State - Opponents to wording in Proposition 1E, a ballot measure to temporarily take money from a 2004 health initiative, settled the lawsuit March 5th in Sacramento Superior Court. The Proposition is scheduled to appear on the May 19 ballot measure. “This is a good and fair resolution,” said Rusty Selix, who sued to change the language. “The new language discloses to voters that they are being asked to approve changes to an initiative they passed in 2004.” Selix was the legal proponent of that measure, Proposition 63, which funded new mental health programs with a 1 percent tax surcharge on personal income above $1 million. Opponents called the new measure “false and misleading.” Selix does not hide his opposition to the proposed health cuts or using money once designated for other programs to help balance the state budget. Under the ruling read by Judge Michael Kenney, new language for both the short “ballot label” and for the title and summary for the measure were agreed upon between parties prior to entering the court hearing. The original ballot title, “Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget” was changed to read “Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.” The language within the original ballot label was altered as well. Prop 1E cuts up to $460 million from voter-mandated Proposition 63 mental health programs over the next two fiscal years. Prop. 1E opponents had objected to the parts of the ballot descriptions suggesting that the measure would "preserve funding for children's mental health services," and that Prop 1E "guarantees and protects" funding for a specific program that is provided through Medi-Cal. That program is a federal mandate and will be provided at the same funding level whether Prop. 1E passes or fails. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

State - Last Wednesday, Caltrans teamed up with Keep California Beautiful and the California Highway Patrol for a statewide Litter Removal and Enforcement Day. Caltrans District 10 maintenance and office employees removed litter, trash and debris in eight counties, including Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tuolumne. Last year, taxpayers paid $57 million to clear out 182,000 cubic yards of litter and debris along California's highways — enough to fill 11,300 Caltrans garbage trucks to the brim. Putting the trucks end-to-end would stretch 60.5 miles, Caltrans officials say. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

State - On May 19th, Amador County voters will have the opportunity to vote on six budget-related propositions in a statewide special election. In a special series here on TSPN, we’ll bring you information on each ballot measure, what it means for California, and more specifically, how it affects Amador County. Today we discuss Proposition 1B, which “requires the state to make supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.” Although the initial fiscal impact analysis says the state could potentially save up to several billion dollars in the 2009-2011 fiscal years, the state could see potential costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter. According to David Sanchez, President of California’s Teacher’s Association, Prop 1B would provide $9.3 billion for California’s schools, but voters must also agree to extend recent tax increases for up to two additional years. The budget crisis has cut over $12 million from California schools. According to supporter Andrea Landis of Kaufman Campaign Consultants, “Prop 1B starts the process of paying our schools and community colleges back as economic conditions improve. Our future depends on the investment we make in educating our children.” Opposition to the measure comes from special interest groups like the California Nurses Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees who benefit from state spending in other non-education areas. They oppose the measure because it would potentially divert their preferred government spending to education. On May 19th, you’ll have the opportunity to vote on this and other contentious issues. Stay tuned for more information on the propositions in upcoming newscasts. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County - The Board of Supervisors heard comments from opponents of the proposed Pardee Reservoir expansion and subsequently took action to oppose the project. The minimum 33-foot dam expansion proposed through the EBMUD 2040 water plan would flood miles of the Mokelumne River in order to provide additional water capacity to millions of customers in the east bay. An Amador Water Agency quorum that included Board members Debbie Dunn, Bill Condrashoff and Chief Engineer Gene Mancebo were on hand to present an AWA letter approved 5-0 in opposition to the EBMUD proposal. Condrashoff said he has “been to two meetings where 400 people combined have spoken out against this project, and only one person has spoken out for it.” Dunn said that EBMUD’s consultants “definitely listened” enough to change their presentation to focus on Pardee at Monday’s town hall meeting. Members of the Foothill Conservancy were also present to give their take on comments from the capacity crowd that filled the San Andreas Town Hall during an EBMUD meeting Monday night. The Foothill Conservancy, which has been at the forefront of local opposition, detailed reasons for rejecting the EBMUD plan, from environmental to economic. Judy Jebian, speaking on behalf of the Amador County Historical Society, said her organization was against the flooding because it would destroy some 43 areas of historical interest, including the Middle Bar Bridge, which was entered into the National Historic Registry in 1985. While not expressing any opinions as to whether they support or oppose the proposed plan, the Supervisors were unanimous in their disapproval of the way EBMUD has worked with Amador County and conducted workshops so far. Supervisor Louis Boitano asked rhetorically if meetings thus far were only a dog and pony show. He said the best plan of attack in terms of opposing the project was forming a “united front” with Calaveras County. Supervisor Ted Novelli said that if it wasn’t “for the efforts of Pete Bell and the Foothill Conservancy, EBMUD wouldn’t have given me the chance to speak,” referring to a workshop at the Amador Water Agency two weeks ago. Supervisor Brian Oneto called EBMUD’s efforts so far “irritating” and suggested writing a formal letter urging EBMUD to extend the comment period for more public input so citizens had the chance to read the 1,500 page Environmental Impact Report outlining the project. The Supervisors approved of the letter unanimously. They also will include a statement of opposition to the project because of the minimum comment period, which was set to expire April 6. County Counsel Martha Shaver recused herself during the discussion because she has property adjacent to the proposed dam site. EBMUD subsequently announced Wednesday afternoon that they will extend the comment period another month. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

State - Federal water managers said they may have to cut off all water to some of California’s largest farms as a result of the deepening drought affecting the state. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials said Friday that parched reservoirs and patchy snow and rainfall this year would likely force them to cut surface water deliveries completely. It would be the first time in more than 15 years such a move was taken. The move would be a blow to farmers, who say the price of some crops would likely rise if they have to rely only on well water. The state estimates it would cause $1 billion in lost revenue and cost 40,000 jobs. “We're talking about a huge band of area that will be affected," said Richard Howitt, professor of resource economics at UC Davis. "I heard these predictions coming down the line, the $1 billion loss in revenue and 40,000 jobs, so I ran the numbers again.” He said new figures to be released later Friday showed even more trouble headed for the state. "As far as job losses? The answer is the majority of losses will be related to farms and farm work, the processing done for all farm commodities, and all those secondary jobs that roll through the valley economy," Howitt said. California's sweeping Central Valley grows most of the country's fruits and vegetables in normal years, but this winter thousands of acres turned to dust as the state hurtles into the worst drought in nearly two decades. They also grow the bulk of the nation's lettuce crop each spring and fall. This year, officials in Fresno County predict farmers will only grow about 6,000 acres of lettuce, roughly half the acreage devoted to greens in 2005. Last year, federal water deliveries were just 40 percent of the normal allocations, fallowing hundreds of thousands of acres and causing nearly $309 million in crop losses statewide. That prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to issue a disaster declaration, ordering state water managers to expedite any requests to move water around the state, in part so high-value crops like wine grapes, almonds and pistachio trees would stand a chance of surviving. Federal reservoirs are now at their lowest level since 1992. Federal officials said conditions could improve when they announce new projections factoring in recent storms.

State - Congressman and Amador County representative Dan Lungren joined fellow Republicans in casting a “no” vote for the Democrat proposed $825 billion stimulus bill which passed 244 – 188 along party lines last Wednesday. The approval is still a big victory for President Barack Obama, despite failed appeals for bipartisanship. Obama says the plan will create more than three million jobs over the next few years. But Lungren sees the 647-page bill as “a virtual laundry list of government programs, most of which will do nothing to stimulate the economy.” Republicans are complaining that the package is loaded with items that seem more likely to promote liberal agendas than to stimulate the economy. “Tonight we had an opportunity to really implement vehicles that would have an immediate effect on our ailing economy but when you look at the frivolous spending in this bill, along with what it will cost my constituents, there is no way I could vote for it,” Lungren said. Democratic strategists believe the GOP blundered by unanimously opposing Obama just after he made a high-profile attempt to reach across the aisle. Despite strong opinions for and against, it is still too early to tell how this package will effect California. Of the $63-billion projected for California, approximately $44 billion would go towards “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, unemployment benefits and improving healthcare for the poor. 12.5 million of the state's residents are expected to benefit from a tax break of up to $500 per individual and $1,000 per couple, says the Center on Budget, Policy and Priorities. According to Lungren, the cost estimate for residents of the Third Congressional District comes to $2,700 for every man, woman and child. Lungren sees much of the spending as unnecessary, including $1 billion for Amtrak; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research; and $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. While Democrats like San Jose Representative Zoe Lofgren say “the package is a step in the long journey to economic recovery,” Lungren and his colleagues see it as a step in the wrong direction. “These are difficult circumstances we face and let’s not allow the current economic situation to be an excuse to engage in a spending spree which will add to a growing mountain of debt,” Lungren said. Story by Alex Lane

State - Amador County boaters take note…State officials are still taking all measures necessary in order to avoid another outbreak of the invasive quagga and zebra mussels. A spokesperson for the Department of Fish and Game says experts at the agency still fear the mussel could spread and invade more California waterways. Restrictions were lifted at local lakes last year based on research done to determine the extent of the current infestation in Northern California as well as the vulnerability of Pardee and Camanche to the threats posed by invasive mussels. At this time, East Bay Municipal Utility District has taken several steps to manage the Quagga and Zebra mussel issue at Lake Camanche, Lake Pardee, and San Pablo Reservoir. This includes banning vessels from Southern California and outside of California, and inspecting vessels from approved counties. Although Pardee and Camanche have been determined to be less vulnerable to mussel infestation than reservoirs in the East Bay, vessel owners will be asked to complete a vessel history survey and to present the vessel in a clean and dry condition. The condition of the vessel will be determined by a physical inspection. In order to help prevent the spread of all aquatic invasive species, the "Clean and Dry, Inside and Out" requirement for all vessel owners will be enforced again this year and into the future. Quagga and zebra mussels are native to Eastern Europe and are believed to have spread to North America on the hull of ships and boats. The tiny critters are extremely aggressive, clogging pipes, starving indigenous species and producing toxins that are harmful to native fish and mollusk populations. The invaders create millions of larvae eggs that continue to grow and multiply. Officials have no surefire way of getting rid of them. Many of the waterways throughout Northern California are connected and water officials are considering further bans. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

State - California's budget woes will sweep over the state's 58 counties this week when they get promises instead of checks for $89 million in anticipated payments for welfare, food stamps and other services. The move will be a devastating blow to the counties, which must serve more and more people looking for government help as the economy craters and jobs disappear, said Paul McIntosh, executive director of the California Association of Counties. With local governments every bit as battered as the state, little cash is available to cover the deficit. “There are counties that only have a couple weeks of cash on hand and could have trouble meeting payroll,” McIntosh said. While state Controller John Chiang insists that social services money is only being delayed for a month and will be repaid in March, a spokeswoman for the controller said the normal March payments might then have to be delayed for a month if no budget agreement has been reached. But county officials are unsure when, or even if, they will see those state payments. Many counties are planning to go to court as soon as that first payment is missed. San Francisco will join a lawsuit set to be filed by San Diego and Sacramento counties, arguing that Chiang must release funds that already have been appropriated by the Legislature in the state budget. Los Angeles and Colusa counties have talked about hanging on to tax payments and other funds that normally go to the state, while Riverside County plans to ask the courts to allow it to close social service programs until California resumes its payments. Last week, the governor put 238,000 workers on unpaid leaves twice a month through June 2010 to save the state $1.4 billion.

State - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed eliminating funding for the Williamson Act, resulting in widespread criticism in Amador County and throughout the State. The $35 million program protects 16.4 million acres of farm land from conversion to non-agricultural use, including wildlife-friendly agricultural lands and fields leased for hunting. A similar proposal was made under Governor Gray Davis in 2003. In Amador County, over 95,000 acres or 34 percent of the county’s total acreage falls under the Williamson Act. Should the governor’s proposal be approved, the county could stand to lose approximately $100,000 in subvention payments. Elimination of the program would also remove tax incentives given to landowners to prevent them from developing their land. In an exclusive TSPN interview, local vintner and agriculturalist Ken Deaver found the proposal worrisome. Deaver and others involved in agro-tourism have also expressed concern that the economic contributions from agricultural lands will suffer greatly. According to one state analyst, removing land protections will raise taxes and fees, and would re-impose sales tax on farm equipment and supplies and extend the sales tax to more products and services. Lost revenue would also push counties to raise fees. The Williamson Act passed in 1965 to protect open space and agricultural land from urban sprawl and development, as well as environmental protections. The act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based on farming and open space uses. Story by Alex Lane