Interesting article about water scarcity and one possible response that has already happened in history, in Iraq.
An excerpt
'Water wars' loom?
But none in past 4 500 years
Alister Doyle Stockholm, Sweden
With a steady stream of bleak predictions that "water wars" will be fought over dwindling supplies in the 21st century, battles between two Sumerian city-states 4 500 years ago seem to set a worrying precedent.
But the good news, many experts say, is that the conflict between Lagash and Umma over irrigation rights in what is now Iraq was the last time two states went to war over water.
Down the centuries since then, international rivals sharing waters such as the Jordan River, the Nile, the Ganges or the Parana have generally favoured cooperation over conflict.
So if history can be trusted, things may stay that way.
"The simple explanation is that water is simply too important to fight over," said Aaron Wolf, a professor at Oregon State University.
"Nations often go to the brink of war over water and then resolve their differences.
"Since the war between Lagash and Umma, recorded on a stone carving showing vultures flying off with the heads of defeated Umma warriors, no wars have been fought and 3 600 international water treaties have been signed, he said.
Yet politicians regularly warn that water shortages caused by surging populations and climate change could trigger conflicts this century in a world where a billion people in developing countries lack access to clean drinking water.
"Fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said in 2001. The English word "rival" even comes from the Latin "rivalis" meaning "someone sharing a river".
Other experts say international "water wars" are unlikely.
"I don't really expect wars over water because ... the benefits of collaboration are so great," said Frank Rijsberman, head of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
And still others say water might be one factor in future conflicts. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), says this is particularly true in border regions where countries share rivers.
"I am not somebody who believes that our third world war will be over water, but I think the potential for conflict will grow as we are faced with water scarcity," he told Reuters.
Rijsberman led a UN-backed report in August that said one in three people lives in a region where water is scarce and that demand could almost double by 2050 -- led by farming which absorbs 74% of all fresh water used by humans.
Planting extra crops to produce biofuels and global warming -- which could bring more erosion, droughts and floods -- could add new pressures, the report said. But it added that there was enough water to go around, with better planning.
"If there is a war between two countries the 15th reason could be water but the first 14 reasons will have absolutely nothing to do with water," said Asit Biswas, head of the Third World Centre for Water Management in Mexico City.
"But if I want to get in the media the easiest thing is to say that a water war is about to break out in the Middle East," he said. "The last war over water was thousands of years ago."A problem, he said, was that water was often viewed as a commodity like oil, which cannot be re-used. Water in the Colorado River, for instance, can get used seven times for hydropower, drinking water or irrigation.
The academics' view is not shared everywhere.
"If we don't address the water issue in the Middle East in a coherent way there will be a war. There's scarcity and when it comes to water it's a matter of life," said Shadad Attilik, a Palestinian who conducts water negotiations with Israel.
He said vital aquifers in the Gaza Strip were being polluted and causing health problems. "If you see a Palestinian with yellow teeth you know he comes from Gaza," he said.
Experts note that violence over water often breaks out within countries -- over rivers, lakes, oases or wells.
In Kenya, dozens of people died early this year in fighting between nomadic tribes over scant water and grazing rights. Tamil Tiger rebels were accused of shutting off sluices in Sri Lanka in August in their separatist war with government forces.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Bridge Bill Signed
This is good news, for Folsom residents especially.
An excerpt.
Bill for Folsom bridge gets signed
By Cathy Locke - Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
FOLSOM -- Legislation necessary for a new bridge below Folsom Dam has been signed into law.
State Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, announced Friday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill authorizing the state Department of General Services to sell 14 acres to Folsom for the bridge. Most of the property is on the grounds of Folsom State Prison.
"We are obviously pleased that that part of the acquisition went smoothly," said Mayor Andy Morin.
The City Council approved the environmental impact report for the project on on Tuesday, he said.
The federal Bureau of Reclamation closed the road over Folsom Dam as a safety measure after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The closure affected approximately 15,000 motorists who used the road daily.
The city must acquire additional land from private owners, and Morin said negotiations are progressing well.
The city expects to go to bid in a few weeks, he said, and to award the contract in December. Groundbreaking is anticipated in January or February.
An excerpt.
Bill for Folsom bridge gets signed
By Cathy Locke - Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
FOLSOM -- Legislation necessary for a new bridge below Folsom Dam has been signed into law.
State Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, announced Friday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill authorizing the state Department of General Services to sell 14 acres to Folsom for the bridge. Most of the property is on the grounds of Folsom State Prison.
"We are obviously pleased that that part of the acquisition went smoothly," said Mayor Andy Morin.
The City Council approved the environmental impact report for the project on on Tuesday, he said.
The federal Bureau of Reclamation closed the road over Folsom Dam as a safety measure after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The closure affected approximately 15,000 motorists who used the road daily.
The city must acquire additional land from private owners, and Morin said negotiations are progressing well.
The city expects to go to bid in a few weeks, he said, and to award the contract in December. Groundbreaking is anticipated in January or February.
Homeless Camping Plan in LA
This plan creates a pretty large area where it would be legal to camp in downtown Los Angeles, a real bad example one hopes other cities don't follow.
An excerpt.
Plan Would End Homeless 'Tent Cities'
A compromise by the LAPD and ACLU limits the hours and skid row areas where people could sleep. Skeptics say it wouldn't work.
By Richard WintonTimes Staff Writer September 19, 2006
Los Angeles officials and the American Civil Liberties Union have reached a compromise to settle a lawsuit that has prevented police from arresting homeless people who camp on the streets and sidewalks of skid row, Police Chief William J. Bratton said Monday.
Bratton, speaking to The Times' Editorial Board, declined to provide details. But sources briefed about the compromise said it would allow police to arrest people camping, sleeping or lying on sidewalks between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.
The sources said the settlement also would prohibit encampments at any time within 10 feet of any business or residential entrance.
Such rules would effectively prevent homeless people from creating "tent cities" that the Los Angeles Police Department and downtown business leaders have been trying to remove.
The settlement would also establish a downtown area — bounded by Central Avenue and Los Angeles, 3rd and 7th streets — where homeless people would be allowed to sleep on sidewalks at night without challenge by police or business owners.
Downtown development and business interests were immediately skeptical of the plan. They had hoped the LAPD would be given more sweeping powers to remove tents day and night, and they fear the agreement will attract homeless camps within the boundaries covered in the law.
"Any settlement that leaves people living on the street in filthy conditions and permits chaos from 9 to 6 every night in one critical area of the city is unacceptable," said Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the Central City Assn.
An excerpt.
Plan Would End Homeless 'Tent Cities'
A compromise by the LAPD and ACLU limits the hours and skid row areas where people could sleep. Skeptics say it wouldn't work.
By Richard WintonTimes Staff Writer September 19, 2006
Los Angeles officials and the American Civil Liberties Union have reached a compromise to settle a lawsuit that has prevented police from arresting homeless people who camp on the streets and sidewalks of skid row, Police Chief William J. Bratton said Monday.
Bratton, speaking to The Times' Editorial Board, declined to provide details. But sources briefed about the compromise said it would allow police to arrest people camping, sleeping or lying on sidewalks between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.
The sources said the settlement also would prohibit encampments at any time within 10 feet of any business or residential entrance.
Such rules would effectively prevent homeless people from creating "tent cities" that the Los Angeles Police Department and downtown business leaders have been trying to remove.
The settlement would also establish a downtown area — bounded by Central Avenue and Los Angeles, 3rd and 7th streets — where homeless people would be allowed to sleep on sidewalks at night without challenge by police or business owners.
Downtown development and business interests were immediately skeptical of the plan. They had hoped the LAPD would be given more sweeping powers to remove tents day and night, and they fear the agreement will attract homeless camps within the boundaries covered in the law.
"Any settlement that leaves people living on the street in filthy conditions and permits chaos from 9 to 6 every night in one critical area of the city is unacceptable," said Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the Central City Assn.
Global Warming & Sacramento
Excellent look at the possible effects of global warming here; with one of the major results being the loss of snow pack as the warmer temperatures turns the snow into rainfall, dramatically increasing the need to capture the run-off with the Auburn Dam.
An excerpt.
Cover Story: August 24, 2006
Hot futures
Is anyone considering the possibility that environmental effects from global warming could make Sacramento unlivable?
By Ralph Brave
Photo Illustration by Don Button
On an afternoon in the middle of May that reached an unseasonable 97 degrees, three planners for the city of Sacramento sat around the conference table in Room 3100 of the new City Hall, silent after detailing the predicted effects of global warming on the Sacramento region. The expected impacts include an additional two months of summer temperatures per year, with Sacramento experiencing 50 to 110 days of 95 degrees and above (currently the annual average is 18 such days); intrusion into and possible flooding of the Delta by saltwater due to Pacific Ocean sea-level rise and storm surges; a dramatic decline of water available for drinking and irrigation caused by a substantial loss of Sierra snowpack; et cetera.
The planners’ silence at the conclusion of their discussion served to highlight the ominous but unasked question: Is anyone considering the possibility that the environmental effects from global warming could make Sacramento unlivable?
When the question was explicitly posed, more silence followed and then was finally broken when city planner Helen Selph responded, “Not publicly,” a toss of her head and a smile indicating that her answer was half in jest. But only half.
Though no specific weather event can be definitively attributed to global warming, the lethal two-week heat wave in July seemed to confirm the worst fears about the changing climate and what it might portend for Sacramento. The convergence of the scientific evidence confirming global warming with real-world weather events like the heat wave is stimulating an unprecedented upsurge in activity in the Sacramento region by individuals, communities, businesses and government agencies to combat climate change.
“There’s so much innovative action on this issue happening here in California and across the U.S. at the grassroots level,” observed Larry Greene, executive director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. “It’s a bright spot, something of which we can really be proud.”
Inquiries to community groups and local agencies in the Sacramento region bear out Greene’s observation. Marcy Barnett and a couple of interns run the Sacramento Area Green Business Program for Sacramento County, helping businesses from REI to Midtown’s Café Bernardo implement a certifiable range of energy-conservation, pollution-prevention and other environmental measures. At UC Davis, students successfully lobbied the university to launch a campus-wide greenhouse-gas-emissions inventory. A new single-family-home subdivision going up on Orchard Lane in South Natomas is designed with solar panels and conservation features to be “electric neutral.”
Still, given the facts and the cascade of studies on potential impacts, one has to wonder: What really will be required to counter global warming? And will all this activity be enough to keep Sacramento habitable?
A new paradigm Last month, the first state-mandated biennial report on the effects of global warming on California was released by the California Climate Change Center. Drafted by more than 70 leading scientists in the field, and financed in part by the California Energy Commission and the California Environmental Protection Agency, the report documented three scenarios resulting from global warming. Each of the scenarios was based on the level of greenhouse-gas emissions and the consequent rise in temperatures in the decades between now and the period 2070-2099. Taken all together, the scientific consensus for the range of predicted impacts, as compared with 1961-1990, were the following:
• 30-percent to 90-percent loss in Sierra snowpack
An excerpt.
Cover Story: August 24, 2006
Hot futures
Is anyone considering the possibility that environmental effects from global warming could make Sacramento unlivable?
By Ralph Brave
Photo Illustration by Don Button
On an afternoon in the middle of May that reached an unseasonable 97 degrees, three planners for the city of Sacramento sat around the conference table in Room 3100 of the new City Hall, silent after detailing the predicted effects of global warming on the Sacramento region. The expected impacts include an additional two months of summer temperatures per year, with Sacramento experiencing 50 to 110 days of 95 degrees and above (currently the annual average is 18 such days); intrusion into and possible flooding of the Delta by saltwater due to Pacific Ocean sea-level rise and storm surges; a dramatic decline of water available for drinking and irrigation caused by a substantial loss of Sierra snowpack; et cetera.
The planners’ silence at the conclusion of their discussion served to highlight the ominous but unasked question: Is anyone considering the possibility that the environmental effects from global warming could make Sacramento unlivable?
When the question was explicitly posed, more silence followed and then was finally broken when city planner Helen Selph responded, “Not publicly,” a toss of her head and a smile indicating that her answer was half in jest. But only half.
Though no specific weather event can be definitively attributed to global warming, the lethal two-week heat wave in July seemed to confirm the worst fears about the changing climate and what it might portend for Sacramento. The convergence of the scientific evidence confirming global warming with real-world weather events like the heat wave is stimulating an unprecedented upsurge in activity in the Sacramento region by individuals, communities, businesses and government agencies to combat climate change.
“There’s so much innovative action on this issue happening here in California and across the U.S. at the grassroots level,” observed Larry Greene, executive director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. “It’s a bright spot, something of which we can really be proud.”
Inquiries to community groups and local agencies in the Sacramento region bear out Greene’s observation. Marcy Barnett and a couple of interns run the Sacramento Area Green Business Program for Sacramento County, helping businesses from REI to Midtown’s Café Bernardo implement a certifiable range of energy-conservation, pollution-prevention and other environmental measures. At UC Davis, students successfully lobbied the university to launch a campus-wide greenhouse-gas-emissions inventory. A new single-family-home subdivision going up on Orchard Lane in South Natomas is designed with solar panels and conservation features to be “electric neutral.”
Still, given the facts and the cascade of studies on potential impacts, one has to wonder: What really will be required to counter global warming? And will all this activity be enough to keep Sacramento habitable?
A new paradigm Last month, the first state-mandated biennial report on the effects of global warming on California was released by the California Climate Change Center. Drafted by more than 70 leading scientists in the field, and financed in part by the California Energy Commission and the California Environmental Protection Agency, the report documented three scenarios resulting from global warming. Each of the scenarios was based on the level of greenhouse-gas emissions and the consequent rise in temperatures in the decades between now and the period 2070-2099. Taken all together, the scientific consensus for the range of predicted impacts, as compared with 1961-1990, were the following:
• 30-percent to 90-percent loss in Sierra snowpack
Monday, September 18, 2006
Shasta Dam Tour on PDF
This 22 page pdf tour, with several terrific historic photographs, is a good introduction to one of our great American Dams.
Globe Warming? Shade It!
Sounds almost as drastic as getting rid of all the cars.
An excerpt.
ENN FULL STORY
Stratospheric Sulfur Could Stall Global Warming
September 15, 2006 — By Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters
WASHINGTON — To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist Thursday proposed lobbing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The sulfur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulfate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulfate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. His research, published in the journal Science, indicates this approach would work together with cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The idea of injecting sulfates into the stratosphere, some 10 miles above the Earth's surface, was first proposed and quickly rejected three decades ago as a dangerous tinkering with natural processes. But Wigley said he was prompted to pursue this angle when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist, recently suggested a new look at the notion of geoengineering, as this notion is known.
COST-EFFECTIVE?
"I'm not suggesting we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy," Wigley said in a telephone interview. "I think that that's the only long-term solution to the problem of global warming, we definitely have to do that. "But ... can we make it economically and technologically easier by doing something that's also technology, which may be cost-effective?" It would not be cheap, according to Wigley's estimates. The most sensible way to get sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes -- more than the world's current commercial airline fleet -- to take it there. This might cost hundreds of millions of dollars, he said. The sulfur dioxide would form small sulfuric acid aerosol droplets. Another method to get these aerosols into the air is the possible addition of sulfur compounds to airplane fuel, which would then form sulfur dioxide, Wigley said. On Earth, sulfur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness, aggravates heart and lung disease and contributes to acid rain. Power plants and other factories are the biggest producers. But Wigley said the amount of sulfur dioxide needed for the geoengineering project would probably cause negligible pollution down on Earth's surface, because his model called for less than 10 percent additional sulfur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. The technology exists now to put this plan into effect, but studies of economic feasibility are needed, he said. It has the potential to stall global warming for 20 years, to buy time for solutions to the problem, according to Wigley.
An excerpt.
ENN FULL STORY
Stratospheric Sulfur Could Stall Global Warming
September 15, 2006 — By Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters
WASHINGTON — To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist Thursday proposed lobbing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The sulfur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulfate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulfate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. His research, published in the journal Science, indicates this approach would work together with cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The idea of injecting sulfates into the stratosphere, some 10 miles above the Earth's surface, was first proposed and quickly rejected three decades ago as a dangerous tinkering with natural processes. But Wigley said he was prompted to pursue this angle when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist, recently suggested a new look at the notion of geoengineering, as this notion is known.
COST-EFFECTIVE?
"I'm not suggesting we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy," Wigley said in a telephone interview. "I think that that's the only long-term solution to the problem of global warming, we definitely have to do that. "But ... can we make it economically and technologically easier by doing something that's also technology, which may be cost-effective?" It would not be cheap, according to Wigley's estimates. The most sensible way to get sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes -- more than the world's current commercial airline fleet -- to take it there. This might cost hundreds of millions of dollars, he said. The sulfur dioxide would form small sulfuric acid aerosol droplets. Another method to get these aerosols into the air is the possible addition of sulfur compounds to airplane fuel, which would then form sulfur dioxide, Wigley said. On Earth, sulfur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness, aggravates heart and lung disease and contributes to acid rain. Power plants and other factories are the biggest producers. But Wigley said the amount of sulfur dioxide needed for the geoengineering project would probably cause negligible pollution down on Earth's surface, because his model called for less than 10 percent additional sulfur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. The technology exists now to put this plan into effect, but studies of economic feasibility are needed, he said. It has the potential to stall global warming for 20 years, to buy time for solutions to the problem, according to Wigley.
Buffet’s Philanthropy
Donating to nonprofits was raised to a stellar level of attention recently when Warren Buffet gave $30.7 billion to the Gates Foundation, or did he?
The rest of the story is interesting.
An excerpt.
Warren Buffett Still has a Chance to do It Right
by Buzz Schmidt
Editors’ Note: this article was originally published in the September 2006 issue of Alliance Online (http://www.allavida.org/allianceonline/).
News of Warren Buffett’s $30.7 billion gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reached me in Europe while I was attending a conference on non-profit accountability. The Gates Foundation would now comprise over 10 per cent of US foundation giving capacity, and Buffett had placed these assets into a vehicle with someone else’s name attached. The European press was awash with praise for this wealthy and selfless American and admonishments for charitably obdurate European billionaires. For one who has spent a lot of time in Europe over the past years, it was one of the few times when I heard praise for Americans. Why then am I perplexed by this event? Like Buffett’s transactions, it’s complicated. In a nutshell, it was an opportunity lost. But, unlike other gifts to private foundations, it was not an opportunity lost in perpetuity.
You see, Warren Buffett didn’t give the Gates Foundation $30.7 billion. Rather, he committed himself to passing 5 per cent of the value of a dedicated quantity of Berkshire Hathaway shares through Gates annually so long as Bill and/or Melinda Gates are involved. Unless something changes, this annual commitment is only for a limited time period, and the full story of Buffett’s philanthropy has yet to unfold.
Because he has committed himself to giving away 5 per cent of the value of the shares each year, the value of the shares that underwrite his Gates commitment will continue to climb so long as the annual growth of Berkshire’s share price exceeds 5 per cent – and they will remain in the control of Buffett or his estate upon the conclusion of the commitment. What Buffett has effectively done is to form a charitable lead trust, with an undetermined destination, not necessarily charitable, for a much greater residual value.
The rest of the story is interesting.
An excerpt.
Warren Buffett Still has a Chance to do It Right
by Buzz Schmidt
Editors’ Note: this article was originally published in the September 2006 issue of Alliance Online (http://www.allavida.org/allianceonline/).
News of Warren Buffett’s $30.7 billion gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reached me in Europe while I was attending a conference on non-profit accountability. The Gates Foundation would now comprise over 10 per cent of US foundation giving capacity, and Buffett had placed these assets into a vehicle with someone else’s name attached. The European press was awash with praise for this wealthy and selfless American and admonishments for charitably obdurate European billionaires. For one who has spent a lot of time in Europe over the past years, it was one of the few times when I heard praise for Americans. Why then am I perplexed by this event? Like Buffett’s transactions, it’s complicated. In a nutshell, it was an opportunity lost. But, unlike other gifts to private foundations, it was not an opportunity lost in perpetuity.
You see, Warren Buffett didn’t give the Gates Foundation $30.7 billion. Rather, he committed himself to passing 5 per cent of the value of a dedicated quantity of Berkshire Hathaway shares through Gates annually so long as Bill and/or Melinda Gates are involved. Unless something changes, this annual commitment is only for a limited time period, and the full story of Buffett’s philanthropy has yet to unfold.
Because he has committed himself to giving away 5 per cent of the value of the shares each year, the value of the shares that underwrite his Gates commitment will continue to climb so long as the annual growth of Berkshire’s share price exceeds 5 per cent – and they will remain in the control of Buffett or his estate upon the conclusion of the commitment. What Buffett has effectively done is to form a charitable lead trust, with an undetermined destination, not necessarily charitable, for a much greater residual value.
Walters on Auburn Dam
With the optimal flood protection option now on the table, Sacramento has the opportunity to see 500 year level flood protection within the next several years.
Our community and our Parkway will someday be fully protected from the devastation of flooding as long as we can keep this project moving forward.
We will certainly do our part.
An excerpt.
Dan Walters: Auburn dam, peripheral canal back on the table for discussion
By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, September 18, 2006
Elvis Presley was a young man when bureaucrats and politicians began talking about two large projects to control and use the water that seasonal rain and snow storms dump on Northern California.
Building a high dam on the American River near Auburn, water engineers reasoned, would hold more of the seasonal flows for later use while protecting the Sacramento area from flooding. A "peripheral canal," meanwhile, was touted to divert water from the Sacramento River around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for delivery to San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California homes and industries.
Construction actually began on both. Site clearance and foundation work for the Auburn dam began in 1967 while the chunks of the 42-mile peripheral canal route were dug out in the 1970s to supply materials for constructing Interstate 5 south of Sacramento.
Both projects, however, fell victim to the rapidly expanding power of environmentalism in the 1970s and 1980s. The Jimmy Carter administration halted work on an Auburn dam, ostensibly to study its ability to withstand an earthquake, and while the peripheral canal project was pushed through the Legislature by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a referendum sponsored by an odd-bedfellows alliance of environmentalists and San Joaquin Valley farmers led to voter rejection in 1982.
Ever since, intertwined flood control and water supply debates have proceeded on the assumption that an Auburn dam and the peripheral canal were as dead as a certain former rock 'n' roll star. But just as there are occasional assertions, albeit unsubstantiated, that Elvis is alive, neither the Auburn dam nor the peripheral canal ever completely faded away -- and both, in fact, are showing signs of revival in an era when global warming, Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and other factors have changed assumptions about water.
John Doolittle, the Republican congressman who represents the Auburn area, never gave up on the dam. As he rose in the GOP House hierarchy, he continued to push appropriations for renewing planning the project, even as local officials settled on levee improvements and altering Folsom Dam to elevate flood protection for those near the American.
Those projects supposedly would raise the protection level to the 200-year level, but given what happened in New Orleans, local flood control officials are now talking about going beyond that, perhaps to a 500-year level. That could be achieved, most likely, only by construction of another dam upstream from Folsom -- such as the one at Auburn.
It's not going to happen any time soon, perhaps never, but neither is the Auburn dam as impossible as it appeared only a year or two ago.
Our community and our Parkway will someday be fully protected from the devastation of flooding as long as we can keep this project moving forward.
We will certainly do our part.
An excerpt.
Dan Walters: Auburn dam, peripheral canal back on the table for discussion
By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, September 18, 2006
Elvis Presley was a young man when bureaucrats and politicians began talking about two large projects to control and use the water that seasonal rain and snow storms dump on Northern California.
Building a high dam on the American River near Auburn, water engineers reasoned, would hold more of the seasonal flows for later use while protecting the Sacramento area from flooding. A "peripheral canal," meanwhile, was touted to divert water from the Sacramento River around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for delivery to San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California homes and industries.
Construction actually began on both. Site clearance and foundation work for the Auburn dam began in 1967 while the chunks of the 42-mile peripheral canal route were dug out in the 1970s to supply materials for constructing Interstate 5 south of Sacramento.
Both projects, however, fell victim to the rapidly expanding power of environmentalism in the 1970s and 1980s. The Jimmy Carter administration halted work on an Auburn dam, ostensibly to study its ability to withstand an earthquake, and while the peripheral canal project was pushed through the Legislature by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a referendum sponsored by an odd-bedfellows alliance of environmentalists and San Joaquin Valley farmers led to voter rejection in 1982.
Ever since, intertwined flood control and water supply debates have proceeded on the assumption that an Auburn dam and the peripheral canal were as dead as a certain former rock 'n' roll star. But just as there are occasional assertions, albeit unsubstantiated, that Elvis is alive, neither the Auburn dam nor the peripheral canal ever completely faded away -- and both, in fact, are showing signs of revival in an era when global warming, Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and other factors have changed assumptions about water.
John Doolittle, the Republican congressman who represents the Auburn area, never gave up on the dam. As he rose in the GOP House hierarchy, he continued to push appropriations for renewing planning the project, even as local officials settled on levee improvements and altering Folsom Dam to elevate flood protection for those near the American.
Those projects supposedly would raise the protection level to the 200-year level, but given what happened in New Orleans, local flood control officials are now talking about going beyond that, perhaps to a 500-year level. That could be achieved, most likely, only by construction of another dam upstream from Folsom -- such as the one at Auburn.
It's not going to happen any time soon, perhaps never, but neither is the Auburn dam as impossible as it appeared only a year or two ago.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Flood Board Perspective
One member shares their perspective.
An excerpt.
Board's action on flood issues commendable
By Cheryl Bly-Chester - Special to The BeePublished 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
Cheryl Bly-Chester, former vice president of the state Board of Reclamation, is responding to the Sept. 10 editorial "Governor can salvage Wreck Board he created."
I appreciate The Bee's lead editorial last week reiterating my campaign promise to "rein in the out-of-control regulatory agencies."
Improving regulatory responsiveness is a passionate goal of mine that I hope your readers will remember when I run for office again in 2010. Although it has been five months since my last Reclamation Board meeting, I am flattered that The Bee remembers my accomplishments bringing levee permitting into compliance with the California Permit Streamlining Act.
I am proud of my part in extracting numerous projects from wallowing in bureaucratic inaction from the pre-Katrina days.
For example, the Highway 160 guardrail in the Sacramento Delta protects traffic safety but hinders levee maintenance and could decrease the levee's flood protection capability. This important issue had reached an impasse with the pre-Katrina board continuing its meeting after meeting for years without resolution.
During last winter's storms, the levee bank eroded under the guardrail requiring immediate repair. After inspecting it, I was able to convey the urgency to all parties and am proud of how local reclamation districts and our state crews, both Caltrans and the Department of Water Resources, quickly responded to protect public safety.
Under my leadership, all parties came to the table agreeing to language for interagency cooperation, which finally resolved the guardrail issue.
For the first time in Reclamation Board history, the current board approved applications for privately financed construction of levee improvements designed for 200-year flood protection.
Although it is humbling to be given full credit for leading that effort, the contributions of the people protecting the public, especially the board staff, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Water Resources certainly overshadow my small part.
In approving these enormous super-levees and setback levees, we provide some of the best flood protection and environmental restoration available in California while saving our taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
An excerpt.
Board's action on flood issues commendable
By Cheryl Bly-Chester - Special to The BeePublished 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
Cheryl Bly-Chester, former vice president of the state Board of Reclamation, is responding to the Sept. 10 editorial "Governor can salvage Wreck Board he created."
I appreciate The Bee's lead editorial last week reiterating my campaign promise to "rein in the out-of-control regulatory agencies."
Improving regulatory responsiveness is a passionate goal of mine that I hope your readers will remember when I run for office again in 2010. Although it has been five months since my last Reclamation Board meeting, I am flattered that The Bee remembers my accomplishments bringing levee permitting into compliance with the California Permit Streamlining Act.
I am proud of my part in extracting numerous projects from wallowing in bureaucratic inaction from the pre-Katrina days.
For example, the Highway 160 guardrail in the Sacramento Delta protects traffic safety but hinders levee maintenance and could decrease the levee's flood protection capability. This important issue had reached an impasse with the pre-Katrina board continuing its meeting after meeting for years without resolution.
During last winter's storms, the levee bank eroded under the guardrail requiring immediate repair. After inspecting it, I was able to convey the urgency to all parties and am proud of how local reclamation districts and our state crews, both Caltrans and the Department of Water Resources, quickly responded to protect public safety.
Under my leadership, all parties came to the table agreeing to language for interagency cooperation, which finally resolved the guardrail issue.
For the first time in Reclamation Board history, the current board approved applications for privately financed construction of levee improvements designed for 200-year flood protection.
Although it is humbling to be given full credit for leading that effort, the contributions of the people protecting the public, especially the board staff, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Water Resources certainly overshadow my small part.
In approving these enormous super-levees and setback levees, we provide some of the best flood protection and environmental restoration available in California while saving our taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Fire Fighting Money Short
The Ralson fire in the American River Watershed is costing more than money as its effects will be seen in the run-off (quality and quantity) for years to come.
The money losing partly result from resistance to a forest thinning approach supported by logging companies but resisted by environmentalists.
An excerpt.
Investigative report: Budget going up in smoke
Billowing toward a record high, Forest Service firefighting costs threaten to drain funds from other programs, including reforestation
By Tom Knudson - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
Four years after the most expensive fire season in history, two years after an exhaustive federal report on high firefighting costs, the U.S. Forest Service still is burning through dollars like wildfire through chaparral.
Last month, tax dollars flew out the agency's door at an average of $12 million a day -- $500,000 an hour. By the time you finish reading this paragraph, $1,250 more will be spent.
This week, if current patterns hold, 2006 will become the most costly year ever, exceeding the $1.27 billion spent in 2002.
The pace of the spending, which has drawn the concern of Congress and the White House Office of Management and Budget, threatens to siphon money from other programs, among them reforestation efforts designed to help the land heal from fire.
The cost has been aggravated by the nature of this year's fire season, which began early and so far has crackled across a record 8.8 million acres -- including 145,000 acres burning in California on Saturday. But that's hardly the only reason for the soaring tab. Others include:
• A blank-check budgeting process that prompts Forest Service managers to throw money at fires but neglect the thinning projects that reduce their size, ferocity and cost. "There are no effective incentives" to corral costs, says an internal Forest Service memo obtained by The Bee.
The money losing partly result from resistance to a forest thinning approach supported by logging companies but resisted by environmentalists.
An excerpt.
Investigative report: Budget going up in smoke
Billowing toward a record high, Forest Service firefighting costs threaten to drain funds from other programs, including reforestation
By Tom Knudson - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
Four years after the most expensive fire season in history, two years after an exhaustive federal report on high firefighting costs, the U.S. Forest Service still is burning through dollars like wildfire through chaparral.
Last month, tax dollars flew out the agency's door at an average of $12 million a day -- $500,000 an hour. By the time you finish reading this paragraph, $1,250 more will be spent.
This week, if current patterns hold, 2006 will become the most costly year ever, exceeding the $1.27 billion spent in 2002.
The pace of the spending, which has drawn the concern of Congress and the White House Office of Management and Budget, threatens to siphon money from other programs, among them reforestation efforts designed to help the land heal from fire.
The cost has been aggravated by the nature of this year's fire season, which began early and so far has crackled across a record 8.8 million acres -- including 145,000 acres burning in California on Saturday. But that's hardly the only reason for the soaring tab. Others include:
• A blank-check budgeting process that prompts Forest Service managers to throw money at fires but neglect the thinning projects that reduce their size, ferocity and cost. "There are no effective incentives" to corral costs, says an internal Forest Service memo obtained by The Bee.
Parkway Cleaned Up
Another great river clean up is in the bag…Good job from all.
An excerpt.
10 tons of trash pulled by army of volunteers
28th Annual Great American River Cleanup
By Deepa Ranganathan - Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
If you're a smoker, don't kid yourself: Cigarette butts are bona fide trash.
"I think it's disgusting," said Marilyn Jouini, 63, bending low to scoop butts from the grass near the Nimbus Fish Hatchery Visitor Center in Rancho Cordova. "People just throw them on the ground."
Jouini was one of about 950 volunteers who fanned out along a 29-mile stretch of the American River Parkway system on Saturday. They toted big plastic bags, latex gloves and long-handled trash grabbers in a quest to rid the river and the parkway of ugly litter.
By noon, they had collected nearly 20,000 pounds of trash between Negro Bar and Discovery Park. Beer bottles. Fast food wrappers. Diapers. Endless snarls of muddy fishing line.
And, in one instance, a coconut.
"I was like, 'Mary, you're not going to believe it. It's a coconut,' " said volunteer Jan Beard. "She had to see it to believe it."
"It was a single coconut with hair all over it, but it was hollowed out," said Mary Booth, who, like Beard, is from Orangevale.
The 28th Annual Great American River Clean Up was part of a statewide Coastal Cleanup Day that was expected to draw 50,000 people across California.
An excerpt.
10 tons of trash pulled by army of volunteers
28th Annual Great American River Cleanup
By Deepa Ranganathan - Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
If you're a smoker, don't kid yourself: Cigarette butts are bona fide trash.
"I think it's disgusting," said Marilyn Jouini, 63, bending low to scoop butts from the grass near the Nimbus Fish Hatchery Visitor Center in Rancho Cordova. "People just throw them on the ground."
Jouini was one of about 950 volunteers who fanned out along a 29-mile stretch of the American River Parkway system on Saturday. They toted big plastic bags, latex gloves and long-handled trash grabbers in a quest to rid the river and the parkway of ugly litter.
By noon, they had collected nearly 20,000 pounds of trash between Negro Bar and Discovery Park. Beer bottles. Fast food wrappers. Diapers. Endless snarls of muddy fishing line.
And, in one instance, a coconut.
"I was like, 'Mary, you're not going to believe it. It's a coconut,' " said volunteer Jan Beard. "She had to see it to believe it."
"It was a single coconut with hair all over it, but it was hollowed out," said Mary Booth, who, like Beard, is from Orangevale.
The 28th Annual Great American River Clean Up was part of a statewide Coastal Cleanup Day that was expected to draw 50,000 people across California.
El Nino!
El Nino, under some conditions, also creates Pineapple Express storm conditions in the American River Watershed, which creates more rain and run-off for us: as noted in our upcoming water report (9/24/06):
“In this decision- making process, the ongoing threat of pineapple-express storms, fueling the recent flooding in 1986 and 1997, are a crucial factor, as Dettinger (2005) concludes:
"The long-term perspective taken here reveals that, historically, El Nino conditions have favored having more low-altitude precipitation (relative to the usual high altitude orographic [influence of mountains on precipitation, airflow etc.] enhancement) that, falling most often as rain rather than snow, may tend to increase flood risks. Pineapple express patterns and the flood risks that they entail, on the contrary, appear to have been favored by near-neutral (non-El Nino) tropical conditions during El Nino-rich decades (warm phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
"Furthermore, this long-term perspective confirms our suspicion that the risks for flood generation in the American River basin are special in several ways. With its broad expanses of moderate-altitude terrain and its near equal mix of rainfed and snowmelt runoff, the basin is particularly sensitive to storm-by-storm variations in the amounts and distributions of rainfall. The orientation of the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada in the modulated year-to-year increases in orgraphic precipitation enhancement during La Nina winters, rivaled in the Sierra Nevada only by the southern ramparts of the range where topography may favor El Nino orographic enhancements. Pineapple express storms bring particularly warm and wet storms to the area and thus pose important flood risks. On long-term average, the American River has the dubious distinction of being situated beneath the margins of most intense precipitation associated with pineapple-express circulations and of being situated at the point in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades where pineapple-express circulations (on average) bring the warmest temperatures. (p. 72, highlighting added) "
(p. 33)
An excerpt from the article.
El Niño Returns
By Richard A. Kerr ScienceNOW Daily News13 September 2006
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced today that the ocean warming that is El Niño has returned to the tropical Pacific Ocean. A month ago, both human forecasters and computer models had some inkling of the worldwide weathermaker's return, but a sudden warming ushering in El Niño caught them by surprise. Experts predict that the warming could bring some good news: a reduction in hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.
El Niños occur every 3 to 7 years, bringing patches of unusual warmth, dryness, coolness, wetness, and combinations thereof to various parts of the world. The last such event happened in 2003. In its monthly "discussion" issued 10 August, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) in Camp Springs, Maryland, had noted that winds and ocean warming had in recent months begun to favor a weak El Niño by the end of the year and that the forecast models were leaning that way too. Within just a week or two, however, the surface waters of the tropical Pacific Ocean began warming faster, a hefty 1°C by early September. That was enough to convince forecasters as well as their models that "we have got the beginnings of an El Niño, and it's going to continue," says CPC's Vernon Kousky. Some of the models are calling for the weak beginnings to strengthen into a moderate El Niño.
Even the beginnings of an El Niño are reworking the weather, CPC forecasters are saying. Today's discussion reports that all of Indonesia, Malaysia, and most of the Philippines have been drier than normal. That dryness is likely to continue for the rest of the year, it says, as typical wintertime El Niño effects develop around the world.
An El Niño effect of particular interest to Americans is the way a tropical Pacific warming tends to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. The Atlantic hurricane season is just picking up after a slow start, Kousky notes, and this El Niño is still weak at midseason. But NOAA hurricane forecasters are figuring that, if anything, the ongoing Pacific warming will dampen late-season hurricane activity. That would be good news for U.S. coastal residents and anyone looking to consume oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico.
“In this decision- making process, the ongoing threat of pineapple-express storms, fueling the recent flooding in 1986 and 1997, are a crucial factor, as Dettinger (2005) concludes:
"The long-term perspective taken here reveals that, historically, El Nino conditions have favored having more low-altitude precipitation (relative to the usual high altitude orographic [influence of mountains on precipitation, airflow etc.] enhancement) that, falling most often as rain rather than snow, may tend to increase flood risks. Pineapple express patterns and the flood risks that they entail, on the contrary, appear to have been favored by near-neutral (non-El Nino) tropical conditions during El Nino-rich decades (warm phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
"Furthermore, this long-term perspective confirms our suspicion that the risks for flood generation in the American River basin are special in several ways. With its broad expanses of moderate-altitude terrain and its near equal mix of rainfed and snowmelt runoff, the basin is particularly sensitive to storm-by-storm variations in the amounts and distributions of rainfall. The orientation of the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada in the modulated year-to-year increases in orgraphic precipitation enhancement during La Nina winters, rivaled in the Sierra Nevada only by the southern ramparts of the range where topography may favor El Nino orographic enhancements. Pineapple express storms bring particularly warm and wet storms to the area and thus pose important flood risks. On long-term average, the American River has the dubious distinction of being situated beneath the margins of most intense precipitation associated with pineapple-express circulations and of being situated at the point in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades where pineapple-express circulations (on average) bring the warmest temperatures. (p. 72, highlighting added) "
(p. 33)
An excerpt from the article.
El Niño Returns
By Richard A. Kerr ScienceNOW Daily News13 September 2006
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced today that the ocean warming that is El Niño has returned to the tropical Pacific Ocean. A month ago, both human forecasters and computer models had some inkling of the worldwide weathermaker's return, but a sudden warming ushering in El Niño caught them by surprise. Experts predict that the warming could bring some good news: a reduction in hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.
El Niños occur every 3 to 7 years, bringing patches of unusual warmth, dryness, coolness, wetness, and combinations thereof to various parts of the world. The last such event happened in 2003. In its monthly "discussion" issued 10 August, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) in Camp Springs, Maryland, had noted that winds and ocean warming had in recent months begun to favor a weak El Niño by the end of the year and that the forecast models were leaning that way too. Within just a week or two, however, the surface waters of the tropical Pacific Ocean began warming faster, a hefty 1°C by early September. That was enough to convince forecasters as well as their models that "we have got the beginnings of an El Niño, and it's going to continue," says CPC's Vernon Kousky. Some of the models are calling for the weak beginnings to strengthen into a moderate El Niño.
Even the beginnings of an El Niño are reworking the weather, CPC forecasters are saying. Today's discussion reports that all of Indonesia, Malaysia, and most of the Philippines have been drier than normal. That dryness is likely to continue for the rest of the year, it says, as typical wintertime El Niño effects develop around the world.
An El Niño effect of particular interest to Americans is the way a tropical Pacific warming tends to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. The Atlantic hurricane season is just picking up after a slow start, Kousky notes, and this El Niño is still weak at midseason. But NOAA hurricane forecasters are figuring that, if anything, the ongoing Pacific warming will dampen late-season hurricane activity. That would be good news for U.S. coastal residents and anyone looking to consume oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico.
The Sun & Global Warming
Darn, I thought sure that was going to explain it.
An excerpt.
Don't Blame the Sun
By Dan Whipple ScienceNOW Daily News13 September 2006
The sun has gone out--at least as a source of 20th century global warming. A paper in tomorrow's issue of Nature concludes that changes in the sun's brightness over the past 100 years have been too small to significantly impact Earth's climate.
Whereas most studies have blamed greenhouse gases for increasing temperatures over the last century, some people say the sun should also bear some responsibility. At the peak of its 11-year energy cycle--called the solar maximum--the sun's heat output increases 0.07%. Some climatologists and solar physicists have also speculated that there is another cycle that leads to longer-term increases in the sun's total solar irradiance (TSI).
Are these bursts in solar energy enough to explain Earth's warming over the last 100 years? Peter Foukal, a solar physicist at Heliophysics Inc., a small private research firm based in Nahant, Massachusetts, looked at variations in sun activity since 1978. He and others scanned historical records of sunspots, which are indicative of solar fluctuations, and examined radioisotopes from Greenland, Antarctic ice cores, and Earth's atmosphere, which provide a record of past solar activity. The researchers also ran a blend of seven reconstructions of paleoclimate data in a climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to test the impact of TSI. They then calculated how much the solar brightness contributed to the observed temperature changes compared to climate impacts from other sources such as volcanoes and human-caused greenhouse gases.
Although solar brightness has increased over the past 400 years, the team concludes that the amount is too small to explain the 20th century warming. Furthermore, no known physical mechanism in the sun can account for longer-term variations in solar activity, the researchers report.
Asked whether total solar irradiance can be discounted as a driver of the current warming, climatologist Thomas Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the paper's authors, says simply, "Yes." After a pregnant pause, he adds, "I'm very categorical about that final answer. I feel very confident about that." Still, Wigley says other solar processes, such as cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation, could still have an affect on Earth's climate. The current study did not examine these phenomena.
An excerpt.
Don't Blame the Sun
By Dan Whipple ScienceNOW Daily News13 September 2006
The sun has gone out--at least as a source of 20th century global warming. A paper in tomorrow's issue of Nature concludes that changes in the sun's brightness over the past 100 years have been too small to significantly impact Earth's climate.
Whereas most studies have blamed greenhouse gases for increasing temperatures over the last century, some people say the sun should also bear some responsibility. At the peak of its 11-year energy cycle--called the solar maximum--the sun's heat output increases 0.07%. Some climatologists and solar physicists have also speculated that there is another cycle that leads to longer-term increases in the sun's total solar irradiance (TSI).
Are these bursts in solar energy enough to explain Earth's warming over the last 100 years? Peter Foukal, a solar physicist at Heliophysics Inc., a small private research firm based in Nahant, Massachusetts, looked at variations in sun activity since 1978. He and others scanned historical records of sunspots, which are indicative of solar fluctuations, and examined radioisotopes from Greenland, Antarctic ice cores, and Earth's atmosphere, which provide a record of past solar activity. The researchers also ran a blend of seven reconstructions of paleoclimate data in a climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to test the impact of TSI. They then calculated how much the solar brightness contributed to the observed temperature changes compared to climate impacts from other sources such as volcanoes and human-caused greenhouse gases.
Although solar brightness has increased over the past 400 years, the team concludes that the amount is too small to explain the 20th century warming. Furthermore, no known physical mechanism in the sun can account for longer-term variations in solar activity, the researchers report.
Asked whether total solar irradiance can be discounted as a driver of the current warming, climatologist Thomas Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the paper's authors, says simply, "Yes." After a pregnant pause, he adds, "I'm very categorical about that final answer. I feel very confident about that." Still, Wigley says other solar processes, such as cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation, could still have an affect on Earth's climate. The current study did not examine these phenomena.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Saving the Horses
A wonderful effort brings horses home to green fields in El Dorado, saved from slaughter.
An excerpt.
By luck and Grace, 17 horses are no longer slaughter-bound
By Cynthia Hubert - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
They were "surplus" horses, bays and paints and even an Arabian, and they had been sentenced to death.
Then Beth DeCaprio and her posse stepped in.
Now the 17 horses, bound for an Illinois slaughterhouse last week, are grazing and galloping at DeCaprio's nonprofit Grace Foundation ranch in El Dorado Hills.
It took a herculean community effort to rescue them, said DeCaprio, whose foundation pairs "special needs" children with abused and neglected animals. Now she is working on finding adoptive homes for the horses.
Their story, DeCaprio said, illustrates the importance of a piece of legislation making its way through Congress. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would ban the practice of killing American horses and selling their meat to foreign countries. California and other states have outlawed horse slaughtering, but it remains legal in Texas and Illinois.
"The idea that horses are being slaughtered for human consumption is something that most people can't believe even goes on in this country," said Debra Basaldua, a Grace Foundation volunteer. "People are shocked when they hear about it."
The horses now at the Grace ranch, on 600 acres donated by developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, came within a whisper of going to the slaughterhouse.
Last week, DeCaprio got a call from a worker at a feedlot in Nevada who told her that a large group of healthy horses was destined to become meat. DeCaprio could buy the animals for $7,500, the amount they would fetch at a slaughterhouse in Illinois. But she needed to come up with the money fast and find a way to transport the animals to Northern California.
DeCaprio, Basaldua and other volunteers sprang into action. They made and distributed fliers. They got cooperation from a local Starbucks, which collected donations from customers. They held a raffle.
Volunteer Kaitlyn Fitzgerald, 15, e-mailed her friends and family members, and came up with $585. Another youngster held a yard sale and contributed $76. A third donated her baby-sitting money.
But as the deadline approached, the fundraising effort was short of its goal. That's when a celebrity of sorts stepped in. Dominique Plewes, daughter of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, called and said she wanted to make up the deficit.
DeCaprio then found someone willing to transport the animals by trailer to the Grace Foundation ranch.
"We paid the hauler in $1 bills that we received from Starbucks," she said. The horses arrived in two groups on Wednesday and Thursday.
"It was so amazing to see them, knowing that we saved them all," Fitzgerald said.
An excerpt.
By luck and Grace, 17 horses are no longer slaughter-bound
By Cynthia Hubert - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
They were "surplus" horses, bays and paints and even an Arabian, and they had been sentenced to death.
Then Beth DeCaprio and her posse stepped in.
Now the 17 horses, bound for an Illinois slaughterhouse last week, are grazing and galloping at DeCaprio's nonprofit Grace Foundation ranch in El Dorado Hills.
It took a herculean community effort to rescue them, said DeCaprio, whose foundation pairs "special needs" children with abused and neglected animals. Now she is working on finding adoptive homes for the horses.
Their story, DeCaprio said, illustrates the importance of a piece of legislation making its way through Congress. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would ban the practice of killing American horses and selling their meat to foreign countries. California and other states have outlawed horse slaughtering, but it remains legal in Texas and Illinois.
"The idea that horses are being slaughtered for human consumption is something that most people can't believe even goes on in this country," said Debra Basaldua, a Grace Foundation volunteer. "People are shocked when they hear about it."
The horses now at the Grace ranch, on 600 acres donated by developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, came within a whisper of going to the slaughterhouse.
Last week, DeCaprio got a call from a worker at a feedlot in Nevada who told her that a large group of healthy horses was destined to become meat. DeCaprio could buy the animals for $7,500, the amount they would fetch at a slaughterhouse in Illinois. But she needed to come up with the money fast and find a way to transport the animals to Northern California.
DeCaprio, Basaldua and other volunteers sprang into action. They made and distributed fliers. They got cooperation from a local Starbucks, which collected donations from customers. They held a raffle.
Volunteer Kaitlyn Fitzgerald, 15, e-mailed her friends and family members, and came up with $585. Another youngster held a yard sale and contributed $76. A third donated her baby-sitting money.
But as the deadline approached, the fundraising effort was short of its goal. That's when a celebrity of sorts stepped in. Dominique Plewes, daughter of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, called and said she wanted to make up the deficit.
DeCaprio then found someone willing to transport the animals by trailer to the Grace Foundation ranch.
"We paid the hauler in $1 bills that we received from Starbucks," she said. The horses arrived in two groups on Wednesday and Thursday.
"It was so amazing to see them, knowing that we saved them all," Fitzgerald said.
California Climate Bill
More comment on the strange bill.
An excerpt.
H. Sterling Burnett: California loses with greenhouse law
By H. Sterling Burnett - Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Arnold Schwarzenegger's signing the first statewide, multi-industry greenhouse gas emission limits may be a calculated political move to burnish his green credentials in an attempt to get re-elected governor. Or it may symbolize his sincere belief that California should take a leadership role in reducing the threat of climate change.
But whatever his motives, the results will be higher prices for California's consumers, higher unemployment for California's workers and little or no benefit for the environment.
Taking the latter point first, California's law will require companies in selected industries to reduce their greenhouse emissions by whatever amounts, and by whatever methods, are deemed necessary by the California Air Resources Board in order to reduce emissions for the entire state by 25 percent by 2020 -- equaling California's 1990 emission levels.
While California is an economic powerhouse and these cuts are substantial, their effect on future climate will be nil. The National Center for Atmospheric Research reports that if all the signatories to the much more stringent Kyoto protocol -- which would require industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels -- meet their reduction targets, the earth will be between 0.07 degrees Celsius and 0.19 degree Celsius cooler than it would be absent Kyoto.
California's solo efforts to reduce global warming will be even less effective. California's wasted effort will, however, come with a high price tag. The regulations implementing California's climate bill have yet to be written, so no objective economic analysis of its effects are available.
However, an analysis of a regional climate change action plan considered by 11 Northeastern states and the premiers of Canada's eastern provinces showed that even with an efficient cap-and-trade program similar to Schwarzenegger's proposal, both electricity and residential natural gas prices would rise by as much as 39 percent by 2020. The higher energy costs would result in consumption spending falling by an estimated average of $2,634 per household; gross state product would decline 1.1 percent; and an estimated 191,589 jobs would be lost by 2010.
An excerpt.
H. Sterling Burnett: California loses with greenhouse law
By H. Sterling Burnett - Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Arnold Schwarzenegger's signing the first statewide, multi-industry greenhouse gas emission limits may be a calculated political move to burnish his green credentials in an attempt to get re-elected governor. Or it may symbolize his sincere belief that California should take a leadership role in reducing the threat of climate change.
But whatever his motives, the results will be higher prices for California's consumers, higher unemployment for California's workers and little or no benefit for the environment.
Taking the latter point first, California's law will require companies in selected industries to reduce their greenhouse emissions by whatever amounts, and by whatever methods, are deemed necessary by the California Air Resources Board in order to reduce emissions for the entire state by 25 percent by 2020 -- equaling California's 1990 emission levels.
While California is an economic powerhouse and these cuts are substantial, their effect on future climate will be nil. The National Center for Atmospheric Research reports that if all the signatories to the much more stringent Kyoto protocol -- which would require industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels -- meet their reduction targets, the earth will be between 0.07 degrees Celsius and 0.19 degree Celsius cooler than it would be absent Kyoto.
California's solo efforts to reduce global warming will be even less effective. California's wasted effort will, however, come with a high price tag. The regulations implementing California's climate bill have yet to be written, so no objective economic analysis of its effects are available.
However, an analysis of a regional climate change action plan considered by 11 Northeastern states and the premiers of Canada's eastern provinces showed that even with an efficient cap-and-trade program similar to Schwarzenegger's proposal, both electricity and residential natural gas prices would rise by as much as 39 percent by 2020. The higher energy costs would result in consumption spending falling by an estimated average of $2,634 per household; gross state product would decline 1.1 percent; and an estimated 191,589 jobs would be lost by 2010.
San Joaquin River
Problems with final outcome emerging.
An excerpt.
San Joaquin restoration plan: First up, a big clash over its cost
By Michael Doyle - Bee Washington BureauPublished 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
Many farmers and environmentalists now agree on restoring the San Joaquin River. They do not, however, agree on how much it will cost.
Environmentalists believe $250 million will suffice. Farmers served by Friant Dam think $800 million is more like it. It's a concrete disagreement -- one of several confronting authors of a historic river restoration plan that's also still a work in progress.
"It's a moving target," top Interior Department official Jason Peltier said of the differing cost estimates this week. "We have a range, based on the realization that there are lots of engineering and other decisions that still need to be made."
Formerly a representative of Central Valley Project irrigators, Peltier now serves as the Interior Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for water and science. That effectively makes the California native the Bush administration's point man on California water issues.
On Thursday, Peltier joined with four members of Congress, and a crowd of staff members and top negotiators for a closed-door, Capitol Hill briefing on the ambitious San Joaquin River restoration plan. The sentiments revealed a spread nearly as wide as the varying cost estimates.
The plan calls for water to start flowing over Friant Dam and into the San Joaquin River's parched channel in 2009. Farmers on the east side of the Valley would lose an estimated 15 percent of their water annually, as the hydrologic price for getting spring-run chinook salmon back into the river by Dec. 31, 2012.
Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, who helped bring about the negotiations, called the resulting agreement a "momentous step" because it ends an 18-year legal battle. Next Thursday, as chairman of the House water and power subcommittee, Radanovich will chair the first hearing into the settlement.
But while Radanovich is expressing optimism, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, exited the briefing Thursday as angry as ever.
"I think this is a gross misuse of public funds," Nunes said. "You're going to spend $800 million to bring back some fish?"
An excerpt.
San Joaquin restoration plan: First up, a big clash over its cost
By Michael Doyle - Bee Washington BureauPublished 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
Many farmers and environmentalists now agree on restoring the San Joaquin River. They do not, however, agree on how much it will cost.
Environmentalists believe $250 million will suffice. Farmers served by Friant Dam think $800 million is more like it. It's a concrete disagreement -- one of several confronting authors of a historic river restoration plan that's also still a work in progress.
"It's a moving target," top Interior Department official Jason Peltier said of the differing cost estimates this week. "We have a range, based on the realization that there are lots of engineering and other decisions that still need to be made."
Formerly a representative of Central Valley Project irrigators, Peltier now serves as the Interior Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for water and science. That effectively makes the California native the Bush administration's point man on California water issues.
On Thursday, Peltier joined with four members of Congress, and a crowd of staff members and top negotiators for a closed-door, Capitol Hill briefing on the ambitious San Joaquin River restoration plan. The sentiments revealed a spread nearly as wide as the varying cost estimates.
The plan calls for water to start flowing over Friant Dam and into the San Joaquin River's parched channel in 2009. Farmers on the east side of the Valley would lose an estimated 15 percent of their water annually, as the hydrologic price for getting spring-run chinook salmon back into the river by Dec. 31, 2012.
Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, who helped bring about the negotiations, called the resulting agreement a "momentous step" because it ends an 18-year legal battle. Next Thursday, as chairman of the House water and power subcommittee, Radanovich will chair the first hearing into the settlement.
But while Radanovich is expressing optimism, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, exited the briefing Thursday as angry as ever.
"I think this is a gross misuse of public funds," Nunes said. "You're going to spend $800 million to bring back some fish?"
Ralston Fire 80% Contained
An excerpt.
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
FORESTHILL -- U.S. Forest Service officials said Friday that the Ralston fire, which has burned about 8,400 acres of wildlands in the Tahoe and Eldorado National forests, is nearly 80 percent contained.
Full containment is expected by Sunday, officials said in a press release.
"Crews will continue to hold and mop up along the containment lines," the release said.
Karen Durand, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service, said decreased wind, lower temperatures and fire breaks carved out by firefighting crews contributed to slowing the blaze Thursday and Friday.
"Because we're not considering it a danger any more, we'll be pulling back the number of people fighting it at night," she said.
The fire began Sept. 5 north of an area known as Ralston, east of Foresthill. The fire burned eastward and uncontrolled into wildlands between the Middle Fork of the American River and Mosquito Ridge Road.
Steep terrain, rocks and the forest made it difficult for firefighters to head off the blaze, officials said.
No fatalities have been reported, but at least five firefighters suffered minor injuries, the Forest Service reported.
A miner's cabin in a remote area along the Middle Fork below Ditch Camp was found destroyed Thursday, the press release said.
Officials estimated the cost of fighting the blaze has reached $10.5 million. Crews from throughout the state were brought in to battle the fire, which threatened 290 homes and 200 outbuildings during its critical stages, the Forest Service said.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 16, 2006
FORESTHILL -- U.S. Forest Service officials said Friday that the Ralston fire, which has burned about 8,400 acres of wildlands in the Tahoe and Eldorado National forests, is nearly 80 percent contained.
Full containment is expected by Sunday, officials said in a press release.
"Crews will continue to hold and mop up along the containment lines," the release said.
Karen Durand, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service, said decreased wind, lower temperatures and fire breaks carved out by firefighting crews contributed to slowing the blaze Thursday and Friday.
"Because we're not considering it a danger any more, we'll be pulling back the number of people fighting it at night," she said.
The fire began Sept. 5 north of an area known as Ralston, east of Foresthill. The fire burned eastward and uncontrolled into wildlands between the Middle Fork of the American River and Mosquito Ridge Road.
Steep terrain, rocks and the forest made it difficult for firefighters to head off the blaze, officials said.
No fatalities have been reported, but at least five firefighters suffered minor injuries, the Forest Service reported.
A miner's cabin in a remote area along the Middle Fork below Ditch Camp was found destroyed Thursday, the press release said.
Officials estimated the cost of fighting the blaze has reached $10.5 million. Crews from throughout the state were brought in to battle the fire, which threatened 290 homes and 200 outbuildings during its critical stages, the Forest Service said.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
Rubber Sidewalks
I love this concept and rubber was also used in the construction of the bike trail on the Parkway.
An excerpt
Walking on Rubber
If you have ever been out for a stroll in your flip-flops and stubbed a toe on a cracked sidewalk that resembles a mogul run, you will appreciate the dream that Richard Valeriano had one night.
As senior public works inspector for the city of Santa Monica, he spent his days staring at sidewalks tilted at dangerous angles by growing tree roots. In his night-time dream, he saw rubber sidewalks undulating smoothly as if across ocean waves.
The dream became a reality with the help of various partnerships, and today more than 60 cities in North America are graced with pavers from Rubbersidewalks, Inc., in Gardena, California. The rubber pavers are manufactured in California and shipped to the building sites.
They are then laid down over a bed of crushed granite and connected by an interlocking system of dowels. The pavers can be easily cut to fit at the site, and if any are damaged, the dowels are unlocked, and a new paver is inserted.
The rubber pavers can be draped over bumpy tree roots and still maintain a smooth, safe walking surface. The alternative in many cities is to cut down the trees with the offending roots, leaving carefully landscaped and shady streets barren of vegetation. The value of big old trees far exceeds that of the more expensive rubber pavers for most people who live on or walk those streets.
While there is no shortage of raw material as Americans discard 290 million tires a year, the pavers are still two to three times more expensive than concrete. On the other hand, city officials can appreciate the higher cost of the pavers when faced with losing mature trees, replacing buckled concrete, and dealing with expensive lawsuits related to falls on cracked concrete sidewalks.
An excerpt
Walking on Rubber
If you have ever been out for a stroll in your flip-flops and stubbed a toe on a cracked sidewalk that resembles a mogul run, you will appreciate the dream that Richard Valeriano had one night.
As senior public works inspector for the city of Santa Monica, he spent his days staring at sidewalks tilted at dangerous angles by growing tree roots. In his night-time dream, he saw rubber sidewalks undulating smoothly as if across ocean waves.
The dream became a reality with the help of various partnerships, and today more than 60 cities in North America are graced with pavers from Rubbersidewalks, Inc., in Gardena, California. The rubber pavers are manufactured in California and shipped to the building sites.
They are then laid down over a bed of crushed granite and connected by an interlocking system of dowels. The pavers can be easily cut to fit at the site, and if any are damaged, the dowels are unlocked, and a new paver is inserted.
The rubber pavers can be draped over bumpy tree roots and still maintain a smooth, safe walking surface. The alternative in many cities is to cut down the trees with the offending roots, leaving carefully landscaped and shady streets barren of vegetation. The value of big old trees far exceeds that of the more expensive rubber pavers for most people who live on or walk those streets.
While there is no shortage of raw material as Americans discard 290 million tires a year, the pavers are still two to three times more expensive than concrete. On the other hand, city officials can appreciate the higher cost of the pavers when faced with losing mature trees, replacing buckled concrete, and dealing with expensive lawsuits related to falls on cracked concrete sidewalks.
Water Supply
On coming water scarcity everyone seems to be predicting.
An excerpt.
The Quest for More Water
Why Markets are Inevitable
By Robert Glennon
Some readers might wonder why I, a liberal Democrat, spent this past summer as a fellow at a free-market think tank. The answer is that I believe that water marketing is essential if we are to prevent further damage to the environment from development. Where I probably depart from some of my PERC associates is that I believe government must play a critical role in overseeing markets to protect the environment and third parties.
We in the United States are heading toward a water scar-city crisis: We can’t make new water; all the water there is, is. In July, the city of Las Vegas, New Mexico, froze new development due to a lack of water. The city expects literally to run out of water this month.
Such a dramatic action may become commonplace in future years. In a recent survey, 36 states reported that they expect to suffer water shortages in the next ten years, yet demand for new sup-plies is increasing dramatically, mostly due to the increase in population. We now number 300 million and will exceed 400 million by the middle of the century. Fights over water are no longer confined to the American West, as disputes involving the Great Lakes, the Delaware River, the Potomac River, the Roanoke River, and the Ipswich River suggest.
With such a disconnect between supply and demand, what are our options? The conventional answer is to build a dam, divert a river, or drill a well. Each of these options has significant environmental and financial consequences. We have already dammed most rivers in the United States, some repeatedly. Few good dam sites remain. Even proposing a dam stimulates serious opposition and controversy. As for our rivers, we have decimated many of them, diverting so much water that they have literally run dry. I’m not merely talking about small creeks. Large rivers like the Colorado and Rio Grande no longer reach the ocean. Securing new supplies by diverting additional waters from rivers will come with a high environmental cost attached.
An excerpt.
The Quest for More Water
Why Markets are Inevitable
By Robert Glennon
Some readers might wonder why I, a liberal Democrat, spent this past summer as a fellow at a free-market think tank. The answer is that I believe that water marketing is essential if we are to prevent further damage to the environment from development. Where I probably depart from some of my PERC associates is that I believe government must play a critical role in overseeing markets to protect the environment and third parties.
We in the United States are heading toward a water scar-city crisis: We can’t make new water; all the water there is, is. In July, the city of Las Vegas, New Mexico, froze new development due to a lack of water. The city expects literally to run out of water this month.
Such a dramatic action may become commonplace in future years. In a recent survey, 36 states reported that they expect to suffer water shortages in the next ten years, yet demand for new sup-plies is increasing dramatically, mostly due to the increase in population. We now number 300 million and will exceed 400 million by the middle of the century. Fights over water are no longer confined to the American West, as disputes involving the Great Lakes, the Delaware River, the Potomac River, the Roanoke River, and the Ipswich River suggest.
With such a disconnect between supply and demand, what are our options? The conventional answer is to build a dam, divert a river, or drill a well. Each of these options has significant environmental and financial consequences. We have already dammed most rivers in the United States, some repeatedly. Few good dam sites remain. Even proposing a dam stimulates serious opposition and controversy. As for our rivers, we have decimated many of them, diverting so much water that they have literally run dry. I’m not merely talking about small creeks. Large rivers like the Colorado and Rio Grande no longer reach the ocean. Securing new supplies by diverting additional waters from rivers will come with a high environmental cost attached.
Friday, September 15, 2006
California Climate Warming Bill a Dodge?
The discussion on this strange bill continues.
An excerpt.
'Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?'
By Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren September 15, 2006
No. New act is really an environmental dodge.
With great fanfare, California is about to enact a law mandating a 25 percent cut in state greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. While the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 appears to be a big development at first glance, closer examination reveals that it is little more than a sophisticated political dodge; a convenient vehicle by which politicians can appear to do something about global warming without actually having to do much of anything concrete about it. If past is prologue, environmentalists are in for a big disappointment.
The new act's environmental promise comes due 14 years hence – that is, long after the politicians who would enact it leave office. Accordingly, they will not be around to face the music if the promise is broken or if the costs associated with the promise triggers a political backlash.
The act, moreover, provides no hint whatsoever of how California will achieve these greenhouse gas cuts. Will emissions be cut via a carbon tax, an emissions trading regime, direct command-and-control regulation, an elaborate series of subsidies for non-carbon energy alternatives, “make a wish” energy efficiency programs, or some combination of the above? Who knows?
The Legislature deputizes the California Air Resources Board to come up with some ideas, allowing politicians to take credit for the promise but to disavow responsibility on whether it is kept.
Nor does the act make any real attempt to bind future legislatures to the promise made. To be fair, that's a nearly impossible task to begin with. But if you ask “What happens if the state falls short of these goals?” the answer is “not much.”
Taken together, this suggests something other than “bold, courageous action.” On the contrary, it suggests that promises to stop global warming are politically popular (at least in California), but programs to actually accomplish this aren't. That's because there's no way to hide the costs.
Honest parties on both sides of this debate recognize that the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, and the costs associated with that enterprise cannot be buried out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
An excerpt.
'Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?'
By Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren September 15, 2006
No. New act is really an environmental dodge.
With great fanfare, California is about to enact a law mandating a 25 percent cut in state greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. While the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 appears to be a big development at first glance, closer examination reveals that it is little more than a sophisticated political dodge; a convenient vehicle by which politicians can appear to do something about global warming without actually having to do much of anything concrete about it. If past is prologue, environmentalists are in for a big disappointment.
The new act's environmental promise comes due 14 years hence – that is, long after the politicians who would enact it leave office. Accordingly, they will not be around to face the music if the promise is broken or if the costs associated with the promise triggers a political backlash.
The act, moreover, provides no hint whatsoever of how California will achieve these greenhouse gas cuts. Will emissions be cut via a carbon tax, an emissions trading regime, direct command-and-control regulation, an elaborate series of subsidies for non-carbon energy alternatives, “make a wish” energy efficiency programs, or some combination of the above? Who knows?
The Legislature deputizes the California Air Resources Board to come up with some ideas, allowing politicians to take credit for the promise but to disavow responsibility on whether it is kept.
Nor does the act make any real attempt to bind future legislatures to the promise made. To be fair, that's a nearly impossible task to begin with. But if you ask “What happens if the state falls short of these goals?” the answer is “not much.”
Taken together, this suggests something other than “bold, courageous action.” On the contrary, it suggests that promises to stop global warming are politically popular (at least in California), but programs to actually accomplish this aren't. That's because there's no way to hide the costs.
Honest parties on both sides of this debate recognize that the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, and the costs associated with that enterprise cannot be buried out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)