- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Sustain] Trees and carbon offsets
by Eric Brooks 25 Sep '07

25 Sep '07

Hi all Though the Audubon report makes some important points it is far too simplistic and overstated, and even incorrect, in many aspects. For example, in its 'above ground/below ground' hypothesis it is totally neglecting to include the vast amount of carbon stored in the soil of mature natural forests as root systems proliferate and trees/vegetation die and get subsumed into that forest floor. Nor does it account for the massive amount of carbon permanently stored in large mature trees, which is essentially 'below ground'. However, it would be totally legitimate to point out that although mature forests store huge amounts of carbon that would otherwise reach the atmosphere, forest maturity takes so long to develop that it won't happen fast enough with current newly restored forest watersheds to fully address the -immediate- climate crisis that is threatening us over the next three decades. (So in the short term, indigenous prairie restoration could give us more bang for the buck.) But, for long term climate stability it is critical that we restore natural forests to a massive degree; both in the tropics -and- temperate latitudes. The report also totally fails to account for an entire holistic cycle of what a forest watershed accomplishes. Yes, temperate forests in cooler climates do absorb heat, but in mountainous terrains they are also critical to securing the soil and keeping water from rapidly running off of higher elevations when there is no solid forest soil to act as a sponge and stabilizer. So deforested highlands actually promote -more- warming because without them there is no way to stabilize the snow pack in those highlands. The snow then melts and runs off. The mountains turn to hard pack desert and brushland, and since the snow pack is gone, a vast reflector of heat back up into the atmosphere is lost. So restoration of forests is vital to even short term climate crisis solutions in that respect. Furthermore this water storage effect is especially critical in -all- areas of the planet, to creating the general sponge, wind break, and cooling effect that will ensure the proper storage and preservation of water sources and snow pack that would otherwise rapidly run off into the oceans. And of course, one of the key crises that we are facing with climate change is dramatic water loss and run-off. So restoring -all- forests, everywhere on Earth, is absolutely -key- to addressing even the -immediate- climate crisis. Keep in mind that Audubon is a partly corporate funded, and very middle of the road group that often puts out such short sighted analysis, and sometimes even foolishly supports activities that are -bad- for the environment. Still, the point about forest plantations is right on, and those plantations will -increase- global warming if allowed into the equation because they are basically fertilized, pesticided crops just like any other crop, and lead to loss of strong forest soils and water/snow retention as noted above; this because trees as crops deplete soil and land stability just as any other mono-crops do, until finally crop forest land can't support mature forests any longer and can even permanently collapse to desert or other diminished flat land. peace Eric Brooks susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Just in case you thought trees would be a significant part of carbon sequestration programs ... The following is a review of an article that is in the current edition of Audubon. > > Sue > > > A Critique of Tree Planting in Response to Global Warming > > In "As Ugly As a Tree" in the September/October issue of Audubon, conservationist and author Ted Williams blasts the mass planting of trees as an offset to the production of carbon dioxide.Â For starters, most of the tree planting that is taking place as a response to global warming is the planting of monocultures; and monocultures, even of nativeÂ species, prevent natural forests from growing on the given sites. Plantations do not harbor the diversity of species found in natural forests, and they are generally not sustainable, as they usually require heavy applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides.Â > > Furthermore, although prevention of logging and restoration of cutover forests, preferably through allowing natural re-growth, can slow global warming, planting trees cannot sequester enough carbon to make a meaningful impact on climate change.Â Williams quotes Andy Stahl director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE):Â there are two kinds of carbon on the planet, above ground carbon and below ground carbon, which is stored in fossil fuels.Â Above ground carbon cycles as vegetation grows, taking in carbon; and dies, releasing it.Â "Planting trees doesn't affect the amount of carbon above ground in any long-term sense; it just changes its location. We're screwing ourselves if we use tree planting to justify pumping carbon from underground."Â > > In terms of carbon sequestration, restoring prairies appears to be more useful than planting forests, Williams states.Â Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has found through modeling that, north of Florida, trees "absorb more heat from the sun than surrounding low vegetation, particularly when it's covered with snow."Â Grassland and shrub lands sequester carbon in their extensive underground root systems, and they "reflect solar heat."Â > > Mass tree planting is being promoted by industries heavily invested in fossil fuels as a means of greening their image.Â Individuals can usefully plant trees around their houses to provide natural cooling; and some forms of carbon offsetting--supporting energy conservation and renewable energy and assisting in prairie restoration, for example, "make excellent sense."Â However, Williams concludes that we should not allow ourselves to be taken in by industry's message that voluntary efforts alone can make a difference to climate change.Â Legislation will be necessary, and Williams asks for "mandatory and draconian caps of carbon emissions."Â > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> >> Sent: Sep 24, 2007 11:39 AM >> To: gravanis(a)earthlink.net >> Subject: Re: Trees and carbon offsets >> >> Hi Ruth, >> >> I went on line to look for this in the current edition of Audubon but could not find it. DO you have the link? >> >> Sue >> >> -- Ruth Gravanis <gravanis(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> I highly recommend this article in the current issue of Audubon magazine, Sept-Oct, 2007, page 44: >> >> "As Ugly as a Tree" by Ted Williams >> >> "Some carbon offsetting - that which supports energy conservation or renewable enery - makes excellent sense. But some doesn't, especially the wrong kind of tree planting - that is, most of it." >> >> >> --Ruth >> >> >> > > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: 9/24 press conference on EJ lawsuit against proposed 'peaker' plant
by Eric Brooks 24 Sep '07

24 Sep '07

====== Forwarded Message ====== Date: 9/23/07 10:39 AM Received: 9/23/07 1:46 PM -0400 From: josh(a)brightlinedefense.org (Joshua Arce) To: fyi(a)brightlinedefense.org Hello, Please see the attached Media Advisory regarding our press conference, tomorrow Monday 9/24 from 1:30-2:30 to discuss our filing of a federal lawsuit to stop construction of the City's proposed combustion turbine peaker plant in Potrero. The case involves issues that have arisen since the Supreme Court's greenhouse gas ruling in April's Massachusetts v. EPA case as well as the continuing problem of disproportionate environmental impact of energy production-related pollution on low-income and minority neighborhoods. To be held at the federal courthouse at 450 Golden Gate, on the plaza next to the entrance. Please come by if you are free. Josh MEDIA ADVISORY For Monday, September 24, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS FILE SUIT TO HALT CONSTRUCTION OF COMBUSTION TURBINE POWER PLANT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD Federal Lawsuit Seeks Injunction to Stay Air Quality Permits for Proposed "Peaker" Plant in Southeast San Francisco WHEN: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM WHERE: Phillip Burton Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue @ Larkin On the Plaza, Next to the Courthouse Entrance WHO: Non profit public interest lawyers, community leaders, activists and organizations representing low income non English speaking community CONTACT: Joshua Arce at 415-837-0600 or josh(a)brightlinedefense.org BACKGROUND: Brightline Defense Project will file suit in federal district court to stop the City of San Francisco's proposed combustion turbine power plants from receiving air quality permits necessary to allow its construction in the city's Potrero neighborhood. The filing parties allege that the proposed plants, consisting of combustion turbine "peakers" designed to supply energy in times of excess demand, has not been properly studied by the Environmental Protection Agency and Bay Area Air Quality Management District in light of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed plants, the City's solution to prompt closure of the aging Mirant Power Plant, is an inferior alternative to proposals that would shutter the Mirant plant without the addition of new fossil-fuel burning power plants to this low-income, mostly minority area, and thus violates the parties' civil rights. #### ====== End Forwarded Message ====== _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0

[Sustain] Urgent: Call School Board To Stop Lennar's Toxic Exposures To Students
by Eric Brooks 24 Sep '07

24 Sep '07

Hi all, If you call the School Board today, you can help stop a toxic travesty in San Francisco. Over the past year, the Miami based Lennar construction corporation has been exposing children and residents in San Francisco to toxic exposures of deadly chemicals, most notably the extremely dangerous and cancer causing air born substance, asbestos. Lennar was given permission to do large scale housing and condo construction in the Bayview Hunters point district of San Francisco, and almost immediately began violating safety precautions meant to prevent toxic dust and asbestos in that area from being released into the City's air. Community activists went before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to demand that Lennar's construction work to be halted until it can be guaranteed safe to the public, but unfortunately, under serious pressure from Lennar and the San Francisco Department of Public Health (which is outrageously complicit in Lennar's violations) six of our eleven Board of Supervisors members voted in the majority to allow Lennar to continue its hazardous behavior. But the fight is not over. Eric Mar and other members of the San Francisco Board of Education have brought new hope by drafting their own resolution to insist that Lennar's construction be halted until proper testing can be done to guarantee that public school students will not be exposed to toxic emissions from Lennar's work. The School Board will vote on this resolution as early as tomorrow, Tuesday, September 25th at around 6pm. _*What You Can Do*_ Take a quick moment to call the San Francisco School Board Executive Assistant's office at: 415-241-6427 and give them the following message: "Please forward my message to all School Board members. Please suspend the rules, and vote immediately to insist that schools and students near the Lennar construction site be tested for chemical and asbestos exposure, before allowing Lennar's construction to continue." If you get an answering machine, just leave your message on the machine. For more information, see the San Francisco Bay Guardian report at: http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=3084 Thanks for you action and support! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org

1 0

[Sustain] SF DOE on Peak Moment TV
by Dennis Brumm 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Cal Broomhead, Melissa Capria on Peak Moment (recorded a year ago): http://www.peakmoment.tv/conversations/74.html

1 0

[Sustain] Important Sustainability Working Group - Next Thu, Sep 27, 7:30 pm, SFGP Office
by Eric Brooks 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Hi all, The Sustainability Working Group meeting next Thursday the 27th, is very important because we will be deciding on three action items 1) To take an active role in stopping another toxic pollution source from being approved as early as this month in the Bayview Hunters Point 2) To support SF School Board efforts to get a moratorium on the extremely hazardous Lennar construction projects in the Bayview Hunters Point 3) To get the SFGP to take a strong stand against biofuels, which reports and studies are showing more and more every day to be an extremely destructive force to the planet's biosphere, human economies, and food security. The Meeting is: Thursday September 27, 7:30pm SFGP Office peace Eric

1 0

[Sustain] [Fwd: Nuclear Energy Initiative Enters Circulation]
by Eric Brooks 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Nicole Winger September 6, 2007 (916) 653-6575 Nuclear Energy Initiative Enters Circulation Nuclear Energy. Removal of Prohibitions on the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants. Statute. SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for his measure. The Attorney General prepares the legal title and summary that is required to appear on initiative petitions. When the official language is complete, the Attorney General forwards it to the proponent and to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then provides calendar deadlines to the proponent and to county elections officials, and the initiative may be circulated for signatures. The Attorney General’s official title and summary for this measure is as follows: NUCLEAR ENERGY. REMOVAL OF PROHIBITIONS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. STATUTE. Repeals existing restrictions on state approval of construction of nuclear power plants. Repeals existing state process for determining adequacy of nuclear waste storage, and requires acceptance of federally-approved storage methods. Creates technical restrictions and limitations on the approval of nuclear power plants in specified areas of the state which are seismically active or biologically sensitive or where the nuclear power plant would discharge into navigable rivers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential, unknown state and local administrative costs, largely paid for by fees, for review of new power plant applications and for regulatory enforcement and emergency planning related to new power plant construction and operation. Potential, unknown financial exposure to the state in the long term, potentially in the millions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs at each new nuclear power plant site, and potentially in the billions of dollars in the event of a major radioactive release. Potential, unknown increase in state and local revenues in the long term, to the extent the measure generates new investment in the state in the nuclear power industry that is not fully offset by decreased investment in other energy sectors. (Initiative 07-0027.) The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1267 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 07-0027. The proponent for this measure, Chuck DeVore, must collect the signatures of 433,971 registered voters – the number equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election – in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. The proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by February 4, 2008. The initiative proponent can be reached at (949) 413-4472. ###

2 1

[Sustain] UK Guardian: New Study - Biofuels Will Cause Release Of 2 to 9 Times More CO2
by Eric Brooks 17 Sep '07

17 Sep '07

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/17/climatechange.energy Biofuels switch a mistake, say researchers * Tristan Farrow * The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian> * Friday August 17 2007 20% of the UK's agricultural land could be used to grow biofuels, such as rape seed, by 2010. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels. Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said. Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020. "Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels." Dr Righelato's study, with Dominick Spracklen from the University of Leeds, is the first to calculate the impact of biofuel carbon emissions across the whole cycle of planting, extraction and conversion into fuel. They report in the journal Science that between two and nine times more carbon emissions are avoided by trapping carbon in trees and forest soil than by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels. Around 40% of Europe's agricultural land would be needed to grow biofuel crops to meet the 10% fossil fuel substitution target. That demand on arable land cannot be met in the EU or the US, say the scientists, so is likely to shift the burden on land in developing countries. The National Farmers Union said 20% of Britain's agricultural land could be used to grow biofuels by 2010. However, the researchers say reforesting the land would be a better way to reduce emissions. Biofuels look good in climate change terms from a Western perspective, said Dr Spracklen, but globally they actually lead to higher carbon emissions. "Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market", he said. The researchers say the emphasis should be placed on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use and moving to carbon-free alternatives such as renewable energy. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Bob Bowman - Letter to the Pentagon, Sept. 13, 2007
by Don Eichelberger 15 Sep '07

15 Sep '07

1 0

[Sustain] FWD: Urgent - SB 880 (Kangaroos) Call Gov. To VETO SB 880
by Eric Brooks 14 Sep '07

14 Sep '07

The Governor's office is getting calls - but we need MORE please. It's still not too late. One quick call ... We need to get thousands of calls to the Governor urging him to VETO SB 880. It's QUICK and EASY: 1) Call: 916/445-2841 between 9a-5p PT 2) Select 1 for English 3) Select 2 to Voice Position on Legislation 4) Select 0 to speak to an operator (the bill is no longer an automated option) 5) Tell the operator that you are a registered voter in CA and urge the Gov to veto SB 880 Please circulate to as many people as possible - we have one last chance to kill this bill. *In addition, if you have a few minutes:* Please write a one-sentence letter and fax it to the Governor. Fax number below. September 5, 2007 was a sad day for the kangaroos. SB 880, Calderon's kangaroo bill, passed by an (unofficial) vote of 44:27--41 votes needed. (See below.) The bill is now on the Governor's desk. It seems likely that he will sign this travesty as soon as possible to avoid any bad press. *WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW: * Contact the Governor immediately, urge him to veto this cruel and regressive legislation. Address: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, The State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814 *Telephone -* 916/445-2841 ** *Fax -* 916/445-4633 ** *E-mail -* governor(a)governor.ca.gov (NOTE: Letters carry more weight than e-mails.) THIS BILL HAS HAD NEAR ZERO COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA. SOME LETTERS TO THE EDITORS OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS MIGHT HELP PUT SOME PRESSURE ON SCHWARZENEGGER TO DO THE RIGHT THING. HURRY! UNOFFICIAL BALLOT MEASURE: SB 880 AUTHOR: Calderon TOPIC: Crime. DATE: 09/05/2007 LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR MOTION: SB 880 Calderon Senate Third Reading By NUNEZ (AYES 44. NOES 27.) (PASS) AYES **** Aghazarian Anderson Arambula Bass Charles Calderon Carter Cook Davis De La Torre De Leon DeVore Duvall Dymally Emmerson Evans Fuentes Fuller Gaines Galgiani Garrick Hernandez Horton Houston Huff Huffman Jeffries Keene La Malfa Maze Mendoza Nakanishi Niello Parra Portantino Price Sharon Runner Silva Soto Torrico Tran Villines Walters Wolk Nunez NOES **** Adams Beall Benoit Berg Berryhill Blakeslee Brownley Caballero DeSaulnier Feuer Garcia Hancock Hayashi Krekorian Laird Leno Levine Lieber Lieu Ma Mullin Nava Ruskin Salas Smyth Spitzer Swanson ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING ********************************* Coto Eng Jones Karnette Plescia Saldana Solorio Strickland Vacancy To subscribe to Bay Area Animal Rights Network please send blank email to: baarn-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com For events: Please see yahoogroups message archives and calendar at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/baarn -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Blue Gold Water Blog
by Martin Zehr 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

Dear All, This is an invitation to register for and contribute to Blue Gold, the European Water Partnership's water blog at www.questjournalists.com or www.ewp.eu. Blue Gold serves as an information and discussion platform for the water community and welcomes members and contributions from across the globe. The more the merrier. We want to hear your news as well as your views and comments. We look forward to welcoming you to Blue Gold. And please feel free to distribute this invitation within your networks. Best regards, James M. Dorsey Moderator Monday, September 10, 2007 Turning Delta ruling into opportunity By Peter Gleick - Special To The Bee On Aug. 31, a federal judge acknowledged what many people have long known-we have run up against the limits of our water supplies. U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ruled that state and federal water managers must change how they operate California's water system to reduce environmental harm. It now seems inevitable that the total amount of water taken from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will have to be scaled back. While the details and magnitude of these changes still must be worked out, we're already hearing the predictable cries of catastrophe, economic collapse and impending doom. This crisis has been coming for a long time, but it isn't a surprise and need not be a disaster. We now have the opportunity to discuss issues that have long been ignored or considered taboo: inappropriate water rights and allocations, groundwater management and use, real land-use planning, and water-use efficiency. In the past, we've always assumed that we could grow as fast as we wanted, wherever we wanted, and find new water sources to meet our demands. Over the past century, we spent hundreds of billions of dollars building dams, reservoirs, aqueducts and pipelines to realize this vision of California. The complex water management system we built has permitted 37 million of us to live, work and play here. But we are beginning to understand that our manipulation of the water system, based on 19th and 20th century ideas, hurts the natural environment. We are killing our rivers, deltas, wetlands, birds and fish. While we didn't recognize or care about those impacts in the last century, we do now. The judge's decision shows that the system we built must be modified to address the environmental and economic challenges of this century. The water use of the agricultural sector should be re-evaluated. Our farms consume 80 percent of the water used by California, but produce far less than 10 percent of our jobs and revenue. We must continue to have a healthy agricultural community, while using less water. To grow more food with less water, we must improve irrigation efficiency, monitor and measure all groundwater use, choose to grow fewer water-intensive crops and develop new rules to encourage these improvements. Current water rights regimes in California, combined with inappropriate federal subsidies for water and certain crops, have locked in a higher level of waste and inefficiency than we can afford. Land-use planning also needs to be re-evaluated. It makes little sense to permit uncontrolled development in floodplains, only to pass flood risks from developers to homeowners or the state. It is myopic to build McMansions on prime farmland with landscaping that sucks up water faster than farms, with no assurance that a reliable water supply will be available. Conservation needs to be redefined. It needn't mean brown lawns, shorter showers or mandatory rationing. It is about doing what we want, but with less water. We use far more water today than is necessary, whether for flushing our toilets, growing food or making semiconductors. Our conservation efforts have eased this inefficient use, enabling us to grow our economy and population over the past several years without increasing our water demand. But far more could be done. Efforts to improve water-use efficiency have slacked off in the past decade. Even without the judge's wake-up call, our water agencies and utilities should have been implementing new efficiency programs to deal with the drought. The faster we reduce inefficient uses, the longer we can delay or avoid mandatory cutbacks. While predictions of economic disaster arising from the Delta decision may come true, they don't have to. But it will take a re-evaluation of our ideas about water-use and political courage by the governor, Legislature and water users to have open and honest discussions about how to redesign our water system so that it is smart, efficient and sustainable. Only then can we transform this water crisis into an opportunity. US House of Representatives Form Water Caucus Some members of both parties in the US House of Representatives are forming a Congressional Water Caucus to promote scientific information and discussion about water resources and use, according to the American Water Works Association's WaterWeek newsletter said. Co-chairs of the new caucus, launched in mid-August, are Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), John Linder (R-GA), Jim Costa (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA) and Grace Napolitano (D-CA). The caucus has 29 other original members - 17 Democrats and 12 Republicans. In a letter to House members, the caucus members set forth 12 principles of water policy they will pursue, including: ensuring an adequate supply of fresh water for all US citizens, considering "all available technologies" for increasing the water supply while safeguarding the environment, implementing strategies for water reuse, reducing bureaucratic "red tape" for local communities seeking to build water infrastructure, encouraging federal support for "groundwater banking" for sustainable water supplies, and collecting and sharing water data to determine the effectiveness of policies. Of the caucus's original members and in addition to the co-chairs, California has the largest number of caucus members at 12, followed by Texas (4), Maryland (2), and one each from Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. Court ruling means big California water crunch A federal judge's August 31 decision ordering cutbacks in water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to other parts of California has water managers throughout the state warning of multi-year shortages, conservation mandates and negative effects on the economy, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. "We are in for a tremendous shift in the way we operate our agencies and access . water supplies for our customers," Gary Arant, general manager of the Valley Center (CA) Municipal Water District, was quoted in the story as saying. US District Court Judge Oliver Wanger's decision last week was aimed at protecting the Delta smelt, a type of small fish that lives in the Sacramento Delta. Huge volumes of water from the Delta are sent through canals and aqueducts to as far away as San Diego and Los Angeles, and it's estimated that the ruling will reduce those water deliveries anywhere from 14 percent to 37 percent, the article said. Among other reactions, the decision was praised by environmentalists and criticized by Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger. Water managers and others quoted by the Union-Tribune outlined these likely results of the court ruling: water price increases to promote conservation, mandatory lawn-watering and other use restrictions, addition of heavily treated wastewater to reservoirs to supplement drinking water supplies, and cutbacks in new-home building permits and water service to businesses. Mark Watton, general manager of the Otay Water District, was quoted as saying, "We are really in sort of a short-term crunch here over the next two to six years."

1 0