areas to be protected. Allowing Governors to "opt-in" for roadless protection essentially eliminates national protections for roadless areas. Pro-development states like Idaho and Alaska could also petition the administration to actually weaken protections. Without the Roadless Rule in place, decisions on road building and logging would once again go back to forest plans.

 

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register this week (July 12-16) and the draft is available at

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/id_07/2004_07_12_state_petition_proposed_rule.html

The interim directive can be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/id_07/07_08_04_draft_id_1920_2004-1.pdf

 

Lisa Dix, American Lands Alliance

800 People Turn Out to Oppose Foothill-South Toll Road

by Brittany McKee

On Saturday, June 19, we turned out 800 people to the Foothill-South Toll Road hearing in Rancho Santa Margarita — a 25 minute drive from the communities, open space, and beaches most threatened by the proposed road. To generate the large turnout for this hearing, we implemented a targeted, repetitive direct mail campaign, phone banks, door-to-door outreach, tabling, and an organizing meeting. Below is a summary of the mail and activities we did leading up to the very successful hearing and 7 media hits.

Thirty Days Before the Hearing

 

We received 30 day notification before the hearing. We immediately picked a date for our pre-hearing organizing meeting, booked a room and put together our quarterly campaign newsletter. The newsletter focused on the upcoming hearing and update on the status of the toll road and Rancho Mission Viejo development plan. We included a special insert inviting folks to our organizing meeting to be held on Monday, June 14.

 

Three Weeks Before the Hearing

 

We sent out the invitation to our organizing meeting featuring keynote speaker, Matt Vespa, our attorney with Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger. The invitation explained Matt's environmental credentials, and how he could help improve attendees' testimony for the June 19th hearing, "As an environmental attorney, Matthew has stood up to developers in eastern San Diego County, fought for wetlands protetions in Marin County, and helped win significant open space protection on the San Mateo Coast. On June 14th he'll show you how you can most effectively stand up to the Foothill-South Toll Road."

 

Two Weeks Before the Hearing

 

We sent out the first of two reminder postcards about the upcoming hearing. The postcards were actually activist profiles featuring real activists explaining why they personally were attending the hearing, and why you should join them. The first postcard featured activist Julia Dewees and her family with the headline, "I'm going to the toll road hearing on June 19th to protect clean water for my children and open space for our future."

 

We also mailed out our official invitation to the hearing itself. We worked closely with the Surfrider Foundation to obtain a quote and photo of pro surfer Shaun Tomson, "Whenever I surf Trestles, I appreciate the clean water and great natural surf break. I am concerned that the Foothill-South Toll Road will pollute San Mateo Creek and the surf at Trestles. Help protect Southern California's most pristine surf spot by attending the hearing on June 19th." The surf-themed invitation also included quotes from Coastal Director Mark Massara, and the Surfrider Foundation's Chapter Chair, Mark Cousineau and Executive Director, Chris Evans. We mailed the invitation to our member list as well as Surfrider's mailing list, and in addition, we rented a list of people who live in neighborhoods near Trestles Beach along the toll road route. These are people we have never been able to reach through our "door-to-door" canvassing since they live in gated communities.

 

One Week Before the Hearing

 

The Saturday prior to the hearing, we held a neighbor-to-neighbor outreach day in the precincts along the toll road route. Ten activists distributed nearly 1,000 flyers about the hearing in 4 different precincts. We received a great response to our outreach day and had several people call as a result of the information they found on their doorstep wanting to know how they can get more involved, and requesting additional flyers so that they could pass them out in additional neighborhoods.

 

The Monday before the hearing, we held our organizing meeting at the San Clemente Community Center. 125 people packed the room to find out more about why it's important that they attend the hearing, what they can expect when they get there, and how they can make their testimony most effective. The organizing meeting was extremely successful because we were able to answer questions and fears that the public had about the hearing, and create buy-in for the hearing itself. Nearly everyone who attended the organizing meeting went on to attend the hearing. We also recruited several new activists at the organizing meeting who later helped with phone banking and tabling.

 

Fourteen volunteers worked 8 hours to call over 1,000 activists and remind them about the upcoming hearing during the 4 days leading up to the hearing. Based just on our phone banking calls alone, we confirmed that an additional 112 people would be attending the hearing. On the Friday before the hearing, we ran an automated reminder phone message recorded by Surfrider Foundation's Executive Director that was left on members' answering machines during the day.

 

The week of the hearing we dropped our 2nd activist profile reminder postcard. This postcard featured Mayor Pro Tem Karl Warkomski of Aliso Viejo and encouraged folks to attend the hearing because people really do make a difference, "I am going to the toll road hearing on June 19th because I know that I can make a difference just by showing up."

 

Just days before the hearing, we dropped our final mailer. Included as part of the mailer was a surfboard that said "Stop the Toll Road" that we encouraged folks to cut out and bring to the hearing to wave, and a comment card, also shaped like a surfboard, that folks could write their comments to the Executive Director of the Federal Highway Administration and bring to the hearing to turn in. We felt that these were fun tools for people to express their comments on and use as visuals at the hearing itself. The mailer also included a photo of a vintage woodie station wagon and invited folks to join us for a fun rally and then car caravan as we followed the woodies from state park headquarters in San Clemente to the hearing itself in Rancho Santa Margarita.

Ongoing

 

Throughout the month leading up to the hearing, we had volunteers tabling every weekend at Trestles Beach and different community events like the San Clemente Farmer's Market. We talked to folks about the upcoming hearing, passed out bumper stickers and postcards for them to sign, and encouraged them to join our activist list. As a result of just this month of tabling, we collected nearly 800 signed postcards to the Governor, asking for his help to protect the state park, and recruited hundreds of new activists interested in getting more involved in our campaign.

Results

 

The morning of the hearing, 4 volunteers helped organize nearly 50 people and over 20 cars that participated in our pre-hearing rally and caravan. Coastal Director Mark Massara and Surfrider Executive Director Chris Evans energized the crowd with inspiring words about protecting our coast and our last clean beaches. Everyone decorated their cars with "Save Trestles, Stop the Toll Road" signs, stickers and banners, and then we all followed surf-themed vintage woodie station wagons up to the hearing.

 

At the hearing site, 10 volunteers set up two stations as folks arrived at the hearing. Special thanks to Angeles Chapter staffer Rachel Myers and my colleague from the National office, Owen Bailey, for their leadership in managing the volunteer sign-in activities. First, everyone signed in and received a Stop the Toll Road sticker and Sierra Club and/or Surfrider button. They were given a sheet of talking/writing points to use for their comments, and if they hadn't brought their surfboard from the mailing, they were given a surfboard comment card to fill out. Then they were directed to a 2nd location where several volunteers were working to take Polaroid pictures of individuals in front of the Save Trestles, Stop the Toll Road banner, holding their surfboards and "Protect our Coast" and "Protect Open Space" signs. After having their picture taken, attendees then took their Polaroid to a table to write a personal note to Governor Schwarzenegger asking him to help us protect our state park. The photos were stapled to the colored note cards and displayed on large display boards. By the end of the hearing, all three of our large display boards were overflowing with nearly 500 wonderful photos and comments from surfers, residents, environmentalists, business people, kids, and grandparents all concerned about how the toll road threatens their quality of life. We plan to put the photo cards together in a large book to present to the Governor in an upcoming Sacramento trip later this summer.

Inside, the meeting room was packed with virtually everyone wearing our stickers and buttons and waving our surfboard "Stop the Toll Road" signs, and as the toll road builders gave their presentation of the toll road alternatives, the crowd erupted in cheers and applause to the "no build" alternative. Over 70 people gave eloquent, passionate, and thoughtful testimony and received an enthusiastic supportive response from the crowd as they talked about the importance of stopping the toll road and protecting San Onofre State Beach, Trestles, and the South Orange County quality of life.

 

Brittany McKee, Associate Regional Representative, Sierra Club/Friends of the Foothills
Phone: 949-361-7534, Fax: 949-361-6623

 

Coastal Commission Caves in to
Dana Point Headlands Developers

Dana Point Headlands Findings Will Be Rewritten to Be More Supportive of Resort & Housing Development

 

When the Coastal Commission made the regrettable decision to approve the Dana Point Headlands resort and housing project in January on a 7-5 vote (See CoastWatcher, January 2004), the real struggle — over how to justify the patently illegal development — wasn’t finished. Instead, the fight over “findings” had just begun.

 

“Findings” are the legal description of the Commission deliberations and the basis for their ability to approve a development. These written “excuses” must be rational, and they must allow a judge, or anyone else, to be able to determine that the Commission’s decision makes sense and is consistent with, and valid pursuant, to the policy mandates of the Coastal Act.

 

The proposed (and now rejected) findings drafted by coastal staff for the project can be reviewed at www.coastal.ca.gov/lb/th10a-6-2004.pdf A map of the property is at www.coastal.ca.gov/1b/th10a-6-2004ex26c.pdf

It turns out that trying to justify the Commission’s decision-making process for Dana Point, or to make it consistent with the Coastal Act, is impossible. The Dana Point decision-making process is best described as: too many lobbyists asking for too much and the Commission trying to give it to them. When that happens, the Coastal Act often falls to the wayside.

 

And so when the Commission met in order to consider legal “findings” in order to try to explain how the project is consistent with the Coastal Act, of course the Commission couldn’t finish the job. After yet more hours spent kowtowing to the developer and the City, the Commission ordered their staff to go back and make the findings look more like how the developer wants them to look. Instead of the Commission’s findings describing their January decision-making process, flawed as it was, the process is being tortured now to make the findings look like how the developer thinks they might best withstand the inevitable legal challenges.

 

Call them “FrankenFindings.”

 

The process so far gives one that awful sinking sensation that the Commission can re-write and tinker with the findings for another 20 years and they are never going to be able to make this project consistent with the Coastal Act. Numerous enormous hurdles demonstrate that the Commission’s approval was flawed, defective and illegal, but two examples are exceptionally clear.

First, the Commission approved the proposed resort hotel planned for Dana Headland right on top of a designated environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). The Coastal Act is absolutely 100% clear that an ESHA must not be disturbed or even adversely impacted by development. Putting a hotel on top of it is not included in the Coastal Act as an exception. The Commission’s decision, in this instance, if it were upheld, would make the ESHA protection provisions of the Coastal Act absolutely 100% worthless.

 

For striking photos of the ESHA where the Commission wants to build a hotel, go to www.cacoast.org/5021

 

Second, the Commission approved excavating Strands Beach and building a giant new seawall in order to facilitate construction of 75 new luxury homes in a gated community. The Coastal Act is absolutely 100% clear that seawalls can only be built to protect “existing” structures. Building new seawalls for new housing, if upheld, is an invitation to wall off the entire coast for new housing and would make the Coastal Act’s seawall prohibitions absolutely 100% useless.

 

For pictures of the beach the Commission wants to excavate in order to build a new seawall, and to the view the bluffs the Commission wants to cover with houses, go to www.cacoast.org/5013

The high-wire juggling act necessary to try to make sense of the approval began the day after the vote. The City of Dana Point chimed in almost immediately that they knew how to draft legally bulletproof findings and offered to write them for the Commission. Of course coastal staff rejected the notion of developers drafting their own findings to characterize the Commission’s decision making process, which led the City to say in a February 24, 2004 letter that, “…we have a very clear set of priority issues that, at a minimum, must be recognized and incorporated into these documents.”

Knowing that the findings were supposed to justify the Commission’s decision and not the priorities of the City, some laughed at the arrogance of the City and the developer. No one actually thought the Commission would allow a developer to draft findings for them.

 

People aren’t laughing anymore.

 

Last week, before the findings discussion, the Commission disappeared for over an hour of closed session discussions with their attorneys, to discuss staff’s proposed findings. Upon emerging, Commission Chair Mike Reilly told the public that the Commission would not consider the findings as the Commission’s Agenda had stated. Instead, the Commission decided in closed hearing to continue the findings until the August 2004 meeting, or presumably, some such date in the future when the developer and the City are satisfied with them.

 

The Commission then instructed staff to alter the proposed findings. Not surprisingly, all the changes were those demanded by the developer and the City. Commissioners Toni Iseman, Patrick Kruer, Mike Reilly and William Burke support the development and altering the findings.

 

Among the changes: The developer is demanding that the Commission use “balancing” as a way to destroy an ESHA for the hotel. In theory, it goes like this: you can build the hotel on an ESHA because we’re doing so many other wonderful things with the project, like incorporating routine water quality protections and providing trails and beach access (which in reality already exists in the form of perfectly good stairway). Apparently, the developer believes that if the findings contain enough gratuitous fluff, then a judge won’t realize the hotel is on top of an ESHA area.

 

The Commission also directed staff to take another look at the record regarding impacts that the proposed seawall revetment may have on beach loss and questioned whether the January 15th meeting record reflected the Commission’s challenge to the developer’s claim that the bluffs at Strands Beach are not a natural landform. Apparently the Commission now stands ready to adopt the developer’s nonsensical theory that the bluff above Dana Strands beach was previously disturbed, therefore it is no longer a natural landform, meaning it must be an “alien” landform and it is, therefore, okay to build a new seawall and cover the bluff with new houses. Unfortunately, in January the Commission determined the bluff was a natural landform, which makes it legally difficult to now allow millions of yards of grading, a new seawall and 75 new houses.

These directives reflected graphically the extent to which the City and the developer are controlling the process.

Interesting also was the presence at the meeting of former Coastal Commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill, who was just removed last month by Governor Schwarzenegger. Apparently McClain-Hill now works for the developer, or at least it looks that way from how hard she is working for passage of the project. Not only did McClain-Hill lead the charge for the project while a Commissioner and at the Commission’s January meeting, but on March 30, 2004, while still a Commissioner, McClain-Hill sent a provocative memo (on her McClain-Hill & Associates letterhead) to Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman in which she attacked Commission staff and spoke at length in support of the project. McClain-Hill stated, “…it is not out of the realm of possibility that Commission staff would deliberately propose faulty findings to provide a means for defeating an action to which they objected.”

McClain-Hill’s memo then went on to praise her own work on the Commission and ask that she be allowed to stay on the Commission “to complete the project.” Instead, Schwarzenegger removed McClain-Hill from the Commission, and now she sits with the developer in the audience, helping them draft findings.

 

The next round of manipulated findings are scheduled to come back to the Commission at the August hearing in San Pedro.

 

California Coastwatcher, June 2004

Making the Hearst Deal Work for All Californians

Carl Zichella and Bill Allayaud

The Recent New Times article (Closing the Deal, June 17, 2004) regurgitates old charges aimed at the Sierra Club by Hearst Corporation boosters and mischaracterizes once again the Sierra Club’s position on the Hearst Ranch acquisition.

 

Though we have clarified the record in response to hyperbole by the same players quoted in this article and elsewhere, we clearly need to do so again. The truth is still getting its boots on while rumors and mischaracterizations continue to roam the countryside.

 

Here’s where we stand: we are delighted there is a tentative deal. We will continue to advocate that the final agreement benefits the people of California, is enforceable, and permanent. We insist that the details of the deal be made public and the public has a legitimate chance to understand, comment and influence the agreement before it is final. Is this unreasonable? In spending $95 million anything less is unreasonable.

 

This is one of the largest coastal acquisition (and for an easement, NOT fee title) deals in the nation. We need to get it right. Future deals will be affected by what is done here. Like Supervisor Bianchi, we want a fair deal.

 

But Bianchi seems to think handing Hearst $95 million with no assurances for public access and protections, unclear development rights remaining, zoning decisions left hanging, etc. as well as allowing a fledgling conservancy to enforce the easement on a multi-billion dollar corporation is fair. We disagree. That does not mean we oppose the deal. We fervently want one. We just want the people of the state to benefit in equal measure to the Hearst Corporation.

 

While the Hearst Corporation and the American Lands Conservancy have refused to reveal the terms of the agreement — perhaps to create a take-it-or-leave-it situation — we have been explicit in expressing what we believe a fair deal looks like (readers can see our document at www.sierraclub-ca.org and judge for themselves). We are hardly making radical or oppressive demands. Call us old-fashioned, but when Californians shell-out $95 million to protect a place we think they may actually expect that it be protected and may rightfully hope they get a chance to enjoy what they paid for.

 

Not Bianchi or O’Keefe, apparently. Their position is: “give Hearst whatever they want,” details be hanged. This is like buying a home or car without knowing the square footage or the options included, and without making an offer. We consider this negotiating with your feet in the air. Bianchi may believe whatever Hearst tells her, but we come from the “trust but verify” school of thought. Show us the deal before we show you the money. Is that so radical? Would you do anything less in your personal life?

 

You may like the car dealer. He may be your neighbor. But you will still make sure the deal is fair before you sign the financing documents. It’s not like we think the Hearst Corporation is being avaricious. It’s not. The Corporation’s job is to get the most money possible with the fewest restrictions. Our job (the public’s) is to make sure that while the Hearst Corporation gets what is fairly due, we get what we expect.

 

We find it remarkable that a public official of Bianchi’s tenure can be so appallingly willing to accept whatever the Hearst Corporation says, and unwilling to see the fine print before rendering judgment about the worthiness of the deal. Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman doesn’t gush so openly about the deal. While pleased, he told the Los Angeles Times “there’ s more work to be done”. Bianchi’s gullibility makes her sound like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation”, as one prominent local environmentalist has sardonically dubbed her. If Bianchi objects to the description, she should stop playing the role. She can start by using her office to insist that the county’s zoning for Hearst Ranch be as restrictive as possible. Hearst’s attorney himself suggested in the Sacramento Bee that the land should be zoned “open space.” That would be a start to restoring her battered credibility with environmentally concerned people.

 

Join with the Sierra Club and every other major environmental group on the central coast to help save Hearst Ranch. Make it truly protected and accessible to the public. To find out how, contact us at (916) 557-1100.

 

Carl Zichella is the staff director for the Sierra Club’s California-Nevada-Hawaii Field Office.
Bill Allayaud is the Legislative Director for Sierra Club California.

July 23-25 Sequoia Seminar

WHAT: Sequoia Seminar Car Camp
WHEN: July 23-25
WHERE: Quaking Aspen Campground, Giant Sequoia National Monument

You're all cordially invited to take part in this annual weekend in the Sierras. It's fun, informative and interesting. If you would like to go, contact me for information. Or register with Bonnie Strand, details below.

Don Bremner, 626-794-2603

July 23-25 Sequoia Seminar to Look at Key Location in Logging Debate

 

The Sequoia Seminar in July in the Sierras will offer a look at a prime location in the debate over protecting the nation’s prized forests. The 13th annual seminar, a car camp sponsored by the Pasadena Group and the Angeles Chapter’s Forest Task Force, will be held July 23-25 at the Quaking Aspen Campground in Giant Sequoia National Monument , located about 40 miles east of Porterville.

 

The usual tour of forest sites with local activists will be especially pertinent this year because of the U.S. Forest Service decision last December on a management plan that would sharply increase logging in the monument area. Trees up to 30 inches in diameter could be logged, and up to 7.5 million board feet of timber a year removed. This despite the presidential proclamation in 2000 establishing the monument in Sequoia National Forest that directed that trees be removed only for personal firewood, ecological restoration and maintenance, or public safety. The decision faces legal challenge from environmental activists, who also urge that management of the monument be transferred from the Forest Service to the National Park Service, which has demonstrated its ability to protect the giant sequoias in nearby Sequoia National Park.

 

Starting Friday evening, the seminar continues Saturday with a drive and walking tour, an afternoon hike to Needles Lookout and an evening potluck supper, with happy hour provided by leaders. Sunday morning features a walk through a magnificent giant sequoia grove. The seminar ends early Sunday afternoon.

 

Participants should take camping gear, including sleeping bag and tent, unless they plan to sleep in a vehicle, food and warm clothes for chilly evenings at 7,000-foot elevation. Cost is $35 for members (non-members $38.50). Send 4x9 sase, h&w phones, check (Sierra Club-Pasadena Group) for $35 ($38.50 for nonmembers), rideshare info to Ldr/Reserv: Bonnie Strand, 1210 N. Kenilworth Ave., Glendale, CA 91202-2216. Asst: Elizabeth Pomeroy.

 

Lobby Day in Sacramento

Sierra Club California will be holding a second Lobby Day in Sacramento on Monday, August 9, with a training session on August 8. If you are interested in attending, contact Marianne Batchelder at batchelder@sierraclub-sac.org. Or Pat Veesart at
veesart@sierraclub-sacramento.org.

 

Space is already filling up, so let them know soon if you are interested. They are especially interested in having folks from the Los Angeles area and the San Joachin Valley.

 

Having had her lawsuit against philanthropist Ken Adelman dismissed, Streisand has now paid Adelman’s attorney fees as well. Adelman, who with his wife Gabrielle, created www.californiacoastline.org was sued by Streisand, who claimed the website’s single photo of Streisand’s Malibu home (one of more than 12,000 photos of the California coast) represented a terrorist threat. Earlier this year the court found that Adelman’s website was an important coastal educational project protected by law and that Streisand’s effort to shut it down was a malicious “SLAP” suit. For all the photos, and the legal briefs, join 2.5 million other people and check out www.californiacoastline.org For the legal story, go to http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9599818p-10523310c.html

 

California Coastwatcher, June 2004

 

Run for Change

Carla Toms

A few weeks ago, we started a "Run Against Bush" out here at the Rose Bowl. After a while, we noticed that other people wanted to run/jog/walk/walk their dogs with us: Kerry supporters, pro-choice people. So we decided to start calling it a "Run for Change." Every Saturday at 8 am a group of us meet in front of the rose bushes at the Rose Bowl and are usually running, jogging, walking, strolling, etc. by about 9 or so. It's pretty fun; kind of like a meetup that moves. We've been wearing our political tee shirts ("Run Against Bush," "Kerry for President," "Stand up for Choice,"...) Please feel free to wear your own, too. Maybe a Sierra Club tee shirt, or a tee shirt expressing concern about or love for the environment. I think that having us all out there together really gets the work out about who lives in Pasadena and what we really care about. It also gives us a chance to meet people from different issue groups.

 

Reading Between the Lines

President Bush loves to read. Or at least he loves to talk about reading. And every speech the President gives about childhood literacy and education is full of language about "raising expectations" or "setting high standards." Here's a quick sampling:

 

"And we can't let kids go through [school] without raising the standards and raising the bar." Remarks on "Job Training and the Economy," El Dorado, AR, June 6, 2004

 

"If you set low standards, guess what you're going get? You'll get lousy results." Speech on "Expanding Opportunities for American Students and Workers", Parkersburg, WV, May 13, 2004

"The era of low expectations and low standards is ending; a time of great hopes and proven results is arriving." Speech on the anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, DC, June 10, 2003

 

If "raising the bar" is supposed to be a good thing when it comes to educating our children, why then is the Bush administration doing the limbo when it comes to protecting kids from air pollution and mercury? "How low can you go?"

 

Take the Bush administration's so-called "Clear Skies Initiative." The administration's air plan would weaken standards for soot and smog. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own numbers say that strong enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act could reduce power plant emissions nearly twice as fast as the administration's new proposal. The administration's mercury rule is even worse.

 

The EPA's own data shows that its proposal would allow power plants to emit three times more mercury pollution than full enforcement of the current law — for at least a decade longer.

 

Last week, the non-profit group Clear the Air released a report that compared the Bush administration's air plan to two bills currently pending in Congress, one led by Jim Jeffords (I-VT) and another by Senators Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). To do the comparative analysis, Clear the Air hired ABT Associates, a firm regularly used by the Environmental Protection Agency for air pollution and emission research. ABT Associates concluded that the Bush administration's plan was the weakest of the three.

To understand why the administration is so determined to lower the bar and allow more air pollution, you need only look at who benefits from having such low expectations — namely the companies that own America's oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. These companies have very close ties to the Bush administration, and even have their own "in-house representation" in the form of Jeffrey Holmstead, who oversees air programs at EPA, and William Wehrum, a senior advisor to Holmstead. Both Bush administration appointees used to work for the firm Lathem and Watkins, which represents the interests of utilities on air pollution matters.

And who loses? If power plants used the best available technology and fully complied with our existing laws, we could dramatically reduce asthma risks for millions of our nation's children and protect thousands of newborns from toxic mercury poisoning.

Sure, we need to teach our kids to read. But it's just as important for parents to read between the lines.

From the Sierra Club’s Raw, ISSUE #53, June 16, 2004

CEC Trying to Undermine CCC and Coastal Protection

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state agency that controls power plants along California's coast and throughout the state. Approximately two years ago the Coastal Commission (CCC) voted to require that as part of proposed expansion project for its Morro Bay power plant Duke Energy be required to use dry cooling towers to eliminate its historic practice of using water from the Morro Bay Estuary to cool the plant. The vote came on the revelation that use of the bay was continuing to destroy up to 1/3 of all the fish wildlife in the bay, and that cooling towers could be routinely built. A photo of the power plant is at www.cacoast.org/2107

 

After the CCC decision, Duke ran to the CEC in order to try to override the Commission’s decision and continue to destroy Morro Bay. Now the CEC is considering a plan to deny the California Coastal Commission even its limited legal authority to “participate” in the regulatory process of determining whether new or replacement plants belong in the coastal zone, and, more importantly, under what conditions. The Coastal Commission and other agencies are staunchly opposed to what the CEC is considering.

 

The CEC move — which the media have largely ignored — could drastically change the rules requiring environmental protections for power plants, which are sure to proliferate in the state as the economy rebounds, energy needs climb and financing becomes more available for construction. If successful, the move also could embolden other agencies and groups to try to chip away at the Coastal Commission's responsibilities for coastal preservation.

 

At the instigation of Duke Energy, which is seeking to replace an aging power plant in Morro Bay with a new and larger one that would kill up to one-third of the crab and fish larvae in the Morro Bay National Estuary, a subcommittee of the CEC (headed by the CEC's influential chairman) had sought to issue what it called a "precedential decision." If enacted it would hold that the Coastal Commission "has no role" in making far-reaching decisions on power plants.

 

The move has triggered a barrage of protests from the CEC's own staff, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Alliance on Plant Expansion (CAPE), a citizens watchdog group. CEC’s own staff says the proposed subcommittee ruling, "diminishes the role of the Coastal Commission," and its recommendations are "seriously flawed and should be changed." CEC’s own staff insist that the CEC must abide by the Coastal Commission's recommendations for protections under the Coastal Act or make certain findings and override, which the subcommittee has avoided doing. After the protests, the subcommittee backed off from seeking to eliminate the Coastal Commission's role in the process. But, without admitting it, the outcome it proposes still could produce essentially the same result and the same historical precedent.

 

What the subcommittee has done is pass the buck to the CEC Siting Committee, leaving unresolved the critical question of whether the Coastal Commission can act to protect coastal resources in future power plant cases. Specifically, the legal issue in the Morro Bay case is whether the CEC, which is scheduled to hold a hearing and render a final decision on Wednesday, June 30, in Sacramento, can act while disregarding the Coastal Commission's recommendation against licensing a plant, while at the same time reaching "no conclusion as to whether a Coastal Commission report (which is required by state law) is binding" on the CEC. That alone would be unprecedented.

 

In its April 28 letter to the CEC, the Coastal Commission cited "uncontroverted evidence" that the new Duke plant "would kill uncountable numbers of marine organisms" in the Morro Bay Estuary and would violate the Coastal Act, if the plant were allowed to use Estuary water for cooling plant generators, as Duke and the CEC subcommittee have proposed.

The Coastal Commission, along with three other agencies and CAPE, urge the use of dry cooling, which uses no Estuary water and kills no fish. CEC staff estimates it would cost Duke an extra $50 million to install dry cooling, just 6% on top of the $800 million estimated price of the entire project and not much more than the habitat enhancement program Duke wants to use to mitigate for killing of billions of larvae.

 

Ignoring the Coastal Commission report, the subcommittee is recommending to the full CEC that it simply override the Coastal Act's protections of the Estuary, which is designated an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) by the city of Morro Bay's certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The move would cut the Coastal Commission’s recommendations and jurisdiction out of the process.

 

What the CEC could do, and did do in the case involving replacement of several units at Moss Landing, which Duke also owns, is to accept and recognize the Coastal Commission report on the project's inconsistency with Coastal Act protections and then override it. That requires making findings that the Coastal Commission's alternative recommendations (dry cooling) at Morro Bay are infeasible or would cause greater environmental harm. No one argues the latter point because dry cooling would help, not hurt the environment. The subcommittee does however contend that dry cooling is infeasible, which is strongly disputed by the Coastal Commission, the CEC staff and CAPE.

 

California Coastwatcher, June 2004

Prop 64 Lets Polluters Off the Hook

More Smoggy Air, Old Meat, and Cell Phone Hell are in Store For Californians

 

Los Angeles - Public interest groups today warned voters that Proposition 64, the number announced today for the big business-backed initiative to limit the Unfair Business Competition law, would devastate consumers, civil rights, environmental protection and the public health and safety. The measure is opposed by California's leading public interest groups, including the Sierra Club, AARP, California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association, Consumers Union and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF). Read a list of initiative opponents, and learn about the dangers of the initiative, at http://www.ElectionWatchdog.org.

“Old meat passed off as fresh, asthma-causing air pollution and consumer cell phone hell have all been attacked by the public with the Unfair Business Competition Law. If Prop 64 passes, Californians will lose the right to enforce consumer, environmental and public health and safety protections," said Carmen Balber of Election Watchdog. "The state's biggest businesses support Prop 64 because it would eliminate the ability of public interest groups to hold them accountable when they pollute, commit fraud or blatantly break the law. Prop 64 lets polluters make more pollution."

Consumer groups are currently using California's Unfair Business Competition Law, targeted for destruction by Prop 64, to fight back against unfair practices by cellular phone companies—such as charging customers for itemized bills and locking cell phones so they can be used only with a single service carrier. The law is also allowing victims of the San Diego firestorms to challenge the insurance company practice of charging customers full premiums on homes that were destroyed in the fires.

The law also has been used by environmental groups to force British Petroleum and other oil companies to clean cancer-causing MTBE out of the drinking water. The Unfair Business Competition law has compelled State Farm and other insurers to pay fairer reimbursement for homeowners' losses after the Northridge earthquake. It has ended health and safety threats like Safeway Food Stores' practice of changing the date on old meat and putting it back on the shelf. And the Unfair Business Competition law has stopped auto dealers from overcharging minority consumers for car loans.

There is no more dangerous example in the nation of corporateering—where corporations are spending millions on Prop 64 to take away individual rights to protect the environment, consumers and the public health and safety," said Jamie Court, author of Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom And What You Can Do About It (Tarcher/Penguin). "Though the public interest movement can't match their millions, we have the truth, and we will use that weapon to defeat this measure at the grassroots."

The state's biggest corporations and auto dealers are funding the initiative, and have given $7.25 million, including: British Petroleum, Safeway, State Farm, Blue Cross, Bank of America, Microsoft, Nike, Kaiser, General Motors, 21st Century, Mercury Insurance, Wells Fargo and Pfizer. Many of the initiative donors have been successfully sued under the Unfair Business Competition Law.

Environmental groups issued a statement joining the battle against the initiative, which can be read at http://www.ecovote.org/news/release050504.html

Sixty public interest groups also sent a letter calling on initiative donors to withdraw their support. Read the letter at http://www.electionwatchdog.org/letter.pdf

Election Watchdog is a political action committee sponsored by Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized in California. Election Watchdog was organized to protect consumers' interests in the ballot initiative process and does not take positions on candidate elections. Consumer Watchdog is the advocacy and campaign affiliate of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

Learn more at www.ElectionWatchdog.org <http://www.ElectionWatchdog.org/>

Environmental Resolutions Passed by ExComm

June 27 2004

Round 2, 2004 Conservation Budget

Useful Information

Action Directory
Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: (202) 675-2394
Sierra Club National: (415) 977-5500
Sierra Club Sacramento Legislative Office: (916)  557-1100; fax (916) 227-9669
White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111
White House Fax Line: (202) 456-2461
   President George W Bush president@whitehouse.gov
   Vice President Dick Cheney: vice-president@whitehouse.gov
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500
US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
To contact your senators: Senate Office Bldg, Washington DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
To contact your representative: House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515 http://www.house.gov/writerep
California Capitol Switchboard: (916) 322-9900
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814
      (916) 445-2841, fax (916) 445-4633, governor@governor.ca.gov mailto:governor@governor.ca.gov

Sierra Club Links
Sierra Club World Wide Web - http://www.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter site:http://angeles.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter Conservation Newsletter: http://angeles.sierraclub.org/newsletter/
Sierra Club California: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/
Sierra Club Vote Watch Website: http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/
National site main page: http://www.sierraclub.org/
National Clubhouse activist resource site: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/

Need help contacting your US representatives or finding out about legislation?
US House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/
US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
California State Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/
California State Senate: http://www.sen.ca.gov/
California State: http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_homepage.jsp
California Legislative Information: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
California Secretary of State voter information: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm

3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904

 

AGENDA — Wednesday, July 21, 2004