Press Release from US Forest Service August 18, 2011:

USDA Forest Service Chief Pushes for Rapid Clean-up After Wallow Fire in Arizona

Rehabilitation of the landscape is already underway

WASHINGTON, August 17, 2011–U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell today restated his agency’s commitment to an accelerated rehabilitation of the lands devastated by the Wallow fire, which occurred this spring.

This year, Arizona and New Mexico experienced the worst fires in the states’ histories. The Wallow fire in Arizona burned more than 538,000 acres. Although 38 structures burned, a system of fuel treatments developed cooperatively by federal, state and local governments, as well as private citizens, successfully reduced fire behavior and allowed firefighters to protect thousands of structures and, in many places, halt the spread of the fire.

In their commitment to rehabilitate lands in Arizona, Forest Service work crews have already:

• Seeded 99 percent of 80,000 burned acres;
• Reduced the risk of falling trees along 300 miles of roads; and
• Identified over 38 miles of power line corridors for emergency hazard tree removal.

Together, these trees could provide 162,000 tons or 26.5 million board feet of material for wood products. In addition, other recovery operations on 10,400 acres could result in the removal of an additional 150,000 tons or 24.6 million board feet of wood.

“The response to this fire must be immediate and sustained,” Tidwell said. “The Forest Service is fully committed to the recovery and rehabilitation mission in the post Wallow fire environment.”

Tidwell has directed agency personnel to proceed expeditiously so that burned timber can be used for higher valued wood products.

In eastern Arizona, fire-killed trees can only be used for lumber for about two years after they are burned. The removal of dead and fire-damaged trees before then will enable the recovery of timber and other forest products while the wood is still usable saw timber. Harvesting the wood will also protect communities, roads, power-line corridors and the public.

Roadside corridor work will be finished by the end of 2012 and other projects will be concluded as quickly as possible.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, in partnership with tribal, state, county, and local governments, as well as a group of diverse stakeholders, is aggressively identifying the necessary recovery work and opportunities for salvage. Over the next several months, after environmental analyses and administrative reviews, the forest will prepare contracts.

“The hard work of the these groups and the experience of working within the strong collaborative process that supported the White Mountain Stewardship project will help us successfully implement the recovery work and opportunities to salvage saw timber and biomass,” Tidwell said.

In addition to the ongoing rehabilitation work in Arizona and other states, the Forest Service is committed to an ambitious program for managing America’s forests, focusing on restoration and conservation by forming partnerships to help maintain the health of all forest lands, public and private, whether or not the Forest Service manages them directly. This approach is not only creating jobs and promoting healthier natural and water resources, but it will reduce the risk of large and dangerous wildfires.

This type of restoration work received a boost recently in the largest ever study of fuel treatment effectiveness by the Forest Service. Agency researchers announced in July that intense thinning treatments that leave between 50 and 100 trees per acre are the most effective in reducing the probability of crown fires in the dry forests of the western United States. The study, published in a recent issue of the Canadian Journal of Forest Research, provides a scientific basis for establishing quantitative guidelines for reducing stand densities and surface fuels.

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Recreational activities on National Forest System land contribute $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.

###

Press Release August 9, 2011:

• SunPower Corp.  • First Solar, Inc.  • Defenders of Wildlife  • Sierra Club  • Center for Biological Diversity 

Statement on Settlement Agreement Between National Environmental Organizations and Solar Development Companies Regarding San Luis Obispo Solar Projects

Governor Brown Commends Agreement

August 9, 2011

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (August 9, 2011) – Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement today with SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWRA, SPWRB) and Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a subsidiary of First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR), on a settlement agreement regarding two solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant projects in development in San Luis Obispo County, Calif.

With regard to the agreement, California Governor Jerry Brown said, “This is another step in positioning California as the national leader in solar technology. These projects and California’s overall renewable energy industry will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

The conservation organizations and solar development companies said: “Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Topaz and SunPower have reached an agreement to provide additional conservation protections for the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County, Calif., where SunPower’s 250-megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch and Topaz’s 550-megawatt Topaz Solar Farm are planned for the generation of renewable solar power for delivery to California’s grid.

Governor Brown’s office facilitated the discussions leading to this agreement and the organizations and companies appreciate the Governor’s leadership in this matter.

The projects are located in the Carrizo Plain, a core recovery area for endangered San Joaquin kit fox and giant kangaroo rats. While both companies have previously agreed to significant commitments to protect and preserve species in this important habitat area and have received project approvals based on environmental reviews by various federal, state and local agencies, with this agreement SunPower and Topaz commit to provide a suite of additional environmental benefits to further increase protection of the area. This agreement provides for additional conservation for the remaining unprotected lands in the northern Carrizo Plain above and beyond those provided under existing local, state and federal permits.

The significant, additional environmental benefits under the agreement include:

• -More than 9,000 acres will be added to the 17,000 acres of land required to be permanently protected and preserved under the permits, resulting in a total of approximately 26,000 acres, or about 40 square miles, of the Carrizo Plain receiving protection as a result of these projects.
• -Thirty miles of fencing will be removed from the area, allowing for greater wildlife movement around the projects. Additional beneficial enhancements will be made to the wildlife-friendly fencing around the solar system arrays.
• -No rodenticides will be used in the construction or operation of the projects, and the solar companies will help fund efforts to eliminate rodenticides on the Carrizo Plain and in other San Joaquin kit fox conservation areas.
• -Topaz and SunPower will make additional significant financial contributions to help San Luis Obispo County acquire lots in the largely undeveloped subdivision in the Carrizo Plain to restore for wildlife conservation.

The parties negotiated in good faith and recognize that many challenges may be minimized or avoided in the future through earlier, more comprehensive communication between conservation groups and the solar companies with the goal to locate projects outside of important wildlife areas and sensitive natural resources. Our organizations strongly support the development of renewable energy in California to reduce carbon emissions and transition away from fossil fuels, and believe that renewable energy projects must be located and designed in the most sustainable manner possible to ensure that projects move forward expeditiously and avoid, minimize, and mitigate their impacts on our native wildlife and natural landscapes.”

For First Solar Investors
This release contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The forwardlooking statements in this release do not constitute guarantees of future performance. Those statements involve a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, including risks associated with the company’s business involving the company’s products, their development and distribution, economic and competitive factors and the company’s key strategic relationships and other risks detailed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. First Solar assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking information contained in this press release or with respect to the announcements described herein.

SunPower’s Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that do not represent historical facts and may be based on underlying assumptions. SunPower uses words and phrases such as “”will,” “agreement to,” “commit,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements in this press release. Such forwardlooking statements are based on information available to SunPower as of the date of this release and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, some beyond its control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by these forwardlooking statements, including risks and uncertainties such as: (i) the impact of regulatory changes and the continuation of governmental and related economic incentives promoting the use of solar power; (ii) construction difficulties or potential delays, including obtaining land use rights, permits, license, other governmental approvals, and
transmission access and upgrades, and any litigation relating thereto; (iii) the significant investment required to construct power plants and SunPower’s ability to sell or otherwise monetize power plants; and (iv) other risks described in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 2, 2011, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011 and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the company’s views as of any subsequent date, and the company is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any responsibility to, update or alter its forwardlooking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

COMMENT: I doubt there is a single solar energy project in the West that is not the target of radical environmental groups. No matter where one goes, it seems a project is always impacting some endangered species. SDolar projects in soputheastern California in the Mohave Desert are claimed to be imparing the habitat of the Mohave desert tortoises for example.

Litigious environmental groups can block projects for years. Or…as they seem to be doing mnore and more..agree to drop all their opposition if they get what they want.

And that is on top of whatever US Fish and Wildlife extracts from projects to grant an “incidental take permit”.

At least this solar project gets a green light…with the added cost of saving foxes and kangaroo rats. Next time you turn on your lights, remember some rats are saying thank you.

_____________________________________________

Western water rights imperiled by Endangered Species Act

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Revise Critical Habitat For Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The endangered species tax

Enviro-Marxists seek to protect the environment by destroying capitalism

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

It is Time to Reform the Endangered Species Act

Reformation of the Endangered Species Act
_____________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

The western United States has long been dependent on damming and diverting water from rivers to irrigate farms and provide drinking water to cities.

Tucson, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other cities depend on an intricate network of water management systems.

Some of the most productive irrigation areas on earth such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley of California depend on diverted water.

Tied to these storage and diversion projects and uses are a network of state water rights.

Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belongs to the farms and ranches and cities.

Millions of people and billions of dollars of our economy depend on being able to use these water rights for the purposes they were originally obtained for.

But the structure of water rights and the reliance on those rights by cities and farms and everyone else in the West is being challenged via the Endangered Species Act.

The water and the watersheds that the water originates from are being declared endangered species habitat and restrictions are being forced on the access and use to the water in the name of protecting endangered species.

In Arizona, for example, the right of Phoenix, the Salt River Project and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to divert Colorado River and Salt River water to Phoenix and Tucson is being threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service because those diversion allegedly endanger everything from gila topminnow, chiricahua leopard frogs, willow flycatchers, etc.

The environmental mantra starts with the claim that 80 or 90% of Arizona riparian habitats have been lost due to water diversions.

Under the Endangered Species Act the federal government has a powerful tool to usurp state water rights in the name of protecting habitat for endangered species.

One prime example is the fight in central California over the Delta Smelt…a minnow like fish whose existence was alleged to be threatened by diversion of the water of the Sacramento River to farms in the Central Valley.

Water deliveries to the farms has been reduced to protect the smelt.

This is a back door way for the federal government to take away water rights granted by the states that have been in beneficial use for…in many cases…over 100 years.

The basis for taking away state-granted water rights is Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act…which basically provides that any modification of a habitat of an endangered species is a crime.

Thus diverting water a fish could live in is a criminal act.

This even though the water users…cities and farms…have had property rights to the water for many years.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Endangered Species Act and its implementation via US Fish and Wildlife (driven by hundreds of lawsuits from environmental litigation factories such as the Center for Biological Diversity) are the “incidental take permits” or ITPs that USF&W can issue allowing people to continue to divert their water provided they pay what amounts to extortion to USF&W.

Environmental litigation factories have joined the extortion game, offering to drop their lawsuits if they are paid money or some other ransom is delivered to them.

Here is one prime example relating to the Central Arizona Project:

There is a “biological opinion” on the CAP concludes that exotic fish might escape from the CAP canal system, swim upstream, and displace native fish species.

From the “biological opinion”

The waters conveyed by the CAP can connect both directly, via existing canals and reservoirs, or indirectly, via return flows, to the rivers of the Gila River basin. This connection opens potential conduits for the transfer of non-native species of fish to the lower Gila River basin tributaries and to the middle and upper Gila River basin above Ashurst-Hayden Dam. The Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt and Verde Rivers, as tributaries of the Gila, could also enable any fish species introduced into their waters from the CAP to reach the Gila River and eventually move upstream to the base of Ashurst-Hayden. Ashurst-Hayden Dam is not an effective fish barrier for several reasons, both structural and operational, and any fish species that reach the base of the dam would have the opportunity to move beyond it to the middle Gila and San Pedro Rivers. The presence of the CAP connection creates a perennial waterway from the Colorado River to the major streams of the Gila River Basin, potentially connecting rivers and canal systems that otherwise would be more isolated by dams and intermittent stream reaches

In the early 1990s The Phoenix Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation entered into formal Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) over the issue of transportation and delivery of Central Arizona Project water to the Gila River Basin(Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, middle and upper Gila Rivers, and associated tributaries) in Arizona and New Mexico. Federal agencies must consult with FWS whenever it is determined that a project that is being built or funded by the agency may affect a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In its Biological Opinion (April 20, 1994), FWS found that these deliveries would jeopardize the continued existence of the Spikedace (Meda fulgida), Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)and would adversely modify the critical habitat of the spikedace, loach minnow, and razorback sucker.

In order to remove jeopardy to these species the FWS proposed a reasonable and prudent alternative containing five primary elements:

1. Construction and operation of upstream barriers to fish movement from the CAP aqueduct into native fish habitats

1. Monitoring of nonnative fish

1. Transfer of funding to FWS for the recovery and protection of listed and candidate Gila basin fishes as mitigation for adverse project effects which cannot feasibly be alleviated below the jeopardy threshold

1. Transfer of funding to FWS for management against nonnaitve fish and research to support that management

1. Implementation of an information and education program regarding nonnative aquatic fishes.

In a 2001 reconsultation with FWS, these reasonable and prudent alternatives were voluntarily made conservation measures (part of the CAP project) by Reclamation. More recently a 2008 resconsultation with FWS expanded the list of conservation measures to include the following:

1. Reclamation will construct physical drop structures that act as barriers to upstream fish movement at 12 locations (see Fish BarrierPage for specifics). Reclamation or their designee will maintain the barriers throughout the life of the project.

1. Reclamation or their designee will maintain and operate the existing electrical barriers on the Florence-Casa Grande Canal near China Wash and Salt River Project on the Arizona and South Canals throughout the life of the project.

1. Reclamation will implement a baseline study and long-term monitoring of the presence and distribution of non-native fish in the following areas:
2. CAP aqueducts
3. SRP canals
4. Florence-Casa Grande Canal
5. Gila River between Coolidge Dam and Ashurst-Hayden Diversion Dam
6. Salt River between Stewart Mountain Dam and Granite Reef Dam
7. San Pedro River downstream of the US / Mexico border
8. Cienega Creek Preserve

1. Reclamation will transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years in addition to 9 years of funding that has already been provided to FWS for conservation actions(recovery and protection) for the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, or other Gila Basin listed or candidate fish species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by FWS and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation shall transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years (in addition to 9 y

9 years of funding that has already been provided to FWS for conservation actions (recovery and protection) for the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, or other Gila Basin listed or candidate fish species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by FWS and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation shall transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years (in addition to 9 years of funding that has already been provided) to FWS for research on, and control of non-native aquatic species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by the Service and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation will develop and implement an information and education program directed to conservation of native fishes and their habitat. Emphasis is be placed on problems caused by bait-bucket transfer, dumping of pet aquarium fish, and other forms of transport by the public.

1. Reclamation will provide $100,000 to FWS toward development of a Chiricauha leopard frog rearing facility, or other conservation actions.

Since the CAP fish escaping and displacing native endangered fish is a “taking” under the Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service could in the extreme deny the CAP the right to deliver Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson.

Obviously understanding that completely shutting down the water supply to 5 million people might piss enough of them off to get the Endangered Specie Act repealed, US Fish and Wildlife made a deal with the CAP.

Pay US Fish and Wildlife ransom money every year so US Fish and Wildlife can run around the watersheds of the Gila and Salt and Santa Cruz rovers poisoning exotic fish and replacing them with endangered native fish.

$550,000 a year foir 21 years is being transferred from the CAP to US Fish and Wildlife for USF&W’s fish restoration program. And CAP is happy (one guesses) to pay the ransom from ratepayer (that means Phoenix and Tucson water users) money so the water flow is not shut off.

Pretty much the same situation exists between the Salt River Project and US Fish and Wildlife. The SRP owns the water rights on its watershed for delivery to farms and cities in the Salt River Valley. Even though the project was built in the early 1900’s long before there was en Endangered Species Act, now that water is being diverted, the ESA kicks in.

When, as a part of the CAP implementation, it was decided to rebuild Roosevelt Dam to increase the amount of Salt River water stored there, US Fish and Wildlife was right there waving Section 9 of the ESA in one hand, and demanding ransom from the SRP with their other hand. More money is transferred from SRP water ratepayers to US Fish and Wildlife.

Even something as mundane as building and operating sports fishing lakes in Arizona…such as Roosevelt Lake east of Phoenix, and Pena Blanca and Patagonia lakes in southern Arizona, trigger ESA violation and another opportunity for extortion.

Planting exotic fish in lakes like trout and bass threaten endangered species fish in those river systems…again the exotic fish swim up or down stream and displace the native fish.

In exchange for being able to continue stocking the lakes…and even having the lakes at all…means an incidental take permit is needed and to get that ITP the state Game and Fish Department has to pay.

The first thing that needs doing is for Congress to find out how much money US Fish and Wildlife actually controls via “inter-agency agreements” with other governmental agencies under ransom deals via the Endangered Species Act.

The second thing needed is Congress needs to make it clear that the Endangered Species Act cannot be used to reduce or interfere with pre-existing water rights under state law.

There are no water rights in the West if the Endangered Species Act is able to usurp state water law.

The endangered species tax

Enviro-Marxists seek to protect the environment by destroying capitalism

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

It is Time to Reform the Endangered Species Act

Reformation of the Endangered Species Act
_____________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

From the LA Times August 7, 2011:

California’s water wars

By Victor Davis Hanson August 7, 2011

California’s water wars aren’t about scarcity. Even with 37 million people and the nation’s most irrigation-intensive agriculture, the state usually has enough water for both people and crops, thanks to the brilliant hydrological engineering of past Californians. But now there is a new element in the century-old water calculus: a demand that the state’s inland waters flow as pristinely as they supposedly did before the age of dams, reservoirs and canals. Only that way can California’s rivers, descending from their mountain origins, reach the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta year-round. Only that way, environmentalists say, can a 3-inch delta fish be saved and salmon runs from the Pacific to the interior restored.

More….

COMMENTARY: The California Water Wars article is just one of many you can find all over the country as battles rage between environmentalists and various business, agricultural or energy projects.

There are two common themes to these battles.

The first is that those evil nasty humans have destoryed a pristine Eden Earth and things must be restored to a point in time before all those evil nasty humans built their roads, carved out their farms, diverted rivers, built cities, dug holes in the ground to mine coal and copper, and so on.

The second is that what makes this human activity evil is because of a profit motive. Greedy corporations destroying the environment to make money. Welfare ranchers…agribusiness, foreign corporations, etc.

You’ve heard this all before if you read the jihads from groups like the Center for Biological Diversity or articles about the Rosemont mine in the Arizona Daily Star.

The Central Valley of California is one of the most productive agricultural areas on Earth.

But it exists as a result of humans managing the environment to human purposes…diverting rivers, building dams, clearing land for farms.

Phoenix and the Salt River Valley exist because of dams and irrigation canals.

Tucson survives via importing Colorado River water from the Central Arizona Project.

Now some of you might remember during Bible class or something similar the story of the Tigris Euphrates valley and Babylon.

Or the Nile River and the civilization that grew up in Egypt 5,000 years ago.

Thousands of years ago humans began diverting rivers and opening up farmland and creating what we now call “civilization”.

Even in the supposed pre-Columbian “Eden” that was North and South America humans had been busy for thousands of years managing the environment to human purposes. Lying beneath modern day Phoenix are the ruins of the Hohokam that diverted the Salt River with hundreds of miles of irrigation canals.

Read “1491″ by Charles Mann if you doubt the extent to which Native Americans were busy changing the environment for their purposes before the first Europeans set foot in the New World.

Today the “America” we all live in is a vast construct of roads, power plants, electric transmission lines, food production, transportation systems, dams, pipelines, oil and gas wells… all of which have created a “civilization” unprecedented in human history.

But according to the radical environmental mantra you and I are all evil because we depend on this vast interconnected development that has destroyed the environment and threatens the calamity of Global Warming.

Given a choice between destroying the most productive agricultural area on Earth or protecting the 3 inch fish called the Delta Smelt, there is no choice in the radical environmentalists’ mind….shut down the agriculture to restore the fish.

The Tucson area is blessed (or cursed depending on your point of view) with much of the US natural deposits of copper.

But God forbid if a few thousand acreas of land will be disturbed because some Canadian mining company wants to dig up that copper. The world will end in Tucson if that mine is approved, according to opponents of the project.

From Save the Scenic Santa Ritas:

Augusta Resource is a publicly-traded corporation, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia.  To fund the Rosemont Mine, Augusta has received financing from Japanese and Canadian interests.  According to Augusta, the copper extracted from Southern Arizona would likely be sold to China with the profits going to a Canadian company and its international investors.

But Tucsonans can happily drive a Toyota Prius around town (made in Japan) which has 200 pounds of copper in it and not see the connection between mining copper and being “good” when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, and enriching a foreign corporation that happened to bring to market a cool hybrid vehicle.

In putting environmental protection ahead of jobs and the economy, radical environmentalists are really asking you to cut your own throat and throw the country back to some 12th century level of civilization that is “better” for the environment…but not for you.

Your ability to live and work as you are accustomed to doing is totally dependent on water importation projects (like the Central Arizona Project), power plants, electric transmission lines, freeways, railroads, trucks, mines, oil and natural gas production and a host of other elements to make the life you live today possible.

Try this experiment….go one week without copper, imported water and fossil fuel consumption.

That mean turn off all your electrical stuff including your phones, televisions, computers, refrigerator, heating and cooling and do not touch your car.

Do not buy any food (assuming you can get to a market) that was grown with irrigation project water, or transported over roads or rail by truck or train.

Do not use your tap water because that was diverted from a natural source and fossil fuel energy was used to bring it to your home.

According to the radical environmental mantra, since big corporations make money providing you your food, electricity and everything else you use….that is evil and that must be destroyed because the environment comes first always no matter what the consequence to water supplies and food production and costs.

See how far into your week you can live without using anything with environmental consequences and potential corporate profit.
_____________________________________

But there is another way of looking at all this that integrates economic issues and environmental impacts:

The oil spill, global warming and negative externalities

Instead of the “humans and corporations are evil” approach to the environment…using the “negative externality” approach to management clearly spots where decisions are made that shift environmental consequential costs to you without your having a say.

This news story from WUSA

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. (WUSA) — Eleven-year-old aspiring veterinarian, Skylar Capo, sprang into action the second she learned that a baby woodpecker in her Dad’s backyard was about to be eaten by the family cat.

Woodpecker-Saving Daughter Costs Mom $500, Possible Jail Time

 

“I’ve just always loved animals,” said Skylar Capo. “I couldn’t stand to watch it be eaten.”

Skylar couldn’t find the woodpecker’s mother, so she brought it to her own mother, Alison Capo, who agreed to take it home.

“She was just going to take care of it for a day or two, make sure it was safe and uninjured, and then she was going to let it go,” said Capo.

More…

What happened next was a US Fish and Wildlife agent spotted the kid with the woodpecker.

According to the news item “The problem was that the woodpecker is a protected species under the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Therefore, it is illegal to take or transport a baby woodpecker. ”

The US Fish and Wildlife agent cited the mom for a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Act with a $535 fine and possible jail time.

That was even though the kid let the woodpecker fly away.

The US Fish and Wildlife Agency is totally out of control, using the Endangered Species Act and other federal wildlife laws, to terrorize Americans and destroy our econopmy.

Congress needs to find out how much money US Fish and Wildlife has extorted from other federal agencies using the Endangered Species Act as its weapon.

And ask how many kids the agency has busted because all they wanted to do was save a baby bird.

America has a wildlife gestapo in its midst.

UPDATE: Now US F&W is blaming issuing the citation on a clerical error. Obviously some folks need to be fired.

There has been a big fuss going on for years over the pollution from the Navajo Generation Station up near Page. This power plant burns coal and probably needs close to a billion dollars of pollution control devices added to reduce its impact on air quality in northern Arizona.

One of the biggest impacts of having to spend a billion dollars to retrofit the power plant is that would raise the cost of CAP water.

Thus CAP and other power customers have fought EPA’s efforts to mandate the pollution control upgrades.

The latest chapter in the saga:

From the Arizona Republic July 21, 2011:

Ruling delayed on coal plant near Grand Canyon

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will wait until at least early next year to issue its final decision on new pollution controls for a power plant near the Grand Canyon, giving opponents more time to argue their case.

The new timetable was outlined in a letter this week to other federal officials by the EPA’s regional administrator.

The agency has been working on a proposal since 2009 to require so-called air scrubbers at the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station near Page, which has long been blamed for contributing to haze over the national park.

Since then, the plant’s owners and largest customers had warned that the new scrubbers would raise costs to operate the plant and could lead to its eventual closure.

Higher operating costs would result in price increases for electricity ratepayers in Arizona and neighboring states. The plant’s closure would make power more expensive still as utilities bought electricity from other sources and could devastate tribes that depend on the plant for income.

Even if the plant remains open, critics say, the price of water for many Arizonans would rise with the price of electricity. Some of the power generated at Navajo is used to operate the Central Arizona Project Canal, which transports water from the Colorado River to cities and Indian reservations across the state. More expensive power, CAP officials say, would lead to more expensive water.

More….

Now here’s the deal….the upgrades to the Navajo Generating Station can be accomplished without increasing power rates for the Central Arizona Project.

How can that seemingly impossible goal be achieved?

It is actually real easy…you just need to know some of the history of the intricate relationship between water and power in the region.

Hoover Dam generates hydroelectricity and back in the early 1980′s the federal mortgage was about to be paid off for the dam’s construction.

About a penny a kilowatt hour was being used to pay off the construction cost of the dam.

The dam was going to be 100% paid off by 1987 so the issue was…would power rates from Hoover be reduced? Or would the penny being charged per kwh be used for something else?

I was an Arizona Power Authority Commissioner 1980-1984 and we confronted this issue.

Our goal was the keep the penny per kwh and redeploy it for Arizona’s benefit.

Hoover Dam has the lowest power rates in the state..so keeping the penny meant power from the dam only cost 2 cents instead of around 6 cents per kwh from other sources (remember this is 1980s…the differential today is even greater).

We hatched a deal that Congress approved in 1983 that renewed the power purchase contract for Arizona and other interests like MWD and SOCalEdision and kept the penny per kwh.

What Arizona did with the penny was sell $800 million in bonds which we used to meet our federal mandate for the state to pay a share of the cost of the Central Arizona Project.

A penny per kwh on all power sales into Arizona from Hoover for 30 years covered an $800 million bond issue. No rate increase to power customers. Heck of a deal actually.

That went into effect in 1987.

The 30 year renewal of Hoover’s power contracts comes up again in 2017.

You can bet the various power purchasing interests are all over the feds to get another 30 year renewal of contracts to buy cheap power from Hoover Dam.

The penny per kwh is back on the table because the CAP  bonds will be paid off.

Same question again…reduce the power rates at Hoover by a penny? …. or keep the penny and do something else with the revenue stream?

And here is how this works to deal with the Navajo Generation Station pollution control problem….

Renew the Hoover power sales contacts, keep the penny per kwh now being used to pay off CAP construction bonds, and float another bond issue to retrofit the Navajo Generation Station with the required pollution control equipment with the bonds being repaid from that penny per kwh.

Power rates from Hoover stay the same…and power rates from Navajo stay the same because the cost of the pollution control is being paid off with Hoover’s penny per kwh.

Of course nothing is ever as simple as this. Hoover’s power custoimers probably would like a reduction in the power rate from the dam. Customers in Arizona include the Salt River Project.

The last time around when the penny per kwh came up for grabs, California representative (now Senator) Barbara Boxer went after the penny and wanted it diverted to the federal general fund to keep the welfare state running.

With the country tottering on the edge of bankruptcy one can imagine Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer grabbing for the penny per kwh from Hoover to reduce the federal deficit.

Thus Arizona, California and Nevada interests will have a fight just to hang onto the penny for our region’s benefits.

Then there is the contract renewal itself. California power interests get 2/3 rds of the power output from the dam divided between Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Southern California Edison…two of the biggest lobby powers in the west. One can assume the status quo will be maintained for California’s share of Hoover electrical output.

In Arizona it is very different. We use a “super-preference” and contract for Hoover power via the state’s Power Authority, then resell that power to the Salt River Project and a bunch of irrigation and electrical districts in Pinal County so farmers have access to the cheap hydro power to mine groundwater.

That may have made sense in the 1940′s but is really out in left field now.

There was a minor skirmish between cities (which ordinarily would have first crack at federal hydro power) and the agricultural interests over re-allocating Hoover power in the 1980′s. The cities lost that round because they were asleep at the wheel.

Though this round of Hoover contract renewal is for 2017…six years from now…the last time this situation occurred the renewal process started 7 years before the contracts expired.

The agricultural interests pay attention to these things. You can bet they are camped out on getting another 30 year renewal.

A good idea for this round of Hoover power sales renewal is to shift the power from irrigation and electrical districts to the Central Arizona Project so it can directly use Hoover Dam power to pump CAP water…which would benefit cities as well as agricultural interests who use CAP water. I dream on….

Whatever…there is a real opportunity to keep the penny in Hoover Dam’s power rates for power sales into Arizona and pledge that penny to cover the bonds to pay for the pollution control systems on the Navajo Generating Station. That would be a huge win-win for water users and the environment.

Of course there are factions in the country that want to shut down Navajo because it burns coal.

I would remind them that we made a deal in 1967 to not build new hydroelectric dams in the Grand Canyon in exchange for the Navajo Generating Station.

If environmentalists want to shut down the Navajo Generating Station…can we re-open our applications to build  two hydroelectric dams in the Grand Canyon?

Reallocate Hoover Dam power to the Central Arizona Project

One has to give credit to how the opponents to the Rosemont Mine have managed to turn what is in fact a very localized problem for residents along State Route 83 (the road between Vail and Sonoita) into a Tucson/Pima County issue.

As is obvious from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the US Forest Service, the impact of the proposed copper mine is the highest in the immediate vicinity of the mine site….mostly impacting nearby Coronado Forest lands….and declining the farther away from the mine site one gets.

How many Tucsonans drive on State Route 83? Probably way fewer than drive down Interstate 10 or Interstate 19.

So one main opposition groups calls itself “Save the Scenic Santa Ritas” and their campaign would leave one to believe that the mine will visually impact what most people in Tucson and Green Valley define as their view of the Santa Ritas.

Except that is not true. No one from Tucson or Green Valley will be able to see the proposed mine or its tailings piles.

The visual impact of the proposed mine is limited to people who drive on State Route 83 or live in that area.

But mine opponents have succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands of Tucsonans believing they will be impacted…. which is not true.

One cannot compare the Rosemont proposal to the mines west of Green Valley because those tailings piles were constructed prior to there being any effective regulation on the visual design of tailings piles.

The mining engineers who designed the Green Valley tailings piles created monuments to mining engineers….and in the course of that aliented a large number of people in the state. I dislike those tailings piles like virtually everyone else in the region.

That does not mean, however, that Rosemont will get away with tailings piles that replicate the Green Valley ones.

The major difference is the Forest Service has a lot of teeth in its land use permitting process.

There was no equivalent to the Forest Service addressing the Green Valley area mine design when those mines were started years ago.

A second issue…ground water in Green Valley.

The mine has a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to withdraw 6,000 acre feet of ground water from the Green Valley area.

Farmers Investment Company (FICO) jumped into the fight against Rosemont because the Rosemont wells are just east of FICO’s wells.

According to FICO, the world is going to end if Rosemont gets the green light to mine and begins pumping ground water from the mine’s wells.

One needs to remember that FICO pumps in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 acre feet of groundwater per year…5 times what Rosemont proposes.

FICO is under no state water law obligation to replenish the aquifer what they pump from it.

Mines and farms are exempt under current state law from having toi pay back our aquifers what they pump. Only new municipal development is under any kind of sustainability replenishment requirement.

There is a serious problem with groundwater level declines in Green Valley and that is because of FICO’s pumping for the last 50 years and the pumping by the mines west of Green Valley.

The problem is not limited to Rosemont.

To its credit, Rosemont recognized the issue and offered to do two things that they are not required to do under existing state law…they agreed to mitigate the impacts of their proposed pumping on neighboring private wells and they offered to fund a CAP recharge project in Green Valley via the Community Water Company.

FICO countered with its own proposed CAP recharge project that excludes participation of Rosemont.

Pima County and the City of Tucson jumped in behind FICO’s proposal and are working to try and block Rosemont from succeeding with its CAP recharge project.

Say what?

Interesting how FICO, Pima County and the City of Tucson can object to Rosemont’s groundwater use and then turn right around and do everything they can to block Rosemont from solving the problem.

Only in Tucson can that kind of duplicitous behavior be gotten away with because the Arizona Daily Star refuses to call FICO, Pima and Tucson out in this egregious  double standard.

So everyone believes Rosemont is going to cause water problems in Green Valley when in fact the leader of the opposition pumps five times the groundwater and is under no mandate to replenish its pumping and is fighting the resolution of the problem.

Instead of attacking Rosemont, Tucson and Green Valley residents need to tell FICO, Pima County and Tucson to get on board with a regional CAP replenishment project that ALL ground water users in Green Valley must participate in…Rosemont, FICO, and the mines west of Green Valley.

Pima County spent thousand of dollars creating a model of the proposed mine with graphics comparing the mine as though it were inside Tucson. A spectacular piece of prograganda…but the point is the mine is on the east side of the Santa Rita…not in downtown Tucson.

Listeing to the opposition one would think the site of the proposed mine is the last place on earth with specific environmental amenities.

It obviously was not that important a place when the Pima County committee that decided what lands to buy with Pima bond money chose not to buy the site before Rosemont got it.

You ought to take a tour of the mine site and see for youself where it is and how it relates to the surrounding area.

But as is typical in environmental fights..whatever disturbance one wishes to pursue…the site immediately becomes the last place on earth with some endangered species habitat or other attribute that demands stopping the project.

The mine involves a total of about 6 square miles of land that would be disturbed over a 20 year period.

Putting that in context…at least that much land gets bladed around Tucson annually for new subdivision and commercial development, pipelines, roads and other infrastruture.

*  *  *

Looking at the DEIS there are clearly a lot of issues to be addressed in the immediate vicinity of the mine.

The DEIS identifies potential impacts which thus sets the stage for negotiations between Rosemont and the Forest Service on how those impacts might be mitigated.

Identifying environmental issues in an environmental impact statement does not automatically mean the mine project can be killed. What it means is the Forest Service and the mine will need to address the issues in whatever manner the parties agree.

Opponents of the mine who have drawn a hard line in the sand saying “no mine” may find themselves left out in the cold when the negotiations start on mitigation because they have staked their position on an extreme position and not offered any mitigation proposals.

For example, the DEIS noted that the mine’s tailings piles could be constructed in such a way as the reduce the visual impacts on forest lands and for State Route 83 area residents.

There is an opportunity here for design controls over their tailings piles that never existed on the mines west of Green Valley.  Instead of “no tailings piles” there is an opportunity for “yes…but…” which the Forest Service has identified. Do the people along SR 83 want to be involved in the design criteria?

A third impact of the proposed mine is traffic on SR 83. No question there will be a major change there. The alternative would be to connect the mine to Interstate 19 via Santa Riota Road which would be a major issue for Sahuarita and Green Valley. Obviously the mine chose the least disruptive alternative that impacted the least number of people.

Of course the residents along State Route 83 object…but the bigger question is…is that your problem in Tucson and Green Valley?

Mine opponents are trying to make that your problem when in fact it is not.

The avoids a more basic issue…if there is going to be an impact on SR 83…what are the state and feds going to do to mitigate that impact?

Obviously some major improvements will be needed to SR 83 to mitigate traffic impacts. But I do not hear the mine’s opponents seriously digging into what mitigation requirements there ought to be. Should the road be widened? Should some of the tighter curves be straightened out?

My guess is the Arizona Department of Transportation  (who owns that road) will try and get some mitigation measures such as adding lanes to the road on grades so mine trucks will not impede the flow of traffic and so forth.

Again we have a group of people dug in on the position of “no mine” and there is nothing coming from them in the context of “yes…but”. The Arizona Department of Transportation will be the lead on the …but” conditions…and maybe with no input from area residents if they refuse to participate in mitigation discussions.

Another local issue about the mine is downstream from the mine site. There are issues about water supply and water quality. If Rosemont’s conduct regarding the Sahuarita Heights area and their willingness to recharge CAP water is any indicator (and they are) then solutions to the water issues downstream from the mine site are attainable.

Unlike the impacted residents of Sahuarita Heights who went to the table with Rosemont to find a mitigation strategy, SR 83 residents are dug in with their “no mine” approach and are not engaged in look for ways to not only eliminate the negative impacts but to maybe even improve their water supply situation.

I’ve worked on water issues in that area and it is not like the Tucson Valley with a huge lake of underground water beneath it. It is more like a surface water system that is highly reactive to annual rainfall. Wells can go dry out there having nothing to do with there being a mine.

Point out the problem only get one half way down the road. Problems always have solutions.

SR 83 residents are betting their future on killing the mine and doing nothing to look at Plan B if (as it in fact likely) the Forest Service approves the mine’s land use permit.

The core issue driving opposition to the mine is the belief that “public” meaning federally-managed lands should not be used to mine copper.

Many view the Coronado National Forest as some kind of wilderness park that exists solely to protect endangered species of plants and animals. That belief is not the law of this country.

A major issue involves alleged impacts of the mine on endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity has jumped into the fray demanding the Rosemont mine site be included in Chiricahua Leopard Frog proposed habitat. That and several other endangered species impacts are alleged by Center for Biological Diversity. See KUAT story
One thing consistent about Center for Biological Diversity is they are all over the country trying to block development projects using the endangered species act and litigation to try and achieve their goals.

In the normal context of conflicts between development and endangered species impacts, the end result is usually getting a mitigation plan out of the proposed development to fund species protection and recovery projects. One gives a little here to get a lot more there.

There is no doubt in my mind that Rosemont could end up being a real plus for saving the Chiricahua Leopard Frog and other endangered species in the area by tapping the mine project  to buy other identified more significant habitat sites and funding recovery projects.

Absent the shrill opposition from CBD, that is likely to happen. And it is a good bet that whatever the Forest Service proposes to mitigate endangered species issue, CBD will sue to block the mitigation plans.

One has to acknowledge that the opponents of the mine have done a spectacular job of misdirecting public concern from what are very localized impacts and convincing a lot of people who really are not directly impacted  by the project into thinking the mine is “their” issue.

A telling trend in the mine fight was that the opposition was very successful in getting a lot of community opposition to the mine organized early on…such as getting resolutions opposing the mine approved by local governments from as far away as Oro Valley.

But as local governments looked deeper into the issues surrounding the mine, one by one they have backed off opposing the mine because they now see what the real story is. Oro Valley re-voted recently to withdraw its opposition to the mine and went neutral.

The interesting thing to me is that Rosemont has shown an unusual willingness to work with people to mitigate the environmental impacts of the mine.

But rather than participate in that process to seek mitigation measures, Tucson, Pima County, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, FICO and CBD keep pounding their opposition drums and attacking anyone that is willing to even try and talk to the Rosemont mine people.

From the Arizona Republic July 19, 2011:

Dust storms that hit Valley towered nearly 4,000 feet high

Dust storms moving through Pinal and Maricopa counties Monday evening towered nearly 4,000 feet high, caused airplane flight delays, could have been a factor in a collision on Interstate 8 and left 2,300 people without electricity.

Officials said the three dust storms blew through almost every part of the Valley, leaving a fine coat of dust over much of the area.

The storms moved at about 10 to 20 mph and reduced visibility in some areas to as low as 60 feet, according to the National Weather Service. Meteorologists estimated the dust storm reached a height between 3,000 and 4,000 feet.

 

A dust storm warning issued by the Weather Service lasted until 7 p.m.

Thunderstorms, which generated the blowing dust, brought periods of heavy rain and gusty southeast winds up to 45 mph.

Hazardous driving conditions due to the dust storm are believed to have contributed to an eight-vehicle pileup on Interstate 8 near milepost 172 about 4:30 p.m. Monday. Two people were critically injured and traffic was rerouted to Arizona 84, said Bob Bailey, an Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman.

Salt River Project had 2,300 customers lose power in and around Glendale. All customers except for two were restored with power by midnight, utility spokesman Scott Harrelson said.

Officials believe dust storms knocked down a line near Encanto Boulevard and 107th Avenue and damaged a transformer. The transformer will need to be repaired before power is restored to those two customers.

At Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, some flights experienced delays of a few minutes while the dust storm passed through just before 6 p.m.

Monday’s dust storms paled in comparison to the epic dust storm that swept the Valley on July 5.

That mile-high dust storm traveled between speeds of 50 and 60 mph and appeared to be nearly 100 miles wide, bringing visibility to near zero in many parts of the Valley and creating power outages.

Valley fever continues to be a concern because dust storms, which can carry infectious spores, heighten exposure risks.

Because the period of time between when a person is infected with Valley fever and the time when the person shows symptoms fluctuates between one to four weeks, people exposed to the infection from the July 5 dust storm might just be noticing symptoms.

On average, the symptoms of Valley fever remain for six months and are marked by pronounced fatigue, flu-like symptoms and coughs, said Rebecca Sunenshine, a public health physician for the Maricopa County Health Department.

Sunenshine suggests that anyone with symptoms that last longer than two weeks visit a doctor and request getting tested for Valley fever.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/07/19/20110719phoenix-area-dust-storms-4000-feet-high-abrk.html#ixzz1SZguwaT5

A massive dust storm moves across the valley July 5th as seen from the Papago Buttes on McDowell Road in Phoenix. Photo by Dave Seibert/ The Arizona Republic

Tucson Citizen blogger Jonathan DuHamel has two excellent articles about the haboob that hit Phoenix July 5th:

More on the Haboob dust storm that covered Phoenix

Haboobs and the anatomy of a thunderstorm

There was some interesting debate about whether the dust storms were in fact haboobs. They obviously are and the situation between Tucson and Phoenix is strikingly similar to the Sudan where haboobs are common.

I guess folks just don’t like using an Arabic word to describe what’s going on in Arizona. 

Maybe we should have a contest to give these dust storms an Arizona name. The Baja Blow (since they originate in Baja Arizona)?

Old timers can remember the days when giant dust storms blew out of Tucson and down Interstate 10 causing massive car crashes. I was in one of those near Red Rock.

The state decided to put dust storm warning signs up…but the problem was no one could see them in a dust storm so they took them down.

The photos of the first haboob that hit Phoenix reminded one of Dust Bowl photos of walls of dust consuming the countryside.

Tucson occasionally has a haboob as well.

Haboobs may be getting more frequent. Can the camels be far behind?