California Watch - Environment

Judge to rule on lawsuit challenging pesticide approval

Amy Standen — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:05:02 +0000

Anonymous

MaryAnnShmueli/istockphoto.com

The lawsuit over California's approval of a controversial pesticide might hinge on a seemingly straightforward question: Did regulators ever ask themselves what would happen if they didn't approve methyl iodide?

In an Oakland courtroom yesterday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch presided over a one-day trial about methyl iodide, a fumigant approved by state regulators in December 2010.

Environmental and farm worker groups sued the state, along with chemical manufacturer Arysta LifeScience, in January 2011, contending that the chemical puts farm workers at risk of cancer or miscarriage. They said the state used bad science in approving methyl iodide and ignored the concerns of its own scientific advisers.

Earthjustice's Greg Loarie, representing the plaintiffs, came to the courtroom armed with diagrams and spreadsheets, geared up to give a technical brief on finer points of pharmacokinetic and uncertainty factors, iodide absorption rates, and other toxicological issues. His goal was to prove that the state had cherry-picked its data and methods in order to arrive at a conclusion amenable to the chemical company, Arysta.

But the judge quickly seized on a different point.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, state agencies must consider alternatives to its proposed decisions, what's known as a “no-project alternative.” In this case, that could have meant evaluating alternatives to methyl iodide or the possibility of approving the chemical at more conservative exposure levels.

Under questioning from Roesch, Deputy Attorney General Cecilia Dennis, representing the Department of Pesticide Regulation, couldn't produce such a document.

"Absent that," Roesch said, "I don't see how you can prevail in this lawsuit."

Dennis argued that such a consideration was implicit in the overall document. She said the Department of Pesticide Regulation leaves it up to local agricultural districts to weigh the pros and cons of using the chemical, a process that effectively serves as a no-project alternative.

Despite Roesch’s focus on the regulatory process, science did make its way into the courtroom.

Earthjustice’s Loarie pointed to e-mails – obtained earlier in a public records request by KQED/QUEST – revealing dissent from department staff scientists over whether science by Mary-Ann Warmerdam, who had led the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation, had been sound. The e-mails come from two staff scientists – Lori Lim and Ruby Reed – who have since left the agency.

A lawyer for Arysta argued that the plaintiffs were overplaying the Lim and Reed e-mails in order to "manufacture" a story of dissent within the agency. He quoted another staff scientist who, memos showed, had found the approval levels to be reasonable.

"This case is a battle of the experts," Dennis said. "And, as the court knows, the agency is allowed to pick which experts it relies on."

In the end, the deciding issue may be process, rather than science.

Roesch gave the attorneys a week to draft a brief to persuade him that the Department of Pesticide Regulation is not required to follow CEQA. Earthjustice lawyers will then have a week to respond. Roesch will then issue a final ruling on whether the state violated California law when it approved methyl iodide.

After the hearing, a spokesman for Arysta was unwilling to comment, citing the absence of a final ruling from the judge.

Paul Towers of the Pesticide Action Network said the judge's comments left him feeling optimistic. "We're hopeful that he'll ultimately rule that methyl iodide was unfairly approved in California," he said.

But in focusing on procedural issues rather than science, was the judge neglecting what plaintiffs consider to be the essential question, namely: Is methyl iodide safe to use?

Towers said: "There is no debate, as the scientific community has said time and time again, that methyl iodide causes serious health effects. The real debate is whether the state followed its own process and whether political appointees at the top ignored scientists in their own agency."

USC scientists develop material to trap carbon dioxide

Susanne Rust — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:05:02 +0000

Susanne Rust

KimberlyDeprey/istockphoto.com

As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to climb, a team of California scientists has created a new material that will help reduce the amount escaping from smokestacks and power plants.

The material, called polyethylenimine, or PEI, acts like a carbon dioxide fly-tape trap, attracting the greenhouse gas molecules and sticking to them so they can’t escape.

Indeed, carbon dioxide is so attracted to the material that the team says it can pull the molecule right out of the air, something other carbon filter materials have not been able to do well.

“This is really an important quality,” said Alain Goeppert, a senior researcher at the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute at the University of Southern California. In the near future, it will enable small-scale removal of carbon dioxide from air in enclosed spaces, such as submarines and manned spacecraft, where carbon dioxide buildup can be hazardous, or in laboratories, where carbon dioxide can hinder engineering or the chemical reactions of certain products.

PEI may have long-term applications, too, for wide-scale removal of the gas from air.

In addition, the team says PEI is cheaper and more easily produced than other materials already being used to extract carbon dioxide from smokestacks and industrial flues.

Goeppert and co-author G.K. Surya Prakash, also a chemist at USC, say the new material is just part of a vision they have of carbon recycling and a carbon dioxide market.

One of the advantages of the new material is that it can be reused. Once the material is saturated with carbon dioxide, it is heated to a relatively low temperature of 85 degrees Celsius. At that temperature, the carbon dioxide is released and can be stored.

The carbon can then be used to create fuel.

Other materials also are able to release carbon for storage, but according to Prakash and Goeppert, those other materials need to be heated to very high temperatures – 700 or 800 degrees Celsius – which requires a great deal of energy and, therefore, a large amount of carbon in the form of fossil fuels.

“It kind of defeats the purpose” of recycling the carbon to keep things carbon neutral, Goeppert said.

According to Prakash, widespread use of carbon dioxide-capturing materials, such as PEI, could provide an environment where “we wouldn’t need to drill or dig for fossil fuels anymore,” he said.

The research appeared in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Prakash and Goeppert’s vision for a carbon-neutral future is laid out in their book, “Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy.” The book also was written by USC's George Olah, a Nobel laureate.

Report offers 'carbon neutral' road map for California

Agency: Emissions must be curbed now to avoid severe warming

Environmental groups sue to prevent fracking in Calif.

Tia Ghose — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:05:02 +0000

Tia Ghose

ReutersA worker checks valves at a natural gas appraisal well in China, which is embracing fracking as part of its energy production.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club are suing the Bureau of Land Management to prevent gas drilling known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal lands. The lawsuit contends that the bureau leased more than 2,500 acres in Monterey and Fresno counties to oil company representatives without doing a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of fracking.

The leases were auctioned in September for $257,051 to Neil Ormond, an agent for Austin-based Vinton Exploration; LoneTree Energy & Associates, a Colorado-based broker for an undisclosed oil and gas exploration company; and Vintage Production California, LLC, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum.

In their Dec. 8 complaint [PDF], the plaintiffs argue that the auction violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the bureau to do a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of any oil or gas drilling on the land. The bureau's environmental assessment [PDF] found that there would be no significant impact.

"They didn't do any real analysis of what fracking would mean out there," such as the potential effect on endangered species or the local water supply, despite the likelihood that fracking would be used, said Kassie Siegel, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity and director of its Climate Law Institute.

"They cite some misleading, older information which says, well, fracking's no problem," she said.

The parcels contain watersheds for Monterey County, as well as habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as the kit fox and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

Fracking is a controversial process in which an unknown blend of chemicals and water is pumped at high pressure into the ground to create fissures for extracting oil or gas. A recently released Environmental Protection Agency draft report [PDF] found that fracking was likely the source of water contamination in Pavillion, Wyo. That water contained benzenes, alcohols and glycols.

Several EPA case studies of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania also are investigating the tie between fracking and groundwater contamination. And according to a May study in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, methane from the fracking process can leach into well water and pose a risk of explosion.

The California parcels sit on a geologic formation called Monterey Shale. The oil company Venoco estimates the site has a potential yield of more than 100 million barrels of oil, but requires hydraulic fracturing to extract it. Although the land has been leased for oil and gas drilling before, none of the land has been developed, and much of it is currently grazing land, said Erin Curtis, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Land Management.

The bureau wouldn't discuss the pending lawsuit. However, before any company drills a hole, "for each well, they have to submit an application for a permit to drill, and at that stage, we conduct an environmental assessment for each permit to drill," Curtis said.

Siegel doesn't find that reassuring. "BLM will probably tell you, 'Oh yeah, don't worry, there's no problem; if they really start putting a drill bit in the ground, we'll do further review before that happens.' I would say that it is entirely unclear what the BLM will do."

Right now, it's not clear which, if any, oil companies have plans to develop the land. About 40 acres were purchased by LoneTree Energy. "We're a broker; we buy leases for another company," said LoneTree representative Patti Koenig, who negotiates land purchases for oil companies. "We're not the operator, so there's nothing really that we can say."

Occidental Petroleum also can't disclose its plans for the 200 acres purchased, said Susie Geiger, external affairs liaison for Vintage Production California. Ormond, the broker for Vinton Exploration who purchased more than 2,300 acres of land, could not be reached for comment.

Often, these leases are resold to other companies, Siegel said, and sites often are leased by oil and gas exploration companies but never developed.

The lessees have 10 years to develop the land, after which it reverts back to the federal government if not developed. If the land is eventually developed, California and federal taxpayers will get royalties from the resources extracted, Curtis said.

The lawsuit on its own might not have the power to stop the Bureau of Land Management from leasing land for fracking, Siegel said. The National Environmental Policy Act "requires full disclosure, but it doesn't necessarily say you can't go forward with the activity if there is a risk," she said.

Water quality boards seek to manage nitrate contamination

Rebecca Wolfson — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:55:51 +0000

Anonymous

Elenathewise/Flickr

It started in 2001 and mostly affected the very young and very old. Peoples’ hair would fall out, their skin would break out in rashes and their eyes would turn red after showers.

“That was how people were hurt on the outside,” said Horacio Amezquita, manager of the San Jerardo Cooperative, which houses about 250 low-income people in Salinas. “On the inside, we don’t know.”

Amezquita, a former farm worker, has lived at the cooperative for 33 years. Many of the residents work on nearby farms that use nitrogen-based fertilizers to help crops grow.

But the fertilizers that keep these farms in business leach into the soil and drinking water.

A report published last year by California Watch and KQED revealed that statewide, the number of wells that exceeded health limits for nitrates increased from nine in 1980 to 648 in 2007. That includes the water supply of more than 2 million Californians.

Nitrate-contaminated water can lead to serious health problems, including methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, a disease that develops when an infant’s organs, cells and tissues do not receive enough oxygen.

Studies also have linked nitrates with cancer, Crohn’s disease, thyroid disruption and depression, among other illnesses. Regions with the highest nitrate pollution include major agricultural regions, such as the Imperial, Central and Salinas valleys, and other coastal areas in California. Regulators classify nitrates as acute contaminants, which means people can experience severe reactions with only one taste or one glass.

In San Jerardo, officials replaced the contaminated well with a new well, which also became contaminated. They implemented new filtration systems. The water got cleaned up, but eventually the nitrates re-entered the aquifer. In December 2010, the community received a new well and, subsequently, safe drinking water, but residents now bear the brunt of the costs. Co-op members pay $100 to $150 per month for water.

Roger Briggs, executive officer of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, describes the scope of the nitrate problem as unprecedented. “Usually, if there’s a discharge, it’s at one point. It’s usually just in one location, one relatively small location,” he said. “But this is not the case with this issue.”

Nine regional water quality control boards administer water quality regulations in the state. Four of those regions, including the Central Coast, Central Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego regions, have adopted conditional ag waivers, which require owners of irrigated farmland to control discharges and require growers to implement best management practices in an effort to prevent pollutants from entering the groundwater.

Last year, the Central Coast regional water board submitted a proposal that would involve more stringent regulations of businesses categorized as Tier 3 operations. Farmers and growers who use a certain amount of nitrogen-based fertilizers or who own operations that are on impaired bodies of water will receive Tier 3 classifications.

The agricultural industry opposes the measure. A coalition of more than 50 farm groups and individual growers presented an alternative plan to the board when it was reviewed last year.

“The staff proposal that is out there will add significant costs to all growers, but particularly Tier 3, and it may be very difficult for some growers to continue,” said Danny Merkley, director of water resources for the California Farm Bureau Federation.

“We are competing in a global market where you can ship fresh products anywhere in the world and have them here any time overnight,” Merkley said. The Central Coast region includes many smaller growers who can’t bear the economic challenge, he said.

About 3,000 operations on the Central Coast will be classified as Tier 3 operations.

Under the proposed waiver, Tier 3 facilities will have to monitor runoff for toxicity, nitrates and the pesticides diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The waiver also would require farmers and growers to implement detailed nutrient and irrigation management plans.

“If the regional board passes the rules they’ve drafted, it will be the most rigorous regulations of discharges that exist,” said Steve Shimek, program manager for Monterey Coastkeeper and executive director of The Otter Project.

Instead of building new wells and filtration systems after nitrates already have entered aquifers, Amezquita said farmers should prevent harmful runoff from entering the water supply in the first place.

“Farmers need to be educated, and we need to implement the best conservation measures,” Amezquita said. Otherwise, he said, the burden of contaminated water will simply shift to future generations.

This story is courtesy of HealthyCal.org, a nonprofit journalism group based in Sacramento.

Farmers slow to adopt controversial pesticide

Robin Urevich — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:05:03 +0000

Anonymous

ilfede/istockphoto.com

A year after environmentalists lost a regulatory battle to keep the controversial pesticide methyl iodide off the California market, they appear to be winning the ground war against the chemical.

Only six California growers have used methyl iodide – marketed as MIDAS – to zap soil-borne pests and weeds before planting crops like chili peppers, strawberries and walnut trees.

Methyl iodide manufacturer Arysta LifeScience Corp. paid for at least two of the fumigations. The company shared in the cost of a third, according to the grower.

By way of comparison, more than 8,500 soil fumigations took place in California in 2009, the last year for which data is available from the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation.

“Methyl iodide is a speck on the horizon,” said Les Wright, Fresno County deputy agricultural commissioner.

Growers and agriculture industry groups clamored for methyl iodide registration last year before the Department of Pesticide Regulation gave the chemical its final approval.

They pointed to the coming ban on methyl bromide, one of the most effective and widely used fumigants in the state, and argued that without methyl iodide, California’s billion-dollar agriculture industry would hemorrhage jobs and profits. Methyl bromide is being phased out under the Montreal Protocol; it’s expected to be eliminated altogether by 2015.

Every year, however, the Montreal Protocol grants critical-use exemptions for growers who don’t have alternatives to methyl bromide. Methyl bromide is costly because of dwindling supplies, so many growers are also using other chemicals.

But now, some growers say methyl iodide is too politically risky to use.

“The people who oppose this particular chemical are really loud and effective,” said Liz Elwood Ponce, co-owner of Lassen Canyon Nursery in Redding. “If no one said anything, I think the chemical would be used more widely. But the objection has pretty much paralyzed the growers into no action.”

Methyl iodide use has been so rare that Arysta put out a press release [PDF] in November to announce its first application on the Central Coast, which took place only after the Santa Barbara County agricultural commissioner dismissed a challenge to the fumigation permit by environmental law firm Earthjustice.

The controversy over methyl iodide has simmered for years, but it erupted in 2010 when Department of Pesticide Regulation managers overruled both their own staff scientists and an agency-appointed peer review panel to approve the chemical for use in California agriculture.

UCLA professor John Froines, who led the peer review committee, appeared at a state Assembly hearing in Sacramento last April and said “science was subverted” in the state’s decision to approve methyl iodide.

“I would not want my family, my friends or anyone else to live or work or go to school near fields where this methyl iodide will be used,” Froines said after detailing the chemical’s properties that are known to cause cancer and damage nervous systems. “You had the best science you could have had, and the fact that it was ignored is devastating.”

Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance have sued the state Department of Pesticide Regulation on behalf of environmentalists and farm workers, arguing that regulators put politics before safety in approving methyl iodide and demanding the decision be reversed.

A Fresno County methyl iodide application last summer drew protests, and last month, Santa Cruz County supervisors passed a resolution urging Gov. Jerry Brown to reconsider methyl iodide registration. In March, the governor told a Ventura County newspaper that his administration would take a fresh look at the decision, but he’s taken no action since then.

So far, no health and safety issues related to the six California applications have been reported. But the political heat is too much for growers, especially those with recognizable labels, Elwood Ponce said.

“Big growers that market in all these stores can’t take a chance on a boycott," she said.

“Methyl iodide is indeed a political hot potato," said Paul Towers of Pesticide Action Network North America, whose group is a plaintiff in the methyl iodide lawsuit. “But what made it a political hot potato is grounded in scientific reality.”

Dennis Lane, a sales manager for Trical Inc., a Hollister-based company that markets and applies fumigants, said he thinks slow sales are normal for a new product.

“They haven’t seen it on their farm,” Lane said of California growers.

So far, at least one farmer, Tzexa Lee of Fresno County’s Cherta Farms, said his experience with an Arysta-funded fumigation was mixed. He lost 20 percent of the chili peppers he planted and doesn’t know why. The company took soil samples, but representatives haven’t given Lee any answers yet. Still, he said the chemical was great at weed killing.

“No workers were needed for weeding,” Lee said.

Grower David Sarabian also lost some of his pepper crop after a methyl iodide application in Fresno County. But he said scorching summer temperatures were to blame, not the chemical.

In Florida, the company reported to the Environmental Protection Agency 14 incidents of minor plant damage in 2008 and 2009. Such post-fumigation problems are reportedly rare.

In California, the high cost of methyl iodide might be keeping some growers away. Lane also noted that state-mandated half-mile buffer zones between fields that are fumigated with methyl iodide and homes, schools, day care centers and other such sensitive sites also limit its use because of the proximity of agricultural land to neighborhoods, especially in coastal areas.

“It almost makes it unusable,” Lane said.

Arysta officials declined to discuss methyl iodide use in California. The company’s website says MIDAS has been successfully applied on more than 17,000 acres in the southeastern U.S.

However, in several of those states, including Florida, one of the nation’s biggest agricultural producers, officials say methyl iodide use has been light. In an e-mail, Dennis Howard, chief of Florida’s Bureau of Pesticides, wrote that based on his discussions with Arysta and growers, “my understanding is that very few if any applications are occurring in Florida.”

At North Carolina State University, plant pathologist and extension specialist Frank Louws said, “The Montreal Protocol has seen methyl iodide as a true replacement (for methyl bromide), but our growers have not gravitated that way.”

In California, the fate of methyl iodide is in the hands of Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch, who will hear the Earthjustice case in January.

“I think many people are waiting to see what is the outcome of this lawsuit,” said Rick Tomlinson, public policy director for the California Strawberry Commission. “Farmers live in these communities. They’re not going to rush in and adopt something when there’s a concern.”

This story is courtesy of HealthyCal.org, a nonprofit journalism group based in Sacramento.

Australia OKs laxative agent as wine additive

Susanne Rust — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:05:03 +0000

Susanne Rust

STEVECOLEccs/istockphoto.com

The Australian government has given the nod to winemakers to begin using a chemical contained in laxatives.

While the chemical, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, has long been prized by the medical world for its anti-bulking and laxative properties, food scientists have discovered that, in small doses, it can be used to stabilize and thicken beverages and foods.

In the case of wine, the chemical prevents crystallization and cloudiness in white and sparkling varieties.

"I don't think the levels that are approved for use in wine in the EU and Australia will give that laxative effect," said Wendell Lee, general counsel for the Wine Institute, the trade group for California's wine industry.

The Winemakers' Federation of Australia appealed to its government to approve the chemical, arguing that the additive would save energy and money. That’s because traditional methods for preventing crystallization – cooling and filtration – can be highly energy intensive.

The chemical has not been approved for use in wine produced in the United States. However, an international agreement among several nations – including Australia; the European Union, where it is approved; and the U.S. – means that it is legal in imported wines.

But because there are no labeling requirements for food additives in wine, U.S. drinkers will remain in the dark as to its presence.

“There’s nothing you can do,” said Roger Boulton, professor of viticulture and enology at UC Davis. “There’s no way of knowing. If it’s imported and it’s an approved additive elsewhere, the consumer won’t know.”

According to both the EU and Australian government, the chemical does not alter the taste or consistency of wine, and it poses no harm to human health.

The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which oversees labeling and food additives in wine, has approved more than 50 wine additives, including soy flour, which helps with fermentation; potassium metabisulfite, which is used to sterilize and preserve wine; and copper sulfate, to remove hydrogen sulfide.

Lee, the Wine Institute's general counsel, said that while labeling information such as allergen content or carbohydrates might be helpful to consumers, "disclosing other substances that don't have a health impact may not be worthwhile."

"Do consumers need to be told about the substances that go into wine production?" Lee asked. "I'm not sure there's a lot of useful information in that."

In its ruling, the Australian government wrote that “use of the additive to stabilise wine and sparkling wine is technologically justified and would be expected to provide benefits to wine producers and consumers as an alternative to current treatments.”

As of Nov. 17, winemakers in Australia are allowed to add the chemical to their products.

Flame retardants found in butter

Researchers alarmed over arsenic in baby food

Report offers 'carbon neutral' road map for California

Susanne Rust — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:05:02 +0000

Susanne Rust

Sebastiano Pitruzzello/Flickr

If Californians are going to reach their goal of massive greenhouse gas reductions in the next 40 years, they’ve got their work cut out for them. But the goal is not impossible, according to a team of researchers that has provided a blueprint to get there.

In a paper published last week in the online version of the journal Science, the authors show it is possible for California to achieve its state-mandated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It's going to take a bit of effort and a conversion to carbon-neutral, electrically powered cars and appliances.

"The task is formidable, but not impossible," said Jim Williams, an associate professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and co-author of the paper. "And it isn't a matter of technology alone. R&D, investment, infrastructure planning, incentives for businesses, even behavior changes all have to work in tandem. This requires policy, and society needs to be behind it."

The study was conducted by researchers from UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Energy and Environmental Economics, a consulting firm.

California is the world’s sixth-largest economy and 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

A California law, known as AB 32, requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which is about a 30 percent below current emissions. The law further requires the state to reduce levels even more: 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

To do this, the state will have to move away from fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emitters and start investing in carbon-neutral electricity production, such as nuclear power, renewables and carbon storage. Williams and report co-author Margaret Torn, head of the Climate and Carbon Sciences Program at the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, said the means to achieve these goals exist with current technology.

"There's no technological reason why we shouldn’t achieve it," Williams said.

However, "when you go out to 2050, you will need to have some new technologies that don’t currently exist in commercialized or commercially competitive forms," he said.

Those technologies include carbon capture and sequestration, he said. The technology is there, but it's not commercialized yet.

But, "we don’t need to develop entirely new technologies," he said. "We're not talking about a hydrogen economy."

The authors say we will have to rely on a different – no carbon-producing – energy production system, however. They lay out four scenarios they say are equal in cost and investment: electricity that relies on nuclear power, renewables, carbon storage or a mixture of the three.

They say the bulk of efficiencies will have to be realized in the business sector through improvements in building insulation, lighting and appliances.

Torn says the most important thing about the group's paper is that it provides a "road map" for city and infrastructure planners.

"When we build new roads, for instance, or the Bay Bridge, things like bike lanes will be considered," she said.

Free cap-and-trade system beats carbon tax, study finds

Energy efficiency programs may continue, but controversy remains

Study disputes need to conserve farm water

Tia Ghose — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:05:05 +0000

Tia Ghose

ilfede/istockphoto.com

A new report suggests that California agriculture already uses water efficiently and disputes the notion that conservation could free up large amounts of water for other uses.

Increasing water efficiency would generate only 330,000 acre-feet per year of new water, according to the study [PDF], which was conducted by the Center for Irrigation Technology at CSU Fresno. That represents about 0.5 percent of the state's water use.

Switching from flood irrigation to less water-intensive methods, such as drip irrigation, usually will not make more water available in a given region because runoff may be reused by other farmers or fish and wildlife, the study says. Flows that seep into the soil but are not used by crops may replenish the groundwater supply.

"What they point out is that what isn’t used by one farmer is generally used by others," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, a coalition of public water agencies. Other users may benefit as well, he said. For instance, "virtually every wildlife refuge relies on return flows from agricultural for its sustenance."

In addition, improving agricultural water conservation may have unintended consequences. For instance, the study notes that many cities are dependent exclusively on groundwater, so boosting agricultural efficiency may result in less water seeping into underground aquifers, thereby depleting city supplies.

The only way to significantly reduce farm water consumption is to take some land out of production or change the types of crops, which is not a true water savings, but rather a diversion of water to other uses, the study concludes.

Not everyone agrees with the report's analysis.

While it's true that water systems are interconnected, more intensive farm water use has consequences beyond the total volume of water available, said Rebecca Nelson, lead researcher for the Comparative Groundwater Law and Policy Program at Stanford University.

"If a farmer uses water, generally, the quality of that water will decrease when it goes to the next use," she said.

More water application means more pesticides and fertilizers as well, and nitrogen-rich runoff from farms seeps into groundwater supplies and can contaminate wells with nitrates, she said. Nitrates might cause blue baby syndrome, which causes infants to carry less oxygen in their blood. That can be a particularly tough problem in poor communities where people cannot afford to dig deep wells that bypass nitrate contamination, she said.

Tracking water use is notoriously tricky, but there is room for efficiency improvements, said Heather Cooley, co-director of the water program at the Pacific Institute, which advocates for greater water use efficiency. Available data from 2001 suggests that many farmers in the state still rely on wasteful watering methods, such as flood irrigation. A 2009 report by the institute found that wider use of water-sparing techniques, such as drip or scheduled irrigation, could save up to 17 percent of the total agricultural water applied to fields.

In addition, the new report does not account for the fact that more efficient farming practices have other benefits, Cooley said. More efficient water use may improve crop yields and reduce the need to invest in water infrastructure, she said.

A big part of solving the water shortage in the state is to improve storage and capture systems, said Quinn, of the water agencies association. In wet years, places like the San Joaquin Valley are unable to adequately store surplus water for drier years, when the valley depletes groundwater supplies.

Swapping water-intensive crops such as rice for less-thirsty crops such as grapes can decrease farms' water consumption, though the consumer demand and costs of switching to different crops can be a deterrent, the study notes.

Stanford's Nelson contends that farmers plant water-guzzling crops because water is not priced appropriately. While some farmers pay for water use, many pump from wells on their property and pay only for the electricity to draw water from the ground. That makes crops like rice seem artificially cheap to produce, Nelson said.

"There’s no water pricing scheme that says, 'What are the environmental impacts of using this water, what are the social impacts of using water?,' and in my view, that would be a sensible way of making sure the use of water is optimal," she said.

Federal bills compete over national forests

Susanne Rust — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:05:02 +0000

Susanne Rust

Pgiam/istockphoto.com

Nearly 60 million acres of national forests were put off-limits to motor vehicles, road building and logging during the Clinton administration.

Last week, a bill was introduced that would turn that rule into law.

According to U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a sponsor of the bill along with U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash., the Roadless Area Conservation Act would protect “hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.”

Various forms of this bill have been introduced by Inslee and Cantwell since 2002.

“There is an urgent need to safeguard the remaining undeveloped forest lands as a home for wildlife, a haven for recreation and a heritage for future generations,” Cantwell said.

But not everyone is convinced. And one California congressman wants to make sure that bill never sees the light of day. Instead, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., introduced a bill – the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act – in April that would release about 43 million of those acres to be used for oil and gas development, motorized recreation and logging.

“Millions of acres of land across the United States are being held under lock and key unnecessarily,” McCarthy said. “My bill acts on recommendations made by government agencies managing these lands so they are opened up for increased public use.”

The recommendations upon which McCarthy’s bill relies are from a 1979 U.S. Forest Service report [PDF] that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had called “inadequate because of its use of unsupported and undocumented statements, its lack of related data on demands for resources, and its unbalanced economic approach.”

The report recommends keeping 15 million acres protected, allocating 36 million for non-wilderness and holding an additional 11 million aside for further planning.

"This is just common sense," McCarthy said. "By opening these lands up to the residents of our local communities and across the country for their use and enjoyment, we can help create jobs, boost local economies and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires."

Joe Walsh, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service, said the document is not one the Forest Service uses anymore.

"Science changes," Walsh said. "We like to use the latest science we have, so we’re always on the cutting edge."

According to the 1979 report: “Resource trade-offs were compelling reasons for allocating a roadless area to either the wilderness or non-wilderness category."

“Areas with high oil and gas potential were normally not allocated to wilderness," the report stated, adding that "high timber values have been used as reasons to allocate an area to non-wilderness.”

Andrea McCarthy, a spokeswoman for Kevin McCarthy, said it makes sense to allow local land managers to have a say in how to use these resources.

“These decisions should be made on a local level, not left up to bureaucrats in D.C.,” she said. She added that the bill "does not terminate existing, congressionally designated wilderness areas, nor does it release wilderness study areas or roadless areas deemed suitable for wilderness."

The roadless rule, which was issued in 2001 by President Bill Clinton, was the result of the largest public lands review process in U.S. history. It also has been in the courts since its inception.

Five months after it was implemented, a federal court in Idaho blocked it. Then, in 2005, the Bush administration repealed the rule and replaced it with a state petition process.

Attorneys general in California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington sued, and in 2006, a federal judge ruled in their favor. The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the Clinton rule.

In 2008, a federal judge in Wyoming blocked the rule. That was then sent to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled again in favor of the Clinton rule.

With two agreeing rulings from the circuit courts, the rule will stand – unless a new law is made.

"The courts agree on the ruling," said Paul Spitler, a policy expert with The Wilderness Society, "but Congress trumps rulings. And if McCarthy's bill gets through, these rulings are irrelevant."

The Wilderness Society supports the Clinton rule.

Spitler said McCarthy's bill is a "wholesale attack on values that Americans hold dear and a grand giveaway to great corporate polluters."

Trucking companies sue EPA over emissions regulations

Susanne Rust — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:05:03 +0000

Susanne Rust

kqedquest/Flickr

Four small California trucking companies are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over new emissions regulations. The suit comes despite approval of the regulations by the trucking industry’s largest trade group, the American Trucking Associations.

The companies claim they were left out of negotiations regarding the new regulations. They say the new rules will require a change in truck design and, therefore, substantial costs.

The companies are suing on the grounds that the EPA did not submit regulations to its Science Advisory Board, a panel that reviews Clean Air Act changes.

The EPA was not available for comment yesterday.

The Science Advisory Board includes scientists nominated from academia, industry and other research organizations who review new limitations and regulations proposed under the Clean Air Act.

"We're suing because federal regulators can't be allowed to thumb their noses at legal safeguards that are designed to ensure that new regulations are credible and well-considered," Ted Hadzi-Antich, senior staff attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said in a statement. "When EPA acts like a scofflaw, it has to be called to account."

The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the four trucking companies.

The rules, which appeared in the Federal Register in September, will require a 20 percent cut in emissions for heavy trucks by 2018.

"My business has already been crushed by the dismal economy and merciless regulatory climate in California,” said Norman R. “Skip” Brown, owner of Delta Construction, one of the four companies named in the suit. “With these regulations in place, my four heavy-duty vehicles could be declared obsolete, and there will be no hope my employees could get back to work.”

The four companies named in the suit are the California Dump Truck Owners Association, the Southern California Contractors Association Inc., Dalton Trucking Inc. and Delta Construction Co. Inc.

Californians support green future, but worry about price

Agency: Emissions must be curbed now to avoid severe warming