The Coast
Panel rejects toll road through San Onofre State Beach
California Coastal Commission votes against the six-lane Foothill South route.By David Reyes and Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 7, 2008
The California Coastal Commission handed environmentalists a major victory and rejected the pleas of motorists Wednesday, voting down plans to build a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach, a popular preserve in north San Diego County known for its scenery and famous surf spots.
Before a boisterous crowd of more than 3,500 people, commissioners decided 8 to 2 that the proposed Foothill South project violates the California Coastal Act, which is designed to regulate development along the state's 1,100-mile shoreline. They reached the conclusion following hours of sometimes heated public testimony that pitted protecting the environment against the need to relieve traffic congestion in south Orange County.
The decision was a major setback for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which has spent years and tens of millions of dollars preparing to construct the 16-mile tollway as an alternative to Interstate 5.
"This project looks like something from the 1950s," said Commissioner Sara Wan of Malibu, who voted against the tollway. "Putting a massive project in an environmentally sensitive area, it is inconceivable."
That view squared with those of many project opponents.
"Millions of people who use the coast are issuing a big sigh of relief," said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the State Parks Foundation. "We are incredibly gratified that commission had the strength and resolve to reject the project."
A TCA official said the vote was not necessarily the end of the issue.
"I am very dissappointed because there was a number of things that did not match up with the testimony given," said Tom Margro, the chief executive officer for the toll road agency.
He said the authority will take some time to examine the vote and to determine what it means to the future of the project. He added that it is likely the commission's decision will be appealed to the federal government.
Tollway officials can appeal the commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce because San Onofre State Beach sits on leased federal land within the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base.
Commission officials say that since 1977, there have been 13 such appeals, mostly by oil companies. About half the decisions were overturned.
The vote, which was greeted by an enormous cheer, followed 12 hours of public testimony from the crowd, of whom 2,500 made formal requests to speak, the largest number for a hearing in the commission's more than 30 years of operation.
Some arrived by bus, brought by surf-industry companies opposed to the project. Others came as members of construction unions that support it. Some in the crowd carried surfboards as a symbol of protest. Others dressed as if attending a long-awaited football game.
The noisy crowd sat in rows of chairs and banks of bleachers at the rear of Wyland Hall at Del Mar Fairgrounds to participate in a long-awaited showdown over a road proposal that has generated intense public interest across the state. The controversy has drawn in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who endorsed the road in January, other statewide elected officials and local governments across Southern California.
At issue is where to draw the line between protecting the environment and building highways to ease congestion. Some suggested the fate of the road will go far to shape future decisions on where highways can be built.
At an estimated cost of at least $875 million, the Foothill South would have been the final link in Orange County's network of tollways. It would have run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Interstate 5 at Basilone Road south of San Clemente. Along the way, the it would have coursed through the northern half of San Onofre and pass over the Trestles marine estuary, which is a nature preserve. About 320 of the park's 2,100 acres would have been taken for the road.
Opponents of the road said the highway would ruin the environment.
Supporters argued it was critical to relieve overburdened Interstate 5 in southern Orange County.
On Wednesday morning, surfing-related companies, including Billabong, Etnies, Vans, Reef and GFH Boards, bused hundreds of tollway opponents to the fairgrounds. Cars of protesters bore signs saying "Honk to Save Trestles" and "Save the Park." Many among the opponents wore blue T-shirts proclaiming "Save the Park, Stop the Tollroad."
"There are only so many state parks left, and we really should not pave over them," said Mike Matey, 40, of San Diego who frequently camps and surfs at San Onofre.
Heading inside the pavilion was Armando Esparza, secretary for Laborers' Union Local 652. He was part of a group of more than 100 union members and tollway supporters who had traveled to Del Mar from the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange County.
"Maybe at the end of the day, this project will mean more jobs, but it also will help relieve congestion," Esparza said. "Look at our freeways now -- the 91 and the 710. They are all congested. People are now coming in from San Diego County to work in Orange County. That creates a bottleneck on the 5."
Just outside Wyland Hall, hundreds of people milled about in a carnival atmosphere. Booths set up by the Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation and other environmental groups dispensed anti-tollway literature while concessionaires sold coffee, mochas and lattes.
Inside, Rebecca Robles, a Juaneño Indian from San Clemente, and half a dozen other Native Americans sang a ceremonial song to commissioners. Afterward, Robles gave an emotional speech about Panhe, an old Indian site at San Onofre that is the Juaneño band's ancestral home.
"I encourage you, I implore you to uphold the California Coastal Act," Robles said. "Panhe is one of the remaining sites where we can enjoy our spiritual individuality. I ask you to protect this sacred site."
Supporters of the Foothill South testified that the road was needed to accommodate development in southern Orange County and take some of the burden off I-5, the heaviest traveled corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego.
Officials of the Transportation Corridor Agencies, the organization based in Irvine that operates the toll roads, said steps would be taken to protect San Onofre's sensitive wildlife habitat.
The road would not affect San Onofre's surf spots, they added. Tollway officials also contended that the park's quality already had been degraded by nearby utility towers, a nuclear power plant, railroad trestles near the beach as well as I-5 and Cristianitos Road.
The alternative to building the road -- widening the interstate -- would destroy more than 1,230 homes and businesses and be too costly for the state to build, they said.
"The 241 will provide congestion relief in one of our most important transportation corridors in the state," said Tom Margrow, the TCA's chief executive.
Opponents countered that the road would destroy habitat for half a dozen threatened or endangered species, including the Pacific pocket mouse. They also said it would degrade a popular campground and create a concrete eyesore in the center of the park, which stretches from coastal bluffs to inland canyons.
Surfers worried that the road could block erosion from the San Mateo Creek watershed, which they believe contributes to the world-class surfing conditions at Trestles, a venue for major contests.
In September, the Coastal Commission's staff recommended against approval of the project.
Its 236-page report conflicts with assertions from the TCA that the proposed route is the least harmful to the park out of eight options. The commission staff report said it was hard to imagine a more environmentally damaging route.
Mark Delaplaine, who directed the commission's staff analysis, said the highway would violate provisions of the Coastal Act related to endangered species, wetlands, public access, recreation, surfing, Indian sites and greenhouse gas emissions.
The agency, he said, has not adequately considered alternatives to the Foothill South, such as improving I-5, a possibility the TCA ruled out as too costly for the state.
Peter Douglas, the commission's longtime executive director, said the "toll road project is not only inconsistent with the law, it also raises fundamental questions about what of kind of environmental and social future we want for our coastal communities, our families, our children and theirs."
Environmentalists also said that studies show that widening I-5 can accommodate traffic growth as well as the tollway and be accomplished using innovative designs that vastly reduce the need to condemn property.
"This is important for San Onofre and all other state parks that are being eyed for infrastructure development," testified Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the State Parks Foundation. "If the toll road is permitted to proceed, we will all be spending decades in rooms like this all across the state fighting to protect yet another special place."
Help protect the marine life along California's Central Coast
In 1999 California passed the Marine Life Protection Act, the first law of its kind in the country. The act requires the state to improve the way it protects its coastal waters and marine life. After two failed attempts to implement the law, the Fish and Game Commission is now poised to adopt a network of protected areas along California's central coast, a region from Half Moon Bay to Point Conception. This region contains some of the most remote areas of the coast, such as Big Sur, the deep Monterey Canyon, elephant seal rookeries at Point Ano Nuevo, kelp forests and near-shore rocky reefs.
In August the commission announced its "preferred alternative" -- a network of underwater parks and wilderness sites covering 18 percent of California's central coast. Of the overall area of more than 200 square miles, eight percent would be fully protected marine reserves, 10 percent would allow limited fishing and the remaining area of the coast would remain open.
The proposed network is the product of an unprecedented partnership of the state and local fishermen, business owners and residents, involving more than 100 hours of public input, scientific review and economic analysis. Weakening the network now would undermine that process and could leave key habitats and species without safe havens. But industry is pressuring the commission to make the network even smaller.
The commission will adopt a final proposal at its March 1 meeting, and is accepting public comments through February 23rd.
== What to do ==
Send a message, before the February 23rd comment deadline, urging the Fish and Game Commission to adopt the proposed network of marine protected areas for the central coast.
== Contact information ==
You can send a message to the commission directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center. Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
John Carlson, Executive Director
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-653-5040
Email here.
== Sample letter ==
Subject: Adopt the proposed marine reserve network for the central coast
Dear Mr. Carlson and members of the Commission:
California's coast defines the state, and all of us who live, work and play here have a responsibility to see that our coastal waters thrive for future generations. This is why I support the commission's proposed regulations for marine protected areas along the central coast.
Marine reserves are an investment in the future health of our coastal waters. Scientific studies confirm that these areas harbor more and bigger fish and support a greater diversity of life than fished areas. With the oceans facing serious problems from years of abuse, California has the chance to take real action to help restore them.
The commission's proposed regulations account for the needs of fishermen by leaving more than 80 percent of the region open to fishing. The divers, scientists, teachers, fishermen, local business owners and central coast residents who participated in this process asked for more protection than the commission has proposed; the state certainly deserves no less.
We are facing a new era where we manage oceans for their long-term health, not just our short-term needs; in the end, when we protect the ocean, we all benefit. I urge you to adopt the proposed network of marine protected areas for the central coast and expand it along the rest of the coast as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
[Your name and address]
Help Save the Ocean
Around the globe, industrial fishing vessels are destroying our oceans. Heavy nets plow the seafloor obliterating everything in their path - a practice devastating to critical habitats like corals and sponges and the marine life they harbor.Two years ago, the United Nations General Assembly called for "urgent action" to protect vulnerable deep-sea habitats from destructive fishing gear like bottom trawls and dredges. Just two months ago, the UN Secretary General published his review of the progress to date, citing the actions as "woefully inadequate."
Right now, the only ones taking urgent action are the bottom trawlers. The global fleet of 300 vessels drags their heavy nets across an estimated 579 square miles of seafloor each day, destroying some of the most diverse, ancient and fragile ecosystems on this planet.
On October 4-5, the UN will convene in New York to decide next steps. We need to ensure that member states agree to a moratorium on high seas trawling - a moratorium that has languished, partly due to a lack of support by the United States.
It is time for the United States to protect our oceans, worldwide. Contact President Bush's environmental advisor, and tell him that you want the White House to stand firm on this issue and support the UN moratorium. Our protection measures have been "woefully inadequate" for long enough. Please go here to take action today.
House Lifts Offshore Drilling Ban, but a Battle Looms in Senate
June 30, 2006 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated PressWASHINGTON — Congress has taken a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century.
Still, a battle looms in the Senate over the issue. And the Bush administration's support for the legislation, which was approved Thursday by a 232-187 vote in the House, is lukewarm.
The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country's coastal waters -- everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies.
Asked about White House opposition to some parts of the bill, especially a provision that would give tens of billions of dollars to states that have drilling rigs off their coasts, Pombo said, "I dare them to veto this bill."
"They don't like us giving money back to the states. I think it's right," Pombo told reporters after the vote. Forty Democrats joined most Republicans in favor of ending the drilling moratorium.
In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill.
The Senate is considering a limited measure that would open an area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, known as Lease Area 181, that goes within 100 miles of Florida. It is not under the moratorium. Even that is unlikely to pass unless its sponsors get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from the Floridians.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he would pursue efforts to open the Lease 181 Area. The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, also of New Mexico, criticized the House-passed bill, saying it would eventually create "a huge hole in our federal budget and undermine environmental protections on our lands and off our coasts."
The House vote was a huge victory for Pombo, two Louisiana lawmakers -- Republican Bobby Jindal and Democrat Charlie Melancon -- and Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who spearheaded the drive to lift the moratorium.
Only six weeks ago, a proposal by Peterson to open coastal waters to natural gas development fell 14 votes short.
This time, they included a provision that would allow states to keep the moratorium in place if they opposed drilling and changed the revenue sharing so that states' share of royalties would soar eventually as much as 75 percent.
The Gulf states where most U.S. offshore energy resources are being tapped, now get less than 5 percent of the royalties. For example, Louisiana's royalties would go from $32 million last year to a total of $8.6 billion over the next 10 years -- and even higher after that.
The Interior Department estimated that the changes could cost the federal government as much as $69 billion in lost royalties over 15 years and "several hundred billion dollars" over 60 years.
The White House issued a statement saying it favors much of the bill but strongly opposes the changes in royalty revenue sharing, which it said "would have a long-term impact on the federal deficit."
The Interior Department estimates there are about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath waters under drilling bans from New England to southern Alaska.
Supporters of the drilling moratorium argue there's four times that amount of oil and gas available in offshore waters open to energy companies, mainly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and off parts of Alaska. And they say energy companies are only developing a fraction of the government leases they have available to them.
The country uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day.
While critics of the offshore drilling restrictions argue the additional oil and gas is needed if the country is to move toward greater energy independence, supporters or the bill fear energy development could despoil coastal beaches and threatens their recreation and tourism based economies.
"Our beaches and our coastline is what is critical to Floridians," declared Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla. "We should not be sacrificing our economy, our environment for a little oil and gas."
Pombo countered that drilling still would be prohibited within 50 miles of shore under the bill and states could extend the ban up to 100 miles. He ridiculed the bill's critics as "opposing everything" when it comes to increasing domestic energy production.
"You can't say no on everything," Pombo proclaimed.
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., said states would have to overcome numerous hurdles to continue the drilling restrictions, including having state legislatures and the government seek such protection every five years.
Source: Associated Press
Fishermen Seek End to Alaska Oil Spill Court Case
March 27, 2006 — By Daisuke Wakabayashi, ReutersSEATTLE — Fishermen whose livelihoods were devastated by the Exxon Valdez spill urged Exxon Mobil on the 17th anniversary of the accident Friday to pay a $4.5 billion penalty that has been mired in a legal dispute.
The punitive damage ruling -- originally $5 billion in 1994 and assessed at its current level in 2004 -- has been the subject of a decade-long legal battle between Exxon Mobil Corp. and 32,000 fishermen, Alaska natives and property owners who were awarded the damages for the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.
When the supertanker ran aground on a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989, and disgorged 11 million gallons of crude oil, fishermen through the U.S. Northwest struggled as the price of salmon plummeted and herring stocks declined dramatically over the next few years.
"This is like a 17-year divorce. It's hard to move on until this is settled," Erling Carlson, a longtime Alaska fisherman, said at a news conference in Seattle.
Exxon Mobil appealed the $4.5 billion damage ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court heard oral arguments in January, but a decision could be months away.
The group of fishermen said Exxon Mobil, the world's largest company by market capitalization, could easily pay the penalty since it earned a profit of $36 billion last year, the largest annual earnings ever recorded by a U.S. company.
In the past, Exxon Mobil has argued it spent more than $2 billion on the cleanup and paid out $1.025 billion for a 1991 settlement with federal and state governments.
"We believe that all of the damages related to this tragic accident have been paid," said Mark Boudreaux, media relations manager at Exxon Mobil.
"The case is not about compensation. It's about whether punitive damages are warranted in the case," he said.
Exxon Mobil said the punitive damage ruling was unconstitutional and even if it were allowed, it should be knocked down to no more than $25 million.
The spill hit fishermen in Prince William Sound hard.
The price of a permit to fish for salmon with a seine, or large net, fell to $12,000 from $300,000 before the spill due to the lack of demand, while the price of salmon plunged to 5 cents a pound from 55 cents, according to the fishermen.
Many fishermen went bankrupt and the ones who survived are still paying off debts even though the prices for permits and salmon have bounced back slightly, the group said.
Source: Reuters
Big Sur & Monterey Peninsula need protection - help now!
Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula form one the most beautiful coastlines on earth. The rugged Santa Lucia Mountains fall to the sea, where rich kelp forests and ocean canyons teem with rare corals, sea otters, seals, dolphins, yellowfin tuna and numerous species of whales and sharks.
This magnificent marine ecosystem includes five areas so biologically diverse, and yet so fragile, that they are afforded special legal protection. California prohibits the discharge of *any* pollution into these delicate coastal waters, known as "areas of special biological significance." But in reality, polluted runoff flows into them freely. The toxins, herbicides, pesticides, fecal bacteria and other contaminants in that runoff can kill marine life, threaten public health, degrade coastal habitats, cause beach closures and damage the local economy.
But instead of protecting these unique marine resources, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has proposed rubber-stamping a weak clean- up plan that would do little to reduce water pollution along the coast, and that would allow contaminants to continue to flow into the five areas of special biological significance. The plan ignores cost-effective clean-up practices commonplace elsewhere in California, and would postpone for years measures that could be implemented today. In short, the plan fails to protect the extraordinary coastal resources of Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula.
The water quality board is poised to adopt the proposed plan at its next hearing, but is accepting comments on the plan until 5pm Wednesday March 30th.
== What to do ==
Send a message, before 5pm on the 30th, urging the Central Coast Water Quality Board to reject the proposed ineffective plan and to require a strong stormwater management plan that would fully protect the Monterey Peninsula's marine resources.
== Contact information ==
You can send a message directly to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board from NRDC's Earth Action Center.Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board
Attention: Donette Dunaway
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906
== Sample letter ==
Subject: Reject the proposed Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Plan
Dear Water Quality Board members,
I urge you to reject the ineffective Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Plan now before you, and instead require Monterey municipalities to develop and implement a strong stormwater management plan that fully complies with state and federal clean water laws.
Such a plan should include all the pollution controls now being implemented elsewhere in California and should also meet our state's standards for water quality. It is also very important that the plan not allow discharges of stormwater pollution to the region's "areas of special biological significance." The toxins, herbicides, pesticides, fecal bacteria and other contaminants in polluted runoff kill marine life, threaten our health, degrade our coast, cause beach closures and damage the local economy.
Adopting a strong plan is the only way to preserve our local waters, including the Peninsula's extraordinary marine reserves, for future generations. I am counting on you to take the necessary steps to protect these valuable coastal resources.
Sincerely,
[Your name and address]
Please also forward this message to your friends and co-workers, and urge them to contact the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board as well. Thank you!
Chesbro, Pavley Unveil Legislation to Reduce Cigarette Butt Pollution and Litter
Sacramento California State Senator Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) and Assemblymember Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) unveiled legislation today to deal with what they called "the alarming costs both health and public of cigarette litter. Cigarette butts represent a significant and growing cost to taxpayers, public health and safety and to the environment."At a Capitol press conference, where Chesbro and Pavley were joined by several environmental and health policy advocates, Pavley called cigarette butts "the single largest component of the litter stream, accounting for as much as 40 percent of the litter collected on beach cleanup days.
"As a former California Coastal Commissioner, I was involved in coastal cleanup day," Pavley said. "In 2003, 40 percent of all the litter collected was cigarette butts volunteers picked up over 315,000 cigarette butts in only three hours."
Senator Chesbro said SB 942 (Chesbro) and AB 1612 (Pavley), "will add a pollution reduction fee to each pack of cigarettes sold to help offset the enormous costs associated with cigarette pollution and litter.
"Walk down any city street in California and you will find discarded cigarette butts. People who would never dream of tossing a beverage container in the street, are somehow under the misimpression that tossing a cigarette butt is acceptable. A primary element of this legislation will be to use generated funds to educate the public about the costs and dangers of careless disposal of cigarette butts."
Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste (CAW), who along with the American Lung Association of California (ALA) and the American Heart Association sponsored the bills, said that "Cigarette butts are the number one item littered in California.
"Cigarette litter is not simple and aesthetic problem. Cigarettes contain numerous chemical additives that are captured in the acetate (plastic) filters. Nicotine itself is a powerful pesticide. Toxicology data has shown that chemicals from discarded cigarette butts can leach into water and harm aquatic life," Murray said. "Slow to degrade, cigarette butts can persist in the environment as long as other forms of plastic, and have been found in the stomachs of sea turtles, fish, birds, whales and other marine creatures who mistake them for food."
"One of the most effective ways to prevent cigarette butt litter in the first place is to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, by preventing young people from starting and helping current smokers to quit," said Paul Knepprath, Vice President for Government Relations with the American Lung Association of California. "It is time for the cigarette companies, who produce these harmful and polluting products, to account for the damage they do to the environment and public health."
Jamie Morgan, Legislative Director, for the American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate, echoed the sentiments behind the bills noting "funding for litter clean-up programs is important in providing a healthy community environment for all Californians." Ms. Morgan also pointed out that "Generating funds for tobacco cessation programs is critical due to the undeniable fact that tobacco is the #1 risk factor of heart disease, stroke, and other chronic diseases."
Assemblymember Pavley added that, "In California, an estimated 4125 tons of cigarettes are discarded annually. This volume would fill a convoy of more than 450 garbage trucks. Our bills will help defray those taxpayer-borne costs of litter cleanup, estimated to be more than $1.7 billion over the next decade."
Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to support strong protections for our oceans
In January many of you sent messages asking the Schwarzenegger administration to urge the U.S. Ocean Commission to recommend the strongest possible protections for our oceans in its upcoming report. Now, after several delays, the commission's preliminary report has been released and governors have just 30 days to submit comments.The report contains some good recommendations, many of which are similar to those of last year's independent Pew Oceans Commission report. Both groups reached the same conclusion: our oceans are in trouble, and we need to act now if we are to save them.
With the weight of these two commissions behind us, we have an unprecedented opportunity to make oceans a national priority. After years of neglect, we can help restore our oceans by reducing pollution, improving the science behind our fisheries management and focusing on ocean ecosystems. Governor Schwarzenegger must use his opportunity to comment to send a strong message to Congress and the Bush administration that Californians insist on healthy oceans for the future.
== What to do ==
Tell Governor Schwarzenegger to support strong new protections for oceans, and to uphold California's own ocean protection laws.
== For background ==
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
== Contact information ==
You can send a message to Governor Schwarzenegger directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center. Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-445-4633
Email: governor@governor.ca.gov== Sample letter ==
Subject: Support strong state and national ocean protections
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
The nation is finally realizing what California has known for many years -- the oceans are an essential part of our character, our economy and our daily lives. Yet our oceans still suffer from neglect and overuse. You have an opportunity to raise the oceans to a national priority with your comments on the U.S. Ocean Commission Report.
Many of the report's recommendations should be strengthened if they are to have a real impact. The commission lays out "sound guiding principles" for ocean management, but these principles should become ocean-wide standards for federal agencies. The new "ocean trust fund" must be structured so it does not encourage new oil and gas development. Finally, any federal activities to design marine protected areas should encourage, not impede, state processes already underway such as California's Marine Life Protection Act.
I also urge your administration to keep your commitment to implementing the Marine Life Protection Act and other critical state laws, which form the foundation for the sound coast and ocean management recommended by the U.S. Commission. You also should support SB 1318 and SB 1319, which would further improve the effectiveness of these laws by increasing coordination among state agencies and giving voters a chance to increase the money directed to our oceans.
California has a wealth of ocean riches, as well as many of the tools we need to protect them. With your support, our state can lead the nation to a brighter ocean future.
Sincerely,
[Your name and address]
Study Delves Into Troubled Waters
Panel depicts a growing crisis in U.S. oceans, caused by overfishing, pollution and urban growth. Major changes in oversight are urged.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 5, 2003
A three-year, $5.5-million study of America's ocean waters, conducted by a panel of politicians, scientists and fishermen, calls for the creation of a new federal agency to control overfishing, pollution and urban encroachment.
The study by the Pew Oceans Commission details a developing crisis in U.S. waters caused by excessive harvests that are wiping out fish stocks, by rivers of pollution spawning "killer algae" and ocean "dead zones," and by runaway development that is gobbling up coastal wetlands and estuaries.
"The oceans are in serious trouble and we cannot ignore them much longer," said Leon E. Panetta, the commission's chairman and former White House chief of staff under President Clinton. "We govern either by leadership or crisis. If the leadership is willing to take some risks, we will be able to avoid the building crisis in our oceans."
Panetta recently hand-carried the commission's recommendations to the White House, urging that President Bush launch a wholesale revision in the way the government looks after the oceans.
Panetta and other commissions said it will take sweeping changes for the nation to restore its collapsing fisheries, protect the coasts, clean up coastal waters and nudge fish farms into sustainable, non-polluting practices.
Some of the key recommended changes are:
Adoption of a National Ocean Policy Act that would unify and streamline the confusing and sometimes conflicting tangle of laws and agencies that govern the oceans;
Making the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an independent agency, separating it from the U.S. Department of Commerce and its inherently conflicting roles of both conserving the ocean and promoting its exploitation;
Establishment of regional councils of federal and state officials to oversee the management of activities that influence the health of marine ecosystems, from controlling polluted farm and urban runoff coursing into coastal waters to the rule-making that governs where and how much fish can be pulled from the sea;
Creation of a national system of marine reserves that would be off limits to fishing and other activities.
The 18-member Pew commission, financed by a donation from Pew Charitable Trusts, is the first comprehensive examination of America's oceans since the Stratton Commission in 1969 made recommendations to Congress that led to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Stratton Commission was born of fear that aggressive foreign fishing fleets were plundering the oceans off U.S. shores. Now that threat comes from within our borders, Pew commissioners said.
Mostly, it's a case of too many boats chasing too few fish, the commission reported. Yet the laws and governing institutions are antiquated, established when the oceans were considered so vast, they had unlimited resilience to absorb pollutants from land and provide a boundless supply of fish to eat.
"Not only do the oceans have limits, it's becoming increasingly obvious that we have squandered their natural bounty," said Commissioner Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University. "The oceans are a public trust and we have a moral responsibility to restore the bounty for our children and our children's children."
Commissioner Roger Rufe, head of the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group, said he hopes the report will help Americans understand the problem. "Most people think the greatest threat to the ocean is pollution," said Rufe. "But the real threat to the ocean is overfishing — large-scale, industrial-type fishing."
The problem is a global one, as scientists recently pointed out with the analysis of fishing data showing that at least 90% of the big tuna, marlin, swordfish, cod and halibut have vanished from the world's oceans. The loss of these and other fish is upsetting the natural balance, leading to the decline in coral reefs, kelp forests and other marine habitats.
The commission focuses on overfishing in U.S. territorial waters, recommending that the U.S. government consider the entire marine ecosystem in setting policies, not just making rules and regulations for one species of fish at a time. It also takes issue with the main way the government sets limits on the annual catch of fish.
As it stands now, the federal government delegates nearly all authority to eight regional fishery management councils, which are dominated by fishing industry representatives. These councils determine how many fish can be caught every year and decide who gets to catch them by divvying up the catch among different groups of fishermen.
The commission didn't call for dissolving these councils, which have been widely criticized as failures. Instead, it recommends giving away half their power by handing the authority to determine yearly catch limits to an independent body that is not subject to the same industry pressures.
"The process needs to be fixed," said Pat White, a lobster fisherman and Pew commissioner who sat on the New England Fishery Management Council that witnessed the collapse of the cod fishery off the Northeast coast. "If we made these changes in the early 1990s, we wouldn't be having the problems we are having now."
William T. Hogarth, assistant administrator for fisheries within NOAA, declined to comment on the recommendations until he has read them, but he said he wasn't thrilled with the worrisome tone.
"Personally, I don't think it's doom and gloom in U.S. fisheries," he said. "We have been looking very hard at how to protect the $55-billion [fishing] industry and make it grow."
Hogarth said the administration is likely to reserve judgment until another commission, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, delivers its recommendations late this summer or early fall.
The Pew commission was set up three years ago because Congress had been ignoring calls to reexamine the management of U.S. ocean waters, which extend 200 miles off U.S. coasts and islands and make up a vast area that is 23% larger than the nation's landmass.
A year later, Congress launched the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Its 16 members, named by President Bush, have been meeting with Pew commissioners and will carefully consider their ideas when formulating their report to Congress and the president, Chairman James Watkins said.
John Adams, a Pew commissioner and founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization, likens the degradation of the oceans to what was happening on land about a century ago. He hopes both reports will inspire President Bush to leave a conservation legacy like outdoorsman and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.
"Teddy Roosevelt saw the clear-cutting going on at the turn of the last century and responded by setting aside national parks and wilderness areas and created institutions to manage them," he said. "That's what we have to do for the oceans."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Click here for article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
