In the Denver area, be on high alert for the Denver Water Department's 24-hour "sod squad," which roams the city looking for malefactors.  So far this summer, squad members have cited more than 1,700 offenders and issued almost $4,000 in fines, though they have yet to use their ultimate weapon: the flow restrictor -- sort of a wheel boot for your home-watering system.  Even though the sod squad is only four people strong, don't think you can escape -- most often, it's tattling neighbors who'll rat you out.

If the water conservation police don't find you, the public education campaigns will.  newspaper ads in the Denver Post implore, among other things, that "Real men dry shave."  (Denver Water, which sponsors the ads, has even advised painting your grass green, as some folks do in Santa Fe, where flowers get a dollop of artificial color and plastic grass is all the rage.)  Radio ads in Utah feature Gov. Mike Leavitt singing, "Slow the flow, save H2O!"  Online, you'll find the Sacramento Water Works Association's Web site, where kids can download Mr. Leaky's House, "a water-saving adventure game."  Before long, playing day and night, they'll be tossing around water conservation tips like pop lyrics.

Don't think you can escape by moving to another town.  In Boulder, the city has replaced flowers in town parks with pinwheels.  In Santa Fe, the city is handing out hundreds of free low-flow toilets (with a $40 installation fee).  The Castle Pines Golf Club, in Castle Rock, Colo. - a haven of stability, even in these times of drought - has banned smoking on the course because of extreme fire danger.

The water-conservation mantra pops up even in Phoenix, where you might find the message "Be in the know, save H2O" hidden inside a fortune cookie.  If you're real lucky, you might bump into Lisa Hemphill, hobbling around in a giant blue $2,000 latex water droplet costume, subliminally urging you to use water wisely.  But she won't tell you so directly, because, according to her boss, karen Young, at the Gilbert, Arizona water district, "Good mascots don't talk."

The message, sometimes plain, sometimes disguised, is everywhere. Source: August 19, 2002,  High Country News, by Jon Waldman

Informatoin about how oregon's coastal wetlands are changing will help citizens and agencies know how well various programs aimed at protecting wetlands are working, what types of wetlands are most at risk, and what types are being restored.  this data is crucial for measuring the Wetlands Bencyhamrk, a dopted by the oregon Progress Board.  The benchmark sets a target of increasing the state's estuarine wetlands and maintaining the freshwater wetland acreage.

"This project is truly a cooperative effort," said Janet Morlan, Wetlands Program maanger.  DSL's Wetlands Program staff launched the effort by obtaining funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.  The Portland District Corps of Engineers helped obtain aerial photos for the study.  Staff members from the Department of Land Conservation and Development, South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve and Oregon State University Extension Sea Grant have all helped to design the study.

This study will complement the previously completed study of wetland change in the Willamette Valley.  The results of that study are available from DSL's Wetlands Program staff and are available on the Web site.  Source:  July-September 2002, Oregon Division of State Lands News.

The Environmental Protection Agency signed an agreement on Aug. 28 with the groups, the Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.

Under the agreement, the EPA must alert the groups each time it authorizes the use of a fungicide called vinclozolin and allow the groups to raise any concerns, said Norma Grier, executive director of the pesticide coalition.  "It's really a right-to-know victory, to make sure that the voices of the public and farmworkers are being heard," she said.

Grier said the fungicide has been found to cause hormonal problems in pregnant women and may cause babies to be born without fully developed reproductive systems.  She said, however, she knew of no such cases among Oregon workers.  Source: 9/22/02 The Register Guard, by The Associated Press.

Harris started talking to friends and circulating petitions. This fall, Oregon residents will have a chance to say whether they share Harris' concerns, when they vote on an initiative that would require the labeling of all foods sold in the state that contain genetically engineered material.

The initiative, the first statewide test of voter sentiment about genetically modified foods, could have far-reaching implications. Environmentalists in a half-dozen other states, mostly in the West, are keeping close tabs on the Oregon vote, Harris said  from her home in Portland. "If the voters vote for this, it would send a strong message that this is a serious issue,'' said Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health and food safety advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.

More legislation on the issue
The closing months of the campaign, which began more than two years ago, follow recent European Parliament approval of a sweeping labeling requirement for foods that contain genetically modified material. The "frankenfood'' fears that moved European politicians have not been widely duplicated in the United States - at least not at the federal level. Still, the issue before Oregon voters on Nov. 5 has resonated in some states.

Last year alone, nearly half of all state legislatures passed bills affecting some aspect of agricultural biotechnology, according to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a Washington study group. Final figures for this year are not in, but Pew officials believe the trend is continuing. "The range and volume of state legislative activity on agricultural biotechnology last year reflects the growing significance of those issues at the local and state level,'' said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew group.

FDA role examined
Questions about safety have prompted calls for labeling of genetically modified or bioengineered foods, especially as the number of modified products has increased in recent years. Although the issue is hottest in Europe, it is of special interest in the United States, which accounts for two-thirds of the 109 million acres of genetically modified crops grown worldwide.

The Food and Drug Administration, which monitors the safety of the U.S. food supply, has maintained for a decade that conventional and genetically modified foods are equally safe and, thus, it has not required special labels on modified products.

But some believe dangers lurk in genetically modified foods that might take years to become apparent. The modification process involves isolating one organism's useful traits and inserting them into another plant or animal to enhance yield, to make it more resistant to pests or to enhance its nutritional value.

One key reason for concern is that the FDA relies on producers to notify the agency and submit safety data when they market genetically modified products. Some experts say this voluntary notification process works well; others say it is too lax. "Establishing a mandatory approval process at FDA would lessen concerns about eating unsafe (genetically engineered) foods, greatly reducing calls for labeling for safety reasons,'' said Jaffe, the food safety expert.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said that FDA reviews of genetically modified foods would be enhanced if the agency more thoroughly examined test data from producers and more clearly explained its food safety decisions. The FDA has been working for two years on a new rule that would require producers to notify the agency 120 days before marketing genetically modified foods. Additional safety information also would be required. The final rule is expected next year.

Meanwhile, some insist that labels should be required in any case to alert consumers who want to avoid genetically modified  foods. "Consumers are currently being used as human guinea pigs in a massive feeding experiment,'' said Craig Winters, executive director of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, a political advocacy group. "And because there are no labels on genetically engineered foods, people do not even know they are participating in this experiment.''

Opponents cite cost
Up to 70 percent of the packaged foods on U.S. supermarket shelves could include genetically modified ingredients, but that does not appear to concern the vast majority of Americans. Fewer than one-third have ever discussed the topic with anyone, according to a nationwide poll released earlier this year by the Rutgers University Food Policy Institute.

William Hallman, associate professor of human ecology at Rutgers, said that, when asked, 90 percent told pollsters they believe that genetically modified foods should be labeled. But only half that number said they would be willing to pay more for labeling, a potentially huge problem for supporters of the Oregon initiative.

Opponents of labeling point out that the costs of the Oregon proposal could be substantial. Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law, said that one estimate put the tab at $120 million over the next decade in Oregon alone. Producers would have to test up to 500,000 food ingredients, McCormick said, and tracking and segregating modified food ingredients could become a regulatory and production nightmare. The coalition includes the Farm Bureau, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, restaurants and food processors.

Supporters talk about mobilizing a grass-roots network of environmentalists and distributing thousands of fliers saying that consumers have a right to know whether the food they eat contains genetically engineered material. It is unclear, however, if the supporters will be able to match the expected costly coalition television campaign against the initiative.

Even if the labeling measure passes, it might be delayed by court challenges. Still, supporters say that state action provides them their best hope of achieving their goal because Congress has not voted on recent labeling bills and the Bush administration has shown no support for the idea.

Harris, the Portland mother, says she is optimistic. She has quit her job as a secretary to a judge to work full time on the campaign. Her motives, she said, are more those of a mother than an environmental activist, adding, ``I was driven by the safety of my children.''  (Source:  8/31/02, The Register-Guard, By John MacDonald, The Hartford Courant)