[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS -WATER QUALITY- 4/14/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

April 14, 2009

 

4. Water Quality –

 

The Bay vs. the Bag: Only One Side Can Win

The Huffington Post

 

Potential dangers seen in Sacramento natural gas storage plan

The Sacramento Bee

 

Gas Station Chain Sued for Endangering Inland Empire Groundwater Supplies

Imperial Valley News

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Bay vs. the Bag: Only One Side Can Win

The Huffington Post – 4/14/09

By David Lewis

 

When the tobacco industry tried suing cities to stop restaurant smoking bans, it fueled public anger and resolve, not a resurgence of puffing. So it is striking to see the American Chemistry Council (ACC) using the same heavy handed tactics against cities trying to reduce or eliminate plastic bags, a dominant feature of urban trash and ocean pollution.

 

From Phoenix to Philadelphia, and Seattle to Washington, D.C., the ACC has unleashed lawyers, lobbyists and PR flacks against local efforts to kick the plastic bag habit. But this attempt to protect industry profits could backfire, because it's based on myths that are flimsier than the bags themselves.

 

Plastic bag pollution is growing, and its impact on our rivers, bays and oceans is well documented. Plastic never biodegrades in a marine environment, but it does leach poisons into our water and smother wetlands. Wildlife often become entangled in plastic bags and mistake pieces of plastic for food.

 

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a floating island of trash in the North Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas, where scientists have found plastic particles are more abundant than plankton. That's hard to believe, until you realize that in California alone, we use 19 billion plastic bags annually, and at least 1 million end up in San Francisco Bay each year.

 

Yes, even in the ultra-green Bay Area, bags blow and flow into San Francisco Bay, then out the Golden Gate to join this toxic brew. My daughters can testify to the waves of bags that they pick up at every shoreline cleanup event -- and they know these come not from sloppy boaters, but from all of us on land. That's why Save the Bay and other groups are supporting policies that promote reusable bags by placing fees on single-use plastic and paper bags, or banning them entirely.

 

The ACC is apoplectic. This plastics industry giant beat back a dozen municipal efforts to reduce plastic bag use across the country, pressuring New York, Phoenix and Philadelphia to instead adopt weak "recycling encouragement" schemes that haven't made a measurable dent in bag litter. But as more cities take up the cause, the plastics folks are desperately escalating their tactics.

 

In the nation's capitol, the industry is funding robo-calls to residents of low-income neighborhoods claiming a 5 cent fee on paper and plastic bags will hurt them disproportionately, prompting a backlash from city council members who say poor constituents care deeply about their trashed neighborhoods. In Seattle, after blocking a city council ordinance, the industry is now spending lavishly against a ballot measure to place a 20 cent fee on paper and plastic bags.

 

Here in California the ACC has thrown everything it can against city fee and ban efforts, knowing that California is a trend-setter on environmental policy. When the industry sued to stop Oakland's bag ordinance, the courts ruled that the city needed a study to prove that banning plastic bags wouldn't negatively impact the environment -- now cash-strapped Oakland is searching for the $100,000 to pay for such a study.

 

Santa Monica and Manhattan Beach were set to pass ordinances banning single-use plastic bags from all retail establishments, but postponed taking action after receiving a lawsuit threat from the ACC front group named (no joke!) "Save the Plastic Bag."

 

The next big battle will be in San Jose, the region's largest city and the third-largest in California. Save the Bay is working with San Jose on bold legislation to require a 25 cent fee on all single use bags distributed by all retailers. Paper bags would also be subject to the fee because they require an enormous amount of energy and millions of trees to produce. The answer to "paper or plastic?" is "neither -- here's my reusable bag!"

 

I have a closet full of reusable cloth shopping bags that I usually remember to take with me -- the fee will help reinforce good habits and help everyone kick the bag habit. In the first year that Ireland instituted such a fee, plastic bag litter dropped by 93 percent and plastic bag use decreased by approximately 90 percent, and these dramatically lower levels of plastic bag use and litter are being sustained.

 

California is upping the ante with a statewide approach to relieve cities from the cost and effort of taking on the plastics industry one by one. California Assembly Bill 68, which would require a 25 cent fee on plastic and paper bags, is bidding for support from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made ridding our bays and oceans of trash a signature issue.

 

Will requiring fees on plastic bags be a hardship during this tough economy? Actually, we all are paying for plastic bags already through local taxes to combat litter and clean up trash-clogged waterways, and through hidden bag costs added to food and retail prices. But it costs nothing to B.Y.O.B. (bring your own bag) and in fact, many stores like Safeway and Whole Foods give credit to customers who do.

 

The more people learn about this issue, the more allies the industry loses. Local recyclers hate the bags jamming their sorting machines, and even some supermarket chains are remaining neutral rather than alienate the residents and leaders of their communities who are working to improve the local quality of life.

 

A healthy San Francisco Bay is essential to our quality of life and economy around here, and it's one of the nation's most beloved and iconic natural resources. Reducing plastic bag use would make a huge difference for the Bay, which is home to 500 species of wildlife, millions of migrating birds, and a critical nursery for salmon and other fish.

 

For nearly 50 years Save the Bay has been fighting pollution and development to protect the Bay. Now we're fighting to overcome the plastic industry's desperate tactics and win the battle of the Bay vs. the Bag. #

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lewis/the-bay-vs-the-bag----onl_b_186494.html

 

Potential dangers seen in Sacramento natural gas storage plan

The Sacramento Bee – 4/14/09

By Loretta Kalb

Advocates say the chance of an accident is slim.

 

Yet there would be some small level of danger if state and local authorities sanction a plan to store 7.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas thousands of feet below a neighborhood in south Sacramento.

 

That's one of the conclusions of a new draft environmental impact report on a natural gas company's proposal to use a cavernous rock formation about 3,800 feet below ground as a natural gas holding tank southwest of the former Sacramento Army Depot.

 

The document prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission notes that leaks, although unlikely, could occur in a populated area.

 

"There is insufficient information to conclude categorically that stored gas would not migrate to the overlying groundwater aquifer or ground surface," the EIR says. If that were to occur, there could be "groundwater impacts, health effects and potentially flash fires or explosions."

 

Among other "significant and unavoidable" impacts are that some pipeline segments also have a potential, albeit unlikely, for release of natural gas with resulting fire and explosion.

 

"The gas does not explode unless it's contained in a room or a building," said Donald Russell, president of Sacramento Natural Gas Storage, which is pursuing the project. "And there are no buildings near or over the pipeline or the wellhead itself."

 

The nearly 800-page EIR is filled with such technical language, listing impacts that can be avoided along with those that cannot.

 

It is the document that many in the neighborhood – along with attorneys and local elected officials – will scrutinize before giving their responses.

 

The state PUC must find there is a public convenience and necessity for the project to go forward.

 

The applicant also must get a permit from the city of Sacramento.

 

Most of the environmental impacts can be mitigated, and the report identifies alternative sites for underground storage and for interconnection pipelines.

 

Even the unavoidable impacts associated with potential leakage could be eased with extensive ongoing monitoring and testing, the report says.

 

But already there is resistance.

 

Some residents in the Avondale-Glen Elder neighborhood atop a portion of the 379-acre underground storage site have voiced concerns about the potential for leakage.

 

And Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty said Monday that because the land is populated with about 700 homes and a number of businesses, assessing public safety will be paramount.

 

"We want to be very diligent to make sure that it is safe," McCarty said. "From what research I've done, this is unprecedented, to go into an urban area and re-pump gas back into an abandoned (cavern)" that has been abandoned for decades.

 

The Florin gas field previously held natural gas, but that was extracted by several companies until 1987, when the supply was depleted.

 

Russell of Sacramento Natural Gas Storage countered that the practice of returning to reuse such storage sites is not uncommon.

 

"We've got about a half dozen similar underground natural gas storage projects in depleted reservoirs located beneath urban areas," Russell said.

 

He said the company will present that information when the EIR is discussed.

 

He also said that a portion of the report shows a greater potential for some problem than company officials believe is possible. Russell cited an example of what he said is the draft's "flawed" data concerning pipeline pressure.

 

"We will submit our comments pointing out the flaws," he said.

 

The company also needs signed agreements from the residents and business owners whose land sits atop the proposed gas storage field to, in essence, rent the space beneath their properties.

 

The company is offering $500 signing bonuses and ongoing annual payments.

 

The project is aimed at establishing a natural gas storage facility for Northern California that is strategically located, providing a 30-day supply in the event of disruption of service from the main supply pipeline that serves the area.

 

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has signed up to store gas at the site, and Russell has said other customers are expected to sign up as well.

 

Tina Thomas of the land-use law firm of Remy Thomas Moose & Manley, which is providing pro bono legal help on behalf of area homeowners along with Legal Services of Northern California, said the firm will submit its comments to the state PUC.

 

"We're going to look at it with an eye on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act," Thomas said.

 

"We'll be looking at whether they have adequately analyzed the impact, the feasibility, the mitigation measures, and whether they have looked at a reasonable range of alternatives." #

 

http://www.sacbee.com/local/story/1777803.html

 

 

Gas Station Chain Sued for Endangering Inland Empire Groundwater Supplies Imperial Valley News – 4/14/09 By the Staff   Riverside, California - Fighting to safeguard groundwater supplies threatened by toxic contamination, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed suit against a national gas station chain - TravelCenters of America - to force the corporation to comply with underground fuel storage laws it has "knowingly and repeatedly disregarded" for years.   "TravelCenters of America has knowingly and repeatedly disregarded California's underground fuel storage laws for years," Attorney General Brown said. "This has put the Inland Empire's scarce groundwater supplies at serious risk of contamination."   On July 10, 2008, Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco filed legal action seeking an injunction against TravelCenters for violating the laws governing the management and handling of underground storage tanks of hazardous materials.   TravelCenters subsequently responded to the suit, offering more than a dozen legal theories as to why the law does not apply. This includes claims that the law is unconstitutional, is pre-empted by federal law, and violates due process.   At the request of the Riverside District Attorney, Attorney General Brown joined the case to enforce California's health and safety laws, which Travelcenters has consistently violated and ignored. The suit was filed last week and made public today.   Over a number of years, the Riverside Department of Environmental Health conducted inspections at the TravelCenters facility in Riverside County, which revealed numerous, longstanding violations of California's underground storage tank law. TravelCenters has failed to correct many of the deficiencies, even after repeated warnings.   Given these violations, Brown is seeking a permanent injunction to block TavelCenter's illegal activities under Chapters 6.5, 6.7, and 6.95 of Division 20 of California's Health and Safety Code, and section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Codes, which governs unfair competition and business practices.   Brown's suit contends that TravelCenters: - Failed to have adequate containment and detection equipment for hazardous materials storage tanks; - Improperly raised, altered, tampered, or disabled sensors in spill boxes that detect leaks; - Failed to identify the date the hazardous materials were received; - Failed to manage hazardous waste containers; - Failed to maintain documentation of employee training; - Failed to identify an emergency coordinator; - Failed to inspect container storage areas; - Failed to store incompatible wastes in separate containers; - Failed to remove accumulated liquid or debris from the secondary containment system; - Failed to have an operational audible/visual alarm system connected for continuous monitoring; - Failed to have emergency response plans; and - Failed to maintain a complete hazardous materials business plan. In addition, the lawsuit seeks up to a statutory maximum of $25,000 in civil penalties for each day of each violation. This could amount to millions of dollars in penalties. TravelCenters of America operates 234 travel centers, including 188 owned and 46 franchisees along interstate highways of 41 US states and in the province of Ontario, Canada.#   http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5182&Itemid=1

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff,  for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of California.