.
The matter has been bubbling for years as California finds it ever harder to satisfy the demands of thirsty cities, farmers and endangered fish species. Drought and climate change are reducing water supplies throughout the Southwest.
Water districts across California are under pressure to "recycle" sewage and runoff that they used to dispose of. The sanitized wastewater can be used for irrigation, groundwater recharge and even drinking water if the sewage is thoroughly cleaned.
But water treatment is expensive. Water softeners are adding to the burden.
The appliances remove the calcium and magnesium that cause much of the state's tap water to be "hard." Softening reduces the mineral scale that can clog pipes, damage water heaters and leave soap scum in showers and on glassware. Soft-water users say their skin feels smoother and their hair silkier.
Conventional softeners, however, flush the minerals from the tank using a salt- water solution. Statewide, those units annually discharge hundreds of thousands of pounds of salt into wastewater that must be treated at the expense of municipal utility ratepayers.
If Feuer's bill becomes law, California would be the first state in the country with a mechanism for banning water softeners on a mass scale.
Some communities have already imposed a ban. Faced with the prospect of higher sewer rates to build a new water treatment facility, residents of the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, which includes Santa Clarita, Valencia, Newhall and several other communities in northern Los Angeles County, voted last year to outlaw salt-discharging water softeners starting Jan. 1 of this year, with a six-month grace period to comply.
Officials used lists provided by water-softener companies to track down and remove an estimated 6,500 water softeners, whose owners were compensated for the "reasonable" value of the appliances. Scofflaws could be hit with a $1,000 fine and up to 30 days in prison starting July 1.
Controllable factor
Salinity has been increasing in California's surface and groundwater supplies for decades. Salt buildups have poisoned parts of the west San Joaquin Valley, forcing farmers to take the land out of production. Agricultural irrigation runoff, human and animal waste and household cleaning products are all culprits.
But water experts said removing residential water softeners could cut salinity by as much as 20% in some areas of the state.
It's "the only controllable factor we have" to keep salt levels down, said Paul Martin of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
The bill's backers include the League of California Cities, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Western Growers agricultural organization, the California Poultry Federation and the California Alliance for Golf.
The bill authorizes operators of sanitation systems to control salinity caused by common water softeners. Local authorities would have the power to require all water softeners to meet strict efficiency standards, to require that they be hooked up only to hot water supplies, to ask homeowners to voluntarily give up softeners with "buy-back" enticements and to order the removal of previously installed units.
They could order the removal of existing units only after a regional water board concluded that such an action would improve water quality. Owners of seized water softeners would be compensated out of ratepayer funds for their lost property, the bill specifies.
The Feuer bill would not ban water softeners or treatment systems being sold commercially that do not flush salts to sewers.
Rising priority
Mike Mecca, president of the Pacific Water Quality Assn., an industry group, acknowledged that softeners do increase salinity "a little bit." But he said that banning them wouldn't do much to improve water quality. Industry officials stress that alternatives, such as water-softening units with closed containers that are replaced regularly so that the salts can be treated at a central plant, can be more environmentally friendly but are not practical in all areas.
Those arguments persuaded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year to veto a predecessor of Feuer's bill because it "could unduly limit choices for consumers."
But this year the governor, who has made improving the state's water supply a top priority, has not taken a stance on the Feuer bill, said spokeswoman Lisa Page.
Santa Clarita homeowner Esther Romero said she didn't have any qualms about giving up her water softener. "I decided to get rid of it," she said. "If it's something that's not good for the city and not good for the environment; why should I have it?"
In its place, Romero began renting a nonpolluting water softener from the same local Culligan dealer that sold her the old unit years ago.
Washington Post
For the Farm Lobby, Too Much Is Never Enough...Steven Pearlstein
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504133_pf.html
With the possible exception of the ski industry, it's hard to think of any sector of the economy that will be hit harder by global warming than agriculture. A report out last week from scientists at 13 government agencies found that climate change is happening more quickly than we thought and that by the end of the century, many farmers will face scorching summer weather, severe storms, prolonged drought and swarms of new insects.
Given those prospects, you might expect the farm lobby to be in the vanguard of those pushing for enactment of legislation to cap the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. But that wouldn't be Elmer, would it? True to form, he has demanded another boost in his already lavish government subsidies before he'll even consider doing something about global warming.
Let's review the bidding.
The climate-change bill that is scheduled for a vote in the House today would over the next decade reduce by 17 percent the amount of greenhouse gases that businesses and individuals would be allowed to release. Those who generate most of those gases would gradually be forced to buy pollution permits, either from the government or from someone else who has extra allocations and is willing to sell them on the open market. By imposing what amounts to a tax on carbon emissions, the bill envisions, businesses and households will respond by reducing their energy consumption or switching to cleaner renewable sources of energy.
Because they are the source of most carbon emissions, factories, power plants and oil refineries would all be covered by the caps and be required to buy the permits, or allowances, as they are called. The one major source that is not covered is the American farm. From the start, everyone agreed that it would be an administrative nightmare to try to measure and regulate the amount of carbon produced on each farm. Given the power of the farm lobby, everyone agreed that it was also a political non-starter.
But, for farmers, it wasn't enough to get a free pass on carbon emissions. They are unhappy that the effect of the caps and pollution permits will be to raise the price of their fuel, fertilizer and electricity. No matter that other Americans will suffer similar effects. In the mind of the entitled American farmer, any increase in costs or reduction in revenue -- whether from natural causes, market forces or government regulation -- must be compensated for by the government.
So farmers demanded that they be allowed to earn some extra cash by reducing the carbon footprint on their farms and selling these "offsets" to the factories and power plants unlucky enough to be subject to the carbon-cap regime. They want to be paid extra if they change the feedstock to cut down on cow burps and farts. Or if they use the no-till method for planting seeds, which doesn't release the carbon trapped in the soil. Or if they put in devices to trap the methane released from animal poop.
And they demanded to be paid not just if they do these things in the future, but also if they did them last year or the year before. They demanded the payments even if they are already getting a check from the government to do the same things as part of some other conservation program. And perhaps most notably, they demanded that the job of supervising this offset program be shifted from the Environmental Protection Agency, whose focus would actually be ensuring that the reductions are real, to the Department of Agriculture, which sees its mission as preserving, protecting and defending American farm subsidies.
Elmer's support for the climate-change bill, however, could not be had for merely a few billion dollars a year in offsets. There was also an ethanol boondoggle to protect.
It seems those pesky scientists over at the EPA had done a preliminary analysis showing that if you considered the indirect effects of producing a lot of additional corn-based ethanol -- like the need to make up for the lost food production somewhere else -- then ethanol might not qualify as a carbon-reducing "renewable fuel" under the 2007 energy bill, potentially jeopardizing ethanol's guaranteed market of 15 billion gallons a year. To rectify this gross injustice, Elmer demanded -- and won -- a five-year moratorium on any final determination while a study is conducted on how the EPA was conducting its study.
All of these concessions were hammered out last weekend among Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and fellow Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the chief sponsors of the climate-change bill. The House leadership and the White House acquiesced; the press conference was duly held. And what was the result?
Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the self-proclaimed "voice of agriculture," yesterday urged all House members to vote against the climate-change bill, claiming it would "result in a net economic cost to farmers with little or no environmental benefit."
The next time the world's most selfish lobby comes to Washington demanding drought relief, someone ought to have the good sense to tell them to go pound sand.