7-14-09

 
7-14-09
Merced Sun-Star
Letter: Thanks, Cardoza...JOAQUIN CONTENTE, president California Farmers Union, Hanford
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/180/v-print/story/949400.html
Editor: America's family farmers and ranchers have a unique role to play in combating global climate change.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, understands that and I thank him for his support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. As President Obama said, it is a "bold and necessary step."
Farmers Union supports a national, mandatory carbon emission cap and trade system to reduce nonfarm greenhouse gas emissions. As an energy-intensive industry, we know that doing so will result in increased production costs.
However, the flexible agricultural offset program within the legislation will allow producers to mitigate some of these costs by adopting environmentally friendly practices. This will allow American producers to continue to provide consumers with the worlds most affordable and abundant food supply.
Further, those who have already been engaged in innovative efforts to sequester carbon are recognized for their efforts.
Failing to pass climate change legislation is not an option. Without congressional action, the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to act. This regulatory action would mean the positive provisions within the legislation would be lost.
Thank you, Rep. Cardoza, for standing up for farmers and ranchers and allowing them to be a part of the climate change solution.
Environmental Working Group
News Release - 67 of the Dirtiest Power Plants off the Hook in Current Climate Legislation
Paying Farmers for Past Practices Creates Polluter Loopholes...Published July 10, 2009
http://www.ewg.org/node/28108/print
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2009 – The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), narrowly approved in the House, is an important first step toward slowing climate change. Unfortunately, the agriculture provisions of the bill open two loopholes that threaten to let power plants and other big climate polluters off the hook and slow progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
An analysis conducted by the Environmental Working Group [1] (EWG) details that ACES will:
· Allow polluters to take credit for meeting their required pollution reductions by paying farmers, not to put new conservation practices in place, but simply to keep doing what they were already doing.  This could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.
· The bill also provides no guarantee that key conservation practices that are generating credits for polluters will actually stay in place over the long-term.
“The stated purpose of this landmark legislation is to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten the health and well being of our planet and its inhabitants. Letting polluters take credit for practices farmers already have in place not only lets the polluters off the hook it also squanders the opportunity for agriculture to play a critical role in fighting climate change,” said Craig Cox, EWG’s Midwest vice-president.
“Agriculture faces a host of threats from climate change, and should be on the front lines in this fight. Instead, the agricultural provisions in ACES lack the long-term mechanisms needed to ensure carbon emissions are properly sequestered,” Cox said.
“We urge the Senate to close these polluter loopholes and enact agricultural provisions that will make farmers and ranchers credible and effective partners in the fight against climate change,” Cox concluded.
Go here for the full analysis: http://www.ewg.org/opinion/cap-and-trade-legislation [2]
Fresno Bee
Family Farm Alliance Calls for Withdrawal of Biased, Unscientific Order for Delta Smelt
Fifteen Years of Failure to Protect the Delta is Enough; Group Calls on Government to Restore Scientific Integrity...7-13-09
http://www.fresnobee.com/547/v-print/story/1532544.html
FRESNO, Calif. Declaring that fifteen years of failure is enough, the Family Farm Alliance has filed suit to force the withdrawal of the federal government’s latest order cutting back California’s water supplies on behalf of the delta smelt. The order issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) does not meet the Endangered Species Act’s standards for quality of data and scientific integrity according to the suit filed on Friday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
“Fortunately, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) sets strict standards to protect the public and the environment from biased and unscientific abuses of its provisions,” said Dan Keppen, Executive Director of the Alliance. “We are taking this action to protect the integrity of ESA and to ensure that those standards are applied to correct the federal government’s unmitigated record of failure in the Delta.”
For the past 15 years, federal regulators have ordered more and more stringent restrictions on the water supplies pumped through the Delta to serve California’s farms and cities, on the presumption that the pumps were harming delta smelt. Those restrictions have cost California billions of dollars in economic losses and tens of thousands of jobs. But instead of showing any benefit from these measures, the population of delta smelt has continued to decline.
Among the many defects in USFWS’s December order, which reduced by one third the state’s water supplies to more than 25 million people, the Alliance pointed out that:
· Instead of conducting the independent peer review that the law requires, USFWS brought in the authors of the papers on which the agency’s order was based. In effect, they were being asked to review the adequacy of their own work. None would qualify under the standards set by ESA, the Information Quality Act or the federal Office of Management and Budget guidelines.
· Although ESA requires USFWS to use the best available scientific and commercial data, the agency instead based its findings in part on an analysis which had not been published or peer reviewed and, supposedly, on data which USFWS refused even to disclose. Moreover, it turns out the agency did not actually possess some of the data that it claimed it used to order the cutbacks in water supplies.
· Rather than relying on scientific evidence to form its conclusions as the law requires, USFWS only cited the bits and pieces of information that supported its own assumptions and ignored the rest.
FFA is not alone in questioning the integrity of USFWS’s smelt order. The California Department of Water Resources has formally asked that it be withdrawn for reconsultation and revision. DWR says there is new information on better ways to protect the smelt that was not considered in the existing order.
And the federal court recently granted a temporary injunction against USFWS’ order on a complaint that the order violated the National Environmental Policy Act because the federal government failed to prepare an environmental impact statement. Instead the order was drafted in secret and put into effect without any public hearings or review.
At a recent town hall meeting in Fresno, where area congressmen, business leaders, landowners and farmworkers criticized the order’s scientific inadequacy, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar declined to defend USFWS’ action, pointing out that these cutbacks in water supplies had been the work of the previous administration.
“President Obama and the leadership in Congress have declared their commitment to upholding the standards and bringing the best science to bear on governmental decision making,” said Keppen. “We applaud their commitment and call on them to live up to that promise by withdrawing this flawed and fallacious order now, before it does any more harm.”
Numerous scientific studies have identified multiple causes for the delta smelt’s decline, including ammonia discharges from Sacramento and other industrial pollution, temperature changes, and invasive non-native species that are devouring the smelt’s food supply as well as the smelt themselves.
“USFWS has refused to analyze these other factors and their importance, sticking instead to their assumption that pumping must be the problem,” Keppen said. “But if anything, their failure to produce any benefits for the smelt over the last fifteen years should demonstrate that the pumps are not the problem.”
According to analyses prepared by the University of California, federal restrictions on pumping water through the Delta, combined with the ongoing effects of drought, cost California’s Central Valley economy more than $300 million in 2008 and nearly $1 billion this year. The economic impacts statewide are much greater.
“These are critical issues for the members of our Alliance,” Keppen pointed out. “More than 300,000 acres of productive farmlands have been fallowed because of these water shortages. Rationing is being imposed in many California cities. Our membership includes farmers, but we also represent irrigation districts, commodity associations, private water companies, and suppliers of a wide range of farm-related services and equipment. We are all being hurt by these federal cutbacks in water deliveries.”
The Alliance brought its concerns with the adequacy of the data used for this order to the attention of USFWS as soon as the order was released in December, 2008. But USFWS has so far refused to address these problems or correct the order. The Alliance has now exhausted all of the opportunities for administrative relief.
“This is the first time that the Alliance has engaged in litigation, and it’s not a step we take lightly,” said Alliance President Patrick O’Toole. “But in this case, we had no other choice. Preserving the scientific basis for these decisions and ensuring the fairness and transparency of all the proceedings under ESA is a vitally important issue for all of our members throughout the western states.”
Sacramento Bee
Sacramento area is Delta's top pesticide source, study finds...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/v-print/story/2023496.html
Urban Sacramento is the leading source of pesticide contamination disrupting the Delta aquatic environment, according to new research on pollution in the estuary.
The study, led by UC Berkeley toxicologist Donald Weston, found enough pyrethroid pesticides in the American River to kill tiny shrimp – among the first links in the aquatic food chain.
Those pesticides likely reached the river from urban storm drains, which collect runoff from the Sacramento area's 1.4 million residents.
For five years, biologists have hunted for the cause of a collapse in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem, a water supply for 23 million Californians. Nine fish species are declining, from tiny Delta smelt to giant green sturgeon.
Weston's research supports the theory that no single villain is to blame. The problem probably lies at the complex interface between people and water.
"We were just amazed by this data," said Weston. "The American River is not supposed to be toxic. I think it reflects the fact that the river's going through 30 miles of heavy urbanization."
The study also found that among the water sources tested, Sacramento's regional wastewater treatment plant is the single largest source of pyrethroid pollution in the Delta. The plant discharges treated sewage into the Sacramento River near Freeport.
The reason for this contamination is less clear. It may be caused by people dumping unused pesticides into sink drains. It could also come from consumer products, such as shampoos made to kill lice and fleas.
There is no evidence pyrethroids are harmful to people at typical consumer exposure levels. But they are proving harmful to aquatic life at very low concentrations.
"It might be that a public education program could go a long way," said Stan Dean, chief of policy and planning at the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, which operates the regional wastewater treatment system. "Ultimately, you might need to have more controls on consumer products that have pyrethroids in them."
Pyrethroids are manufactured versions of pyrethrins, natural insecticides produced by certain species of chrysanthemum. These stronger synthetic versions began to dominate the retail market in 2000.
That followed the phasing out of pesticides known to be more dangerous to humans and other mammals – mainly the organophosphates diazinon and chlorpyrifos.
Pyrethroids were considered safer, partly because they don't easily dissolve in water. But biologists learned later that pyrethroids are actually more harmful to aquatic life.
The chemicals attach easily to soil. They can remain toxic in creek beds or landscaping for months, then hitch a ride downstream when overwatering or a storm washes topsoil into storm drains.
Pyrethroid-based pesticides dominate the shelves at grocery and hardware stores. They are common in powders and sprays used by homeowners and pest control companies to kill a variety of insects, from flies to cockroaches.
Weston presented his findings last week to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in Rancho Cordova.
The board funded the study and plans to list several area waterways as "impaired" because of pyrethroids, including Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch sloughs, and Arcade, Morrison and Elder creeks.
In 2006, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation began a process to regulate pyrethroids. This could bring new usage rules and even a ban on some products. It has found pyrethroids in waterways throughout the state.
Pyrethroids found most often in Weston's sampling were bifenthrin and cyfluthrin, common on ingredient labels of many consumer pesticides.
He and a team of researchers sampled water in the American, Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, as well as creeks in Vacaville, on several occasions in 2008 and 2009. They also sampled agricultural runoff on several Delta islands, and sewage treatment outfalls in Sacramento, Vacaville and Stockton.
They found the Delta islands are a small source of pyrethroids. Urban areas appear to be a much bigger source, with Sacramento by far the largest among the areas sampled.
Researchers used a species of shrimp as a test subject. Toxic effects were revealed by exposing the quarter-inch shrimp to water samples for four days and counting how many were killed or paralyzed.
Almost no pyrethroids were found in Stockton's treated wastewater. Unlike Sacramento, Stockton holds wastewater in giant ponds as long as 30 days before discharging to the Delta. The ponds may allow pyrethroids to settle out or degrade before discharge.
Paul Towers, state director of Sacramento-based Pesticide Watch, noted many other areas also likely are adding pyrethroids to the Delta, such as Redding, Chico and Contra Costa County.
"Ultimately, if we took better steps to keep pests from entering our homes, or redefined what our landscapes should look like, we wouldn't have to use these chemicals," he said.
Read the report on pesticides and their impact on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Sources and impacts on Delta waters...Donald Weston, University of California, Berkeley and Michael Lydy, Southern Illinois University
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/07/10/17/0712pesticides.
source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf
Proposed Conaway Ranch sale tied to conservation strategy...Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/v-print/story/2023697.html
Owners of the vast Conaway Ranch in Yolo County said Monday their hope in offering the property for sale is to push regional leaders to embrace a complete conservation strategy for the ranch.
The 17,300-acre tract of farmland lies on the state capital's doorstep and has enormous strategic importance in both water and development circles. It lies partly within the Yolo flood bypass just north of Interstate 80 and abuts the state-owned Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area.
The partnership that owns the ranch, Conaway Preservation Group, last week sent Yolo County a required 60-day notice of intent to sell the ranch. It also announced its intent to execute the long-term sale of 20,000 acre-feet of water outside the county.
If the ranch is developed, it could alter the nature of Yolo County. And the 50,000 acre-feet of water rights in the Sacramento River attached to the property may represent an even more valuable asset in a water-starved state.
But Tovey Giezentanner, president of Conaway Preservation Group, told The Bee on Monday that the partners hope the letters push Yolo County and other state and regional partners to move quicker on a comprehensive conservation strategy for the property.
Failing that, he said, the most likely outcome is selling the entire ranch to a traditional farming operation that will maximize its rice-growing potential.
"The strategy is to use this process to facilitate a dialogue on the regional vision," Giezentanner said.
He said the partners have no pending agreement with a buyer for either the land or the water.
Conaway's owners in 2006 argued the property was worth $98 million, with the water rights alone worth an additional $75 million.
Yolo County three years ago tried to seize the property by eminent domain, citing its importance to agriculture and water supply. At the time, there was uncertainty about the intentions of the land-owning partners and concern that their ultimate aim was to exploit its water supplies to develop the land.
A 2006 settlement gave the county first right of refusal over both land and water sales on the ranch.
Yolo County Supervisor Mike McGowan said he doubts the county can afford to buy the ranch. But he said it wants to continue protecting its water supplies and other natural resources and hopes an agreement of that kind is still possible.
"They have clearly done what they said they would do as far as their stewardship of the land. So in one sense, yes, I'd hate to lose them as neighbors because they've proven to be good at it," McGowan said.
"The fundamental question remains: What are the county interests that exist upon the ranch, and what's the extent to which we should protect those interests? That's the public responsibility we have."
Conaway Ranch has long been seen as key to a number of water management and environmental problems in the region. Giezentanner said the ranch owners hoped that a plan for addressing those problems would have emerged.
For instance, the cities of Woodland and Davis have water supply and sewage treatment problems that could be solved by the ranch.
Its water supplies – 50,000 acre-feet of water rights in the Sacramento River, plus significant groundwater supplies – could fix poor-quality well water plaguing both cities. They could also use its farmland as a place to turn treated sewage into irrigation water instead of building expensive new treatment plants.
For example, the Conaway partners approached the city of Davis last year, offering to take its treated wastewater in a land-disposal plan.
Davis, which made Conaway its preferred disposal option, has a state permit to investigate the land disposal option through October 2010, said Bob Weir, the city's public works director.
Now the city is left hoping that option is still viable.
"It's a fairly involved, complex subject and it's taken us this long to get close," Weir said. "We would certainly look to see if we could lock down some assurance from the current owners that, if an outright sale happened, that we could lock in that (wastewater reuse) option for the city."
Meanwhile, major water interests are under pressure to pay for conservation projects to improve fish habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Westlands Water District, a huge farm irrigation agency in the San Joaquin Valley. Both have expressed a desire to undertake restoration projects in the Yolo Bypass.
Bob Schneider, a Davis resident and conservation chairman of the Sierra Club's Motherlode Chapter, said he hopes a public-private partnership is possible.
"There's an opportunity here for everyone to win," he said. "But it's going to take some vision and hard work and a lot of trust that wasn't there four years ago that I think might be there now."
San Francisco Chronicle
UC spending cuts attempt to share the pain...Russell S. Gould, Mark Yudof. Russell S. Gould is chair of the UC Board of Regents. Mark Yudof is the president of the University of California.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/14/ED1B18NLJN.DTL&type=printable
The University of California regents will be presented Wednesday with a proposal for filling an $813 million hole in the UC budget. This gap has been created by a steep reduction in the state funding that provides for our core expenses - everything from paying professors to lighting laboratories to keeping campuses safe and secure.
The plan is guided by a principle of shared pain. Students, staff, faculty and administrators all will be affected. Part of the package involves a progressively calibrated furlough plan. UC employees who earn less will face lower reductions in pay than those who earn more. Those with higher salaries will be hit the hardest.
The furlough plan was shaped in collaboration with thousands of members of the UC community who flooded us with recommendations. All ideas were considered. All concerns were heard. From these contributions emerged the best and fairest plan for navigating our large, complex vessel through treacherous water.
Nonetheless, there are still some who argue there must be an easier way. Well, if there was an easier way, we'd have grabbed at it months ago.
One persistent suggestion is that we dip into "rainy day" reserve funds scattered throughout the system's 10 campuses. Surely, proponents argue, this is a rainy day.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple. A large portion of these reserves, in fact, were created for specific academic and research initiatives. Other funds in this category function as endowments dedicated to specific uses, which cannot be altered. Finally, some funds have been set aside to support university operations and repay principal and interests on bonds. There's also the question of what lies ahead. If state funding continues to decline and federal stimulus dollars dry up, we will face an even worse scenario in fiscal year 2010-11. Plus, it now appears likely that the state will be unable to provide up to $1 billion in appropriations for UC core finances until late in the fiscal year. In this case, the UC reserves will be a vital tool in bridging that gap.
In a similar vein, we've heard a lot of reminders lately that the $3 billion or so in state funding represents only a fraction of the university's overall budget of $19 billion. That's true, but it ignores the reality that most of those noncore assets are restricted for specific uses and cannot be diverted elsewhere.
Taking federal grant money for laser beam research and applying it to the English Department might seem to make sense - until the authorities catch wind of the maneuver and dispatch us to the nearest federal penitentiary. The same holds true for endowments: People who donate for a chair in physics expect their contribution will not be spent on football kicking tees.
Finally, there are those who would tap revenues raised by the five UC medical centers. The difficulty with this one is hospital revenues are needed to heat the rooms and employ the doctors and dietitians and X-ray technicians that patients pay to see. They also must fund new facilities - for example, the proposed new hospital at UCSF.
So we are left, it seems, with the course we have chosen - trimming our way through this crisis, as wisely and as fairly as possible, with a keen eye on preserving the quality education, research and patient care that California deserves from its public university system.
Ending the California dream...Christopher Newfield, Stanton Glantz. Christopher Newfield is professor of English at UCSB and Stanton Glantz is professor of Medicine at UCSF. They are both former chairs of the UC Systemwide Committee on Planning and Budget.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/14/ED1B18NLJL.DTL&type=printable
The cumulative effect of California's annual budget paralysis is an unemployment rate almost as bad as Michigan's, a bond rating worse than Louisiana's and the country's best shot at creating the first full-blown depression in four generations.
Sacramento is now turning crisis into catastrophe by cutting the sectors that are key to recovery, including higher education.
Before World War I, when California was a giant farm irrigated with federal water, a "plantation model" of education prevailed: Educate the elite and keep the rest at a minimally functional level. After World War II, with military aerospace and then computers driving growth, California built public universities open to everyone who showed drive. By combining mass access with the highest quality, California built a highly educated workforce of unprecedented size and depth. It made California's economy the envy of the world.
For the last generation, campaign after campaign has cut back on government and rationed these opportunities. While most state government expenditures have been flat when corrected for population growth, higher education has been cut and cut. The University of California, billed as the greatest public research university in the world, has lost 50 percent of its per-student state funding since 1990, while still being expected to keep California at the top of the world's knowledge economy.
The results? In California, the college participation rate of 19-year-olds fell from 43 percent to 30 percent in just eight years (1996-2004), dropping California from 17th among the 50 states to 46th, one of the quickest educational declines in developed nations.
This year, Sacramento plans to continue the destruction. The governor's budget proposes to bring two-year cuts to 25 percent of the already-depleted state general fund support for the University of California, along with similar cuts at the California State University stems, at community colleges, and at least 10 percent in our badly trailing K-12 public school system.
What do such cuts mean? All other things being equal, 25 percent cuts mean 25 percent fewer courses for more students or a 25 percent increase in the size of courses that remain. Students will learn 25 percent less, and take 25 percent longer to graduate. Because 25 percent of four years is one year, college will now only deliver three years of learning in four more costly years.
Example? In a UC department once ranked in the Top 10 in its field worldwide, hamstrung budgets allowed graders to spend four minutes per week per student, at most - until cuts eliminated the graders completely.
While they get less, students will pay more. Cal State has announced it will seek one-year fee increases of 30 percent. Such increases, burdensome as they are, are nowhere near big enough to fill the hole left by public funding cuts. Philanthropy, research funds and "efficiency" gimmicks can't make up the difference, either. For UC to offset the current round of state cuts without resorting to planned furloughs, layoffs and service cuts, it would need to nearly double undergraduate fees from about $7,500 to $14,500 this fall. Future state cuts would require proportionate fee increases. The only practical way to restore California's promise of having the world's best public universities for the greatest number is to rebuild public funding for UC and CSU.
Some may say this vision is unreasonable given economic realities. The reality is this: Californians can rebuild the public higher education system that delivered golden age California, or watch that system be guttedin a way that prolongs the recession.
Indybay.org
Legislature Passes Wiggins Bill to Halt Suction Dredge Mining
The California Senate voted 28-7 today to approve Senate Bill 670, legislation by North Coast State Senator Patricia Wiggins (D – Santa Rosa) to enact a temporary ban on suction dredge mining, which can pollute rivers and streams and threaten vulnerable fish populations. Here is the news release from Senator Patricia Wiggins' office...Dan Bacher
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/13/18607575.php
Sacramento – The California Senate voted 28-7 today to approve Senate Bill 670, legislation by North Coast State Senator Patricia Wiggins (D – Santa Rosa) to enact a temporary ban on suction dredge mining, which can pollute rivers and streams and threaten vulnerable fish populations.
As a result, the measure next heads to the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature or veto. The Wiggins bill contains an urgency clause, meaning it would become law immediately should the Governor signs it.
SB 670 would place a temporary ban on motorized suction dredge mining in California streams until the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) finishes its court-ordered overhaul of regulations governing this practice, which is highly destructive to spawning grounds for fish. Suction dredge mining involves powerful machines on boats sucking up sediment from rivers or streams and spitting it out again.
Wiggins says her measure is needed to help address the alarming decline of salmon and steelhead populations. She noted that “the salmon numbers are so low that the National Marine Fisheries Service has placed a ban on all salmon fishing along the coast of California and Oregon.
“This ban affects the livelihoods of thousands of commercial fishermen, fish processors, and charter boat operators. The ban has eliminated hundreds of thousands of dollars in economic activity – especially in rural areas.
“Yet while fishermen are being told to stop fishing, a recreational activity called ‘suction dredge mining’ is allowed to continue,” she added. “SB 670 is about equity. We simply cannot ask an entire fishing industry to stop their work, while a small group of hobbyists are allowed to continue.”
The DFG was ordered by the courts to overhaul regulations governing suction dredge mining on streams as a result of a 2005 lawsuit by the Karuk Tribe. Pushed by suction dredge miners, the courts ordered the department to complete a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review before it acted. That review was supposed to take 18 months and be completed by July 2008, but DFG has yet to begin.
As a result of the delay, Last Thursday, the Alameda District court issued a preliminary injunction in the case, ordering DFG to immediately cease using general fund money to operate the suction dredge permitting program because it is being operated in violation of CEQA.
Wiggins noted the need for SB 670’s safeguards remain urgent, because the preliminary injunction would only last until the case is final, or if appealed, not necessarily until new regulations are in place. In addition, DFG could continue issuing permits using non-general fund monies.
SB 670 would ban motorized suction dredge mining on all California rivers and lakes until DFG finishes its court-ordered overhaul of regulations.
“In addition to this being essential to saving salmon and steelhead fisheries, this bill will save the department an estimated $1 million in costs, to administer a program that does not pay for itself,” Wiggins said.
Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D – San Rafael) is principal co-author of the bill. Senator Lois Wolk (D – Davis) is also a co-author, as are Assemblymembers Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rosa) and Dave Jones (D – Sacramento).
David W. Miller
Press Secretary/Consultant
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
Committee on Local Government
Select Committee on California's Wine Industry
Joint Committee on Fisheries & Aquaculture
Tel: (916) 651-1897
Fax: (916) 324-3036
Inside Bay Area
Radioactive and toxic exposure screening program expands to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory...Suzanne Bohan, Contra Costa Times
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_12828313
Former employees of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory are eligible for free confidential medical screening to determine if they have any health problems related to on-the-job exposure to radioactive or toxic substances such as beryllium, the universities running the program announced Monday.
Experts from UC San Francisco and Boston University School of Public Health will do the evaluations of workers at Kaiser Permanente occupational medicine facilities in Northern California.
Lab workers may have performed work during and after the Cold War that could have resulted in exposures to asbestos, beryllium, ionizing radiation, lasers, lead, silica, solvents and other chemicals.
Exposures to these substances elevate the risk of developing asbestosis, chronic beryllium disease, lung disease, certain cancers or hearing loss, among other conditions.
The same screening program began in 2007 for former Lawrence Livermore and Sandia/California national laboratories' workers. More than 1,000 workers have participated in the screening, and half of those were tested for exposure to beryllium, a strong, lightweight metal used in nuclear weapons work. Of those, 3 percent were found to be sensitized to beryllium, which means they may develop or already have developed chronic beryllium disease, which causes scarring of lung tissue.
"Many of the exposures we screen for are not typically considered by primary care practitioners," said Dr. Lewis Pepper of Boston University.
The screening program is funded by the Department of Energy as part of the Energy Employees Medical Monitoring Program.
For more information on the Energy Department worker medical screening program, go to www.bu/edu/formerworker or call 866-460-0628.
Looking for workers
Are you a former Livermore or Sandia/California national laboratories worker who has been through the Northern California screening program for exposure to radioactive or toxic substances, which began in 2007? If so, we're interested in speaking with you about the findings of the screening program. Reach science reporter Suzanne Bohan at sbohan@bayareanewsgroup.com or 510-262-2789
Contra Costa Times
Plans for Pacifica biodiesel plant collapse...Julia Scott
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_12828510?nclick_check=1
PACIFICA — A plant slated to produce more than 3 million gallons per year of local refined biodiesel for Bay Area residents looks like it will never get built, and the city may get stuck with a bill for illegal construction by the company selected to build the plant.
Pacifica City Council members planned to discuss what to do about Whole Energy Fuels Co., a small biodiesel provider based in Washington state, in closed session before Monday's regular City Council meeting.
The company was recently hit with $22,700 in fines by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health for beginning construction on the project in April without the proper permits, and the work has not moved forward since then. The project has also faced serious funding problems ever since it failed to meet the requirements for a major state grant that would have bankrolled much of the construction.
"I think they've given up," City Manager Steve Rhodes said. "They have not found any investors, so they really don't have funding to carry the project forward."
"They've failed to perform, and we're moving forward," added Rhodes, referring to Monday's discussion.
Further talks could result in the city deciding to end its lease agreement with Whole Energy, which had planned to construct the plant on public property next to the city's wastewater treatment plant.
Whole Energy representative Martin Wahl did not return a telephone call for this story.
In addition to supplying a significant amount of biodiesel to the general public, the plant would have generated a portion of the energy needed to power the wastewater plant next door — at an operational savings of $30,000 a year.
Despite its benefits, the biodiesel project has had its share of local detractors since the beginning. They claimed the plant was badly located — near a school — considering the refining process involves combustible chemicals.
Critics also chastised the city for amending an existing environmental impact report to include the biodiesel plant rather than going through the process of writing a new one. They spoke out about what they perceived as a lack of transparency in how the permitting process was conducted between the company, the city and the California Coastal Commission, which approved the project in July 2008.
Those detractors also blame the city for allowing Whole Energy to dig a 13-foot hole and a trench for a large tank and pipes without a permit in early April. The city ordered the company to stop work on April 6. The city later filled in the hole and covered the trench with metal plates after the company did not reply to a letter
Rhodes sent to Whole Energy asking that it resolve the problem.
Rhodes estimates the city will be forced to spend $10,000 on further repairs, which he said Whole Energy ought to reimburse. He said Pacifica has already spent about $75,000 on attorney time and environmental consultants to complete early studies of the site and project design, as well as $6,000 on building the generator Whole Energy would have used to power the wastewater plant.
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health originally fined the city $3,600 for not doing its part to keep the trench covered and prevent water from getting in, which was threatening underground utilities. But the fine was reduced to $200 after city officials explained that the construction workers were not under their control.
City staffers at the wastewater plant witnessed the illegal construction work, but the company told them all its permits were in order, Rhodes said. It soon became clear that they were not.
"As soon as we were aware of the problem, we took steps to remediate it," said Rhodes. "We stopped the work and we took steps to make the area safe."
Whole Energy has neither appealed nor paid the $22,000 fine, according to Cal-OSHA.
The city may someday try to work with another biodiesel company, but not for a while — market interest in alternative fuels has diminished as the price of gasoline has dropped, which may have cost Whole Energy some investors. The company missed a major deadline to receive more than $600,000 in startup funding from the California Air Resources Board when it couldn't show enough progress on the project by June 30.
"We contacted the company, and they agreed that is was impossible for them to catch up on their permitting requirements," said Karen Caesar, a spokeswoman for Air Resources Board.
Los Angeles Times
Mines may have to pay for their messes...Amy Littlefield, Greenspace
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/07/hardrock-mining-cleanup.html
The EPA took a first step last Friday toward holding mining companies financially accountable for their toxic legacies.
Following a federal court mandate in February, the EPA filed a document saying hardrock mining companies, which dig up materials such as uranium and gold, will be among the first to face federal regulations aimed at making companies set aside money to pay for cleanup. Cleanups have cost taxpayers billions of dollars after companies declared bankruptcy. 
"The taxpayer should not be left holding the bag for that cost of cleaning up the mess," said Brian Shield, executive director of the New Mexico-based conservation group Amigos Bravos. "We have hundreds if not thousands of abandoned mines in New Mexico that need to be cleaned up.... We don't even know who owns those mines in some cases." 
Water contamination and other environmental hazards can endure for many years after a mine closes. 
"In a lot of cases, you can't clean it up," said Glenn C. Miller, co-founder of the Nevada-based environmental justice group Great Basin Resource Watch. Instead, companies can pay for water treatment to prevent chemicals from getting into drinking water. Nationwide, efforts to "clean up" old mines have cost billions of dollars.
Although the EPA may be moving towards taking companies to task, regulations may still be a long way down the road.
"It's not clear what's going to happen next," said Jan Hasselman, an attorney with Earthjustice, the group that brought EPA to court in February. "We still need to find out if they're going to issue the regulations."
Besides looking into hardrock mines, the federal agency will investigate hazardous waste generators, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities and other industries, according to a statement on their website.
Washington Post
EPA writing rules for hardrock mine cleanups...SANDY SHORE, The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071301822_pf.html
DENVER -- The Environmental Protection Agency, complying with a court order, will develop a rule to guarantee companies that mine everything from copper to uranium will pay for needed environmental cleanup, not taxpayers.
The announcement on Monday comes in the wake of a federal judge's order in February requiring the EPA to close loopholes that allow some companies to get out of paying for such costly cleanups when they file bankruptcy.
The agency said it will develop similar financial responsibility requirements for other types of operations but started with hardrock mining because of the size of the operations, the amount of waste and the number of mining sites on its Superfund's national priorities list.
The EPA did not release specifics on how it will establish financial assurance requirements but said it will propose the rule by spring 2011. An e-mail message asking the agency for more details was not answered.
The National Mining Association trade group said the industry already is regulated by other state and federal laws establishing financial responsibility for cleanup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored critical facts and used inappropriate data in singling out U.S. hardrock mining for financial assurance requirements under Superfund," association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement.
The EPA's announcement came a day before a Senate hearing on proposed changes to a 137-year-old hardrock mining law that would bolster environmental restrictions and implement royalties.
Under the existing law, private companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion worth of minerals extracted from public lands in more than a century. It also allows companies to buy public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.
In 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing it failed to establish financial responsibility mandates as required under the Superfund act.
Among the cases they cited were 94 Superfund sites in 21 states operated by Asarco, which filed bankruptcy in 2005; the Smoky Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, and a molybdenum mine near Questa, N.M.
Earthjustice Attorney Jan Hasselman, who handled the lawsuit, called the EPA's decision "an important first step."