Common Ground On Water Conservation

With California’s water future uncertain, California’s largest water agencies and leading environmental groups today signed a key 10-year agreement to conserve water in the state. The Memorandum of Understanding caps a year of intense negotiation, and offers agencies a series of best practices to conserve water.

"In 1997, a 10-year time frame for meeting conservation goals was set to end in 2008. By approving a new 10-year period, adding flexibility to the Best Management Practices and reorganizing them into programmatic groupings, California continues its role in leading water conservation and innovation in the United States," said Lynn Florey, Sonoma County Water Agency representative and emeritus Council Convener.

Water conservation is going to become even more important in California in the future. "By showing we could work together, we are setting a path for meeting even greater challenges in future years," said Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California representative anewly appointed 2009 Council Convener. "We will need these new Best Management Practices to help meet the governor’s call for 20 percent conservation by 2020; and to address an uncertain water future with the third year of drought and potentially drier years ahead."

With an overwhelming majority vote in favor of the 8 critical changes and additions to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), the Council will continue to play a key role to the hundreds of members who implement these BMPs across the state.

"These revisions will give us the tools necessary to address the ongoing needs across the state by extending the life of the MOU, giving agencies more flexibility in achieving water conservation and by automatically updating as new technologies become available," stated Florey.

The new BMPs will become effective July 1, 2009 and will benefit all of the Council’s members, which include water providers, public advocate agencies and various other parties invested in water conservation in California.

Click here for more information on the California Urban Water Conservation Council.

Remember to VOTE!

Are you as excited about the November 4 election as I am? For the first time, we have a chance to reject the destructive Bush Administration policies that have poisoned our air and delayed action on climate change.

Right here in California, we also have a chance to turn back poorly designed propositions that would stand in the way of clean energy and cleaner vehicles. We also can promote real progress in transit policy, reduce factory farm pollution and protect positive family planning services.

If you haven’t voted yet, please consider Sierra Club’s recommendations this November:

For President and Vice President:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden

For Congress: Please view Sierra Club's list of Clean Energy Candidates at http://www.sierraclub.org/politics

PROPOSITION 1A YES

• Would fund an 800-mile high-speed rail system that will transport Californians quickly and safely while reducing pollution and protecting wild places.

PROPOSITION 2 YES
• Would reduce the density of farm animals, and therefore the intensity of the air and water pollution.

PROPOSITION 4 NO
• Would create a major obstacle to family planning services, likely resulting in dangerous amateur abortions.

PROPOSITION 7 NO
• Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
• Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
• Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.

PROPOSITION 10 NO
• Would put California on the wrong road to cleaner vehicles by setting up faulty programs that don’t reward low-emissions cars and trucks.

Learn more at www.sierraclubcalifornia.org.

- Colleen Flannery

Outreach Coordinator

Sierra Club California

Achieving Open Government in China’s Hunan Province

Sierra Club California got a rare opportunity to take part in a landmark international effort today.
Representatives of China’s Hunan Province came to Sacramento with The Asia Foundation to learn about how California makes information available to the public. They wanted to know how California public interest groups – including Sierra Club California and the Public Policy Institute of California – interact with the government to obtain information, particularly environmental information.

Through a translator, Deputy Director Paul Mason talked about a case in the North Coast, where environmentalists had to sue the Bush Administration for access to data used in developing a logging plan. He also explained discrepancies within the various agencies, noting that the Resources Agency, for example, still does not webcast its meetings even though most other key state agencies do.

Outreach Coordinator Colleen Flannery talked about how groups like Sierra Club use a variety of existing government databases. The representatives appeared impressed by the variety of information made available by the state – ranging from the state water boards’ environmental enforcement reports to political contributions made by companies and individuals to webcasts of government meetings.

The Hunan Province is struggling to address a number of environmental threats, among them environmental health impacts from illegal smelters in nearby Hubei Province, intense air pollution resulting in acid rain, and water contamination in the Xiangjiang River Basin. Getting out environmental information represents one of the province’s – and China’s – best potential weapons against pollution, Paul Mason said.

“Public access to information is one of the best ways to work toward a clean environment,” he told the representatives.

Image Courtesy Wikipedia Commons

Oprah Wades Into Prop. 2 Debate

Yesterday’s Oprah Winfrey Show probed “What Happens If Proposition 2 Passes?”

California’s voters will decide November 4 whether to adopt Prop. 2, which sets basic requirements for farm animal confinement. Simply, egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal and nursing pig sows would be able to turn around within their cages or pens.

Because of their greater numbers, large egg farms will feel the most impact from this law, which is why the Oprah show featured, among others, egg farmer Ryan Armstrong and Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.

Intended to prevent animal cruelty, Proposition 2 also promises to reduce the impact from these factory farms on California’s air and water. By reducing the number of animals confined in a space, farmers also will lessen the amount of nitrates that escape to pollute our water. Large egg farms can produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of nitrate-containing waste each year, according to California Environmental Protection Agency analyses.

Less-cruel caging will help reduce this waste in our water, while increasing our confidence in California-grown products. It also will help family farmers compete with the bigger factories, preserving a way of life as it benefits the quality of life for California’s livestock.

chicken in cage photo courtesy mercyforanimals.org


Watch this graphic video investigating the treatment of hens at one Northern CA egg ranch (CAUTION: May be unsuitable for young children)

Read an article about Proposition 2 from The California Aggie, a college newspaper

Message To The Governor: Sign These Bills!

Just as the lengthening budget crisis threatened to push California’s lawmaking process aside, our state’s leaders finally agreed upon a financial plan for the state.

Now that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s attention seems to have shifted from the state’s tangled budget, Sierra Club California has a list of important bills we respectfully ask him to sign – and one that we want him to veto.

Here are some highlights, or you can read the whole letter here:

Sierra Club California urges Gov. Schwarzenegger to sign the following bills:

SB 974 (Lowenthal) – would mitigate air pollution from the ports and increase port efficiency by assessing a fee for each container moving through the ports or Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

SB 1313 (Corbett) – would ban potentially carcinogenic substances from food packaging, beginning in 2010.

AB 1879 (Feuer/Huffman) – would give the Department of Toxic Substances Control the authority to establish safeguards to protect people and the environment from consumer products containing known toxins like lead, mercury and arsenic.

AB 2347 (Ruskin) – would establish a producer responsibility program for recycling of mercury thermostats.

AB 2447 (Jones) – would ensure that new homes have adequate structural fire protection, without leaving that responsibility to CalFire and the state’s general fund.

Sierra Club California also urges Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto one bill:

SB 1473 (Calderon) - would give inappropriately broad authority to the Building Standards Commission (BSC) to develop and adopt the California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC). This authority would allow the BSC to exclude expert state agencies such as the California Energy Commission, Cal-EPA, State Water Board, Air Resources Board, and Integrated Waste Management Board, which are already working on various aspects of green building.

Read the full letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger here.

Less Water, Fewer Problems

More efficient use of water by agriculture could produce as much water as between 3 and 20 new dams would – while producing more crops, a new report by the Pacific Institute has found.

This report supports what we’ve been saying all along: conservation, not dam construction, is the best answer to the Delta’s dismal problems. Essentially, by applying proven conservation measures, we can do “More with Less,” as the report’s title urges.

About 80% of the Delta’s water flows to agricultural uses. Here are some of the think tank’s ideas for turning down the spigot for agriculture – without turning off agriculture’s production:

• Better Irrigation Scheduling: Watering at key times actually benefits a crop more than simply giving the crop additional water, the study says.


• Shifting Some Crops: Farmers could trade high-water-demand crops, such as field crops, for crops that use less water, like vegetables.


• Improved Crop Management: Giving certain crops less water actually can increase production, the report states.


• More Efficient Water Technology: Drip irrigation and sprinklers are a better bet for most California crops than traditional “flood irrigation,” according to the report.

A national leader in agricultural production, California grows an estimated 15% of the nation’s entire agriculture export. Wouldn’t it be nice to lead the nation in agricultural water efficiency as well?

READ MORE:

SF Chronicle: Study Finds California Can Cut Farm Water Use

AP: Farmers urged to save water, shift emphasis

New Water Bond Idea Is All Wet

(previously published in California Progress Report)

The California Legislature’s ongoing debate over a water bond (ABXX 8, Huffman, Caballero, Wolk) seems to echo discussions going on in houses across California: Should we put big purchases on a credit card and pay them off, or should we be more prudent with our money?

It’s great that our state’s leaders want to take on our state’s water woes, and that the California Assembly has dived into this issue with enthusiasm. But right now, they are talking about spending $10 billion for water – and essentially putting that charge on a “credit card” of more bond-money borrowing. Annual payments on existing borrowing already represent the fourth-largest expenditure in the state’s budget.

Rather than address our problems as a one-time purchase, we need to come up with a steady “stream” of financing that we can use to take on the big, ongoing problems facing our state’s water systems:

- A collapsing Delta capable of delivering an unprecedented shock to the 23 million Californians who drink its water;

- Worsening water quality, as bacteria, trash, pharmaceuticals, plastic byproducts and nitrates poison our rivers and streams;

- Costly, unnecessary dam proposals that would cost billions to build and benefit only a few;

- And a complete failure to regulate groundwater, which plays an increased role in drinking water supplies during droughts.

A one-time water bond won’t do enough to address those problems, and it definitely doesn’t provide a consistent, stable source of funding for water.

We’re not alone in wanting this sustainable funding. Our colleagues with the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, the Planning and Conservation League, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Clean Water Action, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation all agree how important it is to end the spending drought for funds already approved by voters.

Together, we’re asking the California Legislature to rethink its entire approach to funding water policy. We’re also standing up for disadvantaged communities and individuals: those who must fish to feed their families, agricultural workers who can’t drink the water that comes out of their tap. We’re fighting to make sure that these families and workers get a fair share of any bond. Along with our disappearing fish species, they have suffered the most from decades of water policies that rewarded special interests without improving water quality or supplies for these low-income communities.

We have the tools to start making a difference in those communities right now. More than half of the funds from previous bonds already approved by California’s voters, Propositions 84 and 1E, still needs to be appropriated and invested in California’s water resources. As we strategically invest those dollars to clean up dirty aquifers and help low-income Californians, we will have some more time to take a more critical look at our state’s water future.

Right now, the California Legislature has a chance to begin making a real, permanent change to California’s often-shortsighted water policy. It’s time to put down the credit card, and start planning for a sustainable future.

image courtesy DWR

Water For ALL!

Protesting Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein’s push for a November water bond, community groups throughout California rallied yesterday to expose the proposal’s failure to provide long-term and equitable solutions to California’s water problems. Community groups oppose the bond and are calling for immediate action from the Legislature to distribute existing bond funds that have sat unspent since 2006.

“Our communities are struggling as budget cuts dry up state support for our health, education and infrastructure programs. Now the governor is asking Californians to repay another $9.2 billion dollar water bond? We simply cannot afford to do that,” stated Debbie Davis, legislative analyst for the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. “Ironically, this bond is called the ‘Safe Drinking Water Act,’ but it does nothing to address the drinking water crisis in thousands of communities in California.

"Our communities need funding for programs that help provide safe, clean drinking water. Despite a $9.2 billion dollar price tag, this bond doesn’t deliver.”

California’s recent drought has exacerbated water problems throughout the state, ranging from a lack of clean drinking water for rural communities to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem. Instead of creating new management solutions to old problems, the bond provides funding for the same types of projects that have already pushed California’s water system to the brink. Proposed dams and surface water storage would take decades to put in place, and most profit special interests.

“We have a water crisis today. This proposed bond wastes $3 billion on projects that will take decades to produce a drop of water,” said Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California's Senior Advocate. "We don't need 19th-century solutions to today's problems."

Metropulos, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter staff and others called on the Legislature and the Governor to pass SB 1XX (Perata, Machado and Steinberg), releasing unspent funds from Proposition 84, passed in 2006. Over $800 million is being held hostage as leverage for a wasteful water bond.

The Legislature reportedly has until the end of this week to vote the water bond onto the ballot.

Information and images courtesy Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and Planning and Conservation League.

And The Winner Is...

Grassroots lobbying is more important than ever.

That's what Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, told a group of volunteer lobbyists who donated their Sunday and Monday to assist Sierra Club California's senior staff in advocating key legislation.

Perata, who won Sierra Club California's first-ever Byron Sher Award for Outstanding Environmental Achievement by a Public Official in recognition of his tireless efforts on behalf of the environment, encouraged these volunteers to continue to maintain their presence in the State Capitol. Because of term limits, he said, California's legislative leaders won't have the experience to push forward major pieces of legislation like the Global Warming Solutions Act - unless the people in their district hold them to it.

"If you can talk to someone where they live, where they shop, that's going to be how we get these bills passed," he said. "[You must] maintain your vigilance, and maintain the priority you place on the environment in your daily lives."

He also warned that some Republican representatives of the Legislature want to build more dams and roll back environmental protections.

But it wasn't all seriousness. After warning the Club members to stay aware of legislation, he brought warm laughter with an aside:

"Of course, asking Sierra Club members to be more vigilant is crazy," he joked.

Water: The Choice Is Clear

Remember the end of "The Wizard of Oz" (spoiler alert!), where Dorothy, the lion and the scarecrow learn the answers to their problems have been there all along?

Something like that seems to be happening in California water policy. Two measures could help our state make great strides forward: SB 1XX (Perata) would spend money that Californians already voted to spend, in a way that would clean our aquifers, encourage better planning for our state's existing water resources and. and stimulate our state's economy. Meanwhile, AB 2175 (Laird) would set strong conservation goals for Californians, effectively giving us "free water."

Both Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass spoke out in favor of these proposals today, flanked by a sizeable turnout of California lawmakers. It was part of a response to last week's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposal for $9 billion in new water bond spending.

"It's imperative that we get to work immediately improving water conservation, water storage and water management -- and that's exactly what these two bills do," Bass said of the proposals. "This package sets a realistic target for boosting water conservation and uses already approved bond money to make big improvements in California's water system."

As Sierra Club California's Jim Metropulos has said, the governor's proposal represents more of the same for California. Instead of embracing 21st-century solutions, it looks to our dam-building past, proposing an expensive, unproven solution to our current water shortage.

Here's some recent coverage of California's water woes:

KCBS: Disagreement Over How Best To Conserve CA Water (LISTEN)

San Francisco Chronicle: Huge Bond Plan To Revamp State Water System

The Sacramento Bee: Governor, Feinstein Back Bond

Waiting Game In Half Moon Bay

You could think of the California Legislature the same way air travelers think of the line in front of the security gate: it's often a matter of "hurry up and wait."

Right now, we're waiting to see what happens now that the Senate Rules Committee on June 24 ordered the withdrawal of Assembly Bill 1991, the ill-planned Half Moon Bay bill. The powerful committee, which basically works to route bills and enforce the Senate's rules, has returned the bill to the Senate Desk - meaning it's essentially not cleared for takeoff.

As currently written, AB 1991 would roll back all environmental laws that apply to coastal wetlands in the Glencree and Beachwood areas of Half Moon Bay, clearing the way for subdivision development. It has its roots in a flawed $18 million settlement between the city and the developers - and would set a bad precedent for the state.

Pulling the bill back to the Rules Committee forces the city to finally realize that it can't just cut a deal with the developer to waive environmental laws and expect the state to go along.

- Paul Mason, Sierra Club California Deputy Director (pictured)


Half Moon Bay's Coastsider website recently wrote an editorial opposing this half-baked idea. Read it here.

Your donation helps us protect California's coasts.

A Strong Response to Spilled Oil

We met this week with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to talk about a raft of Sierra Club California-supported oil spill bills he just signed.

Hopefully, California will respond more quickly and efficiently to the spills that plague coasts and inland areas alike, leaving dead and suffering wildlife in their wake.

These three bills could help speed and shape California’s response to oil spills:

AB 1960 (Nava): Increase state oversight of inland oil wells, where spills actually occur more often. For example, in 2007, more than nine times the amount of oil spilled in inland creeks, rivers and streams as spilled in the Cosco Busan spill.

SB 1739 (Simitian): Makes sure all first responders to oil spills are prepared to take on those spills.

AB 2911 (Wolk): Requires inland oil spill response to match marine oil spill response, in terms of strength and speed, and increases the fines paid by polluters who spill oil.


On a personal note, for anyone who’s wondering, our “Governator’s” handshake is as *firm* as his resolve seems to be!

Sierra Club has sought a stronger oil spill response since 2007’s Cosco Busan spill. Read More.

See what Governor Schwarzenegger had to say in favor of the three bills he signed.

Don't Build It, Dam It

Recently, the Los Angeles Times wrote that new Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and next year’s Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg might consider building new dams as one way of getting water to the people.

California’s in the middle of two dry years, so it’s no surprise that California’s Assembly and Senate leadership want real solutions to provide water for homes, businesses and farms. But building more dams won’t solve today’s problem, tomorrow’s problem – or the problems that could arise five years from now.

Dams cost a lot of money to build, and we can’t be sure that they’ll even work the way they’re supposed to. We’re still several millions of dollars away from completed studies on the dams that special interests want us to build in the Central Valley – and we already have 1,400 dams in the state of California.

Instead, California’s leaders can act on other parts of the Governor’s proposal, supporting existing legislation that would require 20 percent reductions in water use, AB 2175 (Laird and Feuer). And we can continue to progress toward a solution in the delta that provides for the best use of water while protecting the delta’s natural resources.

Twenty percent isn’t much to ask. Think about it: It’s the difference between your kid throwing four water balloons and five at his birthday party – or between some new toilets and their predecessors.

If we apply conservation measures now, California won’t come up dry now, tomorrow and in the near future.

Water For Tomorrow

Today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s declared a “State of Emergency” for the state’s dwindling water supply.

He's also called for Californians to cut back on the water they use. Right now, the California Legislature works to advance SB 2175 (Laird and Feuer), a Sierra Club California priority bill that would cut water use by 20 percent across the state via conservation.

But building more dams – the other part of his proposed solution– isn’t the most cost-effective, sustainable way to address the state’s shrunken snowpack and dwindling runoff reserves. And it's not the best way to make sure there's enough water for future generations.

We don’t even know exactly how much the dams the governor wants to build will cost, how much water they will produce, who will receive and pay for the water and how they will affect our environment.

Governor Schwarzenegger said he wants to revive last year’s water bond proposal, which focuses on expensive water projects that would serve agribusiness and accommodate big growth in the Central Valley. Since the multi-million-dollar studies of the proposed dams aren’t done yet, Californians can’t be sure whether the multi-billion-dollar dams will safely serve California’s communities without harming our precious natural heritage.

Conservation is still the cheapest, most certain water supply available to California.

We must focus state money on forward-thinking water conservation programs, water recycling and cleanup of polluted underground stores. The state also must adopt a holistic, long-term strategy for protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta before making major investments there or for new dams upstream of the Delta.

The governor has said he doesn’t want to make water into a political issue, and neither do we. We can address the state’s water shortage with low-cost, smart solutions available to us right now.

We need to embrace tomorrow’s solutions, instead of building yesterday’s monoliths.

Sierra Club California 2008 Priority Bills

Smart Growth/Global Warming. SB 375 (Steinberg) would require certain regional transportation plans to include a sustainable communities strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would provide incentives for more compact development, reduced driving, greater housing choices and conservation of farmland and habitat.

Clean Energy. SB 411 (Simitian and Perata) would require investor-owned utilities to meet a Renewables Portfolio Standard of at least 33 percent by 2020.

Cleaner Air at Ports. SB 974 (Lowenthal) would charge containers shipped through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland in order to raise money for air quality and transportation improvements.

Land Use/Fire Protection. SB 1500 (Kehoe) would allow the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to require local governments to guarantee adequate structural fire protection before approving development in high-fire-hazard State Responsibility Areas.

Fire Protection. SB 1617 (Kehoe) would establish a fair and equitable new fee on homes in State Responsibility Areas to fund some of the costs of their fire protection. The fee would be tiered to give incentives for reducing fire risks, and would also fund proactive prevention activities.

Safer Products. AB 1879 (Feuer and Huffman) would give the Department of Toxic Substances Control the authority to establish safeguards to protect people and the environment from consumer products containing known toxins like lead, mercury and arsenic.

Recycling Mercury Thermostats. AB 2347 (Ruskin) would require manufacturers to establish a program for recycling thermostats containing mercury, a potent neurotoxin.

Water Conservation. AB 2175 (Laird and Feuer) would establish numeric water savings targets for urban and agricultural water use and require a 20% reduction in statewide urban per capita water use by 2020.

Outdoor Education. AB 2989 (Fuentes) would create a permanent program in the Department of Parks and Recreation that would award grants to schools and non-profit groups that provide outdoor education and recreational opportunities for youth.

Where have all the salmon gone...

It appears that the relatively healthy stocks of Central Valley fall run chinook are in serious trouble. Today's Sac Bee has the story:

The Sacramento River's fall chinook salmon population is headed for a collapse, according to new federal data, threatening the upcoming commercial and recreational fishing season on one of the country's most important runs.

The fall chinook run in the Central Valley has long been touted as a conservation success story. As many other species declined, fall salmon spawning in the Sacramento River and its tributaries held reliably above 200,000 fish for 15 years.

But in fall 2007, the number of spawners suddenly fell to just 90,414 fish, the second-lowest total since 1973. That includes wild and hatchery-raised fish.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) found two areas of particularly bad news. First, the return of mature Sacramento river chinook failed to meet conservation targets for the first time in 15 years. Second, the returns of younger "jack" salmon (which return to spawn when they are two years old rather then the normal three) were at a record low 2,000 fish, compared to a long-term average of 40,000. This is an ominous indicator for next year's run.

The collapse of these previously solid stocks have PFMC fisheries experts very worried:

Last week scientists questioned whether returns in 2008 could meet the conservation objective even without any commercial or recreational salmon fishing where these fish are found. If returns do not meet the conservation objective, an emergency rule from National Marine Fisheries Service may be required to allow any fisheries.

The reasons for the decline are not entirely clear - both wild salmon and hatchery fish appear to be affected, and the cause is likely related to ocean conditions.

The economic implications for fishermen (and those who love to eat wild salmon) are dire. Sacramento chinook have historically been the "workhorse" salmon run, providing much of the commercial catch. If the population has crashed as severely as it appears, the fishing season next year will be substantially restricted.

The PFMS will meet in Sacramento on March 8-14 to discuss management options, followed by public comment and hearings up the coast. It certainly appears that it will be a painful decision making process.

More information is available at the Pacific Fisheries Management Council web site, including an informative press release.

Sierra Club California, Surfrider State Park Foundation and others, Urge Protection of San Onofre State Beach from the Foothill South-Toll Road

Sacramento, CA – On January 22, 2008, a coalition including environmental groups, campers and surfers spoke out against Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent decision to support a six-lane, 16-mile toll road extension through San Onofre State Beach in Northern San Diego County. Scattered on the capitol lawn were 161 little red tents representing campsites that would likely be abandoned due to the harm the toll road would have on the San Mateo Campground.

“Approval of the Foothill-South Toll Road through San Onofre State Beach would set a dangerous precedent and put all our parks at greater risk,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, President of the California State Parks Foundation. “As California becomes more and more crowded, we are at a turning point. It is our generation that will decide whether state parks are merely warehouses for future development projects or if the lands we cherish will be protected for future generations to enjoy.”

“Because we live in San Bernardino, far from the coast, being able to camp at such a lovely campground near the beach is very important to us,” added Deborah Fry, a teacher whose family camps at the San Mateo Campground several times a year. “Camping together brings my family closer and creates memories that will last a lifetime.”

The protection of San Onofre State Beach from the Foothill South Toll Road is not just an issue of local concern but one of statewide significance as well. If they can put a road through San Onofre, it will set a dangerous precedent and put all of our parks at greater risk. As California becomes more and more crowded we are at a turning point. “Will our parks and natural spaces remain open protected for future generations to enjoy or will they be seen as just warehouses, set aside for future development?” said Jim Metropulos, Legislative Representative for Sierra Club California “Parks should not be looked at as the path of least resistence for developers proposing bad projects."

Early next month, the California Coastal Commission will decide if the Foothill South-Toll Road is compliant with California’s Coastal Act. Last year, the Coastal Commission staff released a 236-page report stating the road violates the Coastal Act in substantive and unmitigable ways. The Coastal Commission will make a decision regarding the toll road extension when they meet on February 6^th in Oceanside.

The proposed Foothill South-Toll Road has long been a source of contention between environmentalists, campers and local citizens and toll road proponents. Environmentalists assert that the road will not significantly reduce the county’s traffic problems and construction of a road through a state park will set a dangerous precedent. The proposed extension would connect the current portions of the Foothill South Toll Road to the I-5 freeway at the Orange County/San Diego border cutting through San Onofre State Beach, the San Mateo Campground and the San Mateo Watershed causing the abandonment of nearly 60% of the park.

Not only would the road ruin San Mateo Campground, but Surfrider Foundation is also concerned the toll road will pollute the San Mateo Creek and alter the natural flow of sediment and cobbles that help form the waves at Trestles. “Why risk ruining a pristine watershed, impeccable water quality, and a perfect wave for a toll road?" asks Stefanie Sekich, Save Trestles Campaign Coordinator for Surfrider Foundation.

From the California Progressive Report: "Who Wants to Camp Under a Toll Road? A Bad Idea for California’s Parks"

From Capitol Weekly: "Coalition rises to protect San Onofre State Beach"

Conservation Groups Sue State to Block Effort to Streamline Killing of Endangered Coho Salmon

With coho salmon teetering on the brink of extinction, the California Board of Forestry recently adopted new rules to make it easier to kill the remaining coho, without addressing the well-known shortcomings of the state’s logging rules.

The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) and Sierra Club brought suit against the salmon-killing rules in San Francisco Superior Court today, arguing that the Board has a legal responsibility to protect fish, wildlife and resources, and that rules focused exclusively on making it easier to kill endangered salmon are beyond the Board’s authority.

California’s logging rules have long been identified by state and federal wildlife agencies as allowing harm to endangered salmon. See declaration of Joe Blum, NMFS. In the summer of 2006, the Secretary of the Resources Agency proposed a broad statewide rule package to address the shortcomings of California’s Forest Practice Rules as they relate to salmon. Shortly thereafter, the Governor’s Office apparently intervened on behalf of the timber industry, and the proposed habitat protection approach was abandoned.

The coho salmon rules being challenged in this lawsuit make no improvements to logging rules to protect salmon habitat, and only apply when coho will actually be killed by the logging operation. If the logging plan will kill coho salmon, the rules require only certain limited mitigations – regardless of site conditions, nothing more can be required.

“The Board of Forestry should be tightening lax logging rules that allow even more habitat damage. Instead, they’re giving away permission to kill threatened salmon,” said Scott Greacen, Executive Director of EPIC.

Sierra Club California’s forestry advocate Paul Mason observed, “We need to protect and restore salmon habitat, not limit environmental protections and make it easier to kill endangered coho.”

The suit also seeks to overturn new Road Management Plan (RMP) regulations that do not provide for independent review, implementation, monitoring, approval, or amendment. The importance of correcting roads that adversely impact salmon and steelhead habitat with sediment is well known. Richard Gienger, long-time salmon and watershed advocate, points out that "The existing rules, if properly implemented, will prevent sedimentation from roads. Without an independent process or adequate standards, the Board of Forestry's RMP is an unwarranted and confusing duplication and a travesty compared to a real Road Management Plan that would actually have utility and long-term positive effects."

Special Session on Water coming to a Boil: SBX2 3 - Governor Schwarzenegger’s Water Bond Proposal is all Wet

SBX2 3 by Senator Cogdill is Governor Schwarzenegger’s recently introduced water infrastructure proposal for the Second Extraordinary Session. It includes $5.1 billion that could be used to fund all or some of the following projects: the construction of Sites Reservoir, the construction of Temperance Flat Reservoir, and the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. It also includes $1.9 billion for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem programs.

The Governor’s Water Bond Proposal focuses on expensive water projects for big farms and to accommodate big growth in the Central Valley. Sierra Club California urges the Governor to focus state money on programs for water conservation, water recycling, and the cleanup of underground water basins. We also believe that the state must have a completed long-term strategy for protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta before making major investments there or for new dams upstream of the Delta.

New dams are not needed. Water conservation and recycling can easily meet our future water needs at a fraction of the cost. The 2005 California Water Plan by the Department of Water Resources states that four million acre feet of water could be saved by additional water efficiency and recycling programs.

New dams and large reservoirs are wasteful. California’s major reservoirs loose 500,000 acre-feet of water in a year from evaporation (about the same amount of water produced by the Governor’s new dams).

Dams are not a solution to global warming. Experts agree that our existing comprehensive system of dams can be operated to adjust for global warming. Large reservoirs created by new dams will produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Why should the taxpayers pay for these dams? Not one water agency in California has offered to pay even a small share of the multi-billion dollar cost to build these dams.

Dam studies are not completed. We don’t really know yet how much these dams cost, how much water they will produce, who will receive and pay for the water, and their environmental impacts.

A copy of Sierra Club California’s letter of opposition can be found here.

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will hold a hearing on SB2X 3 on Monday, October 8th, at 1:00 pm or upon the call of the Chair in room 4203 at the State Capitol.


September 27, 2007

Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair
Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Second Extraordinary Session: Oppose SB 3 XX (Cogdill)-Governor’s Water Bond


Dear Senator Steinberg and Members of the Committee:

Sierra Club California opposes SB 3 XX (Cogdill & Ackerman), The Water Supply Reliability Bond Act of 2008. This proposal has many flaws but we focus specifically on the provision of the bond that includes $5.6 billion proposed for water storage. Sierra Club California does not support any proposal that provides funding for the construction of new dams or surface storage in California.

SB 3 XX is Governor Schwarzenegger’s recently introduced water infrastructure proposal for the Second Extraordinary Session. It includes $5.1 billion that could be used to fund all or some of the following projects: the construction of Sites Reservoir, the construction of Temperance Flat Reservoir, and the expansion or Low Vaqueros Reservoir. SB 3 XX also includes $500 million for funding other local surface water storage projects.

First, more dams or new surface water storage in California is unnecessary. Even with predicted economic and population growth, if investments are directed toward water efficiency, water reclamation and recycling, and additional groundwater storage, water demand will decrease. Already in the past 40 years, per capita consumption of water has been cut in half. Scenarios analyzed in the 2005 California Water Plan have shown that by conserving and reclaiming water the overall demand for water will fall, as there will be more water available. The 2005 plan also detailed how another four million acre feet of water could be saved by additional efficiency and recycling programs. One more preferable alternative that has already begun to be established is underground water storage, which has already gained 6 million-acre feet of storage in the last 20 years. Surface storage also degrades the natural flow of water and effects ecosystems in irreparable ways which can be avoided simply by using less of the water we already have.

Another reason why surface storage is unwise is that it is too wasteful. The Sites and Temperance Flat facilities for surface storage were projected to produce less water than is lost through evaporation in a year from California’s major surface storage reservoirs. The two projects would have produced about 470,000 acre-feet of water annually. In comparison, a DWR study found that the current major surface storage projects in California lose approximately 500,000 acre-feet in a year through evaporation. More evaporation loss can be expected as new surface storage reservoirs are built.

Additionally, the costs of surface storage are increasing which is an important aspect when considering the debt California is presently attempting to eliminate. Costs of these huge projects will continue to rise when taking into account environmental mitigation and interest is added into the price.

Moreover, the best and most cost effective dam sites in California have already been used. New additional dams produce much less water at a higher cost than more environmentally beneficial alternatives such as urban water use efficiency and recycling. Due to lack of funding, we unfortunately currently achieve about 20% of the reasonable water savings target that could be met if more money was invested into water use efficiency. Investing billions of dollars in environmentally damaging and inefficient new surface storage is irresponsible when limited state funds could be spent on less costly and more effective efficiency and reclamation programs.

Finally, despite arguments by proponents of these projects, dams are not a solution to global warming. Most experts agree that California’s 1,200 existing major dams can be operated in a manner to adjust to possible changes in run-off caused by global warming. The single largest use of electricity in California is storing and moving water to where it is needed. Building new surface storage will most likely result in increased energy use and greenhouse pollution to run these facilities and transport water. Also, existing large surface storage reservoirs are known sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. To build more surface storage to preserve water supply seems unwise when it will simply add to the pollution that causes global warming. One precious resource cannot be traded for another, especially when there are better solutions to preserve both.

During this Second Extraordinary Session, the state can choose to invest millions in efficient water use technologies and programs that we know will reduce demand or we can choose to invest billions in costly and environmentally destructive dams. Sierra Club California asks that the Legislature invest in water use efficiency, water reclamation and recycling, and underground water storage rather than building new dams. These investments will produce more water at less cost and with fewer impacts to the environment. We oppose SB 3 XX and will encourage voters throughout California to reject any water bond that substantially funds new dams. Therefore, we urge you to reject any funding for dams or surface water storage and provide a more economical and environmental approach to sustaining California’s water system.


Sincerely,


Jim Metropulos
Legislative Representative

cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President pro Tem Don Perata
Speaker Fabian Nunez

Environmentalist Pressure Removes Water Board Member

Sam Wakim with vitriolic conservative commentator Ann Coulter, at the 2004 National GOP Convention.

He’s a right-wing Republican activist who lives in the Central Valley. So what’s he doing on the North Coast Water Board?

Sam Wakim is the Chair of the Siskiyou County Republican Party and is a leading candidate to replace Doug LaMalfa in representing the Second Assembly District, which encompasses the Northern Central Valley, plus Modoc and Siskiyou counties. He was appointed to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in November of 2006.

Wakim currently resides in the town of Mount Shasta, and runs a dental practice in Yreka. Though he does maintain a business office that is (just barely) within the boundaries of the North Coast Water Board region, one has to wonder how you can serve on the North Coast Water Board and simultaneously seek to represent the Central Valley in the Assembly.

Residency requirements are not Wakim’s only problem. His ideological perspective comes through at Board meetings, with belittling comments such as referring to the Karuk Tribe’s sacred World Renewal Ceremony (which requires ritual cleansings in the Klamath River for 10 days) as their “little festival”, and pushing back against staff (and other Board members’) efforts to address the public health concerns of toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River system. The toxic algae blooms are among the worst in the world, exceeding World Health Organization standards by more than 100 times.






Sample driver's license from Sam Wakim's web site.





Wakim also runs his own personal blog (under the pseudonym Abu David) which provides additional insights and concerns about his politics. For example, his post lambasting Senator Gil Cedillo for carrying a bill to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants includes this intemperate mock license.

Sierra Club California opposes the confirmation of Sam Wakim’s appointment to the North Coast Water Board, which is scheduled to be heard before the Senate Rules Committee next Wednesday. We believe the Governor can, and should, do better. Though we have been quite critical of a few of Schwarzenegger’s appointments, he has generally made many quality appointments, and we are frankly perplexed at how Wakim ended up in an important environmental post.

The North Coast has many complex water quality challenges, and the public deserves a better appointment to this important seat. The Water Board should not be used as a political stepping-stone, nor as a venue for exerting right-wing ideology. We call upon the Senate to reject his confirmation, and the Governor to make an appointment better suited to represent the interests of the public on the North Coast.

UPDATE: Sam Wakim resigned on Thursday. Please see this Sacramento Bee story for more details. We look forward to working with the Schwarzenegger Administration on appropriate appointees for this and other vacant positions on the North Coast Water Board.