June, 2008

Public comment on the Felix Torres Project

Submitted: Jun 27, 2008

On behalf of San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water, two local environmental groups, attorney Marsha A. Burch filed the following letter to the Merced Local Agency Formation Commission on June 26, regarding Planada Community Services District proposals to extend its sphere of influence to annex the new Felix Torres farm worker housing project.

In addition to Ms. Burch's letter, Maureen McCorry, on behalf of San Joaquin Et Al, submitted the following documents in addition to oral testimony:

1) Planning Commission Minutes 2.27.08
2) Planning Commission Minutes 3.26.08
3) 4.12.08 Articles
4) Planning Commission Minutes 4.09.08
5) Amendment to Real Party Exchange Felix Torres
6) Badlands Felix Torres, Raptor/POW
7) Felix Torres Background:
Felix Torres 3.26.08 Farm Bureau letter
Felix Torres 4.09.08
Felix Torres 11.29.07
Felix Torres 12.29.07
Felix Torres 12.13.07
Felix Torres USDA 12.13.07
Merced County 4.04.08
Planning Commission Transcript
Owens/Corser Comments
2.06.06 Agency Letter
8) Felix Torres CUP 2.27.08
9) Access to Working Files
10) Comment on proposed subdivision
11) MSR Planada
12) Graves letter
13) Felix Torres 3.26.08
14) Mary Stillhan 3.18.08
15) Planada CSD Final Petition
16) Lawsuit filed over the Planada Community Plan
17) Planada Settlement Agreement, SJRRC, POW, and the PCSD
18) PCSD ledger of Can and Will Serve Letters 1992-2008;

and Bryant Owens submitted these documents in addition to oral testimony:

“A” 2002 Preliminary Engineering Report for Planada WWTF Expansion
“B” Can and Will Serve Ledgers and related e-mail (13 pages)
“C” E-mail from PCSD to David Capron (1pg)
“D” Letter from Ken Mackie LAFCo (2pg)
“E” 11/7/03 Modification of Escrow, 21 acre Felix Torres Parcel (1pg)
“F” Community Plan Update Map Showing Felix Torres on Gerard Ave (1pg)
“F-1” Planada Community Plan Update 2003, Included by Reference
“G” PHRC Letter to Robert Lewis dated 8/3/06 (2pgs)
“H” Tom Nevis to Terry Allen re: Planada/Tatum Inquiry, Grand Jury Notes (2pgs)
“I” Villages of Geneva EIR Guidance Package (13pgs)
“J” Merced County Municipal Service Review, 2007, Planada (6pgs)
“J-1” Local Agency Formation Municipal Service Review Guidelines August 2003
(Govt. Publication included in its entirety)
“K” Settlement Agreement between Bryant Owens and PCSD dated 5/27/08 (5pgs)
“L” CA Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Liability Order (6pgs)
“M” 1993 Bear Creek Village CUP and amendments
“N” LAFCo Sphere of Influence Amendment 1055B.

The LAFCo board voted unanimously for continuance until Aug. 28 to consider new information.

All in all, it was not a good day for Merced County officials, who believe that the proper public-comment letter is a hand-written note by a pencil stub on toilet paper tacked to a fence post as far away as possible from 2222 M. St., Merced.

-- Badlands editorial staff
-----------------------------------------------------

MARSHA A. BURCH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
131 South Auburn Street
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
June 25, 2008
Via Email
Mr. Bill Nicholson, Executive Officer
Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340

Re: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment No. 1055C to the Planada Community Services District and Planada Community Services District Annexation No. 2008-1, Planada, Merced County, California LAFCo File No. 0645

Dear Mr. Nicholson:

This office, in conjunction with the Law Office of Donald B. Mooney, represents the San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water, groups with an interest in the above-referenced proposed sphere of influence amendment and annexation (“Proposal”). We apologize for the late hour of these comments, but we were unable to obtain a copy of the Planada Municipal Services Review (“MSR”) until this afternoon. We submit the following comments on the Proposal.

By previous letters and comments to the Merced County Planning Commission our clients have raised concerns that the Merced County Housing Authority’s (“MCHA”) CEQA documentation related to the above-referenced Proposal is inadequate. The following comment provides additional detail regarding the flaws in reliance upon the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study prepared by the MCHA. This comment further describes the legal obligation of the LAFCo as a CEQA responsible agency to assume the role of lead agency and prepare subsequent environmental review before approving the Proposal.

I. Required Subsequent Environmental Review

A responsible agency may not grant a discretionary approval for a project for which a negative declaration has been prepared without first considering the environmental impacts outlined in the negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(f); cf. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board (1997) 63 Cal.App.4th 227.) A responsible agency must decide for itself how to respond to a project’s significant effects that will directly or indirectly result from the responsible agency’s own decision to approve an aspect of the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(1); and Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(d).) The responsible agency must adopt any feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen such effects. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2).)

When a responsible agency believes that a lead agency has improperly relied on a negative declaration it may elect from options set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15096 as follows: (1) take the matter to court within the applicable limitations period; (2) prepare its own “subsequent EIR” if permissible under CEQA Guidelines section 15162; or (3) assume the role of lead agency if permissible under section 15052. (Guidelines § 15096; and see City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Comm. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1179-1181.)

As discussed in detail below, the initial study and negative declaration for the project failed to analyze certain impacts, and new information regarding potentially significant impacts has come to light since the MCHA approved the project. Thus, if the MCHA refuses to supplement the inadequate environmental
review, the LAFCo should assume the role of lead agency and evaluate the impacts of the project prior to approval.

It bears noting that the MCHA adopted the negative declaration for the project two and a half years ago on November 15, 2005. There is substantial evidence showing that the Felix Torres Housing Center is significantly different today in its construction phase than the project that was reviewed and approved
by the MCHA. Further, there is substantial evidence showing that the Planada Community Services District’s (“CSD”) plans to expand the wastewater treatment capacity have changed considerably, and the planned expansion formed a large portion of the MSR prepared by the LAFCo in April of 2007.

There is new information showing that the project will likely have significant impacts that were not addressed by the MCHA. (See Supporting Document Packet submitted by San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water.)

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15052, the LAFCo as a responsible agency, shall assume the role of the lead agency when any of the following conditions occur:

(1) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.

(2) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, but the following conditions occur:

(A) A subsequent EIR is required pursuant to Section 15162;

(B) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project;
and

(C) The statute of limitations for challenging the Lead Agency's action under CEQA has expired.

(3) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without consulting with the Responsible Agency as required by Sections 15072 or 15082, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.

Under Section 15052(1)(A), a subsequent environmental review is required because new information has come to light (see Supporting Document Packet) which was not known at the time the negative declaration was adopted by the MCHA, and the new information shows that significant effects to utilities and service systems will be more severe. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).) This requirement applies to a negative declaration, and as a responsible agency, LAFCo may not grant a discretionary approval for the project until the subsequent negative declaration or EIR is adopted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b) and (c).)

Accordingly, if the MCHA is unwilling to prepare the supplemental environmental review necessary to bring the review into compliance with CEQA, the LAFCo must step into the role of the lead agency and prepare the necessary review before considering and approving the project. (CEQA Guidelines §
15052(a), subsections (1), (2) and (3).)

A. New Information and Changed Circumstances

The initial study/negative declaration is outdated with respect to its analysis of the CSD’s capacity for wastewater treatment and cumulative impacts. Since the MCHA approved the project, in March of 2008, the CSD settled a CEQA action in the Merced County Superior Court and agreed to limit treatment plant expansion to a maximum of 900,000 gallons per day (“GPD”).

The MSR adopted in April of 2007 assumed that the CSD would move forward with the expansion. The MSR also concludes that the community of Planada will likely grow to a population of 8,500 within the next seven years. (MSR, p. 74.)

None of these assumptions is correct at this point, and the erroneous information in the MSR should be identified and revised, or at least discussed.

Changes to the Felix Torres Project itself have also arisen. Project construction apparently began and deviated significantly from the configuration approved by the MHCA and so the Merced County Building Division halted construction. The MCHA applied for approval to deviate from the project as approved in the Conditional Use Permit and on April 9, 2008, the Planning Commission did not approve that application. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission’s decision has been appealed.

In summary, the LAFCo may not rely upon the negative declaration prepared for the Felix Torres Project because that project has evolved and transformed so significantly that additional environmental review is necessary.

The new information triggers the need for subsequent environmental review under Guidelines section 15162(a), and therefore triggers the responsible agency obligation to assume the role of lead agency and prepare the necessary review. (Guidelines § 15052.)

B. Impacts not Previously Addressed

The staff report concludes that the Proposal will not have a significant impact on agricultural lands. This conclusion violates CEQA, and also the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (discussed below). With respect to CEQA, the conclusion that conversion of agricultural land is not significant is simply false, as the extension of the sphere of influence and infrastructure into the proposed annexation areas will remove a boundary to development on surrounding agricultural areas.

The staff report indicates that the County has denied applications for residential developments outside of the SUDP boundaries, but the fact that the County has denied applications in the past provides no assurance that such applications will be denied in the future. Thus, approval of the Proposal may
result in conversion of agricultural lands.

The Legislature has determined that the preservation of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary for the maintenance of California’s agricultural economy and the state’s economy. (Gov’t Code § 51220.) The Legislature found and declared that "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open-space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California." (Civ. Code § 815.)

The Proposal’s impacts to agriculture must be evaluated in a subsequent environmental review. Gaps in the initial study and negative declaration for the project may not be overlooked, and must be addressed before the Proposal may be considered for approval.

II. The Proposal Is Inconsistent with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Statutory
Requirements

As discussed above, the sphere amendment and annexation will result in the potential for conversion of additional agricultural land. The initial study for the Felix Torres Project does not adequately assess this potential and is insufficient under CEQA. It is also insufficient to approve the annexation under
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg.

Section 56377 of Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg sets forth the following requirements for LAFCo approval of annexations that convert open space and agricultural lands:

56377. In reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals which could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of existing open-space lands to uses other than open-space uses, the commission shall consider all of the following policies and priorities:

(a) Development or use of land for other than open-space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open-space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.

(b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency.

This section requires the Commission to guide development away from prime agricultural lands. Subsection (b) requires that development of existing vacant land within a sphere be encouraged before annexation of open-space land outside of the existing sphere.

To comply with these mandatory requirements, most LAFCo’s require a vacant land inventory and absorption analysis. This information is essential to determine if there is adequate vacant land already within the urban boundaries for the proposed development or whether there is a need to convert additional open space or agricultural land.

There is no such analysis done for this project. There is absolutely no evidence in the record to indicate that there is insufficient vacant and developable land within the urban boundaries and sphere of influence of the CSD that would justify further conversion of agricultural land outside the boundaries. In the absence of such information, Merced LAFCo cannot make the findings necessary to justify such a conversion.

III. The Proposal Is Inconsistent with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Statutory Requirements

The staff report indicates that Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg requires review of various factors for all reorganization proposals, citing Government Code section 56668. (Staff Report, p. 4.) The report goes on to say that certain Merced LAFCo policies provide a more focused review for rural service districts, and so
provides an analysis under the policy rather than the Government Code.

The mandatory requirements of CKH may not be so lightly disregarded.

Section 56668(d), for example, requires that the anticipated effects of the Proposal must be reviewed for consistency with adopted LAFCo policies on providing orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 65377. These are the very priorities that were ignored by the MCHA in approving the Felix Torres Housing project at its present location, and they may not be ignored by the LAFCo.

IV. Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the above comments. We respectfully request that the Commissioners carefully evaluate the shortcomings of the underlying CEQA document, and its inadequacy to support a discretionary determination by the LAFCo at this time. We respectfully request
that the LAFCo deny the Proposal.

Very truly yours,

Marsha A. Burch
Attorney
cc: San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Donald B. Mooney, Esq.

| »

Loose Cheeks, June 24, 2008

Submitted: Jun 24, 2008

FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT

Loose Cheeks: Hot Tips
By Lucas Smithereen
Loose Cheeks Senior Editor

Got a hot tip for Loose Cheeks? Call the Loose Cheeks hot-tip line: (000) CHE-EEKS. We’ll get back to you whenever.

Item #1

Revolt!

The other day in a federal building in Merced a member of the board of directors of the
East Merced Resource Conservation District, in the middle of a gripping report on the
district's budget, arose from his chair at the end of the meeting table that faced
certain pictures on the opposite wall, walked to the pictures, removed the photograph of
the president from the wall, pulled out a cabinet, put the picture behind it, pushed the
cabinet back, and returned to his seat.

A. J. Gangle got the story third-hand from an informant journalist sitting beside the
cabinet, who was so engrossed in the riveting budget narratives that he did not see the
event, but was told about it by members of the public at the meeting, one of whom said:

"I could have jumped up and kissed him. But I didn't think it would have been
appropriate."

Although jaws around the room dropped to belt level, nobody said anything and the
exhilarating budget song-and-dance continued without a pause, Gangle's informant
scribbling madly so that he would not miss describing even one small shuck or a fragment of jive.

It was only later, in reporting the story to Gangle, that members of the public realized
that Supervisor Deidre Kelsey, a member of John McCain's California campaign committee, appointed the board of the EMRCD. This led to speculations about the motive for this act of revolt too dark to speak. Will punishment stop at dismissal from the board or will the director end up in Gitmo?

Loose Cheeks stands ready to support the director wherever he goes.

Item #2

Elephant in the patio

A.J. Gangle was mighty impressed with last month's column by Merced County Farm Bureau President Peter "Skal!" Koch in the farm bureau's newsletter.

So finally an elected official has come out to say we are facing the real possibility of
water shortages and mandatory rationing this summer--Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Good for him. But what can he do? We have the elephant sitting in our living room and the bigger it gets the louder one would yell or at least so you would think. As we take our daily showers, water the lawn or laze about in the pool, let's look at this water situation from the field view and not from the grandstands. What can we really do?

Gangle thought that the least he could do was get his ultralite out of the shop and take
his annual flight over the Merced River just to check things out and feel like he too was
participating in the fight against drought. Riding the thermals above the
Amsterdam-Hopeton area, Gangle got bumped off course a bit and found himself over ol' Skal! Koch's place. Gangle noticed a deep hole on the estate grounds and wondered if Koch was possibly burying an elephant next to his castle. Circling again, Gangle thought it looked more like President Skal! was building a swimming pool to laze about during the drought.

Item #3

Gangle dreams of a blog, like the bigshot reporters have

A.J. Gangle occasionally asks himself why he can't have a blog like all the reporters in the mainstream press, where he could explore political tidbits like the bigshot reporters do.

If I had one, he told Mr. Smithereen, I'd post something like: It appears that the political effect in the recent 4th district supervisor race of the Raptor Center's praise of the incumbent's family for donations to its causes helped the incumbent Kelsey retain her seat. This also insured continuance of the null voice of Planning Commissioner Cindy Lashbrook, a Kelsey appointee. Between Commissioner Tanner making the motions and Lashbrook missing the points, Planning Commissioner Sloan, developers and parcel-splitting agriculturalists are sitting pretty for the foreseeable future in Merced County.

Item #4

Atta Girl to Rochelle Koch

Rochelle Koch, wife of ol' Skal, president of the local Farm Bureau chapter, and a
founder of the famous Valley Land Alliance, is aiming to replace Bryant Owens as the top letter writer to the Sonny Star, the McClatchy Chain's Merced gigolo press outlet.

Judging from the high quality of her commentary on the Felix Torres Camp situation, the
public anticipates some serious land-use activism from the famous Valley Land Alliance.

Item #5

Atta It to Great Valley Center

Gangle attended the graduation of the UC/Great Valley Center's Institute for Development of Emerging Area Leaders Class of 2008 last weekend. The presentation was fine and the star of the show was Maureen McCorry, leader of San Joaquin Valley Et Al, emerging by the day.

Gangle, however, felt sorry for sponsors Paramount, Citi and Bank of America because of the 66 typos in the brochure. Transnational corporations are constantly abused these
days, he thought. Untypically for a cynical journalist, Gangle came up with an idea for
the corporate sponsors of UC/GVC: why not start an Emerging Valley Printers Institute
(EVPI).

While Gangle understands the hardcore Invisible-Middle-Finger-of-the-Market attitude of UC/GVC, he found himself wondering if the quality of the brochure might have been
improved if people who affix union bugs on their productions had been involved in
printing it. However, he doubts a union bug and competence behind it will ever grace any
production of the Great Valley Center now that it has been absorbed by the University of
California. An institution that hires John Yoo to teach law dwells in regions far beyond
competence, skill and knowledge.

Item #6

Ahhhhh, Karma!

Local environmental groups, Gangle reports, having sent out news of a momentary setback, received from a planning commissioner no less, this message: "Ahhhh, Karma!" Presumably, the commissioner wishes that the environmentalists would be reborn as endangered species -- fairy shrimp, kit fox, Orcutt grass, or such.

It is rarely possible for the public to understand the gnomic utterances of this
particular commissioner, either in the midst of her public duties or anywhere else.
However, at a recent silent auction for some worthy cause, the commissioner bid the price of a bus trip to Yosemite well above its stated worth, but ultimately lost the bid to
someone bidding even higher. When asked why she'd bid above the stated price of the item, the commissioner is reported to have said it didn't matter because it wasn't her own
money.

It must have been public funds from one of the grants the commissioner controls. What
price "outreach"? And here we thought the idea with public funds was to try to get the
best price for goods and services.

Gangle was unable to learn if the winning bid was also public funds.

Item #7

"Outside agendas' invade Yolo Co. Environmental Health Department

A successful petitioner in the lawsuit between Merced environmental groups backed by
citizens and Merced County and Riverside Motorsports Park received an irate phone call
Monday morning from one J. Bruce Sarazin, REHS, director fo the Yolo County Environmental Health Department (environmental.health@yolocounty.org). This official was offended that somehow his department had received a copy of a Friday press release announcing the judgment on the RMP case signed by Superior Court judge. In fact, Sarazin seemed a little paranoid about it, accusing "people like you of having agendas," complaining that the release had gone to every member of his staff and that he couldn't get it out of his "system" (his computer system, that is) before his staff read it. "I want to know your agenda," Sarazin insisted. The petitioner advised the director that it was unknown how the press release reached his office. It was suggested that, regardless of how it reached his office, he could erase it and put a block on future emails from the offending address. The director said it was a public office and he couldn't do that and that this was taking away valuable staff time from his office's service to the people of Yolo
County. The petitioner suggested that the director was wasting more valuable time and
money calling twice to discover the "agenda" behind the release but that the suit had
upheld both the California Environmental Quality Act and the laws of public process and
that the director should see that as a public benefit, even in Yolo County.

Petitioners in the suit learned later in the morning that Sarazin had been harassing
at least one attorney on the suit, using the Yolo County's public funds to continue his private investigation into why he had received that press release and trying to root out the
"agendas you people have."

"You can't make this stuff up," thought Gangle;

Item #8

The terrible crush of work down at the supervisors' office

On Fridays, members of the public visit the office the Merced County Board of Supervisors to pick up the board agenda. After examining the agenda, they frequently request copies of the paperwork behind items of interest to them. These packages include things like staff reports and agency comments on the projects.

None of this information is released until the supervisors pick up their packages, and at times, like one Friday this month, the information is not available until after office hours due to one thing or another. On this particular Friday, the information was made available to the public a few minutes after 5 p.m. One member of the public waited until nearly 6 p.m. for the information one Friday last winter.

Usually, board staff is quite accommodating, and copy the requested material for the public members, who often ask for several copies to be distributed to other members of the public, who wish to read it and possibly comment on it during public hearings at the board meetings.

This Friday, however, was a little different. The board clerk told two members of the public that they could not have three copies of the material, that too many members of the public were requesting this information and that the County would have to begin charging for it. Then she produced two copies of the material.

When supervisors' staff or planning staff talk about charging, it's 50 cents a page accompanied by a lecture on the number of trees sacrificed to produce the paper. Then, typically, at the public hearings on the items, supervisors lecture the public on the tardiness of their comments, which frequently come in the day of the hearing. In the County Mind, public comments should be made in ignorance of staff reports, preferably hand-written in pencil, because in that way the supervisors can say the staff reports covered all the questions raised by the ignorant public.

About the best that can happen in these circumstances is that the board or the planning commission, upon advise from County Counsel that they may be entering the realm of “significant exposure to possible litigation,” takes a collective break during which the county’s lawyers explain the dangers.

Active members of the public assure Gangle that they aren’t actually criticizing supervisors, who receive board packets that can run a foot high, from which the public may choose one or two projects, rarely more, on which to comment. But the public has read the staff report on the project, while the supervisors may for good public policy reasons be more concerned with the mental health department or a police and fire matter that Tuesday than another development, sand mine or parcel split. For these excellent reasons, supervisors generally accept planning staff’s recommendations, almost invariably to approve the project.

This, the public members assure Gangle, is not always a good idea. It puts staff in a policy position by sole virtue of the weight of the paperwork. Rather than welcome the volunteer energy of the public in reviewing the documents behind these projects, the supervisors get grumpy when the public comments on them.

Go figure.

Just to advocate on behalf of the Merced public for a moment: for the $90,000 plus $100,000 in discretionary funds plus expenses and perks the public pays its county supervisors, the public could expect its supervisors to read and understand the issues and the laws of process that govern the public's business.

But, no. Down in Merced County, if misfeasance or malfeasance don't git the job done, nonfeasance will.

| »

Judgment Entered in Favor of Raptor, POW and Citizens Group in RMP suit

Submitted: Jun 20, 2008

MERCED, CA (June 20, 2008) --Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Humphreys signed this week the judgment for the lawsuit between San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, Protect Our Water, Citizens for the Protection of Merced County Resources (petitioners), against the County of Merced and real party of interest Riverside Motorsports Park (respondents).

Judge Humphreys ordered in favor of petitioners that the following approvals of the Merced County Board of Supervisors on the RMP project be voided and vacated:

Resolution No. 2006-219;
Ordinance No. 1800;
Zone Change No. 03-007;
General Plan Amendment No. 03-005
Removal of project site from the Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve;
Amendment to the Merced County General Plan to redesignate the project site from "Agricultural" to "Castle Specific Urban Development Plan Industrial";
Rezone of the project from "A-1" and "A-2" to "Planned Development";
Approval of the project master plan;
Text Amendment to Merced County General Plan to modify policies in the Circulation Chapter that would exempt the project from traffic Level of Service standards for feature and major events.

The Court also ordered the County of Merced to refrain from further approvals on this project until the County and RMP undertakes further environmental review "to correct the deficiencies in the EIR and as otherwise required under the California Environmental Quality Act."

"We have nothing but the highest praise for our legal team," said San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center President Lydia Miller. "Gregory Maxim, Julie Garcia, Marsha Burch and their law firms, Sproul Trost LLP of Roseville and the Law Offices of Don B. Mooney in Davis."

"This judgment is a tremendous victory for the citizens of Merced County," said Gregory Maxim. "This lawsuit was brought for the purpose of ensuring that the citizens were provided with a full and fair opportunity to review and comment on all project impacts. This judgment, and the voiding of nine of the project's prior approvals, will provide the citizens with this opportunity."

"We are overjoyed at this positive outcome for the Raptor Center and Protect Our Water," Miller continued. "But we were particularly pleased with the strong support we received throughout the process of this lawsuit from the Citizens for the Protection of Merced County Resources, led by Suzy Hultgren, Paul van Warmerdam and Stacey Machado."

For further information contact:

Lydia Miller GREGORY L. MAXIM
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center Attorney at Law
Protect Our Water Sproul Trost LLP
(209) 723-9283, ph. (916) 783-6262 tel

Citizens for the Protection of Merced County Resources

Suzy Hultgren-(209) 358-2339 ph, (cell) 209-769-8583
Paul van Wamerdam- (209) 678-2251 ph,(cell) 209-678-2251
Stacey Machado-(209) 564-8361 ph,

| »

Epitaph

Submitted: Jun 19, 2008

What first undermines and then kills political communities is loss of power and final impotence; and power cannot be stored up and kept in reserve for emergencies, like the instruments of violence, but exists only in its actualization. Where power is not actualized, it passes away, and history is full of examples that the greatest material riches cannot compensate for this loss. Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities. -- Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, p. 200.

| »

Butte Environmental Center sues federal resource agencies over approval of Shasta Co. project

Submitted: Jun 17, 2008

Press Release:

For Immediate Release June 12, 2008

Butte Environmental Council • 116 W. Second St., Suite 3 • Chico, CA 95928 • 530/891-6424

AGENCIES SUED TO PROTECT WETLANDS AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Chico, CA – On Wednesday, June 11, 2008, the Butte Environmental Council, an enduring advocate for vernal pool protection in California, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over their approvals of the Stillwater Business Park in Shasta County.

The complaint alleges that the Corps and the Service failed to uphold the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act by issuing permits for the project that would destroy 65.7 % (234.5 acres) of the critical habitat for vernal pool branchiopods in the study area, 48.4 % (242.2 acres) of critical habitat for slender Orcutt grass, 7.55 acres of wetlands, and impact 678 acres of land necessary for the recovery of the species.

Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that fill with water during fall and winter rains. These unique grasslands once dotted most of California's Central Valley and southern California coastal areas and are home to a unique array of plants and wildlife that can be found nowhere else on earth. Biologists estimate that more than 90 percent of vernal pools have been destroyed throughout their historic range (Wright 2002). The vernal pool tadpole shrimp and the vernal pool fairy shrimp were listed as endangered in 1994 due to habitat loss and fragmentation from urban expansion, agriculture, roads, and water projects.

After BEC litigation in 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for these species and 11 plants, including slender Orcutt grass. “Critical habitat” for threatened and endangered species is considered to be habitat necessary for the recovery of the species, and, as such, is intended to have a higher degree of protection.

“It took BEC litigation to create the Vernal Pool Critical Habitat Rule and the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California and Southern Oregon,” stated Barbara Vlamis, executive director of Butte Environmental Council, “So we are not going to stand by and watch the agencies ignore the priorities they established in their own documents and regulations.”

The Clean Water Act requires the Corps to seek the Least Environmental Damaging Practical Alternative, which was not done. The Endangered Species Act necessitates that the Service not jeopardize the existence of the endangered and threatened shrimp species or the threatened grass and that they must not adversely modify critical habitat for the species. The current permits are contrary to the best available
science, inconsistent with prior decisions, and are not supported by the facts before the agency.

| »

Lloyd Carter on drought and aridity in California

Submitted: Jun 15, 2008

6-15-08
Sacramento Bee
Lloyd G. Carter: Much of California is a desert, we should live in it as such
By Lloyd G. Carter - Special to The Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1012762.html

That dreaded word drought has again intruded into the California public consciousness following Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's June 4 declaration that a drought is officially under way.

Because the governor's executive order failed to declare a state of emergency or impose rationing, it appears his real motive in declaring a drought was simply to drum up more support for the nearly $12 billion water bond infrastructure measure he wants to put on the November ballot.

That plan includes a peripheral canal to funnel Northern California water around the Delta and $3.5 billion for two controversial dams. He has chosen to try to engineer our way out of the current dry spell instead of adapting to the fact most Californians live in a desert.

The gubernatorial declaration states that 2007 was a below-normal rainfall year and that this spring was the driest spring on record in California, with total river water supplies this year 59 percent of normal. During the 1986-1992 drought, six dry years passed before Gov. Pete Wilson issued a similar declaration in 1991.

The technical definition of drought is a deficiency of "normal" precipitation over an extended period of time, usually more than one season, resulting in a shortage of water for some activity, group or environmental sector.

Drought is a temporary aberration. It differs from aridity, which is a permanent feature of low rainfall climates.

Aridity typifies the Southern California climate and has resulted in the annual transfer of enormous volumes of water from the usually wet north state to the almost-always-dry south. With 1,400 dams and thousands of miles of canals, California has always engineered solutions.

Although the governor urges conservation, tying it to his pharaonic construction plan will further polarize Northern California and Southern California over what critics call his hydro-illogical boondoggles.

At any rate, those massive public works projects, even if approved by overburdened taxpayers, are probably 15 to 20 years away from completion and of no immediate benefit.It might be wiser for the deficit-plagued governor to focus on policy before plumbing and sort out a raft of statewide water problems, which have festered for decades and don't require billions in cash to fix.

I suggest he take the following actions:

• Demand an explanation from the State Water Resources Control Board about why current water- rights permits and contract allocations exceed available supplies by several times. This phantom supply, known as "paper water," is being used to justify more urban sprawl throughout the state. The State Water Project promises contractors 4.2 million acre-feet annually (an acre-foot is 325,851 gallons) but can safely deliver only 1.2 million acre-feet.

• Ask the state water board to declare irrigation of hundreds of thousands of acres of high-selenium soils in the western San Joaquin Valley an unreasonable use of water. Retirement of all these alkali soils, which generate a pollutant-laden drainage that cannot be safely disposed, could free up more than a million acre-feet of water. Discourage planting of low-value, water-thirsty crops such as cotton.

• Demand a halt to urban waste. While some cities have excellent conservation records, others are dragging their feet. Sacramento and Fresno still sell water at a flat rate, meaning urban customers pay the same monthly bill whether they use 1 gallon or 1 million gallons.

• Be honest in educating the public that drought conditions do not exist everywhere in agriculture. Thousands of Central Valley farmers will be getting a full supply of federal water this year. Only the massive Westlands Water District, with 500 to 600 growers on 1,000 square miles, and a few other western San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts, will get reduced supplies. And they are free to purchase water on the open market. The governor's declaration will make such water transfers easier.

• Insist on reducing or halting the use of rivers and Delta drinking supplies as sewers for agricultural, municipal and industrial wastewater. Future generations will wonder why we allowed the Delta, drenched in urine-based ammonia, to literally be used as a toilet.

• Remember that agriculture still uses 80 percent of the state's river water supplies and a lot is wasted through flood irrigation and evaporation. Virtually all of Israel's agriculture is irrigated by drip systems. A new Israeli underground drip system uses 30 percent to 50 percent less water for growing rice, a major crop in the Sacramento Valley.
Give growers tax breaks to convert to drip. Before fields in the western San Joaquin Valley are planted each spring, growers use large amounts of imported water to drive the soil salts down below the root zone, a water-guzzling practice known euphemistically as "pre-irrigation." This is further proof these salty lands should be retired.

• Recognize that the federal Central Valley Project has a priority system for delivering irrigation water, and Westlands has always been at the end of the bucket line. When the senior federal water districts have all received their allotments, the junior contractors, including Westlands, get what is left. Westlands growers knew this when they signed their water-delivery contracts decades ago. It's a risk they willingly assumed.

Now, Westlands is negotiating with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein for a guaranteed supply of 1 million acre-feet a year, enough for a city of 10 million. This deal would be terrible news for the Delta ecosystem.

In her 2007 book "Managing Water, Avoiding Crisis in California," Dorothy Green, a respected Los Angeles environmentalist, writes: "We can meet the future of a growing California if water is used much more efficiently, if the management of that resource is better integrated and holistic, and if land-use policies are tied to water availability."

Let us hope that when the current drought fades, Green's advice doesn't.

Lloyd G. Carter covered California water issues for more than 20 years as a reporter for United Press International and The Fresno Bee. He is now an attorney and a director of the California Water Impact Network, www.c-win.org.

| »

You just can't make our Bud

Submitted: Jun 14, 2008

You just can't make our Bud
By T-bone Gristle, Oakdale CA

In honor of Utah Phillips and the InBev bid to buy Anheuser-Busch

You can take our lathes and drills
and tractor factories
You can take our flour mills
and auto factories

You just can't make our Bud

You can make our blue jeans
You can make our toys and dolls
and all our I-beams
Until every working family falls

You just can't make our Bud

You can grow our avocados
and send us mad cows
You can grow our red tomatoes
Buy all the bellies of our sows

You just can't make our Bud

Foreclose on all our real estate
Take all our timber, too
Take every buck that's here to make
And leave us with the blues

You just can't make our Bud

You can have our whole damn future
and all derivatives
We don't care to be mature
You can have our heritage

You just can't make our Bud

You can make our bombs and missiles
We'll pay you for your oil
Take all our bells and whistles
Buy up our sacred soil

You just can't make our Bud.

| »

Public minutes on the Merced County Board of Supervisors public hearing on the Robinson minor subdivision application

Submitted: Jun 12, 2008

“Give me a break.” -- Merced County Supervisor Gerry O’Banion

Merced County Board of Supervisors

Board Agenda Item PM #2
June 10, 2008

Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Minor Subdivision Application/Parcel Map Waiver No. 07-058 – Chris Robinson

Project Description and Location: The applicant proposes to divide three parcels (194.52 acres, 516.80 acres, & 315.88 acres) totaling 1,027.20 acres into 3 parcels of: Parcel 1 = 198.63 acres, Parcel 2 = 343.18 acres, Parcel 3 = 165.63 acres and Remainder Parcel = 320.14 acres. The project is located on the east side of Highway 59, ½ mile north of Youd Road in the Snelling area. The project site is designated Agricultural land use in the General Plan and zoned A2 (Exclusive Agriculture).

Senior Planner Dave Gilbert explained to the supervisors that the issue was an appeal from the county Planning Commission approval of the project. The planning department presented this project as a “reorganization” of three parcels into three plus a remaining parcel. For some reason, it could not say “four parcels.” The boundaries of proposed Parcel 2 may be the area of a conservation easement on the Merced River, which occupies parts of the three existing parcels. The other new parcels surround this parcel. Because information about the easement was not made public, it is not clear whether the boundaries of the parcel are the boundaries of the easement. Robinson will later apply for a conditional use permit to mine a portion of one of the new parcels adjoining the conservation easement, nearly touching the river. But, Gilbert said, “The change in the parcel borders doesn’t affect the easement.”

The planner explained that the proposed parcels were a part of the Robinson family planning process and “was consistent with managing 6,000 acres over time.” Gilbert also dismissed the California Environmental Quality Act cumulative impact issue saying there had only been one subdivision within a mile of the project and only nine within five miles of it – neglecting hundreds of subdivisions of agricultural land in Merced County the planning department has difficulty counting.

In reply to a letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, planning staff asserted that Robinson, the applicant said there would be no ranchettes and that there was no relationship between the new parcels and the anticipated sand-mine project. Robinson’s mining contractors, Central Valley Cement, according to Gilbert, also claimed no relationship between the mining project and the new parcels.

Gilbert reported to the board that the planning commission approved the proposed new parcels and that there would be no changes in land-use, which would remain in agriculture (except for the mining, of course.)

The briefest history of this part of the Robinson Ranch shows that the conservation easement on the river resulted from the 1997 flood, which blew out Robinson’s mining operations on the river, damaged the downstream bridge on Highway 59. A number of resource agencies spent millions of dollars of public funds on the restoration project contained in the conservation easement along the river (proposed Parcel 2).

Maureen McCorry, representing et al and the Valley Land Alliance, spoke against the project. She began by asking the board if they had received and read the material she submitted. Board members nodded or replied that they had.

McCorry repeated the planner’s statement that it was “beautiful land.”

“Our requests are reasonable,” she said, because of “huge natural resource issues and values at stake.” Since the mining CUP is already in the pipeline for approval, the board should combine it with the parcelization and consider them together.

“This is a California habitat issue first, not local,” she said. It involves preservation of rangeland, potential agricultural –to- agricultural conversions damaging to rangeland, and interference with the easement. “Millions of public funds were spent to preserve,” she said. “There is no way this is exempt from CEQA,” she said, naming the long list of public resource agencies involved in the restoration project.

McCorry also mentioned that the planning department had not included in materials submitted to the board a map on rangeland she had submitted of the region prepared by The Nature Conservancy for the California Rangeland Coalition.

Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service letter, she said that the planning department had contacted the wrong branch of the Service initially, that members of the public had contacted the right branch, and that after the planning department received the Service letter, it complained to the Service for writing a letter the County had not requested.

At the end of Ms. McCorry’s five minutes, her aunt, Supervisor Kathleen Crookham, chairwoman of the board, cut off her microphone.

Cutting off microphones is not typical elected-official behavior, even in Merced. However, McCorry had submitted letters and documents that would take longer than five minutes to read, if any supervisor bothered to read them.

Chris Robinson told the board that the application is to turn three parcels into four. His family’s intent has always been to protect the environment and habitat and has a long record of doing so. (A few brave souls in the county have testified for many years that the Robinsons have a long record of doing the opposite.) Robinson said he had worked hard with the agencies during the restoration. Biologists developed the borders of the conservation easement, which cuts across the three existing parcels.

He said his family had donated first, $600,000 and later, $500,000 to the project. Splitting the three parcels into four “probably enhances the wildlife habitat,” he claimed. He asked to reserve his remaining time to answer any questions the board might have.

The public noted that the taxpayers donated millions to the river restoration project and that no mention was made of how much money the Robinson family made in years of aggregate mining on the site of the restoration project, of necessity publicly funded to try to clean up the destruction caused by the family’s mining. It is important for the public and the board to recall the long history of this applicant’s family’s mining projects before he was greenwashed by million in public funds.

Jean Okuye, president of Valley Land Alliance (although she did not announce herself that way), testified that she was concerned about the CEQA issue of continual “piecemealing” of agricultural land. She also said that Robinson had told her he would plant orchards on one of the proposed parcels (it was not clear which parcel). She said that in Denair, a farming community in Stanislaus County (to the north), the aquifer is now reported to be moving backwards, toward the foothills rather than toward the valley floor. “Foothill farming may be the problem,” she said. (Many orchards are being planted in the hills on either side of the San Joaquin Valley.)

No one else testified and the public hearing was closed.

The board and top staff from the County deliberated.

County Counsel recommended that the board continue the item to give planning staff time to consider McCorry’s letter, two CDs of documents, and the letter from attorney Marsha Burch. He suggested that the planning staff could return to the board after this review with a supplemental report.

Supervisor Crookham wanted Fincher to clarify that the public hearing was closed and that the only future testimony would be on new issues. Fincher agreed.

Supervisor Deidre Kelsey moved to continue the item until an unspecified date in order to give staff time to review the submitted documents.

Crookham said that it would give the board time to read the material.

Supervisor John Pedrozo asked, “Who’s to say that five hours before … a new letter and it has to go again, putting off, putting off. It’s not fair to the applicant … not the ‘appellate’.”

The public notes that the board of supervisors meets in closed session an hour before every meeting to discuss litigation. Pedrozo, who draws $90,000 a year plus perks and benefits from the public trough, ought to know the difference between a court (appellate) and a member of the public (appellant). That he ran unopposed this year for a second term brings into question Merced County’s capacity for self-government.

County Counsel Fincher replied that that was a possibility, but that lack of a thorough review was unfair to the applicant. He added that Robinson’s attorney agreed that delay was required.

Crookham said the documents submitted were very lengthy and that County Counsel should have been in the loop, too, to receive them. “It’s always at the last minute,” she complained. “Everybody is scrambling.” She asked that the public have more respect for the supervisors and get things in a timely manner.

Supervisor Gerry O’Banion said, “That’s a ploy. It makes me sick …There is no stronger environmentalist in Merced County than that family. Last minute fiascos from the Raptors and Maureen and whoever she represents today are continuing to try to kill any project …Subdivision? This isn’t houses, it’s allowed by the General Plan of Merced County. His project is to improve his ability to take care of that land. Just look back on the Robinson family over the years.”

O’Banion said he’d agree to a continuance only until the next meeting, next week, and repeated that the public hearing was closed except for any new information.

“It’s so disappointing that every planning issue … 11th-hour information from Maureen McCorry, the Raptors or Valley Land Alliance or any organization. Give me a break. You should have known how you felt a long time ago. You should have submitted earlier. Don’t tell me at the last moment you have to scurry around. Some people in these groups got their 20-acres ... The MAC versus some other organization? Give me a break. The decision needs to be made, up or down.”

O'Banion's reference to people getting their 20-acre parcel splits was aimed at Okuye, who recently split her orchard into smaller parcels. However, her entire orchard is in an agricultural easement, the split was clearly for estate-planning purposes, she has no sand mine in the pipeline, so the slung mud didn't stick on Okuye's barn door.

Pedrozo complimented O’Banion on saying it perfectly. “It’s a board game and I just don’t like it.” He referred to “a lot of money” Robinson said his family had donated to the river restoration project. “But we have to prolong it a little longer and I apologize.”

The public doubts Pedrozo even considered how much money the Robinson family made on the mine, the damage of which required the publicly funded restoration project contained in the conservation easement.

Crookham added that Chris Robinson’s parents were so proud of the river restoration work and that she never thought of Chris as a developer. “I’m sorry also for what we sometimes have to put people through.”

Kelsey said that when the project was presented to the Snelling Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), Robinson addressed the MAC’s concerns about oak trees, riparian habitat “and who knows what.”

The public noted that the Snelling MAC is upstream from the Robinson Ranch, whose projects tend to damage downstream resources. MACs are initiated by supervisors for unincorporated areas in their districts. Supervisors also appoint MAC members. Three groups representing downstream interests might have been contacted: a Hopeton/Amsterdam MAC, a Stevinson MAC or the Merced River Stakeholders, which represents diverse interests from Merced Falls to the river’s confluence with the San Joaquin River. The problem is that despite years of pleas from Hopeton/Amsterdam and Stevinson, Kelsey has refused to entertain creating MACs in those areas. Robinson, once an active member in the Merced River Stakeholders, did not submit his project for its review.

County Planning Director Robert Lewis reminded the board that its next meeting would consider the annual budget and the one after that would be about the General Plan Update, two engrossing topics that might not leave time for another hearing on this matter. He suggested the best time for rehearing the matter would be at the second meeting in July.

Crookham said, “’as soon as possible’.”

O’Banion said, “It should come at the next meeting. This has been delayed. Don’t wait another month. It is unfair to the project applicant. I can’t support it.”

O’Banion introduced another motion to amend the motion on the floor to state the item would be heard “at the next meeting.” Pedrozo seconded it.

Supervisor Mike Nelson said he could not support O’Banion and Pedrozo’s amendment based on the planning director’s information. Nelson described the new material as “two hundred pages of gobbledegook.”

The public noted that Nelson’s reference to 200 pages is strong evidence he had read little if any of the submitted material.

Lewis replied from the podium that he thought the planning department could get it done by the next meeting.

County Counsel Fincher, more familiar with the submitted material, said that Lewis’s assertion would live the staff only one day for full review. “I appreciate Mr. Lewis’s eagerness but that’s a lot of work,” he said.

Kelsey said that the point of order was that her motion was for “the first available meeting. We don’t want to make mistakes that would lead to courts.”

County CEO Dee Tatum, said that the administration does not “get involved in dates and times … I hear Mr. O’Banion, but Mr. Fincher is trying … if you would allow us the latitude, it will not languish.”

Tatum explained that the reason there would only be two staff days (the second taken up with printing the supplemental report) is because the report must be out for public review 72 hours before the meeting, according to the Brown Act.

O’Banion said it should be done by the second meeting, on July 1.

Tatum agreed it would be done by July 1.

O’Banion said that if the second to his amendment were withdrawn (Pedrozo withdrew it), the amendment would be withdrawn with the understanding the matter would be heard again by the board on July 1.

Pedrozo asked again if the public hearing had been already closed.

Fincher said July 1 sounded good but suggested the board inquire if Robinson would be available on that day. Robinson nodded that he would be.

Crookham said it was all clarified and called for the vote. It passed unanimously.

| »

Burch letter on Robinson subdivision application appeal, June 10, 2008

Submitted: Jun 11, 2008

We are posting a letter from Attorney Marsha Burch, representing San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water (POW) on a proposed subdivision on the Robinson Ranch, which straddles the Merced River above the Shaffer Bridge on Highway 159, because it raises important issues concerning this apparently innocuous application. We will post a report on this public hearing soon.

Badlands Journal editorial board

Marsha Burch
Attorney at Law
Grass Valley CA

June 10, 2008

Via Email and Facsimile

Merced County Board of Supervisors
County of Merced
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340

Re: Proposed Minor Subdivision Application/Parcel Map Waiver No. MS07-058 (Chris Robinson), Merced County, California

Dear members of the Board of Supervisors:

This office, in conjunction with the Law Office of Donald B. Mooney, represents the San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water, groups with an interest in the above-referenced proposed minor subdivision (“Proposal”). We submit the following comments on the Proposal. These comments are submitted in conjunction with additional information submitted to the Board on June 6 and June 10, 2008.

The Board of Supervisors should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval for two reasons. First, the Proposal is part of a larger development plan for the Robinson property, and so under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Proposal should be considered together with the applicant’s plans for a mining operation on the property. Second, the Proposal is not subject to the CEQA exemption relied upon by the Planning Commission.

This Proposal comes to you by way of an appeal of the March 26, 2008, Planning Commission approval of the Proposal and a determination that the Proposal is exempt from review under CEQA. The Planning Commission decided that the Proposal was exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), known as the “common sense” exemption. This exemption applies where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)

The Planning Commission erred in finding that the Proposal is exempt from CEQA. The Proposal will result in physical changes to the environment, including the potential for conversion of productive agricultural lands, for construction of residences, easements, etc. on the newly created parcels. As discussed in greater detail below, evidence in the record also suggests that the Proposal could result in impacts to listed species. There is no basis for the County to rely on the common sense exemption.

A. Exemptions under Section 15061(b)(3)

An agency may find a proposed project exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) only if its precise language clearly applies. Any possibility that the project might culminate in a significant adverse change removes it from this exemption. If a reasonable argument is made that suggests a project might have a significant impact, the agency must refute that argument to a certainty to rely on the exemption. (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 118.)

A reasonable argument has been made that the Proposal may have a significant impact. The April 23, 2008, comment letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) appropriately points out that “the parcel split would extend about 10,000 feet along both sides of the portion of the Merced River that was restored. . . .” The USFWS went on to state that the potential for take of listed species is not clear with respect to the parcel split, but notes that such splits often lead to development. In this case, there is nothing in the approval by the Planning Commission that would prevent the sale of the individual lots and/or construction of homes on each of them. The fact that the applicant has indicated a present intent not to build homes does not mean that at any time in the future he could not change his mind and develop residences on the parcels.

Also, the Agricultural Chapter of the General Plan cautions against parcelization of farmland because smaller parcels encounter greater difficulty in supporting a full-time farming operation. The fact that the Proposal will result in parcels that are larger than the 160-acre minimum does not change the fact that the Proposal will create parcels that could be sold individually. The potential impacts of parcelization are exacerbated by the fact that the property is within the Merced County Agricultural Preserve. The conflict with the General Plan is significant, especially in light of the fact that the County has consistently refused to assess the cumulative impacts of the minor subdivisions occurring with alarming frequency throughout the County. Hundreds of these parcelization proposals have been approved, and yet the overall impact to agriculture in the County has never been considered.

Finally, the property is burdened by a conservation easement, and the details of the easement and its requirements have not been revealed to the decision makers or the public. In fact, County staff has determined that the easement simply will not be reviewed in connection with the Proposal. In a letter from Robert A. Lewis to the USFWS on May 7, 2008, Mr. Lewis stated that the County “was not provided” with the information regarding the details of the conservation easement, but would ask for such details later, at the time the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) application is evaluated. The public and the decision makers are in the dark about the details, and there is no certainty that the parcels created by the Proposal even comport with the easement boundaries. Also, it is possible that the parcelization of the property is contrary to the terms of the easement, and County staff’s head-in-the-sand approach could lead to County approval of a parcel split that violates the terms and/or the spirit of the conservation easement.

The parcelization will isolate the conservation easement. This means that any development or increase in intensity of use on the remaining parcels will not automatically require participation by the resource agencies holding the easement. The result will be reduced scrutiny of development adjacent to the easement, and the value of the easement itself could be lessened by the County’s action in approving the Proposal.

The comments of the USFWS and the facts pointed out by staff and the public reveal that the Proposal covers property inhabited by listed species, containing a conservation easement (the details of which the staff has determined to ignore), and within the agricultural preserve. The burden is now on the agency, the County, to refute the argument to a certainty, which is not possible under the circumstances.

When a project will result in physical changes to the environment, and there is dispute regarding the possibility of significant impact, the agency must prove that significant impacts cannot possibly occur. (Davidon Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 118, emphasis added.) Also, when evidence is presented to a lead agency showing possibility of adverse impact, the agency cannot rely on the absence of supporting data, because the agency cannot say with certainty that there is no possibility of significant effect on the environment. (Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, emphasis added.)

B. Potential for Conversion of Agricultural Lands

In this case, the Proposal will create four parcels. Each of these parcels could result in the construction of new residences, barns, other outbuildings and roads/driveways. The applicant continues to insist that he has no plans to change the use of the property, but the fact remains, the County’s action in approving this would allow for development of the individual parcels. When that development occurs is not the issue.

The General Plan, Land Use Chapter, Goal 7, is “Conservation of productive agricultural and other valuable open space lands.” The staff report to the Planning Commission suggested that the Proposal was consistent with this Goal because “[t]he project site will remain in row crop production and pasture land according to the applicant.” Again, the fact that the applicant does not have any immediate plans does not change the fact that the four parcels would be subject to development. In other words, the Proposal will allow for land use changes that could be contrary to Goal 7.

Additionally, Land Use Chapter, Policy 7.3 states that “[p]remature and uncoordinated division of land which forces the early cessation of valid agricultural uses shall be avoided.” The Planning Commission staff report admitted that irrigation easements would likely be required to provide irrigation supplies to all parcels in the event they are sold, but there is no indication that such easements will be included in the subdivision, and here again, the General Plan Policy favoring large, productive agricultural parcels is not consistent with the Proposal.

There is substantial evidence in the record before you indicating that the Proposal may result in premature conversion of productive agricultural lands. In addition to being inconsistent with the General Plan, this conversion is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. The County may not, at this point, rely upon an absence of data in the record regarding the specific impacts to agricultural lands, but must move forward to an Initial Study. (See Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644.)

C. Potential Impacts to Listed Species

The United States Fish and Wildlife (“USFWS”) has reviewed the Proposal and stated that the subdivision may have significant impacts on federally listed species. This opinion from the experts at the USFWS is “substantial evidence” under CEQA. (See Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 156 [memorandum from the state Department of Conservation was substantial evidence].)

The inquiry should end here. An Initial Study is required, as the County simply cannot say with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on listed species.

D. Segmenting of the Project

The Planning Commission erred in segmenting the Proposal to split the parcels from the overall development plan for the property. The parcelization of the property to avoid the conservation easement area is the first step toward the processing of the application for CUP 06-008. By isolating the conservation easement on one parcel, the remaining parcels will likely develop, whether it be a conversion to more intensive agricultural uses or other uses. The resource agencies involved in the conservation easement will not be able to participate in development adjacent to the easement, which may have significant impacts on its environmental values. The easement language must be reviewed and the impacts to its value must be evaluated.

CEQA defines a "project" extremely broadly as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: “(c) an activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; see Guidelines § 15378(a)(3) [a project is "the whole of an action"].)

Furthermore, courts give “project” a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1189.) The California Supreme Court has stated that CEQA is “to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259, 104 Cal. Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049.) From this principle, “it is clear that the requirements of CEQA ‘cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite-sized pieces’ which, when taken individually, may have no significant adverse effect on the environment (Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council of Arcadia (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 712, 726, 117 Cal. Rptr. 96) ….” (Lake County Energy Council v. County of Lake (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 851, 854, 139 Cal. Rptr. 176.)

Consistent with this approach of not breaking an activity down into bite-sized pieces, Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (c) states, “the term ‘project’ refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term ‘project’ does not mean each separate governmental approval.” Thus, in Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council of Arcadia (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726, the shopping center construction, parking lot construction and widening of an adjacent portion of the street were regarded as a single project for purposes of CEQA.

In this case the evidence shows that the overall development plan for the Robinson property is an “activity [that] may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; see also attached List of Exhibits.) Therefore, the parcelization and mining proposal is a single project within the purview of CEQA.

The most important factor to consider is the interrelationship between the proposed lots. For example, the separation of the conservation easement area from the other portions of the property is the first step toward application for the CUP, and will streamline the CUP process by legally separating the “mining parcel” from the “conservation parcel.” As set forth above, it is unclear whether this parcelization is even consistent with the conservation easement agreement, but the existence of the conservation easement on the parcel proposed for mining would certainly complicate environmental review of the CUP proposal.

Additional factors that support the conclusion that the overall development plan is a single project are (1) the parcels are under common ownership; and (2) the clear and expressed intent of the Applicant to obtain a CUP for the mining operation.

The property at issue is a sensitive one by any definition. According to the USFWS it is inhabited by myriad listed species, and the conservation easement itself speaks volumes about the ecological value of the property. There simply is no reasonable basis to excuse the County from CEQA’s requirements – and the certainty required for such a determination simply cannot be found.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors reverse the decision of the Planning Commission that the Proposal is exempt from CEQA, and deny the Proposal.

Very truly yours,

Marsha A. Burch
Attorney

cc: San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Donald B. Mooney, Esq.

LIST OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED

June 6:

Robinson Property Project
AG Central Valley Concrete
Army Corps Letter
Four Pumps Agreement
Lewis Letter to USFWS
Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan
MRSHEP Phase 3 Engineering Report
Robinson CUP
Robinson Ranch Application
Robinson Ranch Application Package
Robinson RP
Robinson Ranch RP txt
Vollmar Letter

June 10:

Coalition Statement
DFG Action Plan
Ecofull UC Vollmar
Fish and Game Land-use Change 2
Fish and Game Land-use Change 1
Paving Paradise
Rangeland Resolution
Silviera Report
SJKF Recovery Area
SJKF Documents
TNC VP Target
USFWS Recovery Plan 2
USFWS Recovery Plan 1
USFWS Upland Recovery
Vernal Pools and Related Wetlands
Wildlands Map
Williamson Map

| »

"Chinatown" and "Day of the Locust"-level flak

Submitted: Jun 06, 2008

The drama! The panic! The fear! Visions of people dying of thirst in yet-unnamed Southern California suburbs. Millions of acres of farm crops disked under.

DROUGHT!

At the Monday meeting in Los Banos with farmers, Bureau of Reclamation staff and Rep. Jim Costa is reported to have said that California has a perfectly good water system for 20 million people, the problem being that we have now around 38 million people and rising.

Costa might have added the suspicious that beyond 20 million people, California was well over the carrying capacity of its natural resources without putting them into a destructive spiral that has now produced what he called "the perfect storm."

The salmon must return to the rivers where they were born. People don't have to migrate to California.

From Prop. 13, to term limits in the state Legislature that delivered the Legislature to lobbyists, to electrical utility deregulation, to the recall that elected the governor to the real estate boom to the real estate bust, and two bad precipitation years, the crucial political decisions in California have been made by developer lobbyists who own the state Legislature and local land-use jurisdictions solely for the benefit of developer profits.

1978: Prop. 13-- CA population, 25 million
1990: Term limits in the state Legislature -- CA population, 27 million
1996: Electrical utility deregulation -- CA population, 30 million
2001-03: Energy crisis, recall election -- CA population, 32-33 million
Present: CA population, 38 million

The political necessity of 38 million people afraid of water shortages or perhaps merely made uncomfortable by water shortages, along with Valley farmers screaming bankruptcy, will overwhelm political and legal arguments for preservation of the state's environment. However, even in this darkest hour there is hope. Empty, foreclosed houses and unsold houses litter the urban areas of the San Joaquin Valley. These represent the saving grace of showers untaken, toilets unflushed, lawns and gardens unwatered. Who says that finance, insurance and real estate corporations are not green and are not taking an active part in saving water and reducing global warming? As for our swelling homeless population, their ubiquitous baby carriages produce no smog and guzzle no gas.

One Badlands editor reports: "Me and the wife have been trying to get pregnant with no success. Then I got one of them peripheral canals and now we got triplets and one of them is pregnant."
Badlands editorial board

-------------------------------

Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

June 6, 2008

CALFED wins ruling on Delta: But wording may help losing side defeat canal
The Stockton Record – 6/6/08
By Alex Breitler, Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO - The government was legally justified when it did not consider cutting water exports as one way to solve the Delta's problems, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

But one attorney said language in the ruling may actually help Delta farmers and environmentalists in their renewed fight against a peripheral canal.

In 2000, the state-federal partnership known as CALFED released a major environmental plan that listed three broad alternatives to improving the Delta.

None of those alternatives included reducing the amount of water that is exported from giant pumps near Tracy to portions of the Bay Area, the southern San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

Delta farmers sued. They lost in Sacramento County Superior Court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. That court said the state's population would eventually adjust to the new realities of less available water.

The state Supreme Court decided the matter once and for all Thursday, saying CALFED's entire purpose was to reduce conflicts over water, and that the agency was justified in deciding that slashing water exports from the Delta would only make things worse.

Much has changed since that original plan was issued. CALFED is widely considered a failure - a bill pending in the state Legislature would eliminate it altogether.

Meanwhile, officials have moved on to new planning processes in the Delta, including consideration of a peripheral canal.

But the court's decision Thursday is not moot. CALFED's plan is still the foundation for many studies that are under way in the Delta, said CALFED spokesman Keith Coolidge. And the ruling will be looked to by those who are crafting new strategies.

That's why Stockton attorney Dante Nomellini, although on the losing end, was encouraged.

The court acknowledged that federal and state law means water exports must be "subordinated" to environmental needs, he said.

CALFED was based on the theory that it's possible to restore the Delta's ecology while maintaining or even increasing water exports.

"If practical experience demonstrates that the theory is unsound, Bay-Delta water exports may need to be capped or reduced," the ruling says.

Good news, said Nomellini, who represents Delta farmers.

"I think it's a very important statement that will have an impact" on current Delta planning, he said.

The State Water Contractors, which represents 27 agencies that receive Delta water, praised Thursday's ruling, calling ecosystem and water supply "co-equal goals."

But an environmental group, the Planning and Conservation League, called it an "unfortunate" decision that relied on an outdated understanding of the relationship between water exports and the Delta's ecosystem, including fish species whose numbers have plummeted under CALFED's watch.#

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/A_NEWS/806060324/-1/A_NEWS03
----------------------------------
Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

June 6, 2008

1. Top Items -

Drought declared in California for the first time in 16 years
Contra Costa Times
Schwarzenegger proclaims that California is in a drought
Los Angeles Times

Governor declares drought in California
San Francisco Chronicle

Schwarzenegger hopes drought decree is wake-up call
Sacramento Bee

Governor declares drought - without mandatory rationing
San Jose Mercury News

More cuts loom as drought declared
Greater conservation effort needed, water officials say
San Diego Union Tribune

Governor Declares Drought in California
New York Times

Drought officially arrives
Governor's budget would borrow from lottery to cut deficit
Los Angeles Daily News

Y-S region, valley still in good shape
Marysville Appeal Democrat

Governor declares drought
Suppliers use transfers, surcharges to handle deficit
Redding Record Searchlight

Governor declares drought
Fresno Co. supervisors to seek county resolution.
Associated Press
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Drought declared in California for the first time in 16 years
Contra Costa Times – 6/4/08
By Mike Taugher, staff writer

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the first statewide drought in 16 years Wednesday, setting in place measures to head off severe shortages next year and lending a boost to his plan to raise more than $11 billion to upgrade the state's water delivery system. The governor did not call for rationing, but his plan seeks funding for conservation programs, attempts to encourage water transfers and orders adjustments in the timing of water deliveries to free irrigation supplies for farmers.

The drought declaration reflects the state's increasing vulnerability to water shortages and heralds what appears to be years of uncertainty about state water supplies.

Since the last major drought, from 1987 to 1992, California's population has grown by 8 million and Southern California's access to Colorado River water has been clipped by 500,000 acre-feet, enough for 1 million families.

Meanwhile, court-ordered restrictions on Delta pumping to protect collapsing fish populations are making it more difficult to meet water demands, particularly from San Joaquin Valley farmers who rely on Sierra runoff to irrigate their crops. And those restrictions will make it more difficult to refill many reservoirs when the drought ends.

"If it starts to rain again, we're not OK," said Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "This is the most serious situation I've seen us face in my 30-year career. "... The situation is so bad in the San Joaquin Valley that a lot of folks could go belly up."

Schwarzenegger blamed the situation on the state's failure to build big new reservoirs in recent decades, which he called "absolutely insane."

He said he would continue pushing for an $11.9 billion water bond he wants to get on the November ballot to build dams, construct a more efficient method of delivering water through the Delta region and a host of water use efficiency and environmental improvements.

"Our drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California's water infrastructure," Schwarzenegger said.

The governor ordered state agencies to begin setting up a water bank to transfer water from those who have it to those who do not next year, if needed, and increase advertising for water conservation. He also ordered state agencies to seek federal money for water conservation programs and shift the timing of water deliveries to Southern California to help free up supplies for San Joaquin Valley farms.

But those are only stopgap measures meant to soften the blow if next year is dry.

"It's going to get worse," the governor said.

While the drought is grabbing attention, water officials say the problems are much deeper than the weather. A court has sharply cut water deliveries out of the Delta to correct flaws in an illegally issued permit that was supposed to protect Delta smelt under the Endangered Species Act.

The same court on Friday will begin considering whether further restrictions are required to correct another illegally issued permit that failed to protect salmon and steelhead.

Meanwhile, yet another fish species, longfin smelt, is being considered for endangered species status and that could lead to even more water delivery restrictions.

"As the ramifications of the salmon start to hit us, and the longfin smelt, I think we've got to expect even less water than we get now," Quinn said.

The drought caught many Californians, particularly skiers who remember strong January storms, by surprise.

In fact, the past two years are only marginally drier than 2001 and 2002 and are not as dry as 1987 and 1988, according to state chief hydrologist Maury Roos.

But state water officials say the past three months have been the driest March, April and May combination recorded since record keeping began in 1922.

And, because last year was also dry, reservoirs are depleted and much of the state's snowmelt is soaking into the ground instead of running down rivers.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District, which serves 1.3 million people in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, last month declared a drought emergency and imposed mandatory water rationing. The city of Long Beach and the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley are also rationing, and other water districts across the state are calling for voluntary conservation and stiffening penalties for waste.

For customers of the Contra Costa Water District, the drought means their Delta water supply will turn saltier this year and that will increase the need to take fresh water out of Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

The water district's assistant general manager, Greg Gartrell, said that although the orders issued by the governor were not dramatic, "fundamentally, they're the most important thing you can do."

"If everybody does a little bit, it saves a hell of a lot," he said.#

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_9481821
---------------------

Schwarzenegger proclaims that California is in a drought
Los Angeles Times – 6/5/08
By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed a statewide drought Wednesday, warning that California's water supply is falling dangerously low because of below-average rainfall and court-ordered water restrictions aimed at protecting fish.

"We must recognize the severity of this crisis we face," Schwarzenegger said at a Capitol news conference. He said this spring has been the driest on record in Northern California, which supplies most of the water to the state.

Along with the proclamation, the governor issued an executive order intended to speed transfers of water to areas experiencing the most severe shortages, help local water districts boost conservation efforts, identify risks to the state's water supply and assist farmers.

The governor stopped short of declaring a water emergency. Administration officials say Wednesday's move is a first step, putting Californians on notice that large-scale rationing could be coming if the situation does not improve. Some areas of the state are more vulnerable than others.

The governor said his proclamation adds urgency to a proposal he has been pushing for years to borrow $11.9 billion for new water projects such as reservoirs, river restoration and water-quality improvement. Schwarzenegger would like the Legislature to put such a plan on the November ballot, but lawmakers have balked amid opposition from environmentalists, who argue that new reservoirs threaten wildlife and fish habitats.

California has no official guidelines for what constitutes a statewide drought, and the governor's proclamation this early in a dry spell is unusual. The state is in its second dry year.

When the last such proclamation was made, in 1991, former Gov. Pete Wilson waited until the fifth dry year. Only a month ago, the state's meteorologist said California was not in a drought.

Administration officials say the governor is moving proactively because of unique circumstances that could cause the water situation to rapidly deteriorate. They point to a federal court order last summer aimed at protecting endangered smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that has put a substantial share of the state's water supply off-limits.

Additionally, state Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said odd weather patterns, perhaps related to global warming, are creating problems for the water supply.

The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which accounts for a large share of the state's water supply, was at 97% of normal in March. By May it was down to 67% of normal. Warm weather throughout the spring caused the snow to melt quickly, Snow said, with much of the water evaporating instead of running downstream into reservoirs.

"The snowpack has been disappearing, and it has not manifest itself as runoff," Snow said.

Most of the state's residential customers are unlikely to face severe water rationing this year. But they are being asked to cut back their use. Major conservation campaigns have been underway in many parts of the state.

Water districts in several cities, including Long Beach and Oakland, are imposing restrictions on outdoor water use and are asking residential consumers to cut their overall use by 10% to 20%.

Washing cars and driveways is banned in some places, as is serving drinking water in restaurants unless the customer asks for it.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on Wednesday voted to put such restrictions in place, subject to City Council approval. DWP officials said they expect to have up to 18 "drought busters" patrolling neighborhoods and ticketing offenders.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 18 million people, will consider asking other member cities and counties to adopt such measures June 13. The proposed resolution would also encourage local governments to consider tiered rate structures that encourage conservation, mandatory installation of low-flow toilets when properties are resold, and rebates for consumers who install water-saving devices.

Timothy F. Brick, chairman of the district board, warned the state is "entering a new and worrisome water era."

Farmers could be particularly hard hit. In the San Joaquin Valley, water shortages this year could force some to abandon tomato crops during the summer.

Schwarzenegger warns that conservation will help the state address such mounting water problems in the short term only.

"Our drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California's water infrastructure," he said. "I hope the legislators get the point. . . . Let's fix all of these things that need to be fixed rather than waiting and waiting and waiting."

The governor noted that in 2006 the state had so much rain and snow that "raging storm water drained off into the ocean without us catching it" as large reservoirs released excess water. "Today, those same reservoirs are 40% below capacity. It is absolutely insane."

Environmentalists on Wednesday said the governor's call to bring his bond package before voters as soon as possible was misguided.

"I don't think we are at this point where people are not going to have water if we don't put his package on the November ballot," said Jim Metropulos, a senior advocate with the Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club and other conservation groups said they would like to see a water bond package geared toward projects they view as more beneficial to the environment.

The Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement encouraging the governor to focus on his goal of reducing water usage in California cities by 20%. A bill the group sponsored that would set such a target for the state, AB 2175, recently passed the Assembly. #

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-drought5-2008jun05,0,6474511.story
--------------------------

Governor declares drought in California
San Francisco Chronicle – 6/5/08
By Kelly Zito, Matthew Yi, staff writers

California's water crisis intensified Wednesday as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the first statewide drought in 17 years - setting the stage for drastic cutbacks and for diverting supplies from the relatively water-rich to the water-poor.

Schwarzenegger called for a 20 percent reduction in water use statewide and urged local agencies to bolster conservation programs and to work with federal and other authorities to help farmers who are suffering huge financial losses and abandoning crops in droves. Schwarzenegger lacks the authority to impose statewide rationing, though the Department of Water Resources could slash water supplies to local agencies, which then would be forced to institute rationing.

"There is no more time to waste because nothing is more vital to protect our economy, our environment and our quality of life," Schwarzenegger said.

The governor's pronouncement follows the driest spring on record and two years of below-normal precipitation. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, the backbone of the state's water supply, stands at two-thirds of normal; dusty banks line many important reservoirs; and environmental rulings have slashed water pumped from the crucial Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta - all while California's booming population threatens to overwhelm some of the state's key infrastructure.

Some water districts, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District, already have imposed rationing and threatened to fine or reduce water supply to customers who violate the restrictions. Most of the remaining Bay Area water districts have asked for voluntary cutbacks on the order of 10 to 20 percent.

But as the dusty days of summer approach, more districts are likely to make restrictions mandatory. The picture looks increasingly grim if the next winter brings scant rain and snow.

"If we get a third consecutive dry year, we're going to have serious, serious problems, and I don't know the answer," said Ted Thomas, spokesman for the state Department of Water Resources.

Parceling out water

The state department will assess the neediest districts in the state - many of which are in Southern California - and begin coordinating transfers of water. Plans also include establishing a state water bank, built on water purchases from some farming districts.

Because water can't simply be rerouted from one area to another, transfers usually entail trading the rights to local water supplies. In other words, a Southern California district, which normally receives an allotment from the delta, instead might draw from a neighboring district's surplus. That, in turn, would free up water from the delta for Bay Area counties.

"Next year could be a very different situation," said Patty Friesen, spokeswoman for the district. "If we continue with drought conditions, there is no surplus."

Farmers in some of the most fertile stretches of the Central Valley have found little relief thus far. The Westlands Water District supplies growers of $1.3 billion in cotton, tomatoes, garlic and onions in western Fresno and Kings counties. This week, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation cut the district's water allotment to 40 percent of normal, forcing about one-third of the district's farmers to decide which crops to irrigate or write off for this year's harvest.

"This is the first time in the history of Westlands Water District that our growers have had to do this," said spokeswoman Sarah Woolf, adding that the district was formed in 1964. "It's just unbelievable."

More infrastructure needed?

The governor used his announcement to pitch his proposed solution: an $11.9 billion water bond that would pay for new dams, an idea that Democratic legislators have resisted.

Schwarzenegger and his supporters, including many in the agriculture industry, argue that California desperately needs to build more water storage and improve water delivery systems to allow the state to better manage its water resources during dry years.

"In 2006, for instance, we had more water than we knew what to do with it. Raging storm water ran off into the ocean without us capturing it. Shasta and Folsom reservoirs were forced to release billions and billions of excess water. Today, those same reservoirs are at 40 percent capacity. That's absolutely insane," he said.

Environmental groups, however, contend that the state is sitting on $5.9 billion from a 2006 water bond. What's more, they say, the state hasn't done its utmost to conserve.

"That bond money is part of the regional planning process. If a local agency wants to work on groundwater management, conservation, surface storage, the state can use that money to partner," said Barry Nelson, western water project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The simple fact is, those projects aren't ready to go, and conservation is."

Nelson and his peers in the environmental movement agree the state is in a dire water shortage. However, they are worried that some hallmark environmental rulings could be thrown out. Laura Harnish, regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the governor could use his declaration of drought as a stepping-stone to designating a statewide emergency.

"We've had a lot of hard-fought wins for the environment, and in an emergency crisis the environmental safeguards can be the first to get discarded," she said.

Instead, she said, policymakers must look for sustainable long-term answers to the state's water supply problems, and consumers must look for novel ways to curtail their own use.

"The positive thing that comes out of a crisis like this is that people are going to have to dig deep and get creative to conserve, and we'll see how far people can go," Harnish said.

Water use restrictions

Northern California
East Bay Municipal Utility District: Implemented mandatory water rationing; considering increases in water rates.
Santa Clara Valley Water District: Urging customers to cut water use by 10 percent.
Contra Costa Water District: Urging 10 percent reduction in water use.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Calling for voluntary conservation.
Zone 7 Water Agency (Alameda County): Asking for 10 percent water use reduction.
Sonoma County Water Agency: Asking for voluntary conservation; considering mandatory conservation depending on water levels in Lake Mendocino.
North Marin Municipal Water District: Urging residents to reduce outdoor watering and to achieve a 15 percent reduction in use.
City of Roseville: Declared Stage 1 drought alert April 30 due to a 25 percent reduction in supplies from Folsom Reservoir; customers asked to cut water use by 10 percent.
Sacramento Suburban Water District: Outdoor watering limited to odd/even day schedule.
Regional Water Authority (Sacramento area): Airing radio announcements regarding water conservation.

Central Valley

Kern County Water Agency: Voluntary water conservation in place. Growers are using banked groundwater supplies to offset the loss of 200,000 acre-feet of surface water due to dry conditions, court decisions.
Westlands Water District: Mandatory rationing in place through Aug. 31. One-third of farmland is being fallowed. At least 500 jobs lost.

Southern California

Several areas have imposed mandatory water rationing, including Long Beach Water Department, Rancho California Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Source: Association of California Water Agencies #

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/05/MNF5113OBN.DTL
----------------------------

Schwarzenegger hopes drought decree is wake-up call
Sacramento Bee – 6/5/08
By Matt Weiser and Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, staff writers

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared Wednesday that California is in a drought, a move that included no immediate conservation orders but may lead to more aggressive water-saving efforts in many parts of the state.

Water experts said the declaration could wake up water consumers who have been complacent and lead to significant conservation.

"What you will see up and down the state is water agencies pushing much harder on their customers to cut down on water use," said Laura King-Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors. "The era of polite requests for 10 percent water cuts is over."

On Wednesday critics quickly hit the declaration as appearing more symbolic than substantive. An accompanying executive order contains directives to the Department of Water Resources that mostly give new thrust to existing programs.

The governor's drought declaration is the first since 1991.

While California has experienced many droughts, it has never established rules to formally declare one.

Just last month, state officials would not use "drought" to define the ongoing water shortage.

Wednesday's declaration, the governor said, was based on mounting social and economic effects from a second dry year.

"There are businesses right now that are suffering," Schwarzenegger said. "We are really holding back our economic growth."

The current shortage is driven both by persistent dry weather and legal actions to protect endangered species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the water source for about 25 million people. Both major rivers feeding the Delta are considered "critically" dry this year.

The northern Sierra Nevada, stronghold for much of the state's snowpack, experienced the driest spring in more than 70 years. The city of Sacramento saw the driest spring since record-keeping began in 1849.

The runoff forecast for Sierra Nevada snowmelt through September stands at 59 percent of average and may decline further. A new forecast is expected Friday.

The reason, said Elissa Lynn, Water Resources senior meteorologist, is that much of the available runoff this year was soaked up by soils already parched after last year's dry winter. A windy spring also caused some unexpected evaporation of snow.

"It certainly is a poor outlook," said Lynn. "You just can't have your season shut down like this on March 1. So this is extreme."

Worst-hit so far is the San Joaquin Valley, where Delta water deliveries already have been curtailed to protect the threatened Delta smelt. Valley farmers have lost some crops and soon may be forced to let others die.

Schwarzenegger directed officials to help speed water transfers to areas with the worst shortages, help local water districts with conservation efforts and assist farmers suffering losses.

Water Resources appointed two existing employees to coordinate transfers and conservation.

The action falls short, said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager at the Planning and Conservation League. She said the governor should have called for mandatory conservation, stormwater capture or water recycling.

McIntyre's group supports a bill, now stalled, to require new developments to offset their water demand by funding reuse and conservation elsewhere.

"It's very encouraging the governor is recognizing the importance of water efficiency, and he needs to implement policies that will get us there. Just recognizing it is not enough," McIntyre said.

Asked why the emergency didn't warrant forced conservation, Schwarzenegger said he would have been second-guessed no matter what he did.

What the declaration does, he said, is tell all Californians "there is a serious drought and … we want everyone to work together to conserve water."

Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who chairs the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, praised Schwarzenegger's actions.

"I think the governor has a bully pulpit, and he uses it effectively. That's a good thing," she said. "There's tremendous support up here (in the Legislature) for responding quickly."

Several pending bills aim to address the state's water crisis. One would impose mandates to carry out Schwarzenegger's previous call for a 20 percent per capita cut in water use by 2020.

The governor used Wednesday's declaration to push his plan for revamping California's water infrastructure. He proposes a $12 billion water bond for projects including conservation, groundwater storage, and Delta upgrades.

Its biggest feature is controversial: $3.5 billion for new reservoirs.

Schwarzenegger called on the Legislature to work with him on water proposals but said he would bypass lawmakers and use an initiative to fund the bonds "if that's what it takes."#

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/990322.html
--------------------------------

Governor declares drought - without mandatory rationing
San Jose Mercury News – 6/5/08
By Mike Zapler. Staff writer

SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday declared a drought in California - a largely symbolic move intended to jump-start conservation efforts and push the governor's own ambitious plan to beef up the state's water infrastructure.

But despite the sparse rainfall totals for a second straight year, the governor stopped short of declaring a statewide emergency or imposing mandatory rationing throughout California, saying he wanted to allow time for voluntary measures to work.

Making the first drought declaration since 1991, Schwarzenegger spent much of his Wednesday news conference extolling his $11.9 billion water plan, which he wants to put on the November ballot. Democrats have blocked the plan in large part because it calls for building dams, but Schwarzenegger said the dry conditions demand that lawmakers act.

"I hope legislators get the point," he said. "Let's get to work and let's get a water infrastructure package done this year."

In addition to $3.5 billion for dams, the governor's plan includes billions for water conservation efforts as well as for shoring up the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Democrats said Wednesday that the governor continues to give conservation short shrift.

A busy Legislature

Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who is sponsoring legislation calling for Californians to cut per-capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, said a deal is probably unlikely anytime soon. The Legislature is consumed by a budget deficit exceeding $15 billion, he said, adding that the shortfall also could give voters pause about authorizing more borrowing.

"I think it's going to be hard this year," Laird said.

Schwarzenegger's drought declaration came in the wake of the driest March and April on record for the Sierra Nevada, a crucial source of water for California. The final snowpack measurement last month was at 67 percent of normal, and runoff into rivers was 55 percent of normal.

Meanwhile, several of California's major reservoirs are at less than two-thirds capacity, and some water districts have already resorted to mandatory rationing. The East Bay Municipal Utility District, for example, is prohibiting using water for decorative ponds, irrigating lawns more than three times a week, and washing cars with hoses that don't have shutoff nozzles.

"Customers who violate these rules may be subject to fines, water flow restrictions, or loss of water service," according to the district's Web site.

Conservation request

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is in significantly better shape, thanks to an extensive system of reservoirs and a large aquifer that traps rainwater. But it, too, is asking people to conserve. A request to customers last year to voluntarily reduce water usage by 10 percent has so far resulted in savings of 3 to 5 percent, said Susan Siravo, a spokeswoman for the district.

Another dry year next year could bring mandatory rationing to Silicon Valley, she said, although the district hopes to avoid that by educating homeowners about what they can do to cut their water usage. Rebates, for example, are offered to people who install low-flush toilets or side-loading water-efficient washing machines.

Schwarzenegger said the most severe water shortages are occurring in some Central Valley farming communities, where water shortages are threatening crops and halting new developments. An executive order the governor signed in tandem with the drought declaration calls on the Department of Water Resources to facilitate transfers of water to parts of the state facing severe shortages.

Exacerbating the situation are federal restrictions on pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect endangered fish species.

"The governor is dead-on in drawing the public's attention to the fact that we're facing a very serious situation," said Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

But it's far less certain that Schwarzenegger's announcement will achieve his other goal: reaching a deal with Democratic lawmakers on a water bond plan.

"I've always said that the worst time to do long-term water planning," Laird said, "is under the pressure of a drought."

http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_9486352
----------------------

More cuts loom as drought declared
Greater conservation effort needed, water officials say
San Diego Union Tribune – 6/5/08
By Michael Gardner, Mike Lee, staff writers

SACRAMENTO – During the last punishing drought 20 years ago, La Mesa accountant Spencer Harris dutifully installed low-flow shower heads and collected shower water to fill the toilet.

Even after the emergency passed, Harris continued his conservation habit by nourishing plants with tap water saved while waiting for it to get hot enough to wash dishes.

“I could start going somewhere else to take showers, but it's pretty hard to cut back anymore,” Harris said.

But more cuts loom – whether voluntary or forced – as California's drought threatens to persist and court-ordered restrictions continue to significantly squeeze north-to-south water deliveries.

“We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said yesterday as he formally declared a statewide drought.

That set in motion conservation programs and projects to aid parched regions, particularly stricken farmers along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

Schwarzenegger also urged water districts across the state to push customers harder to save even more, but stopped short of ordering statewide rationing.

“We are very cautious. We want to make sure we all work together,” the governor said during a news conference. He suggested that his goal is to avoid Draconian measures in the future.

Caution also is the watchword among San Diego County water officials. They welcomed the governor's strategy, saying stepped-up conservation has to be given a chance to work before imposing mandatory rationing.

“We're taking it very cautiously here,” said Fern Steiner, chairwoman of the San Diego County Water Authority. “We would like (water-use habits) to be changed forever. We'd like lifestyle changes.”

Rationing is highly unlikely for 2008, Steiner said, but added, “We'll have to take 2009 as it comes.”

Despite improved conservation by many, water officials say a greater effort is needed by all. More water must be wrung out of the system or it will be just a matter of time before rationing comes, some officials believe.

“We don't see the types of savings that we've been asking for,” said Jim Barrett, San Diego's director of public utilities. “What we may have to do is move to mandatory conservation sooner than we would like.”

That worries businesses.

“If we start with allotments or rationing, it could potentially be very adverse to our industry,” said Jimmy Jackson, vice president of public policy for BIOCOM, the regional biotechnology trade group.

That's partly because biotech companies need lots of water for laboratories and equipment, and to keep buildings at a consistent temperature, he said.

“It's not one of those things where if you don't have as much water, you can just cut back here or there,” Jackson said.

At the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, executive director Namara Mercer said her members are putting water-conservation reminders in guest rooms and retooling their operations.

“I think everybody in San Diego hopes that it won't come to mandatory water conservation,” Mercer said.

Marney Cox, chief economist for the San Diego Association of Governments, said that if it comes to that, it “could push the region over the edge into a recession. We already are in a slowdown, and it looks like we will have to cut back even more on water, and in turn that will mean a slower economy.”

The governor's declaration could give water agencies political cover to impose tougher restrictions on water use, said Michael Cowett, a longtime water lawyer in San Diego County.

Examples range from telling residents when they can water and for how long to not processing applications for new water hookups.

“This is going to help the districts . . . be more aggressive,” Cowett said.

The fallout is already punishing local avocado farmers and nurseries as they absorb a 30 percent cut in deliveries from the Metropolitan Water District. Under service agreements, agricultural rationing will tighten every time Metropolitan reduces deliveries to cities and businesses.

At Sunlet Nursery in Fallbrook, Janet Kister has invested in the latest irrigation systems and even computers that gauge how much water should be used. She also drastically scaled back production to keep the plants healthy.

“It's been very difficult,” Kister said. “We're struggling.”

In Valley Center, avocado grower Al Stehly has a question for the governor: What took so long?

“He's only about a year and a half late,” Stehly said, noting the lingering shortages.

He said he has had to “stump” more than 1,000 trees – a drastic measure that keeps trees alive, but not producing.

“I'm always optimistic about the future. Not this time. I don't see any way out of this,” Stehly said. “I may be in a different business next year.”

Water users also are bracing for increases in rates as agencies are forced to implement expensive conservation, buy higher-priced water from Northern California farmers – if they have any – and shore up local storage.

Steiner said the county water authority will try to minimize rate increases. But with water becoming more expensive, there's little question ratepayers will be hit.

“It is a very safe assumption that rates will continue to go up,” she said.

The Vallecitos Water District in San Marcos yesterday approved a rate increase of 9.9 percent in 2009 to cover rising water prices from wholesalers.

“I think we are going to see this kind of rate increase on an annual basis,” said Bill Rucker, the district's general manager.

Districts may resort to “drought pricing” strategies to encourage conservation. For example, during the last major drought – 1987-92 – Vallecitos threatened to charge customers several times their regular rate if they used too much water.

“The fiscal models of the future will have to get very punitive,” Rucker said.

Barrett said the city of San Diego also was looking into charging more for those who use too much “discretionary” water – for example, using more than an allotted amount of water on landscaping.

The current shortage is more grim than it was in the late 1980s. Growth is one factor. San Diego County is home to 3.1 million people, an increase of 24 percent from 1990; California's population of 38 million is 27 percent higher.

Also, scientists warn that the drought conditions may become the norm in the Southwest because of global warming. To complicate matters, the state has a chronic budget deficit, leaving it little flexibility to address a water crisis.

But the most significant factor is the loss of water already in the system, both in the north and south.

California can no longer take more than its share of water from the Colorado River – a once-flush source that helped the region through the last drought. That loss amounts to about 700,000 acre-feet a year, or enough for 1.4 million homes annually. The river basin also is enduring its own drought, although the 2007-08 winter brought above-average snow.

In the north, a federal court order to protect the delta smelt has prevented the state from moving south about 600,000 acre-feet annually. The troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, hub of the state's water network, could continue to complicate north-to-south deliveries even during heavy snow years.

That frustrates Stehly, the avocado farmer. “It's not a water problem; it's a plumbing problem. You can't get it through the delta,” he said. “I don't know what they're doing in Sacramento. They're sitting on their hands.”

Schwarzenegger implied as much yesterday, calling on legislators to approve his proposed $11.7 billion water bond, which would pay for more reservoirs and help restore the delta.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature blocked passage of the bond last year, reluctant to authorize surface storage. Many environmentalists also are opposed. But they praised the governor's emphasis on conservation yesterday.

“Energy conservation kept California's lights on during the last energy crisis,” said Barry Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Water conservation can keep our taps flowing during this drought.” #

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080605/news_1n5drought.html
---------------------------

Governor Declares Drought in California
New York Times – 6/5/08
By Jennifer Steinhauer

LOS ANGELES — Its reservoir levels receding and its grounds parched, California has fallen officially into drought, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday, warning that the state might be forced to ration water to cities and regions if conservation efforts did not improve.

The drought declaration — the first for the state since 1991 — includes orders to transfer water from less dry areas to those that are dangerously dry. Mr. Schwarzenegger also said he would ask the federal government for aid to farmers and press water districts, cities and local water agencies to accelerate conservation. Drought conditions have hampered farming, increased water rates throughout California and created potentially dangerous conditions in areas prone to wildfires.

The declaration comes after the driest California spring in 88 years, with runoff in river basins that feed most reservoirs at 41 percent of average levels. It stops short of a water emergency, which would probably include mandatory rationing.

Efforts to capture water have also been hampered by evaporation of some mountain snowpacks that provide water, an effect, state officials say, of global climate change.

A survey this year found that the state’s snowpack water content was 67 percent of average, and the Colorado River Basin, from which California draws some water, is coming off a record eight-year drought, contributing to the drop in reservoir storage.

The drought declaration, made when reservoir levels are far higher than they were when Gov. Pete Wilson issued a similar statement in 1991 — is as much a political statement as a practical one. Mr. Schwarzenegger is pressing the Legislature to approve an $11.9 billion water bond as part of the state budget to pay for water storage and to fix the state’s aging water delivery systems.

The governor, a Republican, has said that addressing California’s seemingly omnipresent water shortage is one of his most urgent priorities, but his ideas have not passed muster with the Legislature in the past.

“This drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California’s water infrastructure,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said Wednesday in a prepared statement. “There is no more time to waste because nothing is more vital to protect our economy, our environment and our quality of life.”

A bill to require Californians to cut water use 20 percent recently passed the Assembly. The bill, which requires Senate approval, puts most of the onus on residents, and little on the agriculture industry, underscoring tension over conservation between city dwellers and farmers, who consume most of the state’s water.

Across the state, many districts and municipalities are instituting or considering recycling, rationing and higher fees for excessive use. For instance, Los Angeles officials recently announced their intentions to begin using heavily cleansed sewage to increase drinking water supplies.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District and the Long Beach Water Department, serving districts at opposite ends of the state, have made water rationing mandatory.

“Some cities and regions are rationing, some are doing nothing and a group of people are in the middle,” the director of California’s Department of Water Resources, Lester A. Snow, said in a telephone interview. “The governor thought it was important to step out in front and get ahead of this. It is in part to avoid an emergency.”

In a telephone interview later, Mr. Schwarzenegger said, “Water is like our gold, and we have to treat it like that.”#

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/05drought.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212674740-rsrEdbikooXOlEOF5Mg7YA
-------------------------------

Drought officially arrives
Governor's budget would borrow from lottery to cut deficit
Los Angeles Daily News – 6/5/08
By Kerry Cavanaugh, staff writer

After two years of little rainfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought Wednesday that will trigger water-efficiency and -conservation programs across California.

The governor's announcement came hours before the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power approved new water-conservation rules for residents and businesses that will limit everything from lawn watering to car washing.

The board also approved penalties and fines starting at $100 for those who ignore the new water-conservation rules.

If approved by the City Council, Los Angeles will soon begin fining residents for wasting water for the first time since a drought in the early 1990s.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city has long been encouraging voluntary conservation programs, but the drought situation has become so serious that L.A. must demand conservation.

"Some people have joined the effort and others have not," the mayor said. "We have to take measures to conserve, even where they require mandatory measures that require fines to get folks to do what we should all do - and that is to protect this very precious resource."

The governor's declaration of a drought adds urgency to the DWP's effort. This is the first time a governor has announced a statewide drought since 1991.

Rainfall over the past two years has been below normal, with some Southern California communities receiving only 20percent of their expected rainfall in 2007.

Reservoirs that store the state's water supply are low, and imported supplies from the Colorado River have been reduced because of a drought in that region.

The Department of Water Resources found that snowpack in the Sierras - which supplies much of the state's water - was 67percent of normal, and runoff into California rivers was expected to be 55percent of normal.

"Some local governments are rationing water, developments can't proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle," Schwarzenegger said.

"We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face."

The governor's executive order directs the Department of Water Resources to arrange water transfers to areas suffering from emergency shortages; to work with local water agencies to improve conservation efforts; and to expedite grants to municipal water districts.

Southern California is especially vulnerable to drought because the region relies heavily on water imported from the Sierras and the Colorado River.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - the wholesaler that supplies most cities in the region - next week will consider stronger calls for conservation.

"As a short-term, stopgap measure, Metropolitan is drawing on its significant reserve supplies," said Timothy Brick, chairman of the MWD's board of directors.

That includes relying on Diamond Valley Lake, the MWD's main water-storage reservoir. But the lake is already 55feet lower than full storage.

"But with the worsening problems in the (Sacramento) Delta, there is no guarantee Southern California can replenish reserve supplies whenever this drought cycle ends," Brick said. "It is vital to stretch our reserve supplies for as long as possible."

Los Angeles has historically fared well during previous droughts because it was able to import water from the eastern Sierras through a city-owned aqueduct. However, environmental lawsuits and settlements have dramatically reduced how much water L.A. can take from the Owens Valley.

Those settlements - coupled with the drought on the Colorado River and a court decision involving an endangered fish that affects water transfers from Northern California - have limited L.A.'s water supply.

Last month, Villaraigosa outlined a plan to conserve and recycle enough water over the next 20 years to serve an expected 500,000 more Angelenos without having to import more water.

That includes reviving a once-controversial project to mix treated sewage water into the drinking water supply. It also called for stronger city laws on water conservation.

The DWP unanimously approved those new rules Wednesday, including prohibiting lawn watering between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. or whenever it rains.

It would also limit irrigation to 15 minutes a day, and penalize people who over-irrigate and let the water flow into the street or sidewalk.

Meanwhile, if residents want to wash their cars, they'll have to use a hose with a nozzle or shut-off device.

Restaurants would be prohibited from serving customers a glass of water without being asked, and hotels would have to offer guests the option of leaving their sheets and towels unwashed during their stay.

Offenders would be given one warning. Then fines would start at $100 for the second violation and increase up to $300 for residential customers. Commercial customers' penalties for the second offense start at $200 and increase to $600.

Also Wednesday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a rebate program for residents in Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts who install indoor and outdoor water-saving devices.

The districts include areas in Topanga Canyon, Malibu, Acton, Val Verde, Kagel Canyon and the Antelope Valley.

DWP commissioners endorsed the new city rules and higher fines Wednesday, saying they believe Angelenos understand the severity of the drought and the possibility that global warming will mean more droughts to come.

"In the past we thought we were dealing with a brief drought situation that would come and would go," said Commissioner Wally Knox.

"I don't think there is a person in this room ... who thinks we're dealing with a temporary situation. I expect to live the rest of my life in whatever it is we're going into." #

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_9482726?source=rv
------------------------

Y-S region, valley still in good shape
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 6/5/08
By Ryan McCarthy, staff writer

The Yuba-Sutter region, close to the Sierra snowpack and above the Delta, is a good place to be during a drought.

"The Sacramento Valley is pretty well protected from all but biblical droughts," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

Residents in Yuba City and Marysville, while encouraged to continue water conservation, shouldn't see any direct impacts from the governor's official declaration that California is in a drought, said local officials.

Bill Lewis, utilities director for Yuba City, said the municipality can meet customers needs through at least 2008.

Shannon Dean, spokeswoman for the California Water Service Company that supplies Marysville, said she doesn't anticipate any impacts because of the drought declaration. "It will help reinforce the message that water is a precious resource," Dean said of the declaration.

Yuba City's water supply originates from Lake Oroville and comes via the Feather River, Lewis said. The city's location avoids relying on water routed through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Lewis noted.

"The water degrades as it goes through the Delta," Lewis said.

Curt Aikens, general manager of the of the Yuba County Water Agency, said he doesn't expect a reduction in the 310,000 acre feet of water the agency provides to seven agricultural districts.

The agency under a long-term contract also sells water to the California Department of Water Resources.

Gary Reedy, a fisheries biologist for the environmental group South Yuba River Citizens League, based in Nevada City, said he urges citizens to look at how politicians in the state may use the drought to support their agendas for dams and other water projects.

Reed said urban water use efficiency measures such as low flow toilets and lining of open water canals are more much effective and financially sound than costly water projects.

Quinn said the consecutive dry years have impacted such agencies as the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, which receives much of its supplies via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The metropolitan district, as an example, has bout one more year of cushion because of stored water supplies.

"They're getting close to having no buffer whatsoever," Quinn noted.#

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/water_64782___article.html/yuba_drought.html
--------------------------------

Governor declares drought
Suppliers use transfers, surcharges to handle deficit
Redding Record Searchlight – 6/5/08
By Scott Mobley, staff writer

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's statewide drought declaration Wednesday was hardly news to north state water suppliers, who already are coping with cutbacks and calling on customers to conserve as sizzling summer temperatures loom.

The Bella Vista Water District has been most draconian, imposing a "drought surcharge" on customers who fail to cut their consumption by 25 percent compared to last year. The district -- which serves a host of agricultural customers along with northeast Redding residents -- will charge residential users an extra 10 cents per hundred cubic feet of water they use beyond the threshold.

Bella Vista officials learned in April that the district would get only half its typical share of federal Central Valley Project (CVP) water. The district avoided mandatory rationing this year only because it was able to get supplemental water from the Clear Creek Community Services District in Happy Valley.

Other cities and special districts relying on federal CVP water have known since April they'll face a 25 percent cutback this year, after a once-promising precipitation season dissipated into the driest spring on record.

Redding, Shasta Lake and smaller suppliers around Shasta County turned to the McConnell Foundation to make up the shortfall. McConnell acquired water rights through the Townsend Flat Ditch Co. and Saeltzer Dam removal deal inked in the 1990s.

Redding also tapped reserves in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to close gaps in its supply.

Schwarzenegger on Wednesday ordered the state Department of Water Resources to speed such transfers between agencies with water to spare and those scrambling to serve customers.

Chuck Robinson, water treatment superintendent for Shasta Lake, said the governor's order for more water transfers doesn't much affect the north state, since it relies mainly on federal supplies.

"We had our water situation taken care of by buying some water from the McConnell Foundation -- that pretty much saved us," Robinson said. "I'd like to see a presidential order expediting transfers through the CVP, but I don't see that coming."

Pat Minturn, public works director for Shasta County, said the current drought -- the first in California since 1991 -- sneaked up on water users.

The north state endured its wettest winter in a decade just two years ago. The weather pattern shifted radically last water year, but consumers were still drawing on ample reserves from 2006, Minturn said.

Redding Municipal Airport recorded 1.08 inches of rain during the spring months of March, April and May. That's just under 12 percent of the 9.21 inches of rain the airport would soak up during a typical spring, National Weather Service records show.

The ultra dry spring means yards are already parched heading into the traditional hot months of July and August, when 80 percent of the water consumed in Shasta County goes to keep yards green, Minturn said.

"Folks need to take a long, hard look at their water use this summer," Minturn said.#

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/05/governor-declares-drought/
--------------------------------------

Governor declares drought
Fresno Co. supervisors to seek county resolution.
Associated Press – 6/4/08
By Don Thompson, AP

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Schwarzenegger proclaimed a statewide drought Wednesday after two years of below-average rainfall, low snowmelt runoff and the largest court-ordered restrictions on water transfers in state history.

The governor's action comes almost a week after Valley lawmakers and water district officials began urging such a declaration. Hundreds of farmers in the Westlands Water district were facing water rationing even before federal officials announed on Monday that water allocations from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta would be cut to 40% of the amount growers contract for with the federal government. They had been expecting 45%.

Farmers in the nation's largest federal water district will be hit hard -- many said they expect to abandon crops or even go out of business for lack of water. And Tom Birmingham, Westlands' general manager, told about 400 people gathered for a meeting in Los Banos this week that "half the people in this room are going to go broke. This is a crisis that has to be fixed now."

Henry Perea, chairman of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor Phil Larson are calling for a special board meeting Friday to seek passage of a resolution declaring a state of emergency in Fresno County due to state and federal water cutbacks.

The governor and top water officials said residents and water managers must react now to cut their water use, or face the possibility of water rationing next year if there is another dry winter.

He signed an executive order directing the state's response to unusually dry conditions that are damaging crops, harming water quality and causing extreme fire danger across California. Many communities already are requiring water conservation or rationing to deal with the shortfall.

The statewide drought declaration is the first since 1991, when Gov. Pete Wilson acted in the fifth year of a drought that lasted into 1992.

Schwarzenegger directed the state Department of Water Resources to help speed water transfers to areas with the worst shortages, to help local water districts with conservation efforts and to assist farmers suffering losses from the drought.

In addition, the governor is naming two "water czars," one to coordinate conservation programs and the other to speed water transfers across the state.

California depends on winter snow accumulating in the Sierra Nevada for much of its summer water supply.

But March, April and May were the driest winter months on record, forcing water use cutbacks by farmers and urban residents alike.

The Western Regional Climate Center in Reno reported that California statewide precipitation during that period was 1.2 inches, or just 22% of average for the 114 years since record-keeping began.

Snow measurements last month found the Sierra held 69% of an average winter. Runoff into California rivers was at 55% of a normal year. The state's major reservoirs are at 50% to 63% of their capacity at a time when they ideally would be full. #

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/647446.html

Captopril
Ipodate
How long does phentermine stay in your body
Order vicodin
Online phentermine prescription
Is phentermine addictive
Arimidex
Hydrocodone drug
Safe internet shopping generic viagraeng
Phentermine depression
Concomitant use of cialis and levitra
Ambien side effects
Hydrocodone cod
Detox hgh phentermine quit smoking xenical
Hydrocodone com
Minocin
Tramadol hydrochloride tablet
Tramadol drug interaction
Soma
Drug screen xanax
Viagra versus levivia
Xanax withdrawl symptoms
Buy cheap no phentermine prescription
Buy phentermine epharmacist
Ordering viagra
Description tramadol
Loprox
Heart phentermine
Nasonex
Phentermine ship to ky
Cefonicid
Buy cheap viagra online uk
Next day phentermine
Viagra generico impotencia
Oxyphenbutazone
Kaopectate
Oxcarbazepine
Cialis compare levitra viagra
Tramadol hcl 50 mg tablet
Bush inauguration speech draft viagra bastard of
Viagra prices
Atorvastatin
Generic meridia
Phentermine for weight loss
Cheapest cialis
How does phentermine work
What is phentermine civ
Phentermine testimonials
Congress viagra
Comparison viagra cialis levitra
Phentermine pill discount
Levofloxacin
Xanax dosages
Nifedipine
Phentermine 37.5mg tablets
What is phentermine
Generic phentermine
Phentermine online ordering
Phentermine buy cheap
Lamictal
Imiquimod
Terfenadine
Flurazepam
Lopressor
Cheapest viagra online
Why phentermine
Lunesta
Discount phentermine
Fioricet info
Buy cheap cialis
Alphaprodine
Cyproheptadine
Bacampicillin
Norethindrone
Mestranol
Identify xanax
Soma san diego
Mepenzolate
Lowest prices on phentermine
Muse
Viagra side affects
Paxil and xanax interaction
Eldepryl
How to discontinue the use of phentermine
Buy online order viagra
Monopril
Avodart
Dilantin
Yohimbine
Cyclandelate
Phentermine shipped to ky
Viagra for women
Cardizem
Clomocycline
Probenecid
Keflex
Cheapest tramadol
Buy online prescription viagra
Lomotil
Xanax
Sertraline
Vasopressin
Caffeine
Simethicone
Buy hydrocodone where
Zolpidem
Cheap tramadol cod free fedex
Phentermine vs phentrazine
Viagra generic drug
Ativan
Ethinyl
Treat crohns disease with viagra
Order phentermine
Prozac interact xanax
Side effects of xanax mylan
Altace
Phentermine order easy
Cheapest cialis generic
Weight loss phentermine
Citalopram
Avalide
Online prescription viagra without
Soma addiction
How to get xanax
Methylphenidate
Buy cheap tramadol
Mecamylamine
Gitalin
Dovonex
Benzthiazide
Soma sale
Alternative to phentermine
Minipress
Xanax pics
Purchase cialis
Cozaar
Buy cheap purchase uk viagra
Hydrocodone bitartrate
Prednisone
Long term effects of xanax
Cialis experiences
Cialis soft
Westword fioricet phentermine
No prescription cialis
Estrone
Perscription phentermine
Buy viagra pill
Maprotiline
Piperacillin
Prescription xanax

| »

"Chinatown" and "Day of the Locust"-level flak

Submitted: Jun 06, 2008

The drama! The panic! The fear! Visions of people dying of thirst in yet-unnamed Southern California suburbs. Millions of acres of farm crops disked under.

DROUGHT!

At the Monday meeting in Los Banos with farmers, Bureau of Reclamation staff and Rep. Jim Costa is reported to have said that California has a perfectly good water system for 20 million people, the problem being that we have now around 38 million people and rising.

 Read More »
| »

High Praise for Commissioner Lashbrook

Submitted: Jun 04, 2008

A letter to the editor of Loose Cheeks

Chairman of the Merced County Planning Commission Steve Sloan, at the last Commission meeting on May 28, took time to commend his fellow commissioners on their teamwork in approving four land-use projects. Surprising? It shouldn’t be.

As many of you are aware, Commissioner Sloan is very clear on where his interests lie – his votes have been consistently at odds with organizations committed to protecting the environment – whether air, land, habitat/species, or water. This consistency has also made an enemy of our local Farm Bureau, which doesn’t view the Chair as a friend of agriculture. So, one might wonder, how did Commissioner Lashbrook drift so far afield from her role as sage of the watershed, sage of the river, and sage of all things organic, green and agricultural?

As some of you may be aware, Commissioner Lashbrook often complains that one vote lacks power. With two commissioners absent on May 28th, the stars were in alignment: one vote could wield real power. In essence, a unanimous vote was required to take action on any item on the agenda. If any one of the three commissioners present had voted against any one of these projects, that project would have been denied.

Accordingly, students of the ways and means of the Merced County Planning Commission hearings can certainly appreciate Mr. Sloan’s need to shower Ms. Lashbrook with praise for how she handled herself throughout this hearing (in stark contrast to her role on May 14, 2008 – see in particular minutes 30:00-37:00 from the audio/video tape).

On May 28th, Commissioner Lashbrook’s performance was bold and decisive. In considering the Jaxon Enterprise Mining project in eastern Merced County, she declared in a loud and confident voice, “I like this project.” According to Ms. Lashbrook: “This was in the right place for a mine.” Seemingly, for Lashbrook, this was “somewhere out there.”

Her reasoning seemed to go something like this:

This was not on the river, ergo, this was not a pristine location, ergo, this is grazing land, ergo – this is perfect for a mining project. According to Commissioner Lashbrook’s logic, this was certainly not in an area that supported habitat –“like the [Merced] river bed.”

Evidently, to Ms. Lashbrook’s thinking, Eastern Merced County is a barren, worthless landscape. As members of Et Al, listened, they were astounded. Was this dismissal all they could count on from a self –professed agrarian progressive? The answer was becoming painfully obvious: Yes, this was all. With the public hearing safely over, the public simply had to endure the insult embedded in the assumptions Ms. Lashbrook eschewed and the ultimate hypocrisy being practiced in her other life – “outreach and education” in the name of our watershed.

Had Commissioner Lashbrook forgotten her fellow Mariposans and fellow Merced River Allies – some of whom are within just a few miles of this “great project” – or simply sold them down the river? One might have thought that she did not understand the “Watershed model” and “Groundwater model” she fashioned out of a munificent public grant to educate 5th graders.

Yet, Ms. Lashbrook, in her capacity as staff for the EMRCD, was all too willing to take credit for the event by piling brochures on a table at the Cattlemen’s Spring Tour in April, 2008. This event featured experts on the value of grazing land – just minutes away from the Jaxon site. In her rush to judge those in attendance, she may have forgotten to listen to the ranchers and members of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, who succinctly explained why this very same (pristine) land is valuable for livestock, habitat, and as recharge for our water supply. Some locals had even advised Merced County elected officials to drive out on White Rock Road so that they could truly appreciate the impacts of the mine.

Or, maybe she simply forgot what MID staff, hydrologist consultants, and local farmers on the east side of the county have been stating emphatically in front of Lashbrook at every recent MAGPI meeting -- the aquifer in this region of the county was/is in overdraft. However, there was nary a representative from Farm Bureau, Sierra Club, MARG, CWA, or Valley Land Alliance to jog Ms. Lashbrook’s memory on the lack of water in this region – just Et Al and one local farming family.

But fear not, this was not the only contradiction in this “affairs of the mine.”
May 14th, 2008, provided a substantial audience for Ms. Lashbrook’s fishing for a position to take. In front of a full house of investors, all in town to advance their project, Ms. Lashbrook showed her stuff.

She began with a correction to a letter she had not read. She was wrong.
She asked great questions; then retreated. Ms. Lashbook then came up with a new possibility. Then she retreated again. Then after all of this time, she went ahead and voted for this mining project – on the river.

“I do live down river of this and have not noticed any effect of it – even in its illegal state – and I CARE A LOT ABOUT HABITAT. I am not sure what is happening here, but I certainly have not noticed any changes over the last few years”…. and then… moments later.

“Would it be possible to continue this? --to get a site visit?”

“The Taco Truck” precedent was raised as a model by Deputy County Counsel Robert Gabriele. Out-of-town investors snickered, wondering if this suggestion was for real. It was: The Taco Truck merited enough concern to be continued at the November 5, 2007, hearing.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Thoreson mining operation should be continued. Commissioner Sloan asked her directly if she wished to make a motion to continue. Commissioner Lashbrook, demurred or perhaps, deferred – one can never quite tell.

Commissioner Sloan asked again. Would you like to make a motion? Lashbrook came up with new idea. Could we hold a public hearing on the site?

To the Rescue: Deputy Counsel – more legal advice… and “help” offered by the Applicant.

Ms. Lashbrook deftly deflected attention away from Mr. Sloan’s question and encouraged Des Johnston to approach the podium – ostensibly to advise if the applicants would permit a site visit.

Consultant and a former member of both the Merced County and City of Gustine planning staff, Des Johnston changed the subject: This is not a CVC issue…. We have a good negative dec here…. And then …

A motion was made – not from Ms. Lashbrook, but Commissioner Tanner -- to approve the project. Head down, muffled voice, Ms. Lashbrook allowed an almost inaudible “ohhhhh kay.” The audience let out a collective gasp of stale air. Someone asked: Did she just vote to approve? Yes. UHHHHG. The audience was rendered speechless in pondering the affairs of the mine.

Postscript: This was a River Project and this was a “yes” vote by Ms. Lashbrook. Along with the Schmidt Mining Project this made the third yes vote for aggregate by Ms. Lashbrook – with two of these three projects on the Merced River. Ms. Lashbrook may want to study the audio tapes of previous hearings before proceeding to her next vote.

Finally, don’t take our word, we encourage you to enjoy the show(s) – tune in and watch the Planning Commission video or listen to the audio – at press time it was not yet posted on the County website, but stay tuned.

Signed:
Suzzy Q. Buckheart

| »

Loose Cheeks, June 1, 2008 Primary Election Extra

Submitted: Jun 01, 2008

Loose Cheeks, May 17, 2008

FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT

Loose Cheeks: Hot Tips
By Lucas Smithereen
Loose Cheeks Senior Editor

Got a hot tip for Loose Cheeks? Call the Loose Cheeks hot-tip line: (000) CHE-EEKS. We’ll get back to you whenever.

Item #1

Dust-up in corral behind the Slacker-Raptor Barn Dance:

Loose Cheeks’ intrepid reporter, A.J. Gangle, stepped out of the barn during the recent California Rangeland Coalition luncheon in Le Grand and noticed a huge cloud of dust rising from the corral. Through this dust cloud Gangle could hear the angry voices of Merced County Farm Bureau President Peter Koch and Executive Director Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo disputing a political matter. As the executive director and “her” president clawed and scratched each other on the ground (or was it the president and “his” executive director – one is never sure with the Farm Bureau), Gangle thought he made out yet another form, lurking over them, and another voice, saying: “How did they get here? Who invited them? Why is SHE here at all?”

Gangle, it should be noted, is a veteran on Merced County Agriculture’s perpetual auto-celebration circuit, in which the same heirs and heiresses congratulate each other in the same tedious round of events in honor of each other, in the name of something called “Agriculture,” infinitely less important than who owns the land. Gangle, a veteran of these witless events for many years, long ago concluded they had nothing to do with farming and everything to do with how much dirt you inherited. So, his ears perked up. It sounded like someone had been included in the Rangeland Coalition feed that didn’t own enough to qualify. He began connecting dots.

He’d noticed that the reception to the president of the San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center had been real chilly at the sign-up table by the barn door. He noticed also that the cowboy president of the Rangeland Coalition had not acknowledged that the Raptor Center and the San Joaquin Valley Conservancy in his speech about the Coalition. Members of Raptor and the Conservancy helped draft the Resolution and are founding members of the Coalition of ranchers and environmentalists being celebrated that day. But no environmentalists from Merced County were celebrated because that would be an acknowledgement of a reality beyond the ownership of dirt.

Gangle also noticed that the Raptor president sat next to Claudine Sherron, running for supervisor against Deidre Kelsey, the Farm Bureau’s “champion of agriculture,” and one of Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo’s “best friends.”

(In the interest of full disclosure, Gangle owns no dirt and is not the wife of either a dope-growing aggregate miner or a new-town-developing dairyman; therefore Gangle is not one of the executive director’s “best friends.”)

At length, the Farm Bureau President Koch emerged from the dust cloud, “skalling” darkly and reentered the barn in silence. President Skal Koch, however, always the European gentlemen (north of the Beer/Wine Line, of course), in public thanked the president of the Raptor Center for attending the event.

Against one barn wall stood incumbent supervisor Deidre Kelsey, seething at the social affront of a genuine Merced County Agriculture event with her opponent in the same room. Gangle barely escaped a whistling dagger from the supe’s eyeballs that buried itself three inches above the head of a cook in the opposite wall. When the event broke up, there were burn scars on the wall where Kelsey had been leaning.

If Kelsey’s energetic denial of reality wasn’t enough, there were two slackers (deadbeats) in the room, one Farm Bureau director and one Merced Irrigation District director, who owe the despised and socially inappropriate Raptor Center a lot of money for a project. The two slackers were also busy denying reality: Raptor’s presence and their own legal debts.

All things considered, Gangle thought it was another perfect auto-celebration of the Merced County Agriculture Society of Rich Landowners, a group so incredibly impressed with themselves that they cannot acknowledge that others might oppose their political “champion” and want some of them to pay their debts. The view the Society has of its local environmentalists reminded Gangle of a story he once heard from a Polish landowner, whose property had been expropriated after WWII. “The Jewish tailors made our suits but we never paid for them until we had worn them for a year or more. That’s the only proper way to treat tailors.”

Item #2

A vote for Sanders is a vote for Pollard.

Loose Cheeks was edified by reading this morning’s local McClatchy Chain outlet, when it learned that if Merced City Councilman Jim Sanders, the born-again Mussolini freak, is elected to the County Board of Supervisors, Carl Pollard will be reappointed to the City Council because he received the second-highest number of votes while losing in the last election. As a result, Pollard, a political accident that had happened even before his first arrival on the City Council, could happen again.

Item #3

The Et Al situation.

Gangle has known for months about the rise of a powerful new social and political group in Merced, called Et Al. However, the rumors have been elusive, particularly about a mysterious flak whiz known only as “Tiko,” variously described as a Tijuana taxi driver, a Sacramento public relations ace or as a dog of great genius and eloquence in English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Basque. In short, Gangle didn’t have much to go on and therefore and none of it made sense.

However, at the most recent Merced County Planning Commission meeting (the one where Commissioner Cindy Lashbrook described the California Environmental Quality Act as a “moving target” while justifying her vote for another aggregate project), a member of the public mentioned Et Al and defined it as a group composed of “all the people who work for a living and don’t have time to attend morning meetings of the planning commission.”

Still, Gangle would have regarded Et Al as a mere rhetorical trope of the public had it not been for County Assistant Counsel Bob Gabriele, who targeted the group for special scrutiny. “You mention Et Al,” he said, addressing a member of the public. Who is Et Al? the county lawyer wanted to know.

Now this Gabriele is a wise and cunning jurist, who has the Merced County public’s interest always at heart. It was clear from his incipient interrogation that, like former Supervisor Gloria Cortez-Keene and that lion of liberty, former County Counsel Ruben Castillo, that Gabriele sensed a Homeland Security issue behind the detailed comments made by the member of the public on the environmental destruction that would be caused by the proposed expansion of the Jaxon Enterprises mining project on Mariposa Creek and the deficiencies of the environmental impact report, jointly prepared by the miner’s consultants and our own blameless and expert planning department.

Gangle had learned from other established environmental groups in Merced County that they fear the arrival of Et Al, and the mysterious “Tiko” in the region.

“We don’t know anything about them,” one local environmentalist, who wished to remain anonymous, said. “But they scare us. This Tiko is a disruptive influence. Here today, gone tomorrow. Can’t get a handle on him.”

If you personally know anything about Et Al or Tiko, please give Gangle a jingle.

Item #4

Dalhart Texas voters perplexed:

It is rumored that outside the construction site of the new Hilmar Cheese Co. (“Largest Cheese Factory in the World”) plant in Dalhart TX, there are a number of political signs urging citizens to vote for Deidre Kelsey for Supervisor. The Dalhart public is confused.

First, they don’t know what a supervisor is, at least not one to vote for, in Texas, where counties have commissioners, not supervisors, and department heads are called supervisors but you don’t get to vote for them.

But, being Texans, they have a nose for political chicanery.

“It’s some Karl Rove deal,” said a Dalhart citizen somewhere between 25 and 70 years of age, who refused to give his/her name. “This Deidre Kelsey shows up on the Internet as a member of the state Leadership Team for John McCain in California. And if that ain’t enough, they got that Merced County sheriff in it, too. What’s that about?” the Dalhart citizen asked Gangle. ‘Two out of 12 leaders from one cow county in a real estate bust?”

“I haven’t a clue,” Gangle replied.

“’Course, you ain’t going to be a cow county after we get the Largest Cheese Factory in the World built here in Dalhart,” the Dalhartian said. “What are you going to do, grow pot?”

“I haven’t a clue on that either,” Gangle replied. “Maybe the sheriff would know.”

“Well, thank the Lord we got Et Al down here is all I can say,” said the ageless and genderless Dalhartian.

“You got Et Al down there, too?” Gangle asked.

“Sure we do. You think we were all born in a barn?”

“Have you ever heard of a person named Tiko?”

“I disremember the name and don’t know a thing about him, but he’s a genius,” the citizen said, hanging up on Gangle.

Item # 5

Our intrepid reporter reported he was absolutely delighted to find the Merced County Farm Bureau was again posting its comic newsletter on its website.

Former President Louie “Long-nose” Bandoni is featured in a photo on the front page of the April edition, holding a cake shaped like the head of Pinocchio. Considering the heaps of well-known substances Bandoni and Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo shoveled the afternoon two members of a family in the Farm Bureau for more than 50 years inquired about the Farm Bureau endorsement process for Deidre Kelsey, the cake’s nose would have probably grown several inches since the picture was taken had it not been devoured by the disciples of that simple creed: “We farm. You eat.”

And how about that May edition with the big headline “Farm Bureau Board of Directors Unanimously Support Longtime Champion of Agriculture”?

Mr. Smithereen said he thought “supports” would be more grammatically correct, but understood that the agricultural heritage and the way of life of the Merced County Farm Bureau placed its editors well above mere grammar.

The editorial stated that the “Farm Bureau determined that Kelsey’s experience and commitment to agriculture is well documented” and that “Her vision, proven experience and commitment to farmers and ranchers has been proven…”

“What are they trying to prove?” Smithereen asked. “And how would the Farm Bureau know it was well documented? Nobody at the Farm Bureau reads documents. All they know is what they hear from Deidre. So, if Deidre told them her experience and commitment to agriculture was well documented and proven, they’d believe it, I guess.”

“They are trying to prove that she doesn’t have an opponent,” Gangle said. “But she does. Her name is Claudine Sherron, she has real campaign signs all over the 4th district, and walks real precincts despite the fact Kelsey and the Farm Bureau deny her existence.

“Well now,” Smithereen replied. “I think they want to prove some other things, too.

“The Merced County Farm Bureau wants to prove that the Kelsey family never contributed a dime to the San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center for projects against Kelsey competitors in the aggregate business. Of course the Farm Bureau also wants to prove it didn’t contribute to any Raptor Center projects either.

“And what they really, really want to prove is that Kelsey wasn’t on both sides in the backroom on those projects, one foot in the petitioners’ camp, the other foot in the respondent County’s camp, playing both ends against the middle, ‘cause that sounds like the statutory definition of ‘conflict of interest.’ And what information she didn’t get herself, the Farm Bureau leaked to her.

“The Farm Bureau wants to prove that their blameless ‘champion of agriculture’ is a non-partisan county supervisor and not a high-ranking official in the state Republican Party, who is a member of the John McCain campaign leadership committee.

“The Farm Bureau wants to prove that the people that live along the river from the Crocker-Huffman Dam to the confluence (including Stevinson) don’t deserve political representation on any board that makes land-use decisions.

“The Farm Bureau wants to prove that Kelsey’s husband wasn’t one of the seven board members who unanimously endorsed her and that another member of the endorsement team was the husband of her appointee to the Planning Commission.

“But, you’re right, too,” he continued. “They want to prove Claudine Sherron doesn’t exist by not publishing her response to their questions in their comic book – I mean newsletter. They want to prove that Kelsey wasn’t originally in favor of the Riverside Motorsports Park project, either.

“The Farm Bureau also wants to prove that Kelsey does not receive contributions for her campaigns from developers in Carmel, Monterey, Danville, Del Mar, Fresno, Sacramento and Pleasanton, while she’s doing all this fine work to maintain agriculture in Merced County.

“That’s what the Merced County Farm Bureau wants to prove she didn’t do,” Smithereen summarized. “The documents say otherwise, but, like I say, the Farm Bureau wouldn’t know a document from a Narwhal. All they know is what Kelsey tells them. It’s an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny information loop.

“The other thing is,” Smithereen concluded, “Deidre Kelsey doesn’t have an original idea in her head. Sherron’s whole campaign is built on the promise of being a voice representing everyone in her district, so Kelsey steals the line for her glossy mailer. For 10 years, Kelsey has denied overwhelming evidence of backroom deals, the so-called ‘public process’ is anything but transparent, and documents are constantly suppressed. All she represents is a few large landowners and some developers. The people of Hopeton/Amsterdam and Stevinson have been asking for municipal advisory councils for seven years. Kelsey has refused to help them. Everyone knows this and she even said it in the radio debate: ‘Merced County is not for everybody.’ She thinks the County is for her and the tiny elite around her – people in such an advanced state of denial of reality they think the sky is blue and the water is clean.”

Loose Cheeks moved on to “Skal!” the column of President Peter Koch. Koch, photographed with a very trendy “Boyish Campesino” look, announced that the Merced County Farm Bureau was going to make “Water” its top issue this summer.

“Oh boy, oh boy!” gasped Gangle. “I can hardly wait! The mind staggers at the possibilities of Merced County Farm Bureau meditations on water. How much more blame can environmental law and regulations and state and federal resource agencies take, with the Merced County Farm Bureau adding its voice to those in the state making the hard, right decisions: the governor, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Westlands Water District, Congressman Devin Nunes, the Blue Ribbon Peripheral Canal Campaign Committee, Sen. Diane Feinstein and the others? Already in the president’s rhetoric, the word ‘balance’ has made its dark appearance, yet another moving target of the ambitious nouveau agricultural elite. Your heirs and heiresses don’t talk about balance much. They tend to speak with long noses about parcel splits.”

| »


To manage site Login