A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 13, 2007
3. Watersheds
S.J. river plans float to Congress; Long-delayed bill would restore water flow, fish -
Nunes seeks clues on river deal in obscure water district vote - Fresno Bee
Editorial: River deal gets a bit wobbly in Congress; Historic settlement might land in judge's hands again -
DELTA ISSUES:
Seasonal flooding in the Delta - Antioch Press
MOKELUMNE RIVER WATERSHED:
Water utility permits land for cultural tradition - Stockton Record
WATERSHED PLANNING:
Water Groups Hope to Improve Future Reliability - Santa Clarita Signal
QUAGGA MUSSELS:
Guest Column: Is enough being done to protect
SALT FLATS:
Editorial: Turning the tide on bay salt flats -
KILARC FISHING HOLE:
Editorial: Fishing hole’s preservation is a tough catch -
STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Interview:
S.J. river plans float to Congress; Long-delayed bill would restore water flow, fish
By Alex Breitler, staff writer
Reworked and long-delayed legislation that would authorize restoring water and fish to the neglected
It's been more than a year since environmentalists, the government and water users reached an agreement ending an 18-year legal battle over the river, which in some stretches upstream from
But legislation is needed to make that lauded settlement a reality.
Any more delays could "jeopardize a balanced restoration plan" for the
Officials trying to implement the settlement also sound concerned.
"We're able to move forward (with planning) under existing funding, but it's going to be problematic in the near future if the legislation doesn't pass. We don't even have a budget at this point," said the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Jason Phillips, who is coordinating the restoration program.
Legislation to finalize the settlement and provide $250 million in federal funding was introduced in January. It stalled because of concerns over the project's estimated $500 million price tag.
An amended bill is scheduled to be heard Thursday in the Democratic-controlled House Committee on Natural Resources, which was scheduled to take up the bill last week. The earlier hearing was delayed so committee members could study the bill's changes, one of which includes fees on some oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico to help pay for the river's restoration.
The oil industry is fighting the proposed fees, which could raise the cost of those leases anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute said.
Under the settlement, farmers with the Friant Water Users Authority stand to lose 19 percent of their water supply, or about 242,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field 1 foot deep.
The settlement outlines ways to get some of that water back. But some farmers fear that won't happen, especially in light of a ruling by a federal judge that limits the amount of water that can be shipped south from the Delta.
While the river plan has been hailed as a reconstruction of
"It makes no assurance that water will ever get to the Delta," he said. "(Delta farmers) don't see much benefit" from a water supply perspective.
Environmental groups urge restoration of the river, calling it one of the largest projects ever undertaken in the West.
A spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which originally sued over the low
Officials have already held meetings to gather public comments on the plan.
"Everything is moving forward," said Ron Jacobsma, general manager of the Friant authority. "But at some point in time, the (federal government) is going to need additional funding as well as authorization." #
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/A_NEWS/711130309/-1/A_NEWS
Nunes seeks clues on river deal in obscure water district vote
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, is closely monitoring an obscure election for a seat on the Lower Tule River Irrigation District board of directors.
He's looking at the contest for clues about the prevailing sentiment among farmers regarding the proposed
"We live in a democracy, and that race is clearly over the
Dairy farmer Tom Barcellos challenged longtime director Don MacMillan for the Lower Tule board seat. In the election held Tuesday, the vote was a 27-27 tie. Some absentee ballots remain to be counted, according to Barcellos.
If approved by Congress, the
This has raised concerns by some farmers that they could lose water, despite promises that the water would be made up to them in wet years.
"I see us losing water before any ability to recover water is available," Barcellos said.
MacMillan, the board chairman, has defended the proposed settlement as the best that Friant lawyers could negotiate and something farmers can live with. The unwelcome alternative, he and others have said, is to accept a worse ruling on water flows from the federal judge deciding a lawsuit against the Friant Water Users Authority by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Challengers in irrigation district elections usually don't fare well, but Barcellos said he tied MacMillan because "farmers are more aware and lot of them share my concerns."
"I have all the respect in the world for Don MacMillan," Barcellos said. "I wish I didn't have to run against him as an individual."
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/griswold/story/187051.html
Editorial: River deal gets a bit wobbly in Congress; Historic settlement might land in judge's hands again
An essential piece of legislation to advance the plan to restore water to the
The legislation is needed to authorize -- and help pay for -- a number of projects that are necessary before additional water can be allowed to flow down the river from behind Friant Dam. That restored flow is part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by environmentalists in 1988. The historic agreement would take as much as 19% of annual irrigation deliveries from farmers on the Valley's east side to re-water a once-mighty river that now runs dry much of the year before it reaches San Francisco Bay and the sea.
Farmers and environmentalists alike compromised on the settlement for fear that federal Judge Lawrence Karlton would rule against them. Better to take a deal that isn't perfect, each side reasoned, than to risk losing big time in the judge's ruling.
The settlement also calls for the re-introduction of salmon to the river, beginning in 2013. The original salmon runs were destroyed when Friant Dam was built.
The House legislation was first proposed by Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, in January. It has gone through many convolutions, including being replaced by a bill from Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno. Costa has a seat on the House Resources Committee, which must approve any river legislation.
The legislation must "offset" at least half of its estimated $500 million cost by either finding new revenues or stripping money from something else. Costa's bill would accelerate payments from Friant farmers for federal dam construction debt. It also contains a "conservation of resources" fee on some oil-and-gas leases in the
Radanovich isn't happy with some of the changes Costa has made, which further complicates matters. And Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, has kept up a steady stream of criticism of the whole idea of the settlement.
Some observers in
"I'm disappointed that it's become incredibly partisan," Radanovich said Wednesday. "It's turned into a very divisive issue now, and I regret that." That sounds to some like Radanovich is positioning himself to back away from the issue.
That would be too bad. Radanovich may have reason to criticize some of the elements Costa has introduced into the legislation -- he's not alone in that -- but the bill is still evolving. It would be more useful to remain as part of that process than to back away altogether.
Both parties to the settlement -- the Friant Water Users Authority and the National Resource Defense Council -- have the right to void the agreement if Congress can't pass the enabling legislation. That would send the issue back into mediation, and ultimately into Karlton's hands again.
There's no guarantee how the judge will rule. He could take even more water from farmers, which would be a painful irony if opposition from those in agriculture causes the legislation and the settlement to fail.
We should know soon. Lawmakers have given themselves one more week to sort things out with the legislation. If that doesn't work, hold your breath. There is no telling what might happen next. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/188715.html
DELTA ISSUES:
Seasonal flooding in the Delta
By Robert Gromm, staff writer
Talk to people who have grown up in the Delta and they will usually say that when they were youngsters, the flooding of the land was exciting and a lot of fun.
But as they grew older and became more responsible for protecting the “home place,” they learned that flooding was devastating and something to avoid.
To avoid seasonal flooding, which was the case on many Delta islands in the late 1800s and early 1900s, took a lot of work: dredging to build stronger and higher levees, which also deepened the channel; and building dams, weirs and bypasses to hold back the water or divert it. These early Delta dwellers learned to build their homes and barns on the high ground of their land – if there was high ground. Otherwise, it was the levee that protected the homestead.
Most of the early levees were built using Chinese labor. The Chinese came to the Delta country looking for jobs after their work building the continental railroad was finished. Many of them were experienced in building levees when they lived in
After Jersey Tract flooded in 1875, a dredge was brought in to get soil for the levees from the
It was the State’s Swamp and Overflow Act of 1855 that made it financially possible to reclaim the islands in the Delta. This act allowed a person to purchase 640 acres of land for $1 per acre, and when the land was reclaimed and in production, the state gave the dollar back. By 1868, reclamation districts were formed by landowners as cooperatives to maintain the levees and pump the water off the land. Many reclamation districts had their own dredgers to work on their levees and huge steam powered pumps to take the water off the land.
With hydraulic mining flushing mud and silt into the state’s waterways, the deposits of soil on the stream bottoms kept raising the height of the water in the stream, which meant building higher levees to keep the water off the land. In 1878, the state Legislature passed the Carmetti Act, which required the hydraulic mining companies to clean up the deposits their operations were creating on the stream bottoms. In essence, this stopped hydraulic mining, but it also caused the creation of drainage districts.
In the history of the Delta’s flooding records, the flooding of 1861-62, called the “granddaddy” of all flooding, occurred when
Although dams have been built to control run-off from melting snow, and levees have been raised, the combination of rain, releases from dams and high tides still causes flooding. #
http://antiochpress.com/article.cfm?articleID=18123
MOKELUMNE RIVER WATERSHED:
Water utility permits land for cultural tradition
By Dana Nichols, staff writer
PALOMA - After at least 78 years, and possibly much longer, American Indians are once again caring for gray willows and harvesting willow shoots along the banks of the upper
The East Bay Municipal Utility District this year began issuing permits for American Indian basket weavers to enter the willow grove on district land near Middle Bar bridge.
"It looks like it is going to be a beautiful, beautiful place to gather," Arvada Fisher, 53, said Monday as she gathered willow "strings" at the site.
Fisher, who is Miwuk, said she will return Nov. 25 with members of a number of different tribes to show them how to gather and prepare the plant.
The California Native Plant Society considers gray willows rare or endangered in
Fisher lives in
Velasquez lives in Paloma, a few miles from the willow stand, and is the coalition contact for craftspeople who wish to obtain gathering permits.
Without those permits, visitors to the grove may be ticketed for trespassing by EBMUD law enforcement officers. The water utility has strictly limited access to the land along the river and around nearby Pardee Reservoir since Pardee was constructed in 1929.
EBMUD keeps people away in order to protect the purity of water from the river that gets piped to 1.3 million people in
Rafters and kayakers were repeatedly prosecuted on trespassing charges for using EBMUD land at Middle Bar as a take-out point. Finally, EBMUD and boaters reached an agreement in 2003 to allow legal access at the bridge.
That agreement with kayakers, in turn, opened the way for talks with American Indian basket makers, said Kent Lambert, manager of EBMUD's Mokelumne Watershed and Recreation Division.
"There's a small area up by Middle Bar that lends itself well because of the species of the willow that exists there and also because it is an area we already have open public access to," Lambert said.
Lambert said that by next year, he hopes to erect a sign at
The willow stand was in poor condition from 80 years of neglect, Velasquez said.
A California Youth Authority crew from the Pine Grove Conservation Camp last year came in to cut the stand back.
When conditions allow, fire also will be used on the willows. Burning stimulates growth of long slender shoots and eliminates leaf mold and bacteria that can stunt or blemish the willows, Velasquez said. "Also, it kills bugs," he said.
"It's really hard to find good quality willow in a structure that is safe," Fisher said. #
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/A_NEWS/711130310
WATERSHED PLANNING:
Water Groups Hope to Improve Future Reliability
Santa Clarita Signal – 11/13/07
By Jim Holt, staff writer
Local water officials begin wading through a watershed of ideas today with the hope of picking the right one for developing the actual watershed of the
The formal name for Tuesday's meeting of minds is the 7th Stakeholder meeting of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the
Unofficially, it's like a
The Castaic Lake Water Agency is hosting the 150-minute brainstorming session.
Stakeholders invited to the top of the hill overlooking Central Park include: The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, the city of
"It's about how to handle water resources in our valley," NCWD General Manager Steve Cole told The Signal last week.
Once they assemble, the various water agencies are expected to collaborate and develop the IRWMP that focuses on water resource management.
Participants hope to also come up with a platform that would elicit more funding for water resource management.
For them, the future looks brighter this week after politicians in
The 100-mile
It starts on the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains in north
The watershed is spread over two counties, with 40 percent in
Since water in the Santa Clarita Valley is managed at a number of different levels, by a number of different stakeholders, the whole point of Tuesday's group session is to integrate that water management.
The collective hopes to improve the reliability of Santa Clarita's water supply, improve water recycling and conservation, and also to protect recreation areas and natural environmental habitat.
It wants also to prioritize those projects likely to elicit funding under Propositions 50 and 84, that each address issues about safe clean drinking water. #
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=51691&format=html
QUAGGA MUSSELS:
Guest Column: Is enough being done to protect
By Ed Calkins, resident of Kelseyville and Chairman of the Clear Lake Advisory Subcommittee
Is enough being done to protect
The recent Workshop on Quagga Mussels (BOS chambers, Nov 8) and previous meetings/BOS discussions/classes are all similar and real scary.
The threat is well defined (results of these mussels getting into a waterway); any chance of eradication is all but dismissed; significant ongoing monitoring of the lake (including water sample DNA analysis) is described to see if we have them (negative so far); and the public outreach to inform our residents is reviewed. It is agreed that prevention is our only hope. The scary part is that no significant prevention actions (either underway or in the planning stages) are discussed.
The county says that prevention is a state task and we cannot afford to do anything but wait for the state to act. The state has stepped up inspection at several southern
A DFG employee at the meeting stated that while she is not aware of the current status on their effort, DFG is very understaffed and has had significant budget cuts recently. She did describe the effort where dogs are being trained and used to locate mussels and
When one analyzes the data presented at these meetings and then does some research to validate and expand this knowledge, the scare is amplified.
All information indicates that if the mussels (Quagga or Zebra) were to reach
The recreational lure of the lake would be gone as would much of the county revenue. However, costs would soar, water usage from the lake would become very costly as every water pump inlet would need to continually be cleaned or have expensive chlorine dispensers installed to keep the mussels from closing them off.
This would be another nail in the coffin of our struggling agriculture industry. All of this would cause property values to plummet and further hit the county revenue stream. And of course this is not isolated to our county, Cache Creek would spread the mussels into the delta and the state's water distribution system.
Most would quickly say this doomsday scenario is at best exaggerated and probably not accurate, the lake has done well for hundreds of thousands of years etc. etc. Many are hoping that eradication of the mussels is not impossible as now assumed and scientists are trying to understand effective ways of doing so.
A "California Science Advisory Panel" (including experts on
This report confirms the serious threat to the west and concludes that it would be foolish to not do everything possible to prevent or eradicate these invaders even if significant short-term interruption to tourism, fishing, or recreation would result.
They admit that prevention/eradication costs would be high and may seem too over whelming but would be justified when compared to the long-term environmental and economic costs of an invasion.
So, why are we doing so little and not sensing a higher level of urgency on this topic? We recently had a large Bass tournament and several of the boats were from the
Inspection was not enforced prior to going into our lake, any precautions taken with these boats were entirely up to the owners.
Several Lake Mead contestants in the tournament admitted to taking no precautions prior to entering
One has to agree that ultimately control should be at the state level (ours is not the only lake at risk), but it is our lake and our local economy and we should not be willing to stand back and wait until the DFG gets its act together to protect us.
What can we do? Controlling access to this lake is difficult at best. However this threat was first presented to the BOS in 2005, and again early this year with a frightening update that the mussels were now in
One possibility is to "shut down" our lake and publicize it widely. Have the county declare that lake county waterways are off limits to out-of-county boats unless they are inspected and properly sanitized. Anyone proven to be violating this restriction will be fined $10,000. An action similar to this was proposed by one of our supervisors in Feb of 2007, but I guess ruled out as overkill?
At the very least something like this should be done until less intrusive controls are in place and effective. Why is the Sierra Club not all over this, it is certainly a greater short-term risk to our lake than global warming? It is certainly more of an environmental threat than herbicides on our roadways?
Tell your supervisors you want them to escalate this issue as a county priority and assign a strategic task force to put a plan together. We should not panic over this but it does warrant our best effort. #
http://www.record-bee.com//ci_7446898?IADID=Search-www.record-bee.com-www.record-bee.com
SALT FLATS:
Editorial: Turning the tide on bay salt flats
San Francisco Chronicle – 11/11/07
For a century, various businesses have used this site, a 1,433-acre parcel of
The whole region was an agricultural, not a technological, powerhouse. A century ago, industrial salt production made economic sense.
Now that the greatest fruit any
And it will go to the ballot box.
We agree wholeheartedly that this is an unacceptable site for housing. Right now, the land is zoned as a tidal plain. It's dotted with shallow salt ponds. It's located at sea level - a bad spot for housing during a time of global warming. And although developers often find a way around them, state and federal water quality regulations suggest that it may be illegal to build on a site like this anyway.
But just because this site is the wrong choice doesn't mean there's a solution.
Save the Bay estimates that we need about 100,000 acres of bay shoreline to ensure a healthy bay, and we're about 22,000 acres short. It would be great if Cargill offered to hand over this site, but the company hasn't offered to do that, and it shouldn't be expected to do so. It needs to make sure that it can dispose of the land in a way that's financially productive. The question is, how financially productive will the land need to be for Cargill to reconsider its hopes for development?
In 2002, Cargill sold 16,500 acres of commercial salt ponds to the state and federal governments for $243 million. The company offered this site as well, but the governments passed on the deal because the price Cargill wanted, Lewis said, was exorbitant.
Lori Johnson, Cargill's assistant vice president for corporate affairs, insists that the appraisals were done according to strict governmental procedure. Johnson pointed out something else, too - that the cost of restoring the salt flats may be more than the public is willing to take on.
"Right now, the estimate on restoring the 16,500 acres we've already transferred into public ownership is $1 billion," Johnson said. "The
Can a massive capital campaign prove Johnson wrong? We hope so. Otherwise, over the next century these salt flats won't be a record of the Bay Area's changing tide - it'll be a record of the Bay Area's unchanging folly. #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/11/ED5MT6OCE.DTL&hw=water&sn=073&sc=114
KILARC FISHING HOLE:
Editorial: Fishing hole’s preservation is a tough catch
Redding Record Searchlight – 11/10/07
Our view: A long tradition of public use at Kilarc should carry weight as decision-makers move forward.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. officials came to
For those who would like to see the family-friendly fishing hole at the Kilarc Forebay preserved, the response is not encouraging.
PG&E's decision to drop its license for Kilarc is irreversible, the company says. Any decision to transfer the dam, canal and reservoir to another operator is in the hands of the federal regulators. And the company won't keep Kilarc as a fishing pond after it removes the hydroelectric works.
You can't blame the company for that attitude. Despite the tradition of encouraging fishing, camping and picnicking around its reservoirs, the company is Pacific Gas & Electric, not Pacific Parks & Rec.
Still, a century of public use should carry weight as the power company and the decision-makers in
Kilarc is being scrapped to end an outdated water diversion that harms wild fisheries. That's a fine goal, but not at the expense of local recreation.
One more thing: Whatever happens to the hydroelectric project, the vintage stone powerhouse needs to stay.
PG&E's project manager, Steve Nevares, said Thursday that the company is willing to see it preserved but would donate it only to a group that could guarantee the building's care for the long haul. Of course, there's nothing to stop PG&E from maintaining it.
Dismantling an inefficient, old hydro system might be a sound business decision. Abandoning the treasured historic powerhouse to its fate would be a crime. #
http://redding.com/news/2007/nov/10/fishing-holes/
STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Interview:
With water politics roiling the state and the city, Mark Gold, president of the advocacy group Heal the Bay, visited the editorial board recently to talk about his group's concerns and ambitions. Heal the Bay, which was formed in 1985 to address pollution in the
The difficulty of funding water projects
Mark Gold: One of the things you guys have covered very thoroughly is what's going on with the water supply issues in the Delta/Bay and the fact that there's been this impasse between the legislature and the governor's office. And really you can't even get the senate and the assembly to really talk to each other very well right now, which, in all the years we've been doing this kind of work that's pretty unusually. Usually you can get those two sides talking to each other and that's not happening this year.
This was among the most distasteful years in the legislature that any of us can remember. Um, and so what's interesting is you see what's going on, where the Central Valley folks are pushing very, very hard, um, on the issue of we need more storage, we need a peripheral canal... So as you know, there's been this whole issue of how much storage there should be in the equation, how much, um, you know, should there be a peripheral canal... You know, for our founder Dorothy Green these are the very issues that really got her into the environmental business to begin with. She has her new book out Managing Water. So it's interesting to see how things have come full circle 35 years later and we haven't really solved the issues.
But one of the things that is not on the table that we think is a huge problem is Senate Constitutional Amendment 12, which nobody has covered this issue in particular, and it's definitely of interest because you guys cover funding stuff an awful lot. SCA12 is a [Tom] Torlakson bill; it used to be a [Tom] Harman bill, so it was a moderate Republican who brought it in the past. And what it does is it's a specific amendment to Prop. 218. And so, sorry it's going very wonky very quickly in this discussion: One of the big problems is we all know with, you know, post-Prop. 13 and 218 and all these other sorts of things, is that the way to get new funding in the state is limited to: bond measures, which everybody seems to love to pass; that doesn't seem to be an issue. And that's pretty much it from the standpoint of funding; you're not seeing local government being able to successfully raise revenue because of 218 constraints.
So in particular, an area that Heal the Bay is very involved in — and really you won't find anyone in a public works department who doesn't want this to occur — is basically this modification to say for storm water abatement and flood control, that you should be able to raise fees without having to have a two-thirds vote of the public or 50% vote of property owners. That's just a huge constraint. You may recall something like that with the schools, when they went from two-thirds to 55%. So one of the things that we've been trying to get Torlakson, [Sheila] Kuehl and some other folks to go is, if anything is going to get going on water this year — which I'd bet against it but it's being discussed pretty seriously — that SCA12 is part of the deal. Because what's happening right now is it's completely partisan. 100%. Which is really bizarre because as I said before the original, um author of the amendment was Harmon from
Health of the Delta
Jim Newton: Regarding the Delta, what do you see as the prospects for meaningful uh, improvement in the Delta problem?
Mark Gold: You know, I think — and this is, this is a much better question for other people but I'd be glad to take a shot at it, is that the — what's interesting about the Delta is that until we get to the point where um, folks are willing to take on, uh, water rights issues um, in a meaningful way, um, I don't see us coming up with an easy solution. And the reality is, is that with so many different straws in the Delta, so many different straws in other different um, uh, water supplies in the state of California, it just becomes really, really difficult to come up with a solution that is going to satisfy all the needs. So, it's interesting; I'm not seeing, I'm not seeing the, the animosity that I expected though, from the standpoint of the, the, the Democrats in the legislature versus the Republicans. On the peripheral canal, you're starting to see: That, that used to be strictly there's no way in hell. So I am a little bit concerned that that's a potential solution that might be embraced by the legislature and clearly is favored by the Schwarzenegger administration.
Eryn Brown: Is that a solution that you think under all circumstances would be bad?
Mark Gold: Um I, I don't feel quite the same way about storage as I do about peripheral canal. But the thing, getting back to the water rights issue, until the state of California gets the point of basically saying, Mandatory water conservation across the entire state of California; mandatory water re-use — I mean we're completely underutilizing reclaimed water in the state of California: Until we get to those, those two points on, and saying, Hey we're really doing everything we can to maximize those water sources, it doesn't seem right to go to basically, We plumb the entire Delta, which is already completely um, uh, threatened and on the verge of collapse at the same time. And so that's, you know, if we get to the point where we've implemented those other measures and we still have those same sorts of problems, then I think that makes sense, but until we really see that really earnest movement in that direction as opposed to just rhetoric, um, you know it doesn't make sense.
Eryn Brown: Do you also put short-term Delta, work on the Delta just to keep it from crashing or to keep levees from collapsing, or would you just say hands off completely until we, until we...
Mark Gold: No, protection of life and property changes everything. And so um, from the standpoint of the bond measures and the stuff that was focused on, you know, things that were focused on Delta improvements, that, that makes sense. I mean, we may differ a little bit with how Dorothy, Dorothy looks at those particular issues: She's, you know, a firm believer in: no-one should ever be able to build in a flood plain; and you know, she'd get everybody out of there who's already in the flood plain, which would probably be a million people. And, and, we're not, we're not there, and, and honestly protection of life and property does make sense, but the lack of statewide planning as we all know, and you guys have written about this, you know, how many times, but it's very much like the lack of water planning's the same thing and the lack of land-use planning. It's just not happening in the state. We're seeing no leadership whatsoever; even, you know, you have the Southern California Association of Governments that's right around the corner, here, and they've been talking about stuff for years, but they have no authority whatsoever, and they, they're largely ineffective in what they do, even though they have these sorts of discussions and have had them for decades. But there's just no authority yet.
Mayor Villaraigosa's green city initiative
Mark Gold: He made this incredible promise, on greenest major city, um, in the
I think the mayor's done some extraordinary things in uh, some of his hires. I think the recent hire of David Nahai, um, from an environmental perspective as progressive as you're ever going to get. Um, obviously the role that David Freeman and Jerilyn Mendoza played down — and Geraldine Knatz — play down in the
Jim Newton: So why not? What's holding them back?
Mark Gold: I think it hasn't been a top-shelf priority for the mayor directly. He's such a force of nature, if he puts any time into anything himself, it'll get, it'll get done. Um, or at least there will be progress on that issue. For example, I'll bet you he starts putting time into solving that strike. And that strike will, probably won't last another two weeks, when he starts putting his mind to it. He's better at the ability to broker strike solutions than anybody else in the region. But um, you know, he's been focused on education, he's been focused on other issues. He has not personally put in a huge amount of time into this, other than putting good people there.
Jim Newton: And do you think that's because he's distracted? Do you think it's because he doesn't care? I mean, is his heart in the right place and his head doesn't follow, or what's the...
Mark Gold: I think his heart and head are in the right place, but it just has not been the um, the biggest priority for him and the administration. And um, the focus has been more on getting, getting people in there, but he's gotta put the effort and time into making sure that happens. So right now, you probably heard about Garcetti had environmental day, and there were two different days on that a few weeks ago. And you had unanimity in the environmental community, saying we need a sustainable city plan within the next year. And you heard a bunch of different groups including our own, um, and Global Green and Tree People and NRDC and, you know, etc., who basically said: Look, lock us in a room for a month and we'll work with you on the plan, it's just, you guys have got to say you want the plan. There's enough great plans that are out there — Garcetti sent out um, a number of the ones that exist within the country right now; you can go abroad to get plans — so they've been disseminated to the Council, and I think the thought at Council was, this was going to be a mayor-driven activity, and I think the environment day was Eric's way of basically saying: You know what, the Council really needs to take leadership on this as well. We can't just wait for the mayor to do this.
And so you know, I think once there can be some momentum going towards that, then the mayor will start putting some time into that. It's just too bad that it hasn't happened to date.
The plan, please
Robert Greene: Could you give us some highlights as to what such a plan ought to be?
Mark Gold: Yeah, gladly. I've, I'm aware of quite a few plans out there, and I've chaired
The key thing is you need a, you need numeric indicators. You can't just have a bunch of principles that are out there You know, I think what, you know like Jared Blumenfeld's done really well up in San Francisco: They have the precautionary principle up there, for example, in using for decision-making on the environment. So if there is an environmental impact, and you don't know what it is, you just assume there's going to be a significant one, and that helps you make your decisions.
That sort of stuff's all well and good, but you really need to know: All right, we want to reduce water use by x% by this date; we want to increase reclaimed water use by x% by this date; the same thing goes for energy, which this administration has done. You know, they've done a real good job on renewables. Um, 20% by 2010 is incredibly ambitious. And uh, obviously there's no doubt on the climate change front, that they have been paying attention to that. So you have that, you have that. From the standpoint of procurement you have numerical goals. From the standpoint of what are we going to do on our procurement policy, what are we going to do for toxics use reduction? Are we going to be using pesticides, herbicides, fungicides on our parks? In our landscaping? Or are we going to move more toward an integrated pest management approach. So there's different targets you can have there. Transportation is huge from the standpoint of: What are your procurement goals for alt fuels? From the standpoint of the vehicles you purchase: Are you only going to purchase alt-fuel vehicles? If so what's going to be your um, suite of vehicles that you're going to use, and why? There's been a little bit of discussion on that, and it's almost like individual departments are doing stuff, but it's not comprehensive and a huge statement. And
Air quality: What requirements do we want to make there over and above what's in the Clean Air Act and by specific AQMD? Do we want environmental enterprise zones? If so, where? So what are we going to do to, um incentivize green businesses to coming into
Robert Greene: It's not planting trees?
Mark Gold: Oh, and a million trees!
Robert Greene: What do you think of that? Is there any substance to that in your view?
Mark Gold: Yeah, there is, there is substance to it. What Andy has been saying, and frankly Paula Daniels, who's the former president of our organization, has brought up, is there's a difference between saying "Let's plant a million trees as soon as possible" and saying "Let's be strategic about how you plant it from the standpoint of watershed management purposes." And that, Andy has been very, very, um, eloquent on that particular issue.
Jim Newton: Andy?
Mark Gold: Andy Lipkis, at TreePeople. And so, you know, passing out seedlings is not really the way to go, but strategically planting trees, and doing it in — maybe you've heard of these things called tree wells — and tree wells can be planted all over the place. They can provide huge benefits from the standpoint of stormwater infiltration. At the same time as also helping canopy issues and heat-island effects and those sorts of things. So it's not, the focus is how do you get to a million as soon as possible, rather than how do we do this in a way that's truly going to help on sustainability and move us forward on these other issues. And that's the sort of thinking that needs to change.
It's the same thing with, one issue that doesn't seem to get brought up in plans is environmental justice issues. Where specific polluting industries are sited as opposed to where people live. And those sorts of goals you know, people coming up with the environmental bill of rights for everyone in
[....]
Jim Newton: If you look to a city like
Mark Gold: Yes.
Jim Newton: ...and what does such a plan look like so it actually exists in a formal sense? And that's what's lacking here, right?
Mark Gold: I, yes.
Jim Newton: So
Mark Gold: Seattle,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-gold13nov13,0,6703282,full.story?coll=la-opinion-center
###
No comments:
Post a Comment