Friday, October 8, 2010
Coastal Commission Voting Trends for 2009
Today marks the release of the 2009 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart, which measures the pro-conservation scores of the California Coastal Commission, the State’s most powerful land use agency, charged with the protecting our 1,100 mile coastline. The voting chart is produced by Surfrider Foundation, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club, Coastal Protection Network, and League for Coastal Protection. The Chart reports and analyzes the most important coastal votes of 2009. The 25 votes in this year’s chart involve significant coastal issues decided by the Commission during their twelve monthly meetings in 2009, including the shoreline armoring efforts in Capitola and Santa Barbara, as well as the final go-ahead for largest desalination facility in North America. The voting chart is designed to illuminate individual Commissioners’ voting sensitivities. In addition, the report illustrates the relative successes and failures of the appointments made by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senate Rules Committee led by Darrell Steinberg, and then Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass. The scoring information in the 2009 chart is also intended to inform the upcoming Commission appointments. Commissioners seats up for appointment or reappointment include those of Commissioners Sara Wan, Bill Burke, Pat Kruer and Ross Mirkarimi.
This year's Chart clearly displays a trend toward conservation voting amongst the Commissioners. The total Commission Conservation Voting score went up markedly from 38% in 2008 to 66% in 2009. This is an increase of 28 percentage points, which is undoubtedly due to the wisdom of the new appointments to the Commission in 2009, including three of the top four scores of Commissioners Mark Stone (100%), Ross Mirkarimi (95%), and Ester Sanchez (75%). Importantly, the appointments of Stone and Sanchez helped to reflect on the Speaker of the Assembly's appointment score, which increased from 31% in 2008 to 69% in 2009.
This year's Chart reports on several important votes that included Surfrider Foundation participation. Beach management and shoreline armoring issues were featured in the Santa Barbara Goleta Beach and Pacifica Swan Valley decisions. Even though the Commission voted favorably on these projects in order to prevent future armoring and sand loss, the Commission has failed to come up with a proactive alternative to "emergency" seawall permits. These emergency permits continue to allow for armoring the California coastline with minimal public input, analysis of alternatives or redress. As evidenced by the Mariposa Land Company decision in this Chart, these "emergency" permits can allow seawalls to persist for years or even decades, without proper forethought or review.
Nonetheless, Surfrider will continue to monitor the activity of the California Coastal Commission and ensure that the Commission is fulfilling its legislative charge to protect, conserve, restore and enhance environmental and human resources of the California coast.
To view the 2009 Chart, click here.
This year's Chart clearly displays a trend toward conservation voting amongst the Commissioners. The total Commission Conservation Voting score went up markedly from 38% in 2008 to 66% in 2009. This is an increase of 28 percentage points, which is undoubtedly due to the wisdom of the new appointments to the Commission in 2009, including three of the top four scores of Commissioners Mark Stone (100%), Ross Mirkarimi (95%), and Ester Sanchez (75%). Importantly, the appointments of Stone and Sanchez helped to reflect on the Speaker of the Assembly's appointment score, which increased from 31% in 2008 to 69% in 2009.
This year's Chart reports on several important votes that included Surfrider Foundation participation. Beach management and shoreline armoring issues were featured in the Santa Barbara Goleta Beach and Pacifica Swan Valley decisions. Even though the Commission voted favorably on these projects in order to prevent future armoring and sand loss, the Commission has failed to come up with a proactive alternative to "emergency" seawall permits. These emergency permits continue to allow for armoring the California coastline with minimal public input, analysis of alternatives or redress. As evidenced by the Mariposa Land Company decision in this Chart, these "emergency" permits can allow seawalls to persist for years or even decades, without proper forethought or review.
Nonetheless, Surfrider will continue to monitor the activity of the California Coastal Commission and ensure that the Commission is fulfilling its legislative charge to protect, conserve, restore and enhance environmental and human resources of the California coast.
To view the 2009 Chart, click here.
Labels: California Coastal Commission, Desal Poseidon Carlsbad, seawalls
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Environmental Groups Decry Legislative Attempt to Circumvent State
AB 1570, Introduced as Veterans Affairs Bill, Now Seeks to Circumvent Coastal Commission Authority
A coalition of more than 70 local, state and national environmental and fishing groups has joined together to oppose proposed amendments to AB 1570, which seek to supersede the authority of the California Coastal Commission to protect the health of California's environment. AB 1570, originally drafted to improve social services for veterans, was amended this week to provide a special legislative extension to an existing coastal development permit (CDP) for Poseidon Resources' Carlsbad Desalination Project.
Though the bill's proposed language would apply only to Poseidon's proposed Carlsbad desalination plant, environmental groups are concerned about the precedent set by the Legislature taking away the review authority delegated to the Coastal Commission.
"Whenever you have the legislature providing special treatment to any one company, it raises a red flag for us," stated Joe Geever, California Policy Coordinator for Surfrider Foundation. "Writing law to circumvent regulatory agency review creates a slippery slope where any influential corporation can bypass longstanding environmental protections and public review."
Poseidon has indicated a need to pursue this "urgent legislation" as the company's coastal development permit was originally set to expire in November 2009, and could have become invalid if they have not begun construction at this time. However, Coastal Commission staff has indicated that Poseidon submitted an application for a permit extension in June, which has the effect of tolling the clock on the permit's expiration date. As a result of this extension application, Poseidon's permit will not expire any time soon.
"Not only will this legislation set bad precedent," added Geever, "but it is totally unnecessary to Poseidon's efforts to build their proposed plant in a way that is good for San Diego."
According to the County Water Authority, water consumption countywide plunged 21percent in June and 16 percent in July compared with the same months last year due to aggressive conservation measures. Meanwhile, the City of San Diego in partnership with local environmental groups is proceeding with a pilot project and regional assessment to determine the potential to reclaim wastewater for potable and non-potable uses.
To voice your opposition to AB 1570 click here.
A coalition of more than 70 local, state and national environmental and fishing groups has joined together to oppose proposed amendments to AB 1570, which seek to supersede the authority of the California Coastal Commission to protect the health of California's environment. AB 1570, originally drafted to improve social services for veterans, was amended this week to provide a special legislative extension to an existing coastal development permit (CDP) for Poseidon Resources' Carlsbad Desalination Project.
Though the bill's proposed language would apply only to Poseidon's proposed Carlsbad desalination plant, environmental groups are concerned about the precedent set by the Legislature taking away the review authority delegated to the Coastal Commission.
"Whenever you have the legislature providing special treatment to any one company, it raises a red flag for us," stated Joe Geever, California Policy Coordinator for Surfrider Foundation. "Writing law to circumvent regulatory agency review creates a slippery slope where any influential corporation can bypass longstanding environmental protections and public review."
Poseidon has indicated a need to pursue this "urgent legislation" as the company's coastal development permit was originally set to expire in November 2009, and could have become invalid if they have not begun construction at this time. However, Coastal Commission staff has indicated that Poseidon submitted an application for a permit extension in June, which has the effect of tolling the clock on the permit's expiration date. As a result of this extension application, Poseidon's permit will not expire any time soon.
"Not only will this legislation set bad precedent," added Geever, "but it is totally unnecessary to Poseidon's efforts to build their proposed plant in a way that is good for San Diego."
According to the County Water Authority, water consumption countywide plunged 21percent in June and 16 percent in July compared with the same months last year due to aggressive conservation measures. Meanwhile, the City of San Diego in partnership with local environmental groups is proceeding with a pilot project and regional assessment to determine the potential to reclaim wastewater for potable and non-potable uses.
To voice your opposition to AB 1570 click here.
Labels: AB 1570, CCC, Desal Poseidon Carlsbad
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
SB 42 Helps to End Destructive Once-Through Cooling (OTC) Methods
Nineteen coastal power plants located in California use obsolete once-through cooling water intake systems. These coastal power plants can collectively withdraw up to 16.3 billion gallons of water per day. Outdated once-through cooling technology is also being proposed for various desalination plants up and down the California coast.
The withdrawal of seawater kills billions of aquatic organisms including fish, fish larvae and eggs, crustaceans, shellfish, sea turtles, sea lions and seals annually. Senate Bill 42 will set up a process for ending the practice of once through cooling technology at all industrial facilities by 2015 and will help restore the damage done to marine life.
To see the legislative language, click here.
For more information on seawater intake methods for desalination, see Coastal A-Z.
The withdrawal of seawater kills billions of aquatic organisms including fish, fish larvae and eggs, crustaceans, shellfish, sea turtles, sea lions and seals annually. Senate Bill 42 will set up a process for ending the practice of once through cooling technology at all industrial facilities by 2015 and will help restore the damage done to marine life.
To see the legislative language, click here.
For more information on seawater intake methods for desalination, see Coastal A-Z.
Labels: Desal Poseidon Carlsbad, OTC, SB 42
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Coastal Commission Decision on Poseidon-Carlsbad Desal
The Coastal Commission recently voted to approve two important "conditions" that will be required for the ocean desalination facility proposed by Poseidon Resources to be built in Carlsbad California. The Commission got it wrong.
Two very important potential environmental impacts from ocean desalination are the destruction of marine life in the seawater intake and the additional greenhouse gases created by this highly energy intensive process. The two conditions on the permit were SUPPOSED to address these issues -- but didn't do it adequately.
Surfrider Foundation is not strictly opposed to ocean desalination. However, we know that other alternatives to managing our fresh water supplies are far superior when you consider all the environmental costs and benefits. For example, purifying wastewater from our coastal sewage treatment plants can provide a safe and reliable source of fresh water and eliminate ocean discharges. Our new Ocean Friendly Gardens program is something every homeowner and local government can do to eliminate our current waste of fresh water and dramatically reduce polluted runoff. Watershed restoration, "treatment wetlands", "green streets" programs, low impact development standards, and many more options will conserve water while reducing pollution and restoring coastal habitat. These multi-benefit alternatives should be fully implemented before we consider the need for ocean desalination. San Diego County could have greatly expanded these efforts first -- but they didn’t.
Two very important potential environmental impacts from ocean desalination are the destruction of marine life in the seawater intake and the additional greenhouse gases created by this highly energy intensive process. The two conditions on the permit were SUPPOSED to address these issues -- but didn't do it adequately.
Surfrider Foundation is not strictly opposed to ocean desalination. However, we know that other alternatives to managing our fresh water supplies are far superior when you consider all the environmental costs and benefits. For example, purifying wastewater from our coastal sewage treatment plants can provide a safe and reliable source of fresh water and eliminate ocean discharges. Our new Ocean Friendly Gardens program is something every homeowner and local government can do to eliminate our current waste of fresh water and dramatically reduce polluted runoff. Watershed restoration, "treatment wetlands", "green streets" programs, low impact development standards, and many more options will conserve water while reducing pollution and restoring coastal habitat. These multi-benefit alternatives should be fully implemented before we consider the need for ocean desalination. San Diego County could have greatly expanded these efforts first -- but they didn’t.
If, after all these preferable alternatives are implemented, the area still needs a desalination plant to fill a niche in their water supply portfolios, there are right ways and wrong ways to do it.
First, Surfrider Foundation has actively supported the development of "sub-seafloor" intakes as an alternative to open ocean intakes like the one proposed by Poseidon Resources. These sub-seafloor intakes eliminate the marine life mortality that cannot be avoided by open ocean intakes and reduce energy demand because this “source water” is already partially pre-filtered. Poseidon didn't use sub-seafloor intakes and the Coastal Commission didn’t compel it like they should have. Instead, the condition on the permit requires woefully inadequate "mitigation" to try and restore the fish that Poseidon could have avoided killing in the first place.
We are also concerned that the extra energy demand from ocean desalination, and the associated global warming impacts, be minimized and fully mitigated. Again, Poseidon built a much larger facility than would have been necessary if the water agencies had prioritized the preferable alternatives listed above. To make matters even worse, the Coastal Commission did not require full mitigation for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by this facility. Instead they allowed every loophole Poseidon requested.
In short, the Coastal Commission completely ignored the recommendations of many environmental organizations, respected scientists, and concerned local citizens. We couldn't have been more disappointed in the Coastal Commission's obvious politically-motivated decision. But, we will continue to make our case before the California State Lands Commission and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board – two more agencies that need to sign-off on this ill-conceived desalination proposal.
by Joe Geever
Photo provided by Copyright (C) 2002-2008 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org
Labels: Desal Poseidon Carlsbad
