Although studies have shown the main causes of the Valley’s pollution to be agriculture, diesel trucks, and diesel buses, the District has put regulations on wood burning. The Valley has only three months of cold weather. On winter days when pollution levels are high the District announces restrictions on wood burning, called Spare the Air days.

The District has adopted what it calls the “Fast Track to clean air.” Launched in June 2007, Fast Track is “designed to clean up the valley’s air sooner than the 2024 federal attainment deadline.” Fast Track is composed of three aspects:

• Expedited regulations by the state Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency;
• Significant increases in incentive funding to be used in the Valley;
• Innovative emission-reduction measures.

Fast Track includes strategies and initiatives to cut Valley pollution. Among the strategies is green contracting, where the District would “compel cities and counties…to select contractors/vendors that use low-emission fleets and processes.”

Short-sea shipping goods between northern and southern California to reduce the trucks and trains passing through the Valley is another Fast Track initiative. The District admits short-sea shipping will “take a long time to implement.”

“Valley smog has been reduced by 80 percent since the 1980s, and the District is continuing to take a leadership role to reach attainment as soon as possible,” Seyed Sadredin, the Air District’s Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, said. “Those who champion clean air are invited to join us in developing this ‘Fast Track’ plan to clean the valley’s air.”

Despite Sadredin’s optimism regarding the Valley’s air quality, the American Lung Association ranked Fresno number four in their 2007 list of the 26 most polluted cities. Four other Valley cities made the list: Bakersfield (2nd), Visalia (3rd), Modesto (13th), and Hanford (14th).

According to the CATTCC’s study, CyberTran would “operate along the highest density corridors throughout the Fresno metropolitan area, taking advantage of existing light-rail Rights-of-Ways.” A CyberTran system would “boost Amtrak ridership” by providing access to Fresno’s Amtrak station.

The Study points out Amtrak is the only rail system which “services the entire Central Valley.” The bus system in Fresno, the largest town in the Central Valley, is limited, and the distance between Fresno and other towns rules out walking or riding bikes. “People have no functional transportation alternative other than driving automobiles.”

A Fresno area CyberTran system would provide many benefits, namely reducing “dangerous toxic air quality levels in the San Joaquin Valley.” It would also reduce the amount of auto accidents and lessen traffic congestion.

Using solar energy is smart in an area where it is sunny and warm nine months of the year. Yet the cost of installing solar panels on your home will cost you anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000, according to Solar Developments, an online solar energy equipment supplier. The high cost makes it unaffordable for many Fresno homeowners and businesses. However, the possibility of Fresno becoming the “solar belt” might cause momentum to make solar panels affordable.

The planned solar projects stand in contrast to Fresno’s public transportation, which consists of bus system Fresno Area Express. Riders complain that buses do not run in the evening. A light rail system similar to the Bay Area’s BART is needed in Fresno. The Center for Air Quality and Transit Technology of Central California (CATTCC) conducted a ten-year study titled, “Study for a Fresno Transit System.” The study found that a CyberTran (an electric, lightweight rail passenger system) would be “most suitable for Central California’s transit needs.”

Fresno is the largest city in the San Joaquin Valley, a region considered to be one of the most polluted in the U.S. For Fresno to become green residents must unite and demand more from their local and state governments. As Abraham Lincoln famously declared, the government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The World’s Greenest Cities

1. Rekyjavik, Iceland
2. Portland, Oregon, U.S.
3. Curitiba, Brazil
4. Malmö, Sweden
5. Vancouver, Canada
6. Copenhagen, Denmark
7. London, England
8. San Francisco, California
9. Bahía de Caráquez, Ecuador
10. Sydney, Australia
11. Barcelona, Spain
12. Bogotá, Colombia
13. Bangkok, Thailand
14. Kampala, Uganda
15. Austin, Texas

Runners up:

Chicago, IL, U.S.
Freiburg, Germany
Seattle, WA, U.S.
Quebec City, Canada

The problem with trickle-down economics is that it does not trickle down. Since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001 the income disparities between the richest and the poorest have increased. For the first time, everyone on the 2006 Forbes 400 list was a billionaire. The 2005 Forbes 400 list contained 374 billionaires, with a combined net worth of $1.13 trillion. No new editions were added to the 2005 list. Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine publisher, did not make the list because his net worth is only $400 million.

According to the National Poverty Center, poverty has increased over the last four years. Data from the Internal Revenue Service on 2005 income revealed that the bottom 99 percent of wage earners gained less than one percent, and the top one percent gained 14 percent. A December 2005 Congressional Research Service report found that per capita income in the San Joaquin Valley is lower than in Central Appalachia.

The U.S. Census Bureau revealed that between 2000 and 2005 the percentage of Americans living at half of the poverty level income increased by 26 percent. The poverty-level income for a family of three (two adults and one child) is $6,922. For a family of four it is $10,222, and for an individual, $5,250.

A 2004 study by UC Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez reported that the income of the median household in 2004 only increased by 1.6 percent. During the 1998 to 2001 period it increased by 9.5 percent.

The industrialized nation with the most unequal distribution of income is the United States, according to a 2003 article in the journal Vital Signs. Only 1.8 percent of the wealth in the U.S. goes to the poorest 10 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the tenth percentile of family income is almost the same today as it was in 1979: about $13,500. Thirty million Americans live on less.

In the words of West Fresno developer Donald Sims, “All that’s going to benefit [from Running Horse] is the affluent. It’s not going to benefit the poor black guy, the poor Mexican guy, the poor Hmong guy, and when they have the little PGA tour over there, who’s gonna go to it, but the affluent?”

The Trump Organization has 13 requests concerning purchasing Running Horse. Three of the requests concern property around the project:

• Remove all internal houses- buy out the holdouts at “fair market value.”
• Buy out and re-zone entire area around course.
• Establish a one (1) mile perimeter around the property to be classified as a redevelopment
zone.

The trouble with Trump’s requests is that the area around Running Horse is not zoned for redevelopment. The Williamson Act of 1965 allowed private landowners to enter into contracts with local governments in order to restrict “specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use,” according to California’s Division of Land Resource Protection. (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm)

The area would have to be designated as a redevelopment zone in order for the city to use eminent domain to seize the land around the project from private landowners. Basically, the Williamson Act would have to be amended.

The Supreme Court set a precedent in 2005 by ruling the local government could use eminent domain to seize private property in New London, CT for economic development. The Court found that “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function.” The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that “economic development does not quality as a public use,” and a “reasonable certainty” be required that the public would benefit from the planned redevelopment.

In March he criticized the Democratic majority in Congress for wanting to include timetables in military funding bills. “Micromanagement of the war, through arbitrary timelines for withdrawal, does not belong in a bill that’s purpose is to support the troops and provide them with the tools and equipment necessary to continue their efforts fighting the Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Radanovich voiced his ongoing support for the occupation of Iraq in February, proclaiming, “I am here today to reiterate to the American people that the war in Iraq, as a part of the larger Global War on Terror, is absolutely vital to the security of our great nation as well as the rest of the free world.” He acknowledged that “poor intelligence” led to the invasion of Iraq, but said it was “intelligence that every major fact-finding and data-gathering agency in the world believed to be true. Nevertheless, spreading freedom to the Muslim world is our best long-term strategy in the Global War on Terror.”

Radanovich’s record on health care is consistent. He voted for a February 2006 bill to deny non-emergency treatment to people who could not pay the Medicare co-pay. He also voted to limit prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients in 2003, and voted against allow prescription drugs to be reimported from Canada. The American Public Health Association rated him at 0% concerning his public health voting record. According to the website GOPAuctionHouse.org, “big drug interests have given $9,700 to Radanovich over the Representative’s career.”

The League of Conservation rated Radanovich at 0% in 2006 for his environmental voting record. In 2006 he voted against increasing AMTRAK funding, and also against barring a website which promoted having a nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain. The prior year he voted to de-authorize critical habitats for endangered species. In 2003 he voted to speed up approval of forest thinning projects, and in 2001 he voted to reduce the liability for hazardous waste cleanup.

Radanovich sides with the oil industry. He voted against criminalizing oil cartels in May. In June 2006 he voted against keeping a moratorium on offshore drilling, and voted for scheduling permits for new oil refineries. He voted to allow new oil refineries to be constructed in 2005, and in 2001 voted against incentives for alternative fuels. He voted against prohibiting oil drilling and development in the Alaska National Wildlife Refugee, and voted no on beginning to implement the Kyoto Protocol. According to GOPAuctionHouse.org the oil and gas industry has given him $83,138.

Costa voted yes on a June 2006 resolution which declared Iraq is part of the war on terror without an exit date. He voted in May against redeploying troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days from the passage of the bill. However, in February he voted for a resolution which disapproved of the troop surge. During deliberations for the resolution, Costa said, “I believe America is less safe today than it was before the 9/11 attacks. And as violence in Iraq climbs and the costs continue to soar, we need a new direction in Iraq in a bipartisan fashion.”

Costa record on health care is consistent. He helped enact low cost health care insurance for children in November 2004. He voted yes on a January measure which required Medicare to negotiate prescription prices, and voted against a February 2006 measure which denied non-emergency treatment for patients who could not pay the Medicare co-pay.

However, Costa’s record on the environment is inconsistent. In June 2006 Costa voted yes on increasing AMTRAK funding, but voted against barring a website which promoted a nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain. He voted for deauthorizing critical habitats for endangered species in September 2005.

As with the environment, Costa’s record on energy is inconsistent. He voted against criminalizing oil cartels in May, but in January he voted for removing oil and gas exploration subsidies. In 2006 he voted against keeping a moratorium on off-shore drilling, but voted against scheduling permits for new oil refineries. In 2005 he voted against authorizing new oil refineries to be constructed.

What are the important national issues? In a January 2007 poll 59% rated the war in Iraq as an extremely important issue facing America. A February 2007 poll revealed 91% believed health care in America needs reforming. Gas prices remain high across the country, and are highest in California. Two weeks ago Live Earth concerts highlighted the importance of taking care of the environment.

The next few posts will look at the voting record of Fresno area U.S. representatives (Devin Nunes, George Radanovich, and Jim Costa) concerning the Iraq war, health care, energy, and the environment.

Elected in 2002 to California’s 21st congressional district, Rep. Devin Nunes voted for the use of military force against Iraq in October 2003. Despite opinion polls which cite public support for pulling troops out of Iraq as hovering at around 68 percent, Nunes still backs President Bush’s troop surge.

During the hearing for a Democratic House resolution which included redeploying troops from Iraq, Nunes called it “intellectually dishonest” and declared, “Iraq is the battleground…a key battleground against extremism, terrorism and the expansionist goals of our enemies.” Nunes failed to mention the lies which caused the Congress to authorize a military invasion of Iraq, namely that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda.

Nunes received campaign contributions from the health care industry totaling $97,000 in 2006, $18,000 in 2004, and $86,650 in 2002. Not surprisingly, the American Public Health Association gave Nunes a 0% rating on his public health voting record. Nunes’ voting record on public health issues include a negative vote on a January 2007 House measure which required negotiating prescription prices for Medicare’s prescription plan.

Nunes voted yes on a February 2006 measure which denied non-emergency treatment for patients who could not pay the Medicare co-pay. He also voted yes on a May 2004 measure which limited prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and voted no for another measure in July 2003 which would allow the prescription drugs to be imported from Canada.

The League of Conservation, the environmental movement’s political voice, rated Nunes 5% on environmental issues. Nunes voted yes on two measures environmentalists opposed: deauthorizing critical habitats for endangered species in September 2005, and speeding up the approval of forest thinning projects in November 2003.

Nunes has consistently sided with the oil industry. He voted no on criminalizing oil organizations like OPEC in May 2007. He also voted no on removing subsides for oil and gas exploration in January 2007, and on maintaining a ban on drilling for oil offshore in June 2006. He voted yes on scheduling permits for new oil refineries in June 2006, and on allowing new oil refineries to be constructed in October 2004.

The Central Valley Project (CVP) began in 1933 as a long term plan to use water in the San Joaquin Valley, and construction of the Friant Dam began in 1940. Water from the San Joaquin River was diverted to place the dam’s concrete. Completed in the early 1950s, the dam by the 1980s had “long, wide cracks,” according to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. The cracks were caused by the alkali “carried by the San Joaquin River.”

The water diverted from the river caused the salmon runs to cease. Stretches of what used to be the San Joaquin River are dry, barren places. As a result, the California state legislature created the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust in 1992. The goals of the Trust are namely to implement a 22-mile “greenspace and wildlife corridor” along the river (called the San Joaquin River Master Plan), and buy 5,200 acres from “willing sellers” at fair market value.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation reached an agreement in October 2006 with the Department of Commerce, the Friant Water Users Authority, and environmental organizations concerning the San Joaquin River restoration. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, “The settlement focuses on achieving two equally important goals: first, a restored San Joaquin River with continuous flows to sustain naturally reproducing salmon between Friant Dam and the Merced River; and secondly, a water management program to minimize water supply impacts and provide water supply certainty for the farmers in the Friant service area who have built a million acre agricultural region based on water supplies from the river.”

The San Joaquin River Restoration Act was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2007. Subcommittee hearings were held in March. The Act would require the Secretary of the Interior to implement the agreement reached in October 2006.

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, opposes the settlement. He said in June, “There are major problems with this settlement.” Fellow Republican, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, supports the settlement, as does Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno.

Channel 30 news reported that Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer compelled the Board to keep the city/county traffic ticket profit sharing agreement intact. Channel 30 also reported the Board is considering an increase in impact fees which could generate as much as $20,000 annually.

Dyer reportedly told the Board, “Simply as a result of our revenue sharing agreement, you would’ve gotten $5,000, in lieu of that you got $3, 827M…nearly $4M more…Traffic fatalities are down 28.8% percent between 2002 and 2006. That’s 53 fewer families that had to bury a loved one in our city as a result of our efforts and those are City and County resident”